Ah, Back to Antennas Again!
The
truth is, with DTV, the need for outdoor antennas
will increase dramatically
As the big clock on the wall ticks away on analog
television, the digital picture continues to get muddier. Digital
television is also brought to homes via broadband
powered IPTV leaving analog television much more behind. However,
one issue is now getting clearer—the truth about the need for
an outdoor antenna.
Centris,
the media market research firm, is back with new data that claims
9.2 million American homes could experience problems with over-the-air
digital reception when the switch is pulled next February. The company
says there are more than 17 million households currently receiving
analog signals and half of those are located in challenging reception
areas.
Actually,
more than half—54 percent, to be exact. These are not people who live
in out-of-the-way rural areas, but the largest cities in the United
States—including New York and Los Angeles. There’s a good chance that
more people than originally thought will need outdoor antennas.
However,
most interesting is the assertion that 75 percent of those over-the-air
viewers have only indoor “rabbit ears,” rather than a proper ‘50s-era
outdoor antenna.
Before
we go on, a little history lesson is in order. It was early 1998,
at Sony’s pre-NAB press event in New York, when the company’s then
chief technology officer, Peter Dare, stunned his colleagues with
the radical statement that among the unresolved DTV issues were reception
problems without an outdoor antenna.
It
was a stunning admission, at the time, because Dare had burst Sony’s
DTV bubble of hype. Since DTV was “perfect,” how could Dare say such
a thing—especially at an important news conference?
Sony’s
PR apparat went into hyperventilation over Dare’s candid remarks about
that and other DTV problems. Soon after, Dare went into a sort of
public exile at Sony. Of course, time would prove he was dead-on right.
Though
proponents still get hysterical over any criticism of DTV, Centris
has plowed on under great criticism. The company, who revealed potential
gaps in reception last February, said its new study provides the first
in-depth national look at the scale of the reception issue, and identifies
the top 10 cities in the country that have the most consumers at-risk.
The
top 10 most at risk markets are, in order, New York; Boston; Philadelphia;
Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Seattle–Tacoma, Wash.; San Francisco–Oakland–San
Jose, Calif.; Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minn.; Atlanta; and Cleveland–Akron,
Ohio.
Quality
of reception, said Centris, depends on the terrain, distance from
transmission towers, and sensitivity of antennas. The definition of
“challenging reception” is that the viewer can receive only four or
fewer broadcast TV stations if they have a small or medium omnidirectional
rooftop antenna or if they have an indoor antenna.
Centris
forecasts that 24 percent of consumers in difficult reception areas
who have such antennas will receive no channels, and a further 10
percent will receive only a single channel. Barry Goodstadt, a Centris
senior vice president, said the firm’s estimates are conservative
since the study assumes that all consumers have rooftop antennas.
Needless
to say, these predictions are far worse than those by the television
industry or the powers that be in government. Now, all these years
after the “grand alliance,” we’ll finally find out how well DTV works.
As
might be expected, David Donovan, president of the Association for
Maximum Service Television, blasted the Centris report for its accuracy.
But then he confirmed a major part of it.
First,
Donovan claimed that Centris did not conduct spectrum analysis or
test signal strengths in the markets, and does not reflect the actual
permanent channel space the stations will use when analog is switched
off. Fair enough.
However,
then he turned to the need for outdoor antennas.
“The
issue is whether consumers will be able to receive signals with the
same type of antenna they are currently using to receive analog signals,”
Donovan said. “Of course, this may not be known until stations operate
on their permanent digital channels and increase their coverage area
in February 2009.”
Donovan
also said there is “no doubt” that some Americans must be “reintroduced”
to antennas as we move into DTV. “Some consumers may need a new antenna,”
he admitted.
“If
consumers do need more sensitive antennas, we would remind policy
makers that these antennas are more susceptible to receiving interference.
Accordingly, reception problems will be exacerbated by placing interfering
unlicensed devices in the TV band,” Donovan said.
Wait
a minute! That last comment is yet another threat to the FCC that
unlicensed devices that use “white space” spectrum—which is not licensed
to the broadcasters—could interfere with DTV signals. Of course, such
spectrum could open the nation to a cheap source of wireless Internet
access. Some very legitimate companies are advocating it. The broadcasters
want it left alone.
An
entirely separate argument, Mr. Donovan!
TRIP
TO THE ROOF
So,
let’s review. Now, we finally learn there’s a good chance that many
more people than originally expected will need outdoor antennas. Good
luck!
Does
anyone actually believe that hordes of Americans will climb onto their
rooftops—just as in the 1950s—to install an antenna in order to receive
their local DTV stations?
I
suspect not. When the full-power analog signal goes dark next Feb.
17, I think that many Americans will simply pick up the telephone
and call their cable, satellite or telephone company. They’ll complain
about the lack of free TV for a while, but will soon forget it was
ever free.
Most
are already too addicted.
By
Frank Beacham www.tvtechnology.com
HOME
