When this is explicitly covered in every contract, why should they release people from contracts? The contracts are not for channels at all.
Tribune Broadcasting Company Blacks Out DISH Customers in 33 Markets;
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 147K
My guess is some people will be helped and some will be hurt. As I understand it, ATSC 3.0 will give locals the option of a vertical polarity transmission path (in addition to the horizontal pole in use now). That is supposed to at least help inside buildings (so I'm told). I'm not sure how/if it helps with distance yet. I seem to remember something about power output being helped, but again that might be limited by the FCC.
As far as the frequency sell off, you're basically looking at stations broadcasting at a lower frequency. That might mean someone on channel (real) 36 now, may end up on 22, or even on a high V. I know (from reading here) some people have problems receiving VHF, so again, will help some and hurt some.
The questions are though...
1) How much $$ will the wireless companies come up with in order to pay for the frequency sell off? In the reverse auction, broadcaster said they'd move for $86B. "Experts" had estimated the cost at $35B. Will wireless companies be willing to come up with another $50B to gain access to more spectrum? Will there be less spectrum sold off?
2) Will broadcasters be reimbursed to update to 3.0?
3) Will there be some way to broadcast 3.0 and 1.0 simultaneously and in a cost effective way?
FWIW, there is currently an ATSC 3.0 broadcast signal from WRAL. Of course, there are no consumer tuners to allow anyone to watch the signal.
Thanks, good summary and I forgot about the lower (VHF) frequencies being used more. Yes they are harder to get. I love new technology and have paid hefty prices in the past just own the newest. TV going digital had to happen but strictly from a signal standpoint it is a step backwards. It negatively affected all the channels I get in both CT and Florida. Florida required a large Yagi antenna when in the past I could get many channels with an indoor antenna - yes it was that much of a difference. Even now at times I can lose the signal from the PBS channel on VHF. Luckily all towers are in the same place or close to it. In Ct I no longer can get the New Haven ABC channel OTA.
That was the reason for the question any further degradation and there will be no signal to get no matter how great the technology is!
That was the reason for the question any further degradation and there will be no signal to get no matter how great the technology is!
They already have the frequency.
With digital, you can reuse the frequency. GPS provides a stable time reference for synchronization.
The FCC even appoved it distributed systems in '08.
http://www.soundandvision.com/news/111708fccfix/
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-256A1.pdf
The stations just need to use the options available to them. Currently they choose not to, instead focusing on the densely populated areas and practically ignoring the rest of the DMA.
That actually looks really cool and I didn't know about it. Thank you. However, reading through the FCC report, it doesn't look like it's as easy as "put up a new tower and transmitter". In particular, look at section 25 on page 16.
As far as ignoring DMA areas, I'm assuming it's a cost/benefit issue. Does it make sense to spend millions to add a couple thousand (maybe?) viewers?
Nothing is ever THAT simple, but the tech is there and approved.
If it was an open, competitive market I'd have no issues. But it's not.
The stations have sole license in the DMA. That's the whole reason for Local-into-Local retransmission.
It was much easier to bring in PT24 distant nets but the stations whined about their exclusive market.
The government gave them a monopoly in the market, they need to serve (closer to) the whole market.
Remember I'm tying this with retransmission fees. They can allow free retransmission so that their whole market is reached thanks to Dish, DTV, cable or they can improve their transmitted signal to get the coverage.
The switch to digital has greatly reduced the effective area covered and I've seen little to no efforts to even get back to the analog coverage level.
The issue now is they don't cover the market and are charging others to get their signal to the rest of the market.
I don't totally disagree with you, but I do want to point out the switch to digital was mandated by the government.
Which all points back to the content owner lobbyists' push for better control over copy protection, giving us DRM.
This all started because of the government, and there will be an eventual fall of companies putting many out of work because of the government. I'm still failing to see the benefit to the consumer.
The government is supposed to be "for the people" and do the bidding of the people. Instead it just does the bidding for corporate lobbyists.
I found a potential investment in a a popcorn farm in Northern Indiana. Anybody want in?
Yes, but it goes back farther than the digital transition.
If the government didn't have so much power and authority over the marketplace companies wouldn't spend money lobbying.
No I don't think we do. From the last thing I saw from DISH it sounded like they may not be having ongoing meetings.
No one knows. All we know is what was put out at the conference call. This is all just guesses. They could be staying at the tables til midnight every night for all we know. They could be emailing daily. They could just not be talking to eachother at all.
This thread is dying and I just don't think it should. NFL is starting up and we don't have our FOX . . .
I really would like to see NFL preseason games, but I'm not leaving Dish just because Tribune wants to be a bunch of jackasses. I'll find a way to see Seattle Seahawks football either via replays on NFL Network or streaming live somehow...Tribune can stuff-it!
Similar threads
