Will we kiss OTA goodbye?

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by zalusky, Dec 16, 2011.

  1. zalusky

    zalusky Well-Known Member TCF Club

    8,373
    1,114
    Apr 5, 2002
    Cupertino, CA
  2. drknapp

    drknapp Member

    31
    0
    Nov 27, 2011
    At least it looks like it will take some time. I just switched back to OTA last weekend.
     
  3. gastrof

    gastrof Hubcaps r in fashion

    7,486
    2
    Oct 31, 2003
    Potato and pen.
    That article was written strangely.

    For example-

    "In years to come, you might see Channel 17 cease to broadcast and Channel 49 take its place, for instance. The empty slot at Channel 49 would then become available for a range of wireless services. That could mean faster downloads for smartphones and tablet computers."

    If 17 stopped broadcasting, being replaced by channel 49, 49 wouldn't be empty. How would it be available for anything?

    "Once the FCC gets authority, it needs to find broadcasters willing to cede their frequencies. Station owners would share in auction proceeds if they turn in their broadcasting licenses and either cease operations or become cable-only channels. They would be compensated to build new towers and make other adjustments if they need to switch frequencies."

    If a station goes off the air entirely or goes cable-only, in either case they wouldn't need a broadcast tower, and so certainly wouldn't be building a new one. Even if they switched to a different OTA channel, they could still use the same tower. They'd just change broadcast frequencies.

    No, the person who wrote this sounds like they had no idea what they were talking about.

    __________________
    Stop them. Stop them before it's too early.
     
  4. Worf

    Worf Well-Known Member

    2,417
    129
    Sep 15, 2000
    It's unlikely to happen. TV stations already went through the forced switchover to ATSC OTA only very recently - there's no way they'd be willing to do that if the very expensive equipment they used was going to be junked in 5-10 years. Hell, if that was the case, they'd simply keep using old analog broadcasts and save everyone the pain and trouble of switching.
     
  5. replaytv

    replaytv gun talk ignore list

    4,401
    1
    Feb 20, 2011
    Denver ish...
    Here in Denver, about half of the TV frequecies are available because no one is using them. So they don't have to get anyone to 'sell' their frequencies, they just have to get the authorization to use the frequencies for other uses. And I think from what I read they already have the authorization when they first did the changeover to digital.
     
  6. unitron

    unitron Well-Known Member

    16,576
    41
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    Huffington Post has many deficiencies and the recent entanglement with AOL hasn't improved any of them.

    That said, I think they mean if whoever was on channel 17 ceased to operate, leaving that frequency vacant in that market, whoever was operating on channel 49 could get an antenna cut to a different length and change out whatever they're using in place of crystals these days in transmitters and operate on 17 instead, thus vacating 49.

    Yeah, the new tower thing makes no sense if the broadcaster is still going to be licensed to serve the same community.
     
  7. unitron

    unitron Well-Known Member

    16,576
    41
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    One thing to keep in mind is that although broadcasters are only licensed to use a particular frequency at a particular power level in a particular location "in the public interest", they and their lobbying arm, the NAB, have managed to convince themselves that they "own" those allocations, and how often, or not, their news departments make the area congresscritters, or opponents in the next election, look good might just help twist some arms.

    Another thing, remember the outcry for more spectrum for first responders right after 9-11, and how the digital TV transformation/imposition/inconvenience/annoyance was supposed to help free up more spectrum for those first responders? How's that working out for them?

    Whoever first came up with the idea of selling off (instead of just leasing) the public's property, the airwaves (which is like land, they aren't making any more of it), and got government to even consider doing so, should have been taken out and horsewhipped, or worse, as a warning to others who might come up with similar short sighted schemes.
     
  8. magnus

    magnus Tivo User

    2,507
    0
    Nov 12, 2004
    Texas
    Agree 100%
     
  9. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,138
    1,095
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    That sounds like a great idea. If a station only has a small percentage of people using OTA and the rest is getting it from cable or satellite, it will be a nice incentive for them to give up their spectrum instead of wasting all that power to broadcast to a small minority of people. Of course if a station has a large percentage of OTA users then those stations could choose to keep broadcasting OTA.
     
  10. tootal2

    tootal2 Active Member

    1,291
    3
    Oct 14, 2005
    its a very bad idea.

     
  11. tootal2

    tootal2 Active Member

    1,291
    3
    Oct 14, 2005
    how will they know how many people use ota or cable. since i use ota and cable on my tivo. I would be counted as a cable user and not a ota user.


     
  12. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,138
    1,095
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    Why wouldn't it be both? The TiVo can keep track of what you watch and send the info in. I would think they could send in whether content is being watched from OTA or cable too.

    But either way it would be up to the stations to decide how many people watch OTA. They have the info. It would need to be their decision to drop OTA.
     
  13. unitron

    unitron Well-Known Member

    16,576
    41
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    Here in hurricane land cable is far more likely to go out than all of the broadcast stations being knocked off the air at the same time.
     
  14. phone man

    phone man Member

    47
    0
    Nov 4, 2011

    I hope you're not serious. Voluntarily giving up, or not caring if free OTA goes away makes no sense at all. The comment Unitron made about OTA frequencies being like public land is dead on correct. It's a finite resource that should be protected.
    And no, broadcasters have no way of knowing exactly how many people are watching OTA.
     
  15. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,138
    1,095
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    of course they have no way of knowing exactly. Just like they have no way of knowing exactly how many people watch a certain show. But that doesn't stop them from posting numbers of viewers each week.

    I don't agree that OTA is like public land. Businesses were given spectrum for free to broadcast and make money. Now maybe the non profit stations could be considered the same as public land but not the for profit ones.

    A station spends a big chunk of money on electricity powering a transmitter for broadcast. if a station has a small audience for OTA, as a business, they will be looking for ways to make the most money. If it means dropping OTA and selling the spectrum then they should be allowed to do it. Just like if they want to keep broadcasting they should also be allowed to do it.(of course the government should never have not been giving away the spectrum for free. but that is left over from 20th century rules)

    But there is plenty of spectrum being wasted that could be reclaimed for other uses. It's not the 20th century any more. And they shouldn't keep following regulations that were designed in the 20th century.

    I know my viewing has changed alot other the last ten years. In 2001 any HD I recorded was only from OTA. But now, while I still have OTA, I don't use it since every station broadcast from OTA is available from my cable provider(FiOS). I keep OTA connected as a backup, but I have yet to use it since my FiOS uptime over the last 4+ years has been over 99.99%. Which is much, much better than I can say for the reception of my local stations OTA.
     
  16. Series3Sub

    Series3Sub Well-Known Member

    1,465
    121
    Mar 14, 2010
    The American public won't go for it. They won't fully understand it, but they seem to want their OTA left alone, even if they don't use it. Once this proposal really get out to Joe Blow and Joe Six-pack (beer, not abs), there won't be a politician who will get near it and it will die.
     
  17. unitron

    unitron Well-Known Member

    16,576
    41
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    No, they were not. That spectrum remained the property of the people as a whole. Those businesses (as well as non-profits like public radio and television stations, some religious broadcasters, etc.) were granted limited duration licenses to broadcast at a certain frequency in a certain geographical area at a certain power in a certain dispersal pattern in order to be "operating in the public interest".

    Those are not permanent licenses. They come up for renewal every few years. A sufficiently egregious violation of FCC regulations can result in revocation of them. They can be challenged by others who think they can make a case that the current licensee is not sufficiently "operating in the public interest".

    That's why people could get the government involved in the whole "blink and you missed it and probably just as well" Janet Jackson's nipple on CBS broadcast affiliates kerfuffle.

    The National Association of Broadcasters would like for everybody to think that stations own the spectrum they use, and they've almost convinced themselves, and I'm sure they'd love to be able to sell what they don't use, but it just is not true.

    They don't own it, we do.

    Until those shortsighted b*st*rd congresscritters sell it out from under us.
     
  18. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,138
    1,095
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    I know they don't own the spectrum, but they were still given free use of it and they can make alot of money from it. Giving the spectrum away to use is an archaic use of it. For the non profit ones it make sense but to just let a for profit company use it without paying for it, makes no sense in this day and age. Especially since, as you said, it's the property of the people. We should be getting the billions and billions of dollars from these companies for use of this spectrum.
     
  19. tootal2

    tootal2 Active Member

    1,291
    3
    Oct 14, 2005
    how do they count people who use ota with use a tv? i know a lot of peple who do this.


     
  20. steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    10,722
    0
    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    They take the numbers they get from Neilson participants and extrapolate from there.
    The extrapolation is just a guess.
    I'd like to see hard numbers of how many people use OTA only. I bet the number is higher than what most people think.
     

Share This Page