Slashdot Mirror
USDTV Announces Low-Cost, Localized Digital TV
pagercam2 writes "According to a CNN story, USDTV is about to roll out a new digital TV service, the difference being that it doesn't use cable or a satellite. They stream the DigitalTV signals on currently idle frequencies to standard UHF/VHF antennas. The service includes 35 channels, including local stations as well as many of the basic cable (Disney, Discovery, ESPN, TLC, FOOD...) with more to come. $19.95/mo is the price point for a basic service, though '...customers must buy a $99.95 set-top device to decode the channels.' Initially to be rolled out in Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and Albuquerque, could USDTV keep prices low and still support local content since they have no cable network to maintain, and no satellites to launch?"
Just what we need! My ass will not leave the couch!
i heard that they already doing this in england with dvb-terrestrial.
;)
does anyone know if they will be using DVB (Digital Video Broadcast) format? (I didn't read the article so don't flame me...)
in case they are, this would be easy to pick up on computer's equipped with a dvb pci card and software
Investing forum
Now if only they could do broadband over the same frequency range...for the same price.
That's just plain old broadcast digital TV, except that it reqires a decoder; I just don't see what is so revoloutionary... Also, the author cites "idle... frequencies" as if broadcasting on these is without enormous cost...
Is this encrypted like satellite TV? Or can I buy a receiver and not pay for the signal? Are these people going to sue all purchasers of smart card IO devices?
My other car is first.
I live near SLC and was looking for a cheaper way to get HDTV..
I just hope these guys pickup cartoon network soon.
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
I've never had any luck with antenna-based communication. How would service be affected by bad weather? I know digital is definently better than analog over the air, but it still brings back memories of moving my hand half an inch one way while holding up a large metal rod and dancing a jig.
They've been doing this outside of the USA since the 1980s. You just have a set-top decoder box. You can tune into the stations without a box, but you can't see the pictures (doesn't matter for music or news stations really).
The UK have has a DigitalTV service that broadcasts to standard antenni for a little while now. FreeView
I live in BFE, where there is no cable and I'm too cheap for a dish (plus no Internet from a dish out here). I wonder since this is going thru the UHF/VHF frequencies, if it will be available farther out of town than cable is in most places. Also, most channels thru my standard antenna don't come in very well. I think 2 of the 6 channels I get are clear. I wonder if this will have the same problems for those of us stuck out in the country?
I'm curious if the set top boxes use a form of authorization on the video stream like DTV or DishNetwork.
I know it's been a big deal lately that there has been a new sat. receiver released that can descramble Dish Network signals without the use of a SmartCard by simply providing it the latest decryption keys which anyone can get from a website.
Curious how long it'll take before they crack the protection on this system... so anyone can get free digital TV anywhere (well, if they roll it out everywhere).
We've now got FreeView, a free to air replacement. Same technology sans encryption. There's also a group called Top Up TV, who are looking to add some pay channels to Freeview, but they look likely to fail due to lack of new equipment to receive pay channels on, and a poor selection of channels (limited due to lack of UHF bandwidth).
I appear to have a blog. Odd.
...how creative Comcast gets to crush these guys if they ever try to set up shop here in Philadelphia.
When RCN tried to begin service in Philadelphia a few years back, Comcast leaned on the local politicians and got all sorts of roadblocks put up, and RCN gave up and went away.
I pay $77/mo for basic cable and 3 HBOs. We could use some competition here in Philly. And now Comcast is perverting some underprivileged-area-development-incentive to get massive tax breaks if they move into a new 60-story skyscraper in the heart of very-privileged center city Philadelphia. But somehow I'm sure that even though they'll be saving all that money, my cable bill will just keep going up.
We've had this in the UK for a while now. The company providing the service went bust, and now it runs as a free service (though you have to buy equipment, which would be included in your cable or sattelite package), with a combination of BBC Channels and channels with advertising. There is also a new service which allows you to add subscription channels.
Mod parent up!
According to a CNN story, USDTV is about to roll out a new digital TV service, the difference being that it doesn't use cable or a satellite. They stream the DigitalTV signals on currently idle frequencies to standard UHF/VHF antennas. Does it sound cool, you might ask?...do you wonder how long before someone cries about civil liberties? --- Does this seem like an idea that would suck? Is it good, or is it whack?
They don't have Comedy Central, which is 1/3 to 1/2 of what I watch:
Child Development: South Park
Sociology: Dave Chapelle
News: Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart
There's even optional:
geography: Dave Attel
As I wrote to the CEO of Dish Networks, lack of comedy central will be the deal breaker.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Indeed, the service is a little cheaper than the common cable system, but brings about one major disadvantage: You will need a receiver and subscription for every receiver you own. So if you have 2 TV's and a VCR, you need 3 subscriptions, and this setup is more expensive than cable plus an amplifier and indoor coax cabling.
However, the service can be used on the road, allowing good quality TV reception in vehicles and on, for example, campsites.
Can't have a sat dish
Local cable stinks
Both cost an arm, leg and couple fingers
My only subscription is sat radio, which I will never give up.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I've seen the displays in our local Wal-Marts (Orem ,UT ~30 miles from SLC). The features look really good, but they just didn't have any options for adding other channels that they do NOT mention.
I prefer a lot of channels so I can skip the trash and find the good shows... I just don't see that as an option for this service. The HDTV aspect is attractive, but I don't have the money for the TV! (I know, I know, I am a bad bad bad geek)
With thier $19 price structure it looks like they are going after customers that want basic with some premium channels but not the high price, I think that is the same market that does NOT have HDTV's.
My brother is thinking about signing up so to add HDTV to his big screen, but he will still keep his dish.
~Z
Information wants to be free! It's not like recieving the signal lessens it for others. Share!
-I am an elective eunuch.
though '...customers must buy a $99.95 set-top device to decode the channels.
So those channels are going to come through the antenna, uh?
How long do you think it'll take to adapt certain programs to decode more than Nagravision?
In Europe, there's a channel called Canal+ that's been software-decoded for years, and they can't really do much about it. I would think people would get cracking on the code even faster when 35 channels could be available.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Great selection for the test markets...
Salt Lake City - only watch the 700 Club
Las Vegas - too busy gambling
Albuquerque - can't afford tv's
Sounds like Digital Terrestrial TV currently rolling out across the UK - Information from the BBC and here's the UK Govt information.
Evil ZEN Scientist
If I can find a network that doesn't carry anything Disney oriented, then I might be interested. It sucks paying through the nose because we HAVE to have Disney and the 15 ESPN channels with anything.
They may be surrounded by hills, but those three cities are all flat. I suppose Orlando is next on their list.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Bah! That's nothing. Last year we had a 200 car accident on the freeway here in Long Beach that injured over 40 people. We had to use city buses to get the people off of the freeway since so many people were stranded.
Big ass accident
Are you willing to watch ads because you're a cheap bastard?
Is it just me, or does "digital" cable not look as good as regular analog cable? I know this service is different and support HDTV, but my regular digital cable looks horrible, with pixelation all over the place, and a bunch of worthless "features" like card games that take forever to load. I have a nice TV, so it's not that. Is it just Charter in Southern California?
I wonder what the picture quality will be like. $20/month is the perfect price point for me for cable TV. And I don't mind shelling out money ONE TIME for a box that becomes my property. It's those ongoing rental/lease fees that irk me.
A friend of mine found out about this awhile back and has been documenting his research into the matter. You can read what he has found here. Basically: "While surfing the web I have found out that USDTV is renting space for 3 of its 11 channels from KULC. While I am no lawyer I think that this is illegal as KULC is licenesed as an educational station."
I was thinking for quite some time, whether we need cable for standard TV content, since we have digital TV. Each analog channel band can carry 5-6 digital channels, so if you do a simple math, then upto 100 digital channels can be carried in allocated VHF-UHF band range.
The Cable satellite should be for premium TV, HDTV, etc. That is if everyone converts their sets to digital TV with built-in tuner and broadcasters convert to pure digital format.
In a previous comment I wondered about how they would go about protecting the digital stream from piracy.
I went ahead and did some reading and it seems that when you purchase the unit, you have to call customer service and read them the UID number and the serial number from the receiver.
I'm sort of disappointed in their engineering department. I give it 3 months of mass market exposure before you see a hack (perhaps opening the unit and being able to serial into it?) that will let you change the UID and Serial Number to perhaps an existing subscription. or even a universal unlock code (like region 0), who knows.
One day, we will all have a big fat fucking fiber pipe (fffp technology) right up to the door, and all this silly old technology for media delivery will die out, as it should. But, for the time being, this looks marginally interesting, as long as the consumer does not have to foot the bill for some box that will only become junk a year or so later (WebTV...).
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Lets hope their reception is better then their webserver:
/home/virtual/site1/fst/var/www/html/Connections/u sdtv.php on line 9
/home/virtual/site1/fst/var/www/html/Connections/u sdtv.php on line 9
Click on Reception Maps:
Warning: mysql_connect(): Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11) in
Fatal error: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11) in
What's USDTV? Did the Department of Television replace the Department of Education so soon?
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Why is there a monthly fee to recieve it?
"equipment rental" my ass.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I can see a few local cable companies getting scared, but I think where it will be really useful is for existing cable companies who need to service new subdivisions - laying new cables isn't cheap, and using otherwise empty broadcast spectrum might make a lot of economic sense.
One of the developers there runs our local Linux user group (flux.org). USDTV used to be a company called Metrolink who used to make an Xwindows server called Metrox.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
What??? Using public airwaves to send for-pay content??? That is not right. These broadcasters pay NOTHING to lease very VALUABLE public resource (air-waves). The arrangement has always been that for leasing for free, they MUST broadcast open and clear signals. This kind of encrypted services is clear violation of that agreement. I have no problem if this company pays for the unused spectrum, but to use public resources to make profit seems like a very bad land grab by very greedy people. Where the hell is FCC??? Oh, I forgot, they are in the pockets of the broadcasters...
i give it 6 months tops before somebody figures out how to replicate the decoder :)
At least you pay in USD for USDTV, right? Makes it simple! Instead of those other TV-over-UHF people that make you pay in Euros for USDTV or CAD for USDTV.
*DUCKS* C'mon, it's finals! +1 bad joke?:)
USDTV only really adds 10 channels that you can't get with a normal digital TV decoder. Namely, Disney Channel, Toon Disney, Lifetime, Lifetime Movie Network, HGTV, Food Network, ESPN, ESPN2, Discovery Channel and TLC.
Everything else they list on this page are channels that can be plucked out of the air with a standard digital TV tuner in the Salt Lake City area. So, in effect, viewers are paying $19.95 to get 10 channels... roughly $2 per channel.
--Shoeboy
It will cost an extra 9.99 if you want all of those great Viacom channels though.
-NTidd
.. only two days late this time slashdot.
Great, just great. Who needs yet another outlet for corporate propaganda beamed into our living rooms? If there's available spectrum somewhere, it should be released for unlicensed services. A longer range, lower bandwidth Wifi capability in the VHF band is far more beneficial to the public than yet another Disney channel.
the FCC auctions off bands of frequencies to companies all the time.
the sattelite TV bands are certianly not free for use either
of course they're in the pockets of the broadcasters... they're the ones that DELIVER US TV SERVICE
This deal, you have to buy a $100 set-top box, that controls one TV, and then you have to pay at a minimum $20 per month, doesn't seem like quite a deal, and seems like it would be easy, almost too easy to lose reception, just like using a regular antenna. I don't see this deal as anything spectacular, I'd rather deal with my cable company (or you may wish to continue to deal with your satelite company). Doesn't seem like there is anywhere in this whole deal that would be very beneficial to anyone.
Basic cable is what, like $15 or less per month, and it sounds like you get about the same amount of channels as you do over this USDTV for $20, maybe a few channels here and there, but this is hardly a deal.
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
Is it a standard DTV decoder? If so, I'd buy one just to have plain-old DTV decoding. I can't afford an HDTV, but I'd be happy to be able to receive the existing digital signals over the air for plain-old TV.
Unfortunately, such devices seem to cost more in the $250 and up range than the $100 range.
Too expensive, competition from existing sat and cable made it poor value and finally went bankrupt paying over the odds for the right to air minor league football matches that nobody wanted to watch.
In fact the only success was the funny knitted mascot toy they made famous which was used in the advertisements these sometimes fetching crazy prices on ebay at the time.
1. I rent 2. The Neighborhood Nazi Association bans them (that's just this backward neighborhood.)
Move.
I've also heard that Disney has invested money in USDTV. It appears that this is true, given the some of the channels: 2 pure Disneys, 2 ESPNs, 2 and Lifetimes. It looks like USDTV can't get away from one of the evils of cable: forced bundling.
THE only thing on Fox worth watching is The Simpsons, I get them on p2p.
Heh, having done a lot of software internationalization, when I saw "localized" I started imagining pictures of Pat Sajak hosting the "wheel of fohtchehn" in Boston, and Oprah looking like a white blonde woman in Texas.
More competition = lower prices = more people who end up buying stuff to watch TV. Which is just what this country needs, of course.
/. during prime time, which may not constitute much of an improvement...
So says the man who is idling on
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
(Here's a link that's guaranteed to make you laugh.)
Is this like Look TV?
Available in a few Canadian cities.
"USDTV keep prices low and still support local content since they have no cable network to maintain, and no satellites to launch?"
Costs have little to do with retail pricing once the market has been captured.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I'd be peeved if someone decided that a station that I watch was too far away to matter, and set up a scrambled broadcast on the same frequency.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
And although it's not revolutionary, it does allow those of who live outside the city limits and have no access to cable an alternative besides satellite.
> could USDTV keep prices low and still support local content since they have no cable network to maintain, and no satellites to launch?
But if they want to go national, they need to build, buy, or lease radio transmitter stations across the country. That won't be cheap.
Sounds like cross country wireless that was pretty popular in Southern California for years and years ('92 on up) it too required a set top decoder, but of course this 'new' technology is better..
1. Yes, the signals are encrypted, and they use a Conditional Access Module in order for you to descramble the content. The scheme works in a similar way as satellite.
2. Yes its on the "public airwaves", just encrypted. The FCC says no encrypting primary network feeds (either SD or HD), but they can do whatever with the extra space they have.
3. Its using the extra space in the digital channel. The 8VSB modulation scheme will allow for 19.4Mbit/s per channel. 1080i HD takes up about that much, 720p uses 14Mb/s or so, 480i/p take up about 3Mb/s. So if I own a digital channel and only transmit in 480i/p then I've got lots of extra bandwidth, and I can sell it to someone else.
4. A *very* important thing to note is that the receiver will output ANYTHING unless you fork over the $20/mo. If you pay the $99 or whatever to buy the receiver and decide you dont like it, you're out the money. You cant use it as a HDTV OTA receiver (to receive channels that are in the air and not encrypted). You must pay USDTV money to keep the box from becoming a really expensive doorstop. Likewise, if USDTV goes out of business, you will probably have a really expensive doorstop.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
I have a feeling it won't be a big success. They appear to be pitching it to people who need something cheap ($20/mo.). Most of these people who can only afford 20 bucks a month will be living in apartments, and they will be prevented from installing the necessary antennae on any "common-share" structure, ie, a roof. But is $20/mo really cheap? Considering that you only get 10 more channels than you normally do for free, $20/mo isn't cheap afterall.
There are 2 ESPN channels (why 2?)
There are 2 cartoon channels (why 2?)
There are 2 Lifetime channels (why 2?)
And 4 others including foxnews, discovery, foodnetwork, and TLC.
If you aren't a kid, 20% of your channels are meaningless to you. On top of that, if you aren't a sports nut, you've only got 6 channels left and you're paying $20/mo. plus the $100 for a digital converter box and whatever the antennae costs. I predict failure, since for only $40/mo. someone can get digital cable with a hundred channels and rent the converter box.
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Interesting approach, but I think I'll skip this one. Considering all of the different set-top boxes that I've got already for different media purposes, I think one more might kick-start a cancer cluster. My dog likes to lie in front of the TV - one more device will likely make him glow.
When someone can build a set-top box with PVR built-in, streaming capability from a fileserver, gigabit & wireless LAN capabilities, DVD burner *and* the ability to play DRM-protected files, I'll buy another. In the meantime, no more boxes!
Some research has been about USDTV's operation in Utah and they appear to be using channels that have been allocated to the "Utah State Board of Regents", which is the state board responsible for overseeing education in Utah.
IANAL, but according to FCC regulations (47CFR73) "noncommercial educational broadcast stations will be licensed only to nonprofit educational organizations upon a showing that the proposed stations will be used primarily to serve the educational needs of the community; for the advancement of educational programs; and to furnish a nonprofit and noncommercial television broadcast service."
We feel USDTV might be in violation of these regulations and we've been searching for answers as to the nature of the agreement between the two entities. So far our efforts to contact them have not yeilded results. Does anyone have any understanding of how they are able to license this "non-commercial" bandwidth?
Credit for most of the research goes to Luke Jenkins. There's a complete history of the research he's been doing to get to the bottom of this matter here: http://a.zzq.org/kulc/
No, you can't. Loser.
The U.S. digital TV system allows for "subchannels". So, a single station can carry multiple programs simultaneously. This service uses those subchannels to transmit encrypted programs that need to be decoded by their subscriber box. So they are using the free public spectrum for a pay service.
Of course, if a station is broadcasting HDTV, this is taking precious bandwidth away from the primary video channel. For 1080i broadcasts, this can really degrade the quality of the HD video. Particularly when showing fast moving sports, they really need the full available bandwidth to do a decent job.
So, this service encourages stations to not carry HD programs, and instead get a cut of the revenue on these pay stations.
In the end, I think the market will reject this.. there are too many drawbacks (extremely limited number of channels that can be offered (no CNN, no HBO.. they will only be able to carry 6-10 pay channels depending on local conditions), very minimal ability to offer HDTV programming (both cable and satellite are now positioning HDTV as a competitive issue, by the nature of this service they will not be able to support ESPN-HD, HBO-HD, Discovery-HD, etc.).
Wow, they're actually just sending the television signals RIGHT THROUGH THIN AIR?! WHAT'LL THEY THINK OF NEXT!
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
I just checked their channel listings for the SLC area(where I live) and a quick perusing with the remote reveals that I already pick up the local channels for free with my rabbit ears on my Mitsubishi HDTV with a built in HDTV tuner.
The pay channels are not the HDTV versions, they are old 480i signals.
So 75% of what they offer for $19.95/month is already free so you are paying for only 11 pay channels that are non-HDTV format. That's about $1.81/channel each month.
A comparable Dish Network package comes with 60 channels at $24.99/month. Which comes to about $0.42/channel each month.
Now if I were to recalculate those numbers considering which pay channels are complete crap then they would get a little closer but I'm sure the satellitte will still be a much better deal. For now I think I'll stick with my rabbit ears and Dish Network subscription. But I am currently looking into switching to Voom satellitte TV which is ALL HDTV.
burnin
There was something like this here in Rochester, NY, some time ago. It failed horribly and the company has long since disappeared.
Plus, their channel lineup SUCKS. Really, you only get six channels you didn't get before. Disney, Lifetime, ESPN, Discovery, HGTV, and Food. Just because you get two channels of the same shit doesn't make it different.
Then again, now that I look back on it.. this is actually a perfect channel lineup for Utah, where every family is like some stereotype out of a 50's sitcom - you're unamerican if you're a woman and you're not a stay-at-home wife, or a man that doesn't care about sports, because that means you're a fag...
I know i'm a cheap bastard... but i'll just stick with my 4 free channels ;)
The difference that digital TV makes is spectrum efficiency - the US HDTV standards can fit a digital HDTV signal in the same space as an analog TV channel, or they can use the same bitstream-over-radio to carry about four lower-resolution TV channels, using protocols that are uglier than you'd expect to multiplex them on the bitstream. The ugliness of the protocols reflects the ugliness of political process that led to the design, with the FCC, the existing broadcast TV license-holders, the big networks, the cable TV companies, and several competing hardware folks in on the deal. They sold it to the public as High Definition TV, but of course there's not too much content where HDTV matters (mostly sports and movies, but not most sitcoms or dramas or news or talk shows), so by the time the standards were mandatory, the broadcast license owners got to convert their analog stations to "Digital TV", which can use the bits for HDTV or lower resolution content, giving them multiple low-res channels instead of the one they used to have, which they can essentialy sublet out to other people if they don't want to package their own content for it.
The US FCC essentially nationalized the public's airwaves back in the 30s, along with the rest of the New Deal power grabs, and rents it back to big media companies or occasionally small well-behaved media companies in return for the ability to bully them around about content. Occasional gaps in the coverage have slipped by, allowing things like WiFi, but most of the spectrum is subject to political control, and that means of course that everybody lobbies the FCC.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
What always bugs me with these services is that essentially I'm paying to watch advertising. I won't accept that. Advertsisers should pay for the technology and the cost of broadcasting. TV makers should add a decoder board into the TV chassis. If the quality is better, I will pay an extra $100 for a TV that can receive this. Then all programming should be *free*. Right now I refuse to pay for cable or satellite. I get at least 7 channels over the air for free.
So we get all our tv transmitted in unencrypted, 6Mbit (or there abouts) MPEG, widescreen. Each channel has about 21-25 Mbit of bandwidth so most stations also transmit a HD signal as well. Currently I think one of them transmit at 1080i, and the rest at either 720p or 576p as the high definition channel.
Also the leading cable/sat tv provider has just started transmitting their cable pay service using DVB-C.
The land down under. It's not just Steve Irwin anymore.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
The service is not using "idle frequencies", it is using active frequencies but spare bandwidth. I.e., it is including its scrambled signal in with the standard digital broadcast signal of one or more other stations.
If these stations have the spare bandwidth, this is a win/win for both the station and USDTV, since they get the cost of a tower and transmitter underwritten by USDTV, and USDTV gets a medium they don't have to worry about licenses for.
This will be a benefit to those areas where the local stations are hard-pressed to come up with the funds to go digital (even though they must). It will also be a big help in areas currently served by translators, since those are sometimes operated by small groups within the community they serve. They can still translate, and sell the excess space to USDTV, who pays for the hardware.
ESPN and ESPN2 for $19.99/mo? That's all I ever wanted in the first place. Better than the $45/mo. I'm currently paying. Who should I make the check out to?
No, not really. Bill does bring up a decent point here. Too many boxes --> too much power consumption --> more energy production --> more pollution (with current fossil fuel technologies) --> higher power bills at the end of the month.
Not to mention the space that another box would take up.
The all-in-one option (PVR/streamer/burner) would be okay. I, however, am waiting for the day when instead of relying on settop boxes for *everything*, HDTV makers use built-in converters and decoders, just like analog "cable ready" TVs have been for 20+ years now.
Even with congressional mandate, HDTV won't garner wide public support until it's as easy as plugging in one cable to your HDTV and turn the power on. Simple interfaces for simple minds.
'...customers must buy a $99.95 set-top device to decode the channels.'
We shall of course improve on this particular flaw... can't wait
You're wrong about point 4. The box does work for non-encrypted digital channels even if you don't continue your subscription. See their FAQ at USDTV FAQ :
So: Even if USDTV is not your cup o' tea, it is a good way to get more digital tuners in circulation and that will eventually encourage real innovation in the use of the "extra" digital channels that the gov just gave all the incumbent licensees.
One peeve of mine is that Circuit City et al. are selling digital sets by the boatload and most do not include a digital tuner! So you are wedded to the cable company and will probably never see the digital subchannels that are being broadcast. That's not going to encourage true (i.e. free) broadcasting on these new subchannels!
Theres always the standard broadcast problem of mountainous/hilly areas as well as areas with a lot of large buildings. Theres a reason cable did so well in a lot of places; putting up a 40 foot antenna with a rotor gets expensive, then having to turn it the right direction to get it tuned right.. also wind causes a problem at times with such high antennas.
Not sure why this is being labeled as 'news'. They've been selling the equipment & services at the local WalMart for about a year... (yes, for the USDTV brand service)
Alright everyone, I've always hated the way digital TV is delivered, so I formed an idea how to improve things. Those of you who actually know what you are talking about, your input on this idea is appreciated.
I hate all digital cable/satellite systems because you need an extra box for each channel you want to watch simultaneously (and an extra LNB for satellite). This is the main reason cable has a hold on me. (HDTV, combined with complete morons running my cable company, will probably change that)
Obviously there is the problem that a box can only decode one signal at a time, but here's my idea... Why can't that one signal contain multiple signals? Instead of decoding the content for one channel, the box could decode a digital signal that is, itself, a snapshot of a spectrum of VHF signals. Then, instead of sending one signal out of the reciever (on to VHF channel 3) it could send numerous channels over the cable, and could be wired to multiple TVs in the building.
I know I've muxed and demuxed FM signals in pretty much the same way, so what I'm really wondering is if there is some inherent design of current digital satellite systems that would prevent this from working over them. Can the LNB be adjusted so it would pickup a very high bandwidth signal without too much adjacent, unrelated signal?
I'm also not sure how much more space it would take to carry each digitized VHF signals, rather than the MPEG-2 signal.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I can't speak for the other two areas, but the Salt Lake City area was chosen because it already has extensive HDTV broadcast capability that was installed for the 2002 winter olympics.
burnin
Now the question is - how long do we have to put up with these SetTopBoxes? - (OK so it looks cool to have yet another gadget ;-) but i have personally seen one TV with built-in DVB decoder from a top japanese brand (not i stores yet) and I know that there are more om the way...
The price for a SetTopBox in sweden is now at 1 SEK (about 12 UScent) if you take a years subscription to a basic package for 149 SEK/month (about US$20/month)
Here in sweden some of the channels, six or seven out of currently 27 (growing to 35) are "free to air" (no encryption) and to buy a box for that i now 995 SEK (about US$125) anr rapidly reducing - in less than a year i would estimate (with some knowledge in the area) that the free-to-air-box wold come down to about 200-300 SEK (about US$25-40).
The channels going free-to-air are comersially based and according to newspapers are cashing on the larger audience with free-to-air....
In sweden we have both cable (ComHem and UPC) and satellite operators (Viasat and Canal Digital) and about 4 years ago a new company was started (Boxer) to send digital TV DVB-T - thay have now 200.000 customers (all others have more).
Oh.. BTW the swedish goverment have set at stop date for analog TV-transmissions to early 2008.
Having read the posts so far I can't see this idea working. Other posters have explained quite well the history of digital terrestrial television (DTTV) in the UK. The only way it is working now and has so many viewers is because it is now free at the point of use. Just buy your set-top-box and so long as you have a decent antenna and you've paid your UK TV Licence (we are quaint) you get digital TV channels and digital radio.
Although we have a new pay-tv service starting up called Top-Up TV, the same shortcomings of DTTV remain.
You can't broadcast that many channels in acceptable quality. You can't compete with satellite on choice of channels. You can't compete with cable on choice of channels.Freeview works in the UK because it's free! It may have a load of channels that are pants (according to your taste), but it gives Ma and Pa a load more to watch without coughing up a monthly subscription fee. You might have a different experience in the US with this, but USDTV sounds too much like ONDigital to succeed.
So how much will it cost to get a place on one of these network? Is low cost $25 for a half block? $10,000 or $100,000 for a continous channel?
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
UK Freeview (our Terestrial DIgital TV) uses DVB, and requires DVB compatible setup boxes.
You simply buy the box (any brand, you are not restricted) and you get 40 channels for free, plus a bunch of radio and text channels.
Have a nice day!
Isn't this exactly was Pac Bell TV was? It was a digital tv service distributed by an antenna that resembled a CB antenna. It was for the southern California LA county. It was the only competition for the satellite, and cable companies who were just rolling out digital TV for the first time.
~~ Scott If animals aren't supposed to be good for you, why are they made of meat?
I'm really confused by this. Isn't there an FCC rule about using TV frequencies for non-TV uses? I thought there was. So that should mean they have to use a TV transmission format. That would include NOT being encrypted, or it wouldn't be compliant. So does this mean a regular DTV can receive these channels? Or do they work around this by disguising the signals as digital streams in the DTV signal?
I had a similar idea a few years back. I thought some company with a groups of networks should buy a local tower in the larger cities and put several of their commercial networks on one channel using simulcasting (like ESPN, ESPN-2, ESPN News, etc. or Fox, Fox News, Fox Sports, etc.). The extra viewers would allow the advertising on these channels to make more money, and put pressure on cable and satellite providers.
But these guys are somehow able to charge us to use public airwaves. I don't believe I like that.
Xesdeeni
Finally that little banner ad will be telling the truth!
I can't afford a sig!
I'm rather surprised that the FCC is allowing a service like this over public frequencies. It's like NBC all of a sudden scrambling their signals and require you to buy a box and pay a montly fee to watch their programming and commericals.
On one hand I think it's pretty cool, but also it sucks because the airwaves should belong to the public domain for all to enjoy together. Rather this situation only benefits a small group.
$DEITY is smaller than [insert deity here]! It is actually useful, and conveys the meaning well, as even you managed to "get it".
GrimRC (Anonymous Coward)
If I still have to get cable in order to have a cable modem, why would I get USDTV? Now, if they were to maybe use some of those ~20Mbps "idle channels" for (possibly asymmetric) IP connectivity, it would be more appealing...
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Never underestimate the value of cheap ESPN. If you tell a sports junkie that he can get an HDTV receiver for $100, then get ESPN and ESPN2 for only $19.95 a month, he'll cut his cable and ask where he can sign up.
WRAL-TV in Raleigh is broadcasting every game of the this year's NCAA Tournament over the air in HD. But you still need the receiver to get it...
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
It's a good thing I heard about this today, because I was planning on removing those old decrepid antennas I have on my roof this weekend. Now, I'm going to keep them. Forever.