Death of OTA Broadcasting

Dave Gower wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote

Well if you are right and the more cable and satellite customers
the less
incentive for broadcasters to invest in OTA is correct then they
might as
well relinquish there OTA spectrum sooner rather than later.

What the HECK has this got to do with your original, uninformed,
proposition?

I remember the time when an ice storm could destroy thousands of
roof
antennas. Nobody wants to go back to those days. Modulation schemes
are
irrelevant to explain why we got away from OTA TV. So your idea that
a
modulation scheme is affecting our acceptance of HD OTA is absolute
bunk. I
know lots of Canadians who are interested in HDTV and NEVER hear
anyone say
they want to get it OTA. I also never hear anyone mention that they
want
their next car to be powered by steam, for similar reasons.

So you want cable/satellite so that you get to pay twice, first for
sitting through the spots and second for the 'service'.

BTW, if you can get me 60+ MPG with a steam car, I'll try it. I also
get my HDTV exclusively OTA.

GG

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Dave Gower wrote:
Well actually, Mark, a lot of the manufacturers are offering special
versions without the tuners, including my 52 inch JVC D-ILA, and Sony A10s.

Hmm...didn't see any without the tuners, but that doesn't mean that there
aren't any. My point was that it was pretty easy to find TVs with ATSC
tuners in Canada.

But as tuners get cheaper, I think they'll be left in. Most Canadians have
no idea what they're for.

I agree, especially in the northern villages where OTA means one channel;
APTN (if you're lucky) or CBC (if you're unlucky). Everybody that I
talked to has satellite.

-- 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
:

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Dave Gower wrote:
Well actually, Mark, a lot of the manufacturers are offering special
versions without the tuners, including my 52 inch JVC D-ILA, and Sony
A10s.

Hmm...didn't see any without the tuners, but that doesn't mean that
there aren't any. My point was that it was pretty easy to find TVs
with ATSC tuners in Canada.

But as tuners get cheaper, I think they'll be left in. Most Canadians
have no idea what they're for.

I agree, especially in the northern villages where OTA means one
channel; APTN (if you're lucky) or CBC (if you're unlucky). Everybody
that I talked to has satellite.

-- Mark --

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


Gosh I hope not all I get is oer the air

wrote in message
...
"Dave Gower" wrote:

NEVER hear anyone say
they want to get it OTA.

I want OTA

Mater of fact that is ALL I want

Exactly. Here in the U.S. people know well enough that the broadcasters
will be forced by the Govt to put HD Digital OTA if they want the channels
from the Government.

This was our tax dollars at work, telling the current monopolistic system
that THEY WILL provide content OTA for free or they will not get the
channels.

It's a win-win situation for consumers here in the U.S. Can't speak for the
rest of the planet though.

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you I will
use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers. If I want a movie Ill buy
an HD-DVD disk.

"G-squared" wrote

I also get my HDTV exclusively OTA.

Are you Canadian? If so, that's the first I've heard of any Canadian OTA HD.
Or do you live near the border and pick up U.S. channels? If you're not
Canadian you missed my point.

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people get free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for 300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying home to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What else can
you buy for this price?

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:40:42 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you I will
use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers. If I want a movie Ill buy
an HD-DVD disk.

Outside of sports broadcasting and local news, I watch "ZERO" network
television. As long as ESPN, TNT, Discover, National Geographic, and
a host of other channels that are watched in my household are only
available via cable or satellite, I'm going to have one of the two.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com

Dave Gower wrote:
"G-squared" wrote

I also get my HDTV exclusively OTA.

Are you Canadian? If so, that's the first I've heard of any Canadian
OTA HD.
Or do you live near the border and pick up U.S. channels? If you're
not
Canadian you missed my point.

I'm sorry. I did miss your point on Canada. I'm in US market 2 (LA) so
things are pretty easy down here.

Still interested in high MPG cars of any fuel.

GG

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, G-squared wrote:
Still interested in high MPG cars of any fuel.

Me too, but only if cost-effective.

For one of my vehicles, I determined that the break-even point at which
fuel costs savings outweighed the extra cost of diesel was at 150,000
miles! Prior to that, not only would diesel cost more, but I'd have to
put up with far inferior driving performance.

Hybrids do better, but still don't become cost effective until gas reaches
about $5/gallon.

Consequently, I use a motorcycle for commuting. The fuel cost savings
help some, but the real savings are in parking and ferry costs.

-- Mark --

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

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people get free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for 300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying home to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What else can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not made out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until you are in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month. Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?