DTV OTA receiver $60.17

[robmx]

A few weeks ago COFDM OTA DTV receiver sales were running at 50,000 a week in the UK. With Christmas sales starting that number is far higher already. One reason is the price of the receivers.

UK (http://makeashorterlink.com/?A19221876)

converted to US $66.85

Considering that Dixon's has a 10% sale on everything today $60.17

Again where are our inexpensive 8-VSB SD recievers that will work with our current 300 million analog sets?

I predict that sales will average over 75,000 a week till January in the UK and 75,000 a week for the entire year 2004.

Or 3.9 million in 2004. The equivalent sales in the US 6 x 3.9 or 23.4 million in 2004.

Sales will be even higher per capita in Berlin where analog has been turned off.

Before this upsurge in sales the DTV receiver sales phenomenon in the UK was already the fastest uptake of new technology ever.

[tpetters]

As I understand it, this is NOT high definition, either in Great Britain or in Berlin.

A co-worker of mine received his satellite receiver FREE!!!! (with a one-year subscription) Of course that isn't high definition either.

Economy of scale is the force that brings these prices down. And the tuner mandate will force this economy of scale.

BTW, have you noticed the CableCo's complaining that digital cable TV is a money loser for them? Apparently installing expensive infrastructure and charging more money for a minimal improvement when few can see the full benefit isn't a money machine.

The parallels to the US OTA digital transition are obvious. We ARE chasing our tails here, but RECEPTION isn't the problem. Consumers won't buy expensive equipment (HDTV monitors) because they don't see any improvement, because broadcasters produce very little content in high definition video (most is upconverted from film or from SD videotape), because few customers can receive in HD. As content (slowly) becomes available, and more customers (slowly) buy in, the transition happens slowly.

In Europe, where cable never penetrated the market as it did in the US, the new channels available through DTV are fueling the transition. That won't work here.

Junking all the current HD tuners and broadcast equipment does NOTHING to break this cycle. In fact, it would fuel the cycle further, because many early adopters (myself included) would NOT throw good money after bad to buy new HD equipment after having the rug pulled out from under our feet. That would result in FEWER customers, which would result in FEWER programs, which would doom the whole process. No economy of scale, no inexpensive receivers, no digital transition. Q. E. D.

[robmx]

Originally posted by tpetters
As I understand it, this is NOT high definition, either in Great Britain or in Berlin.

A co-worker of mine received his satellite receiver FREE!!!! (with a one-year subscription) Of course that isn't high definition either.

Anything that comes with a one year subscription is not free in my book.

Economy of scale is the force that brings these prices down. And the tuner mandate will force this economy of scale.

The mandate and economies of scale will lower the price to $250 initially and create a market for monitors. Since everyone buying a DTV will have to pay the $250 whether they plan on using the OTA receiver or not the cost for the country of the mandate will be five times higher then current cost of receivers.

Sort of a massive involuntary tax on cable and satellite users so that 10% of the public can get a 50% break on thier OTA receiver cost.

The parallels to the US OTA digital transition are obvious. We ARE chasing our tails here, but RECEPTION isn't the problem. Consumers won't buy expensive equipment (HDTV monitors) because they don't see any improvement, because broadcasters produce very little content in high definition video (most is upconverted from film or from SD videotape), because few customers can receive in HD. As content (slowly) becomes available, and more customers (slowly) buy in, the transition happens slowly.

We disagree here. I think reception is a major part of the problem. And I think if we had receivers for HD and less expensive SD receivers we could have a "digital" transition that is even faster than what is happening in the UK.

At the present "slowly" rate of OTA DTV transition "slowly" equals 200 years.

In Europe, where cable never penetrated the market as it did in the US, the new channels available through DTV are fueling the transition. That won't work here.

True in the UK but not in Berlin. Germany has a higher cable/satellite uptake than the US. People are dropping cable for FREE OTA DTV where all they have to do is buy a receiver. And Berlin did their digital transition in less than a year (November 2002 to August 2003)

Junking all the current HD tuners and broadcast equipment does NOTHING to break this cycle. In fact, it would fuel the cycle further, because many early adopters (myself included) would NOT throw good money after bad to buy new HD equipment after having the rug pulled out from under our feet. That would result in FEWER customers, which would result in FEWER programs, which would doom the whole process. No economy of scale, no inexpensive receivers, no digital transition. Q. E. D.

The request by Sinclair, the only request for changing the DTV OTA transition, never asked that 8-VSB be voided, they asked that COFDM be allowed also. That is where broadcasters found that 8-VSB didn't work they could use COFDM.

Sinclair even said that they would replace receivers with COFDM receivers in the coverage area where they broadcast in COFDM. And since Sinclair is the broadcaster they must have thought it worthwhile to pay the price for changing their broadcast equipment to COFDM ($100,000 max).

Anyway the FCC has now allowed COFDM on channels that were auctioned and they will soon auction even more. COFDM DTV will be available in the US nationwide soon.

The vacuum will be filled. like most vacuums when a leak is allowed, with a rush.

[Freddy Basset]

That receiver's probably just cheap COFDM junk, can't even handle the interference from a little motor-scooter passing by.

And not only is HDTV nonexistent in England, some British seem quite envious of our broadcasting system:

(Posted two days ago on British uk.tech.digital-tv)


"I watched Click Online on BBC News 24 a couple of days ago and there was a short article about digital TV on, and on it they interviewed Barry Cox who's the UK Government's digital TV advisor.
He said that apparently the US wants HDTV, whereas we're happy about the picture quality we get."

"...he is probably right. The majority of the British public don't know what HDTV is, and having X number of more channels sounds more sexy."

"I've seen HDTV in the US and it knocks spots off anything I've ever seen before. I'd rather have the 5 terrestrial channels in HDTV than any numbe of satellite offerings in mediocre quality.
Here's a link to a page on a friend's site who is an engineer with a US TV station, it gives some interesting tech info on the systems in use:

www.choisser.com/broadcst.html

Ivor"

[kevinw]

Why is the comparison always a city or a country that the size of Rhode Island to the US?Anything that comes with a one year subscription is not free in my book
This sounds like cable propaganda :rolleyes:

[robmx]

Originally posted by Freddy Basset
That receiver's probably just cheap COFDM junk, can't even handle the interference from a little motor-scooter passing by.

And not only is HDTV nonexistent in England, some British seem quite envious of our broadcasting system:

(Posted two days ago on British uk.tech.digital-tv)


"I watched Click Online on BBC News 24 a couple of days ago and there was a short article about digital TV on, and on it they interviewed Barry Cox who's the UK Government's digital TV advisor.
He said that apparently the US wants HDTV, whereas we're happy about the picture quality we get."

"...he is probably right. The majority of the British public don't know what HDTV is, and having X number of more channels sounds more sexy."

"I've seen HDTV in the US and it knocks spots off anything I've ever seen before. I'd rather have the 5 terrestrial channels in HDTV than any numbe of satellite offerings in mediocre quality.
Here's a link to a page on a friend's site who is an engineer with a US TV station, it gives some interesting tech info on the systems in use:

www.choisser.com/broadcst.html

Ivor"


HDTV exist in Europe now. A satellite service is soon to offer it.

The COFDM receiver that is on sale seems to have a good reputation. The impulse characteristics of current COFDM receivers are better than current 8-VSB receivers.

The impulse problem in the UK is almost exclusively with early 1998 receivers that were not correctly desinged.

One last thing. HDTV is a resolution not a broadcast technology. COFDM is very capable of doing HDTV as is shown by Japan, Taiwan and Australia using it for HDTV.

HDTV requires that the broadcast modulation carry a minimum quantity of bits. In the arguments over COFDM and 8-VSB the 8-VSB side tried to make the number 19.34 Mbps seem like it was the magic number that was neede to handle HDTV. I would suggest that a higher number is in fact required for 1080i as is demosntrated by the problems 8-vSB has in delivering artifact free HDTV.

COFDM can deliver more bits in a 6 MHz DTV channel so if that is how you chose a modulation for HDTV the choice is COFDM. In the hearings in DC where both were demonstrated COFDM delivered HDTV at 19.76 Mbps while mobile while 8-VSB was limited to 19.34 Mbps with a more expensive directional antenna that was in a fixed and very specific location taped to a window.

And any unhappines in the UK over the lack of HDTV is with the lack of that specific resolution not being supported by a decision made by the government. It had nothing to do with the decision they made on what broadcast modualtion to use as you imply with your statement, "some British seem quite envious of our broadcasting system".

Beleive me they are envious of our decision to do HDTV not our decision to employ 8-VSB to deliver it.

[tpetters]

robmx Sinclair even said that they would replace receivers with COFDM receivers in the coverage area where they broadcast in COFDM. And since Sinclair is the broadcaster they must have thought it worthwhile to pay the price for changing their broadcast equipment to COFDM ($100,000 max). There really is SO much nonsense in your reply that it's hard to decide where to begin. Your impression of the economics of the mandate begs and pleads for analysis.

But the above quote is the most telling. Sinclair might have been willing to replace hundreds of receivers in 2000. (IMHO, a network that won't pay to power their transmitters can't be counted on to shell out the big bucks for customers) But there is no way that they will replace hundreds of thousands now. And there is less than no way that the FCC will allow 8-VSB and COFDM to become the VHF-UHF tuner problem of the 21st century. Not in 2000, and most definately not now.

[robmx]

Originally posted by tpetters
robmx There really is SO much nonsense in your reply that it's hard to decide where to begin. Your impression of the economics of the mandate begs and pleads for analysis.



Please educate me on the "nonsense".

[tpetters]

Already did, in the previous post. But for another one, you simultaneously claim (without explaination) that economy of scale will NOT reduce the price of 8-VSB receivers below $250 per unit, while those exact same economies WILL reduce the price of COFDM receivers to "$60.17" even though the overseas COFDM receivers you tout are admittedly NOT HDTV, and so cannot be mass produced for the American market any cheaper than 8-VSB.

Or when you claim that lack of product is not the issue with digital TV when the market you reside in, the biggest market in the US, still doesn't carry all of the "Big Three" networks in digital. You can't receive a station that doesn't broadcast, even with super-de-looper COFDM.

OR when you claim "HDTV exist in Europe now. A satellite service is soon to offer it." SOON isn't NOW. Satellite isnt OTA. And satellite will never have the bandwidth to deliver HDTV to local subscribers in the US, because there are too many local stations here.

Truly headspinning. I sit here as the Lorax, watching you embarrass yourself explaining why everyone needs a COFDM "thneed", so that you can chop down the existing HDTV forest.