End of Analog TV in the US: Were You Affected?

[russ_watters]

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]

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.

 

[Evo]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Hurkyl]

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, 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]

Again, no one 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 their 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]

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*.)

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[Phrak]

Apparently I do.

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]

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.

 

[Phrak]

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.

 

[Borek]

(1) Only "full-power" broadcasting stations in the US were required to switch to digital on June 12.

See, for example, 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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

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.

 

[edward]

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

Yes but you make the choice to buy those products. They can show you all the ads they like, but if no one buys the product, see how long they keep running the ad for.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[BobG]

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]

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

 

[Evo]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Phrak]

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]

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]

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 that's 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.