What's up with ABC?

They need to invest that to do digital - SD is digital, HD is
digital,,,they have to be able to edit/produce/convert ones and
zeroes.

It has nothing to do with HD.

Now answer my question - how are they going to pay back that
investment? By sending you free OTA HD, you and the other 16 percent
of the OTA market,,?


"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

wrote:
Mat

You need to get back on the Prozac dude,,

i have local station feeds, with network programs, on my Direct TV
right now, They are also on Cox cable,,, For a premium right now I
can get the HD feeds from the local network affliates to,,, There is
no legal restrictions at all,,just contracts between the networks and
the cabl/Sat companies.


You still haven't answered the question put to you:

Why are local stations spending millions for HD infrastructures if they
don't plan on creating and broadcasting HD content?

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

wrote:
They need to invest that to do digital - SD is digital, HD is
digital,,,they have to be able to edit/produce/convert ones and
zeroes.

Your ignorance is showing.

It has nothing to do with HD.

Now there is no doubt that you don't know what your are talking about.

Price HD vs SD cameras, mixers and editors. Price the difference in the
cost of the storage systems for HD vs SD. Most stations are buying HD
infrastructure, not SD. They are spending millions that wouldn't be
required for SD only. You still can't say why.

Now answer my question - how are they going to pay back that
investment? By sending you free OTA HD, you and the other 16 percent
of the OTA market,,?

The way they have always done. Putting out product that attracts the
viewers that advertiser's want to see their ads.

Matthew

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

wrote:
Mat

You need to get back on the Prozac dude,,

i have local station feeds, with network programs, on my Direct TV
right now, They are also on Cox cable,,, For a premium right now I
can get the HD feeds from the local network affliates to,,, There is
no legal restrictions at all,,just contracts between the networks and
the cabl/Sat companies.

You still haven't answered the question put to you:

Why are local stations spending millions for HD infrastructures if they
don't plan on creating and broadcasting HD content?

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



--
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

wrote:
They need to invest that to do digital - SD is digital, HD is
digital,,,they have to be able to edit/produce/convert ones and
zeroes.

It has nothing to do with HD.

Now answer my question - how are they going to pay back that
investment? By sending you free OTA HD, you and the other 16 percent
of the OTA market,,?

And what percentage of that 16% has an HDTV? When will the rest of them
get an HDTV? We are not talking the best demographic for HD here. We are
talking about the 16% who either can't afford a TV, can't afford cable
and satellite if they have a TV, some of this crowd steals cable or
satellite and the rest, maybe 2% of this 16% don't want to watch TV
whether they can afford it or not.

And the real number of those who still rely on OTA is not 16% to begin
with IMO. A recent telephone survey found that 19% reported that they
had a TV that relied on OTA for reception in the house. Of those 52%
said they also had cable or satellite. That would leave about 9.88% who
actually rely on OTA and have a telephone. You can decide how much of
the time that other OTA TV set was watched in those homes that also had
cable or satellite, the 9.22% other houses that also had a telephone.

Broadcasters are only going to give away HD as long as it is politically
wise to do so or if they find that they can make more money OTA with
advertising alone.

But at the moment they plan on being paid by cable and satellite AND
getting the ad revenue. Same goes for OTA, they plan on both ad revenue
and subscriber fees, whether from cable, satellite or OTA.

Bob Miller


"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

wrote:
Mat

You need to get back on the Prozac dude,,

i have local station feeds, with network programs, on my Direct TV
right now, They are also on Cox cable,,, For a premium right now I
can get the HD feeds from the local network affliates to,,, There is
no legal restrictions at all,,just contracts between the networks and
the cabl/Sat companies.

You still haven't answered the question put to you:

Why are local stations spending millions for HD infrastructures if they
don't plan on creating and broadcasting HD content?

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

Bob

if you look over all my posts, my data supported figures for those
watching digital TV right now is 3 percent of market. The 16% being
those 'dependant" on only OTA analog TV.

Will go out on a limb and say all of the 3 percent are watching in HD
OTA.

That leaves 97 percent that are not,,,

and notice that Wes never responded back about my "correction" of his
10 fold error in calculating , nor has Dave responded back rationally
to anything other than my one Agent spelling checker replacement
error.

BTW,,Its "Dude" not Dood",,,ROTFL,,,,,,,!!!!!!!

Why post if you are not willing to be involved in a productive give
and take discussion,,?? What's up with these Wes and Davids - who the
second the can not come up with a rational rebuttal, resort to
infantile name calling,, Or did I just answer my own question
there,,,LOL

and no,,I am not Bob, and actually i did research Bobs posts, and have
no opinion about his technical arguments, but have to say regardless
that the"'cow is out of the barn" so to speak, and we have to live
with what we got.

his economic arguments however are supported by hard facts,and right
on the mark.







Bob Miller wrote:

wrote:
They need to invest that to do digital - SD is digital, HD is
digital,,,they have to be able to edit/produce/convert ones and
zeroes.

It has nothing to do with HD.

Now answer my question - how are they going to pay back that
investment? By sending you free OTA HD, you and the other 16 percent
of the OTA market,,?

And what percentage of that 16% has an HDTV? When will the rest of them
get an HDTV? We are not talking the best demographic for HD here. We are
talking about the 16% who either can't afford a TV, can't afford cable
and satellite if they have a TV, some of this crowd steals cable or
satellite and the rest, maybe 2% of this 16% don't want to watch TV
whether they can afford it or not.

And the real number of those who still rely on OTA is not 16% to begin
with IMO. A recent telephone survey found that 19% reported that they
had a TV that relied on OTA for reception in the house. Of those 52%
said they also had cable or satellite. That would leave about 9.88% who
actually rely on OTA and have a telephone. You can decide how much of
the time that other OTA TV set was watched in those homes that also had
cable or satellite, the 9.22% other houses that also had a telephone.

Broadcasters are only going to give away HD as long as it is politically
wise to do so or if they find that they can make more money OTA with
advertising alone.

But at the moment they plan on being paid by cable and satellite AND
getting the ad revenue. Same goes for OTA, they plan on both ad revenue
and subscriber fees, whether from cable, satellite or OTA.

Bob Miller

wrote:
Bob

if you look over all my posts, my data supported figures for those
watching digital TV right now is 3 percent of market. The 16% being
those 'dependant" on only OTA analog TV.

Will go out on a limb and say all of the 3 percent are watching in
HD
OTA.

That leaves 97 percent that are not,,,

and notice that Wes never responded back about my "correction" of
his
10 fold error in calculating , nor has Dave responded back
rationally
to anything other than my one Agent spelling checker replacement
error.

BTW,,Its "Dude" not Dood",,,ROTFL,,,,,,,!!!!!!!

Why post if you are not willing to be involved in a productive give
and take discussion,,?? What's up with these Wes and Davids - who
the
second the can not come up with a rational rebuttal, resort to
infantile name calling,, Or did I just answer my own question
there,,,LOL

and no,,I am not Bob, and actually i did research Bobs posts, and
have
no opinion about his technical arguments, but have to say regardless
that the"'cow is out of the barn" so to speak, and we have to live
with what we got.

his economic arguments however are supported by hard facts,and right
on the mark.



FIrst off, HD and SD digital being the same is so FAR off the mark it's
hard to know where to start. They are TOTALLY different. The Sony SRW
deck is one of the new workhorses of the industry. Check price here

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_g...terid=22522555

To edit you need a minimum of 2, better is 3 or 4. You also need an HD
switcher, another 1/4 million plus other support gear so your edit bay
can easily go over a million. Now you need a driver to run it and more
to maintain. If there is no money in HD or you could 'get away' with
SD, why would anyone buy these things ?

The OTA vs cable ? When you watch network programming on cable where do
you think it comes from ? It comes from the local station whether OTA,
direct studio feed or whatever but those cable viewers count in the
stations numbers. The actual transmitter is a 'liability' - unless the
cable operators in the market get their 'locals' off air.

Since you're new here, ease up on the arrogance and try to bottom post.

GG

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, G-squared wrote:
The Sony SRW
deck is one of the new workhorses of the industry. Check price here
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_g...terid=22522555

I'm surprised that it's that cheap. Remember what quad went for? ;-)

-- Mark --

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

"G-squared" wrote:

wrote:
Bob

if you look over all my posts, my data supported figures for those
watching digital TV right now is 3 percent of market. The 16% being
those 'dependant" on only OTA analog TV.

Will go out on a limb and say all of the 3 percent are watching in
HD
OTA.

That leaves 97 percent that are not,,,

and notice that Wes never responded back about my "correction" of
his
10 fold error in calculating , nor has Dave responded back
rationally
to anything other than my one Agent spelling checker replacement
error.

BTW,,Its "Dude" not Dood",,,ROTFL,,,,,,,!!!!!!!

Why post if you are not willing to be involved in a productive give
and take discussion,,?? What's up with these Wes and Davids - who
the
second the can not come up with a rational rebuttal, resort to
infantile name calling,, Or did I just answer my own question
there,,,LOL

and no,,I am not Bob, and actually i did research Bobs posts, and
have
no opinion about his technical arguments, but have to say regardless
that the"'cow is out of the barn" so to speak, and we have to live
with what we got.

his economic arguments however are supported by hard facts,and right
on the mark.



FIrst off, HD and SD digital being the same is so FAR off the mark it's
hard to know where to start. They are TOTALLY different. The Sony SRW
deck is one of the new workhorses of the industry. Check price here

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_g...terid=22522555

To edit you need a minimum of 2, better is 3 or 4. You also need an HD
switcher, another 1/4 million plus other support gear so your edit bay
can easily go over a million. Now you need a driver to run it and more
to maintain. If there is no money in HD or you could 'get away' with
SD, why would anyone buy these things ?

The OTA vs cable ? When you watch network programming on cable where do
you think it comes from ? It comes from the local station whether OTA,
direct studio feed or whatever but those cable viewers count in the
stations numbers. The actual transmitter is a 'liability' - unless the
cable operators in the market get their 'locals' off air.

Since you're new here, ease up on the arrogance and try to bottom post.

GG

You need to follow the entire post.

Never claimed HD was the same as Sd,,Hd is a very valuable commodity,
expensive to produce, expensive to edit, and its not going to be given
away to a 3 percent market share. They will SELL it to the cable and
Sat provides as part of the Premium Digital package,

You will see Jay Leno at 10 pm OTA in SD, and Jay Leno on premium
cable/sat in HD at the same time. Same Jay Leno,,,just more nose
hairs.

The OTA stations have to do this to survive, they need to have all 5
channels, they can not have that if the use all the bandwidth to send
3 percent of the market a free HD signal.

Why this is such a hard concept to get across is beyond me,,,?? Do
you all work at companies that give away their best and most valuable
products,,?????

and now I add "top posting" to my list of non sequitur arguments - is
that the best facts you can post,,???

Mark Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, G-squared wrote:
The Sony SRW
deck is one of the new workhorses of the industry. Check price
here
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_g...terid=22522555

I'm surprised that it's that cheap. Remember what quad went for?
;-)

-- Mark --

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

By the time you add the needed options the price pops up another $15K.
As for quads, depends on which one you were talking. AVR-1 BIG bucks.
AVR-2 much less. FWIW, I maintain an AVR-3 which has been getting
regular use. Love the sound of a quad.

GG

wrote:
"G-squared" wrote:
snip
FIrst off, HD and SD digital being the same is so FAR off the mark it's
hard to know where to start. They are TOTALLY different. The Sony SRW
deck is one of the new workhorses of the industry. Check price here

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_g...terid=22522555

To edit you need a minimum of 2, better is 3 or 4. You also need an HD
switcher, another 1/4 million plus other support gear so your edit bay
can easily go over a million. Now you need a driver to run it and more
to maintain. If there is no money in HD or you could 'get away' with
SD, why would anyone buy these things ?

The OTA vs cable ? When you watch network programming on cable where do
you think it comes from ? It comes from the local station whether OTA,
direct studio feed or whatever but those cable viewers count in the
stations numbers. The actual transmitter is a 'liability' - unless the
cable operators in the market get their 'locals' off air.

Since you're new here, ease up on the arrogance and try to bottom post.

GG

You need to follow the entire post.

Never claimed HD was the same as Sd,,Hd is a very valuable commodity,
expensive to produce, expensive to edit, and its not going to be given
away to a 3 percent market share. They will SELL it to the cable and
Sat provides as part of the Premium Digital package,

You will see Jay Leno at 10 pm OTA in SD, and Jay Leno on premium
cable/sat in HD at the same time. Same Jay Leno,,,just more nose
hairs.

The OTA stations have to do this to survive, they need to have all 5
channels, they can not have that if the use all the bandwidth to send
3 percent of the market a free HD signal.

Why this is such a hard concept to get across is beyond me,,,?? Do
you all work at companies that give away their best and most valuable
products,,?????

and now I add "top posting" to my list of non sequitur arguments - is
that the best facts you can post,,???

Your analogy is inaccurate. The same analogy would have applied when CD
replaced LP and DVD eliminated VHS. The price is elevated for a while
until the new format becomes a commodity and the old format goes away.
SD will not exist in parallel, it will go away.

OTA stations with 5 SD feeds will be nothing stations with tiny
numbers. With no numbers, they have no money to get better programming
so they stay tiny.

The programming will start out as HD as its getting hard to get new SD
gear so why bother making crap? To get your SD signal, they have to
buy another piece of gear to down-res the HD to SD. Why bother to do
that? The genie is already out of the bottle on this one. Why would I
buy the expensive cable/satellite service when I get it for free? You
say they will turn it off? OK, I prefer a good book anyway. Keep in
mind when you DO manage to get rid of the networks, 3/4 of your 'new'
cable programming goes away because that's most of what cable shows.

What OTA can and DOES do is 1 HD and 1 or 2 SD on the carrier. Very
common in LA. Or are you absolutely asserting it MUST be 5 SDs ?

GG

"G-squared" wrote:

wrote:
"G-squared" wrote:
snip
FIrst off, HD and SD digital being the same is so FAR off the mark it's
hard to know where to start. They are TOTALLY different. The Sony SRW
deck is one of the new workhorses of the industry. Check price here

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_g...terid=22522555

To edit you need a minimum of 2, better is 3 or 4. You also need an HD
switcher, another 1/4 million plus other support gear so your edit bay
can easily go over a million. Now you need a driver to run it and more
to maintain. If there is no money in HD or you could 'get away' with
SD, why would anyone buy these things ?

The OTA vs cable ? When you watch network programming on cable where do
you think it comes from ? It comes from the local station whether OTA,
direct studio feed or whatever but those cable viewers count in the
stations numbers. The actual transmitter is a 'liability' - unless the
cable operators in the market get their 'locals' off air.

Since you're new here, ease up on the arrogance and try to bottom post.

GG

You need to follow the entire post.

Never claimed HD was the same as Sd,,Hd is a very valuable commodity,
expensive to produce, expensive to edit, and its not going to be given
away to a 3 percent market share. They will SELL it to the cable and
Sat provides as part of the Premium Digital package,

You will see Jay Leno at 10 pm OTA in SD, and Jay Leno on premium
cable/sat in HD at the same time. Same Jay Leno,,,just more nose
hairs.

The OTA stations have to do this to survive, they need to have all 5
channels, they can not have that if the use all the bandwidth to send
3 percent of the market a free HD signal.

Why this is such a hard concept to get across is beyond me,,,?? Do
you all work at companies that give away their best and most valuable
products,,?????

and now I add "top posting" to my list of non sequitur arguments - is
that the best facts you can post,,???

Your analogy is inaccurate. The same analogy would have applied when CD
replaced LP and DVD eliminated VHS. The price is elevated for a while
until the new format becomes a commodity and the old format goes away.
SD will not exist in parallel, it will go away.

OTA stations with 5 SD feeds will be nothing stations with tiny
numbers. With no numbers, they have no money to get better programming
so they stay tiny.

The programming will start out as HD as its getting hard to get new SD
gear so why bother making crap? To get your SD signal, they have to
buy another piece of gear to down-res the HD to SD. Why bother to do
that? The genie is already out of the bottle on this one. Why would I
buy the expensive cable/satellite service when I get it for free? You
say they will turn it off? OK, I prefer a good book anyway. Keep in
mind when you DO manage to get rid of the networks, 3/4 of your 'new'
cable programming goes away because that's most of what cable shows.

What OTA can and DOES do is 1 HD and 1 or 2 SD on the carrier. Very
common in LA. Or are you absolutely asserting it MUST be 5 SDs ?

GG



I am asserting that they must carry 5 channels, just as cable must
carry 500 channels..each channel is an income opportunity. In 2009
when Ma and Pa Kettle turn on their new Digital Ready 100 dollar 27
inch TV, or their convertor box and press "auto program",,,there had
better be a signal in each sub channel, or the OTA broadcaster has
lost his market.

Nobody gives a rats about picture quality,,try to understand that, If
they did, the cable and Sat companies would be giving us 50 channels
of pristine wide screen 480i programming, instead of 500 channels of
barely watch able crap.

Your argument ensures that OTA will go away completely. They are
barely viable businesses now,,giving away their most valuable product
after 2009 is not the road to more profits.

and why do you call SD crap...?? Sd done without the excessive
compression you see on cable and Sat can give you a picture equal to
the best DVDs you can buy. Its just that you have never seen true SD ,
the cable and Sat providers compress the hell out of it to squeeze in
more channels - the same more channels that you claim the OTA
broadcaster can some how magically live without.