Steve Bryan wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote in message link.net...

...
Your friend bought an HDTV set. Why didn't he buy an OTA receiver? The
hassle factor. Not his in this case. It sounds like he never was offered
HDTV either cable or OTA. The dealer didn't want to bother.

You claim that HDTV is worth the hassle of putting up an outdoor antenna but
that neither you or your neighbor did it. By definition, worth it should
mean that people will do it. But you have made my argument, they won't. So
by definition it is not worth it. And all the percolating in the world will
not change that. People will buy the HDTV sets and wait for cable or
satellite. OTA is going nowhere.


I guess I should clarify. I am not acquainted with Gary H except by
the messages he has posted here. I have no idea where he is located
except certainly somewhere in the US. From what I could tell it wasn't
just that he didn't buy an OTA receiver. If I read his posts correctly
he returned everything after a day and only plans to reconsider HDTV
in a few years. I don't know other details and I'm not even sure of my
current interpretation. Maybe Gary will clarify, his e-mail address is
missing.

Second, my reluctance to bother with an outdoor antenna was based on
uncertainty about the end result. Now that I've seen that I would have
little objection. That is my point, when others have the chance to see
the product after others have blazed the trail, they will be motivated
to take the few necessary steps.

I think it might be worth pointing out that antennas might not be as
rare as penetration rates for cable TV might suggest. Two summers ago
I went on a trip to Germany with my younger son. One of the indelible
images from the trip was the absolute proliferation of satellite
dishes you would see as the train pulled into each town. So when I got
back one of the things I was casually looking for was the prevalence
of dish antennas in my community, Edina (a well to do suburb of
Minneapolis). This is all anecdotal but my surprise was how many
regular antennas there were on some rather fancy homes. In many or
most cases I wouldn't be surprised if the main TV of the home were
connected to cable with the antenna used for secondary TV's if used at
all. In my own case that attic antenna I put up was a replacement for
an existing attic antenna which was a surprise discovery.

So OTA has a legacy to potentially build on from an earlier era. All
the homeowner may have to do is pay $35 to $50 for a new Channel
Master or equivalent antenna optimized for UHF. Replace an existing
antenna and point the new one toward the towers. As I said in earlier
posts the surprise is that the worst source has become the best
quality. It will take more than a few early adopters burning some
DVD-R's to show to friends on their computers. Once people have seen
such examples on their own PC's, I think that might start the ball
rolling.


The worst source has become the best quality you say. I see it differently.

The worst source, OTA NTSC, has reception problems but they consist of
interference that can be put up with to some degree while you still can
follow the game or show.

ATSC's interference means that you lose the program altogether.

Yes if you have the picture it is perfect but if you lose it you cannot
follow the game or show at all.

Since test have shown that ATSC coverage is no better than NTSC is and I
don't think that test really even measured how bad dynamic multipath
affects ATSC, I don't think that ATSC 8-VSB is an acceptable alternative
to NTSC.

And the market says the same thing IMO. Word of mouth, the lack of
advertising of OTA receivers, the dearth of OTA receiver manufacturers,
the lack of simple inexpensive converter receivers that would work with
your current analog TV set, the FCC determining that the force of a
mandate is needed and the simple FACT that 9 out of 10 buyers of HDTV
sets ignore the OTA receiver all say that the US OTA is a disaster and
has failed.

Yes OTA digital should be the savior of OTA. OTA digital should put
cable and satellite out of business. It is actually starting to happen
in Germany. Cable companies there are complaining bitterly because of
the number of people who are dropping cable for OTA just a year after it
was first offered. And in Australia the satellite and cable companies
have lobbied successfully to tie the hands of OTA digital. But they are
starting to lose support there.

OTA is the best but you have to have a modulation that works. We don't.
It isn't working. Many people stay away because of the hassle they here
about. Sounds a lot like the old days of NTSC. They have made a decision
for cable to get away from those hassles.

One more simple stark fact. In other countries where there should be
little reason for people to switch from cable or satellite like Germany
where the only reason to switch would be to same some money they are
switching. There is no HDTV being offered which is what is supposed to
drive the DTV transition here.

And here where we do have a compelling reason, a great change from what
we have had in the past, something that makes you want to say WOW, HDTV,
the very people who are buying HDTV sets DO NOT BUY OTA receivers.

The contrast is startling. The question is why? My answer is that if the
OTA receiver in the US was COFDM we would have sold upwards of 30
million DTV receivers in the US since Christmas of 2000.

darius wrote:

Bob Miller wrote in
...


ATSC's interference means that you lose the program altogether.

Yes if you have the picture it is perfect but if you lose it you
cannot follow the game or show at all.



well, that's the downside to digital transmission. But you get that with
any modulation scheme.

If you have a loss of signal yes. With COFDM what would be a loss of
signal for 8-VSB, the most common problem, multipath, actually increases
signal strength.

So while driving around Manhattan in what has to be the most challenging
environment for dynamic and static multipath, COFDM reception is
exceptional. We are using omni antennas that range from 3" to 15". No
directional antenna at all, no rotors.

In a few months we will be testing with what looks like a normal cell
phone but with what looks like an antenna from a few years ago about 1.4
inches.

Who could possibly think that the US will go on for any period of time
with ancient and ridiculously outmoded modulation such as 8-VSB? It is
insane on the face of it. To saddle the public with cost, hassles and
denial of the use of their spectrum for what?

darius wrote:

Bob Miller wrote in
...


ATSC's interference means that you lose the program altogether.

Yes if you have the picture it is perfect but if you lose it you
cannot follow the game or show at all.



well, that's the downside to digital transmission. But you get that with
any modulation scheme.

If you have a loss of signal yes. With COFDM what would be a loss of
signal for 8-VSB, the most common problem, multipath, actually increases
signal strength.

So while driving around Manhattan in what has to be the most challenging
environment for dynamic and static multipath, COFDM reception is
exceptional. We are using omni antennas that range from 3" to 15". No
directional antenna at all, no rotors.

In a few months we will be testing with what looks like a normal cell
phone but with what looks like an antenna from a few years ago about 1.4
inches.

Who could possibly think that the US will go on for any period of time
with ancient and ridiculously outmoded modulation such as 8-VSB? It is
insane on the face of it. To saddle the public with cost, hassles and
denial of the use of their spectrum for what?

In article ,
Bob Miller wrote:
...
The worst source has become the best quality you say. I see it differently.

The worst source, OTA NTSC, has reception problems but they consist of
interference that can be put up with to some degree while you still can
follow the game or show.

ATSC's interference means that you lose the program altogether.

We don't know yet about ATSC but it would be hard to overlook the
indisputable fact that OTA free television dropped from 100% to
somewhere around 30% before ATSC was introduced. I think that qualifies
as evidence that the predecessor to ATSC was a disaster.

... I don't think that ATSC 8-VSB is an acceptable alternative
to NTSC.

I do and because of the authority of the FCC and Congress I think it is
inevitable. Now that over one thousand stations are on the air with
8-VSB it would be the height of irresponsibility for the FCC to do
anything to undermine the considerable investment that has been made by
broadcasters in response to its authority.

...
Yes OTA digital should be the savior of OTA. OTA digital should put
cable and satellite out of business.

That just sounds ridiculous to me. Why should HBO be put out of business
just because you can see Reba in HD? The whole business model for HBO
requires subscribers to obviate the need for advertising. I suppose new
OTA encrypted channels could be established to offer premium channels
but NTSC has left some very entrenched competition for that possible new
option.

...
It isn't working. Many people stay away because of the hassle they here
about. Sounds a lot like the old days of NTSC. They have made a decision
for cable to get away from those hassles.

No, you are getting cause and effect confused. Cable TV is firmly
entrenched and expectations are conditioned by previous experience. It
isn't reasonable to expect people to know intuitively that the best
quality video will be available if you are willing to put up an antenna.
They have 40 years to unlearn. That won't happen in the first year or
two.

That's another point of confusion: the claim that we are seven and a
half years into the transition. The first station didn't sign on until
1998. For most people there hasn't been any HD available until the last
year or so. The amount of available HD programs seems to have
approximately doubled in the last week (the new season). We needed to
the FCC to mandate this switch in order to get all those suppliers out
there before there was any demand. Now that there is a supply we can
start talking about how consumers are responding.

...My answer is that if the
OTA receiver in the US was COFDM we would have sold upwards of 30
million DTV receivers in the US since Christmas of 2000.


It's easy to make claims that can't be proven or falsified. Let's see
who has OTA HDTV first, the US or any other country in the world. Oops,
we already have it, game over.

In article ,
Bob Miller wrote:
...
The worst source has become the best quality you say. I see it differently.

The worst source, OTA NTSC, has reception problems but they consist of
interference that can be put up with to some degree while you still can
follow the game or show.

ATSC's interference means that you lose the program altogether.

We don't know yet about ATSC but it would be hard to overlook the
indisputable fact that OTA free television dropped from 100% to
somewhere around 30% before ATSC was introduced. I think that qualifies
as evidence that the predecessor to ATSC was a disaster.

... I don't think that ATSC 8-VSB is an acceptable alternative
to NTSC.

I do and because of the authority of the FCC and Congress I think it is
inevitable. Now that over one thousand stations are on the air with
8-VSB it would be the height of irresponsibility for the FCC to do
anything to undermine the considerable investment that has been made by
broadcasters in response to its authority.

...
Yes OTA digital should be the savior of OTA. OTA digital should put
cable and satellite out of business.

That just sounds ridiculous to me. Why should HBO be put out of business
just because you can see Reba in HD? The whole business model for HBO
requires subscribers to obviate the need for advertising. I suppose new
OTA encrypted channels could be established to offer premium channels
but NTSC has left some very entrenched competition for that possible new
option.

...
It isn't working. Many people stay away because of the hassle they here
about. Sounds a lot like the old days of NTSC. They have made a decision
for cable to get away from those hassles.

No, you are getting cause and effect confused. Cable TV is firmly
entrenched and expectations are conditioned by previous experience. It
isn't reasonable to expect people to know intuitively that the best
quality video will be available if you are willing to put up an antenna.
They have 40 years to unlearn. That won't happen in the first year or
two.

That's another point of confusion: the claim that we are seven and a
half years into the transition. The first station didn't sign on until
1998. For most people there hasn't been any HD available until the last
year or so. The amount of available HD programs seems to have
approximately doubled in the last week (the new season). We needed to
the FCC to mandate this switch in order to get all those suppliers out
there before there was any demand. Now that there is a supply we can
start talking about how consumers are responding.

...My answer is that if the
OTA receiver in the US was COFDM we would have sold upwards of 30
million DTV receivers in the US since Christmas of 2000.


It's easy to make claims that can't be proven or falsified. Let's see
who has OTA HDTV first, the US or any other country in the world. Oops,
we already have it, game over.

Steve Bryan wrote:

In article ,
Bob Miller wrote:

...
The worst source has become the best quality you say. I see it differently.

The worst source, OTA NTSC, has reception problems but they consist of
interference that can be put up with to some degree while you still can
follow the game or show.

ATSC's interference means that you lose the program altogether.


We don't know yet about ATSC but it would be hard to overlook the
indisputable fact that OTA free television dropped from 100% to
somewhere around 30% before ATSC was introduced. I think that qualifies
as evidence that the predecessor to ATSC was a disaster.


... I don't think that ATSC 8-VSB is an acceptable alternative
to NTSC.


I do and because of the authority of the FCC and Congress I think it is
inevitable. Now that over one thousand stations are on the air with
8-VSB it would be the height of irresponsibility for the FCC to do
anything to undermine the considerable investment that has been made by
broadcasters in response to its authority.

From my perspective dealing with those who are engineering DTV for the
rest of the world like what is happening in China and Japan what we are
doing in the US look positively ridiculous. It is beginning to look like
that to many at the FCC also which is a positive sign. Take a look at a
site like

http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/open2003/en/tenji/index.html

for an overview of what the Japanese are doing. They are a light year
ahead of us in compression and modulation. And the Chinese may be ahead
of the Japanese.

...
Yes OTA digital should be the savior of OTA. OTA digital should put
cable and satellite out of business.


That just sounds ridiculous to me. Why should HBO be put out of business
just because you can see Reba in HD? The whole business model for HBO
requires subscribers to obviate the need for advertising. I suppose new
OTA encrypted channels could be established to offer premium channels
but NTSC has left some very entrenched competition for that possible new
option.

You suppose? What? The whole future of DTV is combinations of
subscription based and free video, audio and data services. HBO or its
competitive survivor will be offered on OTA broadcast. NTSC is soon to
be history. Things are going to change a bit faster than the present
elite might expect. Cash cows are about to go dry.

...
It isn't working. Many people stay away because of the hassle they here
about. Sounds a lot like the old days of NTSC. They have made a decision
for cable to get away from those hassles.


No, you are getting cause and effect confused. Cable TV is firmly
entrenched and expectations are conditioned by previous experience. It
isn't reasonable to expect people to know intuitively that the best
quality video will be available if you are willing to put up an antenna.
They have 40 years to unlearn. That won't happen in the first year or
two.

Well I don't know how they are doing in Germany then. CABLE is
ENTRENCHED in GERMANY MORE THAN HERE!!!! With out the lure of HDTV
people are buying OTA and dropping cable. THEY DO NOT HAVE A MANDATE.
The difference is that the modulation works plug and play and THAT THEY
DO NOT HAVE TO PUT UP AN ANTENNA. It works in the house with a simple
omni. People seem to understand that the reception is better and the
quality is better and they go and buy receivers. I don't think it has
any thing to do with intuitiveness. It seems to have a lot to do with
word of mouth. Here word of mouth works against OTA DTV and in Europe it
is working for OTA.

If you think in some strange fantasy the word of mouth is working for
OTA in the USA explain how someone can actually buy an HDTV set and not
buy an OTA receiver or even worse go home and watch DVDs on it for 6
months without knowing that there is even such a thing as OTA HDTV?

That's another point of confusion: the claim that we are seven and a
half years into the transition. The first station didn't sign on until
1998. For most people there hasn't been any HD available until the last
year or so. The amount of available HD programs seems to have
approximately doubled in the last week (the new season). We needed to
the FCC to mandate this switch in order to get all those suppliers out
there before there was any demand. Now that there is a supply we can
start talking about how consumers are responding.


...My answer is that if the
OTA receiver in the US was COFDM we would have sold upwards of 30
million DTV receivers in the US since Christmas of 2000.



It's easy to make claims that can't be proven or falsified. Let's see
who has OTA HDTV first, the US or any other country in the world. Oops,
we already have it, game over.

Game not over. Australia has HDTV and they started a lot later than we
did and they have sold far more OTA receivers than we have per capita
already and last month they sold 25,000. They are 1/14th our size and
sales are picking up. How many OTA receivers were sold in the US last
month? 14 times 25,000 is 350,000. Did we sell that many last month?

Japan has had HDTV for a while via satellite and will commence HDTV
Terrestrial in December. I expect them to blow by the US like we were
standing still which is of course what we are doing. Europe now has
satellite HDTV.

And in the US there will be COFDM soon. We will see how fast it catches
on. What I said above can be proven.

One last thing, do you have any idea how silly our current industrial
policy looks overseas? The US has/is losing all credibility. You have to
go overseas to see the latest technology in action these days. We are
starting to look like a third world nation to some.

Steve Bryan wrote:

In article ,
Bob Miller wrote:

...
The worst source has become the best quality you say. I see it differently.

The worst source, OTA NTSC, has reception problems but they consist of
interference that can be put up with to some degree while you still can
follow the game or show.

ATSC's interference means that you lose the program altogether.


We don't know yet about ATSC but it would be hard to overlook the
indisputable fact that OTA free television dropped from 100% to
somewhere around 30% before ATSC was introduced. I think that qualifies
as evidence that the predecessor to ATSC was a disaster.


... I don't think that ATSC 8-VSB is an acceptable alternative
to NTSC.


I do and because of the authority of the FCC and Congress I think it is
inevitable. Now that over one thousand stations are on the air with
8-VSB it would be the height of irresponsibility for the FCC to do
anything to undermine the considerable investment that has been made by
broadcasters in response to its authority.

From my perspective dealing with those who are engineering DTV for the
rest of the world like what is happening in China and Japan what we are
doing in the US look positively ridiculous. It is beginning to look like
that to many at the FCC also which is a positive sign. Take a look at a
site like

http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/open2003/en/tenji/index.html

for an overview of what the Japanese are doing. They are a light year
ahead of us in compression and modulation. And the Chinese may be ahead
of the Japanese.

...
Yes OTA digital should be the savior of OTA. OTA digital should put
cable and satellite out of business.


That just sounds ridiculous to me. Why should HBO be put out of business
just because you can see Reba in HD? The whole business model for HBO
requires subscribers to obviate the need for advertising. I suppose new
OTA encrypted channels could be established to offer premium channels
but NTSC has left some very entrenched competition for that possible new
option.

You suppose? What? The whole future of DTV is combinations of
subscription based and free video, audio and data services. HBO or its
competitive survivor will be offered on OTA broadcast. NTSC is soon to
be history. Things are going to change a bit faster than the present
elite might expect. Cash cows are about to go dry.

...
It isn't working. Many people stay away because of the hassle they here
about. Sounds a lot like the old days of NTSC. They have made a decision
for cable to get away from those hassles.


No, you are getting cause and effect confused. Cable TV is firmly
entrenched and expectations are conditioned by previous experience. It
isn't reasonable to expect people to know intuitively that the best
quality video will be available if you are willing to put up an antenna.
They have 40 years to unlearn. That won't happen in the first year or
two.

Well I don't know how they are doing in Germany then. CABLE is
ENTRENCHED in GERMANY MORE THAN HERE!!!! With out the lure of HDTV
people are buying OTA and dropping cable. THEY DO NOT HAVE A MANDATE.
The difference is that the modulation works plug and play and THAT THEY
DO NOT HAVE TO PUT UP AN ANTENNA. It works in the house with a simple
omni. People seem to understand that the reception is better and the
quality is better and they go and buy receivers. I don't think it has
any thing to do with intuitiveness. It seems to have a lot to do with
word of mouth. Here word of mouth works against OTA DTV and in Europe it
is working for OTA.

If you think in some strange fantasy the word of mouth is working for
OTA in the USA explain how someone can actually buy an HDTV set and not
buy an OTA receiver or even worse go home and watch DVDs on it for 6
months without knowing that there is even such a thing as OTA HDTV?

That's another point of confusion: the claim that we are seven and a
half years into the transition. The first station didn't sign on until
1998. For most people there hasn't been any HD available until the last
year or so. The amount of available HD programs seems to have
approximately doubled in the last week (the new season). We needed to
the FCC to mandate this switch in order to get all those suppliers out
there before there was any demand. Now that there is a supply we can
start talking about how consumers are responding.


...My answer is that if the
OTA receiver in the US was COFDM we would have sold upwards of 30
million DTV receivers in the US since Christmas of 2000.



It's easy to make claims that can't be proven or falsified. Let's see
who has OTA HDTV first, the US or any other country in the world. Oops,
we already have it, game over.

Game not over. Australia has HDTV and they started a lot later than we
did and they have sold far more OTA receivers than we have per capita
already and last month they sold 25,000. They are 1/14th our size and
sales are picking up. How many OTA receivers were sold in the US last
month? 14 times 25,000 is 350,000. Did we sell that many last month?

Japan has had HDTV for a while via satellite and will commence HDTV
Terrestrial in December. I expect them to blow by the US like we were
standing still which is of course what we are doing. Europe now has
satellite HDTV.

And in the US there will be COFDM soon. We will see how fast it catches
on. What I said above can be proven.

One last thing, do you have any idea how silly our current industrial
policy looks overseas? The US has/is losing all credibility. You have to
go overseas to see the latest technology in action these days. We are
starting to look like a third world nation to some.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message link.net...
...
I DISAGREE with you about the percolating out of the information on HDTV.
Information about HDTV has percolated out. The information is that it is a
hassle and it is too expensive. Now the expense part is coming down so sales
are increasing for the HDTV sets but the hassle part is still there for OTA
reception.

... People will buy the HDTV sets and wait for cable or
satellite. OTA is going nowhere.

Well, this exercise was amusing for a while but I have to confess its
surrealistic aspect has grown too weird. Every day you repeat your
mantra that 8-VSB modulation renders OTA HDTV unworkable in the US and
every day I have four or five HD programs available throughout most
of prime time. A wealth of football and other sporting events again
available in HD for free and you keep up the drum beat that it is
better everywhere else in the world (UK, Germany, Japan, Australia,
and China). Of course none of them have free HDTV like we have already
but evidence like that has to be reinterpreted.

All I really was trying to report was that the claim that OTA HDTV
using the current system does not work is demonstrably false in my
case. It works well for me and clearly it works for many others who
have also posted messages here. For others I don't know if it will
work for you or not. I'm curious but not involved. All I'd say is
don't assume it is broken because that claim is plain false. Keep in
mind if you get it working the signal is free and the picture is
spectacular. Enjoy.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message link.net...
...
I DISAGREE with you about the percolating out of the information on HDTV.
Information about HDTV has percolated out. The information is that it is a
hassle and it is too expensive. Now the expense part is coming down so sales
are increasing for the HDTV sets but the hassle part is still there for OTA
reception.

... People will buy the HDTV sets and wait for cable or
satellite. OTA is going nowhere.

Well, this exercise was amusing for a while but I have to confess its
surrealistic aspect has grown too weird. Every day you repeat your
mantra that 8-VSB modulation renders OTA HDTV unworkable in the US and
every day I have four or five HD programs available throughout most
of prime time. A wealth of football and other sporting events again
available in HD for free and you keep up the drum beat that it is
better everywhere else in the world (UK, Germany, Japan, Australia,
and China). Of course none of them have free HDTV like we have already
but evidence like that has to be reinterpreted.

All I really was trying to report was that the claim that OTA HDTV
using the current system does not work is demonstrably false in my
case. It works well for me and clearly it works for many others who
have also posted messages here. For others I don't know if it will
work for you or not. I'm curious but not involved. All I'd say is
don't assume it is broken because that claim is plain false. Keep in
mind if you get it working the signal is free and the picture is
spectacular. Enjoy.

Bob Miller wrote in
:


In a few months we will be testing with what looks like a normal cell
phone but with what looks like an antenna from a few years ago about
1.4
inches.
Goodie. In a few months please present us with third independent groups
scientific comparision of the results.


Who could possibly think that the US will go on for any period of time
with ancient and ridiculously outmoded modulation such as 8-VSB? It is
insane on the face of it. To saddle the public with cost, hassles and
denial of the use of their spectrum for what?

An who could possibly think that the US would want to change the
modulation scheme at this point in time? It would mean that the HDTV OTA
product/customer market would get smashed. Would stations want to
broadcast in both formats? In most cases, hell no. Will current people
that are getting OTA want to have to change their equipment again, no
way.
If the US was starting form zero on selection of a method of OTA
transmission, your points might be valid. We are past that now. It would
be like the DIVX folks saying that their DVD disk/service is better and
oh yeah, you have to buy our equipment now because we are telling you it
is better. Sorry (but not reallY) that you bought that other new standard
equipment a few months ago.
And that my friend ****es poeple off that someone wants to change a NEW
standard. Unless you are willing to give the boardcasters new equipment
and give current OTA customers new reception equipment and the service
away for free. Is that the plan? Or do you just want people to buy what
you sell and that you say is better?
Gag man, peddle your wares elsewhere.