No TV For You!
Here's an unjustly-neglected issue for you -- starting in 2007, if you have a TV that's not hooked up to cable or a satellite dish, it's not going to work anymore.
Okay, that almost certainly won't happen, but it is what current law says, and there's an important policy question in this neighborhood.
Way back in the day, as you probably know-but-don't-quite-know, the government gave television stations monopoly rights to the large swathe of the airwaves that they use to broadcast TV signals. In exchange, they were stuck with some "public interest" mandates that have eroded over the years. More recently, the tendency has been to auction bits of spectrum to entities (cell phone companies, most notably) who want to use it, rather than the giveaway-and-regulate model. But back in the mid-1990s congress gave every TV station a second free channel, but made them promise they would give the spectrum back in 2007.
The idea was to use the second channel for HDTV broadcasts so that for a time each city would have regular ABC (and NBC, CBS, etc.) and ABC-HD. Then, starting in 2007, the non-HDTV broadcasts would cease and we'd all enter the bold new world of crystal-clear pictures. In retrospect, this was an incredibly stupid idea. Essentially nobody watches HDTV over the air -- anyone willing to invest that kind of money in a set is happy to pony up for cable or satellite. Nevertheless, that's what congress did.
The trouble is that you've got tens of millions of televisions that are going to stop working in 2007 if we go forward with this plan, including 13 million households who currently rely on non-HDTV over the air broadcasts. Simply put, this isn't going to happen. As one telecom analyst told me, "this is the real third rail of American politics" -- the voters won't put up with it. So the natural response is going to be to just delay the cut-off date.
The problem here is severalfold. One is that the government could raise billions and billions of dollars by selling this spectrum off. Another is that the companies who would buy the spectrum would do things with it that would be more useful than offering TV broadcasts nobody watches. A third is that some of that spectrum could be made "unlicensed" (i.e., owned by nobody) like the WiFi spectrum is today, which would allow for various cool things to be done.
So what is to be done?
Well, the beauty part, as this New America Foundation policy brief (PDF) points out, is that if you auctioned the spectrum you would raise more than enough money to offer people steeply discounted (or, depending on income situation, free) converters that would let old-school televisions pick up HDTV broadcasts. Problem solved. But only if congress feels some pressure to act. So far, my informal survey work suggests that approximately zero percent of the American population is even vaguely aware than any of this is scheduled to happen, which makes the prospects of action seem dim. So spread the word.
My understanding is that in 2008, there will only be three channels anyway, FOX1, FOX2, and FOX3.
June 2, 2005 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Vermont and the digital facilities haven't even been constructed yet (they should be up and running next year). The analog signals will continue for a bit longer than 07 (until 85% of TV sets in the market are HDTV compatible, I believe). We probably have until 2020. So your mileage may vary depending on where you live. Large metro areas would probably be SOL, though.
June 2, 2005 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"One is that the government could raise billions and billions of dollars by selling this spectrum off"
Or the Republican Congress could give the spectrum to the broadcasters for them to auction off.
June 2, 2005 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not forget about the HDTV-toTV converter and just forget about the idea of broadcast spectrum anyway? It's obviously an inefficient way to use spectrum, given that only 5% of Americans will ever use it, and could easily switch to cable.
If you are worried about the inalienable right of the poor to veg out in front of the television, why not just buy them a subscription to cable? (Most poor people have cable anyway.)
June 2, 2005 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I work in property management, mainly of the lower income variety, and it is true that most poor people have cable television. In fact, my residents generally will pay the cable bill before they pay their rent, since the cable will be turned off faster than they could be evicted (Landlord/Tenant laws and their general stupidity are another topic altogether).
However, the truly poor do not. I really see a difference between what I think of as truly poor people, that is, people who are doing everything they can just to stay above water, just to keep food on the table and pay their bills and another group, which I would call the "agressive" poor, who are low income people who are gaming every aspect of the system they can (for example, not paying their rent until the sheriff is on the doorstep to lock them out). Before anyone gets mad, I am in no way implying that poor people want to be poor or are lucky ducks in any way shape or form; I am just saying what I have seen over and over while managing a significant number of units.
Ironically, the truly poor people are much more likely to always pay their rent on time, because they can't afford the late fees, court costs, etc. resulting from late payments.
They are also much less likely to spend their money on cable tv. I figure the people who watch the least tv are the ones who need the most looking after from those of us who can afford to sit back and watch the Daily Show every night.
June 2, 2005 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are some financial incentives to delay. For instance, I've heard some grumblings that setting a firm date will reduce the amount of money Congress could net in an auction. The telecoms could simply wait out the clock so to speak and wait for everything to become available at once. The valuable spectrum becomes more valuable as the date moves back or becomes uncertain.
By the way, you should be reading Communications Daily to keep up with this stuff. I think it's published by Warren Communications. I get it at my firm - i work in the communications group - and it's a great resource, especially with respect to what's happening on the hill.
June 2, 2005 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
and I had such high hopes for a fluffy post after seeing the title....
June 2, 2005 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read an article some time ago--probably in the Times--that said that with digital broadcast signals the reception had to be just about perfect in order to get any picture at all with a home antenna. Where the picture was slightly fuzzy or ghosty with a standard TV signal, a digital signal would produce either no picture at all or a picture filled with "block" artifacts.
If this is true, then people who have to make do with less-than-perfect reception now may get no picture at all after the switchover to HDTV, even with an adapter.
June 2, 2005 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not a direct comparison, but in the UK we are quite a long way down this road, and what you say is (basically) true – you either get perfect reception or no reception.
We live in a large-ish city, very close to two transmitters, but unfortunately we also live at the bottom of a hill, and our aerial cannot "see" either transmitter. We could only get reception if we (illegally) put a huge mast in our garden, as some of our neighbors have done; so basically we are "forced"* to pay for Satellite TV, which we can "see" from the very top of our house. Just!
* i.e. it is that or no Desperate Housewives!!
June 3, 2005 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
My bumper sticker that says, "Kill Your Television" is finally paying off!
June 3, 2005 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Essentially nobody watches HDTV over the air -- anyone willing to invest that kind of money in a set is happy to pony up for cable or satellite.
Are you sure about this? I see plenty of HDTV antennas for sale. HD packages for cable are currently being thrown in with digital service, but the HD satellite option is considerably more expensive than standard service (and digital cable is pretty expensive relative to analog, too). Besides, sports are the main killer app for HDTV, and plenty of local games get broadcast OTA.
I know if I were to buy an HD set it'd be for DVDs, videogames and OTA broadcasts. And I've heard plenty of folks complain about Washington's WJLA HD signal going up and down erratically (they forget to turn it on sometimes, apparently). I think there is a market for OTA HD signals. I do agree, though, that the transition problems are significant enough that we ought to just design for the actually-correct architecture (IPTV) rather than a half-assed middle ground.
Where the picture was slightly fuzzy or ghosty with a standard TV signal, a digital signal would produce either no picture at all or a picture filled with "block" artifacts.
If this is true, then people who have to make do with less-than-perfect reception now may get no picture at all after the switchover to HDTV, even with an adapter.
This is technically true, but the number of people who would fall into that category is small. To oversimplify, digital is much more efficient, so you can repeat or partially repeat a given signal in the same time it would take to play an analog representation of that signal. A DTV gets more than one chance, so to speak, to receive a given picture element.
If you could properly quantify partially-lost analog frames versus wholly-lost digital frames, digital would come out way ahead.
June 3, 2005 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignorance about HDTV is rampant. Where I live, cable HD signals will increase your HD channels by 2: ESPN and Discovery. Oh yeah, and decrease it by one. CBS apparently is in a tiff with all cable providers and won't provide a HD signal to cable.
To recap: over the air HD, all broadcast stations. Pay for cable, you lose HD on CBS, and get it for 2 more stations.
And did I mention that over the air is free?
June 3, 2005 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
what's the difference between over-the-air and cable? is the over-the-air spectrum used solely by TVs that still have antennas for reception? if so, i'm surprised 13 million households still use them. alternatively, i use a cable to receive public channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS), but do not actually pay for "cable" television. this, i assume, does not place me in one of the "over-the-air" households, correct?
June 3, 2005 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Adding HD nets me about 20 channels. The 4 major networks, 2 smaller locals (UPN, WB), PBS, TNT, ESPN, HBO, MAX, STARZ, SHOW, and two cable only channels that are called INHD1 and INHD2 that show HD broadcasts of the local sports coverage or documentaries and other random stuff.
HDTV is the bomb diggity, especially for sports. Movies, not so much difference from the normal 16:9 interlaced 480i. Progressive scan can get 780p on my TV though.
As far as HD through the air, doesn't make all that much sense to me anyway, so we ought to get rid of the requirement.
June 3, 2005 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 3, 2005 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get PBS over cable for free, but how do you swing the other stations? I get some fuzzy stuff with an antennae.
We hardly ever watch TV, except DVDs, so it doesn't matter to me that much, but occasionally I would like to watch meet the press or something else on msm.
June 3, 2005 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get PBS over cable for free, but how do you swing the other stations? I get some fuzzy stuff with an antennae.
There seems to be some confusion. You and the other poster should not be getting anything out of your coax cable if you don't pay a monthly fee (except perhaps a channel or two of ads -- but probably nothing). Cable companies are required by law to offer the broadcast stations in your area for a minimal fee, but they don't advertise this service, don't give it away for free, and in fact frequently will pretend it doesn't exist until you ask for a manager and mention the legislation by name (instead they steer you to "basic cable", which is not the same thing).
However, you may still be able to use an unsubscribed coax connection to get a few channels. The cable company might have screwed up shutting down the connection. Your apartment building might give you the broadcast channels for free. A neighbor might have climbed the pole and given the block free access. Or, most likely, your TV's internal antenna is awful and the coax is improperly shielded somewhere, allowing it to act as an antenna and pick up OTA signals.
I have no idea whether people falling into the above categories are counted as OTA viewers or not, but unless you're paying for your TV service on a monthly basis, you're either a) receiving OTA broadcasts or b) accidentally receiving free cable.
June 3, 2005 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I posted before, I use a cable connection without paying for cable. You mentioned that I shouldn't be able to receive anything through this method, but I actually receive ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS (as I mentioned before), as well as FOX, UPN, WB, TBS, FOOD NETWORK, CSPAN, HGTV, some Spanish channels, local channels (NY1, public access). I even started recently to receive MSG, which is a local sports channel. I mention this separately because Time Warner, the cable provide in my area, has refused to offer MSG to its subscribers, basically because it no longer shows yankees games, won't show mets games after this season (they get their own cable channel next season), and have little to offer except Nets and Rangers games. I only know this info because Mets fans in NYC are upset because they can't watch about half of the Mets games this season on TV because they're exclusively on MSG. So how the hell am I receiving MSG if my cable provider (that I don't pay for) doesn't provide the channel?
June 3, 2005 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'll get cable or satellite one of these days, but right now what's on my TV is either:
I guess I'd pay for cable or NetFlix if I thought I had the time to watch it. But it's kind of fun being a total skinflint.
Lately, the main function of the TV has been running Wiggles and Elmo's World videos in a continuous loop.
June 3, 2005 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we get HDTV over the air (DC suburb), and don't want to spring for cable at all. And we need a rooftop antenna. I for one would object to a requirement that I get cable. As long as I can get "Lost" and "Jeopardy", I'm doing OK.
June 3, 2005 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
We put our old color TV in the basement 13 years ago. Have not missed it for a moment since. Oh, the wonderful things one can do with extra shelf space. Initially, the space just sat empty, recovering from all the bad shit to which it had been subjected; then the CD player moved in. Books, you remember them, took over the spot next. Now, pictures of our grand granddaughter sit there generating vibes that nullify any stray signals from FOX news. Try it! You'll like it.
June 3, 2005 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Auction off the old spectrum to subsidize HD converters? Why not let 'em keep the old spectrum, take back the HD spectrum and auction that off, use the proceeds to pay for something actually useful, and let people interested in a luxury good like HDTV spring for a cable or satellite connection?
June 3, 2005 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
great post, just get rid of the stupid box.
June 3, 2005 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Where the picture was slightly fuzzy or ghosty with a standard TV signal, a digital signal would produce either no picture at all or a picture filled with "block" artifacts."
The same is true of any digital format - I'm sure you've had experience with DVDs that just won't play properly halfway through a movie, or a CD that skips. Poor cell phone reception today is reflected by choppy or no audio, as opposed to the staticky audio of the analog days.
And Matt, the price of a digital coverter that downgrades an HD signal into a regular coax signal for the television should be fairly cheap by then. I'm personally willing to allow for 5% of the population to be inconvenienced to allow for better/cheaper wireless (voice and internet) coverage.
Also, I don't believe that it will be as bad as you think. Germany is a few years ahead of us, and analog died over there with a whimper.
A Slate article from 2003 when Berlin analog stations were shut down.
Basically, I think this is actually a good thing for our country, and Matt is one of the first critics I've heard of this move.
June 4, 2005 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Germany digital tv over-the-air is great. When I moved into a new apartment, the analog reception was worthless, so I tried digital instead of buying cable. Works great, and there's something like 22 channels (regional broadcasting == folkmusic accounts for a lot of that, tho). However, the digital broadcast frequency here and there are perhaps different, accounting for differences in ease-of-reception.
June 6, 2005 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink