Govt gives Directv/Dish permission to downgrade HD broadcasts

[pmturcotte]

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6543480.html?desc=topstory

[lew]

DTV has good lobbyists. At a minimum they should be required to provide receivers that receive OTA (no extra charge) and install OTA antennas (no extra charge) in areas in which they're not offering all the stations cable is required to offer.

Channels that air nothing more then infomercials should be exempt from must carry but that should apply to both cable and DTV

[ebonovic]

DTV has good lobbyists. At a minimum they should be required to provide receivers that receive OTA (no extra charge) and install OTA antennas (no extra charge) in areas in which they're not offering all the stations cable is required to offer.

Channels that air nothing more then infomercials should be exempt from must carry but that should apply to both cable and DTV

Why?

Where they required by law to provide NTSC antennas and NTSC compatible receivers, in areas where they could not provide the channels by SAT?

[RS4]

Why?

Where they required by law to provide NTSC antennas and NTSC compatible receivers, in areas where they could not provide the channels by SAT?

He he he...if you're not paid by DTV, you should be... for all of the apologizing you do for them:p

[lew]

Just my opinion, I don't see why DTV should be given a competitive advantage over cable. I suggested the free OTA solution as an alternative (compromise) to either giving DTV an exemption or making them subject to the same rules as cable.

Actually I'd prefer DTV be subject to the same rules as cable.


Why?

Where they required by law to provide NTSC antennas and NTSC compatible receivers, in areas where they could not provide the channels by SAT?

[Mark Lopez]

Yet another missleading thread title. Here are the key points.

....the FCC plans to allow DirecTV and Dish to down convert broadcasters’ HD signals to a less pristine picture resolution for several years.

The satellite giants.....lacked the channel capacity to provide every eligible station in HD immediately.

The benchmark jumps to 30% in the second year, 60% in the third and 100% in the fourth

I don't think it's unreasonable given the cost of launching satellites and the BW needed to comply with the original requirements.

[pmturcotte]

What exactly about my thread title is misleading? If I used downcovert instead of downgrade would that have made you happy?

[lew]

Yet another missleading thread title. Here are the key points.



I don't think it's unreasonable given the cost of launching satellites and the BW needed to comply with the original requirements.

It's not just downconverting the signal, DTV is being allowed to run the channel at SD.

You missed some of the "key points"
At least for the time being, if digital TV stations demand HD carriage, the satellite carriers are not require to provide a standard definition copy to customers that do not have HD set-top boxes. In others words, none of the dual must carry obligations that the FCC imposed on cable would apply to DirecTV and Dish.

Instead, the FCC decided to give DirecTV and EchoStar until 2013 to carry all stations in HD within any market where they have elected to carry any station's signal in HD format.



Some HD channels will only be carried in SD. Some channles may not be available to customers that don't have a HD receiver.

Again a compromise would be to require DTV and DISH provide free upgrades to HD receivers to any customer that's affected by use of this loophole.

[Mark Lopez]

What exactly about my thread title is misleading? If I used downcovert instead of downgrade would that have made you happy?

You failed to include 'temporarily' after Govt. The title implied they were given some blanket waiver forever. And of course you failed to note any of that other than just providing a link.

[dswallow]

This seems quite reasonable to me. What would be stupid is to continue to require carriage of the analog broadcast no matter what is happening with the HD/digital signal carriage for the same station.

I do think there should be a requirement for subchannel carriage, though, at least to the extent of it being content that isn't just a rebroadcast of a national feed with local commercial insertion -- and even then that national feed should be available on the satellite or cable system if the subchannel is not itself carried.

[Mark Lopez]

It's not just downconverting the signal, DTV is being allowed to run the channel at SD.

Some HD channels will only be carried in SD.

Where did you come to that conclusion? Your own quote says the opposite, that the SD versions may go away.

...the satellite carriers are not require to provide a standard definition copy...

[lew]

Where did you come to that conclusion? Your own quote says the opposite, that the SD versions may go away.

It sounds like DTV has a choice, carry the HD and drop the SD, carry both or carry the SD and delay carrying the HD.

There should be some way that allows both cable and satelllite to avoid having to carry stations that air nothing more then inofomercials.

[ebonovic]

He he he...if you're not paid by DTV, you should be... for all of the apologizing you do for them:p

Why is that apologizing?

Just posing the question, based on historical facts...

[BlackBetty]

Why is that apologizing?

Just posing the question, based on historical facts...

ebonovic why don't you go to the DTV community forums and post non stop about TiVo standalone units. sounds pathetic when I put it that way, huh? :rolleyes:

[ebonovic]

ebonovic why don't you go to the DTV community forums and post non stop about TiVo standalone units. sounds pathetic when I put it that way, huh? :rolleyes:

What does that have to do with the reality of the situation?
In this discussion? And what is pathetic about it ? If people want to live in a fantasy world vs reality... sorry that the facts of the situation "hurt", but they are what they are. So as usually... you can't attack the facts of the situation, so you go after me.

The poster of that "request"... posed the theory that DirecTV shoul give everyone an ATSC tuner and antenna in those areas.

And I asked basically, what is different now... then when it was NTSC?

And for your information, with regards for your "snappy" snap at me about SA units... For those that are dead set on keeping their TiVo interface, and don't care about HD... that is exactly what I suggest they do... get an SA unit, and piggie back it with a D11 or D12 receiver.

And I still do watch what goes on in the SA world, as my mom, sister, and brother-in-law all have SA units...

[TyroneShoes]

He he he...if you're not paid by DTV, you should be... for all of the apologizing you do for them:p

Someone has to counterbalance all of the non-contributary sarcastic whining.

In my view, Earl is simply applying even-handed logic, which is a ginormous improvement over what is typically posted, and which I find refreshing. I seem to remember him being honestly very unapologetic when he disagreed with DTV as well. He just doesn't seem to honestly find all that much to disagree with.

IOW, he's earned his place here. Many have not.

[TyroneShoes]

It's not just downconverting the signal, DTV is being allowed to run the channel at SD...

Some HD channels will only be carried in SD. Some channles may not be available to customers that don't have a HD receiver...

What you state here is just about as confusing as the article itself, which is much more a complaint about the FCC applying an uneven hand to cable vendors than it is about viewers not getting full resolution of HD-rez content.

As a matter of fact, I think its about down-rezzing fatter-than-necessary bit streams and possibly not about down-rezzing "HD content" at all, or if so, only in rare and occasional circumstances. There is a distinct difference.

First of all, there is no such thing as an "HD channel" when referring to terrestrial broadcasters. They each have an SD analog channel and a digital channel which can be any mix of both HD and SD (none are currently 100% HD). This FCC nod only applies to the digital channel, as it only goes into affect once the analog channels are history. Channels are not HD, only content is HD (or is not HD).

Take Phoenix, as an example of a large market (12th DMA). They have 18 stations, not including LP sticks. The 4 big nets and PBS will carry a good part of the day in HD by 2-17-09. A couple will carry a small fraction of the day in HD, while approximately 10 or more of them will have no HD content whatsoever, and not at all for years to come.

Even so, all of these lower-tier stations broadcast all of their SD content upconverted to HD, and many of them will be using the bulk of the 19.4 Mb/s bandwidth alloted, even though for SD 4 or 5 Mb/s would give a perfectly good picture which 19 Mb/s delivery would not improve upon even in the slightest. Until they have real HD content, which is years away for most of them, limiting their signal to 5 Mb/s would not compromise their quality at all. It would, in fact, be DVD-quality, light-years ahead in PQ than that of just about every local-market sat-delivered analog channel that you can find on DBS today. IOW, a huge improvement compared to what we get now.

This means that, as regards perceived PQ, signals that carry content that is actually SD upconverted to HD would not be compromised at all, and those that carry HD for a small fraction of the time would not pay much penalty, and not for very long as the requirements increase over time.

As a matter of fact, delivering SD upconverted to HD without bandwidth limiting really is a colossal waste of bandwidth. That bandwidth could be used to bring us more HD content from other sources instead of all-day 1930's cowboy movies in B&W, as one of Phoenix's digital channels does today.

Were all channels instead required from day one to be full rez, that would prevent many new channels that carry meaningful real HD content from ever even seeing the light of day until years later, that cost yielding upconverted SD at HD bit rates but still only with SD PQ, which is a net loss rather than a net gain. So, temporary bandwidth limiting then is a smart compromise as about 95% of the proposed impact it would have would be a net improvement in the amount of HD content available to viewers.

The stepped requirements are likely there to coincide with the advent of HD content on the smaller independent stations. IOW, when they finally get content, the requirement to carry them in full resolution will probably also kick in at just about the same time. In rare instances where HD content appears on stations that don't then meet the 30%, 60%, etc. steps, there is still great pressure on DBS vendors to carry them in full HD even if not required, or risk losing customers. So it is not a free pass to downrez content, and my guess is that there would not be much of that going on, or if there were, not for very long.

On balance, it seems like a good idea. I would just like to see the numbers tweaked a bit more in favor of DBS being ahead of content, rather than possibly lagging it. I think once a station reaches a benchmark of 1 hour of actual content delivered in HD per week, vendors should have 30 days grace to give that channel full resolution, at least for the hours that they carry in HD. Technology should also be available to automatically flag a show as upconverted or true HD, which would allow the vendors to automatically push more bits into that stream just for that time period, and since that is technically possible, it might just come to that.

I like it, and I'm all for it (even though cable should get the same shake).

[JonathanMeyers]

The Satellite service providers have known the requirement for years and they have had ample time to comply. They haven't complied because they knew that they would be given a waiver by the FCC.

[TyroneShoes]

The Satellite service providers have known the requirement for years and they have had ample time to comply. They haven't complied because they knew that they would be given a waiver by the FCC.

Unless you are a DBS executive, your conclusion is nothing more than a suspicion, and a totally-unsupported wild-ass guess. We can afford to give them at least the benefit of the doubt.

And this is not a waiver. This is a reasonable timetable for a sensible transition that would provide the best outcome for both customers and providers. That's the FCC's opinion, and mine as well. A waiver means "you get a free pass". A timetable means "you have X days to comply with this ruling". DBS must comply with the ruling.

Whether cable got the same deal or not is cable's problem, although I think cable may have a right to cry foul here, as might broadcasters. I also don't think it's etched in stone quite yet. I think cable may get a further relaxation. DBS may also get tighter restrictions.

An outcry from DBS customers is just about the only thing that (along with pressure from the NCTA and NAB lobbyists) would put this on the FCC congressional oversight committee's (commerce?) radar, so if you want to see it changed, now is probably the time to speak up. I'm content with it, but that doesn't mean I would be opposed to supporting a grassroots movement to tighten the restrictions.

We all want to both have our cake and eat it too. We all want every HD program available to us in full resolution. But pressing that issue regarding local channels that we probably won't be getting HD content on anyway would be foolishly at the expense of other HD content that we may actually want, and could therefore be deprived of.

We may just have to accept that we cant have it all just yet, and that we may need to fight for meaningful content rather than for empty bits on a local shopping channel that none of us really could give two $#!+s about in HD.

[magnus]

Why? either dump D* or get a DTivo.... that would make better sense. Two tuners are always better than one.


And for your information, with regards for your "snappy" snap at me about SA units... For those that are dead set on keeping their TiVo interface, and don't care about HD... that is exactly what I suggest they do... get an SA unit, and piggie back it with a D11 or D12 receiver.

[ebonovic]

Why? either dump D* or get a DTivo.... that would make better sense. Two tuners are always better than one.

Some people want all the other TiVo features... which you can't get with a DTiVo... and some don't want to purchase one of eBay, or pay some of the elivated prices else where.

[TyroneShoes]

Why? either dump D* or get a DTivo.... that would make better sense. Two tuners are always better than one.

Not always. Two is never better than one when you are only using one, for instance. Casual viewers might be very content with one tuner.

Unfortunately, all of what someone might want is not available from one vendor or in one PVR. There are always compromises to be made. DTV has pushed the issue, meaning more compromise vs. more content rather than being the vendor with the best price AND the best content AND the best PVR solution, something they actually used to be a few years ago. That the era of that has passed is directly what drives all of the moaning we see on the forums, as well as the unconventional "solutions" occasionally proposed.

What makes "better sense" to one person might not fit another's idea of what's better. To me, what makes "better sense" is to weigh the issues yourself (including suggestions on forums), and to only then make a decision.