[IP] more on Powell's "2006 is not the date"
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:55:00 -0800
From: Tim Pozar <pozar@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] Powell's "2006 is not the date"
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 07:05:35PM -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
> Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:46:58 -0800
> From: Michael Gold <gold@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Powell's "2006 is not the date"
> X-Sender: mgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dave, I don't subscribe to your list but I'm aware you follow this sort of
> thing and I may have found something others have missed, or pehaps I'm just
> confused.
>
> Summary: Not only will US analog terrestrial TV broadcasts continue after
> 2006, but the law concerning analog license extensions has a loophole that
> looks to me as if analog TV could continue indefinitely; even after 85% of
> US households have DTTV receivers, the benchmark most often expressed by
> digirati. Conceptually, when this loophole is combined with analog
> must-carry, analog might continue even when there are zero analog receivers
> remaining in service.
>
> [...]
>
> I suspect a typographic error in the law, but if I worked for a TV station
> I would certainly argue otherwise. I also suspect that the Supreme Court
> will eventually need to straighten this out. There is also the possibility
> that I'm just confused, in which case I'd appreciate if someone would
> clarify section 309's labyrinth of requirements and exceptions in plainer
> English.
> In any event, the lack of realism about the end of analog seems likely to
> disappoint taxpayers with an unfulfilled promise of auctions expected to
> provide budget relief; telecom ratepayers are left with unfulfilled
> promises of spectrum flexibilty; and those who would like to see more
> unlicenced spectrum available will be disappointed if the outcome is for
> the broadcast industry to end up netting more, not less spectrum.
As one who was a professional broadcaster for 25+ years and talking
to many an owner and engineer on this matter I belive the broadcast
industry would love to switch to digital. There are two factors
that are pushing the conversion.
1] The cost of operating and maintaining two different
transmitters. In some cases two different transmission
sites. This can be pretty expensive considering many
facilities have 10 to 40 Kw transmitters with only 30%
efficiency. Keeping a hot-standby transmitter going
increases the power consumption and maintenance costs
too. Ever price a klystron? :-)
2] The ability for broadcasters to develop new revenue
streams as multiple video and data streams can go on the
same channel. This is a big dollar sign in most of the
broadcasters' eyes.
Also, in areas served by cable and satellite which is most of the
US, a very small percentage of the viewership watches over-the-air
television. In the Bay Area it is something on the order of 5%.
One very popular non-commercial station in the Bay Area is going
to turn their analog transmitter off as soon as they get their
digital transmission facility stable and feeding all the CATV head
ends.
There is additional pressure from the FCC to have this conversion
happen as there is a mandate to have all TV sets be capable of
digital reception by 2007.
Do I belive broadcasters will make 2006? No way. Will the industry
eventually convert? Yes. It may take another 10 years after this
drop dead date. Remember that color TV broadcasting took about 25
years to happen.
Tim
--
Snail: Tim Pozar / LNS / 1978 45th Ave / San Francisco CA 94116 / USA
POTS: +1 415 665 3790 Radio: KC6GNJ / KAE6247
"Be who you are and say what you feel because the people who mind
don't matter and the people who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/