The DTV Transition in the US is just SICK!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> magnulus (magnulus@bellsouth.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>> Europe may not have HDTV, but they have far more digital TV.
>
>
> No, they have *far* less digital TV.
>
> The US has over 1000 stations broadcasting digital, plus two DBS companies
> (with 100% digital channels) with close to 20 million total subscribers,
> plus countless cable companies (each with 20 to 200 digital channels) with
> 70M or so total subscribers.
>
*far* less Jeff?

This article says Europe overtakes the US in digital households by
January 1st 2006. One reason he gives why? OTA in the US to be
insignificant. And he probably doesn't realize just how incredible sales
of OTA receivers are right now (this Christmas season) in the UK, Italy
and Germany where another big piece of the country went on line a few
months ago. His figures are for the end of 2003. Just this year alone
the UK is adding 3 million just OTA digital receivers as is Italy. When
you add in ALL European countries sales for all digital TV receivers for
2004 is probably in the 10 million range so Europe is right on our heels
as we speak.

http://www.theregister.com/2004/07/23/digital_homes/

"The US is the largest and most competitive digital TV market in the
world today, with more than 45 million digital households at the end of
2003. However, Datamonitor analyst James Healey says that by 2006 Europe
will represent a larger digital TV market than the US, with some 63
million digital households.

The American market, by size, had the most digital TV households, with
more than 43 million at the end of 2003 compared to 31 million in
Europe. The intense competition for subscribers between the cable and
satellite operators will continue to be the driver for the US market.
Due to the already high penetration of multi-channel homes in the US
(some 80 per cent receive analogue or digital cable or satellite TV),
DTT is unlikely to become a significant market."
 
G

Guest

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

>They aren't
>pigs like Americans, they are fine with their smaller television sets, and
>they aren't so self-absorbed that they demand a "home theater".

Thank you. You have now PROVED that you truly an IDIOT. So wanting something
nice is now akin to being a 'pig' and 'self absorbed'? Why don't you go
somewhere other than the U.S......or are you already there? If you are not BOB,
then you are certainly showing an ideology that smells somewhat like BOB's.
Additionally, it's interesting how you and BOB come up with the most absurd
thoughts.

They may
>not have huge houses but they also don't have 35 million people living with
>food insecurity, 45 million people without health insurance, and a further
>90 million under-insured. Oh, and they didn't kill 101,300 people for fuel
>for their oversized cars.

Correction, you are not an idiot, you are a MORON.
 
G

Guest

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

>Seriously, who
>wouldn't want a home theater? Who wouldn't want to watch movies closer
>to their native aspect ratio on a widescreen set. I sense a
>considerable amount of resentment in the subtext of your message
>towards Americans.

Yup. Of course the other possibility is that this guy doesn't like working for
a living and thus can't afford the things he really wants. So, he could just be
one of those societal leeches.
 
G

Guest

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

>As Psycho Bob says, nobody needs HDTV, 480p is good enough.
>
>Sock puppet.
>
>-- Mark --

Mark, don't discount the possibility that this IS BOB! Afterall, he used the
same tactic on AVS. Here the motivation could be "see, I'm not the only one in
the world that thinks this way". We're dealing with an indiviual who obviously
has some issues.
 

THUMPer

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
261
0
18,930
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:57:47 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>gerry wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:37:02 -0600, Doug McDonald
>> <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Especially when most people got into cable tv just because analog OTA
>> reception was so bad. I could see dropping cable completely if the
>> local broadcasters would improve their product.
>>
>>
>I think you will get your chance. Local broadcasters will do one SD
>program with MPEG2 and use the rest of their spectrum to deliver a
>subscription based service including HD and SD. You will get a free SD,
>maybe enhanced SD, of every broadcast channel in your area and say 50 to
>70 cable subscription channels on top of that for about 35% less than
>cable charges.
>
>Bye Bye cable!
>
>Bob Miller


You'll get a lot less channels over the Air.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
 

THUMPer

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
261
0
18,930
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 20:44:58 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Jeff Rife wrote:
>> magnulus (magnulus@bellsouth.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>> Europe may not have HDTV, but they have far more digital TV.
>>
>>
>> No, they have *far* less digital TV.
>>
>> The US has over 1000 stations broadcasting digital, plus two DBS companies
>> (with 100% digital channels) with close to 20 million total subscribers,
>> plus countless cable companies (each with 20 to 200 digital channels) with
>> 70M or so total subscribers.
>>
>*far* less Jeff?
>
>This article says Europe overtakes the US in digital households by
>January 1st 2006. One reason he gives why? OTA in the US to be
>insignificant. And he probably doesn't realize just how incredible sales
>of OTA receivers are right now (this Christmas season) in the UK, Italy
>and Germany where another big piece of the country went on line a few
>months ago. His figures are for the end of 2003. Just this year alone
>the UK is adding 3 million just OTA digital receivers as is Italy. When
>you add in ALL European countries sales for all digital TV receivers for
>2004 is probably in the 10 million range so Europe is right on our heels
>as we speak.
>

You can't compare Europe and the USA. In Europe they are used to only
getting a few TV channels.
Thumper
>http://www.theregister.com/2004/07/23/digital_homes/
>
>"The US is the largest and most competitive digital TV market in the
>world today, with more than 45 million digital households at the end of
>2003. However, Datamonitor analyst James Healey says that by 2006 Europe
>will represent a larger digital TV market than the US, with some 63
>million digital households.
>
>The American market, by size, had the most digital TV households, with
>more than 43 million at the end of 2003 compared to 31 million in
>Europe. The intense competition for subscribers between the cable and
>satellite operators will continue to be the driver for the US market.
>Due to the already high penetration of multi-channel homes in the US
>(some 80 per cent receive analogue or digital cable or satellite TV),
>DTT is unlikely to become a significant market."

To reply drop XYZ in address
 
G

Guest

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

They probably wouldn't have him (except maybe the French).

"Chet Hayes" <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b81a861b.0412040722.57cbce40@posting.google.com...
> Why the hell don't you move to europe scum bag?
 
G

Guest

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

David wrote:
> "Charles H. Tieman" <curious8@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:ras3r0pk7m4klqitvju1gf0p3vh4nqaqbo@4ax.com...
>
>> someone has a friend with OTA DTV but it conks out when
>>a car drives by.
>
>
> I've been surfing DTV newsgroups and HDTV forums for ~5 years.
>
> Your posting above is the first and only I have ever seen of it's type.
> Unresolved 8VSB reception problems involving nearby traffic?
>
> Can you provide any additional details about this?
> Is your "friend of someone" using the correct HDTV antenna?
> Is it possible he's using this model :
>
> http://www.smarthome.com/7744ad.html
>
> I suspect "Friend of someone" is possibly using Romex or BX or lamp cord
> for downlead. Did he use chewing gum or scotch tape for his wire splices.
> Did he attach F-connectors using a hammer? If so, what brand?
> (of F-connectors).
>
> Please look into this and post back to us ASAP.
>
> Anyway, to be fair, complaints like "OTA COFDM DTV conks
> out when a tiny, 25cc scooter drives by" have been very
> common postings over the past ~5 years in the British and Australian
> [COFDM] newsgroups/forums.
>
>

They conk out eh? Is that why they sold THREE million COFDM receiver is
little old England this year or 600,000 COFDM receivers in Australia
where they only have like FOUR million households?

THREE million in the UK is like EIGHTEEN million in the US and you can
hardly find an 8-VSB receiver for sale here. 600,000 in OZ is like 9.6
MILLION since they are like 1/16th our size.

Both countries are broadcasting COFDM and VERY low power levels because
they have to protect analog channels till their transition is over. Can
you imagine the complaints about low power in the US if ALL of our
broadcasters were broadcasting at an average of ONE kW like in the UK ?
I read complaints now on AVSForum about broadcasts that are at 280 kW
and how bad that is because they should be at 900 kWs.

If only they would broadcast at 900 kWs then we could receive it all of
15 miles away.

Even when OZ and the UK go to full power it will be minuscule compared
to even Low Power TV stations in the US.

BTW I can knock a 5th generation 8-VSB reception off by just walking in
front of the antenna or standing in a particular location in
relationship to it. You don't need a car.

Bob Miller
 
G

Guest

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

>This article says Europe overtakes the US in digital households by
>January 1st 2006.

Hey, BOOBSTER, how much of that is HIGH DEFINITION TELEVISION. When will it
penetrate your thick skull that we are ONLY interested in HIGH DEFINITION
TELEVISION on this ng. Man, you are one dumb SOB.
 
G

Guest

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

>They conk out eh? Is that why they sold THREE million COFDM receiver is
>little old England this year or 600,000 COFDM receivers in Australia
>where they only have like FOUR million households?

How many were HIGH DEFINITION BOOBSTER? You just will never understand that
THIS audience wants to read about HIGH DEFINTION, that's why it's an HD ng.
I've never seen anyone in my life that catches on as slowly as you do. Was it
chronic drug abuse that did this to you?
 

David

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
785
0
18,930
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41B286A1.7070600@earthlink.net...
>>
> They conk out eh?

You were thrown off the AVS forum 5 years ago for your constant barrage of
crazy, stupid lies.

You never got over that, did you?
 
G

Guest

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

"Vidguy7" <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041204155213.06125.00000928@mb-m23.aol.com...
> Yup. Of course the other possibility is that this guy doesn't like working
for
> a living and thus can't afford the things he really wants. So, he could
just be
> one of those societal leeches.

Or perhaps I am physically disabled, pig. there are alot of other
alternatives.
 

Gman

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
194
0
18,630
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <FEbsd.84436$jE2.16982@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> HDTV is a waste of resources . A digital anamorphic 720x480 would have
>worked just as good for most people and would have been faster and cheaper
>to implement.
>
> Americans are so full of a supersized mentality. You can see it on
>everything from their TV sets to their wastelines. The idiots on this NG
>think everybody has the space for a 65 inch TV, or even a 42 inch TV, plus a
>dedicated home theater.
>
> NTSC was a simple standard that has lasted for almost 40 years. DTV
>should be a simple standard, too.
>

You have the years wrong, yes NTSC has only been around that long but Philo T.
invented the tech over 75 years ago.


> Europe may not have HDTV, but they have far more digital TV. They aren't
>pigs like Americans, they are fine with their smaller television sets, and
>they aren't so self-absorbed that they demand a "home theater". They may
>not have huge houses but they also don't have 35 million people living with
>food insecurity, 45 million people without health insurance, and a further
>90 million under-insured. Oh, and they didn't kill 101,300 people for fuel
>for their oversized cars.
>
>
 

David

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
785
0
18,930
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41B286A1.7070600@earthlink.net...
Is that why they sold THREE million COFDM receiver is
> little old England this year or 600,000 COFDM receivers in Australia where
> they only have like FOUR million households?

Please tell us more of your old AVS Forum lies about how the "RCA DTC-100
OTA will never work".
Please tell us more crazy lies about how "U.K. DTV is Plug and Play".
Please tell us more idiotic lies, like "better antennas will not fix 8-VSB
reception problems".
How about "We'll all get free COFDM receivers if we change to COFDM"?
The list goes on and on and on...
 
G

Guest

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

Well, technically, the NTSC goes back to 1940, so they have been setting
American television standards for over 60 years. And, of course, it can be
argued as to whom the "father" of modern television was, whether it be Philo
Farnsworth, or Vladimir Zworykin under Sarnoff at RCA. Personally, I would
give the bulk of the credit to Philo T., as he was a genius way ahead of his
time, and Sarnoff was rather unscrupulous in terms of taking credit for
early R&D. He pretty much screwed over the likes of Farnsworth and Edward
Armstrong (inventor of FM, regeneration, and super regeneration,
superheterodyne) in his march to "greatness" for RCA and NBC. But that is
getting way off topic......

"GMAN" <glenzabr@nospamallowed.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:covfpn$ri4$2@news.xmission.com...
> In article <FEbsd.84436$jE2.16982@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "magnulus"
> <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> NTSC was a simple standard that has lasted for almost 40 years. DTV
>>should be a simple standard, too.
>>
>
> You have the years wrong, yes NTSC has only been around that long but
> Philo T.
> invented the tech over 75 years ago.
>
 
G

Guest

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

Sorry, that was Edwin Armstrong. (Can't type today!)

"Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%iIsd.29060$zx1.2626@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Well, technically, the NTSC goes back to 1940, so they have been setting
> American television standards for over 60 years. And, of course, it can be
> argued as to whom the "father" of modern television was, whether it be
> Philo Farnsworth, or Vladimir Zworykin under Sarnoff at RCA. Personally, I
> would give the bulk of the credit to Philo T., as he was a genius way
> ahead of his time, and Sarnoff was rather unscrupulous in terms of taking
> credit for early R&D. He pretty much screwed over the likes of Farnsworth
> and Edward Armstrong (inventor of FM, regeneration, and super
> regeneration, superheterodyne) in his march to "greatness" for RCA and
> NBC. But that is getting way off topic......
>
> "GMAN" <glenzabr@nospamallowed.xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:covfpn$ri4$2@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <FEbsd.84436$jE2.16982@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "magnulus"
>> <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> NTSC was a simple standard that has lasted for almost 40 years. DTV
>>>should be a simple standard, too.
>>>
>>
>> You have the years wrong, yes NTSC has only been around that long but
>> Philo T.
>> invented the tech over 75 years ago.
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

David wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:41B286A1.7070600@earthlink.net...
> Is that why they sold THREE million COFDM receiver is
>
>>little old England this year or 600,000 COFDM receivers in Australia where
>>they only have like FOUR million households?
>
>
> Please tell us more of your old AVS Forum lies about how the "RCA DTC-100
> OTA will never work".
> Please tell us more crazy lies about how "U.K. DTV is Plug and Play".
> Please tell us more idiotic lies, like "better antennas will not fix 8-VSB
> reception problems".
> How about "We'll all get free COFDM receivers if we change to COFDM"?
> The list goes on and on and on...
>
>
The RCA DTC-100 doesn't work at even minimum standards that any standard
setting agency would set. That is why NO one has set minimum standards
todate.

Even the 5th gen receiver from LG which I have said is a decent receiver
does not meet minimum standards.

For most UK COFDM customers most receivers being sold are plug and play.
That is the primary reason they will sell 3 million of them this year.

The average transmitter in the UK is at ONE kW. If they were anywhere
near the MILLION watts some US stations are broadcasting at you would be
able to receive them half way across Europe. When they have turned off
their analog transmitters and can increase their power levels in the UK
to something massive like 20 kWs coverage and reception will be even
better.

Better antennas will not fix 8-VSB reception problems with multipath for
the most part. You can go to a more directional antenna which will help
but the real fix for 8-VSB is the development of better receivers ala
the 5th generation.

You state that I claimed that "We'll all get free COFDM receivers if we
change to COFDM". I stated that our business plan included the
distribution of free COFDM recievers with our subscription service. We
cannot use COFDM yet because the 8-VSB trauma, the non DTV transition,
is still keeping broadcasters parked on the free spectrum given to them
while those who paid for that spectrum are forced to wait. This includes
early responders like Fireman, Police etc who were promised channels 64,
65, 68 and 69.

It looks like Congress, the FCC and the White House are finally getting
fed up with the procrastination by broadcasters but mainly by the CEA.

USDTV is selling 8-VSB receivers for $19.95. 8-VSB receivers cost more
inherently and because they have no economies of scale like COFDM does.
If USDTV were using COFDM they would not be charging for the COFDM
receiver. In fact by the end of next year they will not be charging for
the 5th gen 8-VSB receiver. If we had been using COFDM for the last five
years 80 million Americans would have HDTV receivers today and most of
them would have paid little or nothing via subscription services or if
they bought them retail they would be paying less than $100 for a basic
model today. This Christmas season alone (2004 4th quarter-91 days)
would have seen the sale of or distribution of around seven million
COFDM HD receivers in the US.

Bob Miller
 

David

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
785
0
18,930
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote >>
> The RCA DTC-100 doesn't work at even minimum standards that any standard
> setting agency would set.

> Even the 5th gen receiver from LG which I have said is a decent receiver
> does not meet minimum standards.

> For most UK COFDM customers most receivers being sold are plug and play.
> That is the primary reason they will sell 3 million of them this year.
>
> The average transmitter in the UK is at ONE kW. If they were anywhere near
> the MILLION watts some US stations are broadcasting at you would be able
> to receive them half way across Europe. When they have turned off their
> analog transmitters and can increase their power levels in the UK to
> something massive like 20 kWs coverage and reception will be even better.
>
> Better antennas will not fix 8-VSB reception problems with multipath for
> the most part. You can go to a more directional antenna which will help
> but the real fix for 8-VSB is the development of better receivers ala the
> 5th generation.
>
> You state that I claimed that "We'll all get free COFDM receivers if we
> change to COFDM". I stated that our business plan included the
> distribution of free COFDM recievers with our subscription service. We
> cannot use COFDM yet because the 8-VSB trauma, the non DTV transition, is
> still keeping broadcasters parked on the free spectrum given to them while
> those who paid for that spectrum are forced to wait. This includes early
> responders like Fireman, Police etc who were promised channels 64, 65, 68
> and 69.
>
> It looks like Congress, the FCC and the White House are finally getting
> fed up with the procrastination by broadcasters but mainly by the CEA.
>
> USDTV is selling 8-VSB receivers for $19.95. 8-VSB receivers cost more
> inherently and because they have no economies of scale like COFDM does. If
> USDTV were using COFDM they would not be charging for the COFDM receiver.
> In fact by the end of next year they will not be charging for the 5th gen
> 8-VSB receiver. If we had been using COFDM for the last five years 80
> million Americans would have HDTV receivers today and most of them would
> have paid little or nothing via subscription services or if they bought
> them retail they would be paying less than $100 for a basic model today.
> This Christmas season alone (2004 4th quarter-91 days) would have seen the
> sale of or distribution of around seven million COFDM HD receivers in the
> US.
>
> Bob Miller

You seem to enjoy some kind of fulfillment or
pleasure/delight from being accused of lying.

Really, really bizarre mental illness...
 
G

Guest

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

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The RCA DTC-100 doesn't work at even minimum standards that any standard
> setting agency would set.

And yet, it's *still* the #1 selling ATSC receiver, with quite literally
a million happy users (like me).

There is *nothing* that a 4th generation receiver adds to actual reception
over the DTC-100. Other features (like DVI, HDMI, better guide integration,
etc.) are in newer receivers, but the DTC-100 is a tank that works great.

--
Jeff Rife | "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But
SPAM bait: | then you get to the end and a gorilla starts
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | throwing barrels at you."
spam@ftc.gov | -- Philip J. Fry, "Futurama"
 
G

Guest

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

Bob, it seems to have gotten to a point that you can't even go one sentence
without contradicting yourself. You say that "NO one has set minimum
standards todate.", then in the very next sentence you say "Even the 5th gen
receiver from LG which I have said is a decent receiver does not meet
minimum standards". Well which is it? There are no set standards, or nobody
can meet minimum standards? Or, are you setting what "minimum standards"
are? If so, why don't you publish these "standards" for the rest of us. Oh
wait, never mind. I don't want to get you started on another convoluted
tirade about 8VSB vs. COFDM or how stupid we are because we like our HDTV
sets despite how "terrible" you say they are.


Phil

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7gMsd.2068$0r.441@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> The RCA DTC-100 doesn't work at even minimum standards that any standard
> setting agency would set. That is why NO one has set minimum standards
> todate.
>
> Even the 5th gen receiver from LG which I have said is a decent receiver
> does not meet minimum standards.
>
> Bob Miller