[opendtv] Re: Barriers eroding to LCD TV adoption
- From: "Dale Kelly" <res0xtey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 18:58:05 -0700
Bert Wrote:
>After all, what they saw was 12 channel tuners, and only
> three stations available. In fact, where I was, we had *one*
> channel of VHF, and the new channel, for heaven knows what reason,
> was going to be UHF. Tell me why that made any sense.
It is likely to makes sense only if you consider the methodology used by the
FCC to allocate TV channels. Roughly, the FCC's required co channel
seperation is about 160 miles and adjacent channel seperation is about 70
miles.
Before UHF, there were many relatively large populations existing between
major cities where TV reception was poor and the option to construct local
TV stations was slim or non existent due to these mileage seperation
requirements. An example to illustrate this effect is the southern San
Joaquin valley of California. The cities of Fresno, Bakersfield and others,
totaling more than a million people, are located approximately equal
distance between Los Angeles to the South and San Francisco/Sacramento to
the North. Before UHF, Fresno, which was within 160 miles of San
Francisco\Sacramento, was limited to two VHF channel assignments.
Bakersfield, which was within 160 miles of Los Angeles, was limited to one
VHF assignment. To complicated matters further, Fresno and Bakersfield are
separated by 100 miles and therefore, could not reliably views the other
cities channels. Needless to say, the residents of those areas were
underserved and unhappy.
The advent of the UHF television service solved this otherwise unsolvable
problem when, in the mid 1960s the FCC mandated that this region become UHF
only markets. The existing VHF stations were converted to UHF and numerous
other new channels were allocated to the region. This service was welcomed
by the areas viewing population and eight stations were soon on the air.
There exists other all UHF markets around the country and there are also
many additional populations that finally achieved local television services
as a result of the UHF mandate. And, this all occurred before any
significant number of cable systems were deployed.
I would suggest, to those of you who believe the UHF television service to
be a failure, that you widen you're narrow "New York" view of the country.
(this is a reference to a New Yorker magazine cover from the 1970's which
depicted the myopic view of our country from that region).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:17 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Barriers eroding to LCD TV adoption
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>
> > I attended the first series of meetings with the agenda of
> > introducing an
> > HDTV capable service into the USA. They were held in Monterey, Ca. and
> > Washington, DC in approximately 1982. The driving force
> > behind this effort
> > was the CE communities vision that it would create their next
> > wave of high
> > end product, After all, it's all about the future growth of a
> > major industry
> > and the UHF issue pales in comparison.
>
> I completely agree with this. That was indeed the motivation
> originally, as I recall. Later on, after it was decided to stay
> within one 6 MHz channel, the motivation changed somewhat, to one
> of saving on spectrum. But that was 10 years later.
>
> The way I see it, Dale, both this migration to digital and less
> spectrum, and the FCC decision to include the UHF band for TV,
> were about changes in the spectrum *policy*. Since RF spectrum
> allocation is managed by the FCC, I see these as similar events.
> The public cares a lot more about the availability of HDTV than
> it does about digital transmission per se. In the UHF intro days,
> the public was even more blase. What did they care? The UHF stuff
> was harder to receive, and the picture and sound were no
> different. And they had to buy an extra box. And the stations
> which originally broadcast in UHF were strange anyway. Not
> mainstream stuff.
>
> I don't think that the public was screaming about more choice
> in TV necessarily, and more importantly, I don't think the
> public appreciated *why* you needed UHF spectrum to get more
> choice. After all, what they saw was 12 channel tuners, and only
> three stations available. In fact, where I was, we had *one*
> channel of VHF, and the new channel, for heaven knows what reason,
> was going to be UHF. Tell me why that made any sense.
>
> But it was a change in policy that ultimately did benefit the
> public and everyone else in television.
>
> > On the other hand, the OTA DTV service is a mandate that
> > redefines an entire industry. The public, who are mostly happy
> > with their current TV choices do not generally see the need
> > for such a change and their response has been mostly
> > underwhelming. The CE folks, who understandably follow the
> > money, see little value in OTA related investment and have
> > redefined the DTV transition in non broadcast terms, where
> > product profits are high. The CE companies love the DTV
> > transition, as they define it, while Broadcasters are
> > suffering the inevitable consequences of a transition without
> > an economic engine and the viewers are generally nonplused.
>
> Well, you might as well have described the UHF addition.
>
> Existing broadcasters were likely unhappy, as it meant
> competition in one case, or it meant getting a UHF channel
> with questionable viewership in the other case.
>
> The public couldn't care less, especially if the broadcasters
> weren't giving them a damned good reason to upgrade.
>
> The tuners were of questionable quality. Sound familiar?
>
> And the CE manufacturers, who should probably have seen this as
> a boon for future sales and a boon for the industry as a whole,
> were probably too shortsighted to appreciate the change.
>
> So, what's so different?
>
> Bert
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Other related posts:
