Good to seem some figures, Dennis. If this is truly a study, don't you need to account for the margin of error? Last time I checked, it was nationally around 2%. So, your 14% figure is somewhere between 12 and 16%. IIRC, LA's margin of error as stated by Nielsen is a bit bigger . I did a quick analysis some years back. The independent stations in San Diego may have had low prime-time ratings (a market more than 88% cable/satellite), but more than a third of their viewership was among that small sliver. John Willkie _____ From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Haarsager, Dennis Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 7:49 AM To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [opendtv] Re: Fewer than 2 Million have OTA DTV in US I just completed a study of OTA HH in the US using data from Nielsen Media (which you can find market-by-market under the research tab on the TVB site) and the FCC, updating one from three years ago. Like most such studies, the In-Stat estimate of 13% fails to account for the roughly 1% of HH that subscribe to both wired cable and ADS (largely DBS), so the "OTA exclusives" should be 14%. It also does not account for a larger but unknown number "OTA supplementals," those in ADS households who use OTA for local channels or for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. sets in their home. The OTA exclusives number has fallen nearly 4 million households since the earlier study (almost entirely due to DBS growth fueled by local-into-local), but that still leaves sizable OTA-exclusive numbers. Los Angeles has 20.6% OTA exclusives -- 1,139,000 homes. Harlingen-Weslaco-Brownsville-McAllen TX has 37.9%, El Paso TX-Las Cruces NM 32.7%, and Boise ID 30.8% OTA exclusives. A complete chart of the market-by-market numbers is linked to a blog posting I made summarizing this at http://technology360.typepad.com/technology360/2006/12/estimating_tv_o.html . I'm GM of two PBS stations in Washington State, and therefore definitely have a dog in this fight, but to the point of Bob's quote from Chairman Powell, there is a public policy element to this that goes to the economic viability of free OTA television. In a world with dying newspapers and an increasing spread of economic circumstances among our country's residents, the idea of some source other than paid satellite-fed TV seems to be worth protecting. Research on the public television side has shown that the economic value of OTA households is *way* larger to stations than that of cable homes, so presumably that's the case for commercial stations as well. Bob's long-time criticism of ATSC has been spot-on (a decade of DTV has gone by and I just bought my first ATSC set-top box, a 5th-gen chip Samsung, that can get Spokane stations 60 miles from my home). It may very well be too late to salvage free OTA television, but that's what we're protecting. Dennis ________________________ Bob Miller writes: Less Than 2 Million OTA Digital Users http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/hd-ota-viewers-1221/ That means less than 1.8% of the 110 million US households are receiving OTA DTV after NINE years. Wildly optimistic IMO. A high percentage of those CAN receive OTA DTV but RELY on cable or satellite. That is they have earlier attached an antenna but don't use it or seldom use it now. How many RELY on OTA DTV? Maybe .5% IMO. Real die-hards. OTA DTV is becoming a backup system for a select few who even know it exist. Just in case another Katrina kills cable and satellite. In the meantime the UK is at 75% of DTV penetration and they actually know they have OTA receivers in the UK because they freely purchased them to receive OTA. As former Chairman Powell said "What are we protecting?" Bob Miller