Tunerless HDTV sets

[Guest]

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

Thumper wrote:
> 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.
>

I have, though my experiences predate cable, and our choices were
ABC/NBC/CBS and that independent in NY, WOR. Of course, back then, even in
the projects, one could walk the streets after dark.

 

[Guest]

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

akjack@excite.com (Jack Ak) wrote in
news:a6j6b154du0rp89h7j85cijmr34a413vie@4ax.com:

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

That's because the person who said it (Newton Minnow, chairman of the
FCC at the time) was hinting at government action to clean it up.

In the same speech, he also said "Some say the public interest is
merely what interests the public. I disagree.", or in other words,
"Momma government knows best".

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d1e49b2314e497c989de2@news.nabs.net...
> 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


Jeff,

Where can I look into this? I am in the NYC DMA in Fairfield County CT and
the problem with Sat has also been I could only get the NYC locals in CT.
OTA isn't really an option for me based upon the terrian and shelf rock.

Thanks ...
>

 

[Guest]

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

Gomer Jones (Iamnot@liberty.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Where can I look into this? I am in the NYC DMA in Fairfield County CT and
> the problem with Sat has also been I could only get the NYC locals in CT.
> OTA isn't really an option for me based upon the terrian and shelf rock.

There is a request for comments posted at the FCC website. I saw a reference
to it on AVS Forum, but other than that I can't recall where it was. It
wasn't important enough for me to bookmark, since I have an antenna and get
the stations I want to get.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TiVoForRealLife.gif

 

[sammy]

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

In article <hqgse.5307$NX4.2384@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> if I was using OTA I would want a separate
> tuner also with better tuners in the offing. Always in the offing.

Wow. You're still hoping that COFDM will make an appearance. I'm still
hoping that you'll make a disappearance.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d20b72416df4215989df0@news.nabs.net...
> Gomer Jones (Iamnot@liberty.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Where can I look into this? I am in the NYC DMA in Fairfield County CT
>> and
>> the problem with Sat has also been I could only get the NYC locals in CT.
>> OTA isn't really an option for me based upon the terrian and shelf rock.
>
> There is a request for comments posted at the FCC website. I saw a
> reference
> to it on AVS Forum, but other than that I can't recall where it was. It
> wasn't important enough for me to bookmark, since I have an antenna and
> get
> the stations I want to get.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TiVoForRealLife.gif


Thanks I will poke around AVSForum and see what comes up

 

[Guest]

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:INIse.5820$jX6.1914@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> But the reality still remains that few RELY on OTA today. Maybe even less
> than 5% in reality.
>
===============================
We have THREE sets in our house and watch OTA only.
We get all locals in digital/HD.
Satelite and Cable are no longer connected to our house.

 

[Guest]

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

Richard C. wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:INIse.5820$jX6.1914@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>
>> But the reality still remains that few RELY on OTA today. Maybe even
>> less than 5% in reality.
>>
> ===============================
> We have THREE sets in our house and watch OTA only.
> We get all locals in digital/HD.
> Satelite and Cable are no longer connected to our house.


Hey just yesterday I said to my wife we should consider dropping Cable
now that we have a decent OTA receiver. I have the FusionGold 5 plus,
the MIT STB and the BBTI receivers that we tested last week.

She wants the Daily Show and a few others but the cost for cable is high
for just the few shows we need from cable.

Of course with a subscription service which I now plan on doing we can
offer the Daily show and HBO OTA so there you go.

Of course we planned on doing that back in 2000 if COFDM had been
allowed. Just lost five plus years is all waiting for a receiver that
works. Can't very well offer a service where 3 out of 4 can't get all
the channels we intend on using which has been the reality in NYC for
the last five years. And of course it would be nice if we could use the
inexpensive COFDM receivers instead of the still costly 8-VSB ones.

But we are going ahead. MPEG4 and 8-VSB with no mobile reception. What a
waste.

Bob Miller

 

[sammy]

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

In article <rgjue.7878$NX4.4515@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> And of course it would be nice if we could use the inexpensive COFDM
> receivers instead of the still costly 8-VSB ones.

There's no reason you couldn't have a COFDM STB in your house. You may
not get any image from it, but I'm absolutely sure you'd enjoy looking
at it. And you could use to continually feed your anger and hostility
because your data casting venture was a no go when COFDM was put in the
trash can.

 

[Guest]

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

Sammy wrote:
> In article <rgjue.7878$NX4.4515@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And of course it would be nice if we could use the inexpensive COFDM
>>receivers instead of the still costly 8-VSB ones.
>
>
> There's no reason you couldn't have a COFDM STB in your house. You may
> not get any image from it, but I'm absolutely sure you'd enjoy looking
> at it. And you could use to continually feed your anger and hostility
> because your data casting venture was a no go when COFDM was put in the
> trash can.

 

[Guest]

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

Sammy wrote:
> In article <rgjue.7878$NX4.4515@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And of course it would be nice if we could use the inexpensive COFDM
>>receivers instead of the still costly 8-VSB ones.
>
>
> There's no reason you couldn't have a COFDM STB in your house. You may
> not get any image from it, but I'm absolutely sure you'd enjoy looking
> at it. And you could use to continually feed your anger and hostility
> because your data casting venture was a no go when COFDM was put in the
> trash can.

COFDM would allow mobile and offer less expensive receivers but the fact
that COFDM was not allowed is not what put a damper on our venture. The
poor performance of 8-VSB put a damper on our venture as it did on the
digital transition in the US for the last five years.

Now that we have a decent fixed 8-VSB receiver we are back in business
and unfortunately for those who have bought 8-VSB receivers up till now
I think you will see the demise of HD delivered with MPEG2 on OTA over a
number of years. You will need a receiver that can handle MPEG4 since
that is what HD will be delivered with in the future with 8-VSB. The
only thing that will be receivable with current MPEG2 receivers will be
one SD FCC mandated channel.

Bob Miller

 

[sammy]

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

In article <LFoue.7745$hK3.5331@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Sammy wrote:
> > In article <rgjue.7878$NX4.4515@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>And of course it would be nice if we could use the inexpensive COFDM
> >>receivers instead of the still costly 8-VSB ones.
> >
> >
> > There's no reason you couldn't have a COFDM STB in your house. You may
> > not get any image from it, but I'm absolutely sure you'd enjoy looking
> > at it. And you could use to continually feed your anger and hostility
> > because your data casting venture was a no go when COFDM was put in the
> > trash can.
>
> COFDM would allow mobile and offer less expensive receivers but the fact
> that COFDM was not allowed is not what put a damper on our venture. The
> poor performance of 8-VSB put a damper on our venture as it did on the
> digital transition in the US for the last five years.

Hey, bob, I have NO need or desire to watch HD in my car. 8VSB poor
performance? I'm in an area where every single NTSC station is ghosted
and looks like a snowstorm. Yet every single digital OTA channel comes
in perfectly with high signal strength. Yup, 8VSB is certainly a poor
performer. And it's acted "poorly" even with those "inadequate" 8VSB
chips you so love to criticize.


>
> Now that we have a decent fixed 8-VSB receiver we are back in business

Sorry to hear that.

 

[David]

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

"Sammy" <sammy@xxx.invalid> wrote

> There's no reason you couldn't have a COFDM STB in your house. You may
> not get any image from it, but I'm absolutely sure you'd enjoy looking
> at it.

Don't those STBs temporarily disappear when someone turns on a light or
opens the refrigerator? ;0 )

 

[Guest]

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b18jb1dv02nqfmsb6fi9j43nqrf45tp1gs@4ax.com...
>> Wrong. 40% of households have an OTA set.
>> Thumper
>

> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:00:28 -0700, "Richard C."
> <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>=============================
>>Our house has 3 OTA sets.
>>All receive great reception OTA of SD/DTV/HDTV via antenna only.
>
> So? Not good enough for my household. I like having the variety of
> 200 channels. Some are repeats but most are not.
> Thumper

====================
So?
I was merely supporting your statement.

 

[Guest]

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:LFoue.7745$hK3.5331@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> COFDM would allow mobile and offer less expensive receivers but the fact
> that COFDM was not allowed is not what put a damper on our venture.
===========================
Who cares about your venture! Current DTV/HDTV works perfectly!
===========================
> The poor performance of 8-VSB put a damper on our venture as it did on the
> digital transition in the US for the last five years.
>
> Now that we have a decent fixed 8-VSB receiver we are back in business and
> unfortunately for those who have bought 8-VSB receivers up till now I
> think you will see the demise of HD delivered with MPEG2 on OTA over a
> number of years. You will need a receiver that can handle MPEG4 since that
> is what HD will be delivered with in the future with 8-VSB. The only thing
> that will be receivable with current MPEG2 receivers will be one SD FCC
> mandated channel.
>
> Bob Miller

 

[THUMPer]

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:05:43 -0700, "Richard C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:

>X-No-archive: yes
>
>"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:b18jb1dv02nqfmsb6fi9j43nqrf45tp1gs@4ax.com...
>>> Wrong. 40% of households have an OTA set.
>>> Thumper
>>
>
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:00:28 -0700, "Richard C."
>> <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>=============================
>>>Our house has 3 OTA sets.
>>>All receive great reception OTA of SD/DTV/HDTV via antenna only.
>>
>> So? Not good enough for my household. I like having the variety of
>> 200 channels. Some are repeats but most are not.
>> Thumper
>
>====================
>So?
>I was merely supporting your statement.


You were?
Thumper

 

[Guest]

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Skip" <cfad07@email.mot.com> wrote in message
news:dbii2o$1eu$1@avnika.corp.mot.com...
>
> TV antennas are for the birds (literally) Probably a lot of people get
> cable or a dish and just leave the TV antenna up.
>
====================================
We get ALL our TV via an antenna.
All local HD and DTV stations come in perfectly............
and free.........................

 

[Guest]

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Skip" <cfad07@email.mot.com> wrote in message
news:dbiiei$1g6$1@avnika.corp.mot.com...
>
>
> DISH and Direct TV have all local low def channels included free.
>
===========================
no they do not!

 

[Guest]

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

I have an antenna in my attic, haven't seen any birds at all. Only an
occasional field mouse.

> TV antennas are for the birds (literally) Probably a lot of people get
> cable or a dish and just leave the TV antenna up.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I have a big old TV antenna and rotor on my roof. Also have a directv
dish. The TV antenna is still there mostly to pipe a signal to the FM
radios in my house. It can also be a backup for local channel access if
directv misbehaves.