Bulk Daddy wrote in message
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.

Well, I see just as many, or more commercials on most cable channels.
You get to pay twice (once monthly fee, once through commercials) for
cable! Excepting HBO and like, of course, but those stations run
$10/mo or so.


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.

These will drop rapidly in cost, and become integrated into sets
before too much longer. Long term, the cost of tuners will not be an
issue. Although it most certainly is today.

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

Agreed. Everyone's needs are different. It's pretty silly to assume
that what's true for you (or me) can be applied to everyone. For
people outside of reasonable distances from the towers, OTA probably
does suck.

Cable/Satellite clearly has content advantages, but I know plenty of
people (esp single people living alone) for whom $600/year just isn't
worth it for TV.

darius wrote in news:70097052995.8554256396.37877
@news.verizon.net:

Bulk Daddy wrote in
.6...

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.


so in the end, doesn't it really just come down to the fact that you
can't get OTA so you think it sucks?

Well I have directv and when are they going to have locals (i.e.,
broadcast networks) in HD? Not for a lonnnggg time. They have to do
compression and stat muxing just for the few HD channels they have. My
cable co. is waiting for who knows what. ASTC works NOW for me and
goodness, it's free too. (Ironically, NSTC reception is unwatchable in
my house.)


And so for you, HD directv sucks by design. There is no "technology"
reason that you can not be able to get ABC, NBC, etc with your locals in
HDTV. Hell you have to pay directTV and then screw with an OTA HD
antenna. That really bites.

And so I will admit that the suck factor increases for myself and others
who can't get the magic combination of multiple channels of reliable OTA,
and for those that get it, it is a wonderful thing.
So yes, if you get OTA then for you it does not suck and it is wonderful.

Still, today with current technology, a LOT more people should be able to
get OTA that can not. I speak for a large group of people that will never
get a bunch of OTA signals. And it is in part because they did not design
it for good/extended coverage. And so yes, for a bunch of us it really
does suck by design. There are a lot of technologies like spread spectrum
or a bunch of others along with improved support from the FCC for higher
power levels that would have made OTA HDTV much better.

I'm amazed at how many folks that are getting good HD OTA that take
offense at these statements about OTA. We don't want you to like your OTA
any less. We really are happy that you get good HD pictures. HDTV is
great stuff. You get it for free and you should enjoy the hell out of it.

Also think of all of the people in apartments or in neighborhoods that
can't put an antenna on roof. A lot of them can get regular broadcasts
but not OTA HD. It really does suck that new technology like HD is not
available to them by way of free OTA. Regular OTA TV broadcasts will go
through things like walls better than an OTA HD broadcast.

A local broadcast engineer I talked with said the following about their
dealings with the FCC and OTA HDTV:
It's a joke. There are a lot of reception problems with FCC assigned
power levels being too low. Then the FCC tells us we cannot put our HD
signal at a lower spectrum level, even for a short period of time. So a
lot of our viewers are the ones that suffer with all of this.

"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."


But apparently most people do. For decades most people could receive
std tv OTA for free. Yet cable and sat together have 70 to 85% market
share, depending on how you count, with OTA continuing a steady
decline.

HD isn't going to reverse that. Cable companies are adding HD
offerings of both the locals and premium channels and it will be
there, indeed it will have to be there, for HD to become mainstream.

BTW, what are the 5 channels with 3 more on the way? Right now, the
only channels most people have in HD are CBS, NBC, ABC and some PBS










Steve Bryan wrote in message ...
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.

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

So you didn't read:

"over 41 percent of all homes have at least one broadcast-only set"

Or you chose to ignore it.

Matthew

Even if it is 10% it is foolish to think that OTA is going to go away
completely anytime soon. We have it. It works well for many people. Where
it does not or other better options come available, people will use them.
What is the problem. By the experience that I have seen of many consumers
OTA HD is working pretty well. If a few people have had a different
experience why is anyone surprised. Isn't that to be expected with any
technology.

Also, the context of Matthew's citation of the numbers was pretty clear.
Nit-picking the statistics is not making anyone's argument any more
convincing. Argue with his points guys, if you have a convincing argument
to make.

Leonard Caillouet

Chet Hayes wrote:
"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.

So you didn't read:

"over 41 percent of all homes have at least one broadcast-only set"

Or you chose to ignore it.

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.

I was not "pushing" the 2K COFDM system that they have in the UK. I was
saying that this early COFDM system was far superior to 8-VSB. It has and is
proving to be a vastly superior system. The early receivers were subject to
interference by impulse noise because the manufacturers were not aware of
how much of a problem it would be. This was solved with later receivers.
Most problems of reception have to do with these older receivers.

I always championed the COFDM 8K system which is far superior to the 2K or
8-VSB, modulation systems. It is the 8K system that was picked by both
Australia and Taiwan for HDTV after they reversed their decision for 8-VSB
and switched to COFDM 8K DVT-t.

We should have done the same then. We didn't then so when we do switch it
will be far more costly.

Since I am an advocate of COFDM and Zenith is the chief proponent of 8-VSB
why would I have ever invested in Zenith?


"David" wrote in message
...
Who cares what the supposed "sales figures" are when a neighbor's
lawnmower
or a motorscooter ruins the reception? The complaints are there, many of
them, I've seen them and so have you.
This "ancient" system is what you were pushing on the AVS forum, before
you
were thrown off. And it wasn't even HDTV!

Did you lose a lot of money investing in Zenith?


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
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.

When I say that OTA sucks by design this would include a number of items.

If broadcasters had truly been interested in designing a great broadcast
system to replace NTSC they would have done a number of things.

First they would have been heavily involved in the design and testing of the
various parts of the proposed systems. Broadcasters were not engaged or
minimally engaged in any part of the process. They left it up to lawyers,
politicians , accountants and salesmen of the CEA, NAB and other special
interest such as Zenith.

They would have considered changing the compression codec at the same time
or delayed the transition till a better codec was developed since they were
available and could have been considered. Check out how Mpeg2 was decided
on.

If broadcasters had been engaged they would have stood up for a far superior
modulation, COFDM, instead of caving at the first sign of pressure from the
special interest and Congress. ABC, NBC who initially supported COFDM for
example caved. Most broadcast engineers were either not up to evaluating
modulation or were not listened to by their corporate masters who have
regulated them to the back room where they are supposed to keep the OTA
broadcast going primarily so that the broadcasters can continue to qualify
for must carry.

Broadcasters would have decided to change the method of broadcasting from
single stick high power to Single Frequency Networks of low power
transmitters with on channel repeaters. They would have petitioned the FCC
to allow them to co-locate their broadcast facilities with other
broadcasters so that cost and coverage would be optimized.

And more...

None of these things were done because broadcasters do not care about
broadcasting, they care about must carry on cable.

All the decisions that were made by the FCC, NAB, CEA were made for their
own self interest. No decisions were made based on the good of the OTA
public. Carefully read the following Brazilian comments. They complain the
8-VSB is made for cheap broadcasters at the expense of the receiving public
while COFDM cost the broadcaster more but saves the public a bundle.

Brazil summed it up well when they initially rejected 8-VSB after openly and
extensively testing 8-VSB and COFDM.

Here are their conclusions.

Chapter VI - Conclusions
Considering:
.. That the COFDM modulation presents a better performance in severe
multipath situations verified in areas densely peopled;
.. That the COFDM modulation allows the implementation of transmission in
High Definition with adequate robustness;
.. That there are solutions in the COFDM modulations that out perform the
8VSB modulation in the impulsive noise immunity;
.. That only the COFDM modulation allowed a 100% reception of the spots
within the 10 Km radius. This radius was a function of the used ERP; bigger
ERPs will correspond to bigger radiuses with 100% reception;
.. That the results of the lab tests suggest that only the COFDM modulation
allows the reception in areas not reached by any system, through the use of
Single Frequency Networks;
.. That the 4 dB advantage in the signal-noise ratio of the 8VSB modulation
did not turn out to cause better coverage;
.. That the disadvantageous results of the relation between the peak power
and the average power have a low relevance, once they are costly only for
the broadcasters, not the population;
.. That the noted disadvantage observed in the COFDM modulation to the
protection relation for adjacent channels can be eliminated by introducing
filters with better rejection characteristics in the receivers;
.. That all the results of co-channel interference are not significant to the
planning of any of the tested modulations;
.. That when a point of reflection is moving, the COFDM modulation shows
better performance enabling even mobile reception;
.. That the 8VSB receivers developed during the 2nd semester of 1999 and made
available to the tests, until now, in despite of the use of sophisticated
equalizing techinique, did not show real improvements in
practical situations;
.. That the COFDM modulation presents flexibility in the solving of coverage
problems;
.. The objective of optimizing the reception, duplicating or improving the
current analog systems coverage ;
.. That it is indispensable the use of a modulation that maximize the free
off air reception;

We conclude that the COFDM modulation, besides being technically superior,
is more adequate to the Brazilian conditions than the 8VSB modulation and,
therefore, we suggest to Anatel that it determines that the Digital
Television system to be adopted in Brazil must use the COFDM modulation.
We can observe that the disadvantages shown by the COFDM modulation systems
are solvable, even though it implies additional cost to the broadcasters.
However, the mentioned disadvantages shown by the systems with 8VSB
modulation picture the boundaries inherent to the modulation itself. Only
the consumer, who will need reception systems - antenna and receiver - more
sophisticated, in the same proportion that his location may require,
shoulders the onus of the flaws in the 8VSB modulation. On the other hand,
only the broadcaster who, in certain situations, will have to implement
transmission systems more powerful or sophisticated shoulders the onus of
the difficulties in the COFDM
modulation, all solvable.
Among the possible systems that use the COFDM modulation, we believe that it
is still necessary the accomplishment of further and complimentary tests,
besides the market issue consideration, such as the evaluation of the impact
that
adopting on of the available systems will have on the national industry, and
the timing of commercial availability of each system, so to make the final
decision on the standard to be considered.
Therefore, we will use the additional period that Anatel has conceded, that
will be until the end of April, so we can develop the activities, the
experiments and the necessary studies to reach a final positioning about
which Digital TV system we consider more adequate to be adopted in Brazil.


"darius" wrote in message
...
Bulk Daddy wrote in
.6...

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.


so in the end, doesn't it really just come down to the fact that you
can't get OTA so you think it sucks?

Well I have directv and when are they going to have locals (i.e.,
broadcast networks) in HD? Not for a lonnnggg time. They have to do
compression and stat muxing just for the few HD channels they have. My
cable co. is waiting for who knows what. ASTC works NOW for me and
goodness, it's free too. (Ironically, NSTC reception is unwatchable in
my house.)

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
ink.net...
I was not "pushing" the 2K COFDM system that they have in the UK. I was
saying that this early COFDM system was far superior to 8-VSB.

It is obviously not superior to 8VSB. There are actually cccurrent BBC and
Freeview websites that admit interference problems.

It has and is proving to be a vastly superior system.

Another boldfaced lie.

The early receivers were subject to
interference by impulse noise because the manufacturers were not aware of
how much of a problem it would be. This was solved with later receivers.
Most problems of reception have to do with these older receivers.

Another lie. There are hundreds of interference complaints since last
February, most with new receivers.

I always championed the COFDM 8K system which is far superior to the 2K
or
8-VSB, modulation systems. It is the 8K system that was picked by both
Australia and Taiwan for HDTV after they reversed their decision for 8-VSB
and switched to COFDM 8K DVT-t.

And who here is going to care? 8VSB was chosen by the USA and it works
perfectly. You "championed" COFDM only for your personal business schemes.

We should have done the same then. We didn't then so when we do switch it
will be far more costly.

Who's talking about switching, besides one lonely, despairing forum poster?
Nobody in America is putting their HDTV equipment out on the curb, just
because YOU want to switch to COFDM.
Do you have any idea what a laughing stock you are?

Since I am an advocate of COFDM and Zenith is the chief proponent of
8-VSB
why would I have ever invested in Zenith?

It might explain your hatred of American HDTV/Zenith/8VSB. I think you lost
a ton of money somewhere...

"David" wrote in message
...
Who cares what the supposed "sales figures" are when a neighbor's
lawnmower
or a motorscooter ruins the reception? The complaints are there, many of
them, I've seen them and so have you.
This "ancient" system is what you were pushing on the AVS forum, before
you
were thrown off. And it wasn't even HDTV!

Did you lose a lot of money investing in Zenith?

Chet Hayes ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
BTW, what are the 5 channels with 3 more on the way? Right now, the
only channels most people have in HD are CBS, NBC, ABC and some PBS

If you count Fox Widescreen (yes, I know it's not HD, but the scripted shows
at 480p are far better than NTSC), I get 6: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, PBS.
All but Fox do true HD, so even without Fox the count is 5.

--
Jeff Rife | "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But
301-916-8131 | then you get to the end and a gorilla starts
| throwing barrels at you."
| -- Philip J. Fry, "Futurama"

HD isn't going to reverse that. Cable companies are adding HD
offerings of both the locals

I am not holding my breath here, 2 - 5 years away if ever for HD locals on
cable and the little dish will over compress it and it will tile all the
time, you know they will.
I love my BIG ugly dish, 500 channels, analog, digital, HD, time shift (east
coast / west coast time zones, who needs TIVO) if it is out there I get it,
and it is the unadulterated feed when it hits my input.

and premium channels and it will be
there, indeed it will have to be there, for HD to become mainstream.

BTW, what are the 5 channels with 3 more on the way? Right now, the
only channels most people have in HD are CBS, NBC, ABC and some PBS










Steve Bryan wrote in message
...
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.