Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (
More info?)
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:45:14 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>The situation is TRULY "slightly more complicated than that statement
>indicates". The FCC regulations say nothing about encryption beyond the
>requirement that ONE SD or 480i program be transmitted in the free and
>clear or un-encrypted. The broadcaster can broadcast CSI in HD encrypted
>in the rest of the spectrum after meeting the requirements.
>
>In fact it is this highly desirable content that broadcasters might want
>to encrypt and deliver only in a subscription service if they decide to
>compete with cable. If Emmis is successful it is just this type of
>co-operative effort that could offer real competition to cable and
>satellite. If broadcasters want to capture some of the money that cable
>now receives for "delivering content" then this is what we will see.
Bob, do you have a clue about the business structure of OTA
broadcasters? Apparently not, since the garbage you keep spouting
goes against the grain of every business model in existence for a
major market broadcaster.
OTA stations love cable, since they get paid for cable carrying their
programs. With the advent of HD programming, the broadcasters are
even happier because until analog is turned off they get extra from
the cable companies when they carry the HD content also.
As I've said repeatedly, and which you continue to ignore, is that
Ennis and USDTV will be somewhat successful, but not in the mode that
you're spouting off about. They will get the minor broadcasters in an
area to sign up since they aren't going to be doing HD, and the
spectrum can easily be used, but any major broadcaster isn't going to
go for a deal where they damage their standing with the community,
which would impact revenues from advertising, which is really where
they make their money.
>
>With better receivers for 8-VSB OTA becomes viable once again.
>Broadcasters are waking up to the possibilities even asking the FCC to
>consider the use of SFN's to increase their coverage. Why should they
>settle for ad revenues which are under attack from TIVO like devices
>when they can pick up subscription revenue from consumers who have shown
>that they are willing to pay cable companies every increasing amounts
>for delivering content.
Yes, but the broadcasters get revenue from the cable companies, so
it's a tradeoff anyway. Besides, no broadcaster is that concerned
about TIVO like devices because it really doesn't impact their market
share, which is the real basis for ad revenue. The advertisers hate
it, becuase they know there are a number of people out there that
aren't watching the commercials, but considering the penetration level
of all TIVO like devices into the market, broadcasters reallly aren't
concerned about them. To be honest, in my opinion, it's only a
matter of time before TIVO and the like are out of business, to be
replaced by other devices.
>
>Broadcasters can deliver content via subscription to now. Why would they
>give away their best content to cable so that cable can make
>subscription revenue when they can do it themselves?
Your lack of knowledge is really showing Bob. Perhaps you should
learn more about the broadcating industry instead of just COFDM.
>
>All of a sudden must carry gets turned on its head. Instead of
>broadcasters worrying about cable carriage cable worries about being
>allowed to carry MUST HAVE content. OTA broadcasting reasserts itself as
>the primary way that people receive TV content.
>
>Cable and satellite were created out of the deficiencies of OTA in
>receivability and quantity of content. Both of those issues are
>addressed by better receivers, SFN's, on channel repeaters, PVR
>functionality and digital's ability to deliver far more content OTA. I
>have been arguing since 1999 that advanced codecs like VP6, WM9 and
>MPEG4 coupled with COFDM would solve these problems. Now maybe 8-VSB can
>solve them with better receivers and the possibility of SFN's.
>
>If so ( i will believe it when I see it) then OTA broadcasting will blow
>away cable and satellite as we know them. I think broadcasters are
>awakening to this possibility. If they organize like Emmis is talking
>about then it all comes together. Could have happened with COFDM better
>and earlier and we would also have mobile reception which is one thing
>cable does not have.
OTA will never replace cable or satellite for the same reasons that
they came into existence in the first place. You lack of knowledge
about television broadcasting is really leaving you out in the cold on
your arguments.
>No mention of equivalent programming just equivalent quality.
>
>Not theoretically this is happening. USDTV is in business and doing this
>right now. They will in August start selling receivers that do MPEG4.
>All programming that they deliver via MPEG4 will not be receivable with
>any current or past 8-VSB receiver. Emmis is touting USDTV's business
>plan and telling broadcasters that they should emulate USDTV and talking
>of buying USDTV. 25% of all broadcast stations have already joined Emmis
>in this venture.
Yes, but even Ennis obviously has problems. I have to go buy a
receiver to get their signals. Great, but now they are going to
change how they transmit, so my receiver is now obsolete, and I have
to get another one? That's the very reason that 8VSB was selected as
a STANDARD for broadcasting. Equipment manufacturers and consumers
could count on the fact that the equipment that they are buying will
continue to work for a reasonably long period of time. Consumers
expect that their television systems will function without changes for
years, and they will not have to dump more money into them simply
because some little change that doesn't mean anything to them forces
them to.
If anything is likely to cause USDTV problems, it's this little
manuever that they're planning. What are they going to do? Replace
all the receivers that people have purchased for free? I don't
really think a fledgling outfit can afford to do that, so they're
going to have to depend on the consumer, and the consumer is going to
balk at having to pay more money. Sure, it might be a great idea,
but the consumer response is going to be "I just bought this damn
think and they're telling me I have to replace it"
>
>As far as Congress (they run the FCC don't worry about what the FCC says
>or thinks) you should read or listen to the testimony of the two
>Hearings last month or tune into the one they will have in July.
>Congress is no longer in the "industrial policy" business. Congressman
>Barton, chair of the House Commerce Committee said that HDTV is
>something for the market to take care of Congress is about getting this
>transition over NOW.
>
>There is no more Billy Tauzin to threaten broadcasters about HD. It is
>over. HD had its chance on OTA and now it is all about transition NOW.
>Broadcasters will hear nothing about having to do HD if they offer
>competition to the high cost of cable.
>
>They may offer HD free but it will be on the MPEG4 side of the plate.
>Broadcasters are seeing a chance to get back in control and I think they
>will take it. The least that will happen is that all current receivers
>are made obsolete. And broadcasters have to do it ASAP because the
>longer they wait the more receivers will be made obsolete.
I really wonder if your problem is just lack of cognizent thinking or
lack of education. The public in this country has expressed a desire
for HDTV. Even if you currently don't have a set that can receive it,
consumers are looking forward to the day they can replace what they
have with someting to receive some form of advanced television
picture. The broadcasters are in the business to respond to
consumers, they know where their money comes from. HD has been very
successful on OTA, and for the next few years will probably be the one
thing that keeps OTA alive, regardless of your view.
Bob, your experience and education has been too limited. Perhaps you
should stick with the things you know. Or at least spend a year
learning how the broadcast industry works before you go spouting off
about things that make you look stupid.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Facebook
Twitter