DIGITAL TV TRANSITION: Get ready for 2009

‘HDTV Converter’ Scams: What to watch out for.

DTV Converter Boxes: Should you get one for your old TV?

DTV Converter Box alternatives: You don’t have to wait.

THE LATEST

Multicasting

KOCE multicast settlement: Cable impact unclear

Saturday, June 23rd, 2007

Orange County’s public television station will grant use of one of its DTV multicast channels to a religious broadcaster, under reported terms of a settlement.

The sale of KOCE-TV in 2003 prompted a legal dispute with Daystar, a large owner of religious TV stations.

The effect on cable carriage of the channels is unclear. Cable systems will not be required to carry local digital TV stations until after February 17, 2009, when analog broadcasts shut down. Even then, cable operators need only carry a station’s primary DTV signal, not multicasts (a point the LA Times article neglects to mention). Public TV made a deal with major cable companies, under which they will carry a nationally branded package of multicast channels offered by many local PBS affiliates—but a worship channel might, I imagine, fall outside the terms of that agreement.

• Link: LA Times

DTV multicasts: Spectrum is going to waste

Friday, June 22nd, 2007

Viewers who switch to digital TV are surprised, in some cases, to discover new channels available over the air—channels you can’t receive on an analog TV set. Each local DTV station is capable of delivering several channels instead of just one. They’re not just broadcasting, they’re multicasting.

Broadcasters are in no apparent rush to realize the full possibilities of the windfall (each station can now offer up to six channels) bestowed upon them by the FCC. Station owners want Congress or federal regulators to require cable TV companies to carry the new channels. But the efforts of broadcast lobbyists have been without success—thanks in part to cable lobbyists. Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), seems to question whether broadcasters even have their heart in the battle for multicast carriage. Read the rest of this entry »

DTV converter boxes, available now…

Saturday, June 16th, 2007

…well, sort of. You can buy a DTV converter box alternative for your old analog TV today—as long as you don’t mind paying for (and perhaps even enjoying) extra features like DVD recording.

A DVD recorder, equipped with a built-in digital tuner, can solve the “2009 problem” faced by analog TV owners who watch over-the-air broadcasts using an antenna. When analog broadcasts meet their demise on February 17, 2009, many of those viewers will switch on brand-new, government-subsidized DTV converter boxes. But new DVD recorders, starting at about $145, can also tune in digital TV broadcasts.

Some models, according to user reports, are not without problems. For a look at the benefits and drawbacks, see our story on DTV converter box alternatives.

Read more:
DTV Converter Box Alternatives
DTV Converter Boxes
DTV Converter Box Coupons

Ditch DTV coupons, promote broadband? No and yes…

Monday, June 11th, 2007

A novel alternative to the converter-box coupon subsidy, from Nolan Bowie at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government:

A better solution would be for Congress to provide subsidies in the form of means-tested “digital TV credits” to enable low-income families to purchase basic digital TV-video offerings from a multi-channel video service provider, whether that be a phone company or cable TV or satellite TV service. Congress could then make better and more efficient uses of the public airwaves by reallocating much of the television broadcasting spectrum for unlicensed broadband. This would help ensure universal access to high-speed broadband connectivity to the Internet and alternative forms of information, news, and entertainment.

Pay TV subsidies? I don’t think so. At $80, two digital TV adapter coupons enable a viewing household to receive several more years of broadcast programming. The same amount buys perhaps a month or two of cable or DirecTV (assuming you can wangle a free-installation deal).

He muffs the coupon program’s details and the distinctions between HDTV and SDTV. Nonetheless, Bowie’s proposal, while tardy and, let’s face it, dead on arrival, raises relevant issues. A drive to assure fast, cheap, network-neutral broadband access for all Americans would benefit the nation more than outdated federal policies (including mandated cable carriage) that indirectly subsidize TV broadcasters.

Bowie frets that DTV multicasting will exacerbate media-ownership concentration:

Once the transition into digital is completed, a single firm like Clear Channel or General Electric could, by maximizing the number of radio and TV channels ultimately have as many as 58-100 broadcast voices in the same community by compressing their digital frequencies.

Media concentration remains a huge problem, but multicasting doesn’t necessarily make it any worse (especially if it merely subdivides an already concentrated audience—which would amount to a small improvement, actually). But if Kevin Martin succeeds in greasing the wheels for multicast must-carry, smaller stations with fewer resources could lose audience share to stronger competitors who can program multicast channels more efficiently.

In the unlikely event that broadcasters find a way to offer multicast fare compelling enough to capture a meaningful audience, they might even win back some of the pay-TV audience. The way things are going now, however, I don’t think we’re heading into a new era of broadcast dominance. The more likely scenario is an acceleration of audience splintering, continued erosion of broadcast audiences, and eventual pleas from station owners for fresh forms of government help as smaller stations struggle for survival in an overchanneled era. The amount of spectrum dedicated to over-the-air television in the U.S. may actually be excessive, as Bowie contends.

Rather than concocting new schemes for bolstering broadcast hegemony, the FCC must come to terms with the changing communications landscape. Martin should put broadcasters on notice: they face a reinvent-or-die scenario, and now is the time—if it is not, in fact, already too late—to reimagine their future.

More on the future of TV:
The system is broken
What’s wrong with the FCC?
Will TV’s new rules serve big players or public?

• Link: Boston Globe

News: Digital cable boxes, DTV PSAs, HDMI 1.3

Friday, June 8th, 2007

Digital cable set-top boxes: Should you buy or rent? As of July 1, you have the choice.

PSAs about digital conversion: Bill from Rep. Engel (D-N.Y.) would mandate them.

Still hiring for the DTV switchover: Broadcast lobby seeks Director of External Relations, Digital Television Transition.

C-SPAN-style TV for local government: This would be worthy programming for multicast channels.

ATI video cards: ‘Upgrade’ saddles owners with broadcast-flag support.

HDTV tech trends: 1080p goes mainstream, HDMI 1.3 reaches market.

ATSC honors: Mark Eyer, Bernard Lechner Award recipient.

Multicast, OK

Tuesday, June 5th, 2007

Oklahoma viewers can enjoy a huge new range of television channels, thanks to digital TV multicasting:

KFOR-4 has a constant weather channel and a channel devoted to emergency programming. KOCO-5 has a high-definition feed for its Doppler weather forecast, with children’s programming Saturday and Sunday mornings. KOPX-62 offers four channels with a children’s option, a life and health channel and a worship channel. KTBO-14 multicasts five national channels that include religious programming for teens and children.

In Oklahoma, as around the country, public television stations are the multicast leaders. The Oklahoma Educational Television Authority programs five channels. The most impressive effort, in my mind, is the one called OETA OKLA, which offers home-state fare including documentaries and public-affairs programs.

What about the rest of America: Are you watching multicasts yet in your hometown? Is any station in your area offering hard-core local programming on its new channels?

Earlier:
PBS dumps multicast kids channel
Verizon will carry public TV’s multicast channels
Public TV signs cable multicast carriage deal

• Link: NewsOK

Subscribe via email

Tuesday, June 5th, 2007

These posts are now available by email. So why miss a single moment of the digital TV transition?

Email:



Powered by RssFwd

Digital TV Facts free email subscriptions

Will DTV advances spawn new channels?

Thursday, May 10th, 2007

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.

Mobile TV: New technology from LG, Harris

Wednesday, April 4th, 2007

LG/Zenith and Harris are teaming up for the latest entry in the mobile TV platform race. Their MPH (for Mobile-Pedestrian-Handheld) technology would allow broadcasters to reach cell phones, laptops, in-car receivers and other mobile devices. As with the A-VSB platform promoted by Samsung, MPH ties into existing digital TV broadcast infrastructure, allowing station owners to reach viewers directly instead of relying on mobile-phone companies. Viewers might even enjoy mobile TV programming for free (and by rights it should be free—it uses public airwaves intended for freely available TV broadcasts).

Can LG and Harris hope to overtake A-VSB, which not only shows promise but has a head start? We shall see, beginning later this month, when MPH makes its debut at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) convention in Las Vegas.

Earlier:
Europe’s mobile TV standard: It won’t be A-VSB
Will A-VSB starve HDTV?
Samsung to demo A-VSB mobile TV at CES
Local channels on mobile TV: Test shows promise

• Link: think d2c

NAB2007 preview: ATSC advances

Wednesday, March 14th, 2007

The technology behind digital television, poised to give analog broadcasts the heave-ho in less than two years, continues its relentless advance. The Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), guardian of the U.S. digital TV standard, will join with the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) to present the latest DTV marvels at NAB2007.

DTV Hot Spot technology demonstrations will include ATSC ACAP Standard application development tools and CE solutions, A-VSB for indoor and mobile reception, ATSC receiver software and development tools, distributed transmission test generator and analyzer, an advanced DTV multicasting service, D-ENG return channel capabilities, ATSC Software Data Download Standard and broadcast monitor, and home networking. Companies demonstrating these technologies in the DTV Hot Spot include AMD, BitRouter, ETRI, HANA, Harmonic/KBS, Microwave Radio Communications, Samsung, Unisoft, UpdateLogic, and Zenith/LG.

Also featured this year is a special demonstration of the ACAP Field Trial Project and its participating organizations, and an NAB/MSTV demonstration of high performance, easy-to-use DTV converter boxes for consumers.

NAB’s trade show opens April 16 in Las Vegas.

• Link: NAB

FCC’s Martin revives multicast debate

Wednesday, March 14th, 2007

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is moving forward his surprising proposal to mandate cable carriage for leased multicast channels:

According to FCC aides and published reports, Martin’s plan calls for allowing TV stations to lease surplus digital-TV spectrum to FCC-approved entities — most likely small businesses and nonprofit organizations. Lessees would have mandatory cable-carriage rights.

While the idea of giving even more cable channels to broadcasters has never made much sense to me, any proposal that would increase the diversity of programming in a meaningful way is worth giving a closer look. We won’t really be able to evaluate Martin’s plan until its details are known, but it certainly sounds better than the more straightforward giveaway to broadcasters he tried to ram through before.

Martin has managed to revive the moribund issue of multicast must-carry with a politically astute move that may appeal to Democratic commissioners. Is it an unlikely strategy for a Bush-appointed FCC commissioner? Perhaps not, given that the ostensibly conservative Bush administration, which has expanded government while presiding over fiscal recklessness, has a record of rewarding political friends at the expense of its professed free-market principles. Those friends, in this instance, would include faith-based groups that have long advocated multicast carriage mandates as a means of protecting or expanding religious programming.

The must-carry regime, I still maintain, is fundamentally broken. If must-carry privileges are extended under the theory of promoting media access, we can expect broadcasters to ultimately demand carriage rights for their own multicast programming as they increasingly face financial peril in years to come.

The FCC’s expansion of low-power television (LPTV) service, beginning in the 1980s, was supposed to promote minority ownership and community programming. (The FCC has never granted blanket must-carry rights to LPTV.) LPTV has never quite lived up to its promise, however, given minimal minority ownership, low viewership and a lack of ownership caps. Home to religious programming, infomercials and even some genuine community-produced programming, LPTV is now an afterthought in the digital TV transition. Its future looks less than promising.

Would prospects for leased multicast channels be any brighter? With cable carriage, perhaps. If Martin’s plan includes strong safeguards to ensure true programming diversity, I might actually favor it. Of course, antenna-equipped viewers who have purchased HDTVs might not appreciate the squeeze on high-definition signals (due to finite bandwidth) that might be necessitated by multicast expansion.

• Link: Multichannel News

What’s wrong with the FCC?

Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007

The FCC isn’t going anywhere, but Slate’s Jack Shafer is beating the drum for a private-property approach to spectrum management in place of government regulators. While spectrum is, indeed, no longer so scarce a resource, thanks to technological innovations, I’m not ready to bid farewell to the commission. The FCC is far from perfect, but its career experts do a reasonable job of directing traffic and holding chaos at bay.

The FCC’s most prominent shortcoming, noted by Shafer and common to nearly any entrenched bureaucracy, is its inability to respond to the future.

On the political side, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is still out promoting multicast must-carry, a scheme that would give even more cable channel slots to local broadcasters. Why is he doing this? The agenda has almost nothing to do with spectrum allocation, but probably more than a little to do with the allocation of political spoils in Washington, where the interests of broadcasters are well represented. One could argue that Martin, who maintains that multicast must-carry would help the digital TV transition, is merely promoting broadcasting as a going concern. But why should the FCC be in the promotion business? Why should the federal government stack the decks in favor of a particular form of video distribution?

Network TV shows are increasingly available via the web, video-on-demand and other platforms, chipping away at the local-affiliate paradigm that dates to the 1940s. What Martin should do is open a national dialogue concerning local TV broadcasting’s slow slide toward irrelevance, which appears to be picking up speed. The goal should not be the preservation of local broadcasting in its current form forever. The FCC should not prop up an aging business model that may no longer make sense or serve the public interest.

Locally-produced video programming, especially news, can serve a public purpose, granted. But why should the owners of giant broadcasting towers continue to enjoy preferred access to the local video market? The scarcity argument doesn’t work anymore. You and your neighbors can produce your own video and upload it to YouTube, Revver or your very own web site. Citizen video still lacks net neutrality protections, but the FCC and Congress continue to protect dominant broadcasters through must-carry rules.

• Links: Slate, Broadcasting & Cable