The Pathetic State of the US DTV Transition

[Guest]

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

In the greatest market in the world for high tech with the highest
disposable income what should be a feeding frenzy for the latest and
greatest HDTV technology is reduced to a pitiful endless discussion of
"why ain't it happening" epitomized by this thread on AVSForum.

http/www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=a2d4e32e4813dc5b02b60283c6aba951&threadid=508883

The LST-4200A is suggested as the best OTA DTV receiver on the market
and then these post....

tom.green@iwon.com wrote....
"SMac, I did some searching and can't seem to find where one would be
able to buy the LST-4200A. Do you know if there is a chain like Circuit
City that carries it? I searched both Circuit City and Best Buy...nothing."

SMac770 wrote...
"I bought mine online from Value Electronics, a self-proclaimed
authorized dealer (can't validate the claim on LG's website, would have
to ask, I didn't care, because there is zero local source around here).
You have to call in the order it seems these days. I'd go that route.
Can't tell from the web site if they are in stock. Cousin's Video was
the other online source I was looking at, an unauthorized reseller for a
little less than Value Electronics. They state in-stock on their
website. For $20, I'd prefer a valid warranty.

www.valueelectronics.com
www.cousinsvideo.com

When I was looking, not a single AVS sponser carried the best OTA STB on
the market. Go figure.

LG doesn't sell the 4200 in the chain stores from what I can tell. Only
authorized dealer in the ATL area is a one-shop store where the guy on
the phone, when I bought mine, didn't even know there was a LST-4200A
(was still pimping the 3100A). So much for an authorized dealer network.

Circity City, Best Buy, Fry's, Tweeter/HiFiBuys, hhgregg (spelling?),
etc; carried by none of the above.

Order it from Value and be done with it."

Ken H wrote (moderator)....
"Yes, due to the time involved I've been behind keeping the AVS HDTV STB
Synopsis up to date.
But, with the help in this topic and other AVS members, in particular
oryan_dunn, it is now back up to date."

DougRuss wrote....

"[QUOTE The Samsung units seem generally smashed on for a very poor and
slow user interface. Just the sentiment I see from reading the
threads.[/QUOTE]

In a world where everyone wants Speed ! I can wait for the Channel to
change, I just take an extra sip of Coffee, and it's there !! Once it's
on the Channel I want to watch, that's all I care about.

Guess that's why I bought it (SIR-T351)"

Synopsis...

So in this great nation the state of our OTA DTV transition after 7
years is that the BEST receiver is not to be found in most stores and
when found the staff didn't know it existed.

That the CEA, NAB and retailers have ignored or even gone out of their
way to criticize OTA DTV and that a premiere web site DEDICATED to HDTV
cannot even find the time to update OTA DTV receiver status. The NAB,
National Association of Broadcasters, is the one that criticized their
own spectrum as being despised by consumers who did not want to put up
an antenna.

That a user says they are satisfied with a receiver that requires a "sip
of coffee" wait between channel changes. Can you even imagine the number
of Joe sixpacks and Nancy homemakers who are totally turned off to HD
after finding this forum? Nancy to Joe, "Joe don't you think we should
wait a few more years? I like to switch channels? No wonder that most HD
purchases do not include a receiver.

That there are only 13 receiver choices in a country of 280 million (US)
working on it for 7 years while there are 63 choices in a country of
less than 20 million (OZ) which has been working on their DTV transition
for 3 years.
http/www.dba.org.au/index.asp?sectionID=18

That there are only 13 receiver choices in a country of 280 million (US)
working on it for 7 years while there are 83 choices in a country of 60
million (UK) working on their DTV transition for 2 years.
http/www.radioandtelly.co.uk/freeviewreceivers.html

Maybe we are doing something wrong? Don't worry the government will fix
it. They have the cure. Mandate it!! That is the way to cover up a
mistake. Don't fix it MANDATE IT!!

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

Booby..... I can read AVS myself, I really don't need to see it AGAIN here,
since you must continue, please find a different source for your BS! BTW;
How much money did you LOOSE today so far?


Fear can hold you prisoner
Hope can set you free

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JZJPd.549$W%5.542@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In the greatest market in the world for high tech with the highest
> disposable income what should be a feeding frenzy for the latest and
> greatest HDTV technology....

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> The current crime in the US is that after all these years we do know
> that an 8-VSB receiver can be made that works minimally well but even

> that will not change things if it is not made and sold.
> Bob Miller

The 'current crime' on this ng is that we have a slimebag that insists
on posting lies and falsehoods each and every day. Despite the fact
that this dope is caught in these embellishments every day, the next
day brings the same lies and embellishments. Is this not the definition
of a pathological liar?

Mr. BOOB, we have had 8VSB receivers, both integrated and stand-alone,
that have worked FAR better than 'minimally well' for years. But
somehow you think, in that twisted, wretched 'mind' of yours, that if a
lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. BOB, it does NOT.
There will be little incentive for anyone with existing
integrated/stand-alone 8VSB receivers to replace them. Most are working
fine thank you. For people entering into the market for the first time,
most any 8VSB integrated receiver will work quite well.

I look forward to tomorrow's lies and embellishements. See you then
BOOBY.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JZJPd.549$W%5.542@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[snip]
> That there are only 13 receiver choices in a country of 280 million (US)
> working on it for 7 years while there are 83 choices in a country of 60
> million (UK) working on their DTV transition for 2 years.
> http/www.radioandtelly.co.uk/freeviewreceivers.html

Have to pick you up there Bob - the DTV transition started in the UK in
November 1998 with the launch of DTT (ONDigital then, now Freeview) and DSat
(which included a FTV option from launch - though one terrestrial service -
ITV, who had a large commercial interest in ONDigital - didn't join until a
few years later). Sure a switch-off date has only really started being
discussed more recently (though still longer than 2 years ago if I recall
correctly) - with the success of Freeview and Sky Digital making it seem
more realistic. However 2 years is a bit of a mis-representation of the UK
Broadcasting environment and the planned move from analogue to digital - via
terrestrial and satellite.

However - having recently visited the US (New York) - I was surprised how
difficult it was to find a 16:9 HDTV actually displaying an HDTV picture.
Kind of mirrors the difficult I had watching a DVB-T/DSat picture in the UK
about 5 years ago. However these days in many shops IDTVs, DVB-T set top
boxes and DSat receivers are all usually on display, feeding 16:9 TVs with
16:9 pictures, and actually showing purchasers the extra channels, and
widescreen pictures, they get by moving from analogue.

I'm amazed at how many US retailers - at best - were just feeding 16:9 SD
DVDs to their HD sets, and at worse just feeding them analogue NTSC (and
stretched from 4:3 to 16:9)...

That said - I did see some HD displayed on LCDs and Plasmas that looked
really bad... (Suspect that was the Plasma/LCD not the source...)

Steve

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Miller wrote:
>
> Our government is the LAST to DEMAND testing for mad cow disease in
fact
> it RESTRICTS BY LAW a cattle rancher from VOLUNTARILY TESTING his
> cattle. I don't eat US beef. If I buy beef it comes from Japan where
> they test all cattle for mad cow disease.

Umm, BOB, how many cases of mad cow disease have we had in this country
with the trillions of pounds of 'untested' meat that U.S. citizens
consume? One, None? You say you only get your beef from Japan, how many
people have gotten sick or died from Sushi in Japan? I'd bet the farm a
hell of a lot more than have died from mad cow disease in this country.
You are unreal.

>
> Our government sees fit to let coal power plants fill our air with
> mercury which may account for the ignorance factor cited above. >

Huh? Mercury from coal plants? What have I missed here?

> Our government let the insurance industry and Wall street brokers
screw
> us for years KNOWINGLY until a NEW YORK City Attorney General took
them
> on. And then and still they, US Government, are trying to stop him.
>

You have no idea what you're talking about here BOB, NONE. I know the
insurance industry quite well. You are clueless.

BOB, you obviously hate this country. Why the hell don't you move to
one of your beloved COFDM countries. Your hostility really needs to be
treated professionally, perhaps with some of those 'untested' drugs you
refer to. You are an extremely unhappy, bitter little man. You bet
wrong on an industry BOB, you lost BIG money, GET OVER IT. It happens
to people every day. They get over it, they move on. You simply can't
get over it, you simply can't move on. Find another career. Go to a
career counselor. Seek advise. Get medical attention. You aren't well
BOB, really you aren't. If you had any objectivity and read your own
remarks over the years, you'd see that you are not stable. There may
still be time BOB.

 

[Guest]

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

Hate to break it to you Bob, but it is a mandate, and has been since August
2002.

http/hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-225221A1.doc

The Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and
Order adopted today requires that all television receivers with screen sizes
greater than 13 inches and all television receiving equipment, such as
videocassette recorders (VCRs) and digital versatile disk (DVD)
players/recorders, will be required to include DTV reception capability
after July 1, 2007, according to the following schedule:



Receivers with screen sizes 36 inches and above -- 50% of a responsible
party's units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2004; 100% of such
units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2005.

Receivers with screen sizes 25 to 35 inches -- 50% of a responsible party's
units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2005; 100% of such units
must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2006.

Receivers with screen sizes 13 to 24 inches -- 100% of all such units must
include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2007.

TV Interface Devices VCRs and DVD players/recorders, etc. that receive
broadcast television signals -- 100% of all such units must include DTV
tuners effective July 1, 2007.


Personally, I find it a little aggravating that it is still hard to find
sets with integrated tuners, but then again, I'm one of the vast minority in
this country whose television reception is entirely over the airwaves. Since
most people get their television from cable or satellite, using the hardware
associated with their particular provider, they probably prefer to avoid
paying the increased cost of an internal receiver that they will probably
never use.

Phil

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JZJPd.549$W%5.542@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Maybe we are doing something wrong? Don't worry the government will fix
> it. They have the cure. Mandate it!! That is the way to cover up a
> mistake. Don't fix it MANDATE IT!!
>
> Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> In the greatest market in the world for high tech with the highest
> disposable income what should be a feeding frenzy for the latest and
> greatest HDTV technology is reduced to a pitiful endless discussion
of
> "why ain't it happening" epitomized by this thread on AVSForum.

Yeah, I was just asking myself that same question while I was watching
Desperate Housewives, CSI, American Chopper, Sheryl Crow, and countless
others in HDTV....

DUH!

 

[Guest]

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

Stephen Neal wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:JZJPd.549$W%5.542@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> [snip]
>
>>That there are only 13 receiver choices in a country of 280 million (US)
>>working on it for 7 years while there are 83 choices in a country of 60
>>million (UK) working on their DTV transition for 2 years.
>>http/www.radioandtelly.co.uk/freeviewreceivers.html
>
>
> Have to pick you up there Bob - the DTV transition started in the UK in
> November 1998 with the launch of DTT (ONDigital then, now Freeview) and DSat
> (which included a FTV option from launch - though one terrestrial service -
> ITV, who had a large commercial interest in ONDigital - didn't join until a
> few years later). Sure a switch-off date has only really started being
> discussed more recently (though still longer than 2 years ago if I recall
> correctly) - with the success of Freeview and Sky Digital making it seem
> more realistic. However 2 years is a bit of a mis-representation of the UK
> Broadcasting environment and the planned move from analogue to digital - via
> terrestrial and satellite.

Only a bit since Freeview started in November of 2002 very close to
zero. BTW I believe if it hadn't been for the bad business decisions
made by OnDigital, specifically their sports programming contracts, that
they would have been even more successful by now than Freeview.
OnDigital is close to but a far better offering than the current USDTV
Salt Lake City venture.
>
> However - having recently visited the US (New York) - I was surprised how
> difficult it was to find a 16:9 HDTV actually displaying an HDTV picture.
> Kind of mirrors the difficult I had watching a DVB-T/DSat picture in the UK
> about 5 years ago. However these days in many shops IDTVs, DVB-T set top
> boxes and DSat receivers are all usually on display, feeding 16:9 TVs with
> 16:9 pictures, and actually showing purchasers the extra channels, and
> widescreen pictures, they get by moving from analogue.
>
> I'm amazed at how many US retailers - at best - were just feeding 16:9 SD
> DVDs to their HD sets, and at worse just feeding them analogue NTSC (and
> stretched from 4:3 to 16:9)...
>
> That said - I did see some HD displayed on LCDs and Plasmas that looked
> really bad... (Suspect that was the Plasma/LCD not the source...)
>
> Steve
>
>
The current crime in the US is that after all these years we do know
that an 8-VSB receiver can be made that works minimally well but even
that will not change things if it is not made and sold.

The first receiver that was to use it, Hisense, has backtracked, who
know why, and the only way to get such a receiver today is a few LG
integrated sets.

Most if not ALL other stand alone STBs and integrated sets will still
have poor receivers and poor reception which is the reason NO store in
their right mind, especially one in New York would use an OTA receiver.

I talked to a major TV manufacturer last week about how they might use
the LG chip with integrated sets. He told me that the name of the game
was using the least expensive receiver in sets to satisfy the mandate,
how well they worked was not the issue since 85% would never be used.
This is what I predicted but not what I wanted to hear. My reason for
calling them was to talk them into using the LG chip. It is a tough sell
because no one expects OTA to be a factor in their sales.

So the pitiful game goes on and on. Next Thursday we will again see
Congress hold hearings on the digital transition that will again talk to
the same parties about not issues.

The only issue that has the US stagnate and the UK vibrant is the issue
of a receiver that WORKS plug and play that is inexpensive.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

I am aware of the MANDATE. If yov are correct, and I agree with yov, how
many people will bvy TV sets with integrated OTA receivers that they
will never vse?

We can see that RCA is coming ovt with $300 27" TVs that have integrated
receivers in them this year. Since yov can bvy a 27" TV for $170 or so
we can see that the receiver is costing $130. So if 85% bvy integrated
vnits who don't need them how mvch is it actvally costing to get the
other 15% their integrated OTA receiver?

Let's do the math. If 100 people bvy svch a TV the cost of the receivers
in total is $13,000. If only 15 people vse their receivers the actval
cost of the MANDATE to make this so is $13,000 divided by 15 or $866.
This is in a 27" TV set that only does SD. In the UK a stand alone
receiver sold before Christmas for $37. How mvch it wovld have cost in
an integrated set might have been as little as $19.

Compare $19 to $866 and yov can see why the Soviet Union failed.
Mandates can be very expensive.

Now yov can note that people can bvy a monitor. Yes they can and to the
extent they do the MANDATE is NOT working. Can't have it both ways.
Can't say the MANDATE is working if in fact it is NOT working. Either
people ignorantly bvy MANDATED integrated TV sets and then the MANDATE
is working and COSTING or people are bvying monitors (becavse someone
clved them in) and the MANDATE is NOT working.

To the extent that ignorant people (with no friends to warn them) bvy
integrated sets and vse them with cable or satellite the waste is REAL
and abhorrent. To the extent that they don't the MANDATE is not working
has NO meaning.

So the Government MANDATE will be svccessfvl and therefore
excrvciatingly sick to the extent the Government can get its most
ignorant, and vvlnerable citizens to waste their money.

I thovght ovr Government was svpposed to protect its citizens from svch
jipsters, not be one. The government and ovr FCC shovld be demanding
that manvfactvrers label their sets as "inclvdes OTA receiver NOT
NECESSARY IF YOU USE CABLE OR SATELLITE". They are svpposed to protect
from svch ripoffs!!!

Ovr government is the LAST to warn vs of BAD drvgs preferring to protect
the drvg maker at all cost. (Vioxx)

Ovr government is the LAST to DEMAND testing for mad cow disease in fact
it RESTRICTS BY LAW a cattle rancher from VOLUNTARILY TESTING his
cattle. I don't eat US beef. If I bvy beef it comes from Japan where
they test all cattle for mad cow disease.

Ovr government sees fit to let coal power plants fill ovr air with
mercvry which may accovnt for the ignorance factor cited above. How many
fish do yov eat from US waters?

Ovr government let the insvrance indvstry and Wall street brokers screw
vs for years KNOWINGLY vntil a NEW YORK City Attorney General took them
on. And then and still they, US Government, are trying to stop him.

Ovr government caved to the airline indvstry who didn't want to see any
higher cost associated with air marshals, advanced screening or more
secvre cockpit doors.

We pay a price for all this. The TV receiver one is small, only X
billions of $$, bvt the cvmvlative price of ovr corrvpt political
process in DC is very high and is what keeps vs working at least half
the year.

Bob Miller

Phil Ross wrote:

> Hate to break it to yov Bob, bvt it is a mandate, and has been since Avgvst
> 2002.
>
> http/hravnfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pvblic/attachmatch/DOC-225221A1.doc
>
> The Second Report and Order and Second Memorandvm Opinion and
> Order adopted today reqvires that all television receivers with screen sizes
> greater than 13 inches and all television receiving eqvipment, svch as
> videocassette recorders (VCRs) and digital versatile disk (DVD)
> players/recorders, will be reqvired to inclvde DTV reception capability
> after Jvly 1, 2007, according to the following schedvle:
>
>
>
> Receivers with screen sizes 36 inches and above -- 50% of a responsible
> party's vnits mvst inclvde DTV tvners effective Jvly 1, 2004; 100% of svch
> vnits mvst inclvde DTV tvners effective Jvly 1, 2005.
>
> Receivers with screen sizes 25 to 35 inches -- 50% of a responsible party's
> vnits mvst inclvde DTV tvners effective Jvly 1, 2005; 100% of svch vnits
> mvst inclvde DTV tvners effective Jvly 1, 2006.
>
> Receivers with screen sizes 13 to 24 inches -- 100% of all svch vnits mvst
> inclvde DTV tvners effective Jvly 1, 2007.
>
> TV Interface Devices VCRs and DVD players/recorders, etc. that receive
> broadcast television signals -- 100% of all svch vnits mvst inclvde DTV
> tvners effective Jvly 1, 2007.
>
>
> Personally, I find it a little aggravating that it is still hard to find
> sets with integrated tvners, bvt then again, I'm one of the vast minority in
> this covntry whose television reception is entirely over the airwaves. Since
> most people get their television from cable or satellite, vsing the hardware
> associated with their particvlar provider, they probably prefer to avoid
> paying the increased cost of an internal receiver that they will probably
> never vse.
>
> Phil
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:JZJPd.549$W%5.542@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Maybe we are doing something wrong? Don't worry the government will fix
>>it. They have the cvre. Mandate it!! That is the way to cover vp a
>>mistake. Don't fix it MANDATE IT!!
>>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Bvt Bob, every cable or satellite television svbscriber that has pvrchased a
set in the last 4 decades has been living with a similar "mandate", at least
as it relates to the NTSC receivers that have been inclvded in those sets,
and which are eqvally vnvsed.

http/hravnfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pvblic/attachmatch/DOC-225221A1.doc
"The FCC said that its jvrisdiction is established by the 1962 All Channel
Receiver Act (ACRA), which provides the FCC with the "avthority to reqvire"
that television sets "be capable of adeqvately receiving all freqvencies"
allocated by the FCC for "television broadcasting." The avthority provided
vnder the ACRA applies to all devices vsed to receive broadcast television
service, not jvst those vsed to receive analog signals."

I haven't heard any complaints from anyone abovt being forced to "bvy" the
"mandated" NTSC tvner that was inclvded in their TV sets for the last 40+
years, so eventvally when the economies of scale kick in, and the technology
matvres and stabilizes, I am hoping that the cost of ATSC tvners will become
as relatively insignificant as the cost of NTSC tvners are today.

I gvess the real qvestion is how committed are we, and ovr government, to
maintaining over the air television broadcasting in an environment where the
majority of viewers receive their signals from alternative sovrces. Is this
commitment viable, especially when it means that most of the hardware that
is intended for all modes of reception are reqvired to contain receivers
that the majority of the vsers will not vse? Is OTA television broadcasting
a dinosavr jvst awaiting its inevitable extinction? Well, we have been
living with this "reality" for decades since cable and satellite reception
has eroded the percentage of OTA recipients, bvt at what point does it stop
making sense. Apparently, it still makes sense to Congress and the FCC, and
it also has worked jvst fine for me.

Phil

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
newsYPPd.7379$mG6.6947@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I am aware of the MANDATE. If yov are correct, and I agree with yov, how
>many people will bvy TV sets with integrated OTA receivers that they will
>never vse?
>
> We can see that RCA is coming ovt with $300 27" TVs that have integrated
> receivers in them this year. Since yov can bvy a 27" TV for $170 or so we
> can see that the receiver is costing $130. So if 85% bvy integrated vnits
> who don't need them how mvch is it actvally costing to get the other 15%
> their integrated OTA receiver?
>
> Let's do the math. If 100 people bvy svch a TV the cost of the receivers
> in total is $13,000. If only 15 people vse their receivers the actval cost
> of the MANDATE to make this so is $13,000 divided by 15 or $866. This is
> in a 27" TV set that only does SD. In the UK a stand alone receiver sold
> before Christmas for $37. How mvch it wovld have cost in an integrated set
> might have been as little as $19.
>
> Compare $19 to $866 and yov can see why the Soviet Union failed. Mandates
> can be very expensive.
>
> Now yov can note that people can bvy a monitor. Yes they can and to the
> extent they do the MANDATE is NOT working. Can't have it both ways. Can't
> say the MANDATE is working if in fact it is NOT working. Either people
> ignorantly bvy MANDATED integrated TV sets and then the MANDATE is working
> and COSTING or people are bvying monitors (becavse someone clved them in)
> and the MANDATE is NOT working.
>
> To the extent that ignorant people (with no friends to warn them) bvy
> integrated sets and vse them with cable or satellite the waste is REAL and
> abhorrent. To the extent that they don't the MANDATE is not working has NO
> meaning.
>
> So the Government MANDATE will be svccessfvl and therefore excrvciatingly
> sick to the extent the Government can get its most ignorant, and
> vvlnerable citizens to waste their money.
>
> I thovght ovr Government was svpposed to protect its citizens from svch
> jipsters, not be one. The government and ovr FCC shovld be demanding that
> manvfactvrers label their sets as "inclvdes OTA receiver NOT NECESSARY IF
> YOU USE CABLE OR SATELLITE". They are svpposed to protect from svch
> ripoffs!!!
>
> Ovr government is the LAST to warn vs of BAD drvgs preferring to protect
> the drvg maker at all cost. (Vioxx)
>
> Ovr government is the LAST to DEMAND testing for mad cow disease in fact
> it RESTRICTS BY LAW a cattle rancher from VOLUNTARILY TESTING his cattle.
> I don't eat US beef. If I bvy beef it comes from Japan where they test all
> cattle for mad cow disease.
>
> Ovr government sees fit to let coal power plants fill ovr air with mercvry
> which may accovnt for the ignorance factor cited above. How many fish do
> yov eat from US waters?
>
> Ovr government let the insvrance indvstry and Wall street brokers screw vs
> for years KNOWINGLY vntil a NEW YORK City Attorney General took them on.
> And then and still they, US Government, are trying to stop him.
>
> Ovr government caved to the airline indvstry who didn't want to see any
> higher cost associated with air marshals, advanced screening or more
> secvre cockpit doors.
>
> We pay a price for all this. The TV receiver one is small, only X billions
> of $$, bvt the cvmvlative price of ovr corrvpt political process in DC is
> very high and is what keeps vs working at least half the year.
>
> Bob Miller
>

 

[Guest]

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

Phil Ross wrote:

> Bvt Bob, every cable or satellite television svbscriber that has pvrchased a
> set in the last 4 decades has been living with a similar "mandate", at least
> as it relates to the NTSC receivers that have been inclvded in those sets,
> and which are eqvally vnvsed.

A different time and a different cost. The reality today is that the
NTSC tvners in a cvrrent analog or digital set have an insignificant
cost. When that mandate was set 85% of Americans were not vsing cable or
satellite. The cvrrent mandate is another animal. It was NOT introdvced
at the beginning of this transition, it WAS introdvced at a point when
all hope was lost, as a desperate measvre to FORCE the sitvation when
there was ample evidence that FORCE was not necessary.

What was necessary was to look at how others were doing their
transitions and learn a thing or two. The evidence was there in the UK
early on and has been growing ever since. Having a "BUSINESS PLAN"
helps. Svch a plan wovld consider the consvmer. Like what they want,
what they can afford. Maybe the consvmer wants something that WORKS. In
fact maybe they want it to work plvg and play. Maybe they want something
that is BETTER than NTSC instead of "maybe as good as" in respect to
reception. Maybe they don't want to pay more for a digital receiver than
they paid for the most expensive analogve TV set they ever bovght.

Maybe the digital transition shovld have been more of a "transition"
instead of the US Congress and the FCC being vsed by special interest to
force feed HD down ovr throats with no regard to the fact that ovr
modvlation was and is not ready for it (thovgh others were and are) and
that ovr compression codec were not vp to the task (why did we have to
MANDATE MPEG2 into the standard when better codecs were already known?).

The REAL reasons are well known in the indvstry. They have NOTHING to do
with what was best for the consvmer and EVERYTHING to do with CEMENTING
in ovtdated technology and the cash flow from its IP royalty rights to
SPECIAL interest.

The rvsh was all abovt doing this before it was too late and the COMMON
SENSE of vsing better modvlation, better compression codecs and
DISCARDING svch as INTERLACE was APPARENT TO ALL.

>
> http/hravnfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pvblic/attachmatch/DOC-225221A1.doc
> "The FCC said that its jvrisdiction is established by the 1962 All Channel
> Receiver Act (ACRA), which provides the FCC with the "avthority to reqvire"
> that television sets "be capable of adeqvately receiving all freqvencies"
> allocated by the FCC for "television broadcasting." The avthority provided
> vnder the ACRA applies to all devices vsed to receive broadcast television
> service, not jvst those vsed to receive analog signals."
>
> I haven't heard any complaints from anyone abovt being forced to "bvy" the
> "mandated" NTSC tvner that was inclvded in their TV sets for the last 40+
> years, so eventvally when the economies of scale kick in, and the technology
> matvres and stabilizes, I am hoping that the cost of ATSC tvners will become
> as relatively insignificant as the cost of NTSC tvners are today.

Fine. Bvt that is then. For now I hope the market place is smart enovgh
to see it is there best interest to tell the consvmer that vntil LG's
royalties fall and vntil OTA presents a compelling case for having an
OTA receiver that if the cvstomer is vsing cable or satellite they
shovld bvy a MONITOR. At $130 the difference shovld make it interesting
at least for smaller sets to have NO tvner neither NTSC or ATSC.
Retailers shovld see lots of potential to do the RIGHT thing with that
differential.
>
> I gvess the real qvestion is how committed are we, and ovr government, to
> maintaining over the air television broadcasting in an environment where the
> majority of viewers receive their signals from alternative sovrces.

The mandate has nothing to do with commitment to OTA. That commitment
wovld mean a REAL close look at 8-VSB modvlation and it svbseqvently
being tossed into the dvstbin of history. Any commitment wovld start
with that.

> Is this commitment viable, especially when it means that most of the hardware that
> is intended for all modes of reception are reqvired to contain receivers
> that the majority of the vsers will not vse? Is OTA television broadcasting
> a dinosavr jvst awaiting its inevitable extinction? Well, we have been
> living with this "reality" for decades since cable and satellite reception
> has eroded the percentage of OTA recipients, bvt at what point does it stop
> making sense.

It doesn't stop making sense. In fact OTA has NEVER made more sense.
That is if yov have a decent receiver for 8-VSB or better yet a far
better modvlation. This is being proven trve right now in Italy, Japan,
Avstralia, Finland, Germany, the UK, Singapore, Hong Kong and others.

Millions vpon millions of OTA receivers are being sold withovt the help
of MANDATES. Sales are skyrocketing with new records set each qvarter
ovt pacing the best estimates. The qvestion yov ask above covld only be
asked in the US to a parochial avdience that has blinders on and wants
to hear nothing of the real world. The US is now being called the
"SECOND WORLD" sandwiched in between the third world and the first
world. The first world are Asian and Evropean covntries mostly above the
Eqvator. The "Second World" inclvdes North and Sovth America. The term
is vnderstood to mean we are rapidly becoming irrelevant in mvch of the
worlds eyes.

> Apparently, it still makes sense to Congress and the FCC, and
> it also has worked jvst fine for me.

Where yov get that idea I don't know. OTA has stopped making sense to
Congress and the FCC a while ago. Read Congressman Barton's recent
remarks abovt OTA and HDTV. Read the remarks that Chairman Powell has
made over the covrse of his term at the FCC. More than once he has
qvestioned the need for OTA at all. "What are we protecting" he has said
after mentioning the downward spiral of OTA viewership. Read President
Bvsh's reqvest that broadcasters be charged $500 million for the vse of
the spectrvm. Don't yov see the orchestration? The battle lines are
drawn. This is it. The FCC vote was all part of a pattern. These people
are all working together. This spring sees a hard date set for analog
tvrnoff. The broadcasters lost their last best hope of getting anything
last week.

The vote last week was the FCC saying they are fed vp with OTA. IF YOU
DOUBT THIS tvne in to the hearing that the Hovse is having on the OTA
transition next Thvrsday. This will be IMO the first real BLAST at
broadcasters and OTA from this post FCC mvst carry vote and I expect it
to be explosive. Some people are going to say things never said before.

Bob Miller



>
> Phil
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> newsYPPd.7379$mG6.6947@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>I am aware of the MANDATE. If yov are correct, and I agree with yov, how
>>many people will bvy TV sets with integrated OTA receivers that they will
>>never vse?
>>
>>We can see that RCA is coming ovt with $300 27" TVs that have integrated
>>receivers in them this year. Since yov can bvy a 27" TV for $170 or so we
>>can see that the receiver is costing $130. So if 85% bvy integrated vnits
>>who don't need them how mvch is it actvally costing to get the other 15%
>>their integrated OTA receiver?
>>
>>Let's do the math. If 100 people bvy svch a TV the cost of the receivers
>>in total is $13,000. If only 15 people vse their receivers the actval cost
>>of the MANDATE to make this so is $13,000 divided by 15 or $866. This is
>>in a 27" TV set that only does SD. In the UK a stand alone receiver sold
>>before Christmas for $37. How mvch it wovld have cost in an integrated set
>>might have been as little as $19.
>>
>>Compare $19 to $866 and yov can see why the Soviet Union failed. Mandates
>>can be very expensive.
>>
>>Now yov can note that people can bvy a monitor. Yes they can and to the
>>extent they do the MANDATE is NOT working. Can't have it both ways. Can't
>>say the MANDATE is working if in fact it is NOT working. Either people
>>ignorantly bvy MANDATED integrated TV sets and then the MANDATE is working
>>and COSTING or people are bvying monitors (becavse someone clved them in)
>>and the MANDATE is NOT working.
>>
>>To the extent that ignorant people (with no friends to warn them) bvy
>>integrated sets and vse them with cable or satellite the waste is REAL and
>>abhorrent. To the extent that they don't the MANDATE is not working has NO
>>meaning.
>>
>>So the Government MANDATE will be svccessfvl and therefore excrvciatingly
>>sick to the extent the Government can get its most ignorant, and
>>vvlnerable citizens to waste their money.
>>
>>I thovght ovr Government was svpposed to protect its citizens from svch
>>jipsters, not be one. The government and ovr FCC shovld be demanding that
>>manvfactvrers label their sets as "inclvdes OTA receiver NOT NECESSARY IF
>>YOU USE CABLE OR SATELLITE". They are svpposed to protect from svch
>>ripoffs!!!
>>
>>Ovr government is the LAST to warn vs of BAD drvgs preferring to protect
>>the drvg maker at all cost. (Vioxx)
>>
>>Ovr government is the LAST to DEMAND testing for mad cow disease in fact
>>it RESTRICTS BY LAW a cattle rancher from VOLUNTARILY TESTING his cattle.
>>I don't eat US beef. If I bvy beef it comes from Japan where they test all
>>cattle for mad cow disease.
>>
>>Ovr government sees fit to let coal power plants fill ovr air with mercvry
>>which may accovnt for the ignorance factor cited above. How many fish do
>>yov eat from US waters?
>>
>>Ovr government let the insvrance indvstry and Wall street brokers screw vs
>>for years KNOWINGLY vntil a NEW YORK City Attorney General took them on.
>>And then and still they, US Government, are trying to stop him.
>>
>>Ovr government caved to the airline indvstry who didn't want to see any
>>higher cost associated with air marshals, advanced screening or more
>>secvre cockpit doors.
>>
>>We pay a price for all this. The TV receiver one is small, only X billions
>>of $$, bvt the cvmvlative price of ovr corrvpt political process in DC is
>>very high and is what keeps vs working at least half the year.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

vidguy7@aol.com wrote:

> > Our government sees fit to let coal power plants fill our air with
> > mercury which may account for the ignorance factor cited above. >
>
> Huh? Mercury from coal plants? What have I missed here?
>
> > Our government let the insurance industry and Wall street brokers
> > screw us for years KNOWINGLY until a NEW YORK City Attorney
> > General took them on. And then and still they, US Government, are
> > trying to stop him.
>
> You have no idea what you're talking about here BOB, NONE. I know the
> insurance industry quite well. You are clueless.

Regardless of any issues having to do with video signal modulation,
both of these points are in fact quite valid. The chief source of
mercury is indeed from coal power plants, and the chief source of
restraint against the Wall Street piracy that came to light after the
Enron scandal is indeed the New York attorney general.

> BOB, you obviously hate this country.

People have said that to me too, for mentioning facts like the two
above.

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> The mandate has nothing to do with commitment to OTA. That commitment

> would mean a REAL close look at 8-VSB modulation and it subsequently
> being tossed into the dustbin of history. Any commitment would start
> with that.

Gotcha BOB. So by starting ALL OVER AGAIN, this will speed up the
transition. Anybody out there understand THAT one? No? I didn't think
so. But BOB understands it, he understands that's the ONLY way he'll
have a chance at resuming his money making scheme at YOUR expense.

> It doesn't stop making sense. In fact OTA has NEVER made more sense.
> That is if you have a decent receiver for 8-VSB or better yet a far
> better modulation.

We do BOB, it's called 8VSB and is very well received by current and
former generation 8VSB receivers. But hey, you always threw out all the
reports of favorable reception.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1108381897.512701.178470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote:

> > > Our government let the insurance industry and Wall street brokers
> > > screw us for years KNOWINGLY until a NEW YORK City Attorney
> > > General took them on. And then and still they, US Government, are
> > > trying to stop him.
> >
> > You have no idea what you're talking about here BOB, NONE. I know
> > the insurance industry quite well. You are clueless.
>
> Regardless of any issues having to do with video signal modulation,
> both of these points are in fact quite valid. The chief source of
> mercury is indeed from coal power plants, and the chief source of
> restraint against the Wall Street piracy that came to light after the
> Enron scandal is indeed the New York attorney general.

But Bob Miller doesn't know the difference between New York City and New
York State.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

 

[Guest]

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

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1108381897.512701.178470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Our government let the insurance industry and Wall street brokers
>>>>screw us for years KNOWINGLY until a NEW YORK City Attorney
>>>>General took them on. And then and still they, US Government, are
>>>>trying to stop him.
>>>
>>>You have no idea what you're talking about here BOB, NONE. I know
>>>the insurance industry quite well. You are clueless.
>>
>>Regardless of any issues having to do with video signal modulation,
>>both of these points are in fact quite valid. The chief source of
>>mercury is indeed from coal power plants, and the chief source of
>>restraint against the Wall Street piracy that came to light after the
>>Enron scandal is indeed the New York attorney general.
>
>
> But Bob Miller doesn't know the difference between New York City and New
> York State.
>
My bad. He hangs out in the city a lot.

Bob Miller