Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Trick to speed up shutoff of analog broadcasting

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 4:46:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Have a look at this:

http://www.bizreport.com/article.php?art_id=6925

It's a trick, or reinterpretation of that 85-percent-digital
threshold(some would say), to speed up the cutoff of analog
broadcasting:

" . . . the FCC is weighing a plan to require stations to only
broadcast digital signals by 2009 and count those homes that get their
broadcast channels from cable and satellite toward that threshold.

"Since about 85 percent of households in many markets subscribe to
cable or satellite, broadcasters would meet the threshold at the
beginning of 2009 and have to return the analog airwaves.

"But, many broadcasters are upset with the FCC staff plan because they
say it would allow cable and satellite companies to convert the new
signals back to analog to all of their customers. Thus, few would see
digital channels, they say."

What do you think about that?

kwali
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 9:51:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

If this report is credible, it just shows how stupid and desperate the FCC
leadership has gotten. Oh and for Bob Miller, I am sure "John S Dyson" will
blame you for this also. Since he and his friends apparently blame all of
the transition problems on you and CODFM instead of the real source of the
problem (Washington DC and Hollywood). Still I cannot see congress allowing
this to happen. I just hope we get some more responsible representatives
next term.

Richard R.


"Kwali" <kwalitv@bridgewaterva.com> wrote in message
news:ae951e0.0404241146.2ac872cc@posting.google.com...
> Have a look at this:
>
> http://www.bizreport.com/article.php?art_id=6925
>
> It's a trick, or reinterpretation of that 85-percent-digital
> threshold(some would say), to speed up the cutoff of analog
> broadcasting:
April 25, 2004 2:05:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

And the problem is??

Broadcasters being "upset" is bullshit. All they care about is number of
viewers/ratings...they could care less what kind of signal is being viewed.
In fact, most local stations would cheer getting back to a single
signal...it's costing them a fortune to "simulcast" digital and analog. The
sooner they get to one signal, the quicker they get to profitability.
Anything that advances the changeover is a positive imho.


"Kwali" <kwalitv@bridgewaterva.com> wrote in message
news:ae951e0.0404241146.2ac872cc@posting.google.com...
> Have a look at this:
>
> http://www.bizreport.com/article.php?art_id=6925
>
> It's a trick, or reinterpretation of that 85-percent-digital
> threshold(some would say), to speed up the cutoff of analog
> broadcasting:
>
> " . . . the FCC is weighing a plan to require stations to only
> broadcast digital signals by 2009 and count those homes that get their
> broadcast channels from cable and satellite toward that threshold.
>
> "Since about 85 percent of households in many markets subscribe to
> cable or satellite, broadcasters would meet the threshold at the
> beginning of 2009 and have to return the analog airwaves.
>
> "But, many broadcasters are upset with the FCC staff plan because they
> say it would allow cable and satellite companies to convert the new
> signals back to analog to all of their customers. Thus, few would see
> digital channels, they say."
>
> What do you think about that?
>
> kwali
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 2:05:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Your right it is not a problem in that sense. The broadcasters only care
about getting out a signal that brings in revenue. They may object to the
cost of DTV equipment required to get HDTV if the cable companies are only
sending out NTSC when they are doing this. In addition, the longer they can
delay the cheaper the transition will be for them since it is likely tht
prices will drop with time. In addition they do not expect their revenues to
improve with the transition unless they can broadcast multiple streams. It
is possible the transition occurs and we will see mostly SD DTV because they
can double their revenue by sending a Home shopping channel or an
infomercial in addition to their regular network SD feed. They also want
cable to be required to carry all streams.

As for the viewers, I am looking forward to the day when my cable system is
all digital. While the quality of the NTSC they give me is fairly good it
cannot compare to the digital channels they also send. I certainly enjoy
HDTV when the networks send out a good program source, but as a minimum I
would want SD or HD digital with component outputs, not NTSC composite or
RF.

The FCC does not seem to have handle on the real problems of the transition.
Its money, convenience, signal quality and compatiblity with older equipment
and much more. For instance why allow non-digital cable after the transition
date, Instead require the cable companies to provide converter boxes for
older sets. Go a little further, if they are requiring TV with ATSC 8VSB
tuners then require the cable companies to use 8VSB on their basic tier.
That would mean older sets could just use a basic 8VSB STB for cable and OTA

Richard R.


"Curmudgeon" <gary@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nrPic.79023$UC4.26446@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> And the problem is??
>
> Broadcasters being "upset" is bullshit. All they care about is number of
> viewers/ratings...they could care less what kind of signal is being
viewed.
> In fact, most local stations would cheer getting back to a single
> signal...it's costing them a fortune to "simulcast" digital and analog.
The
> sooner they get to one signal, the quicker they get to profitability.
> Anything that advances the changeover is a positive imho.
>
>
> "Kwali" <kwalitv@bridgewaterva.com> wrote in message
> news:ae951e0.0404241146.2ac872cc@posting.google.com...
> > Have a look at this:
> >
> > http://www.bizreport.com/article.php?art_id=6925
> >
> > It's a trick, or reinterpretation of that 85-percent-digital
> > threshold(some would say), to speed up the cutoff of analog
> > broadcasting:
> >
> > " . . . the FCC is weighing a plan to require stations to only
> > broadcast digital signals by 2009 and count those homes that get their
> > broadcast channels from cable and satellite toward that threshold.
> >
> > "Since about 85 percent of households in many markets subscribe to
> > cable or satellite, broadcasters would meet the threshold at the
> > beginning of 2009 and have to return the analog airwaves.
> >
> > "But, many broadcasters are upset with the FCC staff plan because they
> > say it would allow cable and satellite companies to convert the new
> > signals back to analog to all of their customers. Thus, few would see
> > digital channels, they say."
> >
> > What do you think about that?
> >
> > kwali
>
>
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 8:51:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <Up6dnbj9PsSoOxbdRVn-jA@wideopenwest.com>,
"Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> writes:
> If this report is credible, it just shows how stupid and desperate the FCC
> leadership has gotten. Oh and for Bob Miller, I am sure "John S Dyson" will
> blame you for this also.
>
Please be honest and NOT attribute thoughts to other people, especially
when 'Richard R' appears mostly clueless. Have you figured out
your reception situation yet, or are you just bitter?

John
April 25, 2004 9:23:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:05:18 -0400, "Curmudgeon" <gary@nospam.com>
wrote:

>And the problem is??
>
>Broadcasters being "upset" is bullshit. All they care about is number of
>viewers/ratings...they could care less what kind of signal is being viewed.
>In fact, most local stations would cheer getting back to a single
>signal...it's costing them a fortune to "simulcast" digital and analog. The
>sooner they get to one signal, the quicker they get to profitability.
>Anything that advances the changeover is a positive imho.
>

They are upset. Advertising is down and money is tight. Around here
even new towers must be built to x mit digital as there is not enough
room on the existing ones.
Thumper
>
>"Kwali" <kwalitv@bridgewaterva.com> wrote in message
>news:ae951e0.0404241146.2ac872cc@posting.google.com...
>> Have a look at this:
>>
>> http://www.bizreport.com/article.php?art_id=6925
>>
>> It's a trick, or reinterpretation of that 85-percent-digital
>> threshold(some would say), to speed up the cutoff of analog
>> broadcasting:
>>
>> " . . . the FCC is weighing a plan to require stations to only
>> broadcast digital signals by 2009 and count those homes that get their
>> broadcast channels from cable and satellite toward that threshold.
>>
>> "Since about 85 percent of households in many markets subscribe to
>> cable or satellite, broadcasters would meet the threshold at the
>> beginning of 2009 and have to return the analog airwaves.
>>
>> "But, many broadcasters are upset with the FCC staff plan because they
>> say it would allow cable and satellite companies to convert the new
>> signals back to analog to all of their customers. Thus, few would see
>> digital channels, they say."
>>
>> What do you think about that?
>>
>> kwali
>
Anonymous
April 26, 2004 5:11:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <FOWdndD22OOWsBHd4p2dnA@wideopenwest.com>,
"Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> writes:
> to: John S(hithead) Dyson
>
> John you are the most clueless idiont on the group.
>
Remember, it is you who cannot figure out how to watch your
LOCAL HDTV signal. You lash out at me, when a few people did
try to help you with YOUR trouble. I might have even given
you a few suggestions.

However, your reception situation comes from low-VHF (at least,
VHF) and low power in a difficult situation (allocations near
a national border, wtih some limitations.)

Richard, you seem to have misdirected anger problems.

John
Anonymous
April 26, 2004 6:36:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <m5adne1u7JIdUBbdRVn-hg@wideopenwest.com>,
"Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> writes:
>
> Your right it is not a problem in that sense. The broadcasters only care
> about getting out a signal that brings in revenue. They may object to the
> cost of DTV equipment required to get HDTV if the cable companies are only
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> sending out NTSC when they are doing this.
>

> The FCC does not seem to have handle on the real problems of the transition.
> Its money, convenience, signal quality and compatiblity with older equipment
> and much more. For instance why allow non-digital cable after the transition
> date, Instead require the cable companies to provide converter boxes for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> older sets. Go a little further, if they are requiring TV with ATSC 8VSB
> tuners then require the cable companies to use 8VSB on their basic tier.
> That would mean older sets could just use a basic 8VSB STB for cable and OTA
>
It makes NO sense to initially require OTA 8VSB boxes, but EVENTUALLY use the
non-terrestrial versions of 8VSB (cable optimized), perhaps even 16VSB.
The cable companies will likely be part of the backwards compatibility
mechanism for old TV sets, and the initial cost of full MPEG2 decoders
in the 8VSB boxes is silly to pay for NOW. Eventually, using 16VSB (or
non-OTA 8VSB) for distribution makes sense. Eventually, the cost of
the MPEG2 decoders will be diminished (perhaps from the $100 level down
to the $25 level or less.) Right now, it is best for cable to
dedicate the minimum necessary 6MHz channels for ATSC, and eat that
opportunity cost for a few years, rather than require upgrading 1Ms of
boxes that will be much cheaper in 5yrs.

Please refer to the ATSC spec for the ATSC variants that make sense
for cable. Frankly, I watch cable less (esp during prime time) since
the ATSC reception is so darned good.

John
Anonymous
April 26, 2004 6:36:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

John,

Good, An objective remark. I agree your approach would be better. Is this
what the FCC is proposing ??
The details were sketchy.

Richard R.

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c6hsjj$27ib$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <m5adne1u7JIdUBbdRVn-hg@wideopenwest.com>,
> "Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> writes:
> >
> > Your right it is not a problem in that sense. The broadcasters only
care
> > about getting out a signal that brings in revenue. They may object to
the
> > cost of DTV equipment required to get HDTV if the cable companies are
only
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > sending out NTSC when they are doing this.
> >
>
> > The FCC does not seem to have handle on the real problems of the
transition.
> > Its money, convenience, signal quality and compatiblity with older
equipment
> > and much more. For instance why allow non-digital cable after the
transition
> > date, Instead require the cable companies to provide converter boxes for
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > older sets. Go a little further, if they are requiring TV with ATSC
8VSB
> > tuners then require the cable companies to use 8VSB on their basic tier.
> > That would mean older sets could just use a basic 8VSB STB for cable and
OTA
> >
> It makes NO sense to initially require OTA 8VSB boxes, but EVENTUALLY use
the
> non-terrestrial versions of 8VSB (cable optimized), perhaps even 16VSB.
> The cable companies will likely be part of the backwards compatibility
> mechanism for old TV sets, and the initial cost of full MPEG2 decoders
> in the 8VSB boxes is silly to pay for NOW. Eventually, using 16VSB (or
> non-OTA 8VSB) for distribution makes sense. Eventually, the cost of
> the MPEG2 decoders will be diminished (perhaps from the $100 level down
> to the $25 level or less.) Right now, it is best for cable to
> dedicate the minimum necessary 6MHz channels for ATSC, and eat that
> opportunity cost for a few years, rather than require upgrading 1Ms of
> boxes that will be much cheaper in 5yrs.
>
> Please refer to the ATSC spec for the ATSC variants that make sense
> for cable. Frankly, I watch cable less (esp during prime time) since
> the ATSC reception is so darned good.
>
> John
>
Anonymous
April 26, 2004 8:57:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <b76dnWPLFvm1DhHdRVn-sQ@wideopenwest.com>,
"richard r" <jwerie@wideopenwest.com> writes:
>
> Good, An objective remark.
>
Bad, a codescending remark from you. Can you EVER
show any kind of modest and normal respect? Even
when you appear to be superificially polite, you seem
to play a wierd game!??!?!?

>
> I agree your approach would be better.
>
Good. Next time, formulate your thoughts better. My
explanation was simple and common sense -- no big deal,
really.

Still waiting for you to individually refute my previous
comments that you had rudely ranted about. Note that I had
been fair with you and clearly
refute your poorly conceived ideas (which you did, at least,
admit to), but you haven't historically done so with me (you
have historically generally ranted and been hurtful.)

I would be MUCH kinder to you, if you had been even
modestly respectful to me. Instead of letting poorly
conceived ideas persist, I'll happily 'assist' you in
correcting your errors in the future :-).

John
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 11:03:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:m5adne1u7JIdUBbdRVn-hg@wideopenwest.com...
: While the quality of the NTSC they give me is fairly good it
: cannot compare to the digital channels they also send.

================
that statement alone shows how little you know.

NTSC with an antenna absolutely BLOWS digital cable or satelite out of
the water.

When I put my antenna up for HD reception and dumped cable,
I was amazed how good the local analog stations looked.
All these years I thought they were sending out garbage.
They are not. The "digital cable" and sat signals were the problem.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 1:41:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You have got to be kidding.

I must have offended the MIGHTY PAGAN GOD 8-V-S-B again.

NTSC is analog You know as in I was comparing analog cable to digital
cable

NOT == >> ATSC (HDTV) to digital cable

Can you read or are you too busy ranting to actually understand what you
read.

Get a life or something

Richard R.

"Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:408e6765$0$14833$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> news:m5adne1u7JIdUBbdRVn-hg@wideopenwest.com...
> : While the quality of the NTSC they give me is fairly good it
> : cannot compare to the digital channels they also send.
>
> ================
> that statement alone shows how little you know.
>
> NTSC with an antenna absolutely BLOWS digital cable or satelite out of
> the water.
>
> When I put my antenna up for HD reception and dumped cable,
> I was amazed how good the local analog stations looked.
> All these years I thought they were sending out garbage.
> They are not. The "digital cable" and sat signals were the problem.
>
>
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 8:28:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <0L2dnU0ZpJ9XuhLdRVn-ug@wideopenwest.com>,
"Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> writes:
> You have got to be kidding.
>
> I must have offended the MIGHTY PAGAN GOD 8-V-S-B again.
>
Very few people here are pro-8VSB. However, given the COFDM
advocates, it forces those who are pro-HDTV to adopt a scheme
that helps to frustrate the (ab)use of the spectrum for silly
mobile data schemes.

>
> Can you read or are you too busy ranting to actually understand what you
> read.
>
Do you understand that being pro-HDTV means that it is important
to resist (ab)use of the spectrum for hair-brained (and uglifying)
schemes of mobile video advertising and other similar public
atrocities?

John
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 8:42:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <vZOdnZLQL72xtxLdRVn-gw@wideopenwest.com>,
"Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> writes:
>
> So I turned the table on them nd gave them a few rants and of course they
> were not happy and of course a couple of hang arounds like yourself wanted
> to jump in on the action.
>
However, we did prove that you were just ranting and not really contributing.
We also showed how you didn't have enough context.

It is good that you figured out how to receive the signal (if you are
the person with the low power VHF signal.) In that case, COFDM
would likely have been significantly worse.

You seem to perpetuate a false argument of COFDM vs. 8VSB. That
isn't what the argument is about... You fell into Bob's trap,
because the argument is pro-HDTV vs. (ab)use of the payload for
non-HDTV applications.

John
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 8:42:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

John

I still do not buy into Bob effecting anything. It is quite possible the
commercial stations will want to share their bandwidth with one of the cable
channnels (HSN etc) or an infomercial source. For the broadcasters it means
more money for the same chnnel. They do not really care about HDTV, unless
they feel it will bring them more money. In fact one of the big struggles
right now is that they want cable to carry all of the video streams. 1080i
only allows one video stream in the 6mhz channel 8VSB. If they decide to
carry more than one stream, there will be no HDTV just DTV. That decision
will not be effected by Bob. Even if CODFM were being used the scenario
above would still be true.

Richard R.

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c6ncn1$qgi$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <vZOdnZLQL72xtxLdRVn-gw@wideopenwest.com>,
> "Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> writes:
> You seem to perpetuate a false argument of COFDM vs. 8VSB. That
> isn't what the argument is about... You fell into Bob's trap,
> because the argument is pro-HDTV vs. (ab)use of the payload for
> non-HDTV applications.
>
> John
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 11:19:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:0L2dnU0ZpJ9XuhLdRVn-ug@wideopenwest.com...
: You have got to be kidding.
:
: I must have offended the MIGHTY PAGAN GOD 8-V-S-B again.
:
: NTSC is analog You know as in I was comparing analog cable to
digital
: cable
:
: NOT == >> ATSC (HDTV) to digital cable

==============
And that is NOT what I addressed.
==================

:
: Can you read or are you too busy ranting to actually understand what
you
: read.

=================================
YOU are the one who cannot read.
I CLEARLY stated that OTA NTSC is VASTLY superior to cable.

Re-read my post again.
=========================
:
: Get a life or something

==========
Got one....thanks......
=================
:
: Richard R.
:
: "Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
: news:408e6765$0$14833$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
: >
: > "Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
: > news:m5adne1u7JIdUBbdRVn-hg@wideopenwest.com...
: > : While the quality of the NTSC they give me is fairly good it
: > : cannot compare to the digital channels they also send.
: >
: > ================
: > that statement alone shows how little you know.
: >
: > NTSC with an antenna absolutely BLOWS digital cable or satelite out
of <<<<<=========
: > the water.
: >
: > When I put my antenna up for HD reception and dumped cable,
: > I was amazed how good the local analog stations looked. <<<=======
: > All these years I thought they were sending out garbage.
: > They are not. The "digital cable" and sat signals were the problem.
: >
: >
:
:
!