| And really the big problem is.... Is just how badly the analog to digital TV transition has been handled here in the US. This has been screwed up from the word go.
1.) The February 2009 cutover date should have been for all television, not just over the air. We could have spent the last ten years moving from a 100% analog system to at this date a 90% digital system with just Over The Air analog being the remaining analog on any cable system and that gets turned off in February.
2.) I still can't believe that it is less than a year before analog OTA is turned off and you can still purchase TVs with only analog tuners.
3.) FCC allowing VZ and AT&T to offer digital only systems while requiring that Cable support analog indefinitely.
4.) FCC allowing DirecTV and Dish to pick and chose what local channels they are going to cover in SD and HD while requiring cable to provide the HD digital version, the SD digital version, and a analog version. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Yup. It sucks to be the cable industry who made promises and signed contracts with local governments for sweetheart right-of-way arrangements, doesn't it?
The analog channel space you so loathe is not the problem. In most markets that would take 15 or less of the noisiest, least valuable slots, amounting to less than 10% of an 860 MHz plant. In Chicago, the NTSC full-service OTA locals are 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 56, 60, 62 and 66. Except for NYC and LA most markets have fewer locals. There are hardly any local origination channels here now.
There is no reason for any cable MSO to keep the cable-only channels on analog except for marketing purposes.
DirecTV and Dish are private enterprise who don't use local resources. They can pick and choose all they want just like cable can pick and choose which cable channels to run.
VZ and AT&T didn't make those right-of-way promises and are fitting their customers with digital at the outset. If cable wants out of analog Hell, then let them convert everyone, supply the proper equipment, gratis, and quit whining.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by RadioDoc:It sucks to be the cable industry who made promises and signed contracts with local governments for sweetheart right-of-way arrangements [...] VZ and AT&T didn't make those right-of-way promises I don't understand. Didn't the previous telephone company (now VZ or T) make exactly the same sweetheart deals, except that they made them earlier? (Or is that a bad assumption on my part?)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | The "sweetheart deals" that the telcos made were associated with universal service, guaranteed rate of return regulation and tariffed rate structures in a market ecosystem which is mostly extinct. The video services being provided by Verizon and AT&T are new and the subject of much wrangling and hand-wringing, but any promises made are about service levels and locations, not the programming or muni freebies in exchange for additional ROW access.
VZ is in a unique spot where they are essentially replacing their copper infrastructure with fiber. They currently coexist so there are additional pole attachment fees, contracts and local underground easement issues which are being worked out on a case-by-case basis.
The cable companies made deals with local franchise authorities to wire municipal buildings for free, provide local access channels and studios, and maintain basic service (OTA channels and the government and public access channels) in their lowest-priced analog tier receivable by any TV. In return they got what was effectively a 20 year monopoly and discounted ROW fees.
The big difference now is that cable is stuck with self-created bandwidth problems they are trying to blame on everything but the marketing departments which promise what they can't really deliver.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc: The analog channel space you so loathe is not the problem. In most markets that would take 15 or less of the noisiest, least valuable slots, amounting to less than 10% of an 860 MHz plant. In Chicago, the NTSC full-service OTA locals are 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 56, 60, 62 and 66. Except for NYC and LA most markets have fewer locals. There are hardly any local origination channels here now. Yep...that's is at least 20 analog channels worth of bandwidth
Analog SD = 14 channels
Digital SD = 1 channel (at 14:1 compression)
Digital HD = 5 (4 channels at 3:1 compression, 1 at 2:1 compression)
If the analog SD requirement would be dropped, that is 42 HD channels.
said by RadioDoc: There is no reason for any cable MSO to keep the cable-only channels on analog except for marketing purposes. Yep, that is why no one complains when Comcast moves an analog channel to a digital only channel.
That is why a judge in Michigan didn't stop Comcast from moving PEG channels to digital channels.
Opps! Turned out that people DO complain when analog channels are moved to digital. Also turned out that the Judge did indeed stop Comcast from moving PEG channels to digital. |
|
|
|
| reply to jmallory
said by jmallory:Is just how badly the analog to digital TV transition has been handled here in the US. This has been screwed up from the word go. 1.) The February 2009 cutover date should have been for all television, not just over the air. We could have spent the last ten years moving from a 100% analog system to at this date a 90% digital system with just Over The Air analog being the remaining analog on any cable system and that gets turned off in February. Then we would have to move the digital transition date out to 2012 or later. Just pushing the broadcast standard for a transition to digital ATSC has been difficult enough. As it is, the low power stations and translators will probably have until 2012 to finish their conversion to digital.
2.) I still can't believe that it is less than a year before analog OTA is turned off and you can still purchase TVs with only analog tuners. Where? The cutoff date for all TVs to have ATSC tuners if they wanted to called a TV was March, 2007. After that date, no TVs were supposed to be moved across state lines by vendors for sale that did not have a ATSC tuner. If there are any analog only TVs left for sale, they are old unsold inventory.
Yes, the FCC should have pushed the manufacturers to include ATSC tuners (and clear QAM tuners) in all TVs sooner. But until Congress, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, finally settled in December, 2005 on a digital transition date of Feb 17, 2009, the analog cutoff date was not settled. Only after that could the FCC really force the issue of requiring all TVs to have ATSC tuners and that had to provide time for manufacturers to get costs down and incorporate them in their product development cycles. Would have been better to settle on a transition date more years in advance so the FCC could have required all TVs to have digital tuners say 3 years before analog shutdown day. |
|
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc:The cable companies made deals with local franchise authorities to wire municipal buildings for free, provide local access channels and studios, and maintain basic service (OTA channels and the government and public access channels) in their lowest-priced analog tier receivable by any TV. In return they got what was effectively a 20 year monopoly and discounted ROW fees. Yes but the telecommunications act of 1996 modified those agreements that they are only in effect when there is no competition for video services. In Michigan, Comcast competes with DirecTV, Dish, and AT&T Uverse. In Metro Detroit, Comcast also competes with WOW!. Comcast no longer has a monopoly, these old rules do not apply. In any event, this just validates my point about the real problem being the piecemeal way that the Digital Conversion is being handled.
If all analog television was darkened in 2009, there would not be an argument if "basic" means analog or digital...it's all digital after that date.
If the FCC would have required that all TVs sold in the past decade were digital ready, most consumers would have already had at least one TV that could display the digital PEG channels WITHOUT a box. |
|
| reply to afiggatt
said by afiggatt:Then we would have to move the digital transition date out to 2012 or later. Just pushing the broadcast standard for a transition to digital ATSC has been difficult enough. As it is, the low power stations and translators will probably have until 2012 to finish their conversion to digital. Huh? The ATSC standard was ratified in 1995. We should have had a firm date by 1996. That would have given at least 10 years for everyone to make the transition.
Where? The cutoff date for all TVs to have ATSC tuners if they wanted to called a TV was March, 2007. After that date, no TVs were supposed to be moved across state lines by vendors for sale that did not have a ATSC tuner. If there are any analog only TVs left for sale, they are old unsold inventory. All new TVs should have had hybrid tuners starting in 1996, not 2007. Then we would have had ample time for consumers to get at least one digital capable TV into the home just on normal replacement schedules. But here we are 11 months from migration and if you look you can find an analog only TV.
Yes, the FCC should have pushed the manufacturers to include ATSC tuners (and clear QAM tuners) in all TVs sooner. But until Congress, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, finally settled in December, 2005 on a digital transition date of Feb 17, 2009, the analog cutoff date was not settled. Only after that could the FCC really force the issue of requiring all TVs to have ATSC tuners and that had to provide time for manufacturers to get costs down and incorporate them in their product development cycles. Would have been better to settle on a transition date more years in advance so the FCC could have required all TVs to have digital tuners say 3 years before analog shutdown day.
No, the FCC should have required it in 1996 once the standard was set. There was no question, we would be converting to digital. Waiting until 2005 to even mandate that TVs have digital tuners by 2007 is a blunder of historic proportions. |
|
| said by jmallory:Huh? The ATSC standard was ratified in 1995. We should have had a firm date by 1996. That would have given at least 10 years for everyone to make the transition. But we did not have a firm cutoff date until the bill was signed in January, 2006. Even then a lot of people thought the date would move out again. That is the political and economic reality of the situation. As it is, we still have several hundred full power TV stations that do not have a nominal full power digital signal. Some of them are on the hook to fire up by May 18, 2008; others won't or can't until after Feb. 17, 2009. Just a complicated and costly process for some TV stations. There is even a bill in a a Congressional committee to delay the analog shutdown for up to 5 years for the stations along the border if the stations choose to. Not likely to pass, but there is still a political pushback movement on the analog shutdown date.
All new TVs should have had hybrid tuners starting in 1996, not 2007. 1996?! Would have driven up the costs of TV by a great deal back then for tuners that did not work very well. Did not make sense to require ATSC tuners until the technology matured and costs came down. As it is, there were few TV stations with a ATSC signal until, what? 1998? |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to jmallory
OK, I'll play along.
The PEG and OTA channels are not what I was talking about and you know it. There are a lot more cable-only channels than those. Like the Golf Channel. Or Home Shopping Network. Or any number of ones Comcast has an ownership in that are hardly part of any must-carry arrangement but are there in all their analog glory because nobody will pay the digital tax to watch them.
So let's continue with your 20 channel example. That leaves 115 six megahertz slots, or 690 MHz, not including the sub-band. Are you seriously suggesting that they can't figure out how to provide proper HD in that space? Maybe they could quit the marketing hype until they can actually deliver the product? That would help.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to afiggatt
And those 1998 signals were puny "get it on now" arrangements in the top markets. Hardly enough to support consumer demand. Anyone remember how much a HDTV cost 10 years ago? I do. The display alone approached $15K. The receiver electronics were in a separate box for an additional couple of kilobucks.
Rambling on and on about how this should have been taken care of a decade ago shows a lack of understanding or memory on how this whole thing has been played out.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
| reply to afiggatt
said by afiggatt  But we did not have a firm cutoff date until the bill was signed in January, 2006. Even then a lot of people thought the date would move out again. That is the political and economic reality of the situation. As it is, we still have several hundred full power TV stations that do not have a nominal full power digital signal. Some of them are on the hook to fire up by May 18, 2008; others won't or can't until after Feb. 17, 2009. Just a complicated and costly process for some TV stations. There is even a bill in a a Congressional committee to delay the analog shutdown for up to 5 years for the stations along the border if the stations choose to. Not likely to pass, but there is still a political pushback movement on the analog shutdown date.[/BQUOTE :My point is that we should have had a firm cutoff date...Great Britian had a trial in 2005, started the conversion in late 2007 and they will be done in 2013. (and they will have a better system to boot) Eight years from trial to completion. We have been stumbling along since 1995 and we "might" get "most" of the OTA turned off by March of 2009. Astounding. 1996?! Would have driven up the costs of TV by a great deal back then for tuners that did not work very well. Did not make sense to require ATSC tuners until the technology matured and costs came down. As it is, there were few TV stations with a ATSC signal until, what? 1998?
Let's say we shifted the mandate to 1998 when the first ATSC signals came on-line and let's say we used the $1.5 billion dollars that the federal government is setting aside to buy converter boxes and used that as subsidy to defray some of the costs of adding the HD tuners back in 1998. By this time, nearly every household would have one digital TV capable set. The way we did it, the same $1.5 billion dollars has to buy converter boxes for TV sets that were even purchased a year ago. In fact, the NAB figures it will cost at least $10 billion to provide enough converter boxes. |
|
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc:And those 1998 signals were puny "get it on now" arrangements in the top markets. Hardly enough to support consumer demand. Anyone remember how much a HDTV cost 10 years ago? I do. The display alone approached $15K. The receiver electronics were in a separate box for an additional couple of kilobucks. Rambling on and on about how this should have been taken care of a decade ago shows a lack of understanding or memory on how this whole thing has been played out. I'm not saying that it had to be "done" ten years ago...but it shouldn't have been 2005 before we even mandated that TVs had to have digital tuners by 2007. We should have been educating the public a lot sooner than a "crash" PSA program in 2008. ATSC is the national, mandatory, standard for television...ten years is plenty of time for a migration if you at least don't wait nine years to even start. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | This started almost 8 years ago. Congress got it's fingers in it which has been an even bigger issue.
The added cost of an ATSC tuner back in 2000 would have killed the market for anything besides very expensive "big screen" sets. Mandating that every TV include one back then would make as much sense as mandating that your car run on E85 today.
Considering that the bulk of viewers get their TV via cable or satellite, and that putting an ATSC tuner on those sets is utterly useless, how would you justify a $100 price increase to include an ATSC tuner in 2000 as your mandate?
And what does ATSC have to do with cable? There is no requirement for any TV to have a QAM tuner even today.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
1 edit | Well I guess the real question is if ATSC is the national, mandatory, digital TV standard or not.
If it isn't, then this discussion isn't necessary. The market will decide.
If it is, then things must be done on a timetable.
Let's use the ban on leaded fuel in automobiles as an example. The first phases of the ban were implemented in 1973. By 1975, all new cars required unleaded fuel. By the late 80s (if my recollection is correct) it was nearly impossible to find leaded fuel around here, and by 1995 leaded fuel was only .6% of the fuel used for automobiles in the US. By 1996, it was illegal to put leaded fuel in an on-road vehicle.
If we used the ATSC timetable, we may still have leaded fuel on the market.
And cars are much larger investments than televisions. And there were no subsides, the cost for the emission system was passed directly to the consumer and any leaded cars that were still around when leaded fuel was made illegal had to be converted to unleaded at the owners expense.
If you can do it for cars, why can't we do it for television? |
|
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc:OK, I'll play along. The PEG and OTA channels are not what I was talking about and you know it. There are a lot more cable-only channels than those. Like the Golf Channel. Or Home Shopping Network. Or any number of ones Comcast has an ownership in that are hardly part of any must-carry arrangement but are there in all their analog glory because nobody will pay the digital tax to watch them. So let's continue with your 20 channel example. That leaves 115 six megahertz slots, or 690 MHz, not including the sub-band. Are you seriously suggesting that they can't figure out how to provide proper HD in that space? Maybe they could quit the marketing hype until they can actually deliver the product? That would help. Hey, I agree with you I think by this time, Local OTA and PEG should be the the last things on analog cable. The problem is, the consumer doesn't. The consumer still has an expectation that he can hook cable TV up to any set in the house and still receive a large number of channels, especially the popular ones such as ESPN, RSNs, and news channels without a box. It isn't the "digital tax" or anything like that. Consumer's don't want to pay for a box. And if things were mandated as they became standards, a lot of this wouldn't be a problem.
For example, ATSC tuners should have been mandated once they were standardized.
Once the standards for digital cable were standardized, they should have been made mandatory..at least a QAM tuner capable of tuning non-encrypted content.
The "Integration Ban" should have never been passed making digital boxes more expensive for the cable industry to deploy and doing nothing for the consumer. The fact is people who don't want boxes will never pay for them and people who don't mind a digital box want to lease, not purchase. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc:VZ is in a unique spot where they are essentially replacing their copper infrastructure with fiber. They currently coexist so there are additional pole attachment fees, contracts and local underground easement issues which are being worked out on a case-by-case basis. There aren't any extra legal issues with FIOS. There is no legal difference between fiber for a T3 and fiber for FIOS. Commmunities tried to argue that the Fiber Splitter/Fiber cross connect boxes were Cable TV equipment and subject to local regulation (such as placement, or even its existence), they all fell flat on their faces, either due to FCC or state PUC, since all FIOS fiber has non-Cable-TV uses (T3s, SONET, Metro Ethernet, FIOS voice, FIOS internet) and the FCC doesn't regulate non-tariffed services, and doesn't let states regulate them either, also delivery medium isn't specified by the FCC and PUCs. Verizon could use open wire on ceramic insulators or 2 cans and a string (aslong as it connects to the PSTN) and it would be legal and no govt entity could say anything. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to jmallory
said by jmallory:If the FCC would have required that all TVs sold in the past decade were digital ready, most consumers would have already had at least one TV that could display the digital PEG channels WITHOUT a box. It would have been smarter if the FCC banned TVs from having analog built in, and forced everyone to get a tuner for Analog if they wanted OTA analog with their new TV. That way we would have a massive, GUARENTEED user base. |
|
| reply to jmallory
said by jmallory:Is just how badly the analog to digital TV transition has been handled here in the US. This has been screwed up from the word go. 1.) The February 2009 cutover date should have been for all television, not just over the air. We could have spent the last ten years moving from a 100% analog system to at this date a 90% digital system with just Over The Air analog being the remaining analog on any cable system and that gets turned off in February. I think that they didn't want cable co to rape people at $5+ per TV a mo. Also why can't they give you so many free boxes
ATT gives up to 4 with out a added fee. |
|
JimFPremium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA | reply to afiggatt
said by afiggatt:Yes, the FCC should have pushed the manufacturers to include ATSC tuners (and clear QAM tuners) in all TVs sooner. Even that isn't enough. What you really need is a requirement for a CableCard slot in all TVs, since most content is either encrypted now, or is heading that way shortly as the cable companies move to HD. If you shop for new TVs today, very few of them have CableCard. What is the FCC being paid for anyway? |
|
