Benefits of Digital TV?

[landtuna]

Those of you who follow my posts know I am not a fan of digital TV. Here is a summary of my reasoning:

1. It required the wholesale destruction of analog sets which, I am guessing, were far from worn out.

2. The effort required to destroy a digital TV signal is many times less than that to affect an analog signal. And, when an analog signal is interfered with it isn't destroyed completely as with digital. Things like the sun overhead, dust, wind and passing aircraft tend to blow digital signals out of the water.

3. It's Back to the 50's! The house is filled with bow ties and rabbit ears once again.

4. Lower power levels make some primaries and almost all subnets unwatchable.

5. Speaking of subnets.....what a waste. Rerun City or junk TV.

6. Greatly reduced coverage range.

And from all this only one substantial improvement - slightly improved picture quality. (Talking about OTA TV here.)

This was clearly a bill of goods.

Discuss?

 

[CTListener]

Those of you who follow my posts know I am not a fan of digital TV. Here is a summary of my reasoning:

1. It required the wholesale destruction of analog sets which, I am guessing, were far from worn out.

2. The effort required to destroy a digital TV signal is many times less than that to affect an analog signal. And, when an analog signal is interfered with it isn't destroyed completely as with digital. Things like the sun overhead, dust, wind and passing aircraft tend to blow digital signals out of the water.

3. It's Back to the 50's! The house is filled with bow ties and rabbit ears once again.

4. Lower power levels make some primaries and almost all subnets unwatchable.

5. Speaking of subnets.....what a waste. Rerun City or junk TV.

6. Greatly reduced coverage range.

And from all this only one substantial improvement - slightly improved picture quality. (Talking about OTA TV here.)

This was clearly a bill of goods.

Discuss?

It was never supposed to benefit the over-the-air television viewer. The telecomms needed the bandwidth for broadband internet and mobile streaming and phone services. No one was sold a bill of goods. This was the government's way of pleasing the telecomms while also pushing OTA freeloaders to pay up for cable or satellite TV. OTA viewers -- largely elderly and/or poor -- are right at the bottom of the list of concerns of either the FCC or the television industry., a true communications underclass that both parties no doubt wish would just go away.

 

[landtuna]

It was never supposed to benefit the over-the-air television viewer. The telecomms needed the bandwidth for broadband internet and mobile streaming and phone services. No one was sold a bill of goods. This was the government's way of pleasing the telecomms while also pushing OTA freeloaders to pay up for cable or satellite TV. OTA viewers -- largely elderly and/or poor -- are right at the bottom of the list of concerns of either the FCC or the television industry., a true communications underclass that both parties no doubt wish would just go away.

OTA freeloaders? Hey, WE didn't invent commercial-supported broadcasting. And if the FCC (useless agency that it has become) or the TV industry wished we would go away why didn't they implement a stipend for us elderly and poor OTA users to afford cable TV for basic services? They could have had their airways all to themselves instead of pleading that the airways are owned by all Americans.

 

[TheBigA]

They could have had their airways all to themselves instead of pleading that the airways are owned by all Americans.

Telecoms are not the same thing as the TV industry. Telecoms are Verizon and AT&T. They own the world. TV & radio are the poor stepchildren who get what's left over.

Telecoms have NEVER said the airwaves are owned by all Americans. Telecoms are buying up all the spectrum they can so they can charge us for 5G phone service. They have no interest in public service or broadcasting.

 

[landtuna]

Telecoms are not the same thing as the TV industry. Telecoms are Verizon and AT&T. They own the world. TV & radio are the poor stepchildren who get what's left over.

They might now but prior to the digital conversion there were plenty of big bucks in the hands of TV broadcasters. My guess is plenty of collusion between the gubmint (FCC and congresscritters) and the telecoms and Big TV didn't wake up in time. Now they are at the mercy of the cable companies and likely will never occupy their former glory.

Telecoms have NEVER said the airwaves are owned by all Americans.

No, that lie was spread by the FCC.

Telecoms are buying up all the spectrum they can so they can charge us for 5G phone service. They have no interest in public service or broadcasting.

The Robber Barons of the 21st Century.

I still maintain the average TV viewer was sold a bill of goods. Digital TV is like one of those new medicines advertised on TV. Might solve a specific symptom or disease but has a list of undesirable and potentially deadly side effects three times as long.

 

[davideduardo]

They might now but prior to the digital conversion there were plenty of big bucks in the hands of TV broadcasters. My guess is plenty of collusion between the gubmint (FCC and congresscritters) and the telecoms and Big TV didn't wake up in time. Now they are at the mercy of the cable companies and likely will never occupy their former glory.

By the time digital rolled around the corner, cable channels had eaten a huge portion of the TV network (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, UVN) audience. The pie was much smaller.

TV did not avidly want digital. The interests on the cable side, and particularly the set makers, wanted to see digital and the need to replace every TV in the country. TV stations had to make huge investments, with no increased revenue (actually, rapidly decreasing income) so the TV stations and networks were the victims here.

In the long term, the viewer benefited. I got my wife an LG OLED smart TV for Christmas. It is just amazing to watch, so much so that I am getting one for myself in a few weeks. But do I watch more OTA TV? No, I spend more time on Netflix, Britbox, Prime.

So none of this really benefited OTA TV and the networks. They paid for it, but they got gored by the consumer electronics industry, cable and streaming.

 

[TheBigA]

TV did not avidly want digital.

That's an understatement. TV companies had to completely replace their studios, equipment, transmission systems, and much more. The capital expense was enormous, and none of it was compensated by the government. This was a government mandated conversion. Everything had to be done on the gov't's schedule and to their approval. Yes some stations benefited many years later by selling their spectrum, but most of the stations have held on to their spectrum. The entire process has been a typical government boondoggle. If the OP would do some simple research, he'd discover the facts.

 

[Mr Tony]

The one big benefit was short markets could get the full set of nets or close to it

My Market (Mankato, MN) was a one station market (KEYC CBS). They added FOX as a subchannel and recently (12/1) they took an old translator station they had, moved it to their own tower (changing stations in the process due to the repack) and now added NBC & CW to the market.

 

[landtuna]

By the time digital rolled around the corner, cable channels had eaten a huge portion of the TV network (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, UVN) audience. The pie was much smaller.

TV did not avidly want digital. The interests on the cable side, and particularly the set makers, wanted to see digital and the need to replace every TV in the country. TV stations had to make huge investments, with no increased revenue (actually, rapidly decreasing income) so the TV stations and networks were the victims here.

In the long term, the viewer benefited. I got my wife an LG OLED smart TV for Christmas. It is just amazing to watch, so much so that I am getting one for myself in a few weeks. But do I watch more OTA TV? No, I spend more time on Netflix, Britbox, Prime.

So none of this really benefited OTA TV and the networks. They paid for it, but they got gored by the consumer electronics industry, cable and streaming.

I was going at this issue primarily from the TV viewer perspective but you are exactly correct - There were perhaps 2 winners and a whole host of losers, including those whose interests are suppose to be protected by our gubmint.

 

[KeithE4]

The one big benefit was short markets could get the full set of nets or close to it

My Market (Mankato, MN) was a one station market (KEYC CBS). They added FOX as a subchannel and recently (12/1) they took an old translator station they had, moved it to their own tower (changing stations in the process due to the repack) and now added NBC & CW to the market.

Not only that, but if TV were still analog, UHF channels 38-69 still would have been lopped off. That would have forced a lot of stations off the air, resulting in enough lawsuits to prevent 5G service from starting for enough years to develop 9G. The improved receiver technology of today's receivers might allow some drop-in channels, but the maximum number of full-powered analog transmitters in a given metro area on Channels 2 thru 36 is 11 (7 VHF plus 4 UHF, spaced 6 channels apart). Most areas would get less. The NYC/Philly/Harrisburg-Lancaster/Scranton-Wilkes Barre/Connecticut area would be a nightmare to allocate. Too many of the stations in that megaplex were on Channels 38 and up in the analog days.

The thing is that there are over 300 million telecom customers (read: just about everybody), each with at least one transmitter (their phone/tablet) that needs to be accommodated. There are only maybe three thousand TV transmitters, if you include LPTV, Class A, and translators. The TV spectrum needed to be doubled- and tripled-up, and only digital can do that. The "programming" that many of these stations subject us to is irrelevant. Every market has to accommodate all current network and independent English-language stations. Most large markets also have to make room for Spanish-language stations. With only 35 channels available, digital is mandatory. In fact, those channels (14-20) in large cities that were reallocated to public service back in the '80s would have to be returned to television use.

 

[landtuna]

The one big benefit was short markets could get the full set of nets or close to it

My Market (Mankato, MN) was a one station market (KEYC CBS). They added FOX as a subchannel and recently (12/1) they took an old translator station they had, moved it to their own tower (changing stations in the process due to the repack) and now added NBC & CW to the market.

Given the small number of markets like Mankato I would not call this a big benefit for digital. There are about 100,000 people in the MSA so I would think normal network penetration was feasible by cable or satellite prior to the digital conversion.

 

[landtuna]

That's an understatement. TV companies had to completely replace their studios, equipment, transmission systems, and much more. The capital expense was enormous, and none of it was compensated by the government. This was a government mandated conversion. Everything had to be done on the gov't's schedule and to their approval. Yes some stations benefited many years later by selling their spectrum, but most of the stations have held on to their spectrum. The entire process has been a typical government boondoggle. If the OP would do some simple research, he'd discover the facts.

I believe I was pretty clear that I was addressing the digital conversion from an average OTA viewer perspective. You are absolutely correct that there were other substantial losers in this debacle but it wasn't my intention to go into those. I figured the experts here would address that, and they have.

As an aside I might add that the majority of my "TV" viewing (mostly live sports and a couple of scripted shows) can be done nicely through sources other than television itself. They could unplug every single transmitter tomorrow and it would not affect me at all. I just think it was a terrible sham the gubmint pulled and it is just another example of our gubmint being run by special interests.

As another aside, one of my sons just bought a humongous state of the art TV which produces an incredible picture.....but it isn't used at all for TV. He plays games on it. Other than the very occasional hockey game he doesn't watch commercial TV at all. If he is any example we may be watching the early demise of the industry. The increasingly lousy content isn't going to save it.

 

[Mr Tony]

For the 50+ markets that benefit from digital because they can carry networks as subchannels I'd say it is

 

[umfan]

While the relative lack of signal strength is a problem, Digital TV made OTA viewing viable again. I don't understand blaming the conversion for the reintroduction of indoor antennas. An analog set needed an antenna if Cable TV was not used. The increase in antenna use was more the result of people cutting the cord than the conversion. If anything, the great increase in channels made cutting the cord more viable. I think the transition has been largely a good thing and no one needed to buy a new set. The law subsidized a conversion box for each home.

 

[landtuna]

For the 50+ markets that benefit from digital because they can carry networks as subchannels I'd say it is

Are you saying you did not have access to all 3 major networks prior to digital or only through OTA? I suspect your area was fully served through either/both cable/satellite prior. No?

 

[anotherguyTN]

For the 50+ markets that benefit from digital because they can carry networks as subchannels I'd say it is

In a way I agree. Jackson, TN now has the Big 4, CW, and PBS now between 4 stations. Unfortunately NBC and CW are on WNBJ-LD, which I can't get at my house even with a decent antenna, so I have to rely on cable for them. I finally have a decent outdoor antenna that I can get WBBJ (ABC and CBS), WJKT (Fox), and WLJT (PBS) from Jackson, but I still can't get WNBJ (NBC and CW) or WYJJ-LD 27 (7 diginets). With it aimed toward Memphis I can get WREG (CBS) sporadically, WKNO (PBS), WATN (ABC), and WLMT (CW) since they have their towers on the East side of Memphis, which would be about 50 miles away in a straight shot. But I still can't get WMC (NBC) or WHBQ (Fox) because their towers are further away.

The talk is that ATSC 3.0 is supposed to be have a better signal and be able to handle more subchannels when it starts up, but how long will that be?

 

[landtuna]

While the relative lack of signal strength is a problem, Digital TV made OTA viewing viable again.

I don't understand your comment. In the analog days I lived almost 40 miles north of the towers and had an outdoor antenna in my attic (which was lined with signal-blocking foil) and still I received every signal available in my contour. No drop outs. No static. Perfect analog picture. I now live 8 miles (as the crow flies) from those same towers with that same giant combination antenna mounted about 10' AGL and suffer pixelation on virtually every digital signal from time to time and cannot receive about half the subnets at all. In addition, there are frequent signal failures at times during each day (example: channel 3 at noonish, channel 10.1 at sunset in summer (although 10.2 is fine), 8 and 15 intermittent, 7 total blackout etc. 12 used to be crap but I can't remember the last time I tuned it in so it may or may not still be an issue. I conclude from this that VHF digital is junk and UHF digital only somewhat better. Perhaps that is why the number of OTA viewers is so low.

I have Contour from Cox as an addon to my Internet package (basic cable) and the signals are fine there but the PQ are of analog quality only. If TV were a big deal at my house I would be hard pressed to find a solution to this as I've lived in this location since 1993. I find it much easier to watch or download what few shows I like through the Internet (not Contour) and not aggravate myself trying to resolve the digital shortcomings.

Overall, analog TV (and VHF) was much better to me than any OTA digital method.

I don't understand blaming the conversion for the reintroduction of indoor antennas. An analog set needed an antenna if Cable TV was not used. The increase in antenna use was more the result of people cutting the cord than the conversion. If anything, the great increase in channels made cutting the cord more viable.

That was intended as a tongue in cheek remark. In the USA we don't usually regress. I wouldn't expect fins to come back on car fenders for example but here we have the television equivalent. The many reception issues with OTA digital is going to put a cap on the number of people cutting the cable and going back to OTA. They will instead forgo OTA and its problems by the use of streaming and other technologies. I am really surprised that the FCC hasn't given stations the option to drop their OTA signals.

I think the transition has been largely a good thing and no one needed to buy a new set. The law subsidized a conversion box for each home.

My point was that to take advantage of the increased PQ of digital you had to buy a digital set. The conversion boxes did, to some limited degree, provide a slightly sharper picture but they did not come close to a full digital signal. Of course, with the junk-filled diginets operating today that promise of full digital is pretty rare in itself.

IMHO, the only BIG advantage to digital TV is the size and portability of the receiver itself. No more buying a dozen pizzas and talking six of your closest friends into spending a Saturday humping a huge box from your pickup into the house.

 

[Don CT]

While the relative lack of signal strength is a problem, Digital TV made OTA viewing viable again. I don't understand blaming the conversion for the reintroduction of indoor antennas. An analog set needed an antenna if Cable TV was not used. The increase in antenna use was more the result of people cutting the cord than the conversion. If anything, the great increase in channels made cutting the cord more viable. I think the transition has been largely a good thing and no one needed to buy a new set. The law subsidized a conversion box for each home.

I disagree, Digital signals are much weaker than their analog counterparts. My cousin watches over the air and it was much easier to grab a distance signal on analog. Those signals are nonexistent now.

 

[Route66Fan]

The one big benefit was short markets could get the full set of nets or close to it

My Market (Mankato, MN) was a one station market (KEYC CBS). They added FOX as a subchannel and recently (12/1) they took an old translator station they had, moved it to their own tower (changing stations in the process due to the repack) and now added NBC & CW to the market.

There's also KXGN-TV, Glendive, MT, which used to air CBS programming from 6-9PM, followed by NBC programming from 9-10PM. Now that they're broadcasting a digital signal, they can clear all of both CBS & NBC's programming, with CBS on 5.1 & NBC on 5.2.

 

[KML0224]

KXGN-TV channel 5 was also the last station in the country to have two or more networks on their primary X-1 channel. Just before them was WAGM-TV (CBS) channel 8 of Presque Isle, ME. Today, 8-1 is CBS, 8-2 is FOX and 8-3 is CW. They're supposed to have WWPI-LD (NBC) channel 16 later this year. It's a low-power station being moved down from Fort Kent. Once that comes on, the missing network will be ABC. That's imported from Bangor on cable with WVII-TV channel 7.

Digital also allowed for a station to go off the air and piggyback onto another station in the market...

WCTX-TV (MY) channel 59 of New Haven is now a subchannel of WTNH-TV (ABC) channel 8. [channel 8-3?]

WNNE-TV (CW) channel 31 of Montpelier, VT is now a subchannel of WPTZ-TV (NBC) channel 5 of Plattsburgh, NY. It was licensed to White River Junction, VT as an NBC affiliate. It more or less was a satellite station to WPTZ-TV to extend their coverage into the Upper Connecticut (River) Valley.