OZ

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2 million.
OZ has probably the slowest sales of COFDM receivers of all the
countries doing COFDM DTV modulation. Sales are hampered by high prices
for receivers since OZ only has a market of 19 million people or around
4 million households. This makes economies of scale a problem and prices
higher than they would be in a larger market. For example COFDM
receivers in the UK are selling for as little as $50 while a similar
receiver in OZ sells for $200.

Still OZ which is only 1/14th the size of the US has a sales rate that
is accelerating and if compared to the US would be 7 million so far, far
higher than sales in the US. Remember that OZ has only been at this for
three years also compared to the seven the US has been at it.

http/www.dba.org.au/index.asp?display=news&newsID=599

Fortunately the US will have a receiver that works, the 5th gen LG,
within a few months. We should then, after waiting for seven years,
finally see our digital transition take off.

The question everyone should ask themselves is why has the US gone off
on its own with an inferior modulation and inferior receivers for the
last seven years? Why have we wasted this time and a lot of money with a
modulation, 8-VSB, that was not ready for prime time?

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:
> Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2 million.
<Other OT dribble snipped>

And the fact that exactly 0.00% of them were HD capable makes your post
completely off-topic for this newsgroup.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:E%vfd.3102$kM.2164
@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2 million.


That's all I can take........ PLONK!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Dave Solly wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2 million.
>
> That's all I can take........ PLONK!



cough... cough........











c.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff Shoaf wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2 million.
>
> <Other OT dribble snipped>
>
> And the fact that exactly 0.00% of them were HD capable makes your post
> completely off-topic for this newsgroup.
>
I would be interested in some proof as to that 0.00%. They are
broadcasting HD in OZ. Are you suggesting that no one is receiving it?
Where did you get this information?

And you ignore Japan where sales in only a few months are in the
millions and these are integrated HD units with only three cities on
line. Japan will expand coverage next year and sales will accelerate far
more.

Lets face it all countries that have gone digital with COFDM both HD and
SD have taken off like rockets while the US has stagnated with our
unfortunate choice of modulations, 8-VSB.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff Shoaf wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>> Sales of COFDM OTA receivers in OZ (Australia) have reached 1/2
>> million. <Other OT dribble snipped>
>
> And the fact that exactly 0.00% of them were HD capable makes your
> post completely off-topic for this newsgroup.

Err - a proportion of them will be HD capable. They are broadcasting
1080/50i and 576/50p (not really HD I know but similar to the old Fox
480/60p fudge) using DVB-T, along with some Dolby Digital audio
occasionally - and at least some of the set top boxes will be capable of
receiving these transmissions. Aus may not have the HD production levels of
the US - but they do have some...

Steve

 

[Richard]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Err - a proportion of them will be HD capable. They are broadcasting
> 1080/50i and 576/50p (not really HD I know but similar to the old Fox
> 480/60p fudge) using DVB-T, along with some Dolby Digital audio
> occasionally - and at least some of the set top boxes will be capable of
> receiving these transmissions. Aus may not have the HD production levels
> of the US - but they do have some...
>
> Steve
But Europe is like going with 720p50 and OZ was forced for political reasons
to waste bandwidth on digital standard resolution on top of the HD and 576
stuff. But Bob thinks this is not important because it is only modulation
issues that interest him.

Richard.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Richard wrote:
> Err - a proportion of them will be HD capable. They are broadcasting
>
>>1080/50i and 576/50p (not really HD I know but similar to the old Fox
>>480/60p fudge) using DVB-T, along with some Dolby Digital audio
>>occasionally - and at least some of the set top boxes will be capable of
>>receiving these transmissions. Aus may not have the HD production levels
>>of the US - but they do have some...
>>
>>Steve
>
> But Europe is like going with 720p50 and OZ was forced for political reasons
> to waste bandwidth on digital standard resolution on top of the HD and 576
> stuff. But Bob thinks this is not important because it is only modulation
> issues that interest him.
>
> Richard.
>
What might be important if you want to promote HDTV is that Australia is
the ONLY country that has MANDATED OTA HDTV.

What relevance the fact that, in your viewpoint, they "wasted" spectrum
by triplecasting HD, SD and analog is to us I don't know. What relevance
does it have? Maybe you could enlighten me.

What is interesting to me is that in "wasting" spectrum by broadcasting
HD and SD, they have extra room in their channel BTW (7 MHz as opposed
to 6 MHz in the US) they GAVE THEIR CITIZEN'S the OPTION of buying an
only SD STB that could receive 576P and cost a lot less than their HD
receiver.

It would be interesting to see how many could tell the difference
between 576P and 720P on any HD set of 42" or less.

And yes the only issue I have been addressing is the inadequate 8-VSB
issue. After all who would be interested in OZ, Europe or anyone else's
better digital TV experience if our system was working?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> 8-VSB to-date has been an utter failure while COFDM has been a success in
> every country that has deployed it.

Only in Bob Miller's twisted imagination.

Remember, Bob Miller is a kook who believes that antenna quality has
nothing to do with reception quality.

He is bitter because he bet on the wrong horse, and being psychotic he
can't let go.

There is NO country which has nationwide HDTV based upon COFDM modulation.
Europe doesn't have any HDTV based upon COFDM modulation at all. Japan
and Australia only have it in a few cities.

The US has nationwide HDTV based upon 8-VSB, and the service area includes
rural areas.

-- Mark --

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

 

[Richard]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

> What relevance the fact that, in your viewpoint, they "wasted" spectrum
> by triplecasting HD, SD and analog is to us I don't know. What relevance
> does it have? Maybe you could enlighten me.

[Sure Bob; glad to. As implemented in North America, we give the
broadcasters the option of being flexible. No mandated HDTV but the ability
to send out several different programs at once. Even HDTV and a different
standard resolution program. In OZ they are forced to send out one HDTV
program and the same program in standard resolution, for no good reason.]
>

> What is interesting to me is that in "wasting" spectrum by broadcasting HD
> and SD, they have extra room in their channel BTW (7 MHz as opposed to 6
> MHz in the US) they GAVE THEIR CITIZEN'S the OPTION of buying an only SD
> STB that could receive 576P and cost a lot less than their HD receiver.
>
[Option? With our system one can design a single box that sends analog
conventional output to a conventional set from any broadcast DTV format, and
analog and digital DTV output to any digital TV. With the economy of scale
you would be able to do this cheaper than needing two different types of
converter boxes. The politicals in OZ did not understand the technology
resulting in a pure waste of spectrum].


> It would be interesting to see how many could tell the difference between
> 576P and 720P on any HD set of 42" or less.
>
[Bet you dollar to donuts that most people could tell the difference between
576p50 and 720p60 displayed on a full resolution 40 inch HDTV display].

Early adaptors in OZ had significant reception problems and early adaptors
in North America had significant reception problems. Both systems seem to
get the job done along the lines that theory suggested.

Do you really want to play this game Bob?

Richard.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Richard wrote:
>>What relevance the fact that, in your viewpoint, they "wasted" spectrum
>>by triplecasting HD, SD and analog is to us I don't know. What relevance
>>does it have? Maybe you could enlighten me.
>
>
> [Sure Bob; glad to. As implemented in North America, we give the
> broadcasters the option of being flexible. No mandated HDTV but the ability
> to send out several different programs at once. Even HDTV and a different
> standard resolution program. In OZ they are forced to send out one HDTV
> program and the same program in standard resolution, for no good reason.]
>
>
>>What is interesting to me is that in "wasting" spectrum by broadcasting HD
>>and SD, they have extra room in their channel BTW (7 MHz as opposed to 6
>>MHz in the US) they GAVE THEIR CITIZEN'S the OPTION of buying an only SD
>>STB that could receive 576P and cost a lot less than their HD receiver.
>>
>
> [Option? With our system one can design a single box that sends analog
> conventional output to a conventional set from any broadcast DTV format, and
> analog and digital DTV output to any digital TV. With the economy of scale
> you would be able to do this cheaper than needing two different types of
> converter boxes. The politicals in OZ did not understand the technology
> resulting in a pure waste of spectrum].
>
>
>
>>It would be interesting to see how many could tell the difference between
>>576P and 720P on any HD set of 42" or less.
>>
>
> [Bet you dollar to donuts that most people could tell the difference between
> 576p50 and 720p60 displayed on a full resolution 40 inch HDTV display].
>
> Early adaptors in OZ had significant reception problems and early adaptors
> in North America had significant reception problems. Both systems seem to
> get the job done along the lines that theory suggested.
>
> Do you really want to play this game Bob?
>
> Richard.
>
>

One argument has been that the US has better coverage than other
countries. This works against 8-VSB when you count how many receivers
have been sold. When a country with less coverage of its population has
a higher percentage with digital receivers it suggest they are doing
something right, something better than the US is doing.

If Australia using much lower power levels, with less coverage of its
population and with far less content has five times the number of
receivers sold in ONE THIRD the time the US has had to do it it suggest
that they have a better digital modulation.

Retailers in OZ actually stock and advertise OTA DTV COFDM receivers.

They emphatically do not have reception problems like we do in the US.
The US 8-VSB system doesn't and hasn't gotten the job done. We have
waited four and 1/2 years now since the MSTV test said that 8-VSB was
unacceptable. We were promised a fix within six months. We were told
that there was NO problems with fixed or mobile or even indoor reception
with simple antennas using 8-VSB in the fall of 1999. The second gen
receivers, we were told then, were better than what 5th gen receivers
are now.

8-VSB to-date has been an utter failure while COFDM has been a success
in every country that has deployed it.

Any "game" has long since been lost by 8-VSB. It only holds on to a few
countries and even there it will be replaced relatively soon.

The US consumer has been had once again.

We are not playing a game. We have been working with 8-VSB and COFDM
receivers since 1998. There is NO comparison in the real world. 8-VSB
should be turned off now. We should convert to a modern modulation and
an advanced codec now before we waste more time and money.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> 8-VSB to-date has been an utter failure while COFDM has been a success
>> in every country that has deployed it.
>
>
> Only in Bob Miller's twisted imagination.
>
> Remember, Bob Miller is a kook who believes that antenna quality has
> nothing to do with reception quality.
>
> He is bitter because he bet on the wrong horse, and being psychotic he
> can't let go.
>
> There is NO country which has nationwide HDTV based upon COFDM
> modulation. Europe doesn't have any HDTV based upon COFDM modulation at
> all. Japan and Australia only have it in a few cities.
>
> The US has nationwide HDTV based upon 8-VSB, and the service area
> includes rural areas.
>
> -- Mark --

Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
COFDM countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD
and SD receivers.

OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and have
only been in the game for three years.

Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has
only three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM
and has coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million
receivers sold in a country with 20 million households. That suggest
that almost 30% of households in England have digital OTA receivers
after only two years.

Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven years.

Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than
both due to a subsidy.

France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold
on to your hats, they will do very well.

The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with
5th gen receivers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

> Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> 8-VSB to-date has been an utter failure while COFDM has been a
>>> success in every country that has deployed it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Only in Bob Miller's twisted imagination.
>>
>> Remember, Bob Miller is a kook who believes that antenna quality has
>> nothing to do with reception quality.
>>
>> He is bitter because he bet on the wrong horse, and being psychotic he
>> can't let go.
>>
>> There is NO country which has nationwide HDTV based upon COFDM
>> modulation. Europe doesn't have any HDTV based upon COFDM modulation
>> at all. Japan and Australia only have it in a few cities.
>>
>> The US has nationwide HDTV based upon 8-VSB, and the service area
>> includes rural areas.
>>
>> -- Mark --
>
>
> Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
> COFDM countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD
> and SD receivers.
>

ROFLMAOPIMP!!!

Matthew (See bob miller destroy the principles of logic and reason!!)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most COFDM
> countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD
> receivers.
>
> OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and have
> only been in the game for three years.
>
> Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has only
> three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM and has
> coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million receivers sold in
> a country with 20 million households. That suggest that almost 30% of
> households in England have digital OTA receivers after only two years.
>
> Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven years.
>
> Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than both
> due to a subsidy.
>
> France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold on
> to your hats, they will do very well.
>
> The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with 5th
> gen receivers.


Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are comparing
apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person from the UK
receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be that in many
of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a tremendous number
of new channels and is being accepted very quickly because of that? In the
United States we have had so many channels available to us for so many years
now, it's a harder sell for digital merely on the basis of picture quality
improvement for the small number (by contrast) of HD available.

Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your comparisons are
not so cut and dried.

 

[Ivan]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:x6idncaK5Ks1UuLcRVn-og@comcast.com...
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
COFDM
> > countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD
> > receivers.
> >
> > OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and have
> > only been in the game for three years.
> >
> > Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has
only
> > three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM and
has
> > coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million receivers sold
in
> > a country with 20 million households. That suggest that almost 30% of
> > households in England have digital OTA receivers after only two years.
> >
> > Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven
years.
> >
> > Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than
both
> > due to a subsidy.
> >
> > France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold
on
> > to your hats, they will do very well.
> >
> > The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with
5th
> > gen receivers.
>
>
> Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are
comparing
> apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person from the
UK
> receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be that in
many
> of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a tremendous number
> of new channels and is being accepted very quickly because of that? In the
> United States we have had so many channels available to us for so many
years
> now, it's a harder sell for digital merely on the basis of picture quality
> improvement for the small number (by contrast) of HD available.
>
> Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your comparisons
are
> not so cut and dried.
>
>

The Sky analogue DTH multi-channel system has been running since the 1980s
and Sky Digital since the 1990's... whilst the cable companies have been
well established for a number of years.

Leaving DTT out of the equation, I can receive literally hundreds of digital
channels from all over Europe and even America (Panamsat) on a cheap 90
centimetre motorised system.

Most supermarkets now sell DTT receivers for as little as £39.00, which are
pretty well plug-and-play if one lives in an area served by a transmitter,
although there are a number of areas which won't be upgraded to digital
until after analogue switch-off.

As you say for a large number of people it's a cheap and easy way to get a
load of extra TV and radio channels, especially if their analogue ones have
previously suffered from multi-path images and grainy pictures, the
improvement in picture quality of the duplicated main terrestrial channels
alone is well worth the small outlay.

As K.B. posted in another thread, some HDTV packages for the UK are planned
for introduction during the next two or three years, although I strongly
suspect that these will be will be firstly delivered by digital satellite
(which is already in over 7 million homes) and cable, and then after the
analogue switch-off 'maybe' on a replanned DTT Platform.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2ua9gvF254j8mU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:x6idncaK5Ks1UuLcRVn-og@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> > Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
> COFDM
>> > countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD
>> > receivers.
>> >
>> > OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and
>> > have
>> > only been in the game for three years.
>> >
>> > Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has
> only
>> > three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM and
> has
>> > coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million receivers sold
> in
>> > a country with 20 million households. That suggest that almost 30% of
>> > households in England have digital OTA receivers after only two years.
>> >
>> > Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven
> years.
>> >
>> > Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than
> both
>> > due to a subsidy.
>> >
>> > France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold
> on
>> > to your hats, they will do very well.
>> >
>> > The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with
> 5th
>> > gen receivers.
>>
>>
>> Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are
> comparing
>> apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person from the
> UK
>> receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be that in
> many
>> of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a tremendous
>> number
>> of new channels and is being accepted very quickly because of that? In
>> the
>> United States we have had so many channels available to us for so many
> years
>> now, it's a harder sell for digital merely on the basis of picture
>> quality
>> improvement for the small number (by contrast) of HD available.
>>
>> Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your comparisons
> are
>> not so cut and dried.
>>
>>
>
> The Sky analogue DTH multi-channel system has been running since the 1980s
> and Sky Digital since the 1990's... whilst the cable companies have been
> well established for a number of years.
>
> Leaving DTT out of the equation, I can receive literally hundreds of
> digital
> channels from all over Europe and even America (Panamsat) on a cheap 90
> centimetre motorised system.


I guess I've always incorrectly assumed the number of channels in the UK
were fairly limited as all we ever seem to hear about here in the states are
the BBC channels and Channel 4.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most COFDM
>>countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD
>>receivers.
>>
>>OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and have
>>only been in the game for three years.
>>
>>Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has only
>>three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM and has
>>coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million receivers sold in
>>a country with 20 million households. That suggest that almost 30% of
>>households in England have digital OTA receivers after only two years.
>>
>>Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven years.
>>
>>Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than both
>>due to a subsidy.
>>
>>France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold on
>>to your hats, they will do very well.
>>
>>The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with 5th
>>gen receivers.
>
>
>
> Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are comparing
> apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person from the UK
> receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be that in many
> of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a tremendous number
> of new channels and is being accepted very quickly because of that? In the
> United States we have had so many channels available to us for so many years
> now, it's a harder sell for digital merely on the basis of picture quality
> improvement for the small number (by contrast) of HD available.
>
> Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your comparisons are
> not so cut and dried.
>
>
I think ivan answers your question best but a point I would make is that
even in Berlin they had cable and satellite which both offer more
channels than the new terrestrial services offer. They even had a higher
cable and satellite penetration than we do in the US. Berlin had a 95%
penetration by cable and satellite.

No the reason that people are buying OTA receivers in large numbers in
Berlin and the UK is because they are offered 30 free OTA channels for
the outlay of a few sheckles but more importantly this receiver works
plug and play.

Plug and play is the KEY. Inexpensive is also very good. This is why I
believe we will start finally after seven years to have a real digital
transition like they are having in Europe and elsewhere. We in the US
will finally have a receiver that works plug and play.

We could have the same thing in the US. Many channels are multicasting
SD programs. There is no mandate for HD. Now that there is a decent
8-vSB receiver you may see much more of the USDTV type offering. That
could mean a hundred channels of far better quality than analog OTA in a
given market.

If that happens and if 5th gen receivers are in a decent price range
then you can expect even higher numbers of sales in the US than Europe
in the next few years.

I would expect it in fact. I predict three million 5th gen receivers
sold next year and 15 million the year after, possible twice that
number. OTA will make and amazing comeback.

The only problem is that this could have happened in 2000. Why did we
wait and waste so much money on such a poor modulation, 8-VSB? Why in
fact are we still doing it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:x6idncaK5Ks1UuLcRVn-og@comcast.com...
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
>> COFDM countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD
>> and SD receivers.
>>
>> OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and have
>> only been in the game for three years.
>>
>> Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has
>> only three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM
>> and has coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million
>> receivers sold in a country with 20 million households. That suggest that
>> almost 30% of households in England have digital OTA receivers after only
>> two years.
>>
>> Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven years.
>>
>> Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than both
>> due to a subsidy.
>>
>> France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and hold on
>> to your hats, they will do very well.
>>
>> The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with 5th
>> gen receivers.
>
>
> Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are
> comparing apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person
> from the UK receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be
> that in many of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a
> tremendous number of new channels and is being accepted very quickly
> because of that? In the United States we have had so many channels
> available to us for so many years now, it's a harder sell for digital
> merely on the basis of picture quality improvement for the small number
> (by contrast) of HD available.
>
> Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your comparisons
> are not so cut and dried.
>

in australia ,major cities,we have five free to air channels which broadcast
most if not all of their SD and HD stuff after 6pm
no additional channels due to digital, just much better(great) viewing based
on my own experience
foxtel the major cable supplier has recently started transmitting in SD (not
HD ) and this has promped many to go out and purchase wide screen plasma
set.
no tv set sold in oz is equiped with a HD tuner so everyone who buys a
widescreen tv gets a STB as well so that they can receive SD and HD
broadcasts

 

[Ivan]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:dImdncu9K8_Xlx3cRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>
> "ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2ua9gvF254j8mU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> > news:x6idncaK5Ks1UuLcRVn-og@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:nQPfd.4025$kM.692@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> > Mark makes my point for me. With much less coverage than the US most
> > COFDM
> >> > countries still have far higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and
SD
> >> > receivers.
> >> >
> >> > OZ is the slowest and they are running at a rate five time ours and
> >> > have
> >> > only been in the game for three years.
> >> >
> >> > Japan is off the charts with HD sales of INTEGRATED HDTV sets yet has
> > only
> >> > three city coverage. The UK has an inferior early version of COFDM
and
> > has
> >> > coverage of 75% of the country but will have six million receivers
sold
> > in
> >> > a country with 20 million households. That suggest that almost 30% of
> >> > households in England have digital OTA receivers after only two
years.
> >> >
> >> > Compare 30% in England after two years to 1% in the US after seven
> > years.
> >> >
> >> > Similar numbers for Berlin and Italy is coming on even stronger than
> > both
> >> > due to a subsidy.
> >> >
> >> > France will put the lie to the Europe has no HD OTA next year and
hold
> > on
> >> > to your hats, they will do very well.
> >> >
> >> > The US will finally start to sort of catch up starting next year with
> > 5th
> >> > gen receivers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Without having verified any of your numbers might I ask it we are
> > comparing
> >> apples to apples here? How many channels did the average person from
the
> > UK
> >> receive before digital and how many after digital? Could it be that in
> > many
> >> of these countries that digital broadcasting is adding a tremendous
> >> number
> >> of new channels and is being accepted very quickly because of that? In
> >> the
> >> United States we have had so many channels available to us for so many
> > years
> >> now, it's a harder sell for digital merely on the basis of picture
> >> quality
> >> improvement for the small number (by contrast) of HD available.
> >>
> >> Don't know for sure...just thinking out loud that maybe your
comparisons
> > are
> >> not so cut and dried.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The Sky analogue DTH multi-channel system has been running since the
1980s
> > and Sky Digital since the 1990's... whilst the cable companies have been
> > well established for a number of years.
> >
> > Leaving DTT out of the equation, I can receive literally hundreds of
> > digital
> > channels from all over Europe and even America (Panamsat) on a cheap 90
> > centimetre motorised system.
>
>
> I guess I've always incorrectly assumed the number of channels in the UK
> were fairly limited as all we ever seem to hear about here in the states
are
> the BBC channels and Channel 4.
>
>


Despite the fact of having so many channels to choose from, my bet is that
the most watched are the five main terrestrial analogue/ digital channels.
Just as one would imagine that in the US it would be a similar situation,
i.e. the most-watched channels being the 'long' established networks such as
NBC, CBS etc.... but then again maybe not?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

ivan wrote:
>
> Despite the fact of having so many channels to choose from, my bet is that
> the most watched are the five main terrestrial analogue/ digital channels.
> Just as one would imagine that in the US it would be a similar situation,
> i.e. the most-watched channels being the 'long' established networks such as
> NBC, CBS etc.... but then again maybe not?

For discriminating viewers, the preferred channels are HBO (USA) and
"The Movie Network (Canada), especially in HDTV.










C.