[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Getting The Word Out To The Viewers
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:21:11 -0400
On May 31, 2017, at 8:18 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
A bit of a disconnect here Bert. We have no real idea what
portion of broadcasters want to migrate to ATSC 3.0.
Really Craig? And yet, you just finished telling us:
Apparently Bert still does not understand that broadcasters DO
NOT want you to watch via an antenna. Every home that cuts the
cord and uses an antenna COSTS the broadcasters in that market
about $5/mo in retransmission consent fees.
So which is it, Craig? You just finished saying that none of the broadcasters
wanted to advertise OTA TV at all.
Correct. And I explained why.
But this has NOTHING to do with ATSC 3.0. It has everything to do with the
projected $20 BILLION/year that they expect to pull in from retrans consent by
the end of this decade.
The technology used to qualify for retrans consent is not an issue. So we are
still waiting to see if a significant portion of broadcasters have any interest
in another simulcast transition.
Keep in mind, the real power here is the broadcast networks, who already own
stations that reach about 40% of the U.S. population. And the FCC has launched
a NPRM to review the ownership caps; if they increase the caps or eliminate
them it is likely that the four major broadcast networks will determine when
their ATSC will be used or not.
One possible outcome is that the networks choose to buy up affiliates and NOT
to use ATSC 3.0. This would leave a bunch of stations without a major network
for programming, which in turn could provide the incentive to deploy ATSC 3.0
to support other business models as Sinclair recently suggested.
Sounds like almost exactly what I wrote already. Broadcasters have
essentially never advertised OTA TV. Why would this author think they should
get the word out, when they have preferred that FOTA broadcasts remain a
best-kept secret? So once again, why does it take so long to get the simplest
points across to you, Craig?
They are not trying to keep FOTA a secret. They rely on this audience to stay
competitive - i.e. A significant percentage of their remaining audience is
"bottom feeders," which should be obvious given the type of programs they fill
up their schedules these days.
THe reality is there is a HUGE financial incentive for broadcasters to
encourage people to subscribe to a MVPD bundle. The broadcast network is just
the Trojan horse that enables them to force MVPDs to carry all of their
networks.
Then there is this other one of your gems.
I wrote:
ATSC 1.0 only happened because the Michael Powell FCC finally
mandated it, to move Ch 52-69 from TV to cellular. CE vendors
were happily ignoring ATSC 1.0, until then.
Stuff deleted...
You just finished saying Michael Powell "did not mandate a thing." Which is
it Craig? Was there an FCC tuner mandate or not? The Michael Powell FCC *did*
mandate something. They mandated that all TV devices have built-in ATSC
receivers, starting March 1, 2007. Not sure why this took so long to get
across either.
Read what you wrote the first time again Bert.
ATSC 1.0 only happened because the Michael Powell FCC finally
mandated it, to move Ch 52-69 from TV to cellular.
The FCC did not mandate the recovery of these channels, nor did they mandate
the simulcast transition - Congress included these mandates in the 1996
Telecommunications Act.
I told you this and then noted that the Powell FCC DID impose the tuner
mandate. That mandate WAS NOT required by Congress, and it had little if
anything to do with the transition. THe vast majority of these mandated tuners
have NEVER been used.
And I noted that the consumer electronics manufacturers were the recipients of
the windfall profits from the tuner mandate. And that they waited for the
technology to mature before including it in every TV.
Indeed what your wrote is totally irrelevant. The simple fact is, the
transition was supposed to end when 85% of households used digital TV.
You keep trying to convince us that this was a goal, but it is just more FAKE
NEWS.
There is no language in the 1996 Telecommunication Act setting an end date for
the DTV transition. The closest thing I have found is a discussion in the Fifth
Report and Order in the Digital Television Transition, issued by the FCC in
response to the 1996 Act:
https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1997/fcc97116.pdf
This discussion in in section H. Here is the relevant part - there is no
language actually setting the end date or a 85% requirement:
The question we face is at what point in time the surrender should occur.
98. We continue to believe that it is desirable to identify a target end-date
of NTSC
service. Doing so will lend certainty to the introduction of digital by
making clear to the
208
public that analog television service will indeed cease on a date certain. A
target will
provide broadcasters and manufacturers with a defined planning horizon that
will help them gauge their business plans to the introduction of DTV.
99. While the Commission has previously considered a 15-year end-point for
NTSC service, we now believe that broadcasters should be able to convert to
digital broadcast much more rapidly. Specifically, we believe that a target
of 2006 for the cessation of analog service is reasonable. As the Fourth
Further Notice/Third Inquiry explained, as digital technology has developed,
we have had reason to expect that DTV may be adopted more quickly than
originally anticipated.209 Competitors in the video programming market, such
as DBS, cable, and wireless cable, have aggressively pursued the potential of
digital technology. This competitive pressure has lent urgency to the need
for broadcasters to convert rapidly. Furthermore, technological advances have
worked to lower the introductory costs tobroadcasters; for example, new
technology may allow many broadcasters to use existing towers for digital
transmission, thus easing the expense of converting to digital equipment.
And, due to the introduction of other services, broadcasters who need new
towers, will be able to lease space on their new towers to mobile service
providers, further lowering the costs of converting.210 On the viewers' side,
technological advances in converter-box technology will lower the consumer
costs of the introduction of digital technology. The dramatic drop
anticipated in converter-box prices will permit consumers inexpensively to
continue to use
211
existing equipment, thus easing the introduction of digital services. Based
on our current
information, we believe 2006 is a reasonable target.
100. As we discuss below, we will conduct reviews of the progress of DTV
every two years. This will allow us to monitor the progress of DTV and to
make adjustments to the 2006 target, if necessary. In evaluating the
appropriateness of the 2006 target date, key factors for consideration will
include viewer acceptance of digital television, penetration of digital
receivers and digital-to-analog converter set-top boxes, the availability of
digital-to-analog conversion by retransmission media such as cable, DBS, and
wireless cable, and generally the number of television households that
continue to rely solely on over-the-air analog broadcasting. We emphasize, as
we have throughout this proceeding, that at the designated
212 date, broadcasters who do not receive extensions must return one of their
two channels.
Please let us know if you can actually find a document that sets the December
31, 2006 end date and penetration requirement.
What you will be able to find is that Congress intervened three times to set an
end date for NTSC broadcasts. No penetration requirement was set in any of
these laws. The main reason for the delay was the mishandling of the Government
cheese box program for Convertor boxes.
But the real issue was not whether a remaining 15% of households actually
used analog NTSC. The real issue was whether more than 15% still depended on
OTA analog. So the Michael Powell FCC reworded that criterion in a logical
and intelligent way, which meant that the transition could end immediately. I
have no idea what Craig still doesn't understand about this. It's all obvious.
Please show us even one document that supports your claims above.
as there never was any usage threshold for NTSC to be turned off.
Really Craig? So you forgot that too? Wow. Here, refresh your memory:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/fccs-powell-to-delay-digital-tv-vote/225384
"Current law calls for broadcasters to return the spectrum once 85 percent of
U.S. households receive digital signals, or the year 2006, whichever comes
later." And then it says:
"About 15 percent of U.S. households don't pay for cable or satellite TV and
receive only broadcast channels over the air. Their TV sets would become
obsolete under Powell's plan. Powell would let networks require cable and
satellite TV services to convert digital signals into analog. With this
conversion, subscribers who want to keep using their current analog TV sets
would be able to see analog-quality pictures."
So you are now citing a news article to support your claim...
It might be worth checking what Powell actually did. The FCC DID NOT change the
transition deadline as the author of this article suggested would happen. The
FCC DID change the tuner mandate order moving up the date for all receivers to
include DTV tuners by four months to January 1, 2007.
But in October of 2005 Cngress passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which
included the following:
SEC. 3002. ANALOG SPECTRUM RECOVERY: FIRM DEADLINE.
(a) Amendments.—
Section 309(j)(14) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)) is
amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A)—
(A) by inserting ``full-power´´ before ``television broadcast license´´; and
(B) by striking ``December 31, 2006´´ and inserting ``February 17, 2009´´;
This suggests that the December 31, 2006 date was inserted into the
Communications act as part of the 1996 Telecom Act. Unfortunately the only link
I can find to this section is the current law, which was amended again in 2009,
extending the date to June 12, 2009.
So, the Michael Powell FCC ended the transition with these two mechanisms.
Use the MVPD subscription rate, which was about 85% at the time, if not more,
to meet the 85% threshold level, and mandate ATSC tuners in all TV devices.
Michael Powell had nothing to do with ending the DTV transition. He was no
longer Chairman of the FCC when Congress officially ended the DTV transition.
Why do you keep trying this tactic, Craig? Haven't you figured out that you
should check your facts first?
I did.
You are the one inventing this stuff...
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
