[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Getting The Word Out To The Viewers
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 08:32:22 -0400
On Jun 1, 2017, at 10:20 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
But this has NOTHING to do with ATSC 3.0.
If broadcasters want to keep OTA TV a best-kept secret, then even to you,
Craig, it should be OBVIOUS that they would not want to spread the word about
ATSC 3.0 either.
First, broadcasters are not trying to keep FOTA service a secret; they are just
not promoting it. But others are.
There is plenty of info out there about how to use an antenna for local
stations if you cut the cord. But broadcasters do not want you to cut the cord
and use an antenna, as they lose money if you do.
This will not change if we transition to ATSC 3.0 UNLESS the broadcast spectrum
is used for new services, such as the mini MVPD bundle that Sinclair has
discussed in their promotion of ATSC 3.0.
The author of the article seemed to not understand that the lack of
advertising is clearly deliberate, has been this way for years, and was
totally evident back in the 1998-2009 time frame. And it's not just the
broadcasters, as you seem to think. It's also the retail outlets and the CE
Retail outlets are compensated for promoting MVPD bundles, just as they are
compensated for selling phones and signing up customers for cellular service.
But they also sell antennas and connected TV devices. It is not reasonable to
place the blame for lack of promotion of FOTA on ANYONE but the broadcasters
who are using this service to justify retransmission consent payments that will
soon reach $20 billion a year.
I QUOTED what you wrote, Craig. You felt obliged to disagree, stating that
Powell "did not mandate a thing," which was rather astounding. And then, you
may possibly have gotten a glimmer of a recollection about some "tuner
mandate," on further reflection, but you didn't bother to go back and correct
your previous mistake.
You made a completely false statement. You claimed that Powell mandated the
simulcast transition and set end dates that were actually set by his
predecessor, Reed Hundt.
Perhaps you didn't even know that the "tuner mandate" was issued by the FCC?
Hard to say.
The turner mandate was not included in the mandates that Congress set in 1996
when authorizing the DTV transition. And it did NOTHING to accelerate the DTV
transition, which Congress delayed three times. It was the ultimate payoff for
the companies that developed the ATSC 1.0 standard; it forced tens of millions
to buy a tuner they have never used.
Fact remains, you should have gone back and corrected your error. That you
did not correct your error says to me that you forgot where that "tuner
mandate" came from.
I went back and corrected YOUR errors Bert.
The FCC did not mandate the recovery of these channels,
You're only heaping on more mistakes, Craig, with your obstinate arguing.
(And making a bigger fool of yourself, all the way down your post.) The
rationale for the DTV transition was to recover those channels, and the FCC
is the agency that made it happen.
The FCC was charged with making this happen Bert. The FCC DID NOT have the
authority to recover this spectrum and auction it to the telcos. That power
resides with Congress, which approved the simulcast transition.
I attended many of the Congressional hearings about this transition, and worked
closely with the FCC during the period when the standard was authorized,
INCLUDING the 11th hour addition of multicasting, which was strongly opposed by
Congress during the development of a standard that would allow broadcasters to
Obviously this was a complex process, and it is not appropriate for congress to
write technical rules for something as complex as repacking the broadcast
spectrum. That is why they delegate this authority to the FCC.
"Following the analog switch-off, the FCC reallocated channels 52 through 69
(the 700 MHz band) for other communications traffic, completing the
reallocation of broadcast channels 52-69 that began in the late 1990s. These
channels were auctioned off ..."
That was the reason for needing to end the transition, Craig. And everyone,
except you, knew this.
Give it up Bert. You're making a fool of yourself...
The DTV transition was ALWAYS based in the desire of Congress to recover
spectrum for more appropriate uses - enriching the treasury by selling this
spectrum to the telcos, who were willing to pay billions for it.
The whole process started in the '80s when Congress was trying to take back
spectrum for land mobile. That is when the NAB came up with the plan to protect
their spectrum by asking for a second 6 MHz channel for analog HDTV simulcasts.
This forum has covered all of this for TWO DECADES.
You need to stop rewriting history.
So you are now citing a news article to support your claim...
Yes, it came up first in my search engine. Big deal. I'm quoting an article
that explains the 85% rule was a law, which like so much else, you forgot,
just so you can argue. So here's something directly from the FCC, Docket
Evidently, Craig, you Are the only person who didn't know about this 85%
rule. I won't waste any more time in doing your legwork for you. It's your
responsibility to educate yourself.
Evidently, Bert is also unable to find the words in the legislation that claim
the need for the 85% goal.
I'm still looking. Not that it matters, as I have already proven, Congress
changed the end date and any need for the 85% test long before 2006 and the FCC
Michael Powell had nothing to do with ending the DTV transition.
And you're making an even bigger fool of yourself. Michel Powell's FCC made
established that "tuner mandate" of 2007, and reinterpreted the 85% rule, to
include users of MVPDs, rather than the original idea of just "digital TV"
END OF THREAD.
Wise choice given your massive fail with this thread...
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: