Broadcast TV Never Converted Its Digital Dream

[Jkid]

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

It was going to be glorious, positively Jetsonian. With digital broadcasting, the television industry once promised, the TV set would be transformed into a miraculous info-appliance, the modern household's electronic brain.

No longer would the TV be a mere conduit for sitcoms and soap operas. With digital broadcasts, the TV -- or perhaps the PCTV -- would become a shopping portal, an information node, an Internet-surfing console. Thanks to digital's limitless interactive capabilities, you'd be able to call up player stats during ballgames, play video games with people across the country or take college-level courses from your couch. Each night while you slept, a digital "data" broadcast would send a customized daily newspaper to your set-top box; all you'd have to do in the morning was hit "print."

Well, the future officially arrives this week, and it's . . . not exactly as advertised.

After years of development, billions of dollars of investment and one fiendishly complex conversion program, all the nation's broadcast TV stations will go digital by Friday, the government-mandated deadline. The traditional analog system of broadcasting -- used since TV's invention in the 1920s -- will fade out. Henceforth, all broadcasts will be transmitted in the language of computers, effectively rendering the differences between the PC and the TV moot.

It's true that television is better, more varied and more vivid, because of digital technology. Long before local TV stations reached their digital finish line, cable and satellite TV companies were already showing viewers what digital TV looks like: widescreen, high-definition pictures and crisp sound, multi-hundred-channel lineups, with movies and TV series "on demand."

A decade ago, broadcasters said they were going to offer all that and even more. They never did.

</snip>

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060903144.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have experienced digital television for the first time when I visited Britain. They had multiple channels of programs broadcasting in widescreen. WIDESCREEN!

And when I mean multiple channels of programing, I do not mean weather radars and repeats of old programs from the 1980s. I mean real programs from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Five. They also have Digital teletext, and electronic program guides.

But in America, we already have HDTV but it broadcasts only mostly during primetime. The rest of the programs are still in 4x3, even most cable broadcasts in the US are in 4x3. So the HD channels that are broadcast over the air, are essentally wasting space. (There are HD channels on cable, there is no option for digital widescreen versions of cable channels at all).

As for the subchannels, where I live (Washington, DC), it's shit. Again, there's either weather radars or old programs. There are some subchannel services in the US that are interesting, but only in either New York City or in Los Angeles. We don't have any version of digital teletext.

Our broadcasters have promised and hyped digital television as more channels, in HD, and better quality in picture and sound. But they lied, and all I mostly see is the same channel, in part time HD. And for that their licenses need to be revoked.

Let ABC, NBC, CBS broadcast in cable. Let new companies allow access to the public airwaves and take advantage of the new opportunity that digital television can deliver. America has already wasted the full potential of analog television, digital television should not meet the same fate.

[imdjh]

1. Here's what I want to know- How come I can't watch Spanish TV with English subtitles?

When I am watching regular channels, I can click on CC1 and it will give me the dialogue in English. If I click on CC2 and it will give me the dialogue in Spanish. But if I am on Univision and I click on CC1or CC2 it will only give me the dialogue in Spanish.

[BlueJazz]

2. You know...I've wondered the same thing. I remember once wanting to watch a cool Movie..

...on the Spanish channel and all I could find in "other Languages" was Spanish.

Kinda' Fucked up..if you ask me. :)

[imdjh]

3. BET is free but Logo is pay - no justice in TV nt

[Jkid]

4. BET is free? Wat?

Seriously, in order to get BET you have to subscribe to cable. To get LOGO you have to pay more for a digital cable tier.

[imdjh]

5. Pick pick. You are correct. I should have said, "BET is in basic cable, Logo is Pay per service."

AT least it is here. If I am not mistaken, Logo is not merely included in the next tier, it's like Showtime and has to be purchased.

[Recursion]

12. Stations run CC as a separate signal, when they feel like it

There's a pretty sizeable audience who primarily speak Spanish and want access to English-language programming so it makes sense to send the CC signal for them. The number of people who don't speak Spanish and want to watch Spanish-language programming is much smaller; they probably don't even bother to do the CC translation.

[tomreedtoon]

6. Don't blame the broadcasters completely.

Up until four weeks ago I worked at a TV station that was thrown into a tizzy by the Digital Conversion.

I'm told by my old workmates that, no matter how many times we warned people, IDIOTS refused to get their converters, let their government coupons expire, and didn't know that we were talking to them.

Okay, now that my personal anger at public stupidity is out of the way...the whole digital thing was sold to the public by the TV set manufacturers (which USED to be American) and the broadcast equipment manufacturers.

Oh, it was also sold to the broadcasters, because in those days owning a TV channel was a license to steal. You could fill time with commercials or infomercials and make money. This was sold as a way to "add inventory" for the sales department.

What the stations ran wasn't important. They expected to run old, cheap stuff. They didn't want new programming. That costs money. They also got rid of locally produced non-news programs. All this before the digital transition.

In fact, those "old TV shows" are proving very popular. Better made than the current network shows, made in a time where the networks and production companies felt that viewers had at least some intelligence.

Well, now our economy is collapsing, TV stations are starving (I got laid off because they lost ad income) and you have all these expensive converters or flat-screen TV's. You shouldn't complain about it. You weren't paying attention, and the rich and powerful pulled another scam on you.

[Jkid]

7. I think if the FCC forced broadcasters to produce real local programing...

...the current broadcasters will go out of business. But then again, you'll have new broadcasters that will replace them. Am I right?

[tomreedtoon]

8. With their lowered costs, I don't think so.

Before I was fired, my station had automated two separate broadcast stations, gotten rid of audio engineering, gotten rid of most camera people, moved directors to the news department and gotten rid of local commercial production.

The cameras are automated. (They only go to specific spots during newscasts, shooting those anchors sitting at desks or in front of weather maps.) The directors' tasks are automated; their main job is programming "what happens at what time" and being there in case they have to go manual for breaking news. The mikes open under director control.

They probably wouldn't need any additional personnel. All they would need was the time to write and produce those local shows, which would be mostly "talking head" interview shows. Any outside photography could come from the news department.

But they would need to do those shows, possibly without commercials (local advertisers, even rich ones, hate doing things for charity like public service. Greed is good.)

[4lbs]

9. I went all digital several years ago. My cable company has given me 70+ HD channels.

And yes, most of them do broadcast HD programming most of the day.

HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz! are at least 90% HD programming.

USA Network, TNT, Spike TV, E! Network also have quite a bit of HD programming. Sure, USA, TNT and Spike show a lot of reruns of "Law and Order" and "CSI", but they are in HD.

Discovery HD, Palladia HD, National Geographic HD, all have original programming in HD.

ESPN has most of their sports in HD.

NFL Network HD airs HD programming throughout the day, and their NFL broadcasted games are in HD. Also all their "Games of the Week", and NFL Replay episodes are in HD when possible.


My entire cable bill is about $190 monthly. Yes, that may seem like a lot to most, but here's what I get for my money:

* 2 HD cable DVR boxes, that can record and play back about 24 hours of HD programming, or up to 100 hours of standard programming each. Each box has 2 HD tuners that can record two HD channels, while I have it output a recording for viewing.

* 2 standard cable boxes for other rooms.

* 2 phone lines of digital telephone service, with full nationwide long distance for 7 cents per minute at all times. In addition, any International calls are relatively cheap. 10 cents per minute to Canada, about 20 cents per minute to Mexico. Anywhere from 25 cents to 50 cents per minute to Europe/Asia. I don't make very many international calls anyway.

* High speed Broadband Internet service: ~8 Mbps download, and ~1 Mbps upload.

* Almost every premium channel service that the cable company offers. All the HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz!, TMC, Encore, Sundance Channel, IFC, etc. Overall, about 230+ channels. Channels 2 thru 99, Channels 100-130, Channels 200-270, Channels 300-360, Channels 400-430. Not every channel number has programming, but the 230+ channels are spread out among those number ranges.

* Along with those 230+ standard digital channels, I get 70+ HD channels. All the HD channels are in the 700-798 channel range.

* An "On Demand" service that gives well over 100 movies and shows that I can view whenever I want. I tune to cable channel 1 and choose from the offerings. So, if Showtime is airing a movie Saturday at 8:00pm I want to see but will be somewhere else then, I can either set my cable DVR to record it then, or I can see if it's available for free "On Demand" and watch it now when I have time.

[Grinchie]

10. I see nothing there that warrants an annual bill of $2280 a year.

I'd rather spend that money on good food and walk to the library without having some random platter of crap thrown against the screens 24 hours a day.

You don't allocate the cost of all the TV's needed to view the crappy broadcasts (I count almost 4 seperate sets), nor the prodigious amount of electricity needed to operate them.

I spend 1/8th of that amount on Broadband and I bet I have better entertainment options on my computer, which does a lot more that sit there displaying someone elses idea of reality as its sole function.

When Enron bankrupted the state of California, Cable was the first to go away, and surprisingly, it was never able to infiltrate its way back into our household ever again. Sure we watch it when we travel, but my god, it's worse than ever, and a total waste of time, except for the random bit of genius that is presented now and again to placate the masses.

When the world is viewed on a medium that depends on Shallow soundbites, you end up with a Nation of Shallow thinkers, enamored by quantity, not quality.

[4lbs]

11. Well, seeing as how I don't need to go to movie theaters, or out to restaurants, the annual savings

is offset by that.

I used to spend about $200 monthly just on movie theaters and restaurants. So, I offset it with home entertainment.

The total cost of the TVs, one time, is $3500. $1500 each for 2 HDTVs, and $250 each for standard TVs.

In terms of electricity, my total gas and electric bill is $85 monthly. Of that is just $65 for electricity. It's not like I have all 4 TVs on at the same time.

By the way, the broadband portion of that $190 monthly bill is just $30.00. Another $20 is the two digital phone lines. So, $140 monthly for the cable TV service that includes 4 cable boxes, 2 of which are HD DVRs, and all the channels one could ever want.

You seem to want to begrudge anyone who decides it's cheaper for him to entertain at home and watch whatever, or for the convenience of watching what he wants, when he wants it.

You know what? I do go out, on the weekends. I set my DVRs to record any programming I might want to watch that's on during the day, and I leave. I go to the library, the beach, my friends' houses, or sit and read in a park. Then when I come home, I can watch whatever. That's the convenience I have.

I'm willing to pay for that, which ends up being less than what I was paying for before, just in movie theater tickets and restaurants.