I guess bob didn't want us to see this...

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

....

Powell Ready to Nix Multicasting
By Ted Hearn multichannel.com 1/20/2005 1:42:00 PM
Cable operators would not have to carry multiple digital services
provided by local TV stations under a plan favored by Federal
Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, an FCC source
confirmed Thursday.
TV stations want carriage of all free services by cable, but Powell is
sticking to his 2001 vote that cable should be required to carry just
one programming service, the source said.
The issue of so-called multicast must-carry refers to the small
percentage of commercial TV stations that elect mandatory cable
carriage. All public stations are required to elect must-carry and,
thus, would be hurt the most by Powell’s proposal.
Powell’s approach would not deny stations that negotiate carriage with
cable operators the right to demand distribution of multiple services.
Powell’s decision to advance the multicast issue comes as a federal
court considers a request by Paxson Communications Corp., a large
TV-station owner, to force the FCC to issue final cable-carriage rules
for digital-TV stations within 30 days.
The FCC told the court that Paxson’s request should be denied because
final rules were issued in January 2001 and rejected multicasting rights
for digital-TV stations.
Paxson and other TV stations asked the FCC to reconsider. Because the
FCC failed to take action on the reconsideration request, Paxson went to
court to force the agency’s hand.
An FCC source confirmed that Powell intends for the five-member agency
to vote on multicasting at its Feb. 10 meeting.
It was unclear whether Powell wants to couple the multicasting issue
with a broader plan to end TV stations’ transition to all-digital
broadcasting by Dec. 31, 2008. Under that plan, developed by FCC staff,
digital-TV stations would possess multicast must-carry rights.
In recent years, Powell has signaled his willingness to move the
multicast issue, but divisions among FCC members sidetracked a vote.
Republican commissioner Kevin Martin supports broadcasters, while fellow
Republican commissioner Kathleen Abernathy has been less clear about how
she would vote.
Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein are expected to back
broadcasters, but not before the FCC has adopted a range of
public-interest obligations for digital-TV stations.
Many broadcasters have argued that multicast-carriage rights are
critical to the industry’s ability to compete in a world of hundreds of
channels on pay TV platforms.
But the cable industry has countered that handing TV stations many
additional slots on their systems would, in addition to raising serious
First Amendment issues, tempt stations to air infomercials and other
low-value content aimed at reaping quick profits.
Cable also argued that TV stations should not be able to claim channel
space by default when cable networks -- which don’t have FCC licenses --
need to bargain for carriage.
In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a law requiring cable
operators to allocate one-third of their channels for TV stations
demanding carriage was consistent with the First Amendment. Multicast
must-carry was not directly addressed in that case.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Why would I not want you to see it? I have only talked about it here 20
times in the last month or so including today.

I have said that Powell was against multicasting must carry.
I have said that the Supreme Court voted for must carry of ONE program 5
to 4 in a very wishy washy way. It could have gone either way.
I have said that Powell has resigned.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
altogether.
I have talked about every aspect of this.

Bob Miller


Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> ...
>
> Powell Ready to Nix Multicasting
> By Ted Hearn multichannel.com 1/20/2005 1:42:00 PM
> Cable operators would not have to carry multiple digital services
> provided by local TV stations under a plan favored by Federal
> Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, an FCC source
> confirmed Thursday.
> TV stations want carriage of all free services by cable, but Powell is
> sticking to his 2001 vote that cable should be required to carry just
> one programming service, the source said.
> The issue of so-called multicast must-carry refers to the small
> percentage of commercial TV stations that elect mandatory cable
> carriage. All public stations are required to elect must-carry and,
> thus, would be hurt the most by Powell’s proposal.
> Powell’s approach would not deny stations that negotiate carriage with
> cable operators the right to demand distribution of multiple services.
> Powell’s decision to advance the multicast issue comes as a federal
> court considers a request by Paxson Communications Corp., a large
> TV-station owner, to force the FCC to issue final cable-carriage rules
> for digital-TV stations within 30 days.
> The FCC told the court that Paxson’s request should be denied because
> final rules were issued in January 2001 and rejected multicasting rights
> for digital-TV stations.
> Paxson and other TV stations asked the FCC to reconsider. Because the
> FCC failed to take action on the reconsideration request, Paxson went to
> court to force the agency’s hand.
> An FCC source confirmed that Powell intends for the five-member agency
> to vote on multicasting at its Feb. 10 meeting.
> It was unclear whether Powell wants to couple the multicasting issue
> with a broader plan to end TV stations’ transition to all-digital
> broadcasting by Dec. 31, 2008. Under that plan, developed by FCC staff,
> digital-TV stations would possess multicast must-carry rights.
> In recent years, Powell has signaled his willingness to move the
> multicast issue, but divisions among FCC members sidetracked a vote.
> Republican commissioner Kevin Martin supports broadcasters, while fellow
> Republican commissioner Kathleen Abernathy has been less clear about how
> she would vote.
> Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein are expected to back
> broadcasters, but not before the FCC has adopted a range of
> public-interest obligations for digital-TV stations.
> Many broadcasters have argued that multicast-carriage rights are
> critical to the industry’s ability to compete in a world of hundreds of
> channels on pay TV platforms.
> But the cable industry has countered that handing TV stations many
> additional slots on their systems would, in addition to raising serious
> First Amendment issues, tempt stations to air infomercials and other
> low-value content aimed at reaping quick profits.
> Cable also argued that TV stations should not be able to claim channel
> space by default when cable networks -- which don’t have FCC licenses --
> need to bargain for carriage.
> In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a law requiring cable
> operators to allocate one-third of their channels for TV stations
> demanding carriage was consistent with the First Amendment. Multicast
> must-carry was not directly addressed in that case.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:
> Why would I not want you to see it? I have only talked about it here 20
> times in the last month or so including today.
>
> I have said that Powell was against multicasting must carry.
> I have said that the Supreme Court voted for must carry of ONE program 5
> to 4 in a very wishy washy way. It could have gone either way.
> I have said that Powell has resigned.
> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
> overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
> altogether.
> I have talked about every aspect of this.

Guess what? Even a lame duck FCC chairman has far more credibility than
you do.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[jeremy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
> overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
> altogether.
> I have talked about every aspect of this.
>
> Bob Miller
>

I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
for their High Definition broadcast).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
>>That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
>>overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
>>altogether.
>>I have talked about every aspect of this.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>>
>
>
> I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
> be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
> a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
> would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
> recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
> for their High Definition broadcast).
>

Since bob contradicts himself and argues against his own self interest
at the drop of a hat, it is nearly impossible to figure out what it is
that he really wants. The only thing that is clear is that he is _NOT_
going to get the FCC to change the ATSC modulation scheme from 8-VSB to
COFDM.

He keeps predicting that the FCC will do just that. So far he has been
100% wrong in his predictions. I'm sure that he will keep his perfect
record.

Matthew

 

[jeremy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> Both are true. Broadcasters including Sinclair want must carry laws
to
> include must carry of multicast programming and Sinclair wants to
charge
> for their HD content. There is not mutually exclusive self interest
here.
>
> Bob Miller


Ah, I see. So Sinclair wants "must carry laws", but they also want to
charge (thus forcing the cable companies to pay them or face legal
action). That would be great for Sinclair wouldn't it.

If I'm understanding this correctly, I'd favor a "must carry for free"
option. Interest in over-the-air programming hasn't declined, when used
the term "prime time" programming generally refers to NBC, ABC, CBS,
FOX, WB and UPN in the early evening hours. How much does a prime time
ad cost on a major network? How much would the same ad (at the same
time slot) cost on one of the major cable networks (USA, TNT, TLC,
etc...). I would imagine there is a huge price difference (and
rightfully so, since local networks are "free"). Let's not even get
into prime time sports events (Super Bowl, World Series) or other
special events (Oscars, Music Awards). Prime time still has a much
larger audience, even if most of its audience pull their signal via
cable or satellite.

So if they're already getting the advertising dollars -and- if they
invested in DTV infrastructure to conform to FCC mandate, why does
Sinclair think they have the right to charge the cable providers.

It comes down to what you can do and what is ethical.

Sinclair comes across to me as a very unethical company and that's easy
to qualify. They are trying to charge cable providers (which will
translate into high rates for cable subscribers) for DTV signal which
by FCC mandate they are required to provide. Sinclair has the
statistics, they know how many US consumers have sat and cable
services. Of course they would LOVE to profit off every viewer and this
strategy allows them to do that, thus (if a success) eliminates free
over the air broadcasting. If successful will Sinclair cut advertising
cost? No, they will probably increase advertising cost because a "must
carry" mandate would give them a larger audience.

So Sinclair would win big time, Sinclair investors win big time, it's a
loss for the US public (again, the majority of us have some form of
subcription based television service, these fees will be passed down to
us) and it's a loss for FREE over the air broadcasting!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

>
>
> Guess what? Even a lame duck FCC chairman has far more credibility than
> you do.
>
> Matthew
>

Powell is against allowing broadcasters must carry of their multicast
digital programming. I agree with him. Even if he loses the Supreme
Court will overturn any decision by the FCC that allows multicast must
carry IMO.

So what are you talking about?

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
>>That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
>>overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
>>altogether.
>>I have talked about every aspect of this.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>>
>
>
> I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
> be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
> a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
> would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
> recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
> for their High Definition broadcast).
>
Both are true. Broadcasters including Sinclair want must carry laws to
include must carry of multicast programming and Sinclair wants to charge
for their HD content. There is not mutually exclusive self interest here.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters is bad for HD.
>>> That a multicast must carry win for broadcasters will probably be
>>> overturned by the Supreme Court and broadcasters may lose must carry
>>> altogether.
>>> I have talked about every aspect of this.
>>>
>>> Bob Miller
>>>
>>
>>
>> I assume Multicast "must carry" would mean that cable companies would
>> be forced into carrying all DTV as well as analog broadcast provided by
>> a given network? If that's the case it seems like the broadcasters
>> would be the ones fighting this and not the cable companies (e.g. as a
>> recent post pointed out Sinclare is trying to charge cable providers
>> for their High Definition broadcast).
>>
>
> Since bob contradicts himself and argues against his own self interest
> at the drop of a hat, it is nearly impossible to figure out what it is
> that he really wants. The only thing that is clear is that he is _NOT_
> going to get the FCC to change the ATSC modulation scheme from 8-VSB to
> COFDM.
>
> He keeps predicting that the FCC will do just that. So far he has been
> 100% wrong in his predictions. I'm sure that he will keep his perfect
> record.
>
> Matthew

You are right it is confusing.

Here it is in a nut shell:

It is in our business interest that 8-VSB is permanent BUT that it have
receivers that work fixed not mobile. That is why you find me ecstatic
that 5th gen LG receivers work and we were one of the first to test them.

It is in my and your personal interest that the US Congress not be able
to be bought by every special interest that holds out a buck. That
Congresspersons don't have to spend all their time raising money and
have no time to do anything but rubber stamp legislation actually
written by those special interest and which our Congresspersons don't
even have time to read.

It is in my personal interest that MY and YOUR spectrum be used with the
best modulation that allows all of us to benefit the most at the least cost.

So personally I am for a COFDM type modulation universally while it is
in our business self interest that 8-VSB be permanently affixed to
current broadcasters who thereby cannot compete with us while we use
COFDM mobile and fixed.

It is why a clear thinking Sinclair executive and top RF engineer, Nat
Ostroff, is both happy that there is now a viable 8-VSB receiver and
moans that long term broadcasters will be savaged by the likes of
Qualcomm who can and will use COFDM to compete in the broadcast DTV
market with the advantage of COFDM.

Bob Miller

Bob Miller

 

[jeremy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

See in-line:


> What if Sinclair loses and their content is only available OTA? What
if
> then most people put up an antenna? Sounds like a win for free OTA.

I could see that as possible retaliation. If they do that, then cable
companies will be forced to pull the HD broadcast (where they are
broadcasting on cable, with the Sinclair owned networks apparently they
are few and far between). Customers get upset and complain to the cable
companies and then the cable companies will direct their customers to
the broadcasters the case. If cable companies are smart they will
leverage the networks they own to put up advertisements (commericals)
explaining their stance and what Sinclair has done (and sure with a
good attorney it shouldn't be hard to put togeather something tasteful,
legal and informative).

Sinclair of course could do the same, then the PR battle begins.


> In fact this sounds like a big loss for cable. Maybe it will wake up
the
> population to OTA and wake up broadcasters to the fact that OTA means

> free over the air broadcasting.

This is a story about greed, greed and more greed. Sinclair is trying
to profit off the DTV transition. Maybe they've been watching the cable
stations for many years now wishing they could find a way to make cable
providers pay.

Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local
networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model
is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working
for them.

They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience
by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna
capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV!
This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's
only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners.

Maybe Sinclair feels robbed for being forced to pay for the DTV
infrastructure and perhaps they see it as the cable companies are
reaping the beneifts of their investment.

But Sinclair is still wrong and I'll explain why. The FCC forced the
mandate, not the cable companies. The FCC makes the rules, Sinclair
wasn't happy with the adoption of 8VSB modulation to begin with.
Regardless, trying to charge the cable companies at this point isn't
the right thing to do.

As the transition to DTV continues and the price of 8VSB tuners drops
further eventually Sinclair will hand over their HD broadcast. People
aren't going to give up cable, they are going to be extreemly
frustrated that they have to use an antenna to watch local stations.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sinclair refused to air an episode of Nightline, deciding that its
tribute to fallen military personnel was a liberal political stunt.
Names of the then-only-523 killed troops were read. Later in the
year, liberal elite Sinclair ordered its stations to air an
anti-Kerry propaganda film

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Frank Provasek wrote:
> Sinclair refused to air an episode of Nightline, deciding that its
> tribute to fallen military personnel was a liberal political stunt.
> Names of the then-only-523 killed troops were read. Later in the
> year, liberal elite Sinclair ordered its stations to air an
> anti-Kerry propaganda film
>
>
Don't agree with the Sinclair political agenda but do agree with their
engineering side.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
>>Both are true. Broadcasters including Sinclair want must carry laws
>
> to
>
>>include must carry of multicast programming and Sinclair wants to
>
> charge
>
>>for their HD content. There is not mutually exclusive self interest
>
> here.
>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
>
> Ah, I see. So Sinclair wants "must carry laws", but they also want to
> charge (thus forcing the cable companies to pay them or face legal
> action). That would be great for Sinclair wouldn't it.
>
> If I'm understanding this correctly, I'd favor a "must carry for free"
> option. Interest in over-the-air programming hasn't declined, when used
> the term "prime time" programming generally refers to NBC, ABC, CBS,
> FOX, WB and UPN in the early evening hours. How much does a prime time
> ad cost on a major network? How much would the same ad (at the same
> time slot) cost on one of the major cable networks (USA, TNT, TLC,
> etc...). I would imagine there is a huge price difference (and
> rightfully so, since local networks are "free"). Let's not even get
> into prime time sports events (Super Bowl, World Series) or other
> special events (Oscars, Music Awards). Prime time still has a much
> larger audience, even if most of its audience pull their signal via
> cable or satellite.
>
> So if they're already getting the advertising dollars -and- if they
> invested in DTV infrastructure to conform to FCC mandate, why does
> Sinclair think they have the right to charge the cable providers.
>
> It comes down to what you can do and what is ethical.
>
> Sinclair comes across to me as a very unethical company and that's easy
> to qualify. They are trying to charge cable providers (which will
> translate into high rates for cable subscribers) for DTV signal which
> by FCC mandate they are required to provide. Sinclair has the
> statistics, they know how many US consumers have sat and cable
> services. Of course they would LOVE to profit off every viewer and this
> strategy allows them to do that, thus (if a success) eliminates free
> over the air broadcasting. If successful will Sinclair cut advertising
> cost? No, they will probably increase advertising cost because a "must
> carry" mandate would give them a larger audience.
>
> So Sinclair would win big time, Sinclair investors win big time, it's a
> loss for the US public (again, the majority of us have some form of
> subcription based television service, these fees will be passed down to
> us) and it's a loss for FREE over the air broadcasting!
>
What if Sinclair loses and their content is only available OTA? What if
then most people put up an antenna? Sounds like a win for free OTA. In
fact this sounds like a big loss for cable. Maybe it will wake up the
population to OTA and wake up broadcasters to the fact that OTA means
free over the air broadcasting. Something they seem to have forgot about
a long time ago.

I hope Sinclair loses, (wins in my book) and I hope broadcasters lose
must carry of multicasting. These two events would refocus their
energies on their OTA spectrum which can't ever be bad.

Bob Miller

BTW it is confusing when you talk of over the air content being received
over cable isn't it.

 

[sonic]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:1106799458.644145.158960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> See in-line:
>
>
snip
> Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local
> networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model
> is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working
> for them.

The number one thing promoted by cable companies to increase cable
subscribers is DVRs. When enough fast forward button are in Americans homes
how much value will ad time loose. I'am not a Sinclair fan but his decision
not to give programing to anyone underminding his coperate value is fair on
his part.

> They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience
> by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna
> capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV!
> This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's
> only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners.
>
Network programming is superior to a lot of cable programming and it HD
content is growing at a good rate. If they have the money to fill the extra
bandwidth with new or decent programming I could drop cable. OTA tuners will
follow the same price curve as any type tuner, but even now there worth the
cost to receive OTA. Being caught in the middle is unfortunate but if
there's enough complaints something will change.

 

[jeremy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

See in-line:

Bob Miller wrote:

> They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA.
> They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to
> compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with
a
> small sample of what is to come.
>

If you're refering to services such as USDTV, well USDTV has been
around for a year or so now and I'm not seeing sings of growth. Where's
the public interest. It's not there yet.

> Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations
possible
> and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits

> its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD

> channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that
by
> some other factor.

So for their investment in DTV infrastructure the OTA networks have
gained more channel bandwidth. You imply over MPEG-2 they can do 16 SD
channels at present, but how many HD channels can they deliver? Part of
your vision for this seems to require the scaling back of HD content in
favor of SD content, which I certainly hope doesn't happen.



>
> Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital
> transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one
yet????

I don't see the threat to cable/sat providers? OTA networks are in the
advertising and broadcasting business, you underestimate the services
infrastructure (enormous cost) they would have to build out to lease
equipment, perform maintence, set up billing department) at the very
least this would be a huge risk for them. What's more likely would be
for them to partner with companies such as USDTV and again, I'm not
seeing a success story with USDTV. To some degree OTA networks need
cable providers, to a lesser degree the opposite can be said.

I see the DTV transition as being something we're in the middle of.
Look at how many HD ready sets are being sold today vs a year ago. Look
at the price drops, look at the number of HD channels bein broadcast
today vs a year ago, if you can't see progress being made towards the
"transition" they are you selectively ignoring it.



>
> COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is
$200...

Please stop preaching about COFDM, hopefully by now you realize it's a
lost effort (regardless of if you are right or wrong).

 

[jeremy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Regarding ad time being lost, this issue has come up before... the new
trend (which has already begun) is for advertisments to be in the
script. When you favorite actor picks up a soda can it will be a "Coke"
or a "Dr. Pepper" not the usually unknown brand. If they begin down
this path (which they already have), suttle things will be worked in.
Maybe Joey will visit a BMW dealer and incentives at the time will be
advertised there. I think this will take some getting use to, but I can
see eventually the commerical spots going away all togeather.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
> See in-line:
>
>
>
>>What if Sinclair loses and their content is only available OTA? What
>
> if
>
>>then most people put up an antenna? Sounds like a win for free OTA.
>
>
> I could see that as possible retaliation. If they do that, then cable
> companies will be forced to pull the HD broadcast (where they are
> broadcasting on cable, with the Sinclair owned networks apparently they
> are few and far between). Customers get upset and complain to the cable
> companies and then the cable companies will direct their customers to
> the broadcasters the case. If cable companies are smart they will
> leverage the networks they own to put up advertisements (commericals)
> explaining their stance and what Sinclair has done (and sure with a
> good attorney it shouldn't be hard to put togeather something tasteful,
> legal and informative).
>
> Sinclair of course could do the same, then the PR battle begins.
>
>
>
>>In fact this sounds like a big loss for cable. Maybe it will wake up
>
> the
>
>>population to OTA and wake up broadcasters to the fact that OTA means
>
>
>>free over the air broadcasting.
>
>
> This is a story about greed, greed and more greed. Sinclair is trying
> to profit off the DTV transition. Maybe they've been watching the cable
> stations for many years now wishing they could find a way to make cable
> providers pay.
>
> Again, I think it's an unethical move on their part. All the local
> networks were around prior to the rise of cable. Their business model
> is based around ad based revenue and that model is obviously working
> for them.
>
> They should thank the cable companies for helping expand their audience
> by providing their broadcast to some viewers outside the antenna
> capable viewing area. It was a happy mutual relationship, untill DTV!
> This has been a non-issue up untill DTV came along and I think it's
> only an issue now because of the high cost of OTA (8VSB) DTV tuners.
>
> Maybe Sinclair feels robbed for being forced to pay for the DTV
> infrastructure and perhaps they see it as the cable companies are
> reaping the beneifts of their investment.
>
> But Sinclair is still wrong and I'll explain why. The FCC forced the
> mandate, not the cable companies. The FCC makes the rules, Sinclair
> wasn't happy with the adoption of 8VSB modulation to begin with.
> Regardless, trying to charge the cable companies at this point isn't
> the right thing to do.
>
> As the transition to DTV continues and the price of 8VSB tuners drops
> further eventually Sinclair will hand over their HD broadcast. People
> aren't going to give up cable, they are going to be extreemly
> frustrated that they have to use an antenna to watch local stations.
>
They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA.
They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to
compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with a
small sample of what is to come.

Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations possible
and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits
its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD
channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that by
some other factor.

Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital
transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one yet????
Why do you think the CEA pushed for 8-VSB so hard. They openly talked of
it being handicapped with no mobile and how that was supposedly good for
HD. Was it? CEA seems totally uninterested in OTA now that they have
saddled it with 8-VSB. Wonder why?

COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is $200
and only because a Chinese maker decided to get their feet wet with
WalMart. Don't you think it will be strange when that 3rd world country
China has $10 DMB-T HD receivers which work far better than the $200
8-VSB receivers they are selling to us? Who is the third world country then?

No they have kept the lid on and called COFDM the delayer while the
truth is that 8-VSB has caused the delay and was meant to. But they can
do it only so long and I think their time is running out.

Bob Miller

 

[wmhjr]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You're nuts.

Way too much of the population just can't reliably get either 8-VSB or
COFDM content due to geographic constraints. That doesn't even begin
to consider the factor of range and signal variables particularly with
COFDM. I actually agree with some of your sentiments, but let's get a
healthy dose of reality. For example, your proposed solution would be
death to my area. To be clear - I will never, ever, be able to
reliably get OTA content that will ever under any circumstances compare
to cable or sat. Period.

I can respect the tenets of what you believe in, but can't accept the
gross misrepresentation of reality. Sorry.

Additionally, you completely fail to consider the effects of converged
networking. That alone kills your premise deader than the proverbial
doorknob.


Bob Miller Wrote:
> jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
> They are not going to be watching just there local OTA stations OTA.
> They will be watching plenty of cable channels OTA. OTA is going to
> compete with cable and satellite. Sinclair is just tickling you with
> a
> small sample of what is to come.
>
> Understand that any market in the US has 30+ digital stations possible
> and each of those stations can deliver 16 SD channels when MPEG4 hits
> its full stride in two or three years. 30 times 16 sounds like 480 SD
> channels to me and with a PVR in the receiver you can multiply that by
> some other factor.
>
> Cable and satellite are in big do do IMO once we HAVE a digital
> transition. Ever think that this may be why we haven't had one yet????
> Why do you think the CEA pushed for 8-VSB so hard. They openly talked
> of
> it being handicapped with no mobile and how that was supposedly good
> for
> HD. Was it? CEA seems totally uninterested in OTA now that they have
> saddled it with 8-VSB. Wonder why?
>
> COFDM receivers cost as little as $37 while the cheapest 8-VSB is $200
> and only because a Chinese maker decided to get their feet wet with
> WalMart. Don't you think it will be strange when that 3rd world
> country
> China has $10 DMB-T HD receivers which work far better than the $200
> 8-VSB receivers they are selling to us? Who is the third world country
> then?
>
> No they have kept the lid on and called COFDM the delayer while the
> truth is that 8-VSB has caused the delay and was meant to. But they
> can
> do it only so long and I think their time is running out.
>
> Bob Miller


--
wmhjr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http/www.satelliteguys.us by wmhjr

 

[sonic]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:1106838764.405076.163260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Regarding ad time being lost, this issue has come up before... the new
> trend (which has already begun) is for advertisments to be in the
> script. When you favorite actor picks up a soda can it will be a "Coke"
> or a "Dr. Pepper" not the usually unknown brand. If they begin down
> this path (which they already have), suttle things will be worked in.
> Maybe Joey will visit a BMW dealer and incentives at the time will be
> advertised there. I think this will take some getting use to, but I can
> see eventually the commerical spots going away all togeather.
>
The producers of content benefit from product placement, that they share
this revenue with Network affiliates is not likely, but if I'm wrong please
correct me. Content producers and networks also generate revenue by selling
season episodes on DVD, again do station owners benefit? Viewers benefit,
well as long as they are not subjected to prime time infomercials
masquerading as TV shows, with the networks and producers (IMO) responding
to viewer demands for HD programming with much more zeal then content
providers.

Cable company have had the opportunity to weight their risk of shrinking
revenue associated with DVRs and acted, as they should, in their best
interest. While being offended by statements proclaiming individuals that
advance thru or leave the room during commercial thieves it does illustrate
the concern over digital recording. IMO suggesting that network providers
only motivation for asking cable providers to pony up is greed is not all
together fair. A business owner has to make decisions that will ensure that
the company will survive, that the free TV business model would change to
survive was never in question.

 

[jeremy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

>With MPEG4 and 5th gen receivers broadcasters do NOT need cable and
>satellite. Some of them including Sinclair are figuring this out.

But where are these 5th generation tuners? I know LG has one that I
believe is exclusive to some of their 2005 model HDTVs. Your case is
basicly that 5th generation tuners pave the way for Sinclair and other
broadcasters to break free from cable, but why? and how?

4th generation tuners are still $200 and People who are just now buying
sets have more options (the 8VSB integrated sets are finally starting
to become at least as common of HD Ready sets, but most of these are
4th gen tuners from best I can tell.

So let's say three years from now all HDTV sets sold include 5th gen
8VSB tuners and let's even say that external 8VSB tuners will have
dropped to around $40 by then and let's take it a step further and say
that broadcasters have begun offering 16 channels OTA each by that
time. Explain how exactly the OTA broadcasters are going to compete
with cable? The only way they could compete is if they had
subscribers. If they charged a monthly fee then free OTA goes away
entirely (bad), but if they do that then they become a services company
and have to build out the infrastructure to handle all of this. They
would also piss off all of the public, because they would have elimate
FREE OTA TV all togeather -and- they would be forcing the US public to
pick betweeen NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc.. and the cable stations. That
makes no sense what so ever... it doesn't make good business sense. If
they were competitors the idea thing to do would be to charge one other
to carry the networks they own. If I understand correctly this is what
happens now with cable/sat companies.

If all of this content is offered for FREE OTA then again, they are not
competing with cable, everyone would just have both. Some people may
opt to leave their cable providers, but if the networks were wise they
would offer their channels to any subscription based carrier they could
find as it will widen their audience (it will always widen their
audience until 8VSB tuners are free, because not everyone will have
one), again if the OTA networks aren't charging a subscription FEE they
are not competing with sat or cable. You could argue they are for
advertising dollars, but the local networks have had them beat their
for years.

Cable companies are already building strategy against something like
this. Time Warner offers digital phone (VoIP), digital cable and high
speed internet for one flat monthly fee (discounted slightly to
subscribers of all three services). In addition to High Definition DVR
they have extended their on demand content to include about 100 free on
demand programs each month. They have also recently added High
Definiton on demand movies.... If OTA networks wanted to charge for
service and compete the only way they will be able to is to appeal to
the bottom end of the market.

I'd love to hear your response.