Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (
More info?)
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:17:28 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>They are expensive because the manufacturers do not think there is a big
>market for them. They do not see demand, retailers don't want to stock
>them and customers are not buying them.
That is what I don't understand. At $300 a pop, at the very cheapest,
of course there isn't a big demand. Who wants to pay that much? At
something more reasonable, I believe the demand would pick up nicely.
I know of four guys (including myself) who are definitely interested,
but not at that price.
>If manufacturers believed that the market was large they could ramp up
>production and achieve economies of scale. This only works so far
>however. 8-VSB has a limited market to begin with since only the US and
>S. Korea are seriously doing 8-VSB and the broadcasters in S. Korea are
>doing everything in their power to get their government to change
>modulations to COFDM. This kind of uncertainty and limited market
>opportunities make manufacturers cautious and limit he number of
>manufacturers that even want to get into the business of making 8-VSB
>receivers at any price.
How does 8-VSB relate to directv's hd channels? Because every hd
satellite receiver I know of also does atsc. Why would they include
this type of modulation at all? And just stick with dtv's hd?
Also, how in the world does the FCC plan to get us transitioned from
ntsc to atsc under these circumstances by 2007 as planned?
>Therefore MOST set top box manufacturers have decided NOT to make 8-VSB
>receivers which also lets current ones making them keep their prices high.
>
>It is not only economies of scale that make 8-VSB more expensive than
>other modulation receivers. 8-VSB is more expensive to produce
>intrinsically. Trying to solve multipath problems by brute force
>requires more silicon acreage hence higher cost.
>
>COFDM receiver cost start at $60 and COFDM DVB-T HD receivers would
>flood the US market at under $150 if this modulation was allowed in the
>US. Why? Far lower royalty cost for one. IP royalties demanded by LG
>Industries for their monopoly position in the US are 10 times those for
>COFDM. Those figures are around $6 for 8-VSB and 60 CENTS for COFDM.
>Manufactures take all cost including IP royalty cost and multiply by a
>factor of from 3 to 5 times so that extra $5.40 demanded by LG
>Industries cost you from $13.50 to $22.50 per receiver.
Why are we using a different standard than the rest of the world?
Isn't it usually China that does this sorta thing?
Well, we
have stuck to our guns not switching to metric.
And paying a lot more to do it? That sounds pretty stupid. I
wonder who got rich being paid off to stick us with this one.
Based on your calculations, if a receiver did cost $22.50 to make,
and given a 5x markup, that still means we should see these things
on the market for like $120. Not $300 and up, up, up.
>Then there is the economies of scale. COFDM is the world standard and is
>being implemented in most other countries of the world. Knowing that
>they can sell their products to a world market emboldens manufacturers
>to build in large quantities which radically lowers cost.
>
>More competition. Most set top box manufacturers are making or will soon
>make COFDM receivers of many kinds that work with analog and digital TV
>sets, PDA's, lap top computers, cell phones, portable TV sets and in car
>receivers. This stiff competition for many large and new markets forces
>the myriad of competitors to keep prices as low as possible.
>
>It is not just the cost of the receiver that the manufacturer has to
>consider. They know that the customer will have to buy and install a
>rooftop antenna with rotor in most cases which is part of the total cost
>the buyer is facing which lowers demand still further since COFDM does
>not require such rotorized antenna. Also the retailer worries about
>returns and problems with reception that will cut into or eliminate any
>profit he might make so they emphasize the HDTV set and not the receiver
>when selling. Result, 9 out of 10 HDTV buyers don't buy an OTA receiver.
>Even though we know there is more HD content OTA than on cable or sat
>and its free.
What do 9/10 hdtv buyers buy? These installation/reception issues
are exactly the same with any satellite purchase, aren't they? They
even throw in installation for free. Yet they seem to be doing well.
So I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't seem to fit with
how these issues work with the satellite market.
>Not true with COFDM receivers which work plug and play with simple
>indoor antennas so the cost of the receiver is the total cost.
I was under the impression that a regular tv antenna with good uhf
capabilities worked just fine. There are several very good omni-
directional uhf only antennas for fairly cheap.
>So you have few manufacturers making a more expensive receiver for a
>smaller market (the US and S. Korea) and fewer markets (no mobile or
>portable).
Again, I wonder how this transition is possible within a few years.
Thanks for the very enlightening response!!!