[BC] TV Set/Converter

[Rich Wood]

------ At 11:47 AM 1/4/2008, Scott Fybush wrote: -------

>Very. NTIA set some pretty stringent technical guidelines for the 
>new boxes, which pretty much mandate that they have to use the new 
>sixth-generation chips. I haven't tested them yet, but early word is 
>that they're significantly better performers than anything that's 
>come before (he said, looking over his shoulder at the fairly 
>mediocre Accurian DTV tuner in the rack...)

Terrific. I just bought a 5th generation tuner and it's already out of date.

>The only way I'd believe that 50% statistic is if it includes 
>viewers with digital cable boxes or DirecTV/Dish Network receivers, 
>and even then it seems high.

I believe they're including everything that feeds a digital monitor. 
The information I saw was counting digital TVs or monitors, not 
digital boxes feeding analog receivers.

>>For radio, the IBUZ folks have agreed to drop their opposition to 
>>the XM/SIRIUS merger if IBUZ is included in new receivers. If the 
>>estimated royalty is $40 per receiver, how can a manufacturer sell 
>>a receiver for the current average of $49? I'm about to buy a 
>>SIRIUS tuner for my new AV receiver for $39. At that price I'll 
>>deal with the artifacts.
>
>That $40 number has been floating around the net for a long time now 
>without any confirmation, and it's starting to sound a little fishy to me.

There isn't much about IBUZ that doesn't sound fishy to me. When you 
bathe a system in secrecy you have to expect you might find some 
fishy information that can't be refuted. There must be something to 
the fee if the FCC commissioners want the fee dropped or lowered if 
they accept the IBUZ company's request for forced inclusion in all 
satellite receivers.

>As for the Sirius and XM receivers, aren't those costs subsidized by 
>Sirius and XM, just as cellphone prices are "subsidized" by the carriers?

Absolutely. I saw some estimates that put the cost of acquiring a 
subscriber at well over $100. Inexpensive receivers, spiffs to 
salespeople and niche content have sold receivers.

I would have assumed that $630 million in distressed radio inventory 
would have sold more than the tiny number IBUZ receivers sold to 
non-radio people. Oops! I forgot. There's very, very little 
compelling content on secondaries when they don't dump out for lack 
of signal. I realize your market is blanketed by perfect IBUZ 
signals. Mine isn't. Secondaries are useless here when the radio 
moves.  Even my Accurian with an attic antenna loses digital standing 
still. I can watch the signal strength bars go from full to nothing 
several times a minute. Analog is solid.

>On that, I agree. I'm somewhat heartened by the large number of 
>coupon applications that came in right away - it says that despite a 
>less-than-perfect marketing campaign, the word is getting out there.

Maybe IBUZ needs the gummint's ad agency instead of the one they've 
got that isn't working. Just kidding. There are no known problems with IBUZ.

Rich

Rich