Jan 2009 Deadline for HDTV Cutoff

stlhawkeye writes "Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2009 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts. Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those without subscription television services will see blank screens unless they buy new units. "

In the year 2000... (and 9)

[HyperChicken]

2009 will be the perfect time to officially throw away your TV (Well, keep it for parts) and curl up with a good book.

Oh, but I know what you're thinking: "But HyperChicken, I need my PS3/Xbox360/Revolution". So hook them up to a monitor.

How does forced obsolescence promote public good?

[defile]

If there was no longer a need for something, it would become obsolete on its own. Demanding that something become obsolete is quite suspicious.

Re:Absolutely unncessary!

[Shkuey]

First of all this has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIGH DEFINITION.

It has everything to do with digital broadcasting taking up FAR LESS of the broadcast spectrum that they want to free up for other uses. If the government doesn't step in, that huge portion of the spectrum would be tied up in archaic uses forever!

Since they removed my editorial...

[stlhawkeye]

...this decision is being pushed by the government because they want control over the current analog frequencies, which they will then resell and lease to private industry to generate another revenue stream for the government. And who is payinf ro it? As usual, we are.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

[ZephyrXero]

Wasn't this originally supposed to happen this year? Or was it maybe earlier than that even? Personally I don't think anyone really needs to be forced to switch to digital...it's already happening and people will eventually realize the difference. You can already find most stations broadcast in and HDTV version. And the less people that are still using old NTSC TVs, the less likely it is for broadcasters to continue supporting it.

TV is not a necessity

[Anonymous Coward]

I was born in 1971 and didn't have a TV until my second year in college. (1990). This was a concious decision by my parents. I saw a little TV at my friends' houses. But as a family, we did just fine without one. The notion that tax payer dollars should pay for converter boxen is ridiculous. I would venture to say that if you're the type of person who needs taxpayer dollars to keep your old set running, you're probably the type of person who would be better off throwing your TV in the garbage and going outside for a walk.

Re:Not an HDTV cutoff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in LA, I get more SD than HD. Only the networks do the 'upsample SD to HD' nonsense. Everyone else shows SD as SD, and many stations only show SD. The Spanish and Asian language stations are strictly SD, which is no surprise given that their other markets don't support HD.

There is a decent amount of true HD, but not as much as SD. Even for SD, it's worth the switch from NTSC to ATSC. The improvement in the color resolution is visible, and the digital sound is very good. Many HD enthusiasts condemn using ATSC for multiple SD streams rather than HD, but I like having more program choices. There are plenty of shows that I'd like to watch that don't need HD.

This is a _GOOD_ thing

[papasui]

It frees up wasted analog RF spectrum space, this can be as much as 6x less when moving to digital format. The upside to this for end-users is that the picture and sound will be much more reliable in the sense that noise that can be seen in the channel currently should be eliminated. There still can be tiling due to transmission problems, but in general the quality is much improved. I'm sure some company will offer a digital tuner that makes the conversion from over the air digital to analog for older tv sets. If people continue to waste RF space by supporting old and unefficient systems it will really stiffle wireless innovation.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

[dgatwood]

My greatest fear is that I have trouble picking up all the major networks right smack in the middle of Silicon Valley with rabbit ears. There are networks where I can only pick them up as a sideband of another TV station because their main tower's ATSC feed doesn't have enough power to reach here. The NTSC feeds reach me for those stations just fine, albeit with some multipath distortion and/or other noise. Basically, ATSC requires an exceptionally clean signal (at least with my tuner hardware) to be able to resolve a signal.

Now I think about my parents in rural western TN. There are three stations (NBC, ABC, PBS) within an hour. The other network stations are between 2 and 3 hours drive away. They can pick up some of those stations in NTSC (albeit noisily) with rabbit ears, and halfway decently with an external antenna, After the NTSC cutoff, judging by what I've seen with my receiver out here (comparing to the analog signal strength), my guess is they -might- be able to pick up the stations an hour away with the external antenna. The signals from two hours away will be weak enough that you'll just see a black screen.

Basically, the ATSC switch had darn well better be accompanied by new FCC rules that regulate cable companies like telephone companies, requiring near-free basic universal service across the country. If not, there are a lot of people who won't be able to find out even basic weather forecasts because ATSC just plain sucks in anything remotely approaching fringe reception areas.

Re:Great...

[Zerbey]

Considering that a good portion of populace is still fighting against evolution, I think it might be pathological at this point.

Point well taken... I was behind a good 'ole boy in a trans am earlier today complete with bumper stickers about evolution being a load of crap and marriage is meant for men and women; speak English or get out of my country, etc. etc. Pride of place was his Bush-Cheney '05 sticker in the center of his rear window. These kind of backwards thinking people really, really irritate me but they're entitled to their opinions. Personally, I think he if continues to slam his brakes on 5ft before every stop light instead of coming to a gentle stop like he's supposed to he's likely to win a Darwin Award. Which, would be oddly ironic.

When I first moved here, I was surprised by the lack of wide-screen programming, which is almost universal in the UK now. I did research, and the reason is because most a) Most people own regular P/S TVs and b) US TV owners therefore resent wide-screen because they like shows to take up their entire screen. I guess Europeans prefer seeing things in the proper aspect ratio. There's now an ongoing battle between myself and other household members (I'm the only English person) who insist on stretching P/S shows across the whole screen because they find the black bars on either side "distracting". Case in point, I guess :)

Utter Garbage

[caldroun]

Why, please, tell me why the Government is making this big push to go to Digital. If there were a demand for it, it would happen with out laws. It is called a free market. People wanted Tivo, and poof, here it is, without the Government getting involved. And look how silly the Congress looks debating on subsidizing a $50 cable box. I am sure that Scientific Atlantic or whatever cable box manufacture would love for that to happen.

For Gods Sake! We are Talking about TV! I do not want my taxes to pay for someone else's cable box! Screw That! I think that they should subsidize me a new Plasma TV that I can't afford.

Besides don't they want kids getting out of in front of the TV?

We are Talking about FREAKIN' TV people! This really pisses me off. Anyone else?

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

[Xibby]

Digital is not HDTV, though HDTV is a digital signal. Digital Broadcasting uses the radio spectrum more efficiently, so by mandating that broadcasters change over to digital now freed spectrum can be auctioned off at insane costs for other forms of wireless communication.

This mandated switch is more motivated by money than it is superior technology. The US wants the billions in revenue that the auctions will bring in.

I've marked it on my calendar!

[hacker]

Now I know exactly when to throw out the old TV, cancel our cable television service and drop the NetFlix subscription... that should save us about $100/month in subscription fees alone. We could use the extra $1,200/year to put into our other projects.

January 2009, check. Thank you for the reminder.

My daughter will be 4, and that's just enough time for me to educate her about the corruption in mass media and broadcast television.

With the broadcast flag being fully entrenched by that time (whether passed via a rider on some unrelated bill or otherwise), and media being contorted to represent the "Truth" as given by the current administration in power (can you say "Al Jazeera"?), there really is no point to watching TV.

We can't control our media (even media we've bought in the store, er, I mean "rented"). We can't even skip past the commercials on DVDs now. How long before we can't skip past commercials on television too?

• Will the broadcast flag enforce that too? Maybe we can change channels, but it will force our sets into Picture-in-Picture mode, with the second channel playing in the little window in the corner, with volume dedicated to the commercial.
• Will mute even work for commercials?
• What about time-shifting television programs?
• Will the new sets allow programs not "authenticated" for playing at a different time work?
• Will all media just become "pay-per-view" like it is in the hotels?

The best HD reality shows lie right outside my front door.

Re:Absolutely unncessary!

[shotfeel]

Now how does that benifit me at all?

Emergency services (fire, police, ambulance) now have the bandwidth to handle more than one crisis at a time.

You really can get a strong cell phone signal anywhere you're standing.

Gigabit wireless networking.

More Home Shopping Network channels.

There are all kinds of good (and evil) possibilities.

Re:Arg..

[geekoid]

Because Cable promised they the consumer would pay and not get commercials in exchange for tax payer provided breaks to lay cable.

We paid to lay those wires.

Now we will have no option but to pay and get commercials. Assuming we want to watch TV

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

[Ingolfke]

a lot of people who won't be able to find out even basic weather forecasts because ATSC just plain sucks in anything remotely approaching fringe reception areas.

I can pick up the weather forecast in my car using FM or AM radio. There's also NOAA Weather Radio [weather.gov]. We don't need new FCC rules.

create more FM stations in 59-88MHz!!

[dj_virto]

Current FM in the US is 88-108 MHz... a mere 10 MHz.. Imagine how many stations we could have, including non profit public interest stations, unlicensed local low power stations, etc with another 29 MHz!?!?!

In medium sized to major cities the FM territory has been maxed out forever. There is clearly purpose, demand, and need to having more stations. The technological cost of extending FM receivers and setting up transmitters is relatively minimal.

Of course we'd have to fight broadcasters for the same reason we've fought them, and lost, on digital radio- more stations make their "property", the existing licensed stations less valuable.

Yes, I use and love internet radio, but FM radio is what the vast majority of people have easy access to. It's what you hear when you eat out and when people drive by with their radios cranked up. At least with massively more stations it wouldn't be the same old 'format'ed sh*t.

And the benefits to letting schools, community groups of every stripe, and pretty much anybody operate low power FM stations with a range of 1-5 miles would be enormous just in terms of the cultural development it would bring. Information wants to be free, but your average 'born in the ghetto' gangster, just to choose an example, doesn't know it because he grows up listening to Ninety-Whatever The Box where he's just a groomed product for the advertisers looking for the 16-29 urban male.

Come on.. auctioning everything off to the highest bidder just ensures that the highest bidder runs society.. and occasionally that turns out to be good, often is ok, but also frequently sucks bigtime.

-dj_virto

Re:Multiple streams on one channel

[LocalH]

I understand that. I'm not talking about the number of stations you can broadcast I'm talking about the way the spectrum is divvied up amongst the various stations in a market. As it stands, many stations have both a 6MHz NTSC allotment (or two in the case of a duopoly), and a 6MHz ATSC allotment (which can be split up as the station wishes). This story is all about the reclaiming of the former. I see no difference in terms of 'saving spectrum bandwidth' between giving a station a 6MHz NTSC allotment and giving that station a 6MHz ATSC allotment instead. Either way, the station got a full 6MHz.

Now, as I said earlier, if the FCC was giving SD-only ATSC allotments to smaller stations, rather than the whole 6MHz, then they could possibly save bandwidth. As it stands, the FCC is taking away stations' 6MHz NTSC allotments and giving them back a 6MHz ATSC allotment. Only in a duopoly situation is any spectrum actually freed up (since they would have 12MHz of NTSC bandwidth but only 6MHz of ATSC).

I think the fundamental differece in our arguments is what we're actually referring to. You're speaking of the program content held within those 6MHz ATSC allotments - I'm only referring to the fact that an ATSC allotment is 6MHz, just like an NTSC allotment, and the fact that the exact same amount of bandwidth will be used in all but duopoly situations, where the bandwidth allotment is half that of NTSC.

FCC Regs on "Local" Areas

[coastal984]

OK, here's my gripe on this. We live in eastern Virginia, well north of Norfolk and east of Richmond, and south of DC. We have satelite TV, and thus would be unaffected by this, right? Wrong. The FCC classifies us as being local to the Richmond market area. Our small, rural county of just over 9,000 is situated right on the Chesapeake Bay, and is very dependant on marine forcasts that are provided by the Norfolk television stations. Because the FCC classifies us as Richmond area, however, we are not allowed to get the Norfolk local stations on Satelite. Point in case of how we are screwed over by this, as we'll have to get either a new TV or a new box of some sort to *attempt* to pick up the digital signal for Norfolk. However, as previously mentioned, this signal is going to be more difficult to pick up because it needs to be clearer for it to work right (we are on the fringe of what you would call the Norfolk transmission area). So, add onto the laundry list of things the FCC needs to change, is the availability of multiple markets "local" stations to users, no matter where they are, so we will be able to get the Norfolk local stations through the Satelite.