Keep Antenna TV Free, Hello?

[dave73]

I just hope that the technology improves to have larger bandwidth than what's available now. As it stands, a station that wants to have subchannels can only run 1, maybe 2 HD channels, and any remaining bandwidth would allow an SD channel.

The amount of bandwidth is fixed (by the FCC allowing 6MHz channels and the laws of physics).

However, current technology does allow for better digital video compression. The compression algorithm used on DTV is more than decade-old technology. With h.264, for example, I would guess 3-4 720p broadcasts could be put in on 6MHz channel.

Doing that would require everyone get new tuners again, which probably won't happen.

I just hope that it would be implemented, but keep it backwards compatible for older tuners. It was unfortunate that WTTW couldn't run a 1080i main channel and 3 SD channels, that they had to downdrade the HD channel to 720p in order to run the 3 SD channel with no trouble. WLS-TV pushes it now by running 2 720p channels. Livewell HD on 7.2 doesn't always have a clear picture.

 

[vchimpanzee]

And even if you get the station, you can lose the sound and get a lot of squares or stripes in your picture from such things as wind, rain or a car passing by, or you walking in front of the set.

That's with antennas that weren't free. A better antenna would cost much more. No, it's not free. Cable is cheaper, for now.

At least if you buy a better antenna, you only pay once. Cable bills add up month per month.

Yeah. One problem would have been the constant need to turn an antenna. I'm still using only two channels for the most part, and on one TV the other channels I can pick up are in the same direction. On the other I still have to go through the whole list of channels and pick out the direction, which I can do with the second antenna.

The additional cost of an outside antenna would have been equal to a year of cable, though that year is up. It's worth not having the aggravation of inconsistent signals, though. And TiVo only works with cable or satellite--at least the one I have. I can still set channels on the TV/VCR that's hooked up to cable too.

 

[vchimpanzee]

To learn more about what could happen, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_broadband#Demand_for_spectrum_in_U.S.

I'm the major contributor, if not the only contributor. There is also a list of magazine articles from which the information is taken, with links to those articles, at the bottom of the page. And just in case people don't get that this is a major change in how they will watch TV, there's a quote with white space on all sides.

 

[RFLA]

Basically companies need spectrum in the lower bands due to the fact that 1Ghz and higher have severe limitations on range coverage.

The idea they are trying to push I think is wrong as many communities like mine are big enough that if we didn't have a big city neighbor near us, we'd probably have every TV network locally, however most only think about TV in big cities and not for the people who are moving past suburbia every day and have to rely on what has proven to be a crappier solution for a free television picture.

Basically companies don't want to go after the basically abandoned 30-50 Mhz and 72-76 Mhz bands as they like the smaller antennas people would be more inclinded to install that are on those higher frequenices.

Basically the military, hams, and commercial interest loose so others can have spectrum.. One of those use it or loose its

 

[kenglish]

I'm still trying to figure out why the "broadband" (internet and mobile phone) industry thinks they need enormous range and enormous amounts of spectrum to do what is, essentially, a one-to-one, short-range service. And, at the same time, they say that broadcast TV, which utilizes a single, high powered connection to broadcast the same program to millions of people at once (and, over a huge geographical area), should go to a low-powered "cellular"-like system.

Imagine a program like the "Super Bowl"....one transmitter sends the program to hundreds of thousands of homes simultaneously, via broadcasting.
In the "broadband" scheme, hundreds of thousands of dedicated one-to-one links send the same data, but (maybe) a millisecond apart in time. And, they expect the broadcasters to scrap their facilities and build millions of "cellular"-like booster transmitters all over America, to transmit the exact same stream to millions of viewers at once?

Sounds like some big-money interests just want to create legislation that will bankrupt the broadcast industry.
Wish they'd mention that sort of thing on the NAB ads.

 

[kenglish]

.... Why operate a megawatt UHF transmitter from the top of a mountain, tall building, or tower when running 5, 10, or even 100 low-powered - 1-10 kW ERP - transmitters at moderate height (say, from a 10-story office building or an AM or Class A FM tower), each covering a 20-mile radius or so, would probably be cheaper in the long run....

Have you tried to get antenna space anywhere lately? Those 10-story office buildings want a small fortune to let you on their site, especially since their pricing is based on what they can get from land-mobile and cellular provider$.

When one of the Utah translator sites needed renewal and DTV upgrades, the new owner required something like a one-hundred year lease renewal....paid in advance, IIRC.
Sites on any government land (BLM) require the same kinds of "based on what the (pay) market will bear" rates that some major downtown rooftops are getting.

I don't understand what they are trying to accomplish (except to break the broadcast industry financially), since "Broadcasting", by definition, is a means to transmit the same programming, simultaneously, to the maximum number of viewers. That should indicate that a high-powered transmitter is necessary.

The "Broadband" industry transmits (and receives) individual, point-to-point/user-to-user, signals. They should be interested in a cellular-style approach, using limited-range transmitters. Watching the Super Bowl on broadcast TV requires one transmitter and one channel per market, no matter how many TVs are tuned in. Broadband requires a channel and a transmitter of some kind for each viewer, no matter how many there are. Could it be that the big boys are planning to create a PAY TV broadcast scheme to replace free TV? That might solve the "one viewer, one channel" thing. Otherwise, it's better for them to go with a cellular, low-power approach.

 

[FreddyE1977]

after all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that came with the digital switch, Congress is
unlikely to allow them to monkey with it anytime soon

 

[recto101]

Here in L.A., we have a great variety of programming with our digital subs, but it depends on what you're into. KNBC, of course, has its weather and news service, and Universal Sports, which is OK I suppose. KABC has Live Well HD and its AccuWeather channel, with Eyewitness News cut-in between forecast (sometime, the news is a day old). KTLA carries This TV on its channel 5.2, but I've only seen bits and pieces of their programming. The Ion and TBN stations each have their standard lineup of subchannels. I guess the best of the bunch are the PBS stations...KCET has four (main in HD, V-me, an Orange County-centric channel co-operated with Cal State Fullerton, and PBS World); KOCE has three (main in HD, Daystar, and news/public affairs/traffic); and KLCS has four (main no HD, Kids, Create, and telecourses).

Four foreign-language stations (KSCI, KVMD, KXLA, and KJLA) each have mutliple channels of programming, ranging from Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Russian, Italian and Armenian, and in a multicultual city like Los Angeles, it's essential. KSCI has eight subs, KVMD also with eight, KXLA and KJLA each has nine. KXLA, KJLA, and KVMD are more or less "sister stations", they each their own licensee, but they're owned by the same family.

Wow I think SF does the same thing here.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Some idiot was just on our local news station here talking about this saying that
free TV should be taken away because in his words "that's not how the economy
works, TV should cost like everything else". I felt like punching my television when
he said that. Isn't that what commercials are for? :

That guy knows nothing about the broadcasting industry -- TV has been free ever since the day Felix the Cat made his first TV appearance in 1928, and it should stay that way. TV viewers should have a right to insist on just getting local channels from than antenna for free, rather than paying a lot of money for these channels and mostly tripe on the cable channels.

Some online article or podcast hipped me to an interesting proposal: 'Broadcast' TV remains free for local channels, but is sent via wired service to every home by mandate--no million watt towers sending out signals to antennas. Only then would that digital spectrum be opened up for new uses. I don't know if that's a better system or not, but it's intriguing. Of course it won't happen (if ever) for a dang long time, given all the money spent on new towers and new broadcast equipment.

Regardless, I definitely agree that free TV shouldn't go away.

 

[kenglish]

after all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that came with the digital switch, Congress is
unlikely to allow them to monkey with it anytime soon

Trouble is,.....the FCC is operated directly by Congress. It has no other agency above it, and is not part of any other entity.
So, whatever the FCC is doing, it is MANDATED by Congress.