Also see Bible Money Matters which also has a good article.]]>TV Viewing Declining? HA!
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100505-160417
Who says TV viewing is declining?
A post from Mark Cuban arguing that the future of TV is TV, not the Internet as some people like to say.
Mark's reasoning is simple: "follow the money," he says. People are buying brand new HDTVs left and right. Peter Kafka at "All Things D" picked up on Mark's post and published the chart above.
When someone buys a huge new TV, the first thing that person wants to do is watch beautiful HD programming. TV is simple. No need to worry about downloading shows or a slow stream. Just plug it in, hook up the cable or TV antenna, and start watching great shows.
Read more by clicking on RELATED LINK below.]]>Nearly 800,000 U.S. TV households 'cut the cord,'
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100414-175258
Make no mistake: The big cable, satellite, and telco carriers are still sitting pretty with more than 100 million TV subscribers.
Nevertheless, a new report claims that more and more viewers are "cutting the cord" in favor of watching their favorite shows via over-the-air antennas (remember those?), Netflix, or the Web.
TechCrunch has the scoop on a new report from the Toronto-based Convergence Consulting Group, and though the figures may not be a "serious threat" to the big cable and satellite carriers yet, the trend might eventually spell trouble for the like of Cablevision, Comcast, DirecTV, and Time Warner Cable.
To wit: Nearly 800,000 households in the U.S. have "cut the cord," dumping their cable, satellite, or telco TV providers (such as AT&T U-verse or Verizon FiOS) and turning instead to Web-based videos (like Hulu), downloadable shows (iTunes), by-mail subscription services (Netflix), or even good ol' over-the-air antennas for their favorite shows, according to the report.
Now, as TechCrunch points out, the estimated 800,000 cord cutters represent less than 1 percent of the 100 million U.S. households (give or take) currently subscribing to a cable/satellite/telco TV carrier, so it's not like we're talking a mass exodus here. But by the end of 2011, the report guesstimates, the number of cord-cutting households in the U.S. will double to about 1.6 million, and if the trend continues, well...
Even more trouble for the big carriers is the report's assertion that U.S. TV watchers are getting a taste for online video, with an estimated 17 percent of the U.S. TV audience watching at least one or two shows online in a given week last year, up from just 12 percent in 2008, and set to rise to 21 percent this year.
Personally, I find the temptation to cut the cord pretty enticing, especially whenever I get a load of my monthly $130 cable bill (which includes unlimited broadband and HD but no premium channels). Why am I paying so much for all the hundreds of channels that I rarely ever watch, anyway? Wouldn't it be easier — not to mention a lot cheaper — just to ditch my DVR and watch my favorite shows on iTunes and Hulu, catch up on the news via CNN.com, and be done with it?
There's one important factor that's keeping me from pulling my scissors out: live sports, and particularly ESPN, my 24-hour sports companion. Sure, as a football fan, I could keep up with the Jets and the Giants via over-the-air TV (although I'm not sure my landlord would be all that ecstatic about my installing a TV antenna on the roof of our Brooklyn brownstone), but without cable, I'd be left high and dry when it comes to Monday Night Football.
What about you? Anyone out there count themselves as one of the 800,000-plus cord-cutting households in the U.S.? If not, would you ever consider it, or are you too attached to basic cable?
Correction: This post originally said that 800,000 U.S. TV households "cut the cord" in 2009. They didn't all cut the cord in 2009; the number reflects how many had cut the cord by the end of 2009 — a somewhat important distinction. Apologies for the goof.
CLICK ON RELATED FOR THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]]>The Emperor's New Spectrum Crisis
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100412-100532
By John Hane TVNewsCheck, Apr 12 2010, 8:43 AM ET
Last week Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said in an interview that he thinks technology will solve rising mobile broadband demand and that the FCC should leave broadcasters alone. This surprised a lot of people, but it shouldn't have. It's old news. If you talk to people (including many from the wireless industry) off the record, almost no one really foresees a looming nationwide spectrum crisis. Some people think the country would be a lot better off with more spectrum for mobile broadband, but that's a value judgment. It's not the same thing as an acute spectrum shortage.
So Mr. Seidenberg's comments weren't surprising. But a spirited blog post by Edward Lazarus, the FCC's chief of staff, responding to Mr. Seidenberg, did surprise me. Titled "The Record Is Clear: America Needs More Spectrum," the post basically tells Mr. Seidenberg that he's just wrong, because the National Broadband Plan record shows "overwhelming" agreement that we need more broadband spectrum. Mr. Lazarus calls Mr. Seidenberg's comments "rather baffling" because Verizon Wireless has supported additional broadband spectrum allocations.
CLICK RELATED FOR MORE.....]]>The Fox is IN THE HENHOUSE!
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100317-131233
It seems that our FCC Chairman, along with a bad dream from the past, Reed Hundt (former FCC Chairman), and advocating taking away YOUR local TV. It seems that they want to double-dip the TV spectrum, take away more channels, and as was suggested in one conference "move television to the Internet". That's just what I want to do... watch TV off my computer.
What gets me is that Reed Hundt more than admitted that he pulled one over on the telephone industry. He also started the move from analog to digital, which was so very well managed by the government. I hope you detect the sarcasm in my writing. Now he wants to pull one over on the public? Sorry, no thank you Reed. I know your past
Please write to your Congressman and Senator and voice your opinion that free, over the air TV must not be touched. And suggest giving these two fellows their walking papers.
_______________________________________
Genachowski To TV: Take It Or Leave It By Harry A. Jessell and Kim McAvoy TVNewsCheck, Mar 17 2010, 9:01 AM ET
The FCC's National Broadband Plan comes down to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski saying this to broadcasters: We can do this the easy way or we can do it the hard way, but, make no mistake, we are going to take back 120 MHz of your spectrum and sell it to wireless providers so that more Americans can have faster mobile access to the Internet.
The easy way is for broadcasters to simply go along with the NBP's principal proposals:
* Acquiesce to a repacking of the broadcast plan to free up at least six channels (36 MHz)
* "Voluntarily" enter into arrangements under which two or more stations would share a single 6 MHz broadcast channel so the FCC can recover another 14 channels (84 MHz).
Stations that choose to give up all or some of their spectrum through channel sharing would be rewarded. They would be entitled to a percentage of the proceeds from the eventual auctioning of the spectrum to wireless providers.
However, if broadcasters fail to go for channel sharing and auction cash in sufficient numbers or if Congress fails to allow broadcasters in on the auction take, then the NBP says the FCC should do it the hard way.
That involves bulling ahead with the band repacking to recover at least six channels in the top part of the UHF band (chs. 46-51) over the broadcasters' objections and then forcing stations to double or triple up on channels by FCC fiat or by threats of hefty new spectrum fees.
Faced with recalcitrant broadcasters, the NBP says the FCC could also tear up the current system of so-called big-stick broadcasting and replace it will a cellular architecture that the FCC believes is more spectrum efficient and that would yield ample spectrum for auctioning.
Or, it could go forward with "overlay auctions" in which it broadcast spectrum is auctioned off to wireless providers. It would then be left to the auction winners to negotiate with broadcasters to clear the band.
The broadcast spectrum grab is just one of scores of proposals in the NBP, all aimed at putting affordable broadband access in the hands of most Americans at home and when they are on the go.
In fact, the 120 MHz that the NPB intends to squeeze out of broadcasting is just part of 300 MHz in new spectrum it intends to make available for wireless mobile within the next five years and 500 MHz total within the next 10.
Commercial broadcasting's trade groups in Washington — the NAB and MSTV — have been measured in their official responses to the NPB over the past two days, saying they hope to work with the FCC in meeting the nation's broadband needs.
But privately, broadcast lawyers and lobbyists were steamed by the NBP's call for repacking the band and they were no more interested in the cash-for-spectrum proposal than when NPB chief Blair Levin first floated the idea last fall. They were also unhappy with the NBP's implied threat of spectrum fees.
"Make no mistake, the historic public interest trade for the license has now been replaced by a spectrum tax that will be systematically ratcheted up to force broadcasters off their channels," says one longtime broadcaster. "The move is as transparent as it is cynical."
As things stand now, broadcasters remain determined to hang on to every last hertz of spectrum, a position that puts them on a collision course with Genachowski.
The broadcasters see the six-channel repacking proposal as little more than a spectrum grab. It would cause hundreds of UHF stations now on chs. 46 through 51 to move to new channels, some in the low VHF band that have been an over-the-air nightmare for the broadcasters now stuck there.
What's more, they and most other broadcasters in the UHF band would end up with reduced power, smaller service areas and more interference as the FCC packs all stations in the band closer together.
"The plan is urban renewal," says one broadcast rep. "It just levels certain portions of the broadcast spectrum nationwide."
Most broadcasters never liked the cash-for-spectrum idea, mostly because it takes them out of the digital game. They still believe they can capitalize on their digital spectrum through multicasting, mobile DTV and other schemes.
Significantly, the NBP downplays the potential for multicasting and mobile DTV, stating that revenue generated by multicasting "has been modest thus far and is forecast to remain so in the near term."
The NBP concedes that the consumers are interested in mobile video, but adds that whether they are interested in the type envisioned by broadcasters "has yet to be determined."
Broadcasters are also skeptical that Congress can be persuaded to allow them to share in proceeds from the auctioning of spectrum they might throw into the broadband pool. In the 1990s, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others opposed giving broadcasters the temporary use of second channels so that they could make a smooth transition from analog to digital.
To the credit of Levin and the FCC, the formulation of the NBP has been a fairly open process. Which means that the broadcasters have been able to get a jump on their campaign to derail the plan. They already have their counter-arguments and talking points and have come up with research in support of them.
The broadcasters' basic tactic has been to challenge Genachowski's, Levin's and now the NBP's assertion that the America is facing a critical shortage of spectrum for mobile broadband that the nation will be left in the technological dust by virtually every country in the world if something isn't done pronto.
It's just not so, the broadcasters say with experts to back them up.
The broadcasters also argue that before the FCC goes around disrupting a service that has served America well for 60 years and been the model for broadcasting around the world, it had better make sure that there isn't other spectrum laying around doing little or nothing and that the wireless providers are making use of the spectrum they now have as efficiently as possible.
To that end, broadcasters are urging the government to conduct a full spectrum inventory to see precisely what we've got and how it's being used. If successful, the broadcasters will get a congressional moratorium on tampering with broadcast spectrum at least until the inventory is completed — a process they would no doubt like to see last longer than the Obama administration.
The broadcasters also say they have already sacrificed at the altar of broadband, giving up 108 MHz of spectrum when they completed the transition from analog to the more spectrum-efficient digital broadcasting last year. (Ironically, the NBP uses this fact against broadcasting, pointing out how much more valuable the broadcast spectrum was when it was auctioned for broadband use.)
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Understanding the old Washington adage that you can't beat something with nothing and not altogether opposed to cashing in on excess spectrum if the price is right, broadcasters are offering to meet the needs of broadband providers by leasing portions of their channels to them. They say they simply need more flexibility in how they package the spectrum to make it more suitable for broadband.
By law, broadcasters are permitted to lease spectrum to non-broadcast users under certain conditions. Stations must still devote some portion of their channels for basic broadcast service, and they must pay a portion of the lease revenue to the government. Right now, the fee is set at 5%, but the FCC has the power to adjust that.
Evidence that the broadcasters have already been shopping around this idea is the statement that FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell issued yesterday upon release of the NBP.
"Focusing on this statutorily permissible and voluntary [emphasis his] mechanism for leasing parts of the airwaves may be an easier path to accelerating deployment of advanced wireless services than more coercive means," he said.
At a press briefing with reporters Tuesday, authors of the NBP pooh-poohed the broadcaster-lease option, saying that wireless providers were not interested in leasing small hunks of spectrum on a market-by-market basis.
Although it would be legally tough for the FCC to flat-out take away a station's license — a point the NBP acknowledges — the FCC has all kinds of authority to chip away at those channels by changing interference protection criteria and reducing power levels and even the allocated hertz per channel. Back in the 1980s, amid a raucous battle, the FCC came close to reducing the channel spacing between AM stations and repacking the band so that it could squeeze in more stations.
The NBP puts broadcast spectrum reallocation on a fast track. It calls for a vote on repacking and channel sharing in 2011, an auction of the freed-up spectrum in 2012 or 2013 and band transition and clearing in 2015.
To get to that vote next year means that the FCC will have to launch the necessary rulemaking proceeding this summer or early fall at the latest.
Assuming broadcasters can't get such a moratorium on spectrum tampering, they will have to come up with three votes at the FCC to block the 2011 vote.
Right now, it's not clear where those three votes would come from. Even if they can get the two Republicans, Meredith Atwell Baker and Robert McDowell — a big if — they would also have to bag one of two Democrats, newcomer Mignon Clyburn or Michael Copps.
(By the time the rulemaking come up for a vote next year, Copps may be gone. His term expires this June. The worst case scenario for broadcasters is Levin's succeeding him as many have speculated.)
To win Clyburn's vote, the broadcasters would probably have to sign off on all sorts of new public interest obligations. Clyburn signaled as much in her statement upon the release of the NBP, pointing out that it does not contain a "rigorous analysis" of the public interest implications of broadcast spectrum reallocation. "This is a serious concern given the broadcast spectrum is the lone spectrum through which our nation's public interest goals are effectuated."
The broadcasters already know that they will face determined foes in Genachowski and Levin, who believe they have economics and the best interests of the Republic on their side. They will do all they can to put the NBP into effect.
They see broadcasting as an inefficient use of spectrum and they see broadband as the superior medium and key to nation's competitiveness in the world economy.
They also believe they can take 120 MHz away from broadcasting without materially damaging the medium, pointing out that 90% of viewers watch broadcast signals via satellite or cable anyway and promising that channel-sharing stations will continue to enjoy must-carry rights.
The NBP also suggest that some auction proceeds could be used to pay for a lifeline broadcast service or cable and satellite systems for certain consumers, presumably the poor and elderly, who lose over-the-air service because of reduced coverage areas related to repacking.
As chairman of the FCC, Genachowski can bring all sorts of pressures to bear on broadcasters to get them to go along with repacking and channel sharing. With Clyburn and Copps (or his successor), he can load broadcasters up with additional public interest responsibilities, shut down the many loopholes in the duopoly rules that broadcasters have become adept at slipping through or even dilute their retransmission consent rights.
Just last week at a Hill hearing, Genachowski said the retrans framework has been under "active consideration' since last December, alarming broadcasters who are now enjoying a hefty revenue stream from the framework just as it is.
And you can bet that Genachowski and Levin have their Hill support lined up. No sooner had they sent up the NBP to Congress, than the Democratically controlled Senate Commerce Committee and House Subcommittee on Communications and the Internet announced hearings next week on the plan.
Those hearings, incidentally, will be a major test of the effectiveness of the NAB's new president, former Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith. If he's got members of those committees lined up to support broadcasting in the spectrum fight, this would be the time to hear from them.
So far, House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA), House Commerce Committee Chairman Emeritus John Dingell (D-MI) and Senate Commerce Committee member Olympia Snowe (R-ME) have all expressed concern over forced reallocation of broadcast spectrum.
Working in the broadcasters' favor is that the NBP has many moving parts and that the NBP proponents will simply not be able to fight, let alone win, every battle. The plan's call for spurring a competitive retail market for cable and satellite set-top boxes, for instance, is highly controversial. It will be opposed by cable and satellite as well as the makers of their boxes.
For broadcasters to win, they have to remain united as possible in their opposition and avoid having individual stations or stations groups enticed by those auction proceeds from going to the FCC and seeking a separate peace. The NBP's cash-for-spectrum plan makes the most sense for weak stations in major markets, where broadband spectrum is tighest.
So far, the industry has hung together. But there are reports, not yet confirmed here, that a couple of substantial, but financially struggling groups may break ranks.
The NBP puts the NAB and the MSTV is the awkward position of opposing incentive auctions that would put money into the pockets of broadcasters who are desperately looking for a way out of the business.
Just as bad as the substance of the NBP is for broadcasters is the message that it sends to the investment community, whose money bets can make or break an industry. That message is that the chairman of the FCC, and presumably the Obama administration, no longer much cares about over-the-air broadcasting or, if you believe in the significance of faint praise, the service it provides.
When it formally unveiled the NBP at a commission meeting yesterday, Genachowski read a 2,300-word statement. Not once did he mention broadcasting or how the plan would affect it.
At the Genachowski FCC, broadcasting is apparently not even worth lip service anymore.
]]>DirecTV Customers Loose ABC and CBS Lima
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100308-171220
We have identified two problems. First is that DirecTV has delisted WOHL (ABC & CBS) from your set top box. This is their choice and not ours. There is nothing we can do for you.
The other issue is that services such as DirecTV depend on web sites such as AntennaWeb.org for their station data. I have found that their databases are woefully inaccurate. Further, they are unreachable, so there is no way to make corrections.
If you are a DirecTV subscriber, here is what I would suggest you do. Contact DirecTV, and as their customer complain. I've heard from numerous people that when they threatened to cancel and go with Dish Network, they received an immediate reduction in their subscription of up to $20.00 p/month.
However, keep in mind that if you have an A/B switch on your TV, you can get FREE over the air TV. Connect a UHF/VHF antenna to your TV. The money you save on the subscription will pay for your antenna in a few months.
Again, this is not the station's fault. This is a choice made by DirecTV, so please direct your displeasure toward them.
Fred Vobbe WOHL Engineering]]>FREE TV COULD MAKE COMEBACK
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100227-132201
Retransmission tussle could benefit those with rabbit ears By PETER CARANICAS - VARIETY MAGAZINE Posted: Fri., Feb. 19, 2010, 10:00am PT
As the tussle over retransmission consent fees continues to play out between broadcasters and the cable biz, one factor that's been largely overlooked is the easy availability of free over-the-air TV via rooftop or indoor rabbit-ear antennas.
When Time Warner Cable and Fox engaged in their public ad blitz and brinksmanship in December, with the cable guys threatening to throw the broadcast bums off the air if they didn't stop demanding excessive fees for the right to retransmit the Fox package of services, no one bothered to inform consumers that much of the Fox programming -- including the ever-popular "American Idol" -- is available for free to almost anyone who purchases a cheap indoor antenna (prices range from $4.99 and up at Radio Shack).
That's the only way nearly 10% of U.S. households receive "Idol" and countless other broadcast shows, according to Nielsen. The other 90% get them via cable or satellite.
But two things are happening that could help "free" over-the-air TV stage a comeback.
First, the cost of cable continues to rise, spurred in part -- say cable operators -- by the very retransmission fees that broadcasters are now charging cable systems to carry their signals.
"Every time our contracts with TV program providers come up for renewal… we face price increases," Time Warner Cable declared on its RollOverOrGetTough.com website mounted to spin its side of the story during the year-end skirmish with Fox. "Sometimes we can avoid passing them on to you. Sometimes we can't."
The second factor working in favor of over-the-air TV is the government-mandated transition to digital broadcasting last June. The technology has allowed local broadcasters to offer viewers stronger, clearer signals and multiple new services that could eventually challenge cable's channel cornucopia.
"The phenomenon of cutting the cable cord will only grow," says National Assn. of Broadcasters exec veep Dennis Wharton. "Add to that the lingering recession and there's opportunity for a renaissance in over-the-air broadcasting."
Seven months after the digital switchover, many large-to-mid-market broadcasters have adopted the strategy of using a large portion of their spectrum to beam their main channel in high definition and the balance to carry two or three standard-definition "multicast" subchannels offering such fare as 24-hour weather, lifestyle or syndicated programming.
Other broadcasters have opted to slice their digital spectrum into eight -- or sometimes even more -- standard-def subchannels. For example, Los Angeles station KSCI, which brands itself as LA 18, broadcasts programming to the area's burgeoning Asian population on subchannels 18.1 through 18.8.
"We decided the best use of the spectrum was to not broadcast in HD but to provide a suite of Asian-language channels," says Peter Mathes, a former Chris-Craft Television exec who is now CEO of privately held parent company Asian Media Group. LA 18 programs and sells time on two of the channels and leases out the other six for a flat fee while keeping some of their advertising inventory.
"The digital spectrum is what allowed us to offer all the channels," says Mathes. "Anecdotally we hear stories that at least within the Asian communities many people have left cable and satellite because they've got such an abundance of over-the-air channels right now."
"There's a lot of stuff available over the air," concurs Paul Karpowicz, prexy of Meredith Local Media Group, which owns 12 stations in mid-sized markets including Atlanta, Kansas City, Mo., and Las Vegas. "As more viewers look at their cable bills they'll say, 'You know, what if I get a good antenna and try that for a while?' "
But others question whether the abandonment of cable for over-the-air reception will ever amount to more than a trickle -- even with cable fees continuing to rise.
"I don't ever see that becoming so widespread that there's a dramatic change in the economics of the industry," says one exec from a Big Four network. "Just because it's available to consumers, it doesn't mean they'll do it. They watch broadcast more than any of the cable channels, but they still want to be able to get ESPN, the Fox regional sports networks, and the general-entertainment (cable) channels that are doing original programming."
"Most people are willing to pay for a subscription-based service, in part because they
like choice beyond local broadcast stations," says Barry Faber, exec veep and general counsel at Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns nearly 60 TV stations and is known for its aggressive stance in retrans negotiations with cablers. "But if it doesn't include the broadcast stations, it's not a service they want to buy."
While large-scale abandonment of wired TV for over-the-air reception may be cable's worst-case scenario, it would be no picnic for broadcasters, either. After all, they're only starting to get used to the dual revenue stream of advertisers buying time and cablers paying retrans coin. Market research firm SNL Kagan predicts that such fees will grow substantially in the next few years to approach $2 billion by 2013.
Maybe that's why no one ever seems to bring up the over-the-air option whenever there's a public debate over the high cost of cable.
"When you look at the percentage of people who get their TV service from cable, clearly that's where we have to be," says Meredith's Karpowicz. "We absolutely want to be carried on cable. All we're asking for in our retrans discussions is a fair exchange for the value we bring to the cable system."
Read the full article by clicking the RELATED link ---------------------- Fred's Note: While I agree with the idea that Free TV is making a comeback, I really don't feel comfortable with "indoor antennas". Since WLIO and WOHL started transmitting digitally, 95% of all viewer complains are due to INFERIOR indoor antennas. Now, I understand that people want something cheap, but when you go on the cheap, expect cheap results. And unfortunately, when you watch the Olympics and the picture freezes and pixilates, you get the results that indoor antennas give you.
If you don't want to get mad, and don't want your TV viewing ruined, the solution is a medium size outdoor antenna. Get the antenna out in the open, and positioned towards the station and you won't have problems. ]]>Chuck Norris Webbot
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100222-111043
If you haven't changed the default password on your home router, you may be in for an unwanted visit from Chuck Norris -- the Chuck Norris botnet, that is.
Discovered by Czech researchers, the botnet has been spreading by taking advantage of poorly configured routers and DSL modems, according to Jan Vykopal, the head of the network security department with Masaryk University's Institute of Computer Science in Brno, Czech Republic.
Click on RELATED below to her the whole story.]]>Comcast/NBC
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100204-161057
Comcast and NBCU reaffirm commitment to broadcast TV
Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker used appearances before the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet to insist that cable giant Comcast is firmly committed to broadcast television if it is permitted to acquire control of NBCU.
In fact, they insisted, the deal will help to preserve the broadcast TV business.]]>TiVo’s request for Waiver
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100202-123209
MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON TIVO’S REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE IEEE-1394 OUTPUT REQUIREMENT CS Docket No. 97-80 / CSR-8252-Z Comment Date: February 22, 2010 Reply Comment Date: March 4, 2010
TiVo Inc. (“TiVo”) has filed a request pursuant to Sections 1.3, 76.7, and 76.1207 of the Commission’s rules1 for waiver of part of Section 76.640(b)(4) of the Commission’s rules.
Section 76.640(b)(4) requires cable operators to include a DVI or HDMI interface and an IEEE 1394 interface on all high definition set-top boxes (“STBs”) that they acquire for distribution to customers.
TiVo seeks waiver of this rule with respect to the IEEE 1394 interface requirement on behalf of cable operators who wish to deploy the TiVo high definition digital video recorders (“HD DVR”) models sold at retail.
TiVo states that, at the time the regulation was adopted, the IEEE 1394 interface was the only digital video interface available for consumer devices that supported recording devices and networking.
TiVo asserts that since the time the regulation was adopted, the cable industry has moved away from the IEEE 1394 connection to widely deployed Internet protocol (“IP”) technologies. TiVo argues that the IEEE 1394 interface requirement was implemented to ensure leased devices would interoperate with consumer purchased equipment.
Consequently, TiVo argues that its HD DVR already meets this core objective by including home networking compatibility with products its consumers use most, IP-enabled devices.
TiVo argues that a waiver will advance choice and competition in cable navigation devices. TiVo explains that its value to cable operators is through offering a popular retail product for use as a leased set-top box with no hardware modification, available at a lower cost.
TiVo argues without a waiver, the cost of adding an IEEE 1394 port would make the TiVo HD DVR less cost-competitive against the HD DVRs that cable operators currently lease and thus reduce competition. Further, TiVo argues that adding the IEEE 1394 port would delay the introduction of competition into the cable set-top market with no resulting benefit to the cable operator or consumers.
TiVo explains that its requested waiver is justified because cable operators can continue to deploy devices to subscribers who request a set-top box with an IEEE 1394 interface. Consequently, TiVo argues a waiver of the IEEE 1394 interface requirement would cause no harm to other interested parties. We seek comment on TiVo’s request.
This proceeding will be treated as “permit but disclose” for purposes of the Commission’s ex parte rules. As a result of the permit-but-disclose status of this proceeding, ex parte presentations will be governed by the procedures set forth in Section 1.1206 of the Commission’s rules applicable to nonrestricted proceedings. Comments and oppositions are due February 22, 2010. Petitioner’s reply is due March 4, 2010. All filings must be submitted in CS Docket No. 97-80 and CSR-8252-Z.
Pleadings sent via e-mail to the Commission will be considered informal and will not be part of the official record. Interested parties will have access to comments online through the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), and therefore we waive the requirements of Sections 76.7(b)(1) and 76.7(c)(1) that comments and oppositions be served on interested parties.
Comments may be filed using: (1) (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s e-Rulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.
For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and the applicable docket number: CS Docket No. 97-80. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message: “get form”.
A sample form and instructions will be sent in response. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Effective December 28, 2009, all hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to
445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
One copy of each pleading must be sent to Brendan Murray, Media Bureau, Room 4-A737, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 or Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov.
Copies of the Waiver Request and any subsequently filed documents in this matter are also available for inspection in the Commission’s Reference Information Center:
Alternate formats of this Public Notice (computer diskette, large print, audio recording, or Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 or (202) 418-7365 (TTY).
For further information, contact Brendan Murray of the Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120. Press inquiries should be directed to Janice Wise, (202) 418-8165 or Janice.Wise@fcc.gov.
TTY: (202) 418-7172 or (888) 835-5322. ]]>New Station
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100128-151512
DIGITAL TRANSLATOR OR DIGITAL LPTV APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ACCEPTED FOR FILING
CENTRAL OHIO ASSOICATION OF CHRISTAIN BROADCASTERS Construction permit for a new station for KENTON, OH on channel 49 in Kenton OH.
(click related for FCC document)]]>Are Antennas MOOT?
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100125-133438
Some people are doing this because of economics. Others because of service issues. In the case of satellite, it's because satellite is offering only local stations in SD rather than HD.
And for those in Logan, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Mercer, Paulding, Shelby, Van Wert, Wood, & Wyandot there is another issue. Cable systems have dropped WLIO and your hometown stations after several decades of providing us to viewers. Satellite companies will not provide us. So if you want your hometown stations, an antenna is it!
Think this is just something happening around Lima? The following is from a news story in Los Angeles CA.
Southern Californians are rediscovering over-the-air television. Ethnic communities are most actively adopting broadcast TV, according to the Los Angeles (CA) Times. Around 20,0000 Asian-American homes in Southern California switched to over-the-air TV last year (2009). Around 8,000 African-American homes switched to free reception. Among all demographics, Latinos have the highest reliance ib over-the-air reception in Southern California, with around 440,000 homes, about one-fourth of the TV households in that demographic, using rabbit-ears, Yagi, or other types of antennas
The Los Angeles market, the second largest in the United States, has some 70 over-the-air channels, many of them with Asian, or Spanish language content. Not all 70 come in across the entire market, but enough to induce Orange County resident Mike Mahan, who told the Times, he was tired of paying for channels he never watched.
Richard Schneider of Antennas Direct in St. Louis, told the Times his sales have gone "through the roof." Sales tripled since the DTV transition, he said. Antennas Direct now sells around 100,000 units each month.
]]>Antenna Hacking
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry100104-141602
I found this information interesting and thought I'd pass it along. While it's currently 18 degrees F. in Indy, I can read and dream about the next antenna project. Enjoy and Happy New Year to all DXers!
Steve Indianapolis, IN]]>NFL Game Chart
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry091202-172522
http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/]]>Digital-TV coupons expire; 54 percent used
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry091116-082756
Quietly, almost imperceptibly, the last of the government-issued coupons toward the purchase of a digital television converter box expired Monday.
After months of hand-wringing over the switch to all-digital TV signals and cries from Congress and the White House to delay the transition by four months because the country was unprepared, Americans managed to redeem just over half of the 64.1 million coupons that were distributed, federal records show.
On Monday, the final 200,000 coupons mailed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in mid-August weren't worth the plastic they were printed on, hitting the 90-day expiration date.
"The DTV coupon program was a tremendous success," NTIA Administrator Lawrence Strickling said. "It educated millions of Americans about how to prepare for the transition and helped millions of households with the cost of purchasing a converter box."
Colorado ranked among the top states, with a 56 percent redemption rate — roughly 502,000 coupons of 896,000 issued, records show.
Redemption rates are somewhat misleading, as the agency counts coupons redistributed to a different consumer after they had expired unused.
The agency did not know how many coupon requests came in after the deadline in August. Also unclear is the number of households that still haven't upgraded for the transition.
With about $1.8 billion in funding to help Americans ready for the transition by offering $40 toward the purchase of a converter box, more than $500 million remained unused, according to rough estimates.
Some states had poor redemption rates — Hawaii ranked lowest at 40 percent — while Iowans were tops, with a 64 percent redemption rate.
Barring any congressional mandate, unused funds will return to the general fund. People still in need of converter boxes will be on their own.
Store shelves are largely devoid of the boxes, leaving anyone with an analog TV set with few choices.
"Sales have dramatically dropped since the spring," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien said. "We'll have a few converter boxes at the stores and some online, but the big need has largely passed."
The coupon program ran through a variety of problems, the worst when coupons expired and consumers weren't allowed to acquire replacements. That changed in March when consumers were allowed to reapply.
A coupon-request backlog spurred Congress to move a Feb. 17 date for stations to go digital to June 12.
]]>WLIO - Far and Wide (DX)
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry091116-080504
I was pleased to get this E-mail from a member of the Worldwide TV FM DX Association, or WTFDA for short. Mike is an accomplished DXer with many receptions to his credit. Here is a copy of his post to me.
- - - -
We have a local LP-DTV on ch 8 that makes it tough to get WLIO. Before June 12 we had a full power analog on ch 8, WISH-TV. However, after the transition and before WIIH-DT 8 signed on I was able to pick up WLIO-DT 8 on August 3rd in the morning.
The distance is a respectable 125 miles from your xmitter to my antenna. I have attached the screen shot taken by my camera.
At that time WLIO did not have the call letters in the PSIP.
Also attached is how WLIO analog channel 35 looked in Indianapolis before the shutdown.
Mike Glass Indianapolis Digital - Zenith DTT900, RCA ATSC11 Analog - Samsung 12" Low Band - Winegard HD7084P at 30' AGL High Band - pair F1922-5/12s at 35' AGL UHF - pair 91XGs at 40' AGL Misc - Icom PCR-100 Current count - 203 analog, 153 digital ]]>Chalk one up for the "little guy"
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry091115-193517
CONDO RESIDENTS WIN DECLARATORY RULING TO KEEP TV ANTENNA
In an October 30th ruling, the FCC granted Constance and Daniel Lane of Palantine, Illinois a Declaratory Ruling permitting them to put up a rooftop TV antenna. This, after the board of their homeowners association told them they could not do so.
Constance and Daniel Lane had installed a television antenna on the roof of their town-home. In their petition to the FCC they had sated that they own the deeded town-home with exclusive use of their roof .
Their homeowners association does not dispute this assertion. However, the association’s rules require that antennas must be installed in the attic of a town-home and any deviation from this requirement must be approved by the Board of Directors.
But an exception in this rule exists where an owner cannot get an usable signal with an antenna in the attic. The Lane's allege that they cannot get an acceptable quality air signal in their attic and that therefore they have installed a roof mounted antenna.
In their petition to the FCC the Lane's stated that the Association was imposing continuing fines with respect to this installation. Because of this they requested the Commission to prohibit the association from enforcing its rule. The homeowners association was aware that the Lanes had taken the matter to the FCC but never filed any response.
In granting the Lane's petition the FCC weighed heavily on its own Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule. This is the 1996 law which prohibits governmental and private restrictions that impair the ability of antenna users to install, maintain, or use over-the-air reception devices. It applies to satellite antennas that are one meter or less in diameter and, as in the Lane's case, to antennas designed to receive over the air television broadcast signals.
In granting the Lane's the request the FCC noted that by declining to oppose the petition, the homeowners association has failed to carry its burden. It therefore concluded that the Lane's antenna installation on their roof is permissible under the Commission’s Rule as well as the homeowners association’s rules.
Its unknown if the homeowners association plans to file an appeal.
(Source: FCC) ]]>11 Nov 2009 - 7:00P Off Air
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry091111-210413
Fred Vobbe, VP/CO WLIO & WOHL-CD Lima]]>Since DTV Switch, ABC Reaching Fewer Households
http://www.wlio.net/index.php?entry=entry091110-162549
Via Shoptalk.
ABC has a 1% problem.
Alphabet execs are trying to figure out why, according to Nielsen, their network can now be found in just 97% of U.S. TV households -- below CBS, NBC and even Fox.
All four major networks lost a bit of their nationwide coverage following the digital TV transition. Before the summer switchover, the nets' programs regularly cleared 99% of the country -- which pretty much reps everyone but a few really rural pockets of the country.
After the switchover, with a few TV owners opting not to convert to digital, that number dropped for everyone -- but while CBS, NBC and Fox eventually recovered to 98% coverage, ABC still hasn't. And no one seems to know why.
"It's bizarre," said ABC research chief Charles Kennedy. "Normally people don't get too excited about a 1% change... (and) we're not crying over spilled milk here, but there's a little more milk we could be lapping up. That's an extra 1% that is not being monetized by us."
What is ironic about this is that since moving ABC from analog channel 18 to digital channel 35.1, we have seen a 32% increase in over the air viewership. ]]>
