Do we even need terrestrial broadcast TV anymore?

[Scott5114]

During a tornado event, Internet and cell service, even on otherwise perfectly reliable networks, will consistently go out. (My guess with the cell network is due to a spike in traffic due to people checking on loved ones/"it passed and I'm OK" messages.) Broadcast radio and television from a battery-operated device thus remains the most reliable way of getting weather information in real time.

Obviously this is going to be a primary concern only in places like central Oklahoma where it happens a lot, but it suggests that broadcast media has some advantages over the Internet in other types of emergency/disaster situations.

The EAS operates over cellular networks now, in a broadcast fashion similar to TV.  I would hope in dangerous weather events like tornadoes that alerts get pushed to peoples' phones.

If you loose electric service, though, your TV won't work.  But the cell towers, copper/fibre backbone and even some cable and DSL modems should be equipped with generators/battery backups.  The Internet is a packet-switched network, so if a direct path to a server is down the packets will be pushed around it.  So long as your local DNS server is up you can still go anywhere.

Alerts do get pushed, but they are somewhat useless for tornadoes because, unlike most forms of weather, are very localized. Remember, only the worst tornadoes approach a mile wide, and most of them are far narrower. I have gotten cell alerts that warn of a tornado on the opposite end of the metro from me. Helpful to know  that tornadoes are about, and to keep an eye on them, but not useful for the purposes of deciding whether or not to take shelter (if you heed even county-level tornado warnings you are going to spend hours in the shelter that you don't need to be).

The electric grid in central Oklahoma is robust enough that it isn't normally affected on a network level by severe weather. A tornado, of course, will affect it by snapping individual lines and poles and causing localized outages. So if you're losing power, chances are you're fucked anyway, and need to be in the shelter.

Battery operated radios and TVs are important safety equipment to have in this part of the country.

The most reliable indicator that you need to take shelter is whether your municipal tornado sirens are blowing. Norman has such fine control over their siren system that a tornado on the east side won't blow sirens on the west side. I would imagine OKC has this level of control too–there's zero point in blowing the sirens at May and Hefner if there's a tornado at SW 104th and Penn.

[MNHighwayMan]

Alerts do get pushed, but they are somewhat useless for tornadoes because, unlike most forms of weather, are very localized. Remember, only the worst tornadoes approach a mile wide, and most of them are far narrower. I have gotten cell alerts that warn of a tornado on the opposite end of the metro from me. Helpful to know  that tornadoes are about, and to keep an eye on them, but not useful for the purposes of deciding whether or not to take shelter (if you heed even county-level tornado warnings you are going to spend hours in the shelter that you don't need to be).

This is why you pay attention to the actual warning polygon, and not just which county(ies) are in said polygon. Unfortunately, there's no way to know where the polygon is without either broadcast TV or Internet service.

Also, the 2013 El Reno tornado reached up to 2.6 miles wide. It was an outlier, to be sure, but to say tornadoes only reach a mile wide isn't accurate.

[Scott5114]

Alerts do get pushed, but they are somewhat useless for tornadoes because, unlike most forms of weather, are very localized. Remember, only the worst tornadoes approach a mile wide, and most of them are far narrower. I have gotten cell alerts that warn of a tornado on the opposite end of the metro from me. Helpful to know  that tornadoes are about, and to keep an eye on them, but not useful for the purposes of deciding whether or not to take shelter (if you heed even county-level tornado warnings you are going to spend hours in the shelter that you don't need to be).

This is why you pay attention to the actual warning polygon, and not just which county(ies) are in said polygon. Unfortunately, there's no way to know where the polygon is without either broadcast TV or Internet service.

Also, the 2013 El Reno tornado reached up to 2.6 miles wide. It was an outlier, to be sure, but to say tornadoes only reach a mile wide isn't accurate.

Right. The purpose of that sentence was not to imply that a tornado can only be one mile wide or less, but to illustrate how tornadoes are different than other types of high-end weather events like hurricanes or blizzards that will affect an entire metro area all at once. Even if a city is hit by a major tornado outbreak, the chances that any specific point in the city will be hit by a tornado remains low.

[MikeTheActuary]

Not quite - while the WEA (Wireless Emergency Alerts) system does relay certain warning types such as tornado and flash flood warnings, amber alerts, and national emergencies to cell phones, it is generally less versatile than the EAS is. And participation in the program is completely voluntary, so some cell networks may not even offer it.

In my experience, it's also slow. I know I've received amber alerts on my phone only around 30 minutes after hearing it first from a weather radio.

Also, it's important to remember that, like broadband internet, cellular coverage is not universal.

In about an hour, I'm going to be driving from Montréal to near Hartford.  Normally, I stream my audio entertainment.  But for this drive, I will be relying on content downloaded to my phone because there are just too many dead spots.

When my father moved into his apartment, he insisted on doing without a landline telephone.  This is annoying as cell reception in his apartment only exists...barely...when leaning against the windows.

A weather radio with alerting function is a good idea for every household.

[nexus73]

Alerts do get pushed, but they are somewhat useless for tornadoes because, unlike most forms of weather, are very localized. Remember, only the worst tornadoes approach a mile wide, and most of them are far narrower. I have gotten cell alerts that warn of a tornado on the opposite end of the metro from me. Helpful to know  that tornadoes are about, and to keep an eye on them, but not useful for the purposes of deciding whether or not to take shelter (if you heed even county-level tornado warnings you are going to spend hours in the shelter that you don't need to be).

This is why you pay attention to the actual warning polygon, and not just which county(ies) are in said polygon. Unfortunately, there's no way to know where the polygon is without either broadcast TV or Internet service.

Also, the 2013 El Reno tornado reached up to 2.6 miles wide. It was an outlier, to be sure, but to say tornadoes only reach a mile wide isn't accurate.

Right. The purpose of that sentence was not to imply that a tornado can only be one mile wide or less, but to illustrate how tornadoes are different than other types of high-end weather events like hurricanes or blizzards that will affect an entire metro area all at once. Even if a city is hit by a major tornado outbreak, the chances that any specific point in the city will be hit by a tornado remains low.

The odds of a tornado strike affecting humans rises in proportion to the amount of trailer parks present...LOL!

Rick

[Beltway]

The purpose of that sentence was not to imply that a tornado can only be one mile wide or less, but to illustrate how tornadoes are different than other types of high-end weather events like hurricanes or blizzards that will affect an entire metro area all at once. Even if a city is hit by a major tornado outbreak, the chances that any specific point in the city will be hit by a tornado remains low.

The "zone of uncertainty" for a tornado is much larger than that, plus you have effects that are outside of the funnel itself, such as rear flank downdraft which can have hurricane-force winds, and the raining down of debris that are heavy enough to be dangerous to people and property.

So for that one-mile diameter funnel, figure a 3-mile circle that may travel for 10 miles in yet unknown pathway.

That is enough to be a major emergency to an entire metropolitan area the size of Oklahoma City.

[KEVIN_224]

We were at a tailgate in Columbia, SC this past weekend and could watch the LSU-Alabama game on the local CBS affiliate using a HD digital TV antenna.  No satellite dish or subscription required.  (Oh, and Geaux Tigers!!!)

WLTX-TV (CBS) channel 19 of Columbia. The 400 pound gorilla there is WIS-TV (NBC) channel 10.

[Rothman]

I haven't watched OTA programming in years and don't use cable for TV, either, really.

I just pay for an Internet only plan and pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime. 

[renegade]

I think we need terrestrial TV.  I'm watching it right now.  It's a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio.  If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that's perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we're never going to be able to get it back.  I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.

[bandit957]

I'd like to know what gnawing need there was for us to switch to digital in the first place. Because of its signal limitations, it's clearly inferior to analog. The only improvement seems to be a slightly sharper picture on the few stations you can still pick up. Big wow. Like I was really worried about that.

I had more important things in life to worry about, and society had more important things to worry about. People were starving, and government and the TV industry had to spend all that money switching to an inferior broadcast method instead of on things that were important?

[briantroutman]

I'd like to know what gnawing need there was for us to switch to digital in the first place.

The "gnawing need" had to do with the limited real estate available in the radio spectrum, the growing demand for radio spectrum space from other wireless technologies (chiefly, mobile phones), and analog television's relatively inefficient use of the space it occupied.

The illustration below is from Australia, so the details may vary slightly, but it's conceptually similar to what was done with analog TV's spectrum in the US. The blue portion of top bar represents the spectrum consumed by analog TV broadcasts prior to the digital transition, and the red section in the lower bar shows the spectrum freed for other uses.

[Rothman]

Hm.  So we traded free stuff for stuff we have to pay for.

[nexus73]

I think we need terrestrial TV.  I’m watching it right now.  It’s a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio.  If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that’s perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we’re never going to be able to get it back.  I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.

Ever see "Max Headroom"?  The movie and the TV show came out before we had net for anyone willing to pay for it.  In the dystopic future of this story, pay TV has taken over, leaving the poor without access to the programming.  OTA is pirate TV as done by the character Blank Reg. 

Obviously the net changed everything but one thing which remains valid from a 30 year old bleak vision is that those who pay can have access.  Instead of TV, now it is about broadband streaming.  The new Disney channel got 10 million subscribers.  That is less than 3% of the American population paying the bill but figure if some of those subscribers have other people in the household, the amount of population viewing this new offering could be around 10%. 

Now go back to when ABC, NBC and CBS ruled the roost.  If any of the Big Three only had 10% of the eyeballs, that network would be in serious trouble.  Nowadays having 10% of the eyeballs translates into profitability thanks to people paying for this kind of service.  21st century media transitioning is certainly interesting to see!

Rick

[vdeane]

I'd like to know what gnawing need there was for us to switch to digital in the first place. Because of its signal limitations, it's clearly inferior to analog. The only improvement seems to be a slightly sharper picture on the few stations you can still pick up. Big wow. Like I was really worried about that.

I had more important things in life to worry about, and society had more important things to worry about. People were starving, and government and the TV industry had to spend all that money switching to an inferior broadcast method instead of on things that were important?

I think it's interesting that many pundits tout the fact that you'll never have snow and whatnot with digital, as if having no signal (or something so choppy that it's unwatchable) at all is better.

[RobbieL2415]

I think we need terrestrial TV.  I'm watching it right now. It's a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio.  If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that's perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we're never going to be able to get it back.  I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.

* This is true so long as private companies decide to own and operate stations.

* All TV signals are "streamed".  The program feed leaves master control on a microwave uplink or on a fibre line to the transmitter.  The only difference is that microwave connections are circuit-switched and a fibre signal is packet-switched.

[kphoger]

I'd like to know what gnawing need there was for us to switch to digital in the first place. Because of its signal limitations, it's clearly inferior to analog.

The short answer is that they needed to make room for the internet on those frequencies.

As internet tech has evolved, it takes up more and more space on the band.  Back in the days of DOCSIS 2.0, your modem was sending and receiving packets on a single stream.  That put a serious cap on how fast uploads and downloads could be.  With the advent of DOCSIS 3.0, downstream started be transmitted on four streams simultaneously.  Nowadays, with DOCSIS 3.1, modems commonly receive packets on up to 32 channels at once.  I think it was sometime around the 24 channel mark that channels once allocated to video services were switched over to internet; we went all-digital in advance of that happening.

[Sctvhound]

Yes we do. In South Carolina, a lot of people have OTA antennas and that has only grown because of cord-cutting. As an example, a whopping 9 of Clemson's 13 football games so far will air over the air this year (all on ABC).

Our ABC station is usually the #3 station in the market in Charleston, and Columbia's ABC is a distant 4th, but getting those games are a big boost of revenue to them. It's not like Birmingham or a couple of other markets, but Clemson and South Carolina games are usually the highest-rated TV shows every week throughout the state.

With Clemson's games being easier to find, that has grown their fan base over the past few years. South Carolina's OTA games on CBS (and the rare one on ABC) are just as big, maybe bigger.

The news most of these stations carry (especially the evening news) mostly caters to 60+ in this area, with ads for bathroom replacements, insurance, and political ads during primary season, but sports is probably the bigger money maker.

[KEVIN_224]

Is ABC at a disadvantage in Birmingham for over-the-air reception? You rely on channel 33 from one area (Tuscaloosa?) and channel 40 from Anniston? I think there was an in-town translator on channel 58. (Forgive me, as I've never been to Alabama.) I'm well aware than WBRC-TV (FOX) channel 6 was previously an ABC affiliate.

In Hartford/New Haven, our ABC station, WTNH-TV channel 8 of New Haven, is the one major station in the market using VHF for digital (channel 10). It's also coming off a transmitter in Hamden, a good distance south of the market core, which is Hartford County (i.e. Hartford, New Britain, Bristol and Manchester). Some may get WGGB-TV channel 40 of Springfield, MA for ABC, but that's for those closer to the MA border, such as Enfield.

[Bruce]

Terrestrial TV over digital antenna makes even more sense with the rise of cord-cutters who rely heavily on streaming services. Few TV stations offer reliable streaming of their offerings, which can also be blocked based on digital rights (e.g. for sports broadcasts), so having a digital antenna is a big part of making cord-cutting viable.

I'll have to research on whether TV stations would be able to broadcast emergency messages for my area (namely earthquake/tsunami alerts and impacts) more effectively than pushed messages OTA, but I have a feeling it would be around the same but for a broader reach.

[RobbieL2415]

Is ABC at a disadvantage in Birmingham for over-the-air reception? You rely on channel 33 from one area (Tuscaloosa?) and channel 40 from Anniston? I think there was an in-town translator on channel 58. (Forgive me, as I've never been to Alabama.) I'm well aware than WBRC-TV (FOX) channel 6 was previously an ABC affiliate.

In Hartford/New Haven, our ABC station, WTNH-TV channel 8 of New Haven, is the one major station in the market using VHF for digital (channel 10). It's also coming off a transmitter in Hamden, a good distance south of the market core, which is Hartford County (i.e. Hartford, New Britain, Bristol and Manchester). Some may get WGGB-TV channel 40 of Springfield, MA for ABC, but that's for those closer to the MA border, such as Enfield.

I've received both Hartford and Springfield stations from South Windsor.  With the right antenna it's not too difficult.

[renegade]

I think we need terrestrial TV.  I'm watching it right now. It's a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio.  If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that's perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we're never going to be able to get it back.  I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.

* This is true so long as private companies decide to own and operate stations.

* All TV signals are "streamed".  The program feed leaves master control on a microwave uplink or on a fibre line to the transmitter.  The only difference is that microwave connections are circuit-switched and a fibre signal is packet-switched.

No.  When I say "streaming,"  I am referring to Netflix, Hulu, AppleTV+, Disney+, HBO+ and things like that, not linear OTA broadcasts.  They are not the same thing.

[3467]

Though some cable and internet companies are using fiber optic to bring standard cables plus internet. I have fiber optic for internet. It's great and I use a TV just got stream from it and OTA. I still have DISH but the fiber optic streaming is the future.

[SP Cook]

I'd like to know what gnawing need there was for us to switch to digital in the first place.

Simple.  A broadcast license is a license to print money.  A government granted monopoly, with a long history of corrupt insider deals.  With digital the signal can be split, which led to all of these "diginets"  so channel 3 NBC is now channel 3.1 NBC, 3.2 Me TV 3.3 Action 3.4 weather radar and 3.5 Stadium.  Five times the channels, GIVEN to the broadcast monopolists. 

Look at when this was all planned and you see it was a reward for 4 decades of loyal service.

[Rothman]

Is ABC at a disadvantage in Birmingham for over-the-air reception? You rely on channel 33 from one area (Tuscaloosa?) and channel 40 from Anniston? I think there was an in-town translator on channel 58. (Forgive me, as I've never been to Alabama.) I'm well aware than WBRC-TV (FOX) channel 6 was previously an ABC affiliate.

In Hartford/New Haven, our ABC station, WTNH-TV channel 8 of New Haven, is the one major station in the market using VHF for digital (channel 10). It's also coming off a transmitter in Hamden, a good distance south of the market core, which is Hartford County (i.e. Hartford, New Britain, Bristol and Manchester). Some may get WGGB-TV channel 40 of Springfield, MA for ABC, but that's for those closer to the MA border, such as Enfield.

I've received both Hartford and Springfield stations from South Windsor.  With the right antenna it's not too difficult.

Pfft.  My family got channel 3 from Hartford and the Springfield channels with just the TV's built in rabbit ears when I was a kid when we lived in the woods of northern Hampshire County.

[kphoger]

I think we need terrestrial TV.  I'm watching it right now. It's a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio.  If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that's perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we're never going to be able to get it back.  I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.

* This is true so long as private companies decide to own and operate stations.

* All TV signals are "streamed".  The program feed leaves master control on a microwave uplink or on a fibre line to the transmitter.  The only difference is that microwave connections are circuit-switched and a fibre signal is packet-switched.

No.  When I say "streaming,"  I am referring to Netflix, Hulu, AppleTV+, Disney+, HBO+ and things like that, not linear OTA broadcasts.  They are not the same thing.

So what do consider IPTV to be?  Streaming or not streaming?