PDA

View Full Version : The future of basic TVs. Expensive


Pages : [1] 2

nukevor
07-02-2004, 04:18 PM
Get ready to pay more for a TV, thanks to FCC mandate

By Mike Langberg
Mercury News
July 2, 2004
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/local/9063493.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

We're about to start paying a hidden tax of $350 on new TV sets, thanks to Washington insider politics that has become bad public policy.

As of July 1, television manufacturers have to add costly digital tuners to some TVs for receiving over-the-air broadcasts of high-definition television, under a mandate from the Federal Communications Commission.

Between now and July 1, 2005, half of all TV sets shipped with screens 36 inches or larger must have a digital tuner. The mandate ratchets up next year to half of sets 25 inches or larger. On July 1, 2006, the mandate expands to all sets in the 25-inch or larger category.
The final blow falls July 1, 2007, when every device containing a standard TV tuner -- including tiny 9-inch sets and even videocassette recorders -- also must have a digital tuner.

It's part of the long and badly managed transition from old-fashioned analog TV -- the signals broadcast in VHF and UHF -- to high-definition digital. All standard and high-definition TV sets sold today have analog tuners, and most HD-ready sets must add an external tuner or high-definition cable or satellite box to receive the high-definition broadcasts through antennae.

For now, the cost of the digital-tuner mandate is hidden because prices for big-screen high-definition TV sets are dropping rapidly. This year's models won't come down as fast to cover the expense of adding digital tuners, but will still be somewhat cheaper than last year's.
What's more, the cost of adding a digital tuner is certain to fall in the following years.
But it's far from certain the cost will decline fast enough to keep consumers from taking a huge hit in the wallet, especially when buying smaller sets in future years.

I'm angry about this, and I know who to blame: the owners of local TV stations, represented in Washington by the powerful National Association of Broadcasters.

The NAB lobbied heavily for the tuner mandate and overcame opposition from the Consumer Electronics Association, which represents TV makers, and several consumer groups.
Our elected representatives in Congress could have challenged the FCC's move, but you can't expect politicians to stick to principles when they need support from local TV stations to run their re-election ads.

What really ticks me off is that millions and millions of these expensive digital tuners will never get used.

According to the research firm In-Stat/MDR in Scottsdale, Ariz., half of the 107 million television households in the United States don't use the tuner in their set at all -- they get service through a satellite or cable set-top box. Only 17 percent of households get TV signals over the air through an antenna, fewer in the geographically challenged San Francisco Bay Area. The remainder plug cable directly into their TVs.

Set-top boxes are gaining popularity because they provide access to advanced services including pay-per-view movies, electronic program guides, video-on-demand services and digital video recording on hard disks. Futuristic home entertainment networks, which will start arriving in the next year or two, will make it easy to move video programming around the house -- but only through set-top boxes.

So at least half of consumers, and maybe even a higher percentage going forward, will pay for technology they don't want or need. There's also a huge loophole. A video monitor -- defined as a screen without any tuner -- isn't covered. LCD computer screens with video inputs, for example, don't need to add digital tuners.

Bad government regulations often have unintended consequences. The unintended consequence here could be an increase in sales of tuner-less monitors, further reducing the number of households without set-top boxes -- exactly the opposite of what the NAB wants.
I called Dennis Wharton, chief spokesman for the NAB, and gave him the unenviable task of countering my outrage.

Wharton called the cost of digital tuners ``a red herring,'' exaggerated by the CEA. Maybe, but external tuners for receiving over-the-air HD broadcasts currently cost $300 or more.
He also noted that broadcasters were ordered by the FCC to transmit in HD, starting in 1998, and argued that manufacturers should no longer be allowed to sell TV sets that receive only the older analog signals.

``Selling a TV without a (digital) tuning device is like selling a car without an engine,'' Wharton said.

I beg to differ. The FCC mandate is more like saying every car sold must have a radio pre-installed, adding cost for buyers who either don't want a radio or want a fancier radio than what comes from the factory.

There is one small silver lining. In a separate series of negotiations, the CEA and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, representing the nation's cable operators, agreed to standards allowing new TV sets to connect directly to digital cable systems without the need for a set-top box.

Digital-Cable Ready, or DCR, sets have a slot for accepting an authorization card, and cable operators have pledged to make those cards available as of July 1. TVs with digital over-the-air tuners also will have these DCR slots.

But even this positive step is severely limited. You'll still need a set-top cable box for two-way services such as pay-per-view, video on demand and electronic program guides.

###

b&w
07-02-2004, 05:44 PM
Does this person have an editor? Lot's of dubious information in his 'opinion' piece. Amazing what pases for journalism.

Michael
07-02-2004, 07:31 PM
Another example of free choice;)...How much does Hollywood get per TV?

Clay
07-02-2004, 09:25 PM
all IMO :)
I think it is a good idea to have a tuner in each TV. If all the stations are broadcasting in HD and TVs need to be HD then a HD tuner makes perfect sense.
OTA HD is a way better looking TV signal than normal digital local channel compared to Direct TV.
OTA is FREE - the HD does not cost anything - FREE -- and that is good.
Jay Leno if free in 1080i and incredible looking in HD.
If I did not need HGTV for the family I would turn off satellite and just watch the free OTA HD stations.

The $350 is so overstated. The high volume and price competition will drive the price down to $35 in no time. eventually it will be around the same % as a regular tuner and all be on one chip. the chip manufactures will compete and drive the price down even more.

Any tv coming to market that the mfgr. does not think needs a tuner will get a SWVGA input and be called a monitor.

Besides by then most TVs for folks with PCs will be monitors anyway.
the convergence has already started.

SamS
07-03-2004, 06:59 AM
That piece is full of falsehoods.

He acts like it is a huge disservice that digital tuners are required in 36"+ TVs between now and next year. Wrong! Show me someone who's looking for a TV in that size range that does not want to experience HD! Plus, as more people upgrade from older TV, adding "set-top boxes" and HD tuners complicate hook-up and use by your average Joe. Even a novice can screw an antenna into a "digital antenna" input jack and start watching HD immediately if reception is possible.

The $350 additional cost is also overstated. Today you can walk into Wal-Mart (!) and buy a 32" or 30" (16x9) Sanyo HDTV with built in tuner for $747. Prices will surely come down from that.

I'm angry about this, and I know who to blame: the owners of local TV stations, represented in Washington by the powerful National Association of Broadcasters.



Look pal, this transition started in 1998. It is a GOOD thing. HD is good for consumers and broadcasters alike. It's not like the government woke up one day to say "hey we're changing TV!" Its been a long time in the making and largely driven by consumer sentiment. I have sold digital TVs that cost $10,000+. The free market economy is driving this transition as much as, if not more than the government/broadcasters. Walk into any Best Buy or Circuit City. You'll have to do some hunting to find TVs that are not digital or HDTV.

End of rant.

Drew
07-03-2004, 08:16 AM
Every over the air TV station in the local area is now broadcasting in digital (and high def during primetime). Its not as though there is a lack of programming anymore. My HDTV card for my PC with rabbit ears gives me all the selection I need. If I had more channels I'd spend less time listening to music.

Michael St. Clair
07-03-2004, 08:52 AM
Something like 80% of viewers get their signal through cable or satellite. Forcing all of these consumers to buy an over-the-air DTV tuner that they will not use is stupid. They should never require that every set have the tuner.

Show me someone who's looking for a TV in that size range that does not want to experience HD!

Show me who is looking to watch over-the-air television. Wanting to experience HD doesn't mean they should be forced to pay for an over the air tuner.

I've been watching HDTV at home for three years and I think this is stupid.

SamS
07-03-2004, 11:44 AM
Show me who is looking to watch over-the-air television. Wanting to experience HD doesn't mean they should be forced to pay for an over the air tuner.


I have no doubt that 80% of viewers get the majority of TV channels through satellite or cable. However, I guarantee that 80%+ of these cable/satellite providers DO NOT provide all of the local major networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, PBS, UPN) over their feeds in HD. This is typically unique to OTA antenna.

therockman
07-03-2004, 12:47 PM
Who ever wrote that piece is very mis-informed about digital tuners vs. HDTV. Digital television does not equal HDTV, the two are related but not the same thing. That author needs to do some research.

As an aside: I have not used the in-set tuner of any television or stereo receiver since the mid 1980's, and I don't think that will change soon.

BradOlson
07-03-2004, 01:28 PM
My digital cable hookup uses a set-top box that controls all of the TVs (one TV set on channel 3, one on channel 10 and another on channel 13) and is the gateway to my DSL connection as well.

Michael St. Clair
07-03-2004, 08:53 PM
guarantee that 80%+ of these cable/satellite providers DO NOT provide all of the local major networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, PBS, UPN) over their feeds in HD.

My local Time Warner shows every available HD local.

Currently, this is NBC, CBS, ABC, and two PBS stations. They have assured me that they will show FOX when Fox starts showing true HD instead of 480p widescreen. My local UPN is a low-power non-HD station.

Even if they missed one or two, there's no way in hell I'm putting an antenna and rotor on my roof. I tried rabbit ears and an OTA STB, and it worked terribly.

SamS
07-03-2004, 09:48 PM
My local Time Warner shows every available HD local.



You are in the minority. The majority of the country must still receive the major networks in HD via antenna.

I put an antenna in my attic. It works great, and is out-of-sight.

Clay
07-03-2004, 10:14 PM
I used a Zenith Silver Sensor indoor HDTV antenna for the day I bought my HDTV. It worked great until I put up a roof antenna for most channels. I needed the roof antenna to get Jay Leno due to the different location of his signal back on mt. umanum
No rotor for me. I paid $70 for the antenna and chimney kit. Works like a champ.

Michael St. Clair
07-04-2004, 09:58 AM
The majority of the country must still receive the major networks in HD via antenna.

Do you have a source for this quasi-statistic?

And I'm talking about the majority of the US population, not geographic territory.

Personally, I believe that the majority of americans find a rooftop or even attic antenna a step backwards, and will have no interest in doing it even for interim HD access.

SamS
07-04-2004, 10:07 AM
Michael, the fact that network HD channels must be received via OTA antenna is well known in the broadcast and hardware industry.

You have Time Warner HD. How many markets is their HD offering available in? DirecTV and Dish Network do not offer all of the networks in HD.

I understand and agree with your thoughts that antenna HD reception may not be the best way to receive broadcast for many. I like it because it's free, and there are millions of homes in America with pre-installed OTA antennas.

I personally have put 100+ HDTV sets in people's homes in the North Dallas area over the past 3 years. Many of the already had antennas. HDTV for them was as simple as purchasing a TV with built-in tuner and plugging it into the wall. We can't count on every major city to have a cable or satellite provider that offers all the networks in HD. What we can count on is local broadcasters sending out HD in the major markets. Thanks to built in tuners, TV novices can take advantage of this for free. ;)

SamS
07-04-2004, 10:20 AM
Do you have a source for this quasi-statistic?


Sure.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 11, 2004


LOCAL DTV BROADCASTERS TOP 1,200
--30 More Stations Make Transition to DTV--

WASHINGTON, DC - The National Association of Broadcasters announced today that 30 local television stations have joined the list of those broadcasting in digital, bringing the total number to 1,216 over-the-air DTV stations in 207 markets that serve 99.69 percent of U.S. TV Households.

1216 Digital stations now broacasting DTV (http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/issues/digitaltv/DTVStations.asp). Click the link for "Latest DTV Press Release".

Ken_McAlinden
07-06-2004, 06:47 AM
It is not too surprising that it is being characterized as a $350 tax, but it is also not too accurate. TVs will be priced at what the market will bear, and the industry, should they ever lay down and stop fighting the mandate, will apply all of the ingenuity at their disposal to figure out how to make the integrated tuners cheaper (not to mention the likely supply and demand price benefits of the much higher volumes).

When an industry is about to be regulated, they have to project the impacts based on the technology they have on hand and existing or previously observed market conditions. This usually results in them grossly underestimating the effects of highly motivated research into lower cost alternatives that will take place over the subsequent years. This sounds seedy on their part, but it is actually a pragmatic necessity as they are obligated to plan for compliance with regulations and they can't plan on anything that hasn't been invented yet. In most cases, the regulator's projections wind up closer to the truth than the regulated industry's projections, but once in a while, the doom and gloom forecasts prove to be correct and the regulators have a mess on their hands.

Regards,

Michael St. Clair
07-06-2004, 08:07 AM
Sam,

Neither of your responses addresses my question. I'm looking for real numbers.

"The majority of the country must still receive the major networks in HD via antenna."

"the fact that network HD channels must be received via OTA antenna is well known in the broadcast and hardware industry."


I know that in Ohio that most HD locals are available over cable in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Dayton, and that in Toledo a couple are available and they are negotiating with the others. HDTV over cable has grown exponentially over the last two years (I've had it for three), and it's not going to stop. By the time many consumers actually buy an HDTV, the odds are even better that they aren't going to have to put up an antenna (which most people HATE) in order to watch it.

The following cities (probably more) have HD over cable in Ohio, and I'm sure almost all of them have the majority of their HD locals already, with more to come.

Akron - TWC
Canton - TWC
Cincinnati - TWC
Cleveland - Cox
Cleveland Metro - WOW
Cleveland - Comcast
Columbus - TWC
Columbus Metro - WOW
Columbus - Insight
Dayton - TWC
Lancaster - TWC
Lebanon - TWC
Lebanon - City of Lebanon
Lewis Center - Insight
Marietta - Charter
Medina - Armstrong
Sidney - TWC
Toledo - Buckeye
Youngstown - Armstrong
Youngstown - TWC

Ken is of course right that sets won't go up $350 as a result of this. I'm still not wild about the idea. From my experience, the majority of people aren't interested in OTA reception, expecially those who buy more than a 19" or less $129 TV every eight years. I have a couple of friends in Cincinnati with $3000 HD sets and rooftop antennas, and even they know they will stay in the minority. Forcing everybody to buy an OTA DTV tuner when most people will stick with satellite/cable is anti-consumer and anti- free enterprise.

Metralla
07-06-2004, 08:13 AM
I personally have put 100+ HDTV sets in people's homes in the North Dallas area over the past 3 years.
That's impressive SamS. Can you tell us who you work for?

JohnT
07-06-2004, 09:39 AM
If the cable and satellite companies can pass along the HD-OTA without futzing with it then we'll be better off going that way. However, I'm still under the impression OTA terrestrial has cleaner video as long as you live near a city where they don't crash planes into the broadcast gear :sigh:.

BradOlson
07-06-2004, 10:01 AM
I live in a part of the city where we have to have cable because the house is right in the flight of the airline.

Michael St. Clair
07-06-2004, 11:40 AM
I'm still under the impression OTA terrestrial has cleaner video

From my experience, most cable companies are not recompressing HD. DirecTV is, though.

The biggest quality problem with HD is subchannels. PBS here insists on running two simultaneous SD channels on their carrier along with the HD channel. The end result is blocking artifacts that make you wish you were watching 720x480p DVD instead of 1080i HD. This is the case with PBS OTA and via cable. We had the same problem with CBS and WebHopper but fortunately they pulled the plug on WebHopper so now I get CSI and golf in full 19mbps bitrate.

Anyhow, I hate commercials so most of the HD I watch is on HDNet and InHD.

GabeG
07-06-2004, 11:56 AM
As stated, that $350 figure is absurd - it doesn't and won't ad that much to the cost of the set. In theory, I agree with Michael, but I'd much rather have this forced inclusion then the last government mandated requirement - the v chip.

Also, within the next couple of years, we will see most cable systems offering hd feeds for every channel that offers one - the cable companies know this will be needed to keep customers. That said, you may prefer getting them ota air when possible because the more bandwith that is used up by Hd feeds, the more they'll be compressed. Ota is the best source for hd (reception permitting).

Michael St. Clair
07-06-2004, 12:50 PM
That said, you may prefer getting them ota air when possible because the more bandwith that is used up by Hd feeds, the more they'll be compressed.

Well, that remains to be seen. Cable has oodles of bandwidth, and whenever they drop a single analog channel that leaves room for either two full-bandwidth HD channels or six standard-def channels.

Regardless, just as most consumers don't care about SACD or DVD-A, they aren't going to care about which HD delivery has the best quality.

The biggest thread to HD picture quality is multicasting, and OTA will be the most susceptible.

Michael St. Clair
07-06-2004, 12:53 PM
More HD locals coming via satellite?

News Corp. Changes Satellite Plans
Ambition to Use Spaceway
To Offer Broadband Service
Fades Amid Profit Doubts

By ANDY PASZTOR
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 28, 2004; Page A3

News Corp., which controls the U.S.'s largest satellite-to-home TV broadcaster, is scrapping plans to use advanced satellites for delivering Internet access across the U.S.

..... News Corp. still will launch at least one Spaceway satellite, but will use it only for TV broadcast rather than high-speed Internet service.

.... So far, News Corp. has committed to launch only one of the two primary Spaceway satellites manufactured by Boeing Co., according to people familiar with the details. And even that satellite is being converted to perform the routine task of beaming down high-definition programming for DirecTV.

.... After months of hinting that Spaceway capacity probably would be shared between HDTV programming and Internet applications, News Corp. has decided that it will use the satellite only to deliver TV channels, officials familiar with the details said.

.... In El Segundo, Calif., a DirecTV spokesman declined to detail the company's plans. "We are planning on using" the Spaceway satellites "in the most productive ways" possible, he said, adding that such goals could include increasing DirecTV's capacity to broadcast high-definition signals to hundreds of specific U.S. markets