"BB" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:07:33 -0400, David wrote:
Bozo wrote:
Seems like those people with the "wonderful" COFDM modulation in the
UK are having to put up roof antennas ('scuse me, "aerials") and deal
with many of the same issues that we have to deal with here.

Exactly. And those chaps don't have HDTV like we do.

Anyone who hasn't been on a rooftop in London (probably a lot of us)
should rent the movie "Notting Hill". There's a scene where the couple is
practicing lines on the roof, and "aerials" are everywhere in the
background.

I hate to keep repeating it everytime Bob keeps repeating his dogma, but
its a different situation there. I've watched cable TV in various towns in
England and Germany, and in a lot of places cable only has 8 or so
channels (many of them in some other language) - so it makes sense that
people would veer toward OTA rather than pay big monthly bills for a few
channels. Obviously antennas never went away there, so its something
they're familiar with. Houses are generally smaller, and there isn't room
for big-screens that would drive the demand for HD. In other words, its a
different environment.

As I've said before, OTA is how US sat users will get their locals. Only
the true technophobes (or people way out in the boonies, and can't get OTA
regardless of the modulation) will pay money for something that they can
get at higher quality for free. Saying that HD will be successful on
satellite and a failure on OTA makes no sense. Just as Europeans opt for
OTA because paying for cable is ludicrous, American sat users will opt for
OTA because paying for low-quality locals is ludicrous.

Right in the UK they already had antennas so why not use them. Also they
opted for an early 2K COFDM system that is not very robust and they are
broadcasting at very low power levels even by European standards. All this
calls for antennas though in door receivers work fine for most. A point is
that even using this 2K COFDM they are far better off than if they had
chosen 8-VSB which they rejected.

As far as Europe and cable. Germany and many other countries are heavily
into cable. Germany at 95%. Which makes it very instructive that Berlin is
going for OTA in a big way. Many are canceling cable for OTA. And there is
not need for a mandate.

As far as the boonies and the cities. OTA 8-VSB is challenged most just
where most of us live in the cities. That is where most of your dynamic and
static multipath is. I know of no one that has satisfactory reception of OTA
8-VSB in Manhattan for example.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:43:46 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

As far as Europe and cable. Germany and many other countries are heavily
into cable. Germany at 95%. Which makes it very instructive that Berlin is
going for OTA in a big way. Many are canceling cable for OTA. And there is
not need for a mandate.

Yes, because cable provides few channels there, OTA is a smart choice. Why
pay for something when you can get a rough equivalent for free?

As far as the boonies and the cities. OTA 8-VSB is challenged most just
where most of us live in the cities. That is where most of your dynamic and
static multipath is. I know of no one that has satisfactory reception of OTA
8-VSB in Manhattan for example.

And yet many people in most of the cities in the country get it just fine.
OTA is how sat users will get their locals; why pay for something when you
can get the equivalent for free?

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:43:46 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

As far as Europe and cable. Germany and many other countries are heavily
into cable. Germany at 95%. Which makes it very instructive that Berlin is
going for OTA in a big way. Many are canceling cable for OTA. And there is
not need for a mandate.

Yes, because cable provides few channels there, OTA is a smart choice. Why
pay for something when you can get a rough equivalent for free?

As far as the boonies and the cities. OTA 8-VSB is challenged most just
where most of us live in the cities. That is where most of your dynamic and
static multipath is. I know of no one that has satisfactory reception of OTA
8-VSB in Manhattan for example.

And yet many people in most of the cities in the country get it just fine.
OTA is how sat users will get their locals; why pay for something when you
can get the equivalent for free?

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

Bob Miller wrote:


He tried to get OTA and it was a hassle, period. He then either assumes that
any OTA (satellite is OTA) h

Didn't you deny this recently in a thread about the cost of HD receivers
in Europe? Of course you did!

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.

Bob Miller wrote:


He tried to get OTA and it was a hassle, period. He then either assumes that
any OTA (satellite is OTA) h

Didn't you deny this recently in a thread about the cost of HD receivers
in Europe? Of course you did!

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.

"Bob Miller" wrote in
link.net:


I agree with him. We recently canceled our Dish satellite service
because of reception problems.


Wowser. You do have a reason to be unhappy if even your sat signal is bad
the majority of the time.
No matter what modulation would be used, some people would get great OTA
HDTV and others would not.
Sounds like you need a good cable provider for your location and not even
worry about what the US OTA modulation type is, cuz no matter what you
would still be screwed out of an HD signal.

"Bob Miller" wrote in
link.net:


I agree with him. We recently canceled our Dish satellite service
because of reception problems.


Wowser. You do have a reason to be unhappy if even your sat signal is bad
the majority of the time.
No matter what modulation would be used, some people would get great OTA
HDTV and others would not.
Sounds like you need a good cable provider for your location and not even
worry about what the US OTA modulation type is, cuz no matter what you
would still be screwed out of an HD signal.

I have to say, I finally finished reading this entire special section in
Broadcasting and Cable and it is VERY informative. If you're interested, it's
in the Sept 22 edtion of the magazine if you can find it at your local
bookstore.

I'll reiterate, the magazine says HDTV penetration is at 5%. I believe that
means 5% of homes have sets capable of getting HDTV. This is one of the big
problems mentioned in this magazine: there are a lot of people buying nice
sets that *can* display HDTV and that the consumers THINK are getting HDTV, but
in reality they are not.

According to the magazine, at least 1,000,000 homes get HDTV from either cable
or satellite.(about a half million for each) Obviously others get HDTV OTA.
However, there is no mention of how many have OTA reception of HDTV.
I suspect that due to the lack of subscription to OTA, there is no easy way to
count such a thing.

One of cable companies that managed to get HDTV into most of its markets says
its getting 4,000 new HDTV subscribers *a week.*

Basically, the conclusion that I got from the section was that HDTV would take
off when:

1. the consumer electronics industry comes up with a simplified and unified
sales pitch. right now it's confusing and expensive and is keeping a lot of
consumers on the sidelines. however.....

2. HDTV programming is the best sales tool available. when people see it, they
want it and many will pay for it. so....

3. more programming needs to be made available by the broadcast and cable
networks. this drive everything else. they gotta make a bigger commitment to
HDTV programming for this thing to take off. it appears they are on the right
track. however....

4. cable needs to offer more channels in HDTV. This is a far more difficult
issue than almost anything else talked about. The good news is that cable has
an advantage because they can offer the local channels in HDTV that satellite
cannot. The rollout of HD cable has been slower than many would like, but there
does appear to be movement.

So the bottom line is that more programming will create more demand for sets
and electronic stores need to simplify their HDTV sales pitch to sell those
sets. Since it appears we're about to see a flood of HDTV programming in the
next year, it seems logical that we're about to turn the corner on making HDTV
"popular."

I have to say, I finally finished reading this entire special section in
Broadcasting and Cable and it is VERY informative. If you're interested, it's
in the Sept 22 edtion of the magazine if you can find it at your local
bookstore.

I'll reiterate, the magazine says HDTV penetration is at 5%. I believe that
means 5% of homes have sets capable of getting HDTV. This is one of the big
problems mentioned in this magazine: there are a lot of people buying nice
sets that *can* display HDTV and that the consumers THINK are getting HDTV, but
in reality they are not.

According to the magazine, at least 1,000,000 homes get HDTV from either cable
or satellite.(about a half million for each) Obviously others get HDTV OTA.
However, there is no mention of how many have OTA reception of HDTV.
I suspect that due to the lack of subscription to OTA, there is no easy way to
count such a thing.

One of cable companies that managed to get HDTV into most of its markets says
its getting 4,000 new HDTV subscribers *a week.*

Basically, the conclusion that I got from the section was that HDTV would take
off when:

1. the consumer electronics industry comes up with a simplified and unified
sales pitch. right now it's confusing and expensive and is keeping a lot of
consumers on the sidelines. however.....

2. HDTV programming is the best sales tool available. when people see it, they
want it and many will pay for it. so....

3. more programming needs to be made available by the broadcast and cable
networks. this drive everything else. they gotta make a bigger commitment to
HDTV programming for this thing to take off. it appears they are on the right
track. however....

4. cable needs to offer more channels in HDTV. This is a far more difficult
issue than almost anything else talked about. The good news is that cable has
an advantage because they can offer the local channels in HDTV that satellite
cannot. The rollout of HD cable has been slower than many would like, but there
does appear to be movement.

So the bottom line is that more programming will create more demand for sets
and electronic stores need to simplify their HDTV sales pitch to sell those
sets. Since it appears we're about to see a flood of HDTV programming in the
next year, it seems logical that we're about to turn the corner on making HDTV
"popular."

ARNOLDEVNS ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
This is one of the big
problems mentioned in this magazine: there are a lot of people buying nice
sets that *can* display HDTV and that the consumers THINK are getting HDTV, but
in reality they are not.

Yes, indeed.

I was up on the roof today adding an antenna rotator (not because I have
bad reception...I just want even *more* channels), and the guy across the
street asked what I was doing. I told him, and that I was doing it for HD
reception. He said he had an HD set, but of course I knew that he didn't
have a tuner (he does have a 50+" 16:9).

So, I invited him in to look at true HD (gotta love HDNet and PC recording of
HD so you *always* have demo material). First, I showed him the local news
(good-quality upconverted 4:3). Then, I showed him some CBS HD recordings.
Then, the movie trailers from the Super Bowl. Then, HDNet and HDNet movies.

I think he was on the phone to the local cable company before he hit his
doorstep.

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