what TV receivers exist with DTV and screen under 17 inch?

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:28:50 -0500 Doug McDonald <mcdonald@snpoam_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> If you have a couple deep fringe
|> stations you want to pull in around strong stations I would suggest that
|> those be brought in with single channel antennas
|
| These basically don't exsit for UHF. Even very high gain narrow band
| ones are several channels wide.

True, but it still beats using a full band antenna which can have some
funny patterns at a few channels. Sure, a single channel yagi at channel
30 might well be usable from 24 to 36. Buy the antenna for the channel
you want (or at least very close to it) and you get a clean and narrow
pattern.


|> and single channel tuned
|> pre-amplifiers that can go to lower noise figures without being impacted
|> by so much signal from the nearby stations.
|
| That true. You can get a great narrow band GaAsFet preamp with a 0.6 dB
| NF from Advanced Receiver Research for about $115. These also have very
| high overload levels.

This is a good source for preamps.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

willbill (trek@worldwide.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > The only thing with lower noise and as much gain is a really expensive one
> > from the UK.
>
>
> am i correct in thinking that the cost for this
> unit from the UK would be well above $125/$150?

Yep. I've lost the link for it, since it's performance (although great)
isn't worth the price for me. It runs about 1dB noise, while the CM7777
is around 2.2dB or so.

--
Jeff Rife | "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders,
| the most famous of which is 'Never get involved
| in a land war in Asia', but only slightly less
| famous is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian,
| when death is on the line!'"
| -- Vizzini, The Princess Bride

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:00:48 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

| it's like getting cable quality for free
|
| meaning that it has paid for itself immediately.
| and i LOVE the 24 hour NBC/ABC weather forcasts
| (especially the radar and 12 hour forcasts)
|
| why would you want to wait for another 2+ years
| for the tuner prices to drop?

You didn't understand my original context. What I am referring to is
what cost most people would be expected to pay to get their TV signals
again when the analog cutoff happens. I'm referring to people who
cannot afford cable or satellite and in many cases barely even a TV.
And please don't suggest that these elderly shutins on fixed incomes
should go out and get a job (as some people have suggested).


| buy one now, and wait 12+ months before you
| buy any more

For myself, I will wait until the market matures a bit more. When I
see the low priced units around, then I will know that the maturity is
being reached with the higher end units. Then I will buy one. But at
that point I expect quality interfaces, too, such as SDI.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> Then there are many people on the borderline. They manage to keep all
> bills paid

Like the cable bill?

> and even own a DVD player. But they don't buy things as
> costly as $200. These are people that will be screaming bloody murder
> at their congress people once they find out about the analog cutoff,
> unless the tuner/converter boxes are under $40.

Why do they need one if they have cable TV? Yes, the vast majority of
households in this country subscribe cable or satellite. The real problem
in the transition is the OTA-only TVs (that exist even in homes with
cable and satellite...I have several that get locals only from OTA, even
though I have DirecTV).

But, anybody that can pay a cable/satellite bill (which is well over 75%
of the country) can pay for an ATSC receiver when they hit $50. And, the
rest will be subsidized.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/GutterBall.gif

 

[Guest]

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:00:48 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
>
> | it's like getting cable quality for free
> |
> | meaning that it has paid for itself immediately.
> | and i LOVE the 24 hour NBC/ABC weather forcasts
> | (especially the radar and 12 hour forcasts)
> |
> | why would you want to wait for another 2+ years
> | for the tuner prices to drop?

> You didn't understand my original context. What I am referring to is
> what cost most people would be expected to pay to get their TV signals
> again when the analog cutoff happens. I'm referring to people who
> cannot afford cable or satellite and in many cases barely even a TV.
> And please don't suggest that these elderly shutins on fixed incomes
> should go out and get a job (as some people have suggested).


ah, a do-gooder

fwiw, i'll be very surprised if the USA government
pays a penny to subsidize digital TV tuners when
analog TV transmission gets turned off

bill

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:10:23 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> Then there are many people on the borderline. They manage to keep all
|> bills paid
|
| Like the cable bill?
|
|> and even own a DVD player. But they don't buy things as
|> costly as $200. These are people that will be screaming bloody murder
|> at their congress people once they find out about the analog cutoff,
|> unless the tuner/converter boxes are under $40.
|
| Why do they need one if they have cable TV? Yes, the vast majority of
| households in this country subscribe cable or satellite. The real problem
| in the transition is the OTA-only TVs (that exist even in homes with
| cable and satellite...I have several that get locals only from OTA, even
| though I have DirecTV).

You cannot say even "majority" for the Dallas / Fort Worth area, since
(according to an article published a few years ago in the Dallas Morning
News newspaper there) indicated that the cable penetration of that market
was less than 50% (I believe the figure was 46%). Satellite may be a
part of what is left, but so is OTA as that market has more channels than
any other market except maybe for Los Angeles.

Maybe the ATSC to NTSC converter boxes will also have an RF modulator
for a couple channels. If not, then one can be added; they are fairly
cheap.

Portable TVs that only analog will be another issue.


| But, anybody that can pay a cable/satellite bill (which is well over 75%
| of the country) can pay for an ATSC receiver when they hit $50. And, the
| rest will be subsidized.

At $50, sure, most can afford it. But many will still be pissed off about
it. Be glad you don't work in the Congressional mailroom when the analog
cutoff hits. In general, people don't like having their property made to
be worthless, even if they can afford to replace it. As a lot of people
will see it, that $50 could be spent on other things (but that varies from
person to person ... it might be a keg of beer for some people).

Congress will need to subsidize it for those that can't afford it, and will
need to justify it to those who can, but are pissed off about the change.
Lots of people know HDTV is coming. Few of them understand that their
existing TV won't work even on the programs that are in SD.

It seems with the FCC unable to get their computers to work right to accept
applications from LP stations for switching to digital, there may still be
some OTA available in analog.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> You cannot say even "majority" for the Dallas / Fort Worth area, since
> (according to an article published a few years ago in the Dallas Morning
> News newspaper there) indicated that the cable penetration of that market
> was less than 50% (I believe the figure was 46%).

This must be outdated. Nationwide, cable and satellite subcriptions are
in nearly 90% of households. DFW isn't much different.

> At $50, sure, most can afford it. But many will still be pissed off about
> it.

Well, too bad. Everybody is pissed off at the government about something,
and a $50 expenditure that you almost certainly don't *have* to make should
be way down on the list of things to get really worked up about.

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:25:04 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:00:48 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
|>
|> | it's like getting cable quality for free
|> |
|> | meaning that it has paid for itself immediately.
|> | and i LOVE the 24 hour NBC/ABC weather forcasts
|> | (especially the radar and 12 hour forcasts)
|> |
|> | why would you want to wait for another 2+ years
|> | for the tuner prices to drop?
|
|> You didn't understand my original context. What I am referring to is
|> what cost most people would be expected to pay to get their TV signals
|> again when the analog cutoff happens. I'm referring to people who
|> cannot afford cable or satellite and in many cases barely even a TV.
|> And please don't suggest that these elderly shutins on fixed incomes
|> should go out and get a job (as some people have suggested).
|
|
| ah, a do-gooder
|
| fwiw, i'll be very surprised if the USA government
| pays a penny to subsidize digital TV tuners when
| analog TV transmission gets turned off

I'd be surprised, too. But it is they who have to pay the consequences.
I doubt it will be riots in the streets. But crime _will_ go up.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:34:25 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> You cannot say even "majority" for the Dallas / Fort Worth area, since
|> (according to an article published a few years ago in the Dallas Morning
|> News newspaper there) indicated that the cable penetration of that market
|> was less than 50% (I believe the figure was 46%).
|
| This must be outdated. Nationwide, cable and satellite subcriptions are
| in nearly 90% of households. DFW isn't much different.

I find it hard to believe that the number of households with cable or
satellite doubled in just 6 years.


|> At $50, sure, most can afford it. But many will still be pissed off about
|> it.
|
| Well, too bad. Everybody is pissed off at the government about something,
| and a $50 expenditure that you almost certainly don't *have* to make should
| be way down on the list of things to get really worked up about.

Crime will go up.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> | This must be outdated. Nationwide, cable and satellite subcriptions are
> | in nearly 90% of households. DFW isn't much different.
>
> I find it hard to believe that the number of households with cable or
> satellite doubled in just 6 years.

Since your original number was from cable only, and since satellite has
more than doubled the number of subscribers they have in that time, it's
not at all unlikely.

> |> At $50, sure, most can afford it. But many will still be pissed off about
> |> it.
> |
> | Well, too bad. Everybody is pissed off at the government about something,
> | and a $50 expenditure that you almost certainly don't *have* to make should
> | be way down on the list of things to get really worked up about.
>
> Crime will go up.

Ah, right. Prove *that* cause and effect and win a Nobel prize.

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:51:01 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> | This must be outdated. Nationwide, cable and satellite subcriptions are
|> | in nearly 90% of households. DFW isn't much different.
|>
|> I find it hard to believe that the number of households with cable or
|> satellite doubled in just 6 years.
|
| Since your original number was from cable only, and since satellite has
| more than doubled the number of subscribers they have in that time, it's
| not at all unlikely.

So you think satellite has taken up the slack? Satellite is still a
fraction of what cable is. Maybe you should go live in that area a while
and see for yourself how TV works there. You can get 18 analog channels
OTA. Most apartment complexes have an MATV system. But half the
apartments don't have the right look angle for satellite. Apartments make
up a big chunk of the households around there (biggest complex I saw was
over 8,000 units). The fact remains DFW has plenty of OTA (maybe that
will change when Bob Miller's prediction of the death of OTA comes to
pass) and that reduces the desire for cable or satellite. Little do they
know what is coming along in 2009 for them.

At least lots of people here in WV have satellite, though a lot of that is
still on C-band.


|> |> At $50, sure, most can afford it. But many will still be pissed off about
|> |> it.
|> |
|> | Well, too bad. Everybody is pissed off at the government about something,
|> | and a $50 expenditure that you almost certainly don't *have* to make should
|> | be way down on the list of things to get really worked up about.
|>
|> Crime will go up.
|
| Ah, right. Prove *that* cause and effect and win a Nobel prize.

It's a prediction. We wait until analog gets cut off and see what happens.
You can prove me wrong in 2009, if it turns out I really am wrong.

It's similar to why crime goes up in heat waves. People too poor to buy
air conditioners don't want to sit around the house so they go out for the
night. More people out partying, drinking, cruising, and crime simply
goes up. That and a few might even figure out the need to steal a new TV
or and STB.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:25:04 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |
> |> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:00:48 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
> |>
> |> | it's like getting cable quality for free
> |> |
> |> | meaning that it has paid for itself immediately.
> |> | and i LOVE the 24 hour NBC/ABC weather forcasts
> |> | (especially the radar and 12 hour forcasts)
> |> |
> |> | why would you want to wait for another 2+ years
> |> | for the tuner prices to drop?
> |
> |> You didn't understand my original context. What I am referring to is
> |> what cost most people would be expected to pay to get their TV signals
> |> again when the analog cutoff happens. I'm referring to people who
> |> cannot afford cable or satellite and in many cases barely even a TV.
> |> And please don't suggest that these elderly shutins on fixed incomes
> |> should go out and get a job (as some people have suggested).
> |
> |
> | ah, a do-gooder
> |
> | fwiw, i'll be very surprised if the USA government
> | pays a penny to subsidize digital TV tuners when
> | analog TV transmission gets turned off
>
> I'd be surprised, too. But it is they who have to pay the consequences.
> I doubt it will be riots in the streets.


glad to hear that coz i was starting to
wonder about you


> But crime _will_ go up.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

maybe, but not due to the discontinuation
of analog TV transmission. imo, you really
need to get out in the real world and find
out what is going on

fwiw, i got out today and asked some
questions at a local Best Buy, and at a
high-end audio/visual store. Best Buy
had two digital TV tuners at $250 and $300.
the high-end store had a Samsung at $250.
the high-end rep mentioned that small sets
were just mandated (last month) to have
digital tuner capability, but so far,
i haven't seen it

i also suspect that the initial small TV sets
with built in digital tuners will be limited
in their digital capability

just keep holding your breath for
another 18 months or so

bill

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:11:38 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> I'd be surprised, too. But it is they who have to pay the consequences.
|> I doubt it will be riots in the streets.
|
|
| glad to hear that coz i was starting to
| wonder about you

Because you were reading some posts by a couple of sociopath crackpots?


|> But crime _will_ go up.
|
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
| maybe, but not due to the discontinuation
| of analog TV transmission. imo, you really
| need to get out in the real world and find
| out what is going on

I have been out there. Have you taken courses in Criminial Justice and
Criminal Sociology? I have. It is already well known that the more you
can keep people home or at work at night, the fewer there are out tempted
to commit crimes. This has been known for decades. If the TV doesn't
work, a few more will be out instead of at home. And some of them will
be angry, too. A few will even figure out that some other people have
TV's that do work (and then the temptation to burglary becomes real to
these people who aren't at home). Big screen TVs won't be easy to steal.
But supposedly the small ones will be out by the cutoff date, and those
will be the likely targets of theft by these people who have always had
only small screen TVs anyway (they might dream of having a big screen but
will be quite happy with the same old small size to get one that works).


| fwiw, i got out today and asked some
| questions at a local Best Buy, and at a
| high-end audio/visual store. Best Buy
| had two digital TV tuners at $250 and $300.
| the high-end store had a Samsung at $250.
| the high-end rep mentioned that small sets
| were just mandated (last month) to have
| digital tuner capability, but so far,
| i haven't seen it

We'll have to wait and see how much then end up costing. Try visiting
your local Wal-Mart or Target (or equivalent discount) store and see
what some bottom of the line TV sets cost. When the ATSC capable models
show up, compare prices. The previous prices represent what the market
will bear in terms of the percentages of people that do get TVs. To the
extent the new prices are higher, that represents fewer people who can
buy a replacement TV.

There is a certain rate of TV turnover as sets break down. Some people
can't even afford to replace their broken TV, so they may be out on the
streets finding something else to do. We have to live with these
percentages as they are. If the TV prices go up, the percentage out on
the street goes up. And when the analog cutoff happens, a *lot* of TVs
will then break, and there will be a surge of people out on the streets
because not all of them can afford to immediately replace the TVs.

If STB prices have dropped a lot by that time, it could be an option in
lieu of a whole TV replacement, and help mitigate the problem.


| i also suspect that the initial small TV sets
| with built in digital tuners will be limited
| in their digital capability

That's possible, depending on how the mandate is worded and enforced.
I think it should require that all 18 ATSC recognized formats be able
to be displayed it at least some reasonable fashion. Just because you
have a small TV doesn't mean you should face a blank screen when the
local affiliate switches to 720p or 1080i for network primetime or for
the big football game.


| just keep holding your breath for
| another 18 months or so

I am in the market for a small portable model right now. But I do not
want to waste money on one that will be obsolete in a few years. Who
would even buy a used analog-only set when analog transmissions (other
than by LPTV) are off?

I think it is time to start spreading the word to people to warn them
that buying a new TV today is wasted money unless it has digital tuning
capability. The average person doesn't know there is an analog cutoff.
Most don't even know what analog is.

I also realize that if people stop buying the analog-only models, the
retailers may be even slower getting the digital models to the shelves.
But whoever realizes its time to dump the analog stock and bring out
the digitals will be the first to pick up the new sales.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:11:38 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

> | i also suspect that the initial small TV sets
> | with built in digital tuners will be limited
> | in their digital capability


> That's possible, depending on how the mandate is worded and enforced.


we may see the answer at the stores
in the next 6 months


> I think it should require that all 18 ATSC recognized formats be able
> to be displayed it at least some reasonable fashion. Just because you
> have a small TV doesn't mean you should face a blank screen when the
> local affiliate switches to 720p or 1080i for network primetime or for
> the big football game.


maybe

my bet is maybe not


> | just keep holding your breath for
> | another 18 months or so
>
> I am in the market for a small portable model right now. But I do not
> want to waste money on one that will be obsolete in a few years. Who
> would even buy a used analog-only set when analog transmissions (other
> than by LPTV) are off?


like i said, just keep holding your breath
for another 18 months or so


> I think it is time to start spreading the word to people to warn them
> that buying a new TV today is wasted money unless it has digital tuning
> capability. The average person doesn't know there is an analog cutoff.
> Most don't even know what analog is.
>
> I also realize that if people stop buying the analog-only models, the
> retailers may be even slower getting the digital models to the shelves.
> But whoever realizes its time to dump the analog stock and bring out
> the digitals will be the first to pick up the new sales.


cable quality is here now and free

you only need a *decent* digital TV tuner

bill

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:38:41 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> I also realize that if people stop buying the analog-only models, the
|> retailers may be even slower getting the digital models to the shelves.
|> But whoever realizes its time to dump the analog stock and bring out
|> the digitals will be the first to pick up the new sales.
|
|
| cable quality is here now and free
|
| you only need a *decent* digital TV tuner

But the tuner is not free.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:38:41 -0500, willbill
<trek@worldwide.net> posted:

>phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

>> I think it should require that all 18 ATSC recognized formats be able
>> to be displayed it at least some reasonable fashion. Just because you
>> have a small TV doesn't mean you should face a blank screen when the
>> local affiliate switches to 720p or 1080i for network primetime or for
>> the big football game.
>
>
>maybe
>
>my bet is maybe not

All of the ATSC tuners/receivers built or announced process
all 18 video formats (actually 36, the 18 are repeated with
a 0.1% offset in the field/frame rate).

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http/www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm>

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 05:09:49 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:
| On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:38:41 -0500, willbill
| <trek@worldwide.net> posted:
|
|>phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|>> I think it should require that all 18 ATSC recognized formats be able
|>> to be displayed it at least some reasonable fashion. Just because you
|>> have a small TV doesn't mean you should face a blank screen when the
|>> local affiliate switches to 720p or 1080i for network primetime or for
|>> the big football game.
|>
|>
|>maybe
|>
|>my bet is maybe not
|
| All of the ATSC tuners/receivers built or announced process
| all 18 video formats (actually 36, the 18 are repeated with
| a 0.1% offset in the field/frame rate).

Ah, OK. I though the 18 included those already. That makes for a wider
choice. Thanks for the info.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http/linuxhomepage.com/ http/ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http/phil.ipal.org/ http/ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 05:09:49 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:

> | On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:38:41 -0500, willbill posted:

> |>phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> |>> I think it should require that all 18 ATSC recognized formats be able
> |>> to be displayed it at least some reasonable fashion. Just because you
> |>> have a small TV doesn't mean you should face a blank screen when the
> |>> local affiliate switches to 720p or 1080i for network primetime or for
> |>> the big football game.

> |>maybe
> |>
> |>my bet is maybe not
> |
> | All of the ATSC tuners/receivers built or announced process
> | all 18 video formats (actually 36, the 18 are repeated with
> | a 0.1% offset in the field/frame rate).
>
> Ah, OK. I though the 18 included those already. That makes for a wider
> choice. Thanks for the info.

odds are that small TV sets (with digital tuners)
will cost more, at least initially

i mean, what is the current cost differential?

KB posted on a RCA 27" HDTV (in this thread) at $300,
which i saw at a local Wal-Mart at $298 or $299

the "picture" (on this) will become more clear
in the next 3-to-9 months

the issue is whether or not there will be an
increased price for small sets with digital tuners?

and how much it might be (initially)

bill

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:39:50 -0500, willbill
<trek@worldwide.net> posted:

>the issue is whether or not there will be an
>increased price for small sets with digital tuners?
>
>and how much it might be (initially)

<http/www.media-visions.com/itv-usdtv.html>

According to this link, in 2004, the $200 Wal-Mart USDTV
ATSC DTV/HDTV STB cost $150 to build.

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http/www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm>

 

[Guest]

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

K. B. wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:39:50 -0500, willbill
> <trek@worldwide.net> posted:

>>the issue is whether or not there will be an
>>increased price for small sets with digital tuners?
>>
>>and how much it might be (initially)
>
>
> <http/www.media-visions.com/itv-usdtv.html>
>
> According to this link, in 2004, the $200 Wal-Mart USDTV
> ATSC DTV/HDTV STB cost $150 to build.


sorry, i wasn't very clear

you posted (in this thread) about a $300 CRT 27" RCA
TV that has HDTV capability, but only an analog tuner

what is the cheapest CRT 27" HDTV (comparable screen quality)
that has a built in digital tuner? and does it also have
a built in analog tuner too?

cheapest i've seen (on newegg.com this last month) is a $600
Toshiba, but i'm guessing that it has higher screen quality
(than the RCA)

same questions will apply when digital tuners finally
show up in small TV sets (22" and smaller)

bill