or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › Can Antenna TV Come To An End?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can Antenna TV Come To An End? - Page 2

post #31 of 115
Maybe your neighbors just enjoy your company? wink.gif
post #32 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

Maybe your neighbors just enjoy your company? wink.gif

I'd like to think so biggrin.gif but I've seen some of their reception issues so it's probably a toss up tongue.gif
post #33 of 115
What's a TV antenna?

Oh...that's right...we had one back in the 1970s.
post #34 of 115
Some stations broadcast 1-3 channels of programming in addition to their main channel. Most of those are not carried by our local cable system. Would we no longer have those channels available?

It just doesn't make sense for them to turn off their transmitters.
post #35 of 115
Thread Starter 
If stations threatened to turn off their transmitters and\or networks refused to stream their programming OTA, one wonders what organizations like the NFL would say? Would such actions have any bearing on existing contracts? Would Roger Goodell and the owners care if the Super Bowl became subscription only? In the near future, the NCAA BCS playoffs and championships will be subscription only through ESPN.
post #36 of 115
Thread Starter 
My guess is that of all the majors, PBS would stay OTA and we would be able to see electoral debates via PBS.
post #37 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by egnlsn View Post

Some stations broadcast 1-3 channels of programming in addition to their main channel. Most of those are not carried by our local cable system.

2.2 is one of my favorites in Atlanta for old time programming such as Perry Mason, Bob Newhart and Bonanza.
post #38 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwam View Post

ISPs such as Comcast have won the right from the FCC to encrypt all channels on coax for all the major networks such as CBS and NBC. This hasn't been implemented yet but is on the way. Free unencrypted channels will come to an end over coax. One will require a decoder box rather than plugging in the coax from the street directly into a tuner. Boxee for example is negotiating with Comcast to have decryption software in their box for QAM reception.

So whatever court this went through has the power to create new federal law that trumps local laws that have been protecting customers for the last 15 years? Isn't this something that would have to go through congress or has it already and I've missed that?
post #39 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwam View Post

.... Free unencrypted channels will come to an end over coax. One will require a decoder box rather than plugging in the coax from the street directly into a tuner . . .

When implemented, this will negate one of the last remaining advantages of Cable over Satellite. The CableCo's should be careful of what they wish for . . .
post #40 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

So whatever court this went through has the power to create new federal law that trumps local laws that have been protecting customers for the last 15 years? Isn't this something that would have to go through congress or has it already and I've missed that?

"The days of plugging a TV into the wall and getting cable are coming to an end. After a lengthy review process, the FCC has granted cable operators permission to encrypt their most basic cable programming." October 15, 2012

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/15/3506030/fcc-allows-basic-cable-encryption-protects-consumers-open-access

FCC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
Edited by bwam - 4/12/13 at 9:41am
post #41 of 115
Thread Starter 
Between the threat of major networks leaving OTA and the encryption of cable transmission, it feels as if we are being pushed into a corner and checkmated with the only option being subscription. The squeeze is on...free TV a thing of the past...
Edited by bwam - 4/12/13 at 9:53am
post #42 of 115
I think it is more threats just to try and get what they want with no action behind it.

If they pull the plug on OTA, there goes 56 million potential viewers for their advertisements. (statistics from an article from 2012).
Doesn't seem like a great idea. No one will be willing to pay what they do for ads now, then the price to consumers who do pay for cable service will end up skyrocketing. That market is already losing viewers, and this would just make it faster. Would sure help Roku, Netflix, Hulu, and pirating.
post #43 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddog007 View Post

I think it is more threats just to try and get what they want with no action behind it.

If they pull the plug on OTA, there goes 56 million potential viewers for their advertisements. (statistics from an article from 2012).
Doesn't seem like a great idea. No one will be willing to pay what they do for ads now, then the price to consumers who do pay for cable service will end up skyrocketing. That market is already losing viewers, and this would just make it faster. Would sure help Roku, Netflix, Hulu, and pirating.

Exactly. They aren't going to pull the plug on OTA because of some little upstart company. The situation they fear is cable companies somehow pulling this off and not paying retrans fees, but I don't see that happening, as it is technologically a near impossibility.
post #44 of 115
Thread Starter 
Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia predicted that if broadcasters make good on their threats to pull high-value programming off their free over-the-air TV nets because of his company’s Internet streaming service, they would encounter a backlash by policymakers and consumers.

“I won’t go into hypotheticals… but the real question is a consumer question. Can you disenfranchise 54 million consumers?” Kanojia said, speaking at the Ad Age Digital Conference in New York. “There is going to be a real question across the board.”

Kanojia was citing NAB figures from last June, based on a study by GfK Media, that 54 million Americans rely on antennas for TV. Other estimates for broadcast-only homes are much lower: Nielsen estimates 11.3 million households watched only over-the-air television in the fourth quarter of 2012.
post #45 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwam View Post

Some other questions I have:

1. Intuitively people have assumed that we have a "right" to receive broadcasts freely because broadcasters bid on the public airwaves. But broadcasters can just remove themselves from the public airwaves and that "right to receive" OTA disappears. There is no Second Amendment for OTA...

2. If the major networks leave the public airwaves, who would step in to fill them?

It's not a question of rights. I see it as the government negotiating a bad agreement on behalf of the public. Much of that is not the government's fault, the landscape has changed so much, the contracts quickly become obsolete.

This guy thinks OTA is silly anyway, the bandwidth can be used more productively:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/04/22/aereo-and-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/

I would say an updated license ought to require local broadcasters to both send a signal over the air and open a streaming channel online. But of course chances are this idea will look obsolete soon too.

I've read a lot of interesting articles about Aereo the last few days, will post the links.
post #46 of 115
http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/cbs-invests-in-streaming-company-syncbak/
Syncbak is a technology endorsed by all the networks that would allow streaming on the internet that only reaches geographically appropriate customers. CBS just invested in the company. So locals and networks are moving to intenet. Will choices be better with Aereo offering competition?

The networks threats to drop OTA looks hollow, still much money in OTA advertising:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/new-tech-aereo-repackages-networks-free-tv-article-1.1315102
“In 2012, broadcast advertising revenue was $27.4 billion, divided among just nine networks, according to the financial website motleyfool.com. For the same period, cable advertising was $24.3 billion, divided among 76 networks”

The retrans fees are increasingly important, but they still don’t compare to advertising:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/will-aereo-force-fox-become-442313
“From 2012-16, the broadcast networks currently stand to make $9.2 billion in retrans fees but $91.8 billion in advertising revenue….
There's also the unanswered question of whether jumping off the over-the-air system in hopes of raising the $1 sub rate to a $3 sub rate is really a better financial move than just competing against Aereo, which offers its service for $8 to $12 a month. The networks could presumably beat that price plus throw in a wider range of on-demand programming “


This guy sees it differently, broadcast TV is dying, and along with it the Aereo model:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/04/22/aereo-and-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/


http://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlouis/2013/04/13/aereo-the-future-of-tv-is-here-today/
“So while Netflix is busy working hard on becoming the next type of TV station, Aereo is working on becoming the next type of cable company. These days, the battle for your TV set is raging on and a variety of new models are emerging. The only question that remains is whether the incumbents will adapt or die.”
post #47 of 115
Why do they need to compete with or kill Aereo? Just demand subscriber numbers and charge the advertisers accordingly. Aereo is just allowing them to make more money by reaching more people. And the DVR functionality isn't any different than what Cablevision, TWC, Comcast, FIOS, U-Verse, and DirecTV offer.

The government could make those airwaves specifically for TV, and if the broadcasters that are on there now leave, someone else will come in and take their place. We have way more than plenty of mobile and broadband wireless spectrum, if we are more effective at using it efficiently, we wouldn't need any more.

You also don't need any fancy technology to geographically limit internet subscribers. It's called checking IP addresses. It's not foolproof, but for TV, who cares? Why does the rigid DMA system even exist? They should just let DMAs exist purely for marketing, get them out of federal law, and if DirecTV wants to give everyone 20 different cities' locals, fine. The fact is they're not, because even they have spot beams to re-use spectrum.
post #48 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post

Why do they need to compete with or kill Aereo? Just demand subscriber numbers and charge the advertisers accordingly. Aereo is just allowing them to make more money by reaching more people.

That is a brilliant idea! Aereo becomes an extended advertising medium for the networks. I would say this is a win-win situation for everyone.
post #49 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwam View Post

That is a brilliant idea! Aereo becomes an extended advertising medium for the networks. I would say this is a win-win situation for everyone.

Yeah. I know, it's so radical, right? The networks should support any and all mechanisms that get their signal to every last viewer in their DMA.
post #50 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post

The government could make those airwaves specifically for TV, and if the broadcasters that are on there now leave, someone else will come in and take their place. We have way more than plenty of mobile and broadband wireless spectrum, if we are more effective at using it efficiently, we wouldn't need any more.

I sure don't understand all the competing business interests, but I think the facts are different from what intuitively seems true. From reuters blog:
"The government has a plan to start a series of cleverly-designed auctions, whereby broadcast spectrum would end up being bought from broadcasters and consolidated in the hands of wireless-data companies who value it more highly. That plan can’t be put in place too quickly: the fact is that we’re living in a world where TV broadcasts create much less value than wireless companies could realize with a fraction of the bandwidth."
post #51 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post

You also don't need any fancy technology to geographically limit internet subscribers. It's called checking IP addresses. It's not foolproof, but for TV, who cares? Why does the rigid DMA system even exist? They should just let DMAs exist purely for marketing, get them out of federal law, and if DirecTV wants to give everyone 20 different cities' locals, fine. The fact is they're not, because even they have spot beams to re-use spectrum.

I agree with you about DMA, now that I understand what it means.
http://thepomoblog.com/index.php/online-broadcasting-oxymoron-or-solution/
The concept, however, is a wager, a bet that the old paradigm of broadcasting will work in the new paradigm of the Web. I wouldn’t want any part of that bet, because it’s the textbook “new wine into old wineskins” problem. The idea is to carve up the Web into DMAs (designated marketing areas) and work within those geographic spaces, exactly as broadcasting has since the beginning. It defiantly rejects the 3-way nature of the Web in favor of an old 2-way model, and it uses the scarcity of copyright as the hammer to make and mold the new world. This treats the Web as broadcasting’s playground when it is actually the playground of “the people,” and especially Jay Rosen’s “the people formerly known as the audience.”

It makes more sense than the newspaper consortium did, but it’s still an inside industry attempt to save itself. The disruption doesn’t care.



I'm sure Aereo is using IP addresses to determine location. I tried to subscribe to their NYC service, and they told me to get lost.
BTW, Aereo announced today that they will be broadcasting Boston stations starting May 15. So perhaps their 22-city expansion is for real.

Syncbak is doing something more reliable and sophisticated, similar to what the satellites do to determine locality. It's so easy to fake-out IP using proxy servers, that I guess IP is not good enough. (Syncbak has contracts with broadcasters, so it cares more than Aereo about erecting a fence.) As I understand it, Syncbak is actually broadcasting an analog signal OTA to do a physical validation.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/04/prweb5238024.htm
Syncbak’s technology is driven by equipment installed in broadcast stations that opens a secure dialogue between connected devices permanently installed in consumers’ homes and broadcast signals. This closed transmission path ensures that that only those viewers in sync with a broadcast station can receive content over the Internet.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/04/prweb5238024.htm
Syncbak does it by embedding a bit of code in a broadcaster’s digital over-the-air signal. A special antenna in a consumer’s home — either embedded in a TV set or sold separately — listens for code and if it hears it sends a signal back to the station that authorizes that consumer to receive the station’s Internet channel. If a device can no longer hear the station’s over-the-air signal the digital signal is cut off. In principle, at least, it’s like ivi.TV or FilmOn.com without the extra-territorial copyright infringement or contract breach.

Locality determination is about half of what Syncbak offers. Their other contribution is to develop viewing software for a wide range of mobile devices.
Edited by Richard Burger - 4/23/13 at 9:53am
post #52 of 115
Don't see this happening for another generation or two, still a lot of people with OTA TV.
post #53 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

I sure don't understand all the competing business interests, but I think the facts are different from what intuitively seems true. From reuters blog:
"The government has a plan to start a series of cleverly-designed auctions, whereby broadcast spectrum would end up being bought from broadcasters and consolidated in the hands of wireless-data companies who value it more highly. That plan can’t be put in place too quickly: the fact is that we’re living in a world where TV broadcasts create much less value than wireless companies could realize with a fraction of the bandwidth."

Bull****. The wireless companies already have far more spectrum than they need. Do some re-alignments in the existing bands, and let it be at that. As it is, I think they should have kept 700 for TV, but that's water over the dam now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

Syncbak is doing something more reliable and sophisticated, similar to what the satellites do to determine locality. It's so easy to fake-out IP using proxy servers, that I guess IP is not good enough. (Syncbak has contracts with broadcasters, so it cares more than Aereo about erecting a fence.) As I understand it, Syncbak is actually broadcasting an analog signal OTA to do a physical validation.

Who cares if it is easy to fake out? OMG the world is ending because a few computer nerds watch TV stations through a VPN from another city because they are that advanced. Mobile viewing apps already exist.
post #54 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCbridge View Post

Don't see this happening for another generation or two, still a lot of people with OTA TV.

I think the hold-up is the lousy internet service in much of the country.

I wish the U.S. would build a data infrastructure like South Korea has done.
post #55 of 115


Here's the aereo antenna you get to rent.
post #56 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

Here's the aereo antenna you get to rent.

Admittedly, it's been 30 years since I last took a physics class, but someone tell me how that thing is supposed to pick up WABC?

Sure smells like fraud to me.
post #57 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhett View Post

Sure smells like fraud to me.
I don't know about fraud, but it certainly is a Rube Goldberg contraption, as the dissenting judge put it. Obviously there is some other device concentrating the signal for the antenna farm. I think of it as irrigation. smile.gif
post #58 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhett View Post

Admittedly, it's been 30 years since I last took a physics class, but someone tell me how that thing is supposed to pick up WABC?

Sure smells like fraud to me.

Those things are actually tuned. Considering a lot of stations pick up 20 miles away with a coat-hanger, putting a bunch of those in a datacenter right near the broadcast sites and picking the signal up isn't exactly rocket science.
post #59 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhett View Post

Admittedly, it's been 30 years since I last took a physics class, but someone tell me how that thing is supposed to pick up WABC?

Sure smells like fraud to me.

http://gigaom.com/2013/02/06/inside-aereo-new-photos-of-the-tech-thats-changing-how-we-watch-tv/

Aereo’s 1.5 inch antenna changes its electrical and magnetic characteristics in order to replicate the tasks of a standard 35 inch UFH or three foot VHF antenna.
post #60 of 115
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Technical
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › Can Antenna TV Come To An End?