Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> I suppose that if you keep telling yourself that the LG 5th gen
> prototype was "cold fusion," you can continue to believe this fairy
> tale. For the rest of us, me anyway, this excuse of yours sounds just
> like that: an excuse. If broadcasters believe it, failure is sure to
> follow. The proverbial self-fulfilling prophecy.
For at least, a "cold fusion" experiment personifies one with dramatic
results that cannot be generally reproduce by others. We can speculate
endlessly on the reasons but that one special box at Mark Schubin's
seems to have that quality.
> Remember how sure everyone was that integrated ATSC sets would cost
> "hundreds" more than monitors? They don't, at least not in the sets that
> have to comply with the mandate. Follow the price curve as you go from
> small monitor LCDs to large integrated sets and tell me where this big
> price spike caused by the ATSC receivers is visible. I wouldn't continue
> to insist on old theories that don't hold up.
I'll grant you the lower price difference but suggest that is maybe
enabled by leaving out the higher priced "cold fusion" part.
In any event, I think small integrated receiver LCD's are now probably
available in a size that could be easily lugged into Mark's bedroom. Do
any have the LG 5'th gen tuner? Maybe some New Yorker could purchase
one, try it, and then return it if reception was bad. ;-)
- Tom
> John Shutt wrote:
>
>
>>Bert, Occam's razor. Australia has a ton of boxes. They're a
>>DVB country. Italy has tons of boxes. They're a DVB country.
>>The UK has tons of boxes, too. They are a DVB country. The
>>United States has very few boxes. They are an ATSC country.
>
>
> John, let's see. In the UK, people drive on the left. In Japan, people
> drive on the left. In Malaysia, people drive on the left. It must be
> that in all countries with 50 Hz mains people drive on the left.
>
> I suppose that if you keep telling yourself that the LG 5th gen
> prototype was "cold fusion," you can continue to believe this fairy
> tale. For the rest of us, me anyway, this excuse of yours sounds just
> like that: an excuse. If broadcasters believe it, failure is sure to
> follow. The proverbial self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> Much more plausible, instead, and staying away from silly conspiracy
> theories (even if there is some truth to them), is that in those
> European countries that have successful DTT, broadcasters have put
> together an attractive DTT package without being browbeaten into
> submission by the cable companies. Somehow, they managed to offer a
> meaningfully different service compared with the analog. And somehow,
> the cable and DBS businesses haven't prevented them.
>
> CE manufacturers see this and respond accordingly.
>
> Over here, thanks to said intimidation, the broadcasters offer over DTT
> not much more than what they offer as NTSC. And CE manufacturers see
> that too. If there is a difference, it is that DTT offers HD. So if
> you're going to buy an HDTV set, you get the built-in ATSC (no STB
> needed), and the retailer will lure you into an umbillical service to
> boot.
>
> That sounds a lot more plausible than your story. And DTT languishes.
>
> Remember how sure everyone was that integrated ATSC sets would cost
> "hundreds" more than monitors? They don't, at least not in the sets that
> have to comply with the mandate. Follow the price curve as you go from
> small monitor LCDs to large integrated sets and tell me where this big
> price spike caused by the ATSC receivers is visible. I wouldn't continue
> to insist on old theories that don't hold up.
>
> Bert
>
