3.991% still depend on OTA TV/DTV

[robmx]

"Bob Miller" <robmx@eathlink.net> wrote in message on alt.tv.tech.hdtv:

"Robert Siegel speaks with Thomas Hazlett, a former chief economist for the FCC who is now a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Hazlett was quoted in Tuesday's Los Angeles Times as saying that free television -- VHF and UHF -- is insane in an environment where 90 percent of the public accesses programming through cable and satellite."

numeric wrote:
If 90% is really true then obviously cable TV is far too cheap. Raise the cable tax rate until 90% drops down to 50% ;). That would probably raise far more revenue then auctioning off the TV spectrum.

Randy Sweeney wrote:
I believe the actual number as of March 2003 is around 67.4% cable according to the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the industry trade group. Cable TV is more popular than broadcast because it brings more choice to those who have the means to afford it.

Bob Miller wrote:
You are right cable is 67.4% penetration but he is commenting on Hazlett's assertion that "cable and satellite" equaled 90% combined. From your source, NCTA, that number is,

US TV households 106,641,910
US Cable households 71,897,250 or 67.4%
US MVPD households 22,310,000 or 20.9%
MVPD includes other cable (non public access), wireless cable (MMDS) andsatellite.

Total =88.3%
I like to add 9% for theft of services bringing the Grand Total to 97.3% and round it off to 95% just for the hell of it.

You could of course, to be more accurate, add .0001% back for those who receive Digital 8-VSB for a Grander Total of 94.0009%.

The fact remains that virtually no one still depends on OTA TV reception. The spectrum is being wasted by the current tenants. They have shown little interest in actually using it. A prime example being the lack of interest they showed in the process of picking a digital modulation. They basically left it up to lawyers and political hacks to decide this all important technical question.

And when it was discovered that the modulation that was picked was a disaster, instead of sticking together and digging in their heels and demanding the best modulation, they caved to political pressure and voted for 8-VSB thus sticking an entire nation of potential OTA DTV viewers withan overly expensive, poorly designed and failed 8-VSB.

Bob Miller wrote further:
Well I didn't back up my "Theft" numbers so here they are.

Same organization is the source.

"The Pathlink study confirms that Canada has a similar problem to that of the United States where the official cable industry group, the National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA), estimates that theft of service nationwide costs cable companies US$6.58 billion a year - roughly equivalent to 11.5% of the industry's subscriber base."

NCTA (http://www.channelcanada.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=139)

So I will have to revise upward my last number by 2.5% from 94.0009% to 96.5009%. Even fewer people actually depend on OTA TV it seems.

And I also forgot to mention that more people are subscribing (in total) to the cable and satellite bandwagon every day so this number is rising toward 100%.

Unless of course some visionary like our FCC Chairman who says his mantra is, that is he is all about, that is his entire life revolves around, the "FREE MARKET" gets his way and actually forces us to buy this 8-VSB turkey of a modulation by mandating receivers in every TV set.

And of course we would actually have to use them. No actually we wouldn't have to use them they just have to be there. That way they satisfy the political payoff and they can sell off the spectrum. No matter that few will bother to hook up an antenna to receive digital TV anymore than they do now for analog.

[redthread]

I thought antennas were a dumb source two years ago, but since I don't watch HBO and the other cable networks get an "F" in implementation, it finally occured to me that I should try one. My second floor Terk55/Zenith HDV420 has reception that is simply unacceptable, freezing and stuttering on all the locals except one PBS. I'm proud to be an analog cable user, no set-top garbage, faster switching, and twin tuner PIPs in two rooms for no extra charge. 5.1 I can live without for most viewing although I did just get a HDD/DVDR. I would love native HD, but the current system is a mess.

[mhdiab]

It hurts, but guess my response is defending Robmx - your Terk is a bad antenna. This has been stated here multiple times and on other forums lots of times. I have yet to hear a single person like this antenna - now I don't use OTA so not sure what the better options are, but there are per other threads in here (search) several that you should try instead.....

[Brewer4]

Lets be fair here. Not everyone should know about Terk stuff nor should it really matter. The problem is getting OTA is an effort. Getting cable isnt. I've spent alot of money and time fine tuning my very large roof mounted, powered, rotating antenna to receive minimal channels and some still sketchy reception. I love my DirecTV but even that has been an effort. Cutting trees, moving the dish, bad cables, etc. We just have to realize we are still in the beginning phase of HD convergence and cable needs to carry more and continue to be an easy solution.

[kevinw]

OTA is great I do not have to pay for it. I'll second the info about TERK being an overated underperforming product. Try the Zenith Silver Sensor antenna. Very solid at combatting multipath.
My problem with cable is you have no choice in providers. Many antenna problems could be fixed once the digital channels up the wattage.

[mikehbkwm]

With dish you really dont have a choice either its DISH or Direct................

[kevinw]

With dish you really dont have a choice either its DISH or Direct................
That is a choice one or the other. With cable you are locked into one provider. In my neighborhood It is Adelphia:mad: I can't get Comcast even though the subdivsion 2 miles away can, but then they do not have to suffer with Adelphia.

I think every cable company should have to bid for the territory and have it reviewed more than once every ten years. How often do you hear of a cable provider loseing its territories to competition?

[mikehbkwm]

Well I see that side of it buttttt then youve got huge massive costs because then youve gotta have multiple headends and franshise fees and then the infrastructure for example that Cox has here in Tulsa might not work with say the way Comcast wants it to be and it becomes to expensive at that point... again Kevin I see it both ways but until there are like 10 different providers in say one town---example-------- then there really isnt a huge choice to pick from...... Not arguing with you just giving you my opinion...........

[kevinw]

That is why I thought it was stupid when they ruled against Dish and Direct merging. Claimed it would be unfair to the consumer because thay would not have a choice in satleite providers.

This is a perfect example of why Robmx may be right. OTA offering the same thing as cable but without the dependency or inabilty to choose something different.

[mikehbkwm]

OHH no kevin you said Rob might be rightttt noooooo LOL :p

[mhdiab]

more options = better climate for the customer. It doesn't matter what the options are - cable, satelitte OTA etc - the more the better.........look at cable costs and how much they have gone up compared to all other indexes.......people will be feed up at one point or another, but it all depends on what options they have then........

[mikehbkwm]

mhdiab now you cant always blame cable for hiking the the price..... alot of it has to do with the programmers... again it really depends on what cable co. you have....... ill give you an ex. I work for Cox here in Tulsa, ok... if you were to put up a chart of our services to direct and dish we are cheaper it AINT by much but we are.... and again it depends on what area of the country your in.... I mean hell Comcast could be ass raping their customers in one state and not in another I dont know because i dont follow Comcast or any other cable providers..... another thing is I worked at Direct and Dish and especially with Direct there are alot of bad things I dont like when it comes to the way they run their co. and how they treat their customers sometimes..... it comes down to this... ON ANY GIVEN DAY you can call in to your provider whoever it is get the most DUMBASS person on the phone and feel like HEY THIS COMPANY IS SHITTY and Im going to switch.... always look at it like this there are always stupid people with every co. not everyone is informed or even cares... but there are good things for the most part about every provider whether its cable or dish..................... where did all that come from whoa............

[Ratman]

Here's my 2000 rubles...

I'm with Kevin!
The cable monopolies (IMO) have to be stopped. Here are my analogies:
a) we can now choose our 'energy providers' (gas/electric).
They use the same freakin' wire and pipes to get that stuff to my home the same as any other provider. Why can't I choose a "programming provide"? Just use the same cable? H-m-m-m-m

b) I can get the internet via DSL, cable, Phone, satellite. Still... I have a choice!

I choose to go OTA for my digital TV programming! I can put a stinkin' antenna as high as I want, put a rotator on it and all kinds of amps to get channels from Philly, Baltimore and NYC. It's FREE!!!

OTOH... if I choose NOT to erect an antenna (or if I am not fortunate to live close enough to a digital OTA station), what are my options? Either Dish, DirecTV or whatever cable provider is shoved down my throat!

THEN!!!! these "providers" have the audacity to ask me to PAY EXTRA for HD????

Hello????????????

... I have cramps today! :D

[mikehbkwm]

Man Ratman where did that come from you must be on the RAG...... LOL:D

[Ratman]

Me bad!

Seriously though...
I started out with 30 or so cable channels for $8 per month back in 1982 or so.

The reason... nice reception on locals and extra channels (NYC stations primarily and TBS and MTV... when they played good music!). No problem!

Then, the 'big guns' come to town. The local cable guys sell to Garden State Cable, prices increase. They sell to to New York Times, prices increase. They sell to Scumcast... 'nuff said.

Yeah... I now get 60+ channels. So what? I only watch a dozen channels. The rest is assinine 'fluff'. For all of this I get to pay $48 per month for analog cable! And then they want me to pay more because I have an HD television? NOT!

They cry, "but you have to understand, we had to go to great expense to provide you, the consumer, this quality programming technology. A slight increase should not be that inconvenient for you!". BLAH... (look at my hand gesture!)

I said it before and I'll say it again, they are taking advantage of those that have an HDTV. People are paying and IMO setting a precendent that will enable those greedy twits to continue the price rape.

PLEASE??? Why can't I pay 'a la carte' for my programming choices and not be charged for what I do not want?

Damn... it must've been a bad 'corn dog'... :p
(OMG... am I ROBMX in drag??)

[kevinw]

I call it packaging You buy a second tier of programming and all the shopping channels get charged per subscriber...As if anyone would even say " Oh yeah let me pay for the shopping channels" Or even all the educational channels they carry - repeating documentries from the 70' and 80's. And finally not to offend anyone but religious programming, I do not think God is going to keep me out for NOT watching Anglevision.

[57U]

I think that once cable is completely digital, we'll have more a la carte choices. Cable did a lot of "bundling" because they had to carry "basic" and then got more channels, etc. It was difficult to "unbundle" analogue (using traps, etc) - it's easy with digital

In Canada, Cable is required to carry certain channels, by regulation - this is the "basic" tier.

In the meantime, I'm pretty happy spending about US$35 for a couple hundred channels - that works out to about 18 cents per - and that includes TMN (our movie network), as well as access to HD via a US$11 (additional) STB rental. I get broadband internet for about US$30, so the whole bill comes to about US$85 plus taxes.

Here's a link to the bundle prices (C$, HD bundle link at bottom):

http://www.shoprogers.com/store/cable/digitaltvcontent/bundles.asp

I guess it depends on your location how you feel about cable...

[mikehbkwm]

I love you guys you crack me up..... Hey Ratman Ive got the fix to all your problems you want ala carte programming here you go....
www.superstar.com

C-Band the new and improved C-Band thats right itll get ya programming to one tv with a rotating HUGE MASSIVE DISH lalala..... and all the ala carte programming you would like... C-Band..............

Im just messin with ya you know that... and $48 a month for basic expanded they are ass raping you... that blows my mind. customers in OK pay 35.50 a month here for basic expanded and customers get 78 channels.... but again lower income rate here to... oh well....

[cross]

I want to comment on the original premis that only 4% of viewers are OTA. As far as I can see, this statement is not based on any varifiable data, but is based on information from industry trade groups and assumptions.

I do not know and cannot guess what the real numbers are, but I suspect that far more than 4% depend on OTA reception. In addition, I suspect there are many families with cable to their main TV and OTA for any additional TV's.

I would very much like to see someone do a national scientific survey to detirmine the current standing of OTA, Cable, etc. amoung viewers.

[57U]

I believe that some numbers were published last year that looked more like the following:

OTA - 15%
SAT - 15% (and growing)
Cable - 70% (and shrinking)

Here are the Canadian Numbers - OTA is probably a little lower in Canada due to early penetration by cable (and relatively good service):

Also, SAT growth was not at the expense of cable (some declines yes), but mostly the SAT growth was in rural areas that were previously served by OTA (or nothing)

Cable's revenue growing By TERRY WEBER - Globe & Mail

UPDATED AT 11:26 AM EDT Wednesday, Apr. 30, 2003

Canada's cable industry has seen "considerable" revenue growth between 1998 and 2002 despite declining subscriber levels, while the country's direct-to-home satellite sector saw gains on both fronts, Canada's broadcast regulator said yesterday.

In a report, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission said that, during that time period, total revenue in the cable industry rose 41.1 per cent to $3.9-billion in 2002.

Cable subscription revenue rose 32.1 per cent, taking it to $3.4-billion in 2002 from $2.6-billion in 1998. Other cable industry revenue -- including those from high-speed Internet connections -- soared to $367.3-million from $83.7-million in the same period.

The gains, however, came as the number of basic cable subscribers declined. Between 1998 and 2002, their number fell 3.2 per cent, the CRTC said.

"In 1998, there were a total of 7,247,709 (Cable) subscribers, while in 2002 there were 7,015,041," according to the report.

Meanwhile, the direct-to-home (DTH) satellite and multipoint distribution system (MDS) sectors have also posted substantial growth in terms of both revenue and subscribers, the CRTC said.

Total revenue for DTH and MDS -- which transmits digital TV signals from high towers -- was $43.1-million in 1998. By 2002, total revenue had risen to $941-million.

"The number of subscribers went from 227,005 to 2,007,762 in 2002, an increase of 1,780,757 subscribers in five years," the report said.

[tpetters]

The fact remains that virtually no one still depends on OTA TV reception. The spectrum is being wasted by the current tenants.

No one but me! :osigh:o !

The second sentence reveals motive. It appears that *someone* wants OTA turned off and the frequencies sold to private companies that can sell cable-like TV services to the same high population areas that already get cable via wire. The fact that five percent (by his count) of the owners of the airwaves would then get pure static is but a trivial annoyance to him. To the FCC and to me it is more important.

[robmx]

Originally posted by tpetters
No one but me! :osigh:o !

The second sentence reveals motive. It appears that *someone* wants OTA turned off and the frequencies sold to private companies that can sell cable-like TV services to the same high population areas that already get cable via wire. The fact that five percent (by his count) of the owners of the airwaves would then get pure static is but a trivial annoyance to him. To the FCC and to me it is more important.

Actually to the FCC it is OK. At 5% if you can prove it the FCC will let a station turn off their analog broadcast and go digital. They have done it with two stations and are considering doing it with 4 more.

If you look at past post of mine you will see that I have been arguing just the opposite.

My argument has been and is that with 8-VSB we WILL see all the spectrum sold off for other uses and that is bad.

With a proper modulation we can keep the current broadcasters in place with free DTV. In other words if broadcasters became broadcasters again. As it is they are just content providers for cable.

If we keep going with 8-VSB, it is not fixed and no one buys receivers anymore than they are now then yes sell off the spectrum for other uses. In is inevitable anyway.

[jckessler]

Originally posted by 57U
I believe that some numbers were published last year that looked more like the following:

OTA - 15%
SAT - 15% (and growing)
Cable - 70% (and shrinking)



Two other points worth considering: A lot of people with cable or satellite don't have their secondary TVs hooked up and depend on OTA. I've seen estimates that 30-40% of TVs (not households) are still using OTA.

Secondly, a fair number (maybe 5% or so of the population) of satellite customers get their local channels OTA.

Those Canadian numbers sound very similar to US numbers that I've seen.

[robmx]

Originally posted by jckessler
Two other points worth considering: A lot of people with cable or satellite don't have their secondary TVs hooked up and depend on OTA. I've seen estimates that 30-40% of TVs (not households) are still using OTA.

Secondly, a fair number (maybe 5% or so of the population) of satellite customers get their local channels OTA.

Those Canadian numbers sound very similar to US numbers that I've seen.

A lot of people still use OTA TV even though they don't depend on it and it is not their primary source.

What happens to all those analog TV sets? We are still buying 25 million of them a year. If you have a $200 TV set in the bedroom with rabbit ears that has depreciated to $20 will you buy a $400 8-VSB receiver for it?

Where are all the digital converter inexpensive STB's coming from to do this transition? It is going on 6 years we have been at it and still no one is addressing basic questions.

Soon it will become more apparent to all that this has been just a delay scam by the broadcasters. Sinclair was blamed for the delay but actually was addressing the real problems of going on air, receivability with inexpensive receivers.

Sinclair is one of the few broadcasters that actually acted like a broadcaster should IMO.

[Nitewatchman]

Originally posted by tpetters
No one but me! :osigh:o ! ....The fact that five percent (by his count) of the owners of the airwaves would then get pure static is but a trivial annoyance to him. To the FCC and to me it is more important.


Me too, and most of my neighbors, and yes, as their Primary source. Funny thing, a neighbor here recently moved into an apartment in a nearby town, ordered Cable, and soon said she wanted to go back to antenna, as the $60 per month she was paying wasn't giving her anything except a bunch of junk she didn't care about, and only some of the stations she used to watch, with poorer quality.

RobMX has it backwards IMO, Consumers must move to DTV/HD (That means 8VSB) in order to keep our airwaves out of greedy hands .....

And sorry, but praising Sinclair for being a "good broadcaster" is laughable, judging from what I've seen from my local Sinclair stations. For instance, in December, one of their analog stations was off air, or at very low power(they didn't have a tower collapse either) for nearly a month.

[robmx]

Originally posted by Nitewatchman


RobMX has it backwards IMO, Consumers must move to DTV/HD (That means 8VSB) in order to keep our airwaves out of greedy hands .....



First, if you didn't notice OUR airways are in "greedy hands". Some of the greediest.

Your statement "Consumers MUST" seems to be the attitude of many who support 8-VSB including the Chairman of the FCC who has issued the mandate.

I suggest the consumers WON'T. So far they ARE NOT.

There seems to be a populist backlash brewing against forcing things down the publics throat. Witness the current drug and media ownership battels brewing in DC. The lobbyist are actually losing a few possibly.

I guess money only goes so far. In the end if the public is awake they may vote you out no matter how much money the lobbyist put in your pocket.

Once COFDM is up and running in a few cities it will be just like the siren of low drug prices in Mexico and Canada. People are going to say "what do I have to do to get 8-VSB? Are you kidding? Who's idea was this 8-VSB anyway? Why does it not work like COFDM?". That is going to be a hard one to answer.

Congressional types will be ducking for cover on this one to.

[Nitewatchman]

Originally posted by robmx
First, if you didn't notice OUR airways are in "greedy hands". Some of the greediest.


I suggest you check out the thread in this forum on the cost of building and operating a DTV station. The Broadcasters didn't ask for what, is in my opinion, is the ridiculousness of "auctioning off" Spectrum to the highest bidder.


Your statement "Consumers MUST" seems to be the attitude of many who support 8-VSB including the Chairman of the FCC who has issued the mandate.


Seems that I'm in good company. By "MUST", I don't mean that it has to be forced down their throat, what I mean is, for the Free-to -air OTA service to continue to be viable, there must be viewers watching it, OTA, and that means 8VSB DTV. Otherwise, what will happen is, the analog shutoff will happen anyway,(85% market penetration of DTV can probably be reached without the "help" of OTA DTV in most markets whether the "number of counted OTA households" is correct or not), some(perhaps many) previous OTA viewers will move to Sat/Cable, and OTA spectrum may just end up on the auction block.


I suggest the consumers WON'T. So far they ARE NOT.


Haven't you heard of the DTV Tuner mandate? You don't think my neighbors, why rely on analog OTA service presently, won't hook their TV up to their already existing rooftop antenna?(Almost every house has one around here).


So far they ARE NOT.


And you think this would be different if things changed(not going to happen) and we were using COFDM? Come on Bob. They'd be stuck with static while they "wait" for all the "viacel towers" to be put up that are necessary to reach their little "nook and corner", and many of them will probably be waiting a long time, if ever ...


There seems to be a populist backlash brewing against forcing things down the publics throat.


And Broadcasters throats as well. Like it or not we are BOTH in this together. Do you think I like the fact that DTV was "forced" upon us by the Government, because they wanted to auction off spectrum? Of course not! It's ridiculous! Granted, it was the Broadcasters who asked for add'l spectrum for HD "way back when", but they aren't getting anything "extra" except having to fork out the expenditures to maintain 2 Stations each during the transistion. After the transistion, all they get back is one, 6MHZ channel.

Nevertheless, regardless of what we think of the situation, we all have to make the BEST of the situation, and that is what MOST of us are doing, including for the most part, the FCC, the Broadcasters and we. YOU on the other hand, I just don't know.


Once COFDM is up and running in a few cities it will be just like the siren of low drug prices in Mexico and Canada. People are going to say "what do I have to do to get 8-VSB? Are you kidding? Who's idea was this 8-VSB anyway? Why does it not work like COFDM?". That is going to be a hard one to answer.


We'll see, but I doubt if people will be saying that, because, they DON'T CARE as long as their TV works when they sit down to watch the news or their favorite shows.

Congressional types will be ducking for cover on this one to. [/B]

That's probably why they are doing things NOW to make sure DTV works for OTA. Check out the bill introduced in Congress this week.

What will happen once the "average joe" finds out that he'll need a $15~50 Adapter for his portable TV(or, if he has a portable TV that can't even be hooked to a RF modulator and it quits working alltogheter), or the TV in the Kitchen, or his TV hooked up to an outdoor antenna? Maybe it's just the thought of something "changing" that will get people riled, and all hell will break loose, who knows.

My guess is, this is probably just one reason you see little promotion of OTA DTV. It has very little to nothing to do with the signal modulation being used.

-------------

This is really getting ridiculous. Don't you have something better to do? I know I do.

[DoubleDAZ]

Originally posted by Nitewatchman
What will happen once the "average joe" finds out that he'll need a $15~50 Adapter for his portable TV.... or the TV in the Kitchen, or his TV hooked up to an outdoor antenna?
And what about all those terrible SUV's rolling down the highway with drop-down TVs in them? Not to mention all those mega-bux motorhomes with their pull-down plasma's? Surely they all depend on OTA, don't they? :)

[robmx]

Originally posted by Nitewatchman


My guess is, this is probably just one reason you see little promotion of OTA DTV. It has very little to nothing to do with the signal modulation being used.

-------------

This is really getting ridiculous. Don't you have something better to do? I know I do.

There is lots of promotion where things work in the UK and Berlin. And lots of sales, lots of manufacturers making inexpensive receivers.

It has everything to do with the modulation IMHO.

I do have things to do. Last post till Sept.

[Nitewatchman]

Originally posted by robmx
There is lots of promotion where things work in the UK and Berlin.

Britian had many more viewers relying on OTA reception before this "DTV" thing ever came to be. In the U.S. On a whole, U.S. Broadcasters don't regularly promote their own service that is their "line of business" so to speak, relying on cable must carry rules instead for the majority of viewers. When's the last time you've seen "Over the air TV service", It's free! plastered in ads all over TV and newspapers such as is the case with Cable and Sat providers.

I highly doubt if this would change if we were using COFDM as opposed to 8VSB.

Update(had another thought): And yet, one of my local 8VSB broadcasters runs a Datacasting(Internet acceleration service) Via their Digital station for rural viewers who can't get cable ISP/DSL/etc. They promote that the service as providing "hi-tech" "wireless, hassle free", and you can get it anywhere in the viewing area/etc ... Well, they did until they used up all the possible bandwidth they could "squeeze in"(and yes, they Do HD on this same station too too).

[DoubleDAZ]

There are other differences in the UK where they have to pay an annual license fee to even watch TV in the first place. Europe also has an autoban, but does anyone really believe that would work here the way folks hog the left lane to go the speed limit? Just because something works somewhere else doesn't give me any pause at all to what we have here. One can Monday morning quarterback all day long and disagree with the decision that has been made, but all I care is that when I turn on my TV, an image pops up until I turn it off, period.