[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Getting The Word Out To The Viewers
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 07:58:25 -0400
On May 30, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
As always, Craig cannot follow a thread, preferring instead to launch in his
Pay attention, Craig. Read the article. It claims that ATSC 3.0 needs to be
advertised. So, your response to the article, not to me, should be, ATSC 3.0
is not being advertised because broadcasters don't want it.
A bit of a disconnect here Bert. We have no real idea what portion of
broadcasters want to migrate to ATSC 3.0. But we do know that for the past 2+
decades broadcasters have rarely told their viewers they can or should use an
antenna. The one exception seems to be when they pull their signal from a MVPD
during a retrans consent battle; when the new higher retrans fees are finalized
the broadcaster no longer tells viewers to use an antenna, but they are more
than willing to accept ads from the MVPDs.
They don't want any form of OTA signal that can actually be received. They
want people to remain dependent on legacy MVPDs, as you have done so loyally
for so many decades. State that to the author of the article. Broadcasters
don't want ATSC 3.0, and they don't want anyone to know about it.
Obviously ATSC 1.0 can be received now Bert. And ATSC 3.0 offers the potential
to provide reliable mobile reception. And broadcasters still pay the monthly
power bills to light up those transmitters.
One can debate whether they do this to serve those who choose not to subscribe
to a MVPD service and keep the politicians that advertise on their station
happy, or if they are just maintaining the transmitter to qualify for billions
in retrans dollars.
The scale seems to tip toward the retrans dollar argument. The annual haul is
now almost as much as broadcasters spent on the ATSC 1.0 upgrades over the past
This brings to mind an interesting idea.
What if Congress - or the FCC if they could get away with it - told
broadcasters that they can only use retrans dollars to build the new ATSC 3.0
Michael Powell did not mandate a thing.
March 1, 2007, all TV receivers, including recording devices, had to have
ATSC 1.0 reception built in. Forgot this already, Craig?
Stop it Bert. I already said that Powell's FCC ordered the ATSC tuner mandate,
something that was NOT required by the enabling legislation that REQUIRED the
FCC to manage the simulcast transition THAT YOU STATED the FCC ordered.
Bert still seems to think the FCC receiver mandate was critical to
Of course it was. The other critical part was when Michael Powell's FCC
counted all MVPD users in the 85% of users which were no longer using OTA
NTSC TV, since that had been a goal to end the transition, from the start.
That clever move allowed the transition to end almost instantly.
By the end of the transition less than 10% of homes used an antenna. But this
is irrelevant, as there never was any usage threshold for NTSC to be turned
off. This is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. If you want to
persist in pushing this fake news, please provide even one shred of evidence.
But there WAS a deadline set by Congress in the enabling legislation to recover
the spectrum loaned to broadcasters for the transition and repacking. From
The Congressional deadline to transition to digital broadcasts was pushed
back several times. Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with
the original transition date of December 31, 2006. However, the transition to
digital television was set back three times: first to December 31, 2008, then
to February 17, 2009, and then finally to June 12, 2009.
That last footnote tells us that all of these delays were the result of
Bottom line: It would be very helpful to determine how broadcasters will deal
with the latest spectrum repacking, and if they have any desire to voluntarily
migrate to ATSC 3.0 via another simulcast transition.
Something tells me that the answer is:
We're ready to turn the transmitters off and make our content available via the
Internet if we can protect our retrans consent revenues.
Other related posts: