[opendtv] Re: PR: Majority of New HDTVs Powered By ATI
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OpenDTV (E-mail)" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:57:41 -0500
Frank Eory wrote:
> Or maybe he means that people like the benefits of
> digital cable without having to pay extra to have
> that functionality built into their display --
> especially since STB's are evolving so rapidly that
> any STB functions built into the display will
> become obsolete long before the display will.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that this category of
customer is indeed a "niche" group. I'll bet there's
a reason why only 20 percent of cable customers is
begging for an STB these days (your number). But I
could be wrong.
STBs are evolving, but only in terms of adding new
features such as VOD, correct? That is, unless the
customer wants to subscribe to new services, for an
additional fee, his old STB still soldiers on,
right? So the same will happen with built-in
receivers. (And two-way built-in capability is next
in the cable/CE manufacturer agreements, it seems.)
My bet is that a customer who buys a new integrated
set with cable card will be very happy to be rid of
the STB. Especially when he notices the prices
dropping for these new sets, to where they were for
comparably sized NTSC sets just a couple of years
ago.
> > Note: I'm not talking about a PVR or other
> > recording device with integrated receiver in the
> > description of what an STB is.
>
> Why not? My current STB is a dual tuner HD PVR.
> Whether you call it a cable STB with integrated
> PVR or a PVR with integrated cable tuners, it's
> still a set-top box of some description.
Because that's cheating!!
I've never differentiated between TVs or recording
devices, when talking about the benefits of the
built-in ATSC/cable receiver. What makes sense for
one makes sense for the other. If you include the
recorder in your definition of the STB, you've
acknowledged that the built-in receiver is a
must at least for that product category.
In the case of DVRs and DVDRs, the recorder is not
any cheaper than most TV sets. So your concern
about rapid obsolescence of the built-in receiver
is just as valid for them as it is for the TV set.
> I also prefer to rent it from Cox rather than
> purchase it.
Well, fine, but now you're paying more too.
You've bought the recording device with only a few
months of rent. Not only that, but you can buy
exactly the recording device you want, rather than
be forced to accept what the cable company rents.
Renting might be a great psychological trick, but
it just puts the American consumer deeper in debt.
Who are we trying to fool?
Furthermore, the same holds for DBS. We know that
combination DBS/ATSC receiver design is well
understood these days, because many DBS STBs
already do this. So the only group preventing
combined DBS/cable/ATSC receivers from existing
must be the DBS folk themselves. I mean, wasn't
the cable/CE manufacturer agreement a voluntary
one between only those two groups? Who's stopping
this? Certainly not the FCC.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
