| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Ebay may be where you want to buy your integrated HDTV
Public evading 8-VSB mandate in droves. Funny the opposite is happening
in Japan where they are selling integrated HDTV sets like crazy even though they only have three cities broadcasting OTA HDTV. Who wouda thought? This will turn around once integrated 8-VSB units have 5th gen receivers. Bob Miller BTW I told ya so. As the article says the FCC can mandate to manufacturers but not to retailers and so far not to the public. You can't force the public to buy. Just when you need Ascroft he goes and resigns. What you goin to do??? From TVTechnology: Date posted: 2004-11-12 Tuner Mandate Loses Steam in the Real World In yet another splendid example of how government policy reflects actual human behavior, the FCC's tuner mandate is causing tuner-integrated sets to not sell like hotcakes. Consequently, the consumer electronics lobbies asked the FCC if it could please make the phase-in part of the mandate go away. In a cleverly worded statement that makes it appear as if they want a faster digital transition, the Consumer Electronics Association and the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition asked the FCC to ditch the half-way point for phasing digital tuners into mid-sized TV sets. "CEA and CERC requested that the 100-percent deadline for DTV tuners in television screen sizes 25 to 36 inches be accelerated to March 1, 2006, thereby speeding the consumer migration to DTV," stated a release from the two groups. The current deadline is July 1, 2006, but the half-way point--when 50 percent of sets that size have to have DTV tuners--is a year earlier. Less than five months into the 50-percent phase-in for big-screen TVs, the CEA is having nightmares about what the same process will do to the category of sets that comprise the bulk of all TV sales. As of last July 1, half of all 36-inch and larger TV sets with over-the-air analog reception and/or CableCARD slots also had to have over-the-air digital reception, aka ATSC capability. The CableCARD/ATSC combo added $300 premium to the price of those sets, so guess what the big retailers ordered by the truckload for the holidays? Retailers appear to favor the cheaper non-ATSC sets by about three-to-one over those mandated by the DTV tuner phase-in, based on highly scientific numbers derived from Mark's Monday Memo. The Memo, compiled by New York-based television expert Mark Schubin, tracks ads for TV sales across the country. Since July, about 24 percent of the so-sized sets in stores have included ATSC reception. (The average number of ads for 36-inch and larger sets was 86; an average of 21 of them had ATSC reception.) Part of the problem is that the FCC is not the boss of Circuit City or Wal-Mart. It can only strong-arm manufacturers into turning out ATSC-capable sets; it can't force anyone to buy them. And retailers buy what consumers buy, and consumers unfailingly buy the A) biggest thing, at B) the lowest price. It's one thing to stack up a 50-inch Hitachi widescreen LCD projection set at $3299.97 against the very same set, only sans an ATSC tuner, for $2999.97. It's another thing to tack $300 onto sets that retail in the $500 neighborhood. "CERC believes the proposed modification will eliminate the unintended consequences of the Commission's 50 percent requirements that became apparent only recently, but threaten to impede the DTV transition," said CERC Executive Director Marc Pearl. "In practice, the 50-percent requirement has proven to be unduly disruptive. It creates an artificial scarcity of products without tuners, providing an incentive for retailers to assure their supplies of these non-tuner products. This is the opposite result from the one sought by the commission, and by retailers, as a matter of public policy. Accelerating the100 percent obligation would eliminate that situation." Translation: getting rid of the 50-percent obligation would help retailers and manufacturers unload their current inventory somewhere besides eBay. |
Bob Miller wrote:
All of bob's blather is: based on highly scientific numbers derived from Mark's Monday Memo. So there is no reason to read it. Matthew |
"Bob Miller" obsessed in message
ink.net... Public evading... http://www.websters-online-dictionar...tion/monomania |
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message ...
Bob Miller wrote: All of bob's blather is: based on highly scientific numbers derived from Mark's Monday Memo. So there is no reason to read it. Matthew You may consider it all blather and not want to read it, but I found it quite interesting. Many of us thought the FCC's mandate to force ATSC tuners into sets, where most of them will never be used, was foolish and wasteful. Now, it appears the chickens have come home to roost. The FCC should never have mandated ATSC tuners in the set to begin with. This did little to make HD happen for most people, and put an unwarranted burden on financial consumers. So, is it any wonder consumers are buying the cheaper, non ATSC sets? This is like the govt telling Dell that they must ship PCs with DVD drives when they cost $300 bucks, instead of when it made economic and business sense. And perhaps that is a poor analogy, because the DVD drive is more useful to more people than the ATSC tuner ever will be. The vast majority who will be viewing HD already have either cable or sat, both of which render the built-in ATSC tuner useless. |
Chet Hayes wrote:
The FCC should never have mandated ATSC tuners in the set to begin with. Quite the opposite. The FCC should have mandated cable ready ATSC tuners day one. Matthew -- Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game You can't win You can't break even You can't get out of the game |
Chet Hayes gave some good reasons why ATSC tuners should not be mandated
in every TV set as did the TVTechnology article. It is so refreshing to see Matthews reasoned response. You get to see the gears working. Matthew thinks that everyone should have to buy something they don't want and will never use so that 15% don't have to think when they make a purchase. He believes that is the purpose of government to force purchases of junk technology by the public at the request of special interest. I personally believe in less government, less intrusion into what I buy not more. In the case of the ATSC tuner mandate it is bad policy as well as a rip off of the public. It doesn't and obviously from the article isn't helping the digital TV transition. But maybe Matthews reasoned arguments will win the day. Bob Miller Matthew L. Martin wrote: Chet Hayes wrote: The FCC should never have mandated ATSC tuners in the set to begin with. Quite the opposite. The FCC should have mandated cable ready ATSC tuners day one. Matthew |
Chet Hayes ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
You may consider it all blather and not want to read it, but I found it quite interesting. The quotes contained nothing of actual substance, so I guess a blank screen would be "quite interesting" to you. Since *only* 36" TVs with NTSC tuners are required to have ATSC tuners, it's no surprise that they don't sell well, since those sets are by far in the minority. Above 36", the market is dominated by displays with *no* tuner at all, like plasma (and this is especially true in the retail world, because of the high margins on these displays). There are almost *no* displays of *any* kind at 36", because manufacturers have decided that the 16:9 CRT size is 34". There are only a few 36" 4:3 HDTVs of any kind. So, is it any wonder consumers are buying the cheaper, non ATSC sets? In reality, consumers are buying the more expensive no tuner displays. If the 16:9 world was dominated by 36" sets instead of 34" sets, displays with tuners would be flying off the shelves. -- Jeff Rife | SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Understaffed.gif | | |
Bob Miller wrote:
Chet Hayes gave some good reasons why ATSC tuners should not be mandated in every TV set as did the TVTechnology article. It is so refreshing to see Matthews reasoned response. You get to see the gears working. Matthew thinks that everyone should have to buy something they don't want and will never use so that 15% don't have to think when they make a purchase. He believes that is the purpose of government to force purchases of junk technology by the public at the request of special interest. I personally believe in less government, less intrusion into what I buy not more. In the case of the ATSC tuner mandate it is bad policy as well as a rip off of the public. It doesn't and obviously from the article isn't helping the digital TV transition. But maybe Matthews reasoned arguments will win the day. In that sense, there should be no mandates about any tuners in TV's at all. Not a bad idea, actually. Many people never use them. Bob Miller Matthew L. Martin wrote: Chet Hayes wrote: The FCC should never have mandated ATSC tuners in the set to begin with. Quite the opposite. The FCC should have mandated cable ready ATSC tuners day one. Matthew |
Jeff Rife wrote in message ...
Chet Hayes ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv: You may consider it all blather and not want to read it, but I found it quite interesting. The quotes contained nothing of actual substance, so I guess a blank screen would be "quite interesting" to you. Since *only* 36" TVs with NTSC tuners are required to have ATSC tuners, it's no surprise that they don't sell well, since those sets are by far in the minority. If you followed Bob's post, the comparison was made for the same size sets sold with and without the built in tuner. Everyone knows that smaller sets outsell larger ones, that isn't the issue. The issue is it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more. That's $300 for a tuner the vast majority of consumers will never need or use because they have cable or sat. This is exactly what many of us expected to happen. And it appears the manufacturer's clever solution, which appears to have gone by some of you, is to pull in the 100% phase in dates so that consumers will have to eat the higher cost without recourse. BTW, what ever happened to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would roll in at no noticeable cost? Above 36", the market is dominated by displays with *no* tuner at all, like plasma (and this is especially true in the retail world, because of the high margins on these displays). There are almost *no* displays of *any* kind at 36", because manufacturers have decided that the 16:9 CRT size is 34". There are only a few 36" 4:3 HDTVs of any kind. So, is it any wonder consumers are buying the cheaper, non ATSC sets? In reality, consumers are buying the more expensive no tuner displays. If the 16:9 world was dominated by 36" sets instead of 34" sets, displays with tuners would be flying off the shelves. |
Chet Hayes wrote:
BTW, what ever happened to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would roll in at no noticeable cost? If you did some research you would find that many integrated HDTVs have an MSRP less than the HD monitors that they are replacing. WalMart has a direct view HDTV for under $800. Matthew -- Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game You can't win You can't break even You can't get out of the game |
"Jeff Rife" wrote in message ... Chet Hayes ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv: You may consider it all blather and not want to read it, but I found it quite interesting. The quotes contained nothing of actual substance, so I guess a blank screen would be "quite interesting" to you. The main point was that for TVs of the same size the models without the ATSC tuner are far outselling those with the tuner. The way companies want to respond to this is by moving up the date by which all TVs need to have an ATSC tuner. That way consumers won't even have a choice! I am one of many consumers that have cable and hence don't need the ATSC tuner. I am appalled that the government is trying to force me to buy a $300 tuner that I don't need. From your other comments in your reply it is clear that you didn't really understand the article. Next time you flame someone you should at least know what you're talking about. Brad |
Chet Hayes ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
If you followed Bob's post, the comparison was made for the same size sets sold with and without the built in tuner. No, it only specified that in *one* set to give a comparitive price difference (and even so, was wrong...see below). In reality, they grouped all sets larger than 36" as one group, and compared them. Read it again. This means that the huge number of sets that aren't expected to have an ATSC tuner *ever* (because they have *no* tuner at all) which sell fairly well (because they are high-margin items for stores and get pushed) are in the group of sets that "people choose instead of ones with ATSC tuners". There is no actual breakdown to show that people are avoiding the sets with tuners, or that retailers are avoiding the sets with tuners. The issue is it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more. No, consumers aren't doing this. They *are* buying $8000 50" plasmas with no tuner instead of buying $3000 50" RPTVs that have ATSC tuners built in, and that *is* because of what stores are stocking...what makes them the most cash. Likewise, the non-integrated sets left in the manufacturer's inventory are being discounted to retailers, so they are more appealing *right now* to stores, since they can sell them for the same price (or slightly less) they did 3 months ago, and pay 10-20% less. This is exactly what many of us expected to happen. And it appears the manufacturer's clever solution, which appears to have gone by some of you, is to pull in the 100% phase in dates so that consumers will have to eat the higher cost without recourse. BTW, what ever happened to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would roll in at no noticeable cost? They are, if you look at the right sets, and compare apples to apples. An example, straight from the article: "It's one thing to stack up a 50-inch Hitachi widescreen LCD projection set at $3299.97 against the very same set, only sans an ATSC tuner, for $2999.97." Unfortunately for Bob's claims, Hitachi does *not* make "the same set" (at least for 50" LCD projection TVs) with and without an ATSC tuner. Last year's model does not have the tuner, while this year's model does. Along with the tuner, the new model has extra or improved features, which include (from Hitachi's web site): - 2 stage lens system - 3 extra zoom modes - 7:1 fresnel lens - Digital Color Management II (the "II" part is new) - 40 watt 3-way speakers (as opposed to 24 watt single cone drivers) - new remote control design ("roll and click") - USB input - 2 HDMI inputs (instead of zero) - RS-232C control interface I suspect that all these new features (some of which, like the *four* extra speaker cones, cost real money, not just R&D) *plus* the fact that the old sets are being discounted to eliminate them from manufacturer's inventory are enough to make up a $300 difference all by themselves. -- Jeff Rife | "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But SPAM bait: | then you get to the end and a gorilla starts | throwing barrels at you." | -- Philip J. Fry, "Futurama" |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Chet Hayes wrote:
The issue is it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more. That's $300 for a tuner the vast majority of consumers will never need or use because they have cable or sat. Bull****. Integrated TV sets cost about the same as the monitors; some are even cheaper. The problem is that, currently, there isn't very much selection in integrated TV sets. Actually, "monitor" is somewhat of a misnomer since many are actually "HD Ready" analog TVs. If you want to talk about "useless", an NTSC tuner is completely useless for someone with satellite, and most TVs won't let you delete it from the video source rotation. The fact that a standalone ATSC tuner may cost as much as $300 is meaningless. Standalone NTSC tuners for use with monitors used to cost that much as well. Some of us are old enough to remember the Profeel and the Beta and U-Matic portapacks. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Chet Hayes wrote: BTW, what ever happened to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would roll in at no noticeable cost? If you did some research you would find that many integrated HDTVs have an MSRP less than the HD monitors that they are replacing. WalMart has a direct view HDTV for under $800. Matthew The point is not about replacement units it is about the same current model units with and without tuners. In fact that is the issue in the original article. The CEA wants to eliminate the possibility that the consumer can choose between the two by eliminating those with no tuners. Bob Miller |
Mark Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Chet Hayes wrote: The issue is it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more. That's $300 for a tuner the vast majority of consumers will never need or use because they have cable or sat. Bull****. Integrated TV sets cost about the same as the monitors; some are even cheaper. The problem is that, currently, there isn't very much selection in integrated TV sets. Because the ATSC tuner cost the manufacturer real money and they can't get the customer to pay for it. Either they make fewer of them or they have to discount them to a similar price that would be paid for a unit without a tuner in which case they lose money, the cost of the receiver whatever it is. Having a mandate doesn't in any way influence a customer to pay more for a TV set because it has an ATSC tuner unless he values it. The customer will evade it as they are doing. If the mandate covers all TV sets the customer will evade that by buying a monitor with no tuner at all. The FCC got cute there by requiring all TV sets that are cable ready to include an ATSC tuner. So the customer will buy a monitor that is cable ready I would expect. If there is someway for the manufacturer to get the 8-VSB receivers for free the above scenarios can be dismissed. If they cost as little as $20 the above holds true. Even $20 is a big deal in this game called supply and demand. It is a stupendous edge in the market. Right now the cost of that integrated 8-VSB receiver is probably around $110. No one is going to give it away in the retail market. Somehow or other it will be reflected in the retail price or if it won't sell in a discounted loss situation. Bob Miller Actually, "monitor" is somewhat of a misnomer since many are actually "HD Ready" analog TVs. If you want to talk about "useless", an NTSC tuner is completely useless for someone with satellite, and most TVs won't let you delete it from the video source rotation. The fact that a standalone ATSC tuner may cost as much as $300 is meaningless. Standalone NTSC tuners for use with monitors used to cost that much as well. Some of us are old enough to remember the Profeel and the Beta and U-Matic portapacks. -- 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:
Matthew L. Martin wrote: Chet Hayes wrote: BTW, what ever happened to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would roll in at no noticeable cost? If you did some research you would find that many integrated HDTVs have an MSRP less than the HD monitors that they are replacing. WalMart has a direct view HDTV for under $800. Matthew The point is not about replacement units it is about the same current model units with and without tuners. In fact that is the issue in the original article. The CEA wants to eliminate the possibility that the consumer can choose between the two by eliminating those with no tuners. You are really being moronic. Please cite a single instance of otherwise identical units (with no other difference than an ATSC tuner) selling at that level of price difference. Matthew -- Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game You can't win You can't break even You can't get out of the game |
Brad Griffis ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The main point was that for TVs of the same size the models without the ATSC tuner are far outselling those with the tuner. Again, it was not about "same size". It was about *all* TVs over 36", and the data was aggregated. In addition, they appear to have done their "research" based solely on ads, not on actual stock or on what is actually selling. It has *some* information about what stores "ordered by the truckload for the holidays", but that doesn't tell the true story, because stores order what they can make the most money on. For anything that sells, if the make money by volume, then that's what they order. If them make money by higher profit margins, then that's what they order. If manufacturers give them an incentive because they have leftover inventory, then stores will naturally order those items. That way consumers won't even have a choice! I am one of many consumers that have cable and hence don't need the ATSC tuner. Blame the government, then, for not mandating the correct thing: OTA *and* cable-ready digital tuners. This is what is mandated for analog tuners, and there is no reason that digital should be any different. From your other comments in your reply it is clear that you didn't really understand the article. I understand the article perfectly. It's an attempt to prove a claim by using only a small percentage of the actual facts of the matter. -- Jeff Rife | SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseTo...ePollution.gif | | |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Psycho Bob Miller wrote:
Because the ATSC tuner cost the manufacturer real money and they can't get the customer to pay for it. "Real money"? What, a whole five dollars? Why, that's going to make that $3000 plasma screen TV cost $3005, and nobody can afford that! Having a mandate doesn't in any way influence a customer to pay more for a TV set because it has an ATSC tuner unless he values it. This statement makes no sense, since there is no such thing as a pair of TVs on the market today which differ only by the presence of an ATSC tuner. The few TVs available with built-in ATSC tuners are all moderately priced. The purpose of the mandate is twofold: 1) the broaden the variety of TVs with built-in ATSC tuners 2) to provide a guarantee to the market that is no longer subject to the winds of change. It is that second purpose that scares Bob Miller. The customer will evade it as they are doing. Nonsense. Nobody is "evading" ATSC capability in TVs. The only reason why I bought a TV without an ATSC tuner 18 months ago is that there weren't any suitable TVs with an ATSC tuner back then. I wouldn't even think of buying a TV without an ATSC tuner today. As matters stand, I'm stuck with *two* set-top boxes in order to have picture-in-picture capability. This is a bug, not a feature. I wouldn't have bought that HDTV at all until TVs with ATSC tuners were more widely available with a wider selection. I probably still would be holding off until the mandate had thoroughly kicked in. However, my 25" Sony XBR analog TV smoked and forced a replacement; and there was no way that I was going to get another 4:3 analog TV. Right now the cost of that integrated 8-VSB receiver is probably around $110. Where does that number come from? If true, how is it that was able to buy an ATSC set-top box for $90? [Let me guess, now you're going to claim that those evil Koreans are now dumping ATSC tuners at below-market prices in the US in an attempt to seize control of the market.] Even if it were true, $110 represents about 3.6% of the cost of a $3000 plasma TV. In high-end electronics, $110 is less than the price differential between the earlier more expensive "A" model, and the 6-month later less-expensive and more featureful "B" model. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
Mark Crispin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Even if it were true, $110 represents about 3.6% of the cost of a $3000 plasma TV. In high-end electronics, $110 is less than the price differential between the earlier more expensive "A" model, and the 6-month later less-expensive and more featureful "B" model. It's also less than 10% (as you point out), which means *any* store will happily knock that price difference off to make a sale. -- Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality, SPAM bait: | Turn, turn, turn. | Tell us the lesson | That we should learn" | -- Yakko, "Animaniacs" |
"Mark Crispin" wrote in message . washington.edu... On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Brad Griffis wrote: I am one of many consumers that have cable and hence don't need the ATSC tuner. I am appalled that the government is trying to force me to buy a $300 tuner that I don't need. Standalone NTSC tuners also ran about $300, e.g. for Sony's Profeel line. By your logic, then, it was wrong to incorporate NTSC tuners into TVs. -- Mark -- I'm not saying it's wrong to incorporate a tuner into a tv. If consumer demand dictates it then the companies will create it. I'm saying it's wrong for the government to mandate that it be incorporated. Brad |
Jeff Rife wrote:
Mark Crispin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv: Even if it were true, $110 represents about 3.6% of the cost of a $3000 plasma TV. In high-end electronics, $110 is less than the price differential between the earlier more expensive "A" model, and the 6-month later less-expensive and more featureful "B" model. It's also less than 10% (as you point out), which means *any* store will happily knock that price difference off to make a sale. Happily knock off that price for either a model with or without a tuner. If they knock it off the one with the tuner and not the one without both they and then the manufacturer has incentive to not include a tuner to begin with. If they have to include a tuner they want to make it for all units as the article mentions. My argument is that the focus will then be on monitors since monitors will still be less expensive since they have NO tuners at all. Of course once the 5th gen receiver tech is available this will change as consumers are re-introduced to OTA broadcasting and OTA will become the PRIME and first choice of consumers. This will not happen because of current broadcasters. It initially will be driven by new broadcasters like USDTV. They and manufacturers like Hisense have the incentive, broadcasters do not as of yet. Broadcasters will be supplied with incentive as they FOLLOW the lead of such as USDTV. Emmis is an example. They followed the lead of USDTV almost immediately. There will be others. Bob Miller |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Brad Griffis wrote:
I'm not saying it's wrong to incorporate a tuner into a tv. If consumer demand dictates it then the companies will create it. I'm saying it's wrong for the government to mandate that it be incorporated. By your logic, it was wrong for the government to mandate a standard electric voltage. If you're stupid enough to buy a 50V appliance when your neighborhood is served with 127V, that's your fault. If consumer demand dictates it there will be a standard. The cellular telephone network in North America is widely critized for having (at least) four incompatible digital standards. As far as consumer demand goes, most consumers have been waiting until there are affordable (3-digit prices) HDTVs with built-in ATSC tuners. This is especially the case in today's market where 4:3 analog color TVs sell for as little as $40. I know a consumer who is waiting to buy an HDTV until she can get a CRT (plasma and LCD is out of her price range) model with a built-in ATSC tuner and about the same physical size and weight as a 19" 4:3 TV (which is her current TV). The location where that TV is installed will not accomodate a larger or heavier set. The smallest CRT HDTV with built-in ATSC tuner is still a bit above her price range and too large and heavy for where it would be placed. The only thing wrong with the mandate is that it is taking too long. The sooner it is mandatory for all TVs, the better. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
Broadcasters will be supplied with incentive as they FOLLOW the lead of
such as USDTV. Emmis is an example. They followed the lead of USDTV BOB, virtually every prediction you have EVER made has been proven to be false. This will be no exception. |
The purpose of the mandate is twofold:
1) the broaden the variety of TVs with built-in ATSC tuners 2) to provide a guarantee to the market that is no longer subject to the winds of change. It is that second purpose that scares Bob Miller. Mark, that is it in a nutshell. This is why BOB is on another of his frenetic attempts at disinformation. He is once again in full panic mode. His predictions never come true and he now realizes how entrenched 8VSB has become. He knows the mandate simply makes it worse for him and his COFDM buddies. Our Maste Snake Oil Salesman is pulling out all the stops in an attempt to thwart the inevitable. |
|
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Phil wrote:
Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to COFDM. The prophet shall be vindicated. I have $1000 that says that it will not happen. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
Phil ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to COFDM. Somebody forgot the smiley on this post to show that it's sarcasm. Of course, it could just be another Bob sockpuppet. -- Jeff Rife | SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Sherman...enLemmings.gif | | |
Mark Crispin wrote in message .washington.edu...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Brad Griffis wrote: I'm not saying it's wrong to incorporate a tuner into a tv. If consumer demand dictates it then the companies will create it. I'm saying it's wrong for the government to mandate that it be incorporated. By your logic, it was wrong for the government to mandate a standard electric voltage. If you're stupid enough to buy a 50V appliance when your neighborhood is served with 127V, that's your fault. If consumer demand dictates it there will be a standard. The cellular telephone network in North America is widely critized for having (at least) four incompatible digital standards. As far as consumer demand goes, most consumers have been waiting until there are affordable (3-digit prices) HDTVs with built-in ATSC tuners. This is especially the case in today's market where 4:3 analog color TVs sell for as little as $40. I know a consumer who is waiting to buy an HDTV until she can get a CRT (plasma and LCD is out of her price range) model with a built-in ATSC tuner and about the same physical size and weight as a 19" 4:3 TV (which is her current TV). The location where that TV is installed will not accomodate a larger or heavier set. The smallest CRT HDTV with built-in ATSC tuner is still a bit above her price range and too large and heavy for where it would be placed. The only thing wrong with the mandate is that it is taking too long. The sooner it is mandatory for all TVs, the better. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. I don't see how you can compare setting a voltage std with mandating consumers pay for and buy something that most will never use. There is no comparison at all. The voltage std analogy would be setting the NTSC std, not forcing one to buy a tuner. And isn't it quite odd that the govt sees this as perfectly legitimate, forcing hardware on consumers without choice. Yet, at the same time, when Microsoft chooses to add some features to it's software and give it to consumers for free, the govt sues them claiming anti-competitive practices. |
Bob Miller wrote in message link.net...
...as consumers are re-introduced to OTA broadcasting and OTA will become the PRIME and first choice of consumers. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA haha.... |
Chet Hayes ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
I don't see how you can compare setting a voltage std with mandating consumers pay for and buy something that most will never use. There is no comparison at all. The voltage std analogy would be setting the NTSC std, not forcing one to buy a tuner. Then you should be up in arms about cable-ready analog tuners in larger TVs. Various surveys show that those tuners are *never* used because the sets use satellite, digital cable, or external HD tuners as their only "TV". This has been true for several years, yet nobody seems to mind the fact that all those sets have "useless" tuners they are paying for. -- Jeff Rife | SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesW...atsAndDogs.jpg | | |
Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all
consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to COFDM. Yes I would Phil, yes I would. Fear not, that scenerio will never happen despite what our resident Snake Oil Salesman says. |
I have $1000 that says that it will not happen.
Mark, I'll take your $1,000 and raise you $1,000 that it won't happen. :) |
On 2004-11-15 09:34:42 -0800, Mark Crispin said:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Phil wrote: Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to COFDM. The prophet shall be vindicated. I have $1000 that says that it will not happen. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. I'll remember to include a few smileys in the future.. for the humor impaired. I thought that with the content it would be obvious. But, looking back over some of Bob's earlier posts I can see where people would be confused by seemingly ludicrous assertions that the author actually believes to be true. |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:58:46 GMT, Phil
wrote: Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to COFDM. The prophet shall be vindicated. Broadcasters already know which is better. However, the FCC has made our bed and we shall be forced to lie in it. |
Phil Witt wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:58:46 GMT, Phil wrote: Won't you be surprised when the FCC, all broadcasters, and all consumers suddenly see the light and decide to drop 8VSB and go to COFDM. The prophet shall be vindicated. Broadcasters already know which is better. However, the FCC has made our bed and we shall be forced to lie in it. Broadcasters know which is better but it doesn't affect them at the moment. It didn't affect them when the decision was being made either. They were and are concentrating on where they make there money today and that is must carry. Since they were not paying attention, not very worried about their OTA broadcasting and very concentrated on their must carry rights they did not participate a lot in the decision making process that led up to the modulation decision that chose 8-VSB. Later when a more forward thinking broadcaster, Sinclair, discovered that COFDM was far better than 8-VSB they paid a little attention. Many broadcasters including NBC, ABC, Pappas, Granite and a few others joined Sinclair in advocating COFDM. ABC in particular knew full well that COFDM was far better because they had been testing it for a number of years. When LG and Harris and other special interest who had a lot riding on 8-VSB voiced opposition to the broadcasters belated interest in COFDM, they did so because they thought that they were about to reap a quick windfall as HD mania swept the nation. The broadcasters were seen as trying to delay the transition and hence the super profitable windfall envisioned by the CEA members and transmitter manufacturers like Harris. They pulled every string in Washington DC to attack the broadcasters and the politicians did the dirty work of threatening the broadcasters with loss of spectrum and loss of must carry rights. Broadcasters were truly very afraid. They live in a glass house of must carry that only survived a Supreme Court challenge by a vote of 5 to 4. They beat a hasty retreat before the threats especially after the hearings in 2000, the subsequent fraudulent MSTV test and further direct threats delivered face to face directly by key Congressional powerhouses just before they, broadcasters, voted on COFDM/8-VSB in January 2001. That is past history. In the near future broadcasters will face another threat. New broadcasters will appear who will deliver OTA programming to fixed and mobile devices. This will siphon viewership from OTA, cable and satellite. Broadcasters will not be shy about this threat because it will be wildly successful. It already is happening in other countries. The death of cable is openly discussed already in other countries because of the success of OTA ventures there. When this happens broadcasters will ask for the right to compete with the same tools their competitors have. That is COFDM. Since the modulation wars have already been fought and are over and since both the transmitter manufacturers like Harris saw their sales killed by 8-VSB and LG saw little or no royalties from 8-VSB receivers and since the digital transition has been such an utter failure in the US, the FCC and Congress will have no problem and broadcasters will have little opposition from the CEA or such as Harris. COFDM will be allowed in a heartbeat and little or NO attention will be given to the plight of the consumer who has bought an 8-VSB receiver. Why should they start then? The consumer has always been given ZERO consideration by the FCC and Congress in the digital TV transition. Bob Miller |
Since they were not paying attention, not very worried about their OTA
broadcasting and very concentrated on their must carry rights they did not participate a lot in the decision making process that led up to the modulation decision that chose 8-VSB. If, as you claim (and you are virtually ALWAYS wrong), the broadcasters "knew" that COFDM was better, then they could have found SOMEONE within their organizations to carry on the fight. BOB, stop your CRAP! Later when a more forward thinking broadcaster, Sinclair, discovered that COFDM was far better than 8-VSB they paid a little attention. You mean the same "forward thinking" broadcaster that later gave their SEAL OF APPROVAL to 8VSB? BOB, stop your CRAP!! When LG and Harris and other special interest who had a lot riding on 8-VSB voiced opposition to the broadcasters belated interest in COFDM, they did so because they thought that they were about to reap a quick windfall as HD mania You mean the same windfall that YOU were expecting to reap with a COFDM modulation scheme? The same windfall that you didn't reap and have been exceedingly bitter ever since? The same windfall that you didn't reap and now blame everybody and everything for its failure? THAT windfall BOB? BOB, stop your CRAP! They pulled every string in Washington DC to attack the broadcasters and the politicians did the dirty work of threatening the broadcasters with loss of spectrum and loss of must carry rights. Ah, we're now back to the conspiracy theories and the big bad government explanations. Hey folks, as I pointed out above, BOB will blame everyone and everything for his failure to bet on the right horse. BOB, stop your CRAP! New broadcasters will appear who will deliver OTA programming to fixed and mobile devices. This will siphon viewership from OTA, cable and satellite. Interesting BOB. How will receiving OTA programming in a mobile envronment (see folks, BOB never considers that most states don't even allow you to use a cellphone without a hands free device, let alone a freaking TV....this guy lives on another planet) take away from cable and satellite IN THE HOME? BOB, stop your fear tactics and cut the CRAP!!! Broadcasters will not be shy about this threat because it will be wildly successful. Golly BOB, as 'wildly successful' as the COFDM revolution you predicted years ago? You remember, the COFDM revolution you said would destroy 8VSB. You remember BOB, that revolution that NEVER HAPPENED! BOB, stop your CRAP!! It already is happening in other countries. Yeah BOB, we also remember the countries you 'said' would go to COFDM but didn't. But ofcourse you had excuses for THOSE too. BOB, stop your CRAP! The death of cable is openly discussed already in other countries because of the success of OTA ventures there. That's great BOB, we live in the U.S. where cable is the predominant means of delivery and will be for a long time. No imminent 'cable death' in this country. But hey BOB, you've always been more concerned about what's happening in China, England and wherever else than what's happening here. In fact BOB, one of your big problems is you've never been able to understand that what's good for other countries may not be good for this country. So BOB, stop your CRAP!!! COFDM will be allowed in a heartbeat and little or NO attention will be given to the plight of the consumer who has bought an 8-VSB receiver. And folks, the above is at the HEART of all of BOB's lies. He has forever tried to instill fear in the hearts of any potential buyers by FALSELY, repeat FALSELY stating that the death of 8VSB is imminent. He's been saying it for YEARS. The only thing that happens in the interim is that 8VSB gets more and more entrenched, investments in the 8VSB infrastructure grow and grow AND improvements in the 8VSB technology continue to gain and gain to the point where saying that COFDM is superior to 8VSB is laughable. BOB wants to put a STOP to all 8VSB tuner purchases. He will lie, distort and embellish to get his evil deeds accomplished. BOB, stop your CRAP!!!!!!! The consumer has always been given ZERO consideration by the FCC and Congress in the digital TV transition. Yeah, BOB keeps saying that. Oh, by the way, did I tell you that BOB does NOT, repeat, does NOT have an HDTV? Interesting isn't it? Excuse me while I enjoy the utterly gorgeous 8VSB HD picture on my HDTV.....delivered FREE and in the highest quality possible. By the way, I'm about 35 miles from the transmitters and have beautiful trouble free reception with this 'failed 8VSB' scheme. OH, and BOB, STOP THE CRAP!!!! People, do not let yourself be fooled by this Snake Oil Salesman. He wants you pay for your OTA TV. He does NOT want you to watch glorious FREE OTA HD. He is a desperate businessman who has banked on a failed modulation scheme. He is doing whatever he can to save his shirt and he'll do that if it means ripping the shirt off of YOUR back. Trust me on this. |
Jeff Rife wrote in message ...
Chet Hayes ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv: I don't see how you can compare setting a voltage std with mandating consumers pay for and buy something that most will never use. There is no comparison at all. The voltage std analogy would be setting the NTSC std, not forcing one to buy a tuner. Then you should be up in arms about cable-ready analog tuners in larger TVs. Various surveys show that those tuners are *never* used because the sets use satellite, digital cable, or external HD tuners as their only "TV". This has been true for several years, yet nobody seems to mind the fact that all those sets have "useless" tuners they are paying for. Yes, I agree! Only difference is the cost of these useless tuners is a lot less than the ones currently being mandated for HD. |
Chet Hayes wrote:
Yes, I agree! Only difference is the cost of these useless tuners is a lot less than the ones currently being mandated for HD. If the FCC had mandated digital cable ready ATSC tuners day one, they would be cheap by now, too. Matthew |
Matthew L. Martin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Yes, I agree! Only difference is the cost of these useless tuners is a lot less than the ones currently being mandated for HD. If the FCC had mandated digital cable ready ATSC tuners day one, they would be cheap by now, too. Correct. Secondly, nobody really knows how much an NTSC cable/OTA tuner adds to the price of a set. Last I looked, a standalone NTSC cable/OTA tuner cost around $80 (although I'm sure there are places you can get them cheaper if you hunt). With standalone ATSC tuners selling for $200, I'm not sure the real cost of the tuner is much different, and that's without a full mandate for the ATSC tuner that would allow economies of scale. -- Jeff Rife | SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/DoomedProject.jpg | | |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com