FCC May Buy Back Airwaves

[Carmine5]

In chapter 5 of the FCC broadband plan, the agency claims that only 10% of Americans receive TV over the air. And yet according to Antennas Direct they can't keep enough antennas in stock. They're always sold out. So who's zooming who, here?

I think the FCC figure is inaccurate and meant to be so to prove their case. I don't think it takes into account the number of people who use a combination of satellite TV with OTA as a way of getting local stations not carried on satellite. And then we have those who, due to financial distress, are cutting out cable.

It would not surprise me to see that figure go up by the end of this year.

c5

 

[TheBigA]

In chapter 5 of the FCC broadband plan, the agency claims that only 10% of Americans receive TV over the air. And yet according to Antennas Direct they can't keep enough antennas in stock. They're always sold out. So who's zooming who, here?

There's a market of HDTV fans who believe OTA is God's way of receiving TV. I'm joking a bit there, but they are very passionate, and a lot of antennas are going up. They feel the signal is clearer, and the service is better. Not many fans of the big corporate cable companies.

The growth area for station licensees will be content on adjacent sub-channels, sort of the TV equiv of HD radio. Except that it's much better.

But this broadband plan the FCC's attempt to diminish the value of OTA broadcast, both in radio and TV.

 

[dave73]

I'm one of those who relies solely on OTA right now due to financial reasons. Even if I could afford to get satellite or cable, I still would need the outdoor antenna due to both satellite & cable not carrying the subchannels (DirecTV also doesn't carry MeToo out of Chicago). Comcast serves my area and my local Comcast doesn't have the capacity to carry the digital subchannels. They barely have the capacity to carry the main local channels in HD. AT&T is the phone service for my area & they don't have U-Verse in my neighborhood, but is available in select parts of the city. So I dread the day that OTA gets reduced, or worse, eliminated.

 

[landtuna]

The growth area for station licensees will be content on adjacent sub-channels, sort of the TV equiv of HD radio. Except that it's much better.

You sure couldn't tell that by the subs in my market. Two B-movie channels. Three weather/traffic loops. A smattering of religious nonsense and Spanish language infomercials. And PBS World - the only sub worth watching.

 

[TheBigA]

It's going to take time for the public to realize they exist, and for them to catch on.

I'm expecting we'll get to a point where the public is looking to be freed of all the monthly bills. If they can get some additional content from OTA TV, they might be persuaded to drop cable.

 

[w9wi]

I'm one of those who relies solely on OTA right now due to financial reasons. Even if I could afford to get satellite or cable, I still would need the outdoor antenna due to both satellite

We hear from a fair number of people in your situation. Cable isn't cheap...

We also hear from satellite subscribers who want an available OTA receiver for when the cable/satellite goes out.

And, from viewers who have cable on most sets, but put a TV in the kitchen/bedroom/workshop & don't want to run a cable out there.

And, occasionally, from those who just want the best possible HD picture quality. OTA does use the least-aggressive compression -- if you watch via digital cable/satellite, you will receive no more bitrate than OTA and almost certainly less.

In all these cases, I'm just citing the ones who have reception issues & call/email us. We obviously don't hear from the ones who aren't having problems!

_________________________________________________

That said, I do buy the 10% figure for those who watch only OTA, and figure it's maybe 25% who usually watch cable/satellite but have at least one OTA set.

But 10% of the audience is a LOT of people!

 

[Carmine5]

I'm one of those who relies solely on OTA right now due to financial reasons. Even if I could afford to get satellite or cable, I still would need the outdoor antenna due to both satellite & cable not carrying the subchannels (DirecTV also doesn't carry MeToo out of Chicago). Comcast serves my area and my local Comcast doesn't have the capacity to carry the digital subchannels. They barely have the capacity to carry the main local channels in HD. AT&T is the phone service for my area & they don't have U-Verse in my neighborhood, but is available in select parts of the city. So I dread the day that OTA gets reduced, or worse, eliminated.

Dave, you need to copy and paste this in an e-mail and send it to your local Congressperson. With the FCC plan hot in their hands, politicians need to know that OTA television still matters to millions of Americans and, according to trends, looks to become even more so.

The FCC's broadband plan was written by lawyers and sequestered academics, not engineers. Engineers are predicting that squeezing a station's signal into 3 MHz of spectrum will yield a host of interference problems along with a significant loss in coverage. With such a limited space, broadcasters will have to weigh offering either one low-quality (about 9 Mbps) HD signal or an SD signal and a couple of non-robust mobile DTV streams. Either way free OTA television will lose, sacrificed on the alter of telcos and big money interests such as Google and Microsoft.

The FCC's 10% figure is way too conservative. Ars Technica puts the figure at 13% and ABI Research says it is more like 15% of American households who rely on OTA television. According to Earth Times magazine, 34 million Americans redeemed converter box coupons during the DTV transition with an additional 30 million requesting coupons. Close to 50 percent of the 114 million TV-watching households are using an antenna.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/10/20-of-antenna-users-to-let-tv-sets-go-dark-in-2009.ars

Trends show that the number of OTA TV households is growing. Thanks to the additional sub-channels and HD picture, people are now seeing digital OTA television as the new basic cable.

You can read about the trends here:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...rship-continues-to-grow-in-2010,1205694.shtml

c5

 

[TheBigA]

With the FCC plan hot in their hands, politicians need to know that OTA television still matters to millions of Americans and, according to trends, looks to become even more so.

I think they already know. When they mandated the switch to Digital last year, they had to fund digital converters for anyone who received TV OTA using an older set. The demand for converters was greater than the supply. It was quite a mess, and Congress ended up delaying the conversion by 6 months so their constituents didn't go without Wheel of Fortune. That experience left them pretty unwilling to screw around with TV reception.

 

[landtuna]

The demand for converters was greater than the supply.

As the chief cook and bottle washer for all things digital for friends and family I submitted a total of about a dozen coupons for five different brands of converters from June of '08 through early spring '09. I had no problems getting any orders filled and, in visits to retail outlets, always seemed to find pallets of converters available for sale. Specific brands or models may have had supply issues but not converters as a whole.

And I seem to remember the delay in implementation was caused by concerns that the public "wasn't ready" (meaning a ton of people waited until the last minute before buying their converters). For anyone paying attention this wasn't an issue either.

The only flaw in the converter ointment seemed to be that the coupons expired 90 days after mailing. When some people went to the store with expired coupons they were (a) aggravated and (b) didn't understand how to become eligible again. Meantime the unredeemed coupons had to expire before being reissued and that caused a shortage of coupons but not boxes.

Last time I visited my local Wally World (several months ago) they had two pallets of Magnavox converters for $40 each. No coupon required.

 

[TheBigA]

That may be, but a quick search of stories under "hdtv converter shortage congress" came up with numerous stories about coupon shortages in February, and that was one of the reasons for the delay.

Here's one story: http://humboldtonline.com/hdtv/hdtv/senate-votes-delay-dtv-transition/

But there are several at www.broadcastingcable.com

 

[dave73]

I got my coupons at the beginning of the program. Walmart was the only store selling converter boxes (in general) in my immediate area in the beginning. So all that was available was the Magnavox DTV box, Model# TB100MW9. I would have preferred something else, but worried that other models wouldn't be available, that I decided to get the Magnavox model. The delay for me was finding time to hookup the outdoor antenna as I was working second shift with no time before work to work on the antenna. I also had other obligations on weekends preventing me from working on the antenna as well. It wasn't until around April 25th when I was able to work on the antenna. By then, 1 station already shutoff their analog, and that was WYCC. I don't know what their reason was for shutting off their analog early, but they were the only Chicago station that got to shutoff their analog early. I don't consider WWTO a Chicago station as it barely covers the western suburbs of Chicago, but they also signed off early (wasn't surprised as religious stations were more likely to shutoff analog early). While I had my box hooked up, my mother waited until the last full day of analog to have hers hooked up. She insisted on waiting until the area by the TV was more organized. She had no choice unless she wanted to have no TV to watch the next day. Until June 12th, she missed out on subchannels: WTTW Prime (locally programmed 24 hour primetime program channel), Create, & clearer pictures of MeTV & MeToo (picked up both on analog, but were fuzzy). If there's anything I do like about my converter box is that it scans for channels quickly. If it detects a channel, the subchannels are automatically detected. I don't have to do a rescan later on to get any subchannels. They're automatically added or deleted. But I can't manually delete any subchannels. If I had one of the many HDTV's, then I would have to do a rescan to get new subchannels, but at least I could delete any subchannels I don't want as they're counted as channels, unlike my DTV box doesn't count them as separate channels. The subchannels are automatically added if the main channel is detected.

I just hope to be back to work soon since I will eventually have to get a new outdoor antenna. The one I use now is starting show signs of the UHF portion of the VHF/UHF antenna bending downward. I now have to decide on a new VHF/UHF combo antenna or get separate VHF & UHF antennas. Regardless, I still have to get a separate UHF only antenna for WYIN since they transmit south of me, while all other stations transmit from the Sears Tower & John Hancock in Chicago to the NW. At least there's no full power 2-6 in Chicago to need a VHF antenna for the Lo-VHF band.

 

[w9wi]

That may be, but a quick search of stories under "hdtv converter shortage congress" came up with numerous stories about coupon shortages in February, and that was one of the reasons for the delay.

Coupon shortages, that there were. (as landtuna notes) I never saw any shortages of the converters themselves, at least not around here. (Nashville)

As an engineer it does frustrate me that so many viewers waited so long to go digital. Our station was on the air at full power for six years before the transition. Viewers had **six years** to get their converters & get their antennas working. The five largest stations in town (ABC/CBS/Fox/NBC/PBS) were all up for at least five years before transition.

Before transition, we might receive one -- maybe two -- calls/emails a month with digital reception questions. Afterwards... well, we receive more calls/emails *now*, eight months after transition, than we did *before* transition.

 

[radiophiler]

w9wi, I hear you about the public's reluctance to go digital. There will always be procrastinators.

But, let me add this to the discussion: It's possible many of these people didn't act because they felt they had no reason to. What was digital going to give them that they felt they had to rush out and get it?

People will stand in lines on the first day a new version of the iPhone is available to make sure they get theirs. Reason: the cool factor. They have to have one for the cool stuff it does.

What did digital TV have to offer the public? Many stations didn't have sub channels worth watching and some didn't offer sub channels at all. Improvement in picture? That might appeal to a certain segment of the public, but for many, their attitude is, "give me a clear, continuous picture. That's all I care about."

TV didn't do a good job of giving the public a real reason to run out and buy new digital TVs or digital converters until they absolutely had to. The best reason they had was the last one they used: If you don't do it now, you won't be able to watch TV. The fact THAT was the best argument is a sad statement about the TV industry.

 

[TheBigA]

People will stand in lines on the first day a new version of the iPhone is available to make sure they get theirs. Reason: the cool factor. They have to have one for the cool stuff it does.

What did digital TV have to offer the public?

Comparing a $200 phone to a $1000 TV is a bit unfair. But more people bought HDTVs than rush out for the first edition of the iPhone. We might be buying in to some Apple PR here. The cool factor isn't going to get the 82 year old grandmother to buy either the iPhone or the HDTV, and we have a lot of senior citizens who're still watching their old Zenith console from 1966. That's just how it is.

The HDTV thing came along at a good time, because TV manufacturers were offering LCD and plasma screens on TVs that were bigger and lighter than anything previously available. I think a lot more people bought the flat screen TV and haven't actually made the conversion of program service, so they're still watching 480 video on a LCD set. I think the CATV ass'n says only 15% of all cable subscribers have the HDTV package.

We keep blaming TV or radio station owners for the public's reluctance to buy equipment, and it ignores the fact that radio & TV owners don't make equipment any more. That is a manufacturer issue. And if you've been reading the material from the Consumer Electronics Association, they're a bigger bunch of idiots than the radio & TV owners.

 

[dave73]

That may be, but a quick search of stories under "hdtv converter shortage congress" came up with numerous stories about coupon shortages in February, and that was one of the reasons for the delay.

Coupon shortages, that there were. (as landtuna notes) I never saw any shortages of the converters themselves, at least not around here. (Nashville)

As an engineer it does frustrate me that so many viewers waited so long to go digital. Our station was on the air at full power for six years before the transition. Viewers had **six years** to get their converters & get their antennas working. The five largest stations in town (ABC/CBS/Fox/NBC/PBS) were all up for at least five years before transition.

Before transition, we might receive one -- maybe two -- calls/emails a month with digital reception questions. Afterwards... well, we receive more calls/emails *now*, eight months after transition, than we did *before* transition.

SDTV Converter boxes weren't even available until 2008 (at least that was the case in my area). I saw maybe one or 2 brands of HDTV converter boxes in 2007, but they were priced between $170 - $250. As for the TV's; I have an aunt & uncle who bought an LCD TV when they came out, but it was labeled HDTV ready, not HDTV built in. So the TV didn't come with an ATSC tuner. So if my aunt & uncle were to drop Dish Network and go back to using an outdoor antenna, they have to buy a tuner box, due to no ATSC tuner. Upgrading wouldn't have been as much of an issue if it weren't for the TV makers stalling on putting in built in ATSC tuners. When I had to replace an RCA TV I bought in 1994 and broke 10 years later, I would have bought an HDTV with built in tuner. Problem was most LCD HDTV's were still priced too high, along with no mid size TV's available with the ATSC tuner built in. For me if the ATSC tuner were built in & priced lower in 2004, I would have had an HDTV before now. Neither Walmart, Target, nor Kmart had HDTV's with built in ATSC tuners on their shelves in my area in 2004. Walmart may have had a model or 2 in 2005 with built-in ATSC tuners on 40"+ models (in my local area).

I believe if the governent hadn't mandated TV makers to put the ATSC into the TV's by 2006 or 2007, I believe we'd still be waiting to go all digital. I'm just waiting for TV's to only have ATSC tuners. The only analog stations still broadcasting in my area are religious LP & translators (3 or 4), WMEU-CA, WWME-CA (simulcast of WCIU), & a Korean station.

So it wasn't completely the peoples' fault that the DTV transition took longer than it should have.

 

[w9wi]

But, let me add this to the discussion: It's possible many of these people didn't act because they felt they had no reason to. What was digital going to give them that they felt they had to rush out and get it?

People will stand in lines on the first day a new version of the iPhone is available to make sure they get theirs. Reason: the cool factor. They have to have one for the cool stuff it does.

If you don't buy a new iPhone, your old phone will still work.

What digital TV offered the viewers was, if nothing else, the ability to continue watching TV. We knew for years analog TV would be going away.

_________________________________________________

SDTV Converter boxes weren't even available until 2008 (at least that was the case in my area). I saw maybe one or 2 brands of HDTV converter boxes in 2007, but they were priced between $170 - $250.

I think you have a good point there.

 

[TexasTom]

People will stand in lines on the first day a new version of the iPhone is available to make sure they get theirs. Reason: the cool factor. They have to have one for the cool stuff it does.

What did digital TV have to offer the public?

Comparing a $200 phone to a $1000 TV is a bit unfair.

Perhaps it isn't unfair -- when you consider the cost of the two year contract that is attached to that phone, the $1000 TV is actually less expensive than the $200 phone.

 

[TheBigA]

Perhaps it isn't unfair -- when you consider the cost of the two year contract that is attached to that phone, the $1000 TV is actually less expensive than the $200 phone.

Ask the man on the street if he takes that into account when he buys a new cell phone. I bet he says no.

 

[TexasTom]

Perhaps it isn't unfair -- when you consider the cost of the two year contract that is attached to that phone, the $1000 TV is actually less expensive than the $200 phone.

Ask the man on the street if he takes that into account when he buys a new cell phone. I bet he says no.

He'll probably just look confused and not understand the question. There's a reason why that kind of marketing is common, which is that it is effective.

But it doesn't change the basic point, which is that the $200 phone is actually more expensive than the $1000 TV -- even if few of the buyers realize it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

But it doesn't change the basic point, which is that the $200 phone is actually more expensive than the $1000 TV -- even if few of the buyers realize it.

50 to 100 years ago our civilization gave more credence to the idea the frugality and sensible decisions led to something that could be thought of as success.

Today it is assumed that being "with it"... playing the role.... having a positive enthusiasm.... will overcome all obstacles in one's quest for riches, fame or whatever.

Flashing your $200 phone around is part of the "essential image" today. Having a fine TV stashed away at your pad does absolutely nothing for your business life or your social life.

And the marketing people know that... and they play it for all it is worth.

There was a time when being on the radio.... or being the radio advertiser... carried some cache' with it. I helped make radio the way of life we loved. Today with the focus on cool new gadgets (like the $200 phone) radio is close to be ing a non-player in the imagination and dreams of people.

The FCC understands that. Here is the philosophical question of the day: If it was the task of the FCC 80 years ago to play chaparone and nanny to the sexy new technology called radio, iis it proper now for the FCC to turn it's attention to today's new sexy player?

Does radio deserve a new nanny devoted only to radio's wants and needs?