Digital TV Impression

[WB2YGF]

If free is worth what it costs, why do you think the FCC should force the cable channels to give themselves to you for free? You're defeating your own argument.

I never said that.  I said broadcasting of cable channels should be UNFETTERED, not MANDATORY. Now this may already be the case but I don't know that.

[KA1ZGC]

If free is worth what it costs, why do you think the FCC should force the cable channels to give themselves to you for free? You're defeating your own argument.

I never said that.  I said broadcasting of cable channels should be UNFETTERED, not MANDATORY. Now this may already be the case but I don't know that.

Okay, let's review:

Moreover, if the cable companies are preventing this from happening due to some contractual obligation, the FCC should ban these clauses from contracts and encourage the unfettered distribution of cable channels over the airwaves.

Mandating that something "be unfettered" is making it mandatory. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, it's not veal.

[WB2YGF]

The reason the broadcast channels don't subchannel the cable channels is because they aren't being offered to them. Maintaining a cable-only program carries far less legal liability than maintaining a broadcast program. Cable and sattelite are subsription-based, therefore not accessible to the general public, therefore Janet Jackson's hooter doesn't get the network (and the innocent affiliates in the cities the complainants live in) some ridiculous fine because America is hyper-sensitive as a culture (the FCC wasn't going to fine anyone until all the Granny Joneses ganged up on Congress).

Cable outfits don't have to maintain a public file, meet a minimum number of hours of "public service" programming, meet a minimum number of hours of "children's programming", or any of that legal vomit. They're free to run their own programming without the boatload of restrictions and federal oversight that broadcast stations have to put up with.

I don't buy it.

WNBC already has 2 cable-style sub-channels in operation (NBC Weather+ & Universal Sports).  No children's or "public service" programming on those channels, AFAIK.

[KA1ZGC]

I don't buy it.

I'm not selling anything. These are facts, not opinions and guesses.

WNBC already has 2 cable-style sub-channels in operation.  No children's or "public service" programming on those channels, AFAIK.

Again, you're substituting "as far as I know" for actual facts.

The public-service and children's-programming requirements are on a per-license basis. A station's main channel and all its subchannels are all under one license. Those "channels" to which you refer are not "channels", they're sub-channels.

Don't take my word for it, read parts 73 and 76 of the FCC regulations yourself:

Broadcast Radio and Television regulations:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/47cfr73_08.html

Mutichannel Video and Cable Television service regulations:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/47cfr76_08.html

Alternatively, you could try working in broadcasting for a few years and you'll get to know these regs pretty quickly. Worked for me.

[Tom WA3KLR]

The title of this thread is "Digital TV Impression".

So Thom, how is YOUR over-the-air DTV reception?  What is your impression?

[WB2YGF]

The public-service and children's-programming requirements are on a per-license basis. A station's main channel and all its subchannels are all under one license. Those "channels" to which you refer are not "channels", they're sub-channels.

Then you are saying that cable channels broadcast as sub channels don't fall under the same rules as the primary channel, so what is the point of talking about the primary channel rules in this context?

[WB2YGF]

The title of this thread is "Digital TV Impression".

My impression is that there needs to be more cable or cable-like subchannels so I can dump my cable bill, otherwise DTV is pretty much worthless unless I want to go back to the stone-age of programming choice.

[KA1ZGC]

So Thom, how is YOUR over-the-air DTV reception?  What is your impression?

Quite nice, Tom! Thanks for asking! 

Seriously, there are still a few issues here that are merely the result of an insufficient receive antenna. I'm holding off until post-transition to address them because two of the Bangor stations (WLBZ-2 and WVII-7) will be moving their digital signal to their original VHF allocations. The CBS affiliate (WABI-5) puts so much RF into this town that they used to bleed into the cable system (probably still do, but haven't had cable here in a few years), so they're a non-issue.

The latency issues seem to be subsiding. I don't complain about it because I know the engineers doing the work, and I know they've got enough on their plates right now.

The only part that I find irritating is the mix of 16:9 and 4:3 signals forces many advertisers to distribute their spots on 4:3 media, even if it was shot in 16:9. Result, 16:9 picture letterboxed to fit 4:3, letterboxed again to fit 16:9. So you get a 16:9 spot taking up only 80% of a 16:9 screen.

That too will work itself out, so overall I'm quite pleased with the results.

[KA1ZGC]

The public-service and children's-programming requirements are on a per-license basis. A station's main channel and all its subchannels are all under one license. Those "channels" to which you refer are not "channels", they're sub-channels.

Then you are saying that cable channels broadcast as sub channels don't fall under the same rules as the primary channel, so what is the point of talking about the primary channel rules in this context?

 

No. If that's not what I wrote, then that's not what I'm saying.

I'm not talking about cable channels broadcast as subchannels. You're getting your wires crossed.

Forget cable channels for a second.

You suggested I was misleading you about the broadcast content regulations because the existing subchannels you've seen are news or weather subchannels (which, by the way, is considered "public service") and don't seem to line up with those regs.

My response was that the main channel and its sub-channels are all under one license. The content requirement is on the licensee, not the channel or subchannel. There is a minimum requirement for the number of hours a given licensee devotes to children's programming and to public-service programming. The requirement ends there. The regulations don't specify whether that programming takes place on the main channel or one of the subchannels. The requirement is per-license, not per-program-stream.

Please either go back and read what I wrote in its entirety, and/or look it up in the regulations. I provided you everything you need to answer these questions for yourself. As much as I'd like to explain this to you so it makes sense, there are only so many hours in the day.

[WB2YGF]

I'm not talking about cable channels broadcast as subchannels. You're getting your wires crossed.

Forget cable channels for a second.[/b].

My OP you responded to (#43) WAS EXACTLY about cable channels broadcast as subchannels. I am trying to STAY on the topic.  IMHO, It would be a stretch to say that the Universal Sports sub-channel it there as a "public service".  It quacks like a cable channel duck to me. Is this allowed because the main channel carries the regulatory programming burden?  Could CNBC fall under the same exemption?  I don't know - you're the expert.

[KA1ZGC]

I'm not talking about cable channels broadcast as subchannels. You're getting your wires crossed.

Forget cable channels for a second.[/b].

My OP you responded to (#43) WAS EXACTLY about cable channels broadcast as subchannels. I am trying to STAY on the topic.

I explained that once. The cable channels don't offer themselves to broadcast stations. I even explained why they don't. I'm not explaining it again.

IMHO, It would be a stretch to say that the Universal Sports sub-channel it there as a "public service".

Please go back and find where I said a sports sub-channel is considered a public service. I didn't. I said "news and weather". If I didn't write it, I wasn't saying it. Please read carefully what I write carefully instead of skimming and filling in the blanks with things I didn't say.

Is this allowed because the main channel carries the regulatory programming burden?  I don't know - you're the expert.

For the umpteenth time: the licensee carries the burden. Forget "main channels" and "sub-channels". The callsign carries the burden.

Enough, already. This is going nowhere. Please read the regs. I'm niether your secretary nor your lawyer.

This conversation is over.

[WB2YGF]

I explained that once. The cable channels don't offer themselves to broadcast stations. I even explained why they don't. I'm not explaining it again.

Universal Sports Television Network ("Universal Sports" for short) is an American television network that airs various sports, mainly those contested in the Olympics. The network, a combined operation of NBC Universal and InterMedia Partners, began as the World Championship Sports Network (WCSN) in 2005. On June 16, 2008, NBCU partned with InterMedia and renamed the network Universal Sports, complete with the NBC Peacock branding.
Availability
Universal Sports is distributed by:
* A 24-hour-a-day digital cable and satellite network, which is also seen over the air on a digital subchannel in some markets.
* An online streaming video service.

This conversation is over.

Yep.