AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 51 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-08-2011, 01:33 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
justalurker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Michiana, South of the Border
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker View Post

Does that take into account the "no TV" households or is it a percentage of "those with TV using OTA as their only source"?

TV households that rely only on OTA TV.

http://www.tvb.org/planning_buying/4722/4729/72555

So the comparisons against poverty levels, which include all homes not just TV households, are probably a little off.

I know a couple of families who have decided that no TV ... not even OTA ... was a good choice. I had a statistic for that a couple of years ago. What I can find now I don't trust since Nielson is claiming more TV Households than the US Census Bureau is claiming total households.
justalurker is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-08-2011, 01:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
willscary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east central wisconsin
Posts: 550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

Ok. I call a software company and tell them I want 500 licensed copies of their software on CDs to distribute with some computer systems I’m building. They say they don’t have that many blanks on hand, and I say that’s all right, I’ll provide the blanks. (“Blank CDs” = “rf spectrum”) They agree, they take the CDs, but a couple of days later, they call and say their machine broke and they can only deliver 300. I say fine, I’ve got a duplicator, send me the 300, and I’ll burn the rest. I pay an assistant to burn 200 more copies. Does the assistant owe the software company a cut?

No, because the copies were ALREADY PAID FOR.

In your new attempt above, I assume that you are purchasing 500 copies. Hmm, that means that you are distributing what you purchased, and distributing to the number of people that has been agreed upon for the price that you paid, not more. You paid for 500 and you are distributing 500. Either way, you paid the original provider in the exact same manner that a retrans fee works. You are paying the original content provider a set price for a certain number of "subscriptions" at an agreed upon price.

Sounds like the way retrans fees work to me!
willscary is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
joblo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

Then we have New Jersey where they were planning on subsidizing the pay-TV industry through a service tax.

Why are we subsidizing pay-TV?

Maybe the people of New Jersey think “pay TV” provides useful service that regional broadcast does not. Like PEG channels run by the local school systems, maybe. We have such channels in northern Virginia, and I think it’s useful for people to be able to see them. All the more so if they are low income and perhaps not receiving the full advantages of the educational system.

And did you know that the only major commercial broadcast station licensed to NJ, WWOR, is currently in trouble with the FCC for not meeting its public service obligations to its community of license?

If you’re in Colorado, as your location is listed, then who are you to judge what NJ residents think is worth subsidizing?

Quote:
We have these people like joblo who think that because they don't utilize the free service themselves

Actually, I use it quite a bit, thank you very much, as I’ve previously explained. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

Quote:
And, 0.5% of the population is intelligent enough to take advantage of the free service even though they have plenty of income to pay for the pay service. They realize that paying for a free service is a waste of money.

So, basically, the 0.5% of the population that made the same choices you did is intelligent and the rest of us are idiots???

Boy, that really makes me sympathetic to your cause.

I’ll call my Congress Critters right now and tell them they better not take OTA away from the smartest 0.5% or I won’t vote for ‘em...
joblo is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 01:50 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker View Post

So the comparisons against poverty levels, which include all homes not just TV households, are probably a little off.

I know a couple of families who have decided that no TV ... not even OTA ... was a good choice. I had a statistic for that a couple of years ago. What I can find now I don't trust since Nielson is claiming more TV Households than the US Census Bureau is claiming total households.

Here is an interesting factoid Neilsen has Los Vegas pay-TV penetration at 92% and yet Cox Communications estimates it at 80%.

http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/artic...q_41644726.txt

Who is right? I do know of no TV families also, but I don't think their numbers are very high.

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

dkreichen1968 is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 01:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
willscary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east central wisconsin
Posts: 550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

But in the case of broadcasters, not only do they want my assistant to pay them for the privilege of finishing their job, but they expect him to use 200 more CDs to do it, because they plan to use my 200 blanks to sell another product to somebody else, e.g. subscription mobile service, when they finally get around to fixing/upgrading their machine.

But I say NO. If that's your attitude, then you owe me 500 blank CDs, and I will buy my software from somebody else, e.g. wireless service providers.

Is this clear enough for you?

Sure it is. You just made the decision to refuse to pay the retrans fees and you will look for other content. You have that right, and so should cable and DBS companies.
willscary is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 02:01 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

So, basically, the 0.5% of the population that made the same choices you did is intelligent and the rest of us are idiots???

Boy, that really makes me sympathetic to your cause.

Yes joblo, I certainly do believe that if you aren't an idiot, you are playing one for the sake of your corporate masters! The communists called folks like you "useful idiots."

What I'd like to know from you, is why I should be sympathetic to the cause of taking away a free, almost universally available service so that a few people can get richer than they already are? That is what you are advocating! And, if you can't see that, then you not only are playing the idiot, you are an idiot!!!

And the 0.5% is people who make over $100,000 who are intelligent enough to take advantage of a free service rather than to pay for something that offers very little added value.

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

dkreichen1968 is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 02:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
willscary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east central wisconsin
Posts: 550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

I believe the licensing of broadcast spectrum carries with it an obligation to serve ALL of the public, and that obligation is not lessened if some part of the public also wants to partake of competing services. In other words, I do not believe that broadcast spectrum should include monopoly service rights. You have every right to partake in competing services. If those services sell you a broadcasters signal, they need to pay for the use of that copyrighted signal, or they need to come to some form of agreement, such as a "must carry" clause. This is not "monopolistic service rights", this is copyright protection, plain and simple.

You, and those who favor retrans consent, believe broadcasters should have a lesser obligation. A lesser obligation to what? As long as a licensee abides by the rules and regulations of the license, and as long as they break no laws, I see no problem with their operation.

I believe that lesser obligation does not justify their spectrum allocation. What lesser obligation? they are working within the confines of their license, which they applied for and were approved.

I keep looking for a rationale to sustain OTA TV, but you just keep convincing me we should terminate it and allocate the spectrum (our blank CDs, if you will) to worthier operations.

Interesting that I am the driving factor that is convincing you that OTA should be destroyed so that telcos can make things much more costly than they now are.
willscary is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 02:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
joblo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by willscary View Post

You just made the decision to refuse to pay the retrans fees and you will look for other content. You have that right

You understand that in that analogy "I" was standing in for the public at large, i.e. the government, in deciding how to allocate spectrum, and that the other content would be from other service providers, not broadcasters, right?

You are certainly correct that we, the public, have the right to reallocate spectrum for uses other than OTA TV.

(Are you sure you want to keep OTA? You're not some kind of double agent working for cable/DBS/telcos to convince people that OTA should be terminated, are you?)
joblo is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 02:33 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
Local programming from OTA has very little application to over half the population (still left and breathing) in this whole metro market, as it's geared most specifically towards Cook County and it's particular interests and agendas.

I hate to say it, as I probably wouldn't have felt this way 10 years ago, but as long as I continue living in this DMA, I couldn't care less if OTA disappeared. There are still some things about it that are worthy, but those are disappearing fast, and it's really a lost cause, as far as I'm concerned.

As far as subsidizing any others goes - I don't mind helping out those who really need it, provided I'm in a position to do so, but I do have a major problem with subsidizing any TV for those who actually have a higher income than I do, yet manage to hide the fact. And God knows, there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of those types in this metro area.
Rammitinski is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 02:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
willscary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east central wisconsin
Posts: 550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post
You understand that in that analogy "I" was standing in for the public at large, i.e. the government, in deciding how to allocate spectrum, and that the other content would be from other service providers, not broadcasters, right? You also understand that these licenses have been granted and should not be stripped without cause, right? The licensees are operating legally and should not lose their licenses because another entity wants to grab the resource for their own use. if that was the case, then I should be able to purchase the deed to your property simply by offering your governing entity cash and promising to eventually use your property for something more popular than what you currently have.

You are certainly correct that we, the public, have the right to reallocate spectrum for uses other than OTA TV. I said that? While the government may have the ability to reallocate, it should not be without cause. There is a vast portion of unused spectrum remaining from the elimination of channels 52-69 less than 2 years ago, and there is still unused spectrum from the demise of channels 70-83 nearly three decades ago (although it has all been alocated for use). Why the sudden desire to sell off more on a permanent, unlicensed, irrevokable status? The only reason for this is corporate greed and resource hoarding. Once this occurs, telecommunications will spiral out of control. the government should NEVER be allowed to permanently sell spectrum and should not be allowed to rescind licenses that are being abided by.

(Are you sure you want to keep OTA? You're not some kind of double agent working for cable/DBS/telcos to convince people that OTA should be terminated, are you?)
I AM a double agent, how did you guess?
willscary is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 03:20 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 willscary View Post
Sure it is. You just made the decision to refuse to pay the retrans fees and you will look for other content. You have that right, and so should cable and DBS companies.
Except that cable and DBS companies don't now have that right. Members of Congress can and do threaten that they must negotiate carriage of local broadcast stations through retransmission consent or else. When they can't say no to carriage and there is a retransmission consent fee IMHO that is an unconstitutional taking of cable or satellite company property.
Sammer is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 03:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
willscary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east central wisconsin
Posts: 550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post
Except that cable and DBS companies don't now have that right. Members of Congress can and do threaten that they must negotiate carriage of local broadcast stations through retransmission consent or else. When they can't so no to carriage and there is a retransmission consent fee IMHO that is an unconstitutional taking of cable or satellite company property.
I agree. In my post above I also said that they should have that right.
willscary is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 06:10 PM
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
Blair Levin says we should start all over with MPEG-4:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...Get_Behind.php

Here we go again, folks!
"Is your TV ready for the NEXT Digital TV Transition?"
(Will there be coupons?)

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 03-08-2011, 06:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
willscary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east central wisconsin
Posts: 550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
So, is Mr. Levin going to personally donate the first 500 million HD capable HDMI output tuner boxes and the new equipment for each of the broadcasters, or is he just planning on the money appearing out of thin air like he does with the money for his national broadband plan?

The word "architect" is being used very loosely in this case.
willscary is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 06:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
joblo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

Except that cable and DBS companies don't now have that right. Members of Congress can and do threaten that they must negotiate carriage of local broadcast stations through retransmission consent or else.

But that only happens with the major networks.

A station that elects retrans consent has no legal carriage rights. And the good faith onus is really only on the stations because they are not allowed to negotiate exclusive carriage contracts with MVPDs. So once they grant carriage rights to one MVPD, they are obligated to negotiate in good faith with any other MVPD that wants them, and then, of course, the MVPD is obligated to do the same.

But if an MVPD doesn't want a retrans consent station even for free, I think that's pretty much the end of the story, unless that station is the only available affiliate of one of the big 4 nets.
joblo is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 06:51 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
justalurker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Michiana, South of the Border
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The "Good Faith" is the core of the recently announced rulemaking ... the commission requests comments on many questions to define, and perhaps redefine, what good faith is.

BOTH sides are required to negotiate in good faith ... neither side is required to accept a deal. At the end of the day the final decision comes down to the station to grant consent or not. There is law preventing a local station from being carried without consent - there is no law requiring consent be granted.

At least, not yet. The FCC cannot change the law ... only Congress can change the laws. Generally Congress has been looking at it on a five year cycle. The cycle ends in 2014. I suspect that the way stations and carriers handle consent over the next three years will play heavily into any changes in the law.
justalurker is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 07:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
willscary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east central wisconsin
Posts: 550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
willscary is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 07:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

Blair Levin says we should start all over with MPEG-4:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...Get_Behind.php

Here we go again, folks!
"Is your TV ready for the NEXT Digital TV Transition?"
(Will there be coupons?)

As I commented on there:

"Levin says the new standard would "massively" increase spectrum efficiency, from 19.4 to 30 or 40 million bits per second, which is one of the reasons 3D would be possible.

Levin said he wasn't saying he knew more about the broadcast industry than broadcasters"

Nothing proves the latter statement quite so clearly as the former statement.

It's like saying that if we move from gas to electric vehicles, our streets will become twice as wide. Huh?

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is online now  
Old 03-08-2011, 07:58 PM - 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 Trip in VA View Post

As I commented on there:

"Levin says the new standard would "massively" increase spectrum efficiency, from 19.4 to 30 or 40 million bits per second, which is one of the reasons 3D would be possible.

Levin said he wasn't saying he knew more about the broadcast industry than broadcasters"

Nothing proves the latter statement quite so clearly as the former statement.

It's like saying that if we move from gas to electric vehicles, our streets will become twice as wide. Huh?

- Trip

3-D won't be possible with mpeg-4 if the FCC makes stations share spectrum. Honestly I think 3-D is fad anyways.
BCF68 is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 08:47 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

Blair Levin says we should start all over with MPEG-4:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...Get_Behind.php

Here we go again, folks!
"Is your TV ready for the NEXT Digital TV Transition?"
(Will there be coupons?)

It's already too late to start a broadcast television transition to MPEG-4. Such a transition will barely get going before High Efficiency Video Coding arrives.
Sammer is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 08:56 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
justalurker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Michiana, South of the Border
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

3-D won't be possible with mpeg-4 if the FCC makes stations share spectrum. Honestly I think 3-D is fad anyways.

The FCC's sharing proposal includes the possibility of two current MPEG2 HDs on the same channel (like many stations are doing). MPEG4 is more robust. You could easily see multiple HDs, including 3D, on the same channel (and by the time ATSC is upgraded to include MPEG4 the bugs in 3D will likely be worked out).
justalurker is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 10:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Websites are copyrighted. ISPs make money selling access to those copyrighted websites. The websites don't get a cut of our internet service charges. Cable systems carrying local stations is the same type of deal.

At the carnival at the Kern County Fair, rides can be bought either "a la carte" with tickets for each ride or "bundled" with pay-one-price wristbands. Tickets cost $1 each or 24 for $20 and keddie rides take 3 tickets each and big rides take 4-6 tickets each. Wristbands cost $30 for unlimited rides all day. So if you ride more than just a few rides, then wristbands are a much much better deal. However, it isn't exactly fair. A person who stays at the fair for only 3-4 hours and spends half of that on the rides has to pay the same $30 that I do for staying at the fair from opening to closing and spending the vast majority of that time on the rides. However pay one price is still cheaper than a-la-carte for both of us. A-la-carte cable would be the same way. If you want more than just a few channels you would pay much more for cable. Most of us would end up with a much bigger cable bill for fewer channels if cable went a-la-carte.

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!!
Desert Hawk is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 10:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If they try to force us to buy new tv sets or converter boxes later this decade or next decade i say we take to the streets like they did in egypt a month ago!!! Hell no to another dtv transition!!! And pirate broadcasters to keep broadcasting in mpeg2!!!

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!!
Desert Hawk is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 10:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I typed the above message in all capitals. The system automatically changed it to normal letters. What's up with that?

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!!
Desert Hawk is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 10:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
joblo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

I typed the above message in all capitals. The system automatically changed it to normal letters. What's up with that?

It's the new anti-"Charlie Sheen![tm]" feature.

Gotta stay off that stuff, dude... it's bad for ya...
joblo is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 10:38 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 justalurker View Post

The FCC's sharing proposal includes the possibility of two current MPEG2 HDs on the same channel (like many stations are doing). MPEG4 is more robust. You could easily see multiple HDs, including 3D, on the same channel (and by the time ATSC is upgraded to include MPEG4 the bugs in 3D will likely be worked out).

It makes no sense to upgrade ATSC to MPEG-4 in the US. If every television is now obsolete then so is ATSC. Once we accept the incompatibility of different video compression (preferably HEVC) it's time to improve the broadcast standard a lot more than just that. Much of the technology to do so already exists but just like MPEG-4 (that will be replaced by HEVC) such technology is incompatible.
Sammer is offline  
Old 03-08-2011, 11:35 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
justalurker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Michiana, South of the Border
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

I typed the above message in all capitals. The system automatically changed it to normal letters. What's up with that?

The FCC has mandated volume control on broadcasting after a phase in period. The site admins have installed it on posting much quicker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

It makes no sense to upgrade ATSC to MPEG-4 in the US. If every television is now obsolete then so is ATSC. Once we accept the incompatibility of different video compression (preferably HEVC) it's time to improve the broadcast standard a lot more than just that. Much of the technology to do so already exists but just like MPEG-4 (that will be replaced by HEVC) such technology is incompatible.

Whatever the next standard for OTA ... it will be able to handle multiple HDs and 3D. It isn't difficult. 3D could be done over existing MPEG2 ATSC.
justalurker is offline  
Old 03-09-2011, 03:35 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 justalurker View Post

The FCC's sharing proposal includes the possibility of two current MPEG2 HDs on the same channel (like many stations are doing).

And most people agree the results are HORRIBLE HD quality. You could live off $50 in food per month if you ate nothing but ramen noodles. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
BCF68 is offline  
Old 03-09-2011, 04:52 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
justalurker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Michiana, South of the Border
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

And most people agree the results are HORRIBLE HD quality. You could live off $50 in food per month if you ate nothing but ramen noodles. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Perhaps not a good idea ... but POSSIBLE - and that was the point.
justalurker is offline  
Old 03-09-2011, 05:02 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 willscary
wrong? No. I have lived through several instances where cable and dbs were out as well as land line and cellular phone services, yet i could always listen to local radio and watch local tv. Even in the case where one local station might be down, there are others that are working. Cite me one example where all broadcast tv and radio were out and any other system was available to transmit information to the masses. Just one. (oh, and don't bring ham radio into this because they are also around in times of catastrophic failure, but can not quickly reach the masses as very few people actually have access to a ham unit) i want one instance where broadcast failed thousands of people but cable, dbs, land or cellular was able to alert the thousands of the emergency. Just one instance of your phone ringing telling you and each of your neighbors and townspeople that an emergency had occurred and how you were to proceed.

Very well said. OTA has been serving the public like this for 70 years. Now OTA is better than ever with more channels OTA and the best HD quality available. The pay TV companies know OTA is a threat and want it eliminated before more people find out how good OTA is these days. When it comes to local news and emergency information the pay TV and cell phone companies are taking a knife to a gunfight.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master 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