[net.tv] MTS

stadlin@hou2h.UUCP (Art Stadlin) (08/16/85)

> As a side note, my local
> cable company doesn't know if they are going to get MTS transmission encoders
> and/or go FM stereo. 
> ...Oh, the first local station to go stereo is
> apparently going to help with the cost of putting the MTS signal onto the
> cable, ie, they are going to MTS encode it at the TV station and ship it
> back to the cable company all ready to go.  All of our local stations are
> directly connected to the stations, so if the TV transmitter dies, those
                            ^^^^^^^^ <--- cable company?
> on cable still get picture and sound.
> -- 
> Mr. Video     | |AV-2010| o|   |--------------|

Mr. Video's response raises several interesting points:

  1.  Broadcast stations are licensed by the FCC for *broadcast*.
      If the transmitter dies, wouldn't they be required to stop
      all transmissions?

  2.  Doesn't the TV station have to provide the same video and
      audio signal to *all* its viewers?  Why should the TV station
      provide a stereo signal to the cable company and not send
      that stereo signal over-the-air?

  3.  If your cable company gets a direct feed from your local
      station, why not go one better and get the feed
      directly from the affiliated network?

  4.  How far away are the local station studios from your cable
      company?  Is anyone saving money by direct-connect?
-- 
  \\\
   \\\\                                  Art Stadlin
    \\\\\\________!{akgua,ihnp4,houxm}!hou2h!stadlin

brown@nicmad.UUCP (08/17/85)

In article <1015@hou2h.UUCP> stadlin@hou2h.UUCP (Art Stadlin) writes:
>> As a side note, my local
>> cable company doesn't know if they are going to get MTS transmission encoders
>> and/or go FM stereo. 
>> ...Oh, the first local station to go stereo is
>> apparently going to help with the cost of putting the MTS signal onto the
>> cable, ie, they are going to MTS encode it at the TV station and ship it
>> back to the cable company all ready to go.  All of our local stations are
>> directly connected to the stations, so if the TV transmitter dies, those
>                            ^^^^^^^^ <--- cable company?
                             oops!  Yep, should be cable company!
>> on cable still get picture and sound.
>> -- 
>> Mr. Video     | |AV-2010| o|   |--------------|
>
>Mr. Video's response raises several interesting points:
>
>  1.  Broadcast stations are licensed by the FCC for *broadcast*.
>      If the transmitter dies, wouldn't they be required to stop
>      all transmissions?

Nope.  They are only required to give their call letters upon returning
to the air.  There are 50,000+ subscribers on our cable system, so the
fact that even if the transmitter dies, they can still get their ads out
to an audience.

Quite a few years ago, during the winter months, there was lots of ice
on the tower of one of the stations.  It decided to come down one day.
It landed on the station's building.  It really messed up the office sections,
but didn't hurt the main studio and transmitter portions (the roof was thick
concrete), but the falling ice did put dents in the UHF wave-guide.  Well,
that ended over-the-air transmissions for about 2-3 weeks, until all of the
ice was off the tower, so that the bad pieces could be replaced.  In the
meantime, the cable viewers were able to watch all of the ABC network feeds.
So, it does have it's advantages.

>  2.  Doesn't the TV station have to provide the same video and
>      audio signal to *all* its viewers?  Why should the TV station
>      provide a stereo signal to the cable company and not send
>      that stereo signal over-the-air?

But the TV stations are providing MTS stereo to their over-the-air audience.
I didn't say that they didn't provide over-the-air stereo.  Sorry, I thought
by saying that the tv station was going stereo, it would be understood that
I meant over-the-air.

>  3.  If your cable company gets a direct feed from your local
>      station, why not go one better and get the feed
>      directly from the affiliated network?

Our cable company tried that for restoration purposes.  The networks would
not allow local cable companies to pick up the feed if the local station
decided not to air a program.  The networks do not want to have the local
stations get mad at the networks.  Also our cable company and the local
stations get along.  They don't want to ruin the friendship by getting
the network feed direct, which the networks won't allow anyway.

>  4.  How far away are the local station studios from your cable
>      company?  Is anyone saving money by direct-connect?

One station is right across the driveway, another is about 3 times that
distance, another is about 1 mile (as the cable lies) and the last is
about 7-8 miles.  I doubt if any money is saved, but better quality is
achieved as all of the equipment between the studio boards and the cable
over-the-air receiver is taken out of the loop.  Yes, I know, the signal
has to get from the station to the cable company somehow.  A wide-band
FM video and audio transmitter is used, on a return cable link.
-- 

Mr. Video   {seismo!uwvax!|!decvax|!ihnp4}!nicmad!brown

kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (08/19/85)

>   1.  Broadcast stations are licensed by the FCC for *broadcast*.
>       If the transmitter dies, wouldn't they be required to stop
>       all transmissions?
> 

        I would guess that the FCC would not be able to stop the
        local TV station from supplying the signal to the cable company.
        The FCC only controls the station with respect to its public
        broadcasts. If the FCC controlled cable-only broadcasts there
        would probably be no Playboy Channel.