Daily Archives: February 12, 2008

Technology, Television

Digital TV coverage may be more limited than thought

12 Comments

Rabbit Ears AntennaFor those who still use rabbit ears to get their TV signals, here’s a worrisome press release from the market-research firm Centris. Basically, it says that to really get a good signal, you need a rooftop antenna and be within 35 miles of the transmitter. If you’re farther away, or if you’re using rabbit ears, you may be left in the dark after the digital conversion.

I heard about it first through Broadcast Engineering. You can read their synopsis here.

NEW YORK, New York (February 12, 2008) – New proprietary research released today by Centris (www.centris.com), a leading market research firm, illuminates a major discrepancy in digital TV broadcast coverage that is critical to the upcoming DTV transition on February 17, 2009. The study, of U.S. television households reveals that there are serious “gaps” in digital TV signal coverage across the country. Coverage that millions of households will rely upon once analog signals are switched off exactly one year from now. That’s why I recommend looking in to the best iptv provider that way you can watch your favorite shows and movies without interuption. “We predict that digital TV signal coverage will be more limited than currently anticipated. An issue that, until now, has been completely overlooked by the FCC and governing bodies, and could have serious – and costly – implications for millions of consumers” says David Klein, Executive Vice President of Centris.

There are more than 40 million households currently receiving over-the-air analog signals in the U.S., according to Centris. These reflect a combined total of as many as 117 million sets that are unconnected from cable or satellite video networks – a figure that far exceeds any previous projections on the number of people who will be affected by the national switch from analog to digital broadcasting. With less than one year – and counting – until the DTV transition takes places, the potential gaps in digital coverage present a huge problem for the TV industry, and an equally large opportunity for cable, satellite and telecom video service providers as well as for manufacturers and distributors of “smart” television antennas. Similar problems have emerged in the digital transition taking place in the UK, where it is recognized that problems with digital coverage will require the use of more sophisticated antennas.

THE GLITCH: EXPLAINED

Over-the-air (OTA) consumers are currently being educated on three available options. Two of the three options – acquiring new digital TV sets and purchasing government subsidized digital-analog converter boxes – are entirely dependent upon receiving digital TV signals through an antenna. Without adequate broadcast signal coverage or a sufficiently sensitive roof-top antenna, Centris forecasts, these options will simply not work. For consumers living in problem areas where broadcast gaps exist, installing a sophisticated roof-top antenna is a possible option but signing up for a cable, satellite or telecom video provider is the only guarantee that their TV sets will continue to work. This is not what the Federal Government claims.

“Consumers are being urged to purchase equipment that may or may not work when they bring it home – never before has such an important transition been conducted on a trial and error basis. The reality is, if consumers want guaranteed ‘free’ TV, they will have to pay for it,” says Klein.

DISCOVERING THE GAPS

Centris examined several large TV markets and exercised models of coverage to determine how many broadcast stations could be received in zip codes within 5 mile intervals of the TV towers in a 60-75 mile radius corresponding to the FCC-identified service contours. Alarmingly, the results showed that there was little continuous coverage beyond 35 miles. The explanation lies in the fact that the antennaweb model used in the Centris study takes into account outdoor receiving antenna sensitivity and multipath interference. Certain households – for example: those that are not elevated; are surrounded by trees; or have set-top antennas instead of roof-top antennas; among other factors – are at higher risk of having limited or no signal coverage. Centris surveys reveal that 75% or more of over-the-air households have only set-top antennas.

“These are very real factors, that have until now not been accounted for. The effect will have extensive ramifications, not only among consumers, but also electronics retailers and manufacturers who can expect an influx of costly returns when it is realized that the converter boxes and new digital TV’s don’t work,” says Barry Goodstadt, Senior Vice President of Centris. “In addition, with so many sets potentially at risk of going dark, network, local and public television, advertisers and agencies will likely be adversely affected.”

THE COUNTDOWN

The hidden gaps in digital TV coverage will undoubtedly magnify existing levels of confusion in the marketplace. According to Centris November, 2007 survey results, 45% had no idea that the DTV transition was taking place; and among those who are aware of the transition, only 56% could correctly state when the analog transmission is scheduled to stop. With the one year-out countdown upon us, it is critical that the gaps in digital coverage are included in national dialogue on the DTV transition.

General News

Anti-smoking movement goes too far for one physician

2 Comments

Dr. Michael Siegel is worried. He’s concerned that “the anti-smoking movement is increasingly becoming more extreme” and “getting out of control.” And he’s started an organization to counteract it.

Due to the new law of anti-smoking many people have been switching to the products that are being sell at vape battery mod australia.

Don’t think that Siegel is pro-smoking. He’s not. According to his website, the Boston resident has “published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers on the health effects of secondhand smoke” and that his articles have appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and other prestigious publications. No, it’s precisely because he’s anti-smoking that he’s worried about misrepresentations of science by anti-smoking organizations. He’s afraid that the public will not take anti-smoking campaigns seriously if organizations keep exaggerating health risks and playing to people’s emotions.

Thus, he has founded The Center for Public Accountability in Tobacco Control. He says he “became disillusioned by the direction in which the anti-smoking movement is going.”

The Center for Public Accountability in Tobacco Control is dedicated to ensuring the ethical and honest practice of tobacco control by anti-smoking organizations in the U.S. It aims to help ensure that efforts to reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality are sustainable by a movement that can remain credible and effective into the future. Its premise is that the anti-smoking movement is increasingly becoming more extreme, getting out of control, going too far in its agenda, and losing its solid public health basis. The tactics being used by many anti-smoking organizations have become questionable, including misleading and deceiving the public, improperly attacking individuals, and improperly using kids to promote a political agenda. The agenda itself has become less and less public health-based; it now include [sic] efforts to deny employment to smokers, treat smoking parents as child abusers, and ignore basic issues of individual privacy and autonomy to coerce smokers into adopting healthier behavior.

In order to restore the movement, the Center for Public Accountability in Tobacco Control hopes to highlight the tactics currently being used, bringing these tactics to public attention in order to hold public health groups accountable to their primary constituency: the public.

If you visit his site, you’ll see example after example of inaccurate health claims and misleading statements published by anti-smoking groups. In particular, he takes on statements made by Americans for Non-Smokers’ Rights (ANR) and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, two organizations that are heavily relied upon by Smoke-Free Illinois advocates.

Siegel thinks the health risks are compelling enough without exaggeration, but apparently the public didn’t, which is why these other organizations felt the need to resort to hysterical rhetoric and heavy-handed tactics. It’s good to see an honest physician speak out against such abuses.

Kellar Branch

JSEB still bitter about Kellar loss

14 Comments

The Journal Star Editorial Board is clearly still stinging over the Surface Transportation Board’s ruling in favor of continuing rail service on the Kellar Branch, so they published these sour grapes Monday. They don’t think the city is being aggressive enough in demanding fees from the railroad companies for their use of the Kellar Branch.

Indeed, the city and village have been subsidizing service over Kellar since they purchased it. But if it’s the gold mine that rail carriers and their backers claim it is – why, it’s practically a sure thing – then there’s no need for those freebies. Just think how much Peoria and Peoria Heights residents would benefit by collecting a per-car fee or a yearly percentage of Kellar’s fair market value, up to $200,000. Those dollars could fund core city services, such as fixing potholes, plowing roads, building sidewalks. Isn’t that what the back-to-basic-services crowd has demanded?

This would be a sound argument, except for the fact that the Journal Star’s position is that this corridor should be leased to the Park District for $1 per year for 99 years so they can convert the corridor to a linear park. They have claimed that a linear park will be a catalyst for development. Perhaps they would support a special assessment on the businesses and developers along the proposed linear park — perhaps a yearly percentage of Kellar’s fair market value — since those private businesses would be profiting from the Kellar corridor, too.

To that end, the municipalities should enter into formal negotiations with the carriers over a usage fee. If a deal can’t be reached, the cities should file a pleading with the STB. While it’s rare, the STB has helped resolve disputes over contracts and conditions. Surely the feds could find some reasonable compromise between $1 and $200,000.

Yes, by all means, spend more money fighting the railroads. It’s proved so fruitful over the past decade and a half. If they’re really serious about wanting to get money out of the Kellar Branch, there are a couple of ways it could be done:

  1. Sell the line. Pioneer has had a standing offer of $750,000 to purchase the Kellar Branch from the city. This would get the city completely out of the railroad business, and give them three-quarters of a million dollars to boot, which they could use to help finance the CSO project or other needed things.
  2. Negotiate a long-term lease. There’s a legal dispute over Pioneer’s contract with the City. The City says it’s expired, and Pioneer says it’s still in force. Since neither side wants a legal battle over that, and since the STB has already ruled the line has to stay, the City could negotiate a lease that would be better than the disputed one. I believe Pioneer would welcome such a lease, even if it had higher lease rates for the line, provided the rates are reasonable and proportionate to the amount of traffic the line gets. It would take out all the uncertainty and finally put this issue to rest.

Or, the City could try to have the STB set the rates, which would be costly, time-consuming, and only exacerbate an already adversarial relationship, like the bitter Journal Star Editorial Board wishes. Here’s hoping the City ignores their advice and looks for a more constructive solution instead.

Museum Block

Museum “impossible” without federal earmark

25 Comments

PRM LogoWell, look who’s on the federal earmark bandwagon: Lakeview Museum.

Peoria’s Lakeview Museum has big plans for the empty Sears block in the heart of Downtown, but a museum official says they will be impossible without a federal earmark.

“It couldn’t be done,” Kathleen Woith said of trying to reach private fundraising goals to build the nearly $130 million Peoria Riverfront Museum, which officials hope to open in 2012. About $1.4 million for the project — which still faces a $24 million shortfall — is coming from federal earmarks that the museum received over the years.

It can’t be done without federal earmarks … and evidently it can’t be done with them, either. The truth is that federal earmarks are, as the article says, “nothing more than budget-bloating spending that amount to political pork.” And the museum is a perfect example of why earmarks should be eliminated.

First of all, one could argue whether federal dollars should be spent on local museums at all. But assuming the case could be made, federal money for local projects like this should be put into a grant fund to which cities could apply. Grants would be awarded based on criteria set by Congress — presumably awarding more money to projects with the most national interest. This would be a fairer, merit-based approach, and it would limit federal spending on these types of projects.

Secondly, one could make the case that earmarks are the reason this project is as bloated as it is, and why it’s failing to win popular support. The project started out as several smaller projects, each with its own plans and fundraising goals. They only combined efforts at the prompting of Rep. Ray LaHood. Why? According to a March 25, 2001, Journal Star article, “U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood has organized a Museum Collaboration Committee to encourage arts leaders to present a united front in the struggle to get federal dollars for a museum complex on the riverfront.” So because of the promise of federal pork, all our eggs are in one basket. If not enough money for the übermuseum is raised, all the individual projects fail along with it.

Finally, are we really supposed to believe that this project is impossible without federal earmarks? The earmarks amount to only $1.4 million, or one percent of the total cost of the project. I think if you took the Lakeview relocation portion out of the project, and came up with a smaller, urban design, you would have plenty of money for a history and achievement museum without having to take any federal money at all.