Thumper wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:44:53 GMT, "Goldfinger"
wrote:

But my
personally bet will be on Samsung. I think they'll take advantage of the
imminent Home Theatre craze, propel themselves from a top tier 2
manufacturer to a tier 1 manufacturer within the next 5 years.


Then they better start making better sets.


And get out of a lot of other industries.

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 message thlink.net...
...
That is we would have to sell more sets in the next 12 months than have been
sold in the last 7 1/2 years. And if that came about and the 12% figure of
how many people who buy HDTV sets have access to any form of HDTV signal
then we would be at around the 1.25% of US households that could actually
receive HDTV by this time next year.

That will be 8 1/2 years since the digital transition started.
...

My apology for being lazy about this but I'm assuming you know the
answer (i.e. I've not tried to look this up on Google). Wasn't the
first transmitter turned on in 1998? Wasn't that in something like two
markets? I know I've been tardy waiting until 2003 to buy my HDTV
tuner card, but I didn't think I was seven years late. While there are
over a thousand digital stations today there were only 500 last
October and just 229 at the beginning of 2002 (nab.org). So until very
recently there really wasn't much motivation to buy a receiver.
Tonight, on the other hand, I have to choose at 9 p.m. between CSI:
Miami, the premiere of Las Vegas, and Monday Night Football, all in
HDTV and OTA.

I also waited this long because although I enjoy movies and TV, I
don't have the impulse (or realistically the money burning a hole in
my pocket) to drop a few thousand dollars. So I went the PC route.
Total cost $150 for the PCI card and $50 for the antenna. Now there is
a possible high growth market. After all, it has been several years
since American spending on screens has crossed over to more being
spent on "computer monitors" than TV sets. Essentially all of those
computer monitors are progressive scan HD ready. They're just a little
anemic when it comes to size. Before dismissing the idea of HDTV as a
computer application don't forget how recently mp3 was a nerd
curiosity and few imagined the audio world would be captured by the
PC.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message thlink.net...
...
That is we would have to sell more sets in the next 12 months than have been
sold in the last 7 1/2 years. And if that came about and the 12% figure of
how many people who buy HDTV sets have access to any form of HDTV signal
then we would be at around the 1.25% of US households that could actually
receive HDTV by this time next year.

That will be 8 1/2 years since the digital transition started.
...

My apology for being lazy about this but I'm assuming you know the
answer (i.e. I've not tried to look this up on Google). Wasn't the
first transmitter turned on in 1998? Wasn't that in something like two
markets? I know I've been tardy waiting until 2003 to buy my HDTV
tuner card, but I didn't think I was seven years late. While there are
over a thousand digital stations today there were only 500 last
October and just 229 at the beginning of 2002 (nab.org). So until very
recently there really wasn't much motivation to buy a receiver.
Tonight, on the other hand, I have to choose at 9 p.m. between CSI:
Miami, the premiere of Las Vegas, and Monday Night Football, all in
HDTV and OTA.

I also waited this long because although I enjoy movies and TV, I
don't have the impulse (or realistically the money burning a hole in
my pocket) to drop a few thousand dollars. So I went the PC route.
Total cost $150 for the PCI card and $50 for the antenna. Now there is
a possible high growth market. After all, it has been several years
since American spending on screens has crossed over to more being
spent on "computer monitors" than TV sets. Essentially all of those
computer monitors are progressive scan HD ready. They're just a little
anemic when it comes to size. Before dismissing the idea of HDTV as a
computer application don't forget how recently mp3 was a nerd
curiosity and few imagined the audio world would be captured by the
PC.

On 22 Sep 2003 18:31:08 -0700, (Steve Bryan)
wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message thlink.net...
...
That is we would have to sell more sets in the next 12 months than have been
sold in the last 7 1/2 years. And if that came about and the 12% figure of
how many people who buy HDTV sets have access to any form of HDTV signal
then we would be at around the 1.25% of US households that could actually
receive HDTV by this time next year.

That will be 8 1/2 years since the digital transition started.
...

My apology for being lazy about this but I'm assuming you know the
answer (i.e. I've not tried to look this up on Google). Wasn't the
first transmitter turned on in 1998? Wasn't that in something like two
markets? I know I've been tardy waiting until 2003 to buy my HDTV
tuner card, but I didn't think I was seven years late. While there are
over a thousand digital stations today there were only 500 last
October and just 229 at the beginning of 2002 (nab.org). So until very
recently there really wasn't much motivation to buy a receiver.
Tonight, on the other hand, I have to choose at 9 p.m. between CSI:
Miami, the premiere of Las Vegas, and Monday Night Football, all in
HDTV and OTA.

I also waited this long because although I enjoy movies and TV, I
don't have the impulse (or realistically the money burning a hole in
my pocket) to drop a few thousand dollars. So I went the PC route.
Total cost $150 for the PCI card and $50 for the antenna. Now there is
a possible high growth market. After all, it has been several years
since American spending on screens has crossed over to more being
spent on "computer monitors" than TV sets. Essentially all of those
computer monitors are progressive scan HD ready. They're just a little
anemic when it comes to size. Before dismissing the idea of HDTV as a
computer application don't forget how recently mp3 was a nerd
curiosity and few imagined the audio world would be captured by the
PC.

Do you sit in front of your PC to watch tv?
Thumper

On 22 Sep 2003 18:31:08 -0700, (Steve Bryan)
wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message thlink.net...
...
That is we would have to sell more sets in the next 12 months than have been
sold in the last 7 1/2 years. And if that came about and the 12% figure of
how many people who buy HDTV sets have access to any form of HDTV signal
then we would be at around the 1.25% of US households that could actually
receive HDTV by this time next year.

That will be 8 1/2 years since the digital transition started.
...

My apology for being lazy about this but I'm assuming you know the
answer (i.e. I've not tried to look this up on Google). Wasn't the
first transmitter turned on in 1998? Wasn't that in something like two
markets? I know I've been tardy waiting until 2003 to buy my HDTV
tuner card, but I didn't think I was seven years late. While there are
over a thousand digital stations today there were only 500 last
October and just 229 at the beginning of 2002 (nab.org). So until very
recently there really wasn't much motivation to buy a receiver.
Tonight, on the other hand, I have to choose at 9 p.m. between CSI:
Miami, the premiere of Las Vegas, and Monday Night Football, all in
HDTV and OTA.

I also waited this long because although I enjoy movies and TV, I
don't have the impulse (or realistically the money burning a hole in
my pocket) to drop a few thousand dollars. So I went the PC route.
Total cost $150 for the PCI card and $50 for the antenna. Now there is
a possible high growth market. After all, it has been several years
since American spending on screens has crossed over to more being
spent on "computer monitors" than TV sets. Essentially all of those
computer monitors are progressive scan HD ready. They're just a little
anemic when it comes to size. Before dismissing the idea of HDTV as a
computer application don't forget how recently mp3 was a nerd
curiosity and few imagined the audio world would be captured by the
PC.

Do you sit in front of your PC to watch tv?
Thumper

Thumper wrote in message . ..

Do you sit in front of your PC to watch tv?
Thumper

The short answer is yes. Our regular TV is used exclusively for DVD's,
PS2, laserdisc, etc. Since the kids mainly use the computers (a G4 and
an Athlon 2400) and prefer to view DVD's on the computers, it can be
several days without the TV being turned on. If several are watching
one DVD, like our recently purchased season 3 of the Family Guy, we do
favor the TV. The tuner card I have has more flexibility than I'm
currently using, so it is limited to the ViewSonic PC monitor. For the
next generation of PC games I'm planning to upgrade to an ATI Radeon
with S-video and DVI out. At that point I'll have the option of
driving an external screen with HDTV from my PC (and discovering the
delightful configuration options). I'm not in a hurry to take this
step. We'll see what Half Life 2 requires.

When I first moved the antenna feed over to the computer area, I
expected I would need to split the signal to make TV programs
accessible on the legacy set. But between computer programs, the web,
games, and DVD's the kids (10, 12, and 15) don't care about broadcast
TV. It just hasn't been an issue, somewhat to my surprise. Some less
important details have been skipped.

Thumper wrote in message . ..

Do you sit in front of your PC to watch tv?
Thumper

The short answer is yes. Our regular TV is used exclusively for DVD's,
PS2, laserdisc, etc. Since the kids mainly use the computers (a G4 and
an Athlon 2400) and prefer to view DVD's on the computers, it can be
several days without the TV being turned on. If several are watching
one DVD, like our recently purchased season 3 of the Family Guy, we do
favor the TV. The tuner card I have has more flexibility than I'm
currently using, so it is limited to the ViewSonic PC monitor. For the
next generation of PC games I'm planning to upgrade to an ATI Radeon
with S-video and DVI out. At that point I'll have the option of
driving an external screen with HDTV from my PC (and discovering the
delightful configuration options). I'm not in a hurry to take this
step. We'll see what Half Life 2 requires.

When I first moved the antenna feed over to the computer area, I
expected I would need to split the signal to make TV programs
accessible on the legacy set. But between computer programs, the web,
games, and DVD's the kids (10, 12, and 15) don't care about broadcast
TV. It just hasn't been an issue, somewhat to my surprise. Some less
important details have been skipped.

HDTV still has not taken off with the masses.
Here are some possible missing/pending pieces.

I think we're on the launch pad. I've had my TV for just a year, and
the amount of content now vs. then is MUCH greater. At any one time,
I have 5 or 6 sources to choose from; during prime time, the choice
could be upward to 9 shows.

Many football games are in HD, and most of the prime time programming
I watch is in HD, and my TV is already $700 less now than when I
bought it.

HDTV still has not taken off with the masses.
Here are some possible missing/pending pieces.

I think we're on the launch pad. I've had my TV for just a year, and
the amount of content now vs. then is MUCH greater. At any one time,
I have 5 or 6 sources to choose from; during prime time, the choice
could be upward to 9 shows.

Many football games are in HD, and most of the prime time programming
I watch is in HD, and my TV is already $700 less now than when I
bought it.

1.2 million cable customers hooked up to HDTV by end of year 2003. 200,000
OTA receivers sold so far, 5.2 million "HDTV ready" sets have been sold
(whatever an HDTV ready is) but only 12 % or 624,000 are connected to HDTV
in anyway. Let us assume that 624,000 HDTV hooked up homes exist today.

Their are 105 million US homes. That puts the present % of homes with HDTV
at .59% or just over one half of a percent. You expect that by this time
next year this will rise to 10%. So 9.41% of the American public will buy
either an OTA HDTV receiver or subscribe to cable or satellite service with
HDTV capability.

Or maybe you are just talking about people buying HDTV ready sets without
any capability of receiving HDTV. Then of course there would only have to be
sales of 5.3 million sets that were HDTV ready in the next 12 months.

That is we would have to sell more sets in the next 12 months than have been
sold in the last 7 1/2 years. And if that came about and the 12% figure of
how many people who buy HDTV sets have access to any form of HDTV signal
then we would be at around the 1.25% of US households that could actually
receive HDTV by this time next year.

That will be 8 1/2 years since the digital transition started.


I believe I read where the number of sets sold is around 7 million so far, not
5.2 million. Obviously that would be a combination of HDTV sets and HDTV ready
sets. For the sake of this discussion, either one will do.

I'm not sure where you are getting your 1.2 million cable HD, 200k OTA and 624k
HD ready sets hooked into HDTV. Even with those numbers you're talking about
2,024,000 HDTV homes.

If the number is 7 million, I think we'll make the 10% I was talking about
earlier. I'm not sure how they construe that a bunch of people with HD ready
sets don't have HDTV, but it seems to me a lot more than any 12% of them have
HDTV.

1.2 million cable customers hooked up to HDTV by end of year 2003. 200,000
OTA receivers sold so far, 5.2 million "HDTV ready" sets have been sold
(whatever an HDTV ready is) but only 12 % or 624,000 are connected to HDTV
in anyway. Let us assume that 624,000 HDTV hooked up homes exist today.

Their are 105 million US homes. That puts the present % of homes with HDTV
at .59% or just over one half of a percent. You expect that by this time
next year this will rise to 10%. So 9.41% of the American public will buy
either an OTA HDTV receiver or subscribe to cable or satellite service with
HDTV capability.

Or maybe you are just talking about people buying HDTV ready sets without
any capability of receiving HDTV. Then of course there would only have to be
sales of 5.3 million sets that were HDTV ready in the next 12 months.

That is we would have to sell more sets in the next 12 months than have been
sold in the last 7 1/2 years. And if that came about and the 12% figure of
how many people who buy HDTV sets have access to any form of HDTV signal
then we would be at around the 1.25% of US households that could actually
receive HDTV by this time next year.

That will be 8 1/2 years since the digital transition started.


I believe I read where the number of sets sold is around 7 million so far, not
5.2 million. Obviously that would be a combination of HDTV sets and HDTV ready
sets. For the sake of this discussion, either one will do.

I'm not sure where you are getting your 1.2 million cable HD, 200k OTA and 624k
HD ready sets hooked into HDTV. Even with those numbers you're talking about
2,024,000 HDTV homes.

If the number is 7 million, I think we'll make the 10% I was talking about
earlier. I'm not sure how they construe that a bunch of people with HD ready
sets don't have HDTV, but it seems to me a lot more than any 12% of them have
HDTV.

"ARNOLDEVNS" wrote in message
...
1.2 million cable customers hooked up to HDTV by end of year 2003.
200,000
OTA receivers sold so far, 5.2 million "HDTV ready" sets have been sold
(whatever an HDTV ready is) but only 12 % or 624,000 are connected to
HDTV
in anyway. Let us assume that 624,000 HDTV hooked up homes exist today.

Their are 105 million US homes. That puts the present % of homes with
HDTV
at .59% or just over one half of a percent. You expect that by this time
next year this will rise to 10%. So 9.41% of the American public will buy
either an OTA HDTV receiver or subscribe to cable or satellite service
with
HDTV capability.

Or maybe you are just talking about people buying HDTV ready sets without
any capability of receiving HDTV. Then of course there would only have to
be
sales of 5.3 million sets that were HDTV ready in the next 12 months.

That is we would have to sell more sets in the next 12 months than have
been
sold in the last 7 1/2 years. And if that came about and the 12% figure
of
how many people who buy HDTV sets have access to any form of HDTV signal
then we would be at around the 1.25% of US households that could actually
receive HDTV by this time next year.

That will be 8 1/2 years since the digital transition started.


I believe I read where the number of sets sold is around 7 million so far,
not
5.2 million. Obviously that would be a combination of HDTV sets and HDTV
ready
sets. For the sake of this discussion, either one will do.

I'm not sure where you are getting your 1.2 million cable HD, 200k OTA and
624k
HD ready sets hooked into HDTV. Even with those numbers you're talking
about
2,024,000 HDTV homes.

If the number is 7 million, I think we'll make the 10% I was talking about
earlier. I'm not sure how they construe that a bunch of people with HD
ready
sets don't have HDTV, but it seems to me a lot more than any 12% of them
have
HDTV.

If you want to call an HDTV home one that owns an HDTV set but no access to
an HDTV signal that is your business.

However if you do you might as well include all those homes that have a
computer since most computer monitors can handle HDTV.

Personally I think that if they are not hooked up to a cable, satellite or
OTA HDTV source they are at best labeled HDTV potential homes and all homes
are that.

So we have 624,000 homes that are connected to an HDTV source and are HDTV
homes IMO. That is .59% or just over 1/2 of one percent and a long way from
10% or anything else. I think you have a chance at 10% in four years or so
and then 95% will be HDTV homes connected to cable or satellite. OTA is
going nowhere.

"ARNOLDEVNS" wrote in message
...
1.2 million cable customers hooked up to HDTV by end of year 2003.
200,000
OTA receivers sold so far, 5.2 million "HDTV ready" sets have been sold
(whatever an HDTV ready is) but only 12 % or 624,000 are connected to
HDTV
in anyway. Let us assume that 624,000 HDTV hooked up homes exist today.

Their are 105 million US homes. That puts the present % of homes with
HDTV
at .59% or just over one half of a percent. You expect that by this time
next year this will rise to 10%. So 9.41% of the American public will buy
either an OTA HDTV receiver or subscribe to cable or satellite service
with
HDTV capability.

Or maybe you are just talking about people buying HDTV ready sets without
any capability of receiving HDTV. Then of course there would only have to
be
sales of 5.3 million sets that were HDTV ready in the next 12 months.

That is we would have to sell more sets in the next 12 months than have
been
sold in the last 7 1/2 years. And if that came about and the 12% figure
of
how many people who buy HDTV sets have access to any form of HDTV signal
then we would be at around the 1.25% of US households that could actually
receive HDTV by this time next year.

That will be 8 1/2 years since the digital transition started.


I believe I read where the number of sets sold is around 7 million so far,
not
5.2 million. Obviously that would be a combination of HDTV sets and HDTV
ready
sets. For the sake of this discussion, either one will do.

I'm not sure where you are getting your 1.2 million cable HD, 200k OTA and
624k
HD ready sets hooked into HDTV. Even with those numbers you're talking
about
2,024,000 HDTV homes.

If the number is 7 million, I think we'll make the 10% I was talking about
earlier. I'm not sure how they construe that a bunch of people with HD
ready
sets don't have HDTV, but it seems to me a lot more than any 12% of them
have
HDTV.

If you want to call an HDTV home one that owns an HDTV set but no access to
an HDTV signal that is your business.

However if you do you might as well include all those homes that have a
computer since most computer monitors can handle HDTV.

Personally I think that if they are not hooked up to a cable, satellite or
OTA HDTV source they are at best labeled HDTV potential homes and all homes
are that.

So we have 624,000 homes that are connected to an HDTV source and are HDTV
homes IMO. That is .59% or just over 1/2 of one percent and a long way from
10% or anything else. I think you have a chance at 10% in four years or so
and then 95% will be HDTV homes connected to cable or satellite. OTA is
going nowhere.

"Bob Miller" wrote That will be 8 1/2 years since
the digital transition started.

OTA is
going nowhere.

Sure. And OJ is innocent, too.

"Bob Miller" wrote That will be 8 1/2 years since
the digital transition started.

OTA is
going nowhere.

Sure. And OJ is innocent, too.

"Goldfinger" wrote in message
...

"ARNOLDEVNS" wrote in message
...

I don't know what the current penetration of HDTV sets is in the US, but
I'd
bet it will be more than 10% of US homes by this time next year. It
will
probably double to 20% in 2005 and I'll bet it will be over 50% by 2008.

That's a good adoption rate for this kind of technology.

Perhaps but HDTV is got to be more user friendly. How many Joe Six pack
out
there know that you're suppose to use Full mode on anamorphic DVDs (how
many
of them know what anamorphic DVD is?), Zoom for non-anamorphic DVDs, VCDs
and SVCDs, Wide Zoom for 4:3 broadcasts and you should not use normal mode
to view 4:3 content because of burn in?
YES!!! Well said. I consider myself to be quite technically informed but
this HDTV blew me away at first. That burn in issure is completely
unacceptable manufacturers must either fix the problem or prominently WARN
the consumer.

"Goldfinger" wrote in message
...

"ARNOLDEVNS" wrote in message
...

I don't know what the current penetration of HDTV sets is in the US, but
I'd
bet it will be more than 10% of US homes by this time next year. It
will
probably double to 20% in 2005 and I'll bet it will be over 50% by 2008.

That's a good adoption rate for this kind of technology.

Perhaps but HDTV is got to be more user friendly. How many Joe Six pack
out
there know that you're suppose to use Full mode on anamorphic DVDs (how
many
of them know what anamorphic DVD is?), Zoom for non-anamorphic DVDs, VCDs
and SVCDs, Wide Zoom for 4:3 broadcasts and you should not use normal mode
to view 4:3 content because of burn in?
YES!!! Well said. I consider myself to be quite technically informed but
this HDTV blew me away at first. That burn in issure is completely
unacceptable manufacturers must either fix the problem or prominently WARN
the consumer.

If it is a matter of a guide to all HDTV programming you could look at
http://ilovehdtv.com/issue092403.html and see if this serves your purpose.



Comprehensive HDTV schedules. Notice how hard it is to find what HDTV
content the networks will carry without having to go to multiple web
sites.
You can plan to have a group of friends over to watch an HD game if you
can't know way in advance if they will carry it in HDTV.
The "HDTV" branding show be consistantly in things like TV-Guide, etc.
Getting better, but for sure is not there yet.

A resonable price for an HDTV ready TV. Until they start to get more in to
the sub $500 range, most people will just buy a regular TV. Even a 4:3
tube
TV able to display an HD picture with black bars would be an improvement.

Retailers with HDTV product, but not enough HDTV video sources to display
the picture on the screen. Really they need to have more units with a
connection to a standard video source, and the same video content in HDTV
so people can see the difference.

More HD content of course. There are some particular types of shows that
would be a natural draw if they were in HDTV. Enterprise (trek geeks love
new stuff), some T&A (hey, it sells) including things like Miss America.

Advertising of HDTV. Some of the networks are now putting something like
"in HDTV where available". But notice the lack of actual ads by many of
the
broadcasters, cable and sat providers for HDTV?

If it is a matter of a guide to all HDTV programming you could look at
http://ilovehdtv.com/issue092403.html and see if this serves your purpose.



Comprehensive HDTV schedules. Notice how hard it is to find what HDTV
content the networks will carry without having to go to multiple web
sites.
You can plan to have a group of friends over to watch an HD game if you
can't know way in advance if they will carry it in HDTV.
The "HDTV" branding show be consistantly in things like TV-Guide, etc.
Getting better, but for sure is not there yet.

A resonable price for an HDTV ready TV. Until they start to get more in to
the sub $500 range, most people will just buy a regular TV. Even a 4:3
tube
TV able to display an HD picture with black bars would be an improvement.

Retailers with HDTV product, but not enough HDTV video sources to display
the picture on the screen. Really they need to have more units with a
connection to a standard video source, and the same video content in HDTV
so people can see the difference.

More HD content of course. There are some particular types of shows that
would be a natural draw if they were in HDTV. Enterprise (trek geeks love
new stuff), some T&A (hey, it sells) including things like Miss America.

Advertising of HDTV. Some of the networks are now putting something like
"in HDTV where available". But notice the lack of actual ads by many of
the
broadcasters, cable and sat providers for HDTV?

Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA HDTV
and it wasn't worth the effort. When it comes on cable I'll get it, until
then screw messing with satellites dishes and antennas.

"David" wrote in message
...
"Bob Miller" wrote That will be 8 1/2 years
since
the digital transition started.

OTA is
going nowhere.

Sure. And OJ is innocent, too.

Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA HDTV
and it wasn't worth the effort. When it comes on cable I'll get it, until
then screw messing with satellites dishes and antennas.

"David" wrote in message
...
"Bob Miller" wrote That will be 8 1/2 years
since
the digital transition started.

OTA is
going nowhere.

Sure. And OJ is innocent, too.

Good stuff. Thanks searchman.


"searchman" wrote in
s.com:

If it is a matter of a guide to all HDTV programming you could look at
http://ilovehdtv.com/issue092403.html and see if this serves your
purpose.

Good stuff. Thanks searchman.


"searchman" wrote in
s.com:

If it is a matter of a guide to all HDTV programming you could look at
http://ilovehdtv.com/issue092403.html and see if this serves your
purpose.

Hey thanks.

One point. There is nothing else really to agree with me on. There is only
one point. Our modulation sucks and it is not worth the effort or the money
to mess with it for a significant part of the population so it will fail.
That is the only point I am trying to make.


"Gary H" wrote in message
...
Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA
HDTV
and it wasn't worth the effort. When it comes on cable I'll get it, until
then screw messing with satellites dishes and antennas.

"David" wrote in message
...
"Bob Miller" wrote That will be 8 1/2 years
since
the digital transition started.

OTA is
going nowhere.

Sure. And OJ is innocent, too.

Hey thanks.

One point. There is nothing else really to agree with me on. There is only
one point. Our modulation sucks and it is not worth the effort or the money
to mess with it for a significant part of the population so it will fail.
That is the only point I am trying to make.


"Gary H" wrote in message
...
Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA
HDTV
and it wasn't worth the effort. When it comes on cable I'll get it, until
then screw messing with satellites dishes and antennas.

"David" wrote in message
...
"Bob Miller" wrote That will be 8 1/2 years
since
the digital transition started.

OTA is
going nowhere.

Sure. And OJ is innocent, too.

Gary H wrote:

Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA HDTV
and it wasn't worth the effort.

Receiving ANY kind of OTA signal has all kinds of problems, and
the good thing about 8VSB and COFDM is that each overcomes a
certain set of problems. Bob's advocacy of COFDM is rather odd,
considering the advantages of 8VSB are best in areas where CATV
is less likely to be available.

John

Gary H wrote:

Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA HDTV
and it wasn't worth the effort.

Receiving ANY kind of OTA signal has all kinds of problems, and
the good thing about 8VSB and COFDM is that each overcomes a
certain set of problems. Bob's advocacy of COFDM is rather odd,
considering the advantages of 8VSB are best in areas where CATV
is less likely to be available.

John

For what it's worth, I got a special section on HDTV in my new edition of
Broadcasting and Cable magazine today.

According to this report, 1.68 million DTV sets have been sold in the US this
year (up to the end of July) That's a 56% increase over the same period last
year. (They're also projecting total sales of 4 million DTV sets this year and
5.4 million next year) The gripe from the consumer electronics industry is the
slow rollout of the technology and lack of support from other industries
involved in DTV.

According to this report, HDTV is available in 5% of all US households.

The report says HDTV is driving a lot of the consumer electronics business
right now, but it could be a lot better if more consumers were convinced to buy
sets. This report says the bickering over HDTV has put most consumers on the
sidelines for now until prices drop.

One pull-quote in the article: "Many retailers complain that there is no
compelling reason for many consumers to buy HDTV."

It's a very interesting article in that it paints a very positive picture for
the future of HDTV, and sales seem to be going very well, but everyone thinks
they could be a lot better if the consumer confusion was eliminated.

For what it's worth, I got a special section on HDTV in my new edition of
Broadcasting and Cable magazine today.

According to this report, 1.68 million DTV sets have been sold in the US this
year (up to the end of July) That's a 56% increase over the same period last
year. (They're also projecting total sales of 4 million DTV sets this year and
5.4 million next year) The gripe from the consumer electronics industry is the
slow rollout of the technology and lack of support from other industries
involved in DTV.

According to this report, HDTV is available in 5% of all US households.

The report says HDTV is driving a lot of the consumer electronics business
right now, but it could be a lot better if more consumers were convinced to buy
sets. This report says the bickering over HDTV has put most consumers on the
sidelines for now until prices drop.

One pull-quote in the article: "Many retailers complain that there is no
compelling reason for many consumers to buy HDTV."

It's a very interesting article in that it paints a very positive picture for
the future of HDTV, and sales seem to be going very well, but everyone thinks
they could be a lot better if the consumer confusion was eliminated.

In article ,
packle (ARNOLDEVNS) writes:

It's a very interesting article in that it paints a very positive picture for
the future of HDTV, and sales seem to be going very well, but everyone thinks
they could be a lot better if the consumer confusion was eliminated.

This is why I have OBSERVED that it is the FUDsters (like Bob, Sinclair)
have contributed to the delay of the rollout/adoption of HDTV. Such
impedements are still useful for people like Bob, because ANY CHANCE
of his use (misuse) of the HDTV spectrum space can be politically
helpful for him. It might even keep his venture capitalists from
folding his money sink (that is, if he is waiting for the total
subversion of HDTV.)

Rather than take the unpleasant ALL OR NOTHING attitude of the anti
HDTV FUDsters, I applaud the anti-HDTV forces trying to purchase
their spectrum space for mobile COFDM applications. The only thing
that bothers me is the probable use of saturation Max-Headroom
type advertising as an irritant. (I REALLY HATED CNN Airport
News also when I was travelling often -- it isn't too bad for the
first 15 minutes, but it is a really bad 'trip' for long airline
delays :-(.) (Mobile video for normal consumer use is rather
specious, but it is possible that Bob is trying to use the
DTV spectrum for NON-TV purposes...)

If Bob's company would simply focus on a GOOD, BIDIRECTIONAL last mile
solution (with enough bandwidth for the lousy SDTV quality video), and
quit trying to subsume HDTV, then HDTV would have moved more quickly and
his own effort would have been more fruitful so far.

At least, HDTV is getting better and better, and it is REALLY TOO
BAD that Bob is denying himself of the vastly improved HDTV picture
quality. It is also TOO BAD that Bob had apparently based his
financial future on subverting the wonderful public asset of
OTA HDTV.

John

In article ,
packle (ARNOLDEVNS) writes:

It's a very interesting article in that it paints a very positive picture for
the future of HDTV, and sales seem to be going very well, but everyone thinks
they could be a lot better if the consumer confusion was eliminated.

This is why I have OBSERVED that it is the FUDsters (like Bob, Sinclair)
have contributed to the delay of the rollout/adoption of HDTV. Such
impedements are still useful for people like Bob, because ANY CHANCE
of his use (misuse) of the HDTV spectrum space can be politically
helpful for him. It might even keep his venture capitalists from
folding his money sink (that is, if he is waiting for the total
subversion of HDTV.)

Rather than take the unpleasant ALL OR NOTHING attitude of the anti
HDTV FUDsters, I applaud the anti-HDTV forces trying to purchase
their spectrum space for mobile COFDM applications. The only thing
that bothers me is the probable use of saturation Max-Headroom
type advertising as an irritant. (I REALLY HATED CNN Airport
News also when I was travelling often -- it isn't too bad for the
first 15 minutes, but it is a really bad 'trip' for long airline
delays :-(.) (Mobile video for normal consumer use is rather
specious, but it is possible that Bob is trying to use the
DTV spectrum for NON-TV purposes...)

If Bob's company would simply focus on a GOOD, BIDIRECTIONAL last mile
solution (with enough bandwidth for the lousy SDTV quality video), and
quit trying to subsume HDTV, then HDTV would have moved more quickly and
his own effort would have been more fruitful so far.

At least, HDTV is getting better and better, and it is REALLY TOO
BAD that Bob is denying himself of the vastly improved HDTV picture
quality. It is also TOO BAD that Bob had apparently based his
financial future on subverting the wonderful public asset of
OTA HDTV.

John

Do the DTV set sales numbers include Plasmas that only show 480P?

Does having an HDTV set in your home count as "HDTV being available" even if
you only watch DVDs on it and do not have a cable, satellite or OTA
connection?

A number I read recently said that around 650,000 US homes have access to
HDTV in total including cable, satellite and OTA. That would be .59% which
is far from the 5% the report you mention says.

And I would suggest that the CEA and the ignorance of those who run it is
responsible for causing the most obstructions facing the DTV transition.

This article about early CEA obstructionist behavior is a good read.
http://web-star.com/hdtv/Ostrof8299.html

I happen to agree with their latest court case of obstruction against the
FCC receiver mandate though for different reasons.

"ARNOLDEVNS" wrote in message
...
For what it's worth, I got a special section on HDTV in my new edition of
Broadcasting and Cable magazine today.

According to this report, 1.68 million DTV sets have been sold in the US
this
year (up to the end of July) That's a 56% increase over the same period
last
year. (They're also projecting total sales of 4 million DTV sets this year
and
5.4 million next year) The gripe from the consumer electronics industry
is the
slow rollout of the technology and lack of support from other industries
involved in DTV.

According to this report, HDTV is available in 5% of all US households.

The report says HDTV is driving a lot of the consumer electronics business
right now, but it could be a lot better if more consumers were convinced
to buy
sets. This report says the bickering over HDTV has put most consumers on
the
sidelines for now until prices drop.

One pull-quote in the article: "Many retailers complain that there is no
compelling reason for many consumers to buy HDTV."

It's a very interesting article in that it paints a very positive picture
for
the future of HDTV, and sales seem to be going very well, but everyone
thinks
they could be a lot better if the consumer confusion was eliminated.

Do the DTV set sales numbers include Plasmas that only show 480P?

Does having an HDTV set in your home count as "HDTV being available" even if
you only watch DVDs on it and do not have a cable, satellite or OTA
connection?

A number I read recently said that around 650,000 US homes have access to
HDTV in total including cable, satellite and OTA. That would be .59% which
is far from the 5% the report you mention says.

And I would suggest that the CEA and the ignorance of those who run it is
responsible for causing the most obstructions facing the DTV transition.

This article about early CEA obstructionist behavior is a good read.
http://web-star.com/hdtv/Ostrof8299.html

I happen to agree with their latest court case of obstruction against the
FCC receiver mandate though for different reasons.

"ARNOLDEVNS" wrote in message
...
For what it's worth, I got a special section on HDTV in my new edition of
Broadcasting and Cable magazine today.

According to this report, 1.68 million DTV sets have been sold in the US
this
year (up to the end of July) That's a 56% increase over the same period
last
year. (They're also projecting total sales of 4 million DTV sets this year
and
5.4 million next year) The gripe from the consumer electronics industry
is the
slow rollout of the technology and lack of support from other industries
involved in DTV.

According to this report, HDTV is available in 5% of all US households.

The report says HDTV is driving a lot of the consumer electronics business
right now, but it could be a lot better if more consumers were convinced
to buy
sets. This report says the bickering over HDTV has put most consumers on
the
sidelines for now until prices drop.

One pull-quote in the article: "Many retailers complain that there is no
compelling reason for many consumers to buy HDTV."

It's a very interesting article in that it paints a very positive picture
for
the future of HDTV, and sales seem to be going very well, but everyone
thinks
they could be a lot better if the consumer confusion was eliminated.

Bob's advocacy of COFDM is a personal agenda. And he's always ignored the
obvious advantages that 8VSB offers.


"dyson" wrote in message
...
Gary H wrote:

Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA
HDTV
and it wasn't worth the effort.

Receiving ANY kind of OTA signal has all kinds of problems, and
the good thing about 8VSB and COFDM is that each overcomes a
certain set of problems. Bob's advocacy of COFDM is rather odd,
considering the advantages of 8VSB are best in areas where CATV
is less likely to be available.

John

Bob's advocacy of COFDM is a personal agenda. And he's always ignored the
obvious advantages that 8VSB offers.


"dyson" wrote in message
...
Gary H wrote:

Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA
HDTV
and it wasn't worth the effort.

Receiving ANY kind of OTA signal has all kinds of problems, and
the good thing about 8VSB and COFDM is that each overcomes a
certain set of problems. Bob's advocacy of COFDM is rather odd,
considering the advantages of 8VSB are best in areas where CATV
is less likely to be available.

John

dyson wrote in message ...
Gary H wrote:

Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA HDTV
and it wasn't worth the effort.

Receiving ANY kind of OTA signal has all kinds of problems, and
the good thing about 8VSB and COFDM is that each overcomes a
certain set of problems. Bob's advocacy of COFDM is rather odd,
considering the advantages of 8VSB are best in areas where CATV
is less likely to be available.

John

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.

RF is RF. If you don't have enough, modulation doesn't matter.

dyson wrote in message ...
Gary H wrote:

Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA HDTV
and it wasn't worth the effort.

Receiving ANY kind of OTA signal has all kinds of problems, and
the good thing about 8VSB and COFDM is that each overcomes a
certain set of problems. Bob's advocacy of COFDM is rather odd,
considering the advantages of 8VSB are best in areas where CATV
is less likely to be available.

John

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.

RF is RF. If you don't have enough, modulation doesn't matter.

Too bad. It is your loss.

============
"Gary H" wrote in message
...
: Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA HDTV
: and it wasn't worth the effort. When it comes on cable I'll get it, until
: then screw messing with satellites dishes and antennas.
:
: "David" wrote in message
: ...
: "Bob Miller" wrote That will be 8 1/2 years
: since
: the digital transition started.
:
: OTA is
: going nowhere.
:
: Sure. And OJ is innocent, too.
:
:
:
:

Too bad. It is your loss.

============
"Gary H" wrote in message
...
: Actually, I agree with Bob Miller on this one. I tried to pick up OTA HDTV
: and it wasn't worth the effort. When it comes on cable I'll get it, until
: then screw messing with satellites dishes and antennas.
:
: "David" wrote in message
: ...
: "Bob Miller" wrote That will be 8 1/2 years
: since
: the digital transition started.
:
: OTA is
: going nowhere.
:
: Sure. And OJ is innocent, too.
:
:
:
:

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.