Congressional Hearings

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

fredfa on AVSForum says...

"of course, CPanther, major portion of the stations in the Top 30
markets are owned by the same mega corporations which own the networks
and so many cable channels.
A vast majority of viewers has the opportunity to see HD only because
the giant corporations who feed it to them are afraid of government
sanctions if they don't provide HD. (Isn't it amazing how Fox all of a
sudden came to the HD table when it was allowed to gobble up DirecTV?)
At the same time, a vast majority of STATIONS, owned by the "little
guys" (the Smulyans and Sinclairs, etc) continue to do whatever they
want with the spectrum. And what they want, clearly, is to chop that
spectrum up into tiny pieces and milk every penny out of each piece.
I say if they don't use the spectrum for HD, they should be forced to
return it.
And fortunately, that seems to be the underlying belief of both Sen.
McCain and Rep. Barton."

And this seems to be the take by many of the Congressional Hearings on
that thread
http/makeashorterlink.com/?E3E331A88.

Emphatically not so!

McCain has changed his tune dramatically since 2000 and now advocates
most uses other than HDTV. Both He and Chairman Barton both have
distanced the digital transition from HDTV. Senator Barton did so
specifically last this week.

And as we know broadcasters are not required to do any HDTV to comply
with FCC regulations. What if broadcasters only do an SD free to air
program with MPEG2 and then deliver an HD and multiple SD programs in a
subscription service with MPEG4? That at best is what they are going to
do. They are delivering HD.

If they do this it will obsolete all current receivers 99.9% of which
were purchased to receive HD and now won't but the broadcasters will be
in compliance and then some when they do this. The only requirement is a
5% fee from all revenue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

> And as we know broadcasters are not required to do any HDTV to comply
> with FCC regulations. What if broadcasters only do an SD free to air
> program with MPEG2 and then deliver an HD and multiple SD programs in a
> subscription service with MPEG4? That at best is what they are going to
> do. They are delivering HD.

Umm, why exactly would they do that? If they have HDTV viewers *now*,
why would they stop providing to those viewers? Why would they
deliver MPEG4 streams with no viewers of that content out there?

You seem to live in a strange vacuum without the concept of "market
forces" or "customers".

Look at what FOX is doing. They were providing only EDTV (480p) to
comply with delivering DTV, but not deliver HDTV. They are
*upgrading* their broadcast to 720p HDTV because *that's what the
customers want*.

It's amazing how capitalism and the economy works.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Michael J. Sherman wrote:
> Look at what FOX is doing. They were providing only EDTV (480p) to comply
> with delivering DTV, but not deliver HDTV. They are *upgrading* their
> broadcast to 720p HDTV because *that's what the customers want*.

Especially because FOX's 480p widescreen programming has noticably
inferior picture quality compared to the widescreen programming on other
networks. FOX viewers complained, loudly, and FOX heard those complaints.

-- Mark --

http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in news:fn8pp1-la.ln1
@developers.dsbox.com:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> And as we know broadcasters are not required to do any HDTV to comply
>> with FCC regulations. What if broadcasters only do an SD free to air
>> program with MPEG2 and then deliver an HD and multiple SD programs in a
>> subscription service with MPEG4? That at best is what they are going to
>> do. They are delivering HD.
>
> Umm, why exactly would they do that? If they have HDTV viewers *now*,
> why would they stop providing to those viewers? Why would they
> deliver MPEG4 streams with no viewers of that content out there?
>
> You seem to live in a strange vacuum without the concept of "market
> forces" or "customers".
>
> Look at what FOX is doing. They were providing only EDTV (480p) to
> comply with delivering DTV, but not deliver HDTV. They are
> *upgrading* their broadcast to 720p HDTV because *that's what the
> customers want*.
>
> It's amazing how capitalism and the economy works.
>

And it's amazing how Bob works... Wasn't he saying a while back that the
broadcasters didn't want to broadcast HDTV because there weren't enough
viewers that could receive it, but now he's saying that the broadcasters
will jump on a different technology with no viewers and no receivers?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message
news:fn8pp1-la.ln1@developers.dsbox.com...
> Umm, why exactly would they do that? If they have HDTV viewers *now*,
> why would they stop providing to those viewers? Why would they
> deliver MPEG4 streams with no viewers of that content out there?

The poster's claim--which would require statistical backup--is that the
networks' percentage of actual HD viewers is still extremely small. The
claim is that the networks still have a window of opportunity in which they
could back away from free-of-charge HD (which must be MPEG-2 and hence
occupies almost all their bandwidth), and instead provide only one slim SD
channel free-of-charge, essentially equivalent to the old analog channel
that most (99%?) of their viewership knows them for. They would then devote
the majority of their bandwidth to subscription-TV services. The claim is
that the number of actual teed-off HD viewers would be small enough to be
"manageable."

Even if this scenario begins to play out, the question becomes: Will the
American people and their Congress actually let this happen?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michael J. Sherman wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> And as we know broadcasters are not required to do any HDTV to comply
>> with FCC regulations. What if broadcasters only do an SD free to air
>> program with MPEG2 and then deliver an HD and multiple SD programs in
>> a subscription service with MPEG4? That at best is what they are going
>> to do. They are delivering HD.
>
>
> Umm, why exactly would they do that? If they have HDTV viewers *now*,
> why would they stop providing to those viewers? Why would they deliver
> MPEG4 streams with no viewers of that content out there?
>
> You seem to live in a strange vacuum without the concept of "market
> forces" or "customers".
>
> Look at what FOX is doing. They were providing only EDTV (480p) to
> comply with delivering DTV, but not deliver HDTV. They are *upgrading*
> their broadcast to 720p HDTV because *that's what the customers want*.
>
> It's amazing how capitalism and the economy works.

Yes it is amazing. You now have USDTV that is offering multiple SD
channels instead of HD and they say they are going to replace all
current receivers in their customers hands with new ones that work with
a better compression.

Another broadcaster, Emmis, is so excited about USDTV's plans that they
have put a coalition of broadcasters together to do the same thing. In
fact they are attempting to buy USDTV. 25% of all full power
broadcasters have already joined Emmis and they expect to reach 50% by
the end of the summer.

No broadcaster in this country has enough HD customers with OTA
receivers to even think twice about this. They sure would not compromise
their long term OTA profitability because of less than ONE% of viewers
who would have thiner current receivers rendered obsolete. They may
offer a promotion that would subsidize the purchase of a new receiver
that would be able to handle MPEG4.

I expect most new receivers within a year to be capable of better
compression codecs. I expect all new receivers that sell well to be
capable of better compression.

FOUR of Emmis's fifteen stations are FOX.

There is no problem with delivering HD under the Emmis plan. They just
do it with better compression and could easily do 3 or 4 HD programs at
the same time while broadcasting the REQUIRED SD stream in MPEG2.

Why would broadcasters do this? Because it makes sense and it is the
first thing that has made sense since the DTV transition started. The
better Zenith receivers are also critical to the success of this venture.

IF broadcasts can do this and I expect that at least the FCC and people
like Senator McCain and Congressman Barton will be ecstatic over this.
McCain has been looking for anything that would offer competition to
cable and satellite. Broadcasters can offer unique new options that are
already wildly successful in Europe.

Broadcasters have the opportunity to double to triple the content
carrying capability of their current spectrum. They have the opportunity
to build a competitive offering to cable and satellite. The have the
evidence that the public will go ape over this offering. Can anyone
imagine why they would not do this?

AGAIN THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HDTV. IN FACT BROADCASTERS CAN DO A
LOT MORE HDTV WITH THIS PLAN AND THE HDTV THEY DO WILL BE WELL WITHIN
THE BOUNDS OF THEIR CAPACITY. THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE PIXELATION AND
BLOCKING DUE TO NOT ENOUGH DATARATE.

THIS PLAN IS ABOUT MORE HD AND BETTER HD AND GOOD COMPETITION FOR CABLE
AND SATELLITE. Now it is possible that broadcasters will not do a lot of
HD. If so it will be only because of a lack of demand or because
broadcasters believe that SD or ED would be a better solution for them.
IT WILL AGAIN HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MULTICASTING OR USING A BETTER
CODEC. IT WILL HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH DEMAND AND THE WAY THE
BROADCASTERS SEE THEIR COMPETITIVE POSITION RELATED TO CABLE AND SATELLITE.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Shoaf wrote:

> "Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in news:fn8pp1-la.ln1
> @developers.dsbox.com:
>
>
>>Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And as we know broadcasters are not required to do any HDTV to comply
>>>with FCC regulations. What if broadcasters only do an SD free to air
>>>program with MPEG2 and then deliver an HD and multiple SD programs in a
>>>subscription service with MPEG4? That at best is what they are going to
>>>do. They are delivering HD.
>>
>>Umm, why exactly would they do that? If they have HDTV viewers *now*,
>>why would they stop providing to those viewers? Why would they
>>deliver MPEG4 streams with no viewers of that content out there?
>>
>>You seem to live in a strange vacuum without the concept of "market
>>forces" or "customers".
>>
>>Look at what FOX is doing. They were providing only EDTV (480p) to
>>comply with delivering DTV, but not deliver HDTV. They are
>>*upgrading* their broadcast to 720p HDTV because *that's what the
>>customers want*.
>>
>>It's amazing how capitalism and the economy works.
>>
>
>
> And it's amazing how Bob works... Wasn't he saying a while back that the
> broadcasters didn't want to broadcast HDTV because there weren't enough
> viewers that could receive it, but now he's saying that the broadcasters
> will jump on a different technology with no viewers and no receivers?
>
The current reality is that broadcasters think of early adopters of HDTV
as a zero sum right now.

They are just starting to think seriously about their OTA digital
channel at all. Till now they have just been paying dues to keep the FCC
off their back. And the first plan they come up with is not so bad. It
is close to what I have been proposing they do since 1999. The problem
was that as long as they had to rely on past 8-VSB receivers this was
going nowhere. It is the new receivers that have broadcasters thinking.

Yes, broadcasters will jump on a different technology with no viewers
and no receivers because this one has a chance at success. No
broadcaster had come up with a business plan that made sense with
current 8-VSB receivers. They have all been just waiting.

If the receivers are what I have heard and they can keep the price down
to $200 or less as the USDTV receivers are and if most customers do not
need a rooftop antenna this could work. It has in the UK and Berlin
(both cities of which already had a lot of legacy rooftop antennas
anyway) and this US plan has the added plus of including HD.

Of course with COFDM you could also have mobile and we could have been
doing this with sub $200 receivers that did not need rooftop antennas in
2001. The last four years have just been an expensive waste. And all
those 8-VSB receiver that everyone worried that COFDM would make
obsolete will now be made obsolete by new 8-VSB receivers at least as
far as HD is concerned.

In 2000 I said sooner or later all broadcasters would be doing
multicasting and datacasting. Also said that it would take years at
least five or six before 8-VSB receivers would improve enough to do
adequate reception fixed. Said that when that happened the cost of those
receivers would still be too high.

We need $50 receivers that work with current analog TV sets. We need
$150 or less HDTV receivers that are as good as what I hear the new
Zenith's are.

The key to the success of OTA HDTV in the US is the willingness of
broadcasters to team up and make an offering that challenges cable and
satellite and which include HD obviously. IT will probably take
subsidized receives and a subscription service to do this.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:AKtyc.2212$Wr.1788
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> We need *blah,blah,blah*...

Maybe all that is what _you_ need. _None_ of us need mobile dtv.

What _we_ need is for you and your coharts to quit spreading FUD.

The current HDTV standard works; the issue with adoption is that
broadcasters don't want to spend the money to upgrade their equipment until
there are viewers that can receive the upgraded signal, but viewers don't
want to buy a receiver for the upgraded signal until the broadcasters are
providing content that they can receive with the receiver; viewers are also
hesitant to buy receivers until the price comes down, but the price won't
come down until enough viewers are buying to get the economies of large-
scale manufacturing. This would be true of any modulation scheme that is
not backwards compatible with the previous scheme.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Pardon my ignorance,but what does the acronym FUD translate into?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"SAC 441" <SAC441@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2831-40CB310D-8@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net...
> Pardon my ignorance,but what does the acronym FUD translate into?

Fear Uncertainty Doubt

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> Or not. Doesn't have to be a subscription service, could be free HDTV,
> could be one free HDTV and one pay or any combination you can think of.
> I am talking to one broadcaster that is going to do ALL data casting
> where some streams will be 256 Kbps video. He claims they could have 100
> channels in one. Hey sounds like me in 1999. We were a pure datacasting
> play then, now we are a mix.

What will he be datacasting? One of our local PBS stations (KLCS/58) is
broadcasting 4 SDTV feeds -- 3 are clasroom instructional videos. For
the target audience (classrooms), it seems sub-optimal. The area (Los
Angeles, California) is heavily wired for high-speed internet -- I'd
guess most schools would be better off implementing an internet-based
video-casting system.

>> The claim is that the number of actual teed-off HD viewers would be
>> small enough to be
>> "manageable."
>>
>> Even if this scenario begins to play out, the question becomes: Will the
>> American people and their Congress actually let this happen?

Although I agree HDTV viewership is still largely insignificant today,
the viewers tend to be of an elite mid-upper class 'snobbish' type who
are very vocal (at least at avsforum.com), and would raise a huge stink
about their loss of free HDTV.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

preferences wrote:

>> Or not. Doesn't have to be a subscription service, could be free HDTV,
>> could be one free HDTV and one pay or any combination you can think
>> of. I am talking to one broadcaster that is going to do ALL data
>> casting where some streams will be 256 Kbps video. He claims they
>> could have 100 channels in one. Hey sounds like me in 1999. We were a
>> pure datacasting play then, now we are a mix.
>
>
> What will he be datacasting? One of our local PBS stations (KLCS/58) is
> broadcasting 4 SDTV feeds -- 3 are clasroom instructional videos. For
> the target audience (classrooms), it seems sub-optimal. The area (Los
> Angeles, California) is heavily wired for high-speed internet -- I'd
> guess most schools would be better off implementing an internet-based
> video-casting system.

You have a good point. While OTA broadcasting is very efficient at
delivering the same content to millions and the Internet is better at
satisfying individual request and an intermediate demand that a school
system would represent. And as the US starts to catch up with broadband
speeds like in Korea or Japan cable and satellite will have more
competition. Content owners will go directly to the customer. That is
why I consider mobile the one last broadcast bastion.
>
>>> The claim is that the number of actual teed-off HD viewers would be
>>> small enough to be
>>> "manageable."
>>>
>>> Even if this scenario begins to play out, the question becomes: Will
>>> the
>>> American people and their Congress actually let this happen?
>
>
> Although I agree HDTV viewership is still largely insignificant today,
> the viewers tend to be of an elite mid-upper class 'snobbish' type who
> are very vocal (at least at avsforum.com), and would raise a huge stink
> about their loss of free HDTV.
>
Noisy but insignificant. Neither Congress, the FCC or the CEA will pay
any attention to them. Lip service for HDTV was minimal at both House
and Senate hearings in the last two weeks while demands for spectrum
give back were shrill. Broadcasters were too intimidated to even show up
though invited to the Senate hearings.

AVSForum is heavily censored so members only hear one side of pivotal
issues. If these early adopters understood the technical issues and were
not so easily duped by special interest they would have been demanding a
change to COFDM modulation in 2000 instead of buying the BS that was
being so heavily shoveled their way.

And now if they understood what was happening with the recent awakening
of the broadcast industry by the better 8-VSB receivers and the USDTV
and Emmis initiatives they would be applauding the idea. (actually and
surprisingly some are though probably soon to be censored, warned or
deleted). After all if broadcasters limit their MPEG2 fare to one SD
program and use WM9, MPEG4 or such they can deliver more HDTV and far
better quality, less macro-blocking etc. And all this for the price of a
new 8-VSB receiver which should be no problem because many of them have
gone though multiple 8-VSB receivers just trying to get one that receives.

They are the ultimate pioneers with many arrows in their backs and they
don't have a clue who or why. I was advocating a better modulation for
reception, a better codec for higher quality and more HD content and
opportunistic datacasting back in 1999. In those days these were all
dirty words. Now the Luddite network itself, CBS, speaks them all. As I
said then it was painfully, obviously inevitable as was the long wait
for a decent 8-VSB receiver.

We have wasted 4 years and a lot of money with another one or two to go
and things are getting better. I still predict that as broadcasters
start focusing on actually broadcasting OTA as they seem to be doing
lately and as foreign success continues using COFDM modulations that
broadcaster will at some point, including CBS, demand, irregardless of
the better 8-VSB receivers, a change in modulation to a COFDM type
modulation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>AVSForum is heavily censored so members only hear one side of pivotal
>issues.

No BOB, the only censoring going on at AVS is to filter out LIARS. Do you begin
to understand why you were booted yet?

>I still predict that as broadcasters
>start focusing on actually broadcasting OTA as they seem to be doing
>lately and as foreign success continues using COFDM modulations that
>broadcaster will at some point, including CBS, demand, irregardless of
>the better 8-VSB receivers, a change in modulation to a COFDM type
>modulation.

And golly BOB, your predictions have been so accurate thus far! HA HA HA HA HA
HA.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Good old Bob sure is a Johnny-one-note --- COFDM, COFDM, COFDM. He sees
EVERYHINTG in those terms only. What the heck does spectrum give back have
to do with the losing modulation scheme, except for some convoluted
conspiracy that he imagines in his head.

I guess when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

"Vidguy7" <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040612225823.00400.00000971@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >AVSForum is heavily censored so members only hear one side of pivotal
> >issues.
>
> No BOB, the only censoring going on at AVS is to filter out LIARS. Do you
begin
> to understand why you were booted yet?
>
> >I still predict that as broadcasters
> >start focusing on actually broadcasting OTA as they seem to be doing
> >lately and as foreign success continues using COFDM modulations that
> >broadcaster will at some point, including CBS, demand, irregardless of
> >the better 8-VSB receivers, a change in modulation to a COFDM type
> >modulation.
>
> And golly BOB, your predictions have been so accurate thus far! HA HA HA
HA HA
> HA.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:
> "SAC 441" <SAC441@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>Pardon my ignorance,but what does the acronym FUD translate into?
> Fear Uncertainty Doubt

I was wondering as well, and given the content, I was thinking "f**ked up data" But your
def was nicer.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))