Digital TV Facts: The Latest

Local TV stations will be shifting to different channels, in many cases, because of the transition to digital television. The FCC has spent years trying to painstakingly determine which stations will go where. Now a prominent broadcast technology consultant suggests it’s time to start over.

That daring suggestion, from Charles W. Rhodes of TV Technology, arises from concern that over-the-air digital TV reception is threatened by interference. Read the rest of this entry »

The shutdown of analog television broadcasts in 2009 offers “high potential for a train wreck,” according to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). Is the digital TV transition a disaster in the making?

It’s still too early to tell. Alarm bells were rung at today’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing, where an AARP official raised the prospect of senior citizens losing their television service and taking it out on Congress. That’s exactly what would happen, too, if we switched over tomorrow. Surveys continue to show low levels of awareness about what will happen on February 17, 2009, when over-the-air broadcasters will complete the change to digital TV. Personally, I’m not despairing—not yet.
Read the rest of this entry »

If you want to watch local digital TV stations on your PC, two new products from AMD are worth a look.

The ATI TV Wonder 600 is a “stick tuner” that plugs into a USB socket on your notebook or desktop PC. The tuner can be used for watching local digital (including HDTV) or analog channels over the air, plus analog cable channels. PVR (personal video recorder) functions can be enabled using the ATI Catalyst Media Center software suite.

For desktop computers, AMD offers the ATI TV Wonder 650 PCI Express, a board that goes inside the box. In addition to over-the-air analog/digital/HD television and analog cable, the TV Wonder 650 can tune unscrambled QAM digital cable channels. (Note, however, that most digital cable channels are scrambled. But some cable systems send local stations, especially, “in the clear.”) Catalyst Media Center is also supported.

A “telescopic antenna” is included with the USB tuner stick, but viewers in areas where reception is difficult will probably need a better antenna to receive DTV stations dependably. For the TV Wonder 650, AMD recommends an amplified antenna.

Both tuners should reach stores by September.

Earlier:
• USB ATSC tuner stick from Pinnacle
• Thomson previews USB digital TV tuner

• Link: TV Technology

Local digital TV broadcasts would be available on mobile phones and handhelds, including free and paid services, according to a mobile TV roadmap from the Advanced Television Systems Committee.

Ad-supported television programming, video on demand and datacasting are among the services envisioned for the ATSC M/H standard, the ATSC’s Jerry Whitaker writes in TV Technology.

The standards group wants to ensure that new mobile TV services use spectrum efficiently enough not to crowd out existing HDTV telecasts. DTV receivers in use today probably would not be able to display the mobile DTV services. But any new services must operate on broadcasters’ DTV channels “without adverse impact on existing receiving equipment.”

The ATSC M/H standard is “a major priority in the ATSC strategic plan,” Whitaker writes, which “recognizes a growing consensus that mobile and handheld capability is essential to the future of local broadcasting.” Rather than starting from scratch, the new standard may incorporate mobile TV technologies already in development. The ATSC M/H timeline sounds pretty ambitious: Station owners hope to announce mobile DTV services before the shutdown of analog TV broadcasts on February 17, 2009.

• Link: TV Technology

The digital TV transition is the topic of a webinar for electronics retailers on Wed., June 27, at 2 p.m. ET.

An in-car mobile TV system from Sirius is slated to reach retailers by year-end. Programming on the three-channel, $19.95-per-month Sirius TV service targets children.

Sports leagues join broadcasters to lobby in Washington against allowing new unlicensed devices to use the public airwaves in broadcast TV-band “white spaces.”

$1 billion in spending on public safety communications, authorized by Congress as part of the DTV transition, must be awarded by Sept. 30.

If you want a rough idea of which local digital TV stations you can receive over the air, the Consumer Electronics Association’s antenna predictor site can be a big help. Plug in your address, and you’ll get suggestions about which antenna type is best for each station.

If, on the other hand, you’re a hard-core signal-strength geek, you now have a new tool for your arsenal. TV Fool is the place, offering advanced TV reception tools developed by someone who felt that the CEA antenna site “was dumbed-down too much.” (Notably, TV Fool doesn’t try to sign you up for the consumer electronics lobby’s mailing list.)

Technology360’s Dennis Haarsager, a public broadcaster who has published signal-prediction software, suggests TV Fool might be useful for “advanced viewers.”

• Links: TV Fool, Technology360, AVS Forum

A small cable operator wants the federal DTV coupon program to change—in a big way. Under the proposal,

a broadcast-only home that obtained a $40 coupon to buy a digital-to-analog converter box under the federal subsidy program would receive free analog-basic cable for seven years on every TV set in the home, with free installation.

Providing free cable, instead of inexpensive DTV converter boxes, would constitute a radical overhaul of the coupon program. The plan, from Massillon Cable TV of Massillon, Ohio, is utterly thought-provoking. It merits serious discussion, I would argue, ignoring for the moment the small fact that it is doomed.

If you just want to participate in the coupon program, it almost certainly won’t change because of this proposal. Have a look at our DTV coupon section instead:

• DTV converter box coupons

But if you care to reimagine the future of local television, read on. Read the rest of this entry »

Future uses for analog TV spectrum (in the 700 MHz band) are the topic of a Senate hearing tomorrow. Missing from the agenda, according to David S. Isenberg: Anyone “representing the public’s interest” in allocating a channel or two to unlicensed spectrum.

“Avowed free-market capitalist” Andy Kessler made the case a while back for why a just-sell-it-to-Verizon approach serves neither the public nor open markets.

…auctioning off this 700-MHz block is so last century. The lower the frequency, the further signals can travel without degrading, better to penetrate homes and offices. This is a desirable chunk of spectrum. But why not just make it an unlicensed band? Entrepreneurs will come up with more interesting services than cellphone operators who think text messaging is somehow worth 10 cents a pop.

Broadcasters worry, with some justification, that opening up spectrum to everyone puts TV reception at risk from interference. That issue needs to be resolved, and the transition to digital TV in 2009 needs to be protected. But Washington needs to look at the long term, from every side, before they go and auction off beachfront spectrum forever. If broadcasters can’t co-exist with free uses, then we need to examine the possibility that too much spectrum is devoted to broadcasting.

Those airwaves belong to the public, and some well-informed members thereof are clamoring for more access. To do what? We don’t exactly know. We didn’t know we needed Wi-Fi, which uses unlicensed spectrum, until someone invented it. The public at large is unaware of the debate—which creates ideal conditions for spectrum monopolists to add to their holdings and extract rents from a captive public.

• Links: isen.blog, Kessler

A preview of converter boxes yesterday suggests, to me anyway, that manufacturers are confident the boxes will perform.

To explain my reasoning (i.e., my wild speculations), let me just observe that the demonstration, sponsored by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), took place in New York. If you can make it there—well, let’s just leave Frank and Liza out of this, shall we? But my point is, Manhattan is known as a difficult signal-reception environment for digital TV. Unveiling your digital TV adapter there is a confident gesture. Then again, you might not get a New York Times reporter to show up in the flatlands of Kansas. A DTV converter demo in a farm field would have been an ominous sign for the future of over-the-air broadcasting.

For LG, which (along with Thomson) built NAB and MSTV-commissioned prototypes, this was a successful audition:

On one side was a television receiving a traditional over-the-air signal from a local Fox affiliate, its picture grainy and chattering with static. Next to it was a television tuned to the same station, this one with its antennas connected to the converter prototype made by LG, which was not much bigger than a cigar box.

The image on its screen was as clear as if being sourced from a DVD player.

Two caveats:

1) A prototype is not a retail product.

2) If you’re like me, you really want to know how it did on every channel. Heaven help any digital-to-analog converter box maker who can’t tune in a single channel.

But from what we’ve heard thus far, I would say it’s an auspicious beginning.

Earlier:
• Converter boxes? We’re still waiting…
• RCA converter box announced at CES
• LG digital converter box due in 2008

• Link: New York Times

Converter boxes for conventional televisions, one of the keys to a successful digital TV transition in 2009, have yet to hit the mass market. But already the reception capabilities of the digital-to-analog converter boxes that will be eligible for $40 rebate coupons from the federal government have been called into question.

The converters must meet a government-imposed performance requirement, instituted at the urging of a broadcasting industry worried that poorly engineered converter boxes would shrink their audiences. But that very performance requirement, which corresponds to the ATSC A/74 Receiver Performance Guidelines set by the U.S.-based digital TV standards body, is being criticized by Charles W. Rhodes, a broadcast technology consultant writing for TV Technology. Rhodes, whose recent columns have examined possible threats to broadcast TV reception from unlicensed devices that would share broadcast spectrum, sounds quite alarmed by three recent laboratory testing reports on DTV receivers.

Rhodes highlights several interference scenarios uncovered by the reports, which were prepared by the FCC, the Canadian Research Center, and the University of Kansas. The reports suggest, according to Rhodes’ interpretation, that manufacturers of digital TV receivers have largely ignored ATSC A/74. What’s more, A/74 deserves to be ignored, in his view, because “it’s busted!”

If Rhodes is correct, this does not bode well for analog TV owners hoping to purchase reliable digital TV adapters, and it could even undermine the DTV transition.

Rhodes takes the reports very seriously, describing the government’s thusly:

It may be the most important technical document from the FCC ever.

Meanwhile, several companies are working to bring to market converter boxes compliant with A/74, as mandated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), by early next year. What remains to be seen is whether the FCC will go through with its controversial plan, much anticipated by technology enthusiasts, to let unlicensed transmitters share broadcast spectrum once the February 17, 2009, DTV transition is completed.

This story isn’t over, and I would be most interested to learn how other analysts view this issue. I truly hope that converter box manufacturers, broadcasters and government regulators will study it closely.

• Link: TV Technology

Under the headline The Dog Ate My Transmitter, Broadcasting & Cable catalogs the woes of several of the 145 stations that have fallen behind on the digital TV transition:

The stations have given a range of reasons, from serious problems related to terrorism and natural disasters to wet cement, cruise ships and kids who need subsidized lunches.

Headline aside, the FCC-granted extensions were legitimately needed by some stations, including several in New York that formerly transmitted from the World Trade Center. Doug Lung of TV Technology reports on plans for testing a distributed transmission system for delivering digital TV to Big Apple viewers currently served by sidemounted Empire State Building antennas. Unless broadcasters can put a better system in place before the analog TV shutoff in 2009, DTV reception could remain dicey for New Yorkers who rely on indoor antennas.

Earlier:
Delay New York digital TV cutover, Congressman says

• Links: B&C, TV Technology

Samsung today announced a new digital TV chip that is said to offer substantially improved over-the-air reception. The technology behind its S5H1411 chip “boasts a 30 percent higher reception success rate than the company’s previous generation digital TV receiver chip released in 2005,” according to Samsung. That claim echoes the 30 percent improvement in receiver performance cited by another Korean manufacturer, LG Electronics, when it unveiled its sixth-generation DTV chip last December.

With the shutdown of analog TV broadcasts throughout the U.S. scheduled for Feb. 18, 2009, the prospect of increasingly robust digital reception may just save the day. As recently as 2005, Sinclair Broadcasting warned that deficiencies inherent in the digital broadcasting standard approved by the FCC would imperil the future of over-the-air TV. Many viewers who had long been satisfied with the reception available through a basic indoor antenna were disappointed to learn that a rooftop model was necessary to watch digital stations. A significant problem for DTV viewers in urban areas was “multipath” interference.

But multipath no longer is a worry, according to LG and Samsung, whose chipsets will also be available to other digital TV manufacturers. If Americans can get crystal-clear HDTV channels over the air for free, it might—just might—be a game-changer for broadcasters.

Because digital TV uses spectrum more efficiently than analog, each local station could offer five or six channels if it wanted to (at the expense of HD broadcasts, by the way); the additional channels are known as multicasts. Just imagine having 30-plus channels of free TV available in metropolitan areas—better yet, don’t imagine it; just go to Britain, where that scenario is already a reality. People like Andrew D. Cotlar have said that the U.S. should follow Britain’s Freeview model, bringing an expanded selection of cable-style channels to antenna households. Until recently I’ve been a skeptic, given the problems that threatened the viability of digital broadcasting in the U.S.

But if more Americans will be able to count on reliable digital broadcasts, local broadcasters may see a chance to win back some market share from cable and direct-broadcast satellite (DBS) television services.

Several hurdles remain, however. The increasing popularity of HD broadcasts in the U.S. leaves less spectrum available for adding new channels. Digital broadcast penetration in the U.S., while growing, is still nowhere near the level of Britain, where, thanks to the multiplicity of channels, more viewers watch digital TV broadcasts than analog. Antenna viewers in the U.S. will be forced to switch to digital within the next two years, of course. But 85 percent of domestic television households subscribe to cable or satellite systems, which are unlikely to add local multicast channels to their lineups unless the government makes them or, perhaps, broadcasters pay them. (Mandatory cable carriage would probably do more than anything else to promote multicasting, though I am still not really sold on that approach.)

Where does that leaves us? Well, I doubt that broadcasters will offer large numbers of cable-style channels until more viewers are actually capable of receiving them. But as digital TVs and converter boxes equipped with decent tuners find a place in more American households, more multicast channels may reach the airwaves. If broadcast networks would provide additional programming feeds to their affiliates, packed with shows that viewers might actually watch, that could start the ball rolling. (I wouldn’t expect the locals to produce much in the way of new programming, given the costs.) Some of the new channels might even be aimed at mobile TV viewers, given recent advances in ATSC’s potential for mobile reception.

Does large-scale multicasting have any chance of grabbing a meaningful slice of the audience at the expense of pay-TV providers? Perhaps not, at this late date. But if broadcasters can find some way to make multicasts profitable, well—it might just save their hides.