[opendtv] Re: The "real" problem with OFDM in the U.S.
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:37:19 -0500
Solving the problem for Doug and Bert...
It seems that the real issue for both Bert and Ernie (excuse me
Doug), is programming choice. This is not surprising, since they both
seem to be stuck in another era when there were only 4-5 channels to
surf.
Let's look a bit closer at their comments:
At 11:54 AM -0500 3/15/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>It's even more true. Because you have people living far
>from OTA stations, who need to get decent coverage.
>Overlapping coverage helps ensure ubiquitous coverage.
No, Bert, this is not true. Ubiquitous coverage comes from the
delivery of the INTENDED signals for the market in which the viewer
lives, at a C/N level that is sufficient to guarantee reliable
service. The availability of out-of-market-signals may enable the
delivery of some additional content, but it often precludes the
provisioning of a true multi-channel system with REAL programming
choice.
What you guys are debating is how much syndicated content you can
watch that is differentiated from market to market. When prime time
rolls around, you lose that choice, getting 2-3 stations that
duplicate the same content. Now that is a model of efficiency!
>Where does someone who lives in Aberdeen, Havre de
>Grace, or even Elkton MD get his TV signal from, Craig?
>Why should a Baltimore or Philadelphia station owner
>NOT want to cover those communities?
According to the market coverage maps the answer is Baltimore.
>I think I see the problem. You're thinking backwards
>here. The local affiliate wants to "protect" his market
>from intrusions from distant affiliates on a local cable
>system. BUT this doesn't mean the local affiliate wants
>to limit his own area of coverage.
The local station has little choice with respect to the coverage from
their big stick. The contours, tower height, power levels and masking
are all determined largely by the FCC (and FAA/ local governments for
tower citing). And all of this is primarily driven by
market-into-market interference considerations.
The battle lines are drawn over who gets the placement on cable
systems (or DBS local-into-local) when the cable system can place an
antenna on a big tower and receive duplicated services from several
markets. If the cable system is inside the grade B countours for a
station, there is no debate - they get carriage. If the cable system
is "between markets," they may carry signals from multiple markets,
or they may negotiate with a station from one market or another for
carriage.
And then there are unique situations like here in Gainesville. We
have no NBC affiliate. The closest NBC stations are in Jacksonville
and Orlando. Even with an antenna on a 300 foot tower, off-air
reception is unreliable due to the distances and weather related
issues. Channel 2 in Orlando negotiated carriage on the Gainesville
Cox Cable system, and they bear the cost of microwave links to get
the signal here. Technically, Ocala to our south is part of the
Orlando market (but off-air reception is tenuous at best. So Channel
2 brings the signal to Ocala, then adds another hop to bring it to
Gainesville.
The other option for a station is to add translators to extend
coverage, as has been discussed by Dale and others. But this is
usually done to deal with terrain shielding, or to provide access to
communities that would otherwise have NO TV service. You don't see
dueling translators out in the unserved areas between markets.
>It's like competing for shelf space in a supermarket.
>Coke might want to protect its space from Pepsi and
>others, sure. But does that mean that Coke wants to
>deliberately *reduce* its own shelf space to allow more
>room for Pepsi?
Sorry Bert. Perhaps this is at the heart of your misunderstanding.
There IS no competition in over-the air broadcasting, other than that
which occurs within a market. You may get to choose between ABC, NBC,
CBS, FOX, PBS, UPN, or WB, but you are NOT supposed to be able to
choose between two CBS or Two NBC affiliates. As I mentioned
previously, the area you live is somewhat unique, since it lies
between two markets that have huge overlaps; this is the exception,
not the rule.
Broadcasters are PROTECTED from competition. There is no shelf space
for duplicated programming - government regulations prevent this in
all but a few markets nationwide.
>
>Similarly, the Balt OTA station might not want the
>Phila affiliate to be carried on Baltimore cable
>systems, but this sure doesn't mean that Balt
>affiliate wants to cut out those far-reaching
>communities in Maryland or even Delaware.
Just look at the contour maps Bert. These define the service area,
and thus who gets carried on the cable systems. If there is a gap
between the Grade B contours, then the cable systems in those gaps
are free to bring in signals from both markets, or to negotiate with
the broadcaster for carriage.
>That's why OTA transmission infrastructure owned
>by the broadcaster is so good. Competition can work.
>Each one can maximize its signal to be receivable
>by the biggest audience possible, subject to
>constraints that are imposed to allow for fair
>competition and decent level of service to
>communities.
What competition? The essence of OTA broadcasting today is the LACK
of competition.Without this, OTA would not survive, or it would be
far less profitable.
>Not at all. Clear channel AM stations, for instance,
>had an advantage because at night, they could be
>received very far away. It's an ADVANTAGE to the OTA
>broadcaster to maximize his *own* coverage, and the
>only thing limiting that is FCC regs.
This was by plan. The propagation characteristics for the clear
channel AM stations are unique. This was recognized early on and a
limited number of frequencies were assigned to provide regional
"superstations."
There is no parallel in TV, other than the Superstations carried on
cable and DBS, which rely on Satellite distribution. TV is market
based, along with the special protections afforded within those
markets.
>Nonsense, Craig. Look at the design before repeating
>things that are not supported by the facts.
Uhhhhh. I did.
Just more of your usual nonsense.
At 11:25 AM -0600 3/15/05, Doug McDonald wrote:
>And people want those extra stations!
Of course YOU do. With only a few channels to choose from, any
additional choice is desirable, even if the content is duplicated
locally most of the time.
>
>I do, and have for oh, since a week before the last Super Bowl.
>
>Why? Because we now have three Fox network affiliates.
>Two are co-owned and broadcast identical programming (no local news).
>
>But our third one, whose COL is Bloomington, is different.
>They have news at 9 pm, not 10 pm. This really is different
>and they really do get an audience, to wit, sometimes me.
Choice is good.
>
>And this is entirely due to digital, ATSC, and 1 MW power.
>Without all three of those they would be out of reach. Their
>analog is hopelessly weak, even with a huge cut to channel
>antenna pointed right at it. But a million watts of digital
>results in a reliable signal, albeit a very low margin.
>With COFDM ... I would need a rotor. With ATSC, I don't.
I am so impressed that the system provides you with a service that is
not intended to cover your market. I'm sure the company that owns the
two Fox stations (one of which IS intended to serve your market) are
equally impressed...
;-)
Now let me ask both of you a simple question.
Choose one of the following:
1. Keep the current high powered ATSC approach. You will receive 5-8
channels of content intended for your market, and may have access to
additional distant signals that mostly duplicate this content.
2. Move to a spectrally efficient transmission network designed to
serve your market reliably. You will receive at least 15 channels,
and the multiplex will deliver at least 40 unique programming
services. In addition you will be able to access premium content and
other digital services, with the ability to support mobile and
portable reception using simple antennas.
Why do I already know what Bert and Ernie will choose...
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
