View Full Version : End of analog TV in US
So, where you hit by the end of analog TV?
Ivan Seeking
Jun13-09, 10:44 AM
It is estimated that about 3 million people in the US do not have television today.
We've had digital service for nearly 15 years. When we first moved here we could only get about six analog channels.
Astronuc
Jun13-09, 10:54 AM
I've been using cable TV ever since university, because where I lived, that was essentially the only way to receive television. We received the most basic service.
Where I live now, the local cable company installed fiber-optic system several years ago, and we use TV, internet and phone service through the fiber-optic system. The system went digital in conjunction with the fiber-optic system.
During my first few years of university, I did not have TV. I didn't have time to watch it anyway.
JaredJames
Jun13-09, 10:59 AM
Well it's about to happen in the UK too. End of 2011 all will be digital.
We used to get 8-10 analog channels over our huge VHF/UHF antenna/mast setup. Now we get only 2. One is the CBS affiliate and the other is a PBS station. The drive to all-digital broadcasting is quite detrimental to those of us in rural locations, and seems destined to line the pockets of satellite-TV companies. There aren't enough people in my area to justify the cost of cable, so we'll never have that option.
Moonbear
Jun13-09, 12:45 PM
The NBC affiliate here is so goofy. On every news show this morning, they managed to include their footage of someone pushing the rather unimpressive looking button that turns off their analog transmitter. :rofl: Then they interview some engineer who tells the viewers that we should be impressed with the picture quality and that some game last night was so much better because it was already being broadcast in HD. :rolleyes: Perhaps if I watched games, and had an HD TV that might be the case. I don't think my 20+ year old TVs are going to get any better picture no matter what they do to the signal.
I think a few of the smaller local stations had some issues with the switch today. Even over cable, a couple of them weren't broadcasting this morning. All were back on but one the last time I had the TV on a few hours ago, though.
I know a lot of people, myself included, who have cable on a big TV yet also have a small analog set with rabbit ears in the bedroom.
My wife said that she can do without the bedroom set. I give it about three days until she has me going out to get a converter box and a better antennae.
If she wants to learn to speak Spanish the small set is still getting three Hispanic stations loud and clear. They must be broadcasting from Mexico.
JasonRox
Jun13-09, 03:29 PM
Um... I think the switch to the digital is the smartest thing. I think it's dumb Canada is waiting until 2011. Living near the border, I get half analog and half digital.
I still get like 9 channels analog and about 10 digital in my area.
Note: Digital channels are clear 99% for pretty much all channels. Out of the 9 that I have 3 are clear, 3 are ok, and the other 3 are garbage.
Topher925
Jun13-09, 03:40 PM
I really like the new digital TV. Not only is the picture clearer but I can see whats on without even changing the channel using the DTV guide. The clock on the TV is really nice to along with the signal meter. I should have bought the DTV converter box a long time ago.
We used to get 8-10 analog channels over our huge VHF/UHF antenna/mast setup. Now we get only 2. One is the CBS affiliate and the other is a PBS station. The drive to all-digital broadcasting is quite detrimental to those of us in rural locations, and seems destined to line the pockets of satellite-TV companies. There aren't enough people in my area to justify the cost of cable, so we'll never have that option.
My understanding is that that spectrum of channels would be used for something other than satellite tv.
Office_Shredder
Jun13-09, 04:30 PM
We used to get 8-10 analog channels over our huge VHF/UHF antenna/mast setup. Now we get only 2. One is the CBS affiliate and the other is a PBS station. The drive to all-digital broadcasting is quite detrimental to those of us in rural locations, and seems destined to line the pockets of satellite-TV companies. There aren't enough people in my area to justify the cost of cable, so we'll never have that option.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/fccbroadband/
In my opinion this needed to be done eventually. The FCC originally planned for everything to be switched over in 2006, but obviously that didn't happen. Ensuring a modern communications infrastructure is actually one thing the government has succeeded at fairly well from what I can tell
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/fccbroadband/
In my opinion this needed to be done eventually. The FCC originally planned for everything to be switched over in 2006, but obviously that didn't happen. Ensuring a modern communications infrastructure is actually one thing the government has succeeded at fairly well from what I can tellIt may have been desirable from some viewpoints, but to people in rural locations, it seems that we have sacrificed a lot of access to information (weather reports, storm warnings, traffic disruptions) that might have been pretty valuable, but often taken for granted. If you are in the path of a cell of severe thunderstorms, and you can't get local weather reports, that's not good.
Office_Shredder
Jun13-09, 05:13 PM
It may have been desirable from some viewpoints, but to people in rural locations, it seems that we have sacrificed a lot of access to information (weather reports, storm warnings, traffic disruptions) that might have been pretty valuable, but often taken for granted. If you are in the path of a cell of severe thunderstorms, and you can't get local weather reports, that's not good.
I'm a little confused... why can't you get this information precisely? Did your local analog station just decide to quit transmitting instead of switching to digital, or did you decide not to get a digital to analog converter?
I'm a little confused... why can't you get this information precisely? Did your local analog station just decide to quit transmitting instead of switching to digital, or did you decide not to get a digital to analog converter?We have a converter, but guess what? The strength of the digital signal of a lot of the stations is insufficient, and unlike analog, you don't get a slightly degraded picture/sound with a weak signal - you get NO picture/sound. And no, the analog signals are totally gone.
loseyourname
Jun13-09, 05:23 PM
I better buy the converter today or early tomorrow if I want to be able to watch Game 5 of the NBA finals.
Our NBC affiliate is broadcasting the same message as Moonbear's, only in Spanish.
Ivan Seeking
Jun13-09, 05:38 PM
We have a converter, but guess what? The strength of the digital signal of a lot of the stations is insufficient, and unlike analog, you don't get a slightly degraded picture/sound with a weak signal - you get NO picture/sound. And no, the analog signals are totally gone.
Sounds like it is time for some antenna work.
Office_Shredder
Jun13-09, 05:40 PM
We have a converter, but guess what? The strength of the digital signal of a lot of the stations is insufficient, and unlike analog, you don't get a slightly degraded picture/sound with a weak signal - you get NO picture/sound. And no, the analog signals are totally gone.
I know about the edge of cliff effect, but was under the impression thanks to the increased efficiency of digital TV the range could be increased to the original practical range of analog. So I googled around and discovered that most digital channels are broadcasting on UHF (ultra high frequency) whereas analog channels were broadcasting on VHF (very high frequency... original names guys); UHF having the problem of being much more dependent on line of sight for transmission range. Now I'm confused; wouldn't it have made more sense to switch all of the digital frequencies to the VHF range when it got cleared up thanks to all the analog channels switching off?
Ivan Seeking
Jun13-09, 05:40 PM
One "expert" was saying that he expects a bit of a shift away from cable and satellite services, with more people going back to antenna. Many people will see the number of available channels increase significantly - quadruple the number in some cases - with the addition of HD, all for free.
Ivan Seeking
Jun13-09, 05:43 PM
Now I'm confused; wouldn't it have made more sense to switch all of the digital frequencies to the VHF range when it got cleared up thanks to all the analog channels switching off?
The old analog frequencies will go to other services.
There is no reason for TV to use up spectrum. There are tons of other things that could use those same channels. Use groundwires for TV signals - this isnt the 1950s.
Ivan Seeking
Jun13-09, 05:51 PM
There is no reason for TV to use up spectrum. There are tons of other things that could use those same channels. Use groundwires for TV signals - this isnt the 1950s.
I'm sure that would provide a great picture! :rolleyes:
Office_Shredder
Jun13-09, 05:57 PM
One "expert" was saying that he expects a bit of a shift away from cable and satellite services, with more people going back to antenna. Many people will see the number of available channels increase significantly - quadruple the number in some cases - with the addition of HD, all for free.
From my new pseudo-understanding of digital TV reception this could apply in the urban areas where there's less blocking terrain
Ivan Seeking
Jun13-09, 06:08 PM
How did you manage to quote me and attribute it to Cyrus?
I'm sure that would provide a great picture! :rolleyes:
What are you talking about, my cable TV comes via a ground wire. The same wire can provide the free channels that use spectrum space.
Ivan Seeking
Jun13-09, 06:12 PM
What are you talking about, my cable TV comes via a ground wire. The same wire can provide the free channels that use spectrum space.
Do you mean it is broadcast that way, or you can just get a signal that way?
Are you saying that your cable is on all grounds in your house?
Do you mean it is broadcast that way, or you can just get a signal that way?
Are you saying that your cable is on all grounds in your house?
My TV get's its FIOS signal via a cable under the ground. Not a Radio Signal, just an electric Signal.
Ivan Seeking
Jun13-09, 06:15 PM
My TV get's its FIOS signal via a cable under the ground. Not a Radio Signal, just an electric Signal.
So they are not just transmitting on a ground wire.
So they are not just transmitting on a ground wire.
What? I have no idea what you're talking about.
There hasn't been a popular uprising demanding digital broadcaste television.
Connect the dots. The broadcasters pushed this legislation through to reacquire market share. They even obtained legislation to have the tax payers foot the bill for give-away digital-to-analog converter boxes.
There are lots of people that want to use the spectrum space being used by tv. It's a constant battle to get some bandwith.
The demand isn't from televison viewers.
There are lots of people that want to use the spectrum space being used by tv. It's a constant battle to get some bandwith.
The demand isn't from televison viewers.
Are you saying that the digital TV spectrum is narrower than the, now gone, analog spectrum?
Are you saying that the digital TV spectrum is narrower than the, now gone, analog spectrum?
A lot narrower I believe. Now they can squeeze in more channels for organizations who've been short on bandwidth in the past.
A lot narrower I believe. Now they can squeeze in more channels for organizations who've been short on bandwidth in the past.
I haven't yet been able to come up with any solid numbers. Analog broadcast TV (NTSC) required, until today, 6 megherz per channel.
To keep up with cable and satellite services offering HDTV formats in MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 encoding 1280 x 720, at 60 FPS, they need to do the same. I'm still looking for a website willing to flip for the required broadcast transmission bandwidth.
Looks like there are both UHF and VHF digital stations; at least in my area. Check out what's in your area with this search: http://antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx
junglebeast
Jun13-09, 09:10 PM
I think a bigger motivation is to be able to cope with the growing trend of internet traffic, what with P2P, VOIP and streaming online TV services. Once they get rid of the analog TV sets, the cable companies can easily adjust the bandwidth between digital TV and internet as they need to...but they knew getting rid of analog sets was going to be a pain, so they wanted to get that out of the way with before they reach an internet bottleneck.
The best I can gather, the channels will still have a 6 MHz bandwidth, but capable of accomodating HDTV on a single channel. The big difference is that the digital channels won't require that every other channel be unoccupied. This will free up about 36 HMz of bandwidth in the UHF span, alone.
Argentum Vulpes
Jun13-09, 11:39 PM
There are lots of people that want to use the spectrum space being used by tv. It's a constant battle to get some bandwith.
The demand isn't from televison viewers.
I know with the transfer we will be getting a PBS TV feed. The FCC would not license a freq for them because there was no free space in this market, now there is. Also the local and rural Fire/Police/EMS services will be getting several new bands to work with.
Lots of folks are missing the point, here. There is NO cable service out in the boonies, and there never will be because it costs more to run the cable than the subscription-revenue will ever bring in. No cable, and severely restricted broadcast signal means that a lot of folks living out in the country are not going to have access to news, weather, emergency broadcasts, etc. I don't care if I ever ever see another re-run of "Friends" or Seinfeld" (not that I ever would watch either of them anyway), but there are public-service functions served by broadcast TV that are gone forever, or at least severely diminished. We have already lost local AM/FM radio to the national conglomerates, so that channel of communication is gone. The single bright spot in this region is the AM (sports) FM (music) combo owned and operated by Steven King and his wife Tabitha. He hires local DJs, engineers, etc, and runs his radio stations like they used to be run 40 years ago. They use modern equipment and technology, but the stations are programmed by actual human beings, tailored to the tastes of the human beings that form the listening audience. It's pretty nice.
Lots of folks are missing the point, here. There is NO cable service out in the boonies, and there never will be because it costs more to run the cable than the subscription-revenue will ever bring in. No cable, and severely restricted broadcast signal means that a lot of folks living out in the country are not going to have access to news, weather, emergency broadcasts, etc. I don't care if I ever ever see another re-run of "Friends" or Seinfeld" (not that I ever would watch either of them anyway), but there are public-service functions served by broadcast TV that are gone forever, or at least severely diminished. We have already lost local AM/FM radio to the national conglomerates, so that channel of communication is gone. The single bright spot in this region is the AM (sports) FM (music) combo owned and operated by Steven King and his wife Tabitha. He hires local DJs, engineers, etc, and runs his radio stations like they used to be run 40 years ago. They use modern equipment and technology, but the stations are programmed by actual human beings, tailored to the tastes of the human beings that form the listening audience. It's pretty nice.
Are you typing this from a computer or a type writter? Seem's like your internet works just fine for news, weather, and updates. In fact, you can check your internet for those things anytime you want, not just at the 6pm. You can also watch the local/national news on your computer.
I don't see why we should bend over backwards for people living out in the boonies. It's not a major city. It comes with living in the boonies. Don't like it, don't live in the boonies. There are legit reasons for having that spectrum for other more improtant uses.
Office_Shredder
Jun14-09, 04:56 AM
Lots of folks are missing the point, here. There is NO cable service out in the boonies, and there never will be because it costs more to run the cable than the subscription-revenue will ever bring in.
As I posted earlier, the government has and continues to subsidize cable laying to otherwise unprofitable markets.
Also, I believe your local stations have the option of setting up a distributed transmission system which can cover the area once covered by their analogue station
EDIT: Did I really type analogue for analog? I need to get out of this country
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 05:24 AM
We have Sky TV, it comes from marvellous things called satellites. They are in space. You point a dish in the right direction and boom theres your tv.
Seriously though, do you not have a system like this? Is it not viable?
We have Sky TV, it comes from marvellous things called satellites. They are in space. You point a dish in the right direction and boom theres your tv.
Seriously though, do you not have a system like this? Is it not viable?
No local stations on sat. So while to some extent it can help, it is not a full solution.
CNN won't send a warning that egg sized hailstones are expected in Maine and Turbo needs kevlar umbrella if he wants to continue working in his garden. Local stations will.
Ouabache
Jun14-09, 07:46 AM
Digital TV transmissions have no effect on me. The only reason I may use a TV these days is to watch VHS tapes or DVDs. The internet covers all my media needs (news, audio, video). For local weather, the VHF weather radio works fine. AM/FM broadcast radio coverage is also fine.
Office_Shredder
Jun14-09, 09:13 AM
No local stations on sat. So while to some extent it can help, it is not a full solution.
CNN won't send a warning that egg sized hailstones are expected in Maine and Turbo needs kevlar umbrella if he wants to continue working in his garden. Local stations will.
You just need to look in the right places (http://weather.cnn.com/weather/forecast.jsp?zipCode=07450&locCode=NJ08&iref=wxtodayicon)
russ_watters
Jun14-09, 10:06 AM
The NBC affiliate here is so goofy. On every news show this morning, they managed to include their footage of someone pushing the rather unimpressive looking button that turns off their analog transmitter. :rofl: Then they interview some engineer who tells the viewers that we should be impressed with the picture quality and that some game last night was so much better because it was already being broadcast in HD. :rolleyes: Perhaps if I watched games, and had an HD TV that might be the case. I don't think my 20+ year old TVs are going to get any better picture no matter what they do to the signal. The Philly NBC affiliate did the same thing, minus the interview with the engineer. Yeah, big circuit breakers can't be flipped by hand, so they have a small switch or a push-button connected to a solenoid.
I should have my little tv with the rabbit ears on at the same time to see if the signal just disappeared.
I don't see why we should bend over backwards for people living out in the boonies. It's not a major city. It comes with living in the boonies. Don't like it, don't live in the boonies. There are legit reasons for having that spectrum for other more improtant uses.So when people don't have bread, we should tell them to eat cake? I hope you realize that there are probably millions of people in the same boat, and that public safety is endangered by the loss of broadcast TV. I don't care much for TV so it doesn't affect me as much as some people. Still, there are many people who have always relied on broadcast TV for local news, weather alerts, etc, and who DON'T have Internet service to supplement that. The switch to digital TV was poorly planned and poorly executed.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 10:26 AM
Exactly how much does a digital decoder box cost over in the US? In Britain a box (freeview it's called here) costs £20 ($25) are they really so expensive people can't afford them?
The switch to digital TV was poorly planned and poorly executed.
In what way? That it happened?
Exactly how much does a digital decoder box cost over in the US? In Britain a box (freeview it's called here) costs £20 ($25) are they really so expensive people can't afford them?
It still doesn't give you access to local TV, have you read the thread?
You just need to look in the right places (http://weather.cnn.com/weather/forecast.jsp?zipCode=07450&locCode=NJ08&iref=wxtodayicon)
That's assuming you have internet access (for which you have to pay separately). Turbo has, it doesn't mean everyone else in his area does.
I live in a rural area in between three cities whose TV stations are 50-70 miles away in different directions. Even with analog TV I had to use a good rooftop antenna with a rotator. I've been using digital TV exclusively for four years, and upgraded my antenna setup (http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/TV/images/91XG+YA1713b.jpg) last year. The antenna on top is for UHF, the other one is for VHF channels 7-13. I don't need channels 2-6 any more.
Several of my stations moved their digital signals to different channels on Friday, at different times of day, so I had to re-scan with my digital tuners a few times. I lost no stations in the process. In fact, I expect to pick up another one in a couple of weeks. This station's digital signal is on the same channel as an analog station in another city, which is still running for a few weeks in "nightlight" mode with continuously looping DTV transition information.
Here's a video clip (http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/TV/images/wltx-shutdown.mp4) of the end of one station's analog signal. Notice the horizontal bars on the picture before the shutdown. Afterwards, you can see a faint signal from a low-power station on the same channel that was causing the interference. The station that shut down is 69 miles away and was radiating an equivalent power of 5000 kW. The interfering station is 58 miles way, with a power of 1.23 kW.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 10:39 AM
So what are the local stations broadcasting on then? If they aren't broadcasting on sat and not on standard digital transmissions where are they?
In the UK, we have satellite (Sky TV), Cable (Virgin Media) and Freeview (broadcast in replace of analog. When analog shuts down they use the same masts to broadcast a digital signal to replace it. The Freeview digital decoder box lets you watch this digital on your older tv.)
No local stations on sat.
In many areas in the US (not all, yet) the satellite carriers (Dish and DirecTV) do provide local broadcast channels to customers in those areas. At least the major network channels (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, PBS), probably not the minor networks (CW, MyNetworkTV) or the independent stations.
In what way? That it happened?
I suppose what Turbo means is that after the switch he has to invest in much more than just a converter to get access to the same amount of channels that he had before.
Moonbear
Jun14-09, 10:58 AM
Even with analog TV I had to use a good rooftop antenna with a rotator. I've been using digital TV exclusively for four years, and upgraded my antenna setup (http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/TV/images/91XG+YA1713b.jpg) last year.
So, what you and turbo, collectively, seem to be saying is that just getting a converter box is not sufficient, so even if someone who couldn't afford a convertor box (they cost about $50 each in the US, which is a lot) and did manage to get a coupon for a discounted one before the coupons ran out, you also need to upgrade to a new antenna to receive the digital channels.
This article seems to confirm that a converter box isn't enough. Why didn't anyone tell people they needed a new antenna too?
Need some tips to help a relative or neighbor get their TV switched over to digital? On the converter box remote, click the menu or set-up button, click on scan and then click okay. That should get the converter box programmed for all available digital channels. One thing to keep in mind is that you may need to buy a new antenna to get a clear picture.
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S976026.shtml?cat=565
And this one as well:
June 12, 2009 5:41 PM PDT
DTV converter boxes aplenty, but good luck finding an antenna
by Marguerite Reardon
NEW YORK--Louise Coleman of Brooklyn, N.Y., did everything she was supposed to do before full-power TV broadcasters in the U.S. turned off their analog TV signals and started broadcasting only in digital, but she still found herself in a Best Buy store on the DTV deadline day, Friday, buying the last amplified digital antenna on the store shelf.
Coleman said she had gotten her $40 coupon from the government and bought a digital converter box for her older analog TV before the first deadline for the switch to digital TV on February 17. And she even bought a new flat screen digital-ready TV for her living room to replace an old analog TV that was on its last legs. So she thought she was prepared.
...
So off she went to Best Buy, to pick up the very last digital TV antenna with a signal amplifier the store had in stock at a cost of $50.
"I was prepared back in February for the switch," she said. "But then when I hooked up the box last night, I realized that I wasn't getting all the channels and that I probably needed a different antenna, so here I am again."
Coleman was not alone. While much of the hoopla around the digital TV transition for the past several months has focused on whether people with older analog TVs had a digital converter box to receive digital signals, a big issue for New Yorkers on Friday when broadcasters flipped the switch to digital was finding an antenna to improve their reception.
But retailers caution consumers that no antenna is a one-size fits all solution, something Richard Savelli, of Manhattan learned the hard way.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10264157-94.html
So, not only do you need to get a new antenna with that converter box, you won't even know until you take it home and try it if you got the right antenna for your area! So, you could be buying anything from another $50 antenna to sit on top of your TV set, to another $100 upgrade for your rooftop antenna.
How were people even supposed to know this? In all the millions of ads run about the conversion and getting a converter box, NOBODY said anything about antennas too, and they also didn't offer any program to help people pay for those upgrades to antennas.
In what way? That it happened?The poor planning included the failure to take terrain into account and the failure to actually test relative signal strength in the normal broadcasting area before making the switch-over. The bands that DTV is carried on are far more directional than the conventional broadcast frequencies and if you don't have a good line-of-sight to the transmitting antenna, you get no signal. Because of terrain variations, I can get signals from a couple of stations about 90 miles away, but not from the stations in Bangor, only about 40 miles distant.
Most of the people that I have spoken to in this area can get no digital TV signal at all, while a few with very tall masts and $$$$ antennas can get one or two stations. The fellow who owned this house previously had a brother who was in the TV antenna installation business so when we bought this place, it came with probably the highest-quality UHF/VHF antenna available. My niece and her husband have a UHF/VHF antenna, but have lost all signal. They considered buying a better antenna, but there is no guarantee that they can get a signal even once that is installed, and Radio Shack won't take back an antenna once it has been mounted, so that would be an expensive gamble.
Exactly how much does a digital decoder box cost over in the US?
The "Coupon Eligible Converter Boxes" (CECBs) that provide only standard-definition analog output and are intended for upgrading old TVs, usually cost $50 to $60. Each household can get up to two coupons from the US governent, each worth $40 towards the purchase of one box.
The coupon program has gotten criticism for somewhat complicated rules that were supposed to prevent profiteers from hoarding coupons and reselling them. For example, they expire 90 days after issuance. The people who applied for coupons at the beginning of the program (January 1, 2008) first had to wait until mid February to get them. At that point there were only one or two models of converter boxes actually available in stores, and some stores had difficulty processing the coupons. And originally there was only a fixed amount of money appropriated for coupons. After that money ran out, people got put on a waiting list, to wait for unused coupons to expire so the money would be freed up again.
In February, when the transition date was pushed back to last Friday, more money was made available to get rid of the backlog in coupon applications.
Moonbear
Jun14-09, 11:06 AM
I don't see why we should bend over backwards for people living out in the boonies. It's not a major city. It comes with living in the boonies. Don't like it, don't live in the boonies. There are legit reasons for having that spectrum for other more improtant uses.
That's harsh, and a rather ignorant statement. Who do you think provides the food you find in the stores of that big city? People who live in rural areas. There are a lot of rotten things I could say about living in cities, and dealing with people with arrogant attitudes that nobody else matters because they live a different lifestyle is high on that list. Try expanding your horizons and realizing that there is a huge world beyond your own back yard.
What more important uses is that spectrum being used for? If they are so important, and digital is such a wonderful alternative, why couldn't those important uses use the digital spectrum rather than costing people who just want to get the local farm reports so much money to switch?
The poor planning included...
Okay, so your local TV stations (seem to have) dropped the ball; that doesn't justify criticizing the transition as a whole.
So, what you and turbo, collectively, seem to be saying is that just getting a converter box is not sufficient, so even if someone who couldn't afford a convertor box (they cost about $50 each in the US, which is a lot) and did manage to get a coupon for a discounted one before the coupons ran out, you also need to upgrade to a new antenna to receive the digital channels.
My old antenna would have been quite sufficient to receive the local digital stations from the city that I'm "supposed" to be able to get them from, the city whose analog stations I'd been watching for many years. If I had just wanted to continue receiving those stations, I wouldn't have upgraded my antenna.
However, when I first tried digital TV, I discovered that I could get several stations from the other two cities, and I got hooked on watching those, too. I visit those cities regularly, so it's nice to watch local news from them, for example. They're a bit further away than my "main" city, so the signals are weaker. I beefed up my antenna setup mainly to improve reception for those "extra" stations.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun14-09, 11:10 AM
My local radio guys are playing this up to be much worse than it is I think. Exagerated for this area anyway since there are so many cities all bunched together I doubt many people in CA will have trouble with this.
They said that apparently so much as a tree in the yard could disrupt a digital broadcast signal? I had trouble believing that.
Some of the people up north and maybe out in the further reaches of our desert regions might have trouble though.
Moonbear
Jun14-09, 11:17 AM
My old antenna would have been quite sufficient to receive the local digital stations from the city that I'm "supposed" to be able to get them from, the city whose analog stations I'd been watching for many years. If I had just wanted to continue receiving those stations, I wouldn't have upgraded my antenna.
It doesn't sound like that's the case everywhere. From the articles I was located after reading your post, it seems like there are a lot of people who lost stations. It may depend on how powerful a broadcasting area your local station has and what's between you and them. For example, my "local" stations are supposed to be further south in the state. I never got signal from them even before the switch, because the mountains in the middle limit my reception. Instead, I got signal only from the Pittsburgh stations.
Still, this seems like quite a SNAFU that they didn't bother advertising to people that it was going to take more than plugging in a converter box to continue getting the channels you're used to getting. I think people expected to keep getting what they've been getting if they went to the trouble of getting a converter box. This is the first time I'm hearing that needing to get a new antenna might be part of the upgrade expenses. People who thought they had done what they needed to do, and bought their converters are still finding themselves losing stations when they could have planned ahead instead of being part of the mad rush to clean antennas off store shelves this weekend.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 11:21 AM
In the UK, standard tv is only 4-5 channels. With digital all we need is a set top box and we get something like 48+ channels. Definitely worth it for us.
It comes with living in the boonies. Don't like it, don't live in the boonies. That's harsh, and a rather ignorant statement.
You seem to be forgetting whom do you quote.
Astronuc
Jun14-09, 11:36 AM
The poor planning included the failure to take terrain into account and the failure to actually test relative signal strength in the normal broadcasting area before making the switch-over. The bands that DTV is carried on are far more directional than the conventional broadcast frequencies and if you don't have a good line-of-sight to the transmitting antenna, you get no signal. Because of terrain variations, I can get signals from a couple of stations about 90 miles away, but not from the stations in Bangor, only about 40 miles distant.
Most of the people that I have spoken to in this area can get no digital TV signal at all, while a few with very tall masts and $$$$ antennas can get one or two stations. The fellow who owned this house previously had a brother who was in the TV antenna installation business so when we bought this place, it came with probably the highest-quality UHF/VHF antenna available. My niece and her husband have a UHF/VHF antenna, but have lost all signal. They considered buying a better antenna, but there is no guarantee that they can get a signal even once that is installed, and Radio Shack won't take back an antenna once it has been mounted, so that would be an expensive gamble. Digital broadcast signals degrade with distance and a limited by the terrain. When I was visiting turbo, there were areas where my cell phone could not get a signal, so broadcast DTV is definitely going to be limited.
I would think that local TV stations should remain analog. I can understand the desire/motivation of some in government and business to take the bandwidth and sell it to wireless providers like Verizon.
For the past decade we have been the leading advocate for advanced over-the-air digital television in the United States. http://www.mstv.org/aboutus.html - these guys think it's a great idea.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun14-09, 11:39 AM
In the UK, standard tv is only 4-5 channels. With digital all we need is a set top box and we get something like 48+ channels. Definitely worth it for us.
And you still use direct current too. Silly people. ;-p
Moonbear
Jun14-09, 11:47 AM
Digital broadcast signals degrade with distance and a limited by the terrain. When I was visiting turbo, there were areas where my cell phone could not get a signal, so broadcast DTV is definitely going to be limited.
I would think that local TV stations should remain analog. I can understand the desire/motivation of some in government and business to take the bandwidth and sell it to wireless providers like Verizon.
Indeed, I traveled through areas of this state last month, and for two of the three days I was on the road, I didn't have cell phone reception. Not spotty reception, not dropped calls type reception, NO reception, as in signal not found. Now, for some of those areas, I don't know what their TV arrangement is, since they don't have cell phones because there are no cell towers allowed in the radio free zone around the NRAO, so they also might not have TV stations broadcasting into the area either. But in a lot of areas, it simply has to do with terrain. One of the reasons the NRAO is located where it is is because of the mountains there that block radio interference from nearby communities...the more something requires line of sight transmission, the less likely it is to work in mountainous terrain...and that need not have anything to do with how rural an area is either.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 12:11 PM
And you still use direct current too. Silly people. ;-p
I hope there was sarcasm there.
Anyhow, it's all down to the size of the country at the end of the day. We only have one time zone you have three which immediately means you have to deal with that issue. You have local and national tv stations, we don't we just have national. Well unless you include the whole regional rubbish (bbc england, bbc wales, bbc scotland, itv wales etc.). These are not alternate channels but during certain times of the day they broadcast different programmes to different parts of the UK by region. Like the news is first national then by region. But it happens on the same channel and people in wales can't watch the news for scotland and so on. The digital switch will give access to all these as seperate channels. So to me it's a good thing.
Besides, our 240V setup is safer and more efficient than your 110V.
From the articles I was located after reading your post, it seems like there are a lot of people who lost stations. It may depend on how powerful a broadcasting area your local station has and what's between you and them. For example, my "local" stations are supposed to be further south in the state. I never got signal from them even before the switch, because the mountains in the middle limit my reception. Instead, I got signal only from the Pittsburgh stations.
Another factor is that many people were happy with what some people (like me) would call really crappy reception on their analog stations. Weak analog signals still give you something, even with a "snowy" picture and crackly sound, but weak digital signals below a certain point give you nothing at all. People call this the "cliff effect." This is one reason why many people need to upgrade their antennas.
My wife is like this. Before we got married, she was happy with a small portable TV with rabbit ears that could pick up three of the stations from our "main" city, with a picture that could charitably be described as "recognizable." Here, she's been using a small TV in the breakfast area to watch (actually mainly listen to) the morning news while getting ready for work. It could pick up exactly one channel with its built-in antenna. Last week I finally found a "sweet spot" for a small external antenna that allowed a converter box to pick up exactly one station. It's a different station from the original one, so now she watches ABC's "Good Morning America" instead of the CBS "Early Show", but that's all right with her.
Still, this seems like quite a SNAFU that they didn't bother advertising to people that it was going to take more than plugging in a converter box to continue getting the channels you're used to getting.
I agree with that. I also think that in general, the individual stations should have been much more active a long time ago in promoting the digital channels that they've been operating for years alongside the analog ones. Those channels were pretty much a secret to the general public before the DTV transition publicity campaign really started to ramp up around March of last year. The people who knew about them were mostly geeks like me. I think even during the past year, a lot of people didn't really "get it" that the digital channels were already there and ready to watch. People should have been trying out digital TV early, so they could find out problems, upgrade antennas etc., while they still had the analog channels to fall back on in the meantime.
The stations should have started promoting their digital channels at least three years ago. "Get rid of the snow, ghosts, speckles and herringbone stripes on your picture! Get free HDTV! Get a free 24/7 weather channel!" Etc. Starting last year, stations had a lot of general DTV transition information on their Web sites, but I'm amazed at how many of them didn't have technical information about their digital channels specifically, even something simple like which channel their digital signal is really on! (which is especially important if the analog channel is/was VHF and the digital one is UHF, or the other way around)
And the FCC should have phased in the requirements for TVs to include digital tuners earlier, so more people would become DTV-ready simply by buying new TVs in the normal course of events. My HDTV (a 32" LCD) has only an analog tuner built in because I bought it in fall 2005, and that size set didn't require a digital tuner until March 2006. (It wasn't a problem for me because I'd been experimenting with external digital tuners on my old analog set, so I already had a tuner I could use with the new set.)
TheStatutoryApe
Jun14-09, 12:15 PM
I hope there was sarcasm there.
Yes. That's what the smiley was for. :-)
That's harsh, and a rather ignorant statement. Who do you think provides the food you find in the stores of that big city? People who live in rural areas. There are a lot of rotten things I could say about living in cities, and dealing with people with arrogant attitudes that nobody else matters because they live a different lifestyle is high on that list. Try expanding your horizons and realizing that there is a huge world beyond your own back yard.
Ok, but that's really not a point because I can sit here and argue who makes sure you get your mail, that you get electrical power, that your food gets shipped out so you can live off
of your farm product? Major distritbution centers in city hubs. We can play this game all day long about who does what and where. They are both important.
What more important uses is that spectrum being used for? If they are so important, and digital is such a wonderful alternative, why couldn't those important uses use the digital spectrum rather than costing people who just want to get the local farm reports so much money to switch?
Can the farm reports not be sent out via the internet or radio? I'm curious as to why some here think having a TV is a necessity of life and not a modern luxury. Do newspapers not exist in that part of the country?
You have local and national tv stations, we don't we just have national.
Actually, almost all broadcast TV stations in the US are "local." They produce their own local news programs etc. and carry advertising for local businesses, in addition to carrying national programs and advertising from one of the networks (NBC, ABC, etc.). A station may be owned by a national or regional chain or even by one of the networks, but it's managed at the local level. And stations owned by the same chain in different cities are often affiliated with different networks, except of course for ones that are actually owned by a network.
In many states, the public broadcasting (PBS) stations are owned and operated by a statewide agency, and the individual stations are basically "repeaters" controlled from a central office. South Carolina is like this. I can get five or six SCETV stations, but the programming is identical on all of them. For some reason they chose to build a lot of lower-powered stations rather than a few high-powered ones in order to cover the entire state.
But there's nothing like this on the national level.
russ_watters
Jun14-09, 12:54 PM
Can the farm reports not be sent out via the internet or radio? I'm curious as to why some here think having a TV is a necessity of life and not a modern luxury. Do newspapers not exist in that part of the country? Apparently, TV is as essential to some people as food: So when people don't have bread, we should tell them to eat cake? :rolleyes: Who do you think provides the food you find in the stores of that big city? People who live in rural areas. Moonbear, turbo-1, we're talking about *TV* here. TV!
People make choices about living in a city vs a rural area partly because of the availability of such things. Living in a rural area means you don't get good movie theaters nearby, have to drive further to find a Home Depot, and you can't go see a major league baseball game on a Wednesday night after work. Living in a city means you can't use your telescope in your backyard.
These are the types of pros and cons people weigh when choosing where to live. This isn't the rural electrification program and no one is in danger of starving to death over this. It's TV! It is a luxury item! Entertainment. It isn't an entitlement - it isn't a necessity of life.
What has people upset is that the switch to digital tv has made getting that luxury/entertainment item out to rural areas more difficult. They are used to having it, so they have started believing it is an entitlement. But it isn't. It's just a fact of life that sometimes the provider of something decides they can't/don't want to provide it anymore. This is no different than if someone closed a nearby movie theater in a rural area because it was unprofitable.
And might I add: broadcast tv is free! People who lost something only lost something that they were getting for free!
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 12:57 PM
Actually, almost all broadcast TV stations in the US are "local." They produce their own local news programs etc. and carry advertising for local businesses, in addition to carrying national programs and advertising from one of the networks (NBC, ABC, etc.). A station may be owned by a national or regional chain or even by one of the networks, but it's managed at the local level. And stations owned by the same chain in different cities are often affiliated with different networks, except of course for ones that are actually owned by a network.
In many states, the public broadcasting (PBS) stations are owned and operated by a statewide agency, and the individual stations are basically "repeaters" controlled from a central office. South Carolina is like this. I can get five or six SCETV stations, but the programming is identical on all of them. For some reason they chose to build a lot of lower-powered stations rather than a few high-powered ones in order to cover the entire state.
But there's nothing like this on the national level.
I'd say thats basically what I meant with it, ish. Obviously I didn't think you had national transmitters, but I meant you have national channels/shows and more specific local ones.
russ_watters
Jun14-09, 01:01 PM
The poor planning included the failure to take terrain into account and the failure to actually test relative signal strength in the normal broadcasting area before making the switch-over. You're just assuming all that. Maybe they did do all of that testing and just decided that your area wasn't important enough to make it worth their effort to give you better reception. Or even more likely - maybe they were aware of the general issue and decided the issue (serving people in rural areas) wasn't even an important enough concern to make it worth doing the testing.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 01:02 PM
And might I add: broadcast tv is free! People who lost something only lost something that they were getting for free!
Wish it was like that in the UK. There are four/five channels on analogue. BBC 1 + 2, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.
All are free (advertising based) except the BBC ones. We have to pay £140 each year for a tv licence. The only upside of which is that there are no ad breaks and no adverts between shows.
Worst bit is if you have a tv you have to have a licence whether you watch the BBC channels or not. When digital comes in, yes we get more channels (especially a whole load more from the bbc) but we still need the licence.
russ_watters
Jun14-09, 01:08 PM
By the way, what does "local" mean anyway? I don't watch local news, but if I did, I guess a recent murder in Philly would be relevant to me since I'm there a couple of times a week, but even living 20 miles away, a Philly weather report isn't specific enough for my taste. If I lived 40+ miles from my "local" tv station. I couldn't even imagine caring what was on it!
[edit] Possible exception: the Phillies baseball and Flyers hockey. But they have their own network that airs most of their games anyway.....on cable.
For weather, the nearest doppler radars are in Philadelphia, but that doesn't mean I need to watch tv to access them. You can watch them in real-time on the internet, so the internet is a much better source for weather information than tv, even if the tv station owns the radar.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 01:11 PM
By the way, what does "local" mean anyway? I don't watch local news, but if I did, I guess a recent murder in Philly would be relevant to me since I'm there a couple of times a week, but even living 20 miles away, a Philly weather report isn't specific enough for my taste.
Within a certain region. So perhaps by state or even by large cities / towns.
And of course there's politics. :smile: Local and state politics can get interesting at times. In a nearby county, a county councilman recently got into trouble for planting spyware on the county manager's computer, apparently to try to dig up dirt on him in order to get the council as a whole to fire him. The FBI got into the act on this one.
Office_Shredder
Jun14-09, 01:39 PM
You're just assuming all that. Maybe they did do all of that testing and just decided that your area wasn't important enough to make it worth their effort to give you better reception. Or even more likely - maybe they were aware of the general issue and decided the issue (serving people in rural areas) wasn't even an important enough concern to make it worth doing the testing.
They did a test run on a city in South Carolina (if I remember correctly) and found that the range wasn't what they'd hoped back in November '08 or something. The FCC decided to make distributed transmission systems permissible to recover analog range, but it seems nobody's bothered to do that
russ_watters
Jun14-09, 01:39 PM
And of course there's politics. :smile: Local and state politics can get interesting at times. In a nearby county, a county councilman recently got into trouble for planting spyware on the county manager's computer, apparently to try to dig up dirt on him in order to get the council as a whole to fire him. The FBI got into the act on this one. Well yeah, the best soap opera around right now is the Philly tv reporter who hacked his co-anchor's email account because he was in lover with her and jealous of her. She's no angel either, getting arrested for assaulting a cop!
But what makes a drama more compelling simply because it happenes 20 miles away instead of 200 miles away? Right now, the most compelling political drama is happening 10,000 miles away from me! To me, the concept of "local" doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.
I haven't read the entire thread, did anyone mention that the reason that tv stations were forced to give up their analogue frequencies was a result of lobbying by companies that wanted those frequenicies released so that they could buy it up and the resell it for new "for profit" services? This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC.
Astronuc
Jun14-09, 02:25 PM
I haven't read the entire thread, did anyone mention that the reason that tv stations were forced to give up their analogue frequencies was a result of lobbying by companies that wanted those frequenicies released so that they could buy it up and the resell it for new "for profit" services? This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC. In post 64, I mentioned these guys - Maximum Service Television.
http://www.mstv.org/aboutus.html
The Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., is the recognized industry leader in broadcasting technology and spectrum policy issues. Formed in 1956, MSTV has endeavored to ensure that the American public receive the highest quality, interference free, over-the-air local television signals. Yeah - right. :rolleyes:
One local station, the ABC affiliate, is on the reception fringe. The set top boxes keep losing their digital signal. This requires re- scanning the converter boxes for available stations.
The odd thing is that they are now running mini infomercials on how to rescan the boxes on the cable channels??:rolleyes:
Ouabache
Jun14-09, 06:59 PM
Like a few others mentioned here, I too am unaffected by the switch to digital TV and haven't owned a television that receives broadcast stations for the past 7 years. It isn't necessary. Although the internet has given us much useful content, even without it, AM/FM radio fills in local news coverage.
It may have been desirable from some viewpoints, but to people in rural locations, it seems that we have sacrificed a lot of access to information (weather reports, storm warnings, traffic disruptions) that might have been pretty valuable, but often taken for granted. If you are in the path of a cell of severe thunderstorms, and you can't get local weather reports, that's not good.
Since the advent of AM broadcast radio and due to their use of longer wavelengths, they operate effectively over variable terrain and reach rural areas in the absence of analog television.
Also for emergency weather, a basic VHF scanner can recieve NOAA weather transmissions
In Maine (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/stations.php?State=ME) there are 11 frequencies to choose from. Across rural America there are comparable broadcast frequencies.
We have already lost local AM/FM radio to the national conglomerates, so that channel of communication is gone.
Rural areas have benefited from AM radio for local news coverage for quite some time. You may want to revisit the list of local AM stations and retest their reception. Stringing up a long wire for an antenna, stunningly increases the gain (reception) for these signals. Since these are rural areas, there is no shortage of space for a long wire antennas.
Here is one list of AM stations in Maine. extracted from this reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_Maine). (there are comparable lists for stations across rural America).
Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.
As for the arguments that TV is a luxury and that broadcast TV is "free" I beg to differ. The broadcasters' costs are paid by advertising revenue, and the advertising is eating up about 25% or so of the available air-time, which the viewers "pay for" by watching the ads. The broadcasters were forced to give up their frequencies and buy, install, and maintain new digital equipment so that fat-cats could buy up the band-width and use it to sell services. The public was led by the nose and went along for the ride with the promise of better pictures and audio, when the result for many is NO pictures and NO audio.
Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.
As for the arguments that TV is a luxury and that broadcast TV is "free" I beg to differ. The broadcasters' costs are paid by advertising revenue, and the advertising is eating up about 25% or so of the available air-time, which the viewers "pay for" by watching the ads. The broadcasters were forced to give up their frequencies and buy, install, and maintain new digital equipment so that fat-cats could buy up the band-width and use it to sell services. The public was led by the nose and went along for the ride with the promise of better pictures and audio, when the result for many is NO pictures and NO audio.
Wow, you really just tried to rationalize getting free TV by basically saying "well, I watch the Ads, and those Ads bring in money".
Are you up for congressional election in 2010? The spin you just posted is making me dizzy.
Have you considered that you don't "deserve" *any* free tv - whatsoever? For crying out loud, you don't even pay for it!!!
Also, are the EMTs 'fat cats' wanting to use the bandwidth?
The switch to DTV will offer a host of important public benefits, to include:
Freeing up parts of the broadcast spectrum for public safety communications (police/fire/rescue).
Allowing some of the spectrum to be auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with more advanced wireless services (such as wireless broadband).
Allowing stations to offer improved picture and surround sound (enhanced audio).
Expanding programming choices for viewers. For example, a broadcaster will be able to offer multiple digital programs simultaneously (multicasting).
Providing interactive video and data services that are not possible with analog technology.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 08:00 PM
Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.
As for the arguments that TV is a luxury and that broadcast TV is "free" I beg to differ. The broadcasters' costs are paid by advertising revenue, and the advertising is eating up about 25% or so of the available air-time, which the viewers "pay for" by watching the ads. The broadcasters were forced to give up their frequencies and buy, install, and maintain new digital equipment so that fat-cats could buy up the band-width and use it to sell services. The public was led by the nose and went along for the ride with the promise of better pictures and audio, when the result for many is NO pictures and NO audio.
I'm curious who forces you to watch these ads? I for one channel hop or go get a drink or something. As I said before, here in Britain we HAVE to pay for a tv licence each year whether we like it or not. You do not. You cannot make out that you losing something which is free to begin with is unfair. Again, noone forced these people to live in these areas, they are/were free to move whenever they liked. They made a choice to stay there knowing full well what the situation was.
Mainers live here primarily because we were born here and made livings for ourselves here. It was not a conscious decision "I have to move to Maine" for most of us. Maine was the lumber capitol of the US for many, many years, and we still supply lots of maple syrup, potatoes, blueberries, salmon, groundfish, lobsters, etc that people in urban areas come to rely on when they go to their stores. Urban populations cannot possibly live without rural populations to supply their food-stuffs. There is no way that DC, NYC, Philly, etc could sustain any but a tiny portion of their populations without people in rural US catching their fish, raising their cattle, growing their vegetables, etc.
Again, if you think broadcast TV is "free" then you don't understand the dynamics of ad revenue. Ads pay for eyeballs, and you don't have to do too much research to find studies that explain this in detail. The claim that broadcast TV is "free" and that we in rural areas have no reason to object if it is suddenly removed by FCC action is not only simplistic - it is dead-wrong. Whole industries were built on TV advertising, and you shouldn't have to think too long to come up with some examples. I won't bother, since you seem predisposed to ignoring reality.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 08:41 PM
Mainers live here primarily because we were born here and made livings for ourselves here. It was not a conscious decision "I have to move to Maine" for most of us. Maine was the lumber capitol of the US for many, many years, and we still supply lots of maple syrup, potatoes, blueberries, salmon, groundfish, lobsters, etc that people in urban areas come to rely on when they go to their stores. Urban populations cannot possibly live without rural populations to supply their food-stuffs. There is no way that DC, NYC, Philly, etc could sustain any but a tiny portion of their populations without people in rural US catching their fish, raising their cattle, growing their vegetables, etc.
Again, if you think broadcast TV is "free" then you don't understand the dynamics of ad revenue. Ads pay for eyeballs, and you don't have to do too much research to find studies that explain this in detail. The claim that broadcast TV is "free" and that we in rural areas have no reason to object if it is suddenly removed by FCC action is not only simplistic - it is dead-wrong. Whole industries were build on TV advertising, and you shouldn't have to think too long to come up with some examples. I won't bother, since you seem predisposed to ignoring reality.
Your lack of evidence and continual stating that you will not provide any makes your claims here worthless. Why is it dead wrong, if its supplied to you free, then it is costing them to broadcast it to you. Given they cannot guarantee anyone watches the adverts it is a hit and miss technique for the companies advertising. Can I assume you have evidence waying up the revenue of adverts with the costs of broadcasting, maintenance etc? So that you can trully way up the losses from these few broadcast areas.
You were born there, and? Nothing stopped you moving away.
Your lack of evidence and continual stating that you will not provide any makes your claims here worthless. Why is it dead wrong, if its supplied to you free, then it is costing them to broadcast it to you. Given they cannot guarantee anyone watches the adverts it is a hit and miss technique for the companies advertising. Can I assume you have evidence waying up the revenue of adverts with the costs of broadcasting, maintenance etc? So that you can trully way up the losses from these few broadcast areas.
You were born there, and? Nothing stopped you moving away.Worthless claims? Man! what claptrap! Broadcast TV has been financed by ad-revenue all my life. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the "free" TV has been paid for by the perceived value that the advertisers paid for to get their ads in front of people. Do you think that Kraft Foods, P&G, Campbells, etc would spend billions to write, produce and air ads if they weren't convinced that the ads make them much more money than they spent? Learn something about advertising before you start throwing around claims that are soundly refuted by decades of the producers "putting their money where their mouth is". Some of the highest-powered people in these consumer-products companies are the folks who run the ad campaigns. That is not a coincidence.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 08:58 PM
Worthless claims? Man! what claptrap! Broadcast TV has been financed by ad-revenue all my life. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the "free" TV has been paid for by the perceived value that the advertisers paid for to get their ads in front of people. Do you think that Kraft Foods, P&G, Campbells, etc would spend billions to write, produce and air ads if they weren't convinced that the ads make them much more money than they spent? Learn something about advertising before you start throwing around claims that are soundly refuted by decades of the producers "putting their money where their mouth is". Some of the highest-powered people in these consumer-products companies are the folks who run the ad campaigns. That is not a coincidence.
Did I say the ads don't make money? It's how it works here in the UK and there with you. You are arguing that you DESERVE tv. It is a modern luxury, something people have come to expect. It does not mean they should get it. Yes the ads pay for it, but that does not mean you have to get it. Show me where it says the advert money has to pay for everyone to get tv/to see the ads.
I haven't read the entire thread, did anyone mention that the reason that tv stations were forced to give up their analogue frequencies was a result of lobbying by companies that wanted those frequenicies released so that they could buy it up and the resell it for new "for profit" services? This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC.
I hadn't heard of any opposition by the broadcast stations to this change, and they own the grievances pulpit. They come out, in general, head with HDTV capability. A short search of the web hasn't revealed any objections. Do you know something I don't know?
I hadn't heard of any opposition by the broadcast stations to this change, and they own the grievances pulpit. They come out, in general, head with HDTV capability. A short search of the web hasn't revealed any objections. Do you know something I don't know?The broadcast stations in this area tried to comply as well as they could, and one of them spent the extra money to provide parallel analog service all winter and into the spring, in the interests of public safety, before they were forced to abandon the frequencies that they broadcast analog signals over. Evo can explain the dynamics nationally (and within the industry, which she works in). I can only comment on what I know, which is that local TV stations were forced to move to new frequencies and adopt digital technologies, and people (sometimes not too far from the trqansmitters) ended up with no TV at all. It's a bit disconcerting when we had an analog system that had been working for the last 50+ years here, financed by ad-revenue, and suddenly the FCC steps in and absconds with that bandwidth and forces TV signals into a frequency-range that is highly directional, leaving many people with NO TV.
I hadn't heard of any opposition by the broadcast stations to this change, and they own the grievances pulpit. They come out, in general, head with HDTV capability. A short search of the web hasn't revealed any objections. Do you know something I don't know?Apparently I do. :smile:
I work in telecom, for one of the giants, I have since the late 70's. I happen to have been following this for years.
Do you know one of the main culprits in this is Google because they wanted to go into the cell phone business, but they needed the bandwidth? Companies are alloted ranges, they needed a range. They spent millions lobbying for this. This is all backed by greed and lots of gullible stupid people that are clueless about telecom thinking this was going to mean universal service options. This is of zero benefit to local affiliate stations.
There was no need to take away all of the analogue frequencies. Big greedy companies wanted to be able to bid on and snap up these frequencies. It's a bit disgusting and a loss for the consumer.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 09:20 PM
Apparently I do. :smile:
I work in telecom, for one of the giants, I have since the late 70's. I happen to have been following this for years.
Do you know one of the main culprits in this is Google because they wanted to go into the cell phone business, but they needed the bandwidth? Comnpanies are alloted ranges, they needed a range. They spent millions lobbying for this. This is all backed by greed and lots of gullible stupid people that are clueless about telecom thinking this it was going to mean universal service options. This is of zero benefit to local affiliate stations.
There was no need to take away all of the analogue frequencies. Big greedy companies wanted to be able to bid on and snap up these frequencies. It's a bit disgusting and a loss for the consumer.
So do you see any upside for the consumer?
So do you see any upside for the consumer?Not unless you consider more companies selling more expensive services is a benefit. I guess if you can afford it, more is better.
Integral
Jun14-09, 09:28 PM
... Maine was the lumber capitol of the US for many, many years, ...
LOL, I am sorry I just had to laugh at that statement. But then I am from the PNW, we are now just logging sticks here, but our current sticks still are bigger then anything ever logged out of Maine. All Maine sticks are good for is 2 2x4s or pulp.
When was Maine the timber capitol of the US, 1820?
Moonbear
Jun14-09, 09:43 PM
Apparently, TV is as essential to some people as food: :rolleyes: Moonbear, turbo-1, we're talking about *TV* here. TV!
We're talking the local stations that provide weather and emergency reports. Nobody is asking for the 500 channels you can get with cable TV, they're asking to keep their 3 or 4 stations that tell them if it's going to rain and how much to decide if they should plow the fields that week, or plant the corn, or move the cattle to higher ground, or if there's going to be a frost after the planting season has begun. They are people living in areas where there is no cable TV. Before people jump in and say they can just get their news and weather reports from the internet, stop and THINK about where these people live. Many people in those very rural areas do not have internet, or if they do, it's slow dialup, or expensive satellite (many can't afford it). There are no cable lines out there to provide cable TV or cable internet, and they are too far spread apart to get DSL. These are areas without cell phone service as well. And, that's because they live in the areas where the next nearest neighbor is a mile down the road on the next farm.
They aren't going to just run down to the nearest Blockbuster to rent a movie for entertainment either, because the nearest video rental could very well be an hour away, in the town where they also buy their groceries once a month, pick up other supplies, see their doctor and dentist, or get their hair cut.
And, indeed, many people really haven't chosen to live there. They were born there, their whole family lives there, and the only way they know how to make a living is farming. The idea of moving to a suburb or city, even for the ones who might want to leave, isn't usually an option, because they simply can't afford it.
It's the information they get from TV that's important, not the entertainment. You've probably never turned on your TV in the city and heard a farm report, because your local stations aren't going to broadcast it...people in the city don't need a farm report. But, when you get out into rural areas, that is broadcast on the local stations. Weather, crop forecasts, crop pricing, etc. These things are essential for these people to get their crops in on time, harvested at the right time, off to market at a time when they can make a profit, all so they can afford to keep on growing the food you need.
Ouabache
Jun14-09, 09:49 PM
Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.
For humanitarian reasons, I sincerely hope these elderly, infirm and shut-ins; are not living in remote rural areas. They would have more basic concerns ahead of news & entertainment, such as obtaining food, medical supplies & services.
So assuming most of the elderly, infirm and shut-ins are close to town; they may get a converter box or a digital TV to watch television. For entertainment, the elderly may join a senior's group. They may invite neighbors over, tell stories, make some music (here's a couple of folks having fun making music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwaOqEQApZM)). They send out shuttles to bring these folks to social events, meal sites, etc. For local news, an AM receiver does a nice job.
It's the information they get from TV that's important, not the entertainment. You've probably never turned on your TV in the city and heard a farm report, because your local stations aren't going to broadcast it...people in the city don't need a farm report. But, when you get out into rural areas, that is broadcast on the local stations. Weather, crop forecasts, crop pricing, etc. These things are essential for these people to get their crops in on time, harvested at the right time, off to market at a time when they can make a profit, all so they can afford to keep on growing the food you need. Having enjoyed living in rural America for five years, I noticed TV wasn't essential. For detailed weather information, NOAA transmits on VHF, and can be heard on scanners and weather radios (e.g. weather frequencies for West Virginia (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/stations.php?State=WV)) They listen to all the farming news on the radio (even out in the barn, while milking cows, ....Moooo :smile:)..
russ_watters
Jun14-09, 10:15 PM
We're talking the local stations that provide weather and emergency reports. Sorry, that's just plain not a good enough reason. Heck, TV isn't even the best medium for an emergency weather report: radio is. Anyone who lives in a disaster prone area should have a battery - or better yet, hand crank - operated weather radio. That's a federally funded service that exists specifically for that purpose. Nobody is asking for the 500 channels you can get with cable TV, they're asking to keep their 3 or 4 stations that tell them if it's going to rain and how much to decide if they should plow the fields that week, or plant the corn, or move the cattle to higher ground, or if there's going to be a frost after the planting season has begun. My grandfather had a battery operated weather radio sitting on his kitchen table for decades precisely that purpose. Today, a computer is better for that, but he never really got into computers. Either way, you don't need a tv for it. About the only thing he ever watched on TV was Phillies games.
More importantly, I can't see forcing tv stations to cater to such a tiny fraction of the population.
russ_watters
Jun14-09, 10:26 PM
Worthless claims? Man! what claptrap! Broadcast TV has been financed by ad-revenue all my life. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the "free" TV has been paid for by the perceived value that the advertisers paid for to get their ads in front of people. Do you think that Kraft Foods, P&G, Campbells, etc would spend billions to write, produce and air ads if they weren't convinced that the ads make them much more money than they spent? So.... Kraft pays for it, therefore you are entitled to it? That math doesn't add up. The TV stations do what they need to do to get ad revenue and make a profit, that's it. If that means ditching you, that's life.
russ_watters
Jun14-09, 10:33 PM
Mainers live here primarily because we were born here and made livings for ourselves here. It was not a conscious decision "I have to move to Maine" for most of us. Maine was the lumber capitol of the US for many, many years, and we still supply lots of maple syrup, potatoes, blueberries, salmon, groundfish, lobsters, etc that people in urban areas come to rely on when they go to their stores. Urban populations cannot possibly live without rural populations to supply their food-stuffs. There is no way that DC, NYC, Philly, etc could sustain any but a tiny portion of their populations without people in rural US catching their fish, raising their cattle, growing their vegetables, etc. Congratulations. Is TV your reward for raising cattle and catching fish? Again, if you think broadcast TV is "free"... It's free for you. That means the TV station has no obligation to you, only to the ad company - the one who pays th bills.
Whole industries were built on TV advertising, and you shouldn't have to think too long to come up with some examples. It's a numbers game - if there aren't enough people out there for the ad revenue to justify putting effort into giving you service, then they won't. Maybe it makes you feel unimportant. If this is a blow to your ego, tough. Get over it.
I have to say that I agree with different sides here.
I agree a lot with Russ as far as there being alternatives for essential news and broadcasts.
I agree with turbo & Moonbear that a lot of the poor and elderly rely on tv for a connection to the outside world. Just for that connection to a link to the outside, if nothing else, that's all they have and this legislation just steamrolled over them and it was greed that did it. We do not need google to provide us cell phones.
That link did not have to be removed in order for the Big Companies, such as Google, to get their license to sell cellular (which was one of the main drivers in this whole thing). Some analogue frequencies could have been left, at the very least, for some local tv affiliates, and I think it should have.
This decision in favor of big business without regard for consumers was wrong and ill conceived. Big business won, the little people lost.
Yes google we need yet another cell phone company, thank you.
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 11:21 PM
I have to agree with russ, you gave a long rant about how you NEED tv, you had a go at every other available service yet neglected radio.
Given that they spend their whole lives there, they must have done something to entertain themselves all those years? I imagine sitting in front of the tv 24/7 wasn't it.
What are the odds of a power outtage in a severe storm, rendering the tv useless? A lot higher than your hand crank radio running out of charge!
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 11:28 PM
Congratulations. Is TV your reward for raising cattle and catching fish?
If it is, I know some scientists due for a round trip to the moon!
JaredJames
Jun14-09, 11:32 PM
Now I know this is in favour of digital, but still there are a fair few points in there that to me make digital superior to analogue. If anyone has any downsides to digital (substantiated ones) let me know:
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Advantages-of-Digital-TV&id=1425944
I've been doing some browsing, and have found two interesting, apparently relevant facts that haven't been mentioned in this thread. Maybe Evo can provide some clarification, e.g. as to the scope of such things:
(1) Only "full-power" broadcasting stations in the US were required to switch to digital on June 12.
See, for example, this FCC page (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/DTVandLPTV.html)
There is currently no deadline for low-power local stations to switch over to digital, so they have the option to remain analog if they desired
(2) The current "nightlight" service we see talking about transitioning to digital is also authorized to convey emergency information.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun15-09, 12:07 AM
Again, noone forced these people to live in these areas, they are/were free to move whenever they liked. They made a choice to stay there knowing full well what the situation was.
As already touched on by Moonie this is missing the reality of their situation. Most of these people are born where they are. The majority of people in the US live in or near the place they grew up all or most of thier lives, this is even more common among poorer people.
Most often this point is brought up in regards to people living in the inner city and urban areas but it effects people in rural areas aswell. Both the urban and rural poor have less access to quality education, fewer job options available, and hence slim opportunity to move and make a better life elsewhere. The biggest difference between the urban and rural poor is that it is far cheaper to live in rural areas. The rural poor tend to make, and live on, much less money than even people who live in inner city ghettos! Can you believe that? Even a family living in south central los angeles lives in greater luxery than the rural poor.
I may not agree entirely with Turbo's assessment of how 'free' TV is but it is in reality one of the very few luxeries these people can afford. And its being taken away. I don't care whether or not it is free to them. It is one of the few sources of entertainment, education, and information they have at their disposal and the only one, aside from radio, that they can easily afford. By federal mandate the airwaves are a resource that belongs to the people and these people are being robbed of that resource in the interest of corporate profits.
JasonRox
Jun15-09, 12:11 AM
I support the farmers because I know how valuable they are, but I also agree with russ' viewpoint.
Although I do *feel* as though he's totally underestimating how valuable they are. I guess that's what happens when people live in the city and becomes naive over time.
Also I think maybe russ would definitely not support using tax dollars to provide 1 analog channel for farmer's throughout America. Yet, would probably support using tax dollars to build community parks in the city... (Hmmm...)
(Note: I *feel* as though you might not. I'm not saying you *do*.)
I support the farmers because I know how valuable they are, but I also agree with russ' viewpoint.
Although I do *feel* as though he's totally underestimating how valuable they are. I guess that's what happens when people live in the city and becomes naive over time.
Also I think maybe russ would definitely not support using tax dollars to provide 1 analog channel for farmer's throughout America. Yet, would probably support using tax dollars to build community parks in the city... (Hmmm...)
(Note: I *feel* as though you might not. I'm not saying you *do*.)
Wow, did you just put words into Russ' mouth and then argue it? </amazed>
Jason, I think you should let Russ talk for himself. What you just did was disrespectful. Seriously, come on.
Apparently I do. :smile:
I work in telecom, for one of the giants, I have since the late 70's. I happen to have been following this for years.
Do you know one of the main culprits in this is Google because they wanted to go into the cell phone business, but they needed the bandwidth? Companies are alloted ranges, they needed a range. They spent millions lobbying for this. This is all backed by greed and lots of gullible stupid people that are clueless about telecom thinking this was going to mean universal service options. This is of zero benefit to local affiliate stations.
There was no need to take away all of the analogue frequencies. Big greedy companies wanted to be able to bid on and snap up these frequencies. It's a bit disgusting and a loss for the consumer.
The plot thickens.
Needless to say, legislation can rob anyone of anything--and does daily.
Why didn't I hear the lobbying over the public TV airwaves by broadcast television to convince the consumer that this was not in their interest? Where were ABCNBCCBS? As an insider you should know the answer to this. They could easily have incorporated it into ABCCBSNBC Evening News and trimmed 2 minutes off of Days of Our Lives and every other sit-com to energize the public to their cause. I didn't hear a wimper.
Something doesn't add up.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun15-09, 01:08 AM
The plot thickens.
Needless to say, legislation can rob anyone of anything--and does daily.
Why didn't I hear the lobbying over the public TV airwaves by broadcast television to convince the consumer that this was not in their interest? Where were ABCNBCCBS? As an insider you should know the answer to this. They could easily have incorporated it into ABCCBSNBC Evening News and trimmed 2 minutes off of Days of Our Lives and every other sit-com to energize the public to their cause. I didn't hear a wimper.
Something doesn't add up.
I'm sure its been discussed in the news. My local radio talk show hosts have been talking about it for some time.
If defeating the proposal would have been benefitial to some television stations I wonder what the FCC would have to say about them using their alotted airwaves to lobby in their own selfinterest. That right there could be a major reason for lack of a well organized campaign against the legislation on TV, and most major affiliates probably stand to benefit.
I'm sure its been discussed in the news. My local radio talk show hosts have been talking about it for some time.
Yeah, but it doesn't matter what they are talking about now. Now would be no more than the usual entertainment news. Where was the negative press being disseminated a year ago when the wheels of government were presumably being greased by Google and such?
If defeating the proposal would have been benefitial to some television stations I wonder what the FCC would have to say about them using their alotted airwaves to lobby in their own selfinterest.
That's an excellent point. If we had someone in FCC upper (as in lowly) management we might figure it out. I was considering that ABCCBSNBC may have considered that opposing interests, having deep pockets, could defeat them on their own airwaves for a no-win to analog encoding.
But where is the no win??? They get competitive HDTV, tell their local affiliates how much they care about then, and stab them in the back because their per share of audience such as Turbo, and therefore the affiliate, is expendable.
If Evo can't answer, though it's a probability I could be missing some key data, she's hearing the corporate dissemination, not the corporate intent.
(1) Only "full-power" broadcasting stations in the US were required to switch to digital on June 12.
See, for example, this FCC page (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/DTVandLPTV.html)
There is currently no deadline for low-power local stations to switch over to digital, so they have the option to remain analog if they desired
This doesn't change the situation of rural areas.
This doesn't change the situation of rural areas.
But it does really severely undercut the whole "at the prodding of those greedy companies, the big bad government forced a change to digital upon my poor local broadcasting stations who, bless their hearts, did the best they could but just couldn't manage to maintain service." idea that's being pushed.
I don't know the extent to which people were getting TV from "low-power", "Class A", or "translator" stations -- that was the main part of the 'scope' I was wanting Evo to clarify. But if you know something, I'd like to hear it.
Incidentally, I just found this article:
http://broadcastengineering.com/viewpoint/dtv-transition-threatens-existence-incumbent-lptv-class-stations-0416/
While "80% or more of the television broadcast facilities" probably reflects less than 80% of the actual TV signals in the US, that sounds like a sizable chunk.
While browsing around, I haven't run across anything on the internet suggesting that Turbo-1's experiences reflect what's going on throughout the country, or that the quality of life of the "elderly, infirm, [and] shut-ins" was actually affected -- let alone any indication that the blame should lie with anyone but the local TV stations.
Astronuc
Jun15-09, 04:40 AM
Not unless you consider more companies selling more expensive services is a benefit. I guess if you can afford it, more is better. Sounds like the music industry that sells CDs with one or two good songs, but the rest are not good or terrible, but one still have to pay $10+ for the CD.
Buying single files online for $1 is a good deal, but I'm sure the music industry hates that business model.
Free TV was never really free. We paid for all of those expensive to produce commericals at the cash register. Ask your doctor about Viagra :devil:
JaredJames
Jun15-09, 01:16 PM
Free TV was never really free. We paid for all of those expensive to produce commericals at the cash register. Ask your doctor about Viagra :devil:
Yes but you make the choice to buy those products. They can show you all the ads they like, but if noone buys the product, see how long they keep running the ad for.
Jimmy Snyder
Jun15-09, 01:58 PM
The switchover has fixed a problem with my TV. There had been upsetting images appearing on the screen and disturbing noises coming from the speaker. That has been taken care of and there is peace in my life now.
So, what you and turbo, collectively, seem to be saying is that just getting a converter box is not sufficient, so even if someone who couldn't afford a convertor box (they cost about $50 each in the US, which is a lot) and did manage to get a coupon for a discounted one before the coupons ran out, you also need to upgrade to a new antenna to receive the digital channels.
This article seems to confirm that a converter box isn't enough. Why didn't anyone tell people they needed a new antenna too?
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S976026.shtml?cat=565
And this one as well:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10264157-94.html
So, not only do you need to get a new antenna with that converter box, you won't even know until you take it home and try it if you got the right antenna for your area! So, you could be buying anything from another $50 antenna to sit on top of your TV set, to another $100 upgrade for your rooftop antenna.
How were people even supposed to know this? In all the millions of ads run about the conversion and getting a converter box, NOBODY said anything about antennas too, and they also didn't offer any program to help people pay for those upgrades to antennas.
The conversion does affect more than just rural users. A lot of people with the rabbit ear antennas will run into problems with multipath interference, where the same signal will reach the antenna via different routes (i.e. - different times) causing interference with itself. Normally, this is what causes the ghosts in analog TV. With digital, the signal will drop out completely.
The big problem will be for people living in low rent apartments that don't provide an external antenna hook-up. Getting a good TV-top directional antenna capable of eliminating multipath reception is going to be a challenge.
Actually, you can build your own directional UHF antenna for $30 or less using a piece of cardboard coated with tin foil and some old coat hangars. Maybe closer to the $30 range if you want to locate the antenna in an attic and use an electric motor to rotate the antenna as needed from your TV viewing room. Of course, that won't help once the digital signals migrate back to the VHF range (it's actually the frequencies for channels 52-69 that were auctioned off - the digital transition is so the UHF stations using those channels don't get squeezed out of business).
JaredJames
Jun15-09, 03:46 PM
Here is an article showing some upsides of DTV. Could anyone please give me reasons why having these things makes didital worse than with analogue, and what analogue has DTV doesn't? I understand the signal issues you mention but that to me seems like an issue due to companies choosing not providing adequate facilities for broadcast, not an issue with the DTV itself.
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Advantages-of-Digital-TV&id=1425944
The plot thickens.
Needless to say, legislation can rob anyone of anything--and does daily.
Why didn't I hear the lobbying over the public TV airwaves by broadcast television to convince the consumer that this was not in their interest? Where were ABCNBCCBS? As an insider you should know the answer to this. They could easily have incorporated it into ABCCBSNBC Evening News and trimmed 2 minutes off of Days of Our Lives and every other sit-com to energize the public to their cause. I didn't hear a wimper.
Something doesn't add up.It's been discussed openly for years. It's been all over the internet, I don't know how wanyone could have missed it.
http://news.cnet.com/Googles-battle-for-wireless-spectrum/2008-1039_3-6199374.html?tag=lia;rcol
Google bidding on the demise of analogue tv and radio signals in the UK
http://news.cnet.com/Google-tight-lipped-on-U.K.-spectrum-bid/2100-1039_3-6222876.html?tag=lia;rcol
Google has declined to comment on speculation that it might bid for radio spectrum in the U.K., after Ofcom announced plans to auction radio frequencies as part of the "digital dividend."
The term "digital dividend" refers to the freeing up of radio spectrum over the next five years, when analog television and radio signals are switched off and replaced by digital.
On Thursday, Ofcom, the telecommunications regulator, gave further details of how it would carve up and sell the spectrum ranges that will become available in the U.K. as analog television and radio signals are switched off over the coming years. The spectrum could be put to use in a variety of ways, ranging from wireless broadband to high-definition TV broadcasting.
Auctions will take place in late 2008 and 2009.
There has been much speculation over Google's designs on radio spectrum. It is currently gearing up to bid in a similar auction in the U.S., which could see it become a wireless broadband player here.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17597722
The imminent transition from analog to digital TV has opened up a coveted swath of the public airwaves. On Jan. 24, the FCC will begin selling off that prime wireless spectrum in an auction that is expected to fetch at least $15 billion for the federal government. For telecommunications firms—and anyone who uses a cell phone—the stakes are even higher: control of a big chunk of the burgeoning wireless Web business and, possibly, the very way in which we use our cell phones.
JaredJames
Jun15-09, 04:19 PM
Just as an addition to Evo's last post, the UK officially transitions from 2009 - 2011. It has been advertised via tv/internet/radio/postal since around 2004/05 and was brought up a fair bit for the preceeding years to that.
JaredJames
Jun15-09, 05:07 PM
Thank you Evo.
Anyway, as you are 'in the business' (according to previous posts) I was wondering if you could shed some light on my previous questions on DTV? Post 132.
Thank you Evo.
Anyway, as you are 'in the business' (according to previous posts) I was wondering if you could shed some light on my previous questions on DTV? Post 132.I'm in telecom, I don't deal with tv's.
It's been discussed openly for years. It's been all over the internet, I don't know how wanyone could have missed it.
I get the feeling we've been arguing cross points. Apples and oranges.
I haven't read the entire thread, did anyone mention that the reason that tv stations were forced to give up their analogue frequencies was a result of lobbying by companies that wanted those frequenicies released so that they could buy it up and the resell it for new "for profit" services? This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC.
Do you think that TV stations have been required to relinquish their right to broadcast rather than required to change to digital encoding though also will keep their right to broadcast?
If so, do you have something to support this?
I haven't read the entire thread, did anyone mention that the reason that tv stations were forced to give up their analogue frequencies was a result of lobbying by companies that wanted those frequenicies released so that they could buy it up and the resell it for new "for profit" services? This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC.
Analog encoded TV broadcast splatters. It's messy. The bandwidth partitions are ancient. For every station occupying 6 MHz there is a 6 MHz deadband between it and the next station. This is a lot of gold lying on the ground in someone else’s back 40.
These are the coveted bands. These deadbands are no small potatoes. They're worth multi-millions (muilti-billions?)
Others, such as Google, want it all, of course, but if these folks have managed legal larceny upon licensed owners or their lessees by denying them their previous broadcast rights, I haven't seen evidence of it yet.
I work in telecom, for one of the giants, I have since the late 70's. I happen to have been following this for years.
Don't you know any of the technical aspects? My one-and-only cousin is the president of a telecom corp that is not a giant, and spends most of her efforts in acquisitions, and who I've managed to grilled a few times.
... This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC.
Yes. And the pro-digital lobbying has not come from these stations. I get that.
I've argued that they have not been complaining because if they were, their grievances would have made it to the six oclock news; therefore they are not complaining. After all, they all own the six oclock news. However, I admit that there could be smaller area affiliates that have made objectionable noises that I couldn't be aware of.
Are we still arguing, one apples and one oranges?
mikelepore
Jun16-09, 03:28 AM
Free TV was never really free. We paid for all of those expensive to produce commericals at the cash register.
I also consider that an important point. The cost of advertising is a hidden tax that is built into the price of everything at the department store and supermarket. The average family might be paying thousands of dollars every year for "free" TV and radio.
JaredJames
Jun16-09, 03:49 AM
I also consider that an important point. The cost of advertising is a hidden tax that is built into the price of everything at the department store and supermarket. The average family might be paying thousands of dollars every year for "free" TV and radio.
You only pay if you choose to buy the products. OK, with food you don't have such a choice, I'll accept that.
Tesco (the largest food shop) in Britain spends roughly 70 million pounds on advertising in a year. Now there are 60 million inhabitants in the UK. If only 20 million people then shop in Tescos that means the adverts cost each person £3.50 per year. Even if only 5 million shop there thats only £14.00 per person per year. Now as I say, you don't really have a say in this "tax" (as you put it), you need food. But luxury items you choose to buy (basically anything else) you accept paying this "tax" on purchase for the privellage of having the item.
Another way of looking at it, when you buy a product you hand over money to a company. What that company chooses to do with that money is up to them. They could squander it on massive bonuses or lower prices but if they do that they would not be able to give the public new offers or tell them about new products. They choose to make the adverts, yes for their own promotion, but also for the benefit of the public.
Tesco advertising cost figures are found in here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1542697/Labours-137m-adverts-outdo-Tesco-and-MandS.html
Shopper numbers are estimates, but given that Tesco takes £1 in every £3 spent on groceries I would expect them to be higher.
Tesco in numbers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1548956/Tesco-in-numbers.html
I'm taking all figures as reference only, and exagerating them slightly (increases ad costs, decrease numbers of shoppers) to help with explanations.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.