Home cinema - Sony HDTV over the air tuner and Obsolescence?

HomeCinemaBanter (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/index.php)

- High definition TV (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Sony HDTV over the air tuner and Obsolescence? (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/showthread.php?t=6950)

Mark Crispin wrote in
. washington.edu:

All of the above are reasons why it's not going to happen, Bob Miller's
psychotic rantings notwithstanding. A good rule of thumb is that if you
take anything that he says, the opposite is true.

What I don't understand is:

If Bob really believes all the FUD he continuously spews, why isn't he
spending his time, money, and effort investing in USDTV and the like? After
all, if he's correct, the sooner the broadcasters shut off their analog
transmissions and switch to broadcasting one free OTA SDTV signal and
multiple HD and SD pay OTA signals, the sooner he'd start getting a return
on his investment. Logically, he should be encouraging people to buy
receivers and TVs that work with the current standard to reach the
switchover percentage so that the broadcasters can implement the new
business plan he's recommending for them.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Jeff Shoaf wrote:
All of the above are reasons why it's not going to happen, Bob Miller's
psychotic rantings notwithstanding. A good rule of thumb is that if you
take anything that he says, the opposite is true.
What I don't understand is:
If Bob really believes all the FUD he continuously spews, why isn't he
spending his time, money, and effort investing in USDTV and the like?

Remember that Bob Miller is a pathological liar. Whatever he says, the
exact opposite is true.

He is not interested in promoting anything, unless it's a impossible cause
such as COFDM. All he cares about any more is malice and revenge. If he
seems to promote anything, such as USDTV, it is only for the purpose of
leaving such a bad taste in people's mouths.

USDTV has a very clever bottom-feeding business, and we should wish them
well; the more Wal-Mart boxes they sell, the better. They'll always be on
the periphery, representing little threat to cable or satellite; and very
likely most USDTV boxes will never be subscribed to USDTV service.

By presenting USDTV as being an attack on cable, satellite, and free OTA
HDTV, Bob Miller hopes to trigger a hostile reaction against USDTV.

-- Mark --

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

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Jeff Shoaf wrote:
I'll make a deal with you, Bob. My parents get all of their TV reception
via OTA. If the majority of the local broadcasters in my area do what
you're predicting (broadcast one SDTV signal via free OTA and add a
multitude of pay DTV OTA signals) before the FCC mandates the broadcasters
drop their analog broadcast, I'll buy my folks a new 45" widescreen TV, a
receiver to get those pay OTA signals, and pay for a minimum of one year's
subscription to those pay DTV OTA broadcasts. If the majority of the
broadcasters in my area don't do what you're predicting and continue to
broadcast free OTA HDTV, you can buy them a 45" widescreen with an
integrated 8VSB HD OTA tuner.

Be sure to get BOB to agree to having the funds deposited in escrow.

I doubt that he'll accept your wager; he knows that he is a liar and
bull****ter, and consequently will lose.

-- Mark --

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

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:45:14 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

The situation is TRULY "slightly more complicated than that statement
indicates". The FCC regulations say nothing about encryption beyond the
requirement that ONE SD or 480i program be transmitted in the free and
clear or un-encrypted. The broadcaster can broadcast CSI in HD encrypted
in the rest of the spectrum after meeting the requirements.

In fact it is this highly desirable content that broadcasters might want
to encrypt and deliver only in a subscription service if they decide to
compete with cable. If Emmis is successful it is just this type of
co-operative effort that could offer real competition to cable and
satellite. If broadcasters want to capture some of the money that cable
now receives for "delivering content" then this is what we will see.

Bob, do you have a clue about the business structure of OTA
broadcasters? Apparently not, since the garbage you keep spouting
goes against the grain of every business model in existence for a
major market broadcaster.

OTA stations love cable, since they get paid for cable carrying their
programs. With the advent of HD programming, the broadcasters are
even happier because until analog is turned off they get extra from
the cable companies when they carry the HD content also.

As I've said repeatedly, and which you continue to ignore, is that
Ennis and USDTV will be somewhat successful, but not in the mode that
you're spouting off about. They will get the minor broadcasters in an
area to sign up since they aren't going to be doing HD, and the
spectrum can easily be used, but any major broadcaster isn't going to
go for a deal where they damage their standing with the community,
which would impact revenues from advertising, which is really where
they make their money.

With better receivers for 8-VSB OTA becomes viable once again.
Broadcasters are waking up to the possibilities even asking the FCC to
consider the use of SFN's to increase their coverage. Why should they
settle for ad revenues which are under attack from TIVO like devices
when they can pick up subscription revenue from consumers who have shown
that they are willing to pay cable companies every increasing amounts
for delivering content.

Yes, but the broadcasters get revenue from the cable companies, so
it's a tradeoff anyway. Besides, no broadcaster is that concerned
about TIVO like devices because it really doesn't impact their market
share, which is the real basis for ad revenue. The advertisers hate
it, becuase they know there are a number of people out there that
aren't watching the commercials, but considering the penetration level
of all TIVO like devices into the market, broadcasters reallly aren't
concerned about them. To be honest, in my opinion, it's only a
matter of time before TIVO and the like are out of business, to be
replaced by other devices.

Broadcasters can deliver content via subscription to now. Why would they
give away their best content to cable so that cable can make
subscription revenue when they can do it themselves?

Your lack of knowledge is really showing Bob. Perhaps you should
learn more about the broadcating industry instead of just COFDM.

All of a sudden must carry gets turned on its head. Instead of
broadcasters worrying about cable carriage cable worries about being
allowed to carry MUST HAVE content. OTA broadcasting reasserts itself as
the primary way that people receive TV content.

Cable and satellite were created out of the deficiencies of OTA in
receivability and quantity of content. Both of those issues are
addressed by better receivers, SFN's, on channel repeaters, PVR
functionality and digital's ability to deliver far more content OTA. I
have been arguing since 1999 that advanced codecs like VP6, WM9 and
MPEG4 coupled with COFDM would solve these problems. Now maybe 8-VSB can
solve them with better receivers and the possibility of SFN's.

If so ( i will believe it when I see it) then OTA broadcasting will blow
away cable and satellite as we know them. I think broadcasters are
awakening to this possibility. If they organize like Emmis is talking
about then it all comes together. Could have happened with COFDM better
and earlier and we would also have mobile reception which is one thing
cable does not have.

OTA will never replace cable or satellite for the same reasons that
they came into existence in the first place. You lack of knowledge
about television broadcasting is really leaving you out in the cold on
your arguments.

No mention of equivalent programming just equivalent quality.

Not theoretically this is happening. USDTV is in business and doing this
right now. They will in August start selling receivers that do MPEG4.
All programming that they deliver via MPEG4 will not be receivable with
any current or past 8-VSB receiver. Emmis is touting USDTV's business
plan and telling broadcasters that they should emulate USDTV and talking
of buying USDTV. 25% of all broadcast stations have already joined Emmis
in this venture.

Yes, but even Ennis obviously has problems. I have to go buy a
receiver to get their signals. Great, but now they are going to
change how they transmit, so my receiver is now obsolete, and I have
to get another one? That's the very reason that 8VSB was selected as
a STANDARD for broadcasting. Equipment manufacturers and consumers
could count on the fact that the equipment that they are buying will
continue to work for a reasonably long period of time. Consumers
expect that their television systems will function without changes for
years, and they will not have to dump more money into them simply
because some little change that doesn't mean anything to them forces
them to.

If anything is likely to cause USDTV problems, it's this little
manuever that they're planning. What are they going to do? Replace
all the receivers that people have purchased for free? I don't
really think a fledgling outfit can afford to do that, so they're
going to have to depend on the consumer, and the consumer is going to
balk at having to pay more money. Sure, it might be a great idea,
but the consumer response is going to be "I just bought this damn
think and they're telling me I have to replace it"

As far as Congress (they run the FCC don't worry about what the FCC says
or thinks) you should read or listen to the testimony of the two
Hearings last month or tune into the one they will have in July.
Congress is no longer in the "industrial policy" business. Congressman
Barton, chair of the House Commerce Committee said that HDTV is
something for the market to take care of Congress is about getting this
transition over NOW.

There is no more Billy Tauzin to threaten broadcasters about HD. It is
over. HD had its chance on OTA and now it is all about transition NOW.
Broadcasters will hear nothing about having to do HD if they offer
competition to the high cost of cable.

They may offer HD free but it will be on the MPEG4 side of the plate.
Broadcasters are seeing a chance to get back in control and I think they
will take it. The least that will happen is that all current receivers
are made obsolete. And broadcasters have to do it ASAP because the
longer they wait the more receivers will be made obsolete.

I really wonder if your problem is just lack of cognizent thinking or
lack of education. The public in this country has expressed a desire
for HDTV. Even if you currently don't have a set that can receive it,
consumers are looking forward to the day they can replace what they
have with someting to receive some form of advanced television
picture. The broadcasters are in the business to respond to
consumers, they know where their money comes from. HD has been very
successful on OTA, and for the next few years will probably be the one
thing that keeps OTA alive, regardless of your view.

Bob, your experience and education has been too limited. Perhaps you
should stick with the things you know. Or at least spend a year
learning how the broadcast industry works before you go spouting off
about things that make you look stupid.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:55:15 -0700, Mark Crispin
wrote:

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.

I don't know about all this other stuff, frankly its over my head, But
I lived in a house with digital cable for 7 months and storms did
nothing to it. I then moved to a house with satellite for three months
(both in a major metro area) and every other time it rained the
connection would drop and I would be out of a signal for a minium of 4
minutes while it reaquired the sats.
Needless to say, when I moved a month ago I was calling the cable
company for my tv service.

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.