FCC Must End Local HDTV Disputes

[Poke]

http://www.tvpredictions.com/fccact021307.htm


The battle over local signals threatens to slowdown sales of High-Definition TVs.
By Phillip Swann

Washington, D.C. (February 13, 2007) -- The Federal Communications Commission must act soon to end disputes between local stations and TV providers over High-Definition signals.

If it doesn't, high-def set sales will begin to decline and the nation's plan to switch to Digital TV signals on February 17, 2009 could be imperiled.

Make Your Voice Heard!
Send this editorial to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin at: KJMWEB@fcc.gov

For those not familiar with this issue, here is some background:

In several cities, including Tucson, St. Louis, New Orleans, Providence, Norfolk, Albuquerque and Indianapolis, local TV stations are refusing to let cable and/or satellite operators offer their high-def signals.

The local stations, which are owned by broadcast groups such as Belo, Sinclair and LIN TV, are demanding that the TV providers pay them for the right to carry the HD feeds.

The TV providers are refusing the demand, saying the signals are available for free via off-air antennas. They also note that local stations in the past have not asked for cash payments for analog signals.

Because of the impasse, however, millions of cable and satellite subscribers are unable to watch their local channels in high-def.


Many cable viewers can't see Ugly Betty's Vanessa Williams in HD.

For instance, DIRECTV rolled out local HD service in dozens of cities in 2006, but was unable to provide all four broadcast networks in high-def in most markets. Cox Cable in Tucson can't provide the Fox HD signal. Cox in Providence, Rhode Island is unable to offer CBS and Fox in high-def.

And so on.

The battle is likely to escalate in the coming months with CBS saying publicly that it will demand fees for high-def signals at its owned and operated stations.

Until now, the FCC has said it does not have the authority to intervene in the disputes. But the agency's position is both legally and politically suspect. By staying out of the battle, the FCC is effectively siding with the local stations who have time on their side. They can sit back and wait for the cable and satellite operators to concede after getting blitzed with complaints from customers.

This is exactly what happened earlier this month when Mediacom Cable finally agreed to pay Sinclair Broadcasting for its standard and high-def signals shortly before the Super Bowl. Two U.S. senators urged the FCC to end the dispute, even ordering binding arbitration if necessary. But the agency refused. Consequently, Mediacom had to buckle or it would alienate the vast Super Bowl audience.

If the FCC continues to sit on the sidelines, millions more Americans will be unable to watch their favorite channels in HD, at least for a period of time. This will make high-def owners angry and frustrated, causing them to discourage their friends and neighbors from buying Digital/HDTV sets.

And that will make it more difficult for the federal government to get everyone on board for the transition to Digital TV in 2009.

The FCC should move immediately to order a binding arbitration in any local dispute over high-def signals. If the local station and TV provider can't reach an agreement, they will have to agree to the arbitration rather than cavalierly pulling the high-def signals off the air.

This solution would be fair to both parties -- the neutral arbitrator can decide what the local station is entitled to -- and it would protect HDTV owners from losing their signals.
__________________________________________

Make Your Voice Heard!
Here are the e-mail addresses of the five FCC Commissioners:

Chairman Kevin J. Martin:
KJMWEB@fcc.gov

Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov

Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov

Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov

Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov

 

[rad]

I sent an e-mail to Martin's address about the LIN stations in particular withholding their ATSC signal from D*, part of their response was:

"In spite of some TV service providers, including satellite and ordinary
broadcast stations, telling subscribers they can't provide network
programming or other service due to "FCC rules," the fact is that the
SHVIA gives no authority to the FCC (or any other entity) to compel a TV
service provider to provide - or to withhold/block - any particular
service, including satellite provision of network programming whether
local-into-local, distant station, or the HDTV component of either.

...

This is not an FCC ruling and the law does not grant the FCC authority
to intervene."

 

[John Kotches]

I agree with the sentiment of this; but it's just wrong on a technical level...

The Federal Communications Commission must act soon to end disputes between local stations and TV providers over High-Definition signals.

If it doesn't, high-def set sales will begin to decline and the nation's plan to switch to Digital TV signals on February 17, 2009 could be imperiled.

You do not need an HDTV to get the digital signals; you need a STB that can output 480i to view them.

 

[navychop]

Typical Swann.

 

[SmityWhity]

So if they don't want to make Digital HD Televisions, let them make Digital SD Televisions. Either way, analog is down the drain, one line behind the next.

Eventually, the operators will have to treat the Digitial Television Stations like they treat the soon to be obsolete Analog Television Stations.


I see, said the blind man.

 

[rad]

Eventually, the operators will have to treat the Digitial Television Stations like they treat the soon to be obsolete Analog Television Stations.

IMHO, the problem will be how to handle the subchannels. When I was in Chicago one of the local ATSC commercial stations had a total of 6 channels running vs the one analog that they had. Two other stations had two sub channels and another two had one. So from 5 NTSC channels we now have those same stations with 12 channels on ATSC, that's a lot of additional bandwidth that the cable and DBS companies need to come up with, a big difference.

 

[WyrTwister]

So if they don't want to make Digital HD Televisions, let them make Digital SD Televisions. Either way, analog is down the drain, one line behind the next.

Eventually, the operators will have to treat the Digitial Television Stations like they treat the soon to be obsolete Analog Television Stations.


I see, said the blind man.

Being too cheap to buy a HDTV , I bought a 32" SDTV with analog and digital tuners , for Christmas .

Got it hooked up to an antenna . No big deal . The Sat companies and Cable companies can take a long walk on a short pier . You do not need them to receive digital . Get a life . Get an antenna .

My only problem is 2 of the network stations are broadcasting such a weak digital signal ( low power ) that I do not get them . Oh well , I can live without them ( I still pick them up analog ) . The say they will be full power latter part of the year . But who knows ?

Latter ,
Wyr

 

[mdonnelly]

... So from 5 NTSC channels we now have those same stations with 12 channels on ATSC, that's a lot of additional bandwidth that the cable and DBS companies need to come up with, a big difference.

Why? The stations are cramming all of it into their one bandwidth allotment. Cable and sat should do the same to teach them a lesson. Bitstarved and compressed. Ugghh!

 

[VinceT3]

So when analog signals end does that mean those areas will lose local channels via cable / satellite? I think thats more a loss for the local stations than the providers.

Cable / Sat providers should swap the analog for the digital, only broadcast one signal. The boxes can downgrade the signal to 480i, they're going to have to at some point.

 

[navychop]

Most of the time the digital stations are broadcasting 480 anyway.

 

[kb7oeb]

IMHO, the problem will be how to handle the subchannels. When I was in Chicago one of the local ATSC commercial stations had a total of 6 channels running vs the one analog that they had. Two other stations had two sub channels and another two had one. So from 5 NTSC channels we now have those same stations with 12 channels on ATSC, that's a lot of additional bandwidth that the cable and DBS companies need to come up with, a big difference.

Not really, NTSC and ATSC fit in 6Mhz chunks, if the cable company sends them over QAM they can get about twice much data out of the 6Mhz chunk than ATSC/8-VSB can. The local cable here usually combines two local HD and several SD signals into one QAM channel.

 

[rad]

Not really, NTSC and ATSC fit in 6Mhz chunks, if the cable company sends them over QAM they can get about twice much data out of the 6Mhz chunk than ATSC/8-VSB can. The local cable here usually combines two local HD and several SD signals into one QAM channel.

True. but the cable company would have to change the channel from analog to digital to pick up the bandwidth. Example, the current 'main' channel would have to stay on analog, still taking up that bandwidth, plus then add all the subchannels, unless they converted the 'main' analog channel to digital also. Now if that channel was a mainstream network channel, like CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX, there would probably be a big uproar if everyone needed a digital converted in order to receive it.

No matter how you slice it, adding additional channel takes more bandwidth for either distribution system.

 

[SmityWhity]

Sounds like there is "No need for the Feds to get involved".