AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
AVS Forum Special Member
Joined
·
11,139 Posts
Wow. That site, whatever it is, has some persistent cookie-creation software. Tried refusing via my firewall software; it locked up my system and required a CNTRL-ALT-DEL shutdown--a first here. -- John
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
93 Posts
Sure you will and so will the other proponents of maintaining the status quo.


We need 1600 local TV broadcasters to jump on the HDTV bandwagon, demanding that Fox, NBC, UPN and all other networks deliver substantial HD programming. We also need to get the FCC to lead the charge, not whither off and say, "Gee folks (broadcasters and cable systems), take your time. We really didn't mean you have to offer HD in this decade."


The FCC has waited for the various industries to come up with the needed standards to make the transition work. They haven't. Also, no HDTV broadcaster in the US has figured out on how to make their given model profitable. Forget the ATSC. They only rubberstamp the wishes of its biggest contributors.


So, it's up to the FCC to lead. Neither Powell nor certainly his predeccessors appear up to the task.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
"Also, no HDTV broadcaster in the US has figured out on how to make their given model profitable."


False. Capitol Broadcasting in Raleigh is quite profitable, and if you're considering the source of the programming material they do HD exclusively.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
93 Posts
"False. Capitol Broadcasting in Raleigh is quite profitable, and if you're considering the source of the programming material they do HD exclusively."


If Capitol Broadcasting is profitable, no way in hell that their revenue is based on their approximately 2,000 HDTV viewers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jacmyoung



What workable business strategies do you have in mind? You have been making accusations here for too long without any constructive inputs.


Please don't making the excuse that you are not allowed to speak freely on this forum. I consider that another baseless accusation.


When asked for facts to support your claims, you seemed to drop out of conversations.
:D Maybe his post just go poof and disapear like so many do just when things get interesting. You are not serious about this being a free speech forum. You know as well as DTViscool that if he said what he wanted to it would be deleted.


Let's at least be honest about that. There is a lot of good information on this forum as long as you keep it in mind that a lot is missing by design. I think it is understood by most members what can't be said here. :p


DTViscool can't be constructive or give the facts if it just gets deleted.:rolleyes: :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
Bob has repeatedly accused US DTV standard being the reason for the delay, and pointed out the standard in Europe (noticing I am also not speaking 100% freely here for sake of avoiding redundancy) which allowed better datacasting and mobile reception as reasons for their rapid conversion.


But when I asked if he had any facts that European broadcasters are reaping profits off datacasting and mobile applications, therefore are more motivated for DTV, he quickly used that excuse to evade my question.


There can not be fair debate if Bob's only interest is making accusation. There are many factors behind the slow DTV development in the US, he has only pointed out one and yet to provide any facts to back his up.


One can only conclude Bob is holding grudge against someone. I welcome Bob to prove me wrong, and prove he means what he said. But that also means going beyond finger pointing my friend.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
93 Posts
Datacasting and mobile reception are not (or have ever been) my issues of contention.


My point is that by allowing the Asian and European CE manufacturers, through their subrogates (ATSC and CEA), to determine the immediate fate of HDTV in America has proven to be a disaster.


Solutions are available that I would welcome the opportunity to address on here but have been told that I can't.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jacmyoung
Bob has repeatedly accused US DTV standard being the reason for the delay, and pointed out the standard in Europe (noticing I am also not speaking 100% freely here for sake of avoiding redundancy) which allowed better datacasting and mobile reception as reasons for their rapid conversion.


But when I asked if he had any facts that European broadcasters are reaping profits off datacasting and mobile applications, therefore are more motivated for DTV, he quickly used that excuse to evade my question.


There can not be fair debate if Bob's only interest is making accusation. There are many factors behind the slow DTV development in the US, he has only pointed out one and yet to provide any facts to back his up.


One can only conclude Bob is holding grudge against someone. I welcome Bob to prove me wrong, and prove he means what he said. But that also means going beyond finger pointing my friend.
:D Maybe I have a solution. When DTViscool wants to answer a post that is "controversial" he can answer it on another forum like opendtv or alt.tv.tech.hdtv and post the url here. That way you can take the controversy out of this forum, keep the peace and say what he wants.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by DTVisCool
Datacasting and mobile reception are not (or have ever been) my issues of contention.


My point is that by allowing the Asian and European CE manufacturers, through their subrogates (ATSC and CEA), to determine the immediate fate of HDTV in America has proven to be a disaster.


Solutions are available that I would welcome the opportunity to address on here but have been told that I can't.
If I have mistaken you for someone else, I apologize. It is however highly unlikely AVS will censor a member's point of view without even knowing what his views are.


You have been making only accusations on this forum as far as I have read. I maintain that this is not a good way to persuade others. If I were you, I will like others suggested, find another forum.


I for one refuse to believe if you provide constructive ideas backed by facts, that how we can go about expediting the DTV transition in the US, that AVS will silence you for doing so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
"If Capitol Broadcasting is profitable, no way in hell that their revenue is based on their approximately 2,000 HDTV viewers."


Of course not. However, their entire operation is based on HDTV generation and transmission. In the case of their analog broadcast and cable/dss feeds, they are down-converting HDTV for a superior analog product, and they advertise that fact to draw in viewers. Moreover, probably because of WRAL-HD and/or HD-Net, the number of HDTV viewers in the area is rapidly accelerating - I've personally installed or specified the necessary equipment for three different Sports bars in the last month.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by DTVisCool
Datacasting and mobile reception are not (or have ever been) my issues of contention.


My point is that by allowing the Asian and European CE manufacturers, through their subrogates (ATSC and CEA), to determine the immediate fate of HDTV in America has proven to be a disaster.


Solutions are available that I would welcome the opportunity to address on here but have been told that I can't.
You are treading dangerous ground. :mad:


Be carefull. The CEA represents most of the money. And this forum probalby worries about what they think.:mad:


Why do you think since they are mostly foreign that they have lost this battle in so many other countries?:confused:


Carefull how you answer that, I would like to read your post.:p
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
93 Posts
"Be carefull. The CEA represents most of the money. And this forum probalby worries about what they think."


Agree that the CEA can be a very constructive force to the advancement of HDTV in America. Seems that they are getting their act together, now.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
93 Posts
"Why do you think since they are mostly foreign that they have lost this battle in so many other countries?"


Politics/self interests among a few corporations determined our OTA DTV transmission standard. Read Joel Brinkley's (NYT editor) book "Defining Vision" to learn why Zenith (now owned by LGE) was thrown the OTA, DTV-transmission, standard bone.


I've moved on from that battle to higher ground. Our nation's 1600 local TV broadcasters will need to address that one on their own. Who else has any self-interest for change to a model that will make them profitable in HDTV?


Eventually, my read is that all HDTV will be delivered by DBS and the cable systems with OTA DTV (US-style) slithering off to extinction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,733 Posts
DTVisCool,


Ok Ive read your contention all over these boards today that OTA is going to fail, and that it is not a viable bussiness model.


I am beginning to think you are the owner of Fox...:p


Seriously tho, what reasons do you have to beleive OTA will not be a success.


If you are the former BOB I got the impression that you think that reception is a problem area.


Hmmm, as far as reception goes for me, my family and freinds. Dtv reception is far better then anolog. And no more difficult to receive useing similar tpye and placed uhf antennas. We all live in different tpyes of locations, from distant rural, to highrise urban apts, to single homes and apts in suburbs.


And without fail dtv is better recieved period, with no extra effort then getting an uhf antenna of the same tpye (indoor or outdoor) we use for anolog reception. For examle, if we need an outdoor for anolog then we need that for dtv, and if we only need an indoor one for anolog then that is what is being used for dtv reception.


I know people do have problems, but I dont think it is bad as it has been made out to be. And dont beleive it will cuase OTA to fail.


so you must have other reasons why you think OTa dtv will not be a success. I for one would actually like to hear them..


thanks


tony
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
93 Posts
"Seriously tho, what reasons do you have to beleive OTA will not be a success?"


How many of you depended on OTA TV prior to HDTV? OTA TV is targeted to the urban dweller who is unable to afford cable/DBS or doesn't care much about TV. What percent of those who presently rely on OTA TV will make the shift to OTA HDTV within the next decade based on present standards?


On the other side of the coin, as the cable systems and DBS expand their HD offerings and offer better HD quality (with better compression tech, etc.), all present cable and DBS subscribers will shift to digital.


That still leaves the dilemma of how to provide DTV to those who rely on OTA but do not want the hastle or expense to upgrade. They want a $200 DTV that they can simply plug in and raise the rabbit ears. With the present OTA DTV transmission standard, that will be a very difficult task for most.


Broadcasters will need to keep their OTA operations to retain their licenses but will continue to depend on analog to reach their audience. Eventually, they will only broadcast in analog since that is what their audience wants. They will continue to make the vast majority of their advertising income from cable and DBS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
U.S. OTA DTV is a scam in every way. The

broadcasters don't expect very many people to

watch it so they don't care if it works. They

know most people buy cable or satellite. Their

business plan is built around our idiotic "must-

carry" rules--local OTA broadcasters plan to put

out just the minimum signal required to qualify

for must-carry.


(Of course, broadcasters hope to get some moola

in exchange for their NTSC bandwidth, and some

more by using their channel assignments mostly

for datacasting (certainly not high-bitrate HD).

Local broadcasters don't care about HD--they

might transmit some if they get it at "no extra

cost" from a network, but they don't want to pay

more for HD or devote extra bandwidth to it,

because they think (probably rightly) that local

advertisers won't pay any more for HD, and that

local viewers will be hypnotized by any signal,

no matter how crappy (after all, those viewers

watch VHS-quality analog cable now; even if they

*****, they keep watching!).)


This is one reason set makers show little

enthusiasm for 8VSB tuner/decoders... they know

most of them would go unused because cable and

satellite use different modulations. Why push up

the price of a set by including costly but

pointless 8VSB/ATSC electronics? The set makers

are waiting (and waiting, and waiting...) for the

FCC to standardize "digital cable ready" hardware

req's; when that happens we'll see sets with

"tuners" (perhaps just STB interfaces) for DTV.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6 Posts
So DTViscool thinks that OTA is dead and 98CRI thinks that OTA broadcasters don"t care about anything but must carry.:confused:


Sounds like OTA is dead.:eek:


What is all that bandwidth going to be used for?:D


I have read "Defining Vision" and other than cataloging the shenanigans that the back room boys performed to, for one thing, dole out the monopoly for 8-VSB to Zenith, the other main point of the book was that the whole HDTV idea was mainly a ploy by the broadcasters to hold on to the UHF spectrum for an indefinite period.


If so the decision today by the FCC to let the broadcasters slide on the DTV transition is another example of that plan working out. The broadcasters will hold onto the spectrum until they can use it for something that will make them money. Any ideas on what that might be?


So 12 MHz time 1600 channels going to waste for the indefinite future. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
Man, I wish Rotary would add something to this conversation!;)


Say Bob, why did you go with the fake username/multiple personality thing a few months ago? Did it really feel that lonely to be the only fella pimpin' your transmission standard on the forum?


Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,884 Posts
I have read Brinkley's book and I think the broadcasters have no intention of EVER tuning over the spectrum, no matter what it takes.


But eventually they might be willing to sell it.


- Tom
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top