[opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:16:42 -0700
If a reglatory agency doesn't understand something, it is the advocates
before it that are responsible for correcting that. If the agency thought
rf sensitivity, then the advocates need to do tests to show that isn't the
case.
If the legislation doesn't require analog pass-through, that isn't an agency
failure; it was a failure of advocacy before Congress.
I'm not saying that NTIA didn't make a mistake.
What is telling is how long it took the CBA to try to do something about
this. They waited until the coupons were already in people's hands. That
wasn't a mistake on the NTIA's part, and it shows that CBA is actually
interested in something else besides analog pass-through.
They could have filed a court challenge more than a year ago. They did not.
John Willkie
-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de John Shutt
Enviado el: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:29 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> This isn't a case of dueling statutes. The CECB statute didn't require
> analog (failure of advocacy on the part of CBA), but it didn't forbid it.
I disagree that it was a failure of advocacy on the part of the CBA. It was
a failure of understanding by the NTIA.
CBA made their case, the NTIA acknowledged their points, but (incorrectly)
felt that ATSC receiver sensitivity and cost would suffer for the majority
of users. A simple bypass relay would not cause 3 dB of signal loss, or add
much to the cost of a CECB.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2007/DTVFinalRule_2e.htm
c. Analog Signal Pass Through
49. The National Translator Association recommended that the CECBs pass
analog signals directly through without processing or modification.[ 91 ]
The CBA also requested that NTIA require that CECBs pass through an analog
signal, either actively or passively. CBA noted that Class A and LPTV
stations are not subject to the February 17, 2009 end-of-transition
deadline, applicable to full-power stations. It indicated that it was
important that the converter box not block the analog signal.[ 92 ] LPTV
licensee Island Broadcasting noted that thousands of LPTV stations in the
United States will remain analog after the transition and are not carried on
a cable system or other multi-channel video delivery service. Island
recommended that the converter box contain a feature to pass through the
analog signal from the antenna to the TV receiver, either when the box is
shut off, the signal is passed, or by means of a built in by-pass switch.[
93 ] Funai, however, noted that "[a]n analog pass through, while
conveniently retaining legacy analog TV support, would degrade the RF noise
performance of all so-equipped DTA tuners by 3dB - a penalty that could not
be recovered by any consumer with such a unit." Funai recommended that a
consumer purchase a separate switch and/or external splitter to receive
analog television.[ 94 ]
50. NTIA is sensitive to the needs of consumers who will wish to continue to
view over-the-air analog television during and after the digital transition.
Not only will many consumers continue to rely on analog television reception
of Class A stations, LPTV stations and translators after the transition,
many consumers who purchase the CECB will require the ability to receive
analog television signals during the transition period as not all full-power
television stations in the United States have completed their digital
build-out. NTIA, however, is reluctant to require an analog pass through
feature because it will result in a reduction in received signal level and
in increased cost to all consumers who purchase a CECB. The amount of
reduction in receiver sensitivity and increased cost is dependent on how the
analog pass through feature is implemented. This reduction may not be
noticeable to consumers who receive strong signals in urban areas, but may
mean that consumers who receive marginal digital and analog signals will be
unable to receive television signals via the CECB. NTIA notes that switches
and external splitters are commonly available where television sets are
sold. A single A/B switch will not fully bypass a CECB, however, creating a
difficult wiring scenario for the consumers. Splitters and their inherent
loss as well as additional cabling makes their use less than optimal in
fringe reception areas. NTIA strongly urges manufacturers to take into
consideration the needs of consumers to receive analog television along with
digital television in the development of CECBs and to investigate minimal
signal loss solutions that would ensure an acceptable analog signal
pass-through. In the Final Rule, NTIA permits that the converter box to pass
through the analog signal from the antenna to the TV receiver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
- Follow-Ups:
- [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- From: Cliff Benham
- References:
- [opendtv] Dueling Statutes?
- From: Craig Birkmaier
- [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- From: John Willkie
- [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- From: John Shutt
Other related posts:
- » [opendtv] Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- » [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- From: Cliff Benham
- [opendtv] Dueling Statutes?
- From: Craig Birkmaier
- [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- From: John Willkie
- [opendtv] Re: Dueling Statutes?
- From: John Shutt