Re: NTSC tuners to be extinct ... when?
- From: phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 29 Jul 2007 20:45:56 GMT
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:07:40 GMT Alan F <afiggatt1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx wrote:
|>
|> I believe that if the cable systems provided a basic digital STB for free
|> as part of the basic package, they could get away with cutting off all of
|> the analog channels. People might not like that, but I think they could
|> satisfy government agencies that are mandating the basic level of service
|> that the service is still being provided at no greater cost.
|
| Providing digital SD STB boxes for a nominal fee or no fee at all is
| part of the conversion cost. But local governments have a say in this
| and the cable companies will have to deal with local elected county &
| city boards who want to placate their older voters.
And it's not hard for cable companies to pre-spin this to get what they
want. They simply announce the change and the $2.00/month cost for the
STB. Then when the government entity bitches about this, they offer to
make the basic STB available at no cost to basic service subscribers.
Cable gets what they want, and government looks like the saviour of the
people.
The cable company executives know this would be demanded by governments,
so they would not take this path unless and until they know they will
benefit overall from this at the point of providing that box for free.
Maybe that won't work in 2007. It is more likely to as time goes on
for a few reasons. One of those is that more people will be getting
digital cable ready TVs. That means fewer basic STBs to put in at the
cable company's cost.
| For an article on how the conversion was done in Puerto Rico last
| year, see
| http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6429802.
| The transition effort was less for Liberty Cablevision, because they had
| scrambled all their analog channels, forcing everyone to get analog
| STBs. The reason for the scrambling was to cut down on cable theft. This
| is a unspoken motive for cable companies to go digital with encryption
| for all the national cable channels, especially in the big cities. But
| they will retain a analog core of the broadcast networks and local
| access/government channels as a sop to the customer base & local elected
| officials.
But they can also do this with digital. Then there is the decision to do
the basic channels encrypted or not. They have to balance cable theft with
basic STB costs to make that decision. With encryption they will need to
provide the free basic STB to all basic customers. Without encryption they
can avoid the cost of the free basic STB to customers that already have
digital cable ready TVs (a number that is gradually growing), at the
expense of cable thieves stealing service. My bet is they will go the
way of unencrypted basic and let basuc customers use their TV directly as
much as possible, since for many or most cable systems, basic service is
provided at a loss. Cable thieves would be able to get a service level
that the cable company would have lost money on (then the only real loss
is the damage the thieves might cause).
|> OTOH, an analog VSB demodulator and NTSC decoder are very cheap chips, at
|> least for a while.
|
| I don't see why the cost of NTSC chipsets would go up. They are cheap
| which is one reason I expect NTSC tuners will stay in TVS for a few
| years pass 2009.
I suspect they will be reduced to minimal production in a few years as
the remaining NTSC countries switch over to digital (whether that be to
ATSC or something else).
|> I'm sure they will try to get those on the 700 MHz spectrum moved first.
|> But as I understand it, "flash cut" will be the word of the day for low
|> powered stations. I suspect the pressure will be most on the urban ones
|> and less on the rural ones initially. Low power stations also operate
|> on a less protected basis. If the Feb. 17, 2009 changes result in a low
|> power station causing interference to a high power station, the low power
|> station goes off the air. I don't remember where class A falls in this.
|> Rural translators in the mountainous rural areas are the ones most likely
|> to be tolerated on analog past Feb. 17, 2009.
|
| The law requires that all stations cease broadcasting on UHF 52 to 69
| by midnight of February 17, 2009. So any low power station or translator
| in what is called "out of core" band will have to move or shut down.
| These stations will almost certainly be required to go digital with a
| new in core channel or go off the air. But the FCC is still working it's
| way through the conversion process and rules for all the Class A, low
| power stations, and translators.
Certainly those on 52-69 will be the first priority to get moved or
shutdown. But I also know some were left running for a while back
when 70-83 was taken away. Interference will likely be considered
in the decisions. If some 1 watt channel 57 translator beaming
down into a remote isolated valley with a population of 30 people
is left running well into the spring of 2009, I doubt there will be
any real impact.
| Since a number of Class A stations are network affiliates, I can see
| where the FCC will focus on requiring all of them to go digital by the
| cutoff date along with the out of core stations.
|
| If you want to read some of public documents behind this, go to
| http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/. The third periodic review of May 18, 2007 is
| the key one. The FCC is also taking comments for the Third DTV Periodic
| Review NPRM (proceeding 07-91) if you want to send them your thoughts on
| the matter. The FCC is is getting protests from low power stations
| owners who want to delay the digital conversion because of financial
| hardship.
One problem is that the whole conversion process left the low power stations
without planning guidance for a long time. They surely knew they would have
to convert, but there was little or no idea when, exactly. Then decisions
started to be made with much shorter time frames. I do feel they should be
allowed the time to do the conversions, even if on a flash cut basis. The
ones on channels 2-51 could go longer and the ones on 52-69 need to get off
pretty damned fast (as assignment rollouts in other services take place).
Sharing does already exist between two-way mobile and broadcast in 14-20.
Some of the 52-59 spectrum could be done that way on a temporary basis as
two-way services are rolled out. Some smaller city that is not having its
700 MHz two-way service turned on in February 2009 could leave a low power
station on the air until it is ready to roll out. It just needs to be far
enough from another that is doing so to avoid interference.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-07-29-1516@xxxxxxxx |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
.
- References:
- NTSC tuners to be extinct ... when?
- From: N. Morrow
- Re: NTSC tuners to be extinct ... when?
- From: Bill R
- Re: NTSC tuners to be extinct ... when?
- From: Alan F
- Re: NTSC tuners to be extinct ... when?
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: NTSC tuners to be extinct ... when?
- From: Alan F
- NTSC tuners to be extinct ... when?
- Prev by Date: does the new tivo hd use the 5th or 6th generation hdtv chipset?
- Next by Date: Re: Do any HDTVs with built-in QAM tuners have video/audio outs?
- Previous by thread: Re: NTSC tuners to be extinct ... when?
- Next by thread: Re: NTSC tuners to be extinct ... when?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
