Are we shooting ourselves in the (DTV) foot?

[kenglish]

I noticed that the latest NAB "DTV Action" PSA's now say, "Satellite, cable or telco connection makes this converter box unnecessary".

Why, why, why are we broadcasters ignoring the one chance we have to make something of the Digital Transition?

Few cable companies, and virtually no satellite companies, are carrying the multi-cast channels that many stations provide (or, can provide in the future). Telling people that cable tv or satellite is "Jist Fine" (to quote the lady in the Cable ad), is not true!

Locally, Comcast carries many of the multicasts, but only on $$Digital$Cable$$. Dish Network and DirecTV carry one or two that are nationally-broadcast multicasts. And, they only carry four of the eight local HDTV channels.

When I am out doing field testing, people often ask me about DTV. They usually respond that they have nothing to worry about, since they have Basic (analog) cable.

Shouldn't we be running a dual PSA campaign? One theme, what we are doing now, should be "Don't lose the channels you already have", the other should be "Look what we have to offer".

 

[Whale]

That might work........ if channels were typically offering anything worth upgrading for. Where exactly are there any quality subchannels? In my market, I get a 24/7 weather channel and a news channel that just rebroadcasts local newscasts that I don't watch live anyway. Nothing to sell here!

 

[tripinva]

In my market it helps a ton.

MyNet, CW, and RTN are all only on digital subchannels here (7-2,27-2, and 13-2, respectively). Plus a Weather service (10-2), PBS-HD (15-1) and PBS World (15-3).

- Trip

 

[kyscott]

Because just like HD radio, the "what we have to offer" in most markets, isn't worth upgrading for. In Louisville, our NBC affiliate is the only one running an extra channel....Weather Plus. I already have the Weather Channel (in HD), why do I need Weather Plus in less than standard definition? If the TV stations were putting programming on worth upgrading to, it wouldn't be a problem. Just like if radio stations put on compelling programming, they wouldn't have a problem selling HD radios.

 

[Horns]

I agree...stations are just putting weather on these channels because it is cheap and some consultant told them how much people like weather. In my market, there are three NBC WeatherPlus, CBS with WSI's weather channel, ABC with Accu-Weather's channel. (Although I hear the NBC might kill WeatherPlus due to budget cuts.) I'm a big weather fan, but we don't need three different 24/7 all weather channels plus a cable station that does a good job with weather and The Weather Channel. Can't these affiliates come up with some better use of these extra channels?

 

[Morgan Wick]

Well, the "it's not worth it to move to DTV subchannels because they're crap" argument falls apart, since it wouldn't matter if there was more quality programming on the subchannels. The real question would be why stations aren't showing more quality programming.

But keep in mind that it's not really in the best interests of TV stations (especially the larger, Big Four affiliates) to get people to watch them OTA as opposed to keeping them on cable and raking in lucrative retransmission-consent fees. (Which should be illegal because they're unnecessary under must-carry rules, but I digress.)

Also, even if you did make that effort, more people watch cable TV than you think. Weather Plus, RTN (there's a reason TV Land has abandoned "classic" TV) and generic filler... or ESPN, the Weather Channel, Discovery, MTV, USA, and the rest? Especially since the former is almost certainly not in HD? To even try to compete, stations should put existing cable channels on their subchannels, but because the main channel needs an HD feed, DTV only doubles the number of TV stations available OTA. (This is the same reason that second channel can't be in HD.) Even in a market with seven or more general-purpose channels that can afford a subchannel and which doesn't have one forced on it by its network (like TBN or Ion) that's only seven plus more channels people can get by making the switch to OTA.

I do think TV stations should put local sports on their digital subchannels and take a bite out of FSN's power, but again, it's not in HD, and if there's one group you don't want to deny HD to, it's sports fans. It's sad, because I'd also like to see more sports move back to broadcast and take a bite out of ESPN's power, but even though I know much more than the general public about DTV from coming here, I'd never buy a DTV converter box and unplug my cable. I love my ESPN, and my C-SPAN, and my pro wrestling, and my election results, and my Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and my Daily Show, and my mom would miss her anime shows, and everything else we get from cable. And I don't even have HD!

 

[kyscott]

I do think TV stations should put local sports on their digital subchannels and take a bite out of FSN's power, but again, it's not in HD, and if there's one group you don't want to deny HD to, it's sports fans. It's sad, because I'd also like to see more sports move back to broadcast and take a bite out of ESPN's power, but even though I know much more than the general public about DTV from coming here, I'd never buy a DTV converter box and unplug my cable. I love my ESPN, and my C-SPAN, and my pro wrestling, and my election results, and my Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and my Daily Show, and my mom would miss her anime shows, and everything else we get from cable. And I don't even have HD!

It's not just HD. I like sports in HD as much as the next guy. It's about NTSC quality. I was watching the Georgia/NC State baseball game on ESPN earlier and the quality of the broadcast looked like ESPN hired the production guys out of the newspaper classified ads. I have seen cable TV productions that looked better than that. Does nobody know how the hell to white balance a camera anymore?

 

[imhomerjay]

I noticed that the latest NAB "DTV Action" PSA's now say, "Satellite, cable or telco connection makes this converter box unnecessary".

Why, why, why are we broadcasters ignoring the one chance we have to make something of the Digital Transition?

Few cable companies, and virtually no satellite companies, are carrying the multi-cast channels that many stations provide (or, can provide in the future). Telling people that cable tv or satellite is "Jist Fine" (to quote the lady in the Cable ad), is not true!

Locally, Comcast carries many of the multicasts, but only on $$Digital$Cable$$. Dish Network and DirecTV carry one or two that are nationally-broadcast multicasts. And, they only carry four of the eight local HDTV channels.

When I am out doing field testing, people often ask me about DTV. They usually respond that they have nothing to worry about, since they have Basic (analog) cable.

Shouldn't we be running a dual PSA campaign? One theme, what we are doing now, should be "Don't lose the channels you already have", the other should be "Look what we have to offer".

The subchannels are not part of digital cable packages per se. If you take just your limited basic (or whatever it's called in your area), any sub channels carried will be available to you with a digital converter box. Those channels aren't added to analog lineups because of bandwidth, but they are available with your most basic package.

 

[kenglish]

Here's the lineup in our area:
2-1 KUTV CBS
4-1 KTVX ABC
4-2 The Hive (Independently produced programming/classic movies)
5-1 KSL NBC
5-3 NBC/KSL WeatherPlus (Widescreen, w/Events Calendar)
7-1 KUED Univ of Utah/PBS (Widescreen SD)
7-2 PBS HD
7-3 V-me (Spanish)
9-1 KUEN (Educational)
9-2 MHZ WorldView
11-1 KBYU (BYU/PBS)
11-2 BYU TV (BYU/LDS Programming)
11-3 BYU International (Multi-language/International)
11-4 Create (SD), alternating with KBYU-HD (mostly evenings)
13-1 KSTU FOX (SD) (feeds analog translators)
13-2 KSTU FOX HD
14-1 KJZZ Indep (HD)
16-1 KUPX ION
16-2 QUBO
16-3 ION Life
16-4 Worship Network
30-1 KUCW CW HD

Additionally, KUER-FM and BYU Radio Network are carried as audio subs.

 

[kenglish]

The subchannels are not part of digital cable packages per se. If you take just your limited basic (or whatever it's called in your area), any sub channels carried will be available to you with a digital converter box. Those channels aren't added to analog lineups because of bandwidth, but they are available with your most basic package.

But, that's if you have the Cable company's rented converter box, a (hard to find) ATSC+QAM converter, or a set with ATSC+QAM tuner. If they have NONE of the above, why do we tell them they're "Jist Fine" with their old, analog Cable? (The subsidized converters won't decode QAM cable channels).

 

[ansky212]

I noticed that the latest NAB "DTV Action" PSA's now say, "Satellite, cable or telco connection makes this converter box unnecessary".

Why, why, why are we broadcasters ignoring the one chance we have to make something of the Digital Transition?

Few cable companies, and virtually no satellite companies, are carrying the multi-cast channels that many stations provide (or, can provide in the future). Telling people that cable tv or satellite is "Jist Fine" (to quote the lady in the Cable ad), is not true!

I understand your point. But there are so many people out there who think their TV simply won't work as of next Feb. I think the PSA's are just there to calm people's fears that on 2/17/09 they can turn on their tv and still get a picture if they are connected to cable or satellite. Once you start bringing subchannels into the mix, it will just make everyone more confused. Give it some time and let people learn what DTV is first.

 

[fortmill]

What amazes me is that tv stations who have digital subchannels usually promote those channels on air as available on such-in-such cable channel, but never even mention they are also available OTA. This goes even for stations that have such popular programs as FOX on their subchannels. Really stupid....

 

[gr8oldies]

Over-the-air TV screwed themselves a couple of decades ago by giving up their distribution system. Now they waste billions of watts on a handful of viewers, even feeding the cable systems by fiber-optics so if the air signal dissapeared for weeks it would have a negligible impact.

 

[kenglish]

"Over-the-air TV screwed themselves a couple of decades ago by giving up their distribution system. Now they waste billions of watts on a handful of viewers, even feeding the cable systems by fiber-optics so if the air signal dissapeared for weeks it would have a negligible impact."

And, now, Cable sees themselves as THE distribution system, and is starting to expect broadcasters to pay THEM "for doing our (broadcasters) work".

 

[Markxxx]

I think gr8oldies has a point, but even a better point would be are affiliates even needed. It'd be more economical to have relays and have the networks have one channel (Like channel 7 in every city for ABC) and just relay a signal.

Then we could drop in a few local stations. This would never go but if you're talking about money strictly, it'd be the way to go.

I am fortunate enough to live in Chicago and so cable isn't needed for programs, just for picture quality. But when I lived in the Florida Keys without cable you couldn't get anything. I even took my portable TV up to the repeater transmitter and you could get a faint but unwatchable signal.

Free TV is a great gift and I think even I forget that. I got rid of my cable when I got to be paying $70/month for really only CNN, TVLand, BBC America and History Channel.

One thing about Comcast is you have to be careful cause they can be tricky. In Chicago before Comcast went all digital they put low power and subchannels on the digital tier BUT and here's the kicker they were free. They were not scrambled. But the issue was unless you had a converter box for digital cable you couldn't get them. I had a very old WebTv and for some reason this was able to tune the channel. WWME-CA (ME-TV) used to advertise also Free on digital channel 223.

Comcast went all digital in Chicago so now everyone needs a coverter box to get anything and Comcast gives everyone one free digital box. Comcast loved this 'cause, according to them, Chicago was one of the highest markets for cable theft and now there's no issue, cause if you don't have the digital box you get nothing.

 

[imhomerjay]

"Over-the-air TV screwed themselves a couple of decades ago by giving up their distribution system. Now they waste billions of watts on a handful of viewers, even feeding the cable systems by fiber-optics so if the air signal dissapeared for weeks it would have a negligible impact."

And, now, Cable sees themselves as THE distribution system, and is starting to expect broadcasters to pay THEM "for doing our (broadcasters) work".

Interesting observation. Every article I've read says it's the broadcasters demanding money or other compensation for the right to carry their signals, not the other way around.

 

[kenglish]

Cable started a spin campaign last year in some markets.

 

[imhomerjay]

Cable started a spin campaign last year in some markets.

I don't think it's just spin from one side.

See: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4895/is_200603/ai_n17961648

Quote: The campaign for retransmission-consent cash gathered steam last week, as two prominent broadcast executives predicted that cash payments to their companies from cable operators carrying their signals would increase significantly....

The article is from over two years ago, showing that broadcasters have, in fact, been seeking to get money, not pay it, for several years. Conversely, I haven't seen an article, and found none in a few minutes of searching this morning, that say cable companies have looked to receive money from broadcasters.

Quite the contrary--what looks more common is that in cases where must-carry was waived in favor of retransmission consent, some broadcasters have either been seeking cash outright, or the companies on both sides come up with some kind of mutual marketing trade-off.

 

[arnoldevns]

I hate to complicate matters further, but I can tell you that generally speaking the broadcasters are not getting paid for their signals at all.
That is not to say it never happens or that they're paying to get on cable either. There have been several instances in the past couple of years where a station or station group demanded money, the cable system said no, and the channels left cable for a time. The public was caught in a tug of war between the two. In one case in Abilene, Texas, the station was off cable for several months. After the ratings book came in a deal was reached pretty quick.

Back to the main question at hand: are we shooting ourselves in the foot with DTV? No. It seems that every hour I see at least one PSA about the DTV transition and getting a coupon to buy a converter box. The converter boxes are a selling fast. (I want to say 6 million have been sold in the last few months) I've had a hard time finding a retail outlet in my city that has them in stock.

We're going to have millions of people trying to find our signals over the air on their newly bought converter box. Others will learn that their new HDTV set already has a tuner and can get pretty HDTV pictures without a nasty cable bill.

This education campaign is not perfect, but it is helping get some people back to watching our stations over the air. I also agree that the comment about having cable or satellite is designed to calm fears and tell the truth. There's nothing wrong with that.

The biggest problem I see is the general confusion over exactly what's going to happen. Many people believe this is mandated HDTV. Some believe that no matter what they do they'll lose their signal because they don't have an HDTV set. Most viewers do not understand that pretty much every TV station is currently running both an analog and digital transmitter right now. They don't understand that all that's going to happen is that the analog station will go away. It's a simple concept for most of us to grasp, but it's really complex for many viewers.

As others have commented, the current crop of sub-channels is generally nothing to write home about. In my market (Dallas-Fort Worth) we have 18 DTV stations with 12 additional sub-channels. The 12 sub-channels consist of: 3 weather channels, LATV (spanish/english language latino network), 4 Trinity Broadcasting Network sub-channels, 3 ION sub-channels, and 1 that airs nothing but a static shot of DFW airport. So of those 12 there are probably 2 that are worth watching from time to time.

The reason for the poor selection of sub-channels is fairly simple: few viewers. There's no reason to put money into programming when so few people could watch it. More people are now starting to be able to watch these channels. That will soon lead to better programming. In fact, in the Texas TV board there's talk about the ".2" network coming to stations in Austin and San Antonio. If you look at the .2 network website, you'll see that it plans to offer some pretty good quality TV shows and movies. I think you'll see more of this kind of thing coming on the air in the next few years.

 

[MotoMuzak]

Reportedly the "2 Network" is coming to Portland as well on a station TBD. (Perhaps 32.2, where "The Tube" used to be?? My new Digital-Stream box and my Pansat pick up 32.2 even though nothing is there as of yet so I think something may be going on.......) Supposedly the "2 Network" will be premiering in July on a "tentative date" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.2_Network). I am looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

Meanwhile: I am still waiting for RTN to premiere here............ ;o)