[opendtv] Re: News: DTV Boxes Could Cost $1 Billion
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:44:25 -0400
I realize that HDTV as a theoretical all or nothing digital cliff. But
in my own experience it instead dies gradually by increasing frequency
of break-ups caused by atmospheric conditions, trees, passing vehicles,
gremlins, and low flying hawks.
So your hypothetical football viewers may still be watching and cursing
as the picture comes and goes at (theoretically) the worst possible moments.
- Tom
Eory Frank-p22212 wrote:
>>From: "Dale Kelly" <res0xtey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:37:09 -0700
>
>
>>>Give them a converter box and they can continue using that old NTSC
>>>set until it dies. If they buy a new TV with an integrated ATSC
>>>receiver, their problem is solved and they don't need a government handout.
>
>
>>That was understood and makes sense. My concern is to assure, as best as
>>practical, that the DTV box provide reception equal to, or better than, NTSC
>>and a statement to that effect from Motorola would be helpful.
>
>
> "Reception equal to, or better than, NTSC" is never going to be true for all
> the people all the time, even with the most perfect DTV receiver that one can
> conceive. We've been through all this many times -- the problem of the
> 'digital cliff,' the FCC DTV Planning Factor basis of 'DTV reception wherever
> Grade 3 NTSC reception is possible,' etc.
>
> The biggest problems I see with reception 'guarantees' are (1) VHF to UHF
> transition, which will require some OTA viewers to install new antennas, (2)
> DTV ERP and (3) comparisons of DTV to NTSC where NTSC is worse than Grade 3.
>
> This last one is especially difficult. For example, how many people will
> watch a very snowy NTSC broadcast of high-value content (like a football
> game), if that is the best they can get? You can't expect such a consumer to
> find any comfort in the fact the he "just missed" having perfect DTV
> reception by only 1 or 2 dB, when he's looking at a blank screen. On the
> other hand, he will get perfect DTV video on other channels or in other
> reception conditions where NTSC was far less than perfect. From a reception
> perspective -- as perceived by individual consumers -- not by engineers
> taking measurements -- some things will be better, but some will be worse.
>
> DTV is *not* equal to NTSC, and DTV reception will never equal NTSC
> reception, just as apples will never equal bananas. You could say that with
> advanced receivers, with stations at full power, etc., that for most people,
> most of the time, DTV reception will be better than NTSC reception. But that
> still doesn't help the guy who misses it by 1 dB on the day of the big game,
> who wishes he could still receive the snowy NTSC version rather than nothing
> at all.
>
>
>>Many of those refusniks do live in poorer urban environs and I assume there
>>will be a backlash should current reception not be replicated.
>
>
> There will be a backlash for many reasons, but I think reception issues will
> be far down on the list.
>
> -- Frank
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Other related posts:
