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.

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


8-VSB has no "advantages" to ignore let alone obvious ones.

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


8-VSB has no "advantages" to ignore let alone obvious ones.

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.

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

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.

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

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
link.net...

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

8-VSB has no "advantages" to ignore let alone obvious ones.

Cofdm has no advantages here, except to line your pockets.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
link.net...

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

8-VSB has no "advantages" to ignore let alone obvious ones.

Cofdm has no advantages here, except to line your pockets.

"David" wrote in message
...
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.

When and if they chose they can have HDTV. The modulation has nothing to do
with it. They now have HDTV via satellite BTW.

"David" wrote in message
...
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.

When and if they chose they can have HDTV. The modulation has nothing to do
with it. They now have HDTV via satellite BTW.

"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.

"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

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

"Bob Miller" wrote in message hlink.net...
...
He tried to get OTA and it was a hassle, period. He then either assumes that
any OTA (satellite is OTA) have similar reception hassle problems or maybe
he has satellite experience that he has not mentioned.

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

I just checked out the O'Reilly book "Google Hacks" from the library.
Haven't really started to read it but it looks very useful. What I do
know how to do already is use 'groups.google.com' to learn more
context. Gary H posted back on August 13 that he decided to buy all
the necessary equipment from Best Buy to try out this HDTV stuff. He's
about 15 miles from the transmission towers and using an indoor
antenna was only able to get HD from the NBC affiliate. His results
during prime time sound like they were unsuccessful. The next day he
reported success watching Leno and said the quality really was
impressive. But after one day of using an indoor antenna he decided to
return all the equipment for a refund. Finally there is this quote
from a posting on August 20. The first part is from someone else (not
identified):

That depends completely on where the apartments are in reference
to the towers. I don't know how many people I've heard say they gave
up because they could only get a couple channels with "rabbit ears"
...when the vast majority of stations are UHF (and shouldn't work at
all with rabbit ears). If these people had just taken the three
minutes to figure out where there stations are and used a decent
antenna, they stood a good chance of having a working setup.
Its not rocket science; its what every TV user used to do 30 years
ago.

Isn't it funny that in order to use modern HDTV technology that you
have to revert to using methods 30 yrs old? That's exactly why I am
staying away from HDTV until they come up with a better solution.
OTA doesn't cut it for me.

I apologize to Gary if this review has a creepy, invasive edge to it.
I was just using public statements to connect some dots. I think it is
clear that Gary just doesn't like the idea of TV antennas like I was
guessing in my earlier post. I think there is a decent chance that it
might have worked just fine for him but he was not interested. I was
willing to go as far as a ChannelMaster in the attic. That worked for
me much better than an indoor antenna. If the results were not
satisfactory there was a good chance I would not have been willing to
put an antenna on my roof. So like Gary, I have my limits.

The important thing to note is that if this is your idea of what's
wrong with OTA, then your case is very weak (like we didn't already
know that). The reward of three, four or more free HD stations is
enough to justify a greater effort and commitment than Gary was
willing to make. Heck, its worth more than the commitment that I was
willing to make. I was just lucky that my attic option was sufficient.

There is a real counter-intuitive fact that will take more than a
little time to percolate out. For about 50 years free OTA TV has been
the lowest quality source available (except for some worn out VHS).
Now OTA has leapfrogged past cable, satellite, and DVD to being the
highest quality available. As this information filters out it will
change expectations and behavior.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message hlink.net...
...
He tried to get OTA and it was a hassle, period. He then either assumes that
any OTA (satellite is OTA) have similar reception hassle problems or maybe
he has satellite experience that he has not mentioned.

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

I just checked out the O'Reilly book "Google Hacks" from the library.
Haven't really started to read it but it looks very useful. What I do
know how to do already is use 'groups.google.com' to learn more
context. Gary H posted back on August 13 that he decided to buy all
the necessary equipment from Best Buy to try out this HDTV stuff. He's
about 15 miles from the transmission towers and using an indoor
antenna was only able to get HD from the NBC affiliate. His results
during prime time sound like they were unsuccessful. The next day he
reported success watching Leno and said the quality really was
impressive. But after one day of using an indoor antenna he decided to
return all the equipment for a refund. Finally there is this quote
from a posting on August 20. The first part is from someone else (not
identified):

That depends completely on where the apartments are in reference
to the towers. I don't know how many people I've heard say they gave
up because they could only get a couple channels with "rabbit ears"
...when the vast majority of stations are UHF (and shouldn't work at
all with rabbit ears). If these people had just taken the three
minutes to figure out where there stations are and used a decent
antenna, they stood a good chance of having a working setup.
Its not rocket science; its what every TV user used to do 30 years
ago.

Isn't it funny that in order to use modern HDTV technology that you
have to revert to using methods 30 yrs old? That's exactly why I am
staying away from HDTV until they come up with a better solution.
OTA doesn't cut it for me.

I apologize to Gary if this review has a creepy, invasive edge to it.
I was just using public statements to connect some dots. I think it is
clear that Gary just doesn't like the idea of TV antennas like I was
guessing in my earlier post. I think there is a decent chance that it
might have worked just fine for him but he was not interested. I was
willing to go as far as a ChannelMaster in the attic. That worked for
me much better than an indoor antenna. If the results were not
satisfactory there was a good chance I would not have been willing to
put an antenna on my roof. So like Gary, I have my limits.

The important thing to note is that if this is your idea of what's
wrong with OTA, then your case is very weak (like we didn't already
know that). The reward of three, four or more free HD stations is
enough to justify a greater effort and commitment than Gary was
willing to make. Heck, its worth more than the commitment that I was
willing to make. I was just lucky that my attic option was sufficient.

There is a real counter-intuitive fact that will take more than a
little time to percolate out. For about 50 years free OTA TV has been
the lowest quality source available (except for some worn out VHS).
Now OTA has leapfrogged past cable, satellite, and DVD to being the
highest quality available. As this information filters out it will
change expectations and behavior.

Bob Miller wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...

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.


When and if they chose they can have HDTV. The modulation has nothing to do
with it. They now have HDTV via satellite BTW.


And those satellite HD receivers cost as much as ATSC receivers. That's
because they are HD, certainly not because they are ATSC.

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:
"David" wrote in message
...

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.


When and if they chose they can have HDTV. The modulation has nothing to do
with it. They now have HDTV via satellite BTW.


And those satellite HD receivers cost as much as ATSC receivers. That's
because they are HD, certainly not because they are ATSC.

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.

"Steve Bryan" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
hlink.net...
...
He tried to get OTA and it was a hassle, period. He then either assumes
that
any OTA (satellite is OTA) have similar reception hassle problems or
maybe
he has satellite experience that he has not mentioned.

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

I just checked out the O'Reilly book "Google Hacks" from the library.
Haven't really started to read it but it looks very useful. What I do
know how to do already is use 'groups.google.com' to learn more
context. Gary H posted back on August 13 that he decided to buy all
the necessary equipment from Best Buy to try out this HDTV stuff. He's
about 15 miles from the transmission towers and using an indoor
antenna was only able to get HD from the NBC affiliate. His results
during prime time sound like they were unsuccessful. The next day he
reported success watching Leno and said the quality really was
impressive. But after one day of using an indoor antenna he decided to
return all the equipment for a refund. Finally there is this quote
from a posting on August 20. The first part is from someone else (not
identified):

That depends completely on where the apartments are in reference
to the towers. I don't know how many people I've heard say they gave
up because they could only get a couple channels with "rabbit ears"
...when the vast majority of stations are UHF (and shouldn't work at
all with rabbit ears). If these people had just taken the three
minutes to figure out where there stations are and used a decent
antenna, they stood a good chance of having a working setup.
Its not rocket science; its what every TV user used to do 30 years
ago.

Isn't it funny that in order to use modern HDTV technology that you
have to revert to using methods 30 yrs old? That's exactly why I am
staying away from HDTV until they come up with a better solution.
OTA doesn't cut it for me.

I apologize to Gary if this review has a creepy, invasive edge to it.
I was just using public statements to connect some dots. I think it is
clear that Gary just doesn't like the idea of TV antennas like I was
guessing in my earlier post. I think there is a decent chance that it
might have worked just fine for him but he was not interested. I was
willing to go as far as a ChannelMaster in the attic. That worked for
me much better than an indoor antenna. If the results were not
satisfactory there was a good chance I would not have been willing to
put an antenna on my roof. So like Gary, I have my limits.

The important thing to note is that if this is your idea of what's
wrong with OTA, then your case is very weak (like we didn't already
know that). The reward of three, four or more free HD stations is
enough to justify a greater effort and commitment than Gary was
willing to make. Heck, its worth more than the commitment that I was
willing to make. I was just lucky that my attic option was sufficient.

There is a real counter-intuitive fact that will take more than a
little time to percolate out. For about 50 years free OTA TV has been
the lowest quality source available (except for some worn out VHS).
Now OTA has leapfrogged past cable, satellite, and DVD to being the
highest quality available. As this information filters out it will
change expectations and behavior.

My position is that OTA is wonderful, incredible and should/will replace
cable and satellite. I think HDTV is wonderful and everyone should have it
in their living room.

About OTA. In countries where OTA has COFDM as a modulation, where cable is
dominant and where there is NO HDTV incentive people are freely and eagerly
buying OTA DTV receivers. Berlin for example, ONE CITY, has had sales of
200,000 receivers in less than a year. This was not expected. It happened
mostly by word of mouth.

The same in the UK. An incredible sales surge since just last November 1st
when they first offered Freeview. It is said that the sales of OTA COFDM
receivers in the UK represent the quickest uptake of any electronic consumer
product ever in any market. And they expect sales to increase substantially
this fall.

Again without the incentive of HDTV. OTA DTV is even being embraced in the
UK by older viewers who are the last to take to new technology.

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.

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.

"Steve Bryan" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Miller" wrote in message
hlink.net...
...
He tried to get OTA and it was a hassle, period. He then either assumes
that
any OTA (satellite is OTA) have similar reception hassle problems or
maybe
he has satellite experience that he has not mentioned.

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

I just checked out the O'Reilly book "Google Hacks" from the library.
Haven't really started to read it but it looks very useful. What I do
know how to do already is use 'groups.google.com' to learn more
context. Gary H posted back on August 13 that he decided to buy all
the necessary equipment from Best Buy to try out this HDTV stuff. He's
about 15 miles from the transmission towers and using an indoor
antenna was only able to get HD from the NBC affiliate. His results
during prime time sound like they were unsuccessful. The next day he
reported success watching Leno and said the quality really was
impressive. But after one day of using an indoor antenna he decided to
return all the equipment for a refund. Finally there is this quote
from a posting on August 20. The first part is from someone else (not
identified):

That depends completely on where the apartments are in reference
to the towers. I don't know how many people I've heard say they gave
up because they could only get a couple channels with "rabbit ears"
...when the vast majority of stations are UHF (and shouldn't work at
all with rabbit ears). If these people had just taken the three
minutes to figure out where there stations are and used a decent
antenna, they stood a good chance of having a working setup.
Its not rocket science; its what every TV user used to do 30 years
ago.

Isn't it funny that in order to use modern HDTV technology that you
have to revert to using methods 30 yrs old? That's exactly why I am
staying away from HDTV until they come up with a better solution.
OTA doesn't cut it for me.

I apologize to Gary if this review has a creepy, invasive edge to it.
I was just using public statements to connect some dots. I think it is
clear that Gary just doesn't like the idea of TV antennas like I was
guessing in my earlier post. I think there is a decent chance that it
might have worked just fine for him but he was not interested. I was
willing to go as far as a ChannelMaster in the attic. That worked for
me much better than an indoor antenna. If the results were not
satisfactory there was a good chance I would not have been willing to
put an antenna on my roof. So like Gary, I have my limits.

The important thing to note is that if this is your idea of what's
wrong with OTA, then your case is very weak (like we didn't already
know that). The reward of three, four or more free HD stations is
enough to justify a greater effort and commitment than Gary was
willing to make. Heck, its worth more than the commitment that I was
willing to make. I was just lucky that my attic option was sufficient.

There is a real counter-intuitive fact that will take more than a
little time to percolate out. For about 50 years free OTA TV has been
the lowest quality source available (except for some worn out VHS).
Now OTA has leapfrogged past cable, satellite, and DVD to being the
highest quality available. As this information filters out it will
change expectations and behavior.

My position is that OTA is wonderful, incredible and should/will replace
cable and satellite. I think HDTV is wonderful and everyone should have it
in their living room.

About OTA. In countries where OTA has COFDM as a modulation, where cable is
dominant and where there is NO HDTV incentive people are freely and eagerly
buying OTA DTV receivers. Berlin for example, ONE CITY, has had sales of
200,000 receivers in less than a year. This was not expected. It happened
mostly by word of mouth.

The same in the UK. An incredible sales surge since just last November 1st
when they first offered Freeview. It is said that the sales of OTA COFDM
receivers in the UK represent the quickest uptake of any electronic consumer
product ever in any market. And they expect sales to increase substantially
this fall.

Again without the incentive of HDTV. OTA DTV is even being embraced in the
UK by older viewers who are the last to take to new technology.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.