FCC Mandates Digital Tuners 494
Gekko writes "The FCC has caved to pressures and has rolled back their mandate to requiring HDTV to 2007." A follow-up to this article: looks like the answer is "yes", although an extra year's delay has been added. Cherish your analog televisions, they will be collector's items. Update: 08/08 20:38 GMT by M : Declan McCullagh notes that there was also a vote on the broadcast flag concept to prevent copying of digital television - a set of draft regulations will be released next week.
One point (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One point (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on your definition of "able to receive".
If there's a broadcaster with digital transmission in the right range, you may be classified as "able to receive". What? You don't have a digital capable TV? Not their problem.
The reality is that people are still buying televisions, and at a good clip. TVs wear out sooner or later, and even a minor repair often costs more than a new set.
And before people whine and cry that this is just a big ploy to make everyone buy new TVs, remember that it was the manufacturer's association that was trying to block this. Yup. That's right. The people who you'd have to buy a new TV from were trying to prevent you from having to buy a new TV. I don't get it either.
Oh, and their estimate of $250 additional cost is a load of crap. Yes, it would cost that much (or more) today, because of supply and demand. This very same organization complained that IEEE-1394 should not be made the digital connection standard for TVs because it would raise the cost of TVs $100 per connector. Yes. IEEE-1394, aka Firewire. You know, that connector you have 2 of on your new $80 motherboard? In addition to about 20 other connectors?
Re:One point (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that's what the manufacturer's association is wary of...
Re:One point (Score:2)
Re:One point (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the FCC knows that any TV can view DTV signals with a converter -- they even put it in their FAQ [fcc.gov] but no one is going to buy a $200 piece of equipment to see what they are already watching down converted from DTV to analog. This also ignores whatever equipment people would need to actually recieve the DTV signal in the first place.
So, the FCC knows people aren't going to invest in the equipment until the analog signal goes away. And the analog signal won't go away until people have the equipment. The FCC has no choice but what they are doing. The only other alternatives would be to force consumers to buy converters (or give them away). The FCC already forced broadcasters to send the DTV signal, and they won't send both signals forever.
It will still take a long while for the tuners to get up tp the 85% level (even though that represents households and not sets) and I predict that number will eventually be lowered. Doing it this way will take much longer than the FCC originaly hoped, since it will first start with large TV's and then gradually all TV's, but it will happen eventually. And once the analog signal is turned off the number will climb rapidly. You can say now that you just won't buy a new TV, but eventually you'll need a DTV tuner to see anything at all. Much like the V-chip, DTV is something you will eventually have whether you want it or not.
Great. Shit. (Score:2)
Re:Great. Shit. (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, that still isn't going to change the fact that broadcasters are rapidly becoming irrelevant, with most homes opting for cable or satellite signal delivery. Heck, a lot of folks are buying big HD-ready RPTVs just to have a higher quality (widescreen, progressive-scan) monitor for their DVD collection. With mandatory tuners adding to the price, this market might dry up quickly.
On the "glass is half full" side, maybe the tuners will get cheaper once they're in all the TVs.
Free Market? What Free Market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free Market? What Free Market? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Free Market? What Free Market? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Free Market? What Free Market? (Score:2)
There's no question that government has the power to do this (though whether it should is of course another matter). The Constitution gives the Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. If Congress says you can't sell an analog TV, you can't sell an analog TV. Congress explicitly passed a bill mandating a transition to digital TV, ordering the FCC to handle the details.
Re:Free Market? What Free Market? (Score:2)
Re:Free Market? What Free Market? (Score:2)
When that industry is using airwaves that it doesn't own and the government wants to use them for something else. If your soccer team has played on a certain field for a while but then the town says we want to turn it into a park in a couple years to use this other field do they have that right? It's the town's field and they can do what they like with it, you knew that when you started playing there.
However this situation is a little different now that I read the article
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're being naive. (Score:5, Insightful)
I sure as hell am not. This would lead to a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation, where everyone would stamp all over everyone else's transmissions, so that noone would get any use out of radio transmission. Kiss your cellphone goodbye. Kiss the radios in your police cars and ambulances and airplanes goodbye.
Secondly, regulation of transmission keeps devices from interfering with each other. It's quite possible to broadcast a signal that will prevent your cable TV from working properly, for instance. It's quite possible to broadcast a signal that will kill someone with a pacemaker. But the current regulations prevent this.
And if you deregulate everything, they'll somehow be less able to do that?
Anarchy on the airwaves would be about as bad as real anarchy in real life, i.e. get ready for someone to kick the shit out of you.
Jon Acheson
Re:Free Market? What Free Market? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a libertarian, I can name only a few areas where the gov't has a legitimate function. Regulating the common radio spectrum is one of them.
This isn't about regulating the radio spectrum, it's about regulating the sale of devices which happen to use the radio spectrum. Further, what right does the federal government have to regulate intrastate use of the radio spectrum? These televisions could still be used for reception of low-power stations which do not interfere with those in other states.
Not easy in this case... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a few of the players:
The FCC, which wants to reauction the existing licenses for lots of bucks
The military, the EU, the FCC, and others who desperately want to grab some of the VHF station bandwidth
The existing cell phone companies, who don't want any new bandwidth to become available
The remaining cell phone dreamers, who want more bandwidth so they can pay billions for it
The content providers, who want to use the move to digital to impose copy protection
The hardware mfgs, who are deeply conflicted: they would love to sell everyone a new TV (at least as of the 1990 census, 98% of US households had a TV while 94% had flush toilets), but who don't really want to get involved with copy protection and who are afraid everyone will just stop buying for a while
And finally, the consumer/voter, who watches 60 hours a week of TV and who may not care much about school taxes or world peace, but who WILL get off his butt and vote any congressman who interrupts his TV watching out of office so fast the Capitol will be smoking.A big, big fight with everyone being both a good guy and a bad guy. What fun!
sPh
Digital Tuners (Score:2, Interesting)
I have been putting off the purchase of a new TV exactly for this reason, I don't want to screw around with an external tuner. Put it in the TV.
Re:Digital Tuners (Score:2, Informative)
Total Television Households: 105,444,330
Basic Cable Households: 73,147,600
So no more than 30% or so of households with a TV don't have cable. Add in homes with satellite dishes and that percentage drops fewer. Source: National Cable & Telecommunications Association. [ncta.com]
Re:Digital Tuners (Score:2)
Re:Digital Tuners (Score:2)
Digital RECEIVERS, not digital TUNERS. (Score:2)
Darn it, they're talking about DIGITAL RECEIVERS.
A DIGITAL TUNER is a device that selects an analog signal using a digital specification of the desired frequency. Doesn't matter if the signal itself is analog, digital, or whatever. A TUNER doesn't even DEMODULATE it. It just shifts its frequency to that of the IF amplifier (perhaps also amplifying it a bit and starting the process of filtering out nearby signals by attenuating those that are more than a few megahertz away from the desired signal.)
A DIGITAL RECIEVER takes a DIGITAL SIGNAL and extracts the modulation.
If this is "News for Nerds" let's get the terminology right.
Re:Digital Tuners (Score:2)
It'll just be 6 years later than expected.
Re:Digital Tuners (Score:2)
Analog video blows. Analog broadcast takes 10X or more bandwidth than compressed digital at the same resolution. What this means is that the FCC can re-allocate old frequencies to other uses. They have already done so for the old UHF channels above 69 (I THINK it's 69..., check a modern TV to see how high it goes.) Digital broadcast will also allow you to get clearer pictures. Bye bye ghosting.
Yes, there is a problem with DTV, and it is price, availability, and broadcast copy protection flags. Mass production will cause the price to drop. FCC regulation will cause availability to increase. Unfortunately, the BPF's are a bad deal. Write your corrupt congress critter to complain.
cherish my what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:cherish my what? I'll keep my old TV (Score:2)
BTW, There's gonna be a LOT of howling by Joe SixPack on the radio talk shows when the day comes that there will be no more analog broadcasts.
Re:cherish my what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Kinda like CDs. Prerecorded CDs *still* cost more than tapes, and the prices of the CD player and a single CD are getting *very* close. (You can get a CD player for $20 on special).
Digital Tuners (Score:4, Funny)
I won't even start to talk about Boston Public Access.
Good, and bad (Score:2, Insightful)
I do wonder about the propriety of it, though. Is it really the function of government to force the adoption of certain technologies? Shouldn't market forces prevail?
I suppose there are plenty of precedents for government interference, so I shouldn't worry about this.
Somebody tell me to shut up.
They need the prodding (Score:2)
The FCC gave broadcasters huge swathes of new bandwidth for digital TV. While letting them hang onto their old bandwidth for old analog as well. The sooner they get users transitioned to digital, the sooner they can get back the old analog bandwidth and repurpose it for other uses.
One problem (Score:4, Interesting)
If I want to watch TV in the future I will need a digital telvision, since by 2007 that will be all that they are selling. Which I don't mind so much since picture quality will be higher and it will hopefully cost less than a digital tv does now.
My concern is whether or not old analog devices will plug into a new digital tv. Will the new tvs have RCA in/out, coax? Or only digital plugs. How am I supposed to plug my NES/Atari/VCR/ into this television since they only have analog out? The only things with digital out are DVD players with S-Video or component out (those are digital right?) and modern game consoles with the same.
Anybody know?
Re:One problem (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One problem (Score:5, Informative)
Only a few TVs have firewire and/or DVI support as they are both very new offerings. That and nobody has adopted a real "standard" yet so the mfrs are not committing. Right now it looks as if DVI may gain a foothold - which would be a very unfortunate thing. The implementation of DVI that content providers want to use relies on HDCP copy protection - yet another alarmist, chicken little concoction whipped up by the MPAA. If HDCP is adopted it means that nearly every digital television sold in the US (3 million) not to mention every other country would be useless for HDTV. The MPAA has stated that the only resolution they would support for non-DVI televisions would be a paltry 480p, which is basically a non-interlaced version of what you already see on your TV. While it's an improvement, it sucks compared to true HD (720p, 1080i or the new 1080p).
One of the biggest HDTV/DTV advocates out there right now is Mark Cuban. Apparently he is largely invested in HDTV broadcasting and has told both the MPAA and Congress that he would broadcast "de-rezzed" content over his dead body. Knowing his tenacity and financial clout, it's good to have him on the side of the consumer.
Re:One problem (Score:2, Informative)
You could argue that FireWire is digital, because it is, but it is not a video carrier. It is just a data protocol which may or may not contain video information.
Analog: RF, Composite, S-Video (Y/C), Component (YPbPr), VGA (RGB)
Digital: DVI
Re:One problem (Score:2)
Chances are the TV will have RCA/svideo in - but maybe not RCA/svideo out (because many of those digital streams probably wont be 525 interlaced) - or maybe an out that only works for 'old format' programs
What are the odds (Score:4, Interesting)
People are going to be pissed if they have to spend big bucks on a new tv. Especially if they bought one just a year or two earlier. Talk about riots in the streets.
Of course, you can't control copying on an analog product.
I just might not get a new tv as it is. I would gladly participate in a class action suit if they force me to replace a TV that would normally last ten or 20 years as it was. never mind the VCRs
Re:What are the odds (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I have to wonder - what benefit do I really get out of upgrading? Sure, some electronics store gets a few hundred bucks of my money, RIAA is protected until the next big thing comes along, but what's in this for me?
Is there a federal buyback program on analog TV's? Will it clear up back pain and skin problems? What?
Why a mandate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why a mandate? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is only one reason: Money. They can use the extra bandwidth which is freed-up by the switchoff of the analogue TV to licence for other uses.
Re:Why a mandate? (Score:2)
Re:Why a mandate? (Score:5, Informative)
In the FCC's mind, Yes. All the improvements to the TV-signal you listed (color, stereo) have the advantage of being completely backwards-compatible with older broadcasts. Presuming it still physicially functions, there's no reason a TV from 1940 shouldn't be able to watch VHF signals today.
What the FCC's trying to do here is _replace_ the TV standard, not extend it. For the moment, all TV stations have two channels (and frequency bands, by extension) -- their normal VHF or UHF analog band, and a HDTV band. Once the conversion is complete, the FCC will order the VHF/UHF transmitters shut down and the frequency returned for whatever use the FCC deems appropriate. By its very nature, this conversion is _not_ backwards compatible.
It's too far along for the FCC to pull the plug on HDTV, but the transition isn't moving quickly enough that the FCC currently has hope of killing analog TV within our lifetime. Therefore, this move.
Of course, the question now is whether there's enough turnover in TVs that just mandating digital receivers (which are distinct from the display equipment required for the HD signal -- you'll likely be getting analog quality display on the HD signal) will increase the digital market penetration quickly enough to avoid the next boondoggle.
Re:Why a mandate? Easy answer (Score:4, Interesting)
Quite simple really, they are owned by the big entertainment companies. The entertainment companies are the ones who want this, so they can put DRM in the framework and force it on all of their evil, pirating, unethical customers.
But I am guessing that they'll have to find some way to ease this into the customer's butts, cause it won't go over at all if they try to cram it in all at once.
Troll ? Wake up. (Score:2)
troll (Score:2)
Re:Why a mandate? (Score:2)
No, but they did mandate that a color TV signal be viewable on a B&W TV -- which is how we ended up with NTSC (which is basically just a black and white signal (luma) with a color signal (chroma) superimposed (shoehorned into a little extra bandwidth)).
Similarly FM (or AM) stereo broadcasts can be listened to an an FM (or AM) mono receiver.
Unfortunately there's essentially no way for an analog receiver to get anything meaningful out of a digital signal.
Re:digital signal? (Score:2)
The answer is... Spectrum (Score:3, Interesting)
Broadcasters have two options going digital: Higher quality, same channel bandwidth. Or current quality, something like 1/4 channel bandwidth.
Color TV was a better signal in the same bandwidth, and had a lot to offer for the consumer. Full res HDTV is the closest analog to this, but offers less to the consumer.
When FM started there was plenty of spectrum in the broadcast band - In fact, the FCC gave broadcasters excessively wide channel spacings. (Needed for technical reasons at the time, no longer necessary. This is being taken advantage of by current standards proposed for digital radio broadcasting that have both the old analog signal AND the digital signal occupying the same channel.) FM also offered a lot for the consumer.
The problem with standard-res low-bandwidth TV is that it offers very little of visible benefit to the consumer. The beneficiaries are the broadcasters (Theoretically they can broadcast 4 standard-def streams in the bandwidth they are already licensed for), and later the consumers, although indirectly. As someone pointed out in the recent Sprint/2.5G/3G cellular thread, the main thing holding back 3G is spectrum. Care to take a guess where some of that spectrum was supposed to come from??? Yup, bandwidth freed up by moving TV broadcasts to digital.
Re:The answer is... Spectrum (Score:2)
(What's more, am I the only one who's noticed that a good analog broadcast signal looks better than most people's analog cable these days? I don't use cable myself, but a lot of the cable hookups I've seen give pictures that are full of ghosts, poor color, etc... )
Re:Antennas?? (Score:2)
digital radio (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't they mandate digital radion, it's been arround a hell of a lot longer than T.V.
Oh i remember, they want to sell the air again.
Government already spent the auction money (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is, the balanced budget agreement signed in 1997 already factored in this money as part of government revenues, and budgets were set assuming the money would be available on schedule. The first auctions were supposed to start this September.
Of course, virtually nobody actually owns a digital TV in 2002, so now the FCC is panicking.
Re:Why a mandate? (Score:2)
Maybe the government shouldn't have the power to tell me what kind of #$(*&#$* television I can buy?
Re:Why a mandate? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can buy whatever TV you want. You can purchase a vintage 1970 Zenith 15" floor console and set it up. You can purchase a 1985 "cable-ready" setup and use it. You can purchase a 2000 flat screen plasma display. Heck, if you want to buy an Etch-A-Sketch and mount it on the wall (Ohh, it's so thin!) and call it TV and there's *NOTHING* that anyone can or would do to you.
What the government *CAN* do however, is tell the broadcasters that service your area to turn off the signal that your "legacy" systems require to tune "off the air" programming.
Does this mean that your old TV is now landfill fodder? Maybe. You see, this only applies to "off the air" programming. Your local cable company will still be able to offer "legacy" cable service if they want. Of course, you will have to do some tricks to get that old Zenith working on cable, and don't get me started on the hacking needed to get that Etch-A-Sketch to be "Cable-Ready"...
Congre$$ wants the money (Score:2)
$18 billion is a lot of money even in these times.
Clearer and prettier pictures... for what? (Score:3)
Yea, it might be nice to get it just for DVD's, so you get a better display, but then i always have my computer there, though it does have a small screen, it has better resolution. Or borrow a projector and screen and plug it into the computer.
But other than having the perfect home MOVIE entertainment system, I don't really see any need to buy, or push, for hdtv in the home, when the shows don't even warrant this.
Of course, if they can somehow make these tv's cheap, then people will buy them, on their own accord. Forcing upgrades isn't exactly the most fun thing for consumers, who are the ones who actually pay for this stuff.
no word on broadcast flags? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:no word on broadcast flags? (Score:2)
Frankly, doing so loudly and publicly is their only chance of meeting even the 2007 date. Any FUD about the ability of Joe Sixpack to keep using his VCR in the manner to which he has become accustomed is enough to kill the concept, without any need to get into the details of the rights issues.
Artificial market economy (Score:4)
I've seen the commercials on TV touting HDTV, but I (not alone among TV consumers) am quite happy with the one I have. Is HDTV going to make watching NBC news somehow more exhilerating? I doubt it. Are they trying to shore up a sagging HDTV market? Is there a market for something that few people are adopting?
I remain unconvinced that this idea is in anyone's interest, and would love to see some concrete arguments in favor of it.
The FCC's incentive (Score:2)
Re:Artificial market economy (Score:2)
They get the spectrum back. Currently, TV stations got their spectrum as a freebie from the government, way back In The Day.
Now, they're getting HDTV spectrum for free, with the requirement that they'll be forced to shut down their VHF/UHF transmission someday and return the spectrum. Unfortunately for the FCC (and the boradcasters that have to maintain two sets of transmition equipment) HDTV is not being adoptes as quickly as even the slowest projections said it would be -- currently, we're not on track _at all_ for there to be enough adoption for the FCC to force the shutdown of analog broadcasts.
In the meantime, the FCC has giveen a relatively huge band of valuable spectrum away, with little hope of recovering the huger band held by current analog broadcasts. Therefore, they're trying to take steps to speed adoption in any way they can.
Score:
FCC: 0 -- Broadcasters: 0 -- Consumers: -1
Re:Artificial market economy (Score:5, Informative)
This means you can have a Digital TV that is not HD compatible. Generally, to be HD compatible a television must display either 720p or 1080i. It should be noted that these are not all of the HD signals, but the most common. I believe there are also 1080p, and (maybe)540p or 840i signals, but they are uncommon. To be a Digital TV you only have to display 480p.
Slashdot doesn't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Digital TV isn't necessarily HDTV. Make sure you understand this point.
My dear old dad vs. digital television (Score:5, Insightful)
He asked me: "When did we, the public, without which public television would not exist, vote that we wanted to move to digital television? How is it in the public interest to move public programming to a new standard for which most people don't have televisions and which will eventually necessitate the the purchase of a new set?"
Good questions, and he's starting to understand some of what is going on in the name of progress that is starting to encroach on the public good that he, and really all of us, are used to.
The nightmare scenario for him, of course, would be that he couldn't be able to time-shift News Hour [pbs.org], Washington Week [pbs.org], and The McLaughlin Group [mclaughlin.com] because of digital no-record flags. He tells me that the majority of the TV he watches is recorded with only a small portion being live.
Of course, my dad also says that the problem with TV isn't that there is too little good stuff to watch, but rather that there is really too much. He loves his TV.
And we're the worst hypocrites (Score:2)
is DVR dead now? (Score:2)
Whathappens to TiVo and other DVR boxen now? once analog is gone, and the HDTV digital tuner is embedded into the box, there's no access point to divert the data to a third-party box.
Current Digital Tuners (Score:4, Interesting)
What is the effect of a broadcast flag on digital tuners that are currently on the market? Do they bypass the flag? Will they not work? Will they somehow recognize and follow the flag?
Given that the flag issues is not yet worked out, and we're now mandating the digital tuners, are we designing a great big hole in the system or are we requiring millions of people to buy equipment that will be obsolete in just a couple of years?
hmm - is the reason the broadcasters and content guys are pushing the integrated tuner because they know that means when the old pre-flag set wear out, those tuners will be gone?
Also - can't manufacturers get around this by calling their sets "monitors" and not televisions. In the old days a "monitor" was a tunerless tv, and with advent of hdtv resolutions/capabilities, the dividing line between the newer meaning of (computer) monitor and tuner-less TV essentially disappears.
Re:Current Digital Tuners (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget that this also requires changes on the broadcast side. Sure, pissing off a few hundred thousand consumers with HDTV receivers may not cause issues. Pissing off a few hundred broadcasters, all of them in the largest markets, will.
As far as getting around it by calling them "monitors" -- maybe, but then you can't have any kind of receiver in there. Questionable if you can even have a speaker. If you put in an analog tuner you must put in a digital tuner -- that's what this FCC decision is all about. You also can't call it a TV, market it as one, or allow retailers to market it as such.
Back on the copyright flag bit -- there's an ongoing battle between the studios and the manufacturers about what should be involved. The studios want very draconian standards, which will toast all current HD sets (they'll be limited to lower resolution analog input). The manufacturers don't want to piss off the consumers or broadcasters. The manufacturers have the upper hand here -- all they have to do is wait and the market will be too big to change.
Note that there are already "copy any/once/never" flags in the standard (I think -- the new Digital VCRs comply to them), but the studios know that they're ineffective (think about how effective DVD regions or DAT copy flags are).
Brief history of HDTV (Score:5, Informative)
For those interested in a brief history of HDTV, here it is:
Here's how it went:
Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
FCC says "What standards?"
Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."
Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.
Re:Brief history of HDTV (Score:4, Funny)
O Canada (Score:2)
However, If they manage to force it without any DRM strings, I won't fight it because of the better health implications of digital transmissions, like lower power.
If you think crack heads are bad, wait till you see what happens when the government tries to turn off the TVs. The white house will be purged.
I can't post this enough regarding TV articles (Score:2)
Here's a random anti-TV site. Google for more. http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/ [turnoffyourtv.com].
While we're talking TVs, are there any "monitors"? (Score:2)
I'm going to be in the market for a new TV soon, so I've been looking around.
I've got a DVD player and a digital cable box (and for that matter, a VCR) so I don't need any more tuners.
I've got an amplifier that switches video sources (SVideo, composite, and component) and does all my surround decoding, so I don't need any more speakers/surround processors either.
I just want a big honkin' display with an SVideo and a component video input. No speakers, no tuner, no REMOTE! Just a display.
Does anybody make such a beast?
DG
Re:While we're talking TVs, are there any "monitor (Score:2)
Perhaps not what you had in mind, but it has a great deal more possibilities than any large display.
If you have tons of cash, there are always plasma displays.
My TV is already a collector's item! (Score:2)
Its a 20 year old Curtis Mathis 25" TV. Other then the fact that it only has coax in, and that the remove is broken, it still works fine. I just end up using the VCR remote anyways.
Speaking of which, I still use an amplified settop attenna to pick up the four local broadcast stations (go UHF! UHF! UHF!). Get all the networks, and the whole setup cost me about $75 ( $25 for the TV, $50 fot the attenna). Less then the setup fees + first month of satelitte or cable.
Of course, now that I'm moving to a metro area, I'm debating picking up cable just for modems....
Agh (Score:2, Informative)
Fear the Digital Age - Rising Dark Age Looms - (Score:2, Interesting)
Under the DMCA analog transmissions (i.e. non-digital, verbal, print, etc.) are covered under the anti-curcumvention clause. This in effect can make it illegal to discuss a topic. Here is how:
I make a product called the Widget Foobar 3K (3000 calories). It is a potentially dangerous form of addictive candy with sharp edges and big pointy teeth. With digital television (Which is encrypted btw) I broadcast a commerical.
Pan 3 hours after the launch and 10 kids die (This is an absurd but clear way to describe this) from the WF3K. I as a parent or survivor want to warn the world so I hope on
Because the commerical is digital and encrypted I cannot use ANY content that was encrypted. So I cannot say the name of the product (That is encrypted information via the TV) which hampers the fact that I cannot describe the item (Any information that is in the encrypted broadcast is covered via the DMCA) and I am unable to warn parents, who for some odd reason, were unaware that eating razor sharp candy with 3000 calories might be bad for your child.
Knowing I cannot write about it I decide to run out in the street and shout about it. Sorry, verbal communication is catagoized as AN ANALOG transmission over public airwaves, again covered by the DMCA.
This is an extreme case (In fact virtually impossible, exaggerated to illustrate the mechanism of the censorship.) Now here is the very likely and REAL impact.
--- Begin Reality Check Version 4.0 ---
--Checking Human RAM
--(Barring Mental Illness this will return OK)
--Memory Check Complete, Forgot FirstKiss.Mem
--Attempting to reclaim FirstKiss.Mem
--File FirstKiss.Mem has file error type: WASDRUNK
--Unable to Recover.
--Memory Check: OK (.0000000000000001% tests bad)
--- Reality Check Version 4.0 Complete ---
--- Loading Reality OS ---
Ok here is the real solution.
You are a book publisher publishing classical literature. Sales are down thanks to Project Gutenberg. You decide to complete by making a digital version of Hamlet (for example.) The attempt fails as Gutenberg is free and you $1.00 copy of Hamlet is a buck to high.
Now you get nasty and evil. Perhaps your parents didn't love you enough. Who cares. You decide to use the DMCA to crush PG. How you ask? Simple.
You make a crap-tacular encryption system to encode your EBook. Done.
You Publish your Ebook and sell it. (Few Buy of course.)
Under the DMCA the circumvention of an Encryption scheme is a violation. (Check the law, it doesn't mention anything about the content, just the encryption itself.) Covered under this encryption is Analog transmission (i.e. Recording digital TV with a camcorder by pointing the camcorder at the T.V screen) is a violation. Just as reciting Stephen King's "Pet Cemetary" in public word for word is a copyright infringment.
Now suddenly PG is violating the DMCA! How? By providing an unencrypted version of the same text. There isn't a copyright infringment, merely a DMCA violation. No Mr. Ebook publisher can charge $200 per page to read Hamlet (which no person can afford, effectivly banning the book) and no person living under DMCA juridiction can publish their own version (as it would contain data within the encrypted version of the book.)
Now PG gets sues into obscurity and the book publisher has found a whole new level of book banning. Don't like someone's review? Digitally run an ad on HDTV with all the specs, the independant reviews cannot mention ANY of the data contained in the transmission as it would violate the DMCA (How about pictures... I wonder if they took a picture of you and broadcast it, would further pictures of yourself be a violation? Creepy...) We are NOT talking about copyright, fair use, etc. We are looking at the DMCA at an entity of it's own.
Why burn books when you can Hijack them? Think I am a few donuts short of a baker's dozen, probably. But I tend to plan for "Worse Case" scenarios (That is part of my job) and this has way too much danger to turn into a nightmare of a Ray Bradbury book.. (Can you guess which one?)
Think of the capacity for social enginneering! Contol the information and you will control the world.
Knowledge is power they say, and the wicked crave power, and let me ask you this: Those who are wicked and powerful, do they like to share power?
Ok then... (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm not going to be a sacrificial lamb to the FCC..
I just dont get it. (Score:2)
rural reception? (Score:2)
Cellular as an example (Score:4, Interesting)
Which means, that in the city, I always get my text messaging and the like, but in some areas (out in the woods) it's typical to have analog-only service. Not only does this not bother me, I appreciate having some service over none.
Why can't they do this with televisions? Put a tuner in their that will work with both types of channels? If the FCC simply required that all new TVs were "dual mode tuner" TVs, rollout of HDTV would be *ALOT* less painful!
I'd imagine that the analog tuner circuitry would quickly drop to a single $3 chip...
Re:Cellular as an example (Score:2)
They do -- there are a number of "digital-ready" tvs already out there, especially widescreen TVs.
They're the ones that cost $1000 more than the analog only ones. Why? Its not because the digital components are that much more expensive. They're not...and being digital, Moore's law kicks in as it does with anything with a chip in it, making the price of the component half every 18 months.
No, the real reason is that the makers still have not let a standard be decided from the 18 different standards available when the FCC first said "let the market decide".
(and how do you decide on a standard and test that standard on the consumer end with nobody broadcasting in digital to see the difference, yet without consumers no broadcaster would commit to a standard either...ultimate in catch 22, hence the current FCC mandate of digital by 2008)
So with 18 different standards for digital TV, you have 18+ different patents you have to sign on to and pay royalties for...
one can guess how much 18+ patents cost: about $1000 / unit.
Re:Cellular as an example (Score:3, Informative)
Get over it! (Score:2, Informative)
I have had a HDTV (without a tuner) for about a year, I bought a tuner (nice one too)a few months ago and was disapointed,I even bought a fancy antenna. There was only 4 channels that broadcast hdtv and the quality ranged from amazing to _realy_ bad. Left it hooked up but did not use it for a while, then I had it scan for new channels last weekend and lo and behold six new channels! It looks like the local TV stations have been upgrading becase the the quality seemed to of increased also. Now it's worth it, six month ago I am not so sure.. HD is fast becoming "worth it".
My solution (Score:2)
UK has had similar schemes for a while now (Score:4, Informative)
I can understand why US authorities might want to move over to a completely digital service, freeing up Analogue frequencies to be used for more Digital services. After all, a digital receiver (which will only pick up free to air channels) is around £90 here, which is bound to drop in price when the demand shoots up after Analogue broadcasts are turned off. I don't believe this is as much a conspiracy between electronics companies (the majority of which are Japanese anyway) that some of you make it out to be.
I agree with the poster above who mentions the thinking behind HDTV: is anyone really too bothered about watching anything other than movies in high resolution? I can't see myself being desperate to watch Jerry Springer on HDTV, irrespective of the views I have on the actual program itself.
An interesting war - Cable boxes vs Set manufactur (Score:2)
What's especially interesting is that the tuner is only used to pull air-based HDTV signals, thus adding additional cost with no practical use to all the cable/sat owners if the boxes.
I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
Um, what?
Here in the UK, we're slowly but surely switching over to all-digital broadcasts. I forget when the analogue turn-off date is, but we seem to be on target (more or less). You can't get a new cable or satellite installation these days that isn't digital, and the BBC is picking up the broadcast digital stations.
This is all done with a little box that sits under your TV. It decodes the digital data, and then you plug in a SCART connector or S-Video or whatever you like and watch it on your analogue TV. Usually the boxes come free when you sign the contract. For broadcast, you'll probably end up buying the boxes for under 50 UKP, but then the channels are all free.
So what am I missing? What's all this stuff about having to replace your TVs?
Banning the tool... (Score:2)
OK, so the government bans analog televisions just because they could possibly used to receive analog television signals. What if I want to use the analog television set for viewing DVDs with my analog DVD player? Seems to me like banning razor blades just because they could possibly be used to hijack airplanes.
How we're doing this in Finland (Score:2, Interesting)
A small amount of people have already bought digital tv's but the deadline is too soon for the majority of people. Digital tellies are currently too expensive for the average John Doe and neither are the commercial tv channels interested in providing anything special for those who're watching the programmes digitally (since nobody has the equipment for them).
What if they don't? (Score:2)
Of course, the broadcasters can pull the plug in 2007 and go all digital, but if the manufacturers simply refuse to comply, then suddenly 95% of the market simply doesn't exist anymore. Those who get cable, satellite, or only watch DVD's, VHS, etc don't even need it, unless the mandate covers all of those as well. That market can still buy the non-digital TV sets with the caveat that after 2007 they won't recieve traditional broadcast TV anymore.
-Restil
Caved, yeah that's a good one (Score:2)
"I honestly don't have any idea what public interest is."
OK Mike so I guess youz a ho for the media companies.
When equipment hits real consumers - issues arise (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure there are going to be boxes (like digital cable boxes now) that allow you to watch the new content on an older TV.
But in systems now, most people have cable installers hook up even the simple boxes we have today. Are people going to want to hire someone to install a box for broadcast, even assuming they can afford the box?
Also, I can already see the worst issue - macrovision. I'm sure all of these digital recievers will support macrovision, and when people hook the boxes up to old VCR's (which they will do in droves, don't tell me PVR's will even have a 20% penetration by 2006) they are going to get bad pictures and return the boxes.
I've already seen a preview of this in action - recently I was in a target and a wal-mart on two seperate occasions returning something, and each time there was a person ahead of me exchanging a game console for a brand new one "because the picture was all messed up watching DVD's". I explained to the people each time what Macrovision was and that they had to run the signal straight to the TV, but it really made me wonder how many perfectly good consoles get returned TODAY because of macrovision, much less a future box that everyone in the US will need to watch TV.
I have no idea what happens when every TV junkie in the US gets mad at government, but it will sure be interesting to find out. I expect major firefighting efforts from the government on this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Move with the times (Score:2)
It would also be cheaper to send them food rather than continually subsidise farmers to grow more for purely political reasons and then have to pay to destroy it. Yes, I'm off-topic and expect to be moderated as such, but this rather irritates me.
This is not an anti-US rant, either; if anything, the European Union is probably an even bigger criminal in this case.
Re:Collectors Items? (Score:2, Informative)
BUT, the delta of $250 is a f'ing JOKE, complete FUD. The cost of these parts in volume TODAY is under $150, and by 2005 will probably be $50 -- at least 10 companies are working on SOC designs(system on a chip) that integrate everything on a single IC.
Re:Conservatives are always pro-free market (Score:2)
Reminds me of a passage from Atlas Shrugged:
It's scary to read that book now... much of the dialog sounds like it was written in the last 10 years... not in the 50s.
Re:Conservatives are always pro-free market (Score:2)
Re:You'll appreciate it in the end... (Score:2)
Re:Home Entertainment PCs (Score:2)
Listen, you can use the same flippin tubes you have now. Just need a different tuner. The industry claims that this will add $200 to the price of a TV. IMHO, this is probably FUD. When DVD first came out, it was expensive too. Now players are under $100. Mass prodution does wonders for driving costs down.
Re:Thats what you think! (Score:2, Funny)
-FCC