The NYT Says the Transition News Isn't Good

On Dec 23, 7:12*am, robmx wrote:

“We at WIBW are asking these cable businesses, who for years made
significant profits by re-selling our programming, to start paying us
just as they pay the national cable channels,” he said. “WIBW spends
millions of dollars each year in payroll and operations to offer by
far the most-watched news and programming of any other channel in the
Topeka television market.”

umm - I bet that WIBW viewers see plenty of commercials. Does anybody
time-shift the local news??
===================

let Bob Miller post - he does post some interesting links, learn to
ignore the rest

Marco wrote:
On Dec 23, 1:42 am, Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode,
,
the lovely and talented robmx
broadcast on alt.video.digital-tv:

Remysun wrote:
I also think that tech designers will continue to learn how to grab
and decode more of the signal, so that the cliff effect will
eventually be more like a street curb.
Why should they bother. 8-VSB is doing exactly what broadcasters want it
to do. Herd as many OTA viewers to cable and satellite where they get
paid per subscriber.
I don't believe that. I believe people have been switching from basic cable
to OTA. OTA in any format is never going to compete with high-end bazillion
channels and pay-per-view cable and satellite. But it is pretty difficult
to justify the expense of basic cable when there is so much OTA digital.

OTA may be putting competition pressure on the cable companies, our
local Comcast is now giving free basic cable with an internet
package.


Basic cable is *not* free when bundled with something else.

The Internet package includes basic cable at no extra cost.

Marco wrote:
On Dec 23, 7:12 am, robmx wrote:

“We at WIBW are asking these cable businesses, who for years made
significant profits by re-selling our programming, to start paying us
just as they pay the national cable channels,” he said. “WIBW spends
millions of dollars each year in payroll and operations to offer by
far the most-watched news and programming of any other channel in the
Topeka television market.”

umm - I bet that WIBW viewers see plenty of commercials. Does anybody
time-shift the local news??

I time shift just about everything that manages to bump into my antennas.



===================

let Bob Miller post - he does post some interesting links, learn to
ignore the rest


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

In article , Agent_C wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:58:58 GMT, (GMAN) wrote:

Why would anyone trust what the NYT says about anything?

I gather you're a National Enquirer or NY Post reader?

A_C
No, but i dont read that liberal crap.

UCLAN wrote:
Bob Miller changed his alias and wrote:

First, you asked a question. "Again, what is your source for claiming
stations get paid for having their HD signal on cable?"

I answered it.

You seemed to assume that I said ALL station were getting paid for
their HD content. I didn't.

You assumed that I was suggesting that a cable company HAD to pay for
the content whether they wanted to or not. I didn't. They have a
choice. If they want the content they have to pay for it.

Nice back-track. *Now* what's your point? *My* point is that getting rid
of their OTA audience is hardly a positive move as far as their
retransmission
consent demands go.

Very confused by your "point". Moving OTA viewers to cable where they
are already getting paid per subscriber is a "positive move" in my book.
That is the future for any successful broadcaster as far as I can tell
their plans.

Most broadcasters plans seem to be to maximize revenues by maximizing
eyeballs thru either cash from retransmission consent or ad revenue from
must carry. I see no evidence that broadcasters plans include making
money from OTA 8-VSB. Quite the contrary there is lots of evidence they
are steering their OTA viewers to cable and satellite.

The one exception is their enthusiasm for mobile DTV that I detect most
of what I read about their frantic activity over mobile both from a fear
standpoint and a greed standpoint.

And since broadcasters only need to deliver one SD program with MPEG2
for free that is what they will do. They will deliver HD to cable and
satellite and get paid for it or cease delivering it and one SD
program with MPEG2 for free OTA while using the rest of the spectrum
for a mobile OTA subscription service. This service could include, no
will include HD content.

Ah, you're speculating on what the broadcasters will do. Guess what? So
far,
seven out of seven of my local OTA broadcasters provide an *HD* signal to
OTA viewers as well as the cable company, and the cable company passes
them along to their customers at no charge. Three of the seven stations
have NO sub-channels whatsoever, and one has a audio only (radio station)
sub-channel. Will that change? Maybe, but to say they *will* do as you
"predict", and blame it all on 8VSB is laughable.

I have to predict it since they cannot do it yet. M/H is not ready for
prime time though they seem to be frantically working to get it done.
Since they will be deploying it at or after the transition and since
there will be few viewers of OTA 8-VSB after the transition and
therefore very little ad revenue from that sector I would expect their
enthusiasm for mobile to only increase until it is shown to be a money
maker or a loser.

If a money maker they will then, logically, try to increase mobile M/H
at the exspence of 8-VSB. Since a minimum of M/H mobile already will
seriously be impacting their HD program any increase in mobile
programming will quickly kill any real HD capability.

If they do as I expect and deliver decent SD DTV OTA mobile I would
expect it to grow as fast or faster than DTV grew in the UK. That is
from ZERO in 2004 to 72% today. That is that possibly more than 72% of
households will be using mobile devices for M/H DTV by in the US by
2012. And another % will be using other devices to receive competitors
DTV. Therefore it would make sense for all receivers to be able to
receive all modulations. When the US then changes modulation it will be
painless.

The younger generation is already avidly using lots of wireless toys
that just work and this same generation is/will reject OTA 8-VSB totally
as archaic. They will avidly participate in OTA DTV that just works
mobile or fixed on current devices like their laptops and many new
devices yet to be offered.

If that happens broadcasters will be RABID to increase both the capacity
of their mobile delivery and the reliability and coverage of same.

Since they are successful they can expect rapid growth in competition
from spectrum above channel 51 and maybe even from white space spectrum
below channel 51. All this spectrum will be free to use the best
modulations and codecs available at any and all resolutions.

That will require that broadcasters also have the best tools, a new
modulation and codec.

Game over.

The garbage 8-VSB and its sibling M/H will be discarded with 8-VSB never
having been seriously used and M/H only pointing the way to the correct
course, the same correct course that was evident in 2000.

Or maybe someone in Congress will notice that no one is using 8-VSB for
OTA after the transition, argue that broadcasters mobile subscription
based M/H model is NOT what was expected from the public for the free
use of said spectrum and take it back and auction it off to others who
will....Ta Da... use the spectrum with a better modulation and codec
than is now being used.

Take your pick.

Bob Miller

UCLAN wrote:
robmx wrote:

They are driving their OTA customers to cable and satellite by not
promoting OTA, by acquiescing to a lousy modulation and by stealing bits,
lots of bits, for OTA mobile reception that they will also charge $$$
for.

If they chose 8VSB modulation to drive people to cable, did they not help
cable's RETRANSMISSION CONSENT position by making their OTA signal more
difficult to receive? Can't cable now say "John Q. Public can't see your
programs - or your advertisers - without our help. Drop your asking
price" ?

I fail to see the logic in your argument.

I didn't mean to imply that broadcasters were/are logical. Maybe they
did drop their asking price. Can you imagine what their asking price
would be today if 72% of homes in the US not only were fully aware of,
HAD AND were actively using OTA DTV to receive broadcasters
programming??? Broadcasters might not consider selling such content at
ANY price. Why not have the monopoly on that content if ALL your viewers
can receive it OTA with a decent modulation and SFN network?

72% is the number of households in the UK that have FREELY without
subsidy purchased one or MORE OTA DTV receivers. And in the UK they did
so WITHOUT the incentive of HD content.

If HD is the major incentive many here believe then wouldn't the number
of US homes with OTA DTV HD be even more by now after TEN years than in
the UK after SIX years of DTV???

In the US you have lots of HD content and you can receive it FREE OTA.
Why is the US NOT at 90% now? Why have broadcasters NOT been advertising
their OTA content for the last TEN years.

PLEASE think this thru just once honestly if you are not a paid shill
for some vested interest.

When Congress in the person of for one example Congressman Dingell of
Michigan, who has so aptly represented the US Auto industry into near
extinction, threatened broadcasters spectrum rights if they so much as
questioned the choice of 8-VSB broadcasters quacked in their boots and
let Congress and the FCC, both profoundly and pathetically ignorant of
how bad 8-VSB was, RAM 8-VSB down their (and our) throats.

And many, as expressed here on this list, just don't get it even now
eight years, a mandate and a subsidy later.

Dingell finally was removed recently from his chairmanship of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee after ruining the auto industry and
severely damaging the broadcast industry.

Bob Miller

Marco wrote:

let Bob Miller post - he does post some interesting links, learn to
ignore the rest

He's a lunatic. I'm through with him.

robmx wrote:
UCLAN wrote:
robmx wrote:

They are driving their OTA customers to cable and satellite by not
promoting OTA, by acquiescing to a lousy modulation and by stealing
bits,
lots of bits, for OTA mobile reception that they will also charge $$$
for.

If they chose 8VSB modulation to drive people to cable, did they not help
cable's RETRANSMISSION CONSENT position by making their OTA signal more
difficult to receive? Can't cable now say "John Q. Public can't see your
programs - or your advertisers - without our help. Drop your asking
price" ?

I fail to see the logic in your argument.

I didn't mean to imply that broadcasters were/are logical. Maybe they
did drop their asking price. Can you imagine what their asking price
would be today if 72% of homes in the US not only were fully aware of,
HAD AND were actively using OTA DTV to receive broadcasters
programming??? Broadcasters might not consider selling such content at
ANY price. Why not have the monopoly on that content if ALL your viewers
can receive it OTA with a decent modulation and SFN network?

72% is the number of households in the UK that have FREELY without
subsidy purchased one or MORE OTA DTV receivers. And in the UK they did
so WITHOUT the incentive of HD content.

If HD is the major incentive many here believe then wouldn't the number
of US homes with OTA DTV HD be even more by now after TEN years than in
the UK after SIX years of DTV???

In the US you have lots of HD content and you can receive it FREE OTA.
Why is the US NOT at 90% now? Why have broadcasters NOT been advertising
their OTA content for the last TEN years.

PLEASE think this thru just once honestly if you are not a paid shill
for some vested interest.

When Congress in the person of for one example Congressman Dingell of
Michigan, who has so aptly represented the US Auto industry into near
extinction, threatened broadcasters spectrum rights if they so much as
questioned the choice of 8-VSB broadcasters quacked in their boots and
let Congress and the FCC, both profoundly and pathetically ignorant of
how bad 8-VSB was, RAM 8-VSB down their (and our) throats.

And many, as expressed here on this list, just don't get it even now
eight years, a mandate and a subsidy later.

Dingell finally was removed recently from his chairmanship of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee after ruining the auto industry and
severely damaging the broadcast industry.

Bob Miller
Bob,

Why are you the only one here with this attitude on 8-VSB. Your debate
was lost 8 years ago. Where are your defenders?

Using the UK as a market example is like comparing apples and oranges.
The market forces are just not the same in the two countries. The US
does not have a government owned network of broadcaster stations as the
UK and many other European nations. Broadcasting has always been
independent of government control in this country unlike the UK.

If the local broadcasters wanted to drive everyone to Cable and
Satellite. What would give them any mandate for a local station. The
Satellite and Cable operators would just negotiate with CBS, NBC, ABC
and FOX directly. This would put local stations out of business.

We can get all our over the air content on WiMax then everyone would
need an internet account.

I don't think you fully understand the economics at work here.

robmx wrote:

Nice back-track. *Now* what's your point? *My* point is that getting rid
of their OTA audience is hardly a positive move as far as their
retransmission
consent demands go.

Very confused by your "point". Moving OTA viewers to cable where they
are already getting paid per subscriber is a "positive move" in my book.
That is the future for any successful broadcaster as far as I can tell
their plans.

You're easily confused. By using the horrible (according to you) 8VSB
modulation which nobody (according to you) can receive, the stations
have eliminated a free alternative to cable for many viewers, and in
doing so eliminated any incentive cable had to pay them for their signal.
Cable can now say "If you want ANYBODY to see your programming - and your
advertisements - we'll carry them, but not pay for them." Do I need to draw
you a picture? Logic impaired?

Your reputation is well earned. You're a loon.

jack ak wrote:

OTA may be putting competition pressure on the cable companies, our
local Comcast is now giving free basic cable with an internet
package.


Basic cable is *not* free when bundled with something else.

The Internet package includes basic cable at no extra cost.

If you price for the Internet package is the same with or without the
basic cable, then basic cable is indeed free.