Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

The End of HDTV Broadcasting?


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   ziggy29

ziggy29

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 691 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio DMA
Joined: Nov 18, 2004

Posted 25 February 2010 - 10:18 AM

Well, folks, here you go:

http://www.broadcast...rum_Auction.php

Enjoy free OTA while it lasts. Yes, they say they only want "unused" spectrum for now, but as that varies by market and we've already shed nearly 40% of the OTA spectrum in two chunks (70-83 and later 52-69), I think the writing's on the wall that eventually "free TV" will be dead.
My stuff: D* HR20-700 (living room) / R15 (bedroom) / OTA 91XG+YA1713+HDP269 / Harmony 880

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 ONLINE   Nick

Nick

    Keep going - don't give up!

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,249 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Coastal Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 25 February 2010 - 11:26 AM

Excellent point. Local stations could still exist as internet sites.

Clearly such a move would rattle the economics of the networks, but the benefit to society would be considerable.

Nice idea -- I like it.

A word to the wise: beware of those who use the argument that taking something away from us is 'for the benefit of society'. Even more dubious is that old liberal lie that it's 'for the greater good'. When the government says things like that, you can bet that whatever they're screwing with is going to turn out to be bad for the individual -- that applies you and me, but especially me!

.


~ 12 Year Anniversary Month ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


#23 OFFLINE   Lee L

Lee L

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,134 posts
Joined: Aug 15, 2002

Posted 26 February 2010 - 08:59 AM

THis all makes me wonder if they really were just trying to stop the DTV transition altogether when they delayed it last time. Right after, there were a few strange quotes floating around, then I think they realized so much had been invested by so many that stopping it was an impossiblilty. Now they will just try to do it more slowly.


DirecTV, please don't make me have to go back to watching March Madness in standard Def! Oh, and the usual begging for AMC and BBC America. You are so close to actually being the HD Leader.

#24 OFFLINE   bicker1

bicker1

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,040 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2007

Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:08 PM

Cue the X-Files music.

#25 OFFLINE   russ9

russ9

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 385 posts
Joined: Jan 28, 2004

Posted 02 March 2010 - 06:03 PM

NY Times article: The Buried Treasure in Your TV Dial
http://www.nytimes.c...levision&st=cse
Basically on the same topic
.
.
Dishing it up since 4-4-1997
vip722K hooked up to a bunch of stuff. Like a bigger TV.

Soon to be on Dish network, explained by a BBC spokesman

#26 OFFLINE   cousinofjah

cousinofjah

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 75 posts
Joined: Feb 16, 2010

Posted 03 March 2010 - 06:05 PM

NY Times article: The Buried Treasure in Your TV Dial
http://www.nytimes.c...levision&st=cse
Basically on the same topic


I don't get this part

Say there are 10 million households that still get their television over the air, including those that can’t afford cable or satellite and some that generally just don’t care for what’s on TV. (Yes, there are people who don’t like “American Idol.”) But about 99 percent of these households have cable running near their homes, and virtually all the others, in rural areas, could be reached by satellite services. The F.C.C. could require cable and satellite providers to offer a low-cost service that carries only local channels, and to give vouchers for connecting to that service to any households that haven’t subscribed to cable or satellite for, say, two years.

doesn't that a) put the burden on satellite providers to provide tons more local channels to cover these rural areas?
Myopic Direc Lo Def Warrior (D12-300 x3, R16-300 x1)

#27 OFFLINE   leww37334

leww37334

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,489 posts
Joined: Sep 19, 2005

Posted 03 March 2010 - 10:20 PM

They will have to pry my antenna from my cold dead fingers. (sorry, couldn't resist)
“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.” - Ayn Rand

#28 OFFLINE   Glen_D

Glen_D

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 201 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2006

Posted 04 March 2010 - 05:36 AM

I am sure the satellite companies will be upset about this since they have spent a considerable amount of money on spot beams and ground infrastructure to satisfy FCC mandates for more LIL. Directv and Dish should not spend another nickel on LIL expansion until the FCC can make up its mind.

Rural areas should be pretty much covered by satellite, I would think, since they are in some city's DMA. What I'm wondering about are all the multi-cast channels. There are probably a dozen or so in my market that are not offered by either satellite provider (or U-verse, for that matter). Would the Feds also subsidize the ifrastructure necessary for the satellite providers to add all these additional channels if OTA goes away? Would auctioning off the spectum currently used for OTA bring in way more $$$ than this would cost? Or would the multi-cast services go away?

#29 OFFLINE   leww37334

leww37334

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,489 posts
Joined: Sep 19, 2005

Posted 05 March 2010 - 04:42 PM

If OTA is no longer necessary, then, why (less than six months ago) did Congress pump millions of dollars into the digital conversion in order to make sure people could still use OTA?

(because they are idiots is not an acceptable answer).
“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.” - Ayn Rand

#30 OFFLINE   bicker1

bicker1

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,040 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2007

Posted 06 March 2010 - 08:43 AM

If OTA is no longer necessary, then, why (less than six months ago) did Congress pump millions of dollars into the digital conversion in order to make sure people could still use OTA?

(because they are idiots is not an acceptable answer).

The problem is that many readers are reading the article with blinders on, fixating on what they feel is the outrageous nature of the extreme scenario, and refusing to acknowledge the conditionals that are evident throughout the article. Go back and read the article again, this time focusing on the words below:

Or, as an interim step, we could reduce the number of channels available in a community from 49 to, say, 5. ...



#31 ONLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,570 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 06 March 2010 - 09:29 AM

doesn't that a) put the burden on satellite providers to provide tons more local channels to cover these rural areas?

DISH is missing 31 SD DMAs out of 210 and around 81 DMAs in HD, but the HD coverage is decidedly partial and subchannels are razor thin.

Going to MPEG4 on everything would probably be a good first step.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#32 OFFLINE   cousinofjah

cousinofjah

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 75 posts
Joined: Feb 16, 2010

Posted 06 March 2010 - 05:40 PM

DISH is missing 31 SD DMAs out of 210 and around 81 DMAs in HD, but the HD coverage is decidedly partial and subchannels are razor thin.

Going to MPEG4 on everything would probably be a good first step.

which means equipment changes for almost everyone, no?
Myopic Direc Lo Def Warrior (D12-300 x3, R16-300 x1)

#33 ONLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,570 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 07 March 2010 - 08:29 AM

which means equipment changes for almost everyone, no?

It means changes for those who haven't changed themselves over the period of time that it would take to go away from the broadcast model.

The change to all MPEG4 has already started for both satellite companies.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#34 OFFLINE   dpd146

dpd146

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 415 posts
Joined: Oct 01, 2005

Posted 07 March 2010 - 09:57 PM

Comcast in taking their cable content to the internet.


But don't watch too much or they will shut your service down for going over the bandwidth cap. :nono2:

#35 OFFLINE   Scott in FL

Scott in FL

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 427 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 08 March 2010 - 08:09 AM

I wasn't paying much attention to this topic until I read this in last month's Broadcast Engineering: http://broadcastengi...0210/index.html

#36 OFFLINE   Dave

Dave

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 864 posts
Joined: Jan 28, 2003

Posted 21 March 2010 - 01:16 PM

You can not do away with broadcast over the air TV. For one not every living being in the USA has cable/DSL or even a computer. You would have to have all cable and DSL operators supply to every neighbor hood in the country, no matter how remote or distant for the head end high speed internet. As we all know this will never happen. If you are one of five or six houses 30 miles outside the range for the high speed DSL connection or there is no cable, they are not going to string new cable or put a sub end connection out there just for the 5. And as we all know HughesNet or any satelitte internet provider just does not cut it. There speeds have been known to drop below dialup speeds more than above them. So still no high speed internet for the few. Where as a good or even a cheap Antenna can pick up the stations for the locals at the ranges and farther away. So are we also going to have the Government require are providers to make sure they string the lines out to any and all possible customers? Are we going to require our Government to provide every and any house hold in the country with a computer capable of receiving high speed internet? Think about the problems before you jump on this band wagon doing away with OTA towers and transmitters. Should we really give up TV towers for CellPhones? I think not.

#37 OFFLINE   FogCutter

FogCutter

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 382 posts
Joined: Nov 06, 2006

Posted 21 March 2010 - 01:36 PM

You can not do away with broadcast over the air TV. . . Should we really give up TV towers for CellPhones? I think not.


Dave,

Once OTA becomes a money loser, the stations will drop away on their own whether the government grabs the bandwidth or not.

The British were in sad situation a few years ago. They had changed broadcast formats and years later were supporting both formats nationally at great expense. At one point only 2-3,000 TVs were on the old format were still in use.

Someone realized that it would be far cheaper for the government to buy new sets than to continue two broadcast formats. Don't know if they ever did it or not.

So as long as OTA stays profitable I'm all for it.

#38 OFFLINE   Dave

Dave

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 864 posts
Joined: Jan 28, 2003

Posted 21 March 2010 - 04:40 PM

Yes but we all know about the DTV coupon fiascal. Do we really want the govenment to pick and choose your compter or TV set? This would be the greatest govenment mess of all time ever. If people can not afford the new TV or to even buy a computer now without service to there house, how is the govenment going to save them? I am all for new technology and for the corps and companies to make a profit. But the government does not do anything or produce anything to help the corps to do this. Yes WiFI is great. But who is going to pay for all the towers and infrastructure? The TV stations now don't want to upgrade unless forced to. They will fight tooth and nail to not put up the towers around the country for the Wi Fi signals to go out.

#39 OFFLINE   bicker1

bicker1

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,040 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2007

Posted 21 March 2010 - 05:16 PM

So what are you suggesting? A return of the Luddites? :-?

#40 OFFLINE   FogCutter

FogCutter

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 382 posts
Joined: Nov 06, 2006

Posted 22 March 2010 - 09:01 AM

In the case of HDTV, the government was the moving force behind the transition in the US. The private market fought it tooth and nail. This arose in the early 1990s when it looked like Japan (who already had HD) was going to rule the world. Of course it took years and years and years, but it has finally happened.

But I really don't believe society has a duty to supply infrastructure and support to citizens with archaic receivers. People need to get with the program or watch static.

Remember dial phones -- it cost the phone companies millions to support pulse dialing for years after it stopped making sense. It still might be going on. The rational was that some wretched old poor person might not have the $5 to buy a touch tone phone or the savvy to plug it in, and the companies were not given the option to pass out replacements for gawd knows what reason. Crazy.




spam firewall