The Senate moved the digital TV transition one step closer to reality on Thursday, setting a firm date for television broadcasters to switch to all-digital transmissions.

I thought that something like 80% of households got TV from somewhere other than terrestrial broadcast anyway. If that figure is in fact accurate, it almost makes me want to say "to hell with terrestrial broadcast and spend the $3B to subsidize cable or DSS for the few people that don't have it already." It seems like a huge waste of resources to convert all those transmitters to digital when most people will never tune in the signal in the first place.

Is watching broadcast HDTV in your car ever going to be a killer ap? People seem to have bought a lot of SUVs with (video) entertainment systems but those seem more oriented towards pacifying children.

Am I missing something here? Why is broadcast TV still relevant? Cellphones and PDAs? Is this the right infrastructure to deliver that content to those devices?

bucy wrote:

I thought that something like 80% of households got TV from somewhere other than terrestrial broadcast anyway. If that figure is in fact accurate, it almost makes me want to say "to hell with terrestrial broadcast and spend the $3B to subsidize cable or DSS for the few people that don't have it already." It seems like a huge waste of resources to convert all those transmitters to digital when most people will never tune in the signal in the first place.

Observations:
* 20% of 100m is still 20 million people. 3 billion / 20 million is $150/terrestrial user. And 100m is a conservative figure. That reduces the cost of a one-time converter, but not a long-term subscription.
* Lobbying parties. Do you really think this is just a fight between Broadcasters and the Government? I'm sure there are not any parties interested in encouraging the goverment to force modernization upgrades on millions of pieces of equipment, and million dollar equipment.
* Government power structures: The FCC loses significant clout if broadcast television goes away. The national infrustructure loses another pathway of the Emergency Broadcast System.
* Constituents: The poor are inconvenienced. Especially so for the rural poor.
* Broadcast money: Just follow the money. If it were more profitable for ABC to be a content-based cable&satellite-only network, like its' sister ESPN, don't you think the corporate overlords would have pulled that trigger? Even more so, local news and local programming -- still matters. Still make $$$.

Radio stations, despite being a declining industry that knows its days are numbered, is still big business. A housemate just started work for one as an ad exec, so I've gotten a better picture. I would imagine the same is true of television broadcasting. The dissent about this kind of action is not "you'll put us out of business", it is "you're hurting our profits".

dmv wrote:

The Senate moved the digital TV transition one step closer to reality on Thursday, setting a firm date for television broadcasters to switch to all-digital transmissions.

They're going to make it happen, market be damned.

There are a couple of interesting levers being used here.

First, they regulate the broadcasters. Fine. They've been talking about this for many years, it is no surprise and has enough good interests for society that why not. The social interest is the reason why this won't "just happen", in a timely fashion, without legislation.

Broadcasters are not going to be happy, though, until their market is there too. That's the issue.

In this legislation, they are allocating $1-3B subsidies for analog-to-digital converters for existing sets. They also set fixed dates by which all televisions of a certain size have to be digital-ready (25-34" -- 4 months, 1 March 2006; up to 24" -- 16 months, 1 March 2007).

Fine. But my initial reaction from the blurb as the article loaded, is that they should just tax analog televisions out of viability -- +$50 for an analog set, -$50 for a digital-ready gets a $100 advantage; alternatively, subsidize converters (as they are) while paying for it through analog TV tax. It hurts the poor, but so does forced upgrades to their reception technology. Give them a rebate option -- like a discounted converter.

The question, really, is whether to lever the market to upset the balance on digital versus analog or to just ban the analog. I think we're seeing the effects of the first as the cost of recycling gets computed into CRTs versus LCDs. That debate has a difference social good basis, but a similar movement and a similar outcome. Except that adoption of LCDs is faster than HD-TV, I believe.

I guess the thing about this that makes me bristle is the whole question of why? Who gives a fuck about digital television? When you look at all of the potential opportunities you have to do something which will fundamentally change things, making broadcast digital television happen faster and ubiquitously isn't even in the top 5.

Why not provide broadband internet access to every citizen? Why not provide universal health care services? Hell, combine the two and force the issue around digital health care information (EMRs, etc). Why not spend that money rebooting the nation's education system? Why not spend that money creating the foundation for domestic alternative energy sources?

Clearly, this seems like a classic case of the tail wagging the dog - where industry pushes it's influence on lawmakers to advance an agenda which is temporary at best and certainly self serving. Given that television content (and nearly all media content ) will be packetized inside of 5 years organically, subsidizing the conversion from analog broadcasting to digital seems like a lost plotline from a Max Headroom episode in 1986.

flynn23 wrote:
I guess the thing about this that makes me bristle is the whole question of why? Who gives a fuck about digital television?

The chief argument is not "because digital television looks better" or "is more modern". As I pointed out to bucy above, yes, there are parts of industry that likes this push. But most of the television industry is in push-back, not push mode. They don't want this.

The primary cited reason for why is -- bandwidth is limited. When wireless transmission and uses were less well understood, a whole lot of spectrum was allocated to analog television.

Now we are finding ourselves constrained by those initial practices. Analog television stations are extremely bandwidth inefficient, and at fixed frequencies. Whether your local community uses all VHF 2-13 channels, your millions of analog televisions can receive them, and so effectively the entire range is out of use nation-wide. With digital broadcast, you can fit many more stations per segment of bandwidth, as well as take advantage of advances in signaling technology -- televisions won't be bothered by signals not intended for them.

Basically, they want to reuse half the television spectrum for emergency communication systems, without risking damage to all televisions. That's the why, and that seems like a reasonable why to me.

Why not provide broadband internet access to every citizen?...

For $1-3 billion dollars? Good luck. I'll return fire with the same argument I made above: 100m households. $3b / 100m = $30/household. I won't even extend my numbers to consider present broadband penetration, because I hope it is obvious that that isn't even going to make a significant dent.

Same with your health care and education items. Yes, I agree with you that they should be handled or at least made a significant discussion beyond political posturing. But this digital television item is a line-item in a budget. I believe we're still spending $1b/month in Iraq. This is not a Congressional Issue like healthcare or even broadband internet access (do you really want the USGov to be your ISP?).

Given that television content (and nearly all media content ) will be packetized inside of 5 years organically

Source? That's a very bold assertion if I understand what you are saying, and I would want a reputable citation before I accepted it.

Is this similar to Bucy's assertion that this isn't worth the hassle considering 80% of televisions get their signals from terrestrial broadcast? Why bother upgrading the signals if you can just download it over the internet?

subsidizing the conversion from analog broadcasting to digital seems like a lost plotline from a Max Headroom episode in 1986.

I am fairly confident that the $1-3billion dollars proposed is not anywhere near the actual cost of this conversion. It isn't going to the people who make money using digital television. It is going to making the technology for the consumers to change their consumption more affordable.

dmv wrote:
Basically, they want to reuse half the television spectrum for emergency communication systems, without risking damage to all televisions. That's the why, and that seems like a reasonable why to me.

agreed, but the method is the madness. There are probably a lot better ways to accomplish this without subsidizing the industry's transition.

I believe we're still spending $1b/month in Iraq. This is not a Congressional Issue like healthcare or even broadband internet access (do you really want the USGov to be your ISP?).

No. And that's not what I was suggesting with the $3B. But you can create incentives for entities to provide this. The g'ment is good at doing this, and being the tie breaker when standards conflict (not the standard setter mind you). This is how rail was developed. This is how electricity became ubiquitous. This is how the interstate system was developed. You could spend $3B on getting broadband policy set up and do a lot of good. Right now it's not even on the damn radar. Right now the FCC has done more damage to broadband deployment and ubiquity than anything.

Given that television content (and nearly all media content ) will be packetized inside of 5 years organically

Source? That's a very bold assertion if I understand what you are saying, and I would want a reputable citation before I accepted it.

Is this similar to Bucy's assertion that this isn't worth the hassle considering 80% of televisions get their signals from terrestrial broadcast? Why bother upgrading the signals if you can just download it over the internet?

Similar. I point here as an example of how this is developing. But one only needs to look at the music industry and how quickly that changed (despite the continual dragging of feet and silly games) to a rapidly all digital distribution model. TV and pretty much any content will virtually all be packetized inside 5 years. I believe it will actually spur on bigger profits and more opportunities for content producers because it is a much more scalable distribution model and the costs are next to nill if you do it properly. The worry of mass piracy is ridiculous. iTunes Music Store proves that there's a balance that consumers are willing to pay for content. The previous model was that content producers (record lables) were overcharging the market. The same is happening with television and movie content. The consumer is not willing to have ads on paid dvds or put up with 10 minutes of commercials during a 30 minute television show. The balance needs to be reset and this will drive digital distribution of content.

My more specific point here though is that spending that $3B on transitioning broadcast television is, imo, a waste of funds. Of course compared to the waste of funds on other things the government is doing (universal service fee, Iraq war, homeland security depart, etc), it's minor in comparison. But any waste is not good.

dmv wrote:

The Senate moved the digital TV transition one step closer to reality on Thursday, setting a firm date for television broadcasters to switch to all-digital transmissions.

They're going to make it happen, market be damned.

There are a couple of interesting levers being used here.

First, they regulate the broadcasters. Fine. They've been talking about this for many years, it is no surprise and has enough good interests for society that why not. The social interest is the reason why this won't "just happen", in a timely fashion, without legislation.

Broadcasters are not going to be happy, though, until their market is there too. That's the issue.

In this legislation, they are allocating $1-3B subsidies for analog-to-digital converters for existing sets. They also set fixed dates by which all televisions of a certain size have to be digital-ready (25-34" -- 4 months, 1 March 2006; up to 24" -- 16 months, 1 March 2007).

Fine. But my initial reaction from the blurb as the article loaded, is that they should just tax analog televisions out of viability -- +$50 for an analog set, -$50 for a digital-ready gets a $100 advantage; alternatively, subsidize converters (as they are) while paying for it through analog TV tax. It hurts the poor, but so does forced upgrades to their reception technology. Give them a rebate option -- like a discounted converter.

The question, really, is whether to lever the market to upset the balance on digital versus analog or to just ban the analog. I think we're seeing the effects of the first as the cost of recycling gets computed into CRTs versus LCDs. That debate has a difference social good basis, but a similar movement and a similar outcome. Except that adoption of LCDs is faster than HD-TV, I believe.

This is something that the nationals are rather indifferent to on a level of what they transmit out, but that every local station in the country hates. Their opinion (and it's correct) is that there are currently 12 VHF channels per market and I have never seen a market use all of them, and 60+ UHF channels per market, and I have never heard of ANY market coming close to using even a portion of those.

What the legislation does, it kills over air broadcast and makes it cable or satellite only. For people like me, what this means is that my TV just became a movie watching device. All I watch now is PBS anyway, and forcing PBS to update all of their broadcast equipment to digital will kill them. They barely stay afloat even subsidized.

Standardizing the tranmission over the satellites makes sense. Doing so in local markets does not. There is a ton of unused space now, this just makes more.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

This is something that the nationals are rather indifferent to on a level of what they transmit out, but that every local station in the country hates. Their opinion (and it's correct) is that there are currently 12 VHF channels per market and I have never seen a market use all of them, and 60+ UHF channels per market, and I have never heard of ANY market coming close to using even a portion of those.

I thought the problem was that there are some number of the 12 VHF channels per market. The gaps are not consistent, like "no one uses channel 9". They want to reclaim specific channels, and can do so by making all the television broadcasts digital, and so take up less bandwidth.

From A Local Television Station Guide

Another often overlooked aspect of the digital conversion deals with the radio spectrum itself. The great demand for new consumer and commercial wireless radio devices such as Cell Phones, consumer and industrial devices, public safety groups such as police, fire and other public service needs are placing new stress on the somewhat limited radio spectrum. The radio spectrum itself is a finite public resource and there is only so much of it available. The Governments plan is to reclaim some of the current broadcast frequencies, and re-allocate them to these other vital services. The switch to Digital Television will make this change possible. Digital channels can be placed closer together due to the nature of the Digital signal itself, which will free up a large portion of the VHF and UHF spectrum below VHF channel 7 and above UHF channel 51. This has already been done on a smaller scale with the advent of the Cell Phone. Part of the current cellular radio spectrum includes the old UHF channels 81 thru 83.

I remember old televisions could occasionally tune in to analog cell phones.

What the legislation does, it kills over air broadcast and makes it cable or satellite only.

If you mean kills in the sense of "companies won't upgrade and just go off the air" -- perhaps. In the other direction, it may make over-the-air more useful. Transmission of additional out-of-band data is enabled, for things like on-screen-guide data.

For people like me, what this means is that my TV just became a movie watching device. All I watch now is PBS anyway, and forcing PBS to update all of their broadcast equipment to digital will kill them. They barely stay afloat even subsidized.

Became a movie watching device in four years.

Standardizing the tranmission over the satellites makes sense. Doing so in local markets does not. There is a ton of unused space now, this just makes more.

This doesn't touch satellites at all. It doesn't touch cable broadcasts at all. It just says that if you want to broadcast TV, you will have to do it using a digital broadcast; if, in the near future, you want to sell a TV that can receive broadcast TV, it has to be able to receive digital broadcasts.