[S. A. Moore]

 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/02/te...rtner=MOREOVER

 

[timmy1376]

Quote:

The WOW Digital TV unit picks up over-the-air digital broadcasts only. Consumers who receive regular or HDTV programming via cable or satellite will still need their existing converter boxes.

That is the only thing holding this back I think. If it had QAM demodulations also, I think it would fly off the shelf. When I look around, I see very few antennas anymore, and most people wont go to the trouble.

 

[feldon23]

The Radio Shack bowtie works well for many people.

 

[S. A. Moore]

Quote:

Originally posted by timmy1376 That is the only thing holding this back I think. If it had QAM demodulations also, I think it would fly off the shelf. When I look around, I see very few antennas anymore, and most people wont go to the trouble.

For cable, right ? Aren't there massive standards incompatibilities between

systems ?

 

[Rich Peterson]

Folks, think about this. This company (WOW Digital) wants broadcasters to use the technology in their STBs to allow them to include banner-ads and other stuff in the broadcast signal for our consumption. It sounds like their boxes will include the means for broadcasters to sell you data services or possibly insert more attention-grabbing advertising on your display. Is that what you want? Can the box even deliver an HDTV signal?

 

[DP1]

I wonder why the company only expects to "break even at best". How many would they have to sell to make money? Do they not think the unit is yet cheap enough to attract the millions of homes in places like L.A., and Philly and Boston and S.F. and Dallas for example where theres already a large number of digital stations on air, because the viewers in large measure dont care about digital television at any cost anyway?


Or is it perhaps that the people do care, but are going to wait for the cable tv rollout regardless before they have any intention of actually seeing the digital broadcasts?

 

[DTC mac]

If the unit receives wide distribution, then I see it as the shot in the arm OTA DTV needs to make 2006 analog shut off plauseabe.

 

[Scooper]

This is exactly what I'm waiting for - a cheaper solution to get DTV to my current NTSC sets.

 

[William Smith]

Rich,


This has long been a option for DTV service, The DTV system allows for the delivery of more information than just the images and sound. For example, you may be watching a car ad and a button appear that says click me to print a list of local dealers or a spec sheet on the car. This is one of the promises of DTV.



I really wish you weren't so negative everytime someone tries to discuss anything other than what you consider full bandwidth HDTV.



The nets (other than PBS) deliver HD to the locals at 45 Mbps which will not fit in 6 Mhz.


William


We need $20 decoders (not a typo) not people who cry wolf....

 

[PTS]

Bill Smith: In a due respect Bill, I think what Rich was stating that in order to buy, use this WOW decoder, it sounds like you would have to put up with banner ads running across your screen, much like the banners on Juno (ISP). I think that is how Rich interpreted the article, and that is how I interpreted it too. Now if broadcasters can control the banners (like Juno does) then I would agree with Rich, I would not want that crap across my screen. But, if one has the option of turning such off, or having to press a button to see such, then yes, I would agree with you.

I have read this article several times, and it is a little confusing. It does ONLY OTA, so that people who have cable or satellite would still have to have their converter cable box? Dont the cable boxes already do OTA HD channels? And if I already have satellite, since they only make combo, satellite/ota boxes, why would I want this box? They dont make an Satellite ONLY HD box. Or did I miss something here?


If I am right, this would be a competitor for the current Samsung OTA box. But who has control of banner advertisement seems to be the question here.

Just my 2 cents!!

 

[ADebar]

William Smith get off his case. I agree with him. banner ads suck big time. I'd never recommend a box like this. even if it was $20.

 

[William Smith]

I didn't say banner ads did I?


The technology is too new to bash considering its not even here yet. I did say that the potential of interactive ads has long been considered for use in DTV.

Have you ever wondered why more broadcasters don't participate here?


Take a wild guess...


William

 

[PTS]

Ok Bill not sure if that was an insult or what? I can't speak for others, but I personally am more than willing to "learn" as much as possible, by all parties that post here. I read the article to also include "web like banner ads". Am I misunderstanding or misreading the article. If so please enlighten me. I may not be as informed as you, but I would be more than willing to listen to how you interpreted that article. Did we both interprete the article differently.

As far as your broadcaster comment, I don't believe it has to do with ignorance or stupidity from peeps on here, but rather their objectives are a little different than consumers.

I am not here to argue or flame you, just more than willing to discuss, and learn more, and I think the majority of peeps are the same way.

 

[William Smith]

I didn't say they would or wouldn't be banners. A lot still remains to be seen, but I do find it very hard to understand the reasoning behind bashing a system that isn't even on the market. Yes I do expect ads to be controlled at the stream originator's level.


Here is a link to the ATSC standards, Look at the proposed DASE standard real hard.

http://www.atsc.org/standards.html


William

 

[ADebar]

Quote:

Originally posted by William Smith Have you ever wondered why more broadcasters don't participate here?

no Bill, i haven't. maybe they should find a new career if they have trouble answering to THE OWNERS OF THE BANDWIDTH THEY ARE JACKING WITH. we are a nice bunch here. we respect broadcasters and dont flame them. if one comes on here defending their lazy network or station, or starts to defend ad-promoting hardware, we are going to call them on it. just because someone works for a network and decides to interact with the owners of the bandwidth, does not give them a free ride.


see the quote in my sig.

 

[Chris Williams]

This system is not about HD, and never has been. It is about the same thing that "digital cable" is about - cramming as many mediocre channels in the same space as possible.


I suspect that Wow Digital marketing is behind a lot of stations dragging their feet on the DTV transition. They are hoping Congress will blink and allow them to broadcast only 480 and sell the rest of their spectrum to Wow Digital to create this "OTA cable system".


Sorry if any broadcaster are offended, but this must be stopped. We don't give a damn about "digital television". Most of us have had "digital" television for years from our mediocre cable companies or DSS providors. We want HD. And we won't settle for less than HD.


Wow Digital must fail for HD to succeed.


And the magic $199 HD tuner box? Look, if any of the Japanese electronics manufacturers wanted to, they could easily sell one at that price. We are buying HD tuner cards with 4 year old technology for $399 right now. The only reason the price of a stand-alone box is still $699 is because they haven't sold enough of them. They haven't sold enough of them because the price is too high. It's the Butterscotch Man. Moore's Law applies to this - we should be able to have better technology at $99 right now. And the only reason that we haven't seen prices drop is that development has frozen because of Hollywood paranoia and threats of lawsuits.

 

[PTS]

Ok I tried to read that, but to be honest with you, not being in this field, I could not comprehend it. I mean I could read it, but I'll be damned if I got a concrete understanding of that it was all about.

Umm, I guess I have to be a "broadcaster" to understand all of that.

I agree with ADebar (even though he kind of flamed me in another thread, and no I wont go there, I am only 1/2 joking with him). I dont think enough credit is given to the people who come on here and post threads, info. ALot of them may not know all the intricates of the broadcasting ends, but they are pretty informative on alot of electronic and consumer issues, and I don't think the "industry insiders" don't give them enough credit. Its almost like they treat the consumers as morons, talking about stuff they know nothing about, but nowadays, I think the opposite is true. Times have changed. ALot of the people on these forums know more about the products than the mfg's of these products.

Bill , I think what it boils down to is , alot of people now don't want quantity or interactive stuff, we want QUALITY, now that we have seen HD.

Just my thoughts.

 

[PTS]

Um I agree with Chris ( boy ever time I see one of your posts Chris, you look just like a guy I play hockey with, almost identical, and it brings a chuckle to my face!!) We no longer want quantity, we want QUALITY now that we have seen HD.

But, like I said in another thread, how the heck can we get ALL the channels in HD? It just cant be done, unless technology improves enough to where satelltie and cable can do such. But I wonder what most of the population will want in the future, quantity still or quality. I hope quality!!

 

[Rich Peterson]

Quote:

This has long been a option for DTV service, The DTV system allows for the delivery of more information than just the images and sound. For example, you may be watching a car ad and a button appear that says click me to print a list of local dealers or a spec sheet on the car. This is one of the promises of DTV.

I am aware the standard supports this but as far as I know this is the first ATSC receiver that includes some of it. If you go back and read what I wrote I simply asked the readers if that is something they really want. According to some of the answers, it doesn't sound like it is.


Some broadcasters contribute a lot to this forum (Lee Wood and Bob Ross come to mind) but others simply ruffle feathers. Which are you?

 

[PTS]

Well put Rich! I sure don't want banner/interactive access. But hey, maybe some do. Each to his own.