<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] The Digital TV Fiasco (Not really, Keeping engineers innovating)





Begin forwarded message:

From: Peter Bachman <peterb@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 10, 2005 1:36:10 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: The Digital TV Fiasco (Not really, Keeping engineers innovating)
Reply-To: Peter Bachman <peterb@xxxxxxxxx>


Dave,

There are powerful arguments towards re-claiming the bandwidth currently occupied by the soon to be obsolete analog television (NTSC) to provide new innovative wireless services, raise money by spectrum auctions, and to provide a consistent bandwidth allocation for emergency services which up til now have been forced to use incompatible frequencies that don't allow for the type of high quality communications and coordination that we citizens have a right to expect in a technologically competent country. Congress understands this.

Most television stations that were given digital assignments in addition to their current analog assignments are in the process of, or have already transitioned to; ATSC digital transmission. Why did so many people switch to cable in the first place, even before there was premium content that was not restricted by less than free speech decency standards? Because they got lousy reception, ghosts, mutipath interference and all. Cable literally came off the mountain, as a community antenna, and became a ubiquitious distributor of local and satellite provided content.

It was understood at the beginning of the DTV transition that the broadcast television stations would give back the analog assignments. The original deadline will now be pushed back, and many people have indicated that their next television purchase will be digital, and likely high definition, capable. Yet, the continued obliviousness of some people continuing to purchase obsolete analog television sets at this point probably warrants a warning sticker on the front of the tube. At this point we need a hard date for turnoff.

Therefore if you are part of the 15 or so percent of people in the U.S. that in fact depend on broadcast transmissions you should stop buying analog sets that are based on NTSC standards. ATSC is in fact the new standard. Get with the program if you want over the air television.

At the same time we should not disenfranchise the people who truly are dependent on broadcast for their only access. The airwaves are in fact a public resource that need to be managed effectively. This means leveraging standards to lower costs, not fighting them.

The mass distribution of low cost ATSC ready digital boxes can easily downconvert signals to older analog
sets.

As to the people who have two or more older analog sets in their basement, or bedrooms not hooked up to cable or satellite, or digital broadcast for once in a while watching, they also will be able to purchase low cost converter boxes based on chipsets that have already been developed. These folks are not being disenfranchised if they cannot get an analog signal to watch television for subsidiary televisions. If we follow that logic we would exempt people with second cars from pollution standards also.

If they are hooked up to satellite or cable, it doesn't even matter for the most part, until those service providers transition also transition to all digital signals, which is unlikely to happen overnight. Most of them offer either a box, or analog outputs. Modulators are also an inexpensive option that can convert a video signal to output on analog channels three or four, like a VCR so you can distribute your digital signal to non-digital televisions.

While Lauren opines that decades old sitcoms will not persuade people to part with their hard earned clams, high value content, typically in glorious HDTV has in fact persuaded many consumers to purchase new televisions, even before HDTV was available as an everyday programming item.

Since broadcasters rely on advertising revenue to provide no-charge content, higher value programs offered in HDTV and AC3 surround sound provide the creative input to keep the U.S. a leader in the production of film and television, including the release of otherwise limited IMAX content, in HDTV. Broadcasters also have the right to split up their digital signals to offer other services, than just HDTV during non-peak hours. The technological breakthrough of DTV was not only that it offered HDTV, (something that was available in Japan in the late 1980)s, but that it was in fact Digital and not Analog, thus creating the known "leapfrog" effect of jumping two technological hurdles at the same time. Public television has been squarely behind DTV since day one, and commercial broadcasters jumped on board when it made economic sense.

Now it's simply a matter of choosing which of the DTV competing technologies, DLP, CRT, LCD, Plasma, and soon OLED, and STN, you want to use, and where you want to get your content. With MPEG 21 http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-21/ mpeg-21.htm#_Toc23297970
we will all be digital broadcasters at some point.

Peter Bachman
Cequs Inc.
peterb@xxxxxxxxx




,

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 9, 2005 2:41:29 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: lauren@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: The Digital TV Fiasco


Dave,

A really remarkable aspect of the FCC's continuing push to obsolete
existing consumer televisions is how oblivious most people are
to the entire process, particularly those persons who still depend
on broadcast signals for all of their television viewing.

Yet even folks who mainly use cable or satellite, and the lucky
ones who have one nice new television in the livingroom, are likely
to have any number of older, smaller sets in other rooms, often
not hooked up to those services and only receiving off-air programming.

It will be interesting to see the voters' reactions when all of
those analog sets, which have been working just fine, go dark.
Presumably most people aren't going to be willing to shell out money
for set-top conversion boxes so that they can watch digital versions
of "Gilligan's Island" reruns from their local stations.

While a long-term transition to digital television was obviously in
the technological cards, the way that Congress and the FCC has
handled this situation has been an exceptionally shameful big-money
and politics-driven fiasco, even by the usual Washington standards.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@xxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxx
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, EEPI
  - Electronic Entertainment Policy Initiative - http://www.eepi.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com

  - - -





Begin forwarded message:

From: Randall <rvh40@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 9, 2005 1:52:08 PM EDT
To: Dave <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: FCC moves up Digital Deadline


http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050609/D8AK50QG0.html

FCC Speeds Up Digital TV Signal Deadlines

Email this Story

Jun 9, 10:21 AM (ET)

By DAVID PACE

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal regulators on Thursday moved up the deadlines for manufacturers to make popular, mid-sized television sets capable of
receiving digital signals.



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as peterb@xxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/






-------------------------------------
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/