In other words, what you can't get for free over the air, you can steal using p2p. I recently re-activated my 'cable tv' account in Tijuana. That is, I got telephone and Internet from the telephone company. I don't do p2p; so it's either over the air or DVDs or the Internet for me. John Willkie -----Mensaje original----- De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Tom Barry Enviado el: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:22 AM Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Asunto: [opendtv] Re: DTT tuner design Craig Birkmaier wrote: > There is ONE stark difference. In the U.K there is support for a viable > FTA platform by the government, the television industry and the public. > There is no viable option for free TV here, unless you are willing to > accept the limited content that is offered OTA. Apparently you are, but > you are part of a dying breed of consumer. What is more to the point is > that the next generation of TV viewers are much more likely to use the > Internet for TV. My son does it all the time now, as do many other young > people I work with. I am personally willing to settle for only the limited content offered (in most cities) OTA, supplemented by various Internet sources. But even then as a cable broadband user I still find the cheap cable lifeline unencrypted QAM service a better deal for those same stations, just for the reliability. - Tom > At 3:28 PM -0400 7/5/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > >> You seem to have to go down to 15" size LCDs to see 4:3 anymore, at >> least at Best Buy. I think this is a new trend. > > > They offer a 20" 4:3 panel on the web site. But I'm not sure how recent > a trend this is. It's been happening with laptop computers for several > years and for most LCD computer displays. The beauty of LCD is that you > can cut up the large glass panels in any shape you want. > > The big problem with widescreen TVs at smaller sizes is the even smaller > size of dominant 4:3 content or the need to distort the content to fill > the screen. I strongly suspect that most consumers are buying 20" or > larger LCD panels to get something at least as large as the old set they > are replacing. > >> >>> As for what people will use sets for integrated >>> receivers for... >>> >>> The research suggests that most consumers are NOT using >>> the DTV tuners... >> >> >> But the research had no way of accounting for the newest small sets. My >> thinking is that a fair percentage of them will become secondary sets in >> households, so they could get a "higher than 15 percent" representation >> in the OTA category. Of course, as I suggested years ago, the receivers >> in these sets have to work very well for this to become true. It's >> probably more important for these small sets to have good receivers than >> it is for the big ones. > > > I guess this goes back to the debate about the number of sets that are > in use that are not connected to an umbilical service. Frankly, I cannot > see that anything is changing here. If the consumer was already using a > small set for off-air reception, then they may do the same with a new > LCD panel. But I doubt that most consumers are trying to use antennas > again. > > In fact, there is a significant difference with the new sets that makes > it less likely that the internal tuners will be used. Most small CRT > based TVs came with integrated antennas as well. I have not seen an LCD > panel with an antenna. The chances are fairly good that reception might > not work with an integrated antenna anyway. > > My daughter bought a 32" LCD set with integrated tuner. We can receive > OTA broadcasts via a cheap radio shack antenna, but it must be placed in > the window in her room to get sufficient signal margin for the reception > to be stable. Back in the family room and kitchen the signal is simply > too low to use an integrated antenna. > >> >>> Perhaps this will change if the industry actually >>> starts to promote OTA reception. That is, before they >>> move all of their most valuable content to the internet >>> and pay per view. >> >> >> The Lovelace piece Mark Aitken posted indicates otherwise, in the UK at >> least. I truly wonder whether there are as stark differences as you seem >> to think between these markets. Even if we have many here that will pay >> for the umbillical hookup, I wonder whether they are also willing to pay >> per view on a regular basis. My bet is no. My bet is that these PPV >> predictions are no more likely to be true than the ads showing teenagers >> lying around in city traffic to watch their TV shows on their cell >> phones. > > > There is ONE stark difference. In the U.K there is support for a viable > FTA platform by the government, the television industry and the public. > There is no viable option for free TV here, unless you are willing to > accept the limited content that is offered OTA. Apparently you are, but > you are part of a dying breed of consumer. What is more to the point is > that the next generation of TV viewers are much more likely to use the > Internet for TV. My son does it all the time now, as do many other young > people I work with. > > It is not a question of whether people are willing to pay for TV. That's > a done deal. The question is whether people will continue to fork out > $40 - $100 per month for an "all you can eat" service, even as they are > spending another $25-100 per month to buy/rent movies. At some point it > becomes more attractive to buy just the stuff you want, rather than > paying through the nose for stuff you don't watch. > > This has already happened for me and many other consumers in the market > for music. It is far easier, and now cheaper, to download just the stuff > I want from services like iTunes. It's just a matter of time until the > same will be true for TV. > > Regards > Craig > > P.S. I played with an iPhone yesterday. I loved it an my wife couldn't > imagine why anyone would want one. She is happy with a phone and an > iPOD. She can't imagine what she would do with e-mail and the Internet > on a mobile device. The kids get it and want it. I'm waiting for version > 2.0 and hopefully another carrier than AT&T. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > FreeLists.org > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > unsubscribe in the subject line. > > -- Tom Barry trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.