----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Thanks Joseph for guiding your costumers about their options of monitor vs. integrated.
Your comment of "Manufacturers have the option of making monitors, or making self contained devices
to receive pictures (TVs, of course). Customers have the option to but either..."
Actually is exactly the opposite. Neither one has the option anymore, manufacturers are mandated to
go 100% integrated in short term planned phases, and consumers will soon have no monitors available
to make a choice for what they need.
Do not take me wrong, I believe that a TV, any TV, should be able to tune the OTA system for which
it was designed, so I am all for the practical feature of integration.
But the economic conditions are not there yet for the tuner inclusion to be considered an
inexpensive feature that could be mandated as for example, a next to nothing NTSC tuner chip on a
$30 VCR.
In order to support mandates of that kind there should have been set (years ago) an industry wide
commitment to the manufacturing and the implementation of large volume and low cost tuner parts, and
that low cost transferred to the consumer in the short term. First they should give the consumer
integrated sets at a reasonable extra cost over a monitor, then mandate anything you want.
Although integrated tuners are not exactly the same cost of a HD-STBs they are actually following a
similar expensive trend.
Since I started analyzing the HD-STB market in 1998, there is a pattern of new models that
maintained the price up, some come with updated software, new digital connections, DVR capability,
etc. We started in 1998 having DSS HD-STBs for example on the range of $800; after 7 years they
should be in the under the $100 range as a stand-alone-unit, and they are not.
Additionally there are some experts (one recently wrote a blob for the mag) that recommend to buy an
integrated set because that way one TV input connection would be released for other HD components.
Although that is true, no explanation is given for satellite or bi-directional cable subscribers.
Neither was mentioned the risk of a failing tuner within a 300 pound TV (and we all know the track
record of how moody HD-STBs are, when they work), neither was mentioned the potential cost of an
in-home service call due to a tuner, which otherwise could be as easy as replacing/upgrading a STB,
for free from the cable company; how do we upgrade a uni-directional integrated CableCARD tuner to a
bi-directional operation when available?, we can not, change the TV or get (pay for) a separate box.
I know that there is a lot of work done in the industry to make possible the cable agreements, but
there is no sensitivity to how phased/self replacing implementations actually affect the consumer,
to mention a few:
a) unscrambled integrated cable tuners, later to uni-directional CableCARD, next to bi-directional
CableCARD,
b) connectivity from component analog to 1394 to DVI to HDMI,
c) content protection with D-theater/DTCP/HDCP/13 systems for broadcast flag,
If we do a search of how many HD-STBs failures vs. how many HDTV failures consumers had since 1998,
reported in forums like AVS for example, it would not show a pretty picture for tuners, and the
transmission standard still the same.
Experts should provide recommendations covering the subject properly, the consumer is the one that
has to make the decision, the expert should facilitate that process, and the government should stay
away from mandates when they can not make the tuner market economically ready in time for the
consumer that is footing the bill with no options.
One interesting matter that recently involved the FCC was that they were declared without authority
to impose how manufacturers should build their equipment in compliance with the broadcast flag, but
they were not (yet) declared without authority to impose parts in the same equipment, especially
when the plan is so costly to the consumers. I wonder were the line is drawn regarding their
authority over decisions that should be left to manufacturers and the market, not to mention the
consumer.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Joseph Azar
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 10:15 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: FCC Moves Up Deadline
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
I agree, it has use for community communication. The price of HD tuners
should become quite cheap in the future, regardless of what anyone says now.
When we can have laptops that do more than $50,000 computers 5 years ago,
and at $1000 or less, what is there really to making a chipset that will do
the job at a low cost? TV tuners (NTSC) now are dirt cheap, wholesaling for
$8-20, according to parts mags I get. Yet 40 years ago TV tuners were about
the same, meaning expensive then.
So what is holding an inexpensive chip back? Quantity? Lack of standards?
Changing standards? What is it. I just don't buy the argument of these
things having to be expensive, especially looking at all the various chips
made today for all sorts of processes, and how prices have dropped on them
quickly after a couple of years on the market.
As to whether all should subsidize a few, that is moot. Manufacturers have
the option of making monitors, or making self contained devices to receive
pictures (TVs, of course). Customers have the option to but either. Cable
and satellite only need a monitor to display their product. The other 15%
need a tuner. Maybe, some buyers want the ability for OTA like I do,
especially as it is a much better picture in my market. Or maybe they do not
know that they can save a few bucks with just a monitor if they never expect
to use an antenna for OTA. Or maybe the mfgs. and sales people are just too
damned lazy to inform the public about all this (my customers are quite well
informed always by my staff, helping us to lately sell many plasmas). It is
the usual buyer beware situation as customers have got to take time to look
around, not just take the BB or Tweeter salesman's word for everything.
Regardless, with all the choices, what's the real problem here?
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Wade Brown
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 11:37 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: FCC Moves Up Deadline
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
6/11/2005 10:25am ct
Rodolfo,
You'll notice I did not capitalize "chinese".
You are, as usual, completely correct regarding the number of
people who receive their signals via OTA, but that isn't the point. In the
event there were a local or national emergency where the only way to
receive a signal were OTA, then one could rig a clothes hanger or something
and get the signal IF one had a digital tuner.
That's not as far out as you may think. I live in the south, but
about 3 years ago we had a cold-storm so bad that all the electricity in my
city of 125,000, and I do mean ALL, was out for almost a week. Those of us
who were able to setup generators usually couldn't hook them directly into
the house wiring so we had to select which items to run long cords to...
such as the refrigerator and some heaters. I also plugged in the TV to get
bulletins. We could not get cable because all it's lines were down (This
was a hell of an ice storm). Finally, when water gave out, I packed up my
98 year old mom and drove 70 miles to another city (there was no
electricity along the entire route) where I found 1 hotel room in a town of
over 250,000 and where we could sleep well and get a decent meal. They
kicked us out for some damn football game, but by that time we were able to
return, with electricity.
That OTA was vital to our survival because we could find out where
to get gas and food.
Such an emergency could happen to anyone, natural or unnatural,
and for a lot longer period of time. It sort of wakes you up to the
vulnerability of our technology.
Best,
Robert
At 02:38 PM 6/10/2005, you wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Robert,
>
>Impressive introduction. As I am at my knees I am covering my head as
>well after daring to write a
>bit of opinion/critique in my boring world of facts and research, which I
>tend to convince myself
>people can make better use of it.
>
>I would like to ask permission to use your "$600 toilet lids in jet
>fighters" very appropriate
>definition when referring to tuners into integrated sets,
>
>Since I am married to a beautiful Chinese lady I rather not comment about
>the Chinese tortures you
>mention, but I frankly believe that our HDTV torture system is quite an
>establishment.
>
>Regarding the emergency reasoning you mentioned to justify tuners,
>considering that only about
>10-15% of TV viewers actually use an antenna to get their primary signals,
>the remaining majority
>use cable and satellite, I suppose that you can propose to the FCC to also
>mandate that each of the
>other 85% HDTV owners "must" pay for the installation of an UHF/VHF
>antenna so they could use it
>once to watch the government explanation of why their bodies are breaking
>apart in the middle of a
>radiation wave.
>
>Sorry I could not resist, I should now go back to my oracle corner as you
>said and stay away from
>opinion.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>Robert Wade Brown
>Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 11:16 AM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Fwd: Re: FCC Moves Up Deadline
>
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>6/10/2005 10:11am ct
>
>Rodolfo,
>
> As you are aware, when reading your comments on anything I
>normally cover my head, get on my knees and bow prostrate as if hearing it
>from an oracle.
>
> However, ignoramus that I am, and admitting that I have no basis
>except "common sense", which a dangerous guideline to use; I do respond.
>
> I think we all can agree that the cost of the components of the
>digital tuner are not that great. I mean, we're not dealing with
>Kryptonite here.
>
> Next, if the tuner were a set-wide mandate instead of this
chinese
>torture of different dates with partial implementation, manufacturers would
>have reduced the cost of the turner to something close to cigarette money
>(apologies) by now, and I don't mean the boats.
>
> TV set manufacturers want to sell these things and they are not
>going to let something like the cost of a turner keep them from it.
>
> I dare not go on and risk further humiliation in explaining what
I
>do not know enough about, other than to say, digital tuners are like $600
>toilet lids in jet fighters. The price keeps going up when you want to
>find an excuse for what you are spending.
>
> One last thing I do know. It is foolish national policy for the
>government to establish a new television system without concerning itself
>with whether or not people can receive the signal without having to have
>anything other than an uncoded wireless connection. This is particularly
>true considering homeland security issues. As a country, we have kept our
>heads in the sand too long and made ourselves too vulnerable to attacks
>from various real enemies. Should the time ever come when we need to
>gather as a nation and our more elaborate systems of satellites and cable
>fail us, we should still be able to get a signal from somewhere over the
>air, at least in an emergency. That's why internal tuners are so
>important, even if we forget it sometimes.
>
>Best,
>Robert
>
>
> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:
[email protected]>
> >List-ID: <hdtvmagazine_tips.ilovehdtv.com>
> >List-Archive:
<http://ilovehdtv.com:8100/Lists/hdtvmagazine_tips/List.html>
> >Reply-To: "HDTV Magazine" <
[email protected]>
> >Sender: "HDTV Magazine" <
[email protected]>
> >To: "HDTV Magazine" <
[email protected]>
> >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:13:17 -0400
> >From: "Rodolfo La Maestra" <
[email protected]>
> >Reply-to: <
[email protected]>
> >X-Original-Message-id:
> ><
[email protected]>
> >Subject: Re: FCC Moves Up Deadline
> >X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:94.5022
> >C:99.5902 )
> >X-pstn-settings: 2 (0.5000:0.5000) s gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c
> >X-pstn-addresses: from <
[email protected]> [2923/123]
> >
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >Regarding the discrepancy in mentioned earlier, of the 25-35 inches range
> >(originally approved in
> >2002) with recent articles that mentioned that range as 25-36, I have
> >verified that the 25-35 range
> >is still correct (as it is on my reports), the next level was 36 and
higher.
> >
> >The recent articles of the press are very loosely written and incorrect
in
> >including the 36 inches
> >on the range (a range that has different dates), but there is a reason,
> >even the FCC is inconsistent
> >with their own documents and resolutions, they themselves made the error
> >of misstating the range
> >from 25 to 36 on the recent documents.
> >
> >On reading some of the material I came across some interesting data:
> >
> >a) Some FCC documents provide quotes of integrated TVs costing between
> >$100 and $200 more, which as
> >I mention before the actual experience is at least above the $400 MSRP.
> >
> >b) The FCC documents also mentioned that the plan to mandate tuners was
> >counting with consumers
> >paying for the extra cost of tuners within integrated sets as a wash when
> >not getting the break of
> >up to $800 price reduction compared to the cost of previous models. In
> >other words, manufacturers
> >maintained the cost of a HDTV from one year to the next and tossed the
> >tuner into the newer model,
> >rather than offering reduced prices of up to $800 and give the option to
> >the consumer, which would
> >certainly had the potential of motivating mass purchases of newer and
> >cheaper monitors and
> >accelerate the transition by the lower cost to consumers.
> >
> >As a consumer I would have preferred to let me handle how I spend those
> >$800, either as a tuner
> >inside a TV because I need it and dislike seeing STBs and cables, or as I
> >please to spend that money
> >if I do not need the tuner, as a satellite subscriber or a bidirectional
> >cable subscriber requiring
> >a STB regardless.
> >
> >Mandates must be carefully planned and accurately consider the
> >cost/benefit of the people that foots
> >the cost. Miscalculated mandates should be footed by the incompetents by
> >not been allowed to have
> >another public job, unfortunately we are still paying their salaries with
> >our tax dollars, in
> >addition to paying considerably more for the same HDTVs.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:26 PM
> >To: HDTV Magazine
> >Subject: Re: FCC Moves Up Deadline
> >
> >
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >Jason,
> >
> >Agree with you, the information as presented in the article contributes
to
> >confusion.
> >
> >Original mandate (my summarization in the 2003 report, page 6):
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> >"Under the five-year phased-in guidelines DTV tuners are to be added to
50
> >percent of sets measuring
> >36 inches and larger by July 1, 2004, and 100 percent by July 1,
> >2005. After that, 50 percent of
> >sets measuring 25 inches to 35 inches are to add DTV tuners by July 1,
> >2005, and 100 percent by July
> >1, 2006. The rest are to conform by July 1, 2007."
> >
> >
> >Updated mandate (quoted from this article):
> >------------------------------------------
> >"...require that all medium-sized televisions, those with screens from 25
> >to 36 inches, be capable
> >of receiving both digital and traditional analog signals by March 1, four
> >months earlier than the
> >commission had decreed three years ago. Regulators also retained a
> >requirement that half of all new
> >mid-size televisions have the capability by July 1. The commission also
> >proposed moving the
> >deadline for all small TVs --
> >those 13 to 24 inches -- to have digital tuners to the end of 2006,
rather
> >than the July 1, 2007,
> >deadline the regulators set in 2002.
> >
> >
> >Actual differences:
> >-----------------
> >The March 1 is for 2006 (four months earlier than the original July 1
> >2006), for 100% of the sets on
> >that size. The 50% deadline of July this year remains.
> >
> >Regarding the sets under 25 inches the change advances the deadline 6
> >months (from July 1 2007 to
> >Dec 31 2006).
> >
> >I did not have the chance to verify the discrepancy of "25-35 inches" of
> >the original vs. "25-36
> >inches" of the update, I believe the information I had from the original
> >mandate was the correct
> >one.
> >
> >
> >One interesting comment was the one from the retailers that were ordering
> >more tuneless HDTVs,
> >confirming the same I have been saying for the last 3 years, tuners are
> >not cheap enough to be
> >pushed down the throat to consumers that might not need them. In fact
the
> >average of extra cost on
> >the announced 2005/6 models was well above $400 more than their monitor
> >versions.
> >
> >But consumers would not be able to compare and realize any longer because
> >monitors are disappearing
> >from the new model lines to comply with the 100% of the FCC mandate on
> >each size range. The
> >statements issued in some articles sometimes offer numbers of $50-$100
> >tuners, even coming from
> >members of our misinformed Congress, those numbers are not supported by
> >factual statistics of the
> >market out there.
> >
> >A variety of issues contribute to the current situation, such as, a) the
> >mandates for earlier dates
> >when the economies of scale had no reach logical points for mass
> >impositions of tuners, b) tuner
> >features many people might not need, c) the misleading articles of cheap
> >tuner prices that are
> >obviously not there in the new models, d) the additional large push for
> >the introduction of Cable
> >CARD tuners into HDTVs with "only unidirectional" capabilities that would
> >total about 30 million
> >purchases by the time bi-directional is implemented (a few years in the
> >making, if it ever gets
> >implemented), to name a few, is a major drain of consumer dollars that
> >decision makers in the
> >government and the industry are not being held accountable as they
should.
> >
> >Sometimes I am surprised that HDTV has the current consumer acceptance
> >when they were introduced
> >with so many miscalculations, such as tentative/temporary features,
> >connectivity, copy protection,
> >recording/networking restrictions, resolution, etc., and decision makers
> >believe they can resolve
> >all the mess they created by just imposing dates and mandating what many
> >of them can not buy or can
> >not understand.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> >
[email protected]
> >Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 1:16 PM
> >To: HDTV Magazine
> >Subject: Re: FCC Moves Up Deadline
> >
> >
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >Hmm I don't quite get it. They say "march 1" but what year? Then they
> >say all 25-36" tv's (and call them Medium sized), then say HALF of mid
> >sized...
> >
> >Jason Burroughs
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
> >Of Hugh Campbell
> >Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:11 AM
> >To: HDTV Magazine
> >Subject: FCC Moves Up Deadline
> >
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >The FCC has moved up the deadline for the manufacture of TV's capable of
> >receiving digital signals.
> >Full story below:
> >
> >Hugh Campbell
> >
> >
> >"FCC moves of digital TV deadline
> >
> >
> >
> >WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal regulators on Thursday moved up the deadlines
> >for manufacturers to make
> >popular, mid-sized television sets capable of receiving digital signals.
> >
> >Digital, TV's next-generation technology, provides sharper images and
> >more programming options.
> >
> >The Federal Communications Commission voted 4-0 to require that all
> >medium-sized televisions, those
> >with screens from 25 to 36 inches, be capable of receiving both digital
> >and traditional analog
> >signals by March 1, four months earlier than the commission had decreed
> >three years ago. Regulators
> >also retained a requirement that half of all new mid-size televisions
> >have the capability by July 1.
> >
> >The commission also proposed moving the deadline for all small TVs --
> >those 13 to 24 inches -- to
> >have digital tuners to the end of 2006, rather than the July 1, 2007,
> >deadline the regulators set in
> >2002. That proposal will be voted on later, after a period of public
> >comment.
> >
> >The lack of digital-capable television sets has been a major impediment
> >to Congress' tentative
> >deadline of December 2006 to complete the transition from traditional
> >analog TV signals to digital.
> >The 1997 law setting that deadline permits it to be extended in any
> >market until 85 percent of the
> >homes have a digital TV.
> >
> >"We need to push the transition to its conclusion as expeditiously as
> >possible, said Commissioner
> >Kathleen Q. Abernathy.
> >
> >The Consumer Electronics Association and Consumer Electronics Retailers
> >Coalition argued that the
> >transition to digital television has actually been slowed by having a
> >July 1 deadline for half the
> >medium-sized TVs to have digital capability.
> >
> >They said retailers, expecting consumers to buy more non-digital
> >televisions because they're less
> >expensive, have been ordering more of those increasingly scare models
> >from manufacturers and less of
> >the more expensive, digital-ready models.
> >
> >Television manufacturers and retailers supported the petition, while
> >broadcasters opposed it. The
> >National Association of Broadcasters said eliminating the 50 percent
> >requirement would delay the
> >transition to digital TV by guaranteeing the sale of more televisions
> >that receive only analog
> >signals.
> >
> >Digital signals don't have "snow" or interference associated with
> >traditional analog transmissions.
> >Digital also allows broadcasters to offer sharper, movie-theater quality
> >pictures available as
> >high-definition television. To see those eye-popping pictures, however,
> >viewers will need a
> >high-definition television set, or HDTV."
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> >same day) send an email to:
> >
[email protected]
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
> >day) send an email to:
> >
[email protected]
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
> >day) send an email to:
> >
[email protected]
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
> >day) send an email to:
> >
[email protected]
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected] 
