Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-definition
pictures for free....",

Article:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...leID=CA6439202

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

On May 5, 7:11 pm, "Tantalust" wrote:
"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-
definition
pictures for free....",

Article:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...lePrint&articl...

If you build it, they will come..... if they know about it!

GG

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:27:38 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
wrote:

In article ,
"Tantalust" wrote:

"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-definition
pictures for free....",

Wait till the analog signals are gone and they will be asking, why
didn't any one tell us..



Article:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...rticleID=CA643
9202

aka, "People are stupid."

These are the same people who don't realize their cordles telephones
are radio transmitters and receivers that can be heard by any one else
with a receiver unless their audio is encrypted. Of course our
congress critters made it illegal to sell new receivers capable of
receiving those frequencies instead of requiring the industry to
encrypt the audio.

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

On May 6, 10:27 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article ,

"Tantalust" wrote:
"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-definition
pictures for free....",

Article:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...lePrint&articl...
9202

aka, "People are stupid."

Uninformed doesn't necessarily mean stupid. For most people, how
they receive their TV signal isn't on top of mind.

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

Larry Bud wrote:
On May 6, 10:27 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article ,

"Tantalust" wrote:
"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-definition
pictures for free....",
Article:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...lePrint&articl...
9202
aka, "People are stupid."

Uninformed doesn't necessarily mean stupid. For most people, how
they receive their TV signal isn't on top of mind.


And though many on this newsgroup think US citizens like to pay for
cable and will pay any price to avoid OTA I disagree. If OTA had the
right modulation and codec it could offer real competition to the public
and the public would respond just as they have in every other country
where it has been tried.

In the US broadcasters, retailers and manufacturers are all paying
minimal attention to OTA for some reason.

I say the main reason is that OTA has the wrong tools for modulation and
codec. The mad rush to fix 8-VSB so that it can compete with new
broadcasters on channels above 51 who have access to the right tools
makes my point.

The ATSC is trying to make 8-VSB work in Single Frequency Networks.
The ATSC is trying to make 8-VSB work as on channel repeaters.
The ATSC has started a quest for a mobile standard to compete with two
others, MPH and A-VSB, that are kludges of 8-VSB, and with COFDM based
modulations, DVB-T/H, MediaFlo, CDMB-TH and whatever Sirius and XMRadio
are using.

None of this would be necessary if broadcasters had the right tools to
begin with. They exist why try to make 8-VSB do what it was not designed
to do and will never do as well?

And then there is the time factor. They have been trying to fix 8-VSB
for nine years now. What a waste.

Bob Miller

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
ink.net...
Larry Bud wrote:
On May 6, 10:27 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article ,

"Tantalust" wrote:
"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear
high-definition
pictures for free....",
Article:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...lePrint&articl...
9202
aka, "People are stupid."

Uninformed doesn't necessarily mean stupid. For most people, how
they receive their TV signal isn't on top of mind.


And though many on this newsgroup think US citizens like to pay for cable
and will pay any price to avoid OTA I disagree. If OTA had the right
modulation and codec it could offer real competition to the public and the
public would respond just as they have in every other country where it has
been tried.

In the US broadcasters, retailers and manufacturers are all paying minimal
attention to OTA for some reason.

I say the main reason is that OTA has the wrong tools for modulation and
codec. The mad rush to fix 8-VSB so that it can compete with new
broadcasters on channels above 51 who have access to the right tools makes
my point.

The ATSC is trying to make 8-VSB work in Single Frequency Networks.
The ATSC is trying to make 8-VSB work as on channel repeaters.
The ATSC has started a quest for a mobile standard to compete with two
others, MPH and A-VSB, that are kludges of 8-VSB, and with COFDM based
modulations, DVB-T/H, MediaFlo, CDMB-TH and whatever Sirius and XMRadio
are using.

None of this would be necessary if broadcasters had the right tools to
begin with. They exist why try to make 8-VSB do what it was not designed
to do and will never do as well?

And then there is the time factor. They have been trying to fix 8-VSB for
nine years now. What a waste.

Bob Miller



Feel free to visit our ATSC website, you just might learn something about
digital television. :-)

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:13:29 +0000, Bob Miller wrote:

And though many on this newsgroup think US citizens like to pay for
cable and will pay any price to avoid OTA I disagree. If OTA had the
right modulation and codec it could offer real competition to the public
and the public would respond just as they have in every other country
where it has been tried.

It has the right modulation. 8VSB works great.

In the US broadcasters, retailers and manufacturers are all paying
minimal attention to OTA for some reason.

OTA broadcasters aren't. Retailers are just stupid are want to push the
pay service they get a commissiojn on. And all manufacturers include
tuners for OTA reception. Other than the retailers, your statement makes
no sense.

I say the main reason is that OTA has the wrong tools for modulation and
codec. The mad rush to fix 8-VSB so that it can compete with new
broadcasters on channels above 51 who have access to the right tools
makes my point.

And you are wrong. The public doesn't know the difference between a codec
and code-a-phone.

The ATSC is trying to make 8-VSB work in Single Frequency Networks. The
ATSC is trying to make 8-VSB work as on channel repeaters. The ATSC has
started a quest for a mobile standard to compete with two others, MPH
and A-VSB, that are kludges of 8-VSB, and with COFDM based modulations,
DVB-T/H, MediaFlo, CDMB-TH and whatever Sirius and XMRadio are using.

And none of this has any impact on the typical OTA customer.

None of this would be necessary if broadcasters had the right tools to
begin with. They exist why try to make 8-VSB do what it was not designed
to do and will never do as well?

Frankly, I don't care. It works fine now for me. I don't care about mobile
TV and neither does 99% of the public.

And then there is the time factor. They have been trying to fix 8-VSB
for nine years now. What a waste.

There's nothing to be fixed. It works great as is here.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

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

And though many on this newsgroup think US citizens like to pay for cable
and will pay any price to avoid OTA I disagree. If OTA had the right
modulation and codec it could offer real competition to the public and the
public would respond just as they have in every other country where it has
been tried.

I just bought myself an LG DVD recorder with an 8-VSB tuner.
I get nine analog channels, with four of them quite marginal.

I was pleasantly surprised to find I got 33 digital channels,
all of them solid.

How many more digital channels would I receive if the USA
used COFDM (the *right* modulation?) rather than 8-VSB?

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

On Mon, 7 May 2007, Pete Fraser wrote:
I was pleasantly surprised to find I got 33 digital channels,
all of them solid.
How many more digital channels would I receive if the USA
used COFDM (the *right* modulation?) rather than 8-VSB?

Between -25 to -30. If you want positive numbers, you have to change
"more digital channels" to "fewer digitial channels".

And if you are in Europe, none of them would be in HD.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

On Mon, 7 May 2007, Tantalust wrote:
Feel free to visit our ATSC website, you just might learn something about
digital television. :-)

Don't be surprised if Psycho Bob Miller uses paraphrases from your website
to bolster his lunatic rants.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

No spirize since many people only got cable in the first place due to
lousy reception. That and they are tired of getting the shaft from
cable companies.

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:13:29 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

Larry Bud wrote:
On May 6, 10:27 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article ,

"Tantalust" wrote:
"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-definition
pictures for free....",
Article:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...lePrint&articl...
9202
aka, "People are stupid."

Uninformed doesn't necessarily mean stupid. For most people, how
they receive their TV signal isn't on top of mind.


And though many on this newsgroup think US citizens like to pay for
cable and will pay any price to avoid OTA I disagree. If OTA had the
right modulation and codec it could offer real competition to the public
and the public would respond just as they have in every other country
where it has been tried.

That is not what OTA lacks. We receive an excellent picture and sound
from no less than 8 OTA HD channels. Unfortunately what they lack is
content. Rarely do I see anything of interest from the major networks
an any movies are so watered down they barely resemble the originals.


In the US broadcasters, retailers and manufacturers are all paying
minimal attention to OTA for some reason.


snip

None of this would be necessary if broadcasters had the right tools to

None of this including different tools would be necessary if they had
anything worth watching. What we receive is technically of excellent
quality, but has no substance.

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

Crispin..

Just as a side note..you have a great informative website about Canada gun
laws
Glad I'm going (back) to the US!

Very enlightening!

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

On May 7, 11:02 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:13:29 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:
On May 6, 10:27 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article ,

"Tantalust" wrote:
"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-definition
pictures for free....",
Article:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...lePrint&articl...
9202
aka, "People are stupid."

Uninformed doesn't necessarily mean stupid. For most people, how
they receive their TV signal isn't on top of mind.

And though many on this newsgroup think US citizens like to pay for
cable and will pay any price to avoid OTA I disagree. If OTA had the
right modulation and codec it could offer real competition to the public
and the public would respond just as they have in every other country
where it has been tried.

That is not what OTA lacks. We receive an excellent picture and sound
from no less than 8 OTA HD channels. Unfortunately what they lack is
content. Rarely do I see anything of interest from the major networks
an any movies are so watered down they barely resemble the originals.



In the US broadcasters, retailers and manufacturers are all paying
minimal attention to OTA for some reason.

snip

None of this would be necessary if broadcasters had the right tools to

None of this including different tools would be necessary if they had
anything worth watching. What we receive is technically of excellent
quality, but has no substance.



Much of what is on is junk. But not all of it, and much of it is
better than cable. With digital OTA we have gained 2 additional PBS
channels, another kids channel, and a nice selection of great reruns.
I use a DVR to eliminate commercials and grab shows that run at a bad
time, and my ReplayTV can grab the occassional show I no longer get.

Cable wasn't so hot. Most of the channels had so many commercials
they were just as annoying to watch. If I want a movie, I get it from
the library. I remember having 300 different channels to choose
from. And I remember turning on the TV and turning it right off
because I didn't care for any of it.

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

On 08 May 2007 17:53:35 GMT, (Thomas Aquinas) wrote:

Crispin..

Just as a side note..you have a great informative website about Canada gun
laws
Glad I'm going (back) to the US!

Very enlightening!

Wow. Great stuff.

Note to those not paying attention. SF passed a law last year to
ban and confiscate current handguns in San Francisco. Law was
stopped by a judge, the appeals continue.

I'm outta here soon enough. I give a ****. BUT... I pity you ****s
when they REALLY get you by the balls ;)

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV
 

On 8 May 2007 11:32:05 -0700, mogator88 wrote:

On May 7, 11:02 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:13:29 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:
On May 6, 10:27 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article ,

"Tantalust" wrote:
"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-definition
pictures for free....",
Article:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...lePrint&articl...
9202
aka, "People are stupid."

Uninformed doesn't necessarily mean stupid. For most people, how
they receive their TV signal isn't on top of mind.

And though many on this newsgroup think US citizens like to pay for
cable and will pay any price to avoid OTA I disagree. If OTA had the
right modulation and codec it could offer real competition to the public
and the public would respond just as they have in every other country
where it has been tried.

That is not what OTA lacks. We receive an excellent picture and sound
from no less than 8 OTA HD channels. Unfortunately what they lack is
content. Rarely do I see anything of interest from the major networks
an any movies are so watered down they barely resemble the originals.



In the US broadcasters, retailers and manufacturers are all paying
minimal attention to OTA for some reason.

snip

None of this would be necessary if broadcasters had the right tools to

None of this including different tools would be necessary if they had
anything worth watching. What we receive is technically of excellent
quality, but has no substance.



Much of what is on is junk. But not all of it, and much of it is
better than cable. With digital OTA we have gained 2 additional PBS
channels, another kids channel, and a nice selection of great reruns.
I use a DVR to eliminate commercials and grab shows that run at a bad
time, and my ReplayTV can grab the occassional show I no longer get.

Cable wasn't so hot. Most of the channels had so many commercials
they were just as annoying to watch. If I want a movie, I get it from
the library. I remember having 300 different channels to choose
from. And I remember turning on the TV and turning it right off
because I didn't care for any of it.

Then you must never watch tv now.
Thumper