[opendtv] Re: Latest 5th Gen
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 07:51:51 -0500
At 7:27 PM -0500 3/22/05, John Shutt wrote:
>Craig,
>
>If we had a simple plug and play DTV system, that was capable of portable
>and mobile as well as delivering HD to fixed receivers, it would be just as
>powerful as NTSC.
True.
But it would still be limited by the current broadcast television
business model, which is to have a handful of privileged gatekeepers
in each market who presumably compete with one another, not cable and
DBS.
"Just as good as NTSC" sets the bar very low. I think we would agree
that we can do MUCH BETTER than NTSC.
>
>DTV Must Carry is already part of the rules. Whenever a station turns off
>it's NTSC, either voluntarily or after the dreaded cutoff date, Must Carry
>of their primary program stream is assured. Status Quo.
True.
As you say, nothing changes.
Actually, after reviewing what I have written I came back to add this:
While there is no change in Must Carry status, there is the issue of
the ~20% of homes that still use antennas to use the NTSC service.
These people will need new receivers or to subscribe to a
multi-channel service. When NTSC is shut down we many finally learn
how many people were actually using the NTSC service. The threat of
disenfranchising this audience is the MOST POWERFUL argument that
broadcasters have for preserving the NTSC system.
Back to my original thoughts.
If all things remain as they are today, people will continue NOT to
watch the OTA service since the only improvement in the product
offering is HDTV (when available). People will continue to pay for a
multi-channel service that will offer the broadcasters primary
program streams. And Must Carry/Retransmission consent will continue
to be used to greenmail cable and DBS, as the media conglomerates try
to gain control of 100% of the audience...again.
In order to use DTV to improve the product offering, broadcasters
would need to "sublet" most of their bits to an independent third
party (e.g. USDTV), which would use the "collective" spectrum to
compete with cable and DBS. Because of anti-trust considerations
(i.e. the illusion of competition between broadcasters) broadcasters
cannot ppol their spectrum to create a new service; this could only
happen if COngress changes the fundamental basis for the assignment
of broadcast licenses.
But there is another evil lurking in the wings. There is resolved
case law regarding NTSC must carry/retransmission consent (MC/RC).
After NTSC goes away, it is likely (make that 100% certain) that
MC/RC will be challenged again, this time as it applies to the new
digital broadcast service. And broadcasters will lose when this
happens.
In addition to the fact that they almost lost the last NTSC test
case, there is new evidence that can be used to prove that MC/RC
violates First amendment property rights. Here are a few of the
potential pleadings in a new challenge:
1. There is ample evidence that negotiated carriage is working in the
marketplace. As a PBS affiliate, you may be called as a witness...
;-)
The reality is that hundreds of DTV channels are being carried by
cable systems today via negotiated carriage (in addition to carriage
of the NTSC channels).
2. Broadcasters have been granted an expanded franchise with DTV,
including the ability to deliver programming multiplexes that can be
used to compete with cable and DBS. The recent battles regarding the
extension of must carry to the entire DTV multiplex will come back to
haunt broadcasters if they face another court challenge to MC/RC.
3. The recent history of abuse of MC/RC to enable the media
conglomerates to reclaim control of 90% of all television viewing
will weigh heavily in any decision to continue protection of OTA
broadcasters.
In other words, the franchise is safe as long as the NTSC service
continues, but it is highly likely that these regulatory perks will
be challenged successfully after the NTSC service is gone.
>If NTSC is the goose that laid the golden eggs, then ATSC simply laid an
>egg.
Seems to me that they made one hell of an omelette out of that ATSC
egg. Here we are nearly two decades after the FCC launched the
Advanced Television proceedings and NTSC is still going strong, with
no end in sight. The fact that ATSC does not work will eventually be
used in a last gasp attempt to protect NTSC. Remember, the vast
majority of Americans do not know that the new service does not work
as well as the one it seeks to replace.
>If the CEA wanted to sell lots and lots of pretty, big, and expensive HD
>displays, then a workable DTV system would help, not hurt that cause.
The CE industry wants a piece of the after-the-box-is-sold action,
which they are getting from DBS and DVD; with the cable tuner
agreement, they may also profit from working with the cable industry.
There is NO economic advantage for the CE industry in working with
broadcasters. Consumer demand for ATSC receivers is still in the
statistical noise. And there are significant concerns about product
liability and returns due to the FACT that many of the government
mandated receivers will fail to provide reliable reception.
I agree that a system that works reliably would not HURT the CE
companies. But it would hurt the broadcast competitors that the CE
industry sees as the REAL market. They never did make much money on
the cheap NSTC receivers that most people who rely exclusively on the
OTA service purchase.
>Digital Broadcasting Australia shows on their website HD STBs offered for
>sale by no fewer than 14 different manufacturers. Not 14 different models,
>FOURTEEN DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS. (25 different manufacturers when SD only
>boxes are included!), Most of the HD STBs are priced at around $700 AU,
>which is less than $550 US. This in a market of 14 million PEOPLE, not
>households. It's insane that we're still sticking with ATSC after all those
>"the next generation will be the magic one" promises.
I'm not certain that one can draw valid comparisons between what is
happening in the U.S. and Australia. Both transitions are suffering
from political gerrymandering. At least in Australia they are
deploying a system that will work after the political handcuffs are
removed.
>The NAB decided to stay with ATSC rather than fight it out over changing the
>DTV system because 1] They truly believed that the receiver problem was an
>easy fix (after all, look at the European system, and digital is digital,
>right? Can't be that hard.) and 2] Congress was salivating over the untold
>Billions that a spectrum auction would bring, and threatened the
>broadcasters with new legislation giving free air time to all candidates as
>part of a "campaign finance reform" package if the broadcasters dared to
>rock the boat and delay the transition. Little did they know that the delay
>would be due to the uncontrollable part of the equation, the manufacturers.
The delay lies squarely at the feet of only one group - the broadcasters.
They have done nothing to promote the transition or to provide
incentive to the CE industry to help. They have been totally
consistent in staying the course, and the issue of whether ATSC can
provide a reliable broadcast service has been used to the
broadcasters' advantage.
Then again, the broadcasters did not want or expect any help from the
CE companies, other than paying for the development of the ATSC
standard. They were only too happy to let the CE industry create an
unworkable DTV system.
>
>Look, Craig, Bert, and everybody else, the free market is the most powerful
>and efficient system in the world to allocate resources. If a nation of 14
>million people with a unique DTV system (DVB-T, HD, 7 MHz channels) can have
>14 different manufacturers vying to sell them High Definition DTV STBs, then
>surely those same 14 companies and more would be crawling over each other to
>break into the US market with 300 Million people. But they're not. Why
>not? Because they know how difficult (read: expensive) it is to build an
>ATSC box that actually is plug and play. They aren't stupid. They have
>labs. They can build prototypes and mess around with them. And they know a
>money sinkhole when they see one.
All true. But there is also the dynamic of content. People are NOT
going to go back to antennas to receive a limited television service.
The situation in Australia is different; a much higher percentage of
homes rely upon the OTA services. Hence there is a more viable market
for new DTV receivers. Despite this, multi-channel TV services are
growing rapidly in Australia, while the OTA audience continues to
decline.
>The point is, almost 6 years later we're still waiting for 1999 COFDM
>performance out of an ATSC box, but we will never get it because ATSC isn't
>capable of portable, mobile, or low power (consumption) operation. Maybe
>with Representative Tauzin out of the picture, Congress can finally see that
>no matter how many times LG demos a prototype box, unless it can be made
>economically, and by many vendors, then they aren't going to be made,
>period.
Congress is a big part of the problem. For all of the bluster we are
hearing now, like Barton's desire to enforce the January 1, 2006
cutoff, the reality is that the NAB can muster the votes it needs to
block a hard date, or at least to delay that date. There is great
sport in Congressional sable rattling- this is how they shake down
the industries they regulate to pay for the next election. In the
end, however, things change in small increments. The votes in
Congress (particularly the Senate) do not exist to set a hard date
for the end of the NTSC service.
>
>It's disgusting that it comes down to someone like Bert arguing for ATSC
>when he hasn't even tried one yet. That's like a virgin arguing the finer
>points of the Kama Sutra. Meanwhile, we have people like Bob Miller, and
>Sinclair Broadcasting, who have seen both side by side and know exactly how
>many light-years COFDM is ahead of 8-VSB, yet are dismissed out of hand.
Yes...Bert is still a TV virgin.
>But no, let's stay the course. I do believe that may be an iceberg ahead,
>Captain Smith...
The USS ATSC set sail a decade ago. It will continue to roam the
oceans in search of passengers until the USS NTSC finally sinks. Then
it will sink too.
>
>John
>(The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, expecting
>different results.)
This is a perfect definition of how things work in Washington.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Other related posts:
