Journal Sentinal Sunday December 8

[gyoung]

I think it was a decent article.  You have to remember YOU are not the target audience for this.  Cable is still the preferred way to receive television entertainment.

I'm not saying its the best, but it is what will drive HDTV.  It's the cheapest solution for someone who isn't IN to all this high def stuff.  

I also believe that investing in tuners and such is a bit much for the sporadic TV shows that are shown.  Even TW doesn't have a good selection.  They have HBO, Showtime, NBC, ABC, and PBS.

I honestly was watching only 1 show a week in HD (Sopranos).  I don't have Showtime so that's out.  I don't seem to watch much of what's on ABC.  Of the shows that I watch on NBC, they aren't in HD.  Why isn't the Thursday night (Must See TV) in HD?  Frasier is.

The programming isn't there for the investment required to maximize the number of HD channels you can get.  

I don't consider my investment in the HD monitor a waste because we get more than enough use watching DVDs.  So it's great for that.  Until more stations are broadcasting in HD AND there is a cheaper way to distribute that to the masses, HD will be there for us the experimentors.

I wouldn't recommend HD to my parents, they don't need to be spending that kind of money on something that isn't mainstream as of yet.

[Matt Heebner]

Whether TWC is the "prefered" way for most to get HD or not is not the point. The point is/was that he should have at least mentioned the HD leader and all the programming CBS does. It's too bad that TWC doesnt carry it, but would that make for a somewhat convincing argument for an OTA STB? All you TWC HD people are missing some excellent HD programming including CSI, Everybody Loves Raymond, NCAA Football, etc.  If TWC carried CBS, I think that you might think differently about "sporadic" programming. Every night of the week something is on! I think it was his resposibility to acknowledge it.

If my parents were shopping for a TV, I would definitly atleast recommend a HDTV to them. I guess it would depend on what type of money they were planning to spend. My sister-in-law asked me to go with her TV shopping a few months ago, and I didnt even mention HDTV's. The saleguy at American actually did, and we explained about digital carrriage in 2006, and how she might want to think a little about the future. She ended up buying the 27" HD Samsung. I felt kind of fooloish cause here I thought that she would never go for a HDTV, and she ended up buying one. So anytime that someone asks me for advice on TV, I always mention HDTV's just for the simple fact that they should atleast know about them whether they decide to get on or not.

Matt

oh yea.. E.R. is also in HD Thursday night. I would say that by next season, all NBC's prime-time lineup will be in HD.

[This message has been edited by Matt Heebner (edited 12-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Matt Heebner (edited 12-12-2002).]

[mcq]

   

Originally posted by gyoung:

I think it was a decent article.

--> There were good points to this article. We all said that. However, I hope that Tim C.'s "errors and omissions" insurance is paid up because I am looking into a class action lawsuit.

You have to remember YOU are not the target audience for this.

--> If I were in Tim's shoes I woulda ran this by the more level headed of us for corrections and input. It's so obvious that he or his editor has no use for this new medium. To them it's just a "business" expense. How phony.

Cable is still the preferred way to receive television entertainment.

--> To whom??? Many Spanish folks in the city like DirectTV. 17% of all households prefer Satellite. Actually OTA is the most preferred, cause' it's free?!

I'm not saying its the best, but it is what will drive HDTV.

--> Cable... give me a break. Sports is what will drive HDTV regardless of the media. Women who seem to love ice-skating would drool if they could see it on this medium.

It's the cheapest solution for someone who isn't IN to all this high def stuff.

--> This is an idiotic statement. OTA is considerably cheaper!? Antennae were here loooonnnggggg before cable. You know, before HDTV was a dream.

I also believe that investing in tuners and such is a bit much for the sporadic TV shows that are shown.

--> I have said this before, digital TV which requires a digital tuner provides a much clearer and static-free picture than analog. This, to me, is as good, if not better than HDTV programming itself.

Even TW doesn't have a good selection. They have HBO, Showtime, NBC, ABC, and PBS.

-->So look at other alternatives OTA is FREE, and as all have said there are tons and tons of digital programming available--HDTV AND upconvert.

I honestly was watching only 1 show a week in HD (Sopranos). I don't have Showtime so that's out. I don't seem to watch much of what's on ABC. Of the shows that I watch on NBC, they aren't in HD. Why isn't the Thursday night (Must See TV) in HD? Frasier is.

-->Your example suits one person...You. If you didn't see "Band of Brothers" on HDTV, you really lost out. (IMHO that even borders on unpatriotic.) Seeing it on DVD doesn't even come close. Saving P Ryan was skads better on HDTV than on the DVD. The Badgers in the NCAA tournament TWICE were spectacular.

The programming isn't there for the investment required to maximize the number of HD channels you can get.

-->There are multiple channels of digital stuff available OTA... 4,10,12, and 58 (I am sorry. I do not count 6.) That's more channels than were available when many people (Non-pioneers) plunked down equivalent to thousands of $$$$ in 1950's and 60's for Black and White/Analog/mono TV sets (Reals "sets" of tubes.)  

I don't consider my investment in the HD monitor a waste because we get more than enough use watching DVDs. So it's great for that.

--> As it would also be great for many other people... Your point here doesn't make sense. If an HDTV monitor is great for merely DVD's, it's great!?

Until more stations are broadcasting in HD AND there is a cheaper way to distribute that to the masses,

--> Again.... WHAT???...IT's  F R E E

HD will be there for us the experimentors.

-->Are you Tim Cuprisin??

I wouldn't recommend HD to my parents, they don't need to be spending that kind of money on something that isn't mainstream as of yet.

--> My mom and her Fiance are dying to buy an HDTV RPTV. They would be disowned by me, if the wasted money on a RPTV that was not HDTV. I wonder when you "let" your folks by a microwave??


[This message has been edited by mcq (edited 12-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by mcq (edited 12-12-2002).]

[gyoung]

 

--> Again.... WHAT???...IT's F R E E

Let me know if these are free:
 http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11164158&m=1&cat=1761&scat=1763
 http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11180096&m=1&cat=1761&scat=1763

I didn't know $499 & $599 was free.  You've got a great sense of economics.  After you've spent at least a grand on the monitor you have to buy a tuner/receiver for another $300-$500.  That is a great free treat!

 

This is an idiotic statement. OTA is considerably cheaper!? Antennae were here loooonnnggggg before cable. You know, before HDTV was a dream.

I won't comment on your slander...  But as to cheaper see above.  Most people don't think a $300-$500 outlay is cheap.  Given, the accumulated cost of cable and set-top box will be greater over time, cable is still the preferred choice for TV programming in the USA.  This makes cable the best forum for HDTV to get a foothold.  Make it easy and the people will come.  That's not to say that cable won't screw it up.

 

Your example suits one person...You. If you didn't see "Band of Brothers" on HDTV, you really lost out. (IMHO that even borders on unpatriotic.) Seeing it on DVD doesn't even come close. Saving P Ryan was skads better on HDTV than on the DVD. The Badgers in the NCAA tournament TWICE were spectacular.

Personal experiences are the easiest to relate.  Now you are calling me unpatriotic.  Nice.

 

Again.... WHAT???...IT's F R E E

See above...

 

HD will be there for us the experimentors.

-->Are you Tim Cuprisin??

No. But if you have ever taken a marketing class that is where HDTV is in the product life cycle.  It will catch on, but yes we are the experimentors.  We are the fine tuners, until it is ready for mass consumption.

 

My mom and her Fiance are dying to buy an HDTV RPTV. They would be disowned by me, if the wasted money on a RPTV that was not HDTV. I wonder when you "let" your folks by a microwave??

Again with the insults.  I just know that if my parents went now to HDTV, I would be over there every minute trying to get it to work for them.  A lot a people can't even program their VCR let alone know which video in they need to choose.  It seems trival to us, but the average user would be lost.

[This message has been edited by gyoung (edited 12-13-2002).]

[This message has been edited by gyoung (edited 12-13-2002).]

[ReesR]

mcq gets the longest post award.

Tom, get it out of the closet and dust it off.  

Rees

[Kevin Arnold]

Lets push this thread back on topic and stick to reviewing Tim Cuprisin's work. Passion is good as long as we don't take it to a personal level.

[gyoung]

Agreed.

[Joseph S]

$60 x 6 months = OTA for life of warantee or device + $20 Antenna

versus

$60 x number of months cable service for service only. At 6 months, cost is equal but ownsership established on OTA. At 1 year, OTA is $360 less. At 2 year, OTA is $1080 cheaper. At 3 years it is $1800 cheaper. They've just paid for the HDTV and Decoder at 3 years. After 3 years they just keep on paying Time Warner or service ends. If you are getting service for just 2 months you have earned the cost. If you decide not to continue you can sell the OTA decoder you will make back the difference.

There's not doubt in my mind what is a true bargain. Buy a HDTV PC card and enjoy recording + OTA. This also gives you the extra cash to pay 3 months cable for Sopranos or whatever and still have money to spare. At this point the quality of OTA is superior as well.

 

I just know that if my parents went now to HDTV, I would be over there every minute trying to get it to work for them.

How is this any different from Cable? Tuner Box + TV set. If they want separate ins then label them as VCR, DVD, and HDTV. At least component inputs are color coded. I've seen some pretty strange incorrect coax hookups.  

[This message has been edited by Joseph S (edited 12-13-2002).]

[gyoung]

I stated that I understand that it may be cheaper over the long run, but you and I know that most people don't look at it that way.  Most people will look at it as a $600 now or just $60 a month.  

For example, the same thing applys in reverse for the discounts at Best Buy.  How many people do you know that say "I got $200 off for subscribing to MSN!"  Only that it turns out they are locked in at $19.99 a month for a year.  So in the end they are out $40 and have a lousy service provider.

Most people (as the people the article was targeted at) aren't as proactive when it comes to stuff like this.  That's the reality.

 

How is this any different from Cable? Tuner Box + TV set. If they want separate ins then label them as VCR, DVD, and HDTV. At least component inputs are color coded. I've seen some pretty strange incorrect coax hookups.

As far as it goes with my HDTV tuner I have to change the video to the HD signal and the audio to the HD at the same time.  Otherwise you are watching the HD picture but listening to the analog sound.  When my parents have been over here they get to the point where they turn the TV off because the are getting a picture with no audio or audio with no picture.  For a non-techie this is a headache.

[This message has been edited by gyoung (edited 12-14-2002).]

[sp44again]

Getting HD OTA is nowhere near free. It's not just $300-500 either. You need to buy an antenna also. Plus if you want other channels you need Directv or TW still. So if I rent through TW I get all the channels at once and future upgrades like HD PVR. You buy a OTA receiver now and probably will buy a better one in the future so how much more is that. I have Directv now and would rather rent then drop the bucks for a Directv HD box. Sorry for the rambling.  

By the way I thought Tom's article was pretty good for someone who hasn't been using the technology long.

[This message has been edited by sp44again (edited 12-14-2002).]

[Joseph S]

 

You need to buy an antenna also. Plus if you want other channels you need Directv or TW still.

The antenna is $9.95-$20. What other channels?   OTA nets me NBC, ABC, CBS+partial HDNET, and PBS. TWC has HBO and Showtime, but the other channels don't work so well. I'd be more than willing to keep TW longer as a second source if they would allow me not to receive all the "other" channels. You can't get HD without paying for the analog and digital P&S crap. Spend the extra money on some DVDs or DVHS.

I already have HD PVR with the HiPix at the cost of only Hard Drive space. A Time Warner PVR would be a worthless piece of equipment at a much higher monthly cost. Without the option to upgrade the Hard Drive, you'll fill it in no time. 1 Hr of HiDef is 8GB. The best deal are the old DISH Network STB that would allow recording onto DVHS of HBO/Showtime.

The only way Time Warner could keep me as a customer is to keep the rates the same as pre Jan 1, 2003 and to offer HDNET, Discovery HD, and all Locals in HD without technical glitches. Season 4 of the Sopranos is over and most likely so is my use of TW HD seeing as the pops are not getting fixed.

[This message has been edited by Joseph S (edited 12-14-2002).]

[sp44again]

Originally posted by Joseph S:
 The antenna is $9.95-$20. What other channels?     OTA nets me NBC, ABC, CBS+partial HDNET, and PBS. TWC has HBO and Showtime

I think there are a few more channels besides those to watch. I know you are hung up on HD but I watch other channels besides HD channels. The other thing about the antenna is trying to find a place to mount it that receives all the HD channels. The only HD channel dish has is HDNET. Big deal. I'm not buying a Directv HD box for that.

[mcq]

 

Originally posted by kjarnold:
Lets push this thread back on topic and stick to reviewing Tim Cuprisin's work. Passion is good as long as we don't take it to a personal level.

I feel that it is important that if you want to make a contribution to this board, especially when you believe you are making a point or an argument, you should be prepared to defend your point or abandon it.


To gyoung....

First of all, it would have been a libelous comment, not slanderous. Libel is printed, slander is spoken. Secondly, calling you an idiot which I DID NOT! may or may not be libelous, while making a statment about an idiotic argument is merly an opinion. Because of the First amendment, I have the right to make comments (idiotic or otherwise) about your comments or points. Thirdly, how is it different that I question your points, yet YOU feel that you have the right to question the intelligence of "most people." Furthermore, you, yourself called into question... "It's the cheapest solution for someone who isn't IN to all this high def stuff" when you agreed that it may not be the cheapest, just the easiest, given the level of technological/fiscal competance of the masses (my interpretation of your words.)

"I stated that I understand that it may be cheaper over the long run, but you and I know that most people don't look at it that way"

Now who is patronizing?

But getting back to the point... You made a statement, "Until more stations are broadcasting in HD AND there is a cheaper way to distribute that to the masses." I am still extremely confused. Hd is broadcast in some form on 4,6,10,12,30,58 (I cringe counting 6). That leaves 18,24,36,55. How many more stations do you need? YOU, not me, YOU used the word "distribute." The above stations who have lots of digital broadcasting and a fair amount of HD broadcasting all do so over the air (OTA). AND IT IS FREE, no matter how you slice it or dice it. It just ocurred to me, why are we making so much fuss over whether or not ANY stations are broadcasting OTA?? In your world, we do not need transmitting antennae. The above stations could merely connect via fiber right to the cable company.

I will concede that there is an initial investment for an OTA receiver. I couldn't imagine purchasing an HDTV-ready set with out considering into my budget some form of apparatus that will give me HDTV stuff. The single greatest flaw in Tim C's otherwise decent article, is that he doesn't have and won't acquire the gadgetry to comment or review on all of the HDTV stuff. And according to several people on this board, this is the guy who is guiding the inept masses. That reflects my most serious concern.  I personally spent $650 for a DTC-100 over two years ago. Like an idiot I spent lots of money when there were NO digital or HD local stations. I do not consider myself an experimentor as the medium was FAR from experimentation. I would however consider myself an earlier adopter though, but that was 2.5 years ago.

I thouroghly and humbly apologize if you (gyoung) construed my patriotic comment as an insult. This was a.) meant for the you (collective),  and b.) was intended to be sarcasm. For this, I am truly sorry.

As far as marketing classes, I could probably teach them. In graduate level marketing courses we learn that "being ready for the masses" means the market is prime for purchase. The question is, do we want a "push" or a "pull" market effort. I believe that you (gyoung) and Tim C. and others would prefer a "pull" market, i.e. you want the receiving devices  to be so cheap (and easy!?) that everybody has to have them and therfore the stations will HAVE to develop and broadcast more digital and HD material. For many of us, we are hoping for a "push" market strategy. I dare our local stations to "push" more digital content down my throat (Well my DTC-100 anyway.)
 Which of these is correct...That is the question. In a true free market economy, both will have to be in play. In this case, however, I would argue that us "push" folks have the "full faith and credit" of the US goverment, on our side. They (We the People) are legally mandating digital broadcasts because they realize that a "pull" market approach won't work.

Finally, you (gyoung) intimated that you have input into what your folks do or do not purchase. I admitted that I have some input also into what my family members purchase. I guess I was making an absurd comment to determine your criteria for technological purchases.

Bottom line, gyoung, Tim C. or any "pull" marketeers, when do you feel it will be right for the "masses" to be "smart" enough for HDTV?
     

[Todd Wiedemann]

Whoa. This topic surely has become heated.

I take issue with one comment, though.

From 'sp44again':

 

I know you are hung up on HD but I watch other channels besides HD channels.

Huh ? Being 'hung up' on HD is the reason we are here !!!

[sp44again]

 

Originally posted by Todd Wiedemann:
Whoa. This topic surely has become heated.

I take issue with one comment, though.

From 'sp44again':

 Huh ? Being 'hung up' on HD is the reason we are here !!!

I knew somebody would say something about that line. I'm just saying that who watches just HD programming? Ever hear of ESPN, Discovery, History, TechTV, E!, Comedy Central, Disney, etc, etc.