Whats Really Holding HD Back? 3

It was argued back in 2000 and ever since for almost seven long years of
delay that...

"Any delay in the transition will be catastrophic."
"OTA and the HDTV content found there is the driving force for the DTV
transition and our sales of HDTV sets this quarter. Cable and satellite
will be slow to offer HDTV. We need OTA to drive these sales. Can't
tolerate a second of delay."

What they were really saying, they being the Consumer Electronics
Manufacturers (read HDTV makers) is that they wanted to make a gazillion
dollars in the first quarter of 2000 and could care less about anything
else.

Forget that allowing a COFDM based modulation would have caused no delay
for broadcasters who wanted to continue with 8-VSB back in 2000. That
a competing COFDM based modulation might have goaded 8-VSB proponents to
actually "fix" 8-VSB in the time period they said they would do it in, 6
months to a year, or that a COFDM based modulation might in fact been
far better than 8-VSB and stimulated sales of HDTVs.

What is the reality almost seven years later?

According to this article they have sold a lot of HDTV sets. 25 million
of them. How many were sold for what reasons?

http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvsubs110806.htm

Why did people buy those 25 million HDTV sets and would they have bought
more if things had been different for the last 7 years. Options why
these HDTV sets were purchased include...

To watch DVDs since DVDs are HDTV.

To watch HDTV content being offered OTA

To watch HDTV on cable and satellite.

Well according to the article of the 25 million HDTV sets sold only 10
million have any kind of HD input, OTA, cable or satellite.

Does that mean that 15 million sets were sold to watch DVDs?
Maybe it means that 15 million HD sets were sold to people who are
waiting for more content on OTA or cable or satellite.

Since we know that 15 million HDTV set owners have not even bothered to
hook up an antenna for OTA and that most of the remaining 10 million
have HD from satellite or cable that few, possibly very few have OTA HDTV.

And that even fewer RELY on OTA HDTV.

And that VERY few bought their HDTV because they could not wait to get
home to hook up OTA DTV.

The fact is that the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers made a bad call
and crippled OTA with a garbage modulation for short term profits and
that OTA contributed virtually nothing to those profits.

How many HDTV sets would have been sold if a better modulation had been
used over the last seven years? Where because the modulation works well
that retailers and manufacturers have gotten on board big time and lots
of choice in receivers and integrated sets and advertise and promote them.

Take a look at two countries where a COFDM modulation was chosen and
where DTV OTA sales are doing very well, Japan and Australia.

Japan where 16 million OTA DTV receivers have been sold in the last
three years.

http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-5/news-e5.htm#dn066e

Australia Where they have sold over 2 million DTV receivers in a market
of 19 million people. That would be 31 million in the US where we have
300 million people. And in OZ they have lots of choice. Hundreds of STBs
for example. How many choices do you have for and 8-VSB receiver.

http://www.dba.org.au/index.asp?sectionID=18
http://www.dba.org.au/index.asp?sect...7&display=news

Anyone buying an OTA DTV receiver in OZ knows they are buying it and
why. Most US buyers of OTA receivers are buying them without knowing it
and have no plans on using them because in the US it is mandated.

What you can't sell you mandate.

Cause its hard to sell garbage.

Bob Miller

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:25:56 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

snip
Does that mean that 15 million sets were sold to watch DVDs?
Maybe it means that 15 million HD sets were sold to people who are
waiting for more content on OTA or cable or satellite.

Since we know that 15 million HDTV set owners have not even bothered to
hook up an antenna for OTA and that most of the remaining 10 million
have HD from satellite or cable that few, possibly very few have OTA HDTV.

And that even fewer RELY on OTA HDTV.

And that VERY few bought their HDTV because they could not wait to get
home to hook up OTA DTV.

The fact is that the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers made a bad call
and crippled OTA with a garbage modulation for short term profits and
that OTA contributed virtually nothing to those profits.

snip

I can't see how you get your data. I have OTA HDTV, and I love it. Am
I the "only" one who bought a HDTV and receives his content OTA? I
seriously doubt it.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Bob Miller wrote:
....
Does that mean that 15 million sets were sold to watch DVDs?
Maybe it means that 15 million HD sets were sold to people who are
waiting for more content on OTA or cable or satellite.

Since we know that 15 million HDTV set owners have not even bothered to
hook up an antenna for OTA and that most of the remaining 10 million
have HD from satellite or cable that few, possibly very few have OTA HDTV.

And that even fewer RELY on OTA HDTV.

And that VERY few bought their HDTV because they could not wait to get
home to hook up OTA DTV.

The fact is that the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers made a bad call
and crippled OTA with a garbage modulation for short term profits and
that OTA contributed virtually nothing to those profits.
....

Bob Miller:
I submit that in your single minded dislike of the U.S.A. OTA DTV
modulation
scheme you are overlooking some very important possibilities.

1. Most people have *no* idea that OTA DTV (much less HDTV) exists.
I actually purchased my Panasonic Plasma two years ago to improve DVDs.
Of course, me being me, I bought an EDTV well matched to DVDs. It
wasn't
until I ran the first OTA channel scan that I had any idea how good
(yes, Bob,
*good*) the DTV situation was for my location.

2. Many people enjoy pay channels that are simply not available OTA.
Let's face, a lot of people really like their ESPN, or History Channel,
or MTV,
or Disney, or whatever it is that they watch.

3. Most people have been conditioned to think that "good" TV can only
come to them via Cable or Satelite. To them, OTA means putting up an
ugly antenna, only to receive snowy, ghosting, limited content.

Do you really believe that any of that would have changed if
another modulation scheme had been chosen? Seriously, it's not as
if the broadcasters sat down and said to themselves, "Well, since
we know we've chosen a lousy transmission scheme, we'll not
bother to promote it." No, they got what most thought at the time was
a very reasonable compromise system. The broadcaster's actions
were in fact predicated on the assumption they had a very usable
system. Not a thing would have changed with a different modulation
scheme.

You love to point out how well OTA DTV is doing in places like
Australia, claiming that the modulation scheme has made all the
difference. Has it occured to you that perhaps the places where
OTA DTV has "taken off" are the places that *don't* have nearly
universal Cable or Satelite coverage? Perhaps the reason DTV
has succeded so well in Australia is that OTA is the primary
TV delivery mechanism, and a lot of people are aware of the
upgrade, and happy to take it? Hmmm....

Dan (Woj...)

"dmaster" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bob Miller wrote:
...
Does that mean that 15 million sets were sold to watch DVDs?
Maybe it means that 15 million HD sets were sold to people who are
waiting for more content on OTA or cable or satellite.

Since we know that 15 million HDTV set owners have not even bothered to
hook up an antenna for OTA and that most of the remaining 10 million
have HD from satellite or cable that few, possibly very few have OTA
HDTV.

And that even fewer RELY on OTA HDTV.

And that VERY few bought their HDTV because they could not wait to get
home to hook up OTA DTV.

The fact is that the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers made a bad call
and crippled OTA with a garbage modulation for short term profits and
that OTA contributed virtually nothing to those profits.
...

Bob Miller:
I submit that in your single minded dislike of the U.S.A. OTA DTV
modulation
scheme you are overlooking some very important possibilities.

1. Most people have *no* idea that OTA DTV (much less HDTV) exists.
I actually purchased my Panasonic Plasma two years ago to improve DVDs.
Of course, me being me, I bought an EDTV well matched to DVDs. It
wasn't
until I ran the first OTA channel scan that I had any idea how good
(yes, Bob,
*good*) the DTV situation was for my location.

2. Many people enjoy pay channels that are simply not available OTA.
Let's face, a lot of people really like their ESPN, or History Channel,
or MTV,
or Disney, or whatever it is that they watch.

3. Most people have been conditioned to think that "good" TV can only
come to them via Cable or Satelite. To them, OTA means putting up an
ugly antenna, only to receive snowy, ghosting, limited content.

Do you really believe that any of that would have changed if
another modulation scheme had been chosen? Seriously, it's not as
if the broadcasters sat down and said to themselves, "Well, since
we know we've chosen a lousy transmission scheme, we'll not
bother to promote it." No, they got what most thought at the time was
a very reasonable compromise system. The broadcaster's actions
were in fact predicated on the assumption they had a very usable
system. Not a thing would have changed with a different modulation
scheme.

You love to point out how well OTA DTV is doing in places like
Australia, claiming that the modulation scheme has made all the
difference. Has it occured to you that perhaps the places where
OTA DTV has "taken off" are the places that *don't* have nearly
universal Cable or Satelite coverage? Perhaps the reason DTV
has succeded so well in Australia is that OTA is the primary
TV delivery mechanism, and a lot of people are aware of the
upgrade, and happy to take it? Hmmm....

Dan (Woj...)


This is obviously a very good point, however, this point has been clearly
emphasized to bob hundreds of times over the years. He'll just repost his
same garbage the next day, just as if he never heard it.

dmaster wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
...
Does that mean that 15 million sets were sold to watch DVDs?
Maybe it means that 15 million HD sets were sold to people who are
waiting for more content on OTA or cable or satellite.

Since we know that 15 million HDTV set owners have not even bothered to
hook up an antenna for OTA and that most of the remaining 10 million
have HD from satellite or cable that few, possibly very few have OTA HDTV.

And that even fewer RELY on OTA HDTV.

And that VERY few bought their HDTV because they could not wait to get
home to hook up OTA DTV.

The fact is that the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers made a bad call
and crippled OTA with a garbage modulation for short term profits and
that OTA contributed virtually nothing to those profits.
...

Bob Miller:
I submit that in your single minded dislike of the U.S.A. OTA DTV
modulation
scheme you are overlooking some very important possibilities.

I don't think I have overlooked any of your important possibilities.

1. Most people have *no* idea that OTA DTV (much less HDTV) exists.
I actually purchased my Panasonic Plasma two years ago to improve DVDs.
Of course, me being me, I bought an EDTV well matched to DVDs. It
wasn't
until I ran the first OTA channel scan that I had any idea how good
(yes, Bob,
*good*) the DTV situation was for my location.

I agree with you totally as to the above, see my recent post. As to your
location, 70% of locations are good for 8-VSB across the country. You
are in the lucky 70%. It drops to 30% in some big cities. How does your
being lucky make it OK for the 30% of Americans who jointly own this TV
spectrum with you that have bad reception? Especially when there are
modulations that would work for 99% of the population?


2. Many people enjoy pay channels that are simply not available OTA.
Let's face, a lot of people really like their ESPN, or History Channel,
or MTV,
or Disney, or whatever it is that they watch.

One of the things that would have happened with COFDM since it works
reliably with simple inexpensive receivers and antennas is that a lot of
entrepreneurial types would have used OTA to deliver what cable and
satellite deliver or at least a lot more including MTV, ESPN and HBO.
That was our plan. A poor imitation of what we planned is USDTV. They
plan on upgrading their service with more channels using MPEG4.
Unfortunately they still will not have enough spectrum due to arcane FCC
requirements.

3. Most people have been conditioned to think that "good" TV can only
come to them via Cable or Satelite. To them, OTA means putting up an
ugly antenna, only to receive snowy, ghosting, limited content.

Do you really believe that any of that would have changed if
another modulation scheme had been chosen? Seriously, it's not as
if the broadcasters sat down and said to themselves, "Well, since
we know we've chosen a lousy transmission scheme, we'll not
bother to promote it." No, they got what most thought at the time was
a very reasonable compromise system. The broadcaster's actions
were in fact predicated on the assumption they had a very usable
system. Not a thing would have changed with a different modulation
scheme.

No broadcasters did not think that 8-VSB was the best solution. ABC,
NBC, Sinclair, Pappas and Granite all petitioned the FCC to allow COFDM.
Most of the rest of the broadcasters only went along with 8-VSB in a
vote in January 2001 because they were intimidated and threatened by the
likes of Congressman Dingell of Michigan and others who threatened them
with the loss of their licenses and MUST CARRY if they didn't vote for
8-VSB. Broadcasters live and die by MUST CARRY and were truly terrified
of losing it. Even the Department of Defense petitioned Congress and the
FCC to allow COFDM. Dingell made a trip over the Pentagon and did his
intimidation speech there as well and DoD shut up. They wanted COFDM for
Homeland Security. And this was 2000. Who would have thought we would
need a reliable OTA DTV broadcast modulation then? The DoD did. And in
November of 2001, only a couple of months after 9/11 we were
demonstrating to the DoD COFDM at Ground Zero at their insistence and
with their temporary license from the FCC. We couldn't get one.

You love to point out how well OTA DTV is doing in places like
Australia, claiming that the modulation scheme has made all the
difference. Has it occured to you that perhaps the places where
OTA DTV has "taken off" are the places that *don't* have nearly
universal Cable or Satelite coverage? Perhaps the reason DTV
has succeded so well in Australia is that OTA is the primary
TV delivery mechanism, and a lot of people are aware of the
upgrade, and happy to take it? Hmmm....

Thought of that too. OTA HDTV is going gangbusters in Japan. Lots of
cable and satellite there. In fact they have analog HD satellite there.
The place is inundated with TV options and yet they have bought 16
million mostly integrated HDTV OTA sets in two years.

The one place where they have a lot of cable and satellite is Germany.
OTA is not doing as well there and it may have something to do with the
cable and satellite penetration. 5.5 million receivers sold in a country
of 82 million with 16.5 million households.

So the reality is that in a country with HIGHER penetration of cable and
or satellite than the US they have a 33% penetration rate after 4 years.
NOT BAD!

I think in October Germany lit up the last area with OTA so for most of
these 4 years much of the country had NO OTA. So all the more
impressive. It may be that Germany will have turned off all analog by
the end of this year or early next. They would be the first big country
to do so and years ahead of any other.

Bob Miller
Dan (Woj...)

"Charlie Hoffpauir" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:25:56 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

snip
Does that mean that 15 million sets were sold to watch DVDs?
Maybe it means that 15 million HD sets were sold to people who are
waiting for more content on OTA or cable or satellite.

Since we know that 15 million HDTV set owners have not even bothered to
hook up an antenna for OTA and that most of the remaining 10 million
have HD from satellite or cable that few, possibly very few have OTA HDTV.

And that even fewer RELY on OTA HDTV.

And that VERY few bought their HDTV because they could not wait to get
home to hook up OTA DTV.

The fact is that the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers made a bad call
and crippled OTA with a garbage modulation for short term profits and
that OTA contributed virtually nothing to those profits.

snip

I can't see how you get your data. I have OTA HDTV, and I love it. Am
I the "only" one who bought a HDTV and receives his content OTA? I
seriously doubt it.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Same here Charlie,

He forgot to add:

OTA HDTV FOR FREE!!!!!!

The "Free" part is important and a big reason many of us purchased HDTV in
the first place.
To tell the cable and satellite companies AMF!

The word "Free" is a powerful word. Remember when television content was
free? You didn't get a little bill in the mail saying "pay me $50" each
month.

HDTV has the promise of the best of both worlds. Clear modern HD
entertainment and news combined with the free broadcasting of the pre-Cable
monopoly days.

I still think it's possible although the fat cats will fight to keep their
control over the market.

"Gonzo" wrote:

"Charlie Hoffpauir" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:25:56 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

snip
Does that mean that 15 million sets were sold to watch DVDs?
Maybe it means that 15 million HD sets were sold to people who are
waiting for more content on OTA or cable or satellite.

Since we know that 15 million HDTV set owners have not even bothered to
hook up an antenna for OTA and that most of the remaining 10 million
have HD from satellite or cable that few, possibly very few have OTA HDTV.

And that even fewer RELY on OTA HDTV.

And that VERY few bought their HDTV because they could not wait to get
home to hook up OTA DTV.

The fact is that the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers made a bad call
and crippled OTA with a garbage modulation for short term profits and
that OTA contributed virtually nothing to those profits.

snip

I can't see how you get your data. I have OTA HDTV, and I love it. Am
I the "only" one who bought a HDTV and receives his content OTA? I
seriously doubt it.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Same here Charlie,

He forgot to add:

OTA HDTV FOR FREE!!!!!!

The "Free" part is important and a big reason many of us purchased HDTV in
the first place.
To tell the cable and satellite companies AMF!

The word "Free" is a powerful word. Remember when television content was
free? You didn't get a little bill in the mail saying "pay me $50" each
month.

HDTV has the promise of the best of both worlds. Clear modern HD
entertainment and news combined with the free broadcasting of the pre-Cable
monopoly days.

I still think it's possible although the fat cats will fight to keep their
control over the market.



It would be very nice if it remains free,,

Lots of things would be nice if they were free,,

Facts are though,,its not going to be free after 2009....

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:52:53 GMT, common_ wrote:


It would be very nice if it remains free,,

Lots of things would be nice if they were free,,

Facts are though,,its not going to be free after 2009....

Please elaborate on that....

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:52:53 GMT, common_ wrote:

It would be very nice if it remains free,,

Lots of things would be nice if they were free,,

Facts are though,,its not going to be free after 2009....

Please elaborate on that....

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Please Charlie, don't feed the troll!

Chip

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

"Charlie Hoffpauir" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:52:53 GMT, common_ wrote:


It would be very nice if it remains free,,

Lots of things would be nice if they were free,,

Facts are though,,its not going to be free after 2009....

Please elaborate on that....

It'll take him awhile to confer with bob.