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

On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:13:00 -0700 (PDT), klem kedidelhopper
wrote:

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

No, but like everything else, it's a conspiracy:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/secret-cartel-keeps-dying-broadcast-144159575.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=broadcast+tv+is+dying

TV really is a "vast wasteland".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasteland_Speech

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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 antennas to 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 no longer 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 car lots. Alot of people were scamming the car lots by swapping cars with someone across town. the repossesors could not find the cars. The company would put 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.

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"

On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:13:00 -0700, klem kedidelhopper wrote:

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.

On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:13:00 -0700 (PDT), klem kedidelhopper
wrote:

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

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.

On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:18:46 +0000 (UTC), Wond
wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:13:00 -0700, klem kedidelhopper wrote:

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.

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).
FCC = Federal Communications Commish.
TV = Television


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Per :
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?
--
Pete Cresswell

In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

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

The electric bill for running the antenna farm?

Hundreds of kilowatts, up to megawatts of power output. I'm sure it
adds up. And, since it's public spectrum, they're paying a
significant license fee every year to the Feds for the right to use
the frequency exclusively within their broadcast area.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave Platt wrote:

In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

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

The electric bill for running the antenna farm?

Hundreds of kilowatts, up to megawatts of power output. I'm sure it
adds up. And, since it's public spectrum, they're paying a
significant license fee every year to the Feds for the right to use
the frequency exclusively within their broadcast area.


You are ignoring the antenna gain. One station I worked at fed 130
KW to the antenna for a 5 MW EIRP. The backup generator was a 500 KW
Kohler diesel that was able to power the entire transmitter site,
including the cooling system & A/C.

"Dave Platt"
(PeteCresswell)

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

The electric bill for running the antenna farm?

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

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.

William Sommerwerck wrote in message
...
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

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:54:02 -0700, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

Hundreds of kilowatts, up to megawatts of power output. I'm sure it
adds up.

Nope. They rarely crank out more than about 50kW output.

For example, a high end UHF Harris TV transitter belches 75kW (analog
power):
http://harrisbroadcast.com/productsandsolutions/TelevisionTransmission/TelevisionTransmitters/UHFTransmitters/MaxivaULX.asp
Analog power levels up to 75 kW, digital power
levels up to 44.6 kW ATSC, 28.1 kW COFDM

VHF is less:
http://harrisbroadcast.com/productsandsolutions/TelevisionTransmission/TelevisionTransmitters/VHFTransmitters/PlatinumVLX.asp
Digital power levels up to 33.6 kW ATSC, 28.8 kW DAB
and 19.2 kW DVB-T/DVB-T2/ISDB-Tb
Analog power levels up to 48 kW

The bad news is that efficiency sucks. 30% is about the best that can
be done. For example, here's a "Green Power" UHF transmitter with "up
to 29% efficiency".
http://www.thomson-broadcast.com/node/407
Some data sheets fail to mention efficiency or power drain. So, a
40kW TV xmitter might draw 120kW from the power company, which is
hardly a megawatt. At $0.20/kw-hr, that's:
120KW * 0.20 * 24 = $576/day or $210,000/year
which is only a small fraction of the operating costs of a radio
station.

The EIRP ratings are tx power times antenna gain, which produce the
astronomically large power outputs.

And, since it's public spectrum, they're paying a
significant license fee every year to the Feds for the right to use
the frequency exclusively within their broadcast area.

Cable operators also pay about $1/subscriber to the FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fy-2012-cable-tv-regulatory-fees-fy-2012

Incidentally, you can look up what various AM/FM stations paid to the
FCC at:
http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/callsign.pl
but I couldn't find anything for TV. This is dead, but rather
intersting:
http://www.fccfees.com

I did find a 2012 NPR (notice of proposed rule making) list of fees
at:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fy-2012-regulatory-fees-nprm
which shows fees at about $35,000 for major market TV stations.

(U.S. $'s)
TV (47 CFR part 73) UHF Commercial
Markets 1-10
34,650
Markets 11-25
31,950
Markets 26-50
21,875
Markets 51-100
12,625
Remaining Markets
3,425
Construction Permits
3,425
Satellite Television Stations (All Markets)
1,350
Construction Permits – Satellite Television Stations
890
Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & Boosters
(47 CFR part 74)
385
Broadcast Auxiliaries (47 CFR part 74)
10
CARS (47 CFR part 78)
475
Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76)
.95
Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar)
.00375
Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25)
275
Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit)
(47 CFR part 25)
also includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100)
132,350
Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit)
(47 CFR part 25)
142,600
International Bearer Circuits - Terrestrial/Satellites (per 64KB
circuit)
.35


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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?".
--
Pete Cresswell

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Hundreds of kilowatts, up to megawatts of power output. I'm sure it
adds up. And, since it's public spectrum, they're paying a
significant license fee every year to the Feds for the right to use
the frequency exclusively within their broadcast area.

You are ignoring the antenna gain. One station I worked at fed 130
KW to the antenna for a 5 MW EIRP. The backup generator was a 500 KW
Kohler diesel that was able to power the entire transmitter site,
including the cooling system & A/C.

Erp. You're quite right - I failed to notice that the quoted figures
are EIRP rather than transmitter output power (or similar). This
would bring the per-hour operating cost down by quite a lot.

So, if the whole power budget for a station such as yours is in the
range of 400 kW (output power, transmitter losses and necessary
inefficiency, cooling and airco, and lower-power auxiliary stuff) then
it might be in the range of low tens of dollars per hour in
electricity costs? Not too terrible.

What I suspect that the stations would like to do would be to be able
to sell/auction off the spectrum rights. VHF and UHF spectrum is
limited and expensive, and there are probably commercial applications
(e.g. cellphone and Internet access) which would pay quite a lot for
access to a 6 MHz slice of spectrum. If the local stations could
shift over to non-broadcast signal distribution without losing more
than a small fraction of their viewership they'd probably find it very
attractive to do so (assuming that they can get regulatory approval).

If this trend plays out, it would tend to throw "free access to at
least basic TV news and entertainment" into the waste-can of history,
as the signals would not be available via any non-pay distribution
system. In the past I believe that there were public-safety and
social-benefit arguments made in terms of ensuring free access to the
broadcast media; whether this philosophy will hold true in the future
is anyone's guess.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave Platt wrote:

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Hundreds of kilowatts, up to megawatts of power output. I'm sure it
adds up. And, since it's public spectrum, they're paying a
significant license fee every year to the Feds for the right to use
the frequency exclusively within their broadcast area.

You are ignoring the antenna gain. One station I worked at fed 130
KW to the antenna for a 5 MW EIRP. The backup generator was a 500 KW
Kohler diesel that was able to power the entire transmitter site,
including the cooling system & A/C.

Erp. You're quite right - I failed to notice that the quoted figures
are EIRP rather than transmitter output power (or similar). This
would bring the per-hour operating cost down by quite a lot.

So, if the whole power budget for a station such as yours is in the
range of 400 kW (output power, transmitter losses and necessary
inefficiency, cooling and airco, and lower-power auxiliary stuff) then
it might be in the range of low tens of dollars per hour in
electricity costs? Not too terrible.


It was around $45,000/month, or about $62.50 an hour when you
subtract the few hours they were off the air, after midnight Sundays.


What I suspect that the stations would like to do would be to be able
to sell/auction off the spectrum rights.


They don't own the spectrum they use. If they stop using it, the FCC
voids their license.


VHF and UHF spectrum is
limited and expensive, and there are probably commercial applications
(e.g. cellphone and Internet access) which would pay quite a lot for
access to a 6 MHz slice of spectrum. If the local stations could
shift over to non-broadcast signal distribution without losing more
than a small fraction of their viewership they'd probably find it very
attractive to do so (assuming that they can get regulatory approval).


Those frequencies are rather useless for cell or broadband. VHF has
too much noise and skip. All of the UHF band wouldn't gain much,
compared to microwave bands where smaller antennas would be useful.


If this trend plays out, it would tend to throw "free access to at
least basic TV news and entertainment" into the waste-can of history,
as the signals would not be available via any non-pay distribution
system. In the past I believe that there were public-safety and
social-benefit arguments made in terms of ensuring free access to the
broadcast media; whether this philosophy will hold true in the future
is anyone's guess.


Actually, they could move free TV broadcast to the KU band, and offer
dumbed down sat receivers cheap or for free. US OTA stations are
carried by Dish & Direct TV. A featureless sat receiver could be built
to only allow reception to stations currently available. A complete GPS
receiver & antenna module is now under $20. No need for an account,
just plug & play on existing TVs.

"William Sommer****** 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 ****ing stupid "sic" **** out.


.... Phil

"(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?".


** That is a false assertion.


.... Phil

On 05/21/2013 04:51 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
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.



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.

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.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:17:18 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

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.
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

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:52:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:



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.

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

?-)

On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:50:12 +0100, "N_Cook" wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote in message
...
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.

?-)

On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:51:38 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

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.

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.