So, it sounds like, when people ask what is going to happen to their TV in 2009.....about all we can truthfully say is "Wait and see!" :confused: .

I'd tell them to buy an antenna, but it looks like the bad ones don't work, and the good ones are all sold out :rolleyes: .

Wouldn't it be nice if Con-gress could make everyone (beyond just the broadcasters) come to the table and tell the American people what their plans are?

So, it sounds like, when people ask what is going to happen to their TV in 2009.....about all we can truthfully say is "Wait and see!" :confused: .

I'd tell them to buy an antenna, but it looks like the bad ones don't work, and the good ones are all sold out :rolleyes: .

Wouldn't it be nice if Con-gress could make everyone (beyond just the broadcasters) come to the table and tell the American people what their plans are?
Come on now, that would be making it easy for everyone.

I believe you can requisition a request to be considered for authorization to ask about the soft plans for DTV if you fill out forms 120816-A and 2642-B in triplicate after sending in a request for said forms using form 461282-G. I believe you'll get a response in roughly 18 months.

cable also knows if they DON'T pass HD, the revolt will be massive by the part of the customer base that buys the most expensive packages and provides most of their profitAlso, when the Cable MSO loses a digital CATV subscriber they incur an opportunity cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost) associated with the additional revenue that could have generated from providing high-speed Internet, security and VoIP services.

I subscribe to cable. Come 2/09 when our local broadcasters go digital, could my cable company choose to convert those signals to analog for their customers so they don't need the boxes on every TV.Actually this is something under active consideration at the FCC.

There are two primary factors here:

1) There is a prohibition against "material degradation" of HD signals on a cable system - that basically says that cable currently can't downconvert HD.

2) There is an requirement that that local TV signals “shall be viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber that are connected to a cable system by a cable operator or for which a cable operator provides a connection." Which says that cable must provide a "viewable" signal.

Here is an article in Multichannel News (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6341224.html) about FCC activity.

Here is the FCC Request for Comment (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-71A1.pdf) (actually Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). Note that the date for comment is tomorrow - so we should be seeing activities in the next few days.

From what I have been seeing I would expect the following:

1) For cable systems that have converted to 100% digital, they will have to carry SD & HD versions of the main channel programs of local stations.

2) For cable systems that have not coverted to 100% digital, they will have to carry local stations in both SD analog and HD digital. Most systems will likely (as FOXeng points out) carry SD in both analog & digital plus carry the HD digital.

3) There will be no regulations relating to "cable channels" (TNT, CNN, etc.).

4) The rules that they create will expire in about 5 years (then everything will be all HD).

The BIG DEBATE will likely be about "must carry" of any sub-channels. Right now, there is no regulation requiring cable to carry any sub-channels. Now, in most situations they are carried - but as a result of negotiations between the station and the cable company.

Also, when the Cable MSO loses a digital CATV subscriber they incur an opportunity cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost) associated with the additional revenue that could have generated from providing high-speed Internet, security and VoIP services.
Not necessarily. A lot more people can get broadband from cable than can get it from DSL. In addition, in many cities, DSL has slower potential speeds. FInally, there are a lot of people who only use their cell phones and don't want to get a land line just for DSL. If I could get decent reception at my apartment, I'd probably go with a cable modem. In my case, I'm getting phone service anyway and it's just cheaper and easier to stay with DSL.

One final point, cable seems to have a much better hold on the customer in regards to broadband. They saturate advertising a lot more and modems seem to be available in more stores than DSL units. Whether the service is better or worse, they seem to pull in even customers who don't get cable service.

Come on now, that would be making it easy for everyone.

I believe you can requisition a request to be considered for authorization to ask about the soft plans for DTV if you fill out forms 120816-A and 2642-B in triplicate after sending in a request for said forms using form 461282-G. I believe you'll get a response in roughly 18 months.That's almost as long as I have been waiting to receive my passport! :mad:

OK, it's only been 14 weeks & 1 day

Not necessarily. A lot more people can get broadband from cable than can get it from DSL. In addition, in many cities, DSL has slower potential speeds. FInally, there are a lot of people who only use their cell phones and don't want to get a land line just for DSL. If I could get decent reception at my apartment, I'd probably go with a cable modem. In my case, I'm getting phone service anyway and it's just cheaper and easier to stay with DSL.There will always be exceptions, but in general if an individual does not subscribe to cable TV they will not buy other services from the local cable provider.

There will always be exceptions, but in general if an individual does not subscribe to cable TV they will not buy other services from the local cable provider.
Oh, of course you will always have those customers, but cable has more options for their customer base. Point blank: when someone cancels cable, they can still have a cable modem. When someone cancels local phone service, they can't get DSL.

Of course some cable systems (Comcast - Chicago) are dropping analog cable completely in favor of their own digital format (QAM) which may require a cablecard or Cable supplied box because even the digital tuner in your new TV won't show encrypted channels. (if it even does QAM)A couple of clarifications here:

1) QAM is not a propriatory format - it is universally used in cable systems for digital.

2) It is not legal to encrypt qualified local OTA digital stations. There are lots of TVs these days with "in the clear" QAM tuners that will receive these stations without the use of a CableCard or an external box.

So, it sounds like, when people ask what is going to happen to their TV in 2009.....about all we can truthfully say is "Wait and see!" :confused: Absolutely true. Right now, people are just jockeying for position.

2) There is an requirement that that local TV signals “shall be viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber that are connected to a cable system by a cable operator or for which a cable operator provides a connection." Which says that cable must provide a "viewable" signal. That argues for more Additional Outlet charges to cover the cost of cheap, digital STBs. So the effect is the same, whether the charge is included in the basic fee or not. And the franchising authority cannot legitimately turn down a rate increase based on actual, federally-mandated, additional costs.

1) For cable systems that have converted to 100% digital, they will have to carry SD & HD versions of the main channel programs of local stations.I guess I don't understand this. Won't most basic digital boxes support HD, with RF Channel 3/4 output to support analog televisions (presumably letter-boxed, FWIW)? So really, MSOs that go the "we'll provide basic cable boxes for each outlet" approach will only need to provide the HD version of the channels. For those that don't provide boxes, then they have to carry (specifically) analog and digital (SD or HD, depending on what's transmitted by the broadcaster).

The BIG DEBATE will likely be about "must carry" of any sub-channels. I thought that debate already occurred, and the result was codified.

Oh, of course you will always have those customers, but cable has more options for their customer base. Point blank: when someone cancels cable, they can still have a cable modem. When someone cancels local phone service, they can't get DSL.I have Verizon DSL & Time Warner Cable TV. ;)

I guess I don't understand this. Won't most basic digital boxes support HD, with RF Channel 3/4 output to support analog televisions (presumably letter-boxed, FWIW)? So really, MSOs that go the "we'll provide basic cable boxes for each outlet" approach will only need to provide the HD version of the channels. For those that don't provide boxes, then they have to carry (specifically) analog and digital (SD or HD, depending on what's transmitted by the broadcaster).I really don't know much about the "most basic digital boxes". But I would not think that they wouldn't have the extra circuitry required to downconvert and deal with the aspect ratio. Yes, the ATSC conversion boxes that much of this thread was about, will do the down convert/aspect conversion thing - but they don't have QAM tuners. It's the very basic CABLE boxes that I don't think have the capability.

I thought that debate already occurred, and the result was codified.There had been rulings (Court orders I think) that said they didn't need to carry the sub-channels, but Martin has been talking about changing that. However, I see nothing in the FCC link that I posted that indicates potential for a change.

A couple of clarifications here:

1) QAM is not a propriatory format - it is universally used in cable systems for digital.No argument. By "their own digital format" I meant all cablecos, not just Comcast. You never know if someone reading a post understands that cable digital is different from OTA digital.

2) It is not legal to encrypt qualified local OTA digital stations. There are lots of TVs these days with "in the clear" QAM tuners that will receive these stations without the use of a CableCard or an external box.
I agree with your interpretation of the rules but there have been instances that the locals have been encrypted or unavailable anyway. I've heard the "as long as we supply the analog, we don't have to carry the HD feed" or "we can't reach an agreement and the station won't let us carry the HD" or "the station demanded more money for the HD so we charge for it" type of arguments.

In my own local TWC's case, they provide ... one SD that is upconverted to SD digital for STB's (why I have NO idea since both are being taken of the same analog feed to them!) ...Just a few thougths on why it might make sense:
1) In my local market there are 3 network affiliates that are on cable on the same VHF channel they broadcast. A digital simulcast avoids the problem of video ghosting or audio problems due to ingress of the OTA signal into the cable whether it is in the subscriber's home or a leak out at the pole. Usually viewers call the station to complain (Mostly after the cable co. CSR suggests it's not their fault even though it often is).
2) Simply because the digital version is less susceptible to noise (or any other distortions such as patterns due to intermod in an amplifier the user may have added so he could drive his dozen TVs) that affect analog signals.
3) Audio performance of a digital simulcast will be much better than analog because first, the stereo separation will be much higher than what is theoretically possible from the BTSC system in general (not to mention the actual performance of cable's stereo generator) and second, the high-frequency response does not have to be rolled off to avoid overmodulation due to the pre-emphasis applied in the stereo generator.

Just a few thougths on why it might make sense:
1) In my local market there are 3 network affiliates that are on cable on the same VHF channel they broadcast. A digital simulcast avoids the problem of video ghosting or audio problems due to ingress of the OTA signal into the cable whether it is in the subscriber's home or a leak out at the pole. Usually viewers call the station to complain (Mostly after the cable co. CSR suggests it's not their fault even though it often is).
2) Simply because the digital version is less susceptible to noise (or any other distortions such as patterns due to intermod in an amplifier the user may have added so he could drive his dozen TVs) that affect analog signals.
3) Audio performance of a digital simulcast will be much better than analog because first, the stereo separation will be much higher than what is theoretically possible from the BTSC system in general (not to mention the actual performance of cable's stereo generator) and second, the high-frequency response does not have to be rolled off to avoid overmodulation due to the pre-emphasis applied in the stereo generator.


There is no engress problems on the local channels. Like I said, both SD channels are feed from the SAME analog source so the PQ and SQ will not get any better than the source. It also takes additional bandwidth. So much for the if we digitize it, it saves us bandwidth theory.

Cable operators will continue to simulcast the HDTV version AND a downrezzed analog version for analog subscribers, (unless they go with 100% box deployment and all digital).

I truely believe that cable will continue to offer an analog NTSC friendly service for years to come.

The signal will be presented to the subscriber in NTSC format, but will not be transported throughout the cable plant in bandwidth hungry analog. The digital feed can, and will be converted to analog close, or even at the subscribers premisis using Terrapix or similar technology.

It may even be that cable operators transmit both a letterboxed and centercut version so subscribers can choose their poison.

The sky is not falling........we'll get through this, we have much more important challenges in the world at present to lose too much sleep over all this.

I really don't know much about the "most basic digital boxes". But I would not think that they wouldn't have the extra circuitry required to downconvert and deal with the aspect ratio. Yes, the ATSC conversion boxes that much of this thread was about, will do the down convert/aspect conversion thing - but they don't have QAM tuners. It's the very basic CABLE boxes that I don't think have the capability.Let's just look at the Motorola DCT-700 (and we can project what the DCH-700 would be like from there). It supports QAM64/256, and has RF remodulator output (ch. 3, 4).

There had been rulings (Court orders I think) that said they didn't need to carry the sub-channels, but Martin has been talking about changing that.Which means nothing. Martin blathers on and on sometimes, and the other commissioners, so far, have kept his silliness, at least, from having any efficacy.

Let's just look at the Motorola DCT-700 (and we can project what the DCH-700 would be like from there). It supports QAM64/256, and has RF remodulator output (ch. 3, 4).But if you look at the spec sheet (http://broadband.motorola.com/consumers/products/dct700/downloads/DCT700.pdf) it says nothing about downconverting 720p or 1080i to 480i. I would think it would if it had that capability. Any other non-HD cable box that I am familiar with (mostly SA stuff) does not downconvert.

QAM is simply the modulation technique. 264 QAM is the most used. They put 12-15 SD channels on a single QAM or 2-3 HD channels on a QAM.

Cable operators will continue to simulcast the HDTV version AND a downrezzed analog version for analog subscribers, (unless they go with 100% box deployment and all digital).

I truely believe that cable will continue to offer an analog NTSC friendly service for years to come.

The signal will be presented to the subscriber in NTSC format, but will not be transported throughout the cable plant in bandwidth hungry analog. The digital feed can, and will be converted to analog close, or even at the subscribers premisis using Terrapix or similar technology.

It may even be that cable operators transmit both a letterboxed and centercut version so subscribers can choose their poison.

The sky is not falling........we'll get through this, we have much more important challenges in the world at present to lose too much sleep over all this.For those CATV subscribers who are going to have FiOS TV to their home someday, in the long run Cable TVs limited bandwidth problems will not matter.

There is no engress problems on the local channels. Like I said, both SD channels are feed from the SAME analog source so the PQ and SQ will not get any better than the source. It also takes additional bandwidth. So much for the if we digitize it, it saves us bandwidth theory.

Are you on Comcast?

We started getting complaints a few weeks ago.....
"There's a ghost on your station, and it's delayed".

Turns out, for whatever reason, Comcast is taking the analog video and audio) feed from fiber, and delaying it over three seconds. Then, they modulate it to NTSC. The complaints are about, not only just ingress "ghosting", but about seeing a ghost 3+ seconds ahead of the Cable picture. :confused: :confused: :confused:

For those CATV subscribers who are going to have FiOS TV to their home someday, in the long run Cable TVs limited bandwidth problems will not matter.

Huh? Does FiOS have some magical "unlimited bandwidth" capability?

All FiOS is, is FTTH (Fiber to the Home), where Cable TV is currently FTTN (Fiber to the Node, or you could say "Fiber to the Neighborhood"). Both are carrying the same CATV-style signals, in the same bandwidth. FiOS just hangs the fiber node on your house, and powers it from your wiring, while FTTN puts a node in somebody's yard nearby. FiOS may be able to offer "All Digital" sooner than established Cable TV companies, but that's the main difference.

If you are thinking about "Switched Digital" or IpTV, those technologies have their own restrictions. IpTV, for one, requires a peer-to-peer type of architecture. So, for every TV set (double that for sets hooked to a PVR) there has to be a connection all the way back to the source, or to a mirror server. So, conceivably, during the "Super Bowl" or another "9-11" kind of situation, there may not be enough BW for everybody to tune in. Imagine channel-surfing during the "SB", then coming back to a "We're sorry, all circuits are busy" message!

For those CATV subscribers who are going to have FiOS TV to their home someday, in the long run Cable TVs limited bandwidth problems will not matter.

"Someday" is right.

Quite frankly, FTTH (fiber to the home) is overkill. It's like building an eight lane expressway right into your garage. And it ain't cheap to implement.

At the other extreme, AT&T U-Verse brings the eight lane expressway to within a mile of your garage, but that last mile is a dirt road.

Fiber/coax is the correct mix, because it doesn't overbuild the "last mile".

Cable's bandwidth problems only require an "upgrade" to existing infrastructure, not "start from scratch".

"Someday" is right.

Quite frankly, FTTH (fiber to the home) is overkill. It's like building an eight lane expressway right into your garage. And it ain't cheap to implement.

At the other extreme, AT&T U-Verse brings the eight lane expressway to within a mile of your garage, but that last mile is a dirt road.

Fiber/coax is the correct mix, because it doesn't overbuild the "last mile", making implementation extremely slow and extremely costly.

Cable's bandwidth problems only require an "upgrade" to existing infrastructure, not "start from scratch".On occasion I will rebuild my home network from scratch using a DSL connection to download the Windows Updates (currently 80+ for WXP PRO SP2) +Vista and my Internet speed isn't that bad, however to best support extreme home computing, on-line gaming, networking & streaming video services more bandwidth is always better.

Are you on Comcast?

Comcast is not in our area.

We started getting complaints a few weeks ago.....
"There's a ghost on your station, and it's delayed".

Turns out, for whatever reason, Comcast is taking the analog video and audio) feed from fiber, and delaying it over three seconds. Then, they modulate it to NTSC. The complaints are about, not only just ingress "ghosting", but about seeing a ghost 3+ seconds ahead of the Cable picture. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Last summer TWC here attempted to turn on their SDV system. It was so screwed up that the local stations were freezing, skipping, lipsync errors, etc, that the local stations forced them to put us back on straight analog. After a month, they finally did. It took another 9 months to get the system halfway running. During the May book they did an upgrade and wiped out the system and it was in various states of operation for a week. And just last week parts of the system went completely out for hours at a time.

I don't think this "cable thing" is quite ready yet. :D

On occasion I will rebuild my home network from scratch using a DSL connection to download the Windows Updates (currently 80+ for WXP PRO SP2) +Vista and my Internet speed isn't that bad, however to best support extreme home computing, on-line gaming, networking & streaming video services more bandwidth is always better.
Provided every single router and server connection along the way actually supports those speeds. your connection will only be as fast as the slowest point between you and the server at the other end.

OT, but if you really want to be efficient with your rebuilding, you could just download and back up the install files for all those updates so you don't have to go out and get them every time.

I don't think this "cable thing" is quite ready yet. :D

yea..TW did a cable card upgrade here recently...it promptly killed most of them.. :)

Actually this is something under active consideration at the FCC.

There are two primary factors here:

1) There is a prohibition against "material degradation" of HD signals on a cable system - that basically says that cable currently can't downconvert HD.

2) There is an requirement that that local TV signals “shall be viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber that are connected to a cable system by a cable operator or for which a cable operator provides a connection." Which says that cable must provide a "viewable" signal.

Here is an article in Multichannel News (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6341224.html) about FCC activity.

Here is the FCC Request for Comment (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-71A1.pdf) (actually Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). Note that the date for comment is tomorrow - so we should be seeing activities in the next few days.

From what I have been seeing I would expect the following:

1) For cable systems that have converted to 100% digital, they will have to carry SD & HD versions of the main channel programs of local stations.

2) For cable systems that have not coverted to 100% digital, they will have to carry local stations in both SD analog and HD digital. Most systems will likely (as FOXeng points out) carry SD in both analog & digital plus carry the HD digital.

3) There will be no regulations relating to "cable channels" (TNT, CNN, etc.).

4) The rules that they create will expire in about 5 years (then everything will be all HD).

The BIG DEBATE will likely be about "must carry" of any sub-channels. Right now, there is no regulation requiring cable to carry any sub-channels. Now, in most situations they are carried - but as a result of negotiations between the station and the cable company.

Are there actually cable boxes that cannot output 480i SD from an HD channel if asked? But, if not, then why bother to carry both a separate SD and HD digital channel?

- Tom

...
Now, post 2/17/2009, I think something akin to this will have to continue for the reasons I stated in my second paragraph. The cablecos will have to either continue an analog channel for those with analog sets with no STB's, or give everyone a STB for every analog only TV set for free to maintain status quo (something the cable box manufacturers hope happens but the bean counters at cablecos don't) and provide a HD channel. Now for most people with analog only sets, they will more than likely see either a letter box version or a center cut version of the station since the cableco will be downconverting the HD signal to 4:3 480i. Now whether that is done in an STB or at the headend is yet to be determined and will be on a system by system basis.

In some cases stations may be willing to maintain a 480i 4:3 fiber version or multicast a SD channel on the DTV signal for cable as some stations do now for those analog only cable viewers. But I know in my area from the local engineers I talk to, they really don't want to continue to maintain separate signal paths of the same signal and they have all stopped sending an SD multicast signal via their DTV channels even though they still maintain a SD fiber feed to TWC, much to the chagrin of TWC who pushed REALLY hard for us all to send them our SD signal via a multicast on our digital OTA channels to make cable's life easier. The stations want to get back to the days of maintaining only one path to everyone. It is cheaper and easier to maintain and upgrade when needed.
....
All of the networks except for NBC and PBS are currently averse to letterboxing on their 4:3 feed, so you would think center-cut would be the norm for downconversion of CBS, FOX, ABC, etc. after the analog cut-off. Now, here's the catch: when you center-cut a 16:9 show, the network bug on the bottom right corner is either chopped in half or gone. It's been at least a decade since networks broadcasted shows without their watermark brand on them. It could be enough motivation for the networks (and I mean the NY/LA headquarters) to continue providing a separate SD 4:3 feed for cable/satellite after the analog cutoff. Just so they have a properly placed bug branding their shows. The easy way, of course, is to letterbox every show that is 16:9 (sports don't apply because the network logo is by the score bug, which is framed for 4:3)

Are there actually cable boxes that cannot output 480i SD from an HD channel if asked? But, if not, then why bother to carry both a separate SD and HD digital channel?

- TomThat's actually the discussion that I was having with bicker1 earlier today (on the previous page). (http://broadband.motorola.com/consumers/products/dct700/downloads/DCT700.pdf) I don't think there are any SD boxes that can downconvert HD. It sure appears that the Moto unit cited is not one that can.

I don't think this "cable thing" is quite ready yet. :D

It's about as ready as broadcasters were a couple of years ago to deal with all the complications of HD/DTV transmission......

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. :D :D :D

All of the networks except for NBC and PBS are currently averse to letterboxing on their 4:3 feed, so you would think center-cut would be the norm for downconversion of CBS, FOX, ABC, etc. after the analog cut-off. Now, here's the catch: when you center-cut a 16:9 show, the network bug on the bottom right corner is either chopped in half or gone.

There's an easy solution to that problem: move the network bug into the 4:3 safe area of the 16:9 image. That's what the CW does, and the WB before them.

Huh? Does FiOS have some magical "unlimited bandwidth" capability?

All FiOS is, is FTTH (Fiber to the Home), where Cable TV is currently FTTN (Fiber to the Node, or you could say "Fiber to the Neighborhood"). Both are carrying the same CATV-style signals, in the same bandwidth. FiOS just hangs the fiber node on your house, and powers it from your wiring, while FTTN puts a node in somebody's yard nearby. FiOS may be able to offer "All Digital" sooner than established Cable TV companies, but that's the main difference.FiOS has the big advantage of not having to split the 860MHz of bandwidth available on the coax between Internet, phone, and TV like cable does. As cable providers bump their speeds higher and higher (some Comcast systems offer 16/2, and some Cox systems offer 15/2), that really starts to eat into available bandwidth pretty quick. Phone obviously doesn't need nearly as much bandwidth as data, but it can't be oversubscribed to the degree that Internet service is either.

There's an easy solution to that problem: move the network bug into the 4:3 safe area of the 16:9 image. That's what the CW does, and the WB before them.

I really hope they don't.

But if you look at the spec sheet (http://broadband.motorola.com/consumers/products/dct700/downloads/DCT700.pdf) it says nothing about downconverting 720p or 1080i to 480i. I would think it would if it had that capability. Any other non-HD cable box that I am familiar with (mostly SA stuff) does not downconvert.I think you're reading too much into what is and isn't mentioned. Let's find out for real whether the DCH-700 does or doesn't before we make any conclusions.

QAM is simply the modulation technique. 264 QAM is the most used. They put 12-15 SD channels on a single QAM or 2-3 HD channels on a QAM.Yes, that's correct.

It's about as ready as broadcasters were a couple of years ago to deal with all the complications of HD/DTV transmission......

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. :D :D :D

I have said it for a long time digital, in ANY form, is not quite ready. I have even quoted a line from an other engineer from 2002 that digital TV is a science project not quite ready!. I just really like that line a lot, but can't take credit for it, even though I have repeated it many times since!

I'm gonna add that one to our radio CE's favorite: "Digital TV is just a technology in search of a market".

FiOS has the big advantage of not having to split the 860MHz of bandwidth available on the coax between Internet, phone, and TV like cable does. As cable providers bump their speeds higher and higher (some Comcast systems offer 16/2, and some Cox systems offer 15/2), that really starts to eat into available bandwidth pretty quick. Phone obviously doesn't need nearly as much bandwidth as data, but it can't be oversubscribed to the degree that Internet service is either.

If that's the case, then they must be putting phone and internet on a second wavelength on the fiber. And, if so, Cable TV should be able to do exactly the same thing. As a matter of fact, they could expand their TV services, too, by offering another tier on a second wavelength.....sort of "Cable A"/"Cable B".

Remember, all the MCVP (Multi-channel Video Providers) read the same papers, study from the same books, and buy from the same manufacturers. No magic.

Even if the FCC asked for "more money", do you think they would get it with what is in the White House?

I think you're reading too much into what is and isn't mentioned. Let's find out for real whether the DCH-700 does or doesn't before we make any conclusions.I agree with the 2nd part but think it is premature (and incorrect) to assume that because it has a QAM tuner that it will downconvert HD to SD. There were a lot of SD digital cable boxes out there that did not downconvert HD, so it does not appear logical to assume that lower cost boxes would include this function.

Here's a link to a message indicating that the old version of the box, the DCT-700, does downconvert digital to analog:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6554950&&#post6554950

Even if the FCC asked for "more money", do you think they would get it with what is in the White House?Or what may come? Be careful what you wish for.

If that's the case, then they must be putting phone and internet on a second wavelength on the fiber. And, if so, Cable TV should be able to do exactly the same thing. As a matter of fact, they could expand their TV services, too, by offering another tier on a second wavelength.....sort of "Cable A"/"Cable B".

Remember, all the MCVP (Multi-channel Video Providers) read the same papers, study from the same books, and buy from the same manufacturers. No magic.
Phone and Internet are indeed on a separate wavelength on the fiber. Cable wouldn't be able to just add more frequency since the distance loss above 860MHz or 1GHz is just too high to make it feasible. Some older cable systems (Charter in the LA area comes to mind) actually do have A/B sides to their cable, but this is due to upgrading by installing a totally separate system while leaving the existing one in place. The B side is the original 350 or 450MHz system, and the A side is the new 860MHz system. Before the shift to digital cable as the primary service, the A side was filled with the most popular channels and all the digital services, and the B side had a lot of PPV, ethnic programming, and lower interest English channels. This is obviously a suboptimal solution since it requires 2 separate cable runs and special boxes (Charter used analog General Instruments boxes with 2 inputs and a builtin A/B switch). Now that digital is so popular, all the low interest, PPV, and premium channels have been moved to digital and the B side basically abandoned. I suppose some enterprising cable company could add a second 860 or 1000 system alongside their existing one, but it would require rewiring everything from the node to the receiver. They will speed up the process of killing all non-basic analog channels, and once all that bandwidth is gone, they will go the route of D* and E* and move to the next generation of compression technologies.

I have said it for a long time digital, in ANY form, is not quite ready. I have even quoted a line from an other engineer from 2002 that digital TV is a science project not quite ready!ATSC transmission is having growing pains, but analog production and post production have been obsolete for a good long time. That's even true for home video. Anaolg satellite transmission is still used, but is vastly inferior to good digital.

Here's a link to a message indicating that the old version of the box, the DCT-700, does downconvert digital to analog:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6554950&&#post6554950

I think that poster used that you referred to was only talking about converting the digital QAM signal to an analog NTSC one, and was not talking about scan rate conversion, which would be required for the box to tune HD. I looked at the link you provided, and at other links I found in those threads, and there was no suggestion that these boxes would decode an HD bitstream and convert 720p or 1080i to 480i.

Okay. So I understand better: You're saying is that that box would be fine for converting SD digital to analog, but not HD digital to analog? I wonder, assuming that the cable companies simulcast a head-end-downconverted signal along with the HD signal (which would only effectively take up 1.1 'channel', rather than simulcasting separate HD and analog signals, which would effectively take up 2 'channels'), if that would satisfy the FCC requirement.

Okay. So I understand better: You're saying is that that box would be fine for converting SD digital to analog, but not HD digital to analog? I wonder, assuming that the cable companies simulcast a head-end-downconverted signal along with the HD signal (which would only effectively take up 1.1 'channel', rather than simulcasting separate HD and analog signals, which would effectively take up 2 'channels'), if that would satisfy the FCC requirement.

The Near Future:

Cable will receive an ATSC signal, and convert it somewhere in the distribution chain to an NTSC SD product before it enters the subscriber premesis. There will be a bandwidth choke point somewhere, but the closer to the end user, the less of an impact on overall bandwidth management. It will of course also "pass" the ATSC version.

Cable (and satellite as well) will continue to offer two distinct versions for presentation to the premesis UNTIL it is ready to invest in placing set top boxes at all required receiver locations. If "sidecar" channels become must-carries, the landscape may change.

The Near Future:

Cable will receive an ATSC signal, and convert it somewhere in the distribution chain to an NTSC SD product before it enters the subscriber premesis. There will be a bandwidth choke point somewhere, but the closer to the end user, the less of an impact on overall bandwidth management. It will of course also "pass" the ATSC version.

Cable (and satellite as well) will continue to offer two distinct versions for presentation to the premesis UNTIL it is ready to invest in placing set top boxes at all required receiver locations. If "sidecar" channels become must-carries, the landscape may change.
Partly on topic here. I recall reading something where the FCC wanted cable companies to continue to offer analog channels (perhaps even after the 2/09 cut-off) so that basic cable subscribers would still be able to get their analog channels without the use of an "expensive" STB.

So for this to happen after 2/09, wouldn't the cable companies have to take the ATSC broadcast feed and convert it to SD-NTSC? There would be no need for a SD-Digital version of the channel, only SD-NTSC and HD-QAM.

One of the problems that I see is that the cable company would then be guilty of down-rezzing and not passing the ATSC channel untouched. I guess that as long as they offered both, they would be exempt.

All in all, it's quite confusing to follow the thinking of the FCC. On one hand, they want cable companies to continue to provide analog channels for the Basic Tier after the cutoff. But then they grant Verizon the waiver, provided that they commit to going 100% digital. WTF?!?!?!

ft

The Near Future: Cable will receive an ATSC signal, and convert it somewhere in the distribution chain to an NTSC SD product before it enters the subscriber premesis."NTSC SD product"? I guess I'll just have to disagree. That would be a wasteful approach.

Partly on topic here. I recall reading something where the FCC wanted cable companies to continue to offer analog channels (perhaps even after the 2/09 cut-off) so that basic cable subscribers would still be able to get their analog channels without the use of an "expensive" STB.Yes, that was floated as an idea earlier this year by one of the members of the commission, and it was promptly shot-down, as far as I can tell -- it never made it into any of the orders issued and surely isn't reflected in any of the decisions that have been made. As far as I can recall, the actual decisions that the FCC has made this year all are biased towards all-digital cable systems and therefore against analog signals.

All in all, it's quite confusing to follow the thinking of the FCC. On one hand, they want cable companies to continue to provide analog channels for the Basic Tier after the cutoff. But then they grant Verizon the waiver, provided that they commit to going 100% digital. WTF?!?!?!And there you see the very clear dichotomy between someone's trial balloon ("continue to provide analog channels") and the actual decisions that the FCC has made ("commit to going 100% digital").

Partly on topic here. I recall reading something where the FCC wanted cable companies to continue to offer analog channels (perhaps even after the 2/09 cut-off) so that basic cable subscribers would still be able to get their analog channels without the use of an "expensive" STB.

So for this to happen after 2/09, wouldn't the cable companies have to take the ATSC broadcast feed and convert it to SD-NTSC? There would be no need for a SD-Digital version of the channel, only SD-NTSC and HD-QAM.

One of the problems that I see is that the cable company would then be guilty of down-rezzing and not passing the ATSC channel untouched. I guess that as long as they offered both, they would be exempt.

All in all, it's quite confusing to follow the thinking of the FCC. On one hand, they want cable companies to continue to provide analog channels for the Basic Tier after the cutoff. But then they grant Verizon the waiver, provided that they commit to going 100% digital. WTF?!?!?!

ft

Verizon service is all digital and always has been. Just like satellite. Every TV gets a box. They have never offered a "direct connect" solution.

Verizon service is all digital and always has been. Just like satellite. Every TV gets a box. They have never offered a "direct connect" solution.
I don't think that's true. I was told that channels 1 through 50 are analog and can be received using a NTSC cable-ready tuner.

ft

Yes, that was floated as an idea earlier this year by one of the members of the commission, and it was promptly shot-down, as far as I can tell -- it never made it into any of the orders issued and surely isn't reflected in any of the decisions that have been made. As far as I can recall, the actual decisions that the FCC has made this year all are biased towards all-digital cable systems and therefore against analog signals.

And there you see the very clear dichotomy between someone's trial balloon ("continue to provide analog channels") and the actual decisions that the FCC has made ("commit to going 100% digital").
It's all very interesting. It certainly seems like the FCC floats a bunch of ideas out there.

I still don't see why the FCC would want to mandate/persuade the providers into going all-digital. I can see why a cable company would want to (save bandwidth), but why would the FCC be interested? Maybe they want everyone to go digital all at once so that everyone gets screwed. ;)

It certainly seems like the FCC floats a bunch of ideas out there.Well, don't think of "the FCC" as if it were one thing. The FCC is an agency and a commission, and the commission is made of individuals. Each commissioner can have their own perspective (and often that's what you'll see -- one person's personal preference) expressed in proposals and such. However, that matters little. What matters a lot is what the commission, as a group, decides.

I still don't see why the FCC would want to mandate/persuade the providers into going all-digital.I struggled with that myself, but I think it helps to remember that the FCC does not exist solely to ensure the world conforms to the viewers' best interests. Most federal agencies have a multi-part charter, required to operate in the collective best interest of citizens, government operations, businesses, and our relationships with other countries. Often, the needs of government, business or international relations trump that of individual citizens, or the needs of combinations of those three stakeholders trump that of individual citizens.

"NTSC SD product"? I guess I'll just have to disagree. That would be a wasteful approach.

Disagree all you want, but that is EXACTLY what is going to happen. There is no other way to do it.

Well, don't think of "the FCC" as if it were one thing. The FCC is an agency and a commission, and the commission is made of individuals. Each commissioner can have their own perspective (and often that's what you'll see -- one person's personal preference) expressed in proposals and such. However, that matters little. What matters a lot is what the commission, as a group, decides.

I struggled with that myself, but I think it helps to remember that the FCC does not exist solely to ensure the world conforms to the viewers' best interests. Most federal agencies have a multi-part charter, required to operate in the collective best interest of citizens, government operations, businesses, and our relationships with other countries. Often, the needs of government, business or international relations trump that of individual citizens, or the needs of combinations of those three stakeholders trump that of individual citizens.

You keep forgetting one important point. It makes no sense from a frequency spectrum standpoint to mandate EVERYTHING be digital if it isn't transmitted through the air. That is what the FCC is moving to, not having any analog OTA of any type in the not too distant future because digital gives a spectrum savings over analog. There is finite OTA spectrum and more and more use for it. The only way to get efficent use is to use mroe efficent modes and digital does that. What happens on a wire doesn't hurt or help the OTA world when it comes to spectrum savings because what is on one wire can be completely different in an other wire. Not so OTA.

"NTSC SD product"? I guess I'll just have to disagree. That would be a wasteful approach.

Wasteful, I'll tell you what's wasteful !!! ion. TBN. Shop At Home. LPTV. Without this sludge, the FCC could give REAL TV stations better coverage and collapse the core TV spectrum even more.

Especially "ion" ;) ;) ;)

I don't think that's true. I was told that channels 1 through 50 are analog and can be received using a NTSC cable-ready tuner.Fios channels 2 (not 1 -- "Fios 1" is only on digital) through 49 are analog/digital simulcast. In addition, there may be extra channels in that range that are only available on the digital side (like some of our PEGs).

Verizon has so far done a very poor job of educating their CSRs and techs on this matter. I always end up having to explain it to them. (And often, they still don't seem to get it...)

Verizon has so far done a very poor job of educating their CSRs and techs

IMHO, that problem is not exclusive to Verizon.... :rolleyes:

I have said it for a long time digital, in ANY form, is not quite ready. I have even quoted a line from an other engineer from 2002 that digital TV is a science project not quite ready!. I just really like that line a lot, but can't take credit for it, even though I have repeated it many times since!

Hasn't that been the case for many prior broadcast technologies, as well.

For example, the color TV system that was approved for use in this country in 1953 was so complex that early color TV owners joked that you had to buy a service technician along with your new color TV. And we didn't really see reliable, consistent reproduction of color tints in the home until sometime in the seventies -- as a kid, I can remember changing channels and getting slightly green faces on one channel, with the next channel being too red, etc.

UHF television was introduced the previous year, and was even more problematic. The FCC allowed stations to broadcast with 1 megawatt ERP, but it was years before transmitter manufacturers were able to build powerful enough transmitters to actually allow any station to broadcast with that much power. Early UHF tuners had poor sensitivity, high noise, and a tendency to drift. The FCC was granted the power to mandate UHF reception in new televisions in 1963 -- and was still fine tuning the criteria for determining "adequate" UHF capability in televisions ten years later.

Another example: FM audio broadcasting was moved to its current band in 1946. Like UHF television, drift was a real problem in home tuners for some years after this move.

And yet one more example: Cell phones have been around for how many years now? Somewhere over twenty years...and cell phone users still have to deal with substantandard connections and dropped calls on a regular basis.

So while I agree with you that digital television is a work in progress, I think that it is at least as far along at this point as was the case for many other technologies when they were at an equal stage of "newness". That observation, of course, is from my viewpoint -- using digital TV technology as a viewer, as opposed to being a broadcaster.

You keep forgetting one important point. It makes no sense from a frequency spectrum standpoint to mandate EVERYTHING be digital if it isn't transmitted through the air.No, not forgetting that. As I indicated in the message you replied to, I struggled with trying to figure out why the FCC would do this. My conclusion, which you might not have gathered from what I wrote, was that the FCC was pushing all-digital to serve interests apart from the interests of viewers in general or the government. The needs of business, for example, are supported by pushing all-digital (because it supports the sales of new digital hardware technology).

Fios channels 2 (not 1 -- "Fios 1" is only on digital) through 49 are analog/digital simulcast. In addition, there may be extra channels in that range that are only available on the digital side (like some of our PEGs).

Verizon has so far done a very poor job of educating their CSRs and techs on this matter. I always end up having to explain it to them. (And often, they still don't seem to get it...)

Ooops, I meant to say AT&T U-verse, not Verizon FIOS.... :o :o :o

Cable will receive an ATSC signal, and convert it somewhere in the distribution chain to an NTSC SD product before it enters the subscriber premesis. There will be a bandwidth choke point somewhere, but the closer to the end user, the less of an impact on overall bandwidth management.So how does this benefit a digital cable TV subscriber?Verizon service is all digital and always has been. Just like satellite. Every TV gets a box. They have never offered a "direct connect" solution.Is this really true? Because it would be a potential deal-killer for me.

So how does this benefit a digital cable TV subscriber?

If the conversion is done at the head end, there will be a digital version available for digital TV's. If the conversion is at the STB, the digital TV will use the same digital signal the STB does like now, the QAM channel. A direct connect digital TV uses the very same QAM signal the STB uses.

Don't worry, the cablecos WILL NOT leave the digital TV owners out. As a matter of fact, they are COUNTING on your dollars to keep them profitable.

The needs of business, for example, are supported by pushing all-digital (because it supports the sales of new digital hardware technology).

And who supports business? The consumer. Without the consumer, you can have all the technology in the world and you have no business. It behooves businesses to be sure they have what the consumers want.

Right now consumers want wireless devices of all types and that takes spectrum. The only way to get more is free up more. You have to tailor the usage to the spectrum. Cell type services work very well at 700 MHz and up but are lousy at 54 MHz and hence cell type services don't want 54 MHz. Not only do you have to have the spectrum available, but the right slice of spectrum available for the usage. And the upper TV channels is where wireless businesses what to be, spectrum wise. It works for what they want to do.

Everything in a spectrum sense, is dependent on other spectrum uses. It is a science all to itself.

So how does this benefit a digital cable TV subscriber?

If you're like many, you have a potpourri of TV technology in your household. While I have the HD DVR on the 46" LCD and a CableCard (sucks) on the 32" LCD, there are two additional analog CRTs that JUST have an analog connection. That's the benefit of supporting both legacy and new technology.

Is this really true? Because it would be a potential deal-killer for me.

See correction above your post. Apparently not true. My bad.

And who supports business?The consumer supports business by accepting the offers business makes, not by having consumerist-biased offers unilaterally imposed on business.

Without the consumer, you can have all the technology in the world and you have no business.And without business, you can have all the technology in the world and the consumers will still not be able to benefit from it. It is a two-way street (and with government and international relations, it is a four-way street), and the FCC is obligated to support the needs of all four, and balance those needs when the directly conflict, which is quite often.

Remember, also, that the beneficiary of the "all-digital cable" push, as far as I can see, isn't cable companies, but cable equipment manufacturers. So even within each of these four constituencies there could be conflicting needs, or could at least be non-universal needs being addressed.

It behooves businesses to be sure they have what the consumers want.It behooves businesses to be sure that they have what consumers are willing to pay most for.

I still don't see why the FCC would want to mandate/persuade the providers into going all-digital.
I struggled with that myself....

As usual, it's all about the money.

Existing use of RF spectrum (not just for TV) is very inefficient. The FCC decided to reallocate RF usage to maximise it, and using digital technology plays a big part.

Now the money part, once the reallocation is complete, the government plans on selling used spectrum for revenue.

http://www.dtvcoalition.com/images/media/RS22218.pdf

Ken: This discussion was about why the FCC would be pushing for all-digital cable systems -- not all-digital OTA. How does making better use of spectrum in the coax benefit anyone?

And my guess was that it fosters sales (and therefore innovation) of equipment by makers of STBs and such.

As usual, it's all about the money.

Existing use of RF spectrum (not just for TV) is very inefficient. The FCC decided to reallocate RF usage to maximise it, and using digital technology plays a big part.

Now the money part, once the reallocation is complete, the government plans on selling used spectrum for revenue.

http://www.dtvcoalition.com/images/media/RS22218.pdf


Of course as opposed to selling the spectrum they could start renting or highly taxing existing spectrum usage.

- Tom

Yes, that was floated as an idea earlier this year by one of the members of the commission, and it was promptly shot-down, as far as I can tell -- it never made it into any of the orders issued and surely isn't reflected in any of the decisions that have been made.I've been out of town the last day, so sorry for the lateness of this comment.

I actually made this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11035486&&#post11035486) just a few days ago. It is not idea that was floated around the FCC - it is in fact Proposed Rulemaking (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-71A1.pdf) right now. Comments were due Monday and Cable's Negative Comments (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6461135.html) have become known.

How does making better use of spectrum in the coax benefit anyone?It allows more channels to be sent, especially HD. Consumers will increasingly demand more HD channels, and eliminating inefficient analog channels frees up spectrum. There's not an infinite amount of bandwidth on coax. VOD will tax available bandwidth even more.

Maybe I'm not reading that article correctly: the cable co's are upset at the idea of dual carriage, but they're exempt (if I have it right) from this rule if they are all digital by Feb 2009?
Why bother fighting about it, they will be all digital eventually, might as well go all in and get it over with, and this dual carriage thing would be a moot point. I would imagine if they come very close and have the operations in effect to bring them into compliance within that year, the FCC would probably cough up a waiver. I know it can be a hard transistion, but keep getting the feeling that some groups are just dragging their feet on the whole all-digital issue.

I actually made this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11035486&&#post11035486) just a few days ago. It is not idea that was floated around the FCC - it is in fact Proposed Rulemaking (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-71A1.pdf) right now. Comments were due Monday and Cable's Negative Comments (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6461135.html) have become known.Yup, this time it has gone further, but also note that it includes a provision I don't recall from the earlier trial balloon: An exception for any cable system willing to go all-digital. This again shows the FCC's hand in terms of their intention: Pushing cable companies to go all-digital (i.e., drop analog altogether). In this forum, there has been some significant speculation about why the FCC would care about bandwidth efficiency in the coax. The only thing I could come up with is that they're trying to provide support for sales of advanced electronics. >shrug<

It allows more channels to be sent, especially HD. Consumers will increasingly demand more HD channels, and eliminating inefficient analog channels frees up spectrum. There's not an infinite amount of bandwidth on coax. VOD will tax available bandwidth even more.Okay, but I still wonder why the FCC would see the need to provide such rich incentives for cable systems to do this. Given that the cable systems could actually charge for extra services (including more cable Internet bandwidth, incidentally), it seems they wouldn't need to be prompted to do this. If anything, I see the FCC giving the cable systems cover -- the cable systems can now claim that the FCC made them do it.

Maybe I'm not reading that article correctly: the cable co's are upset at the idea of dual carriage, but they're exempt (if I have it right) from this rule if they are all digital by Feb 2009?You've read it correctly. Just keep in mind that that's just a proposal. No decision has been made.

Does the FCC require new TV sets to have QAM tuners as well as ATSC tuners?

Does the FCC require new TV sets to have QAM tuners as well as ATSC tuners?No, but there are certain requirements if the manufacturer claims that the set is "Digital Cable Ready".

I thought I remember reading something about there being very few ATSC tuners that don't also support QAM, though many ATSC tuners don't actually mention that capability in their specs.... does anyone else recall reading that?

I thought I remember reading something about there being very few ATSC tuners that don't also support QAM, though many ATSC tuners don't actually mention that capability in their specs.... does anyone else recall reading that?There have been some (mostly cheaper) digital sets that actually had QAM tuners but did not advertise them (probably did not meet the "DCR" specs) and even did not cover setting it up in the User Manual. Of course, these sets could only receive QAM channels that were "in-the-clear" and (By The Way) could not receive scan rates that they weren't built for.

There have been some (mostly cheaper) digital sets that actually had QAM tuners but did not advertise them (probably did not meet the "DCR" specs) and even did not cover setting it up in the User Manual. Of course, these sets could only receive QAM channels that were "in-the-clear" and (By The Way) could not receive scan rates that they weren't built for.I bought a 32" Audiovox LCD this year with that "undocumented feature". I was really surprised when I scanned "all channels" on cable and got a lot of digitals, including my unscrambled HD locals.

If the FCC had also required TV sets to be "digital cable ready" as well as ATSC ready, that would sort of explain why they would want cable companies to go "all digital" (to help justify this rule). But if they haven't then I'm as confused as this as the next guy about them encouraging cable to go all digital.

If the FCC had also required TV sets to be "digital cable ready" as well as ATSC ready, that would sort of explain why they would want cable companies to go "all digital" (to help justify this rule). But if they haven't then I'm as confused as this as the next guy about them encouraging cable to go all digital.As you may know, I watch FCC actions in relation to cable pretty closely - and I am stumped too (in regards to their apparent "push" for all-digital cable).

As Cable goes "all digital", it frees up Cable bandwidth, that can be used for more services.

PAY SERVICES.

TAXABLE PAY SERVICES!

Check you bill. Governments love those.

I wrote and posted this in Hot Off The Press, but thought it would be interesting info for this thread as well:

FCC considers stepped-up education about analog shutoff

Written and posted by dline

With fewer than 569 days to go before analog TV broadcasting ends, the FCC says it may need more rules to educate the public about the upcoming switch to digital TV.

Earlier today, the commission published a notice (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-128A1.pdf) seeking comment on those proposed rules.

Among other things, the rules may require periodic public service announcements and even crawled messages over broadcast programming. Today's notice didn't specify how often these would run, but it suggested that broadcasters could be required to report their consumer education efforts quarterly to the FCC.

In addition, manufacturers of TVs and TV-related equipment may be required to include information about the digital transition, and retailers participating in the subsidized converter program may be required to "detail their employee training and consumer information plans," according to today's notice. Currently, retailers only need to place a "consumer alert" label next to any analog-only TV set remaining on the shelves.

"We should have one overriding goal in this proceeding -- to make sure that no over-the-air television viewer wakes up to a blank screen on February 18, 2009," said Commissioner Michael J. Copps in a statement. But according to a public television trade group, "61 percent of consumers said they had no idea that the transition is taking place," Copps added.

But it isn't just Copps who is upset. Some members of Congress, who passed the analog cutoff date in the first place, are giving the FCC an earful.

Last month, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, sent the FCC a letter (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-128A2.doc) criticizing the commission's "lack of leadership, direction, and focus" for "jeopardizing the transition."

(Source: www.fcc.gov, where you'll find links to the notice of proposed rulemaking and the letter from Rep. Dingell.)

Did anyone notice that the FCC NPRM was only 8 pages long, but it took 22 pages of paper to hold it, by the time the "addendums", "appendixes", and "exemptions" were added?

That's why we don't need the FCC to get deeply involved in this effort. Broadcasters don't have enough staff to do the campaign properly now, we certainly won't have staff enough to do it when you add tons of paperwork, filings, and penalties.

I did like their idea, though, of making the Cable, Satellite, and Fiber Optic MCVPs have to participate. It would be nice to "call them to the table" with their plans. Make them tell the Public what is really going on, and what it means to them.

But, of course, the MCVPs will simply cry "But, it'll make us hafta raise yer rates! Boo, hoo!", and that will be the end of their required participation.

You know, the number one question question I get from fellow broadcasters, is, "Where do we get the inventory?" (i.e.:, what budget pays for the time that the PSAs will fill?). I hope that the FCC will consider info about the end of analog TV to be a "public issue", and, therefore, qualified to be a part of our PSA/Public Service obligation. Maybe, let us replace some of those other PSAs we already donate.

As I said before publicizing the cutoff now is an exercise in frustration. If people are informed of the cutoff they can do nothing about it now. The cheap STB and coupons will not be available until Jan 2008.

They are informed of the cutoff but can do nothing. All you will do is make people frustrated and thus mad.

Wait until the STB and Coupons are available THEN start the publicity campain.

Rick R

Did anyone notice that the FCC NPRM was only 8 pages long, but it took 22 pages of paper to hold it, by the time the "addendums", "appendixes", and "exemptions" were added?Yes, but that is pretty typical of this sort of document from the FCC.

One REAL problem here is that there are too many questions that are still not answered - and the FCC will likely take too much time acting on. I believe that, at the current time, these include (I'm sure there are others):
1) Who will be providing the low cost converters?
2) How much will they actually cost?
3) What will MVPDs (Cable, Satellite, Apartment Buildings, etc.) be doing on Feb 17, 2009? The FCC just (May 4) put out their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this critical subject. We will be lucky if we see a ruling this year.

If the public is to be provided with "education" they ought to have the complete story together to tell them!

I see where you're coming from, Ken.

From what I've seen, it'll more than likely be similar to parts of the children's programming rules, which require you to file a report showing how you've served children and periodically tell viewers where they can see the report. Only in this case, you're telling the viewers about analog shutdown, then filing a report telling the FCC about your efforts.

What constitutes "effort," though, is still being hashed out. It may be a PSA or it may be periodic crawled messages (though hopefully not on the HD channel; we already know!) ;)

The concern remains, though, that the current education effort is too scattershot, with the FCC, the NAB, the CEA, the broadcasters, the retailers, and other groups all doing a little -- yet a majority of Americans still doesn't know analog TV is literally going kaput.

What's more, Congressman Dingell notes in his letter that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin didn't even want primary responsibility for consumer education. He felt that responsibility should be shouldered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration -- not exactly the first name Americans think of when they think of TV (though I hear they'll be the ones handing out the converter vouchers). What's more, Dingell notes that the FCC asked for only $1.5 million (yes, that's "million" with an "m") for its education efforts, while authorities in Berlin, Germany spent nearly a million dollars to educate about one one-hundredth as many people about their recent digital switch.

As I said before publicizing the cutoff now is an exercise in frustration. If people are informed of the cutoff they can do nothing about it now. The cheap STB and coupons will not be available until Jan 2008.

They are informed of the cutoff but can do nothing. All you will do is make people frustrated and thus mad.

Wait until the STB and Coupons are available THEN start the publicity campain.

Rick RThat may be the case now, but January 2008 is less than half a year away and yet there's still no agreement on what needs to be done, how much needs to be done, or who needs to do it. The planning needs to begin now even if the actual campaign doesn't.

Also, that argument only applies to the converters. Those buying new TVs and wanting to keep them around more than 568 days from now are going to want to know about what those TVs can and can't do.

What's more, Congressman Dingell notes in his letter that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin didn't even want primary responsibility for consumer education. He felt that responsibility should be shouldered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration -- not exactly the first name Americans think of when they think of TV (though I hear they'll be the ones handing out the converter vouchers). What's more, Dingell notes that the FCC asked for only $1.5 million (yes, that's "million" with an "m") for its education efforts, while authorities in Berlin, Germany spent nearly a million dollars to educate about one one-hundredth as many people about their recent digital switch.

That's not entirely fair to the FCC. Congress assigned the DTV convertor role to NTIA.

Admittedly, there is more that the FCC could and should have done. The analog TV warning labels came at least 3 years too late. Nonetheless, the FCC's strict enforcement of the digital tuner mandate will go a long way towards a successful DTV transition.

Now if only they'd knock some heads together for those broadcasters who still don't have a digital signal on the air over four years after the May 1st, 2003 non-commercial station deadline... :mad:

I went over the NPRM yesterday, and made some notes. I'm afraid that a crawl would just encourage people to change the channel...we get enough flak over "bugs". Of course, a nice little animated "bug" during the hourly I.D. might be cool.

Any crawl would have to be on ALL channels, not just the OTA analog, since different systems use different means to receive programming. Some Cable TV systems get a direct feed, some take the analog, some take the HDTV and downconvert it. Out west, here, many analog translators get HDTV and downconvert. So, the potential for mass confusion is great.

I think every Multichannel Video Provider, whether it be Cable TV, satellite TV, FiOS, MATV, Private Cable, etc should be required to provide information to every customer. This should also be extended to all Property Managers/Owners ("landlords"). Since every "customer" gets a monthly, computer-generated bill, it would not be hard for them to add a statement on the bill, indicating what levels of service the individual customer is receiving, and how they will be affected. That, every month for a year, plus a one-time mailing of a brochure, should help.

OMG, the world will come to an end. Maybe all these huge masses of uneducated people will return to family hour around the radio or reading books (assuming they can read)? Holy smokes Batman!!

I went over the NPRM yesterday, and made some notes. I'm afraid that a crawl would just encourage people to change the channel...we get enough flak over "bugs". Of course, a nice little animated "bug" during the hourly I.D. might be cool.


ALL forms of advertising encourage people to change the channel. That's why we mostly don't have people watching 24/7 ads. But one way or another it's going to have to happen and I think annoying folks somewhat with a crawl is a good idea, at least in an accelerated fashion in the last few months. All broadcasters could agree to a certain amount of crawl and other intrusiveness, and then of course try to find ways to cheat a bit. And when the pain threshhold of the phone calls became too great you could scale it back a bit.

But I think we have to accept that some of the 'advertising' will be dedicated to this.

- Tom

... THE FCC REQUIRES THIS NOTIFACTION ... YOUR DAMN TV WILL SOON STOP WORKING ... ASK SOMEBODY ABOUT THIS OR SEE WWW.WTF-TV.GOV ...

I agree that blaming the FCC is just-plain-stupid. It is like the IRS blaming you because your neighbor failed to pay his income taxes.

I went over the NPRM yesterday, and made some notes. I'm afraid that a crawl would just encourage people to change the channel...we get enough flak over "bugs". Of course, a nice little animated "bug" during the hourly I.D. might be cool.

Any crawl would have to be on ALL channels, not just the OTA analog, since different systems use different means to receive programming. Some Cable TV systems get a direct feed, some take the analog, some take the HDTV and downconvert it. Out west, here, many analog translators get HDTV and downconvert. So, the potential for mass confusion is great.

that's a problem. the ideal would be to say to analog OTA viewers only "this channel is moving to digital-only broadcast in two months. . . go get a converter box now!" now if you put that on digital channels, then it creates confusion... maybe in February 2009 you'll "take over" the analog transmitters with a 30-second emergency-like message on color bars every hour or so.

I think it really won't be necessary, though. there will be such a flood of newspaper, magazine, 6 o'clock news, PSAs, in-store ads going "are you ready for the digital TV transition?" that you'd have to be under a rock to not hear about it.

I just hope those little set top boxes have the stability and correct settings (aspect ratio conversion, closed captioning, etc) out of the box. One year seems like an awful short time to iron out any kinks in the software. Those boxes should be out today. As it is, stations might be getting quite a few "tech support" phone calls.

I know a good way to have a PSA about the conversion.

LETTERBOX THIS YEAR'S SUPER BOWL.

Fox could save SOME $ by having JUST HD camera and they could have a brief presntiona during the game when folks ask WHY the black bars?

that's a problem. the ideal would be to say to analog OTA viewers only "this channel is moving to digital-only broadcast in two months. . . go get a converter box now!" now if you put that on digital channels, then it creates confusion... maybe in February 2009 you'll "take over" the analog transmitters with a 30-second emergency-like message on color bars every hour or so.

I think it really won't be necessary, though. there will be such a flood of newspaper, magazine, 6 o'clock news, PSAs, in-store ads going "are you ready for the digital TV transition?" that you'd have to be under a rock to not hear about it.

I just hope those little set top boxes have the stability and correct settings (aspect ratio conversion, closed captioning, etc) out of the box. One year seems like an awful short time to iron out any kinks in the software. Those boxes should be out today. As it is, stations might be getting quite a few "tech support" phone calls.

Over here in the UK the plan is to burn message captions in to the analogue services on a region-by-region basis prior to switch off. These will say something like "This analogue broadcast will cease on xx/yy/zz. To continue to view this service please switch to a digital broadcast. For more information on this ring 0800 xxx yyy"

We are switching over region-by-region over a 5 year period - with the first regions losing analogue in less than 80 days, and final analogue switch-off due to end in 2012. (This will allow the caption insertion equipment - which I believe is housed at the transmitter - to move around the UK!)

We've been through this before in the 80s, when the two 405/50i B&W VHF services (BBC One and ITV simulcasts) were finally switched off. AIUI they had simple burned in graphics prior to close-down of the 405 line service.

How much does gasoline cost in the UK (1 liters = 0.264172051 US gallons)? What does your monthly cable bill run? Do you receive any digital/HD programming from the US?

How much does gasoline cost in the UK (1 liters = 0.264172051 US gallons)? What does your monthly cable bill run? Do you receive any digital/HD programming from the US?

Currently the exchange rate is around 2US$ to 1GB£

UK unleaded petrol is close to the magic £1/litre mark (our fuel is relatively highly taxed compared to other countries) - though I use public transport for most of my travel needs as I work in London, and the mainline train and tube services are quicker than driving - and I get to read a paper if I come in by train. In the UK - mainly because we are a tiny country compared to the US (you can never be further than 70 miles from the coast in the UK AIUI!) we favour smaller cars (what we would think of as a normal family car is something like a Ford Focus or a VW Golf - i.e. a 5 door hatchback) and would always expect to get 30+miles per UK gallon. (A UK gallon is approx 4.54 litres - or approx 1.2 US gallons)

I don't have cable - in the UK digital satellite (i.e. Sky) and digital OTA (i.e. Freeview) are massively more popular than cable. AIUI Digital OTA (i.e. Freeview) is now the most popular source of digital programming, very closely followed by Sky Digital satellite (this may also include those who no longer subscribe to Sky but continue to receive FTA and FTV channels), with digital (and the few remaining analogue) cable platforms far less popular. There are also a few IPTV platforms using ADSL (though these are very minor in the scheme of things)


We subscribe to Sky HD (which includes a PVR as standard) - including the Sky Sports and Sky Movies channels - and also have Freeview Digital OTA receivers integrated in most of our TVs, as well as a FTV digital satellite receiver (no subscription) in another room. I have DVB-S and DVB-T cards in my PC to allow me to receive satellite and terrestrial digital OTA unencrypted services (DVB-T is supported by Windows Media Center in XP and Vista)

The main difference between the US and UK AIUI is that in the US you have to subscribe to get your main OTA networks via satellite. In the UK the BBC and ITV are broadcast by the BBC and ITV on satellite in a manner compatible with Sky but in a manner that doesn't require a Sky receiver (i.e. FTA unencrypted) Channel Four and Five, the other main OTA networks, DO require a Sky receiver as they are encrypted for rights reasons (they are on a wider beam) but you can purchase a "Free to View" viewing card for a one-off payment that will allow you to view these services without a subscription.

The HD channels we receive via Sky HD are :

Sky One HD (a simulcast of Sky One with most US shows made in HD shown in HD)
Sky Sports 1 and 2 HD
Sky Movies 1 and 2 HD
Sky Artsworld HD
National Geographic HD
Discovery HD
History Channel HD
(And Sky Box Office 1 and 2 HD as PPV options)

For these channels in HD we pay a supplement of £10 / month.

This is in addition to the SD Sky Entertainment (over a hundred general channels) + Sky Movies (12 channels) + Sky Sports (4 channels) combo - basically the whole package minus niche premium services (like those targeted at ethnic communities) - which includes free Sky + DVR subscription - at £43.50 / month.

BBC HD is also available with a Sky HD receiver - but isn't part of the Sky HD subscription package - and can be received with a FTA HD receiver as it us not encrypted. BBC HD simulcasts shows airing on BBC One SD and BBC Two SD that were made in HD in HD (Planet Earth, Bleak House, Live Earth, Concert for Diana, Wimbledon, Football, Rugby etc.) , as well as US imports like Heroes and some movies, and fills the rest of its air-time with either repeats of stuff that can repeated at low cost (!) or a very well edited BBC HD preview barker. (Which is strangely watchable...)

Discovery HD shows a lot of Discovery US HD material (Sunrise Earth, Festivals of the World etc.) - but it isn't directly equivalent to Discovery HD Theater in the US.

All our HD services are H264 MPEG4 and 1080/50i - we don't have any 720/50p services on satellite in the UK. The quality is pretty high - with not particularly noticable compression artefacts. Most premium HD services are 1920x1080 - BBC HD is 1440x1080 (because most material originates from HDCam which is 1440x1080 on-tape)

In terms of SD channels we get quite a few US-branded services - though most are versioned for the UK. Fox News carries UK adverts (but is otherwise identical), ESPN Classic and ABC1 are originated from the UK and run a specific UK-specific schedule, we get CNN International rather than CNN, and CNBC is a European originated version.

I have DVB-S and DVB-T cards in my PC to allow me to receive satellite and terrestrial digital OTA unencrypted services (DVB-T is supported by Windows Media Center in XP and Vista)
But...But... doesn't that mean you can build your own PVR/DVR system (easily) without a TIVO or Cable DVR subscription? Or a CableLabs certified PC? That would be way too dangerous to put into the hands of Americans. :rolleyes:

But...But... doesn't that mean you can build your own PVR/DVR system (easily) without a TIVO or Cable DVR subscription? Or a CableLabs certified PC? That would be way too dangerous to put into the hands of Americans. :rolleyes:

You can build your own PVR now in US in Media Center. In this case he only talks about free stuff not encrypted. I record free sat and OTA now on my PC every day. Media Center supports ATSC HD for a long time.

But...But... doesn't that mean you can build your own PVR/DVR system (easily) without a TIVO or Cable DVR subscription? Or a CableLabs certified PC? That would be way too dangerous to put into the hands of Americans. :rolleyes:

Yep - but Windows Media Center also supports ATSC OTA cards as well - it is just that because we are SD not HD OTA (apart from the London trials which have now finished) we have more services on our DVB-T OTA platform.

(Some enterprising manufacturers have also designed DVB-S card drivers that spoof MCE and pretend to be DVB-T cards - even allowing for decryption using CI slot CAMs - with registry hacks allowing the satellite EPG to be mapped)

You can build your own PVR now in US in Media Center. In this case he only talks about free stuff not encrypted. I record free sat and OTA now on my PC every day. Media Center supports ATSC HD for a long time.

Yep - the main difference is in the broadcasting landscape - as we are not OTA HD, we're SD, so we have 6 muxes (4x18Mbs and 2x24Mbs currently) nationally carrying multiple SD services, meaning Freeview OTA delivers a larger number of "popular" services than may be the case in some US regions.

The UK is far more network based - with very minor regional variations (BBC One, ITV1 have regional news, and C4/Five have regional ads)

I know a good way to have a PSA about the conversion.

LETTERBOX THIS YEAR'S SUPER BOWL.

Fox could save SOME $ by having JUST HD camera and they could have a brief presntiona during the game when folks ask WHY the black bars?
NBC may try that in 2009, just two weeks before analog shuts down. In fact, SuperBowl would be an excellent venue to advertise the digital transition. "Did you know that next year's superbowl will only be available as a digital broadcast?"

But, for 2008 FOX has the SuperBowl and they will never letterbox it. Have you ever seen a letterboxed show on FOX? I didn't think so. They actually cropped Firefly, even though it was framed for 16:9.

I believe that I saw the requirement for the low cost converter that the box be capable of doing either a center cut or a letterbox of the 16x9 image and that the selection of which would be from a flag sent by the station. Also the cable analog simulcast proposal from the FCC has the same thing. If this is so, then what the SD consumer will see (full screen or letterbox) will be up to the broadcaster (or network).

Is this not true? What is the broadcast personnel thoughts on this?

Currently the exchange rate is around 2US$ to 1GB£

UK unleaded petrol is close to the magic £1/litre mark (our fuel is relatively highly taxed compared to other countries) - though I use public transport for most of my travel needs as I work in London, and the mainline train and tube services are quicker than driving - and I get to read a paper if I come in by train. In the UK - mainly because we are a tiny country compared to the US (you can never be further than 70 miles from the coast in the UK AIUI!) we favour smaller cars (what we would think of as a normal family car is something like a Ford Focus or a VW Golf - i.e. a 5 door hatchback) and would always expect to get 30+miles per UK gallon. (A UK gallon is approx 4.54 litres - or approx 1.2 US gallons)

I don't have cable - in the UK digital satellite (i.e. Sky) and digital OTA (i.e. Freeview) are massively more popular than cable. AIUI Digital OTA (i.e. Freeview) is now the most popular source of digital programming, very closely followed by Sky Digital satellite (this may also include those who no longer subscribe to Sky but continue to receive FTA and FTV channels), with digital (and the few remaining analogue) cable platforms far less popular. There are also a few IPTV platforms using ADSL (though these are very minor in the scheme of things)


We subscribe to Sky HD (which includes a PVR as standard) - including the Sky Sports and Sky Movies channels - and also have Freeview Digital OTA receivers integrated in most of our TVs, as well as a FTV digital satellite receiver (no subscription) in another room. I have DVB-S and DVB-T cards in my PC to allow me to receive satellite and terrestrial digital OTA unencrypted services (DVB-T is supported by Windows Media Center in XP and Vista)

The main difference between the US and UK AIUI is that in the US you have to subscribe to get your main OTA networks via satellite. In the UK the BBC and ITV are broadcast by the BBC and ITV on satellite in a manner compatible with Sky but in a manner that doesn't require a Sky receiver (i.e. FTA unencrypted) Channel Four and Five, the other main OTA networks, DO require a Sky receiver as they are encrypted for rights reasons (they are on a wider beam) but you can purchase a "Free to View" viewing card for a one-off payment that will allow you to view these services without a subscription.

The HD channels we receive via Sky HD are :

Sky One HD (a simulcast of Sky One with most US shows made in HD shown in HD)
Sky Sports 1 and 2 HD
Sky Movies 1 and 2 HD
Sky Artsworld HD
National Geographic HD
Discovery HD
History Channel HD
(And Sky Box Office 1 and 2 HD as PPV options)

For these channels in HD we pay a supplement of £10 / month.

This is in addition to the SD Sky Entertainment (over a hundred general channels) + Sky Movies (12 channels) + Sky Sports (4 channels) combo - basically the whole package minus niche premium services (like those targeted at ethnic communities) - which includes free Sky + DVR subscription - at £43.50 / month.

BBC HD is also available with a Sky HD receiver - but isn't part of the Sky HD subscription package - and can be received with a FTA HD receiver as it us not encrypted. BBC HD simulcasts shows airing on BBC One SD and BBC Two SD that were made in HD in HD (Planet Earth, Bleak House, Live Earth, Concert for Diana, Wimbledon, Football, Rugby etc.) , as well as US imports like Heroes and some movies, and fills the rest of its air-time with either repeats of stuff that can repeated at low cost (!) or a very well edited BBC HD preview barker. (Which is strangely watchable...)

Discovery HD shows a lot of Discovery US HD material (Sunrise Earth, Festivals of the World etc.) - but it isn't directly equivalent to Discovery HD Theater in the US.

All our HD services are H264 MPEG4 and 1080/50i - we don't have any 720/50p services on satellite in the UK. The quality is pretty high - with not particularly noticable compression artefacts. Most premium HD services are 1920x1080 - BBC HD is 1440x1080 (because most material originates from HDCam which is 1440x1080 on-tape)

In terms of SD channels we get quite a few US-branded services - though most are versioned for the UK. Fox News carries UK adverts (but is otherwise identical), ESPN Classic and ABC1 are originated from the UK and run a specific UK-specific schedule, we get CNN International rather than CNN, and CNBC is a European originated version.Thanks for your detailed response; I find it interesting to see how our neighbors across the pond live. My wife and I were seated with a couple from Leeds England for dinner during a cruise we went on a few years ago and a good time was had by all.

I believe that I saw the requirement for the low cost converter that the box be capable of doing either a center cut or a letterbox of the 16x9 image and that the selection of which would be from a flag sent by the station. Also the cable analog simulcast proposal from the FCC has the same thing. If this is so, then what the SD consumer will see (full screen or letterbox) will be up to the broadcaster (or network).

Is this not true? What is the broadcast personnel thoughts on this?

Over here - where digital set top boxes are widespread and low cost (though SD 16:9 not HD 16:9) there are two distinct situations :

1. Older and less sophisticated converters.

These have a single, user chosen, aspect ratio control for 4:3 displays - which selects the method used to convert a 16:9 full-width broadcast to 4:3 output - which is usually either a 4:3 centre cut, or a 16:9 letterbox. 4:3 broadcasts - whether 4:3 full-width (with an MPEG2 header flagging them as 4:3) or a 4:3 pillarboxed within 16:9 (with an AFD flagging that only the central portion of the 16:9 frame is active and can be converted to 4:3 full-width in the receiver)

2. Newer or more sophisticated converters

These have a user option as above, to force all material to 4:3 centre cut, but the alternative letterbox setting allows the set top box to be driven dynamically by broadcaster AFDs in a more sophisticated manner. This allows 16:9 broadcasts to be displayed in 16:9 letterbox, 14:9 letterbox or 4:3 centre cut UNDER broadcaster control (based on settings decided by the presentation/master control dept., based on the commissioning spec for the show). The broadcaster AFDs are also used to dynamically ARC the 4:3 analogue transmitter feeds used on simulcast fed to the legacy analogue transmitters - as a mix of 4:3 centre cut (Sport), 14:9 letterbox (most news, drama, comedy and documentary) and 16:9 letterbox (movies and some arts coverage) is used on the analogue network.

NBC may try that in 2009, just two weeks before analog shuts down. In fact, SuperBowl would be an excellent venue to advertise the digital transition. "Did you know that next year's superbowl will only be available as a digital broadcast?"

But, for 2008 FOX has the SuperBowl and they will never letterbox it. Have you ever seen a letterboxed show on FOX? I didn't think so. They actually cropped Firefly, even though it was framed for 16:9.

2009 is too late. Perhaps CBS's AFC championship game,as their next Super Bowl will be digital only

Over here - where digital set top boxes are widespread and low cost (though SD 16:9 not HD 16:9) there are two distinct situations :
Has there been a study on how many viewers watch digital compared to how many are still watching analog?

Has there been a study on how many viewers watch digital compared to how many are still watching analog?With only 20 HD channels to choose between, I attest to watching programs over each signal about 50/50.

Has there been a study on how many viewers watch digital compared to how many are still watching analog?

All analogue services are simulcast on digital (apart from some oddball low-power community stations in a few cities) - so in most digital OTA, cable and satellite, homes, all viewing is on digital. There is no reason to watch analogue if you have a digital source, even the regional variations (Apart from some minor small ITV regional differences) are carried on all platforms (All BBC One regions are carried on satellite - and they are not restricted - allowing any one in the UK to chose which region they wish to view)

Figures from the beginning of this year suggest that over 77% of UK households now have a digital source (DTT, DSat or DCab) feeding their primary TV. (This doesn't mean that all TVs in such a household are digital though - as analogue bedroom and kitchen sets are still quite common)

All analogue services are simulcast on digitalMy cable TV provider, Albany Time Warner, carries the local network affiliates CBS, ABC and NBC on analog channels 6, 10 and 13. This programming is also delivered in HD on channels 1806, 1810 and 1813. Where is the digital simulcast?

Comcast in my area puts the digital simulcasts on the same channels as the analog versions. People with digital boxes get the digital channels.

My cable TV provider, Albany Time Warner, carries the local network affiliates CBS, ABC and NBC on analog channels 6, 10 and 13. This programming is also delivered in HD on channels 1806, 1810 and 1813. Where is the digital simulcast?

Err - I was talking about the UK... Virgin Media (who run all cable TV pretty much in the UK now - after Telewest and NTL merged and rebranded as Virgin) is (almost ?) universally digital - and they carry the 5 main UK analogue terrestrial networks as digital simulcasts. The main terrestrial broadcasters also have mulitplexes on Freeview Digital OTA, that carry the same services as analogue, plus extra channels, and also lease their own transponders, or transponder space, on satellite.

(Technically the analogue transmissions are now simulcasts - as the networks are all originated digitally, and ARCed and PAL encoded for analogue)

My cable TV provider, Albany Time Warner, carries the local network affiliates CBS, ABC and NBC on analog channels 6, 10 and 13. This programming is also delivered in HD on channels 1806, 1810 and 1813. Where is the digital simulcast?I'll bet that they are sending these network signals out THREE times. Let me give you the Rochester examples (I'll bet it is similar in Albany:
1) The original analog (NTSC) channels 8, 10 & 13 (183, 195 & 213MHz respectively)
2) SD digital copies of these channels on some QAMs (603, 651 & 633MHz respectively)*
3) HD digital programming (channels 1008, 1010, & 1013) on other QAMs (663, 663 & 573 MHz)
When you tune to channel 10 on your cable box, you actually see one of the bitstreams on the QAM at 651MHz. If you connect the cable line to the NTSC input on a TV and tune to chanel 10, you will be seeing the analog signal at 195MHz. The cable box has a map that knows what arbitrary channel assignment in the cable guide is on what QAM.

*Typically, cable puts 12-15 SD bitstreams or 2 HD bitstreams on a single QAM. Note, that one QAM takes the same space (6MHz) as one SD channel - so going the simulcast thing really does not take up much space.

Has there been a study on how many viewers watch digital compared to how many are still watching analog?

I think the industry is afraid to even ask that question....many people can't tell the difference, and most find it far too difficult to switch to the digital channel if they don't have a STB (talking about Digital Cable).

:confused:

Late last night the FCC mandated that cable make analog versions of digital "must carry" stations available to cable customers.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6477713.html

And the official FCC Release:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276576A1.pdf

The most interesting part of the regulation for me is the part where they clarify that cable systems can convert HD signals to analog either at the head-end or via a converter box. Folks should be well-aware that there is therefore no requirement that analog be provided in-the-clear after February 2009. (This was an essential aspect of the regulation, since cable systems wanted the flexibility to be able to comply with the regulation via SDV.)

The most interesting part of the regulation for me is the part where they clarify that cable systems can convert HD signals to analog either at the head-end or via a converter box. Folks should be well-aware that there is therefore no requirement that analog be provided in-the-clear after February 2009. (This was an essential aspect of the regulation, since cable systems wanted the flexibility to be able to comply with the regulation via SDV.)Well, what is posted is not (yet) the final regulations. The staffers have to write the actual regulations. But, if you read all of the comments the intent is very clear: ALL viewers should continue to be able to receive local OTA television (at no additional cost, by the way) whether they have analog or digital sets.

I am sure that the final regulations will not enable any sort of restrictions in terms of "in the clear" (which really applies to digital anyway). Existing regulations prohibit that.

Late last night the FCC mandated that cable make analog versions of digital "must carry" stations available to cable customers.

Only for stations who have elected must carry status and that usually DOES NOT include the Big 4 network stations who rather negotiate carriage instead of elect must carry.

Well, what is posted is not (yet) the final regulations.According to Fred (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11603162#post11603162), this compromise was deliberate. Cable gets to require a box to receive analog, and perhaps Martin can trade that for a player to be named later, such as some sort of a la carte.

I am sure that the final regulations will not enable any sort of restrictions in terms of "in the clear" (which really applies to digital anyway). I'll bet you're mistaken, at least as it pertains to analog after February 2009.

I'll bet you're mistaken, at least as it pertains to analog after February 2009.Lets be clear here: we are ONLY talking about Local OTA "Must Carry" (though I am not sure that I agree with what Foxeng is saying - but I'll bet it is moot), stations - this does not apply to all of the other cable channels (TNT, CNN, etc.). My point is that there are existing regulations that keep cable from encrypting the "Must Carry" - I saw nothing in this release or in the proposed order (several months ago) that would change that.

I wonder if you are thinking about another piece of regulations that the FCC is considering relating to Navigation Devices. CES has proposed that cable not allow SDV till this is settled, but from one of the commissioner's comments yesterday, I don't think that the FCC will buy that.

Didn't say anything about encryption. Just talking about conversion. The regulation clearly states that the must-carry channels can be carried as digital and then converted to analog either at the head-end or via converter box in the customer's home.

Didn't say anything about encryption. Just talking about conversion. The regulation clearly states that the must-carry channels can be carried as digital and then converted to analog either at the head-end or via converter box in the customer's home.I see your point (I shouldn't have used the word "encryption") but the key is that these (local OTA) channels MUST be viewable on ALL TVs connected to the cable system per existing sections of Part 76 of the regulations.

Or, according to this new regulation, via a converter box.

Lets be clear here: we are ONLY talking about Local OTA "Must Carry" (though I am not sure that I agree with what Foxeng is saying - but I'll bet it is moot), stations

There are only two types of elections available, negotiated and must carry. The fight among stations and cable (Sinclair and MediaCom) has been over negotiated carriage rights. If those stations had elected must carry, then there would be no fight because cable would have no option but to carry them but with negotiated, both sides have the option to carry or not. In that case you CAN'T elect must carry if you are negotiating.

If you are a small station like a religious or home shopping channel with no audience, most cable systems do not want to spend the money to carry you so you have an option called must carry that forces cable to carry your channel if you meet certain coverage area requirements and you get NO compensation for that carriage in any form from the cableco, unlike negotiated where there is some form of compensation, either real or trade. That is the difference.

Just out of curiousity, are there any HD stations that elect must carry? I'm not personally aware of any but I guess there could be.

- Tom

Comcast in my area puts the digital simulcasts on the same channels as the analog versions. People with digital boxes get the digital channels.

It might be better to say "they re-map the digital simulcasts" to the same channel numbers in their boxes. They do the same thing here...pressing channel 2, sends the box to 66-4, to get the simulcast. The digital isn't really on the same channel as the analog.

Now, if we can just get remotes that "re-map", so we can do that on a clear-QAM set.............................:) .

Now, if we can just get remotes that "re-map", so we can do that on a clear-QAM set.............................:) .

You have to get the cablecos to stop moving the clear QAM channels around so the mapping would actually be accurate for the remotes!

It might be better to say "they re-map the digital simulcasts" to the same channel numbers in their boxes. They do the same thing here...pressing channel 2, sends the box to 66-4, to get the simulcast. The digital isn't really on the same channel as the analog.

Yes, I was referring to cable box channel numbers. Someone had asked where the digital simulcast could be found.

You have to get the cablecos to stop moving the clear QAM channels around...Just curious, why do they do that?

Just curious, why do they do that?

They claim that it's just part of "keeping things optimized".

I've heard it's just to frustrate us "moochers" (who don't rent boxes).

But, really, it just props up their analog TV business (Has anyone ever seen an HDTV set, hooked to Cable, that was showing a Digital picture?).:D

...(Has anyone ever seen an HDTV set, hooked to Cable, that was showing a Digital picture?)Yes.

It might be better to say "they re-map the digital simulcasts" to the same channel numbers in their boxes. They do the same thing here...pressing channel 2, sends the box to 66-4, to get the simulcast. The digital isn't really on the same channel as the analog.

Around here they did just the opposite. Selecting digital 512 shows you to analog 30. (our "Classic" package is 23 - 76) They wanted everyone to think they were getting "Digital Cable" but didn't actually want to simulcast.

Just curious, why do they do that?

Who knows?

Just curious, why do they do that?

To try to annoy you into renting a box.

or dump cable.