HD not driving HDTV set sales

sorry but, numerous so called "factual posters" have based their crazy
arguments that HD TV is about to take over the universe, on the idea
that Wal Mart is selling such sets.

it means plenty - it means that the FOLKS are buying TVs because they
are big, not becuase they are HD or not,,

and if you google the latest Wal Mart , and Best Buy , sales figures
you will find that the FOLKS (who are basically broke,,,) are not
buying either.


"jolt" wrote:

Thanks for the update on how Wally world markets HD sets. Not that it means
anything.

But still the article he referenced relies on out of date surveys. And while
your world may revolve around Wal-Mart, the same it not true for everyone.

common_ wrote in message
...
go into any Wal Mart -

not a single set being demonstrated using HD - all hooked up to a 50
dollar DVD player with "Clone Wars" playing.


"jolt" wrote:

Get a clue this article is based on Frank N. Magid Associates survey
released in September 2005.

Quote
Released in September 2005, the study was based off of an online survey of
1200 people aged 21 and older from the general population.

http://tv.about.com/od/hdtv/a/HDTVeducation.htm

Old news let's hear about a study that up to date. I suspect this year has
changed these figures vastly.


wrote in message
egroups.com...
I have said that OTA DTV is not driving HDTV set sales though that was
one of the biggest and in reality was the biggest reason the US could
NOT consider a different modulation in 2000 or even in 1998.

HD content on OTA was supposed to drive HDTV set sales. Any delay would
hurt the CEA manufacturers who stood to make billions from high mark-up
HDTV sets. CEA manufacturers were in control of the process of picking
our new digital modulation since broadcasters had abdicated the
process.

Well it seems that HD is not even driving the sale of HDTV sets.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/hdwatching121006.htm

And the numbers would seem to be about to get worse than the pathetic
40-50% of HDTV owners who have an HD service of any kind.

Since....

"And, perhaps worse, the research firm said only 25 percent of current
HDTV shoppers said the main reason they wanted to buy one was to watch
high-def."

Only 25%.

And what percentage of those will go to the trouble of hooking up or
installing a roof top antenna. What percentage of that 25% even have a
clue about OTA???

OTA lies dieing on the street and everyone just walks by.

Bob Miller

wrote:


Wes Newell wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:47:21 -0800, robmxa wrote:

Free OTA TV/DTV is dead. The vultures are circling. They will set down
for lunch soon after the analog turn off.

So you're saying that after spending billions of dollars nationwide by tv
stations to upgrade to digital HD broadcasting equipment, that when they
can no longer use there old ntsc transmitters, they will also turn off
their new digital transmitters and close up shop.

First no broadcaster spent, nor did the industry as a whole spend
billions on DTV OTA because they thought they would make money doing
so. They spent the money and they spend the money each month paying
their very large UHF transmitter electric bill for ONE REASON ONLY.

Because if they didn't they would lose their must carry and potentially
multicast must carry rights on cable. If broadcasters could today turn
off their DTV OTA transmitters most would just to save the electric
bills. To hell with the sunk cost for going on the air with digital.
That is lost anyway. Why go on losing more by paying electric bills for
transmitters no one is watching.

In Canada, a very similar market and one also afflicted with 8-VSB,
broadcasters are petitioning their government to LET THEM TURN OFF MOST
of their transmitters and not even fire up their digital transmitters
because NO ONE is watching and they don't want to waste the money.

Or as a second scenario, they will encrypt their broadcast thus requiring
everyone that wants it to have a STB for every station they want to watch.
Don't know wbout you, but I don't have room for 10 STB's around my TV's.
That's how many digital stations I watch. There's about 5-10 more I don't
even tune into. Like most things you post, there's just no way this will
happen. Anbd to try and push this just shows how ****ing stupid you are.

No broadcasters could offer one STB that works for all stations. That
is what is being done in other countries. In fact they may not need
encryption since free OTA DTV is a possibility. Multiple free channels
relying on advertising. It is working in the UK. Pay channels on
satellite in the UK are abandoning satellite to offer their content on
Freeview since Freeview is groing incredibly fast and they can make
more money on advertising only with Freeview than they can make on
satellite with subscriber fees.

How can you say the death of free OTA DTVt won't happen? There used to
be TV stations above channel 69. Where did they go? Channels 52 through
69 are now on the auction block and 54, 55 and 59 have already been
sold.

The former Chairman of the FCC said about channels 2-51 in reference to
how few households still rely on OTA for TV, "What are we protecting?"

After the coming fiasco called the US DTV transition the numbers of OTA
dependent viewers will be less than ONE%. Broadcasters will not want to
go on paying humongous electric bills and Congress is going to want to
get the billions they can from an auction of channels 2-51.

The only thing to work out it how to give broadcasters must carry on
cable or even multicast must carry on cable with out the fig leaf of
their being broadcasters anymore.

There are billions to be made from auctions without passing a tax for
Congress and billions to be saved by broadcasters in electric bills..
It will get done.

The other option though is that they change modulations, then
broadcasters have business case for staying on the air with their
multicasting.

Bob Miller


--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm



these people are "hobbyists" not rational thinking people.

they bought an OTA receiver, and they dam well are going to have free
OTA.

But then why are all the new TVs coming with QAM tuners to?

Hmmmmmm...????

On 13 Dec 2006 17:08:40 -0800, wrote:

Maybe you could elaborate on this. How do you expect them to make money
or even be able to cover the cost of the electricity they spend on OTA
when less than ONE% of homes rely on OTA broadcasting.

What is your source for this number? Your "OTA is dying" pal quoted
an article saying 21million households rely on OTA. Can't you two at
least get on the same page?

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

common_ wrote in message
...
sorry but, numerous so called "factual posters" have based their crazy
arguments that HD TV is about to take over the universe, on the idea
that Wal Mart is selling such sets.

it means plenty - it means that the FOLKS are buying TVs because they
are big, not becuase they are HD or not,,

and if you google the latest Wal Mart , and Best Buy , sales figures
you will find that the FOLKS (who are basically broke,,,) are not
buying either.

Perhaps you should visit a Best Buy or Costco and see the HD sets leaving
the building.

wrote:
Wes Newell wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:47:21 -0800, robmxa wrote:

Free OTA TV/DTV is dead. The vultures are circling. They will
set down
for lunch soon after the analog turn off.

So you're saying that after spending billions of dollars
nationwide by tv
stations to upgrade to digital HD broadcasting equipment, that
when they
can no longer use there old ntsc transmitters, they will also turn
off
their new digital transmitters and close up shop.

First no broadcaster spent, nor did the industry as a whole spend
billions on DTV OTA because they thought they would make money doing
so. They spent the money and they spend the money each month paying
their very large UHF transmitter electric bill for ONE REASON ONLY.

Because if they didn't they would lose their must carry and
potentially
multicast must carry rights on cable. If broadcasters could today
turn
off their DTV OTA transmitters most would just to save the electric
bills. To hell with the sunk cost for going on the air with digital.
That is lost anyway. Why go on losing more by paying electric bills
for
transmitters no one is watching.

So Bob, you asked and answered your own question. You say the
broadcasters HAVE to run the transmitters to maintain the must carry
rights. So the operation is a business cost they have to absorb. Isn't
that their reason to keep the transmitters on? Of course every business
wants to keep costs down. Wasn't 8VSB supposed to run less power than
COFDuM ? Couldn't that have been a reason to use it?

snip

GG

common_ wrote in message
...
sorry but, numerous so called "factual posters" have based their crazy
arguments that HD TV is about to take over the universe, on the idea
that Wal Mart is selling such sets.

it means plenty - it means that the FOLKS are buying TVs because they
are big, not becuase they are HD or not,,

and if you google the latest Wal Mart , and Best Buy , sales figures
you will find that the FOLKS (who are basically broke,,,) are not
buying either.



Why would I goggle Wal-Mart and Best Buys sales figures that would only
yield a narrow picture of sales. Even total US sale would be flawed because
the number of SD sets still in the market are diminishing. Folks have
limited options when they purchase a new set and that some people that buy
HD sets will not use all the features is a simple fact. What they are doing
now or intend to do in the future as far as HD content is for the most part
only speculation and something that outdated stats won't help us discern.

Numbers from a year old study certainly can not be held up as a accurate
view of a market that is maturing and may not be matured for another decade.
Bob found an article that expressed his view and used it only for that
reason, he should have checked what it was based on.

References to how Wally- World markets sets doesn't have any relevance as to
what folks are buying HD sets for, or what type of services the customer
will hook them up to.

common_ wrote in message
...
wrote:


Wes Newell wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:47:21 -0800, robmxa wrote:

Free OTA TV/DTV is dead. The vultures are circling. They will set down
for lunch soon after the analog turn off.

So you're saying that after spending billions of dollars nationwide by
tv
stations to upgrade to digital HD broadcasting equipment, that when they
can no longer use there old ntsc transmitters, they will also turn off
their new digital transmitters and close up shop.

First no broadcaster spent, nor did the industry as a whole spend
billions on DTV OTA because they thought they would make money doing
so. They spent the money and they spend the money each month paying
their very large UHF transmitter electric bill for ONE REASON ONLY.

Because if they didn't they would lose their must carry and potentially
multicast must carry rights on cable. If broadcasters could today turn
off their DTV OTA transmitters most would just to save the electric
bills. To hell with the sunk cost for going on the air with digital.
That is lost anyway. Why go on losing more by paying electric bills for
transmitters no one is watching.

In Canada, a very similar market and one also afflicted with 8-VSB,
broadcasters are petitioning their government to LET THEM TURN OFF MOST
of their transmitters and not even fire up their digital transmitters
because NO ONE is watching and they don't want to waste the money.

Or as a second scenario, they will encrypt their broadcast thus
requiring
everyone that wants it to have a STB for every station they want to
watch.
Don't know wbout you, but I don't have room for 10 STB's around my TV's.
That's how many digital stations I watch. There's about 5-10 more I
don't
even tune into. Like most things you post, there's just no way this will
happen. Anbd to try and push this just shows how ****ing stupid you are.

No broadcasters could offer one STB that works for all stations. That
is what is being done in other countries. In fact they may not need
encryption since free OTA DTV is a possibility. Multiple free channels
relying on advertising. It is working in the UK. Pay channels on
satellite in the UK are abandoning satellite to offer their content on
Freeview since Freeview is groing incredibly fast and they can make
more money on advertising only with Freeview than they can make on
satellite with subscriber fees.

How can you say the death of free OTA DTVt won't happen? There used to
be TV stations above channel 69. Where did they go? Channels 52 through
69 are now on the auction block and 54, 55 and 59 have already been
sold.

The former Chairman of the FCC said about channels 2-51 in reference to
how few households still rely on OTA for TV, "What are we protecting?"

After the coming fiasco called the US DTV transition the numbers of OTA
dependent viewers will be less than ONE%. Broadcasters will not want to
go on paying humongous electric bills and Congress is going to want to
get the billions they can from an auction of channels 2-51.

The only thing to work out it how to give broadcasters must carry on
cable or even multicast must carry on cable with out the fig leaf of
their being broadcasters anymore.

There are billions to be made from auctions without passing a tax for
Congress and billions to be saved by broadcasters in electric bills..
It will get done.

The other option though is that they change modulations, then
broadcasters have business case for staying on the air with their
multicasting.

Bob Miller


--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm



these people are "hobbyists" not rational thinking people.

they bought an OTA receiver, and they dam well are going to have free
OTA.

But then why are all the new TVs coming with QAM tuners to?

Hmmmmmm...????


Simple

it's a digital tuner

it does both OTA and QAM


Duhhh

Dave Clary wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 17:08:40 -0800, wrote:

Maybe you could elaborate on this. How do you expect them to make money
or even be able to cover the cost of the electricity they spend on OTA
when less than ONE% of homes rely on OTA broadcasting.

What is your source for this number? Your "OTA is dying" pal quoted
an article saying 21million households rely on OTA. Can't you two at
least get on the same page?

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

I speak for myself and am not responsible for someone else's figures.
Ask him about the 21 million. Lots of folks have different numbers.

Mine come from the sources whose web pages I post here. J.D. Powers
says that 88% of US homes have cable or satellite. Cable and satellite
companies say that 3 million people steal cable or satellite per year.
I use that to say that 3% of the 110 million US households do not
depend on OTA since they steal cable or satellite. Numerous sources say
that around 2% of US households have no TV of any kind. That adds up to
93% of US households that do not depend on OTA analog for TV. That also
includes all those you use cable and satellite for HDTV or DTV.

You may have missed it but another source that I post in the last day
or so that says that only 19% of the 9.8 million of the 25 million who
had bought HDTV sets so far both have any source of HD content and are
using OTA for it. That works out to 1.862 million households using OTA
for digital TV.

That is 1.69% of US households using OTA for HDTV or DTV after NINE
years.

http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv...ce-fewer-hdtv/

In the UK the number of households using OTA for DTV is 65% since
Freeview started in Dec 2003.

In Japan the number is 30% of households and most of those are OTA HDTV
households after 3 years of broadcasting OTA HDTV.

In France they have at least 20% of households with OTA DTV receivers
after 18 months. They will start HDTV soon.

In Australia they have 30% of households with OTA DTV or HDTV after
four years. People there can buy an SDTV, an STB for SDTV, an HDTV or
an STB for HDTV. They have the choice.

All these countries have lots of choice when it comes to receivers.
When they go to a store to buy such a receiver or DTV set they can see
OTA broadcast in the store because the store has no problem receiving
the signal. The store is not afraid of drop-outs that could kill sales.
The stores are not afraid of people bringing their HD or SDTV sets
back because OTA can't be received by it.

US stores are afraid of this. They go way out of their way to hide the
fact that OTA is an option.

Bob Miller

G-squared wrote:
wrote:
Wes Newell wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:47:21 -0800, robmxa wrote:

Free OTA TV/DTV is dead. The vultures are circling. They will
set down
for lunch soon after the analog turn off.

So you're saying that after spending billions of dollars
nationwide by tv
stations to upgrade to digital HD broadcasting equipment, that
when they
can no longer use there old ntsc transmitters, they will also turn
off
their new digital transmitters and close up shop.

First no broadcaster spent, nor did the industry as a whole spend
billions on DTV OTA because they thought they would make money doing
so. They spent the money and they spend the money each month paying
their very large UHF transmitter electric bill for ONE REASON ONLY.

Because if they didn't they would lose their must carry and
potentially
multicast must carry rights on cable. If broadcasters could today
turn
off their DTV OTA transmitters most would just to save the electric
bills. To hell with the sunk cost for going on the air with digital.
That is lost anyway. Why go on losing more by paying electric bills
for
transmitters no one is watching.

So Bob, you asked and answered your own question. You say the
broadcasters HAVE to run the transmitters to maintain the must carry
rights. So the operation is a business cost they have to absorb. Isn't
that their reason to keep the transmitters on? Of course every business
wants to keep costs down. Wasn't 8VSB supposed to run less power than
COFDuM ? Couldn't that have been a reason to use it?

If you are a broadcaster and see every one of your OTA viewers as a
lost subscriber on cable that would pay you a subscription fee. If you
don't see any farther than that, can't see any potential for OTA, just
lost revenue, then you would want to use as little power as possible
for your transmitter. You would not care if the coverage was less or
more. All you would care about is saving money on your electric bill.

Broadcasters were threatened with loss of must carry and their spectrum
if they did not go along with Congressional dictates that told them to
vote for 8-VSB as per agreements Congressional critters had with
lobbyist. A back room deal that gave Zenith the 8-VSB, now LG of S.
Korea. Congress could have cared less and still could care less if
8-VSB works or not.

COFDM has better coverage at the same power level as 8-VSB. Power isn't
everything, you also have to be able to receive the signal. In the MSTV
test of 2000 which was performed fraudulently, COFDM was found to not
work at seven far field sites. 8-VSB did not work at one of these
sites. Sinclair went back to those seven sites with a REAL COFDM
receiver, MSTV had been using a transmitter monitor that had no front
end filter that would block unwanted signals. The 8-VSB receiver used
had such a filter. MSTV had been warned that this transmitter monitor
was NOT a receiver, was only supposed to be hooked directly to a
transmitter and had a wide open front end to check the transmitter.

They ignored this.

Sinclair found that using a REAL COFDM receiver that they could receive
at all 7 of the far field sites including the one at which 8-VSB had
failed. All test as to multipath were scrubbed because that would have
embarrassed the 8-VSB proponents who were in charge of the test that
were held in total secrecy unlike ALL other test performed in the world
pitting COFDM against 8-VSB. COFDM easily won all those other test.

Broadcasters keep there transmitter on because they have to for must
carry rights. In some cases, big cities, it still makes sense to keep
analog transmitters on for competitive reasons. After the transition
broadcasters will turn off their analog transmitters saving money but
their digital transmitters cost far more since most are in the UHF
area.

And with digital the cities are the worst place for 8-VSB. More
multipath, especially dynamic multipath. There will be little reason
for braodcasters to want to keep their digital transmitters on with
less than 2% of households relying on OTA DTV.

You can see this in Canada where they have a more honest discussion
between broadcasters and government. They want to turn off or never
turn on their digital transmitters. They would be happy to just give
back their spectrum.

Bob Miller



GG

snip
So Bob, you asked and answered your own question. You say the
broadcasters HAVE to run the transmitters to maintain the must carry
rights. So the operation is a business cost they have to absorb. Isn't
that their reason to keep the transmitters on? Of course every business
wants to keep costs down. Wasn't 8VSB supposed to run less power than
COFDuM ? Couldn't that have been a reason to use it?

If you are a broadcaster and see every one of your OTA viewers as a
lost subscriber on cable that would pay you a subscription fee. If you
don't see any farther than that, can't see any potential for OTA, just
lost revenue, then you would want to use as little power as possible
for your transmitter. You would not care if the coverage was less or
more. All you would care about is saving money on your electric bill.

Broadcasters were threatened with loss of must carry and their spectrum
if they did not go along with Congressional dictates that told them to
vote for 8-VSB as per agreements Congressional critters had with
lobbyist. A back room deal that gave Zenith the 8-VSB, now LG of S.
Korea. Congress could have cared less and still could care less if
8-VSB works or not.

snip COFDuM drivel
Bob Miller


So just how much could the broadcaster actually get per viewer? My
cable bill is $40 spread across operating costs of the actual cable
company and 80+ channels each demanding a cut. What am I worth to KCBS
10 cents, 25 cents a month? I'm not being snide on this. How IS the
money spread out?

GG