DTV transition part two ?

[Modelworks]

Looks like the wireless carriers are still not happy with the bandwidth they have and now are making another run to trim back OTA broadcast even more.

The idea is to take down the big tv transmitters and instead use many low power transmitters to free up more spectrum for wireless. For me this would suck big time. The chances that stations would deploy new transmitters to benefit the same people they can reach now are slim. I deal with people every week who barely get a stable picture. I can't see the stations putting up new transmitters so these smaller communities can get tv.


http://www.betanews.com/article/Cab...DTV-transition-broadcasters-object/1264699067

From a practical perspective, the new transition would not mean the distribution of more government coupons towards the upgrading or replacement of converter boxes, as CTIA and CEA perceive it. Rather, they argue that under the new DTV system already rolled out, DTV receivers and converters already in the field are capable of being reprogrammed (a bit like re-flashing one's BIOS) to rescan the frequencies they use, so that "virtual channels" (the ones used in station identification) map to new physical channels. It's an easy enough process, they point out, adding that it's actually been done once already anyway post-transition.
The groups propose moving DTV channel allocation in such a way that there's less "white space" between them, while preserving each channel's bandwidth of 6 MHz at 19.4 Mbps. They say that this rescanning could be done at no cost to broadcast stations. But as the National Association of Broadcasters pointed out in its rebuke of the groups to the FCC, that's a bit like calling the distribution of high-priced commercial software a "free download."

 

[SunnyD]

To be honest, given the ubiquity of cable/satellite (Okay, yeah, Grandma doesn't want a gosh darn doohickey to attach to her TV) service, OTA broadcast is just about moot aside from the fact it's free. On the other hand, wireless telephone service requires swaths of bandwidth with portable coverage that has a use 24x7 no matter where you are, TV doesn't. Not that I'm lobbying for the telcos here, but if I had to make the choice, telephony (and data for that matter) is the more responsible choice. Hell, if I were the FCC, I'd mandate free wireless access video feeds and data feeds to wireless service, thereby replacing TV in those capabilities. Broadcasters could then offer broadcast TV service over the air via the wireless towers, and because the telcos are the ones that complained they need the bandwidth, they foot the bill for the service. Either that or they can shut the hell up.

 

[sdifox]

I want my OTA...

 

[Gunslinger08]

They should just get rid of OTA.

 

[sdifox]

they should just get rid of ota.

boooo

 

[mugs]

I want my OTA...

Money for nothin' and your chicks for free?

 

[FoBoT]

TV comes from satellites

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Stop watching so much TV and the problem doesn't exist.

 

[mmntech]

Yeah, get rid of OTA ,except that it's better quality, it's free, and more and more people around town are putting up antennas.

 

[Kntx]

I love OTA. I laugh at threads where people complain about $150 cable bills!!!

 

[kalrith]

They should just get rid of OTA.

Yep, then they can get sued for not being able to provide emergency news coverage to those without cable/satellite. That's a great idea!

And I'm with the other OTA lovers on here. Not all of us want to pay $50+/month for cable/satellite or watch incredibly poor quality online. I'll watch my shows in better quality than my $80/month DirecTV was for free, thank you very much.

 

[WannaFly]

I've never had Cable or satellite - OTA is the only way to go - Why throw away $50+ a month to still watch commercials and get all sorts of redundant programming. Theres plenty of stuff to watch OTA.

That, and my 1080i OTA broadcast looks hell of a lot better than anything else.

 

[Vette73]

I love OTA. I laugh at threads where people complain about $150 cable bills!!!

Yep, had cable at the old house and we only watched a couple channels. New house has antenna in attic and the picture is way better and we still get 90% of what we watched before.

Oh and yea I agree, the quality it WAY better.

When I had cable I used over the air for Baseball/Football(superbowl), even though it was on cable.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I love OTA. I laugh at threads where people complain about $150 cable bills!!!

I love the people who don't know about clear QAM and insist on installing 10 boxes for Comcast.

 

[V00DOO]

I love OTA. I laugh at threads where people complain about $150 cable bills!!!

Right on. I have no cable bills. I need OTA for sports. I can get most other shows off Hulu, etc.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Yep, then they can get sued for not being able to provide emergency news coverage to those without cable/satellite. That's a great idea!

And I'm with the other OTA lovers on here. Not all of us want to pay $50+/month for cable/satellite or watch incredibly poor quality online. I'll watch my shows in better quality than my $80/month DirecTV was for free, thank you very much.

torrents are free you know, and typically 720p/1080p

 

[sdifox]

torrents are free you know, and typically 720p/1080p

You got live streaming working over torrent? wow.

 

[PokerGuy]

OTA = good. I finally ditched cable/sat, no more huge bills each month just for TV. I think market forces are going to make free OTA go the way of the dodo soon, but I hope it stays around for a while.

 

[frostedflakes]

Sounds like this would also kill off the idea of using TV white spaces as unlicensed spectrum. Instead we compress TV broadcasts and auction off the newly available spectrum to the highest bidder. Great for incumbents like Verizon, AT&T, etc. who can afford to spend tens of billions on wireless spectrum. Not so great for startups who might want to offer affordable wireless internet to consumers.

Also, I love all the doom and gloom in the white paper. "Spectrum crisis" Oh please.

 

[kalrith]

torrents are free, illegal, and typically extremely highly compressed 720p/1080p

fixed

 

[Miramonti]

OTA or nothing.

 

[Shadowknight]

OTA guy right here; aside from my obvious bias', I'm concerned that coverage would drop through the floor if they have to put up more towers to cover the same area as before. Also, I had Time Warner for cable Internet in a few years ago, and it went out on a regular basis. The nice thing about OTA is that if there's a local emergency, you have access to several stations that operate independently, so if Channel 4 lost power, channels 5-8 might still be broadcasting. I think trying to change the current system further is just a bad idea.

 

[Modelworks]

OTA guy right here; aside from my obvious bias', I'm concerned that coverage would drop through the floor if they have to put up more towers to cover the same area as before. Also, I had Time Warner for cable Internet in a few years ago, and it went out on a regular basis. The nice thing about OTA is that if there's a local emergency, you have access to several stations that operate independently, so if Channel 4 lost power, channels 5-8 might still be broadcasting. I think trying to change the current system further is just a bad idea.

That is my concern too. Stations are not going to want to spend money on putting up new transmitters when many are still paying for the huge HD transmitters they are using. I think the wireless carriers just want to push out any free content over the air so they can make people sign up to their now 'full digitally enhanced' wireless tv service.

 

[frostedflakes]

Glancing over the proposal, it sounds like the idea is to use the money from the wireless spectrum auction to reimburse broadcasters for the extra costs they'd incur. They claim the spectrum freed would bring anywhere from $35 to $70 billion at auction. Keep in mind the 700MHz spectrum auctioned a few years ago brought in nearly $20 billion.

 

[Sasiki]

We just got cable TV bundled with our internet. It is now $50/month for both. Digital TV sucked here.. each channel had it's own setting on the antenna. I could have gotten a better antenna to fix the problem but we were already paying $35 for just internet.. so for another $15, we get HD cable TV.