# SDV: Symptom Of Useless Channels Or Bandwidth Savior?



## qz3fwd (Jul 6, 2007)

So, it seems that the need/desire for some cable companies to implement SDV is a result of several possible market/regulatory failures:

0. With some/many cable companies elimenating analog altogether, is there really a need for SDV????

1. Bundling of channels into packages. Most consumers only watch a small subset of the channels they pay for, and therefore subsidize the small minority of viewers watching the "others". Ala Carte would kill off quickly those "other" channels or the folks which actually watch them would have to fund the development of them. OTOH the programmers would have to survive on the income from the subset of the market which opts to actually pay for their content. If there are that few people actually watching the channels on SDV, then those channels would likely not be financially viable if left to fend for themselves? Maybe the FCC should let a free market determine which channels survive or not & ban SDV altogether?

2. Deterrent by the cable companies for consumers to use their own hardware and not lease cable company provided devices. In other words, make it as painfull as possible to discourage consumers from owning their own hardware. You know-send out scarry misleading letters to consumers that they will lose service if they dont lease cable company provided STB's/DVR's.

3. Unwillingness of cable operators to invest in and maintain their networks. Lack of any real competition in most locales allows the cable companies to sit back, constantly raise prices, and treat subscribers with contempt all the while taking forever to enhance their networks. The use of SDV is a symptom of the cheap way out of this situation.

Any others I missed?

Alternatively, is SDV the savings grace for the cable companies that will provided an almost unlimited selection of channels? Isnt SDV basically identical to services like netflix/amazon except it is served over a network only accessible to the cable companies? What happens to a channel which becomes too popular on SDV and starts using too much bandwidth? Does this channel then get moved to a regular linear always on channel? For example, if there are 500,000 subscribers watching a SDV channel at the same time, would it not be more efficient to move the transport stream to non-SDV? I mean 500,000 x 12 mbps bandwidth versus 12 mbps to everyone in the regular mux? Maybe I misunderstand SDV?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

qz3fwd said:


> For example, if there are 500,000 subscribers watching a SDV channel at the same time, would it not be more efficient to move the transport stream to non-SDV? I mean 500,000 x 12 mbps bandwidth versus 12 mbps to everyone in the regular mux? Maybe I misunderstand SDV?


No, you misunderstand SDV. With SDV, all the channels are transmitted over fiber from the headend to the node. At the node, however, only the switched digital channels requested by a subscriber are "turned on." When they are turned on, they are turned on to all homes connected to that node.

It's not a unique "unicast" stream for each subscriber; it is a broadcast stream for everyone on the node. In other words, it's either 12 MBps, or nothing.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

How many subscribers are usualy connected to one node?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Both really, but heavier to the bandwidth problem.

My observation, is at this time, providers are going to SDV to virtually add bandwidth, or removing analog to add more digital channels.

SDV is not like Netflix/Amazon. The VOD service most providers offer os a more apt analog to online content. SDV, BTW, use the same platform as VOD, except SDV has "live" channels, rather than locally stored content.

As for if a channel becomes popular enough, they will move it off SDV, possibly pulling 
channels off linear cable to make room.

ETA: Loadstar has the fundamentals of SDV. If one terminal on your node selects an SDV channel and it gets switched in, anybody else that chooses to select that channel at the same time, will tune that same placement, which will stay as long as somebody is reasonalby tuned to that channel.


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

pteronaut said:


> How many subscribers are usualy connected to one node?


The number could vary widely from a few hundred to over a thousand.

A well designed system will be determined mostly by the number of broadband subscribers, not necessarily by video subscribers. Less than 500 broadband subscribers is a good number, any more and the provider should be looking into doing a node split. My particular node has just less than 200 broadband subscribers.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> No, you misunderstand SDV. With SDV, all the channels are transmitted over fiber from the headend to the node.


Apparently you are the one who has no a flawed understanding of SDV. This is completely false. First of all, the fiber node is nothing but a media converter witth an amplifier. (Well, actually at least two media converters and typically several amplifiers.) It has no swithing capabilities, at all. The switching occurs at the headend or hubsite.



LoadStar said:


> At the node, however, only the switched digital channels requested by a subscriber are "turned on."


Once again, false. It's not a matter of turning anything on. The carriers are fixed. The bitstreams, however, are switched by a host controler.



LoadStar said:


> When they are turned on, they are turned on to all homes connected to that node.


If you mean that every home on the node receives the same information, then that is correct.



LoadStar said:


> It's not a unique "unicast" stream for each subscriber; it is a broadcast stream for everyone on the node. In other words, it's either 12 MBps, or nothing.


I don't know where you got that number. Each QAM delivers 38Mbps. Some number of channels share that bandwidth. This is true whether the QAM is SDV or linear.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

Is there an easy way for me to tell how many broadband subscribers are on my node?

You could say that bundling channels into packages means that one or two desired channels in that package subsidize the other channels. In the same way you could say one or two desired programs on a channel subsidizes the rest of the programs on that channel -You have to purchase the channel to get the programs you want.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

qz3fwd said:


> So, it seems that the need/desire for some cable companies to implement SDV is a result of several possible market/regulatory failures:


Nope, not even a little bit.



qz3fwd said:


> 0. With some/many cable companies elimenating analog altogether, is there really a need for SDV????


Is there a need for TV at all? Television is most certainly a luxury, and could be eliminated altogether without a fundamental failure of any critical services. The demand for TV services is growing rapidly, however.



qz3fwd said:


> 1. Bundling of channels into packages.


That has nothing to do with SDV. What's more, regularly scheduled programming only represents a very small fraction of the total bandwidth of a fully developed SDV system. Video On Demand, IPPV, interactive services, and trick-play features such as "Start Over" make up the bulk of the bandwidth on an aggresive SDV deployment. It also means the cost of deploying any individual stream plummets. Already it is becoming practical for a large company to lease their own SDV channel. In the near future, it will be practical for small companies and even clubs to lease their own channel. Your local bowling league, rod & gun club, SCUBA club, or gardening club will easily be able to afford their own channel. The remainder of your point is completely specious.



qz3fwd said:


> 2. Deterrent by the cable companies for consumers to use their own hardware and not lease cable company provided devices.


That is a much more complex situation - admittedly much of it the CATV companies' fault - than you address here. The impetus for the CATV companies to deploy SDV has a vanishinly small component related to any additinal recevues from leasing their devices, especialy since most MSOs make almost nothing directly from their leasing of STBs and DVRs. As to issues relating to 3rd party devices' inability to handle SDV well, that issue rests entirely with the 3rd party manufacturers and the FCC. It was the CE manufacturers that demanded the FCC force CableLabs to produce and support a UDCP specification. It was the CE manufacturers that did not want to be forced to support 2-way and interactive protocols, and the FCC that caved in to them. I'm not saying the CATV companies are blameless in all this - far from it - but the fact subscriber owned equipment doesn't work well with SDV is entirely the fault of the CE manufacturers and the FCC.



qz3fwd said:


> 3. Unwillingness of cable operators to invest in and maintain their networks.


You haven't even the slightest clue. MSOs have invested nearly $20 Billion in upgrading their systems, including deploying SDV. Also, you evidently have no idea what goes into upgrading a CATV system. For a comparatively modest investment in SDV, the CATV system can create a system literally capable of delivering an infinite number of channels, with unlimited growth potential for very modest additional outlays in cash. That, or for ten to fifty times as much money, they can increase their number of channels by 125, with zero growth potential.



qz3fwd said:


> Any others I missed?


I'm waiting for you to come up with a single valid one.



qz3fwd said:


> Alternatively, is SDV the savings grace for the cable companies that will provided an almost unlimited selection of channels?


Not "almost". In a properly engineered SDV system, there is no upper bound to the number of "channels" that can be deployed.



qz3fwd said:


> Isnt SDV basically identical to services like netflix/amazon except it is served over a network only accessible to the cable companies?


No, it's much closer to being very much like RoadRunner, AT&T, or Verizon Internet service. It's a transport mechanism, not a content provider.



qz3fwd said:


> What happens to a channel which becomes too popular on SDV and starts using too much bandwidth?


There is no such thing. First of all, if one channel gains in market share, then without fail some other channels will lose the same amount of market share. If a really large shift in popularity occurs, then hypothetically that channel might become better served by a linear QAM, and the CATV company can decide to move it to one such QAM, or not. The most popular Big Band digital modulator serves 8 QAMs, which can represent 16 HD channels and 2 SD channels. Six such modulators can serve the 96 most popular HD channels and the 48 most popular SD channels, or perhaps the 90 most popular HD channels and 81 most popular SD channels. That uses up 360 MHz. Let's assume the CTV system is delivering 90 HD channels on that spectrum, and for simplicity's sake, let's forget about SD for the moment. Now, perhaps you haven't noticed, but more than 80% of the viewing bandwidth is serviced by a mere 10 channels, leavng 80 channels to service no more than 20% of the viewing palate, with the remainder being outside the linear coverage. For argument's sake, however, let us assume over time the national networks no longer have a headlock on the viewing public, however, and the viewing coverage among the top 90 channels is nearly even. This is the worst-case scenario in terms of your proposed situation. In this case, no channel outside those 90 can possibly have a penetration of greater than 1.1%. The actual number is much lower. With a penetration of less than 1.1%, there is a fair chance any given node may not need to broadcast that stream, allowing the bandwidth to be used for some other stream. If some channel other than those 90 gains enough popularity to require more than 1.1% of the bandwidth, then it must be true that at least one of the original 90 now has a popularity of less than 1.1%, and can be moved to SDV, while the newly popular channel moves over to the linear system. 'No big deal, really.



qz3fwd said:


> Does this channel then get moved to a regular linear always on channel?


That's up to the CATV provider. Since they purchase modulators that host significant numbers of streams at a time, micro-managing the lineup is probably more trouble than it is worth for them. To the user, however, it is largely transpartent.



qz3fwd said:


> For example, if there are 500,000 subscribers watching a SDV channel at the same time, would it not be more efficient to move the transport stream to non-SDV? I mean 500,000 x 12 mbps bandwidth versus 12 mbps to everyone in the regular mux? Maybe I misunderstand SDV?


First of all, it depends on how many subs (actually, tuners, not subs. Most subs have more than one tuner) there are, total. What's more, it doesn't even depend on that. SDV relies upon its gains for a significant number of nodes to not have any users watchihng a channel for a significant period during the day. Here in San Antonio, for example, there are many neighborhoods on the East side of town that have predominantly Black residents, while on the West side there are large areas that are almost all Latin. Both BET and Galavision are fairly popular channels here, but there is a very good chance that a large number of nodes on the East side will not have even a single viewer watching Galavision while on the West side, there will be many nodes without a single viewer watching BET. On the North side of the city, there are probably a fair number of nodes that at the very same moment have neither channel on them.

The bottom line: Here in San Antonio, there are some 300 SDV channels. Of that number, there are only about 60 from which I ever record at all, and only about 30 from which I record regularly. That may sound terribly limited, but then consider the non-SDV channels from which I record - all seven of them - and that in all but 2 cases much less than any of the 30 SDV channels from which I regularly record.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

pteronaut said:


> How many subscribers are usualy connected to one node?


That is an engineering / accounting decision on the part of the CATV company, and varies a lot from company to company , or even city to city. Most MSOs design their plant so that the service from a node passes between 400 and 1000 dwellings. Typical penetrations run from about 40% to about 70% in most neighborhoods.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Is there an easy way for me to tell how many broadband subscribers are on my node?


Broadband subs, or CATV subs? The latter, no. The fomer, one can sniff the ARPs coming down the pipe and make an estimate.



[email protected] said:


> You could say that bundling channels into packages means that one or two desired channels in that package subsidize the other channels. In the same way you could say one or two desired programs on a channel subsidizes the rest of the programs on that channel -You have to purchase the channel to get the programs you want.


That's right. Unless the company moves to a 100% IPPV model, where one purhcases each individual program independantly, there is always going to be some level of granularity below whihc subsidies exist. That said, I dearly would love to be able to shed the cost of the national networks and such things as ESPN, TBS, etc. I have no desire to watch them and less desire to pay for them.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

classicsat said:


> ETA: Loadstar has the fundamentals of SDV. If one terminal on your node selects an SDV channel and it gets switched in, anybody else that chooses to select that channel at the same time, will tune that same placement, which will stay as long as somebody is reasonalby tuned to that channel.


Correct, with the clarification that "at the same time" does not mean they have to request the channel at the same moment. Rather, if a stream is already extant and an additional sub requests that same stream, then their equipment is simply directed to tune to the existing stream. If, however, one sub is ten minutes into watching a VOD offering and a second sub requests the same movie, then a second stream on a different timeslot and probably even a diferent QAM will be initiated from the beginning. The same is true of special features like "Start Over". If a sub on TWC requests "Start Over" on a program on ABC, NBC, Fox, whatever, then the headend will spawn a separate stream for that program starting from the beginning, the fact the main channel is on a linear QAM notwithstanding.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

CoxInPHX said:


> The number could vary widely from a few hundred to over a thousand.
> 
> A well designed system will be determined mostly by the number of broadband subscribers, not necessarily by video subscribers. Less than 500 broadband subscribers is a good number, any more and the provider should be looking into doing a node split. My particular node has just less than 200 broadband subscribers.


Perhaps Cable subscribers could start an "Occupy" movement to cause the self destruction of SDV.

Have as many subscribers on one node as there are cable channels all select a different channel then have those who don't get their channel call to complain.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

CoxInPHX said:


> A well designed system will be determined mostly by the number of broadband subscribers, not necessarily by video subscribers. Less than 500 broadband subscribers is a good number, any more and the provider should be looking into doing a node split. My particular node has just less than 200 broadband subscribers.


SDV has nothing to do directly with broadband service. The number of broadband subs and the number of homes passed are not the same thing, although 200 subs is about right for a typical neighborhood with about 450 - 500 homes passed. Only about half, give or take, of homes have CATV service in a typical neighborhood, and only some large fraction of CATV subs have broadband service.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

You don't understand, we need 37 different channels showing re-runs of the various flavors of CSI and Law and Order.

Not to mention all of those "common people being common, even if they're rich" reality shows that must run 'round the clock.

Just like we need for everyone to have to subsidize ESPN, whether they give a sh*t about sports or not, otherwise ESPN might not be able to take the big sports events (like when local favorite teams are in NCAA March Madness) away from your local free OTA channels.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> Apparently you are the one who has no understanding of SDV.


I would say, despite the apparent error of where the switching occurs, the basic fundamentals of my explanation are more correct than the OP's. I wouldn't say that I have "no understanding" of SDV. 


> This is completely false. First of all, the fiber node is nothing but a media converter witth an amplifier. (Well, actually at least two media converters and typically several amplifiers.) It has no swithing capabilities, at all. The switching occurs at the headend or hubsite.


My error. I was going based on the information on Wikipedia, as unreliable as Wikipedia might be. Perhaps you might be generous enough to revise the page?


> Once again, false. It's not a matter of turning anything on. The carriers are fixed. The bitstreams, however, are switched by a host controler.


When I said "channel," I didn't mean the carrier, I meant the bitstream. Sorry to use unclear language. (I was speaking in the colloquial, as most would refer to the "channel" as the video content you watch.)


> I don't know where you got that number. Each QAM delivers 38Mbps. Some number of channels share that bandwidth. This is true whether the QAM is SDV or linear.


I was continuing with the same hypothetical number that the OP used. I didn't take the time to research whether that number was correct or not.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

pteronaut said:


> Perhaps Cable subscribers could start an "Occupy" movement to cause the self destruction of SDV.


I hope not. Time Warner Cable does it right in NC. Almost every single channel is on SDV. It is part of the reason why we have so many HD channels compared to other TWC areas and other cable companies. I think we have around 110-120 HD channels (not counting VOD options).

And there are very little issues with SDV anymore. TWC here is good about updating tuning adapters and cablecard firmware (it happens every few weeks it seems).


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

rainwater said:


> I hope not. Time Warner Cable does it right in NC...


Unless you're one of their analog customers* whose number of channels keeps going down and whose bill keeps going up.

*who still has lots of analog equipment that's working just fine so why spend money replacing it?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

In my city, they dumped all the analog programming and went full digital. This leaves enough bandwidth to run all of the HD programming without SDV. The only analog channel left runs information 24/7 telling you that you need a box to watch TV. I have no idea if any of the channels are clear QAM, since I only use TiVos to watch TV. For those people with analog equipment, where do you buy Beta tapes anyway? It's 2011, not 1989.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Arcady said:


> In my city, they dumped all the analog programming and went full digital. This leaves enough bandwidth to run all of the HD programming without SDV. The only analog channel left runs information 24/7 telling you that you need a box to watch TV. I have no idea if any of the channels are clear QAM, since I only use TiVos to watch TV. For those people with analog equipment, where do you buy Beta tapes anyway? It's 2011, not 1989.


Twenty years after 1989, i.e., only 2 years ago, television was still broadcast in gracefully degrading analog before being replaced by all or nothing digital.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

General Instrument showed the first digital cable boxes in 1989. And DirecTV launched in 1994 with completely digital programming. It's not like digital TV is new.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Arcady said:


> General Instrument showed the first digital cable boxes in 1989. And DirecTV launched in 1994 with completely digital programming. It's not like digital TV is new.


No, it's only having it rammed down our throats that's recent.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> I don't know where you got that number. Each QAM delivers 38Mbps. Some number of channels share that bandwidth. This is true whether the QAM is SDV or linear.





LoadStar said:


> I was continuing with the same hypothetical number that the OP used. I didn't take the time to research whether that number was correct or not.


As a followup thought/observation: as you note, lrhorer, the 38Mbps (approximately) is divided between multiple sub-channels (a.k.a. bitstreams). Each sub-channel (bitstream) will have varying bitrates, of course, depending on the kind of content on the channel, and whether the cable system opts to re-encode the channel (bitstream) at a lower data rate.

That said, from what I understand based on multiple other references I have consulted, an average bitrate of 12 MBps for an HD channel is somewhat low, but not unheard of these days. A relatively recent sampling of data rates indicates that AMC HD is on the very low end, at an average of about 8 Mbps average, while A&E HD has somewhere around 17 Mbps average bitrate. (14-16 Mbps is probably a more "typical" average bitrate here... although more bandwidth starved cable systems will probably be in the 12 Mbps rage.)

Therefore, the OP (and I) weren't wrong to use 12 Mbps as a hypothetical number, as it could reflect the bitrate for what would be an HD channel on a contemporary cable system.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> You don't understand, we need 37 different channels showing re-runs of the various flavors of CSI and Law and Order.


Most of the channels of which you speak are not usually SDV. The bulk of the channels - by nearly a factor of 10 - from which I record are.



unitron said:


> Not to mention all of those "common people being common, even if they're rich" reality shows that must run 'round the clock.


Once again, most of those channels are not SDV on most systems.



unitron said:


> Just like we need for everyone to have to subsidize ESPN, whether they give a sh*t about sports or not


I happen to agree. I have no interest in any of the flavors of ESPN or its relatives. The people who are should pay for them, not me. The question at hand is not, "Who should pay for them?", but rather, "Should they exist?" As long as the people who want ESPN and its two dozen or so relatives pay for them, their existence is both desirable and ethical. SDV makes it practical.



unitron said:


> otherwise ESPN might not be able to take the big sports events (like when local favorite teams are in NCAA March Madness) away from your local free OTA channels.


OTA channels are *NOT FREE!!!!*. They are exceedingly expensive, and what's more they are much more aggressive examples of forced subsidization than any bundled CATV channels. They also happen to be of absolutely no interest to me.

The point here is, what constitutes a "useless" channel? The fact you find it useless does not mean someone else does. I agree if you are not interested in watching them, then you should not have to pay for them, but then the same is true of the local channels. I am forced to pay on the order of $10,000 a year or more for the OTA channels, and I neither want them nor watch them. Someone else should pick up that tab. Of the roughly 70 channels from which I record on any regular basis, only 1 (PBS) is available OTA.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I would say, despite the apparent error of where the switching occurs, the basic fundamentals of my explanation are more correct than the OP's. I wouldn't say that I have "no understanding" of SDV.


Well, OK.



LoadStar said:


> My error. I was going based on the information on Wikipedia, as unreliable as Wikipedia might be. Perhaps you might be generous enough to revise the page?


There is nothing on that page to suggest the switching occurs at the node. Switching occurs, oddly enough, at the switch, which resides in the hubsite, right before the modulator. The output of all the modulators are combined into the full spectrum you see at the back of your receiver, which is in turn converted to an optical signal that is then sent over a fiber strand to the node, which converts the signal back from optical to electrical.



LoadStar said:


> When I said "channel," I didn't mean the carrier, I meant the bitstream. Sorry to use unclear language. (I was speaking in the colloquial, as most would refer to the "channel" as the video content you watch.)


The bitstream isn't turned on and off, either. It's a constant 38Mbps. What happens is the payload is switched to different sources as required. The "channel" exists as a timeslot within the bitstreram, but even if the "channel" goes away, the bitstream and its timeslots still exist, they just no longer carry that particular video. Even if the timeslot is idle, it's still there.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> Unless you're one of their analog customers* whose number of channels keeps going down and whose bill keeps going up.
> 
> *who still has lots of analog equipment that's working just fine so why spend money replacing it?


That's the exact same logic a classmate of mine offered in 1976 when I asked him why he continued to purchase 8-track tapes. The term, "Just fine" rests upon a definitin many of us no longer find acceptable.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> Twenty years after 1989, i.e., only 2 years ago, television was still broadcast in gracefully degrading analog before being replaced by all or nothing digital.


So rather than make sure the delivery system is functioning properly, you prefer to rely on a system that tolerates it being broken?

It's true analog signals usually degrade gracefully, while digital signals do not. It is also true that degraded analog signals can be often be captured below the point where digital signals fail. OTOH, this is the only significant advantage analog transport has over digital. While analog signals continue to be recoverable longer, they also degrade much sooner. Long after an analog signal will be adjudged "poor" by most viewers, digital signals are still 100% perfect*.

Analog signals eat up a lot of bandwidth. In the same bandwidth used by a single analog NTSC video, broadcasters can deliver as many as 12 SD videos of quality superior to the analog video. What's more, HD video completely blows most analog video right out the door, and is far superior to even the best digital SD video.

There is also a more fundamental relationship here. Until the 1990s, CATV systems universally delivered their signals to the customer over a completely coaxial cable system. Depending upon the subscriber's distance from the hubsite, the signal may have passed through as many as 30 amplifiers, or in some cases even more. Not only did each amplifier add its own bit of noise and distortion to the signal, but each amp added some level of instability to the overall system gain. Although most of the outdoor amplifiers had thermal compensation or else active Automatic Gain Controls, the signal levels still varied a lot over time. Maintaining constant signal levels was literally a daily chore for the maintenance technicians, and it was often a losing battle. At the furthest points from the headend, signal levels, noise, and distortion were often right on the ragged edge between acceptable and unacceptable, and any little thing could and sometimes regularly would push them over the line. The long cascades also presented a huge number of points of potential failure. Some failures, of course, would kill the signals altogether, but many failures would merely cause increased levels of interference, noise, or distortion.

With the advent of digital delivery systems, however, the CATV systems deployed a new transport strategy: optical fibers. In an optical fiber transport system, there are no longer many miles long cascades of amplifiers and coaxial cable. Instead, a single strand of optical fiber carries the signals from the headend to a node within less than a mile from the subscriber's house. There it hits the fiber node, and then at most 2 additional amplifiers. Not only are noise and distortion greatly reduced, but signal stability is vastly enhanced. The result is while signals do still vary in quality with time, they no longer usually exceed the recovery limits of digital systems over relatively long periods of time. This means it is possible for the maintenance staff to actually achieve near 100% reliability of the digital transport system. Problems do of course still surface, and over long periods of time the system still needs to be tweaked back into spec, but the PQ can now be consistent on a scale not possible with any analog system. It also means the vast majority of failure points have been eliminated entirely.

* - "Perfect" meaning the recovered bitstream is identical to the one transmitted from the source.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Arcady said:


> General Instrument showed the first digital cable boxes in 1989. And DirecTV launched in 1994 with completely digital programming. It's not like digital TV is new.


Not only that, but digital video long predated 1989. Digital transport systems were developed in the late 1970s for delivering video to video providers such as TV stations and mobile broadcast links.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Arcady said:


> In my city, they dumped all the analog programming and went full digital. This leaves enough bandwidth to run all of the HD programming without SDV.


Define "All". It is true if one limits ones' system to liner video only - no VOD, IPPV, or interactive services of any sort, then a 750MHz CTV system can deliver all the linear HD services avalable today. Specifically, a 750MHz system has about 678 MHz or so of bandwidth up for grabs. That equates to 113 QAM carriers. With industry norm rate shaping, that results in 226 HD channels with 113 SD channels. This is indeed a bit more than enough to deliver just about all the nationally available linear HD video sources... at this time. It won't be long, however, before the number of available HD video sources is much greater than this. It also allows nothing for VOD and very little for IPPV channels. Of course, by upgrading to 860 or 1000Mhz, one can add a significant number of channels, but one is still limited to a very finite number of channels, and this and any subsequent upgrades are hideously expensive. At some point, bandwidth upgrades are not even possible. By comparison, a 750 MHz CATV system with 200MHz of analog channels, 250 MHz of linear digital QAMs, and 200MHz of SDV QAMs can potentially deliver thousands of video channels for a fraction of the cost of upgrading from 750 MHz to 1000MHz.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> Define "All".


There is a single analog channel. This channel runs a 24/7 banner stating that you need a box to watch any TV. There is no analog programming whatsoever. No locals, no basic, no nothing. They shipped out free mini-boxes to anyone who had an analog set. I had my cable set up with one of their DVRs, and five TiVo boxes using CableCards. I only found out that the analog channels were shut off when I hooked up an old Series2 box to see if it worked.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> ......... I am forced to pay on the order of $10,000 a year or more for the OTA channels.......


How do you figure that? The per-capita GDP for the U.S. was around $47,000 per person in 2010. (See **this reference** and pick the exact number you like.)

No question there is taxpayer subsidization of OTA broadcasting and indirect support via advertising costs hidden in purchases. But there is no way it can average $10,000 per person, since that would be 21% of our GDP. If you assume $10,000 per average taxpayer (about 143 Miillion returns filed in 2010, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0481.pdf) the number is still about 10% of GDP -- still ridiculous. Assuming you could back this number up for your particular situation, i.e., based on your taxes and your purchases, it sure isn't representative of most folks.

For other readers, this is a new version of the same kind of ridiculous claim that lrhorer has made in a number of threads here -- and never backed up.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Arcady said:


> There is a single analog channel. This channel runs a 24/7 banner stating that you need a box to watch any TV. There is no analog programming whatsoever. No locals, no basic, no nothing. They shipped out free mini-boxes to anyone who had an analog set. I had my cable set up with one of their DVRs, and five TiVo boxes using CableCards. I only found out that the analog channels were shut off when I hooked up an old Series2 box to see if it worked.


No, I meant, define what "All" means in terms of available digital channels. The CATV system here in San Antonio has 300 SDV channels, the vast majority of them HD. Many are VOD or IPPV. Add to that the 150 or so linear channels and the hundreds of SDV streams dedicated to two-way services such as "Start Over", and the number of SDV streams delivered across the city adds up to far, far more than could be delivered on a 750MHz pure linear digital system.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> No, I meant, define what "All" means in terms of available digital channels.


Here is the lineup on my cable system: Insight Lineup

There are approximately 100 HD channels available. I don't care about on-demand at all. That's what bit torrent is for.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> *I* am forced to pay on the order of $10,000 a year or more for the OTA channels





dlfl said:


> How do you figure that? The per-capita GDP for the U.S. was around $47,000 per person in 2010. (See **this reference** and pick the exact number you like.)


What does the average GDP have to do with my own expenditures? Note the emphasized word above.



dlfl said:


> No question there is taxpayer subsidization of OTA broadcasting and indirect support via advertising costs hidden in purchases. But there is no way it can average $10,000 per person, since that would be 21% of our GDP.


It's about 30%, on average, of retail costs. Of course, the average individual does not spend all, or even most of their earnings on retail products. Most goes to rent / mortgage, utilities, food, insurance, etc. Since you hadn't noticed, though, the average network salary for "talent" is much closer to *$47,000,000*, than $47,000. In any case, however, I said nothing whatsoever about the average wage earner.

Edit: Oh, and BTW, unless I am missing something here, a per-capita GDP works out to something like at least $90,000 per household. According to the very same reference you link, the GDP per person employed is $65,480, and since there is on average more than 1 working person per household, that puts the number over $90,000.



dlfl said:


> For other readers, this is a new version of the same kind of ridiculous claim that lrhorer has made in a number of threads here -- and never backed up.


I have backed them up. The last time you posted a contrary post I just did not feel like arguing. The numbers you posted, were just the tip of the iceberg. For example, you listed the earnings for all the networks combined to be something like $20 billion, but while it is true CBS' earnings are listed as something like $8 Billion, it's pseudo parent, Viacom, has earnings of over $13 Billion in pure profit. The CBS conglomerate alone makes considerably more than the number you posted. The number I was given, $700 Billion, may have been too high, but it doesn't matter. Even if it is "only" $50 Billion, that is still well over $400 a year per family, and I did not agree to pay any of it, nor do I wiish to support the production of the mountain of offensive crap on the national networks to any measure whatsoever.

What is ridiculous is any individual, no matter who they are, hauling in over $315 Million a year. That is just one person - Oprah Winfrey, who is associated with only a handful of TV shows. Many other single individuals scarf up more than $20 million a year, and not just on-air talent, of which there are many hundreds. You can't tell me one individual who has an interest in less than a dozen daytime productions is scarfing well over .5% of all the revenue from the hundreds of shows out there, some 125 or so of which are prime time. Although she reportedly makes more than any other on-air personality, there are quite a few raking in well over $100 Million a year. From Hugh Laurie to Jeffery Donovan, the top 30 actors all rake in over $200,000 per episode and the top 100 actors all slurp in more than $40,000 a week. Charlie Sheen is gulping down $1.25 Million per week. Judge Judy, David Leterman, Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Diane Swayer, Meredith Viera, Ryan Seacrest, and Bill O'Reilly all get paid more than $10 Million a year. That doesn't even begin to count all the sports figures and second-string actors who get paid a lot more than $1 Million a year. I don't even want to think about what the execs make.

How much of those salaries should I be forced to pay?

NOT ONE RED CENT

Even if it is only $10, if you want to watch that drek, then you pay for it and give me back my money.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Arcady said:


> Here is the lineup on my cable system: Insight Lineup
> 
> There are approximately 100 HD channels available.


Compare that with the system here, which still has 72 analog channels, but is able to deploy the following 97 HD channels (assuming I didn't miss any), plus several dozen HD VOD and IPPV channels:


```
103	Nickelodeon HD 
113	tbs HD* 
114	AMC HD 
115	SCIENCE 
116	TCM HD 
119	MLB Network HD 
120	G4 HD 
121	NBA TV HD 
123	ESPNU HD* 
124	ESPN HD* 
125	ESPN2 HD* 
126	ESPN News HD* 
127	TNT HD* 
128	A&E HD* 
129	The Discovery Channel HD* 
130	HD Theater* 
131	USA HD 
132	WE tv HD 
133	MTV HD 
134	Palladia* 
135	CNN HD* 
136	The Weather Channel HD* 
137	CNBC HD+ 
138	HLN HD 
139	TruTV HD 
140	Planet Green HD* 
141	ABC Family HD* 
142	Disney Channel HD* 
143	Disney XD High Definition* 
144	Hallmark Channel HD 
145	Cartoon Network HD* 
146	CMT HD 
147	Food Network HD* 
148	H2 HD 
149	TLC HD* 
150	Fox Sports Net HD 
151	MavTV 
152	Fox News Channel HD* 
153	Hallmark Movie Channel HD* 
154	Fox Business Network HD* 
155	Animal Planet HD* 
156	Fuse HD 
157	National Geographic HD* 
158	Travel Channel HD* 
159	Fox Soccer Channel HD 
160	The Golf Channel HD* 
161	Smithsonian Channel HD 
162	MSNBC HD 
163	FX HD 
164	Universal HD** 
165	MGM HD*
166	LMN HD* 
167	HGTV HD* 
168	Versus HD* 
169	Speed HD 
171	Spike HD 
172	SyFy HD 
173	BET HD 
174	History HD* 
175	bio HD* 
176	Bravo HD 
177	Cookiing Channel HD 
179	HBO 2 HD 
180	HBO HD* 
181	HBO West HD* 
182	Showtime HD* 
183	Showtime HD West* 
184	Cinemax HD* 
185	Cinemax HD West* 
186	The Movie Channel HD* 
187	Starz HD* 
188	Starz West HD* 
189	Comedy Central HD 
190	Crime and Investigation HD 
191	Investigation Discovery HD 
291	Galavision HD 
292	DIY HD 
299	Starz Kids & Family HD 
334	HBO Signature HD 
335	HBO Comedy HD 
336	HBO Zone HD 
337	HBO Family HD 
360	Showtime 2 HD 
369	The Movie Channel Extra (HD) 
370	Showtime Showcase HD 
371	HBO Latino HD 
372	ActionMAX HD 
373	HSN HD 
374	National Geographic Wild 
377	BBC America HD 
378	VH1 (HD)
379 	Encore HD
389	5 StarMAX HD 
391	Starz Edge HD 
392	Starz Comedy HD E 
393	Showtime Beyond HD
394	Lifetime HD
```
The following 300 channels are SDV:


```
6 Galavision
12 TBS
20 Public Access
21 Government Access New Braunfels
25 ESPN2
36 Weather Channel
36 Weather Channel (New Braunfels)
37 CNBC
41 ABC Family
44 OWN
46 TruTV E
48 Comedy Central E
50 Stuf TV
51 CMT
53 Hallmark Channel
55 Animal Planet E
56 WE tv
58 Travel Channel E
62 MSNBC
64 Oxygen
66 Lifetime Movie Network
67 HGTV
71 Turner Classic Movies E
72 SyFy
74 History Channel
76 Bravo
91 Gems Shopping Network
97 Speed
98 Educational Access
103 Nickelodeon HD
113 TBS HD
114 AMC HD
115 Science Channel HD
116 Turner Classic Movies E HD
117 CBS College Sports HD
118 Big 10 Network HD
119 MLB Network HD
120 G4 HD
121 NBA TV HD
122 NHL Network HD
123 ESPNU HD
125 ESPN2 HD
126 ESPNews HD
127 TNT HD
128 A&E HD
129 Discovery Channel HD
132 WE tv HD
133 MTV HD
134 Palladia HD
135 CNN HD
136 Weather Channel HD
137 CNBC HD
138 HLN HD
139 TruTV E HD
140 Planet Green HD
141 ABC Family HD
142 Disney Channel HD E
143 Disney XD HD
144 Hallmark Channel HD
145 Cartoon Network HD
146 CMT HD
147 Food Network HD
148 H2
149 TLC HD
150 FS Southwest HD
151 MavTV HD
152 Fox News Channel HD
153 Hallmark Movie Channel HD
154 Fox Business News HD
155 Animal Planet E HD
156 Fuse HD
157 National Geographic Channel HD
158 Travel Channel HD
159 FOX Soccer Channel HD
160 Golf Channel HD
161 Smithsonian Channel HD
162 MSNBC HD
163 FX E HD
164 Universal HD
165 MGM HD
166 Lifetime Movie Network HD
167 HGTV HD
168 VERSUS HD
169 Speed HD
170 Outdoor Channel HD
171 Spike TV HD
172 SyFy HD
173 BET HD
174 History Channel HD
175 bio HD
176 Bravo HD
177 Cooking Channel HD
178 Tennis Channel HD
179 HBO 2 E HD
181 HBO W HD
183 Showtime W HD
184 Cinemax E HD
185 Cinemax W HD
186 The Movie Channel E HD
187 Starz E HD
188 Starz W HD
189 Comedy Central HD
190 Crime and Investigation HD
191 Investigation Discovery HD
202 Hallmark Movie Channel
209 Outdoor Channel
227 GSN
229 Teennick
240 Reelz Channel
241 NASA TV
242 American Life
243 Military History Channel
245 Fox Business News
246 Crime and Investigation
248 Nat Geo Wild
249 LOGO
250 CMT Pure Country
251 Style
252 VH1 Soul
253 Chiller
254 Fox Soccer Plus
255 MLB Network
256 ESPN Classic
257 ESPNews
258 ESPNU
259 ESPN Deportes
260 Fox College Sports-Atlantic
261 Fox College Sports-Central
262 Fox College Sports-Pacific
264 FUEL
265 CBS College Sports
266 NHL Network
267 Sportsman Channel
268 Big 10 Network
269 Fox Soccer Plus HD
270 Multimedios
271 Discovery Familia
272 Latele Novela
273 Mexico 22
274 Once Mexico
275 GolTV
276 Sur Mexico
278 NUVO
280 GolTV HD
281 Video Rola
282 Cine Latino
283 Discovery en Espanol
284 ¡SORPRESA!
285 Tr3s
286 Cartoon Network SAP
287 Boomerang SAP
288 FOX Deportes
289 History En Espanol
291 Galavision HD
292 DIY HD
293 La Familia
294 HITN
295 EWTN en Espanol
296 Disney XD SAP
298 TBN Enlace
299 Starz Kids & Family E HD
315 Starz W
316 Starz Edge W
317 Starz in Black W
319 Starz Cinema W
326 HBO W
327 HBO 2 W
328 HBO Signature 3 W
29 HBO Family W
330 HBO Comedy W
331 HBO Zone W
333 HBO Latino W
334 HBO Signature E HD
335 HBO Comedy E HD
336 HBO Zone E HD
337 HBO Family E
344 Cinemax W
345 MoreMax W
346 Action Max W
347 Thriller Max W
355 Showtime W
356 Showtime Too W
357 Showtime Showcase W
358 Showtime Extreme W
359 Showtime Beyond W
360 Showtime Too E HD
367 The Movie Channel W
368 The Movie Channel Xtra W
369 The Movie Channel Xtra E HD
370 Showtime Showcase E HD
371 HBO Latino E HD
372 Action Max E HD
373 HSN HD
374 Nat Geo Wild HD
375 Baby First
376 ESPN Buzzer Beater HD
377 BBC America HD
378 VH1 HD
379 Encore E
381 Showtime E
382 Cinemax E HD
383 Starz E HD
384 The Movie Channel E HD
385 HBO W HD
386 Showtime W HD
387 Cinemax W HD
388 Starz W HD
389 5 Star Max E HD
390 Playboy
391 Starz Edge E HD
392 Starz Comedy HD
393 Showtime Beyond E HD
394 Lifetime HD
399 ESPN 3D
463 KLRN - PBS Kids Sprout
466 Family Net
483 Daystar
484 EWTN en Espanol
486 Halogen
487 INSP
491 Jewish Life TV
495 Word Network
498 HD PPV2
500 PPV Movie Previews
502 Indemand 02
503 Indemand 03
504 Indemand 04
505 Indemand 05
506 Indemand 06
507 Indemand 07
540 Playboy
541 Playboy en Espanol
542 Penthouse PPV
601 NBA League Pass TEAM 1
602 NBA League Pass TEAM 2
603 NBA League Pass TEAM 3
604 NBA League Pass TEAM 4
605 NBA League Pass TEAM 5
606 NBA League Pass TEAM 6
607 NBA League Pass TEAM 7
608 NBA League Pass TEAM 8
609 NBA League Pass TEAM 9
610 NBA League Pass TEAM 10
612 NBA League Pass /MLS Direct Kick TEAM HD
620 ESPN Full Court 1
621 ESPN Full Court 2
622 ESPN Full Court 3
623 ESPN Full Court 4
624 ESPN Full Court 5
625 ESPN Full Court 6
627 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 1
628 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 2
629 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 3
630 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 4
631 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 5
632 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 6
633 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 7
634 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 8
635 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 9
636 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 10
637 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 11
638 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 12
639 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 13
640 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 14
641 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME HD
642 MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice GAME 2HD
650 ESPN Full Court 1
651 ESPN Full Court 2
652 ESPN Full Court 3
653 ESPN Full Court 4
654 ESPN Full Court 5
655 ESPN Full Court 6
660 MLS Direct Kick - See Notes
661 MLS Direct Kick - See Notes
662 MLS Direct Kick - See Notes
663 MLS Direct Kick - See Notes
701 TV Japan
705 SBTN - Saigon Broadcasting
711 ZEE TV
712 TV Asia
715 Deutche Welle
720 Filipino
780 Cine Mexicano
781 Viendo
787 CBTV
788 Teleformula
790 AYMS
800 Liquidation TV
801 Shop Zeal 4
802 Shop Zeal 1
803 Jewelry Television
805 Cornerstore TV
806 America's Auction Network
807 Shop Zeal 5
808 Shop Zeal 2
809 Gems Shopping Network
810 Shop Zeal 3
888 Texas Channel
889 Canal de Tejas
1997 Reelz Channel
```
When some of the SD channels like Encore Westerns, Encore Love, Thriller Max, etc. start broadcasting in HD, there will be plenty of room for them, even if they don't convert any of the 501 MHz out of 750 MHz they are currently not using to carry digital channels.



Arcady said:


> I don't care about on-demand at all.


As it happens, neither do I, but that doesn't mean many of their subscribers don't enjoy it. Just because you and I don't care for something doesn't mean no one else does. A great many of their non-DVR subs also love being able to come in 10 minutes late and still watch a program they wanted to see in its entirety. The number of people who buy IPPV events is huge.



Arcady said:


> That's what bit torrent is for.


No, thanks. I want to watch TV on my TV, not my computer, and a great many people feel the same way. I don't happen to care about VOD, but again, that doesn't mean others don't. Besides, I don't think anywhere nearly all VOD offerings are available on torrent. I could be wrong about that.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> It's about 30%, on average, of retail costs. ....


.
The "it" you're referring to is total advertising. Your $10,000 number was for OTA only. What about advertising other than on TV, and TV advertising other than OTA. I suspect 30% is high even for total advertising but won't challenge you on it (yet).


lrhorer said:


> I have backed them up.....


I don't think so. Since you make a big point that the $10,000 applies only to you personally, I can't argue that -- only you would know. But it would be easy for readers to get the impression you meant everyone (or maybe every family) was paying $10,000 just for OTA station operation and programming. That is preposterous and I wanted to point that out.


lrhorer said:


> ....... What is ridiculous is any individual, no matter who they are, hauling in over $315 Million a year. That is just one person - Oprah Winfrey, who is associated with only a handful of TV shows. Many other single individuals scarf up more than $20 million a year, and not just on-air talent, of which there are many hundreds. You can't tell me one individual who has an interest in less than a dozen daytime productions is scarfing well over .5% of all the revenue from the hundreds of shows out there, some 125 or so of which are prime time. Although she reportedly makes more than any other on-air personality, there are quite a few raking in well over $100 Million a year. From Hugh Laurie to Jeffery Donovan, the top 30 actors all rake in over $200,000 per episode and the top 100 actors all slurp in more than $40,000 a week. Charlie Sheen is gulping down $1.25 Million per week. Judge Judy, David Leterman, Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Diane Swayer, Meredith Viera, Ryan Seacrest, and Bill O'Reilly all get paid more than $10 Million a year. That doesn't even begin to count all the sports figures and second-string actors who get paid a lot more than $1 Million a year. I don't even want to think about what the execs make.
> 
> How much of those salaries should I be forced to pay?..........


The only forcing being done is the relatively small portion of what you pay that is via government subsidization and regulation costs using your taxes. Nobody is forcing anybody in regard to the rest. You are paying the price for your tastes differing from most of society's tastes. Advertising works for most consumers and most products or services. So the sellers use it and build the cost into what they sell. Griping about it isn't going to change it but if it makes you feel better, have at it. It would only change if most of society developed values similar to yours. I think you might convert about one person per year by preaching here.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> No, thanks. I want to watch TV on my TV, not my computer, and a great many people feel the same way. I don't happen to care about VOD, but again, that doesn't mean others don't. Besides, I don't think anywhere nearly all VOD offerings are available on torrent. I could be wrong about that.


I don't watch downloaded video on my computer. I can either stream the avi file to the TiVo directly using pyTivo, or I can copy it to a USB stick and play it on my Blu-Ray player (or the PS3). Downloaded TV shows come in handy if there was a delay for some stupid sports event, or if there was a bunch of weather reports, or a power outage, or whatever other reason the show on the TiVo was not watchable.

As for the HD lineup above, I get nearly all of those channels plus a few not on that list. The only ones I am missing are a few of the extra HBO's and other premiums, but again I don't really care because I don't really watch movies off of cable. That's what Blu-Ray and DVD are for. If HBO would stop cutting the edges off 2.35:1 movies, I might give them more of a chance.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> .The "it" you're referring to is total advertising. Your $10,000 number was for OTA only. What about advertising other than on TV, and TV advertising other than OTA.


That's true, but most consumer retail oriented businesses allocate the majority of their advertising budget toward advertising on TV. This is because TV is the most consumed of any media. Consequently, TV advertising is for the most part the most expensive. This fact increases the fraction spent on TV advertising even more. Of course, some businesses spend nothing at all on TV advertising, but do still advertise.



dlfl said:


> I suspect 30% is high even for total advertising but won't challenge you on it (yet).


It doesn't matter if it is. Even if the number is 0.0001%, I did not authorize anyone to spend that money on projects in which I not only have no interest, but to which I strenuously object. It is not acceptable for anyone to take even $0.01 of my money and spend it on producing Survivor or The Apprentice. Why is that hard to understand?



dlfl said:


> I don't think so. Since you make a big point that the $10,000 applies only to you personally, I can't argue that -- only you would know. But it would be easy for readers to get the impression you meant everyone (or maybe every family) was paying $10,000 just for OTA station operation and programming. That is preposterous and I wanted to point that out.


It's even worse. While most people spend less than my family on retail goods, many of them can afford ad revenues even less than I. There are a great many people out there whose income barely allows them to feed, clothe, house, and educate their family effectively. These people can ill afford to pay any surcharge for the production of Desperate Housewives or the $5 or $10 million per episode spent on the production of some silly sitcom. I happen to be extremely fortunate in that I can afford it, but that in no way excuses the expenditure without my consent.

For a free market to function properly, the consumer of a good or service must be the one who pays for the goods and services. Only then can market pressures tend to insure good value and quality in those goods and services. To the national networks and their broadcast affiliates (and to an extent magazines and newspapers), their customers are not the public. It is the vendors who buy the ads. That is why whenever we called the TV stations to let them know we would be interrupting their feed, they insisted we wait until the commercials were over. They could barely have cared less if none of the shows got broadcast at all, as long as the commercials were not impacted. They don't make any money off the shows, you see.



dlfl said:


> The only forcing being done is the relatively small portion of what you pay that is via government subsidization and regulation costs using your taxes. Nobody is forcing anybody in regard to the rest.


Bullcrap!! The cost of advertising is passed directly to the consumer. It is hidden, but that in no way means the consumer is not paying for it.



dlfl said:


> You are paying the price for your tastes differing from most of society's tastes.


Everyone else pays that price, too. They just don't bother to account for it or even think about it. That is why one hears the utterly idiotic statement that OTA is free. There is no such thing as "free", period, and with so-called celebrities and executives being paid hundreds of million of dollars, rather than the $2 or $3 an hour they actually earn, the notion that OTA broadcasting is supposedly free is not only idiotic, it is downright revolting.

Oh, BTW, the French aristocracy circa 1780 put forward many of the same sorts of arguments you are. You might ask Marie Antionette how that worked out for her.

One only has to look at the generally high quality of programming on PBS compared to the virtually universally low quality of programing on the other networks to see how poorly advertising support of art works.



dlfl said:


> Advertising works for most consumers and most products or services.


No, it doesn't. It results in declining quality of goods and rising costs for those goods. Any time a significant cost of production adds nothing of value to the final product, the product itself and ultimately the producer of the product both suffer, but it is the consumer who pays the tab. Obviously, it makes money for the networks, but who says they are entitled to make money?

If the ads were suddenly removed from the medium entirely and instead the programs were delivered strictly on a pay-per-view basis, how many people do you think would continue to watch OTA programming? I would be surprised it it were half, and of those I suspect the number of OTA TV shows watched would drop severely. I would be surprised if they could manage 10% of the revenue they have now, and I would not be surprised if they could not manage 1%.

Any business is entitled to the revenue provided by sales to willing consumers who find their product worth the cost. No business is entitled to anything else.



dlfl said:


> So the sellers use it and build the cost into what they sell.


They can do so for one and only one reason: the consumer cannot stop them from padding their bill. If supply and demand were allowed to work normally, no seller could afford to add even 1% in advertising costs to their product, because in a free market, any vendor who seeks to add even a few pennies to the market norm price without providing additional value will find they cannot sell any goods at all.



dlfl said:


> Griping about it isn't going to change it but if it makes you feel better, have at it. It would only change if most of society developed values similar to yours. I think you might convert about one person per year by preaching here.


Perhaps. Awareness has a way of spreading. Two people found out something concerning a seemingly inconsequential break-in at the Watergate Hotel. One black woman refused to sit in the back seat of a bus. One man called for passive resistance to British rule in India. A mere 55 men created the legal and governmental framework for our entire nation.

Do I expect to change the situation? Of course not, any more than I expect my vote to elect the next president. That doesn't mean I am poorly advised to speak for or against any candidate or incumbent as I see fit. It is important the truth be uncovered, however, and every person who discovers one little facet of the truth needs to speak up, irrespective of how popular or unpopular that truth may be.

As to how many people adhere to my side of the argument, I think you will find a large number of people object to funding via subsidy, and there has been a fairly large outcry of late against the bundling of services and a lot of grass-roots support for a mandate forcing CATV companies to provide a la carte services. It won't take that much for people to realize there is little fundamental difference between bundled CATV services and advertising supported programming in terms of how it extorts money from them.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Arcady said:


> I don't watch downloaded video on my computer. I can either stream the avi file to the TiVo directly using pyTivo, or I can copy it to a USB stick and play it on my Blu-Ray player (or the PS3).


That's a lot more trouble than most people want to countenance, including me. I don't have a Blu-ray player or a PS3, nor do I have any plans to get either one. My DVD players are collecting dust.



Arcady said:


> As for the HD lineup above, I get nearly all of those channels plus a few not on that list.


Yes, but the point is, your system is out of gas. An SDV system, passing far fewer costs on to its subs, has unlimited growth potential.



Arcady said:


> The only ones I am missing are a few of the extra HBO's and other premiums, but again I don't really care because I don't really watch movies off of cable.


Once again, because you don't care for them does not mean others do not. Are you the only subscriber on your CATV system?



Arcady said:


> That's what Blu-Ray and DVD are for.


I have some 2000 archived movies and counting. That's about $30,000 worth of videos, if I had to purchase them individually, accrued over a 4 year period. My CATV bill is a fraction of that. The point is, a very large number of people prefer to obtain their content from CATV sources. That you do not does not mean they do not.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> ....It's even worse. While most people spend less than my family on retail goods, many of them can afford ad revenues even less than I. There are a great many people out there whose income barely allows them to feed, clothe, house, and educate their family effectively. These people can ill afford to pay any surcharge for the production of Desperate Housewives or the $5 or $10 million per episode spent on the production of some silly sitcom. .....


Your concern for those people is heartwarming but (unfortunately for your argument) most of them would prefer Deperate Housewives, and the other programs you don't like, to what you consider quality programming. 


lrhorer said:


> ....
> For a free market to function properly, the consumer of a good or service must be the one who pays for the goods and services. Only then can market pressures tend to insure good value and quality in those goods and services. To the national networks and their broadcast affiliates (and to an extent magazines and newspapers), their customers are not the public. It is the vendors who buy the ads. That is why whenever we called the TV stations to let them know we would be interrupting their feed, they insisted we wait until the commercials were over. They could barely have cared less if none of the shows got broadcast at all, as long as the commercials were not impacted. They don't make any money off the shows, you see.


This is a very shallow analysis. If the shows don't attract viewers who are potential customers, who then watch the ads and are influenced by them, the "vendors who buy the ads" will not buy the ads. Everyone involved in the process understands this.


lrhorer said:


> ....
> Bullcrap!! The cost of advertising is passed directly to the consumer. It is hidden, but that in no way means the consumer is not paying for it.


I never said the consumers weren't paying for it (indirectly that is). What you ignored is that I said it isn't forced except for the government subsidy portion. Only governments and criminals use force. Cable cos, networks, ad agencies and "vendors who buy the ads" don't.


lrhorer said:


> ....
> Everyone else pays that price, too. They just don't bother to account for it or even think about it. That is why one hears the utterly idiotic statement that OTA is free.


Not idiotic at all. There is a basic concept in economics 101 called "marginal cost" and the marginal cost of OTA to a consumer is very close to zero. In plain words this means the difference in his/her cost in using OTA vs. not using it is close to nothing.


lrhorer said:


> ....
> Oh, BTW, the French aristocracy circa 1780 put forward many of the same sorts of arguments you are. You might ask Marie Antionette how that worked out for her.


puleeeze! What a classy argument.  If you can't win on facts, compare the opponent to hitler. 


lrhorer said:


> ....One only has to look at the generally high quality of programming on PBS compared to the virtually universally low quality of programing on the other networks to see how poorly advertising support of art works.


That's your opinion and perhaps the opinion of most on this forum --- but it isn't the opinion of the majority of viewers. If it was, most programming would be more like PBS. If you can't see that, you just don't get it.


lrhorer said:


> ....If the ads were suddenly removed from the medium entirely and instead the programs were delivered strictly on a pay-per-view basis, how many people do you think would continue to watch OTA programming?


What happened to your concern for poor people expressed above? If they had to pay for programming they would have nothing to watch. The current situation gives them some shows they like over OTA for a marginal cost to them of almost zero.


lrhorer said:


> ....They can do so for one and only one reason: the consumer cannot stop them from padding their bill. If supply and demand were allowed to work normally, no seller could afford to add even 1% in advertising costs to their product, because in a free market, any vendor who seeks to add even a few pennies to the market norm price without providing additional value will find they cannot sell any goods at all.


You really don't get it do you? In a totally free market the amount spent on ads and the way they are funded would very closely resemble the current situation. What you say would only be true if all consumers had the time, motivation and information available to do detailed consumer reports-style product evaluations AND did not respond to ads. Get real!


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> Yes, but the point is, your system is out of gas. An SDV system, passing far fewer costs on to its subs, has unlimited growth potential.


I don't care. SDV screws up the TiVo. If they never add a single new channel, I won't mind. Just keep the fracking tuning adapter away from my TiVo.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Arcady said:


> I don't care. SDV screws up the TiVo. If they never add a single new channel, I won't mind. Just keep the fracking tuning adapter away from my TiVo.


The solution is for your cable provider to fix the tuning adapters system. If implemented properly their shouldn't be any issues. Stopping progress as you propose is not a solution. Where I live, we do not have SDV issues and almost every single channel is a SDV channel. It can be implemented correctly.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

We have 8 channels that are not available in HD that I might ever watch. They can surely fit 8 more channels in. They can also use more bandwidth on the existing cable without using SDV. Getting rid of analog opened a huge amount of bandwidth.

When I had tuning adapters, there were no suggestions on the Series 3 boxes and the Series 4 boxes would have tuning errors causing missed recordings. And since each tuning adapter degrades the signal strength on the line, I had lower signal quality than I should have. I had to add amplifiers to even get some of the TiVos to have a decent level.

If they want to implement it "correctly" then they need to build a system where the TiVo can communicate upstream without the stupid adapters. Their cable boxes do it and they use the same CableCards as the TiVo.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Arcady said:


> We have 8 channels that are not available in HD that I might ever watch. They can surely fit 8 more channels in. They can also use more bandwidth on the existing cable without using SDV.


Perhaps but cable companies are more and more using bandwidth for other things than linear channels.


----------

