AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 55

Just spotted this tonight, might be worth a read:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...hp?rssid=20070

- Trip

Instead of expanding the FM band, a more likely scenario is requiring FM to switch to digital only (HD Radio), shrinking the FM band to 88-96 MHz (HD Radio in digital-only mode allows 7 programs per station, allowing "channel sharing" of radio stations), and creating 2 new low VHF DTV channels in 96.1-102 and 102.1-108 to replace UHF channels that will be taken away. They could be numbered RF 0 and RF 1, whcih wouldn't matter much with virtual channel mapping. If the FCC is hell-bent on ramming another DTV transition to MPEG4 or HEVC down our throats, then they might as well add new VHF channels at the same time!

I don't really want to see this happen. With the current idiots in charge of the FCC, it certainly could happen.

Thanks for posting this, Trip. (What follows is not directed at you.)

I don't like this idea much at all. Goodmon's plan is just another means, like retrans before it, for broadcasters to muscle in on somebody else's business and grab a cut of their revenue stream.

Basically, subscribers would PAY telcos, who would PAY broadcasters, who would PAY the government. And HD and other TV service would still be DEGRADED in order to provide the necessary bandwidth to the telcos. So (a) it creates a backdoor tax, and (b) it creates an unnecessary middleman.

How is this any better than just transferring spectrum to the telcos?

More likely than expansion into channel 6? Not likely at all ... although at least the TV channels created are VHF-HI.

The broadcasters still get to keep their channels, only selling use of the "empty boxcars" to telcos for large file distribution. Instead of losing a whole channel to wireless data they only give up the bandwidth they want to give up. (Going from losing at least half up to 83% of their bandwidth by sharing with other TV stations to giving up only the bandwidth level they want to share with wireless data providers.)

You still seem to have a problem with the idea of the broadcasters making any money at anything.

Broadcasters have the infrastructure already in place to provide the service (wide-area broadcasts of material that large numbers of people want simultaneously). If it keeps the broadband industry from having to run excess capacity 24/7 just to accommodate the "spurts' in capacity, why is that so bad? Would you rather just pay twice as much for your internet, so their facilities can sit idle?

Too many people have already declared the "HD Radio" system to be "useless, messed-up, worthless", etc. (Just check out radio-info.com ).
I'm not sure that DTV on the lower FM band would be substantially better than DTV on the channels just below it. And, too many people are already salivating over the idea of making room for thousands more analog FM stations.

I suggested on the other board (mostly broadcasters) that we eventually migrate to some sort of new digital radio system (not necessarily IBOC), using channels 5 and 6, and see if it could gradually expand in to the current 88-108 FM allocation. It was immediately shot down, and I was told, "We're gonna stay exactly like we are now". Even when I asked the question, "What, then, do we need to do differently, to make an acceptable Digital radio service?", the answer was, "We ain't gonna!".

Kinda' frustrating.

My two cents on HD radio...good and bad

I have a Sony XDR F1HD tuner that has been highly modded. I use a Fanfare omnidirectional whip antenna (which works fantastically even though most FM philes dismiss it for a lack of gain and directivity) that sits 49' above the ground as the pinnacle to my antena tower. The FM band has 100 frequencies and I receive 82 stations in full FM stereo quieting, plus another 10 or so that are useable with some background hiss. This is in a rural part of Wisconsin, not a large metro area!

There are a few FM stations that also broadcast in HD mode. All of the PBS stations have multiple streams and a few of the commercial stations have a single HD stream that mimics their analog stream. I will say that the PBS classical streams sound quite good, but not great. They sound like 256kbps quality MP3 playback, not "full CD" sound.

All of the commercial stations in our area sound like 128kbps playback, at best. Some sound worse. I would much rather listen to the analog signal than the hybrid digital streams.

AM is different. Milwaukee and Chicago have stations broadcasting in AM HD that are about 110 and 160 miles away from me. Analog AM at this distance is very hissy and many times during the evenings, unlistenable. The same stations, in HD, are crystal clear, with extended highs and a sound quality that approaches FM. Best of all, no hiss! Once in a while there are a few digital artifacts in the sound, but talk radio is fantastic in HD.

As far as I am concerned, AM can go to all HD, but FM should stay analog unless someone bites the bullet and begins using more bandwidth (by eliminating their analog signal) for a true CD quality sound.

I have heard that adjacent channels are a problem with HD...there is a severe interference that many broadcasters are unhappy with. This digital tuner from Sony (the only one that has all digital circuitry, as far as I know) does not have problems with adjacent channel interference, and what is really cool is that somehow the digital tuner can cut through co-channel interference as long as one station is a fair amount stronger. it is amazing how well it handles adjacent channel interference compared to a fully modded mid-70's Kenwood KT-8300 6-gang tuner, and intelligable co-channel reception is something that I have never really experienced with an analog tuner.

Exactly what I was thinking. Joblo, how is it so hard to understand that Pay TV is pirating OTA signals? Yes, the signals are free to capture for anyone who is willing to erect the correct antenna at the correct height for their location. That does not give the Pay TV providers the right to take the signal and distribute it for profit.

We have been over this many times. It is copyright infringement to take and use a broadcast signal that someone else produced without the expressed written consent of the entity who is providing it. Written consent may be a simple agreement, or it could involve compensation.

This is a simple law that you fail to grasp.

Please explain the distants legislation - a law that SPECIFICALLY gives satellite companies the right to take, without permission, the signal of any network station and rebroadcast it. It is a simple law. The "copyright" aspect of that law is covered under a statutory license.

How does the law for locals handle copyrights? Stations that choose "must carry" receive NO compensation from the cable or satellite provider yet the process of rebroadcast remains exactly the same. Why is this not a problem for the "copyright police"? Because there is a simple law that waives copyright payments for these rebroadcasts.

So perhaps you should grasp the simple laws that are in place and realize that retrans is NOT an issue of copyright. Those issues are covered by law. Retrans of locals is an issue of permission separate from copyright - and what began as "please ask first" has morphed in to a yet another way for stations to make money.

Must Carry is different. Must carry is a way to protect the little guy. It is a way to get exposure to the small religious or alternate language station. It is a way to get the CW and MyNetwork to local viewers. These local stations do not have the ratings clout that would make them incredibly desirable to Pay TV providers. This is bandwidth that Pay TV probably feels that it could put to better use. Without Must Carry, these smaller and less watched stations would not be able to compete.

That said, I personally would have no problem letting these stations die out. Others, who rely on spanish broadcasting channels or religious channels, will definitely disagree. The government is subsidizing these channels by mandating Must Carry.

Years ago, when cable first came about, it was different. All of the locals wanted Must Carry because of the uncertainty of how the cable industry would shake out.

Now, the major networks know their worth. They are now asking their local affiliates to push for retrans fees and give them a cut. Fox and from what I have recently heard, CBS, are asking for more and more in fees and are telling affiliate owners, such as Lin, to fight for them. I recently read that Fox wants 25 cents per pay customer, so the local affiliates are asking for 35 cents or more. This is business. The networks create content. The affiliates create local content. The local affiliates pay royalties for the use of syndicated content. The networks and affiliates want to be paid for this content and they have every right to ask. Their original content is copyrighted and by law, they have the right to ask for permission and compensation for this content.

On the business end, they pay for the syndicated content and are asking for reimbusement for some of their costs in this area also.

The copyright laws are clear. You may also need to grasp this.

You seem to think that broadcasters should be forced to make all of their money on advertizing revenue. Diversifying is essential in today's world. They have the right to ask for retrans fees and would be stupid not to negotiate them to the maximum extent of what the market will bear.

Perhaps the advertizing market is not strong enough to support the cost of local broadcasting. We have already seen the amount of ad time per 1/2 hour of TV rise. Without the added revenue of retrans fees, the broadcaster could not afford to continue. If that happens, how does local content continue? How do bills get paid and the redundancy of mutiple broadcst options continue? Thes multiple broadcasts are neccessary for the EBS to function. A single broadcast can go down. The chances of a half dozen or more independent broadcasts going down at once is much less likely.

Copyright IS a simple concept.

EDIT:

Justalurker, I just re-read your post and I guess I failed to answer your original question.

I feel that the distants legislation is missing ONE point. Yes, it allows sat systems to pick up national networks free of charge, but it restricts them to only provide them in areas where local affiliates are not available, if I recall. My gripe is that these national feeds should then be available to anyone with Free To Air satellite equipment. They are not. When the governement approved this legislation, they should have forced these signals to be unencrypted and available to everyone who has the equipment to capture this signal. Without this feature, sat providers are again making money off of a free signal. With the unencrypted signal clause, they would truly only be a transmission agent, as you have pointed out previously.

I knew I should have asked for an answer in 50 words or less ... oh well.


No ... you claimed retransmission of a broadcast signal was copyright infringement and that those rebroadcasting the signal must pay for the copyright. Must Carry remains a broadcast signal retransmitted. No different. Where are the copyright fees being paid? Nowhere. The law exempts local-into-local (Must Carry and Retrans Consent) from copyright payments.


I have a clear understanding. I've read the retransmission laws I'm speaking about.


I noticed ... but even with your edit you still ignored the copyright/permission aspect of the law. (Back when I first started caring about distants I thought it was impossible that stations were carried without consent - yet the law clearly states that, as distants, they can be.)

On to the new topic ...

Which seems to be contradictory to your belief that copyright fees need to be paid for rebroadcasts. Make up your mind, flip a coin if needed. Decide what you believe and then come back. You can't claim copyright MUST be paid and then remove the mechanism in place to count viewers and charge that fee.


So your opinion changes based on whether or not the rebroadcaster loses money? Satellites and uplink centers cost money ... there needs to be SOME compensation for those costs otherwise there is no reason for the companies to provide the service at all. Even if it could be worked out to where there is no profit from providing the service would you object? (Noting that the price of locals does not cover the cost of retransmission, as detailed in previous posts.)

I don't care who owns the channels. I care about the services on the channels.


This is the problem. Broadcasters then control bandwidth supply.

It's another retrans type time bomb. Maybe it will be ok while bandwidth is plentiful, however long that is. But at some point when bandwidth gets tight, possibly without much warning, wireless bills will skyrocket and broadcasters will reap enormous windfall profits. And/or free broadcast services will rapidly degrade or disappear completely. And anyone who invests in broadcast reception equipment just before that point will suddenly find they've made a very poor investment.

No thanks.

I want the government controlling bandwidth supply, not broadcasters. It's not a perfect system, but at least government is accountable to some degree.



If you can explain how paying broadcasters in perpetuity - Goodmon's words - is going to keep broadband prices lower over the long run, I'd love to hear it.

Again, it will be just like retrans. Once we give broadcasters something, we can never take it back. And some day, the FCC will need to consider new rules about good faith bandwidth negotiations, just as they are doing now with retrans.

No thanks.



By George, I think you've got it!

Can't speak for justalurker, but that is very definitely what I think.

Wrong.

DNS, unlike LIL, is subject to statutory royalty payments, and that is the problem with it. (What DNS is exempt from is retrans consent, not rights payments.)

The theory behind statutory royalty payments for out of market service is that the rights don't clear adequately through the ad market because the ads are targeted locally rather than at out of market viewers, meaning the station owner cannot be expected to pay for the content based on those viewers.

This is true for superstations - which also carry royalty payments, even for those special 5 that are exempt from consent - but NOT for DNS.

Network programming, unlike superstation programming, DOES carry nationally targeted ads, therefore the rights payments for those programs do clear effectively through the ad market. So the rights holder in those cases is effectively being paid twice.

(Yes, I know, DNS feeds also include NYC/LA newscasts and such, but let's be honest. People buy DNS primarily for the network content, not the local news.)

Again, Pay TV providers can raise their prices. It does not bother me in the least. I don't feel that they have a right to take any signal without consent. Sometimes that consent will include compensation.

I also don't care for Must Carry, but MANY others, who really care about obscure channels that serve a purpose to people other than me, do care about it. It is their "lifeline" and it also allows these less popular broadcasters to stay in business. Must Carry is a protection for the "little guys" in the broadcast business.

joblo,

I am sorry, but your post is greek to me. In my world DNS is the Domain Name System in computer networking. I am not sure what you are referring to. Please elaborate on DNS and LiL.

DNS = Distant Network Service, or Distant Network Station
LiL = Local-into-Local

The odd thing is that rebroadcasters are NOT getting the permission of the rights owner, they are getting (when required) the permission of a TV station that does not own any rights beyond their own OTA broadcast. In essence, the stations are selling something that isn't theirs to sell.


Consent is not needed for Distants. You only wish it was.


No ... agreement is only reached because the system has allowed OTA stations to ask for compensation for their consent. There does not have to be agreement or acceptance of all the "reasons" that a station may offer for why they want the money. They just have to agree on the price.


Welcome to our world.

As one of those viewing public, I completely agree. Any change which renders our less than one year old Tivo and brand new LCD TV (over $1500 combined) unable to view broadcast programming, will effectively make our decision to drop TV altogether. We are not going to spend money to replace either one of these expensive devices any time within the next 5-10 years, short of the device failing outright. Now if our Tivo could be upgraded to the new standard, or we got a significant credit (at least 50% of the replacement cost), we might consider that, and just use the TV as a monitor, which is what we primarily do anyhow. But based on existing problems and updates, I seriously doubt our Tivo could be modified to work with a new broadcast format.

Given a choice between DVD quality 480p for free, and 720p/1080i for $25-$100+ per month, we'll go with the 480p every time! Yes, HDTV looks better done properly, but as we are discovering, that's not always. I have seen numerous 720p/1080i broadcasts from the major networks that I would consider inferior to DVD quality due to excessive noise and compression artifacts. Meanwhile, we get our FOX broadcast at 480p because it's on a subchannel, and it always looks as good as a DVD, with almost no noise and never any compression artifacts.

Could you identify your local FOX affiliate please?

I'd like to check Trip's site for the bit rate.

Thanks.

It's presumably KZJO in Seattle, as every other Fox affiliate in Washington state is in HD. I don't have updated data on it, sadly, as all my Seattle contacts have fallen out of contact. Last data I have is from when KZJO was dual HD; they've since made Fox into a wide SD feed to facilitate the addition of Antenna TV.

- Trip

Trip is right, it's KZJO on 22-2, and it is widescreen (does that make it 853 x 480?). We didn't have our HDTV prior to the addition of Antenna TV on 22-3, which put FOX down to 480p instead of 720p, so I can't really compare how the quality was beforehand. We don't have the proper antenna to receive the HD Fox on KCPQ/VHF 13, and it's dubious whether we could ever receive it due to location.

To my knowledge, it's 704x480i with rectangular pixels rather than square or squarish ones.

- Trip

Interesting. I guess that saves a little bit of bandwidth vs square pixels. I frankly am floored at how good it looks. I was expecting it to look rather poor, causing me to spend all kinds of money on new antennas/combiners/tower/etc, to get Fox in HD. And I especially expected to notice lower quality since our new screen is 2.5 times larger than the old. But other than looking a little soft and obviously lower resolution, there's not a lot to fault in the picture. And we're sitting about three feet closer than we normally would, due to a remodeling project. I just turn up the sharpness a few clicks and it's great.

I will note that all the other subchannels have much inferior picture quality to 22-2. So whatever JoeTV is doing, they're doing it right. Maybe they're not giving the primary channel as much bandwidth as other stations are? I can't think of anything we watch on 22-1.

While I don't want to see free HDTV go away, if it came down to free SDTV of this quality level vs paying out-the-nose to cable or satellite, we'd pick the free. This quality significantly exceeds what we can obtain via streaming Netflix/Hulu, unless we want to pay 40-90% more for internet through Comcast - no thanks.

Thanks! I am a bricklayer by trade, a labor and industrial economist by diploma, an estimator and project manager by title and a computer and AV technician by leisure use. I am not a student of acronyms or abbreviations.

As someone outside the broadcast industry I find this discussion both fascinating and as an OTA viewer rather dismaying.

It is interesting comparing the different financial justifications being used by: broadcaster's vs MSO/DBS and Web sites vs ISPs. It is amazing watching each side creating rather tortured justifications why the other guy should pay. Since many of the players straddle both methods of distribution they get to talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on which business model they are trying to justify.

Broadcasters
It's my IP and I want to control how it gets to the ultimate customer. I charge the retail supplier (MSO/DBS) for the privilege of delivering my programs to their customers.

Internet
It's my IP and I want to make sure it gets to as many customers as possible. I pay my portion of transit costs and my customers pay theirs by subscribing to an ISP. The network "meets-in-the-middle and everyone is happy. ISPs for reasons, I do not fully understand, want to change the rules and charge web sites for the privilege of letting their bits traverse the ISP network on the way to the ISP's customers.

Then you really should be able to figure out how use the quote button when you respond to posts, shouldn't you?


And yet you changed "LIL" to "LiL" in your last response to me. So maybe your fingers are students of TLAs?

Again...really? I will proof read a little better next time, checking for any spelling and grammer mistakes prior to posting.

Perhaps it is an IE9 problem, or perhaps it is 64 bit that is a problem, but I am not able to post when using multi quote, so I have used this method to get around it. While not perfect, and apparently totally unacceptable to you, this method works in a similar, though perhaps less appealing manner.

Yep, that's Trolling 101, dude: never correct the spelling of a TLA you're pretending not to know... real rookie mistake, that...

But hey, thanks for playing, and better luck next time!

I agree also. There shouldn't be another DTV transition for at least another 50 years. And it should offer a lot more than ATSC MPEG 2 that were using now. I was all for the last DTV transition. NTSC analog served its purpose well for close to 70 years. Now with ATSC we have HD and more channels due to subchannels.