Hidden in the backwater of all the 3D hoopla at CES 2010 was the Panasonic 152" Viera Plasma 4K (4096 x 2160) display that has been showcased for the last couple of years. Arguably, the big Viera display was the most striking TV image at the show. There may have been other such Ultra High Definition TV (UHDTV) direct view displays at the LVCC complex this year, but I didn't see them. But NHD's idea of UHDTV promises to be even better!
From the start of serious HDTV research in the late 1970's, Japan's NHK has been "pushing the envelope" of ever increasing television picture resolution – not just related to displays, but...
I've seen the UHDTV demo at a past NAB show. OK, the high resolution is impressive, BUT at what cost? The first problem is bandwidth; there are so many pixels that even with MPEG-4 H.264 compression, the demo had to be 24P. So we gain a lot of pixels, but lose on the frame rate.
Another issue is "DOC-26935A1.pdf" do a search for it with Google. This plan from the FCC is pushing to drop the number of broadcast channels down to just 30. Remember there has to be at least one blank channel between each active channel, so at best an area might have 10 to 15 channels. How will they deal with the higher bit rate? It this going to be an option for only pay services?
Given the major upgrade costs that the TV stations have had to go through to upgrade to HDTV, I can see them willing to pay even more to upgrade again.
On the other hand, if this is just something for the digital cinema, well it might fly.... or not...
These were physical channels, not virtual. WXIA channel 11 analog was on channel 11 and WXIA Digital 11-1 and 11-2 were broadcast on channel 10. I know it was channel 10 because it was the only VHF ATSC station in Atlanta and there were many conversations about how to pick it up with a CM4228 UHF antenna (it works BTW as long as you tie the grids together).
There is no difference in the physical reception - a VHF signal is a VHF signal whether it carries NTSC or ATSC. That's why 50 yr old antennas still work just fine.
Think about it - if you really couldn't do adjacent channels then why not just widen the bands and only have half the channels? Why have twice as many channels if you can only use half of them?
In the case of the Analog to Digital switchover, yes both Analog and Digital Channels were placed next to each other. In many cases, there just weren't enough open spaces to do both Analog and Digital TV with every other channel spacing. Because the two systems were very different, the risk of interference was reduced.
I want to point out that the every other channel rule is still going to be followed, because IF all 30 channels were being used by a major city, all surrounding cities would not be able to broadcast on ANY channel because they would be on the same frequency. This would be a a case of 100% interference.
Try to picture a checkerboard where the dark square represents the major city and the white squares around this major city are other broadcast areas. (Think of locations like LA, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego) too far to always receive the signal from the other city, but too close to avoid massive interference if they broadcast on the same frequency.
In the case of Southern California, Santa Barbara, and San Diego could be on the same frequencies, because the distance is long enough, but frequencies used by LA can't be used in Riverside, plus Santa Barbara, and San Diego can't use them either.
There's still the problem that if LA takes a channel, San Diego can't use the same frequency, because one WILL interfere with the other. LA can't take all 30 channels unless everywhere from Santa Barbara to San Diego has zero channels.
The number of digital channels (not sub-channels) within 30 miles of the LA area is 28. IF the number of TV channels is going to be reduced to just 30 (See FCC Document DOC-296935A1.pdf), how will we ever fit all of that AND the UDHD Signals too?
According to my TV after doing a scan, there are a total of 80 digital sub-channels in the LA area. You are correct, the 28 digital stations aren't all doing HD. Going in order to the channel number on my TV:
2 - CBS is HD
4 - NBC is HD
5 - KTLA is HD
7 - ABC is HD
9 - KCAL is HD
11- FOX is HD
13 - KCOP is HD
22 - KWHY is HD
24 - KVCR (Riverside) is HD
28 - KCET PBS is HD
34 - KMEX is HD
50 - KOCE (Orange County) is HD
52 - KVEA is HD
That's 13 stations now doing HD and very likely in the future, others will upgrade to HD. The idea of pushing all TV channels to just 30 channels might work in less populated areas, but it just won't work in major cities like LA. Add to that Mobil-DTV and even UDHD and there's just no way to fit it all in.
I still don't understand how any market can support that many TV stations. I guess it depends on what they do with the other channels as to whether it's a worthwhile endeavor. And who said UDHD had to be OTA?
I'm sure the FCC will take all of that into consideration before doing something that drastic.
LA County is 10 million people, add to that some coverage in Riverside County and Orange County and the total is around 12 to 14 million people. Granted that that are only a few places, like LA, NYC, ... that have this massive a population to support that many stations, but look at Spokane, County, Washington; about 500,000 people. They have 10 broadcast stations (not counting sub-channels).
Why can't a market that's roughly 24 to 28 times the size of Spokane support more channels? Many of the extra DTV channels in the LA area use a common transmitter and share the frequency with 4 to 7 other "stations". These other channels tend to focus on specialty markets, like Spanish, Korean, Japanese, Armenian, Religion, Home Shopping ... My guess is that most buy a feed and just put their advertising into the feed.
I would hope that the FCC would take into account the impact of the Mobile-DTV Technology and not cut back on the TV Bands, but money buys influence in Washington DC. So, it's all a matter of who has more money, the TV Broadcasters or the Cell Phone Companies.
I don't care how many people you have, there are still the same number of national broadcast networks (ABC, Fox, NBC, CBS, PBS, CW, UPN). The rest have to be local independents and there is only so much programming available for those independents and only so much market share.
My point was I don't understand how that many stations can get enough market share to cover the cost of broadcasting, even if they share facilities. I see where multiple foreign languages could make it and I'm guessing that accounts for a lot of the ones in L.A.
National cable channels like FX and TNT can draw from a national audience, but local independent broadcasters only have a shot at a fraction of that audience.
I just can't see where any market could support 30 stations. But I could be wrong.
Not only do they appear to stay in business a bit more than 1 year after the analog shutdown, but they have survived one of the worst recessions we have seen for some time. It exists that way, even if it's hard to fully understand.
Given the changes in technology and the reduction in equipment costs, I'd say that the "old rules" about limited market for more stations, don't fully apply in a large and diverse specialty market. Well beyond the English speaking market, a Korean broadcast could buy programming from a Korean satellite feed, Japanese the same, Armenian, ...
Granted, the major networks will be limited in any sized market, BUT very small stations seem to survive when they have a clear target market. For example the Korean market broadcasts in Korean and advertising on their channel is for Korean businesses. It's a good deal for the Korean business owner, because they know that the advertising is reaching the kind of people who are the most likely to come into their stores. The small stations offer targeted marketing at a much lower cost than the bigger stations. As I said, it really seems to work even if it's hard to fully understand.
