Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (
More info?)
"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Iuygd.11018$KJ6.10484@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Richard wrote:
>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news
Gkgd.5525$kM.4633@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Mark Crispin wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mark makes my point for me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Only in the twisted mind of a psychotic individual such as you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>With much less coverage than the US most COFDM countries still have far
>>>>>higher penetration rates of DTV both HD and SD receivers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's because in the US, cable and satellite have done an good to
>>>>excellent job of correcting analog reception problems. As a result, the
>>>>only people who care about DTV in the US are people who want HDTV.
>>>
>>>No one has offered the US population a digital OTA solution with a plug
>>>and play receiver so there is no comparison today. Next year there will.
>>>Next year there will be wireless cable offerings to the US consumer and
>>>my prediction is that sales in the US with 5th gen receivers will be
>>>higher in absolute numbers than in the UK by the end of next year and
>>>higher in percentage terms the next year.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If people in the UK and Germany think that their SD-only DTV is great,
>>>>we can infer quite a bit about the quality of their analog
>>>>infrastructure; and in particular that it is vastly inferior to the
>>>>analog infrastructure in the US.
>>>
>>>The people in the UK and Germany have a wide choice of cable and
>>>satellite programming with HD being offered now and a lot more coming.
>>>They were not making a choice over analog. By buying an OTA digital
>>>receiver they were making a choice to either add to their cable and
>>>satellite offerings or to drop them. Less than 5% of Berliners depended
>>>on OTA analog.
>>>
>>>>Japan only has HDTV in three cities. I am in frequent communication
>>>>with people in Japan, and what I am getting back is that only a few
>>>>well-heeled individuals are buying HDTV -- just like in the US.
>>>>Everybody else is waiting for the price to come down.
>>>
>>>Those "few well-heeled individuals" in ONLY THREE CITIES now number close
>>>to 1.4 million as of the end of September according to my sources. Here
>>>is a chart of sales thru May 2004. 904,000 from a standing start last
>>>December.
>>>http
/www.dibeg.org/news/news-2/news-e2.htm
>>>And as you can see most of these are of INTEGRATED SETS!!!
>>>
>>>>Australia does not have nationwide HDTV either. It is statisically
>>>>invalid to attempt to make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
>>>>Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US.
>>>
>>>You love to make my point don't you? In fact you are right. It is
>>>statistically invalid to "make inferences from HDTV sales rates in a few
>>> Australian cities compared to nationwide HDTV sales in the US".
>>>
>>>Why? Because it hurts my case. I should only compare those "few" cities
>>>in Australia with coverage to the entire US.
>>>
>>>If it is ONLY a few Australian cities that have DTV broadcast then the 5%
>>>penetration of ALL households in Australia or FIVE times the ONE%
>>>penetration of OTA DTV receivers in the US, is all the more impressive.
>>>Your suggestion that only a few Australian cities have DTV suggest that
>>>the penetration of DTV OTA receivers in those cities is far far higher
>>>than 5%.
>>>
>>>Would you settle for 30%? Depends on how far you want to go on dismissing
>>>the NUMBER of cities after all. The fewer the cities the higher the
>>>penetration rate and the MORE successful the DTV OTA transition is in
>>>those Australian cities.
>>>
>>>You are real big on trumpeting that the US has better coverage of its
>>>population by digital broadcast but that means little if NO one is buying
>>>the receivers. In fact we have higher incomes, more content, have been at
>>>it for years longer and have better coverage. So why are we such a
>>>failure at it? All your arguments just prove my point.
>>>
>>>We have had and do have a vastly inferior DTV modulation that has held us
>>>back in spite of better coverage, a head start, more content and more
>>>income.
>>>
>>>My point will be conclusively proved when next year when we have our
>>>first 8-VSB receiver that works we will see an explosive increase of
>>>sales, business interest and business plans to take advantage of it.
>>>
>>>Bob Miller
>>
>>
>> How about next year when more mature hardware hits the street at more
>> affordable prices. Mature hardware + lower prices + significant HDTV
>> programming = increased sales. It has nothing to do with broadcast
>> modulation (which works fine by the way).
>>
>> Richard.
> But it doesn't work fine. That is why most retailers have few or no
> receivers for sale and why they do no advertising. It is why broadcasters
> have no business plan for DTV and focus on must carry. And it is why the
> FCC felt forced to MANDATE receivers in DTV sets.
>
> NONE of which has had any affect.
>
> The 5th gen receivers will come to market with big advertising budgets for
> the first time. Broadcasters who have heard or have tested these receivers
> are starting to pay attention to OTA broadcasting for the first time in
> decades. The Emmis proposal is one example. And there will be any number
> of other ventures like USDTV that will be viable now.
>
> BTW you are one of the few who thinks 8-VSB works fine. The MSTV test of
> 2000 had everyone agreeing that 8-VSB was in very bad shape. The only
> difficulty was that we were promised a fix in six months at the time but
> it has been four LONG year.
>
> Bob Miller
Just back from my friend's house with his new 34 inch Sony integrated HDTV
set. The Sony integrated tuner pulled in all local digital stations to
perfection with a basic interior antenna. TW's basic cable also worked to
perfection through this integrated tuner. Same story with several other
locals I have assisted with their new sets.
Richard.
Facebook
Twitter