----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
The FCC was planning to discuss this topic at its June 21 meeting,
but I just got a press release saying that it has been removed from
the agenda because there was a lack of consensus about how to move
forward. No word yet on whether it will come up later.
WR
At 12:14 AM 6/19/2006, you wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>6/18/2006 10:48pm ct
>
> I'd like to get in on this.
>
> First, there are truly bad multicast sub-channels and truly
> good multicast sub-channels. There is also, almost always, a limit
> on bandwidth on cable systems.
>
> It seems to me that any FCC rule or Congressional law
> should take into account the need for the cable companies to carry
> the various local primary channels at a bandwidth quality equal to
> the OTA broadcast. That includes both the 480i and the HD version.
>
> After that, some formula has to be proposed which balances
> the cable company's bandwidth capabilities with the demand for
> sub-channel carriage by the local broadcasters. For instance, the
> very last priority, if allowed at all, should be infomercials.
>
> In this transition, the rule simply can't be all or
> nothing. For one thing, after 2-17-2009, all those analog channels
> will go away (or, at least, most of them) and lots of duplication
> will be eliminated.
>
> There also ought to be an FCC rule, supported by Congress,
> which requires cable company size their available bandwidth for TV
> first and then "Internet", and only then for other services, such
> as voice (Telephone), making sure TV has the bandwidth necessary to
> provide broadcast quality video and sound for all the local
> broadcast channels' Primary channels, in 480i and HD.
>
> This greedy reallocation of bandwidth is something akin to
> what Enron would do and has to be stopped, by the public and for
> the public. We certainly can't count on anyone else looking out
> for the public, particularly the government
>
> Local channels who want to do more sub-channels can also
> resort to providing programs via fiber to the cable company;
> however, these should be at a priority lower than the ones mentioned above.
>
> There are exceptions. Seems to me each PBS station should
> be allowed a 2nd full digital bandwidth allotment. It's not
> possible for PBS to carry the Primary channel in 480i and HD while
> at the same time multi-casting several different grade level
> instructional programs. This is a serious issue which needs a solution.
>
> One other thing. This tekie idea that we don't need
> broadcast television any more, that it can all be done by cable and
> satellite, well, that's just balderdash. The policy of the USA is
> to provide free broadcast television to homes, not to require
> people to buy cable or satellite services to get that
> programming. The broadcast model is still alive and kicking and
> should be, even if that is in conflict with those who live and die
> by the keyboard or corporate mergers.
>
>Best,
>Robert
>
>At 10:24 PM 6/18/2006, you wrote:
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>While this is not a big topic at all it has come up here and in
>>HDTV magazine materials over the years. I do recall Dale providing
>>reports from Washington during some of the hearings and reading
>>about this very topic; early 2004, maybe 2003? As I recall, Cable
>>doesn't want to be required for the multicast because it would take
>>up bandwidth and also because historically a local station is
>>considered one channel of content. The multicast channels are
>>duplicates of stations they carry or they don't think there is
>>enough audience to justify the loss in bandwidth. The station comes
>>right back with the fact that this is what they transmit, way more
>>folks are on cable and therefore the complete channel spectrum
>>should be made available as the community service aspect of a cable
>>system is to reproduce what one can receive over the air; it is
>>typically part of the charter. Note that sat legally gets out of
>>that one but I seem to recall some folks pointing their fingers
>>that way in discussing a new bill.
>>
>>Whew.
>>
>>This is a dicey subject for so many reasons. Should my cable
>>company carry the sub weather channel from my local NBC? What about
>>the ABC derived all day news, can't remember the channel name, that
>>was a sub for many nationwide? What about March Madness and CBS
>>multicast? What about my local religious station with 5 multicast
>>channels in which I don't watch the main one less the other 4?
>>
>>What about the future concept of my 9 local stations banding
>>together to create a multicast over the air cable system providing
>>54 channels directly competing with satellite and cable services?
>>Should they carry all of that when easily over 40 of those channels
>>are likely duplicates of what they already offer? How about sat
>>service and their local carriage?
>>
>> > The specter of HD/BD media players will serve to make the low quality
>> > local stations look really bad. However, the apparent insensitivity to
>> > broadcast quality (I don't mean content) has not been a prime motivator.
>>
>>Interesting coincidence; a member in our local group made the same
>>comment in reference to:
>>
>>Why is that South Korea draws thousands of complaints when bitrates
>>were decreased for the World Cup, but here in the US we sit by
>>passively while our HD is degraded in the name of the almighty dollar?
>>
>>don't know about the dollar aspect but ya, we Americans and
>>quality... It's not how it works but that it works, and at the right price too!
>>
>>Richard Fisher
>>HD Library is Published by Tech Services
>>A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
>>http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>>Howard A. Blackstead wrote:
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>The multicasting now practiced by many local network stations has the
>>>immediate impact of significant bandwidth reduction with reduction in
>>>picture and sound quality.
>>>Now, the broadcasters are trying to get these (multicasted)
>>>extra channels carried on cable (and I presume sat). It strikes me that
>>>we should be allowed to receive distant net stations which are not
>>>diluted, if our locals are multicasted; these could be easily carried by
>>>sat or telcomm (fiber to the home) carriers. As I understand it, several
>>>of the NETS are being carried by the sat guys now....
>>>With the advent of 1080p display devices, there will be
>>>ample interest in full bandwidth programming, and this interest will be
>>>gaining. It would seem that the CEA would also be interested in full-
>>>bandwidth transmission to assist in driving high-end sales.
>>>The specter of HD/BD media players will serve to make the low quality
>>>local stations look really bad. However, the apparent insensitivity to
>>>broadcast quality (I don't mean content) has not been a prime motivator.
>>>A suitable compromise would be for the sat's or telcoms to be provided
>>>with a full bandwidth local signal, which they would need to retransmit
>>>with minimum bandwidth reduction,(not the HD-lite currently available in
>>>some locations).
>>>I am puzzled that there has been no evident discussion of this on the
>>>various forums or, it seems, at the FCC.
>>>One would expect that either Murdoch and/or Charlie would be looking
>>>hard at this issue.
>>>
>>>Howard in South Bend
>>>
>>>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]
>
>
>
>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]
--------------------------------------------------
Wayne Rash, Jr. 703-425-9231 Fax 703-425-3457
Senior Writer - eWEEK
Contributing Editor - Plane & Pilot
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[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] 