Will America's Favorite Technology Go Dark?

Ant wrote to mention that MSNBC is reporting on the upcoming proposed digital television switchover planned for the end of 2006. From the article: "That's the date Congress targeted, a decade ago, for the end of analog television broadcasting and a full cutover to a digital format. If enforced, that means that overnight, somewhere around 70 million television sets now connected to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will suddenly and forever go blank, unless their owners purchase a special converter box. Back when the legislation was written, New Year's Eve 2006 probably looked as safely distant as the dark side of the moon. But now that date is right around the corner and Congress and the FCC are struggling mightily to figure out what to do."

Simlar situation here

[azatht]

Here in sweeden is simlar situation, but we will proceed with the conversion. Some part of the country is now switching, and I will get switched in late 2006.

Off course "officially" I have no TV...

Damn the media

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, the original legislation did state that 85% of the TV viewership must be on digital TV before they will simply turn it off: "Under federal law, analog service will continue until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming." (from http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#needanewtv [dtv.gov]) MSNBC is just making news of a moot point. Granted, they mentioned this in the text, too: "That's where the Congressional loophole comes in. Congress can ignore the end-of-2006 cut-off if fewer than 85 percent of households have digital television sets." I really hate the media.

Not very expensive?

[phalse phace]

Maybe not for you, but you're forgetting that many household have more than 2 televisions (we have 6). At $70 each, that's $420.

Even if prices were to drop to, say, $50 each, that's still $300.

I say wait until these devices are less expensive to manufacture first, like when they're closer to $20.

In UK we manage thanks to 'FreeView' box...

[Wonderkid]

Here in (currently) rainy England, one can buy for not very much money a set top box that provides free access to the most popular channels, with more available on subscription or through regular satellite or cable providers. The price of the boxes has fallen to below £50 and the convenience they bring - such as electronic program guides and reminders, plus the significant improvement in picture and audio quality, makes them worthwhile. Therefore, most people buy them and buy them for their relatives too who may not be able to afford or understand what they have to do. (I'm buying one for my Mum.) This is probably going to happen in the USA, and just as people worried some would be left behind in the digital revolution - yet were not, same with the great digital switchover. Market forces and kindness will save the day.

Re:Greatest... Prank... Evar...

[CAIMLAS]

Your sentiments are said in other posts here on slashdot, albiet in somewhat less a humorous manner. However...

What, exactly, makes you think that only "rednecks" and fat people on welfare have antiquated TVs?

I'm most certainly not a redneck; I'm probably more hippy than redneck. My wife and I own one TV. It's circa 1995 or so, and still works fine. We don't actually watch TV, but use it mostly for movies. Sometimes I'll sit down and watch an episode of Law and order on monday night or something, but that's about it. I am most certianly not going to shell out $100+ for a new TV when my old one works fine.

Honestly, I doubt this legislation will impact many. Most people don't watch broadcast TV (they watch cable), so cable companies can decide if htey'll continue to send out 'antiquated' signals. For the most part, cable companies have already switched to digital, and have provided people with the appropriate digital cable box. Not an issue: the only people that will be impacted will be those that don't care enough about TV to pay for cable. They'll either get cable, or not watch TV.

National TV-Turnoff Week

[DrJimbo]

What a great story to start off National [turnoffyourtv.com] TV-Turnoff [turnoffyourtv.com] Week [tvturnoff.org].

Re:A suggestion maybe

[luvirini]

indeed. I have not looked into the american system, but the DVD-T system used in europe gets 4 channels in the place of one old channel. In addition because of the ways the analog signal had to have large areas around the primary transmission area not using the sam frequency there is an actual additional factor of more than 5.. probabbly order of magnitude 10+ increase in the efficiency of use. Thus you get probably 20-40+ channels for the same spectrum used for the purpose.

A lot of people do not have their facts straight..

[nsafreak]

This is NOT a conversion from analogue TV to HDTV. It is a conversion from analogue TV to digital TV and there is a BIG difference. Does sending a digital signal allow the broadcasting station to send a HDTV broadcast? Yes. Do they HAVE to transmit a HDTV broadcast? NO. The fact is a lot of consumers, how many I do not know, already have the capability to receive a digital transmission. This is done through a variety of methods such as subscribing to a cable or satellite service. Folks with either of those services will likely not notice a change.

Now the folks with an old analogue only TV set that are receiving their signal from rabbit ears are going to notice a change once the analogue signals are shut off. Some may subscribe to satellite or cable I suppose but there will likely be a fair amount that do not wish to and will complain LOUDLY. It will only get louder if the ATSC tuner boxes necessary to get their sets working with the new signal are too expensive. The other option of course will be to buy a set with an ATSC tuner built in but a lot of folks won't like doing that either.

Right now I would say it's quite probable that the switchover will be delayed.

Re:It's about plugging the analog hole

[MojoStan]

Your insightful dystopian [google.com] rant about strong DRM restrictions reminded me of another important deadline related to digital television:

After July 2005, it will be illegal to manufacture or import over-the-air DTV tuners that can ignore the "broadcast flag."

So we have about 2 months to buy an OTA HDTV tuner card for our HTPCs. Here's a link to the EFF's take on this subject: The Broadcast Flag and "Plug & Play": The FCC's Lockdown of Digital Television [eff.org].

Re:Subsidize?

[Detritus]

The data bandwidth is 19 Mbps per 6 MHz channel.

wasn't it to conserve radio frequency?

[krunk4ever]

Wasn't the reason to switch over to digital was to conserve radio frequencies? If you take a look at the current United States Frequency Allocations - The Radio Spectrum [doc.gov], you'll notice that there's several really big chunks taken up by tv broadcasting. and with the fact that cable companies are required to provide basic cable tv service for a minimal price (~$8/month), which isn't much imo, they can free up those blocks of frequencies for something more useful/important.

It's NOT about selling new TVs...

[Desprez]

I invite evertone to read this article [nationaljournal.com] I realise that your not going to, this is Slashdot after all, but it answers many questions.

To quote from BoingBoing:

This long, excellent article on the history of broadcast spectrum allocation in America is the single best explanation of the mess that we're in today. In short: greedy broadcasters tricked Congress into giving them free spectrum for a second set of digital channels, so that Americans who bought digital TVs would have something to watch. Then they did nothing with them. Meantime, cops and firefighters and EMTs are (literally) dying for some of that squat-upon spectrum so that they can coordinate their rescue efforts.

Among other things, it explains WHY a date was set for a crossover to HDTV. Sure TV works just fine now, so why switch you ask? Actually, it's NOT about trying to sell the public new TVs. It sounds simple, but that's a very narrow view that doesn't see the whole picture and all the politics behind what's going on. The linked article sheds quite a bit of light on that.

Re:Already happening over here...

[pklong]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the technology. It may just be your TV box. We originally had a Bush DFTA4 set top box, which was rubbish. The picture would freeze and loose sound periodically for no reason. Upgrading to a VTX-D800U solved all the problems and now the picture on all channels are perfect.

I guess you get what you pay for!

I've never actually SEEN impressive digital TV

[AbRASiON]

At least in Australia.......

The standard was screwed up (I can't recall the details, go for a google, but I'm pretty sure we're low on bandwidth)

Anyhow EVERY instance I've seen of digital (free to air) in Australia is _EXTREMELY_ over-compressed,..
Sure the resolution is "spiffy" but when you're seeing colour "block" screwups (sorry, don't know the term) or very "off white" whites due to compression it just annoys the heck out of you.

Now sure we should all start getting HDTV's (1920x1080i or 1280x720p) and even HD-DVD's but the actual HD-TV I've seen has honestly been really really bad ...

Re:A suggestion maybe

[therecycledelectron]

Your post indicates you think that Digital TV will save space?? HDTV uses 6Mhz(all of it) to transmit and analog actually only uses approximately 4.75Mhz (a savings in EM space actually). The FCC allocates 6Mhz per station whether its digital or analog so I doubt that it will really matter. The savings comes in with the switchover due to many station broadcasting in only one format instead of the two different formats (one in analog and on in HD) the FCC currently allows them to transmit in both. Food for thought.....

Re:Panic is Not Warranted

[thebdj]

They are pushing this because TV is one of the few things not keeping up with the digital trend. There are many advantages to things going digital. If there weren't we'd still all be using record players, VCRs and cell phones would still be a very niche market. TVs are due to catch up and in reality people would have been buying into this all the long has it been better advertised. I think this was grossly underpushed and is why things are in danger of getting delayed. I personally will have a HDTV soon so I could care less either way.

Re:A suggestion maybe

[lupin_sansei]

Horses were never banned from motorways. Motorways were new roads specifically created for cars in the 50s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorway [wikipedia.org]

Re:Subsidize?

[dangitman]

Strange, I can get a STB in australia for $70au, roughly $45USD.

I believe that America uses a different (apparently inferior) digital TV broadcast standard than the rest of the world. So the US gear might cost more. This might be because the US standards are more expensive to implement - or simply because of lack of volume. The US is dominated by cable TV, where free-to-air broadcasting is more popular elsewhere in the world.

The prices will probably come down in the US as it gets adopted - however, by that time, inflation, the value of the US dollar, increasing manufacturing costs, etc. - may mean that electronics don't get as cheap in the future as many expect.

Re:DVB-T - Re:A suggestion maybe

[schwartzbag]

In the Americas, the ATSC standard for terrestrial broadcasting that will be replacing NTSC. Instead of the channel allocation that DVB is using, ATSC retains the existing scheme and every local station gets another channel to broadcast on. The digital channels also have as much bandwidth as their analog counterparts, which allows for either high definition programming or simulcasting as many as six standard definition programs on one channel.

For example: WGBH is channel 2 in Boston but they run an ATSC digital simulcast on channel 19. With an ATSC tuner, you can tune in to the channel just by selecting 2 and the tuner reroutes it. When WGBH simulcasts, you can view programs on channels 2.1, 2.2, etc.

I think the problem is that high definition programming is being pushed but nobody is buying tuners. HDTV sets often don't include a built-in digital tuner, and most people who want DTV are getting QAM-standard converter boxes from their cable and satellite providers.

Since I'm studying in Munich right now, I look around at electronics stores and see plenty of DVB-PAL converters. People know that they will need them. Unfortunately, I think Americans without Cable TV are generally uninformed about the new equipment they will need. There are ATSC tuners that will work with NTSC TV sets but nobody is buying them and I haven't seen any retailing for less than $150.

Re:It's about plugging the analog hole

[walt-sjc]

The converter boxes will have to output an analogue signal which can be pirated in the usual ways.

"pirate" is the wrong term here. "recorded under our fair use rights" may be better.

There is not an affordable way to digitally capture an analog HDTV signal at the moment. The equipment to do it costs thousands of dollars. This is why everyone wants to do it BEFORE it get's converted to analog...

Re:A suggestion maybe

[FireFury03]

Does it ignore the broadcast flag (I am assuming we have such a thing on this side of the pond)?

I've never heard of us having a broadcast flag here in the UK - I don't think our government is stupid enough to implement it (however, President Blair has dropped his trousers and bent over for the US on every other issue so it wouldn't surprise me if he did again).

However, the problem I have is that I can't use a DVB-S card in my MythTV box because Sky refuse to release a CAM to decrypt their VideoGuard signals. :(
(IMHO the governement should force their hand on that since it prevents free trade in satellite decoders).

Re:It's about plugging the analog hole

[bLanark]

"pirate" is the wrong term here. "recorded under our fair use rights" may be better.

Clear your mind and prepare for this: The US has better rights than the UK when it comes to "fair use". In fact, we in the UK have no real concept of it.

For example, it is illegal to record music onto another medium - buy vinyl, you can't put it on cassette for the car. Buy CD, you can't rip them. Not legally, anyway.

In fact, the last time I looked at it, it was illegal to _lend_ someone music - if I want to let you listen to my CD, I have to bring it to your house and be there while it's played. You can't listen to it if I'm not there.

Time-shifting _is_ allowed, but you cannot keep the recording at watch it again and again.

So, from a UK point of view, almost everyone with an mp3 player (for example) is a "pirate", unless they have bought their music exclusively from online sources with a corresponding license. Grannies (or anyone else) who share recorded TV programmes are pirates too, as are people who lend CDs, cassettes, DVDs, VHS videos, and vinyl records to others.

So, from _my_ p.o.v., there is no "fair use" except time-shifing. Sorry for using the term "pirate", which doesn't really reflect the reality in the USA and probably several other places. I really don't know the europe-wide position on this, and I _suspect_ that Australia has laws at least as strict as ours.

Re:DVB-T - Re:A suggestion maybe

[speculatrix]

Useful site about ATSC, its pros and cons:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/atsc/i ndex.sh tml

Re:Digital Divide

[TheSync]

DVB-T for digital terrestrial television broadcasting is a totally different modulation standard than DVB-S, the satellite broadcasting standard.

DVB-T is based on COFDM modulation, which a lot of people think is inherently better than 8-VSB, the modulation scheme for ATSC. But in truth, the newest receivers for ATSC that can handle multiple reflected signals (ghosts) do just about as good a job.

DVB-S is based on single carrier phase-shift modulation, generally QPSK. The new DVB-S2 offers a high quality 8PSK modulation mode as well for higher bandwidth.

Re:A suggestion maybe

[Asgard]

The phones can in many cases be switched over, but that feature has been locked by the provider that sold you the phone.

Re:A suggestion maybe

[Wesley Felter]

You're ignoring the fact that few people watch over-the-air TV. If you have cable or satellite, you don't need to buy a converter box.

TV stations are already broadcasting analog and digital in parallel. Likewise, digital tuners are already mandated on TVs above a certain size.

Re:A suggestion maybe

[stuktongue]

... digital cable (which isn't reall digital for most channels) ...

I'd like to clarify this statement for those folks who might not understand what you're saying here.... Right now, channels under 100 are still analog signals, even under a digital cable contract, to ensure compatibility with other folks on the cable who are still analog subscribers. Channels 100 and over, typically the premium channels (HBO, Cinemax, etc.) and other subscription channels (e.g., OTN), are digital.

If you have analog cable, you will continue to get analog cable.

This is an interesting statement. I agree that analog over cable probably isn't affected by the over-the-air digital mandate, but I wonder how much longer cable companies will offer analog service. There will come a point when it will be advantageous for them to discontinue analog service to streamline their infrastructure. At that point, you pretty much will have to have a DTV-compatible setup of some sort.

Digital Television Conversion Act of 1997

[paradaxiom]

Here is the bill [gpo.gov] everyone is talking about.

Please note -

(1) TV broadcast industry got digital broadband for free.

(2) US Treasury wants to auction off analog bandwidth for $$$

(3) The bill was intended to speed up digital conversion by setting a deadline.

(4) Non-commercial stations (PBS) are not scheduled to return analog bandwidth until 1-1-2007.

(5) The bill only mentions problems with licensees to extend the deadline (it does not mention problems you the people might have with a conversion, even though you the people probably should have a say in this matter).