Ask Engadget HD: Should the FCC kill DTV for better technology?
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Nov 15th 2009 10:41AM
posted Nov 15th 2009 10:41AM
There aren't many around that're bigger fans of free over-the-air HD than us, but we're also really big fans of wireless technologies. So when we originally heard that the FCC was considering commandeering broadcast DTV spectrum for wireless broadband we weren't so keen on the idea. But then we saw this Multichannel News story and it really got us thinking about the ramifications of killing free HD as we know it. The fact is that HD via ATSC only works in applications where the antenna is stationary, which means that cable or satellite work just as well, but of course aren't free. Which means that the only real benefit of broadcast DTV is it is free. This makes us wonder, considering only 10 percent of America relies solely on over-the-air TV, is this really the best use of this valuable wireless spectrum? Or would it be better to use it for wireless broadband? Just think, ATSC uses a 15 year old modulation technology and still manages to pump almost 20 Mbps across one channel. If we freed even part of this for wireless broadband, we could have as much throughput as we wanted to our phones and laptops almost anywhere in the country. So we want to know.What would the FCC have to do in order to make you happy to give up your free HD? Would free basic cable (with HD of course) make it ok? Or maybe some restrictions are wireless broadband that would make it more affordable for consumers? Maybe just reducing the number of channels in each area by restricting their use to actual public benefits (no infomercials etc) would be a good compromise.
Ultimately we believe that DVRs are going to eventually invalidate non-live linear TV as we know it -- and broadcast TV and its affiliate model along with it. In fact this buyout by the FCC might be the perfect exit strategy for them. The question is will it take 5 years or 25? And will the public or corporate America come out better off as a result.
So you want to take away the poors tv so you can have free internet?
Sounds good to me!
Did anyone actually pay attention to how HARD the digital transition was? It was delayed so many times, it became a joke. And given that the last broadcast transition was from B&W to color, we have a long way to go before we have *another* transition. And recall that the converter box vouchers sold out twice before you want the government to subsidize/manage *another* "free" transition.
Add to this that all the locals WANT to broadcast OTA, and do not want to change (again), they will be lobbying against the FCC removing this capability. (Just take the number of local OTA channels you have and multiply by 100 -- which is still pretty short of the real total -- and you get how vast the deployment is.)
So when all's said and done, the poor (and my grandmother!) have nothing to worry about.
-Pie
Well, of course the FCC wants to get rid of free OTA because the government can't tax it in its current structure. But image all the new tax revenue if they could force that remaining 10% onto satellite or cable. Either they get to charge a fee in the bill, or if they provide "free" basic to people you know everyone will have to pay some "extended cable" tax like the phone tax during tax returns or something as an excuse for making it free.
This administration tries to make the middle class and below believe they are getting tax cuts, but people still fail to realize that EVERYONE pays taxes like sales tax or the potential cable taxes, regardless of your income level.
@EatingPie
The digital transition is easy, we are having hardly a problem with it over in the UK because we staggered it. Now if a small country thinks its the best option, why would a massive country just switch over in one day?
Plus we get Freeview HD next month.
You yanks just make it hard.
Everyone in this country would need to have free cable service and some kind of fast internet for all.
I don't think this is feasible at all.
I think free Internet would be transformational for this country. Of course, Over-the-Air TV is still in existence mostly due to the need of an Emergency Broadcast System. However, this could be done via the Internet as well. But I'm afraid that it would have strong resistance by Lobbyists of many industries (Mobile Phone, ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX/etc, ISPs, MPAA, RIAA). If you eliminate Over-The-Air, the Networks could still broadcast via Hulu or other web locations but this may also further impact local news.
Problem with that theory is complication by adding too many hoops to jump through and putting all the eggs in one basket to get at something. If you don't have the internet you have nothing. Many many people do not have the internet.
Should add... many people do not have or use computers or tech that could take advantage of the situation.
And free internet for all would have to be a much bigger burden and more costly [over free tv] unless it was restricted by far to the point it might not be useful at all. Even free dial-up had trouble existing.
There's way too many problems associated with it for it to work well.
99% of TV watching is done using TVs that are stationary, not because of technical limitations (mobile TVs cost $25 by the end of NTSC's reign), but because most people who watch TV want to sit down and watch it, not be passively aware of it in a moving vehicle. Further, the technology is being developed, there's no reason to believe that mobile usage of regular ATSC will continue to be a problem in the long term, and in the short term ATSC M/H is a perfectly reasonable solution.
You want to kill DTV because of that and because you think it'll add to the spectrum available for mobile Internet? How does that make sense?
And here's the thing: there's currently a spectrum *glut* when it comes to mobile Internet spectrum. A large number of companies are sitting on swathes of spectrum they've aquired but been unable to fund the necessary roll-out of infrastructure. The notion there's a spectrum shortage is a myth - there's plenty, most of the spectrum above 3GHz is virtually unused, and much of the spectrum over 2GHz has been *specifically allocated* to wireless and mobile Internet companies who haven't bothered to roll anything out.
So, no, I don't think the FCC should kill ATSC. It's imperfect, I'd have liked to see more spectrum efficiency, the ability for stations to transmit improved codecs, and mandates on MPEG-2 usage that allowed some of the more arbitrary restrictions be ignorable (stations currently don't use GOPs bigger than, say, 15, because many chipsets can't handle bigger GOPs.) But as it is, it's pretty high quality, light-years ahead of what it replaced, it's open, unencrypted, and deserves to do well.
The idea isn't to necessarily give the bandwidth for internet, that was just an example. The idea is to stop using it for the benefit of 10 percent of the population and use it for something that would benefit 90 percent.
So yeah, taking something away from 10 percent just to give it to another 10 percent, doesn't make any sense.
The problem with wireless broadband spectrum being allocated above the 3GHz band of spectrum is that it is useful only in line of sight applications. This couldn't be allocated for anything useful like LTE because it just doesn't penetrate more dense objects like the 700 MHz band used for OTA broadcast television does. This is why the 700 band was auctioned to telcos to begin with. If more of that band is allocated for use by the telcos, the services they offer will be more stable. I would rather see that spectrum get put to better use. OTA broadcast television is a dying breed. We might as well help it along. That's not to say that we can't keep public television channels broadcasting. Hell, I'd even say that it might be a good idea to start broadcasting some of the existing channels using MediaFLO, ISDB-T, or DVB.
Its an interesting idea but you'd likely have to leave basic SD over the air since it does serve as an emergency communications system. Plus I doubt all the stations that just bought expensive new digital HD OTA broadcasting equipment will go down without a fight.
I do think that wireless broadband is horribly restrictive right now due to a lack of competition and freeing up more frequencies on which companies could operate would be a good thing. But the stranglehold that the big 4 carrier now have on the airwaves is just not working. Eventually, the FCC is going to have to demand the airwaves be open to any competitor like they did plain old telephone service. As long as the carriers can have these mini-monopolies real competition and innovation just can't happen.
Free basic Internet + IPTV for basic channels, assuming that there's enough bandwidth in a wireless broadband connection to stream OTA HD on it.
I smell a program in which the goverment gives out coupons for free computers with wireless cards.
Yeah, that's not going to happen.
Plus the basic cable for free idea is stupid, you know how many places within 30 miles of a major city can't get basic cable because it is too rural...a lot.
In addition to free basic to anyone who already has coax run to your house, the FCC could require that DirecTV and Dish send basic channels in the clear. So anyone who wanted could buy the dish and a cox could watch basic satellite. In fact I don't know of many other 1st world countries that don't have some form of free satellite service.
And even if the gov't wanted to go the free internet access route, they wouldn't have to give out free computeres, just free IPTV boxes.
wow engadget hd is so boring.
Sure free wireless internet may sound great on paper, but I doubt it would work well in practice. 20mbps might sound like a lot until everybody and their brother is tieing it up to watch TV over the internet. Also you have to take into consideration that television broadcast right now is only one way. Even if they could make it a two way broadcast, how do you propose that your little wireless device will get a signal back to a broadcast tower that could be as far as 20-30 miles away? That and if you are that far away from a broadcast tower and can even communicate with it, I suspect the latency (just like satellite internet) will kill you.
20-30 miles (OTA)
20-30 miles (OTA) is a lot less than 40,000 miles (satellite). The latency wouldn't be any worse than a normal wired internet connection.
Data travels at light speed over the air, fiber, and copper, although OTA may have channel coding delays.
For some reason, the "much less than" characters truncate a post.
Hmm, they just killed analog television. This article speculates about killing digital television. Is there something that isn't analog or digital for which television can be conveyed from broadcaster to viewer?
By the time this happens, we'll have wireless access built into our smartphones wirelessly streaming IP all of the devices in our home, including our HDTVs. We'll each have a single provider for all media and two way communications.
Maybe the television stations will have their own and there is limited access for these "free to air" networks,
10%? I highly doubt that, especially with the digital transition along with the recession. A lot of people can't afford their cable or satellite bills, and basic cable only provides analog SD (unless you have QAM, which then the only HD channels are your locals) To get HD non-local cable channels, you end up needing to pay over $100 a month on Comcast.
10 percent of the US rely solely on OTA TV, that is a stat that both the NAB and Nielsen agree on. And actually the DTA transition made it worse, before then, the stat was around 15 percent. But according to Nielsen, about 28% of those decided to go to cable or sat instead of getting a converter box.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/11/03/nielsen-reports-the-affects-of-the-digital-transition/
I would think the recession would have obviously increased the number of OTA viewers
And we all know that Nielsen is always right...
But if you think DVRs will be the end of broadcast TV, then why not cable too? Much of both's income comes from non-live programming, and taking that away will hurt their ability to be able to do live programming, including any sports. I understand the idea here; I just don't see this happening in this way in the next 25 years. Not to mention there's other issues here, including frequency coordination with Canada and Mexico. We can't get Mexico to approve hardly any licensing along the border, yet they blast in with million watt transmitters all over the place. Are we just going to have to live with crappy service along the border?
I think cable is already making the transition to non-linear programming. Just look how Comcast already wants to focus on its HD selection (HD VOD), instead of channels. I believe the amount of VOD will continue to increase while the number of linear channels will be reduced. I think the recent launch of EPIX is a good example of things to come. They launched a linear channel with VOD and internet streaming. This is the next logical step to launching new "channels" that don't have a linear component.
Let's see. The majority of a TV station's value is its license with the FCC. Take away the license and stations lose the majority of their sale value, which is already greatly diminished in today's marketplace. There just might be some lobbying by the NAB. the networks and large station groups. If the stations lose their value they lose the incentive to shell out the big bucks for news and local programming. And without a license, stations are no longer tied to the FCC and are no longer federally regulated. Many small to mid-market TV stations will see the accumulated debt they incurred for the digital transition as unrecoverable and will take the route of many upside down homeowners and walk away from their obligations. Wait until THAT settles in on the already-reeling banking industry.
There is no doubt that they have the most to lose but then again, like newspapers, their glory days are long gone and they have to decide what level of survival they are willing to accept. This seems like it might be a great exit strategy. And besides, I expect this to be like a 20 year transition, not much different then the digital transition that was first thought of in the around 1990.
I also think that these companies would continue to create local programming, just not delivered OTA. They'd continue to produce their web content and maybe even live news etc that would be on cable. Many of these affiliates are owned by big media conglomerates and the need for local programming will still exist regardless of how people actually receive the signal.
I guess my question to you i,s what other reparations in the form of protection could the FCC give these broadcasters to ease the transition?
I don't/won't approve of this transition, and I'm someone who whole heatedly supported the DTV switch and am also a person who would benefit from universal wireless internet. I used to get TV from Dish Network as part of my apartment building, but got all my HD TV from an OTA antenna. I have a laptop and an iPhone and would love to sit in whatever park or location I want including my local public transit and get internet, but I don't need it that much. Cable TV though I spec'd out how much would cost at my new place, and it's WAY too much for me. Right now I get all my TV via 3 separate antennas. There's too many logistical issues with what the reparations the government could offer would be. TV from analog to digital is one thing, but changing from digital TV to internet is something else all together.
-Brian
That 10% doesn't include folks like me who use OTA for secondary TV's. I have DirecTV for my primary TV but am perfectly happy with OTA for the times I occasionally watch TV in the bedroom, and would not want to bother with hooking them all up to additional receivers.
It takes the government forever to make up it's mind and get digital tv going,and now it is going to scrap it for internet? Ben your 20 year prediction is low considering how many politicians get elected by TV.
A good alternative may be to toss a bird up in the sky and offer free TV through a government run satellite service. Coupon programs could be created to lessen the cost of such a transition to the masses, just as they did during the digital transition, and apartment owners could be mandated to wire their buildings up for gov't satellite service.
That is, of course, if any of this is really necessary, if there's any real advantage to killing DTV, and assuming that the spectrum would be used for good and not for evil.
DTV is Digital TV, and a successor to Analog TV. I doubt we'll replace the current digital form of broadcast TV.
I think this site needs to distinguish and better describe its thoughts better. Instead of a non-streamed, non-packetized unbound (off the air) delivery model, the current means and ways for delivering content is shown to be better.
Yet, the whole DTV convergence illustrated the necessity to welfare a nation because of its cancerous like dependence on the cheap old ways for their luxury in television even when their household habits proved they could afford the once in a half century upgrade to digital.
As such, I doubt consideration will be made for the current model.
If they want to take away free HD content over the air, they need to force the cable and satellite companies to offer an equivalent over the wire.
TV is still considered a vital contact medium to get a message to the country at large.
Cable and satellite's market advantage was that they could bring in numerous channels with both good picture and sound that were impossible to receive over-the-air when cable and satellite first emerged. With the advent of DTV, it is now possible to receive all channels for which you can get a signal with sound and audio quality that is comparable to the best of cable and satellite. The problem is that most people have moved away from external over-the-air antennas in the years that they have enjoyed reasonable picture and sound quality from cable and satellite. I doubt that many people beyond those who understand the capability of DTV realize that they could now get nearly as many channels over-the-air with quality that is as good as or exceeds that available from cable and satellite.
IMHO, what would be needed would be a consumer awareness campaign to let consumers know that the quality from free, over-the-air DTV meets or exceeds that available from cable and satellite. I think knowing that it is available for free would likely make many consumers aware that they are spending a lot of money for little to no improvement in picture and sound quality.
Now, there are many channels that are not available over-the-air. If they were also available over the air, I think it likely that many people would opt for free, over-the-air.
However, I do not think either of these is likely to happen because cable and satellite control so much of the market, and have deep pockets that are virtual monopolies, and bucking something that has become so entrenched is something that I think will be difficult to do even though it would likely improve competition and quality of programs.
So, no, I do not believe that we should take away further bandwidth from free, OTA TV to devote to subscription based, wireless services. If anything, I think that the digitial OTA, FREE TV model should be enhanced. Perhaps then we would end up with better offerings over all since cable and satellite presently have little competition and, thus, little incentive to offer better and innovative products.
Good questions, but we the public own the airwaves. If they take this from us, the MUST give us free access to at least the broadcasts equivalent of content.
I agree that from the perspective of the OTA user, they need to give something in return. But if you really think about it, it is the broadcasters that are losing their business model and last time I checked there was no right to free TV in the Bill of Rights.
20-30 miles (OTA)
Move everything to UHF and free up the VHF band. It's crappy for video anyway. Most TV stations stayed with the UHF band after the transition, and the yagi antennas are much smaller. If you can get FM on your MP3, you can get VHF.
As for the business model, I see NO reason why every two-bit crap-artist TV station gets a channel on cable, telco, DirectTV and Dish. Regionalize network broadcast TV, with quality independents doing the local stuff. That NBC station in rural Mississippi can save a bundle rebroadcasting the regional feed with their own ad inserts.
Oh, and nuke the sports-blackout thing while you're at it.
Most sports blackouts are caused because a local affiliate has the rights to broadcast the game in your area. So if they went away, then so would those blackouts. There are still others where a regional sports network owns local rights, so the game gets blacked on on ESPN etc, but that isn't as common.
Yeah, kill it. I have OTA and it pretty much sucks.
After the FCC made a huge investment in OTA along with stations I doubt that they'll ever kill OTA.
If they do they'll also upset the millions of people who us OTA for their Tv source.
I work for a large retailer in the Chicago area. We do a lot of custom audio/video installs. when the analog stations went away in June, we had our hands full installing new roof or attic antennas. With 32 two man custom install trucks running 5 days a week each one had at least one antenna a day to install. Most of the customers that I spoke with were people on fixed incomes and would rather pay once for TV as they know it and be done. Taking that away from those people would be wrong.
I get my TV using a Samsung T351 converter box I bought in 2007 from a pawn shop near Seattle for $42. I was ready for the transition way early. When I lived in Chicago before that I swore there was a conspiracy to get everyone on cable or satellite because the OTA analog reception was incredibly bad. Yeah. I know it was probably multipath and other issues. Now that I get a decent picture, albeit converted to 480 (for now), why would I fork over money to a company so that they can compress HTDV signals further and brag about how they have the "most" channels.
Before the ntsc->atsc transition I pondered going FTA satellite just so I could get the primary national channels (and an alternate news channel) to come in clearly. Now most of them do.
Killing free tv's frequency (for repurposing) thereby "forcing" everyone to buy cable or satellite ? Or subsidizing "free" cable or satellite in its place? Geez, the next time an industry lobbyist asks you to stare at a gently undulating watch look away immediately.
OTA is better quality than Cable for local channels. I use OTA and Cable service. I say Keep OTA.
This is very dependant on the cable provider. I have FiOS which doesn't reduce the incoming signal and I'd probably be better off without OTA, as two of my local affiliates only transmite 14Mbps for 1080i, which is painful for sports. Meanwhile ESPN HD via FiOS is 18Mbps for 720p. If CBS and NBC delivered the signal directly to FiOS, I'd be willing to bet the quality would be much better than via WTSP and WFLA.
Ummm, hate to tell alot of you this, but you do know that about 90% of the cable companies get their network TV from ... wait for it ... wait for it ... YES, OTA.
what is TV? is that the crap my mom watches while i frag noobs in COD4 Modern Warfare 6 with my 90mm laser rifle?