Slashdot Mirror


US DTV Patent Royalties Are $24–$40

shiroobi writes "Wow! $24-40 USD a pop? This would seem to mean that every TV is already marked up with this cost now that ATSC tuners are required. Looks like Vizio is fighting something like this already against Funai."

43 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Shouldn't happen..... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the FCC mandates that all television must be broadcast in digital they either A) Need to remove that requirement, B) Have someone invalidate the patent or C) Buy the patent and release it to the public. This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not really, there's patents covering all sorts of FCC mandated things, like wifi, CDMA, 3g, GSM, I could go on & on & on.

    2. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The difference is that its not mandated by the FCC. If I want to create Bluetooth internet rather than use Wi-Fi thats perfectly fine (so long as my signal limits are good), however if I want to broadcast TV I only have one thing that I can pick from. I used to be able to choose a public-domain one (NTSC) but now it requires a patent to do the same thing. If the FCC didn't mandate that all stations (save for low-powered ones) use it, it would be a non-issue, but they do require it.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those are all "optional" services and technologies. Over-the-air television is completely different.

      This is what happens when money-grubbing for-profit entities dictate what becomes "standards". For that amount of 'control' over the process, the patent holders should've been required to give the patents to the public.

    4. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by TinBromide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) Develop semi-public transmission protocol and patent it
      2) Convince/Lobby/Bribe FCC to require your protocol/device to be sole method of data transmission for a widely used and veeery popular (populous?) medium
      3) Profit!

      Oh Sorry, I forgot the ??? Step, guess there isn't one in this corrupt equation.

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    5. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Those are all "optional" services and technologies. Over-the-air television is completely different.

      How is watching over-the-air TV anything BUT optional?

      OTH, how do you use 3g technology without paying some "money grubbing for-profit" enterprise?

    6. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Buy the patent and release it to the public.

      Can you elaborate a bit on how this is better than the current licensing scheme? Perhaps there would be some economy of scale, giving the public a better overall price. But it's even less fair in the sense that the cost would have to be borne equally (as tax burden) by someone who buys many ATSC tuners and someone who buys none!

      This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.

      But buying patents with Federal funds is preferable?

      -Peter

    7. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by tweak13 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you think DTV is bad, you should check out HD Radio. Rather than use one of several much more open standards available to them, the FCC requires that digital radio be in ibiquity's crappy format.

      Want to transmit in digital? You need to use ibiquity's software, there is no other option. Oh, and you owe them a few grand per year per transmitter as well. Building a receiver? You get the decoder chips from them, and pay them fees. I hear they've finally let some other companies start building chips since they've been too inept to make one that will work in a portable device.

      It's too bad, I think digital radio could be pretty valuable as far as keeping radio relevant, but the FCC decided to screw everyone instead.

    8. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by ragefan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if the gov't does remove these license fees, which of the following do you think is more likely to happen? Every manufacturer lowers the cost of their products by $25 to $40, or just pockets the money and the consumer continues paying the same amount for the TV as though nothing changed.

    9. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That would be perfectly fine if The FCC required switching it would be a non-issue if stations could still use the NTSC standard, but the problem is they can't. When there is an open alternative available that does the same thing it should be up to the stations, not the government to decide which method to broadcast in. What this ruling has done is made anyone dependent on traditional NTSC broadcasts to put $24 or more into the hands of these patentholders at either the expense of taxpayers (with the cards) or their paycheck without it.

      If you want the government to keep a patented thing as a standard it is only fair to allow stations the economic freedom and basic right of choosing which standard to broadcast in or whether to dual-broadcast in both standards. A government should listen to the people and not mandate a standard that requires patent fees to be paid, sure, standardize it but don't mandate it whenever a viable alternative is available.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    10. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by dada21 · · Score: 5, Informative

      All it takes is ONE manufacturer seeing their sales slip to cut their profits. Then the rest follow.

      I've been in the wholesale, retail AND manufacturing businesses, and I can tell you that profit margins are flexible in things such as this. The moment one company does it, while still being profitable overall, they all do it.

    11. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by Eil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the FCC mandates that all television must be broadcast in digital they either A) Need to remove that requirement, B) Have someone invalidate the patent or C) Buy the patent and release it to the public. This is nothing more than government assisted extortion.

      Yes, and it's a shame that practically nobody realized this until these systems were already rolled out.

      Europe, Russia, India, Australia, and China have been using DVB-T for their digital broadcast television. Support for DVB hardware in free operating systems like Linux is already in-place and also covers digital satellite and digital cable (DVB-S and DVB-C, respectively) because the standards are so similar.

      I guess using existing, deployed, open standards would have just made too much sense.

    12. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I used to be able to choose a public-domain one (NTSC) but now it requires a patent to do the same thing.

      NTSC is RCA television - and remained RCA through the introduction of color. There were significant bit players like DuMont in the early days, of course. But Sarnoff held all the cards which mattered. You can call NTSC "public domain" if you like, but the realities of patents, tech, politics and power were perfectly clear at the time.

    13. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      HD radio is not mandated. It is approved. There's no phase-out of analog AM or FM planned, and the non-hybrid HD radio has not been approved, AFAIK. Also, there are dozens of approved FM sideband formats out there, from traffic radio to pagers, and there's nothing stopping you from proposing a competing digital radio sideband standard. For that matter, I think you can already use the the FMeXtra standard as an alternative (at least on the FM band), but I'm not positive about that.

      Either way, the HD radio story is a far cry from mandating that the old standard must go away by a particular date so everyone is forced to buy the hardware in question. There's still plenty of time to come up with a better digital radio standard.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    14. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      DVB-T wouldn't work properly in the mostly-rural U.S. The standard chosen by the FCC can broadcast 100-150 miles (via VHF) with about half the power requirement of DVB.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    15. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by Miseph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are incorrect. A radio tower able to do 3g strength broadcast over 100 acres will almost certainly need an FCC license to be legal. I suppose that if you live far enough into the sticks, were very careful not to cause any sort of interference on on local radio transmissions (including any local HAMs) and simply neglected to tell anyone about it you might be able to fly under the radar, but that doesn't make it legal, just difficult to regulate.

      Anyway, provided you DID have the proper FCC licenses to operate a large range broadband broadcast tower, there wouldn't be any FCC regulation with regard to whether you used CDMA, GSM, iDEN, WiMax, or shoe polish to broadcast it... so long as you didn't broadcast outside of your allotted frequency or power range.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    16. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "This is what happens when money-grubbing for-profit entities dictate what becomes "standards". For that amount of 'control' over the process, the patent holders should've been required to give the patents to the public."

      They developed it, they deserve to profit. Some giant electronics company who wants to make TVs doesn't deserve to profit from another company's engineering without compensating the original developer.

      Sorry, that's just how it is.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    17. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by Shatrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up.
      I think the slashdot crowd is so used to talking about monopolistic markets they've forgotten how most commodity markets with actual competition work.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    18. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by mwooldri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the FCC standard chosen actually worked for VHF then that would be true. Low VHF (i.e. between channels 2 and 6 inclusive) is actually not very good for the 8-VSB modulation method. The complaints I hear are from TV DX reception enthusiasts and they're talking about their LOCAL stations... TV DX enthusiasts are more than likely to have decent receiving equipment and antenna installations, and they're having problems with the low-VHF signals. High VHF is better but is still more susceptible to interference compared to a UHF signal.

      The main advantage to ATSC is its power requirements - i.e. more bang for the watt.

      DVB-T has a nice capability that ATSC doesn't and that is its design to use different modulation techniques - QPSK, 16-QAM or 64-QAM. This allows a broadcaster to choose between a more robust signal with a lower bitrate, or a higher bitrate with more programming but a more sensitive signal. Also DVB-T can support single-frequency networks, which ATSC cannot. However DVB-T has been improved and there's DVB-T2, along with Mpeg4 will allow for 3 HD channels to be broadcast on a 8Mhz TV frequency.

    19. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by digitalunity · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not exactly, regarding the stopping at the borders thing.

      US Customs does stop counterfeit product shipments, meaning products that bear the name of a registered trademark but were not produced under license or agreement with the trademark holder. This has important public safety implications. For example, and I choose this one because it happens frequently, an Asian manufacturer produces an electrical cable under the trade name of a popular cable manufacturer and ships it to the US. Unbeknown to the buyer, it might actually not meet the standards for safety for that product, such as inadequate insulation thickness leading to shock hazards in appliances.

      However, US Customs does not hold products manufactured without the required patent licenses without an injunction. For instance, a Chinese DVD player manufacturer might not have contacted the DVDCCA to license the patents. A DVDCCA representative in the US would have to go to court to get an injunction barring that company from shipping products into the US, and further, they would have to contact US Customs to enforce the injunction.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    20. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by seeker_1us · · Score: 4, Interesting
      And when "RCA television" was adopted, it was market driven.

      There was NO market drive to force the adoption of digital-only broadcast.

      And before some knucklehead starts to say "HD," digital TV has nothing to do with HD. It had everything to do with selling off bandwidth to private corporations.

    21. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      DVB-T wouldn't work properly in the mostly-rural U.S. The standard chosen by the FCC can broadcast 100-150 miles (via VHF) with about half the power requirement of DVB.

      Argentina, Uruguay, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Australia, New Zeland, Saudi Arabia, and Namibia all have a lower population density than the continental United States, and have adopted DVB-T for broadcasting.

      We can expand this list further if we include areas that have a slightly higher density than the US. We can expand this list way further if we exclude areas that are virtually uninhabited (less than 0.5 people per square mile).

      The "most of the US is rural" argument is complete and total bullshit. I can't get good TV reception (NTSC or ATSC) or good cellular service in New Jersey, which is *far* more densely populated than any European nation.* It took an age and a half for us to get decent broadband as well.

      *Excluding micronations. In fact, the only nations that are larger than 1,000km^2 (roughly the size of New York City) and more dense than New Jersey are Bangladesh, Taiwan, Mauritius, and South Korea.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    22. Re:Shouldn't happen..... by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when "RCA television" was adopted, it was market driven.

      Market driven?

      What the heck does that mean?

      There had been experimental broadcasts of mechanical television when Harding was President. All-electronic television takes recognizable shape with Philo Farnsworth in the mid-thirties.

      But if you are talking about a driving - relentless - force to get radio and TV into every American home, to define the standards for radio and TV broadcasting - in technology and in content - you are talking about RCA and NBC.

      From 1954 to 1965 the color TV set was an RCA TV set. The only network with a regular schedule of color broadcasts, NBC.

  2. Re:Somewhat dubious. by Chabo · · Score: 5, Informative

    ATSC added to the already large sum of patent royalties required. ATSC is under the "Mpeg2" header, since MPEG-2 is part of the ATSC standard. the "MPEG-LA" header is for all other licenses owned by the Licensing Authority that are required in DTVs.

    There's a thing that has nothing to do with ATSC called Wi-LAN in there too.

    Look at the chart -- Wi-LAN charges $0.65 per TV to put in a V-Chip, which is federally mandated in all new TVs.

    --
    Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  3. Public standards MUST be royalty free by iamacat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is well established that public airwaves are subject to strict regulation, for example to exclude obscenity. It doesn't make sense to allow private entities to charge fees of their choosing to anyone who wants to receive these airwaves. It would be fine to patent one particular implementation of the decoder, but not all or most realistic implementations. The standard should have been chosen with royalty-free interoperability in mind. Now that the die is cast, the patents involved should be nationalized under eminent domain and owner compensated for development expenses and risks, but not $25 for every TV in America.

  4. Early adopters by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This was, I recall, the situation with DVD. IIRC, there was a time when the licensing fees were high, and combined with the fact it was new techology, these things were quite expensive. Then quite suddenly, they became cheap. Now everyone wants us to buy the expensive HDTV and Bluray. People even say a computer is junk without a bluray, and as a toy it probably is.

    I don't know if there is a real issue here. I don't know if the converter boxes have to pay the license fee, if they do it is certainly at the low end. I don't suspect you have to pay the fee to cable companies to use your old tv. This seems to be the case of early adopters paying to adopt early.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Early adopters by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People even say a computer is junk without a bluray, and as a toy it probably is.

      Show me these people. I wish to mock them. Seriously, a Blu-ray drive is about seven times the cost of a plain ol' DVD drive, and doesn't really come with a lot of advantages. Sure, you can play a Blu-ray disk. Except for this one fellow I know who found that his drive could only play SOME disks. Solution? Wait for a firmware upgrade. And wait. And wait. At least he hadn't bought an HD-DVD drive, right?

      The prime disadvantage of the cutting edge is that sometimes you get cut. Once Blu-ray gets cheap and the drive quality levels out more, it might be worth it. But even then, some people just can't see any difference in quality and thus no reason to go Blu-ray. And then there's people like me, who use their DVD drives for burning data disks only.

    2. Re:Early adopters by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 4, Informative

      DVD licensing fees are STILL quite high, and all the money goes to Toshiba, who own the patents. Toshiba's patent trolling is why blu-ray exists.

      Toshiba built HD-DVD on top of their existing patent portfolio, and unilaterally altered the rules of the trade association charged with helming DVD's future, the DVD Forum, in order to push through adoption of their arguably-inferior standard over Sony's more advanced, more open, less expensive competing proposal.

      Sony, Panasonic, and several other key players walked rather than spend another hardware generation paying through the nose to Toshiba, and formed their own standards body to back Sony's proposed spec.

      Thus the format war was born: Toshiba's standard was named HD-DVD, and Sony's Blu-Ray. For once, Sony was the company that had the widely supported, more open standard. This is why you only saw Toshiba HD-DVD players, while dozens of companies were making blu-ray players.

      Mind you, they're both closed formats, but of the two, HD-DVD was way more evil. The lesser evil definitely won in that case.

      --
      Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
    3. Re:Early adopters by Sehnsucht · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't paint Sony & Co as being any nicer than Toshiba. They were just as greedy and actually a little more underhanded, which helped their win. BR has it's points but HD DVD had it's. Yes, Toshiba did a lot to throw things in their favor at the DVD Forum but the other members of the forum let them - including Sony and other BR companies (as generally the BR companies were also DVD Forum members due to producing DVD hardware/software too). Mainly what separated the BR companies from the HD DVD companies at the outset, was that they wanted their slice of the pie (each generally only getting a small specific piece of the action), and they wanted to lock in the prices higher for longer than Toshiba would have, in order to maximize each slice. BR group wanted big margins up front on hardware (which would guarantee slow sales after the early adopters were covered) and for as long as possible (initially locking out the low cost Chinese firms) to get their individual slices to be highly profitable. The software margins weren't as good but the prices still high due to initial production issues. Toshiba would have had such a large slice of the HD DVD pie, that they wanted to go for overall volume as fast as possible (less per unit but more units), and rake in their profits from a wide range of patents (i.e., players and discs). The HD DVD discs were just barely more expensive than DVD to produce, so software prices were mostly profit. The more discs they sell, the more money they make. Most of the BR guys other than Sony (who did most of the initial disc manufacturing) were going to only see profits from the hardware sales themselves.

      Also, as far as Toshiba forcing anything... technically, for most of the format war, the BR companies could have outvoted the HD DVD companies, they outnumbered them on the DVD Forum. But they didn't, they just kept not voting on things, being all passive aggressive like a teenager. That's when Toshiba changed the bylaws such that only yes and no votes were the only ones counted, previously yes votes had to outweigh no votes and non votes. BR companies kept going the non vote route, as before, but Toshiba could finally move ahead.

      Sony and Panasonic had a patent empire previously with CD, lost the SD video round to Toshiba for DVD (honestly their multimedia CD standards were junk compared to DVD, essentially glorified SVCDs), and have now gotten the next round with BR. BR actually is built like an upside down CD. CD had the data close to the top, which meant it was well protected when set down (but easy to damage from the top), BR is the opposite (in order to get the data closer to the lens and improve data density) whereas DVD and HD DVD are both in the middle (well protected on both top and bottom, but not as high a density, density increase only from laser wavelength and not laser wavelength + closer to lens). This would also explain why BR discs require special coatings on them to protect the data layer from damage, since at the density the data is on the disc, even the slightest scratch can be unrecoverable. So both groups have modified existing techniques and mixed them with new technology. One trades capacity for reliability and cost of production (HD DVD), while the other trades reliability and cost of production for storage (BR). Most other features are comparable, at least if you compare the newer BR Profile 2.0 players vs HD DVD (and not the older 1.0/1.1 players, though I'll grant you most people have no use for the extra features ... )

      Mostly the production issues have been reduced (although I'm sure they still cost more to make than ye olde DVDs still, should become more fine tuned and cheaper over time as with anything else). And pretty much all current players are 2.0, and most of the 1.0/1.1 will be early adopters who (hopefully) knew what they were getting into. So now we're down to BR has a higher bitrate ceiling and more space, which are definitely points over HD DVD, even if most of the time you don't really need either, they do

    4. Re:Early adopters by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Toshiba built HD-DVD on top of their existing patent portfolio, and unilaterally altered the rules of the trade association charged with helming DVD's future, the DVD Forum, in order to push through adoption of their arguably-inferior standard over Sony's more advanced, more open, less expensive competing proposal.

      Ok, I used to work in the industry, and that is probably the most biased and uninformed opinion I've heard. Let's break this down:

      Toshiba built HD-DVD on top of their existing patent portfolio,

      And Sony didn't do the same with Blu-Ray?

      and unilaterally altered the rules of the trade association charged with helming DVD's future, the DVD Forum,

      Citation needed. The DVD Forum has 159 registered members as of 2008, according to Wikipedia. Looking at the structure of it, I have trouble seeing how any one company could alter the rules.

      In fact, reading to Sehnsucht's post, it actually looks like a reasonable change. What is the point of counting an 'abstain' as a no?

      in order to push through adoption of their arguably-inferior standard over Sony's more advanced

      At launch, Blu-Ray had no implementations of any sort of network access, even on the PS3. Any players other than the PS3 had absolutely abysmal performance, due to the use of Java for everything -- a simple animation, sliding a menu in that would cover a tiny portion of the screen, had to be redrawn in chunks, painfully slowly. No mandatory network, no mandatory local storage, I'm not even sure they had picture-in-picture support.

      By contrast, HD-DVD had most of the features Blu-Ray was planning, but actually required and implemented in the first Toshiba players. I'm talking about a small amount of local storage, an ethernet port, picture-in-picture, scripting always enabled, and menus were written in Javascript, wrapped around an animation API that was presumably much lower-level -- menus slid smoothly onto and off of the screen, with nice translucency effects. There was a drawing API if needed, but we didn't need it.

      And yes, Javascript is a better language than Java. Javascript is very Lisp-y, whereas Java is like C++, only worse.

      Oh, and there's the technological advantage that an existing DVD factory can be upgraded to HD-DVD, easily.

      The only technological advantage of Blu-Ray was better bandwidth and storage. But with people producing for both, the HD-DVDs generally were shipped dual-layer (30 gigs), while the Blu-Ray discs were shipped single-layer (25 gigs). No one was using that extra space, and if they were using the extra bandwidth, I sure as hell couldn't tell.

      more open,

      HD-DVD used only AACS for its DRM, and had no region coding. Blu-Ray used AACS and BD+, and was region-coded. Given that I consider both DRM and region coding to be evil and anti-consumer, HD-DVD is certainly the more open in that sense.

      less expensive

      For the manufacturers? Maybe, but as I said, there's that advantage of being able to upgrade existing DVD hardware, so there has to be some advantage. But looking at the price of movies at the time, HD-DVDs were generally cheaper, and HD-DVD players were cheaper and better than Blu-Ray players. I never saw a $100 Blu-Ray player, ever -- indeed, as I understand it, the PS3 is the cheapest to this day.

      This is why you only saw Toshiba HD-DVD players, while dozens of companies were making blu-ray players.

      The Toshiba players were cheap, and there was also the Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive. I have no idea if it was Toshiba inside, but the Xbox itself certainly didn't use any code from Toshiba. And there seemed to be all kinds of third-party software players.

      Contrast this to Blu-Ray -- cheapest was the PS3, and it still didn't have all the features the Toshiba player did (like network access -- even though the PS3 is wired, yo

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  5. Re:Somewhat dubious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look at the chart -- Wi-LAN charges $0.65 per TV to put in a V-Chip, which is federally mandated in all new TVs.

    Well, hey, if we didn't all pay for V-Chips then parents would have to pay more per V-Chip. Isn't the purpose of non-breeders to financially subsidize all those fertile people who managed the herculean task of rutting without birth control?

  6. Makes Sense Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think this might finally explain something I observed when preparing for the switchover. I was trying to find a VCR/DVD recorder with an ATSC tuner so I could record programs. (A converter box->regular VCR setup doesn't work well because the VCR doesn't have the ability to tell the converter box to change channels.)

    I couldn't find anything in a low end VCR. All of the low end VCRs or DVD recorders were all tuner-free. You had to go up to the mid- to high-range models before you found one with a tuner, and even then it was hit-or-miss. Contrast that with VCR buying 3-5 years ago, where even the lowest of low end VCR had an integrated NTSC tuner.

    At the time I thought it was a reflection of changing viewing habits, that no one was using VCRs to record television shows anymore, but it makes sense that if you need to spend $25-40 on just ATSC licensing fees, you'll just drop the tuner, or would only put it into more expensive models.

    (BTW, I finally went crazy, bought an ATSC capture card and converted an old computer into a MythTV box. It's slicker and arguably better than a VCR, but with more headaches and frustrations.)

  7. That explains the $40 coupon by KalvinB · · Score: 4, Funny

    The government is footing the bill for the patent fees. The consumer then pays the actual cost of the device.

  8. Re:Please increase the cost of televisions by crunch_ca · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't you wish there were a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence?
    There's one marked 'Brightness,' but it doesn't work.

    -- Gallagher.

  9. Analog TV was better than Digital by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Number of stations I received via analog: 25 (across three markets - Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philly)

    Number of stations with digital: 12

    I basically lost half my entertainment. Yes some of the analog signals may have degraded to black-and-white over 80 miles distance, but at least I could still catch the football or baseball game, whereas with digital I merely see a blank screen! :-( Thanks FCC and Congress for giving me less variety. This could easily be fixed if they boosted the digital signal to match the power level of analog signals (basically twice current DTV levels), but they won't bother to do that.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Analog TV was better than Digital by RubberDogBone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do a rescan on June 12 when all of them go to full digital and begin DTV broadcasts on new frequencies and higher power levels. After June 12, you may find that you are able to receive more channels.

      If not, try a better antenna. If that doesn't work, then get upset. But at least wait until June 12 to write it off.

      FWIW, I used to live in Baltimore but WDCA-20 was what we watched, with rabbit ears and and old UHF loop antenna. It may have had snow and static but we liked it better than channel 45. Fun memories.

      It's kinda sad that kids coming up now won't know about those experiences. First TVs came with blue screens to politely mask the static and hidden faint signals, and now, there won't really be any faint signals. No more catching the show on the distant TV station because your local one won't carry it. It's a shame.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    2. Re:Analog TV was better than Digital by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>>After June 12, you may find that you are able to receive more channels.

      Bzzzz. I've already examined the pre and post-transition stations. NONE of my stations are boosting their levels. In fact, one of them (WBAL-DT) is actually going to a lower level such that they will disappear completely from my screen. So my channel count's going to drop even further than I indicated previously.

      Also I'm not the only one in that boat. According to tvfool.com's report and computer simulation, the average American home will lose 3 stations when analog stops, and about 3 million people will lose their television reception completely (no channels). For whatever reason digital is harder to receive than the old analog signal.

      Thanks Congress.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  10. Bullshit by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Looks like most of the patent fees are in the 'confidential licensors' category. That's the *only* category that increases as the screen size goes up.

    And that category, being 'confidential', doesn't describe how, exactly the fees fit into Digital TV.

    MPEG2 and MPEG-LA are fixed fees, at $2.50 and $5, respectively, no matter how big the screen is.

    Somehow they "estimated" that the 'confidential licensors' category ranged from $6.15 to $20.65. Which looks like blowing smoke. They don't actually know, they just made up a number based on the price of the TV.

    (I'd also note that bigger, fancier TVs tend to have more features, including more advanced signal-processing features, so that also would explain why manufacturers might pay more, unspecified patent fees on larger TVs.)

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  11. How much do you people think early TVs were? by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 4, Informative

    The first US color TVs in 1954 cost the equivalent of nearly $8000 in today's money, for a 14" screen.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    1. Re:How much do you people think early TVs were? by barzok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your B&W TV (or radio) didn't quit working because color TVs came out.

      On June 12 (unless it's delayed again), your analog OTA TV receiver becomes a brick.

  12. Non-vital luxury item by Angst+Badger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did I miss something, or are we or are we not talking about television? From all the outrage being flung around, you'd think we were talking about something vital and necessary, like food or medical care.

    Requiring people to pay extra for access to lowest common denominator spectacle -- and actually getting them to do it by the tens of millions -- isn't an outrage, it's a hack. With extra bonus points for genuine irony.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  13. Except by maz2331 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some frequency bands DO regulate the permissible modulation as a term of the license. In the "TV Bands" broadcasters are required to use the patented ATSC system, which includes patented MPEG.

    The issue isn't mandating technical standards at all. What IS an issue is mandating the use of something that requires a private-party royalty payment.

    Perhaps a better model would be something similar to bidding on a public contract. A patent adopted as a public standard under such a system would revert to the public domain in exchange for a payment, which could be collected from licensees as part of the license fee, but must remain free for use in recievers.

  14. ATSC VSB-8 vs. DVB COFDM by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is really an old story, actually a continuation of the NTSC/PAL battles. VSB is the acronym for vestigial sideband, a variation of the modulation scheme used for NTSC. Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (COFDM) is a different and more complex modulation scheme used by Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) in Europe and Japan. The general consensus at the time (way back in the last millennium) was that OFDM was better for penetration but the receivers were more expensive. VSB had a greater service area but could not handle noise (especially reflections) as well. In Europe and Japan, there are more large concentrations of people and DVB/COFDM made more sense.

    THE REAL REASON, however, was that European companies owned the patents on COFDM, and Zenith had the patent on VSB-8 (some say 8-VSB, 8 for the number of levels of signal amplitude used, there is also a 16-level version for cable that was never used). So, America "bought American" and chose Zenith's solution. Later, LG Electronics bought Zenith. LOL!

    Note: Bell Labs patented OFDM in 1966, but Philips and STM wrote patents covering DVB COFDM in 1987. I am sure there are others too.