Digital Media

Despite a regulator-approved delay to the nationwide digital TV switchover, more than a third of the nation's TV stations plan to begin broadcasting completely in digital next week.

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday released a list of 681 of the nation's 1,800 or so TV stations that plan to make the switch by February 17. TV stations were required to notify the FCC by Monday if they planned to turn off their analog TV signal on February 17.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a bill that moves the deadline for transitioning TV broadcast from analog to digital from February 17 to June 12. The Senate has also passed a similar bill. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly. However, a compromise provision allows broadcasters to transition to all-digital broadcasts early if they get permission from the FCC.

Congress approved the delay out of concern that 20 million people, most of whom are poor, elderly, and living in rural parts of the country, were not prepared for the transition after the government ran out of the $40 coupons it was issuing to help defray the cost of the converter boxes necessary to allow older TVs to get digital signals.

Stations have been preparing to cut off their analog broadcasts for the February 17 deadline for months. Leaving the analog signals on will likely cost them more money as they are required to pay for the additional electricity and facility costs of running multiple transmitters. Most stations have already been airing some programming in digital.

The major broadcast networks, including ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC/Telemundo, have all agreed that their owned and operated stations would continue to broadcast in analog until the new DTV transition date.

To see which local stations plan to switch on or before February 17, check the list released by the FCC (PDF). The column labeled Nite Lite indicates whether the station plans to keep its analog signal going for 30 days past the February 17 analog cut-off date in order to provide emergency and DTV education information.

Over a quarter of all full-power broadcast TV stations could cut off their analog TV service on or before February 17 even though the official deadline has been extended another four months, according to the Federal Communications Commission.

Already 143 full-power TV stations have terminated broadcasting their analog signal. And another 60 stations have already informed the FCC that they would like to terminate broadcasting in analog before February 17. As of February 2, when acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps sent a letter to Congress urging them to delay the transition, another 276 broadcasters had told the FCC they intended to shut off their analog transmitters on February 17.

If all these TV stations go through with their plans, roughly 27 percent of the 1,796 full-power TV broadcasters in the U.S. will be broadcasting only in digital.

What does this mean for over-the-air TV viewers? Well, the FCC hopes that it won't disrupt TV viewing much. But for consumers who don't have a digital tuner built into their TV or haven't hooked up a digital converter box to their old TV, it could mean that they'll have fewer TV channels to watch.

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed a bill that moves the deadline for transitioning TV broadcast from analog to digital from February 17 to June 12. The Senate has also passed a bill pushing the date of the transition back to June 12. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly. As part of a compromise to get the bills through Congress, lawmakers added a provision that allows broadcasters to transition to all-digital broadcasts early .

The FCC met Thursday to discuss the process for allowing TV broadcasters to move to all-digital broadcasting early. Broadcasters must inform the FCC by 12 a.m. EST on February 10 if they intend to cut off their analog TV signal. And at that time, the FCC will have a better understanding of how many TV stations will actually go to all-digital broadcasts on or before February 17.

The agency has said it will likely allow most of these broadcasters that would like to transition to all digital early to do so, but Copps said that the agency reserves the right to deny broadcasters from switching early if it doesn't serve the public interest. Specifically, the FCC will try to make sure that in areas where a large number of people are not ready that there are some TV stations still transmitting analog signals until the June 12 deadline. The agency will also make sure that TV stations that are transitioning early are not interfering with other TV broadcasters, using their old analog channels.

TV stations that wish to switch to all-digital transmission on February 17 will have to provide ample notification to the public between now and then, an FCC spokesman said.

Copps has encouraged as many TV stations as possible to continue transmitting analog signals until the new deadline of June 12. The nation's largest broadcasters--ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC/Telemundo--have all agreed that their owned and operated stations would continue to broadcast in analog until the new DTV transition.

Stations have been preparing to cut off their analog broadcasts for the February 17 deadline for months. Several TV stations throughout the country have tested switching off their analog transmission to make sure they are prepared as well as to make sure viewers are prepared.

TV broadcasters are making the switch to digital to free up valuable wireless spectrum. About 61 percent of all full-power broadcast TV stations are transmitting both analog and digital signals. Leaving the analog signals on until the new deadline of June 12 will cost them more money as they are required to pay for the additional electricity and facility costs of running multiple transmitters.

Congress passed the new legislation to delay the deadline because legislators and consumer advocates are concerned that 20 million people--most of whom are poor, elderly, and living in rural parts of the country--are not prepared for the transition; the government ran out of the $40 coupons it was issuing to help defray the cost of the converter boxes necessary to allow older TVs to get digital signals. There have also been reports that many consumers, who have already gotten converter boxes, are not able to connect them properly to their TVs.

The Federal Communications Commission helped clarify Thursday how it will handle requests from broadcasters to turn off their analog TV signals before the new June 12 deadline.

Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps said during an open meeting that the agency would carefully evaluate which stations can turn off their analog signals before the June 12 deadline. The FCC will likely allow some stations to make the switch early, but it will try to ensure that not every station in a community makes the switch early, leaving unprepared viewers with no access to over-the-air TV.

"We reserve the right to deny those requests if we find that it would not serve the public interest or if it would frustrate Congress' goal of giving consumers adequate time to prepare," Copps said.

Copps also said during the meeting that the major broadcast networks, including ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC/Telemundo, have all agreed that their owned and operated stations would continue to broadcast in analog until the new DTV transition date of June 12.

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed a bill that moves the deadline for transitioning TV broadcast from analog to digital from February 17 to June 12. The Senate has also passed a bill pushing the date of the transition back to June 12. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly. As part of a compromise to get the bills through Congress, lawmakers added a provision that allows broadcasters to transition to all-digital broadcasts early if they get permission from the FCC.

Copps said Thursday that TV stations must notify the FCC by Monday February 9, if they plan to turn off their analog TV signal on February 17.

Stations have been preparing to cut off their analog broadcasts for the February 17 deadline for months. Leaving the analog signals on will likely cost them more money as they are required to pay for the additional electricity and facility costs of running multiple transmitters. Most stations have already been airing some programming in digital.

Congress passed the new legislation to delay the deadline, because legislators and consumer advocates were concerned that 20 million people, most of whom are poor, elderly, and living in rural parts of the country, were not prepared for the transition after the government ran out of the $40 coupons it was issuing to help defray the cost of the converter boxes necessary to allow older TVs to get digital signals. There have also been reports that many consumers, who have already gotten converter boxes, are not able to connect them properly to their TVs.

The legislation delays the mandated switchover to all digital broadcasts another four months. Chairman Copps said he hopes that the additional time could be used to improve government outreach to help prepare for the transition.

An additional $650,000 is expected to be granted through the government's economic stimulus bill to complete the funding of the coupon program.

While the delay will give the government and other organizations more time to help prepare consumers, it could also confuse consumers who have already heard of the February 17 deadline. What's more with some broadcasters continuing to broadcast their analog signals and others switching to digital, some consumers could still lose access to some TV stations before they are ready.

National Association of Broadcasters said it will begin airing revised viewer alerts with the new date.

The first major test of the switch to digital TV left many viewers in Wilmington, N.C., looking at blank screens and calling local TV stations, according to several news reports.

On Monday, the Federal Communications Commission conducted the first major real-world test of the switch to digital television. Wilmington, N.C., volunteered to be the guinea pig for the switch, agreeing to turn off its analog broadcast signals about six months before the rest of the country will do it.

At noon EDT Monday, broadcasters flipped the switch to all digital transmission. And almost immediately, TV broadcasters and the FCC hotline were inundated with phone calls from local residents in the area who weren't prepared for the transition or couldn't figure out how to use the converter boxes that should have allowed their older TVs to get the digital signal, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The test in Wilmington is key to minimizing mass chaos when the entire country makes the transition to all digital broadcasts on Feb. 17, 2009, a move mandated by Congress so that wireless spectrum could be used more efficiently. The agency has already auctioned off large chunks of the spectrum to be used for wireless broadband services.

For the majority of TV viewers across the country who own new digital-ready TVs or subscribe to cable or satellite TV, the switch is a non-issue. But for the millions of households that get free TV and own older TVs, they will need a digital converter box to be able to view TV on their older TVs.

The government and broadcast industry have spent millions of dollars over the past several months to educate the public about the transition. And the FCC has been offering vouchers to subsidize the cost of the digital converter boxes. But many in Congress worry that all the public service announcements and vouchers haven't been effective. And when the transition comes, people won't be prepared.

The test in Wilmington, where officials had made a concerted effort to get the word out about the switch, is a good indication that more education is needed. According to the Journal, by mid-afternoon roughly 74 calls had been placed to two TV stations, WSFX-TV, a Fox affiliate, and WECT-TV, an NBC affiliate. The newspaper also reported the FCC received about a hundred calls on its toll-free help line in the first few hours after local broadcasters shut off their analog signals. Most of the calls were from people who needed help programming the new digital converter boxes, the newspaper said.

Even though the switch to digital in Wilmington, N.C., wasn't as smooth as some might have hoped, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said it served its purpose, which was to provide valuable lessons for what needs to be done to make sure the nationwide transition goes smoothly.

"The measure of success here in Wilmington is not what happens today or tomorrow here, but it's what we learn from it," he told the Journal in an interview. "If no one called today, that wouldn't necessarily mean it's a success."

Wilmington, N.C., next Monday will be the first city in the U.S. to make the switch to digital TV as Federal Communication Commission officials and local broadcasters conduct the first widespread test of the conversion to digital TV.

At noon, TV broadcasters throughout the Wilmington area will shut off their old analog TV signals and broadcast only in digital, providing the first real test of the mandated switch to digital TV. Congress has mandated that all TV broadcasters switch to digital broadcast in February. In an effort to help test the switch for the rest of the country, Wilmington is making the switch five months early.

Once the switch happens, old TV sets that rely on over-the-air analog TV signals will no longer work. These are TV sets that use antennas to receive free TV signals. The FCC has already begun issuing $40 coupons to help defray the cost of converter boxes that can be used so that old TVs receive digital signals. For the most part, people who already subscribe to cable or satellite won't need converter boxes no matter how old their TVs are.

The transition is expected to affect more than 15 percent of U.S. households, which rely on free TV broadcasts. Wilmington is actually in better shape than most communities with only 7 percent of its households, or roughly 12,600 homes, being affected by the switch, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The biggest concern among Wilmington residents is that their portable battery-powered TVs, which are often used during hurricanes, won't work. Battery-powered converter boxes are now available for these TVs, which should ease some of these concerns.

Wilmington's early conversion to digital TV is supposed to help FCC officials assess whether or not educational efforts about the switch have been affective or if more is needed to get the public ready before the nationwide switch in February. Officials in Wilmington are confident that the public is prepared for the switch to digital TV.

Information about the conversion to digital TV has widely circulated throughout the community for months. And nationwide polls are also showing that the message is getting through to a majority of Americans, who according to the Wall Street Journal say they are aware that the country is switching to digital TV next year, even if they don't know exactly what that means.

The real challenge for FCC officials is educating people about whether they need the converter boxes and how to use them. Local broadcasters in Wilmington have run advertisements and news segments showing people how to hook up converter boxes.

Next Monday's test should provide some insight into whether these messages have been affective. But experts warn that the test in Wilmington may not be indicative of what to expect in the rest of the country come February, since Wilmington has been given far more attention for the upcoming switch.

Comcast reportedly plans to reduce Internet service to customers it deems to be using too much bandwidth, a move that comes on the heels of federal regulators ruling that the Internet service provider violated the law by throttling BitTorrent transfers.

To keep service flowing to other customers, Comcast plans to impede Internet speeds to its heaviest users for up to 20 minutes, Mitch Bowling, Comcast's senior vice president and general manager of online services, told Bloomberg in an interview Tuesday.

Instead of focusing on specific applications that may be hogging traffic, Comcast plans to determine "in nearly real time" whether a heavy user is causing congestion, Bowling said.

"If in fact a person is generating enough packets that they're the ones creating that situation, we will manage that consumer for the overall good of all of our consumers,'' Bowling said.

The move follows the Federal Communications Commission's ruling on August 1 that Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent traffic last year was unlawful--the first time any U.S. broadband provider has ever been found to violate Net neutrality rules. (The FCC released the text of that ruling Wednesday.) The FCC issued a cease-and-desist order and required the company to disclose to subscribers in the future how it plans to manage traffic.

Comcast, the largest cable provider in the U.S., has been under fire for months after it was discovered the company had been slowing down peer-to-peer traffic on its network. Comcast had said that its measures to slow BitTorrent transfers, which it voluntarily ended in March, were necessary to prevent its network from being overrun. At a public hearing in February, Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said, "Comcast may on a limited basis temporarily delay certain P2P traffic when that traffic has or is projected to have an adverse effect on other customers' use of the service."

Consumer groups were incensed by the tactic, and the FCC investigation ensued over whether Comcast had violated any of its Net neutrality principles.

Internet papa Vint Cerf said broadband speed limits rather than broadband data caps would be more useful in managing congested networks.

Vint Cerf, Google chief Internet evangelist

(Credit: Google)

Cerf, who is Google's chief Internet evangelist, on Monday wrote a post on the company's public policy blog blasting the idea of applying data caps and metered rate plans. Instead he proposed a plan that limits network speeds.

His comments come just days after the Federal Communications Commission's symbolic ruling against Comcast for violating the agency's Net neutrality principles. The FCC came down hard on the cable operator for blocking access to peer-to-peer file-sharing protocols such as BitTorrent.

Comcast has argued that it was only targeting protocols such as BitTorrent in order to manage its network, which has been flooded with P2P traffic. This is a common complaint among Internet service providers, particularly cable operators, whose networks were originally built for one-way communication and also share capacity at the neighborhood level.

In response to the controversy, some ISPs are looking into consumption-based billing or putting volume caps on the amount of data that subscribers can use. Time Warner Cable started testing such a metered bandwidth service in Texas. The way it works is that customers pay for a certain amount of data capacity per month that can be either uploaded or downloaded using their broadband connection. And if they go over the cap in a given month, subscribers are charged $1 per megabyte.

Cerf, who helped create the TCP/IP protocol used as the foundation of the Internet, says that he doesn't think applying a "volume cap" is very "useful." He also said that metered pricing instead of the flat fee plans "could end up creating the wrong incentives for consumers to scale back their use of Internet applications over broadband networks."

That said, Cerf acknowledges that ISPs, such as Comcast, need to be able to manage their networks. But instead of using volume caps, he thinks ISPs should introduce transmission caps. These would allow users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum data rate, which would be guaranteed even during times of congestion. Subscribers could download or upload data of any size, anytime they want, at the guaranteed rate. When the network isn't congested, like in the middle of the night, users could get faster speeds. But during times of congestion, the broadband pipe would be limited to the minimum guaranteed rate.

This might mean that at peak times, it could take much longer to upload or download content. If subscribers get frustrated with the slower speeds, they could upgrade to a higher tier of service with a faster minimum speed. Or ISPs could offer a service that allows users to pay for short bursts of speedier connections.

The technology to create such a service has existed for some time. And network operators have been offering corporate customers data connections with minimum data rates spelled out for years.

The problem is that carriers don't want to sell consumer broadband services this way for a couple of reasons. For one, broadband providers prefer to advertise peak speed connections rather than minimums. A service that offers up to 10Mbps sounds a lot sexier than one that guarantees a 1Mbps download.

But network operators typically oversubscribe their networks to squeeze more profit out of their customers. The idea is that all subscribers don't use the network at the same time, typically leaving enough capacity so that when they do use the network, most users can get close to the maximum capacity offered. Selling services with minimum bandwidth guarantees means that operators wouldn't be able to oversubscribe the network as much, because during times of heavy congestion they might not be able to deliver the minimum data rates. It would also force these providers to enter into strict service level agreements with individual customers, which could potentially cost them a lot of money if they can't deliver the minimum guaranteed speeds.

It's difficult to say whether broadband providers will heed Cerf's recommendations, especially since the cable operators, due to how their networks are designed, are the ones in greater need of help. The phone companies, which have always had networks built for two-way communication, have also been aggressively upgrading their networks with fiber, which offers greater capacity.

Verizon Communications has been building a fiber-to-the-home network, which will allow the company to continually upgrade capacity by simply changing some of the hardware on the network. And AT&T has been upgrading its network, pushing fiber deeper into neighborhoods to provide more capacity over shorter loops of its last mile copper networks.

That said, Cerf writes in his blog that he's encouraged by the talks he has had thus far with Comcast.

"I've been pleased so far with the tone and substance of these conversations, which have helped me to better understand the underlying motivation and rationale for the network management decisions facing Comcast, and the unique characteristics of cable broadband architecture," he said. "And as we said a few weeks ago, their commitment to a protocol-agnostic approach to network management is a step in the right direction."

The Federal Communications Commission came down hard on cable operator Comcast when it said its network management practices were illegal. But what will the FCC's move mean for the rest of the industry and the ongoing debate over Net neutrality?

It's still too early to say exactly what the long-term affect will be. Policy wonks from the phone companies say the decision puts to rest any notion that Net neutrality legislation is needed, but Net neutrality proponents believe that a legal challenge from Comcast will necessitate the need for laws that make it clear the federal government has a role in keeping the Net open.

As for the industry, few operators will have to change their practices to comply with the FCC's clarified framework of its Net neutrality principles. But in the long run, the ruling could give some ISPs the excuse they've been seeking to impose metered billing as a way to control network usage and help fund network upgrades.

One thing is clear, debates around how Internet service providers should be managing their networks and what role the government should take in enforcing the criteria are only just beginning.

Net neutrality legislation: Still a toss up

The nation's two largest phone companies, AT&T and Verizon Communications, used the FCC's ruling to reinforce their stance that Net neutrality laws are unnecessary.

"Regardless of how one views the merits of the complaint against Comcast, the FCC today has shown that its national Internet policies work, and that they are more than sufficient for handling any Net neutrality concerns that may arise," said Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs for AT&T. "We have argued repeatedly that there is no need for federal legislation in this area, and today's FCC action proves that point."

Verizon's top policy wonk, Tom Tauke, echoed his AT&T counterpart's sentiment.

"Without making a judgment on the substance of today's ruling, it is clear that the Federal Communication Commission is prepared to uphold its broadband principles," he said in a statement. "With both the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) engaged in oversight of Internet usage and practices, new legislation and more regulation, with all their unintended consequences, are not needed."

It's hardly surprising that the two big phone companies would make this argument. They have been at the forefront of opposing federal laws limiting what service providers can do on their networks.

Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and a supporter of Net neutrality, agreed that the FCC's decision has taken some of the wind out of the sails of proponents of Net neutrality legislation.

"The once felt urgency for congressional action obviously subsided once (FCC Chairman) Kevin Martin emerged as a consumer's rights advocate." Wu said in an e-mail.

But the fight for legislation protecting the openness of the Net may not be dead. If Comcast challenges the FCC's decision in court, as many expect it will, that will likely call into question whether the FCC even has the authority to issue such an order or even require the company to comply with the order. And it's very likely that supporters of Net neutrality legislation will take this opportunity to ask Congress to clarify that the federal government does have authority.

Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, has introduced legislation with Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) to establish a policy framework for keeping the Net open. On Friday, he applauded the FCC's reprimand of Comcast and acknowledged that the cable operator has already begun to work with the industry to correct its practices. But he emphasized that a federal law is still needed to ensure that entrepreneurs and consumers can be assured that they will get open access to the Internet.

"I intend to continue monitoring practices in the industry and pressing for passage of my legislative framework for addressing these issues in the months ahead," he said in a statement.

What it means for the industry

While there's some evidence suggesting other ISPs have been using tactics similar to the ones used by Comcast to manage their networks, no one has filed an official complaint with the FCC. Still, Time Warner Cable says it is reviewing the FCC ruling to make sure it doesn't have to alter its network management practices.

But most ISPs will be fine, according to Jay Monahan, general counsel for the peer-to-peer video provider Vuze. He said that most network management practices used by ISPs today do not violate the FCC's framework that was explained by Chairman Kevin Martin during the FCC's open meeting on Friday. Specifically, Martin emphasized that network management must be reasonable and not arbitrary.

"The vast majority of network management practices that are being used today will be permissible under the FCC's framework," Monahan said. "The ones that are problems are ones that are too expansive. They target specific protocols and applications even when there's no network congestion. But techniques used to identify heavy users and reduce their traffic during peak loads, is in principle permissible."

That said, the FCC's ruling could put a kibosh on ISPs plans to implement some kinds of technology, such as deep packet inspection, which looks into IP packets and identifies particular applications and protocols.

Still, some experts fear that ISPs could use the FCC ruling as an excuse to justify imposing metered billing, which could cost consumer more money in the long run.

Time Warner Cable is already testing bandwidth metering with new customers in Beaumont, Texas. In this model, consumers can subscribe to one of three tiers of service. For $29.95 a month, they get 5 gigabytes of downloads and uploads on a service that offers 768 Mbps downloads and 128 Mbps uploads. For $44.95 they can get 20 gigabytes of downloads and uploads on a service that offers speeds of 7 Mbps downstream and 512 Mbps upstream. And for $54.95, users can get 40 gigabytes of downloads and uploads per month at speeds of 10 Mbps/1Mbps. If customers go over their allotted monthly downloads and uploads, they are charged $1 per gigabyte.

So far, Time Warner has only tested the metering application and hasn't yet begun charging customers for their excess usage.

Dudley, Time Warner's spokesman, said the intent of the metered model is not to limit bandwidth usage on the network. Instead, Time Warner hopes that the model will allow heavy-network users to help fund the company's network upgrades.

To date, no other major ISPs in the U.S. have said they plan to test metered services. But some big ones, such as AT&T may be considering it.

"We're always evaluating our broadband plans and services, but have nothing new to announce today regarding our pricing structure," said Michael Balmorris, a spokesman for AT&T. "With that said, given the usage trends we're seeing, usage-based pricing is one way to deal fairly with Internet usage, which is very uneven among broadband users."

Critics say that ISPs who imply they are being forced to offer metered billing to pay for network upgrades are being disingenuous.

"When people make the argument that ISPs will have to meter traffic, it's a false choice," Monahan said. "Going to a tiered model is an economic approach. Some operators are choosing to go in that direction, but there are plenty that can use reasonable network management methods to manage their networks."

Columbia's Wu said ISPs that turn to metering are merely trying to make more money. And he added that claims of congested networks are overplayed in an effort to scare lawmakers away from supporting legislation that carriers claim would limit their ability to manage their networks.

"In my mind the idea of a giant congestion 'crisis' strikes me as fear mongering," he said. "It is certainly true that there is great demand for bandwidth, and firms will have to build more capacity if they want to meet demand and/or begin pricing differently. But I'm not certain it reflects the reality that most Internet users are experiencing."