OTA broadcasts being phased out?

[klem kedidelhopper]

I have heard from sources, (perhaps not reliable ones) that there has
been talk of phasing out OTA broadcasts in the United States.
Switching just about everything to UHF and making all our tuners
useless was bad enough but this would be the ultimate slap. Has anyone
heard anything to this effect? Lenny

 

[[email protected]]

Actually it is. that is almost a joke, but ALMOST.

Many years ago "JS" was the ringleader of an outfit called Radio Solidartity in Poland right around the time all that was going on. He wound up doing seven months in the can over it, but was never actually convicted.

We worked together years ago and had mutual respect. He is a smart cookie but his enamouration (enamouredness ?) with Britney Spears made me choke. Well, he was still young enough I guess.......

He built the transitter and he and his buddies would go up on a hill and erect an antenna made from vacuum cleaner wand sections. A portable cassette player was all that was needed then, along with the batteries of course.

They didn't have much cable there at the time and most people used antennasto get TV on just like we used to for the most part. JS and crew picked the sound carrier (of the intercarrier) frequency of the station at the maximum primetime of viewership. In the evening, the most popular shows. They overrode the audio carrier.

He was on the svelte side and said he was the fastest runner in the group. He also had built the transmitter and told me if they ever caught him with it he would be in jail for a LOOOOOONG time, but only did seven months intermittently under suspicion. His partners would usually bring cars and escape with the antenna and batteries. None of them got busted because vacuum cleaner wands and batteries were not illegal in Poland at the time.

When I worked with him he showed me a Polish magazine with his brother standing there with the transmitter, after the regime had changed and he was nolonger likely to get busted for it. I could see the family resemblance.

Because of the suspicions against him he had trouble starting a company there, which impelled him and his olady to move to the US. Too much red tape. I think he came to the wrong place if he doesn't like red tape.

His brother was also in the electronics field and started a company for carlots. Alot of people were scamming the car lots by swapping cars with someone across town. the repossesors could not find the cars. The company wouldput a GPS tracking unit into the cars so they could be found.

I'm not sure why, but his brother also emigrated here, even though he said the US was not quite what it was cracked up to be.

If you find references to this whole affair online you will find them to differ slightly from my account of it, it is up to you what you believe.

 

[[email protected]]

Oh the relevance ? With digital TV you can't do that. THEY have control. you might be able to scramble their transmission but you are not going to get the recievers to pick up your audio or anything else because it is digital.

OK maybe some of you can, but less can now than in the analog days.

That was the goal of the "conspiracy" commmonly referred to as "government"

 

[Wond]

I have heard from sources, (perhaps not reliable ones) that there has
been talk of phasing out OTA broadcasts in the United States. Switching
just about everything to UHF and making all our tuners useless was bad
enough but this would be the ultimate slap. Has anyone heard anything to
this effect? Lenny

You can see it happening...all the interesting and entertaining
programming is being sequestered to the cable=only stations. Then,
they'll plead that nobody watches OTA.

 

[[email protected]]

I have heard from sources, (perhaps not reliable ones) that there has
been talk of phasing out OTA broadcasts in the United States.
Switching just about everything to UHF and making all our tuners
useless was bad enough but this would be the ultimate slap. Has anyone
heard anything to this effect? Lenny

I've seen some articles on it. There are several pieces of
information that explain the rumors.

1. The old distribution model for TV programming is seriously broken.
50 years ago OTA was the only way you got TV. And if you weren't in
front of the TV when 'The Jackie Gleason Show' was broadcast, you
wouldn't have another chance to see it. Likewise, you probably
watched the commercials. Between reruns, cable TV, VCRs, Satellite,
DVRs, Internet, and DVDs, you may be able to watch your favite show
without seeing a single commercial. And the commercials subsidized
OTA broadcasts as well as production costs.

2. Currently only 15% of TV viewers get TV OTA.

3. Rupert Murdoch (News Corp) has reportedly talked of selling all
FOX broadcast stations. Note that that would presumably push viewers
to either cable (some owned by News Corp) or Dish (owned by News
Corp).

4. A number of the articles I have seen are from stock analysts and
others who stand t benefit if they can anticipate the next big bubble.

PlainBill

 

[William Sommerwerck]

You can see it happening... all the interesting and entertaining

programming is being sequestered to the cable-only stations.
Then, they'll plead that nobody watches OTA.

I don';t think you understand how broadcast -- or cable -- television works.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per [email protected]:

And the commercials subsidized
OTA broadcasts as well as production costs. ....
3. Rupert Murdoch (News Corp) has reportedly talked of selling all
FOX broadcast stations. Note that that would presumably push viewers
to either cable (some owned by News Corp) or Dish (owned by News
Corp).

Sounds like there is a significant cost diff between OTA and cable.

The electric bill for running the antenna farm?

 

[Phil Allison]

"Dave Platt" >

(PeteCresswell)


Hundreds of kilowatts, up to megawatts of power output.

** Megawatt TV stations must be very rare.

A ( digital ) TV transmitter with a few thousand watts and a well sited high
gain antenna covers a city of 5 to 10 million people and beyond. The
electricity bill is trivial.

OTOH - the cost of installing and maintaining a cable TV network serving 5
million people is enormous.

Broadcasting is unique and cannot be economically replaced by cable or
satellite.



.... Phil

 

[William Sommerwerck]

A (digital) TV transmitter with a few thousand watts and

a well-sited high-gain antenna covers a city of 5 to 10
million people and beyond. The electricity bill is trivial.

OTOH -- the cost of installing and maintaining a cable TV
network [sic] serving 5 million people is enormous.

Broadcasting is unique and cannot be economically replaced
by cable or satellite.

You're overlooking the fact that a cable system can provide 100 channels.

 

[N_Cook]

A (digital) TV transmitter with a few thousand watts and
a well-sited high-gain antenna covers a city of 5 to 10
million people and beyond. The electricity bill is trivial.

OTOH -- the cost of installing and maintaining a cable TV
network [sic] serving 5 million people is enormous.

Broadcasting is unique and cannot be economically replaced
by cable or satellite.

You're overlooking the fact that a cable system can provide 100 channels.

Only 10 of which are watched by any particular household

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Phil Allison:

A ( digital ) TV transmitter with a few thousand watts and a well sited high
gain antenna covers a city of 5 to 10 million people and beyond. The
electricity bill is trivial.

OTOH - the cost of installing and maintaining a cable TV network serving 5
million people is enormous.

Broadcasting is unique and cannot be economically replaced by cable or
satellite.

Seems like we are back to the question "What is the industry's motive
for wanting to get rid of OTA?".

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker Arsehole "

A (digital) TV transmitter with a few thousand watts and
a well-sited high-gain antenna covers a city of 5 to 10
million people and beyond. The electricity bill is trivial.

OTOH -- the cost of installing and maintaining a cable TV
network [sic] serving 5 million people is enormous.

Broadcasting is unique and cannot be economically replaced
by cable or satellite.

You're overlooking the fact that a cable system can provide 100 channels.

** Changes nothing I said.

Digital broadcasting allows six TV channels for every analogue channel that
existed previously - makes the max possible number of well over 100 using
UHF and VHF.

Each signal need only be a few kW and the same transmitter can supply three
digital programs.

This is true for the European and Australia DTV systems, the US system may
not be quite so bountiful.


BTW arsehole:

Leave the fucking stupid "sic" shit out.


.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"(PeteCresswell)"

Per Phil Allison:

Seems like we are back to the question "What is the industry's motive
for wanting to get rid of OTA?".

** That is a false assertion.


.... Phil

 

[Phoena]

I don';t think you understand how broadcast -- or cable -- television
works.

I understand how broadcast -- or cable -- television works. It's sole
purpose is to sell advertising. I'm sure your familiar with that queer
ass Geico gecko or Flo's fat ass. The television shows are just filler
between commercials and it doesn't matter if they are any good, as long
as the television channel sells advertising then they will remain on the
air while they are profitable.

Unless your a news channel like Commie News Network or Faux News then
your purpose is to sell advertising while broadcasting propaganda as
filler between commercials. Misinforming your gullible viewers. Like let
them think that wogs flew planes into the world trade centers on 9/11
when it was controlled demolition that brought down the towers.

Then get the public mad at those ragheads and then get their approval of
an expensive and lengthy war in the middle east. But don't tell them
that the ragheads really don't really want to start a war with the US
but it's really Israel wants the U.S. to terrorize the ragheads because
of all the kikes that control the U.S. government, banks and media.

So I understand how broadcast -- or cable -- television works and that's
why I don't own a TV or subscribe to cable television.

I get my news from real news websites like PressTV.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Phoena:

I get my news from real news websites like PressTV.

Charlie Rose interviewed a guy named Shane Smith who is owner of a
YouTube-based media company called "Vice" which seems tb headed for a
dominant position in news coverage.

His assertion was that something like 60% of people under a certain age
(30 comes to mind, but I'm not positive) do not even own a TV.

 

[[email protected]]

Per Phoena:

Charlie Rose interviewed a guy named Shane Smith who is owner of a
YouTube-based media company called "Vice" which seems tb headed for a
dominant position in news coverage.

His assertion was that something like 60% of people under a certain age
(30 comes to mind, but I'm not positive) do not even own a TV.

That may be accurate, but misleading. Assuming the age given was 30,
60% of people in that group are under 17. While most of the people
under age 17 have access to a TV, most of them don't OWN it.

It's a little like saying 75% of the people under 25 have never worn a
bra. True, but not indicitive of a paradigm shift.

PlainBill

 

[josephkk]

Nope. CATV has the "Must Carry" rule:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry>
The result of requiring CATV to carry local OTA broadcast TV signals
is causing an odd problem in demographics. Many OTA stations find
that the bulk of their viewing audience is watching via CATV and not
via OTA. In some cases, the stations are so isolated, that the OTA
viewers could be counted on both hands. Other stations merely recycle
the same syndicated programming that can be watched on other channels,
resulting in massive duplication. So, why are they doing this?
Because the Must Carry rule has dramatically increased the number of
viewers, which keeps the stations afloat with advertising revenue. The
FCC could easily mandate that all OTA broadcast station should get a
fiber feed to the local CATV or DBS feed point, turn off the
transmitter, and only those few watching OTA TV will notice. It's
been discussed, but the FCC wants to hold onto the OTA broadcast
license revenue, making such a transition unlikely.

Acronym decoder:
OTA = Over the air
CATV = Cable Television
DBS = Direct Broadcast Satellite (Sirius-XM , DefecTV).
FCC = Federal Communications Commish.
TV = Television

?-)

 

[josephkk]

A (digital) TV transmitter with a few thousand watts and
a well-sited high-gain antenna covers a city of 5 to 10
million people and beyond. The electricity bill is trivial.

OTOH -- the cost of installing and maintaining a cable TV
network [sic] serving 5 million people is enormous.

Broadcasting is unique and cannot be economically replaced
by cable or satellite.

You're overlooking the fact that a cable system can provide 100 channels.

Only 10 of which are watched by any particular household

If that many. My primary use for TV is weekend morning cartoons, and not
all that important to me. I think my time would be better spent watching
my Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin DVDs. Well, i do have some
"Avengers" and "The Prisoner" and other good stuff as well.

Sports types may like the cable and sat packages, that is their thing
though.

?-)

 

[Harvey Daye Jr]

Per Phoena:

Charlie Rose interviewed a guy named Shane Smith who is owner of a
YouTube-based media company called "Vice" which seems tb headed for a
dominant position in news coverage.

His assertion was that something like 60% of people under a certain age
(30 comes to mind, but I'm not positive) do not even own a TV.

YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I SAW ON TEE VEE ONCE. I SAW A GUY WHO SAID THAT
NO WHITE MAN SHOULD EVER GO TO JAIL FOR KILLING A NIGGER OR A JEW. THEY
ARE NOT HUMANS BUT FILTHY DISGUSTING BEASTS.

 

[Wond]

I don';t think you understand how broadcast -- or cable -- television
works.

Locally, the main OTA company has been purchased by the huge cable
provider. Since then, OTA service has deteriorated in several ways.
It is OTA I want, being a cheap sort.