Grand Theft Digital: How Corporate Broadcasters Will Hijack Digital TV

[marmar]

via AlterNet:



Grand Theft Digital: How Corporate Broadcasters Will Hijack Digital TV

By Bruce Dixon, Black Agenda Report. Posted June 13, 2008.

The switch to digital TV is essentially a $70 billion gift from taxpayers to broadcasters. So, what will we get in return?



On Feb. 17, 2009, a massive but so far little-noted corporate theft of the public airwaves will be consummated as U.S. analog TV stations switch to digital TV (DTV) broadcasting. Digital broadcast technology enables three, four and sometimes more separate channels to be compressed into the space formerly occupied by a single old-fashioned analog TV channel. So when the transition from analog to digital TV occurs nationwide, each of the nation's more than 1,700 broadcast TV license holders will suddenly have two, three or more additional channels, a gift from the taxpayers worth an estimated $70 billion.

Back in the mid-1990s, the owners of TV stations promised Congress that the advent of DTV would bring with it a wide selection of new programming, educational and children's shows, frequently updated local newscasts and interactive content, all free, over the new digital broadcast airwaves. Of course, they lied.

"Broadcasters have no idea how they will fill the extra channels they'll get," Communications Workers of America's Carrie Biggs-Adams told Black Agenda Report (BAR). "They don't have the content, and they don't have a clue. There are only so many reruns, reality shows and home shopping networks."

An article by David Hatch in the June 7 National Journal confirms this:

With the February 17 shift to digital broadcasting just over eight months away, broadcasters are finding that the business model for multiple channels is not panning out. An often-repeated refrain is that there's no money in it. "You're not creating any new advertisers, and you're not creating any new viewers," said Shaun Sheehan, vice president of the Tribune Co., which carried an all-music channel called The Tube on some of its secondary digital stations before the network folded in October.

"It's just a pure business decision," said James McQuivey, a media analyst with Boston-based Forrester Research. "Do I run the risk of rolling out new channels that will dilute my audience base?"

The National Association of Broadcasters cited statistics from BIA Financial, a Chantilly, Va.-based research firm, indicating that 351 television stations are multicasting.

But that figure includes public broadcasters, which have invested heavily in extra stations and account for a large chunk of the ones available -- compared with their commercial counterparts.

When commercial outlets do multicast, it is often to transmit redundant weather maps, which involves minimal investment and little or no on-air talent. These radar scopes are so widespread that they've saturated the airwaves in some markets, including Washington, where viewers have three to choose from. Commercial broadcasters "can say that they do have some content on there," the FCC source said derisively.

Although the airwaves are public property under U.S. law, and broadcasters receive their licenses from the FCC only on the condition that they serve the public interest, neither Congress nor the FCC have attached any public service or public interest requirement to the thousands of new DTV channels that current broadcasters will receive. And current broadcasters, according to the deal worked out by Congress and the FCC back in the 1990s, are the only ones upon whom the new stations made possible by DTV will be bestowed. They're in. Congress and the FCC, in their wisdom, didn't think local governments, schools, colleges, libraries, unions, community organizations, local churches, blacks, Latinos or females deserved a shot at any of the thousands of new DTV channels. They're out. That's it and that's all. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/87987/

[msongs]

1. who watches tv anymore anyway? nt

[jus_the_facts]

2. I won't be BUYING into this bullshit...

...I've used rabbit ears since 1990...so next Feb. they can just go fuck themselves...and everyone else who's stupid enough to keep paying for the utter SHIT they provide.

[LTR]

4. Getting a converter box isn't that hard

And you might even find your reception and picture quality vastly improved. And you do get the subchannels.

After getting the gov't coupon, the most you would likely lay out is between $2-$22, factoring in sales tax.

[jus_the_facts]

5. I refuse to pay for television PERIOD...

.....it's not worth a measly penny to me.

[LTR]

6. Well, that's your prerogative

But what if your TV craps out and you have to buy a new one?

Eighteen years plus is a long time for a set.

For me, all in all, shelling out a few small bucks for a converter box is worth it to me. I have long had reception problems (I'm near an airport) and only received a few UHF channels. With the box, I get all the local channels, even get some of the small low-power foreign language channels that have digital signals. Personally, I like DTV.

[jus_the_facts]

9. I don't like TV at all anymore...

....the 6 channels I receive FREE suck ass....and the other 3 fundie channels aren't programmed into my remote control at all...I already have a converter box for watching DVD's...and that's all I'll be using my set for...the only thing I'll miss is watching my LSU Fightin' Tigers play...but...even when they do show some of their games on TV...I usually mute the TV and listen to it being called on the radio anyway. :hi:

[high density]

15. You can get the box vouchers that would give you a free box...

https://www.dtv2009.gov

[jus_the_facts]

17. Thanks...but no thanks....

....it's just another Orwellian invention...new and improved to make it easier for the powers that be to keep track of your interests...so they can better implement more commercials and propaganda to turn the masses brains into mush.

[LTR]

19. Impossible

How can they monitor what one picks up over the air? The converter boxes do not send signals back to the stations being watched.

A cable box is more likely to do this, but since all networks and stations still employ services like Nielsen to track ratings via their own boxes and diaries, I'd guess that nobody's doing this.

Over-the-air digital works the same as over-the-air analog, except that the signals are sent differently.

This is all paranoid tinfoil nonsense.

[jus_the_facts]

21. Okay...whatever you say.....

...it's all shit...regardless.

[high density]

28. Broadcast TV is still a one way medium

But don't let me disturb your tinfoil hat.

[jus_the_facts]

29. I don't give a flyin' fuck through a flamin' hoola hoop about it one way or another....

....so go on and keep consuming their garbage...and wish in one hand...it'll get better one day...and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. :think:

[RB TexLa]

26. How did you get free "rabbit ears" and a free television to watch?

[jus_the_facts]

30. They were given to me as hand-me-downs....didn't pay a dime for 'em...

...my point in this thread is that I'm NOT addicted to TV...it's utter garbage...I recall you remembering Judy Waggoner from your time over here...she's still there and I cannot stand to look at her morphing face anymore. :D

[onenote]

31. so you plan to stop watching television?

[jus_the_facts]

35. I have already....except PBS occasionally.... ...

....and LSU football in the fall...but I can always listen to them on the radio instead...our LSU announcers are much more entertaining anyway.

[LTR]

3. It doesn't quite work that way

One of the biggest calling cards with digital will be HDTV. For that, they need bandwidth. Lots of it.

It's possible to run a high-resolution feed, but in doing so, would diminish their capability of running different subchannel feeds.

Here's an article at Wikipedia that lays it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subchannel

Some standard definition (SD) services are currently running four channels (such as Ion Networks). NBC affiliates have been running a localized version of the network's "Weather Plus." Others are programming their own independent services (i.e. reruns), running refeeds of newscasts or picking up affiliations of small, obscure networks and programming services (a local station in my town has a subchannel that plays old forgotten TV shows from the 50s-80s).

And PBS is a big user of subchannel feeds, as they offer quite a few options such as a documentary/news channel (PBS World), an all-kids channel, Spanish-language programming (V-me) and instructional shows (Create).

I receive DTV via a converter box and I have to say, I love the programming options. I'm a big fan of PBS World and Weather Plus.

There are a lot of misconceptions about DTV. For one, this switchover is going on all over the world. Europe is getting close to full conversion, and even some lesser-developed countries have DTV conversion plans in the works. It's not just some government conspiracy thing.

And if this allows more options and choices for television viewers, and puts all television owners on a level playing field, I say why not?

Another possibility thrown around concerns the piggy-backing of small, independently-owned LPTV stations that can't afford to upgrade their transmitter to digital. The FCC will allow LPTV stations to continue to broadcast in analog for a little longer after the shutdown, and may even help them to upgrade. The little indie stations or other indie groups currently not involved in TV could lease subchannels from higher-powered stations and do their own programming. This possibility has been thrown about.

[ColbertWatcher]

7. Most importantly, what we're losing is local control.

Only national networks will have the money to afford to do this change over.

Smaller markets will have to drop any local programming, and/or content to convert to this "reform".

Somehow we've been convinced that a sweeter picture makes up for losing recordings of city meetings.

It happened in Texas first, then it came to California.

Who's next?

[LTR]

12. Not true

Most full-power stations are already broadcasting digitally, are in the process of doing so or plan to do what's called a 'flash cut,' which means that they will flip directly from analog to digital on the same channel on or before 2/17/09.

The only situation that's close to what you describe is with some small LPTV operations. Now, I'm talking about the really small ones. All of them have the authorization to go digital at any time, though for the low-budget operations, they don't have very deep pockets.

What people don't really talk about, however, is that most small LPTV stations don't really air anything worthwhile to a lot of people. Sure, there's a few airing foreign language programming, but many just carry stuff like home shopping, infomercials or religious network feeds. Or they carry small networks like America One, which is a lot of low-budget programming like public domain movies from the 30's and rodeo shows. Nothing really noteworthy there. And certainly not much in the way of locally-oriented programming. You're more likely to find that on bigger stations owned by large corporations.

The FCC is allowing LPTV stations to continue to broadcast in analog after next February, and there has been some talk in helping them with the purchase of digital transmission equipment.

And if there is an advantage in going digital for LPTV stations, it is that in most cases, the digital signal will actually improve reception for them, instead of being faint, static-filled and ghost-like images like they are now.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. So it is true then.

The channels you mentioned, you readily admit do not carry local programming. I'm talking specifically about the channels that do carry local programming.

The smaller channels that carry local programming will disappear once this digital "reform" occurs.

[LTR]

16. I didn't say that

As I said before, all current LPTV stations will be allowed to continue broadcasting in analog.

All full-power stations (and whatever LPTV stations are ready) will switch off their analog transmitters on or before February 17, 2009. Almost all full-power stations are currently sending out digital signals.

The content will be the same (or enhanced with subchannels). The delivery method will change.

I also mentioned that there are very few LPTV stations that really cater to local audiences. The economics aren't there, so typically, they just run obscure niche networks, infomercials, religious shows, home shopping or, if they want to actually attract viewers, foreign-language programming. The idea put forth by Weird Al Yankovic in "UHF" is a part of the very distant past. Hardly any LPTV stations do anything even remotely local anymore. And the full-power stations that do local programming are likely ready to go all-digital.

I should also mention that LPTV stations are already at a disadvantage, in that cable systems are not required to carry them, as they are with full-power stations, but some systems may carry a few of the more popular ones (like Telemundo or Univision LPTV affiliates).

[ColbertWatcher]

18. I don't know where you're getting your info, but...

...all broadcast stations are considered ":must carries" for cable stations.

When we were going to switch from cable to satellite, we learned that there are channels that cable is legally bound to carry, but satellites are not.

So, we stayed with cable.

In fact, for a while satellite got away with charging people to see those channels on their receiver.

Again, you're not talking about the local channels that do carry local programming like city meetings.

What will happen to them?

[LTR]

22. I can't think of any stations that carry city council meetings

Except for cable access channels. And those are found on cable, not OTA. They have no broadcast signal. I know of no LPTV outlet that actually carries public service stuff like this, though it would be nice if they did. Instead, like I said, they often go all-infomercial or lease out to home shopping or holy rollers.

All full-power stations are classified as 'must-carry.' That also includes local full-power outlets that carry home shopping and religious shows, which incur the wrath of cable subscribers wondering why they have to pay for channels they don't like. If a full-power station puts a viewable signal into the market, they must be carried on the local cable system.

LPTV stations are not required to be carried on cable systems. As for satellite, the dish services only in recent years began carrying local stations directly. I don't know if these are must-carry as of yet, but they do have to negotiate with each station owner to carry the signals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

[onenote]

33. satellite must carry rules are slightly different from cable must carry

Cable operators are required to carry the local stations and to do so on the "basic" tier of service that everyone has to subscribe to before they can buy any optional levels of service (such as HBO or expanded basic).

DBS operators are subject to an "if carry one must carry all" requirement -- a DBS operator can choose not to offer any of the local stations in a particular market but once it decides to carry one local station in a market, it is required to carry all of the local stations in that market. In addition,DBS is allowed to sell the local stations as an optional package, so it doesn't have to be included in the lowest level of service that they offer.

[ColbertWatcher]

37. Exactly.

The rules change depending on how it is delivered. Thank you.

[onenote]

41. But there is no change in how broadcasting is being "delivered"

Its over the air. All that is changing is the transmission technology, not the mode of delivery. The cable rules haven't changed as cable operators have rolled out digital technology -- the signals are still delivered, on a subscription basis, over a closed system.

[ColbertWatcher]

43. We're paying for semantics. n/t

[onenote]

46. what are we paying?

Huh? You are making less sense the longer this thread goes on.

[ColbertWatcher]

49. We're not Brits, so broadcast is free.

Cable is subscription and must carry broadcast, we pay for it, but it is available.

Satellite and the "new" (!) digital cost money too, but they are not covered by the same must carry laws.

We're paying for stuff that was once free, but might not even be available, all due to a change in terminology (semantics).

Hope that made sense.

[onenote]

50. digital broadcast doesn't cost anything more than analog broadcast

If you buy a new TV, it will receive digital broadcast without any additional expense on your part. If you stick with your old tv, you will need to get a device to convert the digital over the air signal to analog -- that device will cost between $40 and $60 and you can get coupons for $40 off for up to two such converters. After that, there is no additional fee. (So, if the box costs you a net $20, and it lasts for five years -- and there is no reason to think that it won't last longer than that), it would cost you a penny a day to be able to watch over the air broadcast television after the digital transition.

[LTR]

51. This is like a live, real time text version of "Idiocracy"

Brawno's got what plants crave.

[onenote]

32. wrong: the cable "must carry" rules generally do not apply to LPTV stations

And the "local" stations in most markets consist of the following:

1.Affiliates of the major broadcast networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX), or one of the "smaller" networks (CW, MYTV, Univision, etc). THese stations may be locally owned (rarely) or owned by the network itself or owned by a group owner such as Raycom, or Sinclair, or Lin etc. The programming on these stations is a mix of programming provided by the national network with which they are affiliated and syndicated programming that they purchase and some news and public affairs programming that the station itself may produce.

2. Non commercial stations, typically affiliated with PBS. THese stations tend to be locally "owned" and carry a mix of programming received from PBS and locally produced programming (some of which may be distributed by PBS nationally).

3. Independent stations -- often religious, foreign language, home shopping oriented. While declining in numbers there are still some true "independent" stations -- most of these offer virtually no locally produced programming -- rather they primarily are outlets for syndicated programming, often former network "reruns" as well as some first-run syndication.

[ColbertWatcher]

38. "most of these offer virtually no locally produced programming"

Which is why I don't really care what they do.

I was asking about the local channels that do cary locally produced programming, like city meetings.

[onenote]

40. I don't know of any broadcast stations that carry city meetings

Typically, such programming is available, if at all, on a Public, Educational, or Governmental (PEG) Access channel from the cable operator. It is not a broadcast service and is unaffected by the broadcast television digital transition

[ColbertWatcher]

42. Exactly.

It's that very "trickery" that the telecoms hope no one notices.

We're so eager to "reform" we forget what it is we're changing to.

Like the airwaves that are supposed to be ours.

Like I said before, I don't trust the GOP's FCC, and am very suspicious of any new laws they try to impose on us.

[onenote]

45. Huh?

To the extent I can follow your response at all, it is a total non-sequitur to the point I was making, which is that you are mistaken in claiming that the televised availability of local city meetings will be negatively impacted by the broadcast digital transition. Those meetings aren't on broadcasting now, they're on cable. If anything, I suppose (although I doubt it will happen) there is a greater chance such programming will be available on broadcasting now since with digital compression, a broadcaster can provide more streams of programming using the same amount of spectrum as was used to deliver a single channel of analog television.

And by the way, I deal with the FCC on a daily basis and, believe me, I don't trust them either. But if anything, its their failure to adopt new regulations imposing public interest obligations on their multicast streams, not their adoption of new regulations, that concerns me.

[ColbertWatcher]

47. You deal with them on a daily basis...

...then you know for every new "technology" that comes along new laws are "needed" to regulate them.

I originally asked about (1) channels that carry local programming and (2) broadcast channels.

The conversation drifted to channels that don't air local programming. I suspect the reason why certain channels are not required to carry them is due to new laws to govern the new technology.

My inelegant complaint is that we will be losing any local programming due to the new technology. While it may be possible for the new technology to carry local programming, there is no political will to do so.

Maybe I should have said that in the first place; I apologize for not having done so.

[LTR]

52. I guess I should ask...

1. What over-the-air broadcast station in your area carries city council meetings? You're likely watching them on cable, AFAIK. If that's the case, cable is the only place anyone can see them, and they probably won't be going away anytime soon.

2. What makes you think any station will drop any programming once they drop analog?

Pardon me if I glanced at your profile, but I was curious as to which market you lived in. I notice you're in L.A., a place with many, many television stations. Here is a complete list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LA_TV

Casually looking through the list, there are only a few stations in the area that are currently not broadcasting an over-the-air (OTA) digital signal, far up in the UHF real estate. They consist of low-power foreign language stations and an LPTV outlet that airs only infomercials. Some of them currently have construction permits for future digital operations.

In addition, there are two stations in the market that have already turned off their analog signals, and are currently digital-only. With digital transmission, LPTV stations are on a more level playing field, since they can actually put out a viewable signal instead of a bunch of static. In the (albeit smaller) viewing area, the picture should be just as good as the big guys.

On a plus note, KOCE (50) has a subchannel that carries local Orange County news, public affairs, traffic and weather:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OC_Channel
http://www.occhannel.org/

It also appears that KNBC 4 has an all-news operation (called "News Raw") on digital subchannel 4.3. NBC is currently working on more elaborate local 24/7 news operations for subchannels and cable television, starting with WNBC in New York.

So in other words, you're actually getting more local content via DTV.

All the rest of the stations, including a few LPTV (low power) stations, currently have digital broadcast signals. If you watch on cable, you may not notice, since cable subscribers do not directly pick up OTA signals.

Hope this helps.

[snooper2]

48. Local stations in Dallas are already broadcasting over air in HD

Don't know where you are getting your info...

My friend and his wife have like 23 or so to choose from over air, although 3 are religous and 4 are Spanish only :)

[Lex]

8. Have they moved to digital in European broadcasting?

nt

[LTR]

10. Here's a list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_switchover

[Lex]

11. Thanks. I'm in favor of the U.S. keeping up with technology as other countries

have.

Looks like we are just making the switch-over the same as other countries.

[LTR]

13. True, there is no conspiracy

It's all about upgrading 80-year-old technology.

The main advantages to the switchover is that digital signals uses up far less bandwidth than analog waves do. As a result, part of the UHF spectrum can be used for other things, such as WiMax and other wireless communication services. Part of the Ch. 52-69 spectrum will also be used for federal emergency purposes. Now, this isn't the first time this has happened. The FCC removed Chs. 70-83 back in the late 1970s (remember when TV tuners went that high?). This spectrum became the backbone of our current wireless spectrum used for cell phones.

As many have noticed, I have posted quite a bit in this thread. I have been trying to educate people on the DTV switchover, and directing them to sites that will allow them to request converter box coupons, if needed:

http://www.dtv2009.gov

There isn't some sort of world-control conspiracy going on here. And in many respects, the DTV transition opens up television viewers to even greater possibilities and choices. I say it's better to embrace technology and change rather than wish it away. And the Alternet article at the beginning of this thread is, in my opinion, a bunch of uninformed tinfoil bullshit.

[ColbertWatcher]

20. While all your technical points may be true, they do not address...

...the question of regulation.

The 80-year-old technology is regulated. This new stuff might be regulated.

But, more than likely will not be.

Who benefits from unregulated communications?

[LTR]

23. Broadcast signals are broadcast signals

Digital signals are regulated by the FCC just like analog signals are.

Like I said, same frequencies, different delivery method.

[ColbertWatcher]

24. "different delivery method."

Which is how the GOP get around regulations.

And why cable has different regulations than broadcast.

[LTR]

25. Content is regulated the same regardless of whether it is digital or analog

If that's what you're wondering.

Perhaps even more so, since even digital subchannel operations are required to air a certain amount of "Eductational/Instructional" programming as part of their lineup, just like the main channels are. They are also required to comply with 'decency' mandates.

Cable is different because it does not use any of the broadcast spectrum to send out signals directly to consumers. It's all over hard lines. The FCC is much more limited in their regulation of cable. Their jurisdiction is the airwaves.

[ColbertWatcher]

27. I'm not wondering.

I just don't trust the GOP's FCC.

Cable is different because it is subscription; you have to pay to get it.

[onenote]

34. cable has differerent regulations from broadcasting for a variety of reasons

Not the least of which is that it is a subscription service and uses a closed path that doesn't cause interference with others using the same spectrum in the same commmunity. As such it doesn't consume a public resource (the airwaves) the way broadcasting does --- if a broadcaster is licensed to use a portion of the public airwaves, no one else can use that portion of the public airwaves. But where the use of the spectrum doesn't impede the use by others, then there is less need for or justification for regulation.

[ColbertWatcher]

39. "doesn't consume a public resource"

Technically it does: under the city streets.

Certainly a cable company's plant is their own, but they have to get there and they can only do that by tearing up a city's streets.

[onenote]

44. I was specifically referring to the airwaves

Indeed, cable is heavily regulated at the local level because it uses local public rights of way. Broadcasting is regulated at the federal level because it uses a national resources, the airwaves.

[KharmaTrain]

36. And The Public Is Paying What??

Digital TV technology is a quantum leap improvement over the nearly 70 year old system our TVs operate on. Yes, part of the new technology is the ability to "duplex"...or offer additional programs...but so what? It's been going on anyway thanks to dereg...and that's where this writer gets things muddled.

The horse of controlling the public airwaves long left the barn. Most TV stations are owned by a handful of conglomerates who long ago locked up the frequencies. In some cases, the digital conversion caused financial problems with the few small operators out there...forcing them to build a brand new station on limited funds.

And speaking of programming...PBS has duplexed its signal in many markets that include Hispanic programming as well as for young kids...another public station offers programs from other broadcasters around the world. Even low power broadcasters can and will get into the digital game. Many of these operators will be exempt from the "flash-over" and will continue to serve inner cities and rural areas with analog but will be able to convert over to digital in the future.

Yes, there's a problem with ownership of the public airwaves, but it's not digital TV that is the big windfall...that day came and went a long time ago. Many of the companies that fattened up on inflated stock prices due to dereg are now struggling to stay afloat and are trying to find a way to get a government bail-out. Broadcast license values are still over-valued and this is what keeps the large corporate's sinking fortunes barely afloat. The time to revisit DeReg '96 is long overdue and hopefully a new administration will take a serious look at the destruction of both the public airwaves and the public trust.