----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Not long ago I asked Gary Shapiro, Eddie Fritts, and a dozen others of their
standing to produce articles for our web site with the objective of
educating with them the public and professionals alike. I asked for some
interesting serial articles as you have seen with Ed Milbourn (who is doing
a terrific job for us). I want our site to deliver the authority which the
public can take to the bank.
In today's Senate hearings on the DTV transition the one common thing that
was agreed upon is that the consumers don't have a clue as to what is going
on in those hearings nor what they should expect from the products they are
buying, or being asked to buy now.
Shapiro chided me a bit for asking his presense saying that while he admired
my perseverance there simply was no problem we were solving by what I (or
anyone on the internet I must presume) was doing. There was no encouragement
from him or CEA, no agreement to join our efforts. The only thing we got was
access to articles or speeches that had already been published on their own
sites or elsewhere. To me this transition has always been in trouble. This
business of subsidized boxes paid for by borrowing funds from the spectrum
auctions was first suggested in 1996 in HDTV Newsletter. It was said then to
be a naive idea which would not be needed but today it is considered not
only probable, but essential, There are many of our citizens who have no
knowledge of why we are turning to digital nor do they have any motivation
to be part of it. That was driven home to me the other day when on a call in
radio program serving the St, Louis, Missouri area (more the rural part than
the urban). The topic was HDTV. I was called in as the so called expert.
Every caller was concerned that they would lose their television altogether
since they didn't know anything about digital. They had heard that the boxes
were hundreds of dollars. They were on fixed incomes and could not afford
cable or satellite and certainly not the hundreds of dollars for boxes. Why
was this happening to them they questioned over and over again. Who was
profiting from their misfortune? Gary Shapiro shows scant regard for the 12%
of the public who he claims depend upon over-the-air today. CEA all-but
wrote broadcasting off in the beginning of the transition and again today
chastised them en forte for not stepping up to the promotional plate and
shouting from the heavens (at their expense) the coming of DTV! Station
manages constantly bemoan the fact that they cannot get any of the
commercial money going to newspapers and so why should they tout this stuff?
Shapiro brushes off this token of 15 million people who on the day of shut
off will suddenly be back to radio as their chief means of staying in touch
with their times. He says those analog sets are used mostly for games and
DVDs but that is not what other research claims.
Have any of you seen what 15 million people looks like in one place? Go fly
over Tokyo or Mexico City and you will get an idea. I would not want to face
that mob the day they find themselves without TV because of what looks to
them like a nourishing of the rich.
There are some bad politics going on that will have to be fixed before this
transition can support a date certain. By the way, a date certain cut off
was the only other thing that was universally agreed upon in the hearings as
crucial to the transition strategy.
For those living from a middle view of life, free from concern over the
plight of the lower classes, a panoply of new options was vocalized before
the Senators suggesting new uses and wealth from the use of the 700 MHz
broadcast band. Large area services of WiMax,-- the wide band wireless
system--would enrich the cultures of the rural sections of America, The
rural, we were advised, least use over-the-air broadcasting. So, rural
areas have a net gain with this transition--little loss of TV services and
new wideband wireless introduced.
Homeland security--first responders specifically--came into the sharpest
focus from the start when Senator John McCain opened the hearings while he
glared mentally at the NAB's Eddie Fritts. McCain is of the mind that
broadcasters had a free gift of billions of dollars in spectrum and they
have been ungrateful, to say the least. Homeland security (first
responders), was given fresh meaning by the recent tragedy in London. First
responder use of the frequencies was given as reason-enough to set a date
certain. Life-saving communications devices would be initiated and placed
into service hopefully before the next catastrophe (which no one doubted
would come). The other senators laid out the known field of play between
all of the competiting interests and then turned to the panelist.
The nature of the spectrum used by broadcasters is superb for 'first
responders'. It is at a wavelenght which penetrate concrete buildings and is
effective at longer distances (with less power) than higher frequencies.
Higher frequencies bounce off hard surfaces instead of going through them.
To be safe we want our homeland security devices and the spokesperson for
that said it would be 3 years coming even with a date certain, and never, of
course, without it.
The NAB's Eddie Fritts said that the value of broadcasting today was just as
it was in 1996 when the transition was on the launching pad. The hurricane
was best reported by the local stations and done as a public service. Cable
should carry it and all other things in the 6 MHz signal as well as support
the analog signal until the cut off date. Broadcasting supports date certain
of December 09, could even stretch that to 08 if the 45 % penitration rules
were recended. NAB wants the FCC rule reversed that said cable must transmit
only the primary channel of the 6 MHz signal without downconversion.
Cable went through a litany of reasons why they do not want to carry all of
the reduntant channels (like five weather and shopping channels for example)
broadcasters who want their new digital sub-channels all carried because
they would cost them too much bandwidth. They want the right to downconvert
the digital signal and make one analog channel for the broadcaster's
principal channel as well as doing that for the digital offerings. I was
confused myself and will clear up tomorrow if every subchannel is to also
have its analog equivalent. I rather doubt it but the cable people treated
it that way.
DirecTV was there and said that if must carry of all the digital channels
was asked of them they would have to push off some of their local channels
they now serve and seek destruction of the legislation which makes satellite
do all or nothing in terms of local carriage.
One thing that must have shocked those witnessing these hearings is the lack
of comprehensive understanding these senior legislators appeared to have
regarding the technology and the transition. The presenters could have said
anything and these dear old codgers (yes, some are younger than me but they
codge just the same) would have wrestled with it best they could and still
end in the same darkness from which they came. One demonstration by Motorola
of a $50 set top box did impress the more alert among the senators. Two TVS
side by side had the same program--one from rabbit ears from over the air
analog and the other from the digital equivalent using the $50 box. Not only
was the picture better but all of the sub-channels came in to suggest that
not only does the consumer get the use of their old TV, they get better
picture AND more programs. This "more programs" business is what makes both
cable and satellite nervous. It has been stated repeatedly that most people
with multiple channel services use fewer than a dozen of those channels.
They may be different channels person to person but it does suggest that a
certain satisfaction comes with far less channels than are present. So,
could not a digital service be formed out of an alliance of local stations
that would allow for 4 or five programming channels from each? If there were
five channels in one market and you get four channels per station you have
20 channels, more than the average ever usee. Could that cut deeply into the
much hated cable industry? In a word, YES! That idea doesn't thrill the
satellite operators any more than it does the cable people and both of them
are doing what they can to discourage the engagement of multicasting or
multiple channels, and thus kill it.
The Spanish language station in Los Angeles was represented and noted that
their audience typically depends upon over-the-air and their Spanish
services are crucial to the health of their community. Even so they are
ready to give back their analog channel because they can spur the use of
over-the-air use by their constituencies. I think he wanted the subsidy to
work.
CEA's Shapiro defended their presense in this nation saying that 2 million
jobs are created in the U.S. by CE. The jobs not here are also not in Mexico
any more. Their loss is our gain since China is making chassis and sets at
lower cost, the lower cost we are paying. Shapiro wants a date certain so
his manufacturers can start designing and building new devices for new
services that will occupy those airwaves once returned and auctioned.
There is more to the hearing, but the bottom line is that the Senators are
over their heads, only slightly interested from a personal standpoint,
though alert to homeland security issues and the money which the auction is
suppose to make. They are of the mind that a larger dollar amount will come
from an earlier shut off date. In the real and commonly understood bottom
line is that its all up to the consumers from here on out. So, Gary, Eddie,
and all of you others please come and distribute your work here where
everyone is working very hard for this cause. We had yesterday 25,000 page
views and will have more than a million for the month of August and double
that by Septermber. It's not like there is no one looking.
Dale Cripps
>
> I hope you watched the web cast I posted on the Tips earlier today.
>
> There is so much that this meeting motivates me to comment that I do not
> know where to start.
>
> But at least I wanted to drop two lines:
>
> The Senators of this committee did not have HDTV, not to mention DTV, one
> had 8 analog TVs, these
> are the people that we trust for policy making in this technology.
>
> They mostly expressed almost no knowledge on the technology, a sad
> experience that witnesses,
> included Shapiro, have to take some time off to explain some basics, when
> the Senators should have
> researched better to maximize the opportunity to questions to the experts
> they had today. Only
> McCain showed some speed of mind when he asked his questions, but they
> were more timeline/capacity
> to produce related, anyone could have asked those.
>
> Only a couple of times HDTV was mentioned, in its place, emphasis was
> given to the savings of
> bandwidth DTV could create, in other words 6 SD channels in 6 MHz rather
> than HDTV.
>
> It was sad to see these people being on a decision making seat with so
> little knowledge of the
> entire picture.
>
> I need to take time off for a cappuccino before I say something I would
> regret saying.
>
> For the guys looking for a 1080p set, I tell you, it would be quite a
> pixel interpolation jump if
> they get away with this SD business for most of the channels.
>
> Dale, Shapiro mentioned HDTV but only for a few seconds, we need to get to
> work on this, and I
> thought I was doing enough to educate, what a disappointment witnessing
> their lack of knowledge and
> care for other than getting their votes from the 11.5% OTA people.
>
> I was planning to write an article about this but I frankly believe is not
> worth the time.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected] 