The End of High Definition Broadcasting

[Rodolfo]

It is not a nightmare. You have read it correctly.

According to recent reports, the FCC's broadband plan mandated by Congress is due next February and although the consideration of freeing spectrum for commercial use is not final, the FCC is requesting information from the industry to evaluate the current and future utilization of broadcast airwaves.

The idea is...

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2009/12/the_end_of_high_definition_broadcasting.php]Read Article[/url]

[waltinvt]

How many reading the byline at first thought it a misprint or even after the entire article, discounted it similar to how one would tabloid sensationalism? However if looked at objectively within the context of other events this year related to increased government intervention, this possibility not only becomes more credible, it leaves little doubt that any concern our government had for the common citizen has taken a back seat to the procurement of wealth and power. Another thought is what will broadcasting companies do (or agree to) when faced with this?

[eliwhitney]

.. waltinvt ..

Couldn't possibly agree more RE: "govment" intervention in past 11 months!

And, the most .. HORRIFYING .. part is that there's yet another ~37 Months during which to make it all still WORSE!

Never in my lifetime has this very tired U.S.A. declined @ such a precipitous rate, I.M.O..

eli

[bjdraw]

Let me start by saying I only subscribe to cable a few months of the year (football season) and that I get 90% of my programming OTA and I only watch HD. All that being said, I believe this isn't about me, but about the rest of Americans, and the reality is that only 10% of them use OTA TV. So in other words it makes sense to take away this great free service from me and instead provide service to the majority of Americans. Now if they are just going to take it from me and give it to another minority, then obviously that doesn't make sense. And I would propose that the FCC imposes a maximum monthly fee to pick up these channels via cable/sat etc, like say $10.

As for your argument, your title is very misleading since cable and satellite delivery is technically broadcast HD and your argument that people bought HDTVs because of the digital transition is just down right ridiculous.

[BobDiaz]

I happen to be one of the many who only have OTA TV. Because of the poor economy, I have to work two part time jobs that pay very little and have no health plan. As much as I want to work full time, there are no jobs right now.

So I read here and other places that the CEA and the Cell Phone Companies want more bandwidth and OTA TV can be just SD and those who want HD can go to cable or satellite... this sounds like bait and switch. These companies want to make lots of money and don't care when the little guy gets screwed!!!

Had I know they were planning that, I would have never gotten the HDTV 2 years ago in better times.

[eliwhitney]

BobDiaz ..

Have at least a "wee" bit of hope!

This is not just yet a "Done Deal!"

Even as fast 'n furious as the various "govment" deals have been lately - - - it'll take a number of months / public hearings / lots-of-gabbing, etc., BEFORE we actually would come to that, in my view.

I'd even go farther to say that there'll be those primary 6 - 7 - 8 national networks in O.T.A.-HD for the remainder of your & my lifetimes, baring a world economic collapse, possible brought on by the seemingly-endless electronic printing of the U.S. dollar ... and, China's ceasing-to-underwrite the USA unimaginably-enormous debt?

eli

[Rodolfo]

Bjdraw,

You made 3 main points:

A) “it makes sense to take away this great free service from me and instead provide service to the majority of Americans”.

It makes sense to me as well. You may not have understood the implications of discontinuing broadcast HD over the potential to affect beyond the 10% you mention.

For example, cable and satellite may have no further incentive/competition to continue assigning a large bandwidth for HD, and limit their service to SD with many more channels/pay-services that subscriber’s HDTVs could upscale to HD and “many would not notice the difference” (a typical claim of SD proponents, like DVD).

They would still be competitive, and efficient, and potentially with a larger revenue. Would you then say that such situation would affect the other 90%? (You).

B) “Your title is very misleading since cable and satellite delivery is technically broadcast HD”.

Actually “broadcast” is a term that typically identifies terrestrial transmission over-the-air, not satellite, nor cable. However, you may want to propose to the National Broadcasters Association (NAB) to also provide services for satellite and cable distribution systems because they are “broadcast” in your opinion; I can anticipate the response.

C) “Your argument that people bought HDTVs because of the digital transition is just down right ridiculous.”

Let us go back to the roots. H/DTV was designed decades ago as a digital system for terrestrial over-the-air broadcasting within a 6MHz channel slot. Satellite DBS was not existent, HD Pre-recorded media was not existent, and Cable was just analog, and it was until after 2000 that they showed interest to participate in the H/DTV effort (2002 with the CableCARD and QAM integrated tuners).

Satellite DBS (DirecTV) showed interest in HD in 1998/9, which was when I got my first HD equipment and tested broadcast and DirecTV satellite. The DTV transition was established to replace an analog system for broadcasting for a more efficient system, and to use the released spectrum for other services. It took 10 years, and HD was not even mandated.

If it would not be for that effort, cable/satellite may not even have had a reason/motivation to offer HD and people would not have purchased HDTVs because they would not have existed.

Regardless if one is a satellite or a cable subscriber, the main driver for HDTV was the digital transition for broadcast motivating manufacturers to build HDTVs people can “also” use for cable/satellite/pre-recorded media (the other 90% you estimate), not just broadcast H/DTV.

In summary:

None of the above would have existed without the DTV Transition motivating consumers to buy HDTVs enticing them with the “9 times the image quality of NTSC”. You can use such set for whatever purpose you want, but that does not change the main driver.

The article was not to take sides on political issues/agendas, I always stay away from politics.

I wanted to provide an historical perspective for decision makers not to rush and go to square-one in “creativity- mode-with-a- blank-piece- of-paper” (the “change” mind set), ignoring established markets, technologies, and investments, that exist and matured due to earlier decisions made by whoever was in government power before, and everyone complied with those “expensive” orders.

I accept that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I would not call the above ridiculous.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[hharris4earthlink]

Pardon me for jumping into the middle of this conversation, but in the last few weeks, I've noticed that quite of few of the HD versions of channels provided by DirecTV have been missing, with seemingly a preference for HD for only the most popular channels. I was assuming this was some sort of temporary glitch. If this is deliberate then it would have the appearance of a bait and switch scam. Surely not.

[Dave3putt]

quite of few of the HD versions of channels provided by DirecTV have been missing

Please be more specific. I have noticed no changes in D* HD programming. All my channels are there that are supposed to be there.

[akirby]

quite of few of the HD versions of channels provided by DirecTV have been missing

Please be more specific. I have noticed no changes in D* HD programming. All my channels are there that are supposed to be there.

Ditto. No changes here. If anything we've gotten more HD channels, not less.

Check your guide - maybe the channels moved or your guide preferences were changed.