On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
The FCC won't tell you, broadcasters won't tell you, the manufacturers of
8-VSB receivers won't tell you that current receivers may become obsolete IN
MANY POSSIBLE ways.

And then there are those who think that they are promoting HDTV by ignoring
reality, by denying the risk, because they work for one of the above
entities.

Doesn't it get hot wearing your tin-foil hat all the time?

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

So what? Its a pay alternative to Cable or Sat with limited selections.
Are you infereing that I don't go this route I won't be able to watch
ABC/ABC HD on cable? Highly unlikely ... This is just an alternative to
cable or sat ... hopefully this type of packaging and competition will lead
to ala carte pricing/selection on cable.



"Bob Miller" wrote in message
k.net...
Michael J. Sherman wrote:


Do not believe anything Bob says. If he had his way nobody would be
watching excellent HDTV broadcasts at all.


Don't have to beleive me call up Emmis 317.266.0100 or USDTV 801-748-2464

Emmis, Partners eye buying USDTV
http://www.tvweek.com/news/web060304.html#emmis

USDTV Moving to WM9

http://www.uprez.com/modules.php?op=...tid= &topic=9

NAB: USDTV Chooses Windows Media 9 for Pay-TV
http://digital-lifestyles.info/displ...siness&id=1147

With lawmakers closing in on the analog broadcast spectrum like a pack
of hungry dogs on a bone, broadcasters are gravitating toward the
over-the-air, multichannel pay service proposed by Emmis Chairman Jeff
Smulyan at NAB2004.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=2040




Bob Miller wrote:

CGott wrote:

I'm thinking of buying a set like Sony's KV 32HS510, for use in
receiving over the air programming (I don't plan on getting cable
anytime soon). This TV has the DVI HDTV connection. Does that prevent
it from becoming obsolete in the future, if broadcasters scramble
their signals, or should I wait a few years?




No one should buy any HDTV set or seperate OTA receiver unless it has
the new 5th generation receiver technology in it and can handle MPEG4
and WM9.

A USDTV receiver will go on sale in a couple of months problably at
WalMart which will handle WM9. IF that unit happens to work for you
receive wise fine but anything that does not handle advanced codecs
are a crap shoot from here on out.

If USDTV and/or Emmis is/are successful any current receiver or one
sold in the past will rapidly become obsolete. Unless you like
receiveing only a limited number of SD programs on your HDTV receiver.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
USDTV is selling receivers in WalMart for $200.

In case you haven't discovered, those receivers do HD; and their big
selling point at Wal-Mart is free HD. USDTV's pay SD programming is an
attempt to get viewers, no longer needing the cable company to give them
their local channels, to fire the cable company entirely.

It's a clever idea. Whether it's successful remains to be seen. The
important thing is that USDTV's entire business model depends upon the
widespread availability of free HD OTA.

It is not in USDTV's interest to see HD OTA go away in the way that BOB
alleges. If that were to happen, USDTV's entire selling point over cable
goes away.

Emmis Broadcasting encouraged by USDTV has gone a step furthur.

All of the above also applies to Emmis. Without widespread and free HD
OTA, the business model collapses. Cable and satellite will kill them.

Everywhere in the world (yes, even with BOB's precious COFDM) OTA requires
more consumer level maintenance of reception capability than cable or
satellite. There is a very real cost to this. Cable and satellite both
offer "install it and forget about it", and consumers will pay a premium
for that.

In order to undercut cable and satellite, USDTV/Emmis must not only be
cheaper, but offer a benefit not found on cable and satellite. That
benefit is free HD. The key is that HD is free *both* to the consumer
*and* to USDTV.

It's a clever means of bottom-feeding. Let the broadcasters give away the
HD content; and on the cheap provide CNN, Fox News, Cartoon Network, USA
Network, and the other popular SD channel while undercutting the cable
company.

But, like all bottom-feeders, it depends upon the food chain higher up.
The more free HD is available to all, the more crumbs that come down for
USDTV to gobble.

Thus, BOB's attempts at spreading anti-HD FUD attack USDTV too. Which, if
you think about it, makes sense. USDTV represents a competitor for the
bandwidth that BOB wants to use to put tampon advertisements on city
buses.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Gomer Jones wrote:

So what? Its a pay alternative to Cable or Sat with limited selections.
Are you infereing that I don't go this route I won't be able to watch
ABC/ABC HD on cable? Highly unlikely ... This is just an alternative to
cable or sat ... hopefully this type of packaging and competition will lead
to ala carte pricing/selection on cable.

Right an alternative to cable and satellite using OTA broadcast spectum,
possible a pay service. And it could, I think will, lead to ala carte
pricing and selection on cable and satellite.

As in Europe the rebirth of OTA broadcasting is putting pressure on
cable and satellite. Only two years after beginning FREEVIEW in the UK
has already caused SKY Satellite to offer 200 free channels.

My ONLY problem is with the US modulation 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting.

And while I still think it is a travesty and political hack job visited
on the US public, I do think that the new OTA 5th generation receievers
could make Emmis or USDTV viable. In fact there are other VIABLE
possibilities in the offing that are even bigger than Emmis or USCTV
that become viable with the 5th gen receivers.

IMO cable and satellite will see far more competition from new OTA
offering both 8-VSB and COFDM in the next few years than ANYTHING that
is now happening in Europe.



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

Michael J. Sherman wrote:


Do not believe anything Bob says. If he had his way nobody would be
watching excellent HDTV broadcasts at all.


Don't have to beleive me call up Emmis 317.266.0100 or USDTV 801-748-2464

Emmis, Partners eye buying USDTV
http://www.tvweek.com/news/web060304.html#emmis

USDTV Moving to WM9


http://www.uprez.com/modules.php?op=...tid= &topic=9

NAB: USDTV Chooses Windows Media 9 for Pay-TV
http://digital-lifestyles.info/displ...siness&id=1147

With lawmakers closing in on the analog broadcast spectrum like a pack
of hungry dogs on a bone, broadcasters are gravitating toward the
over-the-air, multichannel pay service proposed by Emmis Chairman Jeff
Smulyan at NAB2004.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=2040




Bob Miller wrote:


CGott wrote:


I'm thinking of buying a set like Sony's KV 32HS510, for use in
receiving over the air programming (I don't plan on getting cable
anytime soon). This TV has the DVI HDTV connection. Does that prevent
it from becoming obsolete in the future, if broadcasters scramble
their signals, or should I wait a few years?




No one should buy any HDTV set or seperate OTA receiver unless it has
the new 5th generation receiver technology in it and can handle MPEG4
and WM9.

A USDTV receiver will go on sale in a couple of months problably at
WalMart which will handle WM9. IF that unit happens to work for you
receive wise fine but anything that does not handle advanced codecs
are a crap shoot from here on out.

If USDTV and/or Emmis is/are successful any current receiver or one
sold in the past will rapidly become obsolete. Unless you like
receiveing only a limited number of SD programs on your HDTV receiver.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
k.net...
Gomer Jones wrote:

So what? Its a pay alternative to Cable or Sat with limited selections.
Are you infereing that I don't go this route I won't be able to watch
ABC/ABC HD on cable? Highly unlikely ... This is just an alternative to
cable or sat ... hopefully this type of packaging and competition will
lead
to ala carte pricing/selection on cable.

Right an alternative to cable and satellite using OTA broadcast spectum,
possible a pay service. And it could, I think will, lead to ala carte
pricing and selection on cable and satellite.

So the Emmis / USDTV model is good, more competition means progressively
better service and lowered prices (in terms of relative dollars). So here
we are back to the root of your issue modulation, as you state later.

As in Europe the rebirth of OTA broadcasting is putting pressure on
cable and satellite. Only two years after beginning FREEVIEW in the UK
has already caused SKY Satellite to offer 200 free channels.

My ONLY problem is with the US modulation 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting.

Well isn't the battle over with, with Sinclairs endorsement, the OEMs
adopting integrated receivers, maybe your business model would be better
suited by jumping on the E-VSB bandwagon

And while I still think it is a travesty and political hack job visited
on the US public, I do think that the new OTA 5th generation receievers
could make Emmis or USDTV viable. In fact there are other VIABLE
possibilities in the offing that are even bigger than Emmis or USCTV
that become viable with the 5th gen receivers.


IMO cable and satellite will see far more competition from new OTA
offering both 8-VSB and COFDM in the next few years than ANYTHING that
is now happening in Europe.

So we will let the market decide.

Mark Crispin wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:

USDTV is selling receivers in WalMart for $200.


In case you haven't discovered, those receivers do HD; and their big
selling point at Wal-Mart is free HD. USDTV's pay SD programming is an
attempt to get viewers, no longer needing the cable company to give them
their local channels, to fire the cable company entirely.

Yes they do HDTV in MPEG2 and the new receivers that USDTV will market
in August will do HDTV in MPEG4. The MPEG2 HDTV is free OTA DTV but the
MPEG4 can be free or subscription based. As USDTV or Emmis bring all
broadcasters on board the only programming left on MPEG2 will be ONE SD
program.

It's a clever idea. Whether it's successful remains to be seen. The
important thing is that USDTV's entire business model depends upon the
widespread availability of free HD OTA.

I don't think so. The more successful they are the less they depend on
the MPEG2 SD part of the broadcast. They can deliver HD free or via
subscription on the MPEG4 side.

It is not in USDTV's interest to see HD OTA go away in the way that BOB
alleges. If that were to happen, USDTV's entire selling point over
cable goes away.

The more spectrum that USDTV can capture and use in any market with the
2 to 3 times more efficeint WM9 codec the more they can compete with
cable. USDTV's entire selling point is the amount of HD, ED, SD and data
they can deliver in MPEG4. Whatever is being broadcast to satisfy the
FCC MPEG2 SD requirement is totally inconsequential.

Emmis Broadcasting encouraged by USDTV has gone a step furthur.


All of the above also applies to Emmis. Without widespread and free HD
OTA, the business model collapses. Cable and satellite will kill them.

They could kill cable and satellite. IF they had 20 broadcast channels
in a market like NYC they can deliver at least 10 SD or 3 HD programs
with MPEG4 in the spectrum not used by the ONE SD MPEG2 SD program. That
would total 200 SD or 60 HD channels or some mix of the two. With PVR
capability in the receiver they can more than compete with cable and
satellite.

Everywhere in the world (yes, even with BOB's precious COFDM) OTA
requires more consumer level maintenance of reception capability than
cable or satellite. There is a very real cost to this. Cable and
satellite both offer "install it and forget about it", and consumers
will pay a premium for that.

Well while this is true with current 8-VSB receivers it is EMPHATICALLY
NOT TRUE of COFDM and hopefully not true of 5th generation 8-VSB
receivers. COFDM and we beleive 5th gen 8-VSB offers a MUCH lower
maintenance cost than cable or satellite. Install it and forget it is
what COFDM is all about.

Satellite is more like install it and pray that is doesn't rain and
cable as I have experienced it is more call they and stay on hold for
most of the day for problems that occur all to regularly.

In order to undercut cable and satellite, USDTV/Emmis must not only be
cheaper, but offer a benefit not found on cable and satellite. That
benefit is free HD. The key is that HD is free *both* to the consumer
*and* to USDTV.

At first USDTV must be cheaper and it can be. Its plant cost far less
and maintenance is minor compared to cable. Its benefits can include no
lost signal due to rain ala satellite, free programming including HD
delivered on the MPEG4 side, higher bit rate SD or even ED programming
and lower cost.

Down the road a bit OTA does not have to be cheaper. At the same price I
believe OTA wins out.

It's a clever means of bottom-feeding. Let the broadcasters give away
the HD content; and on the cheap provide CNN, Fox News, Cartoon Network,
USA Network, and the other popular SD channel while undercutting the
cable company.

But, like all bottom-feeders, it depends upon the food chain higher up.
The more free HD is available to all, the more crumbs that come down for
USDTV to gobble.

Thus, BOB's attempts at spreading anti-HD FUD attack USDTV too. Which,
if you think about it, makes sense. USDTV represents a competitor for
the bandwidth that BOB wants to use to put tampon advertisements on city
buses.

No the USDTV model carried to its logical end is not a bottom feeder it
is the rebirth of OTA and the end of cable and satellite in any form
that we now recognize them in if they exist at all.

Bob Miller

-- Mark --

Gomer Jones wrote:


Right an alternative to cable and satellite using OTA broadcast spectum,
possible a pay service. And it could, I think will, lead to ala carte
pricing and selection on cable and satellite.


So the Emmis / USDTV model is good, more competition means progressively
better service and lowered prices (in terms of relative dollars). So here
we are back to the root of your issue modulation, as you state later.


As in Europe the rebirth of OTA broadcasting is putting pressure on
cable and satellite. Only two years after beginning FREEVIEW in the UK
has already caused SKY Satellite to offer 200 free channels.

My ONLY problem is with the US modulation 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting.


Well isn't the battle over with, with Sinclairs endorsement, the OEMs
adopting integrated receivers, maybe your business model would be better
suited by jumping on the E-VSB bandwagon

If the battle is over we won. Hard to understand with my arguments here
but my BUSINESS MODEL REQUIRES that broadcasters are STUCK with a non
mobile 8-VSB while we can use COFDM on other spectrum for mobile services.

The better 5th generation 8-VSB receivers so LOCK IN 8-VSB that this is
a great day. Understand that if current broadcasters could offer a
mobile receiver why would anyone want to compete with them? Why would
anyone start a new business using spectrum they had to pay for to
compete with broadcasters who got their spectrum for free and have most
of the content? It would be crazy. If they cannot compete then that is a
different story. They can't do mobile with 8-VSB or if they try I would
love to compete with them using COFDM.


And while I still think it is a travesty and political hack job visited
on the US public, I do think that the new OTA 5th generation receievers
could make Emmis or USDTV viable. In fact there are other VIABLE
possibilities in the offing that are even bigger than Emmis or USCTV
that become viable with the 5th gen receivers.



IMO cable and satellite will see far more competition from new OTA
offering both 8-VSB and COFDM in the next few years than ANYTHING that
is now happening in Europe.


So we will let the market decide.


If only we could let the market decide. As it is many decisions that
should be market driven are decided by who has the most money
politically in DC.

And at the moment this is more true in the US than in many other
countries. We try to export our morality and have laws against our
companies taking or giving bribes overseas for business purposes while
here at home our government is more and more run by outright bribery
that is reported to us on TV every night and we accept it.

Just listen to responses right here to the affect "they picked a
modulation already so nothing can ever be done about it". YOu don't hear
that in S. Korea where broadcasters refuse to go on the air with 8-VSB 6
years after is was chosen.

The British tried to put a tax, the first tax of any kind, on the
American Colonialist. These were loyal British subjects. The tax was 4%
on a tea most favored by the colonist. The British sent a ship loaded
with this tea at half price into Boston Harbor. A steal, a bargain and
the Bostonian's threw it into the sea and then killed 300 or so of the
soldiers who came to restore order.

No such bloodshed today we would say "what are you going to do, nothing
can be done" and then drink the tea.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
It's a clever idea. Whether it's successful remains to be seen. The
important thing is that USDTV's entire business model depends upon the
widespread availability of free HD OTA.
I don't think so. The more successful they are the less they depend on the
MPEG2 SD part of the broadcast. They can deliver HD free or via subscription
on the MPEG4 side.

Why, pray tell, would they want to do that when the broadcasters do it for
free? The very last thing in the world that they would want to do is
increase their costs and diminish their primary benefit.

Everything depends upon them being able to compete with cable and
satellite while *not* having to do what cable and satellite do.

You have no sense of the market. No wonder your business failed.

The more spectrum that USDTV can capture and use in any market with the 2 to
3 times more efficeint WM9 codec the more they can compete with cable.
USDTV's entire selling point is the amount of HD, ED, SD and data they can
deliver in MPEG4. Whatever is being broadcast to satisfy the FCC MPEG2 SD
requirement is totally inconsequential.

The flaw in your reasoning (if you can call it reasoning) is the
assumption that cable and satellite customers will abandon their cable or
satellite en masse for USDTV.

It isn't going to happen.

There's no reason for a cable or satellite customer to consider OTA at all
unless it's HD. USDTV doesn't get any customers unless they are already
OTA, and that in turn requires HD. It's a narrow window of opportunity,
and one which will presently close.

They could kill cable and satellite.

Don't drink your own snake oil.

Everywhere in the world (yes, even with BOB's precious COFDM) OTA requires
more consumer level maintenance of reception capability than cable or
satellite. There is a very real cost to this. Cable and satellite both
offer "install it and forget about it", and consumers will pay a premium
for that.
Well while this is true with current 8-VSB receivers it is EMPHATICALLY NOT
TRUE of COFDM and hopefully not true of 5th generation 8-VSB receivers.

BOB is a pathological liar, as proven by repeated reports of ongoing
antenna-based problems with COFDM from around the world.

This is a true snake-oil salesman.

Satellite is more like install it and pray that is doesn't rain

Bull****. I have satellite, and I live in rain country.

At first USDTV must be cheaper and it can be. Its plant cost far less and
maintenance is minor compared to cable.

Not at the consumer end.

Note that this is the same BOB who said that OTA was doomed since nobody
would accept rooftop antennas.

Its benefits can include no lost
signal due to rain ala satellite

Replaced with lost signal due to rain ala OTA.

No the USDTV model carried to its logical end is not a bottom feeder it is
the rebirth of OTA and the end of cable and satellite in any form that we now
recognize them in if they exist at all.

I have $1000 that says that you are full of ****. You are too much of a
coward to accept it, especially as the funds for the wager would have to
be put in escrow where you can't steal it and run away when you lose.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
k.net...
Gomer Jones wrote:


Right an alternative to cable and satellite using OTA broadcast spectum,
possible a pay service. And it could, I think will, lead to ala carte
pricing and selection on cable and satellite.


So the Emmis / USDTV model is good, more competition means progressively
better service and lowered prices (in terms of relative dollars). So
here
we are back to the root of your issue modulation, as you state later.


As in Europe the rebirth of OTA broadcasting is putting pressure on
cable and satellite. Only two years after beginning FREEVIEW in the UK
has already caused SKY Satellite to offer 200 free channels.

My ONLY problem is with the US modulation 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting.


Well isn't the battle over with, with Sinclairs endorsement, the OEMs
adopting integrated receivers, maybe your business model would be better
suited by jumping on the E-VSB bandwagon

If the battle is over we won. Hard to understand with my arguments here
but my BUSINESS MODEL REQUIRES that broadcasters are STUCK with a non
mobile 8-VSB while we can use COFDM on other spectrum for mobile services.

The better 5th generation 8-VSB receivers so LOCK IN 8-VSB that this is
a great day. Understand that if current broadcasters could offer a
mobile receiver why would anyone want to compete with them? Why would
anyone start a new business using spectrum they had to pay for to
compete with broadcasters who got their spectrum for free and have most
of the content? It would be crazy. If they cannot compete then that is a
different story. They can't do mobile with 8-VSB or if they try I would
love to compete with them using COFDM.


You have totally lost me here ... So why are you so ****ed? You said you
won? Broadcast your mobile data services on other spectrum and let us watch
HDTV.



So we will let the market decide.


If only we could let the market decide. As it is many decisions that
should be market driven are decided by who has the most money
politically in DC.

And at the moment this is more true in the US than in many other
countries. We try to export our morality and have laws against our
companies taking or giving bribes overseas for business purposes while
here at home our government is more and more run by outright bribery
that is reported to us on TV every night and we accept it.

Just listen to responses right here to the affect "they picked a
modulation already so nothing can ever be done about it". YOu don't hear
that in S. Korea where broadcasters refuse to go on the air with 8-VSB 6
years after is was chosen.

The British tried to put a tax, the first tax of any kind, on the
American Colonialist. These were loyal British subjects. The tax was 4%
on a tea most favored by the colonist. The British sent a ship loaded
with this tea at half price into Boston Harbor. A steal, a bargain and
the Bostonian's threw it into the sea and then killed 300 or so of the
soldiers who came to restore order.

No such bloodshed today we would say "what are you going to do, nothing
can be done" and then drink the tea.


I guess you are angry at the government for not listening to you? Well get
in line.

No one should buy any HDTV set or seperate OTA receiver unless it has
the new 5th generation receiver technology in it and can handle MPEG4

Utter nonsense, but what else from our resident Snake Oil Salesman, BOB? The
FACT is that the current generation 8VSB OTA HD tuners work absolutely fine in
the vast majority of instances. Will the new ones be better? Of course, newer
generations of most electronics are better. Does that mean you won't be able to
receive OTA HD with current gen receivers? Of course not!!! Only BOB would try
to scare you like this.

On the other hand, I've always told friends to avoid integrated TVs (regardless
of what tuner is integrated) because tuner technology is always improving. Of
course what BOB fails to mention, and everyone who has purchased an integrated
TV or plans to should be aware of, is that you can STILL upgrade your tuner
when and if necessary. There is no barrier to upgrading merely because you have
an integrated TV. The worst that may happen is that you've wasted the money on
that portion of your HDTV that represents the cost of the tuner. But, you more
than likely will get considerable use of your current tuner until an upgrade is
desired. It's not the end of the world as some liars out there would have you
believe.