Slashdot Log In
FCC Says Analog TV Lives Until 2012
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:48 PM
from the and-flip-books-for-another-5-years dept.
from the and-flip-books-for-another-5-years dept.
walterbays writes ""The FCC voted 5-0 to require that cable operators must continue to make all local broadcasts available to their users, even those with analog televisions." I don't understand how AT&T manages to deliver U-verse without any analog channels. Did they get it classified as not-cable and exempt from existing rules? Or as a result of this vote, will they suddenly have to drop 50 SD channels to make room for 5 NTSC channels?"
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Many Analog TV Watchers Aren't Aware of Upcoming Switchover 440 comments
A recent poll of TV watchers shows that many Americans aren't aware the end times are coming for analog broadcast signals. "The survey found that the group most affected by the analog cutoff -- those with no cable or satellite service -- are most in the dark about what will happen to their sets: Only one-third of them had heard that their TVs are set to stop receiving programs. Of course, there are solutions. Congress is subsidizing the purchase of digital television receivers. And the cable TV industry is hoping that this will spur the last holdouts to buy pay TV."
[+]
Entertainment: Official DTV Converter Box Coupons for Americans 375 comments
Ant writes "The official Digital Television/DTV Converter Box Coupon Program is now online. Congress created it for households wishing to keep using their analog TV sets and use over-the-air antennae to get TV feeds. After February 17, 2009. The Program allows American households to obtain up to two coupons, each worth $40, that can be applied toward the cost of eligible converter boxes. A TV connected to cable, satellite, or other pay TV service does not require a TV converter box from this program."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to really get up to date is to have the balls to dump the past.
Parent
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to really get up to date is to have the balls to dump the past.
It's not a matter of the technology not being available like cell phones. The problem is that for many people, the old stuff (analog TV) is good enough so they don't see any reason to move to digital TV.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:4, Insightful)
My cell phone makes and recieves calls, and if I wished to pay to activate the service will send and recieve text messages. How much more do you need? The US stays in the 'dark ages' because the market doesn't demand much more than basic functionality - anything more is mostly sizzle, not steak.
Parenthetically speaking, I find it fascinating how often the Slashdot Hivemind bemoans and curses the US consumer for tossing away perfectly good items and using disposables when reuseables are available - but claims the reverse when it keeps the Hivemind from getting a shiny new toy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Insightful)
Some dinky towns have better coverage than most cities. and the call quality is worse than my old 80's speak and spell.
Parent
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Informative)
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
The "US is behind in mobile phones" argument is bullshit. You might argue that the contract model we use is broken, and it probably is (although it does result in surprisingly good deals for many subscribers). But we have the same technologies as the rest of the world (GSM/UMTS/HSDPA), in addition to CDMA2000 (which is also used by South Korea, Canada, and some other countries) and iDEN. We have two healthy national GSM carriers (and soon two national GSM/UMTS carriers). I can buy any of the fancy GSM/UMTS phones out there and use it on a US network (assuming that it's unlocked and has the right bands).
Maybe you think we should have enforced a GSM monoculture like the EU. But that's not the way we do things in the US, and our way seems to be working out fine.
Parent
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Insightful)
Now there's a good argument. 85 million is more than any country in Western Europe,
because there are no countries in Western Europe with that many people. You probably
think the US has the biggest broadband uptake in the world as well? Percentages, anyone?
Parent
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:It's just television (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure the GP means UMTS and HSDPA, not GSM which predates CDMA.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OIC
Re:It's just television (Score:5, Informative)
GSM EFR (or the equivalent AMR-FR) sounds better than CDMA. Unfortunately, AT&T is running half-rate AMR (AMR-HR) on most of its network to increase capacity. AMR-HR is passable, but it's definitely not as good as EFR or AMR-FR.
FYI, the CDMA vocoder has a lot of noise cancellation, which is one reason it works with lower data rates.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If we (society as a whole) can actually see some benifit from going digital and selling off the old spectrum, we should do it as soon as
Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
1.) Broadcasters have done a rotten job of educating the public on any benefits of going digital. Not a word has been broadcast outside of the geek forums like here on just why one would want to go digital. Nobody has explained either just how they are going to get that digital signal to distant recievers that currently get really fuzzy reception on analog. Is it going to require a cable run? Is it going to be broadcast? Just exactly how are they going to transmit the signal has been left out of any information you get on it today.
2.) Many see the switch to digital as the death of free (as in beer) TV they have grown up with. They think that the digital signal they get will be charged for much like cable / satelite is and nobody has refuted this in public. Also, given the lie that was perpetrated by the cable companies when they were first getting established of lower prices as things move forward, it is little wonder the average Joe is gun shy.
3.) Other than huge corporate profits for the winner of the spectrum bid, the average Joe has no idea why this switch is need now. For example, they don't realize that some of that spectrum is needed by emergency responders because it can be received inside of buildings (something the 9/11 commission found they can't do now). So the average Joe again only sees the obscene profit the Government is going to make on the sale of the spectrum and seeing little benefit to themselves by it.
4.) This is probably the biggest reason... It requires the purchase of new equipment just to recieve the crap that is regular broadcast TV. It is an expense that many see as unnecessary for the quality of programming local TV has to offer.
5.) The retail stores and TV manufacturers have done poorly in obsoleting the analog TVs they sell. In fact, they have become even more attractive because of their price reduction without any warning that they will be obsolete when the switch is made. So instead of less analog TVs being produced and sold there are more.
I'm sure there are even more obscure reasons people will give. They won't switch without being forced into it no matter how long a time frame they have. They just don't see any benefit to it.
Parent
But what comes out of the box? (Score:3, Insightful)
The most enlightened answer I got was that you will need a converter box, even for new tv's.
What I *really* want to know, and nobody seems able to answer, is *what comes out of that box?* Does it deliver an analog antenna signal, or one analog tv channel? This is important because in one case I can't use my own tuner, and that
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't you just plug multiple DVB-T tuners into the same antenna? Sure, if you're using DVB-S you need a multi-LNB and multiple cable runs, but for DVB-T it isn't a problem.
- I have to pay money for each film i want to see later ( as appsosed to just recording it for free )
Why can't you just record it like normal? Either plug your VCR into the analogue output of a DVB-T tuner, or get a PVR or DVD recorder (even buil
Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
No, in my experience you normally have a "cable-ready" analog TV and just plug the coax straight into the back of it, which is the way it's supposed to be. Then you just use the normal remote that came with the TV to tune to channels.
The last thing I want is a damn extra box with an extra remote with extra cords and extra complexity and extra frustration!
Hell, you know what? With all this fucked-up DRM and CableCard and incompatible whoozits and whatzits and bullshit, digital TV doesn't work the way it's supposed to (see above for my definition of "supposed to") anyway! Maybe once they drop the damn DRM entirely and just let the TV plug directly into the wall, then digital TV will be ready for prime-time. Until then, it's not!
Parent
Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate the cable industry. They can't just give us a cablecard that does everything their boxes do. The first revision (if you could find them) didn't allow for on-demand programming because it was a one-way street, no talky talky with the cable provider. In my area I get to choose from Time Warner or...Time Warner. Since they took over for Comcast, I don't think I've seen a single channel with accurate
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does this have to do with AT&T? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod me as you will, but you know you're thinking the same thing.
What happened to 2009? (Score:5, Interesting)
And what makes this more hysterical is that the early adopters got screwed, buying plasma TVs only to find out they didn't support HD. Then the next set of adopters bought HDTVs, only to find out they were not HDMI compatible, and therefore, couldn't run HD content.
So, this new push-back of the deadline gives the content makers and the hardware companies more time to develop a whole new DRM scheme to screw those of you who just bought HDMI compatible equipment.
The guarantee is that every 5 years, you need to spend 10 grand on another entertainment setup.
Isn't that fun?
Re:What happened to 2009? (Score:5, Interesting)
But now cable providers are required to provide SD, signals to analog sets till 2012? Isn't this now an unfair double-standard?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a double standard. It reflects market realities.
Re:What happened to 2009? (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, we have one computer that has a large monitor. Now, admittedly, our "large" monitor isn't anywhere near the size of a 2000 inch TV that takes up an entire wall of most people's living rooms. But we've gotten over that. We can still comfortably watch any movie we want in DVD format. With no commercials, on our schedule. I know some slashdotters will still get up in arms about the DRM on the DVD format and whatnot, but we're a regular, non ubergeek family. We don't care. Now the only money anyone gets from us in this fashion is the $17/month it costs for Blockbuster Online.
~Rebecca
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We gave up ours around 2001 I think. Best decision we ever made.
]{
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For those who wait and watch early adopters, reading about them bitching about it is entertaining.
There is also the matter of brochures selling anything above 480p as HDTV (how many people have bought 1368x768 displays thinking they were getting full HD capability?) and the later drum-up of Full-HD 1080p TVs.
Since nearly no digital TVs come with CableCard slot, even people with shiny new FullHD TVs
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh ... 1368x768 is enough to do 720p (1280x720). The "Full-HD 1080p" crap is just that -- crap. HD is defined as 720p, 1080i, and 1080p (and 1080p isn't actually in the HD standard anyway). If you can do 720p or better, you have an "HD" display.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Point being, there certainly is a tangible difference. It's a shame the salesman didn't
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Define Available (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Define Available (Score:4, Informative)
According to the article, yes. And based on the new box my dad recently got, that's exactly what Comcast is doing.
You can also read the same answer off the FCC's website [fcc.gov] in this PDF of their press release [fcc.gov].
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Is offering a proprietary converter box (digital to analog), for a nice monthly fee, going to qualify as available? That could mean that citizens wouldn't be allowed to purchase any third party devices, essentially enlarging cable operator monopolies.
Exactly. This isn't the FCC getting tough on the cable companies to give consumers something they want, this is the FCC being manipulated to give the cable companies a good excuse to get everyone using digital cable boxes.
The FCC could have required the cable companies to output a digital signal compatible with the new subsidized converter boxes for over the air broadcasts. And thus make sure that basic cable was broadcast in the same digital format without DRM that would come over the air. Instead, the
This Article Confuses The Hell Out of Me (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like they'll pick option #2 here, and then either charge legacy users a fee to get a box, or just jack up everyones' rate by $5. Everyone is going to end up with a box either way, it's the only way to watch cable given that CableCARD so far is a bust and the cable companies seem anxious to start doing SDV rollouts.
And then there's the fact that the cable industry's main association is happy about this. What's up with that!?Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't a lot of cable subscribers already have a box that lets their analog TV set gets digital cable signals? I know I do, and I only got it because it was part of a package deal that was actually cheaper than not getting it (considering that I also have internet service through the cable company).
Not like it really matters . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, by 2012, who the heck is going to even want to **own** a television anyway? On the bright side, I wonder what bittorrent will look like by then?
Re:Not like it really matters . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
You realize the industry is in a transition. There will be chaos and panic and random merges or non-scifi shows on Sci-Fi for some time to come. Newspapers are migrating online, CNN released their video service for free. Classic TV scrambling to hold "eyeballs" lost to torrents and online shows.
It's nothing to wonder about.
In 10 or so years, new leaders will emerge, producing content in a very different way, and they will likely be nothing like the current ones.
If TV isn't worth watching right now, don't watch it. You'll find there are plenty of better ways to get entertainment in or out of your home.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop watching crap
U-verse can & does support NTSC (Score:3, Informative)
Typical U-verse (as delivered to my house in Oakland, CA) uses a Motorola VIP1200 IPTV set-top box (see http://www.motorola.com/content.jsp?globalObjectId=7460-10536-10543 [motorola.com]), which among things has an NTSC composite video output connector (see http://www.motorola.com/mot/image/16/16315_MotImage.jpg [motorola.com]). It will even send a signal via an RF coax connection fercrissake!
No big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
First, there is a rule requiring cable companies to do what they already do, for the most part -- have analog outs on their digital set top boxes. I don't think they'll care so much about that.
Second, there is a rule that they must continue to carry local channels, even after the digital switchover, some of which they'd love to replace with more lucrative pay cable channels.
What I can't tell from the summary or the article is if both of these requirements are in effect until 2012 or just one.
Great... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe in the 22nd century (Score:5, Insightful)
The digital TV switch is already happening (Score:3, Interesting)
Digital TVs are crappy, inflexible computers. The convergence is happening, but it won't be the TV that reigns: it will be the computer in what Steve Job's refers to as the 'digital hub'. Duh. Been saying this myself since '92. Amazingly, he seems to be the only exec who understands the forces behind the convergence.
The computer will be the television. I already have a 30" LCD monitor on my desktop. My computer can play a huge variety of formats in many resolutions. My computer is already attached to a cable company data network. When/if cable companies wise up and start the leverage their data services, offering on-demand video via software clients over their data networks, the convergence will really pick up.
But the cable companies are just as stuck in their thinking as the consumer electronics firms: it could be that iTunes or like technology ursurps their current potential advantage for content delivery AND presentation, not through anything other than corporate vision which doggedly persues ease-of-use.
the switch (Score:3)
This reason is precisely why the FCC should be pushing harder towards a fixed analog cutoff deadline. Todays analog TV had a good run. Cable companies could provide (as they do now) converters and HDTV antennas for the 'wireless guys' can convert to old fashion RF/composite/s-video if needed. We need to make the break though. Sooner, not later. I want my UHDTV before 2200.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were a television manufacturer, I would have already colluded with other television manufacturers to produce units that would spontaneously fail after 2 and a half years.
Gold Star (now LG - "Lucky Gold Star", not "Life's Good" as they claim) used to be infamous among electronics service techs for powering everything from the CRT filament to the audio stages from the flyback transformer. Crank up the volume too loud and for too long, fry the audio amplifier, which overloads the flyback, which takes o