Tunerless HDTV sets

[THUMPer]

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

On 17 Jun 2005 16:01:04 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> 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?


EWhy don't you look it up Bert.
Thumper

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:25:01 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>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.
>
....

Most people use TV receivers with tuners. Whether or not they
are "needed" depends on the source of the television signal.

Many cable customers tune cable channels with a TV set tuner.
Not all cable companies require the use of a set top box
for basic cable service. At one time, "cable ready" meant
a TV set could tune 100 or more channels.

This household has 3 television receivers and two satellite
receivers. All three TV sets tune to channel 3 for the satellite
receiver output signals. One of the 3 sets has separate VHF/UHF
tuners with no other input source.

I'd say a significant number of Americans receive TV from cable
or satellite.

Remember when TV programming was called a vast wasteland?
That statement also generated controversy.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:12:14 GMT, Jack Ak <akjack@excite.com> wrote:

>Remember when TV programming was called a vast wasteland?
>That statement also generated controversy.

Sure I do. It's more vast now.

Kal

 

[curmudgeon]

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

>the company unveiled their first rear projection CRT monitors capable of displaying high-definition TV signals.

Boy that's sure going to be a surprise to Toshiba...which has been
making high def rear projection monitors (meaning no tuner) since about
1997/98.
Either one piss poor reporter or a fig newton of Bob's imagination.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:46:19 -0500, Phil Witt <w4imm@charter.net>
wrote:

>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.

"... they're uneducated"??? Can't we say "they" haven't been
swept up by HDTV mania? The uninformed believe that
digital television is High Definition TV.

How does "best quality HDTV" differ from ordinary HDTV?

One can be uninformed, but that doesn't imply uneducated.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:16:47 GMT, Jack Ak <akjack@excite.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:46:19 -0500, Phil Witt <w4imm@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>"... they're uneducated"??? Can't we say "they" haven't been
>swept up by HDTV mania? The uninformed believe that
>digital television is High Definition TV.
>
>How does "best quality HDTV" differ from ordinary HDTV?
>
>One can be uninformed, but that doesn't imply uneducated.

I've never heard of "ordinary" HDTV. Cable, Sat, and DVD streams are
more compressed than OTA broadcast HDTV (unless, of course, the
broadcaster is doing excessive multicasting).

"Uneducated" in the area of product availability, specifications, and
capability. Uninformed will suffice. It is up to the industries
involved to educate the consumer, so that he can make an informed
choice and so that the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers can
sell sets. This is clearly not happening and I don't understand why.

 

[David]

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

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:fgm6b1ls7bf12ep3g8clkeui46gpjlvnd2@4ax.com...
> >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?

A PC used as a Tivo. Two harddrives are in the PC and three USB drives
external.

 

[Guest]

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

Many people
> remember antennas and want nothing to do with them and their
> maintenance.
> Your signal can only get so good. I used to have an OTA receiver
> until my cable company got everything on cable in HD that I could get
> OTA . Now they have 3 times as much not to mention all the other
> channels.

I have satellite and also use OTA. Satellite TV providers are forbidden to
provide Network TV channels outside of the customer's local area, unless he
cannot receive the channels over the air. Cable companies are allowed to
provide "significantly watched" neighboring network TV stations, but very
few do. Some of the TV stations in my area like to preempt network
programming, and the only way to get a network broadcast when this is
happening is to use an OTA antenna aimed at an out-of-area TV station.
Therefore, getting your favorite program with a less than perfect picture is
better than not getting it at all.

 

[THUMPer]

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

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:25:42 -0400, "Blue Cat" <bluecat22@go.com>
wrote:

>Many people
>> remember antennas and want nothing to do with them and their
>> maintenance.
>> Your signal can only get so good. I used to have an OTA receiver
>> until my cable company got everything on cable in HD that I could get
>> OTA . Now they have 3 times as much not to mention all the other
>> channels.
>
>I have satellite and also use OTA. Satellite TV providers are forbidden to
>provide Network TV channels outside of the customer's local area, unless he
>cannot receive the channels over the air. Cable companies are allowed to
>provide "significantly watched" neighboring network TV stations, but very
>few do. Some of the TV stations in my area like to preempt network
>programming, and the only way to get a network broadcast when this is
>happening is to use an OTA antenna aimed at an out-of-area TV station.
>Therefore, getting your favorite program with a less than perfect picture is
>better than not getting it at all.
>
Where do you live, the bible belt?
Thumper

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Miller 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.
>
> The mandate is dead IMO.
>

God forbid that digital terrestrial broadcasting might have a chance to
grow in content, number of channels, and number of viewers. Have to kill
OTA before it gets bigger, threaten cable, satellite, and don't forget
about internet delivery. Ironic that internet delivery might even be
offered "wireless" on some of the old auctioned TV channels.
It's obvious that the percentage of OTA viewers is being manipulated.
The CEA is not a friend of the consumer and especially the citizens RF
spectrum property. Actually, with the rush to auction, we have no friend
to protect our RF spectrum property.

 

[Tim]

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

Eli Renfro wrote:

>>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.
>
>

That would make it a display rather than a TV, wouldn't it?

 

[Tim]

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.
>

I have analog tv's without a tuner. They call them monitors. You can use
them for connecting to your computer.

 

[Tim]

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

Fred Bloggs wrote:

>>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
>

Blorg. Blortok ray-guns may have been the best years ago but now, they
are second rate today. Better start spending more money on research and
development or your company will go the way of "Zenith".

 

[Tim]

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

David wrote:

> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:fgm6b1ls7bf12ep3g8clkeui46gpjlvnd2@4ax.com...
>
>>>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?
>
>
> A PC used as a Tivo. Two harddrives are in the PC and three USB drives
> external.
>
>
What software are you using?

 

[Guest]

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

Blue Cat (bluecat22@go.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I have satellite and also use OTA. Satellite TV providers are forbidden to
> provide Network TV channels outside of the customer's local area, unless he
> cannot receive the channels over the air. Cable companies are allowed to
> provide "significantly watched" neighboring network TV stations, but very
> few do.

The law was recently changed to allow satellite providers to do the same,
but the "significantly watched" maps are pretty inaccurate, especially
because of cable and satellite penetration. Locally, the Baltimore
stations are *very* much "significantly watched" by anybody with an
antenna, but since cable and satellite doesn't provide them, the overall
percentage is low.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/SalesToFriends.gif

 

[David]

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

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:4JOdnS65E5oV8CnfRVn-gg@rogers.com...
> David wrote:
>
>> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgm6b1ls7bf12ep3g8clkeui46gpjlvnd2@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>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?
>>
>>
>> A PC used as a Tivo. Two harddrives are in the PC and three USB drives
>> external.
> What software are you using?

I use a hardware card, Myhd.

http/www.digitalconnection.com/products/video/mdp130.asp

It rocks.

 

[Guest]

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

"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8mg8b11slflvmq93cgpbp3g5dl09nrnoai@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:25:42 -0400, "Blue Cat" <bluecat22@go.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Many people
> >> remember antennas and want nothing to do with them and their
> >> maintenance.
> >> Your signal can only get so good. I used to have an OTA receiver
> >> until my cable company got everything on cable in HD that I could get
> >> OTA . Now they have 3 times as much not to mention all the other
> >> channels.
> >
> >I have satellite and also use OTA. Satellite TV providers are forbidden
to
> >provide Network TV channels outside of the customer's local area, unless
he
> >cannot receive the channels over the air. Cable companies are allowed to
> >provide "significantly watched" neighboring network TV stations, but very
> >few do. Some of the TV stations in my area like to preempt network
> >programming, and the only way to get a network broadcast when this is
> >happening is to use an OTA antenna aimed at an out-of-area TV station.
> >Therefore, getting your favorite program with a less than perfect picture
is
> >better than not getting it at all.
> >
> Where do you live, the bible belt?
> Thumper
I don't believe that South Florida is in the Bible Belt. When the local
stations preempt programs, it is sometimes for a Billy Graham special, but
other times it is for "Sports Jam Live", or even an infomercial.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xPCse.5324$hK3.128@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 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.

I don't believe that at all. There are lots of poor people in the US, LOTS
of them. Ever been in the projects? You think those people have cable or
satellite tv? No way, they eat top ramen noodles and drink kool aid from a
jelly jar. They aren't paying anybody for TV service. What is the TV
service of choice in the ghetto? ANTENNA. Now, on up from the ghetto you
have another HUGE class of people who have a fair bit more money but they
still can't justify cable or satellite, they have house/car payments to make
and just can't swing another $60-$100 for TV service. Perhaps these people
got left out of the surveys, because I KNOW they amount to more than 7.5% of
the population.

I also think that HDTV may be just what broadcasters need to boost their
popularity. I think more and more people will become aware of what is
available OTA when HD gets bigger.

--Dan

 

[Guest]

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

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fr5te.30717$J12.20576@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:xPCse.5324$hK3.128@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> 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.
>
> I don't believe that at all. There are lots of poor people in the US,
> LOTS
> of them. Ever been in the projects? You think those people have cable or
> satellite tv? No way, they eat top ramen noodles and drink kool aid from
> a
> jelly jar. They aren't paying anybody for TV service. What is the TV
> service of choice in the ghetto? ANTENNA. Now, on up from the ghetto you
> have another HUGE class of people who have a fair bit more money but they
> still can't justify cable or satellite, they have house/car payments to
> make
> and just can't swing another $60-$100 for TV service. Perhaps these
> people
> got left out of the surveys, because I KNOW they amount to more than 7.5%
> of
> the population.
>
> I also think that HDTV may be just what broadcasters need to boost their
> popularity. I think more and more people will become aware of what is
> available OTA when HD gets bigger.
>
> --Dan

I wish they had must broadcast rules for local sports team broadcasts. If I
could get Mariner's baseball games OTA I'd probably dump my Sat service and
go it alone with OTA.

 

[THUMPer]

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

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:15:23 GMT, "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:xPCse.5324$hK3.128@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> 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.
>
>I don't believe that at all. There are lots of poor people in the US, LOTS
>of them. Ever been in the projects? You think those people have cable or
>satellite tv? No way, they eat top ramen noodles and drink kool aid from a
>jelly jar. They aren't paying anybody for TV service. What is the TV
>service of choice in the ghetto? ANTENNA.

Have you ever been in the projects? They have cable tv.





> Now, on up from the ghetto you
>have another HUGE class of people who have a fair bit more money but they
>still can't justify cable or satellite, they have house/car payments to make
>and just can't swing another $60-$100 for TV service. Perhaps these people
>got left out of the surveys, because I KNOW they amount to more than 7.5% of
>the population.
>
>I also think that HDTV may be just what broadcasters need to boost their
>popularity. I think more and more people will become aware of what is
>available OTA when HD gets bigger.
>
>--Dan
>
Believe what you want to believ . The statistics say differently.
Thumper