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

[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.