-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Senate Passes DTV Nightlight Bill
- Thread starter robmadden1
- Start date
K
kenglish
Guest
Funny....they just gave Hawaii a go-ahead to shut off their analogs on 1-15-09 (a month early) so they wouldn't be dismantling the old tower stuff in February, which is a mating or migrating period for some bird species (I can't remember the exact details).
Now, they get to stay on the air until the original deadline, after all (assuming the House votes OK). Or, do they have until 3-17-09, which would have possibly missed the mating season, anyway?
Now, they get to stay on the air until the original deadline, after all (assuming the House votes OK). Or, do they have until 3-17-09, which would have possibly missed the mating season, anyway?
kenglish said:
Well, since you asked, here's the article...
http://www.starbulletin.com/business/20081015_Hawaii_first_state_to_make_DTV_switch.html
I suspect this is to allow stations to broadcast a character generated message after the February 17th deadline, and to allow for emergency info to be broadcast if needed. Regular programming would still go off the air on analog at midnight on 2/17.
I suspect this is the result of the Wilmington test. The broadcasters apparently broadcast an on-screen message until the end of September before cutting their analog signals. Under the current plan, full power stations would have had to cut analog signals at midnight on 2/17/2009...no character generated messages or emergency info in analog would have been allowed...no full power analog broadcasting of anything period.
I suspect this is the result of the Wilmington test. The broadcasters apparently broadcast an on-screen message until the end of September before cutting their analog signals. Under the current plan, full power stations would have had to cut analog signals at midnight on 2/17/2009...no character generated messages or emergency info in analog would have been allowed...no full power analog broadcasting of anything period.
jal41 said:
That, and to be able to put emergency messages on the air for stragglers without DTV converters or cable. (What - nobody has a radio anymore?)
But the idea will hit some snags: many stations - maybe as many as half of them - won't be able to take part, either because they (or another station) are using their former analog channel for DTV, or because their tower leases will have run out or their antennas are coming down to make room for DTV maximization.
And as one TV chief engineer said to me when I asked about it - "My budget's incredibly tight already next year, and it doesn't include the power bill for the analog transmitter after February." Those bills aren't trivial at many stations.
(Nor, for that matter, is the question of how exactly that character-generated message would be generated. It's not like most stations have a spare Chyron in the airchain somewhere...)
Scott Fybush said:
That will hold true in Chicago with the following 2 stations:
WLS-TV going from 52 back to 7 (their current analog channel)
WTTW antenna for channel 11 won't be available to them after 2/17/2009, due to WBBM-TV taking over using that antenna for their digital channel 12. It wouldn't be a major issue for the other stations in the market (except for those that might have co-channel interference in neighboring markets).
Dave said:
Even more Chicago signals will be affected: 56, 60, 62 and 66 will be out of core and can't continue on their analog channels after 2/17/09, and if the bill passes in its present form, WYCC won't be able to operate on 20, either, since 14-20 will be barred from continuing in "nightlight" mode, too.
So that would leave 2, 5, 9, 26, 32, 38 and 44 as possibilities - assuming any of those stations want to keep maintaining and paying the power bills on their analog facilities.
Does anyone anywhere really know what will happen when all the analog signals are shut off? To me, the digital signal seems weaker, and prone to pixilation, especially in times of bad weather. Does the FCC have any plans on improving or increasing the digital signal, or are we, the ones who will not pay for cable, just SOL? Hell, from reading posts on other areas of this board, it seems the FCC can't even keep track of their call letters anymore! They just put KUBE on in Long Island, NY!ixnay said:Ho hum, more ??? ??? ??? as 2/17/2009 approaches... :
ixnay
Maybe we need to pressure the networks. Let them know that after February our access to their shows (and advertising) will be limited.
KyDXIn said:
One engineer told me a few years ago that, to be bluntly honest, he doesn't really care that much about those who won't pay for cable losing reception.
Point being that those who don't pay for cable/satellite either:
- For some reason don't watch much television -- it really doesn't much matter if they can't get Channel 37 anymore as they didn't watch much in the first place. Either they aren't much interested in the programs, or they don't speak English, or they're morally opposed to the programs, etc...
- Can't afford cable/satellite -- or probably much of anything else. If they don't have the discretionary cash for cable, they don't have the discretionary cash to buy most of what's advertised.
Blunt, not exactly what you'd want the industry to be saying in public, but probably true.
(being one of those in the first category -- I work night shift & the programs on when I can watch are directed at people 45 years younger than myself -- I sure didn't want to hear it...)
_________________________________________________
Scott Fybush said:
No kidding.
This emergency messages thing is really rather meaningless. Those who haven't converted to digital by February 18th are going to turn on their sets that day and see their programs are gone. They aren't going to sit there and watch the DTV transition scroll go by, waiting for a tornado warning to go off. NOBODY is going to be watching these post-transition analog operations for emergency messages. NOBODY.
Unless the emergency happens on February 18th this will accomplish nothing.
w9wi said:
So will there come a time in five, ten, twenty years where the entire TV spectrum is abandoned?
If only 15% of households now have no TV subscription - with a high proportion of that number being seniors/poor/ethnics and other advertising undesirables - and even that number is sure to drop after 2/09, at what point is not some deal reached with the cable and satellite companies that allows for these expensive transmitters and antennas to be disassembled and the entire TV spectrum re-allocated?
Chad-Stevens said:
Assuming you go with this engineer's way of thinking.. the transmitters do still have two values.
1. A means to get the station's signal to outlying cable systems. RIght now we do direct-feed the two largest cable operators in the market and both satellite providers, but there are still a LOT of cable subscribers whose systems get our signal off the transmitter.
I think this is going to vary a lot from market to market. Fewer subscribers will be getting an off-air signal in geographically-smaller markets and in markets where one or two cable operators serve most of the viewers. In geographically larger markets and those with several cable operators, more are going to see off-air feeds.
2. Under current law, having a transmitter provides some degree of guarantee of a channel on the cable (/satellite) without charge. If I just start a local cable-only channel in Nashville, I'm going to have to lease a channel on each cable system I want to carry me - it's not going to be cheap. If I get a FCC full-power license, I can claim must-carry on every cable system within my coverage area.
Of course either situation could change, at which time I could certainly see the transmitters going away.
BTW I'm not sure you can really assume the proportion of OTA viewing will drop after February. Some viewers will indeed switch to cable/satellite if they can't get a passable OTA digital signal. On the other hand, some cable/satellite viewers nearer the transmitters are finding they can get a perfectly clean OTA digital signal where they had noise/multipath/interference in their OTA analog pictures - some are going back to OTA. I wonder if the economic downturn (and spiraling cable rates) will support that side of the trend?
OTA viewing could indeed drop, but it could also climb. I wouldn't put any money on either side.
w9wi said:
I'd like to think so, though I haven't yet met one person who gained channels rather than losing them unless picking up an automated weather map and five flavors of TBN counts as a net gain. I also haven't met anyone willing to install an ugly set of antlers on the rooftop with no guarantee they'll be on the high side of the digital cliff.
I'm losing ABC, my father-in-law is losing FOX, my parents will be losing ABC, CW, and MY on the one set not hooked to cable. My brother-in-law would be losing every channel except CBS, one local digital-only station (WBIH) with an all-infomercial lineup. and TBN.
We tried rotating his rooftop antenna every way, replaced the coax and the groundwire, and came to the realization that we spent all that time and money for naught. He gave up and subscribed to Dish Network.I certainly can't say it won't happen, and only can speak of the markets I have connections in (Birmingham, Montgomery, Tuscaloosa, and Pittsburgh) but I've yet to hear of it personally where someone gained stations beyond subchannels.
My prediction FWIW: I'm guessing that OTA households (those with no subscription whatsoever) will be down to 10% by the end of '09 and lose around one percentage point each year thereafter. Once the OTA audience gets to a negligible number some sort of agreement will be reached between the broadcasters and cable/sats with or without the government getting involved. Maybe by then with the progress of technology the entire TV spectrum can be auctioned off and part of the proceeds fund a national system in which each household can get one set hooked up with their local signals in standard def.
I'll put my crystal ball away now. :-X
Chad-Stevens said:
I find the automated weather map on 2-2 useful and watch Npt2 on the PBS station about as much as any other channel.
My mom gets four additional channels of PBS, plus two audio-only channels including the only classical-music station in Milwaukee. (yes, the only classical-music station is a DTV audio-only program.....) (OK, there's an classical HD2. DTV reception is better than IBOC, at least at her location.)
No channels were lost.
In fact, I got a viewer email just an hour ago from a guy 40 miles away who appreciates the extra channels.
M
MotoMuzak
Guest
W9WI typed out this musing, apparently from a friend of his/hers~
"Point being that those who don't pay for cable/satellite either:
- For some reason don't watch much television -- it really doesn't much matter if they can't get Channel 37 anymore as they didn't watch much in the first place. Either they aren't much interested in the programs...."
I have to agree with that.
Actually your engineer friend's spot-on in that regard. From what I saw at my friend's house about a month ago (she's on local pay cable, Comcrap) there's not much on TV that's particularly interesting to me. Why do I want to pay $100/month (or whatever CCast's going rate here is right now) to watch OPB when I can get it for absolutely free--and with considerably better picture (Comcast in Vancouver compresses the hell out of a lot of the local stuff)--from my balcony?
In all honesty, aside from maybe an hour's worth of "Scrubs" at 1:00 in the morning on KPTV (that's right when I am coming home from work) I don't really watch much aside from OPB to justify the cost.........
(Of course, there's some free-to-air QAM channels available on CCast if I *have* to have cable TV....but that's a different kettle of worms altogether.............)
As for not speaking English or not being able to afford it....I haven't a clue.
"Point being that those who don't pay for cable/satellite either:
- For some reason don't watch much television -- it really doesn't much matter if they can't get Channel 37 anymore as they didn't watch much in the first place. Either they aren't much interested in the programs...."
I have to agree with that.
Actually your engineer friend's spot-on in that regard. From what I saw at my friend's house about a month ago (she's on local pay cable, Comcrap) there's not much on TV that's particularly interesting to me. Why do I want to pay $100/month (or whatever CCast's going rate here is right now) to watch OPB when I can get it for absolutely free--and with considerably better picture (Comcast in Vancouver compresses the hell out of a lot of the local stuff)--from my balcony?
In all honesty, aside from maybe an hour's worth of "Scrubs" at 1:00 in the morning on KPTV (that's right when I am coming home from work) I don't really watch much aside from OPB to justify the cost.........
(Of course, there's some free-to-air QAM channels available on CCast if I *have* to have cable TV....but that's a different kettle of worms altogether.............)
As for not speaking English or not being able to afford it....I haven't a clue.
Unscrambled QAM's are locals, PEG, Home Shopping, TWC and WeatherScan, C-SPAN 1 and 2, TV Guide Network, and random On Demand programs. Everything else is encrypted.
Those automated weather maps better have three hours of children's educational programming a week.
I suspect we will see the power limits go up on DTV stations after the analog signals are gone. TV stations sure don't want to have to maintain multiple translator and repeater stations just to fill every little hole in the coverage area.
There will be kinks that will be prevelant for years to come, way after the analog shutoff.
Those automated weather maps better have three hours of children's educational programming a week.
I suspect we will see the power limits go up on DTV stations after the analog signals are gone. TV stations sure don't want to have to maintain multiple translator and repeater stations just to fill every little hole in the coverage area.
There will be kinks that will be prevelant for years to come, way after the analog shutoff.
Chad-Stevens said:
My prediction is that OTA households will drop somewhat in the immediate aftermath of the digital conversion, but will eventually rebound to some degree. The short run drop is because some viewers who currently get adequate analog reception won't get their digitals and will end up subscribing to cable or satellite as a result. But over the longer run, some viewers who take cable or satellite because their analog reception stank will discover that their digital reception is pretty good and will switch back to OTA reception (and I do know a couple of folks who get rotten off-air analog but get the digital stations perfectly -- this does happen).
Aside from that, depending on your viewing tastes, some people are starting to discover that using a combination of OTA reception and Internet streaming or downloads of TV shows can work pretty well and save them money. Although this is a tiny number of viewers right now, at some point I do suspect that these folks will start chipping into cable/satellite subscription numbers a little bit.
So will the eventual percentage of households for OTA viewing end up being 12%, 15%, 20%, or higher...well, that's where the crystal ball clouds up. But I really don't see OTA going away.
Nor do I see broadcast stations wanting to give up their OTA transmitters -- regardless of what cable/satellite penetration rates are, that OTA transmitter gives the broadcast stations some sort of advantage over their cable counterparts when it comes to getting viewers. Consider that "Monday Night Football" lost 1/3 of its audience when it went from ABC to ESPN -- despite the fact that ESPN supposedly reaches about 85% of the homes that ABC does. And in the aftermath of 9/11, during the time when WCBS was the only major OTA signal in NYC, that station saw a real ratings boost in a market that has extremely high cable penetration.
I'm still going with barring a catastrophic event (like the aforementioned WCBS post-9/11) or something unforeseen, OTA TV is going to be an anachronism in 10 years, if simply because the cost and skill involved with hooking up a rooftop antenna and then distributing the signal to multiple sets won't justify the results for most people. And I say this as someone who has never had a TV subscription in my life and intends to go OTA as long as I can.
As for subchannels in this market: there's two additional flavors of PBS, NBC WX+ (no word on what if anything will replace it), and ABC 33/40 (which I can't receive) has an automated wx map. We were supposed to get RTN, but that was announced a year ago and still nothing.
As for subchannels in this market: there's two additional flavors of PBS, NBC WX+ (no word on what if anything will replace it), and ABC 33/40 (which I can't receive) has an automated wx map. We were supposed to get RTN, but that was announced a year ago and still nothing.
K
kenglish
Guest
So, where are the stations' websites that tell the viewers what an antenna is, or how to hook one up? Or, for that matter, where is there an accurate list of what stations are currently on the air in a given market, and what channels they are actually broadcasting on?
I guess viewers can just go to the local "Big Box" store (which makes money selling Satellite and Cable subscriptions), and ask them what they need. I'm sure they'll be told, "Digital TV doesn't work with antennas...UneedaDish!", or something similar.
Broadcasters have done a very poor job of getting out any information, beyond "just get Cable", to their viewers.
Sorry folks, but broadcasting has lost this battle to our competition. I wonder how much we'll be paying for satellite and cable transmission next year?
I guess viewers can just go to the local "Big Box" store (which makes money selling Satellite and Cable subscriptions), and ask them what they need. I'm sure they'll be told, "Digital TV doesn't work with antennas...UneedaDish!", or something similar.
Broadcasters have done a very poor job of getting out any information, beyond "just get Cable", to their viewers.
Sorry folks, but broadcasting has lost this battle to our competition. I wonder how much we'll be paying for satellite and cable transmission next year?
- Status