Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Obsolete?
I meant that without an analog stream, it would become difficult to
identify the "primary channel" which would be subject to must-carry. But
you're right, the FCC had already covered that, and only requires
must-carry of one program stream (FCC 05-27):
------------------------------------------------
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-27A1.pdf
33. After consideration of all the arguments and evidence presented on
this issue, we affirm our earlier decision, and decline, based on the
current record before us, to require cable operators to carry any more
than one programming stream of a digital television station that
multicasts. On reconsideration, we acknowledge, however, that the
language of the Act may be less definitive than portions of our earlier
decision suggested. This conclusion is, in fact, more consistent with
our observations in the First Report and Order "that the terms 'primary
video' as used in sections 614(b)(3) and 615(g)(1) are susceptible to
different interpretations," and that "[t]he legislative history does not
definitively resolve the ambiguity regarding the intended application of
the term 'primary video' as used in this context." As explained below,
however, we continue to hold that the best construction of the
must-carry provisions, based on the current record before us, is that
cable operators need not carry more than one programming stream."
------------------------------------------------
They also argue here that DTT multicasts would, if anything, become
higher quality if cable systems carried the multiple streams based on
retrans consent agreements rather than being forced to with must-carry.
So, to close the circle, Chairman Kevin Martin is now revisiting these
past decisions. He is positing that an OTA broadcaster may want to
become a "mini spectrum utility," and that the program streams in such a
"mini utility" should then "obtain all the accompanying rights and
obligations of other broadcast stations."
When/if cable companies drop their analog tier, this would cost cable
companies no more than the existing 6 MHz of analog channel carriage,
and maybe only half that (if they use 256-QAM). I suppose at such a
time, any opposition to this idea would be purely based on principle.
Tom Barry wrote:
The problem is it is not the sub-channel capacity they really
are marketing. It's the potential to lease must carry rights
for cable, ...
And I don't really think having the CW as a sub-channel on ABC
really does me that much of a service.
But Tom, you're obviously looking at this from the point of view of a
cable subscriber. All you care about is that the content be on cable one
way or another. OTOH, to an OTA viewer, having more channels available
than before, and specifically having the CW network available in
Gainesville OTA, even though they don't have their own affiliate, is
probably a big advantage, and a good reason to transition from NTSC to
ATSC.
It's really too bad that in the US, the quality of the OTA TV medium has
to be constrained by what cable systems accept or don't accept. Sure
isn't that way in the UK, is it.
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.
