On May 31, 2013, at 4:30 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You were right originally too, though. That's the point. The CEA *did* oppose > the "tuner mandate." Leaving little doubt in my mind who was lining their > pockets. Take a look at this again, from 2003: > > http://www.tvtechnology.com/exhibitions-&-events/0109/court-upholds-fcc-tuner-mandate/188198 The article reveals nothing about who was lining who's pockets. So who was lining their (the CEA) pockets? The MVPDs? Not likely, as the CEA had long held the position that their members should be able to compete in the STB business, and/or build integrated MVPD tuners in new TVs. In reality it was more about competing in the STB business, as any integrated module would need to be interchangeable among all of the different modulation and compression schemes in use on the various MVPD systems then AND today. The compression system eventually became standardized ( although the DBS systems now use both MPEG-2 and h.264); but modulation is still variable based on the variety of approaches used by DBS, Cable and fiber. So if it was not the MVPDs, was it the CEA member companies? Some of these companies benefitted from the tuner mandate as they were part of the MPEG-LA patent pools. But the CEA opposed the tuner mandate, so any support would have to have come from members who were not part of the patent pool? Could it have been broadcasters? Highly doubtful, as most broadcasters were less than enthusiastic about the DTV transition in the first place, and drug their heels as long as they could. The only conclusion I can reach is that Much of this noise is just that - just a bit of cover to use when the politicians and regulators start to make noise. > >> As for profiting from the inclusion of an ATSC tuner, there is no >> "there" there. The cost for the requisite chip may be relatively >> low today, but it is encumbered by very large royalties. > > Doubtful, to say the least. That fear mongering never panned out. Royalties > and all the rest amounted to insignificance by 2007, when we compared the > prices of equivalent monitors and TVs at the time. And if the "mandate" had > occurred from the start, as it should have done, the "insignificance" would > have happened earlier on. This is nonsense. The cost of the royalties has not come down over these years, while the cost of the tuner implementation has come down. But far more important, consider how much the cost of HDTVs has come down since 2007. Consider this from a 2007 New York Times article: "Consider the buyer who future-proofed a TV purchase five years ago. In 2002, the average selling price for a 50-inch HDTV was about $8,900, according to the research firm Pacific Media Associates. Fujitsu had a $15,000 high-definition set that was unable to display today’s 1,080p resolution. It had inputs for S-video, composite and component cable to move audio and video signals from game consoles, VCRs or DVD players. But it lacked a place to plug an HDMI, or high definition multimedia interface. "HDMI, the latest standard, is a single cable that can carry uncompressed video and audio from a tuner, DVD player, digital video recorder or other source to a high-definition TV. Consumers can get those features even on today’s bargain-brand sets. Vizio’s $2,200 52-inch L.C.D. TV, for example, is packed with features that were not on the market a few years ago. The 1,080p set has four HDMI inputs and a screen that is resistant to burn-in and glare; both features were unavailable on any large screen TV a few years ago." That Vizio 52" TV for $2200 in 2007 was among the cheapest on the market. Today you can buy their top of the line 55" LED, 3D, 120 Hz model for $899. Clearly there was plenty of room in the pricing in 2007 to hide the tuner and royalties. Today, hardly ANYONE is making any money on HDTVs; except the companies in the MPEG-LA patent pool. > You seem to forget how digital OTA TV was a best-kept secret in those days. > The broadcasters and just about everyone else involved, except the FCC, > seemed hell-bent to keep it that way. So the public wasn't about to protest > against a problem they didn't even know was going to exist. Eventually, they > did pick up interest, but that more like June 12, 2009, rather than the > blissful ignorance they were made to enjoy, by all the players, back in 2003 > when the FCC finally took action. I don't know about it being a secret, but you are absolutely correct that hardly anyone was "investing" to get the new standard off the ground. But let's be honest here. The broadcasters started the whole HDTV transition thing to protect "THEIR SPECTRUM." Perhaps you remember the discussions on this list about how long it would take to turn off NTSC broadcasts. Most broadcasters believed that they would never be forced to go digital and turn of NTSC. But in 2005 Congress set a deadline of February 2009, which was later extended to June 2009. In reality HDTV was not a big secret at all. Thanks to the MVPDs, it became a huge enticement to subscribe after ESPN and other cable networks started HDTV broadcasts in 2002/2003. Even more import, however, was the introduction of SD-DVD in 1995. This was how HDTV was introduced to the masses - i.e widescreen home theater. FOTA broadcasting was one of the last major infrastructures to actually go HD, except in the largest markets. >> It is the younger generation that is hooked on the glamour and >> glitz of the entertainment industry. > > True, but at the same time, cable cutters are predominantly in the "under 45" > (but out of the parents' house) age group. So something has changed. Problem is Bert, there are not that many cable cutters…yet. Last year was the first that there was a net decrease in MVPD subscribers - a robust 0.4% decline. Actually more of these folks (about 0.7%) cut their broadband connection than cable (0.4%) http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2419743,00.asp The article states that these folks are now using public Wi-Fi hot spots and in some cases cellular data. This strongly suggests that some of the declines are related to the weak economy/job market, not to a change in attitude about the MVPDs. Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.