The DTV Transition in the US is just SICK!

G

Guest

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

"About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD set
but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think they are
watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a consumer survey
his firm recently conducted."

http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID=NR200411293020.33_2b7b0029d8284980

How much worse could it be?

The whole digital transition in the US was predicated on FORCE. Force
the broadcasters to start broadcasting by a date certain. Force
manufacturers to include receivers in TV sets. Force the consumer to do
what? They are thinking on that one.

What happened to having a compelling product that works well and is
reasonably priced?

Little has been done about making sure we were using the best technology
so almost none of the players are on board. Even the CEA which was the
central player in promoting ignorance and deception in forcing 8-VSB on
us is completely out to lunch when it comes to HDTV. You would think
they would want to promote HD wouldn't you? Are they? Where is the
advertising from their members selling OTA digital receivers?

And this statement in the article attributed to Gary Shapiro, the most
ignorant member of the industry and CEA president says it all.

"But don’t expect the Consumer Electronics Association to aid that
cause. When recently asked what the CEA was doing to help educate HDTV
buyers on the need for cable or satellite programming packages, CEA
president Gary Shapiro commented that the organization believes that
consumers get a compelling proposition when they hook up their HD sets
to DVD players."

This guy should have been fired in 1999. He has single handedly cost the
industry 50% of HD sales they would have made over the last five years
alone.

Bob Miller
 
G

Guest

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> "About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD set
> but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think they are
> watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a consumer survey
> his firm recently conducted."
>
> http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID=NR200411293020.33_2b7b0029d8284980


Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
and satellite companies unhappy.

I don't have a cable or satellite programming package and
I think I am watching HDTV. It sure LOOKS like HDTV. My
TV sets says it's and HDTV set. My STB says it's and
HD STB. My TV says the incoming signal is 720p. The TV
stations I watch say they are broadcasting in HD.

And MNF and Leno sure always LOOK like HDTV. I do, admittedly,
have my suspicians that certain other network programs
are upconverted SDTV.

But do you REALLY think I am deluded thinking I
am watching HDTV?

Doug
 
G

Guest

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

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> "About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD
>> set but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think they
>> are watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a consumer
>> survey his firm recently conducted."
>>
>> http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID=NR200411293020.33_2b7b0029d8284980
>
>
> Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
> and satellite companies unhappy.
>
> I don't have a cable or satellite programming package and
> I think I am watching HDTV. It sure LOOKS like HDTV. My
> TV sets says it's and HDTV set. My STB says it's and
> HD STB. My TV says the incoming signal is 720p. The TV
> stations I watch say they are broadcasting in HD.
>
> And MNF and Leno sure always LOOK like HDTV. I do, admittedly,
> have my suspicians that certain other network programs
> are upconverted SDTV.
>
> But do you REALLY think I am deluded thinking I
> am watching HDTV?
>
> Doug

The article is talking about the "half of the 5 million to 6 million
U.S. households" who have no cable, satellite or OTA receiver, have an
HDTV set, are watching SD and think they are watching HD. As the article
goes on to say they also probably think they are watching HD when they
watch their DVD's.

"Of course, viewers can also receive HD signals from local ABC, CBS, Fox
and NBC affiliates with an over-the-air antenna and receiver. But
analysts note that few customers own HDTV broadcast receivers, which
cost at least $300 apiece.

“Frankly, the [HD] consumer is watching regular digital cable with a DVD
player, and what we as an industry need to do is convert those customers
who already have HD to our high-definition service, and make sure that
we win the battle of the HD covert,” Rooney says"

Bob Miller
 
G

Guest

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

In news:congbf$nmd$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> typed:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>> "About half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S. households with an HD
>> set but without a cable or satellite HD programming package think
>> they are watching HDTV, Leichtman says, citing the results of a
>> consumer survey his firm recently conducted."
>>
>>
http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID=NR200411293020.33_2b
7b0029d8284980
>
>
> Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
> and satellite companies unhappy.

I'm watching FREE OTA HDTV from 60 miles away (Philly & Baltimore from Dover
DE).

> I don't have a cable or satellite programming package and
> I think I am watching HDTV. It sure LOOKS like HDTV. My
> TV sets says it's and HDTV set. My STB says it's and
> HD STB. My TV says the incoming signal is 720p. The TV
> stations I watch say they are broadcasting in HD.
>
> And MNF and Leno sure always LOOK like HDTV. I do, admittedly,
> have my suspicians that certain other network programs
> are upconverted SDTV.
>
Just for the fun of it I took the S-Video from my Sylvania box and fed it
into an S-Video monitor with an effects box to decrease the luminance
signal. Viewing just the chroma signal showed a super sharp image NTSC (or
even 8MHz PAL) couldn't touch. MNF with it's brightly colored uniforms
definitely tells me I'm getting HD.

As far as the SD stuff, getting studio grade color (with full 3D decoding)
is a bonus. ;-)

Drewdawg
Enjoying free Digital since the 2004 olympics.
 
G

Guest

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

>"Of course, viewers can also receive HD signals from local ABC, CBS, Fox
>and NBC affiliates with an over-the-air antenna and receiver. But
>analysts note that few customers own HDTV broadcast receivers, which
>cost at least $300 apiece.

Walmart is selling them for $200 ... Not necessarily GOOD receivers,
or even good for 8-VSB receivers, but they do receive digital TV
over the air. I don't know how to tell whether what's coming in
is 480i, 480p, 720p, or 1080i. What's going out is 480i S/Video,
since that's what my TV accepts and what my recorder accepts, but
it still looks a heck of a lot better than snowy analog TV.

Gordon L. Burditt
 
G

Guest

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

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>"Of course, viewers can also receive HD signals from local ABC, CBS, Fox
>>and NBC affiliates with an over-the-air antenna and receiver. But
>>analysts note that few customers own HDTV broadcast receivers, which
>>cost at least $300 apiece.
>
>
> Walmart is selling them for $200 ... Not necessarily GOOD receivers,
> or even good for 8-VSB receivers, but they do receive digital TV
> over the air. I don't know how to tell whether what's coming in
> is 480i, 480p, 720p, or 1080i. What's going out is 480i S/Video,
> since that's what my TV accepts and what my recorder accepts, but
> it still looks a heck of a lot better than snowy analog TV.
>
> Gordon L. Burditt

The new Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC receiver lists at $249. I saw one on
display at a Best Buy recently, but when I asked about it, they did not
have any in stock. The Samsung T451 is more capable than the US Digital
box sold at Walmart in that it has DVI & VGA connectors and a digital
5.1 audio output, none of which I think the Walmart box has. The Samsung
also has the advantage of downloadable spec sheets and manual, none of
which I could find for the US Digital receiver. But if I want to get the
Samsung, it looks as if I have to order it on-line, the only over the
air ATSC set top boxes I usually see at Best Buy and Circuit City are
part of the satellite receivers they sell.

I think the lack of public education and availability of lower cost
ASTC set top boxes is the major problem with the conversion to digital
broadcasts. I find few people are even aware that we are converting to
digital OTA broadcasts. And the total lack of stand-alone set top boxes
at the major electronic retailers only adds to the problem. The FCC
should be spending some money and working with broadcast TV stations on
a public information campaign to smooth the transition.

And please, spare us the 8-VSB vs the COFDM rants, Mr. Miller. Talk
about beating a dead horse long after the ship has sailed, if I may mix
my metaphors.

Alan Figgatt
 
G

Guest

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

Alan Figgatt wrote:
> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>
>>> "Of course, viewers can also receive HD signals from local ABC, CBS,
>>> Fox and NBC affiliates with an over-the-air antenna and receiver. But
>>> analysts note that few customers own HDTV broadcast receivers, which
>>> cost at least $300 apiece.
>>
>>
>>
>> Walmart is selling them for $200 ... Not necessarily GOOD receivers,
>> or even good for 8-VSB receivers, but they do receive digital TV
>> over the air. I don't know how to tell whether what's coming in
>> is 480i, 480p, 720p, or 1080i. What's going out is 480i S/Video,
>> since that's what my TV accepts and what my recorder accepts, but
>> it still looks a heck of a lot better than snowy analog TV.
>>
>> Gordon L. Burditt
>
>
> The new Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC receiver lists at $249. I saw one on
> display at a Best Buy recently, but when I asked about it, they did not
> have any in stock. The Samsung T451 is more capable than the US Digital
> box sold at Walmart in that it has DVI & VGA connectors and a digital
> 5.1 audio output, none of which I think the Walmart box has. The Samsung
> also has the advantage of downloadable spec sheets and manual, none of
> which I could find for the US Digital receiver. But if I want to get the
> Samsung, it looks as if I have to order it on-line, the only over the
> air ATSC set top boxes I usually see at Best Buy and Circuit City are
> part of the satellite receivers they sell.
>
> I think the lack of public education and availability of lower cost
> ASTC set top boxes is the major problem with the conversion to digital
> broadcasts. I find few people are even aware that we are converting to
> digital OTA broadcasts. And the total lack of stand-alone set top boxes
> at the major electronic retailers only adds to the problem. The FCC
> should be spending some money and working with broadcast TV stations on
> a public information campaign to smooth the transition.
>
> And please, spare us the 8-VSB vs the COFDM rants, Mr. Miller. Talk
> about beating a dead horse long after the ship has sailed, if I may mix
> my metaphors.
>
> Alan Figgatt

There is a reason no one is on board with 8-VSB. The ship has sailed and
it immediately went agound.

You can buy COFDM receivers in convenience stores in the UK for $42 in
one sale today. The regular price is $57.75.

They will sell a million plus receivers in the UK this quarter. In the
US that would be six million.

You decry the situation but don't want to hear the solution.

Actually we will get underway once 5th gen receivers arrive but at what
a cost in time and at what an additional cost for the receiver. Not to
mention the fact that we will have no mobile reception on these 5th gen
receivers still.

What a waste.

Bob Miller
 
G

Guest

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Alan Figgatt wrote:
>
>> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>
>>>> "Of course, viewers can also receive HD signals from local ABC, CBS,
>>>> Fox and NBC affiliates with an over-the-air antenna and receiver.
>>>> But analysts note that few customers own HDTV broadcast receivers,
>>>> which cost at least $300 apiece.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Walmart is selling them for $200 ... Not necessarily GOOD receivers,
>>> or even good for 8-VSB receivers, but they do receive digital TV
>>> over the air. I don't know how to tell whether what's coming in
>>> is 480i, 480p, 720p, or 1080i. What's going out is 480i S/Video,
>>> since that's what my TV accepts and what my recorder accepts, but
>>> it still looks a heck of a lot better than snowy analog TV.
>>>
>>> Gordon L. Burditt
>>
>>
>>
>> The new Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC receiver lists at $249. I saw one on
>> display at a Best Buy recently, but when I asked about it, they did
>> not have any in stock. The Samsung T451 is more capable than the US
>> Digital box sold at Walmart in that it has DVI & VGA connectors and a
>> digital 5.1 audio output, none of which I think the Walmart box has.
>> The Samsung also has the advantage of downloadable spec sheets and
>> manual, none of which I could find for the US Digital receiver. But if
>> I want to get the Samsung, it looks as if I have to order it on-line,
>> the only over the air ATSC set top boxes I usually see at Best Buy and
>> Circuit City are part of the satellite receivers they sell.
>>
>> I think the lack of public education and availability of lower cost
>> ASTC set top boxes is the major problem with the conversion to digital
>> broadcasts. I find few people are even aware that we are converting to
>> digital OTA broadcasts. And the total lack of stand-alone set top
>> boxes at the major electronic retailers only adds to the problem. The
>> FCC should be spending some money and working with broadcast TV
>> stations on a public information campaign to smooth the transition.
>>
>> And please, spare us the 8-VSB vs the COFDM rants, Mr. Miller. Talk
>> about beating a dead horse long after the ship has sailed, if I may
>> mix my metaphors.
>>
>> Alan Figgatt
>
>
> There is a reason no one is on board with 8-VSB. The ship has sailed and
> it immediately went agound.
>
> You can buy COFDM receivers in convenience stores in the UK for $42 in
> one sale today. The regular price is $57.75.

But they aren't HDTV receivers.

> They will sell a million plus receivers in the UK this quarter. In the
> US that would be six million.

But they aren't HDTV receivers.

> You decry the situation but don't want to hear the solution.

The solution is time.

> Actually we will get underway once 5th gen receivers arrive but at what
> a cost in time and at what an additional cost for the receiver. Not to
> mention the fact that we will have no mobile reception on these 5th gen
> receivers still.

No one wants mobile HDTV.

> What a waste.

Yes, you are.

Matthew
 
G

Guest

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

In news:10quun538su4v59@corp.supernews.com,
Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> typed:
>> You can buy COFDM receivers in convenience stores in the UK for $42
>> in one sale today. The regular price is $57.75.
>
> But they aren't HDTV receivers.
>
>> They will sell a million plus receivers in the UK this quarter. In
>> the US that would be six million.
>
> But they aren't HDTV receivers.

But they (the UK) will eventually have HD and everyone with a $42 will have
to buy a new box to even receive HD. They could keep broadcasting a
compatible SD signal, but I don't see them doing it.
 
G

Guest

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
> The solution is time.

Actually the time solution is problematic. At the present rate of ONE
PERCENT of households buying a receiver every seven years it will take
an additional 84 similar periods of time to reach the 85% penetration
that the law requires for the digital transition to transition and
analog to be turned off. I am sure the broadcasters would like that.

Lets see 84 times 7 years is only 588 years. No so bad and nothing like
the 4000 years it was going to take at the rate we were going in 2001.
>
>> Actually we will get underway once 5th gen receivers arrive but at
>> what a cost in time and at what an additional cost for the receiver.
>> Not to mention the fact that we will have no mobile reception on these
>> 5th gen receivers still.
>
>
> No one wants mobile HDTV.

Whats wrong with mobile HDTV? If HD is so good, and I think it is, why
not be able to easily receive it while mobile, portable or fixed? Why
have to monkey with a directional antenna when most of the world will
see their digital antennas whether for HD or SD disappear into their
receive devices whether a cell phone, a laptop or a large screen HDTV in
the living room.

It is not just about mobile it is about easy reception anywhere. Who is
against that?

Bob Miller
>
>> What a waste.
>
>
> Yes, you are.
>
> Matthew
 
G

Guest

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>>
>> The solution is time.
>
>
> Actually the time solution is problematic. At the present rate of ONE
> PERCENT of households buying a receiver every seven years it will take
> an additional 84 similar periods of time to reach the 85% penetration
> that the law requires for the digital transition to transition and
> analog to be turned off. I am sure the broadcasters would like that.
>
> Lets see 84 times 7 years is only 588 years. No so bad and nothing like
> the 4000 years it was going to take at the rate we were going in 2001.

Only a fool thinks that new product rollouts are linear.

>>
>>> Actually we will get underway once 5th gen receivers arrive but at
>>> what a cost in time and at what an additional cost for the receiver.
>>> Not to mention the fact that we will have no mobile reception on
>>> these 5th gen receivers still.
>>
>>
>>
>> No one wants mobile HDTV.
>
>
> Whats wrong with mobile HDTV? If HD is so good, and I think it is,

You're the one that said 480p was good enough.

> why
> not be able to easily receive it while mobile, portable or fixed? Why
> have to monkey with a directional antenna when most of the world will
> see their digital antennas whether for HD or SD disappear into their
> receive devices whether a cell phone, a laptop or a large screen HDTV in
> the living room.

That same process has already been discussed for 8-VSB. Differential
receivers with tiny antenna embedded in the unit is not the sole realm
of COFDM.

> It is not just about mobile it is about easy reception anywhere. Who is
> against that?

No one, especially all those who have posted here about easy reception
of 8-VSB in areas that get ghosty, noise NTSC reception. You, of course,
ignore that.

Matthew
 
G

Guest

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

>
> No one, especially all those who have posted here about easy reception
> of 8-VSB in areas that get ghosty, noise NTSC reception. You, of course,
> ignore that.
>


Exactly.

I lent a 2nd generation STB to a friend to see if he liked DTV,
over Thanksgiving. When he came back in Monday he
said that it worked great, no problem, just set the antenna on
the TV set. Except for one station, which worked for a
few minutes and then he lost the signal, and no matter
how hard he tried he never got it again. So there was indeed
a problem.


Indeed ... the problem was a bad transmitter. Even
COFDM cannot work if the transmitter power is identically zero.

Doug McDonald
 
G

Guest

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

:"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Y9Lrd.6248:$u81.881@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

: Matthew L. Martin wrote:
:<snip>

: > No one wants mobile HDTV.
:
: Whats wrong with mobile HDTV?
:
: Bob Miller
: >
:

Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with mobile television.

Limo's have it.

Bus' have it.

Airplanes have it.

Boat's have it.

SUV's and Vans have it.

As long as the driver doesn't have it, it's fine.



Keep the family entertained while they make that >2 hour trip to
grandma's for Christmas. I'm all for it.



As a matter of fact, in 1978 I had a 1977 Ford Econline E-150
customized by VanLand. It had a bed and a sink. My kids were 3 and 4
years old, and I had a new toy... a VHS video tape machine. This
was one of the original ones, as it had 'piano keys' for rewind, stop,
play, fastforward, and if you pressed both the play and record keys at
the same time you could record. Does anyone remember that? It had
two speeds SP and LP. A blank 2 hour tape cost $25.00 at that time.
We had one move... "THE DEEP" price $150.00 for the one movie.



I invested in a 115 watt inverter that powered both the VHS and a
little 13" black and white television. I hung this 13" set from a
macramé inside the van, and recorded 2 hours of cartoons from Saturday
morning television. This kept my children entertained from 1978 until
I sold the van. I recreated this again in 1986 when I bought an
Aerostar and by then we an 11" color set and a newer VHS that did all
3 speeds.



So, I don't really see anything bad about mobile TV, I've been doing
it for 25+ years anyway. I'll just put in my DTV receiver and
watch-a-way. as long as I'm not driving that is. And, btw, It works.
I have a bigger inverter now, but still a small 13" color set in the
back of my Avalanche, and yeah mobile DTV is alive and well with the
USDigital HDTV receiver in mobile use. Well, it ain't High Def, but
it works. It does receive HD, but my little 13" ain't. One of these
days, maybe I'll get headrest LCD's, but not for a while. I've been
doin' it my way ... way to long!



Russ
 
G

Guest

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

<snip>
>
>So, I don't really see anything bad about mobile TV, I've been doing
>it for 25+ years anyway. I'll just put in my DTV receiver and
>watch-a-way. as long as I'm not driving that is. And, btw, It works.
>I have a bigger inverter now, but still a small 13" color set in the
>back of my Avalanche, and yeah mobile DTV is alive and well with the
>USDigital HDTV receiver in mobile use. Well, it ain't High Def, but
>it works. It does receive HD, but my little 13" ain't. One of these
>days, maybe I'll get headrest LCD's, but not for a while. I've been
>doin' it my way ... way to long!
>
>
>
>Russ
>
>

Russ,

What are you using for an antenna? I ahve been doing the same
sort of thing for only 11 years or so, but never live broadcast.

Thanks,

Steve
 
G

Guest

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

<CaptainWatty> wrote in message
news:cr1vq05jrtno03p940ca0h7mq5o9sqdsk0@4ax.com...

:
: Russ,
:
: What are you using for an antenna? I ahve been doing the same
: sort of thing for only 11 years or so, but never live broadcast.
:
: Thanks,
:
: Steve

It's an amplified (12v) antenna that I purchased from Radio Shack
many, many, many years ago (1978). I couldn't tell you the model
number if I had to. The antenna slips over the rear window, then you
roll the window up to hold it in place. It has two dipoles that
extend out over the roof of the vehicle. It has a selector knob so
you can "fine-tune" for the best signal. A 75ohm coax attaches to the
vcr and from the vcr to the television. I'm thinking about purchasing
an inline amplifier, maybe that'll extend my range 5 miles or so, see
below. One of these days when DVD's go down in price, I'll put in one
of them <imitates old-timer> "new-fangled contraptions."</imitates
old-timer> ;)

I'll continue with this.

With the analog signal you get ghosty, blurry, snowy images as long as
you can get a signal. It comes and goes. It's something you get used
to. I've been doing this for 25+ years, and I guess that I figure
something is better than nothing at all. When you get out of range,
you slip in a tape. Back in the day when the speed limit was 55 mph,
it took 7 hours to drive from my house to my parents house. I had (at
that time) all 3 Star Wars (IV, V, and VI) on tape. My girls would
put in Star Wars and watch the whole series during the trip. Great
babysitter! I could get television for Dallas/Ft. Worth, Abilene,
Lubbock, Amarillo, and Wichita Falls main channels, and pull in
translator stations for the boonies around Memphis on 287 and Snyder
on 84.

With Digital, you got a perfect picture or you don't have any picture.
No snow, no fading, just pixilation and poof, it's gone. If you know
the area, you know if you'll get it back. If not, oh well, I
understand, and go for the tapes, or radio, or cd's. Range is a bit
less than with analog for that reason. (say 5 to 10 miles mobile
less).

Just to let you know, I live in Texas... and have driven from DFW to
Lubbock and Amarillo over the past 20 years. I receive a television
signal about the same distance you receive a normal FM radio signal.

Russ
 
G

Guest

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

kw5kw wrote:

>
> It's an amplified (12v) antenna that I purchased from Radio Shack
> many, many, many years ago (1978).
>
> I'll continue with this.
>
> With the analog signal you get ghosty, blurry, snowy images as long as
> you can get a signal. It comes and goes. It's something you get used
> to. I've been doing this for 25+ years,

>
> With Digital, you got a perfect picture or you don't have any picture.
> No snow, no fading, just pixilation and poof, it's gone. If you know
> the area, you know if you'll get it back. If not, oh well, I
> understand, and go for the tapes, or radio, or cd's. Range is a bit
> less than with analog for that reason. (say 5 to 10 miles mobile
> less).
>
> Just to let you know, I live in Texas... and have driven from DFW to
> Lubbock and Amarillo over the past 20 years. I receive a television
> signal about the same distance you receive a normal FM radio signal.


How reliable is it, driving from say Mesquite, past downtown Dallas and
Ft. Worth, and then on out west? What about dropouts? What routes have
you taken? I have seen the towers by eye on a clear night from Weatherford.

Doug McDonald
 
G

Guest

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

"drewdawg" <spamage@failed.net> wrote in message
news:_dNrd.20$Ug1.11634@news.uswest.net...
> In news:10quun538su4v59@corp.supernews.com,
> Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> typed:
>>> You can buy COFDM receivers in convenience stores in the UK for $42
>>> in one sale today. The regular price is $57.75.
>>
>> But they aren't HDTV receivers.
>>
>>> They will sell a million plus receivers in the UK this quarter. In
>>> the US that would be six million.
>>
>> But they aren't HDTV receivers.
>
> But they (the UK) will eventually have HD and everyone with a $42 will
> have
> to buy a new box to even receive HD. They could keep broadcasting a
> compatible SD signal, but I don't see them doing it.

Yep - though a set top box is cheaper to replace than an entire integrated
TV! (Though of course you could upgrade an IDTV to HD reception - but not
display - if a cheap HD receiver with SD output were sold I guess) If
you've only paid £30 or £40 for a set top box and it has lasted 2 or 3 years
I think that is still pretty good value even if it does become obsolete -
though I don't think the timescale for OTA HD is this close (less than £1 a
month?) Of course the $42 boxes on sale now will never deliver HD - but
then not many will be feeding HD capable displays (some may be feeding posh
LCDs, Plasmas or Projectors though I admit) As long as SD OTA broadcasts
continue - and they are likely to for a good while yet - they won't be
redundant for feeding SD displays.

HD in the UK initially will be driven by satellite rather than OTA digital
transmission - as was the case with analogue multichannel and digital
multi-channel TV. Digital satellite took off quicker than digital
terrestrial when both were pay-TV platforms, though now that OTA DTV is
mainly Free-to-air and offers a significant extra choice to analogue OTA,
and the digital satellite market is maturing and recruiting fewer new
subscriptions, the digital OTA system may well soon be overtaking it.

HD is expected to launch on DSat in the UK in 2006. 720/50p and 1080/50i
are the most likely standards - and I believe Sky Digital's receiver (who
will define the UK standard I guess) is widely expected to cope with both of
these HD standards. It is expected that MPEG4 H264 AVC may be adopted in
addition to MPEG2 (now that both are in the DVB fold)

HD transmissions, initially, will be simulcast on satellite I guess - I
can't see Sky quickly replacing their MPEG2 digital SD receivers (which are
provided free on subscription, but become the property of the subscriber)
for HD receivers - so I imagine MPEG2 SD transmissions will run in parallel
for a good time to come yet - with HD being an "early adopter" market for a
while to come.

There is no imminent prospect of HD via OTA digital TV in the UK AFAIK as
there is no spectrum free to use - and even with MPEG4 and the other new
codecs you couldn't swap out the current MPEG2 SD services for newer HD
without removing some (which is likely not to be acceptable - though
personally I'd be happy to see the end of the shopping channels, but they
pay the going rate for digital carriage so have as much right to be there as
anyone else I guess).

The government currently plan to sell off the space freed up in the UK OTA
UHF spectrum - but if this were bought for HD transmission I guess HD
simulcasts or new HD services for new receivers could be broadcast. Whether
this happen would probably depend on how popular HD via satellite had
become? (For info the UK only has UHF TV - we have DAB digital radio
broadcasts in some of the old Band III VHF TV spectrum which was released
when our B&W 405line service finally ceased in 1985. We didn't move any 625
line stuff to VHF - allowing a new 625 UHF network to launch in the early
60s, with the two original 405 line networks simulcasting in 625 - and by
this time PAL colour - by the late 60s. For a while dual 625/405 line sets
were on-sale. I guess the UK is slightly unusual in already having managed
a wholesale change-over from one popular TV standard to another, though
other European countries changed colour standard when the cold war ended I
think - though dual standard sets weren't unusual by this time)
 
G

Guest

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:congbf$nmd$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>> http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID=NR200411293020.33_2b7b0029d8284980
>
>
> Well, they are watching FREE OTA HDTV, which makes the cable
> and satellite companies unhappy.
>
=====================================
I think that is exactly what is happening.
OTA is expanding. The article seems to ignore that completely.
======================================

> I don't have a cable or satellite programming package and
> I think I am watching HDTV. It sure LOOKS like HDTV. My
> TV sets says it's and HDTV set. My STB says it's and
> HD STB. My TV says the incoming signal is 720p. The TV
> stations I watch say they are broadcasting in HD.
>
> And MNF and Leno sure always LOOK like HDTV. I do, admittedly,
> have my suspicians that certain other network programs
> are upconverted SDTV.
>
> But do you REALLY think I am deluded thinking I
> am watching HDTV?
>
> Doug
 
G

Guest

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eek:FHrd.6123$u81.3776@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> The article is talking about the "half of the 5 million to 6 million U.S.
> households" who have no cable, satellite or OTA receiver, have an HDTV
> set, are watching SD and think they are watching HD. As the article goes
> on to say they also probably think they are watching HD when they watch
> their DVD's.

===============================
The article barely mentions OTA.
It is primarily complaining that people are not subscribing to cable or
satelite HD packages.
I am considering dropping my sat since we rarely use it.
I will STILL be watching HD OTA, but will be completely off their radar.
================================
 
G

Guest

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

I live on the west side FT Worth. (I) Don't even go towards Dallas
unless absolutely necessary!



I go out 20 towards Sweetwater and then up 84 to Lubbock.

I also go 287 towards Wichita Falls and on in to Amarillo.

And Around Ft. Worth the only real drop-outs are downtown Ft. Worth
with the buildings, but that was ALWAYS the case, nothing new to me.
An occasional drop if you go down one of the deeper ... what would you
call them, ravines, chasms, valleys?... anyway drop down a hill, but
as I said before, that's always been the rule, and It's something that
I'm used to. Just the action is a bit different, it freezes and then
drops, before you'd get real snowy and shakey and fade away. You
actually get a better picture longer now.



Russ



:
: How reliable is it, driving from say Mesquite, past downtown Dallas
and
: Ft. Worth, and then on out west? What about dropouts? What routes
have
: you taken? I have seen the towers by eye on a clear night from
Weatherford.
:
: Doug McDonald
:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY