Happy New Year!
While there are plenty of gloomy topics floating about in our world these days, high definition television is not one of them. We survived the transition to digital broadcast of television programming (more or less) and now many viewers can enjoy HD shows for free over the air. HDTV prices fell another 20% [...]
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/01/hdtv_almanac_happy_hd_new_year.php]Read Column[/url]
HDTV Almanac - Happy HD New Year!
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
-
videograbber
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:10 am
Broadcast TV in for a fight
Alfred,
well said, and I agree with your points.
However, in one area, I can't avoid being the harbinger of gloom...
> We survived the transition to digital broadcast of television programming (more or less) and now many viewers can enjoy HD shows for free over the air. <
I have to say, enjoy it while it lasts. When I was a kid, we had 82 OTA channels, and the dial (yes, dial) went up to 83. For most folks, they'll remember their digital readout topping out at 69. On the most recent sellout of the public airwaves, the government reclaimed another 18 channels, and dropped the top end down to 51. By doing so, they raked in more than 20 billion dollars (yes, Billion, with a B).
Being the surly pessimist that I've become in my old age (I turned 50 a couple years back), I assumed that within 5 years or so that our "public servants" would see those remaining 50 OTA channels as another potential goldmine, and start a push to trim them back again, reaping billions of dollars more in the process.
BOY WAS I WRONG! They're already looking at that spectrum and licking their lips in anticipation. Those 50 channels represent something on the order of $65 Billion of potential revenue, and they can't wait to cash in. Justifications and rationalizations have already started on all sides, for why the convential broadcast paradigm should be thrown out the window (preferably), or cut back so severely that no HD would be available OTA. And wireless providers are greedily looking for (and demanding access to) another 500 MHz+ of spectrum to service their anticipated customer demand (and predicting dire consequences if there's a failure to do so). Only one small problem... there isn't 500 MHz of spectrum available anywhere, though that 300 MHz of "wasted" public broadcast airwaves would make a nice start.
All this comes at a time when more and more people I talk to are rediscovering broadcast TV, and finding that the quality they can receive for free with an antenna exceeds the quality of a regurgitated transmission over satellite or cable. And with cable prices continuing to rise without limit, a fair number of folks are moving back to OTA for a lot of their programming (supplemented with things like Hulu, etc. over the net).
Anyway, happy new year to you as well. With a bit of bah, humbug thrown in. <grin>
- Tim
well said, and I agree with your points.
However, in one area, I can't avoid being the harbinger of gloom...
> We survived the transition to digital broadcast of television programming (more or less) and now many viewers can enjoy HD shows for free over the air. <
I have to say, enjoy it while it lasts. When I was a kid, we had 82 OTA channels, and the dial (yes, dial) went up to 83. For most folks, they'll remember their digital readout topping out at 69. On the most recent sellout of the public airwaves, the government reclaimed another 18 channels, and dropped the top end down to 51. By doing so, they raked in more than 20 billion dollars (yes, Billion, with a B).
Being the surly pessimist that I've become in my old age (I turned 50 a couple years back), I assumed that within 5 years or so that our "public servants" would see those remaining 50 OTA channels as another potential goldmine, and start a push to trim them back again, reaping billions of dollars more in the process.
BOY WAS I WRONG! They're already looking at that spectrum and licking their lips in anticipation. Those 50 channels represent something on the order of $65 Billion of potential revenue, and they can't wait to cash in. Justifications and rationalizations have already started on all sides, for why the convential broadcast paradigm should be thrown out the window (preferably), or cut back so severely that no HD would be available OTA. And wireless providers are greedily looking for (and demanding access to) another 500 MHz+ of spectrum to service their anticipated customer demand (and predicting dire consequences if there's a failure to do so). Only one small problem... there isn't 500 MHz of spectrum available anywhere, though that 300 MHz of "wasted" public broadcast airwaves would make a nice start.
All this comes at a time when more and more people I talk to are rediscovering broadcast TV, and finding that the quality they can receive for free with an antenna exceeds the quality of a regurgitated transmission over satellite or cable. And with cable prices continuing to rise without limit, a fair number of folks are moving back to OTA for a lot of their programming (supplemented with things like Hulu, etc. over the net).
Anyway, happy new year to you as well. With a bit of bah, humbug thrown in. <grin>
- Tim
-
BobDiaz
- Member
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:04 am
The dark cloud is the Cell Phone companies and CEA, who want to take away most if not all of the free OTA TV broadcast and replace it with paid high speed internet service and other things.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/90658
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/90656
There are different plans being floated, but it boils down to:
(1) Remove all broadcast TV and force everyone to go to cable or satellite TV. Low income families would be given government assistance.
(2) Remove all HD Broadcast TV and have all the SD channels on a few 6 MHz carriers. This would require having different networks sharing the same transmitters.
The plans are 100% in left field, currently broadcasters are getting ready for Mobile TV and need the extra bandwidth. I guess the cell phone companies want the bandwidth so that they can sell us mobile TV instead.
Bob Diaz
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/90658
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/90656
There are different plans being floated, but it boils down to:
(1) Remove all broadcast TV and force everyone to go to cable or satellite TV. Low income families would be given government assistance.
(2) Remove all HD Broadcast TV and have all the SD channels on a few 6 MHz carriers. This would require having different networks sharing the same transmitters.
The plans are 100% in left field, currently broadcasters are getting ready for Mobile TV and need the extra bandwidth. I guess the cell phone companies want the bandwidth so that they can sell us mobile TV instead.
Bob Diaz
-
videograbber
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:10 am
Bob,
thanks for the links. I was familiar with the second proposal, but not the first.
Somehow, after having just completed the "digital transition", if all that were then voided by any plan that takes away public spectrum again so soon, that some heads would roll.
Some of the things they're pushing for seem so ludicrous to me that I can't help thinking it's a deliberate plan to ask for the sun, the moon, and the stars; with the strategy being to then back off to something only slightly less ridiculous, which would then look "good" by comparison.
And, naturally, if they want to sell folks MobileTV, they sure don't want to have to compete with a free alternative.
- Tim
thanks for the links. I was familiar with the second proposal, but not the first.
Somehow, after having just completed the "digital transition", if all that were then voided by any plan that takes away public spectrum again so soon, that some heads would roll.
Some of the things they're pushing for seem so ludicrous to me that I can't help thinking it's a deliberate plan to ask for the sun, the moon, and the stars; with the strategy being to then back off to something only slightly less ridiculous, which would then look "good" by comparison.
And, naturally, if they want to sell folks MobileTV, they sure don't want to have to compete with a free alternative.
- Tim
-
BobDiaz
- Member
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:04 am
Hi Tim,
I'm not against any company making money here, it's just a question of who pays or suffers as a result? There is a third link:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/90654
This is as troubling as the "White Space Devises" in the TV bands. In theory, it shouldn't interfere with TV reception, BUT odds are some company in Asia will make a cheap device with fake FCC stickers and flood the market with it. ... goodbye OTA TV. I haven't heard much on that lately.
My hope is the M-DTV is successful and the broadcasters will keep their bandwidth, but in Washington DC, money talks.....
Bob Diaz
I'm not against any company making money here, it's just a question of who pays or suffers as a result? There is a third link:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/90654
This is as troubling as the "White Space Devises" in the TV bands. In theory, it shouldn't interfere with TV reception, BUT odds are some company in Asia will make a cheap device with fake FCC stickers and flood the market with it. ... goodbye OTA TV. I haven't heard much on that lately.
My hope is the M-DTV is successful and the broadcasters will keep their bandwidth, but in Washington DC, money talks.....
Bob Diaz
-
alice
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:28 pm
OTA
Well the word Free is a very bad amomg broadcasters and content providers
Why would you want to use Spectrum to offer quality hd when you can sell it for the tv
watching or online pizza ordering from your phone . Personsally who in their right mind
would want to watch tv on their phone?
The industry needs to progress beyond that is all about the money and how much crap
or targeted advertising that offered on your phone
Why would you want to use Spectrum to offer quality hd when you can sell it for the tv
watching or online pizza ordering from your phone . Personsally who in their right mind
would want to watch tv on their phone?
The industry needs to progress beyond that is all about the money and how much crap
or targeted advertising that offered on your phone
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
Show me the money!
At risk of getting too far afield here, let me point out that all business is about money, even the non-profits who want money so that they can help people (or other worthy causes). Without the money, a business is out of business. In a way, it's a very democratic system in which consumers vote with their dollars.
Watching "free" television over the air is in fact an informal agreement that involves many parties. The content producers (studios) and distributors (networks and broadcasters) make deals with other companies (advertisers) to include some content about their products. And the consumers (viewers) essentially agree to be exposed to the commercial content. The hope is that this exposure will lead to some of the consumers to choose to spend some of their money on the advertisers' products. Nothing earth-shaking here.
But when consumers stop watching the commercial content (because they use a DVR or stop watching or whatever reason), the advertisers stop wanting to spend their money on the commercial content because it does not result in sales. And the content producers can't make as much money as they want, so they start making less expensive content in hopes that they can still stay in business. (Hello, reality TV!)
Right now, Hulu is a tremendous bargain but it's not sustainable. There's not a single show that could be produced just on the revenues that it generates from Hulu. Maybe the Hulu audience will grow into the millions to match over the air broadcast viewership, but that's not going to be soon.
The conversion to digital TV broadcasts did reduce the number of "channels" available, but remember that most TV broadcasters are now multicasting within the spectrum allocation for their single "channel". We now have almost triple the programming choices compared with what we had with analog broadcasts, and the image is incredibly better. Just as with analog cell phones, it makes sense to switch to digital and make more efficient use of the airwaves.
Now, it's possbile that free OTA broadcasts will stop, but only if they make less economic sense than the alternative. The buggy whip makers learned this a long time ago, the newspapers are in the middle of learning this, and it may be that it will be OTA TV's turn in the box before long. Personally, I don't think that will happen soon, but it's a possibility.
Alfred
Watching "free" television over the air is in fact an informal agreement that involves many parties. The content producers (studios) and distributors (networks and broadcasters) make deals with other companies (advertisers) to include some content about their products. And the consumers (viewers) essentially agree to be exposed to the commercial content. The hope is that this exposure will lead to some of the consumers to choose to spend some of their money on the advertisers' products. Nothing earth-shaking here.
But when consumers stop watching the commercial content (because they use a DVR or stop watching or whatever reason), the advertisers stop wanting to spend their money on the commercial content because it does not result in sales. And the content producers can't make as much money as they want, so they start making less expensive content in hopes that they can still stay in business. (Hello, reality TV!)
Right now, Hulu is a tremendous bargain but it's not sustainable. There's not a single show that could be produced just on the revenues that it generates from Hulu. Maybe the Hulu audience will grow into the millions to match over the air broadcast viewership, but that's not going to be soon.
The conversion to digital TV broadcasts did reduce the number of "channels" available, but remember that most TV broadcasters are now multicasting within the spectrum allocation for their single "channel". We now have almost triple the programming choices compared with what we had with analog broadcasts, and the image is incredibly better. Just as with analog cell phones, it makes sense to switch to digital and make more efficient use of the airwaves.
Now, it's possbile that free OTA broadcasts will stop, but only if they make less economic sense than the alternative. The buggy whip makers learned this a long time ago, the newspapers are in the middle of learning this, and it may be that it will be OTA TV's turn in the box before long. Personally, I don't think that will happen soon, but it's a possibility.
Alfred
-
alice
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:28 pm
Show me the money
Excellent reply . although my point was more to how the govt & others want to use the money
The govt wants it for more emergency use bandwidth , Others would like it for more targetted advertising and
service fee programs to help you efficently order your pizza from your armchair or mobile.
The problem is too many figure Hulu is the model as it is free and provides a qualitysignal. Truly not sustainable and costs will be incurred to be passed on in terms of more advertising or fees.
Yet as pointed out the industry needs cash to produce a quality product and we need less reality tv.
AS long as the download says free , that's fine . Otherwise its theft and Nation needs to wake up to that
OTA is an excellent option as it provides premium signal with some advertising invovled to pay for it
The advance of OTA will certainly help rein those cable & sat fees.
The govt wants it for more emergency use bandwidth , Others would like it for more targetted advertising and
service fee programs to help you efficently order your pizza from your armchair or mobile.
The problem is too many figure Hulu is the model as it is free and provides a qualitysignal. Truly not sustainable and costs will be incurred to be passed on in terms of more advertising or fees.
Yet as pointed out the industry needs cash to produce a quality product and we need less reality tv.
AS long as the download says free , that's fine . Otherwise its theft and Nation needs to wake up to that
OTA is an excellent option as it provides premium signal with some advertising invovled to pay for it
The advance of OTA will certainly help rein those cable & sat fees.