Re: HDTV FCC mandate?

"Tommy Flynn" <noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:r1vgj1libvdk54rcv943kdod4rpk7c2dah@xxxxxxxxxx
>I thought that the FCC had mandated that all US TV broadcasting would be
>high
> definition. Why does there seem to be so much foot dragging by the
> industry. I
> know that this cost money, but it's not like the networks aren't making a
> ton of
> it. I can record an hour TV show and play it back, skipping the
> commercials, in
> about 40 minutes. Seems like they are getting plenty of advertising
> dollars.
> Why don't they just bite the bullet and make the switch?

First of all, a technicality: they are required to go digital, though not
necessarily HD. But the expense and inconvenience of going digital is, in
practical terms, practically the same as going HD in this case, so there's
not so much advantage of going to SD digital, either, unless that gives them
some advantage like being able to multicast multiple SD channels.

The main problem is that most of their customers actually view through cable
or satellite, rather than directly over the air. And right now, cable and
satellite companies are not required to carry the HD versions of local
signals, and, even moreso, are not required to carry all the individual SD
channels if local channels choose to multicast SD signals instead of one big
HD signal.

So the broadcasters basically have big expenses to switch over, but little
benefit from it, unless the FCC mandates that all cable/satellite providers
carry all local digital TV channels however the local station is putting
them out (either the full HD or the multiple SD multicast channels). The
cable/satellite companies, on the other hand, are struggling to find a way
to handle the bandwidth of all those local channels (especially the
satellite companies, which need to launch new birds to handle the extra
channels of multicast or higher bandwidth of HD).


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Death of OTA Broadcasting
    ... Fox is the poster boy for "pack it all in" to multiple channels of SD. ... No they are the only ones who do not have to keep their heads down while multicast must carry is still up in the air. ... If broadcasters get multicast must carry you will see a lot of it right away. ... With MPEG2 I don't think there will be enough room for even 720P HD if they have even the bare minimum set aside for A-VSB even using MPEG4 on the A-VSB segment and only doing SD or less. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: TV SAT via LAN
    ... > Satellite to Local Area Network. ... > concurrently up to 10 channels. ... Windows Media. ... For example, VLC can stream multicast: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsmedia.server)
  • Re: is OTA TV doomed?
    ... | If they can make one dollar more with five channels than with one HD ... | programs in HD for cables HD tier. ... That's why I support multicast ... | What broadcasters will not do is give away HD free OTA for very long. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Digital TV transition
    ... I haven't relied on OTA TV for probably a couple decades now, since we've had so few channels available here anyway (yeah, Vancouver, third-largest city in Canada, and we still only have four or five local channels broadcasting OTA). ... I suppose it might be an issue for our cabin up north, where we've only ever had two channels available, both requiring a large roof-mounted antenna... ... RCA Composite jacksand RF Output are REQUIRED on all coupon eligible converter boxes. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Difference Engine
    ... rest of the original VHF channels on the dial were usually just the ... In over-the-air VHF broadcasting, ... Mobile-phone operators and other would-be users of wireless spectrum ...
    (uk.politics.misc)