Whats Really Holding HD Back? 3

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:35:01 -0600, Dave Clary wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:07:31 GMT, common_ wrote:


why would locals go away? They would still produce news, show local
programs, and handle the network feed to the cable and sat companies -
they just could turn off the 100kw transmiter that serves less than 5
percent of thier audience.

Let me see if I have this math correct. The article you quoted
contained the following:

"Last year, it was estimated that 21 million U.S. households do not
get cable or satellite service and rely solely on free over-the-air
TV."

So if 21 million households represent only 5% of the audience, then we
are looking at close to 400 million households that rely on cable or
satellite.

???????????

Well, he's more full of crap than that Nov. turkey.:-) The US population
just hit 300M. Averaging 4 people per household that would come out to
75M households. So if 21M use OTA, that's 28%. And that doesn't include
the households that use OTA in addition to cable/sat. Don't have those
figures and don't care. Sure don't care anything about what no_sense
says.:-)


more like 110 million households

"R Sweeney" wrote:


"Wes Newell" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:35:01 -0600, Dave Clary wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:07:31 GMT, common_ wrote:


why would locals go away? They would still produce news, show local
programs, and handle the network feed to the cable and sat companies -
they just could turn off the 100kw transmiter that serves less than 5
percent of thier audience.

Let me see if I have this math correct. The article you quoted
contained the following:

"Last year, it was estimated that 21 million U.S. households do not
get cable or satellite service and rely solely on free over-the-air
TV."

So if 21 million households represent only 5% of the audience, then we
are looking at close to 400 million households that rely on cable or
satellite.

???????????

Well, he's more full of crap than that Nov. turkey.:-) The US population
just hit 300M. Averaging 4 people per household that would come out to
75M households. So if 21M use OTA, that's 28%. And that doesn't include
the households that use OTA in addition to cable/sat. Don't have those
figures and don't care. Sure don't care anything about what no_sense
says.:-)


more like 110 million households



which is about 19 percent - which is on the high end of the best
estimates, consumer reports is always very "consumer" friendly.
Industry estimates put the figure at 5 to maybe 10 percent. I would
put the "household" definition at more like 200 million - remember one
peson can be a household to.

OTA air broadcasting is DEAD - its going to go away as soon as they
can get congress to rescind the "must broadcast" requirement.

So again, you do not read the article, you just rant.

Dave Clary wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:07:31 GMT, common_ wrote:


why would locals go away? They would still produce news, show local
programs, and handle the network feed to the cable and sat companies -
they just could turn off the 100kw transmiter that serves less than 5
percent of thier audience.

Let me see if I have this math correct. The article you quoted
contained the following:

"Last year, it was estimated that 21 million U.S. households do not
get cable or satellite service and rely solely on free over-the-air
TV."

So if 21 million households represent only 5% of the audience, then we
are looking at close to 400 million households that rely on cable or
satellite.

???????????

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


If you would take 2 seconds to google - according to the US Census
there are 110 million "households" - defined as 2.57 person each. The
definition for nielsen is very different - more on the order of 200
million, as they use a different base definition for household.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:46:12 GMT, common_ wrote:

So again, you do not read the article, you just rant.

And you dilute your argument with absurd hyperbole.

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

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:01:20 GMT, common_ wrote:

Dave Clary wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:07:31 GMT, common_ wrote:


why would locals go away? They would still produce news, show local
programs, and handle the network feed to the cable and sat companies -
they just could turn off the 100kw transmiter that serves less than 5
percent of thier audience.

Let me see if I have this math correct. The article you quoted
contained the following:

"Last year, it was estimated that 21 million U.S. households do not
get cable or satellite service and rely solely on free over-the-air
TV."

So if 21 million households represent only 5% of the audience, then we
are looking at close to 400 million households that rely on cable or
satellite.

???????????

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


If you would take 2 seconds to google - according to the US Census
there are 110 million "households" - defined as 2.57 person each. The
definition for nielsen is very different - more on the order of 200
million, as they use a different base definition for household.

I didn't have to Google--you just need a calculator. The point is
that YOUR figures add up to 400 million households when you:

1. Quote an article say 21 million households depend on OTA
2. State that OTA viewers constitute 5% of the audience.

Do the math.

I'm find the 21 million figure credible which means your 5% figure is
B.S.

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

Dave Clary wrote:

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:46:12 GMT, common_ wrote:

So again, you do not read the article, you just rant.

And you dilute your argument with absurd hyperbole.

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

Duh,,,???

you trully are a moron are you not.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:41:04 GMT, common_ wrote:



you trully are a moron are you not.

Well with seven words (and one non-word), you've clearly established
who the moron is.

The strange thing in all of this is that from the beginning I thought
that your conclusion has some merit. I'm not saying I buy it, but I
don't dismiss it out of hand. I haven't relied on OTA in over 25
years and there's no one in my circle of friends that does either.
But when you also present such obvious conflicting information as you
did in that article, your message tends to get lost. And the best you
can come up when caught with an obvious error is to write the above.

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

Dave Clary wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:07:31 GMT, common_ wrote:


why would locals go away? They would still produce news, show local
programs, and handle the network feed to the cable and sat companies -
they just could turn off the 100kw transmiter that serves less than 5
percent of thier audience.

Let me see if I have this math correct. The article you quoted
contained the following:

"Last year, it was estimated that 21 million U.S. households do not
get cable or satellite service and rely solely on free over-the-air
TV."

So if 21 million households represent only 5% of the audience, then we
are looking at close to 400 million households that rely on cable or
satellite.

This estimate is wrong. About 7% or less depend on OTA for TV both
digital and analog.

Bob Miller

???????????

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

Wes Newell wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:35:01 -0600, Dave Clary wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:07:31 GMT, common_ wrote:


why would locals go away? They would still produce news, show local
programs, and handle the network feed to the cable and sat companies -
they just could turn off the 100kw transmiter that serves less than 5
percent of thier audience.

Let me see if I have this math correct. The article you quoted
contained the following:

"Last year, it was estimated that 21 million U.S. households do not
get cable or satellite service and rely solely on free over-the-air
TV."

So if 21 million households represent only 5% of the audience, then we
are looking at close to 400 million households that rely on cable or
satellite.

???????????

Well, he's more full of crap than that Nov. turkey.:-) The US population
just hit 300M. Averaging 4 people per household that would come out to
75M households. So if 21M use OTA, that's 28%. And that doesn't include
the households that use OTA in addition to cable/sat. Don't have those
figures and don't care. Sure don't care anything about what no_sense says.:-)

But the US does not average 4 people per household. The US has 110
million households. With 300 million people that comes to 2.72 people
per household. According to this site...

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

The number of people per household in 2000 was 2.59. If that were still
true today then it suggest we have 115 million households. I prefer to
believe the latest number of 110 million however.

The number of households that RELY on OTA for TV or DTV is commonly
said to be 15%. I believe that it is 7% or less. J.D.Powers says that
88% of US households have cable or satellite. A number of sources say
that 2% of US households have NO TV of any kind. And cable and
satellite sources give numbers that suggest at least 3% of US
households steal cable or satellite. That would suggest that 7% or
fewer US households rely on OTA.

Bob Miller

wrote:
This estimate is wrong. About 7% or less depend on OTA for TV both
digital and analog.

Bob Miller

Got a source for that??