From Broadcast Engineering

DTV transition behind schedule, according to Harris

With the latest generation of its Platinum TV transmitter series, Harris is offering an affordable product to go digital and meet the FCC deadline.
In less than two years, U.S. broadcast stations will need to comply with the federally mandated Feb. 17, 2009, deadline to begin transmitting to digital signals. Harris, a major provider of terrestrial transmitters and systems necessary to make it happen, says the industry still has a lot of work to do in order to comply.

The FCC has stated that it will fine stations or take back a license to broadcast for those who do not make the conversion to digital television on time.

For starters, the table of allotments, whereby stations are assigned a digital channel by the FCC, is not finalized. That's about eight months behind schedule of where the FCC thought the spectrum management effort would be at this point in the transition to the ATSC specification.

Jay Adrick, vice president of strategic business development for the Harris Broadcast Communications Division, said that there are approximately 500 stations that will have to move from their current channel assignment to a new one. Of that total, about 300 will move from the UHF to VHF spectrum, where most will be allocated the same number digital channel as they occupied in the analog world. The remainder will move from a UHF channel to another within the same UHF spectrum, to get that station within the core allotment outlined by the FCC. This was done to reserve some bandwidth for emergency services, such as fire and ambulance workers.

"That's quite a feat to do, and more so to think about doing it overnight," Adrick said, adding that a lot of planning and technically reconfiguring of transmitters is required to switch channels. This includes the addition of a new mask filter, a higher tower and other transmission-related products.

Harris has seen its transmission business suffer in the past few quarters, as the anticipated demand for new transmitters has not materialized as hoped. Tim Thorsteinson, president of the Harris Broadcast Communications Division, said the business is about one-third of what it was the past two years. This has caused the company to begin laying off about 150 total workers at its Quincy, IL, and Mason, OH, manufacturing facilities. It's also caused the company to think about eliminating the name "Broadcast" from its current division that handles such products and systems.

Thorsteinson said Harris could meet demand with fewer people if it needed to, but other suppliers, such as those that make mask filters (necessary to switch from analog to DTV channels), might not be able to keep up. There are only two such suppliers in the country, according to Harris, and if they started next week, they would be hard pressed to meet the mandated analog shutoff.

Adrick also said that when the first wave of DTV stations began building out their digital plants in the late 1990s and early 2000, there were roughly 30 tower crews doing installations. Today, there are less than 15, scattered among all transmitter manufacturers. That's not enough to handle all of the stations that have yet to make the transition.

To bring awareness to the problem, Harris has begun an industry-wide educational effort to let stations know that they can't wait too long. They have also spent some time with FCC Commissioners, who, Adrick said, seemed surprised that the transition was so far behind schedule.

At the upcoming NAB convention, Harris will introduce its third-generation Platinum-i series UHF digital solid-state transmitter. This unit targets stations that currently use the company's Platinum analog transmitters and want a lower-cost path to digital operation. By waving a red flag about the state of the DTV transition, Harris hopes to find buyers among these smaller market stations that have yet to covert.

By waving a red flag about the state of the DTV transition, Harris hopes to find buyers among these smaller market stations that have yet to covert.
:cool:

Most of the "500 stations" going back to VHF have already made plans. I should know, my station is one of the "500." No other transmitter manufacturer is saying what Harris is saying. Not publicly, nor privately. Harris has been hurting for several years and has just started laying people off. They have miscalculated the market. A name change for the broadcast division is said to be in the works as we speak.

DTV transition behind schedule, according to Harris

And this is news... how?

For starters, the table of allotments, whereby stations are assigned a digital channel by the FCC, is not finalized.

No one expected it to be. It has been behind schedule since day one. The FCC is on record that they will have a permament table on time. 99.99999999999% of stations know what their post transition channel will be. You don't need a table for that.

That's quite a feat to do, and more so to think about doing it overnight," Adrick said, adding that a lot of planning and technically reconfiguring of transmitters is required to switch channels. This includes the addition of a new mask filter, a higher tower and other transmission-related products.

The tower issues are completed. That is now a myth. Stations already know what they technically have to do to make the deadline. No one is under the concept the date will slip again. Not NAB, not the stations, not Congress as a whole and not the FCC. No one is planning on that now. Stations know what they have to do whether they have done it or not.

Harris has seen its transmission business suffer in the past few quarters, as the anticipated demand for new transmitters has not materialized as hoped.

Funny that Harris says they haven't been able to sell transmitters but every other manufacturer has?

Thorsteinson said Harris could meet demand with fewer people if it needed to, but other suppliers, such as those that make mask filters (necessary to switch from analog to DTV channels), might not be able to keep up. There are only two such suppliers in the country, according to Harris, and if they started next week, they would be hard pressed to meet the mandated analog shutoff.

While it is true there are only 2 major manufacturers of filters, other less know companies are building filters too.

Adrick also said that when the first wave of DTV stations began building out their digital plants in the late 1990s and early 2000, there were roughly 30 tower crews doing installations. Today, there are less than 15, scattered among all transmitter manufacturers. That's not enough to handle all of the stations that have yet to make the transition.

He is assuming that all 500 stations haven't done ANYTHING. That isn't true. My station is one of the stations going back to our analog channel. Our tower work was completed in 2005. All we have to do is convert our analog transmitter to digital and install the mask filter and we are done. What he doesn't say is Harris talked many of the their clients into purchasing their final channel mask filters to either have on the shelf or use them on air in analog service. Many other stations are in the same condition, just waiting now.

They have also spent some time with FCC Commissioners, who, Adrick said, seemed surprised that the transition was so far behind schedule.

Now you would think the government agency in charge would have a little better handle on the number of applications on file and not an equipment manufacturer? :confused:

At the upcoming NAB convention, Harris will introduce its third-generation Platinum-i series UHF digital solid-state transmitter. This unit targets stations that currently use the company's Platinum analog transmitters and want a lower-cost path to digital operation. By waving a red flag about the state of the DTV transition, Harris hopes to find buyers among these smaller market stations that have yet to covert.

Now we see the true reasoning behind this gloom and doom news release.

Most of the "500 stations" going back to VHF have already made plans. I should know, my station is one of the "500." No other transmitter manufacturer is saying what Harris is saying. Not publicly, nor privately. Harris has been hurting for several years and has just started laying people off. They have miscalculated the market. A name change for the broadcast division is said to be in the works as we speak.

Yeah, I agree. Harris is just whining about their own bad business decisions. They have all but destroyed Leitch IMO. Thank god Miranda nd Evertz are there to pick up the slack in modular products.

I wonder if there will be a market for trading transmitters between different stations.

I'm desperately trying to convince my local ABC affiliate WVNY to change its post-transition channel election from channel 13 over to a UHF channel, but don't want it to be too expensive for them. The previous owners of the station made the election (and giving up their original channel 22 allocation to a competing station) before channel 13 was even built. Now that it's recently gone on the air, many viewers are complaining about how inadequate their signal coverage is. Also, it wouldn't be possible to increase its coverage even post-transition because it is in close proximity to two stations (CJOH and CKTM) who have out-of-core digital allocations and will therefore have to stay on 13.

Only stations with post transition channels in the 2-6 range has one last window to change and that is rapidly closing. The rest of the stations are now locked in to their post transition channels until at least Feb 17, 2009.

Canada has no out of core channels. All of their channels are in play and Canada hasn't set a shut down date either. Analog in Canada will continue after the analogs are shutdown in the US.

Only stations with post transition channels in the 2-6 range has one last window to change and that is rapidly closing. The rest of the stations are now locked in to their post transition channels until at least Feb 17, 2009.

Canada has no out of core channels. All of their channels are in play and Canada hasn't set a shut down date either. Analog in Canada will continue after the analogs are shutdown in the US.

What is the exact date for the 2-6 "get off" cutoff?

What is the exact date for the 2-6 "get off" cutoff?


Some where I did read in this AVSfourm it was Feb 26, 2007. Not for sure, but I hoping this will apply to WBBM Chicago to move better than 11.

Only stations with post transition channels in the 2-6 range has one last window to change and that is rapidly closing. The rest of the stations are now locked in to their post transition channels until at least Feb 17, 2009.

Canada has no out of core channels. All of their channels are in play and Canada hasn't set a shut down date either. Analog in Canada will continue after the analogs are shutdown in the US.

Actually, Industry Canada has recently indicated it will consider 52-69 to be out of core. No analog shut-off date has been decided yet, but they have indicated that they don't want it to be too far behind the U.S., so it is likely that stations will be permitted to flash-cut (especially since so many of them had been given out-of-core digital allocations).

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/sf08702e.html

If that happens it is certain that CKTM and CJOH will continue on 13, keeping WVNY's pattern locked in.

So, let's assume that WVNY finally wakes up and realizes it needs to change to channel 33 or 44 (which are used in the market but will be vacated after Feb 17, 2009) to avoid losing most of their viewers, they can no longer file their intention to use them until the date actually arrives? That wouldn't be good (they would have no time to get a new replacement transmitter and antenna in the meantime).

Some where I did read in this AVSfourm it was Feb 26, 2007. Not for sure, but I hoping this will apply to WBBM Chicago to move better than 11.

2-6 are not being cut off. 52-69 are. in chicago a few are going to vhf.

WBBM-TV CHICAGO IL 3 2 11
WCIU-TV CHICAGO IL 27 26 27
WCPX CHICAGO IL 43 38 43
WFLD CHICAGO IL 31 32 31
WGN-TV CHICAGO IL 19 9 19
WLS-TV CHICAGO IL 52 7 7
WMAQ-TV CHICAGO IL 29 5 29
WSNS-TV CHICAGO IL 45 44 45
WTTW CHICAGO IL 47 11 47
WYCC CHICAGO IL 21 20 21

2-6 are not being cut off. 52-69 are.
Sorry, I meant when is the cutoff for DTV stations on channels 2-6 to file
to go to channels 7-51. I think it's 2/26, but I am not sure. Foxeng?

So, let's assume that WVNY finally wakes up and realizes it needs to change to channel 33 or 44 (which are used in the market but will be vacated after Feb 17, 2009) to avoid losing most of their viewers, they can no longer file their intention to use them until the date actually arrives? That wouldn't be good (they would have no time to get a new replacement transmitter and antenna in the meantime).

If their current digital channel is a UHF and they have filed for a post transition channel of 13, they can't change it now until after the analog shutdown date, now Feb 17, 2009. They are locked in to 13 until at least then.

So, let's assume that WVNY finally wakes up and realizes it needs to change to channel 33 or 44 (which are used in the market but will be vacated after Feb 17, 2009) to avoid losing most of their viewers, they can no longer file their intention to use them until the date actually arrives? That wouldn't be good (they would have no time to get a new replacement transmitter and antenna in the meantime).

There is one exception to Foxeng's post: you can also file to move IF you make a rock-solid case to the FCC that due to interference from other stations, you cannot maximize your facilities. Those channels and those on channels 2-6 are
the only ones who can file right now for new channels.

Only stations with post transition channels in the 2-6 range has one last window to change and that is rapidly closing. The rest of the stations are now locked in to their post transition channels until at least Feb 17, 2009.
I'm not sure this is correct. Based on info in the below website, after the DTV Table of Allotments is finalized, stations can still request a "channel change through the normal rule making procedures."
Of course, if foxeng says this is not correct and/or I'm misreading it, I'll bow to his knowledge. He's pretty knowledgeable and I don't have a clue about Brendan Holland, the below website's poster.

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/digital-television-new-dtv-table-of-allotments-out-for-review.html

If their current digital channel is a UHF and they have filed for a post transition channel of 13, they can't change it now until after the analog shutdown date, now Feb 17, 2009. They are locked in to 13 until at least then.

Their current digital channel is not UHF. It is VHF (channel 13). Their current analog (channel 22) is UHF, but they have already handed post-transition rights to it over to WCAX, so they'll have to find something else that will be available (33 or 44).

Their current digital channel is not UHF. It is VHF (channel 13). Their current analog (channel 22) is UHF, but they have already handed post-transition rights to it over to WCAX, so they'll have to find something else that will be available (33 or 44).

My bad. If it is VHF-HI *or* UHF, they can switch to another channel IF they are unable to maximize. But I don't know exactly what the FCC means by "maximize". I want to say 80% of their analog coverage area, but I'm not 100% sure.

2-6 are not being cut off. 52-69 are. in chicago a few are going to vhf.

WBBM-TV CHICAGO IL 3 2 11
WCIU-TV CHICAGO IL 27 26 27
WCPX CHICAGO IL 43 38 43
WFLD CHICAGO IL 31 32 31
WGN-TV CHICAGO IL 19 9 19
WLS-TV CHICAGO IL 52 7 7
WMAQ-TV CHICAGO IL 29 5 29
WSNS-TV CHICAGO IL 45 44 45
WTTW CHICAGO IL 47 11 47
WYCC CHICAGO IL 21 20 21


I just replying to sebenste on when the cutoff for the filing to request to different ch if they are in the 2-6 ch.. As most of them on 2-6 found it was not good in the digital airwave to have and Chicago WBBM 2 picked 3 for DT then go back to 2 after analog shutdown. WBBM found out the very hard way they find it that DT-3 was not the good choice to have and going back to 2 after analog shutdown would not get any better.

From the very start it the ch. 2-6 was going to be drop, but those first analog station to power up when analog first came out they didn't want to loose the channel number so FCC put the 2-6 back in. So now the talk is dropping ch. 2-6 out, only 46 out of 1600 station in assign to 2-6. I would want to be the company owner to make parts for VHF-low DTV.

Sorry, I meant when is the cutoff for DTV stations on channels 2-6 to file
to go to channels 7-51. I think it's 2/26, but I am not sure. Foxeng?


Hi Gilbert,

I knew what you were saying for the cutoff date for file to move to another channel :cool: . Would WBBM be able to change thier request? I know they was was kinda struck to take 11 at the last second of the 3rd round. I hope WBBM takes the bite to move other than 11 and more power if they are allowed to do so.


Willie

There really isnt anything wrong with ch7-13 and ch 2-13 for that matter. You just need the appropriate antenna to receive it properly.

My home town has digital on ch 4,7,8, and 32.

The only inconvenience is on the user's end.

-the users who decided to purchase uhf only antenna's
-the users where we pointed out the issue and they decided to use uhf only otherwise
-the users with cm4228's in red zone or above where ch 7-13 reception can become marginal
-the users who wanted to take the cheaper alternative
-the drama associated with ugliness and where to mount the damn thing

should I continue?

There are other options... is what many people think when it comes down to a decision. cable and satellite, etc. In my area cable and satellite have about a 90% share or more. The antenna people are the select few.

I remember back in the 60's when they added many uhf stations and the families said..."I have to add what?"

Sorry if I appear insensitive...it is ironic that it is the opposite issue today.

The drama lies more with the user than with the station. If you want to receive the station install the approprate antenna and move on.

I'm not sure this is correct. Based on info in the below website, after the DTV Table of Allotments is finalized, stations can still request a "channel change through the normal rule making procedures."
Of course, if foxeng says this is not correct and/or I'm misreading it, I'll bow to his knowledge. He's pretty knowledgeable and I don't have a clue about Brendan Holland, the below website's poster.

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/digital-television-new-dtv-table-of-allotments-out-for-review.html

The FCC has frozen assignments from 7-51 until the table is complete and has given until the end of Feb for those stations with post transition channels in 2-6 to reconsider before the table is finalized. Once it is finalized, the FCC could remove the freeze (will they? I don't know, most think not before Feb 17, 2009) and stations could then start to request changes going through the normal channels and then having to contend with the usual interference issues and other competitors for the channel. That process could and more than times not, take years.

At this point, the FCC just wants this thing done and move on.

And one more thing. Remember, until the table is finalized, the FCC can't (well, won't) issue any construction permits for those stations moving so even though a station has been "issued" their post transition channel, it isn't completely theirs until the technical paperwork for that channel has been submitted and approved, which the FCC IS NOT accepting yet. So even though my station has been "approved" for our return to our analog channel, we haven't filed anything with the FCC beyond we want our old analog back and we agree to keep it within the coverage we have now with analog. No antenna types, no power levels, no antenna locations, no antenna heights, no notations of what tower it will be on, etc. All of the technical issues have yet to be approved. Until that happens, it isn't complete and we can't go back to our analog channel until we have that permit in hand.

There really isnt anything wrong with ch7-13 and ch 2-13 for that matter. You just need the appropriate antenna to receive it properly.

My home town has digital on ch 4,7,8, and 32.

The only inconvenience is on the user's end.

-the users who decided to purchase uhf only antenna's
-the users where we pointed out the issue and they decided to use uhf only otherwise
-the users with cm4228's in red zone or above where ch 7-13 reception can become marginal
-the users who wanted to take the cheaper alternative
-the drama associated with ugliness and where to mount the damn thing


The drama lies more with the user than with the station. If you want to receive the station install the approprate antenna and move on.

I even purchased a 10-element MATV channel 13 antenna, mounted high above the roofline outside, and I still only get a borderline signal that drops out all the time, while the UHF channels from the same location come in pegged with an outdoor antenna (and some are even receivable with an indoor loop, despite being 80 miles away). The real problem is not the user. It is the stations and engineers constantly overestimating VHF while underestimating UHF, making the monthly power cost gap between the two appear to be wider than it actually is. UHF travels well even at low power. I have no problem picking up WFFF-DT 43 broadcasting at low power 18kw from the same location.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick0725
There really isnt anything wrong with ch7-13 and ch 2-13 for that matter. You just need the appropriate antenna to receive it properly.

My home town has digital on ch 4,7,8, and 32.

The only inconvenience is on the user's end.

-the users who decided to purchase uhf only antenna's
-the users where we pointed out the issue and they decided to use uhf only otherwise
-the users with cm4228's in red zone or above where ch 7-13 reception can become marginal
-the users who wanted to take the cheaper alternative
-the drama associated with ugliness and where to mount the damn thing


The drama lies more with the user than with the station. If you want to receive the station install the approprate antenna and move on.




I even purchased a 10-element MATV channel 13 antenna, mounted high above the roofline outside, and I still only get a borderline signal that drops out all the time, while the UHF channels from the same location come in pegged with an outdoor antenna (and some are even receivable with an indoor loop, despite being 80 miles away). The real problem is not the user. It is the stations and engineers constantly overestimating VHF while underestimating UHF, making the monthly power cost gap between the two appear to be wider than it actually is. UHF travels well even at low power. I have no problem picking up WFFF-DT 43 broadcasting at low power 18kw from the same location.


The real problem is not the user. It is the stations and engineers constantly overestimating VHF while underestimating UHF, making the monthly power cost gap between the two appear to be wider than it actually is.

Right on there :D

There really isnt anything wrong with ch7-13 and ch 2-13 for that matter. You just need the appropriate antenna to receive it properly.

The problem is that there is more impulse noise in the VHF band in general and in the low VHF band in particular. Having a tuned antenna that has enough gain to exceed the arbitrary S/N threshold will not stop the impusle bursts from making those pictures freeze up.

Back in 1994, I installed some of-air antennas at National Captioning's headend in Vienna, Virginia. We used a tuned Blonder Tongue BTY-5/2 five element, channel 2 antenna. It probably developed a signal strength of 10dBmV off the dipole, and we fed it directly into a low noise (under 3dB) preamp, meaning that our S/N ratio was probably better than 65dB.

As you may know, the closed captioning data is embedded in the vertical blanking pulse. In my primary market, Washington, DC, market, there is huge impulse noise on channel 2, whereas channel 4 is perfectly quiet almost everywhere. This antenna link still produced big white speckle on channel 2, and the captioning was sporadically interrupted, probably each time a comparable impulse burst landed on the captioning data. No hardware solution was going to remedy that problem

I once installed a residential antenna in Upper Marboro, MD, which is about 30 miles to the east. The sporadic noise even on channel 7 was worse than I had ever seen it on channel 2 elsewhere in this market, and it was even visible on channel 9. Other forum members here have reported horrific low-band impulse noise to the west of Chicago.

Basically, there are only two classes of customer who might be best served by using the lowband. One is customers in large flat rural areas that really need to reach viewers 50 to 100 miles away, and the other is non-profit stations that need to save on their electric bills. Everyone else needs to move up above the local interference.

Mike,

Everything you explain above is is right on the money!!

Thanks :)

let us put our thinking caps on and reflect back in time.

back in the 60's when uhf was growing around the country and ch 2-13 was the dominant signal in the market and we had to add uhf equipment in order to receive the new signal.

what was the biggest issue back then ...besides issues unique to uhf or signal related?

lets not pin the blame on engineers yet. the fcc mandates/regulates power levels by band and assigns according to certain criterea. not to mention border issues with our neighbors, etc.

let us put our thinking caps on and reflect back in time.

back in the 60's when uhf was growing around the country and ch 2-13 was the dominant signal in the market and we had to add uhf equipment in order to receive the new signal.

what was the biggest issue back then ...besides issues unique to uhf or signal related?

lets not pin the blame on engineers yet.

1. Since in most markets, the three commercial networks were already VHF, the UHF station's programming was baseball and old movies.

2. Since the beamwidth of UHF antennas is narrower, there were fewer situations in which someone could position a single antenna to receive all of their desired channels without a rotor.

3. I think that the power of the Boston UHF stations was lower than it is now, but I don't remember for sure.

4. Most UHF TVs didn't have click-stop channels, and tuned continuously instead, like radio dials.


None of those answers look like winners. What are you getting at?

why was uhf such a pain in the ass then and not now.

I've been installing antennas off and on for over 30 years and I have no idea what concern you are making your veiled allusions to. Why don't you just tell us.

My biggest TV problem in the 1960s was finding someone with a kid brother to sit next to the TV and switch between channels for us.

The issue years ago was having to add equipment and bear the expense in order to receive the up and coming uhf band and the new stations popping up one by one...when everyone was content just tuning to vhf.

My family was heavily into broadcasting. My dad's brother was vp for the first uhf station in my hometown. His other brother was in radio. The only way they could get viewers at startup was to bear the expense of installing a uhf antenna at their homes if they were interested.

the only entertainment at the time was radio, tv, newspapers, movies, and the arts. no vcrs, no blockbuster, no dvds, no playstation, no computers, no internet, no ipods, no cable, no satellite...and no hdtv.

back then it was rabit ears or a yagi outdoors to receive. when uhf came you needed a converter box, a different style antenna besides rabit ears, a gadget to combine a vhf antenna and uhf antenna. very primative to today's standards but an added expence none the less.

Later to accomodate the very deep fringe, channel master introduced the 7' parabolic uhf and the quantum series antennas. we are talking big powerful antennas mounted outside. there is no market for these large antennas today. none of this pretty stuff like squareshooters or terk clip ons. If you wanted to watch tv you installed what it took to get the job done. there was no cable or fios, or satellite to fall back on.

today it is the opposite with digital tv. most of the stations are on uhf rather than vhf. with uhf you can get by with a smaller simpler less forgiving antennas. even rabbit ears for vhf can be challenging. it would be so much simpler if everything was just uhf.

then there are the families who installed uhf only antennas or cm4228's to receive high band vhf. what is the family out in the boonies going to do in 2009 when the station goes to vhf and the cm4228 may not be adequate...or they need to add a 14' vhf antenna just to receive ch 6 in philadelphia...or they need to add a rabit ear antenna to their indoor setup.

the common folk out there are not concerned about the technical aspects of how vhf differs from uhf...or what power the station transmits at....or what the coverage area of the station is.

all they are concerned about is...Why did they have to make this change so difficult. why couldnt they just transmit digital in uhf. why do I have to choose between lcd and plasma. why do I need to figure out how to hook up all this new technology. why do I need to spend upwards of 2000 dollars for a tv. what am I going to do with all the old equipment in my home.

why does this transition have to be such a challenge. that is what some are thinking...not the technical aspect of why vhf does not carry as well as uhf.

Unfortunately you need to play the cards you are dealt in your market in regards to channel assignments.

A large portion of the drama lies with the user. the users made the decisions of what equipment was selected to receive the signal at the home, how much you wanted to spend, how ugly the system was, used your wife as an excuse, how to wire the system, which preamp to use, and where to install the antenna.

If you want to receive the stations off air, install the approprate antenna, enjoy what is offered you (that is your responsibility), and let the broadcasters deal with the transmission issues.

in 2009 when some of the stations make the changes back to vhf...that is your problem not the stations. all the information was made public and you were given the appropriate advice when asked. if you do not accept the changes, at least there are other options available today (cable, satellite, internet, etc). you would not have had those options years ago.

The issue years ago was having to add equipment and bear the expense in order to receive the up and coming uhf band and the new stations popping up one by one...when everyone was content just tuning to vhf.

all they are concerned about is...Why did they have to make this change so damn difficult. why couldnt they just transmit digital in uhf. why do I have to choose between lcd and plasma. why do I need to figure out how to hook up all this garbage. why do I need to spend 2000 dollars for a tv. wtf am I going to do with all the old equipment in my house.

willie is thinking why could it be more simple...why not just uhf...why this vhf bs.

why does this tranisition have to be such a friggin pain in the ass.

thats what they are thinking...not why vhf does not carry as well.

No, what they are saying is...what's the number to Comcast/Time Warner/Mediacom/whatever. And if they aren't, then you go out and get yourself a big combo antenna. This isn't rocket science. Satellite dish clip-on antennas are crap beyond 20 miles. "Pretty Boy" antennas to look "nice", even less. If you want OTA, stick a combo antenna up on the roof, and if rural or far suburban, it has to be large. Bam, end of story. After three hours, enjoy your HDTV. Nothing difficult about that. One guy I installed an antenna for 40 miles away from Chicago uses his ChannelMaster 4228 to hang vines off of to make it look "pretty". People think what a nice thing that is. It powers and solidly locks everything he wants to get.

You don't have to spend $2k for an HDTV, many good ones are well under $1,000 and by Christmas, they'll be down even more. As for all the old equipment...everything has a service life. If you want to keep it, get a tuner.
LCD and Plasma? Man, if they find THAT hard, I'd hate to see what they do when buying a house or car, or even going to a grocery store!

For those who want everything nice and pretty, here's the deal: life and the digital transition isn't pretty. But it doesn't have to be very hard, and if you want someone else to deal with it (ala satellite or cable) for you, if you have the bucks, you can. Or have we gotten to the laziness point where screwing in a RG-6 cable into a wall plate is too much for us to handle?

Sorry, I don't mean to come off harsh here, but although it isn't easy, it is not difficult! The main problem is that people don't want to do what it takes, including putting an antenna on their roof or a large antenna in their attic, to make it work.
And for those people, I have no compassion. It's not a big deal, really! And when you realize that the effort means that it trumps the picture quality of satellite and at least a bit by cable, it's worth the small effort.

No, what they are saying is...what's the number to Comcast/Time Warner/Mediacom/whatever. And if they aren't, then you go out and get yourself a big combo antenna. This isn't rocket science. Satellite dish clip-on antennas are crap beyond 20 miles. "Pretty Boy" antennas to look "nice", even less. If you want OTA, stick a combo antenna up on the roof, and if rural or far suburban, it has to be large. Bam, end of story. After three hours, enjoy your HDTV. Nothing difficult about that. One guy I installed an antenna for 40 miles away from Chicago uses his ChannelMaster 4228 to hang vines off of to make it look "pretty". People think what a nice thing that is. It powers and solidly locks everything he wants to get.

You don't have to spend $2k for an HDTV, many good ones are well under $1,000 and by Christmas, they'll be down even more. As for all the old equipment...everything has a service life. If you want to keep it, get a tuner.
LCD and Plasma? Man, if they find THAT hard, I'd hate to see what they do when buying a house or car, or even going to a grocery store!

For those who want everything nice and pretty, here's the deal: life and the digital transition isn't pretty. But it doesn't have to be very hard, and if you want someone else to deal with it (ala satellite or cable) for you, if you have the bucks, you can. Or have we gotten to the laziness point where screwing in a RG-6 cable into a wall plate is too much for us to handle?

Sorry, I don't mean to come off harsh here, but although it isn't easy, it is not difficult! The main problem is that people don't want to do what it takes, including putting an antenna on their roof or a large antenna in their attic, to make it work.
And for those people, I have no compassion. It's not a big deal, really! And when you realize that the effort means that it trumps the picture quality of satellite and at least a bit by cable, it's worth the small effort.

You know a lot of those people you have no compassion for live in 2nd floor apartments and all they see is another building across the street. They don't have attics or access to roofs, never heard of digital TV. First time many of them will hear about it is when their TV stops working.

In fact a high percentage of those who still use antennas to watch TV because that is all they can afford live in places like that. They are not real Americans though for being so stupid to live in a place like that and they have no right to use American spectrum.

They also are stupid enough to rely on and believe that their government is looking out for them and wonder why the digital transition "isn't pretty". Since they will see people watching digital TV on cell phones while they won't be able to get it in their apartment. In fact they will see aquaintances watch digital TV on their cell phones in their 2nd story apartments while they will not be able to receive digital TV with antennas much bigger in the same apartment.

And that cell phone will be receiving digital TV over channels that were recently regular TV channels. It may raise some interesting questions.

LOL!!!!


This thread just got out of hand that some people just can’t accept the comment/view/suggestions from other people and then go make a big issue out of it when the big issue person just don’t go back see what the original post or posted reply was about even with little explaining of the background. As I have stated in the past this is what AVS Forum is all about sharing ideas or open minded views.

Let me begin with this to sebenste, foxfan, foxing, AntAltMike and kcabmi. You all have lot of valid points and I do agree with most of you and I do respected most of you because you are open minded people and don’t go back and attack the people. Some of you, I thank you for coming back with good statements / information to back what I trying to say. Kcabmi I am not offensive of what sebenste said and I don’t think he was attacking me at all or people living in apartments, Gilbert has been very good resourceful person on this forum or at least for the area that he knows very well. Yes I live in apartment and yes it sucks that you can’t put up a nice antenna on the roof. I even offer to put a nice Wingard 8200 up there, and share with other 7 unit in my building, then landlord said ok, the landlord was one of the 7 units, but then came the big problem there is 4 DMA to choose from and they all need to point the 4 different ways. You know what way they wanted to point to yep 4 different ways. So since there are 4 more building and the tenants and building owner don’t want to foot the rest for equipment. So I put my cm 4228 w/ rotor and HM-DB-2 antenna in my unit. As part of my job is I travel on the road and away from the apartment a lot. Yes I could get cable or dish but at the $$ and don’t watch 98% of the offered channel that is useless to me and beside it don’t offer all the local channel analog or digital SD/HD OTA station and if you want a program channel in higher package just one program and have to pay $50.00 (I am not going to get in detail of the cost because of vary in the market and packages) more forget it. My system cost me for what I would pay 2 month of Cable or Dish and I get all local in true OTA HD and along with the sub-channel (you don’t get with Cable or Dish) NO MONTHLY BILL FOR FREE OTA HD . I agree roof and appropriate sized antenna is the only way to go, if only you can access to best area.

Sorry if any of you feel offensive what I said above. I don’t knock down other people. But when someone starts knock other people down, I will step in and I will come to their defense as some already had defended me. That why I respect all above AVS members above and many more in rest of the AVS Forums for their views, even I may or may not agree with their views/opinion or vice-versa. I hope this AVS Forum will not ever get out of hand like some of the others forums website that I have seen, even the site moderator get out of hand that is sad. I am glad there are good moderators on this site to keep thing in line here and I hope all the moderator is reading this and agree with me.

Rick I am not going over each of what you said but you need to go back and look how you reply to peoples not just in this thread but others also. You have made a lot of valid points and I agree with you on some of things, but you need to apply some of things you said to them to yourself also. Gotta remember not every one is a smart person as you are and that why they come here for suggestion/views and not only from you but everyone else too. I am not saying I don’t want your suggestion, but you just need to clam down and not be so rude in your reply.

Willie

You know a lot of those people you have no compassion for live in 2nd floor apartments and all they see is another building across the street. They don't have attics or access to roofs, never heard of digital TV. First time many of them will hear about it is when their TV stops working.

In fact a high percentage of those who still use antennas to watch TV because that is all they can afford live in places like that. They are not real Americans though for being so stupid to live in a place like that and they have no right to use American spectrum.

They also are stupid enough to rely on and believe that their government is looking out for them and wonder why the digital transition "isn't pretty". Since they will see people watching digital TV on cell phones while they won't be able to get it in their apartment. In fact they will see aquaintances watch digital TV on their cell phones in their 2nd story apartments while they will not be able to receive digital TV with antennas much bigger in the same apartment.

And that cell phone will be receiving digital TV over channels that were recently regular TV channels. It may raise some interesting questions.

If you have a 5th generation tuner or higher (as tested in New York City), you can get a solid lock on signals, even on high multipath. Those with 4th gen or earlier have already taken theirs back.

However, in apartments (or any building for that matter), those who can't get analog won't get digital, and vice versa. For them, it's a moot point anyway.
They already subscribe to cable, or don't have TV at all. There should be a few cases where the analog comes in and digital doesn't, but that should be very rare.
Bottom line: if they can get it now, they'll get it in 2009; if not, then they still won't. Nobody should lose TV reception in the digital switchover, except in rare cases. Mind you, that's just reception I am talking about. Affordability of boxes is for another thread.

I never said they were stupid, just lazy if they are able to put an antenna in an attic or on the roof. If not (as in apartment dwellers), see above. I really don't think there will be a substantial loss of viewers in apartments if they are able to get a tuner box, and if they have analog reception now. Actually, snowy or ghosting pictures via analog may come in just fine with those 5th gen tuners---a real improvement for those in high multipath/marginal reception areas.

In short, I'm just crying out against homeowners who just want to either not do the work or deal with an antenna in the attic or on their house, that's all, and then gripe about it. I've been cable/satellite-less since paying for that much is an added burden. 60 miles away from Chicago, I lock everything but one channel, available in another market nearby, thanks to attic antennas. And in apartments, if you can get reception, you'll hear about the digital switchover shortly. If anyone ignores it after media saturation in late 2007/2008, that's not the government's problem.

Rick I am not going over each of what you said but you need to go back and look how you reply to peoples not just in this thread but others also. You have made a lot of valid points and I agree with you on some of things, but you need to apply some of things you said to them to yourself also. Gotta remember not every one is a smart person as you are and that why they come here for suggestion/views and not only from you but everyone else too. I am not saying I don’t want your suggestion, but you just need to clam down and not be so rude in your reply.

Willie

Sorry english composition was not my best subject in school. I edited my last post and took some of the edge off.

If you have a 5th generation tuner or higher (as tested in New York City), you can get a solid lock on signals, even on high multipath. Those with 4th gen or earlier have already taken theirs back.

However, in apartments (or any building for that matter), those who can't get analog won't get digital, and vice versa. For them, it's a moot point anyway.
They already subscribe to cable, or don't have TV at all. There should be a few cases where the analog comes in and digital doesn't, but that should be very rare.
Bottom line: if they can get it now, they'll get it in 2009; if not, then they still won't. Nobody should lose TV reception in the digital switchover, except in rare cases. Mind you, that's just reception I am talking about. Affordability of boxes is for another thread.

I never said they were stupid, just lazy if they are able to put an antenna in an attic or on the roof. If not (as in apartment dwellers), see above. I really don't think there will be a substantial loss of viewers in apartments if they are able to get a tuner box, and if they have analog reception now. Actually, snowy or ghosting pictures via analog may come in just fine with those 5th gen tuners---a real improvement for those in high multipath/marginal reception areas.

In short, I'm just crying out against homeowners who just want to either not do the work or deal with an antenna in the attic or on their house, that's all, and then gripe about it. I've been cable/satellite-less since paying for that much is an added burden. 60 miles away from Chicago, I lock everything but one channel, available in another market nearby, thanks to attic antennas. And in apartments, if you can get reception, you'll hear about the digital switchover shortly. If anyone ignores it after media saturation in late 2007/2008, that's not the government's problem.

Sort of reminds me of when Microsoft didn't have a GUI while other operating systems did. A decent GUI made it easier for a much larger percentage of the public to use a computer.

There was a lot of macho then about how real men didn't use a GUI. The reality was that there were better operating systems that would have saved trillions of man hours, years and billions of $$$ that were wasted fooling with an inferior operating system.

Same thing is happening now with the digital TV transition. A lot of talk about how the public should be willing to spend money and time that should not be required to make up for inferior hardware, technology and thinking by those who should be looking out for the public, our public servants in DC and the broadcasters who were given free spectrum to broadcast to us.

Major broadcaster stocks like Sinclair are up 100% recently because of two reasons. One is that investors see a gravy train of new found money from re-transmission consent dollars now being negotiated between broadcasters and cable. All that new money falls right to the bottom line as profits. The only added cost are the negotiating cost. And the money will be found in the pockets of cable customers who will see their bills go up once again.

The other reason investors are sweet on broadcasters is that they see another fountain of money going to broadcasters from coming elections campaigns that are expected to set records.

Both are intertwined in conflict of interest, IMO, for the broadcaster.

Every customer that elects to receive their TV using an antenna is lost revenue for the broadcaster. They receive no subscription fee for that customer. Broadcasters want their broadcast license so that they can get those subscription fees but they don't want anymore people than necessary to get their TV from an antenna.

So broadcasters have a basic conflict of interest with their reason for being, broadcasting over the air with the free spectrum we gave them.

And they have a basic conflict of interest with our way of government. They get a big chunk of their revenue, bigger part of their profits, from our lobbyist run government. Most of the money being raised in our political process goes to pay for TV ads which become an inordinate part of TV broadcasters profits.

And broadcasters control most of the news that we get about the politicians who are their most important customers.

Wonder why we have a dysfunctional digital TV transition when it is not in the interest of broadcasters that we have a really successful one? And that same digital transition is in the hands of their best customers to determine how well it works.

Expect a controlled disaster. Not to bad so as to jeopardize over the air altogether and not to good so that more people start using antennas.

Same thing is happening now with the digital TV transition. A lot of talk about how the public should be willing to spend money and time that should not be required to make up for inferior hardware, technology and thinking by those who should be looking out for the public, our public servants in DC and the broadcasters who were given free spectrum to broadcast to us.

Major broadcaster stocks like Sinclair are up 100% recently because of two reasons. One is that investors see a gravy train of new found money from re-transmission consent dollars now being negotiated between broadcasters and cable. All that new money falls right to the bottom line as profits. The only added cost are the negotiating cost. And the money will be found in the pockets of cable customers who will see their bills go up once again.

The other reason investors are sweet on broadcasters is that they see another fountain of money going to broadcasters from coming elections campaigns that are expected to set records.

Both are intertwined in conflict of interest, IMO, for the broadcaster.

Every customer that elects to receive their TV using an antenna is lost revenue for the broadcaster. They receive no subscription fee for that customer. Broadcasters want their broadcast license so that they can get those subscription fees but they don't want anymore people than necessary to get their TV from an antenna.

So broadcasters have a basic conflict of interest with their reason for being, broadcasting over the air with the free spectrum we gave them.

And they have a basic conflict of interest with our way of government. They get a big chunk of their revenue, bigger part of their profits, from our lobbyist run government. Most of the money being raised in our political process goes to pay for TV ads which become an inordinate part of TV broadcasters profits.

And broadcasters control most of the news that we get about the politicians who are their most important customers.

Wonder why we have a dysfunctional digital TV transition when it is not in the interest of broadcasters that we have a really successful one? And that same digital transition is in the hands of their best customers to determine how well it works.

Expect a controlled disaster. Not to bad so as to jeopardize over the air altogether and not to good so that more people start using antennas.

The spectrum isn't free...they do pay to use it. I don't see inferior anything. Equipment isn't perfect and neither is the system. But i am 60 miles away from my stations and with an antenna in the attic, can lock every station I want with no problem. Like I said, if you have signal now, you'll have it after the DTV switch...and 60 miles, assuming a flat Earth's surface, is the best you can do. You can't compromise physics. And within that 60 miles, how can you make it better without melting buildings in RF?

You say that the broadcasters and government should be looking out for this, but I say we should. We had plenty of time to scream and yell if there were problems.
I say what we have now isn't the greatest, but it isn't bad. And if you don't like what the broadcasters are doing in charging for their signals, complain to the FCC or get an antenna . I don't see people doing it, except grabbing antennas from Mediacom. :-)

They pay a license fee which is peanuts. They did not pay for their original spectrum. IMO the system is inferior. It is the only one in the world that has required a government to make it a must in every TV set sold even though most people will not use it since they have cable. That is a socialist type waste if ever there was one.

Super high power that allows reception at 60 miles is not the way to measure if our system is the best, worst or just mediocre. Any system even with a weak signal probably could be received on the moon. The real test is what percentage of the people in the total coverage area can get a signal and how easy is it everywhere.

And just blasting a signal at high power is not "the best you can do" by a long shot. There is a lot of other things to consider in revamping our whole TV broadcast system and our government and the FCC didn't do it. They were and are a lot more interested in rushing things and in selling our spectrum and they already have done and will do again next spring.

"Melting buildings" only considers that upping power is the only possible consideration. It is not.

A lot of screaming was done but nothing was done. I agree that what we have isn't the greatest but I disagree that it isn't bad. It is terrible. And there is evidence that others think so to. This started in 1998 or 1997 and almost ten years later very little has happened.

It is not that broadcasters are charging for their signals. The problem is that they are neglecting their free over the air spectrum. They are relying on their friends and our employees to downplay over the air broadcasting so that people will accept the higher cable fees instead of putting up an antenna.

Congress and the FCC talk about lowering cable and satellite bills and fostering competition but they do something completely different when it comes to passing legislation. They protect broadcasters who should be competing with cable and let them get into bed with them.

You can scream all you want but our Congressman depend on broadcasters for getting elected and rightly believe that we are asleep. How often do you see investigative reporting on TV about TV. TV doesn't cover TV. Can you even imagine some reporter covering this issue for real?

Every customer that elects to receive their TV using an antenna is lost revenue for the broadcaster. They receive no subscription fee for that customer. Broadcasters want their broadcast license so that they can get those subscription fees but they don't want anymore people than necessary to get their TV from an antenna.

So broadcasters have a basic conflict of interest with their reason for being, broadcasting over the air with the free spectrum we gave them.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????
With all due respect, what you have written here says you have no clue what you are talking about. After you do some serious research on all of this and not just what people say on an Internet bulletin board, please come back so we can have a relevant conversation.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????
With all due respect, what you have written here says you have no clue what you are talking about. After you do some serious research on all of this and not just what people say on an Internet bulletin board, please come back so we can have a relevant conversation.

OK that is a deal. I will do some research and be back.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????
With all due respect, what you have written here says you have no clue what you are talking about. After you do some serious research on all of this and not just what people say on an Internet bulletin board, please come back so we can have a relevant conversation.


I am back. That was easy.

CBS gets retransmission consent that will cost ONE million subscribers $1 a month per or $6 million dollars

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6418604.html?display=Breaking+News

"CBS GETS CASH FOR HDTV"

http://www.tvpredictions.com/cbscash022307.htm


Sinclair sees nothing but good times from retrans and political ads.

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2007/02/14/daily.5/

"CEO David Smith says he expects the company will see $48 million in retrans revenue this year, up 90% from $25.4 million in 2006. Sinclair reports a record $32 million in political ad revenue in 2006."

2006 was a non election year. They expect 2007 to "explode". Can you imagine what their political ad revenues will be in 2008? And you can expect that their retrans revenue will continue to grow compounded at 90% rate.

When all broadcasters have gone though the retrans negotiations what will the bill be for cable companies. At between $.75 and $1 per station per subscriber it could add up. Will cable markup these payments? It seems likely since that is their business, marking up other people's content.

The only reason broadcasters can do this is because the public cannot, will not, don't know about or find over the air antenna reception a problem. I don't see broadcasters doing much to change that.

In other countries where broadcasters have not cajoled, or whatever it is that lobbyist do to prod legislative types to pass laws beneficial to them, you find that over the air digital broadcasting is causing satellite and cable rates to come under intense pressure.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_24/b3937069_mz054.htm

They call it a free market where there is competition not laws that force a competitor to carry your content. Not laws that quietly force consumers to buy equipment they don't know anything about, don't want and don't need in 85% of cases. And cable rates are going down, offerings are being juiced up. And content providers are jumping ship from cable and satellite to over the air broadcasting giving up subscription fees for ad support only.

E4 launching on Freeview in May
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4488779.stm

"Channel 4 hopes the increased audience numbers will bolster advertising revenue, offsetting the loss of any subscription revenue."

I think that in the US things are way too cozy between broadcasters, Congress and even cable and satellite. I think that our over the air spectrum should be used to compete with cable, satellite and the new fiber connections and if not it should be sold to others who will compete.

Over the air broadcasters in other countries are doing it and successfully. Why not here? Over the air in the US is being downplayed by everyone involved, the broadcaster, the retailer and the FCC.

And those that really do rely on over the air in the US today are the last people on the minds of all involved. To them everyone has been and are saying basically tough luck.

For purposes of discussion why don't we have converter boxes at reasonable prices nine years after the digital transition started? It seems the plan is to leave over the air broadcasting in limbo for 11 years, 1998/2009, and then BOOM! Educate everyone and have basic converter boxes pushed into the market at the last moment.

Great plan.

So educate me. Tell me the secrets that only those in the industry know that will explain what appears on its face to be total incompetence.

I am back. That was easy.

All you did was quote industry articles about how much money stations could get with retrans agreements but never addressed your statement:

Originally Posted by kcabmi
Every customer that elects to receive their TV using an antenna is lost revenue for the broadcaster. They receive no subscription fee for that customer. Broadcasters want their broadcast license so that they can get those subscription fees but they don't want anymore people than necessary to get their TV from an antenna.

So broadcasters have a basic conflict of interest with their reason for being, broadcasting over the air with the free spectrum we gave them.

So educate me. Tell me the secrets that only those in the industry know that will explain what appears on its face to be total incompetence.

Since you appear to be taking a somewhat flippant attitude on this, please allow me to do the same in my approach while showing how your statement is illogical and your knowledge of the subject limited at best, even now.

You make the assertion that Every customer that elects to receive their TV using an antenna is lost revenue for the broadcaster. They receive no subscription fee for that customer. Broadcasters want their broadcast license so that they can get those subscription fees but they don't want anymore people than necessary to get their TV from an antenna.

First off, free over the air television is NOT subscription based. Never has been. There are provisions in the rules for stations to offer subscription services and there has been a few instances when small niche stations in the 60's and 70's in large markets attempted to do a primetime subscription service and everyone of them failed in a short time. Free OTA television is advertiser based. Always has been. Broadcasters make their money from selling advertising and those rates are based on the number of viewers to a broadcast. The further a station reaches in its market, the more potential eyes. That is why they want the license. The more eyes, the more money, See? No where did I say SUBSCRIPTION to make money.

In the late 40's and early 50's the FCC put a freeze on television stations as they sorted out the number of stations the spectrum could support. In many areas viewers only had one or two stations at best to choose from. People started putting up antennas on mountains and tall towers and buildings and then selling the signals (signals that they did not have permission to resell from stations by the way) to those who would pay for more choices during the freeze. The birth of cable. Soon it was obvious that rules needed to be put in place to regulate this new telecommunications business. Retrans was first introduced. At the time television stations were willing to allow cable to rebroadcast their signals with very little ado if it helped increase their viewer base. (Still nothing about subscription).

As cable penetration increased, stations and cable began to argue over retrans. In the early 90's the FCC allowed stations to ask for monetary compensation for systems carrying their signals or no compensation if they asked for "must carry" forcing cable to carry their signal even if cable didn't want to. This was to be sure that small stations were not discriminated against because CABLE couldn't make as much money off of the smaller stations as they could the larger stations. Cable baulked, took it to the Supreme Court and lost. (Must carry by itself was instituted in the 80's and cable went to court and lost that battle too.) Retrans and must carry were staying.

Cable then went to broadcasters and worked out a non monetary deal where they would "trade" advertising on the stations for channel use. Many stations agreed. Shortly after, cable was allowed to directly compete with broadcasters in selling advertising to local businesses (talk about conflict of interest - you ever heard of Adnet?).

At that time CBS and other large station owners began to talk about revising the deal of non monetary compensation for monetary compensation since now the stations would have to sell in direct competition for advertising dollars in their markets. Why give cable "free" advertising (cable gets free ad space that stations could be selling for money and cable making money off of the stations signals on their systems and stations NOT making ANY money for that signal), when they had to compete with them for the same ad dollars. (Again no where have I said "stations" and "subscriptions" in the same sentence.) Cable was OUTRAGED that broadcasters wanted THEM to pay for something they had gotten for free for years and was in DIRECT competition for ad dollars to boot!

We now come to the present. Viewers want HD programming. Cable has limited bandwidth and THEIR subs want HD local stations (remember stations are not making money on HD retrans). Many viewers are not being served and put up antennas bypassing the cable companies and stations are still making money on ad sells (where is the "subscription" in that?) while cable looses money as subs move to other systems or OTA antennas (just ask Mediacom about loosing subs over an SD station much less HD). Broadcasters now have something cable needs (HD content) and they STILL want it for free while still making money with their subscribers and their direct advertising to local businesses. Broadcasters STILL make money on the ad revenue they sell (no subscriptions yet).

So you assertion that broadcasters don't care about their OTA viewers and only want MORE "subscribers" is totally baseless and foolish and uninformed. If your "research" had taken you to Wikipedia, you would have learned all of this in one or two places.

And by the way, broadcasters pay a renewal fee every time they renew their license, upgrade their license or obtain a new license as well as yearly fees for analog and digital stations and they also pay an extra fee for every subchannel they offer on their digital channel. These monies go directly into the general fund of the US Treasury. Broadcasters pay plenty for the privilege to make a dollar with the "public airwaves" which isn't as public as many make them out to be. If they were so "public" you won't need a government license and pay all the fees for that usage. The "public airwaves" are as public as the "public road system." Our taxes pay for it, but we don't own it even though it is in our name. Just ask the over the road haulers about "road usage taxes" and who owns what in who's name.

Who needs wiki when it can all be explained here.

Who needs wiki when it can all be explained here.

A little source confirmation helps in the learning process! :D

E4 launching on Freeview in May
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertai...dio/4488779.stm

"Channel 4 hopes the increased audience numbers will bolster advertising revenue, offsetting the loss of any subscription revenue."

kcabmi -- Interesting you cite a reference to the BBC. Are you aware that English taxpayers who own a color TV set pay a tax of about $260 per year for the privilege of watching TV? B&W tax is about $90 -- fine for failure to pay the tax is around $1800 and the BBC has the authority (and manpower) to enforce payment.

Advertising revenues are the main source of income to the our OTA stations, so we pay for OTA viewing through the cost of goods every time we buy something that has been advertised. Those that watch cable pay their cable fee in addition to that.

Foxeng knows more about the business than I do - I'm just a long time OTA viewer (over half a century of experience!) that remembers when cable started. They were local businesses, who put up "antenna farms" to snag OTA broadcasts, stick them on a wire and route them to your home/set. You paid the cable company for the "re-transmission" down the wire to your set. No one paid the OTA broadcaster (except the advertisers).

Consolidation of the "local" cable companies led to the current national providers. Programming providers evolved to provide additional content to cable augmenting OTA over time until we are where we are now. The basics haven't changed - I still pay for my OTA through my goods/services purchases.

May be a confused system - but it works.

Carl

kcabmi -- Interesting you cite a reference to the BBC. Are you aware that English taxpayers who own a color TV set pay a tax of about $260 per year for the privilege of watching TV? B&W tax is about $90 -- fine for failure to pay the tax is around $1800 and the BBC has the authority (and manpower) to enforce payment.

Advertising revenues are the main source of income to the our OTA stations, so we pay for OTA viewing through the cost of goods every time we buy something that has been advertised. Those that watch cable pay their cable fee in addition to that.

Foxeng knows more about the business than I do - I'm just a long time OTA viewer (over half a century of experience!) that remembers when cable started. They were local businesses, who put up "antenna farms" to snag OTA broadcasts, stick them on a wire and route them to your home/set. You paid the cable company for the "re-transmission" down the wire to your set. No one paid the OTA broadcaster (except the advertisers).

Consolidation of the "local" cable companies led to the current national providers. Programming providers evolved to provide additional content to cable augmenting OTA over time until we are where we are now. The basics haven't changed - I still pay for my OTA through my goods/services purchases.

May be a confused system - but it works.

Carl

Yes I know that the BBC is supported by a viewer tax in the UK. Have no idea what that has to do with anything though. We have Public Broadcasting which is supported by the taxpayer to though probably not as much.

Most of the program channels on their Freeview over the air, however, are supported by ad revenues only, just like in the US. Those program channels see no money from the BBC tax nor are their customers spared any ads.

And over the air broadcasting, advertiser supported, is growing very fast there. More people watch digital TV over the air in the UK than any other TV including satellite. And this all happened in just the last few years. And as I pointed out before some satellite and cable content providers are leaving subscription based support for ad only supported Freeview. Do you know of any cable channel that is thinking of abandoning the subscription game in the US for ad supported over the air? Sound like a joke doesn't it.

In the US almost no one even knows about over the air digital broadcasting. And that includes those who should know the most about it, those that sell digital TV sets.

And now we have broadcasters demanding to be paid a fee per subscriber by the cable companies. That is what a subscriber service is. All programs on cable are subscriber fee supported.

You say you pay for your OTA with goods purchased. True if you receive those channels via antenna but not true in many cases if you view them over cable or satellite. In those cases you pay the cable company for delivery, pay by watching the ads and now you will pay an extra fee for each OTA channel you receive via cable or satellite plus an additional markup from the cable company because of the retrans subscription demands of broadcasters.

It is just semantics to say that this is just a retrans fee, it is a fee based on each subscriber of the cable company, it is a subscription fee. If you took away broadcasters spectrum they would be no different than any other cable channel, just another content provider.

And this makes for a conflict of interest. Broadcasters would like for everyone to pay that subscription fee for their content. Broadcasters would rather that no one received that content for free, advertiser supported only, since that means a loss of the subscription fee revenue.

Of course if NO one watched OTA that would be a problem. Maybe someone would ask the question what are you doing with that spectrum. So broadcasters have to feign interest in OTA while crying crocodile tears over their transmitter electric bills.

All you did was quote industry articles about how much money stations could get with retrans agreements but never addressed your statement:

I think I did address my statement. I quoted industry articles about subscription fees, fees per subscriber, that broadcasters are demanding and getting from cable companies. Broadcasters are saying that their content is the same as and has more value than other content providers to cable who are supported both by advertising and sub fees. They and I see no difference.

Since you appear to be taking a somewhat flippant attitude on this, please allow me to do the same in my approach while showing how your statement is illogical and your knowledge of the subject limited at best, even now.

Didn't think I was being flippant, thought I was pretty serious.

You make the assertion that Every customer that elects to receive their TV using an antenna is lost revenue for the broadcaster. They receive no subscription fee for that customer. Broadcasters want their broadcast license so that they can get those subscription fees but they don't want anymore people than necessary to get their TV from an antenna.

First off, free over the air television is NOT subscription based. Never has been. There are provisions in the rules for stations to offer subscription services and there has been a few instances when small niche stations in the 60's and 70's in large markets attempted to do a primetime subscription service and everyone of them failed in a short time. Free OTA television is advertiser based. Always has been. Broadcasters make their money from selling advertising and those rates are based on the number of viewers to a broadcast. The further a station reaches in its market, the more potential eyes. That is why they want the license. The more eyes, the more money, See? No where did I say SUBSCRIPTION to make money.

You didn't say it but you should have. You are talking history I am talking about the present. Broadcasters are bargaining for fees per sub from cable companies. They want to become just like every other content provider on cable. That is they want to make a bundle with subscription fees collected for them by what should be their competitor, the cable companies.

As it is broadcasters make most of their money via ads but 85% to 95% of those who see those ads are doing so over cable not via an antenna. Broadcasters will make a lot of their money from subscription fees and most of the rest from ads seen over cable not OTA.

The few people, 15% or is it 10%, that still rely on over the air broadcasting are demographically challenged or to put it another way they are not the cream of the crop for advertisers. And their numbers are falling. How many will there be after the analog turnoff? Ever see a fish feeding frenzy where the big fish herd the little fish to the surface and then they all, including seagulls and other birds attack from below and above at once? That is what is going to happen with those few remaining OTA viewers come 2009 when cable and satellite go after the last remaining holdouts. A fishing frenzy on the last OTA holdouts.

OTA will have 2% of viewers after that and half of those will be complaining about the converter boxes not working they got with their $40 subsidy. ONE % of the public will use OTA DTV after the transition. Everyone will have a receiver in their DTV but very few will use them.

In the late 40's and early 50's the FCC put a freeze on television stations as they sorted out the number of stations the spectrum could support. In many areas viewers only had one or two stations at best to choose from. People started putting up antennas on mountains and tall towers and buildings and then selling the signals (signals that they did not have permission to resell from stations by the way) to those who would pay for more choices during the freeze. The birth of cable. Soon it was obvious that rules needed to be put in place to regulate this new telecommunications business. Retrans was first introduced. At the time television stations were willing to allow cable to rebroadcast their signals with very little ado if it helped increase their viewer base. (Still nothing about subscription).

As cable penetration increased, stations and cable began to argue over retrans. In the early 90's the FCC allowed stations to ask for monetary compensation for systems carrying their signals or no compensation if they asked for "must carry" forcing cable to carry their signal even if cable didn't want to. This was to be sure that small stations were not discriminated against because CABLE couldn't make as much money off of the smaller stations as they could the larger stations. Cable baulked, took it to the Supreme Court and lost. (Must carry by itself was instituted in the 80's and cable went to court and lost that battle too.) Retrans and must carry were staying.

Cable then went to broadcasters and worked out a non monetary deal where they would "trade" advertising on the stations for channel use. Many stations agreed. Shortly after, cable was allowed to directly compete with broadcasters in selling advertising to local businesses (talk about conflict of interest - you ever heard of Adnet?).

At that time CBS and other large station owners began to talk about revising the deal of non monetary compensation for monetary compensation since now the stations would have to sell in direct competition for advertising dollars in their markets. Why give cable "free" advertising (cable gets free ad space that stations could be selling for money and cable making money off of the stations signals on their systems and stations NOT making ANY money for that signal), when they had to compete with them for the same ad dollars. (Again no where have I said "stations" and "subscriptions" in the same sentence.) Cable was OUTRAGED that broadcasters wanted THEM to pay for something they had gotten for free for years and was in DIRECT competition for ad dollars to boot!

We now come to the present. Viewers want HD programming. Cable has limited bandwidth and THEIR subs want HD local stations (remember stations are not making money on HD retrans). Many viewers are not being served and put up antennas bypassing the cable companies and stations are still making money on ad sells (where is the "subscription" in that?) while cable looses money as subs move to other systems or OTA antennas (just ask Mediacom about loosing subs over an SD station much less HD).

Broadcasters only are making money from advertising because they are on cable. Ask any LPTV station about making money from advertising if they are not on cable. There are not enough OTA viewers out there and they are not the best customers by self definition. Most don't have cable or satellite because they can't afford it.

Broadcasters stocks have doubled recently because they are now starting to collect fees per sub normally called subscription fees from cable companies.

Broadcasters now have something cable needs (HD content) and they STILL want it for free while still making money with their subscribers and their direct advertising to local businesses. Broadcasters STILL make money on the ad revenue they sell (no subscriptions yet).

So you assertion that broadcasters don't care about their OTA viewers and only want MORE "subscribers" is totally baseless and foolish and uninformed. If your "research" had taken you to Wikipedia, you would have learned all of this in one or two places.

Sorry but I must have missed your argument where you showed how concerned broadcasters are about their dwindling OTA viewers. I see little or no interest by broadcasters in their OTA customers. Little in the way of education or advertising about the transition or how they can get OTA reception now. No promotions that might include something to do with OTA receivers.

On the other hand I have heard a lot about broadcasters wanting cable to carry their multi-cast programming. Seems to me that broadcasters are fixated on cable carriage of their content and on making money from advertising but to an ever greater degree from subscription fees per sub on cable.

And where were broadcasters when this whole digital transition thing was being hatched? I heard they basically left it all up to the consumer equipment manufacturers who are not even in this country for the most part. These foriegn consumer equipment makers were more interested in promoting their own technology and protecting their patents making them last as long as possible than in the US digital transition.

And by the way, broadcasters pay a renewal fee every time they renew their license, upgrade their license or obtain a new license as well as yearly fees for analog and digital stations and they also pay an extra fee for every subchannel they offer on their digital channel. These monies go directly into the general fund of the US Treasury. Broadcasters pay plenty for the privilege to make a dollar with the "public airwaves" which isn't as public as many make them out to be. If they were so "public" you won't need a government license and pay all the fees for that usage. The "public airwaves" are as public as the "public road system." Our taxes pay for it, but we don't own it even though it is in our name. Just ask the over the road haulers about "road usage taxes" and who owns what in who's name.

I didn't say that broadcasters didn't pay something for the use of their spectrum. I said they originally got it for free and I will now say that the license fee they pay is peanuts. They are not paying fees or rent for the use of our taxpayers spectrum that is even 2% of what a proper rent would be. They pay a license fee like when you own a car and buy a license. That license fee is not comparable to what it would cost you to rent that car for the duration of the license.

Truckers pay a lot more, 1000 times more, as a percent of their total gross income, for the use of the roads, compared to the fees broadcasters pay for the use of some of the best spectrum there is.

As far as ownership of the spectrum. The taxpayers own the spectrum theoretically but most citizens have a far greater likelihood of losing there house that they OWN to the state if the state wants it than broadcasters have of losing the spectrum they theoretically are RENTING if the government wants it back.

Broadcasters who are RENTING at NO cost and pay pitifully small fees for their spectrum are more in control of that spectrum than you or me are of our homes which we OWN and paid for. It would be a very brave Congressman who would take on the broadcast industry and suggest that their term of rental is over.

Broadcasters have a conflict of interest as to their OTA license. The more viewers who use an antenna the less they make via subscription fees collected by cable companies per subscriber for them.

Cut that cord and the OTA spectrum would become all important to broadcasters and they would do a better job of using it. In most every country that has gone digital people are flocking to OTA. Not in the US. People don't even know about OTA digital TV in the US.

I didn't say that broadcasters didn't pay something for the use of their spectrum. I said they originally got it for free and I will now say that the license fee they pay is peanuts. They are not paying fees or rent for the use of our taxpayers spectrum that is even 2% of what a proper rent would be. They pay a license fee like when you own a car and buy a license. That license fee is not comparable to what it would cost you to rent that car.

Based on market size and yearly income is not peanuts my friend.

Truckers pay a lot more, 1000 times more, as a percent of their total gross income, for the use of the roads, compared to the fees broadcasters pay for the use of some of the best spectrum there is.

Really? None of the wireless providers want the low channels or low UHF. Antennas are too big and/or the RF doesn't go through buildings. The 700 MHz section that they are getting above channel 51 has small antennas and goes well through buildings, just what they want.

As far as ownership of the spectrum. The taxpayers own the spectrum theoretically but most citizens have a far greater likelihood of losing there house that they OWN to the state if the state wants it than broadcasters have of losing the spectrum they theoretically are RENTING if the government wants it back.

You keep believing that and I have some land to sell you in Florida when the tide goes out. If Congress gets votes or money out of taking broadcasters spectrum, it is gone no matter how much NAB lobbies. That is how broadcasters lost channels 52-69. MONEY.

Broadcasters who are RENTING at NO cost and pitifully small fees their spectrum are more in control of that spectrum than you or me are of our homes which we OWN. It would be a very brave Congressman who would take on the broadcast industry and suggest that their term of rental is over.

Congress is MUCH more concerned about their constituents who use OTA exclusively losing TV reception than broadcasters. In 2006 both houses went on record saying that very thing and that being the driving force for the Feb 17, 2009 date. After the Super Bowl and before March Madness so they could get the auctions going now to bring in the money.

does anyone have estimates of the size of the ota audience?

cable and satellite must have over 90% of the market here.

The last time I read a thread breaking it down, while maybe 90% do have cable or satellite, over 20% use off-air for at least one TV. I service only MDUs, and I have a slew of customers who have cable TV in their livingroom, but use off air for the bedroom or kitchen.

I am in an interesting situation in Washington, DC. I service a lot of MDUs that have separate wiring for the antenna system and cable TV, and I can install off-air headends that deliver all the available channels from Washington, DC, Baltimore and Annapolis, Maryland, and Falls Church, Manassass, and Goldvein, Virginia. A lot of residents in buildings in which I have already upgraded the antenna system have Comcast cable boxes for cable viewing, but also connect the master antenna line into their digital tuner to get about three times as many DTV channels as cable offers. My customers got to watch several Baltimore Ravens games that were not carried in Washington, DC because they were played at the same time as Redskins games, and they saw them in HDTV to boot.

The usefulness of the master antenna systems will only increase when the low-powered stations go to digital on February 17, 2009. There will no longer be a picture quality difference between low powered and full powered transmitters at that time. In Washington, DC, the NBC affiliate's channel 48 DTV transmitter is at full power, but a low powered analog Spanish station on channel 47 is unwatchable, but the twelve to fifteen dB signal level differential that will exist between these co-located digital channels will not preclude the weaker from being reliably received and processed by a well designed antenna system.

I still think that USDTV will become viable when there is a lot of suitable low-powered DTV bandwidth available in metropolitan markets.

does anyone have estimates of the size of the ota audience?

cable and satellite must have over 90% of the market here.

It depends on the market. In my own market it is 85% penetration of cable and sat for primary TV's and only about 45% for secondary TV's. In either Dallas or Houston, I forget which (Houston I think), primary TV cable/sat penetration is only about a surprising 40%. Nationally I think the average is about 75% to 80% primary TV penetration with about 50% secondary TVs.

does anyone have estimates of the size of the ota audience?

cable and satellite must have over 90% of the market here.
As of 21 Dec 2006, "13 percent of the 111.4 million TV households in the United States (that) rely on terrestrial broadcast" http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/hd-ota-viewers-1221/

The few people, 15% or is it 10%, that still rely on over the air broadcasting are demographically challenged or to put it another way they are not the cream of the crop for advertisers. And their numbers are falling. How many will there be after the analog turnoff? Ever see a fish feeding frenzy where the big fish herd the little fish to the surface and then they all, including seagulls and other birds attack from below and above at once? That is what is going to happen with those few remaining OTA viewers come 2009 when cable and satellite go after the last remaining holdouts. A fishing frenzy on the last OTA holdouts.

OTA will have 2% of viewers after that and half of those will be complaining about the converter boxes not working they got with their $40 subsidy. ONE % of the public will use OTA DTV after the transition. Everyone will have a receiver in their DTV but very few will use them.

.

I expect just the opposite to happen - when people realize how much great PQ material is available via free OTA, OTA viewership will go up, not down. Those viewers will also be driven in that direction by the ever increasing cable co fees.

I expect just the opposite to happen - when people realize how much great PQ material is available via free OTA, OTA viewership will go up, not down. Those viewers will also be driven in that direction by the ever increasing cable co fees.

doubt it...there are issues that come into play.
-ugly
-wife factor
-cost
-too many options (satellite, cable, internet, fiber optics)
-ease of installation...satellite and cable installation is free and will wire the entire home. not many antenna professionals around anymore

I expect just the opposite to happen - when people realize how much great PQ material is available via free OTA, OTA viewership will go up, not down. Those viewers will also be driven in that direction by the ever increasing cable co fees.

Your next cable bill increase is coming because your local broadcast over the air stations are very confident you will not bother to get their content with an antenna. How many local OTA channels do you receive on cable? Multiply by around $1 plus say $.30 and you will have an idea of just how much the coming increase will be.

Congress, broadcasters, cable and satellite, though they may appear to tangle a bit in public are really just dividing up the dollar pie and OTA is not contributing much so it is odd man out. Congress is going to sell a lot of broadcast TV spectrum a year from now. They would like to sell it all. Broadcasters would like to save their electric bills and turn off their transmitters if they could only keep must carry, multicast must carry, retrans consent their affiliations intact.

Broadcasters consider their transmitter electric bills as dues they pay for retrans and must carry. Recently they have been spending gobs of money lobbying for multicast must carry. Unfortunately the latest Republican appointee to the FCC forgot his lines at the last moment.

If they get multicast must carry your cable bill will go up again.

I think conventional broadcast stations should actually prefer to have viewers going back to getting their television service over-the-air only. All the specialty cable channels do is dilute audiences into a bunch of little fragments, therefore reducing revenue that local network stations can generate from local ads.

Few viewers who might decide to get their local HDTV off the air will drop cable TV because they would be giving up ESPN and CNN or Fox, which are considered essentials by anyone under maybe 50 years old. I may have had a hudred or more customers over the last decade tell me that they would drop cable if they could just buy the one cable channel they watch most: ESPN, HBO, Comedy Central, even MSNBC (that woman's son is an exec there), but they begrudgingly pay over $40/month for access to their one essential channel.

Your next cable bill increase is coming because your local broadcast over the air stations are very confident you will not bother to get their content with an antenna. How many local OTA channels do you receive on cable? Multiply by around $1 plus say $.30 and you will have an idea of just how much the coming increase will be.

Congress, broadcasters, cable and satellite, though they may appear to tangle a bit in public are really just dividing up the dollar pie and OTA is not contributing much so it is odd man out. Congress is going to sell a lot of broadcast TV spectrum a year from now. They would like to sell it all. Broadcasters would like to save their electric bills and turn off their transmitters if they could only keep must carry, multicast must carry, retrans consent their affiliations intact.

Broadcasters consider their transmitter electric bills as dues they pay for retrans and must carry. Recently they have been spending gobs of money lobbying for multicast must carry. Unfortunately the latest Republican appointee to the FCC forgot his lines at the last moment.

If they get multicast must carry your cable bill will go up again.

One piece of info you may have missed, cable costs to consumers have risen 90% (government numbers, not mine) over the last 10 years. Cable doesn't need retrans to raise rates. They do it like work clock for little to no reason at all.

And a point you keep missing is it is not stations wanting money becuase it is money but because stations PAY for all of that content that you watch OTA or MSO. So cable is getting content from stations for free (and making money with it and stations are NOT sharing in) that stations ARE paying for and the Aaron Sorkin's and Jerry Bruckhiemer's of the world are being cheated out of money too since some of that money goes to them as well. In any other business this would be considered fraud and people would be in jail but since it is TV, who cares, right? Just make sure my cable bill doesn't rise, that is the bottome line. Sounds like your complaint is with cable's rising bills and not the broadcaster who is trying to get what is rightfully theirs and the people whose content they broadcast.

I sincerely hope you get a clue one day, because right now you are totally clueless about what the industries want. It is explained to you how it works and why things are like they are and you continue with this unsubstantiated stance that broadcasters do not what to broadcast. Where you get this stance from is totally unknown to me and most others it appears.

Good luck in life.

doubt it...there are issues that come into play.
-ugly
-wife factor
-cost
-too many options (satellite, cable, internet, fiber optics)
-ease of installation...satellite and cable installation is free and will wire the entire home. not many antenna professionals around anymore
OK, they might not go OTA but they might "dumb" down their subscription to "local" only. When that one bundled "must have" ch is costing them $50+ they might be willing to give it up. Or the cable cos might give in and actually start offering "a la carte" programming.

If CBS is "getting $1.00 per customer from Cable subs", we're going to have to raise our rates. At only $ .17 per sub on satellite and $ .00 on Cable....we're gettin' ripped off!

Thanks for the warning.

OK, they might not go OTA but they might "dumb" down their subscription to "local" only. When that one bundled "must have" ch is costing them $50+ they might be willing to give it up. Or the cable cos might give in and actually start offering "a la carte" programming.

by the time 2009 comes around

-there will be more satellite space allocated for hd on dish, directv,etc.
-the networks are going to ask cable for money to carry their hd signal
-cable is going to continue to expand and improve their services
-there will be more pc tv sytems
-the internet is going to be a larger factor
-most viewers are not going to be satisfied with just off air...they need espn, cnn, weather channel, mtv, discovery.
-installing an off air system is a challenge for most users and there arent many off air installers around anymore.

off air viewership will continue to be a large minority. just do not see much growth there.

most families do not want to bother with it. The conditions just are not how they were in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's for that matter. there are just too many options today...

by the time 2009 comes around

-there will be more satellite space allocated for hd on dish, directv,etc.
-the networks are going to ask cable for money to carry their hd signal
-cable is going to continue to expand and improve their services
-there will be more pc tv sytems
-the internet is going to be a larger factor
-most viewers are not going to be satisfied with just off air...they need espn, cnn, weather channel, mtv, discovery.
-installing an off air system is a challenge for most users and there arent many off air installers around anymore.

off air viewership will continue to be a large minority. just do not see much growth there.

most families do not want to bother with it. The conditions just are not how they were in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's for that matter. there are just too many options today...

- Satellite proviers will continue to downscale HD channels
- Locals ask cable for money (rebroadcast fees) for SD AND HD
- Cable cos. need to put down more cable or cut services due to bandwidth limitations
- Viewers do not NEED ESPN, CNN, etc. they may 'want'........
- Installing OTA antennas is no more complicated than it has ever been. Aiming "may' become more critical but we've had this technology for years.
- OTA viewership will increase as users become more frustrated with raising cable/satellite costs
- Options today are pretty much like they were in the 70s, 80s, 90s. OTA and cable early in the period, satellite in the 80s.

Installing OTA antennas is no more complicated than it has ever been...Options today are pretty much like they were in the 70s, 80s, 90s...

I'm not an expert and you may be correct. But when I put up my first vhf antenna in 1977, I don't remember having today's worry of picking up a station transmitting at the blistering power of 8 watts.

back in the 60,70,80's you needed an antenna to receive television...the antenna was the only option. cable was building/expanding and satellite did not exist/just started. there are more options now and you really do not need ota and to be honest most families arent even considering it.

they are more preoccupied with when dish, directv, or cable are going to get hd as opposed to installing that ugly reminder of old technology on their roof.

do I spend about $250 for a decent antenna system, it is ugly and no one else in the neighborhood has one, or do I go to cable or satellite pay the montly fee with free installation.

I know one thing...I could not survive today making antenna installation my only income.

One piece of info you may have missed, cable costs to consumers have risen 90% (government numbers, not mine) over the last 10 years. Cable doesn't need retrans to raise rates. They do it like work clock for little to no reason at all.

And a point you keep missing is it is not stations wanting money becuase it is money but because stations PAY for all of that content that you watch OTA or MSO. So cable is getting content from stations for free (and making money with it and stations are NOT sharing in) that stations ARE paying for and the Aaron Sorkin's and Jerry Bruckhiemer's of the world are being cheated out of money too since some of that money goes to them as well. In any other business this would be considered fraud and people would be in jail but since it is TV, who cares, right? Just make sure my cable bill doesn't rise, that is the bottome line. Sounds like your complaint is with cable's rising bills and not the broadcaster who is trying to get what is rightfully theirs and the people whose content they broadcast.

I sincerely hope you get a clue one day, because right now you are totally clueless about what the industries want. It is explained to you how it works and why things are like they are and you continue with this unsubstantiated stance that broadcasters do not what to broadcast. Where you get this stance from is totally unknown to me and most others it appears.

Good luck in life.

Let me ask you this question. If the number of over the air users is only 13% or less and if it declines to 2% after analog is turned off will broadcasters still want to broadcast? That 2% will not be the best customers for advertisers and broadcasters electric bills will be just as big as if they had 100%.

From where I stand it looks like broadcasters are spending all their time on their cable carriage. I see very little attention being paid to the over the air part. Maybe you can point out something they are doing to promote over the air.

I think conventional broadcast stations should actually prefer to have viewers going back to getting their television service over-the-air only. All the specialty cable channels do is dilute audiences into a bunch of little fragments, therefore reducing revenue that local network stations can generate from local ads.

Makes sense to me. But why then are broadcasters trying to dilute cable even more by demanding multicast must carry? They want to be able to offer multiple, maybe as many as six program channels that cable must carry.

Isn't that what broadcasters are spending the most money on in Washington?

Let me ask you this question. If the number of over the air users is only 13% or less and if it declines to 2% after analog is turned off will broadcasters still want to broadcast? That 2% will not be the best customers for advertisers and broadcasters electric bills will be just as big as if they had 100%.

From where I stand it looks like broadcasters are spending all their time on their cable carriage. I see very little attention being paid to the over the air part. Maybe you can point out something they are doing to promote over the air.


where do you get that it drops to 2% after the shutoff.


It's tough to say, but I can see a scenario with all the subchannels availible and prices rising for cable/sat and PQ being degraded on cable/sat that more people would invistigate OTA.


We're all not exactly normal here- LOL- but I can speak anecdotally that when I grew up cable didn't exist- and when it did come my parents didn't see the value. So when I started to work as a teenager I actually bought it for the house since I was so sick of the crap that was OTA at that time. I haven't used an antenna in probably 20 years. But I have one for ATSC and I love it. So maybe there are more like me?

Makes sense to me. But why then are broadcasters trying to dilute cable even more by demanding multicast must carry? They want to be able to offer multiple, maybe as many as six program channels that cable must carry.

Isn't that what broadcasters are spending the most money on in Washington?


If it's going to be diluted anyway and you own some of the "dilution" then it's not as bad if others are just stealling your face time.

Take pizza shops as an example. It's always amazing to me to watch how more and more pizza places pop up in the suburbs. There might be 5 in a town and they are doing a good business, each with an equal share. Then some sixth jerk jumps in and dilutes the whole market and everyone winds up with 5/6's of a share. Well if you own one of the first pizza joints is it best to just sit there and take it or maybe you open "joey's II" on the other side of town and now you have 10/6's of a share?


If NBC forces weatherplus down enough throats then they basically could kill off the weatherchannel. Why will cable waste bandwidth and money paying for the weather channel when they are forced to carry it for free by NBC. Plus as above NBC has the ability to keep people who's "one must have" cable channel is the weather off cable if they can get it OTA for free- so siphon some people back off cable and OTA but now NBC has 2 fractions of the OTA market instead of one.

ABC's news now isn't likely to push CNN or fox off the cable lineup but it will make some people who pay for cable just for 24/7 news think twice about paying for TV- and if they do it well they can cannibalize some of CNN and FOX's ratings . WHo knows what Fox and CBS eventually put in their sub channels. Someone tried an MTZ knockoff but i think it died. But maybe that idea comes back. Maybe Fox or CBS decides to give ESPN a run for the money with a sports sub channel- who knows....

by the time 2009 comes around

-there will be more satellite space allocated for hd on dish, directv,etc.
-the networks are going to ask cable for money to carry their hd signal
-cable is going to continue to expand and improve their services
-there will be more pc tv sytems
-the internet is going to be a larger factor
-most viewers are not going to be satisfied with just off air...they need espn, cnn, weather channel, mtv, discovery.
-installing an off air system is a challenge for most users and there arent many off air installers around anymore.

off air viewership will continue to be a large minority. just do not see much growth there.

most families do not want to bother with it. The conditions just are not how they were in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's for that matter. there are just too many options today...

I don't think it is a question of growth but rather of how fast a decline from very low levels. If cable and satellite with their accomplices in the retail stores do a number on the last OTA viewers like I expect them to when analog is turned off then it will be a very rapid decline from very low levels in late 2008 and early 2009.

do I spend about $250 for a decent antenna system, it is ugly and no one else in the neighborhood has one, or do I go to cable or satellite pay the montly fee with free installation.

When that cable bill starts to approach $1000/yr, more than a few people will do the math and give that ugly solution a try.

Biker, who lives in an "established" neighborhood with plenty of houses sporting antennas on the roof.

I use directv for my programming and off air as a hobby. just took down my 10' dish on halloween 2006 after 22 years. and the neighbors loved that!

there are about 5 antennas in the development of several homes. I installed mine right after I moved in.

$1000/month aint gonna happen

?????????????????????????????????????????????????
With all due respect, what you have written here says you have no clue what you are talking about. After you do some serious research on all of this and not just what people say on an Internet bulletin board, please come back so we can have a relevant conversation.


Kcabmi reminds me a lot of COFDM-jihader Bob Miller, who was thrown off this very forum years ago. :)

?????????????????????????????????????????????????
With all due respect, what you have written here says you have no clue what you are talking about. After you do some serious research on all of this and not just what people say on an Internet bulletin board, please come back so we can have a relevant conversation.

Back he is. ;)

- Tom

$1000/month aint gonna happen
Check my post - I said $1000/ year

Check my post - I said $1000/ year

opps sorry. 1000/yr is in the ball park.

back in the 60,70,80's you needed an antenna to receive television...the antenna was the only option. cable was building/expanding and satellite did not exist/just started. there are more options now and you really do not need ota and to be honest most families arent even considering it.
Antenna was NOT the only option. I had cable service in 1975. No one said you 'needed' ota. BTW, I am glad you can speak for 'most families'.

they are more preoccupied with when dish, directv, or cable are going to get hd as opposed to installing that ugly reminder of old technology on their roof. An antenna does not need to be on the roof. Many are installed in an attic. I have a small one sitting under a table that picks up my local HD stations.

do I spend about $250 for a decent antenna system, it is ugly and no one else in the neighborhood has one, or do I go to cable or satellite pay the montly fee with free installation. Cable/Satellite costs more than $360 per year.......EVERY year. My small antenna cost less than $30. I can buy an indoor/outdoor antenna for $79.95 http://www.hometech.com/video/antennas.html or an outdoor antenna with mast and brackets for $99.99 http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=158308&WT.mc_n=92&WT.mc_t=U&cm_ven=COMPARISON%20SHOPPING&cm_cat=NEXTAG&cm_pla=DATAFEED->PRODUCTS&cm_ite=1%20PRODUCT&cm_keycode=92These are one time shots. There are 9 houses on my cul-de-sac - all fairly new homes btw (1999 construction) There are 4 roof top antennas and a couple satellite antennas (ah, nearly forgot, you need an antenna for satellite ;) ). This is 6 of 9 with an antenna on the roof.

I know one thing...I could not survive today making antenna installation my only income. I have no doubt about this.

where do you get that it drops to 2% after the shutoff.


It's tough to say, but I can see a scenario with all the subchannels availible and prices rising for cable/sat and PQ being degraded on cable/sat that more people would invistigate OTA.


We're all not exactly normal here- LOL- but I can speak anecdotally that when I grew up cable didn't exist- and when it did come my parents didn't see the value. So when I started to work as a teenager I actually bought it for the house since I was so sick of the crap that was OTA at that time. I haven't used an antenna in probably 20 years. But I have one for ATSC and I love it. So maybe there are more like me?

I find this interesting because that was exactly my situation. I was the one that got cable when I could pay for it but I never completely gave up on OTA because the picture quality of the locals on cable was so poor. They got that resolved after a few years but I never took down my antenna so when I switched to D* in 96 the lack of locals was not an issue. Now today I am back to using an antenna for HD

I thought this thread was about the transition to DTV and whether or not stations were behind schedule. It seems like the last two pages of posts have dealt with sat/cable bills, cat fights, and OTA antennas.

Does anyone have any info on the readiness of TV stations for the analog cutoff? If not, perhaps a moderator should rename this thread.

Most stations are ready or will be ready by the deadline. Harris is just trying to troll for business with their statements.

Stations are ready.

The public is not.

I thought this thread was about the transition to DTV and whether or not stations were behind schedule. It seems like the last two pages of posts have dealt with sat/cable bills, cat fights, and OTA antennas.

Does anyone have any info on the readiness of TV stations for the analog cutoff? If not, perhaps a moderator should rename this thread.

Well, they can be quite related. If the stations' current parameters mean that 90% of the viewers who were able to watch that station can't anymore when the analog shut-off arrives (as will be the case with WVNY), well the future ain't too rosy.

Foxeng is right that Harris most likely brings this up to make money (so that stations can file for post-transition channel changes, which in many cases requires new transmitters).

Stations are ready.
I'm not too sure they all are. There could be quite a few stations thinking they're ready and already having spent the savings they're counting on seeing when power costs drop from about 1.3 million watts to a few thousands.

And lo and behold, hi-vhf digital -- to say nothing about lo -- is not the holy grail. And that "sporadic noise", that AntAltMike reports seeing horrendously on vhf, lo and hi, jumps up and bites them when there's no analog back-up.

Just my non-expert thoughts!

What about stations that have economic problems or plan to flashcut? Nexstar owned stations come to mind along with stations such as KLWY in southern Wyoming.

Also, we have a few full power analog stations here in Colorado that have never transmitted a digital signal (that I know of) under an STA, such as KRMT, KUPN, and KPXC. Are these stations really ready for the analog cutoff? Is this situation what the Harris article is referring to?

I'm not too sure they all are. There could be quite a few stations thinking they're ready and already having spent the savings they're counting on seeing when power costs drop from about 1.3 million watts to a few thousands.

And lo and behold, hi-vhf digital -- to say nothing about lo -- is not the holy grail. And that "sporadic noise", that AntAltMike reports seeing horrendously on vhf, lo and hi, jumps up and bites them when there's no analog back-up.
Bill, you are obviously concerned about very long range upper VHF reception once WJLA and WUSA in DC switch their digital broadcast to VHF 7 & 9 in 2009. There are stations digitally broadcasting on upper VHF, so there is some experience with it. We will find out in 2009 how well upper VHF works for the big city stations in the east, one way or the other.

Out of curiosity, have you ever tried to get WWPX-DT Ion/Pax 60 which is digitally broadcasting on VHF 12 at 23 kW in Martinsburg, WV? The station comes in fine from the backside (!) of my CM 4221 at 46 miles. You are probably blocked by terrain, but the tower is on a ridge and up the Shenandoah valley from where you are. It is an SD only station and does not have much of interest for most viewers, but if you want to try long range upper VHF digital reception, you could give it a shot.

You really like the backside of that antenna dont ya.

the only thing I can get out of the backside of my 4228 was a ghosty mess. I even experimented this past weekend with a ch56 Ion to my rear (like in back end).

not successful again. using the jointenna was like night and day.

I'm not too sure they all are. There could be quite a few stations thinking they're ready and already having spent the savings they're counting on seeing when power costs drop from about 1.3 million watts to a few thousands.

And lo and behold, hi-vhf digital -- to say nothing about lo -- is not the holy grail. And that "sporadic noise", that AntAltMike reports seeing horrendously on vhf, lo and hi, jumps up and bites them when there's no analog back-up.

Just my non-expert thoughts!

The few stations who are still dragging their feet have plans. They don't want to spend the money twice and are trying to hold the FCC off to not have to. They know when Feb 17 2009 roles around, if they are not transmitting digital, they are out of business.

As far as VHF high goes, there are quite a few VHF high band digitals on the air now and are enjoying good success with it around the country. In my area, there are 2 VHF highs on the air now and they do very well. We now have a growing track record to look at.

Bill, you are obviously concerned about very long range upper VHF reception once WJLA and WUSA in DC switch their digital broadcast to VHF 7 & 9 in 2009.
Amen! Having lived in the DC area for 30 years, it will be tough to do without them. They're going to 15 kW and 17 kW when they're at a million on uhf now and Feb. 2009 I probably can kiss them goodbye. I'll at least try by probably putting the 4228 on the roof -- but oh these winds.

Getting back to pure on-topic, despite foxeng's views, I still have to wonder if technologically speaking they know completely what they're doing as they already count up the large dollar savings.

Out of curiosity, have you ever tried to get WWPX-DT Ion/Pax 60 which is digitally broadcasting on VHF 12 at 23 kW in Martinsburg, WV? You are probably blocked by terrain...
I just tried it and nothing. You're probably right about the terrain, but who knows with all the unknowns with OTA.

I finally got around to reading this thread, and wow, are there some odd prognostications. Here are my thoughts:
__________________________________

- Yes, OTA usage will generally drop in market size. If I were a broadcaster, I'd be advocating broadcasting a "full power" signal at less power than 400 kW, except for perhaps the LA area. Is 100 kW acceptible? In most areas, yes, as it won't effect the signal contour that much, at least in an urban and suburban sense.

VHF-HI does allow lower electricity usage. The DC area ABC affiliate, WJLA, who currently broadcasts a 316 kW ERP analog (VHF 7) signal, and a 1,000 kW digital signal on UHF, will move their digital signal to VHF-HI in 2009, at 15 kW (Yes, Mr. Johnson is 100% correct about WJLA and WUSA's future power levels). I've read that it's pretty easy to convert an analog VHF transmitter to a digital one by adding a mask filter, and modding some other stuff. Reason No. 387 to go to DTV-only transmission: Potential for squeaky clean transmitter power bills!
__________________________________

- The market share of OTA will not drop to 2% or anywhere near that low. Yes, most of the old grannies and technophobes will probably switch to cable for simplicity and whatnot. However, some younger people with HDTVs will move back to OTA for its enhanced picture quality. So I'd expect a moderate overall decline to about 6-8%, with exceptions where OTA channels get dropped from cable because cable cos. won't be willing to pay for retransmission. :eek: Another exception is the "need that one channel" rule as mentioned earlier, which a la carte would allow. There's a price point of basic cable at which a la carte becomes a highly viable option. It's debatable if that point has already been reached, but the fact that it's debatable somewhat proves the point of the concept.
__________________________________

- OTA isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Yes, the PQ and cost to pick it up can be great, but I was getting dropouts last Friday during 1 vs. 100 on WRC-DT (UHF 48) due to heavy wind outside, and that's with a fifth-gen tuner. Yes, VHF-HI gets rid of that problem, but good luck avoiding dropouts during thunderstorms, even if they're miles away from the viewer. Some channels will broadcast on VHF-Lo, which is almost a complete crapshoot in terms of RF interference from consumer electronics, as well as the need for a larger antenna. Then there's tropospheric ducting which can wreak havoc on any OTA signals.

Fiber-delivered HD content counteracts all of those issues. Yes, it's still prone to signal loss via downed power lines, et al, so that's why a mix of OTA and cable/satellite/FiOS with fiber-to-the-headend is the best way to go, from a purely reception-based standpoint.
__________________________________

If NBC forces weatherplus down enough throats then they basically could kill off the weatherchannel. Why will cable waste bandwidth and money paying for the weather channel when they are forced to carry it for free by NBC. Plus as above NBC has the ability to keep people who's "one must have" cable channel is the weather off cable if they can get it OTA for free- so siphon some people back off cable and OTA but now NBC has 2 fractions of the OTA market instead of one.Interesting prospect. To be honest, it's possible, especially if NBC can calibrate things where there's a preset period of time that a local forecast is aired (the 7s?). It would also help if the local forecasts are updated every half hour at most during fast-moving inclement weather.

Here's a problem: The Weather Channel is planning to offer HD service. Any HD channel requires lots of bandwidth, which makes WeatherPlus HD pointless under the current system, with the potential exception of that Harmonic system encoding 2 HD channels in one ATSC station thing :eek:

So in a long-term, and even a mid-term sense, The Weather Channel might need to convert to HD just to survive.

As for Fox News Channel OTA: At this time, there's not much OTA penetration for ABC News Now. That said, I suspect that the Fox splicer system could be modded, via new, if it needs to be new, stat-mux encoders, to fit Fox HD and Fox News Channel in one ATSC channel. However, I would hope that the stat-muxer would be willing to macroblock FNC during demanding Fox HD moments, and call the macroblocking a reason to get cable or satellite. :)

Amen! Having lived in the DC area for 30 years, it will be tough to do without them. They're going to 15 kW and 17 kW when they're at a million on uhf now and Feb. 2009 I probably can kiss them goodbye. I'll at least try by probably putting the 4228 on the roof -- but oh these winds.

Getting back to pure on-topic, despite foxeng's views, I still have to wonder if technologically speaking they know completely what they're doing as they already count up the large dollar savings.

Remember this, analog viusal power is based on peak power and digital is based on average power. The lighter the picture, the less power produced. On VHF high, the max power is 316 kW visual with 10% aural power, which would make it 31.6 kW. Analog aural power is based on average power, same as digital, meaning that the power level never changes no matter the modulation level, unlike the visual which changes with the luminance; brighter the picture, less the power.

Along the Mid Atlantic and north, many VHF highs currently are not allowed to broadcast at 316 kW but less to reduce interference because of the number of stations. How many times have you lost the video of an analog but not the audio which is 10% less? With 15 kW and 17 kW they may be very close to their aural power levels of analog now. I haven't checked the FCC webpage to see what the actual analog power levels of those stations are, but I would imagine they are not much different.

As for Fox News Channel OTA: At this time, there's not much OTA penetration for ABC News Now. That said, I suspect that the Fox splicer system could be modded, via new, if it needs to be new, stat-mux encoders, to fit Fox HD and Fox News Channel in one ATSC channel. However, I would hope that the stat-muxer would be willing to macroblock FNC during demanding Fox HD moments, and call the macroblocking a reason to get cable or satellite. :)

Due to the contract with cable, it is extremely doubtful you will see FNC on a OTA subchannel.

As far as the splicer is concerned, it is really a very fancy mux and it does multiple streams as is and since FOX only uses 15.5 mbs, there is room for a other stuff in the 19.3 bandwidth.

With 15 kW and 17 kW they may be very close to their aural power levels of analog now.
Given FCC max. power levels, does this mean that if I'm now solidly receiving a Mid Atlantic digital UHF station at 1,000 kW, then I should, at least in theory, no matter the distance, solidly receive those stations when they go back to hi-VHF at 15 kW (with FCC, I guess, estimating about a .2 % interference)?

Thanks for any encouraging outlook!

Along the Mid Atlantic and north, many VHF highs currently are not allowed to broadcast at 316 kW but less to reduce interference because of the number of stations. How many times have you lost the video of an analog but not the audio which is 10% less? With 15 kW and 17 kW they may be very close to their aural power levels of analog now. I haven't checked the FCC webpage to see what the actual analog power levels of those stations are, but I would imagine they are not much different.
The two stations in question:
WJLA-TV ABC 7: Analog = 316 kW; 39 digital = 1000 kW
WUSA-TV CBS 9: Analog = 316 kW; 34 digital = 1000 kW

Both of these stations are broadcasting at the maximum power allowed for both their analog and digital signals. I don't buy that the power numbers for the 2009 digital VHF broadcast are set in stone at 15 and 17 kW. I thought that I had read that the FCC staff was still working out the technical details for the post analog shutdown and transition era. The chief engineer for WJLA posts to avsforum. Has he stated that 15 or 17 kW is what WJLA will be using after they switch the digital signal or is the answer that he doesn't know for sure yet?

Given FCC max. power levels, does this mean that if I'm now solidly receiving a Mid Atlantic digital UHF station at 1,000 kW, then I should, at least in theory, no matter the distance, solidly receive those stations when they go back to hi-VHF at 15 kW (with FCC, I guess, estimating about a .2 % interference)?

Thanks for any encouraging outlook!

It depends. It depends on what the analog coverage area of the VHF high is compared to the coverage area of the UHF digital. In many cases, the FCC issued power levels below 1 MW on UHF to VHF high stations (many VHF lows got 1 MW off the bat to match their coverage areas) and the VHF high stations "maximized" to 1 MW so their UHF coverage is more than their VHF coverage. That is what happened to my station. We were issued 759 kW UHF to match our 316kW analog channel 8 and we were able to maximize to 1 MW so our UHF digital is more than our VHF analog coverage. On the surface that sounds like a good deal, but we decided that the extra coverage we had with UHF was outside of our market (and therefore in someone elses market and we wouldn't get much benefit if any for the extra coverage since we would have a hard time selling advertising in some elses backyard) and therefore didn't buy us anything so we elected to go back to channel 8 (and save the power bill) and our post transition power on channel 8 is 15 kW and that matches our analog coverage. So I can speak with some confidence of what I am talking about. Based on another channel 8 that is the digital for a UHF station to the south of us, (and directional to boot to keep from interfering with us) they have very good coverage and even with our analog interference to them, people have no problem receiving them.

Life isn't as bad as it might seem.

The two stations in question:
WJLA-TV ABC 7: Analog = 316 kW; 39 digital = 1000 kW
WUSA-TV CBS 9: Analog = 316 kW; 34 digital = 1000 kW

Both of these stations are broadcasting at the maximum power allowed for both their analog and digital signals. I don't buy that the power numbers for the 2009 digital VHF broadcast are set in stone at 15 and 17 kW. I thought that I had read that the FCC staff was still working out the technical details for the post analog shutdown and transition era. The chief engineer for WJLA posts to avsforum. Has he stated that 15 or 17 kW is what WJLA will be using after they switch the digital signal or is the answer that he doesn't know for sure yet?

Nothing is cast in stone yet, but if the station has elected 15 kW, then that is probably all they can do. If there is a change, it would only change a kW plus or minus. I know in our case, 15 kW is tops to match our analog coverage and we are 316 kW at channel 8 and 1 MW at channel 35.

Mikemikeb wrote:

The market share of OTA will not drop to 2% or anywhere near that low. Yes, most of the old grannies and technophobes will probably switch to cable for simplicity and whatnot. However, some younger people with HDTVs will move back to OTA for its enhanced picture quality. So I'd expect a moderate overall decline to about 6-8%, with exceptions where OTA channels get dropped from cable because cable cos. won't be willing to pay for retransmission.

OTA will not drop to anything near as low as 2%?

Cable says it is pretty low already. They say they have 58.5% and if you add their competitors number, 31.9 million that goes up to 87.36% leaving 12.24% who rely on OTA today. That is what we are talking about right since I will concede there are lots of houses with second sets. The OTA market however really is about the primary set not those that may be used occasionally for OTA when not being used for DVDs or games.

How real is 12.24% also. How many people don't watch TV at all and how many steal or borrow cable or satellite from their neighbors. I think 1% don't watch and I think cable and satellite talk about 3% who borrow or steal. That would lower that 12.24% to around 9%.

Lot closer to your 6-8% to begin with anyway. I would think that cable, satellite an FIOS are going to have a field day for at least three years going after that 9%. You could convince me to go to three percent maybe. An average of our numbers would be 4%. Not a very exciting number. Your 6-8% isn't either though.

Taking any of those numbers, 2, 3, 4, 6 or 8%, you could call OTA pretty lame couldn't you?

OTA will not drop to anything near as low as 2%?

Cable says it is pretty low already. They say they have 58.5% and if you add their competitors number, 31.9 million that goes up to 87.36% leaving 12.24% who rely on OTA today. That is what we are talking about right since I will concede there are lots of houses with second sets. The OTA market however really is about the primary set not those that may be used occasionally for OTA when not being used for DVDs or games.

How real is 12.24% also. How many people don't watch TV at all and how many steal or borrow cable or satellite from their neighbors. I think 1% don't watch and I think cable and satellite talk about 3% who borrow or steal. That would lower that 12.24% to around 9%.

Lot closer to your 6-8% to begin with anyway. I would think that cable, satellite an FIOS are going to have a field day for at least three years going after that 9%. You could convince me to go to three percent maybe. An average of our numbers would be 4%. Not a very exciting number. Your 6-8% isn't either though.

Taking any of those numbers, 2, 3, 4, 6 or 8%, you could call OTA pretty lame couldn't you?

OMB states there are over 27 million house holds with OTA TV. Congress considers that number substantial and has written the digital transition laws according to that number.

Life isn't as bad as it might seem.
Often quite true, but come 2009 I may have to watch nothing but ACC football games carried by the local ABC stations. Whereas 7 from DC will be carrying my beloved Nittany Lions in HD but way out of my antenna range. I'll only be able to get phone updates from family in Pa. For me, that'll be a case of life being even worse than it seems.

Well, I've had this terrific but bizarre OTA reception for going on 4 yrs. now. And if I'm hearing right, the FCC doesn't make allowance for out of market far far deep deep fringe reception. OTOH in changing on a dime, it's just television and games, where are my priorities for things in life that really matter??? :)

OMB states there are over 27 million house holds with OTA TV. Congress considers that number substantial and has written the digital transition laws according to that number.

OMB is great at numbers. They can come up with any number that a petitioner wants.

No matter what the present "rely on OTA" number is even the FCC believes it will decline to 7% by 2009 or just before the transition.

http://news.com.com/Digital+TV+switch+set+for+early+2009/2100-1028_3-6004429.html

"According to congressional estimates, less than 15 percent of households rely exclusively on over-the-air broadcasts. According to estimates by the Federal Communications Commission, that number will drop to 7 percent by 2009.

But advocacy group Consumers Union said that will still leave an unconscionable number of individual sets--many of them operated by elderly and low-income viewers--ill-equipped to meet the changes."

The question then becomes what happens once the fireworks start. What happens when they actually throw the switch. Do the OTA numbers go up or down.

Well any household included in that 7% FCC number that was NOT paying attention will have no TV the day after. So initially, day after, I think I can safely predict that the number goes down. This is America remember where 20% of us still think the sun revolves around the Earth.

http://net127.com/1999/07/06/poll-sun-revolves-around-the-earth/

I''m thinking that a high percentage of that 20% rely on OTA TV and that they didn't pay attention all that well in school so a lot of them will lose TV reception in early 2009 and lower the OTA number significantly.

Then we start with all the cheap converter boxes without support or antennas in all those apartments that are multipath challenged. Then we have the old folks that are just going to stare at their TV for a few weeks before they realize nothing is on for real this time.

Then we start with the drop-outs. How many drop outs before Congress can hear the screams coming all the way OTA from places like New York City that something is amiss. I think the wife factor comes in about here. How many drop outs with 5th or even 6th generation receivers because the wind is blowing the antenna will cause the wife to scream that you have to give up lunch so that you can afford basic cable?

My best guess is that the drop out threshold is two drop outs per quarter depending if they come in the Daily Show or not. If they come during a sports event it drops to one drop out per quarter.

I think the 7% drops to 3.5% soon after analog turnoff and dwindles to 2% over the next year of two.

By then OTA Freeview in the UK will be in 90% of homes, they will be using MPEG4 and they will have some HDTV OTA and lots via satellite.

That is they will be using their OTA spectrum and we won't be.

7% OTA is still 10 million households. Still not a number to sneeze at when it comes to elections and no one really seriously thinks the numbers will sink that low. OTA antenna sales have been on the rise the last 7 years because of HD. There is no indiction that trend will reverse just because the analogs shutdown in less than 2 years.

The remaining 7% can probably be better handled by subsidizing lifeline limited basic cable hookups for awhile until they are in a sufficiently small political minority. The cable companies would probably agree to assist this in return for garranteed immunity to multi-must-carry and some such.

- Tom

[QUOTE=kcabmi] How many drop outs with 5th or even 6th generation receivers because the wind is blowing the antenna will cause the wife to scream that you have to give up lunch so that you can afford basic cable? [QUOTE]


You were raving about the 5th gen. receivers when you participated in NYC testing years ago. Can't you remember, bob? :rolleyes:

7% OTA is still 10 million households. Still not a number to sneeze at when it comes to elections and no one really seriously thinks the numbers will sink that low. OTA antenna sales have been on the rise the last 7 years because of HD. There is no indiction that trend will reverse just because the analogs shutdown in less than 2 years.

I do and I think the FCC does according to that article.

And that is before the analog turnoff, before some number of people (there always will be some) who just lose TV because they were not paying attention. And thats before any problems will occur among many many others.

What if 20% of that 10 million has a problem with getting an antenna up and has NO source for TV? What if some percentage of those down and dirty converter boxes have problems? What if cable and satellite convert 50% to some basic service?

What if all the numbers I posit above are low?

Congressman Dingell, the chief architect of this transition fiasco, will have a fit. Actually he is already having a fit and asking for a further delay. He has already caused a nine year delay why oh why does he want more? Maybe because that is what has been his mission all along, delay the transition as long as possible, as some have postulated.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11618

Best to just have the train wreck ASAP and try to pick up the pieces now rather than later IMO.

I love that 2% made up number. it's classic.

But sure could be a lot of people that dont want to bother with a converter box (even if it's subsidized to be $9.99 at the walmart) and will just call cable or sat. It will be interesting to see where the number eventually shakes out to.

All I can find is one tiny datapoint that Berlin apparently was at 8.8% OTA before they transitioned and wound up handing out vouchers for like .5% of the population on welfare to get free converters. I can't find anythign as to how many in total are OTA now. To see of the remaining 8ish percent did- did they buy a new tv or a converter or did they get cable/sat?

ALthough I think 2% is a little harsh, I do wonder if it drops to 5 or 10 percent if it's really that an efficient a system at all to have broadcast tv. That is an interesting thought.

That said- the 20% who think the earth is flat and can't read are goign to get bombarded by 2 sixty second commercials a day (one in primetime) on every single broadcast channel for the year prior to the shutoff. So if they dont know it's coming they might just be dead with the tv left running.

Now if they listen to what they are told or believe it is another thing but i think you will be hard pressed to find anyone in January 2009 who hasn't heard what is going on.

Am I understanding correctly that the FCC thinks 15kw digital in high VHF is equal to the current analog max of 316? And that uhf stations are using 1,000 to get roughly the same fottprint (although perhaps they can use closer to 800 to cover the same footprint)?

is there a mad stampede then to get digital channels in that range to save on costs?

Am I understanding correctly that the FCC thinks 15kw digital in high VHF is equal to the current analog max of 316? And that uhf stations are using 1,000 to get roughly the same fottprint (although perhaps they can use closer to 800 to cover the same footprint)?

is there a mad stampede then to get digital channels in that range to save on costs?

The average range of digital power for VHF high that the FCC has been issuing to stations already on the air and stations that want to move back has been between 15 and 35 kW. If I remember the specs correctly, the max for VHF high is 65 kW but I don't know of a single station with that much power unless they are in the western part of the US with fewer stations.

And yes, in UHF digital, it takes anywhere from 700 kW to 1 MW to equal the VHF high 316 kW analog coverage area. Remember, the digital powers are not set to equate the analog power but the actual coverage area of a station. A channel 9 at 2000 ft at 316 kW would cover more area than a channel 9 at 316 kW at 1000 ft so it is very conceivable that the 2000 ft channel 9 would get more digital power than the 1000 ft channel 9 to replicate coverage.

The FCC's goal has never been to equate power but to equate coverage. The original digital power levels passed out in 1997 equated analog coverages as much as possible to not cause interference to existing analog stations. After that, stations could ask for more power up to the max allowed as long as it didn't cause additional interference to stations analog or digital already on the air. That allowed UHF stations with smaller coverages to try and get more on a level playing field and many did just that on VHF and UHF both. Now with the channel elections the FCC is looking at translating CURRENT digital coverage to final coverage (analog coverage doesn't play into the equation), where possible without causing interference to digital stations NOT changing channels. That is why the FCC set July 2005 and 2006 as dates that stations had to be at their desired power levels because those levels would be the levels used to set the permanent table of assignments and coverage is the most important ingredient to keep from interfering with other stations in the table.

I do and I think the FCC does according to that article.

I am not basing my argument on articles written by punduits on either side but actual data. You keep talking about articles.

Congressman Dingell, the chief architect of this transition fiasco, will have a fit.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Rep Dingell is only one of 435 in the House and there are 100 in the Senate and one President that ALL have a say on whether to sign off on a date change. With the division in the Congress, you have a hard time getting a majority to vote on what to have for lunch. If you really think the date will be so easy to change, then go right ahead my friend, but I wouldn't put any money on it and not many others would either.

Taking any of those numbers, 2, 3, 4, 6 or 8%, you could call OTA pretty lame couldn't you?In term of overall viewership, yes it's lame.

In terms of the legal influence full-power OTA broadcasting delivers, OTA TV is hardly lame.

However, given the lack of viewership of OTA, it's lame to power a UHF station at anything more than 250 kW, except if it's LA or perhaps Seattle.

(With Seattle, the station should have to be under channel 37 for that to apply.)

The remaining 7% can probably be better handled by subsidizing lifeline limited basic cable hookups for awhile until they are in a sufficiently small political minority. The cable companies would probably agree to assist this in return for garranteed immunity to multi-must-carry and some such.Cable has more to lose with that method than multicast must-carry, and perhaps even retransmission fees.

As for when to cut off analog, it might as well be Feb. 17, 2009. In my book, 2009 is overdue, but whatever.

When the next major event knocks out power for a few mil people OTA will become real important. The portable market is being totally ignored for now but it's of huge importance in times like that. Even if OTA totally goes away for casual viewing it would have to stay around for just such an event.

The average range of digital power for VHF high that the FCC has been issuing to stations already on the air and stations that want to move back has been between 15 and 35 kW. If I remember the specs correctly, the max for VHF high is 65 kW but I don't know of a single station with that much power unless they are in the western part of the US with fewer stations.

And yes, in UHF digital, it takes anywhere from 700 kW to 1 MW to equal the VHF high 316 kW analog coverage area. Remember, the digital powers are not set to equate the analog power but the actual coverage area of a station. A channel 9 at 2000 ft at 316 kW would cover more area than a channel 9 at 316 kW at 1000 ft so it is very conceivable that the 2000 ft channel 9 would get more digital power than the 1000 ft channel 9 to replicate coverage.

The FCC's goal has never been to equate power but to equate coverage. The original digital power levels passed out in 1997 equated analog coverages as much as possible to not cause interference to existing analog stations. After that, stations could ask for more power up to the max allowed as long as it didn't cause additional interference to stations analog or digital already on the air. That allowed UHF stations with smaller coverages to try and get more on a level playing field and many did just that on VHF and UHF both. Now with the channel elections the FCC is looking at translating CURRENT digital coverage to final coverage (analog coverage doesn't play into the equation), where possible without causing interference to digital stations NOT changing channels. That is why the FCC set July 2005 and 2006 as dates that stations had to be at their desired power levels because those levels would be the levels used to set the permanent table of assignments and coverage is the most important ingredient to keep from interfering with other stations in the table.


thanks very much.

So at worst 65kw digital would yeild the same coverage as 316kw of ananlog? Can you explain or aim me to a link why digital is so much more efficient powerwise then ananlog? That's pretty neat.

The electicity savings combined from a bunch of stations could equal like the entire output of a powerplant or two- no? That's nothing to sneeze at.

When the next major event knocks out power for a few mil people OTA will become real important. The portable market is being totally ignored for now but it's of huge importance in times like that. Even if OTA totally goes away for casual viewing it would have to stay around for just such an event.


how many people have battery operated Tv's to actually get tv when the power goes out.

Of those how many have atsc tuners- I'm quessing there's not a single battery operated ATSC TV being mass produced today?

As long as radio still exists I dont think there's any big draw for TV when the power goes out.

thanks very much.

So at worst 65kw digital would yeild the same coverage as 316kw of ananlog? Can you explain or aim me to a link why digital is so much more efficient powerwise then ananlog? That's pretty neat.

The electicity savings combined from a bunch of stations could equal like the entire output of a powerplant or two- no? That's nothing to sneeze at.

Digital signals need a much lower signal to noise (S/N) ratio in order to be processed reliably. An NTSC analog signal needs to have a signal to noise ratio of about 45dB to reliably produce an excellent picture. If one assumes that a mast mounted preamp has a noise figure of about 3dB, then the analog, NTSC signal level coming off the antenna needs to be about -10dBmV, but a digital signal only needs a signal to noise ratio of about 16dB at its tuner, and even with the crappy tuners that are being used in today's consumer receivers, you can still meet that S/N threashold with a signal strength coming off the antenna of -30dBmV or weaker.

As far as I know, every VHF highband station that has as its temporary, transition allocation a UHF channel is going back to VHF highband except those whose perimeters are being crimped (channel 7, NYC, channel 11 indirectly, in Chicago, if I recall correctly). When they are being crimped, they are willing to pay big electric bills for better perimeter coverage.

It is a screwey economic decision for them to do so. Viewers 40 to 50 miles away are not considered desirable by local advertisers, like car dealers or candidates for city elected offices. I think the major network licencees are willing to pay as much as they are to maintain their coverage areas to protect their status as major network affiliates. NAtional advertisers don't care where the eyeballs reside.

how many... battery operated Tv's... have atsc tuners- I'm quessing there's not a single battery operated ATSC TV being mass produced today?...

Well timed observation. Today is February 28th, and there are none. Tomorrow is March 1, and I will visit Best Buy and Wallmart in the morning and buy whatever small TV's with digital tuners that they put on their shelves to use as my field test TVs, assuming that they cost no more than $150.

thanks very much.

So at worst 65kw digital would yeild the same coverage as 316kw of ananlog? Can you explain or aim me to a link why digital is so much more efficient powerwise then ananlog? That's pretty neat.

The electicity savings combined from a bunch of stations could equal like the entire output of a powerplant or two- no? That's nothing to sneeze at.

AntAltMike beat me too it! :) (Thanks Mike!)

As far as I know, every VHF highband station that has as its temporary, transition allocation a UHF channel is going back to VHF highband except those whose perimeters are being crimped...
I believe this may be too broad a generalization. Scrolling down the list I see a goodly number that are staying UHF. And even in our backyard, Ch. 8 in Richmond/Petersburg is staying on 22 not because of crimping, but because of the cost, according to the Chief Engineer.

I believe this may be too broad a generalization. Scrolling down the list I see a goodly number that are staying UHF. And even in our backyard, Ch. 8 in Richmond/Petersburg is staying on 22 not because of crimping, but because of the cost, according to the Chief Engineer.

It is true that many stations that could have gone back to VHF high didn't because of the cost to do so. Many transmitters on VHF high have been in service over half of their service life or old enough that they could not be converted to digital and after spending several million dollars on UHF transmitters, many owners decided that they didn't want to spend another million or so to convert back in such a short period of time. (Remember life span of a broadcast transmitter is over 20 years.) Some decided that if all of the stations were to be on UHF for a market then it would make it easier for viewers and so decided to stay. Others gained coverage and decided to stay. Most people I have talked to though have decided to stay because of the cost to convert back or are giving up VHF low assignments.

In my market one VHF high is opening up and the possiblity of a second could be because of a station in another market close by deciding to not go back. Don't worry though, before you know it, there will be a station on those open channels, either new ones or others who want to go back to VHF high and couldn't. Those channels will not stay dormant long post transition.

I am not basing my argument on articles written by punduits on either side but actual data. You keep talking about articles.



As I pointed out in an earlier post, Rep Dingell is only one of 435 in the House and there are 100 in the Senate and one President that ALL have a say on whether to sign off on a date change. With the division in the Congress, you have a hard time getting a majority to vote on what to have for lunch. If you really think the date will be so easy to change, then go right ahead my friend, but I wouldn't put any money on it and not many others would either.


I agree with foxeng quote above " With the division in the Congress, you have a hard time getting a majority to vote on what to have for lunch. " Must remember when they vote on the bill, it just not one item or article of the bill they passing it has so many other bills , articles or amendments but mostly PORK BILLS :eek: attach to it, just like foxeng said they can't agree to vote what to have for lunch so the bill failed. Also gotta remember the lobbyist special interst group they do cause problem too.

Well timed observation. Today is February 28th, and there are none. Tomorrow is March 1, and I will visit Best Buy and Wallmart in the morning and buy whatever small TV's with digital tuners that they put on their shelves to use as my field test TVs, assuming that they cost no more than $150.
You are not going to find any - hence my point.

As long as radio still exists I dont think there's any big draw for TV when the power goes out.

I think a lot of Katrina victims would strongly disagree with you.

You are not going to find any - hence my point.



I think a lot of Katrina victims would strongly disagree with you.

There will be lots of mobile TV around. You already have 2 million cell customers with MobiTV over cell and you have Qualcomm about to offer broadcast TV to cell phones. Then you have Crown Castle that promises the same and Aloha partners that promise more, regular SD quality mobile TV.

Of course you also have the proposed A-VSB that will be mobile but at a horrific cost in bits.

And one more. I believe the merger of XMRadio and Sirius, though they won't admit it, is all about freeing up 4 Mbps of spectrum for mobile video. Maybe they are afraid of these other mobile video ventures being a radio substitute. After all if you just close your eyes there is not much difference. XM and Sirius have a very hard row to hoe long term IMO. HD Radio, 802.xxx, mobile video, etc. Remember that Freeview in the UK includes 12 HD digital radio channels for free.

Current broadcasters don't have to worry about mobile DTV because they are going out of business. At least the over the air broadcast business. They are at 9% now going to 7% in early 2009 according to the FCC and heading for a conservative 2% come 2012 IMO. Unless of course you think of something substantially less than 7% and as low as 2% as being IN business.

About then or sooner we will start hearing talk about further auctions of spectrum below channel 51. Maybe it will come with some kind of multicast must carry law that gives broadcasters, soon to not be broadcasters, some indefinite right to cable space. The problem is that pesky Supreme Court and its funny ideas about the Constitution and unlawful taking clauses.

The electicity savings combined from a bunch of stations could equal like the entire output of a powerplant or two- no? That's nothing to sneeze at.

The power figures that people usually talk about for broadcast stations are the "effective radiated power" (ERP) which is the total power that a station would radiate if it radiated isotropically at the power density that it radiates more or less parallel to the earth's surface (where most TVs are located ;) ). Stations actually radiate a lot less power straight upwards to the sky or straight down to the ground, because that power is basically wasted.

A station with 316kW ERP towards the horizon might actually be pumping out only 10kW or less, integrated over all directions.

You are not going to find any - hence my point...

I just went to Best Buy, where they have recently rearranged their TV section, and the shelves where they stock the smaller TVs are nearly bare. They have two display, open box 13"/DVD combos, but no boxed 13" TVs, and they have two open box 19" TVs, with just three, new-in-box units of one of them left.

At Walmart, they have one display 13" TV, one display 14" and one box of the same 14" TV. And shelf space for some inventory.

Maybe tonight... Last year, on March 1, 2006, the 26" "Insignia" brand ATSC TVs were on the shelves that evening.

The power figures that people usually talk about for broadcast stations are the "effective radiated power" (ERP) which is the total power that a station would radiate if it radiated isotropically at the power density that it radiates more or less parallel to the earth's surface (where most TVs are located ;) ). Stations actually radiate a lot less power straight upwards to the sky or straight down to the ground, because that power is basically wasted.

A station with 316kW ERP towards the horizon might actually be pumping out only 10kW or less, integrated over all directions.

thanks for the explanation.

There will be lots of mobile TV around.

Why are you holding back from showing us the link to your little cofdm broadcasting video, bob? :confused:

Dennis Haarsager has coined two new verbs, "to dingell" to further delay a delay and "to kneuer", blame everyone else well ahead of time and promise to do as little as possible, to follow the letter of the law no matter how stupid.

http://technology360.typepad.com/technology360/2007/03/rep_dingell_tel.html

Right on Dennis.

Except for one thing. The headline "Dingell Tells Broadcasters DTV Transition May Be Delayed" should read Broadcasters tell Dingell they want more delay in the transition.

If you want to watch Kneuer kneuering go to C-Span

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=COM&ShowVidNum=10&Rot_Cat_CD=COM&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=365&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=365

The Communicators, third one down. He does it real real good. Points at everyone and says its not my fault. And he is right unfortunately. He is just going to be the fall guy.

Except for one thing. The headline "Dingell Tells Broadcasters DTV Transition May Be Delayed" should read Broadcasters tell Dingell they want more delay in the transition.

You reading comprehension is amazing, and quite a bit skewed. You just WISHED it said that to help validate your opinions that you have no fact to back up.

You reading comprehension is amazing, and quite a bit skewed. You just WISHED it said that to help validate your opinions that you have no fact to back up.

Right the only fact I have is a nine year old transition where only 1.7% of households are using OTA DTV. Where 90% of the population has no idea there is even a transition underway, where stores offer few if any STBs and signs in the stores all say "you need a cable or satellite subscription to receive HD content", where broadcasters spend most of their time and money pursuing cable rights not OTA viewers.

I think it is transparently obvious what broadcasters as a whole and their NAB have as their goals. One is to string out the transition as long as possible.

Some Aussie folks think their transition is an "utter failure".

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/09/27/1159337221919.html

Right the only fact I have is a nine year old transition where only 1.7% of households are using OTA DTV. Where 90% of the population has no idea there is even a transition underway, where stores offer few if any STBs and signs in the stores all say "you need a cable or satellite subscription to receive HD content", where broadcasters spend most of their time and money pursuing cable rights not OTA viewers.


Please specify your sources for BOTH of these figures because I KNOW they are wrong. I can produce evidence to prove your numbers are wrong.

As far as broadcasters and NAB is concern, they are ON RECORD for the last TWO years that they want the transition OVER with and NOT keep dragging it out. No one in the industry is even TALKING about an extension. Only Dingall, who have LOTS to loose post Feb 19, 2009 if things don't go to "suit" him is the only one talking extension.

Please specify your sources for BOTH of these figures because I KNOW they are wrong. I can produce evidence to prove your numbers are wrong.

As far as broadcasters and NAB is concern, they are ON RECORD for the last TWO years that they want the transition OVER with and NOT keep dragging it out. No one in the industry is even TALKING about an extension. Only Dingall, who have LOTS to loose post Feb 19, 2009 if things don't go to "suit" him is the only one talking extension.

You may be right. Dingell may be out there on his own but I hear about other pols getting antsi about the transition.

Then there was that low level CBS guy. Was he on his own or was this being orchestrated?

Broadcasters should want it over. Would save them a lot of money in electric bills.

Guess we will just have to wait and see if anyone else joins the parade and who aready is in it.

I think the real deadline might be next Feb when the public service messages about the transition are supposed to start - once those start airing, I don't think there'll be any more delays.

I think the real deadline might be next Feb when the public service messages about the transition are supposed to start - once those start airing, I don't think there'll be any more delays.

That is also when the auction is supposed to take place. More winners of TV spectrum means more players who want the deadline to stick so they can use their spectrum. Not really fair to sell spectrum and then delay the buyers use of it. Sort of breaking a contract. Qualcomm might not like that either since they bought channel 55 a couple of years ago and are just now starting to use some of it.

Qualcomm has a habit of sueing. They bought that spectrum, channel 55, with funny money they won in court against the FCC for previous spectrum games.

http://www.tdf.fr/medias/view/?id=837

"QUALCOMM Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM), pioneer and world leader in the development and deployment of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) digital wireless technology, today announced that it has been awarded a $125 million "Auction Discount Voucher" (ADV) by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The FCC award is in response to a July 1999 U.S. Court of Appeals decision in which the FCC was ordered to designate QUALCOMM a "pioneer" under the Commission's Pioneer's Preference program, and grant QUALCOMM spectrum forthwith."

Lots of big players now have or expect to have dogs in this fight. It is not just the broadcasters playing footsie with Congress anymore.

How much of the 60% cable penetration is only providing the 'basic' tier (25-30 channels) that people only get because the analog picture over coax is better than their OTA reception? I think OTA use will be stable or go up slightly as people realize they can get a pristine signal free for the 95% of program hours they actually watch.

Cable companies are pushing digital services hard because it makes them lots of money, but a lot of their customers are still plain old cable.

why was uhf such a pain in the ass then and not now.

ISTR the FCC simply mandated that the TV's UHF band tuners perform on par with the VHF, sometime in the 1980's.

How much of the 60% cable penetration is only providing the 'basic' tier (25-30 channels) that people only get because the analog picture over coax is better than their OTA reception? I think OTA use will be stable or go up slightly as people realize they can get a pristine signal free for the 95% of program hours they actually watch.

Cable companies are pushing digital services hard because it makes them lots of money, but a lot of their customers are still plain old cable.

In 4 different cities spanning both Cox and Comcast, this basic tier has also allowed me to pick up the network HD shows in HD with various QAM capable PCHD cards. I believe this is because network HD shows are included in that basic tier and are not supposed to be encrypted.

But this would also apply to any newer QAM cable ready digital TVs. Meanwhile, if you are including an ATSC tuner it is not much more expensive to also include QAM support (non-cable-card), and I think many of the chips used will do both.

So for folks getting a new TV but not wanting an antenna we may find the basic cable tier remains popular, at least if many of the digital TV's on the market support QAM without also needing the more expensive and vexing cable card stuff.

Sadly however I checked out WalMart & Sams Club TV's yesterday and few of the lower end digital TV's seemed to support QAM. And, like everything else in this game, few people even seem to know that's an option.

Note that, in cities where I had Comcast, the cost of the basic tier was really a net negative 6$ or so cost after the broadband discount. That is, Comcast customers with broadband could buy the correct TV set and get network HD while spending about $6 per month less than they previously did. Or maybe an extra $4 on Cox with broadband.

Of course I'm assuming there will still be a mandated cheap "lifeline" basic cable tier after the cutoff.

- Tom

At the start of the Ohio State/Memphis game on CBS, Harris was identified as a sponsor of the game and called a leading manufacturer of broadcasting products, but I didn't see any commercials for them during the game.

It is hard to imagine that such a company would benefit by paying for exposure to 10 million or more eyeballs, 99.999 or more % of which are not prospective customers. Might they have simply given CBS some product in exchange for the mention?

They've been mentioned at the start of just about every game. Maybe they think there's enough TV station owners/engineers watching to make a sale.

One piece of info you may have missed, cable costs to consumers have risen 90% (government numbers, not mine) over the last 10 years. Cable doesn't need retrans to raise rates. They do it like work clock for little to no reason at all.

And a point you keep missing is it is not stations wanting money becuase it is money but because stations PAY for all of that content that you watch OTA or MSO. So cable is getting content from stations for free (and making money with it and stations are NOT sharing in) that stations ARE paying for and the Aaron Sorkin's and Jerry Bruckhiemer's of the world are being cheated out of money too since some of that money goes to them as well. In any other business this would be considered fraud and people would be in jail but since it is TV, who cares, right? Just make sure my cable bill doesn't rise, that is the bottome line. Sounds like your complaint is with cable's rising bills and not the broadcaster who is trying to get what is rightfully theirs and the people whose content they broadcast.

I sincerely hope you get a clue one day, because right now you are totally clueless about what the industries want. It is explained to you how it works and why things are like they are and you continue with this unsubstantiated stance that broadcasters do not what to broadcast. Where you get this stance from is totally unknown to me and most others it appears.

Good luck in life.

Cable-companies (by and large) are for-profit businesses (the only exceptions, pretty much, are either rural cooperatives or the few muni-owned MATV/SMATV (the predecessor to current-tech cable) systems still surviving; these are the extreme minority), and they have a *responsibility* to pay dividends back to investors (those that own their stock and their debt). If the cable company's costs go up, of course they will pass the increases on to their customers (no company can afford to eat such cost increases in perpetuity; when that happens, investment halts and the capitalization of the company itself nose-dives); that is Business 101. Also, the increase in cable rates covers a wide variety of capitalization expenses (the over $100 billion spent on system upgrades since 2000 by Comcast alone; this includes increases in channel capacity, additional programming carried over said capacity, etc; part of all those billions of dollars includes upgrades to provide new services and value to compete with telcos, such as broadband Internet and VoIP phone services) that were originally financed with bond revenue; those bonds have to be paid back, with interest (the money to pay those bonds comes from subscriber rates).

Also, while Sinclair, Mediacom, and now CBS Paramount are either requiring or preferring cash in retransmission-consent agreements with both cable companies and other retransmitters, ABC/Disney, NBC, and FOX are not. So even what CBS Paramount is doing is far from the majority view among NAB members that both provide programming and own stations (a more telling question is whether CBS Paramount has also raised the fees it charges affiliated stations; if CBS Paramount is also doing this, then it simply means that CBS is strapped for cash). IMHO, I strongly suspect that CBS Paramount *has* raised the fees it charges affiliated stations; Sinclair in particular, in addition to owning a large number of FOX-affiliated stations, also owns or operates under duopoly agreements, quite a few CW and MyNetwork affiliated stations; if those fees, which are paid to CBS Paramount, which owns both networks, went up, then Sinclair is bound to try to recoup those increased costs. Is Mediacom under the same sort of cost-recoupment pressure?

A further datum; both Tribune Entertainment and Gannett, which own primarily stations affiliated with one or more CBS Paramount networks, have stayed with the traditional services-swap agreements in retransmission-consent agreements with both cable companies and telcos. However, unlike either Sinclar or Mediacom, both Tribune and Gannett have other revenue sources (primarily newspapers), so they can shift the income around from one set of operations that is somewhat flush (print media or even outdoor advertising in Gannett's case) to operations that are seeing cost increases (broadcasting). While the bills still have to be paid, they don't have the same pressure to cover those costs, as they have other sources of revenue. (While CBS Paramount does have an outdoor-advertising business, it is relatively new and hasn't begun to establish itself revenuewise, while Gannett is well-established.)

Well timed observation. Today is February 28th, and there are none. Tomorrow is March 1, and I will visit Best Buy and Wallmart in the morning and buy whatever small TV's with digital tuners that they put on their shelves to use as my field test TVs, assuming that they cost no more than $150.

I don't think we will see these until the current stock is sold off - say 3 to 6 months from now. But I do think they are coming.

Antenna was NOT the only option. I had cable service in 1975. No one said you 'needed' ota. BTW, I am glad you can speak for 'most families'.

An antenna does not need to be on the roof. Many are installed in an attic. I have a small one sitting under a table that picks up my local HD stations.

Cable/Satellite costs more than $360 per year.......EVERY year. My small antenna cost less than $30. I can buy an indoor/outdoor antenna for $79.95 http://www.hometech.com/video/antennas.html or an outdoor antenna with mast and brackets for $99.99 http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=158308&WT.mc_n=92&WT.mc_t=U&cm_ven=COMPARISON%20SHOPPING&cm_cat=NEXTAG&cm_pla=DATAFEED->PRODUCTS&cm_ite=1%20PRODUCT&cm_keycode=92These are one time shots. There are 9 houses on my cul-de-sac - all fairly new homes btw (1999 construction) There are 4 roof top antennas and a couple satellite antennas (ah, nearly forgot, you need an antenna for satellite ;) ). This is 6 of 9 with an antenna on the roof.

I have no doubt about this.

However, how many of those antennas (either OTA or satellite) are actually in use? Could there be a case (or several) where the OTA or satellite-TV subscriber moved to cable (or even to FIOS where available) and left the antenna up? That is far from farfetched; here's personal anecdotal data to back it up: In 1989, after being in an OTA-only household at our current residence, cable became available in our area (from, at the time, Jones Intercable). Even though we had done this, the antenna never got taken down. Even after we moved out of (but didn't sell) the house ten years later, the antenna stayed up (it is now a rental property). None of the two families that have rented the house since have put that antenna to use; both, in fact, subscribed to cable (including the current renters).

Counting antennas (especially in established neighborhoods) is a mug's game at best, as you have no idea how many of those antennas are actually being put to use. In the development where we live today, three small satellite dishes are known to NOT be in use, yet are still taking up roof space (this is out of the five such dishes in the development).

Cable-companies (by and large) are for-profit businesses (the only exceptions, pretty much, are either rural cooperatives or the few muni-owned MATV/SMATV (the predecessor to current-tech cable) systems still surviving; these are the extreme minority), and they have a *responsibility* to pay dividends back to investors (those that own their stock and their debt). ...


and broadcast TV isn't exactly the same? It's OK for cable to make a profit but broadcast Tv shouldn't?

That aside...

The beef I have with DBS/Cable's incessant rate hikes is they like to hide behind blaming the content people. They say it's content costs (blaming ESPN or court TV or RSN's etc etc in the past- the next few years they will blame broadcast tv) - INSTEAD of manning up and saying that it's a whole pile of things that you so eloquently pointed out above. Content, capital, AND PROFIT. And along those lines it appears to me that the percentage of revenue paid out for content is DROPPING over time- so the BS that it's all the content people's fault is completely a lie. With Directv's SEC filings it's clear as day- their content delivery costs are shrinking as a percentage of revenue each and every quarter. If that's true for Directv I would imagine it's the same for all the big boys unless someone can point to empirical data that it is NOT the case.

...

Also, while Sinclair, Mediacom, and now CBS Paramount are either requiring or preferring cash in retransmission-consent agreements with both cable companies and other retransmitters, ABC/Disney, NBC, and FOX are not. So even what CBS Paramount is doing is far from the majority view among NAB members that both provide programming and own stations (a more telling question is whether CBS Paramount has also raised the fees it charges affiliated stations; if CBS Paramount is also doing this, then it simply means that CBS is strapped for cash)


Fox, ABC disney, NBC, and even CBS in the past ALL get something for their retransmission rights. Generaally they demand carriage of other stuff or bundle their broadcast stations with their cable properties. Just ask time warner if they get WABC for "free" in NY- there was a HUGE blowout years ago becasue Disney used WABC as a hammer to extract other fees and placement for the other disney cable properties. So just becasue specific moeny doesn't change hands doesn't mean that somethign of value isn't changing hands.

CBS/ Infinity/ paramount split up becasue the board felt they could extract even more value from cable operators if they asked for X for CBS carriage and Y for their cable channels then they were gettign under the old Z for it all system. Time well tell what happens. Myself I suspect they will get the "fair" price for CBS but the money the cable channels will get much less than they have been and the sum might be even less then it was.

What has changed now is that it's no longer the big behemoths with O&O stations demanding some form of payment- now sinclair with it's lower DMA is relaizing the value it's stations bring to cable. ANd that's the big paradigm shift that I see.

.... that is Business 101. ....

A further datum; both Tribune Entertainment and Gannett, which own primarily stations affiliated with one or more CBS Paramount networks, have stayed with the traditional services-swap agreements in retransmission-consent agreements with both cable companies and telcos. However, unlike either Sinclar or Mediacom, both Tribune and Gannett have other revenue sources (primarily newspapers), so they can shift the income around from one set of operations that is somewhat flush (print media or even outdoor advertising in Gannett's case) to operations that are seeing cost increases (broadcasting). While the bills still have to be paid, they don't have the same pressure to cover those costs, as they have other sources of revenue. (While CBS Paramount does have an outdoor-advertising business, it is relatively new and hasn't begun to establish itself revenuewise, while Gannett is well-established.)

Not so sure your last paragraph is business 101 at all.

Are you saying that becasue Tribune and Gannett make money in other divisions of their compnay's they are fine with lossing money and can ignore their mandate to maximize profits for their investors? So if ABC starts to make money DIsney can hand out free admission to Disneyworld?

You dont think a division that is loosing money or making less money feels preassure from the parent corp to fix the situation?

and broadcast TV isn't exactly the same? It's OK for cable to make a profit but broadcast Tv shouldn't?

That aside...

The beef I have with DBS/Cable's incessant rate hikes is they like to hide behind blaming the content people. They say it's content costs (blaming ESPN or court TV or RSN's etc etc in the past- the next few years they will blame broadcast tv) - INSTEAD of manning up and saying that it's a whole pile of things that you so eloquently pointed out above. Content, capital, AND PROFIT. And along those lines it appears to me that the percentage of revenue paid out for content is DROPPING over time- so the BS that it's all the content people's fault is completely a lie. With Directv's SEC filings it's clear as day- their content delivery costs are shrinking as a percentage of revenue each and every quarter. If that's true for Directv I would imagine it's the same for all the big boys unless someone can point to empirical data that it is NOT the case.

It is emphatically NOT the case with cable-TV, as my point about Comcast's capex post-2000 demonstrates (or should). While satellite-TV does have capex, it is not as large as that for a large cable company (Charter is a prime example, as, unlike either Comcast or Time Warner, it is not a content provider); the satellite-TV capex is either for new satellites, transponder leases on existing satellites, or even R&D on receiver technology (such as EchoStar's recent moves to MPEG-4 encoding for HD transmission). All DirecTV's low capex expenditures demonstrate is that a national cable-TV provider that doesn't also sell content (again, I point to Charter) has a VERY tough row to hoe. (Recent churn numbers for Charter, in fact, prove this out; most of Charter's own churn is direct competition from satellite and telcos.)

EchoStar's own capex is higher than that of DirecTV (especially considering any assets that it acquired from Rainbow Media Holdings and/or the Dolans when VOOM's assets were spun out from CableVision); however, even EchoStar's capex would be less than that of Charter.

The capex costs of a large cable-TV provider would be more sensibly be comparable to a telco or power-transmission company, as they are the only other businesses that have comparable capex costs. Verizon's capex is a case in point; they are spending about the same amount on a per-customer basis as Comcast to upgrade the portions of their existing plant that are not being sold or otherwise divested from copper to fiber optics, and some institutional bondholders are squawking. However, the vast majority of those same bondholders are NOT squawking because they see what the squawkers do not; they are competing with the cable companies (and in some cases with power-transmission cooperatives and munis as well) in the basic phone service business, not to mention the VoIP companies such as Vonage and SunRocket. Further, the telcos *must* diversify, for the simple reason that market for basic phone service is now Officially Under Fire (from those same competitors); *that* is why Verizon is rolling out FIOS TV (and AT&T, formerly SBC, is rolling out U-verse and HomeZone, and bought back Cingular Wireless). It compares to the power-transmission companies another way; the last major blackout was caused by a power-transmission company NOT investing in the plant. (It equates to plumbing; too much pressure and the piping wasn't strong enough to hold up.) Both cable companies and telcos are faced with one major imperative as they are increasingly at loggerheads with each other: Invest in your plant, or else!

Both cable companies and telcos are also competing with the satellite-TV-service providers (who, as I just pointed out, have lower capex costs than large cable companies, and far lower than any RBOC) in video-delivery; also, unlike either cable companies or telcos, the DBS providers are not obligated to provide local OTA channels (while some do, it's not a requirement that they do so). However, satellite-TV has several disadvantages (hard limits on the number of serviceable TVs per account, lack of availability of certain types of services, such as VOD, etc.) compared to either cable companies or telcos. The one advantage they DO have is price (because of the extremely low capex compared to cable or the telcos) which they are playing up in their niche (it's a large niche, but it's still a niche business), which is, of course, playing hob with the rates of return for both cable companies and telcos (and putting companies in the video-delivery business that don't create and sell content, such as Charter, firmly in Hot Water).

So, if anything, the DBS providers are sitting somewhat pretty in all this (in fact, note that Mediacom actively took sides and steered people to DBS providers who would also put up antennas for OTA reception; Sinclair was likely preparing a similar stratagem in their areas).

Not so sure your last paragraph is business 101 at all.

Are you saying that becasue Tribune and Gannett make money in other divisions of their compnay's they are fine with lossing money and can ignore their mandate to maximize profits for their investors? So if ABC starts to make money DIsney can hand out free admission to Disneyworld?

You dont think a division that is loosing money or making less money feels preassure from the parent corp to fix the situation?

I am saying that the pressure is not as *immediate* at either Gannett or Tribune Entertainment because of those other revenue-generating operations, not that the pressure isn't there. Low pressure (Tribune and Gannett) vs. high pressure (Mediacom, Sinclair, and even CBS).

Your ABC/Disney argument is possible; however, the plausibility of it is up to Disney's board.

A diversified company can actually stand to lose money in one or two divisions or subsidiaries if the rest of the company's operations are profitable (the spinoff of Frigidaire from GM was a result of longer-term losses due to a general downturn in the major-appliance business; Frigidaire was *created* by GM to guard against a downturn in their primary business, specifically, automobile production).

There is a marked difference between low and high pressure; otherwise there would be no such thing as weather. The pressure upon Mediacom, Sinclair, et. alia. (except for CBS Paramount) is greater because they are single-product companies (broadcasting). In the case of CBS Paramount, they just went through a massive (and expensive) restructuring, and the stockholders and bondholders are not willing to foot the entire bill (via CBS Corporation senior debt), so CBS is left with asset sales and increased fees (such as those it collects from affiliated stations, quite a number of which are owned and/or operated by Sinclair and Mediacom) to recoup the shortfall.

Fox, ABC disney, NBC, and even CBS in the past ALL get something for their retransmission rights. Generaally they demand carriage of other stuff or bundle their broadcast stations with their cable properties. Just ask time warner if they get WABC for "free" in NY- there was a HUGE blowout years ago becasue Disney used WABC as a hammer to extract other fees and placement for the other disney cable properties. So just becasue specific moeny doesn't change hands doesn't mean that somethign of value isn't changing hands.

CBS/ Infinity/ paramount split up becasue the board felt they could extract even more value from cable operators if they asked for X for CBS carriage and Y for their cable channels then they were gettign under the old Z for it all system. Time well tell what happens. Myself I suspect they will get the "fair" price for CBS but the money the cable channels will get much less than they have been and the sum might be even less then it was.

What has changed now is that it's no longer the big behemoths with O&O stations demanding some form of payment- now sinclair with it's lower DMA is relaizing the value it's stations bring to cable. ANd that's the big paradigm shift that I see.

Actually, no; that is NOT it. The change is that the demand is for cash, as opposed to services-in-kind deals. Both Sinclair and Mediacom, in addition to FOX-affiliates, both own a large number of stations affiliated with CBS Corporation networks (MyNetwork, The CW, or even CBS itself). CBS Corporation is under high pressure from the stockholders and bondholders to pay off this expensive (and extensive) restructuring it just completed *without* issuing more debt. That gives little leeway in order to pay off the costs of the restructuring: you have asset sales (such as the theme parks) increased advertising and affiliation fees (such as what Sinclair and Mediacom are billed to carry the Eye Device, MyTV, or The CW logos on their station-ID placards and carry the network-in-question's programming), etc. What Sinclair and Mediacom are doing is passing those increased costs down, however possible. What CBS is doing (or at least plans to do) is use the revenue to both pay for the restructuring and, combined with the revenues from asset sales and other revenues, to pay down (or off) existing debt. A telling point is how much of the increased cash demands of Sinclair and Mediacom are, in fact, going to CBS in the form of higher affiliation fees. (Has either company broken down how much they are paying in affiliation fees in *either* of the markets under recent dispute, or in any market, for that matter?)

I dont really know- but you are saying that say the 20 year capital expenses of comcast have been higher than directv? (they both have similar sub counts in order of magnitude)?

assuming that is the case- then why doesn't cable say "we are jacking ourt rates becasue we are building state of the art networks" instead of whining about paying for content?

I get your point about immediate pressure. Makes sense. CBS's immediate presseasure I beleive is becasue one of the main reasons they split was exactly becasue they thought that CBS could ask for it's own cash fo the O&O's and that the sum total received would be more. So they touted it now they better deliver.

CBS asking for cash is a big differnence but honestly I dont care if CBS gets 50 cents from TIme warner for WCBS and then 2 bucks for their other cable properties or if they got $2.50 in one lump sum last year. It's still 2.50 in cash or goods that cable laid out. (lets say in the past they used wcbs as a chip to carry some POS 4th rate cable channel- bandwidth isn't free so cable spent money on that or lost PPV/VOD revenue by clogging thier pipe with that channel). That's my logic that this is nothing earth shattering. What is interesting to me is now that some 4th rate broadcaster now is demanding somethign significant in return.