AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-27-2010, 09:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

Wouldn't it be funny if the NAB was actually running a covert plan to:
1) Get the Government to auction off all the TV spectrum.
2) Have broadcasters buy up all of the spectrum
3) Run free over the air TV and other services on that spectrum
4) Block out all the "Johnny-Come-Lately" competitors.
5) Tell the FCC, "We OWN it, we can do what we WANT with it now!"

Hmmmmmmmm.

That's an intriguing possibility!
In such an auction, who has the largest war chest - the cell phone industry or the networks?

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-27-2010, 09:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

While the NAB hasn't suggested anything but unworkable compromises at this point they do need to be willing to accept a haircut. The longer that the NAB holds on to the grossly underutilized low VHF (channels 2-6) and channel 14 the sooner they will surely lose essential limbs.

They need to point out that stupid ideas like stations broadcasting HD sharing spectrum won't work because it completely ignores ATSC M/H. If we don't expect the demise of free TV, then we should expect that every major network affiliate (including PBS) will have both a HD and mobile/handheld stream in the future. That's over 1000 full power (preferably UHF) 6 MHz stations across country no matter how it's sliced and many of them will need fill-in translators as well.

Those who say that broadcasters don't have enough political clout are ignoring the fact that this is a group with cameras and microphones. Remember Ronald Reagan's famous line, "I'm paying for this microphone." Unless they start using those cameras and microphones ASAP in a massive and effective campaign to stop this ill-advised spectrum grab of the TV band free TV as well as most local stations, most local newscasts, the EAS and the public service that broadcast stations provide will die.

Don't expect cable or satellite TV to be the answer because once free TV is gone those at least annual cable subscription increases will become a lot higher than they are now and the money won't go to the former broadcast licensees.

Excellent Points!
I only hope someone in authority at the networks and the NAB reads this thread and acts before it's too late.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
Old 07-28-2010, 03:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:


Don't expect cable or satellite TV to be the answer because once free TV is gone those at least annual cable subscription increases will become a lot higher than they are now and the money won't go to the former broadcast licensees.

DVDs will be the answer. The cable subscriptions are already insane. They charge around $100 a month and most channels are worthless. The amount of Reality shows, reruns and lame sitcoms not to mention the high amount of commercials and popups have ruined them. If OTA ever disappears I'll will give up watching football. I'm not going to pay the greedy cable companies one more thin dime of my money. For $100 a month I can buy more DVDs of TV Shows and movies than I would have time to watch.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
Old 07-28-2010, 07:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

DVDs will be the answer. The cable subscriptions are already insane. They charge around $100 a month and most channels are worthless. The amount of Reality shows, reruns and lame sitcoms not to mention the high amount of commercials and popups have ruined them. If OTA ever disappears I'll will give up watching football. I'm not going to pay the greedy cable companies one more thin dime of my money. For $100 a month I can buy more DVDs of TV Shows and movies than I would have time to watch.

If they give everybody "100 Megabits for 100 Million Homes, Wireless and free", I think DVDs will quickly disappear. Everybody will just download their video from the net.

Ken English, Sr. Engineer, KSL-TV.
"The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent the Company positions, strategies or opinions."
kenglish is offline  
Old 07-28-2010, 09:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

If they give everybody "100 Megabits for 100 Million Homes, Wireless and free", I think DVDs will quickly disappear. Everybody will just download their video from the net.

No where in the broadband plan does it say that broadband would be FREE. Is your electricity free? NO. Do you have ACCESS to electricity provided you can pay for it? Yes. Same type thing.
BCF68 is offline  
Old 07-28-2010, 04:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

If they give everybody "100 Megabits for 100 Million Homes, Wireless and free", I think DVDs will quickly disappear. Everybody will just download their video from the net.

Fixed (preferably fiber-optic) broadband of 100 Megabits available to at least 125 Million homes should be our national broadband plan. Wireless should be viewed as supplementary broadband for most because having a broadband plan that depends so heavily on Wireless will leave our nation even further behind in broadband use, affordability and applications. The broadband plan the FCC has proposed will be extremely expensive especially in terms of lost opportunity rather than free.

If we allow the FCC to think of the TV Band as the the spectrum cookie jar they can raid whenever they want here is what will happen. Five years after channels 31-51 are gone they will want to take away channels 21-30. Five years after that they will want to take away channels 7-20.
Sammer is offline  
Old 07-28-2010, 08:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Thomas Desmond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Plano, TX, USA
Posts: 2,336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

While the NAB hasn't suggested anything but unworkable compromises at this point they do need to be willing to accept a haircut. The longer that the NAB holds on to the grossly underutilized low VHF (channels 2-6) and channel 14 the sooner they will surely lose essential limbs.

The problem is that offering up channels 2-6 won't take any of the heat off the TV spectrum because the telecom companies have no interest in low band VHF spectrum. The only interest in those channels is by some folks who are interested in repurposing channels 5 and 6 to an expanded FM band.

As for channel 14 -- it's only a single channel, so that too is not going to appease the telecom companies. They won't be content with the spectral equivalent of a toenail clipping when they think they can have an entire limb...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ota.dt.man View Post

That's an intriguing possibility!
In such an auction, who has the largest war chest - the cell phone industry or the networks?

Really, is there any doubt as to the answer to this particular question? The average household's cellphone bill is now something around $80/month. In comparison, the revenue of every television station in a typical large market might work out to around a quarter of that amount per household.

And if the phone companies have to get into a bidding war for spectrum...no problem, because it's easier for them to jack up fees and extract the money from their customers than it is for broadcasters to raise advertising rates.

I can't imagein why TV broadcasters would want to get into a bidding war that they'll almost certainly lose.
Thomas Desmond is offline  
Old 07-28-2010, 09:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

The problem is that offering up channels 2-6 won't take any of the heat off the TV spectrum because the telecom companies have no interest in low band VHF spectrum. The only interest in those channels is by some folks who are interested in repurposing channels 5 and 6 to an expanded FM band.

As for channel 14 -- it's only a single channel, so that too is not going to appease the telecom companies. They won't be content with the spectral equivalent of a toenail clipping when they think they can have an entire limb...

The fact that wireless telecoms don't want low VHF says volumes about their arrogance and bullying. The message that TV broadcasters don't want to horde spectrum by holding on to the most underutilized channels would be for the public. Any attempt by television broadcasters to appease wireless telecoms would be an admission that broadcasters have already lost the war that CTIA - The Wireless Association has already declared on local television stations.
Sammer is offline  
Old 07-29-2010, 08:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
07-20-10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

It's time to get those keyboards clicking. Contact your Representatives or kiss OTA broadcasting goodbye.

Talking points

We can discuss every aspect of saving 41% of our current FREE TV spectrum in this thread.
However, none of it will make any difference unless we follow Dan's advice from 9 days ago.

The Right to Write
Some Suggestions on Writing Your Congressman
by Morris K. Udall, Member, U.S. Congress

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
Old 07-29-2010, 10:54 PM
Newbie
 
scottollers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bidger View Post

Anyone else getting a funky page display with the hyperlink provided? I get a Wireless Week header, but the article is completely compacted, no more than three consecutive letters viewable on each line in Mozilla FF 3.5.7. I found I have to alt-click the hyperlink and select "Open in IE tab" for it to be viewable.

Hi,

The provided linked worked just fine for me. Maybe they have updated their site that is why it is showing some garbled or junked information.
scottollers is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 12:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
From Broadcast Engineering
Quote:
Smith spells out four principles for any legislative, policy spectrum changes

The head of the National Association of Broadcasters last week laid out four principles that should govern any legislation or administrative policy aimed at recouping spectrum from over-the-air TV broadcasters for wireless broadband services.

In a letter dated July 19 from NAB CEO and President Gordon Smith to Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council, the association chief wrote that the broadcast industry has “no quarrel with incentive auctions that are truly voluntary,” but expressed concern that the administration’s stated goal of recouping 120MHz of broadcast spectrum is “arbitrary.” (The concept of an incentive auction, as described by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, is to allow broadcasters to share in some of the proceeds from the auction of their spectrum.)

An analysis by the Omnibus Broadband Initiative suggesting that it may be possible to achieve the spectrum claw back is flawed, as was demonstrated during the FCC’s recent Broadcast Engineering Forum, Smith said in the letter. Smith expressed the hope that any legislative or policy changes to how spectrum is allocated for TV broadcast would recognize the importance of the medium to the public.

“We are hopeful that the administration will continue to recognize broadcasting’s undisputed strengths, and that any legislative or regulatory action altering the current spectrum framework will provide Americans with both the finest broadband and broadcast system in the world,” the letter said.

Changes to spectrum policy must adhere to four precepts, the letter said:

* Americans maintain access to digital offerings currently provided by TV broadcasters. “Those stations choosing not to participate in a voluntary incentive auction should not be asked to deny their viewers the full fruits of broadcasting’s digital future,” the letter said.
* Americans must not lose access to broadcast TV based on signal strength degradations or limitations.
* Free TV viewers must continue to be beneficiaries of video innovation, whether on a 60in or 4in display. “Stations that choose not to participate in a voluntary incentive auction must not lose the ability to innovate using their full, current spectrum resource,” the letter said.
* Americans must not lose quality local TV because of new spectrum taxes. “Stations that choose not to participate in a voluntary incentive auction must not be subjected to onerous new spectrum taxes that would make it increasingly difficult for stations to finance local programming, operations and newsgathering efforts,” it said.


'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 12:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post


They need to point out that stupid ideas like stations broadcasting HD sharing spectrum won't work because it completely ignores ATSC M/H. If we don't expect the demise of free TV, then we should expect that every major network affiliate (including PBS) will have both a HD and mobile/handheld stream in the future.

I know for a fact PBS stations are planning on Mobile DTV.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 12:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hello All,

Please check out the following suggestions:

Quote:
You might take the issue to the HearUsNow blog at CU, our parent organization. Here are some possible places to add comment:

FCC Takes Important First Steps on Several Consumer Issues http://www.hearusnow.org/2010/04/now...r_april_2.html

As a Consumer Watchdog, FCC Needs Both Bark and Bite http://www.hearusnow.org/2010/01/now...r_janua_4.html

And since FCC taking TV spectrum IS tied to the issue of nation-wide broadband access, this is possibly a good place to post also:

Increasing Real Competition Should be Key Goal of National Broadband Plan http://www.hearusnow.org/2010/03/now...r_march_3.html


Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 12:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ota.dt.man View Post

My concern is that the NAB may not have sufficient clout to overcome the pervasive cell phone industry and their army of lobbyists....

I'm not sure anyone knows what is really happening as far as lobbying goes on behalf of local broadcasters. Yes, some of it is obvious, but I'd bet there is a lot going on we aren't aware of.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 12:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JeffAHayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Posts: 2,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

I'm not sure anyone knows what is really happening as far as lobbying goes on behalf of local broadcasters. Yes, some of it is obvious, but I'd bet there is a lot going on we aren't aware of.

Yeah, Ken, that's pretty much my concern, as well. For that matter the fact that this IS such a NON-story on the networks and local channels (except for a few, brief mentions about the Obama Administration having some sort of national broadband plan they were looking to implement very early in the year on the network news, which were VERY short on details, I've seen nor heard NOTHING) almost has my "conspiracy hackles" rising.

I have to say that even were such a conspiracy to turn out to be the broadcasters buying up all the spectrum, themselves, and telling (or trying to tell) the FCC where to get off, as Ken suggested, I'm not sure I'd be on board with THAT, either. Like most folks, I'm just not big on conspiracies, period (and NO, I'm not one of those conspiracy nuts who sees one around every corner -- but I'm always WARY of them).

I conceive it as entirely plausible there are at least "forces" within the broadcasting community (perhaps some of the companies that own large numbers of local stations, for instance), who are in very secret meetings with some of the cellular companies looking at ways to strike "power-bargains" that will put them at some sort of competitive advantage in emerging technologies. It's possible even the entire broadcast industry (except for perhaps the smallest players) is engaged in something like this, and doesn't want to show its hand until deals are done and everything is "in place," so to speak. If this sort of thing IS true, it certainly might go a very long way towards explaining just WHY we're not seeing any sort of news or editorial coverage over the possibility of OTA TV losing 41% of its broadcast signal.

I sure hope that's not the case, because I suspect no matter who would win in such a scenario, the consumer would definitely LOSE.
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 01:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

Yes, it isn't copyrighted, just my ideas.

Okay, I know the production values aren't great, but here goes try #2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6x5guK-PgA

If you can come up with something better, please do!!! I'll post it!!!!!!

And, Ionosphere 5.8 GHz (well above 3.7 GHz) will give you at least 5 Mbps down and 5 Mbps up.

http://www.pcisys.net/wireless.php

Great Job Dan!

I have only two suggestions:

1. The audio fades down near the end of the video when you are encouraging the viewers to take action and write Congress - the most important part of your message.

2. It would be great if the last shot of the video displayed the contact information for Congress, such as:

The Right to Write
Some Suggestions on Writing Your Congressman
by Morris K. Udall, Member, U.S. Congress

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 01:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

From Broadcast Engineering

This latest report provides some encouragement.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 01:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

I know for a fact PBS stations are planning on Mobile DTV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes View Post

For that matter the fact that this IS such a NON-story on the networks and local channels ...

The fact that the major broadcast networks also have cable channels may explain the spectrum grab NON-story on network news phenomena.

PBS is broadcast only - correct? If yes, does AVS have any contacts at PBS, The NewsHour, or Washington Week? Perhaps they would be more inclined to run with this story?

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
Old 07-31-2010, 02:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:


Originally Posted by JeffAHayes
For that matter the fact that this IS such a NON-story on the networks and local channels ...

Maybe their afraid of the majority of the public revolting over this insane greed driven idea.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
Old 07-31-2010, 11:11 AM
Member
 
theaveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For homes too far for pure DSL, the phone company usually runs a fiber to the neighborhood, and then hooks that into everyone's homes (via DSL and existing phonelines). So it looks like this: Phone Company-- Fiber-- DSLAM -- existing phone lines.

Cheap and easy to install. With a government-mandated program they could have 99% of the US upgraded to high-speed DSL by 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooper View Post

The phone company is NOT required to offer DSL, and if the customer density is too low - they probably won't.

(sigh). I didn't say the company is required to offer DSL. I said the government should pass a law mandating it, just the same way government mandates everyone be offered phone service.

My Free TV streams 19 Mbps == 6000 GB/month per channel. No cellphone can do that. WHY kill off this excellent service??
theaveng is offline  
Old 07-31-2010, 02:02 PM
Member
 
theaveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
re: The FCC Propaganda published in Broadcast magazine: Even if it were possible to broadcast two HD programs in a single 6 megahertz channel (for example CBS-HD and CW-HD), what about all those subchannels that we viewers are now enjoying? Channels like This movie, RetroTV, Megahertz, LinkTV, IONlife, Qubo, SmileOfAChild, PBSarts, PBSworld, and on and on.

These subchannels would necessarily disappear, because the 2 HDs would take up all the space. Stupid dog-fos at the FCC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ionosphere View Post

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/...9250606?v=wall Since I'm extremely sure someone here is better at this than I am, you all can PM me and I'll make more page administration.

With facebook you need simple names that people can find: "savetv". The photo you used is just about worthless for reception (unless you're within 10 miles of center city). I'd replace it with the CM4228HD

My Free TV streams 19 Mbps == 6000 GB/month per channel. No cellphone can do that. WHY kill off this excellent service??
theaveng is offline  
Old 07-31-2010, 02:35 PM
Member
 
theaveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker View Post

If the cellular industry wanted to counter your claims all they would have to to is point at the cellphone video services that offer live broadcast video to phones.

Those phones didn't work during the Nashville floods (because the cell towers had no power), but broadcast television continued working just fine.

And also not all cities are dumb like New York and put their towers in one central location. In my three DMAs, the towers are scattered. A single airplane might kill half the stations in Philadelphia or Baltimore, but the other half still keep sending emergency information. ----- Finally, why do you keep talking about portable TVs? Most New Yorkers, Long Islanders, New Jersians, and so on were in their homes watching the 2-3 remaining broadcasters still on the air. Meanwhile the cellphones didn't do a thing.

My Free TV streams 19 Mbps == 6000 GB/month per channel. No cellphone can do that. WHY kill off this excellent service??
theaveng is offline  
Old 07-31-2010, 03:01 PM
Member
 
theaveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

If they give everybody "100 Megabits for 100 Million Homes, Wireless and free", I think DVDs will quickly disappear. Everybody will just download their video from the net.

And the streets will be paved in gold, and everybody will have a job, and housing will be free. This Utopia is no place, and you're naive to believe it.

My Free TV streams 19 Mbps == 6000 GB/month per channel. No cellphone can do that. WHY kill off this excellent service??
theaveng is offline  
Old 07-31-2010, 07:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Comcast xfinity is just coming on the market. That is 105 Mbps service for the low INTRODUCTORY cost of $99 per month. I read a commentator say that the 100 million homes with access to 100 Mbps service by 2020 will be a done deal, through cable companies and telecoms, no matter what the government does. The spectrum grab adds nothing really to the broadband plan. It doesn't add any real competition. It doesn't help extend coverage to rural areas, it may even hurt in this regard. It does result in a tax increase on services and less competition in video services.

Below are the link to NAB comments on the house bill introduced by Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Cliff Stearns (R-FL) titled the "Voluntary Incentive Auctions Act of 2010."

http://www.nab.org/documents/newsRoo...se.asp?id=2334

It's 2014 and you're still paying for television?
 

dkreichen1968 is offline  
Old 07-31-2010, 07:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
nybbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

While the NAB hasn't suggested anything but unworkable compromises at this point they do need to be willing to accept a haircut. The longer that the NAB holds on to the grossly underutilized low VHF (channels 2-6) and channel 14 the sooner they will surely lose essential limbs.

They've already GOT the haircut... remember channels 52-83? What Verizon et al are demanding is a scalping.
nybbler is offline  
Old 07-31-2010, 09:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Okay, let’s do some economic analysis. The vast majority of people (about 90%) live in good TV reception areas where they have access to most, if not all of the major networks for the one time cost of an antenna and a digital tuner. Over the last few years those same networks have produced 198 of the top 200 shows.

The average pay television bill is $60 per month. For the same price you can buy eight $7 DVDs or eleven 5$ DVDs at Wal-Mart (which contain the same movies cable channels run over and over), take a family of 4 to a movie at the $1.50 theater 10 times, or rent 56 movies from Red Box or Blockbuster Express.

Now, if you forgo the alternative sources of media, and assuming that cable will continue to go up in price at 4% (the 10 year average), and the interest rate for savings accounts will continue to be about 1%, paying for the average cable package during the next 18 years (the period from birth to when a child is college age) will result in there being $20,000 less in your children’s college fund. Add to that, that most Americans are running long term balances on their credit cards, which means in effect that they are actually paying 10 - 30% on their cable bills since the money saved could be used to pay against the principle. (Paying interest on what you buy means more stress and less stuff.)

Is broadcast TV spectrum being wasted? Yes, but not by broadcasters and the people who watch their OTA signal. It is being squandered by pay TV subscribers, who could easily get their media fix from OTA television and other sources for a lot less.

Pay television can’t compete with broadcast on price. Before digital, pay television had the advantage of picture quality, but now that advantage is gone, so all they are left is channel selection. The reality is that if the number of pay TV subscribers were to drop you would eventually see traditional cable only channels like USA and Discovery migrate to broadcast. That’s why MTV chose to distribute MTV-Tr3s through broadcast. They knew where their target audience (Hispanics) gets their media, and audience generated advertising dollars trump retransmission dollars every time. If other demographics would drop pay TV the channels would follow, either in their current form, or as clones.

The potential of broadcast is only limited by the amount of available spectrum. So, how do you keep broadcast down? Do you lower your prices? Do you improve your product? Do you change your business model to focus on broadband or added services? No, you get the FCC to limit broadcast to only current license holders, and force the smaller less politically connected players to share channels. This is like Blockbuster using the government to limit the number of selections that Red Box or Netflix could carry to protect their business model. This is like buggy whip manufactures trying to get the government to limit the manufacture of automobiles. And, it’s being done in the name of “progress.”

It's 2014 and you're still paying for television?
 

dkreichen1968 is offline  
Old 07-31-2010, 11:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

....what about all those subchannels that we viewers are now enjoying? Channels like This movie, RetroTV, Megahertz, LinkTV, IONlife, Qubo, SmileOfAChild, PBSarts, PBSworld, and on and on.

Link TV is an OTA subchannel?
Rammitinski is offline  
Old 08-01-2010, 03:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:


My Free TV streams 19 Mbps == 6000 GB/month per channel. No cellphone can do that. WHY kill off this excellent service??

Also I can watch those channels in HD on my 50 inch plasma HDTV for free. If the clowns at the FCC have their way we will be paying for a poor quality SD signal. Imagine everbody huddled around a two inch screen on a cell phone to watch the Super Bowl.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
Old 08-01-2010, 03:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

Okay, let's do some economic analysis. The vast majority of people (about 90%) live in good TV reception areas where they have access to most, if not all of the major networks for the one time cost of an antenna and a digital tuner. Over the last few years those same networks have produced 198 of the top 200 shows.

The average pay television bill is $60 per month. For the same price you can buy eight $7 DVDs or eleven 5$ DVDs at Wal-Mart (which contain the same movies cable channels run over and over), take a family of 4 to a movie at the $1.50 theater 10 times, or rent 56 movies from Red Box or Blockbuster Express.

Now, if you forgo the alternative sources of media, and assuming that cable will continue to go up in price at 4% (the 10 year average), and the interest rate for savings accounts will continue to be about 1%, paying for the average cable package during the next 18 years (the period from birth to when a child is college age) will result in there being $20,000 less in your children's college fund. Add to that, that most Americans are running long term balances on their credit cards, which means in effect that they are actually paying 10 - 30% on their cable bills since the money saved could be used to pay against the principle. (Paying interest on what you buy means more stress and less stuff.)

Is broadcast TV spectrum being wasted? Yes, but not by broadcasters and the people who watch their OTA signal. It is being squandered by pay TV subscribers, who could easily get their media fix from OTA television and other sources for a lot less.

Pay television can't compete with broadcast on price. Before digital, pay television had the advantage of picture quality, but now that advantage is gone, so all they are left is channel selection. The reality is that if the number of pay TV subscribers were to drop you would eventually see traditional cable only channels like USA and Discovery migrate to broadcast. That's why MTV chose to distribute MTV-Tr3s through broadcast. They knew where their target audience (Hispanics) gets their media, and audience generated advertising dollars trump retransmission dollars every time. If other demographics would drop pay TV the channels would follow, either in their current form, or as clones.

The potential of broadcast is only limited by the amount of available spectrum. So, how do you keep broadcast down? Do you lower your prices? Do you improve your product? Do you change your business model to focus on broadband or added services? No, you get the FCC to limit broadcast to only current license holders, and force the smaller less politically connected players to share channels. This is like Blockbuster using the government to limit the number of selections that Red Box or Netflix could carry to protect their business model. This is like buggy whip manufactures trying to get the government to limit the manufacture of automobiles. And, it's being done in the name of progress.

Great post and very well said. There is a poster on another forum that canceled his cable subscription 3 1/2 years ago and has took the $65 he used to pay each month for cable and has bought DVDs with it. He now has 20,000 episodes of TV shows on DVD and over 1,000 movies. When I look at some of the movies cable channels are running into the ground and buthchering I shake my head because I bought the same movies on DVD for $5 each years ago.

Most people are paying close to $100 a month for pay TV.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
Old 08-01-2010, 08:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Does anyone with Cable actually WATCH an HDTV signal?

I have yet to see an HDTV set that was actually connected to an HD Cable Converter box properly. They are all just connected, via coax, to the NTSC "Channel 3/4" modulator, or via composite or s-VHS cables.

Now, with the "Cable TV Digital Transition", they are usually hooked up via coax (the ONLY output available on the DTA's), and getting NTSC and mono audio.

And.............the customers are "Happy" with it that way .

Ken English, Sr. Engineer, KSL-TV.
"The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent the Company positions, strategies or opinions."
kenglish is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off