Wisconsin own Sensenbrenner tries to mess up HDTV

[Gregg Lengling]

Sensenbrenner moves to kill DTV-tuner mandate
By Bill McConnell
Broadcasting & Cable
10/22/2002 8:00:00 AM
The Federal Communications Commission's "TV tax" is under attack from House Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who last week introduced legislation to eliminate the commission's 2007 deadline for requiring digital tuners in nearly all television sets.

"The FCC's mandate is comparable to requiring viewers to purchase an expensive antenna when they already have cable," Sensenbrenner said, noting that only 13 percent of viewers rely on over-the-air reception.

Sensenbrenner said at current estimates of $250 per set, a digital-TV-tuner mandate would cost consumers in his state $140 million per year. Costs of digital-TV tuners are expected to drop, however, as demand for digital sets grows.

The FCC imposed the mandate in August to speed the adoption of digital-TV-ready sets and the phase-out of analog broadcasts.

The tuner requirement is opposed by the Consumer Electronics Association and some of its member manufacturers.

Although the bill was unveiled just as Congress adjourned, Sensenbrenner promised to reintroduce the legislation next year. It's doubtful that the legislation will get much traction then, either. House Commerce and Energy Committee leaders, to whom the bill will be assigned, support the tuner mandate.

[Joseph S]

If a hammer costs $600 ea (bulk) in Congress, then I guess the tuners should add about $1.25 to TV price at retail.  

Perhaps he's referring to the congressional currency conversion factor.

$1 US = 200 Congressional units

[Kevin Arnold]

I wonder who he's carrying water for. I live in his district and know of no local business here that gives a damn. 99.9% of people here wouldn't know anything about it and those of us that do want the tuners in the set. So who got to him. And how much of a contribution will he get.
Tuners do actually make sense if you can get past the cable issue. With perfect OTA pictures and multicasting they might actually give cable another competitor. And if they can add pay services on the multicast who knows? Lets see....$40 per month forever vs. one time antenna charge......

[kjnorman]

$250 increase to the cost of the TV.  Woopi do!  It'll cost most to add an OTA STB.

Of course in 2007, the tuner will probably only cost $20.  The OTA STB will still probably cost $50 to $100.  

So most people receive their TV through cable.  Lets see, $30 for basic cable + $7 for the digital "tier" + $6 for the STB rental (for each TV).  Sounds like a bargin to me :| I predict cable pricing will rise faster that CPI year on year, and people will be paying this for ever...

I do not quite see the logic in how Wisconsin people will be worst off by including digital OTA tuners in TVs.  To me this is just natual progression.

Kerry

[ReesR]

I just sent this email to Sensenbrenner:

===========

Honorable Representative Sensenbrenner:

I recently read with dismay that you had introduced legislation to eliminate the Federal Communication Commission's 2007 deadline for requiring digital tuners in nearly all television sets.

To those with a technical background your intentions are baseless.  Consider a few facts.  If your legislation becomes law then every television set ever produced in the past analog environment was ill conceived. I doubt you would say it was.  It worked because there was one standard. And if your intent passes what incentive would there be to put digital tuners in video recorders.  We know having tuners in video recorders work for the consumer.  Do you think people would accept recorders without them?  I seriously doubt that.

The concept of a tuner in a digital television is a correct one not because people use cable more but because cable has thrust upon their viewers the need for a cable box which uses a different standard than the one which was defined for over the air.  Over the air (OTA) digital standards were defined by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) much like the analog standards the National Television Systems Committee (NTSC) did over 50 years ago.  But Cable systems across the country would not benefit from additional profitable leases of "their" non-standard tuners if they were forced to provide ATSC feeds to their viewers like cable once did for NTSC feeds.

In fact, the whole HDTV issue is a mess.  Television stations do not want to invest in equipment because they claim not enough viewers.  They are forced to go on the air by the government but continue to play games with their viewers by airing digital part-time or running low power just to satisfy the FCC.  Hollywood doesn't want to provide content because of the fear of loosing control over distribution.  TV manufacturers don't want to make televisions because they have claimed not enough programming.  And on and on it goes.

Now, you come along and say that any possibility of a standard should not be enforced.  By suggesting that television manufacturers should not have a dead line would kill HDTV.  If you wanted to do something constructive, why don't you legislate that a single standard (ATSC) be mandated both over the air as well as cable.  That worked for over 50 years and for cable in the NTSC world.  There was a time when you didn't need a box for cable.  But creating different standards in the analog cable world by segmenting different spectrum usage started us down the road by slowly evolving the consumer to the need for a set top box for cable.  Now, digital cable standards are vastly different than over the air.  But are we to pay for this lack of "big picture" understanding?

We need one standard.  Then and only then will we all benefit.  The government would get their dollars for the sale of spectrum vacated by analog stations, the consumer would benefit by having a plug and play system not requiring different types of tuners, and Hollywood would benefit by an already in place system created by the ATSC which would protect their copyrights.

But the consumer needs to have their rights protected as well.  The Supreme Court has already defined the concept of "fair use".  In the comfort of my own home I should be able to record any program I wish and play it back at my convenience.  If your legislation became law I fear that we would need to purchase a separate tuner for both my TV as well as my recorder.  How does that benefit me or anyone else?  At least now, in the analog world, we can record one channel while watching a different one.  How would your legislation accommodate that?

Please review these items.  They are based on facts as I know them and I have researched this for some time.  But whatever you do, please understand that if our system of broadcast evolves to multiple standards then it is the consumer who will bear the cost of those multiple standards.

I already have a high definition television.  I made sure it had a digital ATSC as well as an analog NTSC tuner built-in, just like all my previous televisions I or my parents have ever owned.  I receive HDTV free over the air.  Whether analog or digital, we need to invest in ONE standard.  It worked for analog.  It would work for digital too.

I appreciate your consideration and thoughtful reply to these comments.

Sincerely,


Rees Roberts
(address info omitted)

------------------
Rees Roberts
Racine, WI
reesr@wi.net

HDTV Receiver:  Sony KD-34XBR2 16X9
Bi-directional AntennaCraft VHF Yagi Model #2260P
+
2 Winegard PR9022 UHF yagi's pointing N & S
Antennas at about 30 feet
Samsung SIR-TS160 HD Directv receiver

[fabff]

Rees--

Stop trying to reason--they don't call him Senselessbrenner for nothing.