David wrote:

"Bulk Daddy" wrote in message:

All of my attempts at doing efn' HDTV OTA has turned to crap.


Hmm, I'm 30 miles from NYC, behind two mountain ranges. I can't get analog
OTA worth anything, way too much ghosting.

With a RCA DTC-100 and a $15 Radio Shack indoor antenna, I get _perfect_ OTA
HDTV reception.Tell us what kind of equipment you're using? Lotsa people
here can help you.

I'm glad we have 8VSB. The British COFDM system that Miller was touting
years ago seems to be just terrible.

Read the hundreds of interference complaints on the newsgroup
uk.tech.digital-tv and see for yourself.


The British system is ancient COFDM 2K and yet they are outselling 8-VSB
receivers 1000 to one in a market 1/16th the size. They only cover part
of the country with transmitter powers that are minuscule compared to
the power in the US. They are using 2K instead of 8K COFDM. Still they
are selling receivers at the rate of 50,000 a week.

There is a forum that gives a very good overall look at the UK at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L5E8212A3

In a market that will see 3 million receivers by the end of this year
and which only started broadcasting last November 1st there are hundreds
of complaints? Amazing.

However of the 7000 + post on uk,tch.digital-tv I do not see that many
complaints. What I see are people inquiring about all kinds of problems
including old receivers from a number of years ago. No general problem
and very low prices for receivers.

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

Chet Hayes wrote:

I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the
solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable
not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive
digital doesn't make any sense to me.


According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40%
of all TVs in the US are OTA only.

Matthew

I know because I have three of them that have not been plugged in for at
least the last five years.

How exactly did they count these TV sets?

Bob Miller wrote:
Gary H wrote:

Well with shortwave I can pick up a signal from across the world...
but like
your COFDM it doesnt do me any good because it isn't HDTV.


How do you know if it is HD or not? It technically could be.


The question is: Is it HD? The question is not: Can it be HD?

Answer the question.

Matthew

--
http://www.mlmartin.com/bbq/

Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.

Chet Hayes wrote:

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com...

Chet Hayes wrote:


I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the
solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable
not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive
digital doesn't make any sense to me.

According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40%
of all TVs in the US are OTA only.

Matthew



I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family
that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these
40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement.


Read a section of a report that counts TVs instead of households:

From FCC-01-389A1.doc

"A Spring 2001 Home Technology Monitor Ownership Report prepared by
Statistical Research, Inc. ("SRI"), indicated that there are
approximately 46.5 million television sets in broadcast-only homes. An
additional 34.5 million television sets in homes subscribing to an MVPD
service remain unconnected to such service. Thus, 81 million, or
approximately 30.3 percent of the 267 million sets in the U.S. receive
broadcast signals over-the-air. This study estimates that 20.9 percent
of all households are broadcast-only homes and over 41 percent of all
homes have at least one broadcast-only set. Similarly, Nielsen
estimates that 20.7 million, or 29.2 percent of all households are
broadcast-only homes. Moreover, the SRI study reports that
approximately 33 percent of homes with incomes under $30,000 are
broadcast-only, compared to 10 percent of the households with incomes
exceeding $75,000".

Matthew

--
http://www.mlmartin.com/bbq/

Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.

Jeff Rife wrote in
:


Meaningless links for the stat that is being talked about.

Right, and before I got my DirecTiVo, I had satellite, but one of my
two TVs had OTA antenna as its only input. This is the stat that is
important... not how many houses have cable, but how many TVs have OTA
as their input.

Likewise, before I could easily record locals off satellite (again,
DirecTiVo), I had 3 VCRs which had only OTA for input. Sure, they fed
a TV that had satellite as one of its inputs, but at any given moment,
it was far more likely that I was watching something recorded from OTA
than live from satellite. DirecTiVo has changed that, but then
recording HD on my PC from OTA has changed it back a lot.

The stats and links are not meaningless to the conversation.
The point is not does OTA work for some people. Of course it does for for
some folks. I could easily take three of the four TV's in my house and
disconnect them from the cable and say "see, this what I did in my one
house out of the millions of homes". Or I could go to radioshack with my
ENG friends and create something that works over my home electrical
wiring with my VCR as the input. Who cares? Just because I can get it to
work does not mean it is a good design.

The point is that Most people (no, not everyone in every case) are going
to want more channels of HD and not just a few like we have now AND a lot
of people can't easily get all of the HD OTA channels in their area, even
if they can get regular broadcast stuff.

People can put up all of the theory they want. OTA is a bad design that
services those lucky few (as in everyone in America) that can get good
reliable OTA HD signals.
And it does not give you Discover HD or HBO HD or ESPN HD.

And now my local cable company is going to give people the HD channels
for free if you are subscribed to the same regular channels. So I get HBO
HD, and all the locals and HD Discovery channels. I do have to pay $8 a
month for the digital cable box connection. So even if I could get good
OTA HD, why would I bother when I can get all the stuff available?

And for those that are doing and getting good OTA HD, we really are glad
that your are satisfied with what you get.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
There is a forum that gives a very good overall look at the UK at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L5E8212A3

Thanks, Bob. The "Digital Spy" forum is very interesting.

I did a forum search there for "interference" and saw 147
postings/complaints since last February.

The forum members cite many interference sources, including:

Washing machines, motorbikes, streetlights, trucks, thermostats, fish tank
heaters, halogen lamps, CCTV cameras, refrigerators, loose connections of
plugs into sockets, sunlamps, etc. etc.

I've never seen a posting anywhere where 8VSB exhibited these kind of
problems, even at very low signal strengths.

That English COFDM system is the same one you were trying to shove down AVS
forum members throats... what a joke.

Bulk Daddy ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The stats and links are not meaningless to the conversation.

Yes, they are.

You ridiculed someone for "making up statistics". Then, you went out
and found some statistics that were unrelated to the "made-up" statistics
in an attempt to further ridicule the person for not providing the
information themselves.

I notice that you have not responded to the post what that same person
you ridiculed *has* provided those very statistics, and they show exactly
what was claimed.

The point is not does OTA work for some people.

Right. The point is that OTA works for a *lot* of people, even the ones
who also have other sources of signal (like cable, satellite, etc.), and
it does so on a daily basis.

The point is that Most people (no, not everyone in every case) are going
to want more channels of HD and not just a few like we have now AND a lot
of people can't easily get all of the HD OTA channels in their area, even
if they can get regular broadcast stuff.

Agreed, since only about 1% to 2% of all homes have even *one* ATSC receiver.
Most of the people who can easily get analog OTA don't have a hope in hell
of getting ATSC right now because they don't have a receiver. On the other
hand, with a few exceptions, anyone who has seriously tried to receive ATSC
can do so quite easily *if* they already can receive analog on similar
channels with any amount of clarity. Some of the exceptions are totally
unrelated to ATSC, like the Chicago channel 2 analog/channel 3 digital
fiasco: the digital channel is being overloaded from the adjacent and
colocated analog channel.

On the other hand, if people are willing to accept snow-laden analog and
call that "reception", it's quite likely that they won't get digital,
since it is an all or nothing affair, although I have several channels
that are unwatchable on analog yet their digital channels are clear as
a bell...one even has adjacent channels for analog and digital.

And it does not give you Discover HD or HBO HD or ESPN HD.

OTA analog doesn't give you HBO, ESPN, TBS, A&E, etc. What's your point?

And now my local cable company is going to give people the HD channels
for free if you are subscribed to the same regular channels.

Today, they might be willing to do this to suck you in. Since MSOs are
being charged extra for Discovery HD Theater and ESPN-HD, it's only a
matter of time before they start passing that on to you.

So I get HBO
HD, and all the locals and HD Discovery channels. I do have to pay $8 a
month for the digital cable box connection. So even if I could get good
OTA HD, why would I bother when I can get all the stuff available?

Because they already seem to be overcharging people? Sure, you get the
HD for that $8/month, but there are a lot of other people with digital
cable who don't, and their $8 is subsidizing you.

--
Jeff Rife |
301-916-8131 | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Evaluation.jpg

Jeff Rife wrote in
:

Bulk Daddy ) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The stats and links are not meaningless to the conversation.

Yes, they are.

You ridiculed someone for "making up statistics". Then, you went out
and found some statistics that were unrelated to the "made-up"
statistics in an attempt to further ridicule the person for not
providing the information themselves.

I notice that you have not responded to the post what that same person
you ridiculed *has* provided those very statistics, and they show
exactly what was claimed.

Two different ways of looking at the numbers. I was looking at the number
of homes and a few others were looking at the number of TV's. Matthew
responded with source info on the way he was figuring up things and so
thanks to him and no need to follow up.


The point is not does OTA work for some people.

Right. The point is that OTA works for a *lot* of people, even the
ones who also have other sources of signal (like cable, satellite,
etc.), and it does so on a daily basis.
Agree with you on that. But the FCC could have set some guidelines for
broadcast strength or have used technology that would allow the signal to
carry as far as a simular strength reg broadcast signal.



On the other hand, if people are willing to accept snow-laden analog
and call that "reception", it's quite likely that they won't get
digital, since it is an all or nothing affair, although I have several
channels that are unwatchable on analog yet their digital channels are
clear as a bell...one even has adjacent channels for analog and
digital.
We are splitting hairs here. One's definition of 'good' analog signal will
vary quite a bit. I grant you that someone watching a 70% analog fuzz
picture should not expect a good signal.
HDTV signals are a higher frequency and so you have to push more power, in
some cases a huge amount more power for them to reach as far as a standard
TV signal. Even then the higher freq stuff just does not travel as far over
hills, etc.


And it does not give you Discover HD or HBO HD or ESPN HD.

OTA analog doesn't give you HBO, ESPN, TBS, A&E, etc. What's your
point?
The point is that some OTA broadcasters are not going to toss more money
than they have to in to HD OTA, because they know that their customers that
spend the bucks for an HD able set are in most cases going to want these
other services and can get them plus their local stuff that way.

And now my local cable company is going to give people the HD
channels for free if you are subscribed to the same regular channels.

Today, they might be willing to do this to suck you in. Since MSOs
are being charged extra for Discovery HD Theater and ESPN-HD, it's
only a matter of time before they start passing that on to you.
So true. I hope the the cable/sat companies keep fighting it out to keep
prices reasonable. I just got my agreement for one year. Then they could
jack the price sky high. But I'm still screwed because I can't get but one
good OTA even though the towers are only 18 miles away.

If they really wanted me and a lot of other people as an OTA customer, they
would start tossing up more towers, higher power, and each station would
work togeather so their OTA antennas were in the same direction.
If not, then they only care about reaching a subset of their customers.
Keep in mind that in a way we all pay for OTA. We pay by watching more
commercials and the other ways that local stations have to earn money to
pay for this stuff. I'm also thinking that a lot of those OTA only folks
just don't have the funds to pay $300 for an OTA HDTV decoder.

OTA is great for some people.
For a lot of others it just plain sucks by design.

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com...
Chet Hayes wrote:

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ws.com...

Chet Hayes wrote:


I think that's being a bit naive. Do you really believe OTA is the
solution? Most of America is receiving their current signal via cable
not OTA. To expect people to start putting up antennas now to receive
digital doesn't make any sense to me.

According to studies frequently cited here something on the order of 40%
of all TVs in the US are OTA only.

Matthew



I'd love to see a link to those studies. I don't know a single family
that doesn't have either cable or sat, do you? So where are these
40%? They must be counting the junk TV's in the basement.


Read a section of a report that counts TVs instead of households:

From FCC-01-389A1.doc

"A Spring 2001 Home Technology Monitor Ownership Report prepared by
Statistical Research, Inc. ("SRI"), indicated that there are
approximately 46.5 million television sets in broadcast-only homes. An
additional 34.5 million television sets in homes subscribing to an MVPD
service remain unconnected to such service. Thus, 81 million, or
approximately 30.3 percent of the 267 million sets in the U.S. receive
broadcast signals over-the-air. This study estimates that 20.9 percent
of all households are broadcast-only homes and over 41 percent of all
homes have at least one broadcast-only set. Similarly, Nielsen
estimates that 20.7 million, or 29.2 percent of all households are
broadcast-only homes. Moreover, the SRI study reports that
approximately 33 percent of homes with incomes under $30,000 are
broadcast-only, compared to 10 percent of the households with incomes
exceeding $75,000".

Matthew

OK, take your pick. Counting homes, OTA is 14 to 20%. Counting TV
sets, its, 30%. Either way, it's not 40%, it's a minority and as
Michael Powell himself pointed out, clearly declining over time.

In article ,
Bulk Daddy wrote:

OTA is a bad design that
services those lucky few (as in everyone in America) that can get good
reliable OTA HD signals.

This is the quote with which I am having trouble. You are basing this on
what? What we get here on newsgroups and the web are interesting
anecdotes. The impression I get is that ATSC reception is already better
than the NTSC reception it is replacing. This is with many stations
using provisional towers and lower power levels than they will
eventually use. Also there is a new generation of 8-VSB demodulation
silicon that is distinctly superior to what was available when I got my
ATSC PCI receiver card (check the web site: www.linxelectronics.com).

I also have an NTSC receiver card and should mention that since putting
up a ChannelMaster antenna in the attic of my suburban home I get pretty
good reception with it also. I'm not in a fringe location and can't
meaningfully speculate about people in that situation. But others who
are have reported better reception with ATSC than existing NTSC
reception.

My suspicion is that before long cable companies will have to market
against a rising perception of their diminishing worth. Their initial
justification was to compensate for lousy NTSC reception which will be
ancient history as the transition to ATSC is completed. Their dead last
position in customer service (how many industries have to be compelled
by law to answer customer calls?). The premium channels that have
diluted their offerings year after year (I remember when the movie
selection on HBO was excellent). The original programming on HBO is a
big exception but can be purchased for much less in DVD's by the patient
consumer. If I could cherry pick just HBO that would be a great
temptation but minimum price pushes $30/month and I'm sure that would
just be camel's nose in the tent.

With five channels already providing an increasing amount of HD
programming and soon three more I don't see a sufficiently compelling
need to pay $40, $50 or more per month when what I get is entirely free.