The NYT Says the Transition News Isn't Good

UCLAN wrote:
robmx wrote:

Your ignorance is showing. If a station declares "must carry" for a
signal,
it can NOT demand payment. That falls under RETRANSMISSION CONSENT. They
can have one or the other, but not both.

What incentive do they have to deliver HD OTA when they can get paid
for that content from cable subscribers while getting paid for
mobile on our OTA spectrum?

Again, what is your source for claiming stations get paid for having
their
HD signal on cable?

Here are a few.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6624376.html

That entire story is about RETRANSMISSION CONSENT. The cable company can
just say "no thanks" and not carry the station.


First, you asked a question. "Again, what is your source for claiming
stations get paid for having their HD signal on cable?"

I answered it.

You seemed to assume that I said ALL station were getting paid for their
HD content. I didn't.

You assumed that I was suggesting that a cable company HAD to pay for
the content whether they wanted to or not. I didn't. They have a choice.
If they want the content they have to pay for it.

Most broadcasters with decent content will get paid for it by cable
companies. Most broadcasters will try mobile DTV and ALL of those who do
so successfully will try to use more of the spectrum for OTA mobile DTV
until they reach the limit.

And since broadcasters only need to deliver one SD program with MPEG2
for free that is what they will do. They will deliver HD to cable and
satellite and get paid for it or cease delivering it and one SD program
with MPEG2 for free OTA while using the rest of the spectrum for a
mobile OTA subscription service. This service could include, no will
include HD content.

They will do that until virtually all OTA viewers have abandoned OTA
free DTV and then use that excuse to goad Congress into letting them
change to a better mobile modulation and more efficient codec.

The only question is will Congress let that happen or will they take the
spectrum from broadcasters and sell it.

Bob Miller

Bob Miller wrote:

And since broadcasters only need to deliver one SD program with MPEG2
for free that is what they will do. They will deliver HD to cable and
satellite and get paid for it or cease delivering it and one SD program
with MPEG2 for free OTA while using the rest of the spectrum for a
mobile OTA subscription service. This service could include, no will
include HD content.

They will do that until virtually all OTA viewers have abandoned OTA
free DTV and then use that excuse to goad Congress into letting them
change to a better mobile modulation and more efficient codec.

The only question is will Congress let that happen or will they take the
spectrum from broadcasters and sell it.

Bob Miller

Are you just making up stuff again and think that we are stupid enough
to believe it? You CLEARLY have never read a franchise agreement
between a network and a local affiliate. The is clear, precise language
in the agreements that prohibit the stations from dropping the HD feeds
on their OTA channel. Yes, the FCC does permit OTA SD only but NONE of
the networks do (not even the "non-network" ones like MyTV).

You REALLY, REALLY need to do your homework before you post your lies
(or is it just wishful thinking?). There are a LOT more people that
post here that know a LOT more about "the business" than you do.
--
Bill R.


e-mail address disguised to reduce spam

Bob Miller wrote:
UCLAN wrote:
robmx wrote:

Your ignorance is showing. If a station declares "must carry" for a
signal,
it can NOT demand payment. That falls under RETRANSMISSION CONSENT.
They
can have one or the other, but not both.

What incentive do they have to deliver HD OTA when they can get
paid for that content from cable subscribers while getting paid for
mobile on our OTA spectrum?


And since broadcasters only need to deliver one SD program with MPEG2
for free that is what they will do. They will deliver HD to cable and
satellite and get paid for it or cease delivering it and one SD program
with MPEG2 for free OTA while using the rest of the spectrum for a
mobile OTA subscription service. This service could include, no will
include HD content.

They will do that until virtually all OTA viewers have abandoned OTA
free DTV and then use that excuse to goad Congress into letting them
change to a better mobile modulation and more efficient codec.

The only question is will Congress let that happen or will they take the
spectrum from broadcasters and sell it.

Bob Miller

Why would broadcasters want to completely switch to the M/H standard
when there are over 150,000,000 8-VSB TV sets and no sets available that
receive the mobile standard. What kind of business model is that?

It would be nice to change to MPEG4 .h264 but at this time no sets have
been made for this codec. By the way MPEG4 is an approved codec for
ATSC, check the web site.

Also many field trials have shown that current generation 8-VSB chip
sets perform as well or better than COFDM including the ability to use
single frequency networks. This has been proven in trials in the New
York City area,

Regards,

Bill Cohn - N9MHT

Bill Cohn wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
UCLAN wrote:
robmx wrote:

Your ignorance is showing. If a station declares "must carry" for a
signal,
it can NOT demand payment. That falls under RETRANSMISSION CONSENT.
They
can have one or the other, but not both.

What incentive do they have to deliver HD OTA when they can get
paid for that content from cable subscribers while getting paid
for mobile on our OTA spectrum?


And since broadcasters only need to deliver one SD program with MPEG2
for free that is what they will do. They will deliver HD to cable and
satellite and get paid for it or cease delivering it and one SD
program with MPEG2 for free OTA while using the rest of the spectrum
for a mobile OTA subscription service. This service could include, no
will include HD content.

They will do that until virtually all OTA viewers have abandoned OTA
free DTV and then use that excuse to goad Congress into letting them
change to a better mobile modulation and more efficient codec.

The only question is will Congress let that happen or will they take
the spectrum from broadcasters and sell it.

Bob Miller

Why would broadcasters want to completely switch to the M/H standard
when there are over 150,000,000 8-VSB TV sets and no sets available that
receive the mobile standard. What kind of business model is that?

Doesn't matter how many 8-VSB sets there are if no one is using them to
receive 8-VSB. If 98% of homes are receiving their OTA channels via
cable or satellite. If at the same time people are freely buying lots of
M/H receivers for their laptops and other mobile devices and each one
represents a new source of cash revenue.

If the networks are sharing in that revenue maybe they will like the
idea of not only selling their HD on cable but also on M/H with MPEG4.
And if that is doing well then why not petition for using all the
spectrum with MPEG4 and a far better modulation.

It would be nice to change to MPEG4 .h264 but at this time no sets have
been made for this codec. By the way MPEG4 is an approved codec for
ATSC, check the web site.

Yes it is but that does not change the fact that it cannot be used for
the required SD program OTA and that the reason for that was to make
sure that the one free required program would be available on all legacy
receivers going back to 1998.

Not only would it be "nice" to change to MPEG4 but it would increase the
carrying capacity of the 6 MHz by a factor of at least 2 now and 3 or 4
later in the MPEG4 lifespan. That doubling or quadrupling of carrying
capacity is much more valuable to the public and the broadcaster than
the cost of a new receiver which supports both it and say MPEG4.

And that value goes on for as long as the broadcaster holds his license
which may not be that long if the transition ends with less than 2% of
households using OTA.

Also many field trials have shown that current generation 8-VSB chip
sets perform as well or better than COFDM including the ability to use
single frequency networks. This has been proven in trials in the New
York City area,

How many times have I heard BS like that over the last 10 years. Like
the fact that Motorola and NxtWave had solved ALL static and dynamic
multipath problems back in 1999.

Press releases from both of them with pure BS. Even I was taken in and
very excited at the time.

If what you say is correct then there is no problem with calling up the
FCC and telling them it is time to allow MPEG4. But when you make all
current legacy receivers obsolete you open the door to re-evaluating all
modulations. And when you do that you will find that most likely DMBT
comes out on top or maybe DVB-T2 or even an advanced version of 8-VSB
that will NOT work with any legacy receivers.

If we allow MPEG4 with the required SD program then there is no reason
not to switch to the best up to date modulation whether it is 8-VSB or
any other.

The increase in value of the spectrum to both broadcasters and viewers
by just allowing MPEG4 justifies 10 times over the cost of a new
receiver. A receiver that would allow reception of all modulations and
have an upgrade path for an even better codec than MPEG4.

The cost of receivers today is very low and the quantities that would be
needed very large. Recent chips that cost as little as $3.50 will work
with all current world modulations. By default they will begin appearing
in all TV sets anyway.

The path the US is on is now an ancient dead end. Pathetically out of
date when everything else is changing at light speed.

The new generation is not going to bother with a ridiculous modulation
that requires directed rooftop antennas when they own various wireless
devices that have hidden small monopole antennas that just work mobile
or fixed.

Devices exist that receive DTV NOW using such antennas on channels
surrendered by current clueless broadcasters and auctioned off by the FCC.

Current broadcasters and the FCC are not ahead of the digital curve,
they are not on the curve, in fact as soon as they saw the digital curve
coming they went off the track in panic and crashed and burned much like
their Nascar number 38 did what twice so far?

Bob Miller

Regards,

Bill Cohn - N9MHT

Wes Newell wrote:

Please quote a source confirming that local broadcasters get paid "per
subscriber" for cable carriage of their HD signal.

Well, most do.

Source?

The broadcast from WFAA TV in Dallas. Probably on their website. You want
it. You find it. I don't care.

In other words, you *assumed* that they all do. Well, they don't. Many are
glad just to get cable carriage. Many chose MUST CARRY, which means they
get NO payment of any kind. Some ask for too much compensation, and the
cable company says "mo thanks."

But it's not to drive people to cable or sat. It's because they have to
pay for the feed from the network,

No, they don't. Source?

Assumption. Nothing is free.

You and your assumptions. Fact is, the networks PAY the affiliates to carry
their programs, along with their NATIONAL ADVERTISEMENTS. These payments have
been getting smaller lately, but the affiliates DO NOT pay the networks.

WFAA here in Dallas had furnished a free feed for years. They now want
1 cent per subscriber to offset their cost.

And the cable company can say "No thanks." Nobody can demand carriage
AND payment.

That's correct. I thought this was clear. Read the exception to the must
carry rules.

"Exception" ? Singular? There are many exceptions. RETRANSMISSION CONSENT
is not considered an exception to must carry. It is an ALTERNATIVE to must
carry. Of which exception do you speak?

Or contact the station's advertisers and tell them that Comcast
subscribers aren't seeing their ads because WFAA is demanding payment.

Don't be an idiot.

Pot - Kettle: Black.

Bob Miller changed his alias and wrote:

First, you asked a question. "Again, what is your source for claiming
stations get paid for having their HD signal on cable?"

I answered it.

You seemed to assume that I said ALL station were getting paid for their
HD content. I didn't.

You assumed that I was suggesting that a cable company HAD to pay for
the content whether they wanted to or not. I didn't. They have a choice.
If they want the content they have to pay for it.

Nice back-track. *Now* what's your point? *My* point is that getting rid
of their OTA audience is hardly a positive move as far as their retransmission
consent demands go.

And since broadcasters only need to deliver one SD program with MPEG2
for free that is what they will do. They will deliver HD to cable and
satellite and get paid for it or cease delivering it and one SD program
with MPEG2 for free OTA while using the rest of the spectrum for a
mobile OTA subscription service. This service could include, no will
include HD content.

Ah, you're speculating on what the broadcasters will do. Guess what? So far,
seven out of seven of my local OTA broadcasters provide an *HD* signal to
OTA viewers as well as the cable company, and the cable company passes
them along to their customers at no charge. Three of the seven stations
have NO sub-channels whatsoever, and one has a audio only (radio station)
sub-channel. Will that change? Maybe, but to say they *will* do as you
"predict", and blame it all on 8VSB is laughable.

In article robmx writes:

The new generation is not going to bother with a ridiculous modulation
that requires directed rooftop antennas when they own various wireless
devices that have hidden small monopole antennas that just work mobile
or fixed.

But, in fact, they do. A huge percentage of TV viewers use satellite,
which requires directional rooftop antennas.

A substantial number also use over the air ATSC, with antennas that are
either directional or omnidirectional.

Alan

In article "Andy from Dover" writes:

I've always found this to be a major crock ...

"Those who have their converter boxes have discovered the "cliff effect." If
the over-the-air signal is not strong, the viewer does not receive a fuzzy
picture as he might get with a weak analog signal; the viewer gets no
picture at all because digital reception is all or nothing. "

Between all and nothing is pixelation and audio breakup. Even on my Sylvania
SRZ3000 (with a fair to poor strength meter) I'd get the pixelation and
stuttered sound which tells me I can get the signal if I tried a little
harder. I've had similar situations with DirecTV and rain fade.

I guess the "slope effect" would be a more apt title.


Indeed. And while the weak analog signal gives a fuzzy picture, that same
level in digital still can produce perfect pictures and sound. Once the
signal gets very weak then it will get into breakup. I get excellent results
from a digital channel with less than half the power of the analog transmitter
at the same location, and the analog signal is too weak to watch -- just barely
visible. They are on channels 50 and 54, so frequency is similar.

Yes, when digital goes, it doesn't have a lot of loss from perfect to pretty
bad, but the news article writer didn't understand that digital will still be
perfect when analog has become really bad.

Alan

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:58:58 GMT, (GMAN) wrote:

Why would anyone trust what the NYT says about anything?

I gather you're a National Enquirer or NY Post reader?

A_C

On Dec 23, 1:42*am, Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode,
,
the lovely and talented robmx
broadcast on alt.video.digital-tv:

Remysun wrote:
I also think that tech designers will continue to learn how to grab
and decode more of the signal, so that the cliff effect will
eventually be more like a street curb.
Why should they bother. 8-VSB is doing exactly what broadcasters want it
to do. Herd as many OTA viewers to cable and satellite where they get
paid per subscriber.

I don't believe that. *I believe people have been switching from basic cable
to OTA. *OTA in any format is never going to compete with high-end bazillion
channels and pay-per-view cable and satellite. *But it is pretty difficult
to justify the expense of basic cable when there is so much OTA digital.

OTA may be putting competition pressure on the cable companies, our
local Comcast is now giving free basic cable with an internet
package.