Broadcasters' HD Squeeze Play

Stations weigh picture quality versus multicasting opportunities

By Glen Dickson -- Broadcasting & Cable, 7/6/2009 2:00:00 AM EDT

For years, broadcasters have told consumers seeking the best high-definition picture quality to use an antenna to receive signals over-the-air, instead of relying on a cable or satellite operator to deliver the programming.

That's because many multichannel operators have recompressed, or “rate-shaped,” broadcasters' HD video to reduce the bandwidth needed to pass along the signal. For example, a cable operator might receive an 18 megabit-per-second HD stream at the headend and recompress it to 15 Mbps before passing it down the pipe. So, receiving the signal directly over-the-air would ensure that the viewer got exactly what the station transmitted.

But increasingly it is local broadcasters, not multichannel operators, that are degrading their hi-def picture quality. The culprit is multicasting, i.e., transmitting digital subchannels alongside the primary HD stream within a station's 19.4 Mbps digital TV pipe. While such subchannels are finally starting to gain traction and generate meaningful revenues (see Station to Station, June 22), many are doing so at the expense of the high-definition images that were the primary impetus for the DTV standard. Engineers and HD aficionados note, with considerable irony, that while there is far more HD content available today, the relative picture quality may not be as good as the first HD broadcasts more than a decade ago.

Multicasting has long been a part of the digital TV system. Most engineers say it is perfectly feasible to simultaneously transmit one high-quality HD stream alongside one or two standard-definition streams, particularly for ABC and Fox affiliates that use the 720-line progressive HD format instead of the more bandwidth-intensive 1080-line interlace format favored by CBS and NBC. But some stations are now broadcasting three subchannels alongside their main HD feed. Others have gone as far as multiplexing two high-definition feeds, along with a third standard-def feed, in their DTV channel.

Encoder vendors may have their own guidelines for how many bits a given picture format should receive to maintain quality. But it is up to individual stations to decide how hard to crank the compression dial.

“Everybody has a particular picture quality in their brain that they think is acceptable,” says Matthew Goldman, VP of technology for Tandberg. “It's a gray area. Some customers are adamant: 'It has to be pristine.' Some will say, 'You know what, this is still really good quality, and we need to do this to provide multiple services.”

The pressure on picture quality is bound to increase later this year when some stations launch mobile DTV services to be received by cellphones and other portable devices. Engineers estimate these services will consume 3.5 to 6 Mbps of the DTV pipe, due to the robust forward-error-correction technology used in the proposed ATSC-M/H standard. So, stations that want to offer mobile streams will look to minimize their HD bitrate as much as possible.

Live and let live

Perhaps the best example of the current HD squeeze is Live Well HD, a new high-definition, lifestyle-focused subchannel launched by the 10 ABC owned-and-operated stations in late April. ABC O&Os like WABC New York had already been transmitting two 480i standard-def subchannels—generally a local news channel and an AccuWeather channel—alongside their primary 720p HD stream, with no major impact to HD picture quality. But when ABC stations replaced the news channel with Live Well HD and began transmitting it as a second 720p HD program stream at the same time they were broadcasting National Basketball Association playoff games, the primary HD picture suffered significantly.

Viewer complaints flooded into stations as well as enthusiast Websites such as the AV Science Forum, where HD experts accused ABC of destroying its HD picture quality and derided both HD streams as looking no better than widescreen SD.

Since then, ABC engineers have tweaked the compression parameters on their Harris NetVX encoders, devoting more bits to the primary HD channel and reducing the bits that Live Well HD gets. From watching WABC, these changes appear to have eliminated major problems on the primary ABC program stream. But Live Well HD is still subject to frequent compression artifacts. Moreover, many HD purists say ABC's HD primary service is now significantly “softer” than the HD fare from CBS, NBC and Fox.

According to Dave Converse, VP of engineering for the ABC station group, the way the NetVX encoders are now set across the group gives the primary ABC channel an average of 11 Mbps, peaking as high as 14, while Live Well HD averages around 6.5 Mbps. The Local AccuWeather Channel is delivered at an average bitrate of 1.5 Mbps; it is hard-coded at a constant bitrate at some stations and statistically multiplexed with the two HDs at others. Converse believes that setup delivers good picture quality for the primary feed and still gives enough bits to Live Well, whose “talking head”-type material isn't as demanding.

“We have a set of rules, and No. 1 is 'Do no harm to the D-1 channel,'” Converse says. “We think we've accomplished that.”

While the ABC-owned stations are the first big-market outlets to multiplex two HDs, a number of small-market stations have already taken the leap. Usually, this involves a Big Four affiliate picking up a secondary affiliation, such as a CBS affiliate adding a CW or MyNetwork TV affiliation that didn't previously exist in the market. These stations have generally multiplexed two 720p streams because doing 1080i streams isn't really feasible, even with the latest MPEG-2 encoders.

Vendors say there are a few examples of a station transmitting both a 1080i and a 720p. One is KXII, Gray Television's station in Sherman, Texas, which has been using Harmonic encoders since 2006 to simultaneously broadcast CBS programming in 1080i, Fox in 720p and MyNetwork TV as a 480i SD stream. The three streams are stat-muxed together, with the 1080i CBS stream typically getting the priority when it comes to bits.

“Sometimes when there's a lot of activity going on, such as sports against sports, you may see a little bit of fighting for bits,” says Dennis Kite, KXII co-chief engineer. “But overall, it works out real well during normal programming.”

KXII probably doesn't have any room left to transmit mobile DTV programming. But parent Gray, like many other large station groups, is a big believer in mobile DTV's potential. And vendors say they are already fielding inquiries from customers about how they might incorporate ATSC-M/H streams into their existing multiplexes. In that vein, Harmonic's new Electra 8000 encoder already supports ATSC-M/H encoding alongside HD and SD encoding, all within the same box.

How stations will balance HD picture quality versus existing SD subchannels and new services like ATSC-M/H remains to be seen. The answer will likely be decided by whatever attracts the largest number of viewers, many of whom frankly aren't as discerning over picture quality as the HD buffs weighing in on the AV Science Forum.

According to John Mailhot, technology architect for Harris' infrastructure and networking business unit, “The fundamental challenge for a TV broadcaster is, 'I've got a 6 MHz channel—now how do I find a business model that works for me to make money with that channel?'”

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/307399-Broadcasters_HD_Squeeze_Play.php

Seems like B&C is finally catching up to a topic of intense discussion here at AVS for years now.

It is great to see the trades keeping on top of things.

Apparently they aren't as "discerning" as we are.

Broadcasters' HD Squeeze Play
Live and let live

Perhaps the best example of the current HD squeeze is Live Well HD, a new high-definition, lifestyle-focused subchannel launched by the 10 ABC owned-and-operated stations in late April. ABC O&Os like WABC New York had already been transmitting two 480i standard-def subchannels—generally a local news channel and an AccuWeather channel—alongside their primary 720p HD stream, with no major impact to HD picture quality. But when ABC stations replaced the news channel with Live Well HD and began transmitting it as a second 720p HD program stream at the same time they were broadcasting National Basketball Association playoff games, the primary HD picture suffered significantly.

Viewer complaints flooded into stations as well as enthusiast Websites such as the AV Science Forum, where HD experts accused ABC of destroying its HD picture quality and derided both HD streams as looking no better than widescreen SD.

Since then, ABC engineers have tweaked the compression parameters on their Harris NetVX encoders, devoting more bits to the primary HD channel and reducing the bits that Live Well HD gets. From watching WABC, these changes appear to have eliminated major problems on the primary ABC program stream. But Live Well HD is still subject to frequent compression artifacts. Moreover, many HD purists say ABC's HD primary service is now significantly “softer” than the HD fare from CBS, NBC and Fox.

According to Dave Converse, VP of engineering for the ABC station group, the way the NetVX encoders are now set across the group gives the primary ABC channel an average of 11 Mbps, peaking as high as 14, while Live Well HD averages around 6.5 Mbps. The Local AccuWeather Channel is delivered at an average bitrate of 1.5 Mbps; it is hard-coded at a constant bitrate at some stations and statistically multiplexed with the two HDs at others. Converse believes that setup delivers good picture quality for the primary feed and still gives enough bits to Live Well, whose “talking head”-type material isn't as demanding.

“We have a set of rules, and No. 1 is 'Do no harm to the D-1 channel,'” Converse says. “We think we've accomplished that.”

Too bad they didn't mention the ABC O&O's looking better are the ones that downconvert LiveWell HD to 480i.

Great. Just great.

So, after many years of anticipation, the enthusiasts finally get to see the day that HD is widely available, only to see the promise of pristine pictures compromised by multi-casting.

Maybe I'm being a little overly cynical, but what do we have to look forward to? What's on the horizon to satisfy us? For years, we were the ones preaching the benefits of HD to our family, friends, and coworkers. I feel so used. Clearly broadcasters are now under the impression that the majority of their audience just doesn't care about HD quality, and they may very well be right.

I guess we have Blu-ray, which is great for pre-recorded stuff, but are there any good options for broadcast HD? MPEG4 could help, but looking at all the difficulty in getting folks to transfer to digital, it doesn't seem practical to expect consumers to convert to yet another standard.

Scott

Clearly broadcasters are now under the impression that the majority of their audience just doesn't care about HD quality, and they may very well be right.

Not impression, fact. In the last three weeks, we have had more people than ever tell us they would just rather have analog than deal with all the issues of digital. As they put it, "We don't care how much better digital pictures look. (no mention of HD, just "digital pictures," the disconnect is there) We just want to be ABLE to watch TV, PERIOD." Like I said, HD isn't on the radar of JQP and doesn't appear to be anytime soon. You go with what you have.

Seems implied that all delivered HD PQ must suffer because of excessive multicasting. But since most viewing is now via cable/DBS, not OTA, there's the option of delivering the original full bit rate of HD programming to cable/DBS head ends for retransmission. (Earlier AVS posts point out this ain't gonna happen since it requires added costs for additional encoding hardware. But it's an option and it seems to have been taking place with some of my NYC TWC channels, fiber-linked to stations. If so, doesn't seem we'd get any accurate quotes about it from those involved.) -- John

Not impression, fact. In the last three weeks, we have had more people than ever tell us they would just rather have analog than deal with all the issues of digital. As they put it, "We don't care how much better digital pictures look. (no mention of HD, just "digital pictures," the disconnect is there) We just want to be ABLE to watch TV, PERIOD." Like I said, HD isn't on the radar of JQP and doesn't appear to be anytime soon. You go with what you have.

Did I just hear you volunteer to be the only station in your market without an HD signal? Didn't FOX (the network) already try that little experiment? :rolleyes:

Put's yer money (or rather your market share) where yer mouth is, we'll see how it pans out over the next 2-5 years. :)

No really ... go ahead and do it ... :D

All I can say is that in my market, it's apparently a death knell to be the only station without an HD local newscast.

Seems implied that all delivered HD PQ must suffer because of excessive multicasting. But since most viewing is now via cable/DBS, not OTA, there's the option of delivering the original full bit rate of HD programming to cable/DBS head ends for retransmission. (Earlier AVS posts point out this ain't gonna happen since it requires added costs for additional encoding hardware. But it's an option and it seems to have been taking place with some of my NYC TWC channels, fiber-linked to stations. If so, doesn't seem we'd get any accurate quotes about it from those involved.) -- John

While it might not happen everywhere, there are stations doing separate encodes for MSOs. In those cases, it might be better to watch on cable.

The shame in all this is when station/station group engineers don't see any issue with this. What set are they monitoring this on to not notice the significant, in most cases, drop to picture quality. Even J6P will ask why it looks like crap in some of those scenarios. I know because I have visited folks who have asked that sort of question... and no, they aren't tech inclined either. Just because J6P doesn't call the station, doesn't mean they aren't the majority who DO care about how the picture looks. Some folks don't get HD because the SD they do see on the TV looks better than what it did on their previous non-calibrated set. Saying J6P doesn't really care is a comfort statement for some engineers IMO. Yes, there are viewers who don't care, but don't fool yourself into thinking that there aren't some J6P viewers with perfectly good vision.

Not impression, fact. In the last three weeks, we have had more people than ever tell us they would just rather have analog than deal with all the issues of digital. As they put it, "We don't care how much better digital pictures look. (no mention of HD, just "digital pictures," the disconnect is there) We just want to be ABLE to watch TV, PERIOD." Like I said, HD isn't on the radar of JQP and doesn't appear to be anytime soon. You go with what you have.

With all due respect, wouldn't you say the same if your options were:

A) Analog/somewhat crappy picture which I could tune in
B) Digital/Pristine quality/HD which I cannot tune in

Seems implied that all delivered HD PQ must suffer because of excessive multicasting. But since most viewing is now via cable/DBS, not OTA, there's the option of delivering the original full bit rate of HD programming to cable/DBS head ends for retransmission. (Earlier AVS posts point out this ain't gonna happen since it requires added costs for additional encoding hardware. But it's an option and it seems to have been taking place with some of my NYC TWC channels, fiber-linked to stations. If so, doesn't seem we'd get any accurate quotes about it from those involved.) -- JohnI've been a proponent of direct feeds and I think as costs come down it may become competitive. The sat providers, who are looking for any advantage over cable, could encode directly to MPEG4 at the station, use less bandwidth for the backhaul and deliver better than OTA PQ. It would be a good selling point, and one which could be objectively demonstrated. All these stations need to be re-encoded to MPEG4 anyways, so there's still the same amount of encoders and one less OTA receiver. D* and E* could share the costs and use the same backhauls. I know there's naysayers, but I can't tell you how many times I heard in the early HD days that it would never become mainstream and just die as an interesting experiment.

While one can demonstrate that multicasting has has a negative effect on PQ in the decade of HD in the US, there are other examples in the positive direction. First is that newer encoders are better, especially on motion. Second is that two networks - NBC and FOX - have significantly improved their network distribution. CBS has 10% lower bitrates but new encoders in 4:2:2 so it might be a slight improvement. ABC may be the one that has declined. I noticed lots of momentary blurs during the recent NBA games that were seen on stations across the country, but I never did find out if that was caused by the backhaul or the network distribution. It's interesting that they use Tandberg for the network and Harris for the stations.

The good news is that the source material just keeps getting better. Most features are using Digital Intermediates (DI) which translate to better HD versions. Live cameras are improving, and it seems the Sony HDC1500Ls are becoming common now.

An intersting quote from the article is
“Everybody has a particular picture quality in their brain that they think is acceptable,” says Matthew Goldman, VP of technology for Tandberg. “It's a gray area.” That's why they call it gray matter :D

ABC may be the one that has declined. I noticed lots of momentary blurs during the recent NBA games that were seen on stations across the country, but I never did find out if that was caused by the backhaul or the network distribution. It's interesting that they use Tandberg for the network and Harris for the stations.


No ABC station is receiving ABC with a Harris receiver. The receivers are all RX1290s.
I think it is CBS you may be thinking of that uses Harris receivers. Until FOX rolls out their Motorola's, all network affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX, and MyNET receive via a flavor of Tandberg receiver.

I think it was mentioned on one of these threads that backhauls go to ESPN and are sent 4:2:0 from ESPN -> ABC in lieu of 4:2:2.

Seems implied that all delivered HD PQ must suffer because of excessive multicasting. But since most viewing is now via cable/DBS, not OTA, there's the option of delivering the original full bit rate of HD programming to cable/DBS head ends for retransmission. (Earlier AVS posts point out this ain't gonna happen since it requires added costs for additional encoding hardware. But it's an option and it seems to have been taking place with some of my NYC TWC channels, fiber-linked to stations. If so, doesn't seem we'd get any accurate quotes about it from those involved.) -- John
Hardly worth the effort given how many cable companies have shifted to recompressing local HD channels to fit 3 per QAM. TWC NYC may not, but pretty much everywhere else in the country they do. Comcast isn't doing it anywhere to my knowledge, but they're one of the few. As more ION, Telemundo, other minor network affiliates and independents go HD, cable providers again face a bandwidth crunch that they're all too happy to solve the same way they solved the last one.

No ABC station is receiving ABC with a Harris receiver. The receivers are all RX1290s.
I think it is CBS you may be thinking of that uses Harris receivers. Until FOX rolls out their Motorola's, all network affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX, and MyNET receive via a flavor of Tandberg receiver.

I think it was mentioned on one of these threads that backhauls go to ESPN and are sent 4:2:0 from ESPN -> ABC in lieu of 4:2:2.
I believe he's referring to the Harris NetVX encoders used by ABC O&Os.

In this market all of the major stations feed Comcast via Comcast supplied fiber and equipment. It would not seem like a major expense in relation to what has already been spent for Comcast to supply their own compressors to the stations. They would gain the ability to advertise "BETTER THAN BROADCAST QUALITY HD" for ABC, CBS, and NBC if they were willing to commit the bandwidth. They would not even be limited to the 19.39 megabit OTA limit and could supply very high quality pictures if they chose to. Obviously this would not work for FOX. The satellite carriers both get their HD feeds off the air so are stuck with whatever the station sends.

Did I just hear you volunteer to be the only station in your market without an HD signal? Didn't FOX (the network) already try that little experiment? :rolleyes:

Put's yer money (or rather your market share) where yer mouth is, we'll see how it pans out over the next 2-5 years. :)

No really ... go ahead and do it ... :D

All I can say is that in my market, it's apparently a death knell to be the only station without an HD local newscast.

You can't dispute the facts that most people outside of AVS don't care about HD as you do so you try and argue strawman facts. No, we have no intention of NOT providing HD. We also don't have a subchannel. Need more money from our mouth?

Just for the record, our market doesn't have ANY local HD news yet. Not one of the 3 stations that do news. I am sure that will change, but no one is talking at this point about specifics, and neither will I.

I believe he's referring to the Harris NetVX encoders used by ABC O&Os.Correct, I should have been clearer.In this market all of the major stations feed Comcast via Comcast supplied fiber and equipment. It would not seem like a major expense in relation to what has already been spent for Comcast to supply their own compressors to the stations. They would gain the ability to advertise "BETTER THAN BROADCAST QUALITY HD" for ABC, CBS, and NBC if they were willing to commit the bandwidth. They would not even be limited to the 19.39 megabit OTA limit and could supply very high quality pictures if they chose to. Obviously this would not work for FOX. The satellite carriers both get their HD feeds off the air so are stuck with whatever the station sends.That's a disadvantage to the splicer system in that the station's network feed won't be better than ATSC. It is also locked into MPEG2 so it can't take advantage of the efficiency of newer codecs. As for that sat providers, they could share a MPEG4 feed rather than using a gathering station. Remote stat muxing now exists. In the long run it might be cheaper as a separate facility would not be required (at least for OTA reception). Interesting to see Comcast ahead of the curve there, hopefully that concept will become more common.

Looking farther into the future, having local encoders could allow 1080/60P to be a used. That's only a pipe dream now, but at least it wouldn't be limited by ATSC standards.

When 100Mbs+ internet services become available at a reasonable price, the whole game could change. Even wireless services at 20 Mbs are not that far away.

With all due respect, wouldn't you say the same if your options were:

A) Analog/somewhat crappy picture which I could tune in
B) Digital/Pristine quality/HD which I cannot tune in

Absolutely, but at this point option one doesn't exist anymore, does it?

No ABC station is receiving ABC with a Harris receiver. The receivers are all RX1290s.
I think it is CBS you may be thinking of that uses Harris receivers. Until FOX rolls out their Motorola's, all network affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX, and MyNET receive via a flavor of Tandberg receiver.

I think it was mentioned on one of these threads that backhauls go to ESPN and are sent 4:2:0 from ESPN -> ABC in lieu of 4:2:2.

Current FOX receivers are not Tanberg's but Wegener 5000s. The MNT receivers are 1290's. You are correct that the new S2 receivers are Motorola. We should have ours in a few weeks.

You are correct that the new S2 receivers are Motorola. We should have ours in a few weeks.Hello MOTO :D Wonder why the change. Is it that Tandberg is concentrating on their MPEG4 products now?

Price I suspect.

Does the receiver manufacturer make that much difference in picture quality terms?

I can understand receiver sensitivity (which might be an issue in some weather scenarios - alongside dish size and LNB/downconverter performance?), ease of configuration and operation, ease of installation, output options and build quality varying by manufacturer, but if you are taking an HD-SDI output - does the decoder performance vary that much?

Obviously encoders can vary hugely in quality terms - but I didn't think decoders did that much?

Price I suspect.
When has price NOT been the driving factor in encoder/decoder sales?

First it was Tiernan, then/now Tandberg. Who will be next?

Does the receiver manufacturer make that much difference in picture quality terms?

I can understand receiver sensitivity (which might be an issue in some weather scenarios - alongside dish size and LNB/downconverter performance?), ease of configuration and operation, ease of installation, output options and build quality varying by manufacturer, but if you are taking an HD-SDI output - does the decoder performance vary that much?

Obviously encoders can vary hugely in quality terms - but I didn't think decoders did that much?
Encoders have much more of an affect on quality, but I think most folks here are using "receivers" as shorthand for the entire enc/dec process.

A lot of encoder manufacturers don't even make decoders, or include some else's in their package. That sure seems to be the case with MPEG4.

Originally Posted by John Mason
Seems implied that all delivered HD PQ must suffer because of excessive multicasting. But since most viewing is now via cable/DBS, not OTA, there's the option of delivering the original full bit rate of HD programming to cable/DBS head ends for retransmission. (Earlier AVS posts point out this ain't gonna happen since it requires added costs for additional encoding hardware. But it's an option and it seems to have been taking place with some of my NYC TWC channels, fiber-linked to stations. If so, doesn't seem we'd get any accurate quotes about it from those involved.) -- John
Hardly worth the effort given how many cable companies have shifted to recompressing local HD channels to fit 3 per QAM. TWC NYC may not, but pretty much everywhere else in the country they do. Comcast isn't doing it anywhere to my knowledge, but they're one of the few. As more ION, Telemundo, other minor network affiliates and independents go HD, cable providers again face a bandwidth crunch that they're all too happy to solve the same way they solved the last one.
Yes, 3 program sources per 256-bit-cable QAM complicates things. NYC's TWC has had that 3/QAM format for some time now. So, AIUI, if full-bit-rate (non-multicasting) feeds from some stations are taking place for TWC here (or anywhere), that could eliminate or minimize the worst effects of multicasting (such as frequent blocking artifacts) but could still permit TWC's rate-shaping besides statistical multiplexing for the 3/QAM. That seems to be the case here since I often see complaints about blocking/motion artifacts from local OTA viewers but these artifacts are very rare on TWC here.

Believe TWC here, with about 100 HD channels, has so far squeezed them in (before the analog chageover) by dropping most analog duplication channels for the added bandwidth (~6 MHz/analog). There's still bandwidth remaining for more HD, and NYC's TWC hasn't adapted switched digital video (for non-stored programming, i.e., VOD)) yet, another bandwidth conserving technique. Also recall posting several years back a description of the backbone fiber bundle TWC installed for its hybrid fiber/cable system, with a 0.9-inch cable carrying 288 (!) single-mode optical fibers from Lucent Technologies-Bell Laboratories (http://lw.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?article_id=32895). Suspect that'll handle bandwidth upgrades :) although, yup, it would require more hardware linked to the 288-fiber backbone. (Haven't gone through the exercise in years, but it's always interesting to calculate what just one single-mode fiber can carry HD-wise.) -- John

You can't dispute the facts that most people outside of AVS don't care about HD as you do so you try and argue strawman facts.

You are assuming "facts" not in evidence.

So I guess I'm going to try and call the FCC about this on my desk style rotary phone, if that doesn't work I'll type up a letter on my IBM Selectric and mail it via snail-mail. If none of that works, I'll just put some of my 78s on the old Victrola and party like it's 1928. :D

I think somebody (or some industry) has their collective heads buried in the sand, if they think Multicasting is the future. Now that DirecTV and Dish have opened up the HD floodgates, I don't think you want to be competing with an inferior signal. But go ahead, give "evil cable corp" a gift. :)

PS: You might be shocked at the number of Slimline-5 dishes that have blossomed around these parts in the past year ... and this isn't exactly one of your more "affluent" regions.

You are assuming "facts" not in evidence.

Have you stopped reading AVS? Have you stopped looking at the surveys taken? I would say the facts at this point are overwhelming.

So I guess I'm going to try and call the FCC about this on my desk style rotary phone, if that doesn't work I'll type up a letter on my IBM Selectric and mail it via snail-mail. If none of that works, I'll just put some of my 78s on the old Victrola and party like it's 1928. :D

Whatever floats your boat! :)

I think somebody (or some industry) has their collective heads buried in the sand, if they think Multicasting is the future. Now that DirecTV and Dish have opened up the HD floodgates, I don't think you want to be competing with an inferior signal. But go ahead, give "evil cable corp" a gift. :)

PS: You might be shocked at the number of Slimline-5 dishes that have blossomed around these parts in the past year ... and this isn't exactly one of your more "affluent" regions.

Mutlicasting isn't for every station so no I don't see EVERY station doing it. But as long as there are people willing to spend money to either sponsor a subchannel or pay advertising on it, stations will have them, especially in this economy. It is a per station choice or as it is also known as, "marketplace decision" and that is the way it should be. Let the marketplace decide, not government. Right now, the marketplace accepts it. Tomorrow they may not and that is OK by me too.

Oh, the Slimline dish is used for more than the local HD's. All the HD comes off the Slimline's, local and CONUS. You want HD, you got to have the Slimline, period.

If there was a willingness to do so, would there be anything preventing a group of stations banding together to multicast on a new frequency? Say if three local stations: 8, 30, 47 each broadcast their own subchannels on 22 (assuming that 22 was not already in use)? If they did, could each of them show up as 8.2, 30.2, and 47.2 if they wanted to market them that way?

Yes, this would cost them more than just using their primary channel, but it could be done without sacrificing picture quality for their HD programming.

Or would this invoke some kind of anti-trust action?

Scott

It has been mentioned that both E* and D* receive the local OTA signal and then, I assume, transmit it to their respective satellites and then down to their "headquarters" and back up to their satellite and then to the customer. Do I have this right?

Being technically deficient, from a practical standpoint how do they do this? Does D* (or E*) purchase a few acres of land in the local's area and erect their little equipment building and antenna array? How close must they get to the station transmitter?

Being technically deficient, from a practical standpoint how do they do this? Does D* (or E*) purchase a few acres of land in the local's area and erect their little equipment building and antenna array? How close must they get to the station transmitter?

There's a page on DirecTV's site that has the locations for all the local receive facilities:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P1400108

But you've got it basically right. They "collect" the signals there, and then (from what I've been told) send them via fiber back to headquarters.

Yes, 3 program sources per 256-bit-cable QAM complicates things. NYC's TWC has had that 3/QAM format for some time now. So, AIUI, if full-bit-rate (non-multicasting) feeds from some stations are taking place for TWC here (or anywhere), that could eliminate or minimize the worst effects of multicasting (such as frequent blocking artifacts) but could still permit TWC's rate-shaping besides statistical multiplexing for the 3/QAM. That seems to be the case here since I often see complaints about blocking/motion artifacts from local OTA viewers but these artifacts are very rare on TWC here.
TWC NYC (at least in Brooklyn/Queens) is NOT getting any different feed than what is available OTA. They may receive it via fiber for reliability purposes, but it's no better quality than broadcast. Channel 103 carries WNYW and WPIX and a few Mbit/s worth of nullpackets since they aren't carrying either station's .2 subchannel. 104 carries WNBC and WABC and the other 4 subchannels associated with those two stations. 105 carries WCBS and WNET, and all of WNET's subchannels. The only channel they could possibly do higher bitrate on is WPIX, and they don't.

Have you stopped reading AVS? Have you stopped looking at the surveys taken?

No, but apparently you've lost all ability to comprehend my posts. BTW, Surveys can "prove" any thing you want them to. :)

I do see that you are unwilling to try my little scientific experiment to prove whether or not people actually "don't care about PQ." I have a refinement to the experiment for you.

1) You replace your HD signal with an 480i WS signal.
2) Allow an import of a full bandwidth 720p HD signal.
3) Use at least 42" (or larger) monitors with at least 1280 by 720p native resolution.
4) Have an independent entity (Nielson) monitor the test market to keep precise records of how many people watch which feed.
5) Run the test for 6 months to a year.

If you haven't done the above, you have no scientific basis to claim that "people don't care about PQ."

Frankly, I don't care what local broadcasters do at this point. I'm tired of hearing excuses. I'm just telling you (broadcasters, collectively) what I will watch in the coming seasons.

PS: Un-scientifically, I can say that I usually adopt new technology about 5-7 years before the masses do. I'd say the masses will be catching up (and catching fire) within the next 2 years. Will broadcast TV be ready, or will it just be roadkill? :D Stay tuned.


PPS: You said:

Oh, the Slimline dish is used for more than the local HD's. All the HD comes off the Slimline's, local and CONUS. You want HD, you got to have the Slimline, period.

Exactly my point. If people "don't care about PQ" then why would all these HD dishes be popping up everywhere. You're contradicting yourself ... especially when you consider that my market doesn't even have local-into-local HD yet. :)

I think that's due to marketing. While it's great to see a growing number of video enthusiasts with a desire to obtain the best images, I have to agree with foxeng that PQ is not at the top of the list for the average viewer. I doubt most even notice the artifacts. The sat providers were successful with subpar SD. Satellite radio subs pay for poor audio quality - even worse than what FM radio has degraded into. Content is still king. There is some mention of 24P quality in the ads, but I think this is more of a ploy to compete with Blu-Ray.

I don't really understand what the correlation between sat dishes and OTA PQ is. That seems more of a statement of the cable vs sat competition.

If improved quality was offered by the providers of the same material available over the air, they could then truthfully boast about it. The average viewer would then need to keep up with the Joneses.

When the UK government was rescuing our OTA system in the UK - after the original subscription-based ONDigital/ITVDigital set-up folded - there was quite a lot of discussion at what the minimum acceptable bitrate would be. (This is all for SD0

There was also a discussion about switching to a more robust modulation scheme in the DVB-T specification that would be compatible with existing receivers, but more "receivable" at the expense of reducing the data rate available per multiplex.

The original system was based on 6 x 24Mbs QAM 64 muxes.

The BBC originally carried 4 CBR video streams (BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Choice and BBC News 24) a data stream (BBCi), and audio streams (BBC Parliament and some BBC radio services), and rented extra capacity on a different mux for BBC Knowledge. They then introduced statmuxing and increased the number of services on their 24Mbs mux to 5 (with BBC One remaining CBR for regional reasons). BBC Choice then became BBC Three and time-shared with CBBC, BBC Knowledge became BBC Four and time-shared with CBeebies. (CBBC and CBeebies come off-air at 1900, when BBC Three and BBC Four start-up)

The government were keen for digital OTA to be more robust, and so some proposed a move to 18Mbs 16QAM - which is better in marginal signal strength areas than 24Mbs 64QAM (both at 2k carriers). This would have meant that the BBC lost 6Mbs of bandwith if they had continued with the same number of services on the same single mux.

Nobody could really decide if this was acceptable or not in picture quality terms. So the BBC did an experiment. They reduced the bitrate of all their current OTA services being carried in a 24Mbs mux to the level they would be if the mux was 18Mbs, and sent out 6Mbs of null packets to fill the mux back up. This experiment was due to last a week. The huge volume of complaints they received meant they stopped it after two days. (Admittedly it was over the Queen's Golden Jubilee weekend - which was a high profile, highly viewed show with LOTS of challenging material to encode - like tens of thousands of waving flags!)

Using these results - the BBC submitted a plan to switch to 18Mbs BUT to gain a second multiplex (so going from 24Mbs to 36Mbs!) to allow them to add BBC Parliament as an in-vision service (originally 1/4 screen), shift BBC Four/CBeebies out of the original single mux, and launch 2 full-screen interactive TV streams (compared with 5 or 6 on satellite) and a multi-screen based low-resolution interactive news service. The research on what the public would accept in picture quality terms was key to this.

PS: Un-scientifically, I can say that I usually adopt new technology about 5-7 years before the masses do. I'd say the masses will be catching up (and catching fire) within the next 2 years. Will broadcast TV be ready, or will it just be roadkill? :D Stay tuned.

You are an evangelist and that is fine, but you are not looking at the big picture when it comes to JQP. What a handful of people on AVS think and what the people in your neighborhood think are two different things. AVS readers have been reporting for years how their friends and neighbors don't care about HD and Nielsen surveys along with other surveys bare that out along with FCC studies. Why do you think the FCC doesn't really talk about HD but digital? The most telling by CEA that touts almost 50% HD set penetration in homes (make you think HD is well on its way) and then later on in the same survey admits that only 1/4 (12.5% total homes) of those sets actually display more than 480 (oops, maybe not). Yet, in your mind, JQP has really embraced this "HD thing" because you have. Facts do not bare out that assumption. Hopefully in a few years after analog fades away and digital gets better established, more people will take advantage of the better PQ. Until then, stations have to make a living too.

That is the data that stations use to make decisions on multicasting and at this point, if JQP doesn't care about PQ, stations have to find a way to make money in this economy, and at this point, multicasting along with HD is a way for some stations.

You do not agree with that and that is OK with me, and we are still friends, but the facts are pretty glaring now and that is all I have to go on.

TWC NYC (at least in Brooklyn/Queens) is NOT getting any different feed than what is available OTA. They may receive it via fiber for reliability purposes, but it's no better quality than broadcast. Channel 103 carries WNYW and WPIX and a few Mbit/s worth of nullpackets since they aren't carrying either station's .2 subchannel. 104 carries WNBC and WABC and the other 4 subchannels associated with those two stations. 105 carries WCBS and WNET, and all of WNET's subchannels. The only channel they could possibly do higher bitrate on is WPIX, and they don't.
What are the OTA HD/subchannel versus delivered (to subscribers) NYC TWC cable bit rates for the channels/subchannels you mention--or others? Seems like the best, if not only, way to compare. I view from Manhattan's southern head end; Brooklyn/Queens was a different system until acquired by TWC a while back.

Member berk32 periodically updates his Excel spreadsheet (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=143305&d=1242887086) showing Manhattan's northern head end cable frequencies/groupings--likely very similar to my lineup. It's not clear what your channel numbers refer to; berk32's breakdown gives 103 as an analog #, but it's not clear this is the same as frequency (left-most column). Anyway, yes, the subchannels for ABC/NBC are grouped with the main HD channels (704 for NBC-HD, 707 for ABC-HD) as you'd expect--although this isn't necessarily related to the different feed-rates topic at hand (OTA/head-ends).

Clearly my estimation of OTA versus cable bit rates was anecdotal based on numerous reports of OTA breakups/artifacts without seeing this on S. Manhattan's head end--that is, NOT having such artifacts. But puzzled by how you reached your firm conclusion, apparently with remote diagnosis, that NYC TWC head ends are "NOT," as you write, getting different feeds than OTA bit rates for some channels. -- John

What are the OTA HD/subchannel versus delivered (to subscribers) NYC TWC cable bit rates for the channels/subchannels you mention--or others? Seems like the best, if not only, way to compare. I view from Manhattan's southern head end; Brooklyn/Queens was a different system until acquired by TWC a while back.

Member berk32 periodically updates his Excel spreadsheet (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=143305&d=1242887086) showing Manhattan's northern head end cable frequencies/groupings--likely very similar to my lineup. It's not clear what your channel numbers refer to; berk32's breakdown gives 103 as an analog #, but it's not clear this is the same as frequency (left-most column). Anyway, yes, the subchannels for ABC/NBC are grouped with the main HD channels (704 for NBC-HD, 707 for ABC-HD) as you'd expect--although this isn't necessarily related to the different feed-rates topic at hand (OTA/head-ends).

Clearly my estimation of OTA versus cable bit rates was anecdotal based on numerous reports of OTA breakups/artifacts without seeing this on S. Manhattan's head end--that is, NOT having such artifacts. But puzzled by how you reached your firm conclusion, apparently with remote diagnosis, that NYC TWC head ends are "NOT," as you write, getting different feeds than OTA bit rates for some channels. -- John
Same bitrates. I don't have anything handy anymore since it was December the last time I was able to compare, but they were the same.

Channel 103 is 669MHz, 104 is 675, 105 is 681 (the "analog" number). S. Manhattan apparently has the same channel lineup as Brooklyn/Queens, at least judging by the fact that the broadcast channels line up.

It's pretty easy to reach the conclusion. 1 256QAM channel has the same data rate as 2 8VSB channels, and each cable channel is carrying 2 broadcast channels' worth of content. None of the major network affiliates are throwing away bandwidth on M/H stuff yet, so they only channel with more than an insignificant amount of space left is 103, where in the space that would otherwise be occupied by the SD version of WWOR that WNYW carries on 5.2. Trip's site shows that WNBC and WNET have announced plans to do M/H, so there may be reason to do it in the future, but there isn't now.

Absolutely, but at this point option one doesn't exist anymore, does it?

Point taken. But, I think you missed my point. I think they may be saying it due to frustration. They might love the better quality once they can tune it in, but at the present moment, they will settle with just a picture. Take anything away from someone and they will not care about the replacement offering a better experience if it doesn't work.

Also, thanks for the correction on FOX. I thought the Wegener receivers were only for SD though.

I believe he's referring to the Harris NetVX encoders used by ABC O&Os.

Ah, I thank you. In that case, TVOD, it is the station's choice to use whichever encoder suits their purposes and budget. Some use Harmonic. It really varies.

Point taken. But, I think you missed my point. I think they may be saying it due to frustration. They might love the better quality once they can tune it in, but at the present moment, they will settle with just a picture. Take anything away from someone and they will not care about the replacement offering a better experience if it doesn't work.

I have no doubt it is out of frustration, but at this point, a noisy analog picture to these people is more than a "NO SIGNAL" on a digital TV.

Also, thanks for the correction on FOX. I thought the Wegener receivers were only for SD though.

Technically yes, the SD feed comes in on the receivers, but the HD feed is received by the same receiver and then fed to the splicer as an ASI muxed signal where the splicer takes that ASI and removes certain PIDs of the stations ASI feed to be "spliced" into the digital ASI stream on its way to the transmitter, well past any switcher, or HD encoder or PSIP generator or mux. The new radios will do the same thing, just use S2 modulation instead of the QPSK (I think it is) they are using now and will decode the HD feed down to a SD feed center cut for crawls and such. And yes, we ALL have bitched about that to no avail. So far, FOX hasn't really listened. Most of us believe FOX is taking a step back with the new radios because of that. There will be no SD feed sent starting football season.

Ah, I thank you. In that case, TVOD, it is the station's choice to use whichever encoder suits their purposes and budget. Some use Harmonic. It really varies.
Not much of a choice for O&Os. Every ABC O&O is using a NetVX and carrying Livewell and weather subchannels, every NBC O&O is carrying news/weather and Universal Sports subchannels, every CBS O&O has no subchannels, etc. Some of the other station groups are a lot more flexible when it comes to how individual stations run, but by and large the O&Os do as they're told by corporate.

I have no doubt it is out of frustration, but at this point, a noisy analog picture to these people is more than a "NO SIGNAL" on a digital TV.Plus the FM audio is usually listenable.

Not much of a choice for O&Os. Every ABC O&O is using a NetVX and carrying Livewell and weather subchannels, every NBC O&O is carrying news/weather and Universal Sports subchannels, every CBS O&O has no subchannels, etc. Some of the other station groups are a lot more flexible when it comes to how individual stations run, but by and large the O&Os do as they're told by corporate.

A common misconception is that ABC network operates the Owned stations.
The owned stations make their own decisions in the manner as any other station group. Yes, they both report to the same structure. But, not in the manner as say NBC O&O.

You do not agree with that and that is OK with me, and we are still friends, but the facts are pretty glaring now and that is all I have to go on.

If you arrive at conclusions using faulty methods, you run the risk of being wrong ... very, very wrong. :)

If in 1998, you asked J6Pk whether or not he cared about having 56k dial up internet access versus 1.5, 3, 6, or 10Mbs (especially at the initial broadband prices) you would wind up with the same kind of survey results that you seem to value so much.

You're basing your forecasts on flawed assumptions. It's more a case of J6Pk just doesn't realize he cares about PQ ... yet.

My previous local dial up provider was out of business within a year after Bellsouth deployed their DSL service here. .... You've been warned. :)

BTW: I'm an enthusiast only to the point that for awhile OTA HDTV was pretty much the only game in town ... that situation ended a year ago.

PS: Quick question for you: Beta vs. VHS, who won?

If you arrive at conclusions using faulty methods, you run the risk of being wrong ... very, very wrong. :)

If in 1998, you asked J6Pk whether or not he cared about having 56k dial up internet access versus 1.5, 3, 6, or 10Mbs (especially at the initial broadband prices) you would wind up with the same kind of survey results that you seem to value so much.

You're basing your forecasts on flawed assumptions. It's more a case of J6Pk just doesn't realize he cares about PQ ... yet.

My previous local dial up provider was out of business within a year after Bellsouth deployed their DSL service here. .... You've been warned. :)

BTW: I'm an enthusiast only to the point that for awhile OTA HDTV was pretty much the only game in town ... that situation ended a year ago.

PS: Quick question for you: Beta vs. VHS, who won?

Here you go again with straw man arguments, Beta and DSL. Not relevant in this discussion.

There are MANY surveys out by a multitude of organizations private and governmental (CEA, Nielsen, Liberty, NCTA, FCC just to name a few) that do not hold your side of the argument. Even the public isn't purchasing HD service for all the HD sets. That is fact, backed up by dollars NOT spent and MSPD's just about BEGGING people to purchase HD service by the bushel basket full in ads on TV.

At this point in time, having a picture is more important than having a HD picture in JQP's mind. That doesn't mean that will stand forever and ever, but it does today.

Here you go again with straw man arguments, Beta and DSL. Not relevant in this discussion.

There are MANY surveys out by a multitude of organizations private and governmental (CEA, Nielsen, Liberty, NCTA, FCC just to name a few) that do not hold your side of the argument. Even the public isn't purchasing HD service for all the HD sets. That is fact, backed up by dollars NOT spent and MSPD's just about BEGGING people to purchase HD service by the bushel basket full in ads on TV.

At this point in time, having a picture is more important than having a HD picture in JQP's mind. That doesn't mean that will stand forever and ever, but it does today.
Pardon my interjection here. But I see a couple of disparate things being referred to as one here so thought I would chime in.

Issue 1 appears to be a difference between having a picture at all or not. Since with HD it's all or nothing whereas with analog you simply get more snow/lines/shadows. In such a case I can see myself selecting a picture of inferior quality as opposed to having no picture at all. I also see myself turning a television off entirely in such a situation. ;)

Issue 2 is completely distinct from Issue 1 above. That being, I'm able to tune in the picture consistently, yet having a choice between better PQ and a worse one. It is absolutely and totally wrong to assume that I don't care about PQ, in such a case. As I absolutely do. However, my options are to tolerate what is being offered to me by the networks or to turn the TV off. There are no other options. Contacting a station to complain is not an option as user feedback at the moment seems to be, ummmmm shal we say, unsolicited. :(

Issue 3 Economic pressures to have subchannels. I have no argument against that. As I understand needing to make money as a business. However, having a need to make more money should not prevent us from seeing that multicasting significantly degrades PQ. Also, having a need to make more money as a business should not allow us to pacify ourselves with assumptions that viewers simply don't care about PQ.

Think about it, if one could drive a Ferrari would she/he willingly get into a Huyndai?

Note: I'm not a videophile and such nor am I an early adopter, as I purchased my HDTV only a couple of years ago. So I'll let you decide whether I am the J6P you guys are referring to or not.

But none of this may even be needed or relevant. Why rely on surveys and other posters? Why not ask your self and see what kind of PQ you personally prefer.

Rudy

Here you go again with straw man arguments, Beta and DSL. Not relevant in this discussion.

Humor me. Just answer the question for once.

Ok never mind, it was a trick question ... the correct answer is neither Beta or VHS won. The winner was .................. wait for it ........... DVD. :)

You want just these things to "not be relevant." ... it's called denial. Steadfastly refusing to run a real test re PQ is another symptom of denial:)

Here are the facts on the ground.

1) DirecTV HD dishes are sprouting everywhere. We've gone from one HD "cable" channel to upwards of 95 available today.

2) I walk in to my local WallyWorld and I count 2 (that's two) digital SDTV models on the shelf vs. too many HDTV models to count.

3) They have at least 3 to 4 BD models on the shelf. This is the home of J6Pk I'm talking about here.

4) Every ... I'm mean every local station in my home DMA has felt the pressure to convert their local newscasts to HD. And if there were ever a home DMA for J6Pk, mine would be it. :)

You can cluck and say these are "just ancedotal" measurements ... but when you combine these with say about 6000yrs of recorded human technological progress (or even just the history from the Industrial Revolution forward,) I think you'll have a much better "big picture" to look at. :)

If J6Pk doesn't care about PQ ... it's only because there has been a concerted effort by some to keep the lid screwed down on Pandora's Box. This is the real purpose of Multicast.

Whew! I need a nap now. :D

If J6Pk doesn't care about PQ ... it's only because there has been a concerted effort by some to keep the lid screwed down on Pandora's Box. This is the real purpose of Multicast.

All I can say is "Watch out for the 'Men in Black'!

Ok never mind, it was a trick question ... the correct answer is neither Beta or VHS won. The winner was .................. wait for it ........... DVD. :)Who won, the horse or mule, the winner was.........wait for it...........the car.

You "trick" question was laughably irrelevant.

Who won, the horse or mule, the winner was.........wait for it...........the car.

Exactly the point. :D

But you know, that old Victrola of mine does have the advantage of not requiring electrical power of any sort. Maybe I can score some points with Al Gore after all. :D

All I can say is "Watch out for the 'Men in Black'!

Yeah that's right. When you don't have a valid, logical counter argument, you can always just imply that your "opponent" is crazy. I guess you win. :rolleyes: :)

Mutlicasting isn't for every station so no I don't see EVERY station doing it. But as long as there are people willing to spend money to either sponsor a subchannel or pay advertising on it, stations will have them, especially in this economy. It is a per station choice or as it is also known as, "marketplace decision" and that is the way it should be.

I've long said this is the way things would eventually play out as stations don't make one penny more to offset the cost of their going digital to broadcast a HD signal.

But multicasting is pure profit from day one.

I'm truly surprised more stations haven't started transmitting 24x7 informercial channels on their subchannels, as that really is 100% profit for them.

As an HDTV geek in full standing (bought my first tuner back when HD was still experimental), sadly, foxeng is right.

I have a blu ray player. It has no native pass through, so you have to tweak it 480 or 1080p depending on source disk. It is fed to a Panny plasma by hdmi.

I have many times found my daughter and friends watching a disk in Blu at the 480 line setting. They don't notice.

Have you ever seen how many folks will watch "fat people" as not to have the bars on the set ? Drives me crazy.

A friend with the identical panny set once asked me by to find out what was wrong with the set. The answer turned out to be a horribly over compressed cable TV signal. I had to explain that the macroblocks were not a TV set issue.

No, the fact you have a calibrated set with OTA signals and you can see the crappy ABC signals due to blurwell on the .2 subchannel really don't mean much to J6P.

Multicasting may be profitable someday, but where are these profits today? How many stations were left with unpaid bills when "The Tube" folded? How long can "RTV" last when 30 second spots are selling as low as $20 on multicasts?

The future of multicasting is (IMO) infomercials and religious programming. My parents asked me why WNBC dumped "NBC Weather Plus+" for "NY Nonstop" (a station so useless, that even a radar screen was preferred). I don't run a TV station, but I'd love to know what multicast operated by a major network is profitable? What is the projected profit timeline?

I think if "Joe Sixpack" can get his DTV signal reliably working, we'll see where HD truly ranks. If he upgrades to an HDTV before the primary is signal decimated to accommodate multicasts; I think PQ will begin to matter.

Multicasting may be profitable someday, but where are these profits today? How many stations were left with unpaid bills when "The Tube" folded? How long can "RTV" last when 30 second spots are selling as low as $20 on multicasts?

These networks are sold like syndicated programs, on barter agreements meaning the network gets X amount of time per program as their inventory to do as they see fit and the station gets X amount of time for their use. That is why a station can sell a spot on one of these networks for $20 a pop. The service isn't costing them anything. National ads pay for the cost of operating the network (higher cost per ad) and stations get the rest as profit. Right now the two hot networks are THIS TV and RTV and cable is taking them from the stations in most cases to compete against TVLand. There are some financial networks that are paying the stations 100% cost just to be on the air. Who won't take a network that is paying ALL your costs and paying you a profit to boot?

My parents asked me why WNBC dumped "NBC Weather Plus+" for "NY Nonstop" (a station so useless, that even a radar screen was preferred).

Because NBCU (parent company of WNBC) bought The Weather Channel. Weather Plus was a redundant service for them.

I'm truly surprised more stations haven't started transmitting 24x7 informercial channels on their subchannels, as that really is 100% profit for them.

Actually a 100% informercial subchannel would not be profitable. That is why no one is doing them. It sounds good for those who dislike subchannels but the truth is, they don't make money for the station and here is why.

A station has to get a subchannel on local cable for the number of potential eyeballs to make it worthwhile. Cable usually only will put a shopping channel or similar channel on if the channel PAYS THEM. Stations are NOT going to pay their local cablecos for informericals to run, not when they are getting money FROM the cablecos for carriage of the main channel. Not going to happen. If the station puts compelling programming like THIS TV and RTV on a subchannel, the public demands it and cable works out a deal with the station and the number of eyeballs increase and those $20 spots go up in price. Cable isn't going to put on a local informercial subchannel for free or for carriage when they are being paid by national shopping channels. The national shopping channels would scream bloody murder and rightly so.

That is how the game is played, on both sides.

Because NBCU (parent company of WNBC) bought The Weather Channel. Weather Plus was a redundant service for them.
Exactly what I told my parents. "NY Nonstop" in its current form is useless.

The only two multicasts worth their salt (save "RTV") were "The Tube" and "ABC News Now". Sadly, the former folded, and the latter went broadband/cable only.

I think if "Joe Sixpack" can get his DTV signal reliably working, we'll see where HD truly ranks. If he upgrades to an HDTV before the primary is signal decimated to accommodate multicasts; I think PQ will begin to matter.

Exactly :) Apparently, J6Pk will never get the opportunity to see real HD. There's no other explanation for most of the "public good" sub-channels, other than bandwidth reservation.

It's much easier to sell an improvement in PQ, than explain or defend a sudden drop in PQ. The stations that are multicasting today have no intention of *ever* sending out an unadulterated HD signal. So, they continue to cherry pick whatever "data" or surveys that best suit their position. IOW, Polar ice caps are not disappearing at an alarming rate, because I have a survey that says they ain't. The tide will not come in, because I command that it will not. :)

For the record, I was originally excited about some of the possibilities of multicasting. That lasted until I saw my first multicast impaired "HD" SEC football game ... or about a month after I first went digital in 2002. YMMV.

PS: Dolphins use most of their "gray matter" to process sound/echo-location, Humans use most of their "gray matter" to process visual information ... but J6Pk won't care about all those little multicast induced blocks, he'll just think it's "high art." ;)

IMHO, it's the content producers, not the broadcasters that we need to lean on.

If the NBA or other shows that draw big audiences (e.g. DWTS) were to demand a guaranteed bit rate in their contracts, then ABC would almost certainly have to cave in and give them the bits.

For example, when networks started chopping up movies just to fit in more commercials and not for "obscenity" issues, some movie producers/directors started demanding contracts that prohibited those types of edits and the netwroks caved in and gave it to them.

So lean of those content producers. Call them up and ask them why they are spending all that money to produce a great looking HD product and then letting the networks trash it for they're own financial benefit.

IMHO, it's the content producers, not the broadcasters that we need to lean on.

If the NBA or other shows that draw big audiences (e.g. DWTS) were to demand a guaranteed bit rate in their contracts, then ABC would almost certainly have to cave in and give them the bits.

For example, when networks started chopping up movies just to fit in more commercials and not for "obscenity" issues, some movie producers/directors started demanding contracts that prohibited those types of edits and the netwroks caved in and gave it to them.

So lean of those content producers. Call them up and ask them why they are spending all that money to produce a great looking HD product and then letting the networks trash it for they're own financial benefit.

The networks aren't the one altering the picture quality. With the exception of FOX, that is done at the local station level. The networks send out signals at least twice that of 19 Mbps. It is your local station that makes the call to add subchannels and not the network.

The networks aren't the one altering the picture quality. With the exception of FOX, that is done at the local station level. The networks send out signals at least twice that of 19 Mbps. It is your local station that makes the call to add subchannels and not the network.

This is not entirely true, both NBC and ABC make the call on what sub-channels run on their O&O stations, so yes, it is the networks(in some cases) that are degrading the quality of the signal.

The networks aren't the one altering the picture quality. With the exception of FOX, that is done at the local station level. The networks send out signals at least twice that of 19 Mbps. It is your local station that makes the call to add subchannels and not the network.

I had heard NBC have changed (or were changing their distribution) - have they finally upped the 24Mbs MPEG2 to something at twice ATSC rates (which would be required for MPEG2 distribution) then?

This is not entirely true, both NBC and ABC make the call on what sub-channels run on their O&O stations, so yes, it is the networks(in some cases) that are degrading the quality of the signal.

I can't speak for NBC O&O, but I assure you ABC the network has no say in ABC Owned TV(not operated) stations' subchannels.

I had heard NBC have changed (or were changing their distribution) - have they finally upped the 24Mbs MPEG2 to something at twice ATSC rates (which would be required for MPEG2 distribution) then?

Not sure. But, I believe they are doing MPEG4 to affiliates now.

I can't speak for NBC O&O, but I assure you ABC the network has no say in ABC Owned TV(not operated) stations' subchannels.


I don't understand what you're saying. What are "ABC Owned TV stations"? Are you saying what is run at WABC, KABC, KGO, WLS, WPVI, KTRK, WTVD, KFSN, WJRT, and WTVG is not ultimately a decision made by Disney? I imagine ABC OTV is a management corporation to operate the above ABC stations, but I think you're splitting hairs when you say that the ABC Network/Disney is not the one making the decisions to run sub-channels or not. In other words, if it's ABC OTV is making the decisions, it's still Disney when you look at the bank account.

I had heard NBC have changed (or were changing their distribution) - have they finally upped the 24Mbs MPEG2 to something at twice ATSC rates (which would be required for MPEG2 distribution) then?


NBC uses 22mbps MPEG4 now to distribute. Also ABC recently changed to MPEG4 25Mbps from 40Mbps MPEG2 distribution. CBS is still 40 Mbps MPEG2, but switched to 4:2:2 from 4:2:0.

I don't understand what you're saying. What are "ABC Owned TV stations"? Are you saying what is run at WABC, KABC, KGO, WLS, WPVI, KTRK, WTVD, KFSN, WJRT, and WTVG is not ultimately a decision made by Disney? I imagine ABC OTV is a management corporation to operate the above ABC stations, but I think you're splitting hairs when you say that the ABC Network/Disney is not the one making the decisions to run sub-channels or not. In other words, if it's ABC OTV is making the decisions, it's still Disney when you look at the bank account.

Then say Disney. Sounds like you understand, but choose to say ABC Network. As for your last statement, that's like saying what happens at Toon Disney is controlled by ABC Network since Disney writes the checks for both.

Then say Disney. Sounds like you understand, but choose to say ABC Network. As for your last statement, that's like saying what happens at Toon Disney is controlled by ABC Network since Disney writes the checks for both.

Okay, Disney then. :)

It's still not decided upon at the local station level, which was the whole point of my original post.

And it's the networks who have the contracts with the locals and thus are able to force the locals to accept the contract demands of the content producers.

Not to mention the fact that there are zillions of O&O's so their decisions are, in fact, made at the network level. For instance, it was the ABC O&Os that added the second 720p subchannel. My local ABC affilliate, which is not an O&O, stuck with a 480p weather subchannel thoughout that debacle.

*sighs* I'm no match for you guys. :rolleyes:

*sighs* I'm no match for you guys. :rolleyes:
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. The below post says that the addition of sub-channels is a local station decision and that the network has nothing to do with it.
The networks aren't the one altering the picture quality. With the exception of FOX, that is done at the local station level. The networks send out signals at least twice that of 19 Mbps. It is your local station that makes the call to add sub-channels and not the network.

My position is that when it comes to network-owned, or corporate-owned, as in the Disney/ABC case, the addition of sub-channels like ABC Now, LiveHD and Weather Plus and Universal Sports on NBC stations, that decision is made at the corporate level, not by the individual station managers, etc.

So, whether the networks are sending out 19Mb/s or 100Mb/s data streams to the stations, it's a corporate decision to add those sub-channels and effectively reduce what the viewer finally gets at his display.

I'm sure there are some affiliates that are doing what ever they want when it comes to sub-channels, but when it comes to the ABC-owned group of stations, NBC O&Os, CBS O&O's and FOX who utilize the splicer system anyway, it's a decision made from on high whether or not to run those sub-channels, not at the station itself. If this is fundamentally incorrect, then I'd be more than happy to hear how it really works. :)

What is an 'O&O' ?

"Owned and operated".

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. The below post says that the addition of sub-channels is a local station decision and that the network has nothing to do with it.


My position is that when it comes to network-owned, or corporate-owned, as in the Disney/ABC case, the addition of sub-channels like ABC Now, LiveHD and Weather Plus and Universal Sports on NBC stations, that decision is made at the corporate level, not by the individual station managers, etc.

So, whether the networks are sending out 19Mb/s or 100Mb/s data streams to the stations, it's a corporate decision to add those sub-channels and effectively reduce what the viewer finally gets at his display.

I'm sure there are some affiliates that are doing what ever they want when it comes to sub-channels, but when it comes to the ABC-owned group of stations, NBC O&Os, CBS O&O's and FOX who utilize the splicer system anyway, it's a decision made from on high whether or not to run those sub-channels, not at the station itself. If this is fundamentally incorrect, then I'd be more than happy to hear how it really works. :)

I don't think you are seeing the difference I have been trying to point out. In the case of the owned stations, further up the food chain they do report to the same person. But, it is incorrect to say that the network controls what happens at the station. Yes, the corporation that owns both does, but not the network. The person at the corporation is not necessarily a technical person. The decision of the bitrate to send to stations is made by technical persons at the network and not the corporation. The decision to add a subchannel at the station is made by the corporation and not the technical persons at the network. To be honest it could have even been made by the head of the station group and the idea "sold" to the corporation.
Either way, the network had no say in it. If the technical persons at the network did have a say, then there probably would be no subchannels. Good case in point is CBS. They do have say over the station group. At ABC, they do not have say over the station group; Disney does.