[mythtv-users] IMDB has TV listings.
ylee at pobox.com
Sun Jun 24 02:53:47 UTC 2007
Michael T. Dean <mtdean at thirdcontact.com> says:
> It was definitely very nice of you to cut out Daniel's and your
> statements from your response. I wouldn't want to confuse the point
> you're trying to make in this post (which seems to be saying I'm
> wrong or stupid or something)
How could I do that (imply that you're stupid), even if I wanted to?
You know way too much about MythTV, as you've repeatedly proven.
You are wrong, though, in the sense that you're misinterpreting my
> I do have to admit, though, that I have no clue what point you were
> trying to make in this post... My top candidates:
> - Digital TV has equal penetration in Europe and the US.
In terms of free over-the-air coverage (not penetration), yes, both
the US and the UK (I don't have continental European statistics) have
both reached near-universal levels, yes.
> - HDTV takes more bandwidth than non-HD digital TV, so the Europeans
> are far behind the US in digital TV penetration.
I said that Freeview's bandwidth requirements (and HDTV's own
bandwidth requirements) means that the UK can't simply start a
"Freeview HD" service. There isn't enough room. (Although I should
note that there is some recent talk of a clever multicast approach
that could resolve the dilemma, but I don't know how feasible it will
actually turn out to be.)
> - Penetration of non-free digital TV in Europe doesn't count in
> statistics, but non-free cable and satellite digital TV in the US does
> count in statistics.
Non sequitur. I did bring up non-free digital TV penetration in the
US, but only as a "kicker" to the important point of near-universal
availability of free HDTV. I perhaps should have specifically stated
that the digital transition of US cable and satellite networks in the
1990s likely precluded the launching of a US Freeview-like
Let me put this another way: The US shift to pay digital
cable/satellite that largely finished by the early years of this
century, achieving 90% household penetration (not all digital, but the
vast majority of both groups being so), was essentially the wired
version of the free wireless UK Freeview service (and, even more so,
the non-free wireless service that went bankrupt, leading to
> - You want to meet Europeans who are glad to have usable EIT data.
> Or, perhaps, HDTV without a guide is more useful than non-HD digital TV
> with a guide.
Yes, HDTV without EIT data is absolutely more useful than non-HD
digital TV with EIT data. In an ideal world, we Americans and MythTV
owners would all have both tons of free over-the-air HDTV and two
weeks of free, 100%-accurate EIT data that our MythTV boxes could
read. We don't; we have tons of free over-the-air HDTV but horribly
incomplete and very short-term EIT data. However, I much prefer the
situation we do have to the other way around. I know you're all-ATSC
yourself, Mike; are you saying you would have it the other way?
> - HDTV is prettier than non-HD digital TV and, therefore, Europeans
> want to be US citizens.
That's just being silly.
> - Regardless of whether it's digital or not, non-HD digital TV
> isn't digital in Yeechang world because digital is supposed to be
> pretty, darn it.
I said that the US made the right decision in making the HD and
digital over-the-air transitions at the same time. The UK and the rest
of Europe chose to only make the latter at first and consequently
face delays in the former; in some cases (as in the UK Freeview
example) the latter's very success is delaying the former.
> I am officially bowing out, now, so feel free to post a response.
> You have a guaranteed "last word" on this one if you do so, so make
> it a good one.
Mike, being passive-aggressive rarely works, especially online. It's
unseemly of someone of your intelligence to resort to.
Yeechang Lee <ylee at pobox.com> | +1 650 776 7763 | San Francisco CA US
More information about the mythtv-users