"Can't get any TV" related question
 

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:04:08 GMT Wes Newell wrote:
| On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:17:44 -0500, whosbest54 wrote:
|
| But what about those who don't want boxes and want to continue to use
| built in tuners as well as their VCRs and DVD recorders with NTSC
| tuners? There are a lot of people like that; I've met them. I see no
| reason why the cable companies can't provide a basic tier of like 20
| analog channels for a decade or so. After that, I can grudgingly agree
| that they should go all digital.
|
| Why should the cable company be restricted to 20 analog channels when they
| could get over 100 digital channels, or 20 HD channels plus 40 SD channels
| from the same bandwidth the 20 analog channels use up? That's just BS. And
| I'm not a cable advocate. I've never had cable or sat and never will, but
| that doesn't change the fact that it's impeding on their business. They
| should be left alone to doi what they want. If the customers don't like
| it, then can go elsewhere for service.

That last part is a generally false statement. Even if they are among those
who have 2 providers for TV signals, just 2 such providers does not make
enough of a free market for the providers to act competetively.

But from a technology deployment position, I do agree that restricting a
cable system from utilizing more advanced technology is not in the best
interests of everyone. If it was in everyone's best interssts that cable
systems remain analog, then I would support such regulation; but that is
definitely not so when it comes to using digital, provided that some means
to utilize existing analog sets in a standard definition mode is available
for a period of time most such sets would be expected to be usable.

There is newer technology that lets the cable system transmit pre-selected
programming to the customer over a single channel. I don't remember what
it is called, and I expect some variations on it to be developed as well.
It is where the "tuner" sends a signal to a device at some cable company
facility which then selects the programming and sends that alone. Such
technology would be an improvement in certain situations, such as allowing
an even greater programming choice than could be transmitted in parallel.
However, such technology needs to be sufficiently open as to allow the TV
set to send a signal that indicates what programming is chosen. The STB
would only be an arbiter of this, passing along the channel request and
decrypting the incoming program stream. Basic service can still be provided
with this, either as a few channels used for parallel transmission (probably
in digital) or this technology configured to allow that to such an STB that
outputs analog (at least in RF).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

"Can't get any TV" related question
 

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:30:53 -0500 whosbest54 wrote:
| In article [email protected],
| says...
|
|
|On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:17:44 -0500, whosbest54 wrote:
|
| But what about those who don't want boxes and want to continue to use
| built in tuners as well as their VCRs and DVD recorders with NTSC
| tuners? There are a lot of people like that; I've met them. I see no
| reason why the cable companies can't provide a basic tier of like 20
| analog channels for a decade or so. After that, I can grudgingly agree
| that they should go all digital.
|
|Why should the cable company be restricted to 20 analog channels when they
|could get over 100 digital channels, or 20 HD channels plus 40 SD channels
|from the same bandwidth the 20 analog channels use up? That's just BS. And
|I'm not a cable advocate. I've never had cable or sat and never will, but
|that doesn't change the fact that it's impeding on their business. They
|should be left alone to doi what they want. If the customers don't like
|it, then can go elsewhere for service.
|
| Because they are a regulated monopoly in most locations and the regulations
| have to account for a number of factors, not just their business needs.

However, those other factors can be accomodated for even with a 100% digital
cable system. There is a need to support an analog TV; that is met by the
cable box having an analog output. There is a need for a low cost basic
service; that is met by the cable box configured to provide only the basic
channels being provided at no additional cost (a box with no HD output can
be made cheaper) for up to 2 TVs per home. I believe it is an acceptable
compromise for those that want to be able to tune channels on the TV itself
shall upgrade to a modern TV with a digital tuner that supports QAM (the
cable system must then provide the basic channels unscrambled, including the
HD programming).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

"Can't get any TV" related question
 

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:57:20 -0400 Thumper wrote:

| Do you really think the cable companies should just eat the expense
| that your ideas will incur?

What additional expense? The profit from the additional channels they can
offer to premium customers by converting the spectrum that would be needed
to otherwise carry basic channels in analog would be greater than the cost
of two basic-only STBs per basic customer. A typical basic service is 20
channels. That means 120 MHz would be recovered. Those 20 channels can
now be transmitted over a mere 15 MHz of bandwidth if they stay SD. Or the
cable system can elect to use boxes that downconvert the HD version of the
same channel and get 100% recovery. That gives them somewhere between 105
to 120 MHz to use for premium HD programming which can be charged on any
tier or terms they wish. That's roughly 40 some HD channels they can add.
That would generate a lot of revenue and a lot of profit over the next 10
years. These boxes would only need to be provided at zero cost to customers
of the basic level of service. Others would get boxes at appropriate cost
based on their service (although I do think the first box should be included
as part of the cost of any tier of service).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

"Can't get any TV" related question
 

Let's petition Cuba to moon bounce ntsc signals up to USa. One
more reason to move to Florida?

"Can't get any TV" related question
 

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:26:41 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:

| If you decide to junk your set, you should pay for the recycling. |
Thumper

But if the government decides to junk it, they should at least pay for
the recycling.

Come on now, the government uses our money. I don't want to pay for you to
junk your TV. Pay for it yourself. It's your TV.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

"Can't get any TV" related question
 

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:27:18 -0500 Pete C. wrote:
|
| whosbest54 wrote:
|
| In article [email protected],
| says...
|
|
| On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:17:44 -0500, whosbest54 wrote:
|
| But what about those who don't want boxes and want to continue to use
| built in tuners as well as their VCRs and DVD recorders with NTSC
| tuners? There are a lot of people like that; I've met them. I see no
| reason why the cable companies can't provide a basic tier of like 20
| analog channels for a decade or so. After that, I can grudgingly agree
| that they should go all digital.
|
| Why should the cable company be restricted to 20 analog channels when they
| could get over 100 digital channels, or 20 HD channels plus 40 SD channels
| from the same bandwidth the 20 analog channels use up? That's just BS. And
| I'm not a cable advocate. I've never had cable or sat and never will, but
| that doesn't change the fact that it's impeding on their business. They
| should be left alone to doi what they want. If the customers don't like
| it, then can go elsewhere for service.
|
| Because they are a regulated monopoly in most locations and the regulations
| have to account for a number of factors, not just their business needs.
|
| Except for the fact that their monopoly status passed away some years
| ago. The governments just don't want to admit it and get their fingers
| and taxes out of it.

It's still a monopoly in almost all areas. And they are still using an
incumbent infrastructure that they got cheap and others have not chance
to get (thus discouraging competition).

FYI: I do not favor taxing it. I do favor regulating it to ensure it is not
abusive as long as it is a monopoly.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

"Can't get any TV" related question
 

On 17 Apr 2008 18:26:41 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:59:07 -0400 Thumper wrote:
| On 16 Apr 2008 16:54:02 GMT, wrote:
|
|On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:10:32 -0400 Thumper wrote:
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:18:12 -0500, whosbest54
|| wrote:
||
||In article ,
||says...
||
||Old TV disposal is an added cost to the consumer and the environment as a
||result of the digital transition.
||
||Why is that? Just get a converter.
||
||Ideally, yes. But a lot of people will opt for new sets; others will get rid
||of their old ones when they stop working and won't bother with converters.
||I've met a LOT of people who are doing one or both. Where I live you have to
||pay to recycle the set. The old sets will end up being dumped or in garages
||and basements, to be dumped years later. Old TV replacement has always been
||happening to some extent over the last 60 years, but it will happen much more
||now.
||
||whosbest54
||
|| It's not the government's fault if people decide to junk their tv
|| instead of getting a converter.
|
|No, but it is the government's fault that all this change is causing more
|people to dump TVs, and in particular, to have to deal with the inconvenience
|of tuning their TVs using some newfangled contraption. It's not a total
|blame, but it is an area of responsibility. We _will_ have a serious uptick
|in illegal dumping, which will end up costing a lot more that funding such a
|program to take in these old TVs. A one week long "dump an old TV" amnesty
|every 15 months, starting 2009-03 and running through for about 5 years seems
|fine to me. Two TVs per person in the first two events, and one per person
|thereafter. Paid advertising at the event would be allowed to supplement the
|costs (TV sellers and cable/satellite companies might have an interest in it).
|
|
| If you decide to junk your set, you should pay for the recycling.
| Thumper

But if the government decides to junk it, they should at least pay for the
recycling.


The government doesn't make that decision. Why not have the
government pay for a new TV for everyone who decides to junk their old
one?
Thumper

"Can't get any TV" related question
 

On 17 Apr 2008 19:45:45 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:57:20 -0400 Thumper wrote:

| Do you really think the cable companies should just eat the expense
| that your ideas will incur?

What additional expense?

You don't think there's an additional expense? I'm not going to take
the time to explain it to you because you won't believe it any way.
By the way, your whole premise that they can just add stations and
make more money is baloney. If you have all the programming available
then you will see that much of it id redundant. There simply isn't
enough content available.
Thumper
The profit from the additional channels they can
offer to premium customers by converting the spectrum that would be needed
to otherwise carry basic channels in analog would be greater than the cost
of two basic-only STBs per basic customer.





A typical basic service is 20
channels. That means 120 MHz would be recovered. Those 20 channels can
now be transmitted over a mere 15 MHz of bandwidth if they stay SD. Or the
cable system can elect to use boxes that downconvert the HD version of the
same channel and get 100% recovery. That gives them somewhere between 105
to 120 MHz to use for premium HD programming which can be charged on any
tier or terms they wish. That's roughly 40 some HD channels they can add.
That would generate a lot of revenue and a lot of profit over the next 10
years. These boxes would only need to be provided at zero cost to customers
of the basic level of service. Others would get boxes at appropriate cost
based on their service (although I do think the first box should be included
as part of the cost of any tier of service).

"Can't get any TV" related question
 

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:01:26 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:26:41 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:

| If you decide to junk your set, you should pay for the recycling. |
Thumper

But if the government decides to junk it, they should at least pay for
the recycling.

Come on now, the government uses our money. I don't want to pay for you to
junk your TV. Pay for it yourself. It's your TV.


Well said.
Thumper

"Can't get any TV" related question
 

On Apr 17, 2:39*pm, wrote:

I do not qualify for a coupon since I do get cable TV. *So I cannot buy one
using a coupon. *I'd have to pay full price.

The only way you do not qualify is if someone within your household
has already ordered the two coupons.