# The End of HDTV Broadcasting?



## Cholly

Here's a matter of concern for all of us who receive HD broadcasts over the air. While it may not be a primary concern to people who receive their TV via cable or satellite, it may impact at least some of the programming they receive.
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2009/12/the_end_of_high_definition_broadcasting.php


----------



## Shaqdan

In other news, the sky is falling.


----------



## Jtaylor1

It's not just the end of HD. It maybe the end of the Television Era, now that people use the internet to watch shows. The FCC is now considering to shut down all the television stations and take back the entire spectrum to make way for a nationwide broadband.

Cable companies may even stop offering their cable service and start offering their internet service to new customers.


----------



## scooper

Says who ?

I still get TV OTA .... and I LIKE IT THAT WAY !!

Internet will not have the same resolution unless EVERYBODY can download at 10Mbps (or better) all the time at the same time....


----------



## Nick

Again, the sky is falling. :nono2:

Added: The article sounds more like _Swammi_ type alarmism than (not then) HDTVMag reporting.

EDIT: add-on comment


----------



## mike1977

Jtaylor1 said:


> It's not just the end of HD. It maybe the end of the Television Era, now that people use the internet to watch shows. The FCC is now considering to shut down all the television stations and take back the entire spectrum to make way for a nationwide broadband.
> 
> Cable companies may even stop offering their cable service and start offering their internet service to new customers.


Watching shows over the internet can be too unreliable...it's why I rarely do it and why I'd rather see my shows on the TV! I get upset after being disconnected from WoW on a bad connection night...I don't even want to imagine trying to watch one of my favorite TV shows when the connection will drop every 5 minutes.


----------



## wxguy

The simple fact is that the broadcast TV business model is not sustainable. Most people watch syndicated programs or network shows and only 30% of the population watch locally produced shows. An most of that group is 50+. Another decade and the FCC won't have to shut down any TV channels, they will simply go out of business.

Network and syndicated programs can be distributed via satellite or cable directly to the viewer. The broadcaster just gets in the way with local commercial spots that the networks would just as soon sell themselves. 

One reason it survives at all is the built in protection of broadcasters by politicians who trade their congressional vote for cheap access to constituents. But once they find a more effective way to hoodwink the local voter, the TV access won't be so important. Withing the next decade we'll see congress providing subsidies to broadcasters to stay powered up for localism, meaning access to the voting public.

It would be cheaper to provide every household with cable access or a dish and be done with the spectrum hogs. This is settled science, so let's just move on.


----------



## Dave

We will not see a departure from free TV until the FCC comes out with a new rule or regulation forbidding it to the public. This will never happen. With the population growing older and more and more cost conscience. As the survey says 30% of the population is over 50. Until the Government steps up and says we will give everyone in the country free TV at the governments expense. Our any of you willing to pay for me or anyone else in the country to have free TV. This would mean an extra tax just for TV services. I for one would not be willing to pay it.


----------



## narrod

Cholly said:


> Here's a matter of concern for all of us who receive HD broadcasts over the air. While it may not be a primary concern to people who receive their TV via cable or satellite, it may impact at least some of the programming they receive.
> http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2009/12/the_end_of_high_definition_broadcasting.php


A tempest in a teapot. Won't happen. :nono2:


----------



## Jtaylor1

It's official. The FCC is considering taking the entire broadcasting spectrum for broadband.

This would mean that everyone nationwide will get broadband. There will also be set-top boxes for broadband video, moving TV online.

In Conclusion, over-the-air (OTA) TV will be obsolete.

Broadcasters Squeezed by Convergence Push

Source: Broadcasting & Cable


----------



## bidger

If I can get free broadband at a respectable 6-7Mbps down, I say bring it on. Apart from some prime-time shows and NFL games, broadcast TV is a wasteland, IMO. I spend far more time online than I do watching broadcast TV.


----------



## Jerry Springer

The answer is revenue.

For the most part, FOX and it's affiliate channels has stayed on the VHF where power consumption costs are cheaper and where they have more room to move - if they decide to try to utilize the unused frequency's.

I will compare this to the internet. Back when the internet first became available, the smart people went out and registered as many domain names as possible with the hopes that someone else would come along and want those names. Be willing to pay a premium price and the holder of the domain name would make out huge dividends.

When the dot com got too full, they just switched over to the NET address and was back in business as if nothing ever happened.

What the FCC is getting you prepared for is the take over by Comcast of NBC - General Electric.

Back in the early days of television, GE started NBC and Westinghouse started CBS and the rivalary between the two was like a war.

At one time I told the story of Du Mont and how Westinghouse practically ran him out of business and stole his keystone station - WDTV and turned it into KDKA - due to the fact that George Westinghouses main shop was located in Turtle Creek PA (East Pittsburgh) - now the Keystone Commons, and he was not allowed by the FCC to open his own station or network in his hometown - due to a freeze in licenses.

Du Mont was the model of success. If it was not for his operation, television as we know it today would not exist. Programs were dictated by the sponsor. Du Mont saw this and decided to have multiple sponsors.

Once Comcast owns NBC - they will be free to move it all into the cable and take it off the air for all their O&O stations. But no station can survive without revenue. The pay per view type system cannot work for people out in the county that does not have access to cable television.

Cable television will never be available to 100% of the homes in the USA due to the fact that some are just too far off the grid to be profitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuMont_Television_Network

http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/Case Studies/pdf/keystone commons1.pdf

As time goes on, the little guy is gobbled up by the big guy and when the big guy thinks that he has gotten too big, someone bigger then they are comes along and buys them out and the person that owns the land makes the rules - just like on the TV show Bonanza.

Comcast will buy out NBC and one day the Chinese will come along and buy out Comcast and we will all be watching cheap Japanese reality shows and not Gunsmoke and Bonanza anymore.


----------



## Jtaylor1

Comcast in taking their cable content to the internet.

Comcast Unveils Its On-Demand Web Television Service



> Comcast's vision for TV viewing on the Internet is now accessible to it's customers across the country.
> 
> The company announced Tuesday that the service it calls On Demand Online is now available to "any Comcast customer with a Digital Cable and Internet subscription." The service lets customers watch thousands of TV episodes and some movies via their Web browsers.


Source: New York Times


----------



## Nick

I predict that the end of broadcast tv will begin just about the time that global warming thing is winding down. :shrug:


----------



## celticpride

Heck i still have relatives who still dont own a computer or have the internet,but at least they have satellite,and thats only because their daughter bought them the directv!!


----------



## lwilli201

I am sure the satellite companies will be upset about this since they have spent a considerable amount of money on spot beams and ground infrastructure to satisfy FCC mandates for more LIL. Directv and Dish should not spend another nickel on LIL expansion until the FCC can make up its mind.


----------



## bicker1

wxguy said:


> The simple fact is that the broadcast TV business model is not sustainable. Most people watch syndicated programs or network shows and only 30% of the population watch locally produced shows. An most of that group is 50+. Another decade and the FCC won't have to shut down any TV channels, they will simply go out of business.
> 
> Network and syndicated programs can be distributed via satellite or cable directly to the viewer. The broadcaster just gets in the way with local commercial spots that the networks would just as soon sell themselves.


Yes, we're discussing this this week in another forum -- that one a more general interest forum, so some folks there are not quite as sensitive to industry issues, and are only blindly looking at the issue from the standpoint of a consumer and viewer. The idea that they may actually have to pay for entertainment -- heck! that the people who pay for their entertainment actually expect something in return  -- is a shocking revelation to some folks there.


----------



## FogCutter

bidger said:


> If I can get free broadband at a respectable 6-7Mbps down, I say bring it on. Apart from some prime-time shows and NFL games, broadcast TV is a wasteland, IMO. I spend far more time online than I do watching broadcast TV.


Excellent point. Local stations could still exist as internet sites.

Clearly such a move would rattle the economics of the networks, but the benefit to society would be considerable.

Nice idea -- I like it.


----------



## cousinofjah

bidger said:


> If I can get free broadband at a respectable 6-7Mbps down, I say bring it on. Apart from some prime-time shows and NFL games, broadcast TV is a wasteland, IMO. I spend far more time online than I do watching broadcast TV.


so broadcast TV to be replaced by a dizzying array of computing devices and set-top boxes all competing for our attention, slowing our internet connection (and maybe that of our neighbors), and challenging our TV input strategy? If TV becomes exclusively IPTV of some form or fashion (and telephone go all mobile), does broadband access now become as important as power? And as regulated?


----------



## FogCutter

cousinofjah said:


> If TV becomes exclusively IPTV of some form or fashion (and telephone go all mobile), does broadband access now become as important as power? And as regulated?


Sure, why not? And regulation is sure to follow, which can be good or bad depending on the hand on the tiller.


----------



## ziggy29

Well, folks, here you go:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/450763-FCC_Proposing_TV_Spectrum_Auction.php

Enjoy free OTA while it lasts. Yes, they say they only want "unused" spectrum for now, but as that varies by market and we've already shed nearly 40% of the OTA spectrum in two chunks (70-83 and later 52-69), I think the writing's on the wall that eventually "free TV" will be dead.


----------



## Nick

FogCutter said:


> Excellent point. Local stations could still exist as internet sites.
> 
> Clearly such a move would rattle the economics of the networks, but the benefit to society would be considerable.
> 
> Nice idea -- I like it.


A word to the wise: beware of those who use the argument that taking something away from us is _'for the benefit of society'_. Even more dubious is that old liberal lie that it's _'for the greater good'_. When the government says things like that, you can bet that whatever they're screwing with is going to turn out to be bad for the individual -- that applies you and me, but especially _me!_


----------



## Lee L

THis all makes me wonder if they really were just trying to stop the DTV transition altogether when they delayed it last time. Right after, there were a few strange quotes floating around, then I think they realized so much had been invested by so many that stopping it was an impossiblilty. Now they will just try to do it more slowly.


----------



## bicker1

Cue the X-Files music.


----------



## russ9

NY Times article: The Buried Treasure in Your TV Dial
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/business/economy/28view.html?scp=1&sq=over%20the%20air%20television&st=cse
Basically on the same topic


----------



## cousinofjah

russ9 said:


> NY Times article: The Buried Treasure in Your TV Dial
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/business/economy/28view.html?scp=1&sq=over%20the%20air%20television&st=cse
> Basically on the same topic


I don't get this part



> Say there are 10 million households that still get their television over the air, including those that can't afford cable or satellite and some that generally just don't care for what's on TV. (Yes, there are people who don't like "American Idol.") But about 99 percent of these households have cable running near their homes, and virtually all the others, in rural areas, could be reached by satellite services. The F.C.C. could require cable and satellite providers to offer a low-cost service that carries only local channels, and to give vouchers for connecting to that service to any households that haven't subscribed to cable or satellite for, say, two years.


doesn't that a) put the burden on satellite providers to provide tons more local channels to cover these rural areas?


----------



## leww37334

They will have to pry my antenna from my cold dead fingers. (sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## Glen_D

lwilli201 said:


> I am sure the satellite companies will be upset about this since they have spent a considerable amount of money on spot beams and ground infrastructure to satisfy FCC mandates for more LIL. Directv and Dish should not spend another nickel on LIL expansion until the FCC can make up its mind.


Rural areas should be pretty much covered by satellite, I would think, since they are in some city's DMA. What I'm wondering about are all the multi-cast channels. There are probably a dozen or so in my market that are not offered by either satellite provider (or U-verse, for that matter). Would the Feds also subsidize the ifrastructure necessary for the satellite providers to add all these additional channels if OTA goes away? Would auctioning off the spectum currently used for OTA bring in way more $$$ than this would cost? Or would the multi-cast services go away?


----------



## leww37334

If OTA is no longer necessary, then, why (less than six months ago) did Congress pump millions of dollars into the digital conversion in order to make sure people could still use OTA?

(because they are idiots is not an acceptable answer).


----------



## bicker1

leww37334 said:


> If OTA is no longer necessary, then, why (less than six months ago) did Congress pump millions of dollars into the digital conversion in order to make sure people could still use OTA?
> 
> (because they are idiots is not an acceptable answer).


The problem is that many readers are reading the article with blinders on, fixating on what they feel is the outrageous nature of the extreme scenario, and refusing to acknowledge the conditionals that are evident throughout the article. Go back and read the article again, this time focusing on the words below:

> *Or, as an interim step, we could reduce the number of channels available in a community from 49 to, say, 5.* ...


----------



## harsh

cousinofjah said:


> doesn't that a) put the burden on satellite providers to provide tons more local channels to cover these rural areas?


DISH is missing 31 SD DMAs out of 210 and around 81 DMAs in HD, but the HD coverage is decidedly partial and subchannels are razor thin.

Going to MPEG4 on everything would probably be a good first step.


----------



## cousinofjah

harsh said:


> DISH is missing 31 SD DMAs out of 210 and around 81 DMAs in HD, but the HD coverage is decidedly partial and subchannels are razor thin.
> 
> Going to MPEG4 on everything would probably be a good first step.


which means equipment changes for almost everyone, no?


----------



## harsh

cousinofjah said:


> which means equipment changes for almost everyone, no?


It means changes for those who haven't changed themselves over the period of time that it would take to go away from the broadcast model.

The change to all MPEG4 has already started for both satellite companies.


----------



## dpd146

Jtaylor1 said:


> Comcast in taking their cable content to the internet.


But don't watch too much or they will shut your service down for going over the bandwidth cap. :nono2:


----------



## Scott in FL

I wasn't paying much attention to this topic until I read this in last month's Broadcast Engineering: http://broadcastengineering.com/news/end-over-the-air-tv-0210/index.html


----------



## Dave

You can not do away with broadcast over the air TV. For one not every living being in the USA has cable/DSL or even a computer. You would have to have all cable and DSL operators supply to every neighbor hood in the country, no matter how remote or distant for the head end high speed internet. As we all know this will never happen. If you are one of five or six houses 30 miles outside the range for the high speed DSL connection or there is no cable, they are not going to string new cable or put a sub end connection out there just for the 5. And as we all know HughesNet or any satelitte internet provider just does not cut it. There speeds have been known to drop below dialup speeds more than above them. So still no high speed internet for the few. Where as a good or even a cheap Antenna can pick up the stations for the locals at the ranges and farther away. So are we also going to have the Government require are providers to make sure they string the lines out to any and all possible customers? Are we going to require our Government to provide every and any house hold in the country with a computer capable of receiving high speed internet? Think about the problems before you jump on this band wagon doing away with OTA towers and transmitters. Should we really give up TV towers for CellPhones? I think not.


----------



## FogCutter

Dave said:


> You can not do away with broadcast over the air TV. . . Should we really give up TV towers for CellPhones? I think not.


Dave,

Once OTA becomes a money loser, the stations will drop away on their own whether the government grabs the bandwidth or not.

The British were in sad situation a few years ago. They had changed broadcast formats and years later were supporting both formats nationally at great expense. At one point only 2-3,000 TVs were on the old format were still in use.

Someone realized that it would be far cheaper for the government to buy new sets than to continue two broadcast formats. Don't know if they ever did it or not.

So as long as OTA stays profitable I'm all for it.


----------



## Dave

Yes but we all know about the DTV coupon fiascal. Do we really want the govenment to pick and choose your compter or TV set? This would be the greatest govenment mess of all time ever. If people can not afford the new TV or to even buy a computer now without service to there house, how is the govenment going to save them? I am all for new technology and for the corps and companies to make a profit. But the government does not do anything or produce anything to help the corps to do this. Yes WiFI is great. But who is going to pay for all the towers and infrastructure? The TV stations now don't want to upgrade unless forced to. They will fight tooth and nail to not put up the towers around the country for the Wi Fi signals to go out.


----------



## bicker1

So what are you suggesting? A return of the Luddites? :-?


----------



## FogCutter

In the case of HDTV, the government was the moving force behind the transition in the US. The private market fought it tooth and nail. This arose in the early 1990s when it looked like Japan (who already had HD) was going to rule the world. Of course it took years and years and years, but it has finally happened. 

But I really don't believe society has a duty to supply infrastructure and support to citizens with archaic receivers. People need to get with the program or watch static. 

Remember dial phones -- it cost the phone companies millions to support pulse dialing for years after it stopped making sense. It still might be going on. The rational was that some wretched old poor person might not have the $5 to buy a touch tone phone or the savvy to plug it in, and the companies were not given the option to pass out replacements for gawd knows what reason. Crazy.


----------



## bicker1

I believe you're seriously mistaken: The private sector did indeed push for HDTV. The CES specifically was very vocal in their insistence that the move to digital go forward. 

While I respect your desire to have society "supply infrastructure and support to citizens with archaic receivers", there is no such duty on society. I suggest that if you wish to consider it a duty, you take it onto yourself and others of like mind, and as many of us do with regard to other things we feel strongly about, donate your time and finances to address that need, through private efforts.


----------



## FogCutter

bicker1 said:


> I believe you're seriously mistaken: The private sector did indeed push for HDTV. The CES specifically was very vocal in their insistence that the move to digital go forward.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Alliance_(HDTV)

Sorry about resorting to wikipedia, but this sums it up pretty well. The TV broadcasters at the time wanted nothing to do with it. The Feds wanted to establish a US HDTV standard that the Japanese did not own. HDTV from Japan at that time was still analog and no universal digital HD standard existed.

To make it stick, the Feds set up rules to pull the plug on standard OTA, which has happened at long last.

Much of the private sector were against HDTV and without the Feds it would not have happened. The broadcasters and networks were against it, the set makers and hardware people were for it, but not if there wasn't a drop dead date for OTA. In fact, the Feds pumped millions into display and broadcast technologies for this, DLP being one of the most notable results.

No, I have to say that the government did OK by giving us HDTV, and it wouldn't have happened for a very long time without them.


----------



## bicker1

FogCutter said:


> The TV broadcasters at the time wanted nothing to do with it.


That's not what you claimed before. Of course the broadcasters didn't want it. It represented a door opening that would inevitably lead to additional costs for them.

What you claimed before was, "The private market fought it tooth and nail." As I said, that not true. The private market wanted HDTV. Big time.


----------



## FogCutter

bicker1 said:


> That's not what you claimed before. Of course the broadcasters didn't want it. It represented a door opening that would inevitably lead to additional costs for them.
> 
> What you claimed before was, "The private market fought it tooth and nail." As I said, that not true. The private market wanted HDTV. Big time.


Sorry, that is what I meant, and I thought it was what I said fairly clearly.
My bad.

And at the time there was a tremendous amount of effort to kill HDTV before it started -- tooth and nail -- well, that's a matter of perception.

If the government hadn't pushed it through rules and legislation it would not have happened.

The private market didn't want it badly enough to make the investment, but the government did so as not to cede yet another market to the Japanese.

Only late in the process after the lobbying failed did everyone come on board.
I think that's what you're seeing.

The private market may have wanted HDTV 'big time', but they were doing nothing to make it happen, and fought the government when the regulations were imposed.

Interpret history however you need to.

And why are you so cranky?


----------



## bicker1

FogCutter said:


> If the government hadn't pushed it through rules and legislation it would not have happened.


Considering that the broadcast spectrum is a national resource, it would of course have to require government legislation to make the kinds of changes to support a transition to digital. You're not saying anything that is as remarkable as you're trying to make it sound.

Again, the private market wanted HD. You're simply wrong about that.



FogCutter said:


> And why are you so cranky?


It's not crankiness. It's lack of patience for distortion.


----------



## FogCutter

bicker1 said:


> Considering that the broadcast spectrum is a national resource, it would of course have to require government legislation to make the kinds of changes to support a transition to digital. You're not saying anything that is as remarkable as you're trying to make it sound.
> 
> Again, the private market wanted HD. You're simply wrong about that.
> 
> It's not crankiness. It's lack of patience for distortion.


No, it's crankiness. I know it when I see it.

The march to HDTV was nearly derailed several times by the station owners and networks. From their perspective, they were going to spend billions and not add a single viewer.

But the Feds held fast. The final end of SD OTA was pushed back at bit, but without the heavy hand of the government, we would still be on NTSC OTA.

One of the big beefs from the broadcasters was that the only HD TVs were coming from Japan, were 36" diag or smaller, and cost $10-15K. Who the heck would buy something like that?

So the FCC sponsored a competition for new display technologies, handing out $10M grants. Texas Instruments submitted a request for money to develop a new display tech that used near microscopic moving mirrors.

The FCC called them and said that they should only submit serious entries. TI said that they were serious, the grant went through, and now we have DLP displays.

I remember following HDTV with great interest, waiting for someone to kill it, but the Feds held the tiller firm and eventually it happened.

Of all the players, the station owners yelled the loudest. They had the shallowest pockets and were expected to make massive equipment outlays at a time when there were no viewers due to lack of sets and no content because nobody was filming in HD.

OK, lest you feel more offended let me change 'tooth and nail' to 'significant protests and impediments to implementation'.

Sure, I wanted HDTV badly and anyone who had been to CES in the early 90s who had seen it wanted it too, but there was no market driven groundswell that brought it about, as I'm interpreting your comments to mean. Nope, just wasn't there. Only muuccchhh later, and even that was very slow at first.

If there had been massive demand, people could have gray marketed Japanese HD gear at least a decade before we had HD. That also didn't happen.

Read about 'Japan, Inc.' and the Ministry of Industry and Trade (I believe) that inspired the Feds to push industry into HDTV while offering funding and regulatory guidance.

Really interesting.

Ok, you aren't cranky, but I'm not distorting.

What were we arguing about anyway? Nothing important I'm sure.


----------



## Skyboss

Cholly said:


> Here's a matter of concern for all of us who receive HD broadcasts over the air. While it may not be a primary concern to people who receive their TV via cable or satellite, it may impact at least some of the programming they receive.
> http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2009/12/the_end_of_high_definition_broadcasting.php


Right now its too soon, but 10-15 years from now I can see it the way broadband is going. Could even see an end to Cable TV and Satellite as we know it. Just hook up a big bandwidth pipe to the house and let her rip....



FogCutter said:


> Excellent point. Local stations could still exist as internet sites.
> 
> Clearly such a move would rattle the economics of the networks, but the benefit to society would be considerable.
> 
> Nice idea -- I like it.


The locals are good for one thing: Local news - which I never watch. Sports can go fully pay per view. Everything else could be a national feed and I wouldn't know the difference as all of that programing is on the DVR. Maybe someone like Apple will start selling channel/network packages that give you access to the programing and said channels that you can just set to download to your DVR and watch later.


----------



## brant

FogCutter said:


> No, it's crankiness. I know it when I see it.
> 
> The march to HDTV was nearly derailed several times by the station owners and networks. From their perspective, they were going to spend billions and not add a single viewer.
> 
> But the Feds held fast. The final end of SD OTA was pushed back at bit, but without the heavy hand of the government, we would still be on NTSC OTA. . . . . .
> 
> Of all the players, the station owners yelled the loudest. They had the shallowest pockets and were expected to make massive equipment outlays at a time when there were no viewers due to lack of sets and no content because nobody was filming in HD. . . . . . .


To be clear, there is no requirement for HDTV that I've seen; the requirement was only to transmit a digital signal to free up spectrum so the gov't could auction it for other purposes.

No one made the station owners purchase HD cameras and equipment. I still get several OTA channels that broadcast standard definition content, but its over the ATSC standards.

I have a 480p tube TV in a weekend house that has an ATSC tuner built-in.

Its not as if the gov't "saved the day" to bring us high def television.


----------



## bicker1

FogCutter said:


> No, it's crankiness. I know it when I see it.


Just like I know myopic revisionism when I see it?



FogCutter said:


> The march to HDTV was nearly derailed several times by the station owners and networks.


You've said that already. Pretty much every other business in the industry welcomed the digital transition. You keep trying to get people to think that the general sentiment was against HD, when the reality is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.



FogCutter said:


> Ok, you aren't cranky, but I'm not distorting.


Yes, you're distorting. No I'm not cranky. How much do you want the thread to be about those things instead of being about HDTV?



FogCutter said:


> What were we arguing about anyway? Nothing important I'm sure.


I don't know what the heck you were talking about, but the rest of us were talking about reasonable proposals to reallocate limited portions of the spectrum to more productive uses that better serve the needs of more citizens -- we were talking about progress.


----------



## bicker1

Skyboss said:


> The locals are good for one thing: Local news - which I never watch. Sports can go fully pay per view. Everything else could be a national feed and I wouldn't know the difference as all of that programing is on the DVR. .


This is a really good point. A lot of folks looking at broadcasting and objecting to, really, any changes anyone suggests whatsoever, talk about watching the Super Bowl, and watching Grey's Anatomy, as if they were *entitlements* instead of services offered for a price paid (in the case of OTA broadcast television, the price paid is the value of the viewers' attention and consideration of sponsor's commercial messages -- I know that comes as a really big shock to some people). The entitlement mentality does tend to obscure the reality of the issue for these folks. It drives them to see fairness as unfairness; to see progress as something (that was never actually theirs) being taken away from them.

Access to news *is *an entitlement, and news can be provided from as few as two or three channels in each market (and generally is *only *provided by that many channels, *today*). Beyond that, what should govern where we get our entertainment (including live sports) from, and how, and how much we have to pay for them, is the marketplace, not some proprietary notion that OTA broadcast channels should be providing some measure of these discretionary diversions.


----------



## V'ger

leww37334 said:


> If OTA is no longer necessary, then, why (less than six months ago) did Congress pump millions of dollars into the digital conversion in order to make sure people could still use OTA?
> 
> (because they are idiots is not an acceptable answer).


Analog TV could not be packed, channel next to channel due to original design of transmitters. DTV can, as long as adjacent channels are in the same direction and roughly the same power. If the original plan was to get rid of OTA, they needed time to pick OTA's bones a few MHz at a time. They had to do the converter boxes to fool people into buying into the program. It was a total waste of money, but is it that much in the grand scheme of things?

Satellite will be happy to provide some form of TV to rural. As soon as locals go off the airwaves, cable and satellite will claim they don't have to be carried. I can see a lawsuit with the FCC as how can a provider be required to carry an internet feed, when there are hundreds of internet feeds in local areas? Just because they were a former TV station won't cut it with the courts.

With dramatically reduced viewership, many local channels will simply go out of business because of lack of ad revenue. That will cause the loss of syndicated programming, as they can't make money. Some programming will go to ppv internet downloads, some will die.

The networks will become cable channels at best. With reduced viewership, will ABC, and CBS continue to have a network news operation when they are competing with a dozen other well established 24/7 cable news channels? I assume NBC news will fold into MSNBC and CNBC.

The dramatic reduction in local channels means that there will be a lot of extra space on satellites and cable for additional services. The only issue is that the satellite companies have spent billions of dollars in putting up spacecraft to supply those 1000s of local channels mandated by the FCC. they might be upset with the FCC and want some sort of compensation.

Finally, there will be an issue of not having the ability to get disaster warnings, school closings, etc out to people if there are no local channels anymore. I can see the government mandating software installs on our PCs to ensure we get those alerts (shades of the Chinese, wanting internet filters on their people's PCs), or the government run internet will inject the warnings in our web pages.

It's going to be a rosy future.


----------



## FogCutter

V'ger;2408588 said:


> The networks will become cable channels at best. With reduced viewership, will ABC, and CBS continue to have a network news operation when they are competing with a dozen other well established 24/7 cable news channels? I assume NBC news will fold into MSNBC and CNBC.
> 
> It's going to be a rosy future.


Well said.


----------



## cousinofjah

I can't see them doing away with ALL OTA bands.


----------



## bicker1

Yup: Simply not going to happen. The reason why it comes up is that cynical folks who are jealous of very last kH of spectrum have to make the proposals to better utilize a portion of the spectrum sound like humongous catastrophes on the horizon. Essentially, they know that unless they deceive people into thinking there is really a danger of losing OTA broadcasting entirely, that they're not going to be able to foster the kind of mob-mentality necessary to apply sufficient pressure on the FCC to leave things the way the cynics personally want them to be.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

"to better utilize a portion of the spectrum "

I would argue that there is no more efficient user of the radiospectrum than today's OTA broadcast TV stations. Think about it. 

Moreover, the OTA broadcasters already gave the government 25% of their spectrum.

I believe that today's OTA broadcasters will become tomorrow's OTA digital broadcasters to mobile devices. And they'll do so MUCH more efficiently than Verizon or Google can narrowcast content.


----------



## FogCutter

Gloria_Chavez said:


> I believe that today's OTA broadcasters will become tomorrow's OTA digital broadcasters to mobile devices. And they'll do so MUCH more efficiently than Verizon or Google can narrowcast content.


Interesting. From a business standpoint that is quite a transition, but it would make perfect sense. Maybe they could morph some of their web efforts into something of value OTA.

Personally I think OTA will eventually vanish but an argument against that is of course radio. Good old AM and FM. They are still out there, still going strong (ish), and they have landed in a durable niche.

My thoughts are driven by the hypothetical 'killer app' that will give us mobile instant whatever everywhere, and that will take lots of frequencies and lots of bandwidth. People will pay for that. Many, many OTA devotees hang on because it's free to them. They feel strongly about it to hear them talk, but they would drop it very quickly if they had to pay.

That's part of the network conundrum -- they're customers will take their services as long as they are free. Not a robust business model in a world of growing acceptance of pay services that offer vastly wider offerings.

What of advertisers -- sure, but they are seeing a decline on their investment with OTA adverts. Remember, the OTA audience is watching because it is free -- they value free over wider content -- they aren't the key demographic that they used to be unless the advertisers are offering free services. Not a robust business model if covering costs and making a profit is an issue.

Be fun to see how it unfolds.


----------



## bicker1

Gloria_Chavez said:


> I would argue that there is no more efficient user of the radiospectrum than today's OTA broadcast TV stations. Think about it.


If you think about it, you'll realize that that is only true of a small percentage of the available spectrum, perhaps as little as 24-30 MHz per DMA.



Gloria_Chavez said:


> Moreover, the OTA broadcasters already gave the government 25% of their spectrum.


Uh, no they didn't. The broadcasters never had any spectrum: It was always the government's spectrum.

I'm curious: Whatever gave you the idea that it was the broadcasters' spectrum?



Gloria_Chavez said:


> I believe that today's OTA broadcasters will become tomorrow's OTA digital broadcasters to mobile devices.


Only if there is bandwidth for that application.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Hi Bicker.

(i) Let's say that ESPN wants to broadcast the SuperBowl via the Internet. What's more effective use of frequency, ESPN narrowcasting the game to 110 million households across the nation, or Fox broadcasting the game in major cities using its radiospectrum?

(ii) You're right about the spectrum being given to broadcasters decades ago. I would be open to a surtax on broadcaster revenue, in exchange for allowing them to continue exploiting the frequencies.

(iii) Why wouldn't there be bandwidth for the application?

(iv) FogCutter, the "network conundrum" problem you mention is interesting. Today, CPMs (cost to reach 1000 viewers) are higher on broadcast network television than cable. Materially higher. If you want to reach a critical mass of educated, affluent Americans, you do so on network TV, advertising on dramas like 24.

It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds. I'm a firm believer in broadcast network TV, and I hope it survives.

Also, I'd like to ask, anyone that live in LA, what do you think of Sezmi?

http://www.sezmi.com/


----------



## bicker1

Gloria_Chavez said:


> (i) Let's say that ESPN wants to broadcast the SuperBowl via the Internet. What's more effective use of frequency, ESPN narrowcasting the game to 110 million households across the nation, or Fox broadcasting the game in major cities using its radiospectrum?


The latter. And you could broadcast more than *six different camera angles *of the SuperBowl, simultaneously, in the 24-30 MHz of bandwidth that I mentioned in the message you're replying to. Did you miss that?

(I'm not saying that that is how all of that bandwidth _should_ be used -- I'm just saying that there is enough capacity in that bandwidth to do that.)



Gloria_Chavez said:


> (ii) You're right about the spectrum being given to broadcasters decades ago.


That's not what I said. Indeed, What I said was the exact opposite: "The broadcasters *never **had any *spectrum: It was always the government's spectrum."



Gloria_Chavez said:


> I would be open to a surtax on broadcaster revenue, in exchange for allowing them to continue exploiting the frequencies.


I don't think that's necessary, really. That's a tax for taxing sake. It doesn't actually serve a valuable purpose, like retasking a portion of the spectrum for other uses.



Gloria_Chavez said:


> (iii) Why wouldn't there be bandwidth for the application?


There wouldn't be unless some was retasked for that purpose.


----------



## Nick

bicker1 said:


> "...The broadcasters *never **had any *spectrum: It was always the government's spectrum."


Sorry, but you have that wrong.

The public airwaves belong to we, the American people, the "public" as it were. We elect representatives to pass laws that regulate the use of the publicly-owned airwaves and they hire (inefficient and ineffectual) bureaucrats to administer those laws and create a snake's nest ofregulations. We are the bosses of the government and the rightful owners of the airwaves, not the other way around.

Yes, you and I _own_ the airwaves...isn't that great?

Only problem is, except for a few of very narrow exceptions we (the people) can't use our own airwaves, and we (the people) can't derive any revenue from them. Our elected representatives and those (inefficient and ineffectual) bureaucrats whose salaries we (involuntary) pay (at the point of a gun) out of our own earnings in the form of taxes have given our airwaves away.

Living in America is just like living in a great big HOA. Oh, and then there's the NAB.


----------



## bicker1

Nick said:


> Sorry, but you have that wrong.


No I had it right. The PP said that the broadcasters had the spectrum. I said that the PP was wrong. I'm correct.



Nick said:


> The public airwaves belong to we, the American people, the "public" as it were.


Some news for you: "We the People of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Just in case you thought there was someone else behind this magical thing called "government". 



Nick said:


> Yes, you and I _own_ the airwaves...isn't that great? Only problem is, except for a few of very narrow exceptions we (the people) can't use our own airwaves, and we (the people) can't derive any revenue from them.


I think I understand your confusion: You seem to think that you and I own the airwaves, ourselves, individually, in some way, instead of the reality, that we own them collectively (hence my earlier mention about the "government"). As such, "we" absolutely can and do use our own airwaves and even derive revenue from them.


----------



## FogCutter

Gloria,
As long as the OTA networks give us something we want to watch they will stay in the game. But the fraction of viewers watching the networks via dbs and cable is growing, making the analysis more challenging. With this segment comes fees from the dbs/cable companies to pay by the viewer for content from the networks. The networks have the incentive to increase non-OTA viewers for that reason.

Personally, I wouldn't want to own a television station right now.


----------



## bicker1

Me neither. The whole sector of the economy, I feel, is unstable from the perspective of folks taking the long-term view. Why invest in a television drama, when you can make more money investing in a new pharmaceutical that will likely pay a better return? The only thing that seems to offer a chance for regaining some stability in this regard is the ascendancy of retransmission fees, but even that's under attack.


----------



## bicker1

Very interesting blog post today....

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/12/where-did-the-primetime-broadcast-tv-audience-go/47976

The chart is very informative, especially if you just look at the over-the-air audience numbers, for a minute: It not only shows the obvious, i.e., how the over-the-air network affiliate audience has contracted, but it also very clearly shows how the independent television station audience has utterly evaporated, *by comparison* to the over-the-air network affiliate audience. This speaks directly to the point that perhaps a lot of over-the-air television bandwidth is wasted, serving fewer and fewer viewers year-after-year, with the drop far more precipitous on a percentage basis than the drop that over-the-air network affiliates are experiencing. (About 18% of the over-the-air audience watched independent stations in 1985-1986, as compared to only 5% of the over-the-air audience today.) This helps foster calls for perhaps using multicasting (perhaps 4 x 480i streams) to serve independent stations, instead of devoting full channels to each.


----------



## FogCutter

bicker1,
Very cool. It's empirically obvious, but seeing the numbers graphed like that is striking. Down she goes. 

I have to say again, OTA is dying and needs to go away. The tiny handful of folks who can't connect via IP or DBS will just have to read the newspaper if there are any of those left. It looks like the market will take care of OTA before long.


----------



## kenglish

When OTA is gone, there will be nothing left but PAY TV.
(What do you think will happen then?) :eek2:

TV for only the wealthy?
TV "stamps" for the poor.
Middle class viewers squeezed out?
Everything in YouTube quality?
Amateur local journalists?


----------



## FogCutter

Dogs and cats sleeping together? 

I could say that TV is not a right, but that chord has been struck enough on other issues. Like anything, if no one is willing to pay (viewer or advertisers) and the service cannot support itself somehow -- it will just have to go dark.

Like CDs and LPs. Even before music downloads took over, it was up to the consumer to upgrade to a CD player if they wanted the newer music. The record companies should not and were not required to issue everything in both formats.

Something I just found out -- in some communities the cable companies give free basic service -- just plug into the wall and there are 15 channels or something like that. Perhaps the DBS folks will be pressured into such an arrangement. 

You and I will pay for it even though we won't benefit, but someone has to pay. And no we don't get to vote on it. We just pay --


----------



## Jtaylor1

NAB 2010: Broadcasters Announce Mobile DTV Joint Venture

Source: Broadcasting & Cable


----------



## bicker1

We do get to vote on it -- every November we have a chance to start spinning the nation to the left or to the right. The decision that most people make -- talking about members of both parties -- is to give a certain amount for the good of all, and keep most of the rest of what they earn for themselves.


----------



## cousinofjah

bicker1 said:


> Very interesting blog post today....
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/12/where-did-the-primetime-broadcast-tv-audience-go/47976
> 
> The chart is very informative, especially if you just look at the over-the-air audience numbers, for a minute: It not only shows the obvious, i.e., how the over-the-air network affiliate audience has contracted, but it also very clearly shows how the independent television station audience has utterly evaporated, *by comparison* to the over-the-air network affiliate audience.


well, the article does qualify that most of the independent stations have become network affiliates over the years (Fox, UPN, PAX, Telefutura, ION, etc.)


----------



## kevinturcotte

If they get rid of OTA, what are people going to do about local news? Find out about local parking bans when it snows, if school is canceled or gets out early, if certain streets are closed. What the weather is going to be (Not that you can actually rely on that,I know lol). What if there's some sort of emergency (I notice they still broadcast that Emergency Alert thing)?


----------



## bicker1

kevinturcotte said:


> If they get rid of OTA, what are people going to do about local news?


That's a red herring. No one is seriously suggesting getting rid of OTA entirely.


----------



## FogCutter

bicker1 said:


> That's a red herring. No one is seriously suggesting getting rid of OTA entirely.


I find it ironic that so much effort went into defining the HD standard in terms of OTA transmissions only to see the broadcasters wither away just as things become fully implemented.

One thought -- there is a big push to spread real broadband IP across the nation. The final service is supposed to be cheap or free and very inclusive. That might just end the need for OTA. It would be easy enough to give the holdouts a converter box to take IP content to NTSC or whatever they have.

Be fun to see what happens.


----------



## kevinturcotte

FogCutter said:


> I find it ironic that so much effort went into defining the HD standard in terms of OTA transmissions only to see the broadcasters wither away just as things become fully implemented.
> 
> One thought -- there is a big push to spread real broadband IP across the nation. The final service is supposed to be cheap or free and very inclusive. That might just end the need for OTA. It would be easy enough to give the holdouts a converter box to take IP content to NTSC or whatever they have.
> 
> Be fun to see what happens.


For somebody like my Mother and her b/f, they've got to get that signal there wirelessly, and display it on their TV (They don't have computer, internet, or cell phones). They also need to do it free, or if they're going to charge like $10, allow them to somehow pay with cash, or with a money order (They don't have credit cards either).


----------



## FogCutter

kevinturcotte said:


> For somebody like my Mother and her b/f, they've got to get that signal there wirelessly, and display it on their TV (They don't have computer, internet, or cell phones). They also need to do it free, or if they're going to charge like $10, allow them to somehow pay with cash, or with a money order (They don't have credit cards either).


http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/about

This website doesn't mention it, but I've seen it discussed that by taking the OTA bandwidth a good portion will be given over to national free broadband, which implies that it will take place wirelessly. Then it's just a matter of another converter box to service TVs, radios, whatever.

I'm stuck with 1.5 meg download with enough streaming pauses to kill Netflix for me, so there is lots of room for improvement.

Your Mom could still wind up in the dark if the broadcast/advertiser model collapses. Somebody, somewhere has to pay for content. Some vendors are charging more to take cash payments, and it's not hard to imagine cash going away, too.

To be alive is to live with change. . .


----------



## bicker1

FogCutter said:


> I find it ironic that so much effort went into defining the HD standard in terms of OTA transmissions only to see the broadcasters wither away just as things become fully implemented.


One of the main ways that the use of OTA spectrum can be made more efficient (which is what the point of all this is) is multicasting, something that is only possible because of the "HD standard" (as you referred to it) that was defined.



FogCutter said:


> One thought -- there is a big push to spread real broadband IP across the nation. The final service is supposed to be cheap or free and very inclusive. That might just end the need for OTA.


It seems unlike that generally stingy, self-centered American taxpayers would spring for "real broadband IP" that is truly "across the nation", at least not in my lifetime. So while broadband deployment might _reduce _the need for OTA, it won't "end" it.


----------



## FogCutter

bicker1 said:


> It seems unlike that generally stingy, self-centered American taxpayers would spring for "real broadband IP" that is truly "across the nation", at least not in my lifetime. So while broadband deployment might _reduce _the need for OTA, it won't "end" it.


But it isn't a big leap from universal wireless IP to OTA -- the end user need not even be aware of the difference beyond the converter box.

I've seen that they are talking using the UHF spectrum and even the existing towers -- that would certainly lower the start up costs, and who knows, it could even spin enough revenue to the local stations to keep them on the air a while longer.

Of course I thought that powerline IP connection was really cool, and that never took off. Everybody is already wired save for the end of the roaders and the Amish.


----------



## bicker1

It isn't the matter of the leap, itself, technically, but rather the coinage necessary to bring it about. There are simply too many other ways people would rather use their money rather than pushing their way up this hill. You outlined ways that they could "lower" the costs, but to make this a reality, including the guy I know who lives midway between San Francisco CA and Portland OR, where even OTA is difficult (but not impossible), you cannot eliminate the costs, and that's going to prevent this from being available to everyone for the foreseeable future.


----------



## cousinofjah

kevinturcotte said:


> If they get rid of OTA, what are people going to do about local news? Find out about local parking bans when it snows, if school is canceled or gets out early, if certain streets are closed. What the weather is going to be (Not that you can actually rely on that,I know lol). What if there's some sort of emergency (I notice they still broadcast that Emergency Alert thing)?


radio? until that goes all digital


----------



## Paul Secic

wxguy said:


> The simple fact is that the broadcast TV business model is not sustainable. Most people watch syndicated programs or network shows and only 30% of the population watch locally produced shows. An most of that group is 50+. Another decade and the FCC won't have to shut down any TV channels, they will simply go out of business.
> 
> Network and syndicated programs can be distributed via satellite or cable directly to the viewer. The broadcaster just gets in the way with local commercial spots that the networks would just as soon sell themselves.
> 
> One reason it survives at all is the built in protection of broadcasters by politicians who trade their congressional vote for cheap access to constituents. But once they find a more effective way to hoodwink the local voter, the TV access won't be so important. Withing the next decade we'll see congress providing subsidies to broadcasters to stay powered up for localism, meaning access to the voting public.
> 
> It would be cheaper to provide every household with cable access or a dish and be done with the spectrum hogs. This is settled science, so let's just move on.


I guess I'm an odd ball because I don't watch network television now.


----------



## billsharpe

I don't expect to see OTA digital disappear anytime soon. If we're talking twenty years out, maybe so.

Look how long it took the government to finally get rid of the analog stations.

I've got both OTA and DirecTV.


----------

