Tunerless HDTV sets

G

Guest

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

Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the
FCC tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing
just that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and
touting the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their
display device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless
displays. I sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable
or satellite customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate
tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.

The mandate is dead IMO.

Bob Miller

Tuning stripped out of rear projection CRT TVs
By Dennis P. Barker


At the recent Toshiba product line show, which was held in the outskirts
of Albuquerque, NM at the luxurious Hyatt Tamaya resort on May 19th, the
company unveiled their first rear projection CRT monitors capable of
displaying high-definition TV signals. The set sets in the new Custom
SeriesHD Series include no tuning whatsoever, and will reply on the
consumer of adding a separate HD Satellite and HD Cable Box.

To this reporter, it was seemingly a bold move. However, it was later
found out that by eliminating all tuning, the sets bypassed the FCC
tuner mandate for all TVs 36-in. and above, which goes into effect on
July 1st. And, as a bonus, the company will be able to offer the sets at
much lower prices. The 57-in. widescreen model " 57HC85 " is priced at
$1,599.99 (list), which means that it will sell for about $1,300-$1,400
(street). Toshiba will also offer a 51-in. model (51HC85 @ $1,399.99 list).

Both models will include PowerFocus HD CRTs, and the PowerFocusHD lens
system along with their TheaterShield acrylic panel. Integrated features
include: CrystalScan HDSC video processing, dynamic quadruple focus,
DFine hi-speed velocity scan modulation, CableClear digital noise
reduction, and split screen POP (with external tuners). The sets will
include SRS WOW sound along with HDMI digital video input and an
illuminated universal remote.

Surprisingly, at presstime, in a conversation with an official from RCA,
it was mentioned that RCA will also be offering tuner less rear
projection CRT monitors. Presumably, it was learned that since these
type of sets have been offered to the public for so long, they are a lot
less expensive to produce, and offer the consumer good value. It was
pointed out that CRT still maintains excellent image quality over all of
the flat-panel TVs and micro-displays. So, the notion of a tuner less
rear projection CRT is not the brainstorm of one single company, but
could be start of a trend among all producers of rear projection CRTs
for the U.S. market.
 
G

Guest

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> [same ol' garbage]


There are more HDTV sets without tuners than with. This is nothing
new. Please move along...
 
G

Guest

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

I think he means No tuners at all that includes your standard channel
1-135!! (OTA or Cable channels)
Strictly a monitor!!


--
rcbridge, Posted this message at http://www.SatelliteGuys.US
 
G

Guest

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hqgse.5307$NX4.2384@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the FCC
> tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing just
> that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and touting
> the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their display
> device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless displays. I
> sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable or satellite
> customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate tuner also with
> better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.

I think purchasing a television WITH a tuner makes the most sense, all
things being somewhat equal. You don't have to use the tuner in today's
applications, but as we all know, eventually that television will end up in
a bedroom, kids room or at your parents and it's awfully nice to know that
you can just plug it in with a small antenna and get "something." When that
set gets relegated to secondary room status in a few years, digital
broadcasting should be well established even in minor markets so I think it
really makes sense to get it. And Bob...I don't think the OTA standards are
gonna change so don't go there! :)
 
G

Guest

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

> There are more HDTV sets without tuners than with. This is nothing
> new. Please move along...

That there are no tuners whatsoever in these is the point.....no NTSC nor
HD. It is new.
 

user

Distinguished
Dec 26, 2003
799
0
18,930
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:56:13 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the
>FCC tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing
>just that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and
>touting the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their
>display device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless
>displays. I sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable
>or satellite customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate
>tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.


I think you miss the point that instead of buying all those tuners
yourself, the manufactures should provide you with suitable tuners
built in.

The issue is they can't. GET IT ?

HDTV technology is still beta test bullshit.

I think from you're previous posts, you're familiar with the concept.
 
G

Guest

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

"** +9" <-> wrote in message
news:bc34b1p6vsg7ne7sltab74g17d90d80vqs@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:56:13 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the
>>FCC tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing
>>just that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and
>>touting the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their
>>display device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless
>>displays. I sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable
>>or satellite customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate
>>tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.
>
>
> I think you miss the point that instead of buying all those tuners
> yourself, the manufactures should provide you with suitable tuners
> built in.
>
> The issue is they can't. GET IT ?

Well my next door neighbor just purchased a Hitachi Ultravision with a built
in OTA HD/SD tuner and it works great. Picks up all the stations in the
market quite easily and a tab quicker than my 3rd generation STB's did.
 
G

Guest

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

If you don't buy an analog tv without a tuner than why should we buy a
hdtv without a turner? DUH.
 
G

Guest

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

> Fair number of people buy an HD monitor without an ATSC tuner.
That's because most HDTV (well, you called it HD monitor) are sold
without a tuner.

> if itdoesn't have a tuner, then it is called a monitor rather than a TV
Sorry, when it says it is HDTV it is sold as a TV rather than a moniter
and I would expect a tuner along with it. I think most people are
intelligent enough to differentiate between a TV and a monitor.

> I have a Panasonic commercial plasma monitor with a cable HD set up, but I also
> have the Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC tuner for OTA stuff. Works fine for me.
So, if it works fine for you and does that mean it should be for
everyone? So, everyone should just buy a "monitor" and a hdtv tuner
just to get ota programming?

And what's the point of getting a cheaper "monitor" but ended up
footing out more money for cable, satellite or a separate ota hdtv
receiver just to watch tv?
 
G

Guest

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

I agree. Getting awesome pictures with a rooftop antenna. I resisted
buying an HDTV until there was one in my price range that included an
ATSC tuner. Glad I waited and didn't bother with the "buy a monitor,
add a tuner later" bullshit. I screwed on the coax, hit channel scan,
and a minute later was watching true HDTV.

-beaumon
 
G

Guest

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

kelvinyany@gmail.com wrote:
> If you don't buy an analog tv without a tuner than why should we buy a
> hdtv without a turner? DUH.

Fair number of people buy an HD monitor without an ATSC tuner. If it
doesn't have a tuner, then it is called a monitor rather than a TV. If
you get your SD & HD through the cable set top box, then you really
don't need the tuner except for the HD OTA stations that your local
cable system is not carrying (yet). I have a Panasonic commercial plasma
monitor with a cable HD set up, but I also have the Samsung SIR-T451
ATSC tuner for OTA stuff. Works fine for me.

If you have HD satellite setup, then the sat STB should have a ATSC
tuner built-in.

This is not a surprising move for CRT RPTVs. The prices on the CRT
RPTVs have been dropping as they have been losing market share rapidly
to the DLP, LCOS, LCD RPTVs. So it may make sense to drop the tuners to
save a few bucks to keep the CRT RPTV product line around a little
longer. We will see some other companies drop tuners altogether from
their lowest cost models, but I would expect to see ATSC tuners in most
of the bigger screen TVs to help sell them. The FCC mandate on ASTC
tuners for > 36" sets will still kick in July 1 and we will likely have
the 2006 date for smaller sets moved up 4 months.

Alan F
 

David

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

"** +9" <-> wrote in message
news:bc34b1p6vsg7ne7sltab74g17d90d80vqs@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:56:13 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Predicted that manufacturers would strip out all tuners to bypass the
>>FCC tuner mandate. Now as deadlines approach it seems they are doing
>>just that. Next they will start advertising the price differential and
>>touting the fact that most consumers do not need any tuner in their
>>display device. I think educated consumers will buy such tunerless
>>displays. I sure wouldn't want to waste money on a tuner if I am a cable
>>or satellite customer and if I was using OTA I would want a separate
>>tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.
>
>
> I think you miss the point that instead of buying all those tuners
> yourself, the manufactures should provide you with suitable tuners
> built in.
>
> The issue is they can't. GET IT ?
>
> HDTV technology is still beta test bullshit.
>
> I think from you're previous posts, you're familiar with the concept.



My five harddrives are slowly filling up with *perfect* OTA HD recordings.

I bought my first PC recorder in 1999 [AccessDTV]. It worked perfectly since
day one.
[Had to change it out to work with Win XP]

Using a Myhd card now. It's been a very reliable system.

I also record OTA shows on my HD Directivo. They also come in flawlessly.

OTA high-definition in the USA is the bees knees.
Sure beats the unreliable COFDM garbage they use in other countries.
 
G

Guest

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

It does not appear to me that TV set tuners are that expensive. Isn't most
of the expense of a large screen HDTV in the screen and the engine that
delivers the light to it? If tuners were expensive add-ons, then you could
sell tunerless monitors at much lower prices to people who intended to
ALWAYS access their TV via a set-top CTV box.

But SD tuners must be dirt-cheap, considering that they are in everthing now
and HD tuners are not very much with the price no doubt heading down as
Chinese peasants throw them together for 25 cents an hour.

Best to pay a little more up front for tuners and be able to get your TV
OTA, especially since OTA digital HDTV is, unlike analog SD, actually BETTER
than what you get via a cable box.

TV set speakers, on the other hand. Now, THERE's something that could be
optional! AUDIO OUT could be enough. You can always add a speaker -- a
cheap one, if you like.

mack
austin


<kelvinyany@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118979557.341518.28670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If you don't buy an analog tv without a tuner than why should we buy a
> hdtv without a turner? DUH.
>
 

THUMPer

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:50:21 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>It does not appear to me that TV set tuners are that expensive. Isn't most
>of the expense of a large screen HDTV in the screen and the engine that
>delivers the light to it? If tuners were expensive add-ons, then you could
>sell tunerless monitors at much lower prices to people who intended to
>ALWAYS access their TV via a set-top CTV box.
>
>But SD tuners must be dirt-cheap, considering that they are in everthing now
>and HD tuners are not very much with the price no doubt heading down as
>Chinese peasants throw them together for 25 cents an hour.
>
>Best to pay a little more up front for tuners and be able to get your TV
>OTA, especially since OTA digital HDTV is, unlike analog SD, actually BETTER
>than what you get via a cable box.
>

The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
Sattelite. They don't need or want an Antenna and tuner.
Thumper
>TV set speakers, on the other hand. Now, THERE's something that could be
>optional! AUDIO OUT could be enough. You can always add a speaker -- a
>cheap one, if you like.
>
>mack
>austin
>
>
><kelvinyany@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1118979557.341518.28670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> If you don't buy an analog tv without a tuner than why should we buy a
>> hdtv without a turner? DUH.
>>
>
 
G

Guest

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

jaylsmith@comcast.net (Thumper) wrote in
news:uns5b1hj1rc19fk74dq90fmav2duv69bsc@4ax.com:

> The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
> Sattelite.

What's "vast percentage" mean?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
 
G

Guest

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

Bert Hyman wrote:
> jaylsmith@comcast.net (Thumper) wrote in
> news:uns5b1hj1rc19fk74dq90fmav2duv69bsc@4ax.com:
>
>
>>The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
>>Sattelite.
>
>
> What's "vast percentage" mean?
>
Commonly accepted number today is 87% who subscribe to cable or
satellite. Then you have the 2.5% who don't have or want any TV, the 3%
who steal cable or satellite leaving only 7.5% who "rely" on OTA.

Then of course you have the second and third sets many of which are
hooked up to OTA but how many. Some are also hooked up to cable, some
are used with games and DVD players and a large percentage are not even
on or are used very little.

"vast percentage" is pretty high. Most people do not need any kind of
tuner in their display device. And retailers will go to a lot of trouble
to sell them a monitor to shave whatever the cost of those unnecessary
tuners is off the sale price. Economics 101.

Those retailers who do not learn the lesson quickly will lose sales.

Bob Miller
 
G

Guest

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

> What is the antenna for if not for receiving TV over the air signals??
>
Pheonix is on the flight path to Roswell. It is a well known fact that
Aliens live in the area and use roof top antennae for communication with
spaceships that are coming in land. That is why so many earthlings in the
area wrap their heads in foil to protect themselves from Blortok ray-guns.

Blorg
 
G

Guest

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

Bert Hyman wrote:
> nothere@notnow.never (Matthew L. Martin) wrote in
> news:11b688b28j4tnb8@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>>Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>>>Nope; his numbers are correct.
>>
>>Actually, they are not. The numbers that were research for the FCC
>>indicate than nearly 40% of all TVs nationwide are OTA only. You
>>could also research the cable companies public financial reports.
>>They typically talk of 60-75% penetration with some amount of
>>churn.
>
>
> The figures I saw (Google is your friend) showed about 75% with cable
> and 20% with satellite, with both growing year to year.
>
> Of course there are lots of households (like mine) with both. Maybe
> 87% isn't exactly right, but it's probably close enough that the
> original "vast percentage" claim (allowing for awkward English) is
> applicable.

The figures you are referencing are "household" figures. The figures the
FCC uses are individual sets. Many households (including mine) have at
least one OTA only set.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
 

ME

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
506
0
18,930
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>My five harddrives are slowly filling up with *perfect* OTA HD recordings.

What are these hard drives in?

HDTV tuner boxes?

Or a PC used as a TIVO?
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:59:01 -0400, Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net>
wrote:


>The vast percentage of Americans get their TV from Cable and
>Sattelite. They don't need or want an Antenna and tuner.
>Thumper

That's either because they don't want the best quality HDTV or they're
uneducated. And nobody but nobody is educating the public about
DTV/HDTV. Sorry state of affairs when you go into the largest stores
and not one of them can or will offer an OTA picture when there are a
half dozen stations available to them.