The ABC television network will interrupt HDTV feeds to several affiliate stations Aug. 23 – Aug. 26 while it performs upgrades at its HDTV release facility.
Programming will not be interrupted. But viewers watching on HDTV equipment will see an upconverted networked feed instead of the usual HD feed while the upgrade is taking place.
Several bulletin boards around the country report that ALL local stations are affected.
The post on at least one board — reputedly from a local ABC station — said there wasn’t going to be any upconverted network feed, either. Just straight SD.
Was it this difficult making the transition from black-and-white to color? Is ABC so cheap they haven’t any backup hardware to run with while performing an upgrade?
Wow, that is shocking. I used to be an engineer for a PBS affiliate and the FIRST rule of broadcasting is to always broadcast. No matter what. For ABC to simply stop broadcasting HD programming shows how unimportant it is.
Which is interesting as everyone I know who gets a HDTV and HD content LOVES it and basically refuses to watch anything else. My dad, my secretary, and a friend of mine all are on Charter and each get about 7 HD channels. And like I said, they’re hooked on it. They get about 200 channels but only watch 7, it’s crazy. For example, my dad was watching softball championships over the weekend merely because it was in HD. And I have to admit I spent a lot of time watching a very “fascinating” HD aerobic show on his set.
HD reminds me a lot of the switch over from LPs to CDs. I worked at a music store at the time and quite often we’d get someone buying their first CD. They’d come back later upset because they’d be unable to listen to their vast collection of LPs. Not necessarily because CDs sounded better, they just sounded cleaner without the skips and pops. Suddenly all those skips and pops became more apparent after hearing their first CD. You don’t realize how crappy analog looks like until you compare it to HD.
My guess is that ABC will got tons of calls on this issue and they won’t pull a stunt like this ever again.
No it wasn’t this difficult for the consumer, because color was compatible with B&W. Not so with HD. If you didn’t want to buy a new color TV you could still use your old B&W set.
For broadcasters, the conversion to HD is like going back to the beginnings of TV and starting over. Everything is different, much of it is being invented and improved as HD evolves, and the costs are tremendous. To my knowledge, no broadcaster has yet to make a buck on HD. At the facility I work for, we’ve spent over 2 million dollars just to but basic network pass-through HD on the air. And much of that equipment will be rendered useless in the next couple of years as we will be forced to change channels again. Fortunately the company that owns us can afford it, but it’s pretty much money down the drain.
My guess is that ABC has one HD facility and rather than build a 2nd one, they just plan to upgrade what they have for the time being. It’s no doubt a lot of money to service only a handful of viewers.
Remember the government doesn’t care if folks can view HD. Those converters that the politicians are talking about handing out aren’t going to gi ve you 1080i 16×9 HD on your 13″ kitchen TV! They just want viewers to be able to see digital TV so they can shut down analog and auction off the unused channels. Of course some of that spectrum will be gobbled up by first responders so the actual benefit to the Treasury from auction proceeds may not be what was once anticipated.
ABC affiliate in Phoenix did the same thing earlier this year. They took down the HD signal for just about a month!
From what (little) I know, no one has backup HDTV equipment.
It’s a simple case of supply and demand: Not enough people have HDTV gear at home for any network or station to justify a mass investment into the equipment.
The combined efforts of the FCC over the past two administrations has created a chicken-n-egg scenario: There’s not enough HDTV use at home to justify a major investment in the broadcast of HDTV. Likewise, there’s not enough HDTV content to drive more HDTV purchases.
Personally, I’ll know when HDTV reaches critical mass when my 70+ year old grandmother asks how to replace her 25 year old television.
What I ended up getting was a pillar boxed version of the standard broadcast.
What’s the big deal? HDTV OVER-THE-AIR is a non issue. How many people across the US are receiving HDTV over the air? I’d be very surprised if it was greater than 1% of the viewing audience (and I’d bet its only a fraction of a %).
80% of households receive their television from either cable or sattelite, so standard def over-the-air isn’t even an issue to them, let alone HD.
It bothers me to think how much money has been wasted putting in HD tuners into the latest displays, that will *never* be used.
I’m going to disagree in part with Lou. The problem with getting HD content from satellite and cable is that both of those companies COMPRESS their HD signal. Compare the HD signal you get from your cable company to what you get off air and you’ll be astonished. So, if you REALLY want HD content, the best way to get it is via over the air programming.
That being said, I’m forced to agree with your main point. Namely that forcing broadcasters to switch over to HD transmission that most people will not watch is inefficient and asinine. The problem is that Congress can’t simply “turn off” over the air programming. Americans LOVE their TVs and no politician is going to come between a voter and his or her television. So we’re on the ridiculous path of replacing analog broadcasts hardly anyone watches with digital broadcasts hardly anyone will watch.
At this stage, few people will have standby DTV transmitters and antennas – its all too new.
True story: WCBS moved from the Empire State Building to the World Trade Center along with everyone else. The Empire State leases had an automatic renewal clause and someone at CBS “forgot” to cancel (and was reportedly fired for his lapse). Because they were paying for it, CBS kept the Empire State transmitter and antenna in working condition.
Move forward to 9-11. The other NY stations were off the air for days or weeks, but WCBS was off only as long as it took for the old vacuum tubes to warm up. So what was the renewed lease and standby facilities worth to CBS that day?
Ima: thanks for the semi-agreement…. I really did not know that cable/satellite feeds compress the HD signal… For whatever reason, I assumed if it was compressed, it was reasonably lossless… to hear that over the air HD is better than what you get via connect, is new to me, and will make me rethink my position….
What does it matter, it’s summer re-run season? At least they’re not doing this smack dab in the middle of the fall season.
-A
The reason for all those HDTV tuners in TVs is because the FCC made it mandatory.
You gotta start somewhere. How many people would use the Internet if nothing was there to look at? Thus, force all these companies to suck up the costs (small in the long run) and start airing all TV signals in HD quality. I guarantee you that this will create an incredibly quick and desirable market for new HD TV’s. Content has always driven hardware upgrades. Just look at what video games do for new PC purchases. The broadcasters are going to have to do it sooner or later anyway so what’s the big deal about doing it on a more enhanced and productive schedule? Doing a half-assed piecemeal transition just makes for more problems and issues which unnecessarily slows adoption.