What's up with ABC?

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.

And I only suggest that it is south of 9% actually.
Will go out on a limb and say all of the 3 percent are watching in HD
OTA.

I'd say it is more like 1%. Could I see your data again? Where did you
get 3%?

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.

Was it an Agent error? I thought your "mistake" was the better word
myself. Covenated. A promised "IGNORE list", a very special place of
honor. You promised this honor to someone in the past and are now
delivering.

Coveted has no meaning in the context. Why would you covet your own
Ignore list? You covet something that belongs to others. Would someone
else covet your Ignore list? No, you may have meant to imply facetiously
that they want to be a member or join your Ignore list, you might have
used for example, 'oversubscribed IGNORE list', but they don't covet it.
Or if they do, it would not make sense, in the context of your email,
for them to covet it.

Coveted is nonsense while covenanted is perfect.

Bob Miller

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.

As to your "cow is out of the barn" statement. The NTSC "cow" was out of
the barn for 50 years and some say there are 300 million NTSC TV sets
in use but that did not stop us from changing the standard when it was
deemed a good idea.

Or did we do it because 50 years was the right time to do it? Sort of a
"it felt right" kind of decision? No I think it was because the
technology was developed and we could see a much more efficient way of
broadcasting, the time NTSC had been around had nothing to do with it. I
would think that if the possibility of digital had come up 3 years after
NTSC had been initiated they would have changed then.

The simple fact is today we know that our current standard, 8-VSB
coupled with MPEG2, if you just argue the codec side, is wasting half
the bandwidth. That is MPEG2 is half as efficient as MPEG4 AVC so every
year we waste half the delivery capacity of all the free OTA spectrum
and over the next few years MPEG4 AVC should mature to double its
current capability. That means we will then be wasting 3/4th of the
carrying capacity of this spectrum.

That spectrum cost is staggering. Add to it the cost of all those that
can't receive 8-VSB because of its multipath problems, those whose
reception is impaired by multipath some of the time and those who can't
receive as many stations as they would be able to with a much IMPROVED
8-VSB or a far better codec like DVB-T/H or DMB-T/H and the cost is far
higher.

Is there some required time interval before you can change modulations
or codecs irrespective of what makes sense or changes in science or
technology?

I don't think so.

It would have been best to scuttle 8-VSB sooner, Congress considered
doing it in 2000, it would be good to do in now, it will only cost more
to do it later.

It will happen anyway and in one of two ways. OTA will be declared dead
by some politician who will become a hero for doing it, and it will be
auctioned off to those who will use it with the best tools or, two, we
will see a change in modulation and codec so that the US can have at
least as decent a DTV modulation and codec as the French and Chinese.

Bob Miller


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

Bob Miller 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.

And I only suggest that it is south of 9% actually.
Will go out on a limb and say all of the 3 percent are watching in HD
OTA.

I'd say it is more like 1%. Could I see your data again? Where did you
get 3%?

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.

Was it an Agent error? I thought your "mistake" was the better word
myself. Covenated. A promised "IGNORE list", a very special place of
honor. You promised this honor to someone in the past and are now
delivering.

Coveted has no meaning in the context. Why would you covet your own
Ignore list? You covet something that belongs to others. Would someone
else covet your Ignore list? No, you may have meant to imply facetiously
that they want to be a member or join your Ignore list, you might have
used for example, 'oversubscribed IGNORE list', but they don't covet it.
Or if they do, it would not make sense, in the context of your email,
for them to covet it.

Coveted is nonsense while covenanted is perfect.

Bob Miller

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



You know Bob i did indeed consider that my spelling error was
actually a better choice - and reading your analysis, I think my
thought was indeed correct..

thanks "Dood"...LOL

God this is fun,,,

and note,,I am now even "bottom posting" even though doing so makes
the reader have to scroll 3 pages down,,,

Bob Miller 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.

As to your "cow is out of the barn" statement. The NTSC "cow" was out of
the barn for 50 years and some say there are 300 million NTSC TV sets
in use but that did not stop us from changing the standard when it was
deemed a good idea.

Or did we do it because 50 years was the right time to do it? Sort of a
"it felt right" kind of decision? No I think it was because the
technology was developed and we could see a much more efficient way of
broadcasting, the time NTSC had been around had nothing to do with it. I
would think that if the possibility of digital had come up 3 years after
NTSC had been initiated they would have changed then.

The simple fact is today we know that our current standard, 8-VSB
coupled with MPEG2, if you just argue the codec side, is wasting half
the bandwidth. That is MPEG2 is half as efficient as MPEG4 AVC so every
year we waste half the delivery capacity of all the free OTA spectrum
and over the next few years MPEG4 AVC should mature to double its
current capability. That means we will then be wasting 3/4th of the
carrying capacity of this spectrum.

That spectrum cost is staggering. Add to it the cost of all those that
can't receive 8-VSB because of its multipath problems, those whose
reception is impaired by multipath some of the time and those who can't
receive as many stations as they would be able to with a much IMPROVED
8-VSB or a far better codec like DVB-T/H or DMB-T/H and the cost is far
higher.

Is there some required time interval before you can change modulations
or codecs irrespective of what makes sense or changes in science or
technology?

I don't think so.

It would have been best to scuttle 8-VSB sooner, Congress considered
doing it in 2000, it would be good to do in now, it will only cost more
to do it later.

It will happen anyway and in one of two ways. OTA will be declared dead
by some politician who will become a hero for doing it, and it will be
auctioned off to those who will use it with the best tools or, two, we
will see a change in modulation and codec so that the US can have at
least as decent a DTV modulation and codec as the French and Chinese.

Bob Miller


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



Bob

I do not want to get into the middle of a technical situation that
could be argued either way. However, your observation about "wasted
bandwidth" is right to the heart of the matter. Bandwidth cost
MONEY,,,if you can broadcast 5 different programs to watch, that 97
percent of your audience thinks look fine quality wise, what is the
economic incentive to do only one channel that only 3 percent care
about?

Apparently the HD free TV trolls on this group all work for non profit
organizations that give away there best products just because its the
"nice thing to do".

As far as my 3 percent estimate - I was being very generous with that,
i did an average of about 20 different estimates that I found on the
net.

And to all those trolls that think 40 percent of the TV audiences gets
their TV OTA,,please take a pen, a piece of paper, and walk around
your neighborhood. Count the number of homes, count the number of roof
top antennas (and I will even let you count the ones no longer even
pointing in the right direction,,LOL).

post your numbers, and I will be happy to show you how to calculate a
percentage.

In my neighborhood its 1 percent,,,and we live in a "dead zone", you
have to have a roof top antenna to get any OTA, so no my neighbors are
not all hiding inside with rabbit ears,,LOL

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, G-squared wrote:
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?

Good point. I forgot about that. AFAICT, the SD production being done
these days are people stretching out that last bit of service life on
analog gear before retiring it.

-- 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.

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, wrote:
Nobody gives a rats about picture quality

Provable nonsense, as every sports bar in the nation has a big screen TV
showing the game in HD. Just about every football on TV today is in HD;
and no sane person can seriously claim that it's going back to SD.

The pornmeisters have also discovered HD.

-- 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.

Mark Crispin wrote:

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, wrote:
Nobody gives a rats about picture quality

Provable nonsense, as every sports bar in the nation has a big screen TV
showing the game in HD. Just about every football on TV today is in HD;
and no sane person can seriously claim that it's going back to SD.

The pornmeisters have also discovered HD.

-- 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.


Your hard data to support this is,,??

No sports bar I have been in is showing HD sports,,,just big fuzzy
analog cable feeds,,,generally projected on a wall. People go to bars
to get drunk and cheer, not to worry about seeing nose hairs. And
please list the 'every" free HD football games.. 1 a week,,1 a
month,,???? Guess those "HD" Sports bars must be pretty empty most of
the time. Perhaps you need my "how to calculate percentages lesson".

and again,the ones on cable/sat are all PAY (Hd or not),,,get that
DOOD,,PAY,,not free,,PAYnot OTA free,,PAY,,as in you PAY
extra to see them.

What is it you have against SD picture quality - except that you have
never seen it,,?

Name one HD porn,,, Why would anyone want to see all the wrinkles and
zits on a porn star,,,,/...LOL

and once again, you present only opinion, and then when disagreed
with, or presented with the obvious you start calling people names,,,,

Me thinks you are the one needing the 'sanity" check,,,,"Dood"...LOL

wrote in message
...
Mark Crispin wrote:

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, wrote:
Nobody gives a rats about picture quality

Provable nonsense, as every sports bar in the nation has a big screen TV
showing the game in HD. Just about every football on TV today is in HD;
and no sane person can seriously claim that it's going back to SD.

The pornmeisters have also discovered HD.

-- 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.


Your hard data to support this is,,??

No sports bar I have been in is showing HD sports,,,just big fuzzy
analog cable feeds,,,generally projected on a wall. People go to bars
to get drunk and cheer, not to worry about seeing nose hairs. And
please list the 'every" free HD football games.. 1 a week,,1 a
month,,???? Guess those "HD" Sports bars must be pretty empty most of
the time. Perhaps you need my "how to calculate percentages lesson".

and again,the ones on cable/sat are all PAY (Hd or not),,,get that
DOOD,,PAY,,not free,,PAYnot OTA free,,PAY,,as in you PAY
extra to see them.

What is it you have against SD picture quality - except that you have
never seen it,,?

Name one HD porn,,, Why would anyone want to see all the wrinkles and
zits on a porn star,,,,/...LOL

and once again, you present only opinion, and then when disagreed
with, or presented with the obvious you start calling people names,,,,

Me thinks you are the one needing the 'sanity" check,,,,"Dood"...LOL

I have been trying to make sense of your perspective for a while now, but
you obviously have little exposure to a large segment of the market. Many
serious sports bars are showing HD. Sure, the local pub with a 27" tv inthe
corner is not, but even those guys are looking into upgrades. We sell
virtually nothing that is not HD capable and virtually none of our
installations are not using HD now. Your belief that it will go away is
hard to comprehend. Virtually no new broadcast or production equipment is
being sold that doesn't do HD. It will take some time, but even the smal
production houses are getting pressure to upgrade their work to HD from
clients. There has been production in HD going on for almost 20 years and
it is now really taking off. There might be a majority of it broadcast in
SD or compressed forms but there will always be a market for the higher
quality product.

Leonard


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3792 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 05:26:10 GMT, wrote:

and note,,I am now even "bottom posting" even though doing so makes
the reader have to scroll 3 pages down,,,

Only because you failed to edit all the unneeded text above
it--another Usenet custom that has gone by the wayside.

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

wrote:

I do not want to get into the middle of a technical situation that
could be argued either way. However, your observation about "wasted
bandwidth" is right to the heart of the matter. Bandwidth cost
MONEY,,,if you can broadcast 5 different programs to watch, that 97
percent of your audience thinks look fine quality wise, what is the
economic incentive to do only one channel that only 3 percent care
about?

This proves you are either blind, stupid, or both. 97% of viewers think that the video is "fine quality wise" if there are 5 sd signals on one channel?
What VERY little credibility you had is now long gone. What a moron.

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB