OK, suppose the national interest and economic forces dictate that must of the TV broadcast spectrum now devoted to over-the-air (OTA) TV be allocated to broadband services. With that premise being accepted, is there a way to preserve free TV, have mobile TV services and provide a quality experience for viewers? The answer is yes, there is! Several ideas proposed by various ATSC Mobile/Handheld (M/H) stakeholders could be combined into one comprehensive scheme that would deliver all three objectives.
The basis of this unified proposed plan is to ...
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2011/02/eds-view-all-three-ways-free-mobile-and-quality.php]Read Column[/url]
Ed's View - ALL THREE WAYS: Free, Mobile and Quality
-
Ed Milbourn
- Author
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:51 pm
-
BobDiaz
- Member
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:04 am
BAD IDEA!!!
Here's why:
People who spend big bucks for that HDTV will now get 240x425 pixel 30fps A/V; unless they spend more money for cable, satellite, or fiber optical; 240x425 is below SD resolution.
After having gone to the store to get a converter box to receive over the air TV, the box is now worthless and they have to go back and purchase ANOTHER box.
This plan gives the 15% (more or less) of the population the shaft. In general, it's mostly poor people who can't afford the high cost of TV service who get the shaft from this idea.
Here's a better idea; LEAVE THE TV BROADCAST BANDS ALONE!!!!!
If you can' surf the WEB any faster out on the road, you'll live. Why do we need faster speeds? So people can watch video on the road. So we kill a free video band so that others can pay more for another, sounds smart. Look at all the accidents caused by texting, maybe we can up that amount as people watch YouTube while driving!!!
Bob Diaz
Here's why:
People who spend big bucks for that HDTV will now get 240x425 pixel 30fps A/V; unless they spend more money for cable, satellite, or fiber optical; 240x425 is below SD resolution.
After having gone to the store to get a converter box to receive over the air TV, the box is now worthless and they have to go back and purchase ANOTHER box.
This plan gives the 15% (more or less) of the population the shaft. In general, it's mostly poor people who can't afford the high cost of TV service who get the shaft from this idea.
Here's a better idea; LEAVE THE TV BROADCAST BANDS ALONE!!!!!
If you can' surf the WEB any faster out on the road, you'll live. Why do we need faster speeds? So people can watch video on the road. So we kill a free video band so that others can pay more for another, sounds smart. Look at all the accidents caused by texting, maybe we can up that amount as people watch YouTube while driving!!!
Bob Diaz
-
ccclvib
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:35 pm
Oh, boy!!! Those of us who actually use OTA to watch at least a large minority of our HDTV viewing just can't wait for this to happen! There goes the one opportunity to we have to get - at present - the best possible live viewing opportunity. I also have access to AT&T Uverse, but - and I don't know why - the quality of the picture I can receive from my OTA (via the connection in a Tivo box) is consistently better than that from Uverse.
Two things that specifically bother me about the suggestions: 1) What happens to the broadcast networks if all their affiliates are no longer able to provide HDTV? and 2) If I were located where there is (still - and this will always be true) no broadband availability, what choice does that leave me for LIVE HDTV viewing? That would involve, as you are well aware, most major sports events, some of which might actually be important to folks who live that far away from large concentrations of people.
Again, I realize we live in a democracy, and the majority usually gets its way (although that seems to be less true lately), but the minority in this case would be truly poorly served with these suggestions.
Two things that specifically bother me about the suggestions: 1) What happens to the broadcast networks if all their affiliates are no longer able to provide HDTV? and 2) If I were located where there is (still - and this will always be true) no broadband availability, what choice does that leave me for LIVE HDTV viewing? That would involve, as you are well aware, most major sports events, some of which might actually be important to folks who live that far away from large concentrations of people.
Again, I realize we live in a democracy, and the majority usually gets its way (although that seems to be less true lately), but the minority in this case would be truly poorly served with these suggestions.
Mike Richardson
Capitola, CA
On the shores of the blue - and cold - Pacific
Capitola, CA
On the shores of the blue - and cold - Pacific
-
bradk
- New Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 12:35 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
Ed, while everything you describe is technically possible, and while some might actually embrace this technology, I find it very ironic that you are writing about this on a site called "HDTV Magazine!" 
BTW, my vote is a resounding NO!
Brad
BTW, my vote is a resounding NO!
Brad
Repeat after me: "It's only a movie, It's only a movie......"
-
BobDiaz
- Member
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:04 am
Let me add:
This is the kind of plan that the cable, satellite, and fiber optical TV Service providers would love. WHY? Because they could jack up the rates and your only option would be to switch to sub-SD Resolution Broadcast TV. Given that they have already engaged in price gouging, what prevents them from additional price gouging once another option is taken away?
If someone is on cable, satellite, and fiber optical TV Service, they won't like the outcome of this plan either.
Bob Diaz
This is the kind of plan that the cable, satellite, and fiber optical TV Service providers would love. WHY? Because they could jack up the rates and your only option would be to switch to sub-SD Resolution Broadcast TV. Given that they have already engaged in price gouging, what prevents them from additional price gouging once another option is taken away?
If someone is on cable, satellite, and fiber optical TV Service, they won't like the outcome of this plan either.
Bob Diaz
-
videograbber
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:10 am
Wow! This is one of the worst proposals, and worst justification articles, I've read in a long time. And I'd like to start off by saying that I agree with all 5 of the points that Bob Diaz made in his initial response, as well as his followup. But I'd like to respond in more detail to Ed's original comments.
> OK, suppose the national interest and economic forces dictate that must of the TV broadcast spectrum now devoted to over-the-air (OTA) TV be allocated to broadband services. <
First off, your originating premise is completely bogus. There are no national interests that would mandate such a change. However, you are correct in citing economic forces. Money, money, money. That's where it's at baby.
> With that premise being accepted, <
Sorry, but you're not going to get off that easily. That premise is NOT accepted, and will be fought tooth and nail (I'd hope) by every citizen of this country who values freedom.
> is there a way to preserve free TV, have mobile TV services and provide a quality experience for viewers? The answer is yes, there is! <
Nope, the answer is no. Unless you separate things into 3 disjoint groups. I.e., forget about a combination of free TV and quality experience, which is still at least a possibility, even if not always delivered. This proposal will eradicate that.
> the extra space freed-up by M/H could give major cable networks (such as CNN, FNS, Discovery, etc.) the opportunity to broadcast using M/H sub-channels as “premium” content. That would be a “win, win, win” for these cable networks, non-affiliated broadcasters and consumers. <
I can see how this would be a win for the first 2 groups, but in what universe is this a "win" for consumers?
> there are salient technical disadvantages to this scheme: incompatibility with legacy digital tuners and poor discernable picture resolution when viewed on any but very small (cell phone-sized) screens. Therefore, a development or two is needed. ... To accommodate legacy TV sets, the other development needed is a similarly inexpensive RF converter system ... <
Yay! Another round of converter boxes! That worked so well the last time, let's do it again!
> No doubt, very soon, M/H tuners will be incorporated in all new TV sets manufactured – that’s a “no-brainer.” <
I disagree with this analysis. It's not a "no-brainer" if people refuse to buy them. I certainly would not, since it adds NO value for me. However ugly little details like that can always be solved by mandating their inclusion. Yeah... that's the ticket!
> But if the proposal as described is adopted, a combined tuner mandate would be required along with an ATSC MPEG 2 sunset date. Sun-setting MPEG 2 would free-up spectrum for even more M/H applications. <
And bingo! There you have it.
> So, where does this scheme leave HDTV and “full resolution” 3D? The answer is where it is migrating to now <
No, the answer is: out in the cold.
> where the needed bandwidth exists: cable, satellite, IP broadband (i.e. internet/”cloud”) and personal fixed media such as disc and eventually, flash. This way HDTV can progress more easily to its next level of performance (SHTV) without the constraints of compatibility with a broadcast standard. <
I agree that cable has the bandwidth for this, as does satellite. Neither one is free, BTW. Perhaps you haven't noticed that. Strangely enough, satellite still feels the need to degrade the quality of their MPEG4 signals below the levels provided by many MPEG2 cable providers. As far as IP broadband, I call BS on that. IP does NOT have the capacity you indicate. And claiming that somehow this will make possible even MORE bandwidth hogging data streams, aka SHTV is ludicrous. Providers are already putting caps in place to LIMIT bandwidth use.
Of course, those caps can be extended, for a premium price, on top of the cost to source the material. So then we can not only pay for the content we used to get for free, but we can also pay for the pipes to get it to us. A double win, for somebody, but not the viewer. And, of course, the commercials will still be there, imposing their own 50% "viewing tax" (20 minutes of ads per 40 minutes of programming). So, hey, I guess you were right about that "win, win, win" thing after all!
> a complete broadcast migration to this plan, however, regulatory and commercial tasks are daunting. <
Thank goodness for that. But what that means is that it will just take more time and effort, and greasing of a few more palms to eventually push this through over the objections of the citizens and viewers. But never fear... they'll be willing to sell it back to you again and again. Wave goodbye to quality "free TV". Perhaps that will be something you can tell your grandkids about.
> But if such a proposal as described herein is embraced, we indeed will have it all three ways. <
I disagree. WE will not have it all 3 ways. The economic interests you cite certainly will, but not us. We will have gotten the shaft. After having been sold a bill of goods on how making a difficult transition from analog to digital services would provide high-quality HD services, still for free as always, we then discovered that multi-casters were ready and willing to sacrifice quality for more sub-channels. And we kissed goodbye another chunk of spectrum. That's good for them, because it primed things to give away even more chunks of spectrum. But this proposal does away with all that silly incremental pruning... just gut it completely in one step, and get it over with.
I'm not sure what the love affair with mobile, mobile, mobile is (other than $, $$, $$$), but I for one am not impressed by or interested in it. And I will neither support such a transition, nor buy into any of the services. This is an excellent way to ensure that, if it were to come to pass, I will "tune out" completely. But hey, maybe you can convince enough of the lemmings to go along with this half-assed scheme to pull it off. People have been working the shell-game for millennia. "Hey! Where did the free HDTV we were promised go? Answer: it ain't under any of the shells, so stop looking.".
- Tim
> OK, suppose the national interest and economic forces dictate that must of the TV broadcast spectrum now devoted to over-the-air (OTA) TV be allocated to broadband services. <
First off, your originating premise is completely bogus. There are no national interests that would mandate such a change. However, you are correct in citing economic forces. Money, money, money. That's where it's at baby.
> With that premise being accepted, <
Sorry, but you're not going to get off that easily. That premise is NOT accepted, and will be fought tooth and nail (I'd hope) by every citizen of this country who values freedom.
> is there a way to preserve free TV, have mobile TV services and provide a quality experience for viewers? The answer is yes, there is! <
Nope, the answer is no. Unless you separate things into 3 disjoint groups. I.e., forget about a combination of free TV and quality experience, which is still at least a possibility, even if not always delivered. This proposal will eradicate that.
> the extra space freed-up by M/H could give major cable networks (such as CNN, FNS, Discovery, etc.) the opportunity to broadcast using M/H sub-channels as “premium” content. That would be a “win, win, win” for these cable networks, non-affiliated broadcasters and consumers. <
I can see how this would be a win for the first 2 groups, but in what universe is this a "win" for consumers?
> there are salient technical disadvantages to this scheme: incompatibility with legacy digital tuners and poor discernable picture resolution when viewed on any but very small (cell phone-sized) screens. Therefore, a development or two is needed. ... To accommodate legacy TV sets, the other development needed is a similarly inexpensive RF converter system ... <
Yay! Another round of converter boxes! That worked so well the last time, let's do it again!
> No doubt, very soon, M/H tuners will be incorporated in all new TV sets manufactured – that’s a “no-brainer.” <
I disagree with this analysis. It's not a "no-brainer" if people refuse to buy them. I certainly would not, since it adds NO value for me. However ugly little details like that can always be solved by mandating their inclusion. Yeah... that's the ticket!
> But if the proposal as described is adopted, a combined tuner mandate would be required along with an ATSC MPEG 2 sunset date. Sun-setting MPEG 2 would free-up spectrum for even more M/H applications. <
And bingo! There you have it.
> So, where does this scheme leave HDTV and “full resolution” 3D? The answer is where it is migrating to now <
No, the answer is: out in the cold.
> where the needed bandwidth exists: cable, satellite, IP broadband (i.e. internet/”cloud”) and personal fixed media such as disc and eventually, flash. This way HDTV can progress more easily to its next level of performance (SHTV) without the constraints of compatibility with a broadcast standard. <
I agree that cable has the bandwidth for this, as does satellite. Neither one is free, BTW. Perhaps you haven't noticed that. Strangely enough, satellite still feels the need to degrade the quality of their MPEG4 signals below the levels provided by many MPEG2 cable providers. As far as IP broadband, I call BS on that. IP does NOT have the capacity you indicate. And claiming that somehow this will make possible even MORE bandwidth hogging data streams, aka SHTV is ludicrous. Providers are already putting caps in place to LIMIT bandwidth use.
Of course, those caps can be extended, for a premium price, on top of the cost to source the material. So then we can not only pay for the content we used to get for free, but we can also pay for the pipes to get it to us. A double win, for somebody, but not the viewer. And, of course, the commercials will still be there, imposing their own 50% "viewing tax" (20 minutes of ads per 40 minutes of programming). So, hey, I guess you were right about that "win, win, win" thing after all!
> a complete broadcast migration to this plan, however, regulatory and commercial tasks are daunting. <
Thank goodness for that. But what that means is that it will just take more time and effort, and greasing of a few more palms to eventually push this through over the objections of the citizens and viewers. But never fear... they'll be willing to sell it back to you again and again. Wave goodbye to quality "free TV". Perhaps that will be something you can tell your grandkids about.
> But if such a proposal as described herein is embraced, we indeed will have it all three ways. <
I disagree. WE will not have it all 3 ways. The economic interests you cite certainly will, but not us. We will have gotten the shaft. After having been sold a bill of goods on how making a difficult transition from analog to digital services would provide high-quality HD services, still for free as always, we then discovered that multi-casters were ready and willing to sacrifice quality for more sub-channels. And we kissed goodbye another chunk of spectrum. That's good for them, because it primed things to give away even more chunks of spectrum. But this proposal does away with all that silly incremental pruning... just gut it completely in one step, and get it over with.
I'm not sure what the love affair with mobile, mobile, mobile is (other than $, $$, $$$), but I for one am not impressed by or interested in it. And I will neither support such a transition, nor buy into any of the services. This is an excellent way to ensure that, if it were to come to pass, I will "tune out" completely. But hey, maybe you can convince enough of the lemmings to go along with this half-assed scheme to pull it off. People have been working the shell-game for millennia. "Hey! Where did the free HDTV we were promised go? Answer: it ain't under any of the shells, so stop looking.".
- Tim