OTA DTV hits ONE%

NadCixelsyd wrote:
Sounds like you agree with me that free OTA is dead.

Bob Miller

What about me, Bob. All my TV is OTA, digital, ATSC, 8VSB, and I LOVE
IT because it's FREE. I don't even have a VHF antenna. Yes, I would
appreciate having more channels, but I'm unwilling to pay $800 per
year. The 8 ATSC stations within 50 miles of my house are quite
adequate (19 if you include duplicate network affiliations, shopping
channels and foreign language stations which I exclude.)

I've asked you many times, but you ignore the question. ATSC is the
law, so what do you expect me to do about it? Do you expect me to
give up my FREE television?

And why does my local NBC/ABC/FOX/CBS/CW/PBS affiliate broadcast ATSC
if only 1% are watching it? What's their motivation? Surely, my
cable company would carry those stations even without the "must carry"
rule.

Seems that NBC/ABC/FOX/CBS/CW/PBS affiliates are not as sure as you are
that they would be carried by cable. Especially if they stopped
broadcasting and lost must carry and their affiliations.

A broadcaster told me in 1999 that the cost of broadcasting OTA is the
dues broadcasters pay for must carry on cable. While he publicly has and
would state that free OTA is wonderful, privately he will tell you that
if he could keep must carry and turn off his transmitters he would do it
in a heartbeat.

True with NTSC and its 13% of households that rely on it, ten times
truer with ATSC with its ONE% many of which probably only have OTA DTV
as a backup or because they were early adopters and just have it.

Bob Miller

NadCixelsyd wrote:
Sounds like you agree with me that free OTA is dead.

Bob Miller

What about me, Bob. All my TV is OTA, digital, ATSC, 8VSB, and I LOVE
IT because it's FREE. I don't even have a VHF antenna. Yes, I would
appreciate having more channels, but I'm unwilling to pay $800 per
year. The 8 ATSC stations within 50 miles of my house are quite
adequate (19 if you include duplicate network affiliations, shopping
channels and foreign language stations which I exclude.)

I've asked you many times, but you ignore the question. ATSC is the
law, so what do you expect me to do about it? Do you expect me to
give up my FREE television?

And why does my local NBC/ABC/FOX/CBS/CW/PBS affiliate broadcast ATSC
if only 1% are watching it? What's their motivation? Surely, my
cable company would carry those stations even without the "must carry"
rule.

BTW how many people do you know have and use OTA DTV who have cable or
satellite also or are OTA only?

Bob Miller

A broadcaster told me in 1999 that the cost of broadcasting OTA is the
dues broadcasters pay for must carry on cable. While he publicly has and
would state that free OTA is wonderful, privately he will tell you that
if he could keep must carry and turn off his transmitters he would do it
in a heartbeat.

So, your entire argument is based on ONE broadcaster's comment eight
years ago? That's not a statistical sample. You have a knack for
obfuscation, evasion, and non-responsive comments. Yes, many of the
fly-by-night stations, such as home-shopping, rely on "must carry",
but you're gonna have to show more evidence that a network affiliate
relies on "must carry".

Maybe if we get rid of "must carry", we'll get some TV stations that
the public wants.

I've asked you many times, but you ignore the question, again and
again. ATSC is the
law, so what do you expect me to do about it? Do you expect me to
give up my FREE television?

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
In the UK 75% of homes will have an OTA receiver by Christmas that they
actually use.

Where has this statistic come from? In the UK just over 80% of homes have a
digital receiver on the main set (either cable, satellite or OTA) of which
the OTA DTV service currently accounts for slightly less than half.

If you want a 1% statistic to compare then in the UK around 1% of households
have an HD service.

In total only 73% of UK homes can actually receive an off-air digital
signal, therefore making any claim of 75% of homes using it by Christmas
something of a non-starter, irrespective of how many people start rushing
out to the stores.

Bob Miller wrote:
NadCixelsyd wrote:
Sounds like you agree with me that free OTA is dead.

Bob Miller

What about me, Bob. All my TV is OTA, digital, ATSC, 8VSB, and I LOVE
IT because it's FREE. I don't even have a VHF antenna. Yes, I would
appreciate having more channels, but I'm unwilling to pay $800 per
year. The 8 ATSC stations within 50 miles of my house are quite
adequate (19 if you include duplicate network affiliations, shopping
channels and foreign language stations which I exclude.)

I've asked you many times, but you ignore the question. ATSC is the
law, so what do you expect me to do about it? Do you expect me to
give up my FREE television?

And why does my local NBC/ABC/FOX/CBS/CW/PBS affiliate broadcast ATSC
if only 1% are watching it? What's their motivation? Surely, my
cable company would carry those stations even without the "must carry"
rule.

BTW how many people do you know have and use OTA DTV who have cable or
satellite also or are OTA only?

Bob Miller

I'm one! Digital cable (SD-480i output) with four extended packages and
HBO goes to a 42 inch ED set in family room. Handles most of the
routine public and cable network shows (news, features etc.) stuff
that's scheduled in newspaper or mentioned in media reviews. (have to
admit that there's a VTR* there as well -- gets used rarely but we're
more into content than sophistication.)

A standard cable analog feed goes to two HDTVs, a 56" set up for
home-theater and 31" in the guest bedroom. Those sets also get an OTA
feed to their ATSC inputs and have a DVD player. Those sets are used
for DVDs or sports events. The analog cable is there "just in case."
We have a laptop connected to the guest room set and occasionally stream
a 'freebie' from Netflix. Not the prettiest stuff in the universe but
it's content--what the heck?

Why? OTA is better than the digital feed from our cable company --
fewer pixelizations, better handling of motion artifacts and far
superior lip sync. There are no Cable Company inserted commercials or
substitutions of 'paid programming' for channels that are outside the
'must carry' radius. For most analog cable (SD) channels above 35 the
HDTV sets have better picture quality on the SD NTSC channels than the
output we get from a digital cable box (digital used to be better but it
has deteriorated over the last three months as the cable company
scrambles to find bandwidth for their HD offerings.)

Cable Television (ours is the #1 rated company in the U.S.) CPE* is
horrid. Between 1979 and 1999 we had four analog cable 'boxes.' About
one every 5 years. Since 2000 we have had 5 digital SD boxes--that's a
MTBF around 18 months. We had HD-DVR service for four months. When the
second HD box crapped-out I had HD removed and we switched to OTA (MTBF
on the HD gear was less than 60 days).

Since 1967, the MTBF of our TV receivers has been 14 years (n=5). Other
consumer electronics (excluding portable devices) has been better than
that. We replace an outside antenna about every 6 years and that's not
from sudden failure...when it starts looking ugly I know it's time.

Simply put, Cable TV doesn't measure up -- it's a headache. The more
equipment in the home, the more aggravation. I'm looking at two friends
that are going the satellite route -- hope they do better.

I don't like periodic visits from the 'cable guy.' I decided that I can
do without HBO-HD. I would like Discovery-HD but I'm not willing to
contend with the nuisance.

Note: The cable company telephone gear works quite well. Seven years,
one Voiceport failure. They spotted the failure while I was on
vacation. They didn't have to enter the home--fixed it without me
knowing it. Left a note on the front door and sent me an email.

I'm happy with what I've got. Waiting for the BluRay and HD-DVD hassle
to end. I've got a life and don't need to record anything off the air.


Questions:

1. Why should I pay for two HD cable boxes that decrease the
reliability and quality of the picture?

2. Why should I increase the number of times the 'cable guy' comes to
my house and fiddles with wiring and cable boxes?


Bottom Line: Sophisticated solutions are like sophisticated
people--they don't need to work!!

Thought: Do you realize the amount of regulation that cable companies
would experience if OTA broadcasts ceased? Cable has been successful in
lobbying for decreased regulation. Cable has no desire to reverse that
trend. OTA is the savior of the "competitive" cable company!!

--
pj

MTBF = Mean time between failures
CPE = Customer premises equipment
VTR = Video Tape Recorder -- yup, it still works

"Larry Bud" wrote in message
...
Lots of good reasons for OTA. So why are broadcasters not telling the
public about them?

Because Bob, nobody ****ing needs to watch TV over the air. I don't
know one person that doesn't have cable or satellite, HD or not.

I am one who does not have cable or satellite, mostly watch HDTV OTA and a
little amount of digital SDTV OTA. Some of my neighbors subscribe to cable
or satellite but also rely on digital TV OTA. In this case, they get better
HDTV OTA, then watching the same on cable or satellite. Surveys I have read
and taken so far seem to discount OTA if one has cable or satellite.
Obviously, this renders the poll invalid; but then again, maybe the invalid
survey provides the amount of deception desired.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:29:57 -0800, NadCixelsyd wrote:

And why does my local NBC/ABC/FOX/CBS/CW/PBS affiliate broadcast ATSC if
only 1% are watching it? What's their motivation? Surely, my cable
company would carry those stations even without the "must carry" rule.

Because most of what Bob writes is pure fiction, to be kind. And your
cable co. is carrying your local stations without the must carry rule.
Bypassing the must carry rule allows local stations to charge the cable
companies for the feed, and they do.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:17:36 -0500 Nick Danger
wrote:
snip

In this case, it is more like Americans are not being
informed. Look at
the TV broadcasters themselves and how they are reporting
this. I am aware
of exactly one broadcaster that has even made any attempt to
inform their
viewers (WISH-TV over a year ago). Maybe many others have, as
I don't see
them all.

WBZ aka CBS4 in Boston did a rather misleading report
on this issue connected to Best Buy. WBZ essentially told
viewers they would have replace their TV's with HDTVs by
the 2009 change over. Of course this is patently untrue for
cable, satellite and increasing fiber optics users.

This OTA user is slightly less dismissive of Bob Miller's
doomsday missives than most herein in that ultimately
broadcasters do have to justify the additional cost of
broadcasting.
--

Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"

"Larry Bud" wrote in message
...
Lots of good reasons for OTA. So why are broadcasters not
telling the
public about them?

Because Bob, nobody ****ing needs to watch TV over the air. I
don't
know one person that doesn't have cable or satellite, HD or
not.

I don't and never have had cable or satellite TV. I do have
HDTV and watch OTA. Of course it is true we've never.

--

Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"

"Bob Miller" wrote:

Habitual, hopeless and pointless/childish arguing, with the *perfectly*
inappropriate crowd, (mostly OTA ATSC HDTV proponents), no less. As per
usual.

It's been eight years (!!) of your running with this compulsion, a common
symptom of your ongoing obsessional-delusional mental illness.