Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Hardware Technology

Japan's TV Broadcasts To Be All-Digital By 2011 241

Posted by timothy from the thou-shalt dept.
Azuma writes "Officially, Japan will end Analog broadcasting by year 2011. Terrestrial digital television broadcasting services started on Monday, December 1st in Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka, with Japan Broadcasting Corp (NHK) and private TV stations broadcasting special commemorative programs. The services will initially be available to around 12 million households. Here is an article from Chinaview. The Daily Yomiuri reports that small local TV stations are at a disadvantage due to high costs of the new technology."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japan's TV Broadcasts To Be All-Digital By 2011 More

Japan's TV Broadcasts To Be All-Digital By 2011

Comments Filter:

  • Better than the Amerika (Score:5, Insightful)

    by benna ( 614220 ) * <mimenarrator@g m a i l .com> on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:22AM (#7606864) Journal
    At least Japan is giving more time than the FCC is. The FCC deadline of 2006 just isn't going to happen. something like 98-99% of Americans have a television. More Americans have a TV than have telephone service at home. A sizable number of these folks probably don't have the money to just run out to Best Buy and buy a new television because the FCC says they have to. I expect to see a bunch of noise made in the news about this once the deadline approaches, followed by lots of Congressional campaigns running on the "The big bad federal government wants to take away your TV... over my dead body!" platform. This will likely lead to the analog/digital cutover deadline being pushed back significantly.

    • Re:Better than the Amerika (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Right with you there, benna! I vote for content that only upper middle class families can afford to access! Screw the poor! They should be out working, not sitting on their asses watching Oprah! Hell, let's hook them up to a matrix to power the new HDTV broadcast antennas!

    • Re:Better than the Amerika (Score:4, Informative)

      by LastAndroid ( 695190 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:28AM (#7606886) Homepage
      You could allways use a digital to analogue converter on the old TVs, at least if you have cable, satilite, or an external antennae.

      Eventually all the new TVs will be digital and thus come down in price, so it won't be that much of a problem.

      • Re:Better than the Amerika (Score:4, Funny)

        by Dimensio ( 311070 ) <darkstarNO@SPAMiglou.com> on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:59AM (#7607011)
        What?! And force those "black bars" onto the 4:3 television sets displaying the downconverted 16:9 image? Those black bars cover up the picture, we Americans won't stand for it!
      • Exactly. The average Joe will not buy a new TV, but a converter. In Sweden (where the deadline is 1/2 2008) the government will subsidize the converters to make them more affoardable.

        • Re:Better than the Amerika (Score:4, Insightful)

          by cdrudge ( 68377 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @06:56AM (#7607766) Homepage
          That's nice that the government will subsidize the converters. Everyone knows that the governement has an unlimited supply of money and that the people won't be the ones who still end up footing the "subsidized" bill once it comes in the mail.
          • Except that governments generally have a stronger buying power than an individual person. They can probably get the converters at a lower price than a single person would, so the amount that a person pays from their taxes may be less than they would pay to go out and purchase the converter on their own.

            Also, my understanding is that the government makes/saves money by having TVs going to digital format, so it's possible they'll simply use some of the difference in costs to pay for the converters.

            Finally,
        • This is broadcast TV isn't it? How many people watch over the air TV anyway?
      • Just how long do you keep a TV? If you bought a TV in the last year or so it's digital (unless you have a good reason for analog - anyone care to give an example?).

        So that's 4 years, so what are the chances of buying a converter for a 4 year old TV? It would be cheaper to buy a 2nd hand digital TV by that point, if 'people can't afford' argument comes up.
      • Who wants to buy a $500.00 tuner to connect to a $115.00 NTSC TV? Ain't gonna happen. The old TV won't get ditched till it breaks. In the meantime, it'll be the display for the PS/2, Game Cube, VHS, DVD, etc...

        Tuner cards for the PC will be higher resolution and cheaper for the budget concious. Later, a HDTV television or monitor may appear to replace the computer as the primary display.
      • You could allways use a digital to analogue converter on the old TVs, at least if you have cable, satilite, or an external antennae.

        But I've been using this same television set for 20 years and it works just fine! Why do I need to buy a converter thingy to make it keep working?

    • Reading over my post again I realized someone might read it thinking I support the FCCs manditory move to digital. I don't, as I think it is unfair to make people with little money buy new TVs. This should really be apearent from the way I spelled "Amerika" in the subject.
      • Since when did owning and watching TV become an inalienable right? It is a luxury....

        If someone is so poor, they can't afford a tv, I'd venture to guess they're time would be better spent trying to improve their lot in life, to get to the point to where they could afford a luxury like TV.

        Going to digital is only raising the bar on that particular luxury a bit.

    • I doubt the US will ever see conversion (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:57AM (#7607004) Journal
      I'm starting to suspect that the United States will never see conversion.

      We have fast enough and cheap enough hardware now that it's feasible (nicer) home connections to stream down much-better-than-TV video over an Internet connection. There are a number of improvements to make in upstream distribution structure, but ultimately, despite the fact that IP currently provides essentially nothing by way of real-time guarantees, my guess is that we'll slowly start seeing more and more Internet-based systems. It just doesn't make sense to have a single purpose dedicated system just for TV.

      I suspect that those cheap consumer broadband routers will start having a "smart bandwidth allocation" feature that the ISP will also grok which guarantees real-time delivery (well, over the last and slowest leg of the trip). It wouldn't be a very difficult system to devise -- system on local network allocates bandwidth from router, router talks to upstream system.

      A healthy amount of precaching would be important -- this could be an issue in sports, where having a sub-one-minute precache is essential to many hardcore fans. It'd work wonderfully for almost anything else, though.

    • Get real will you... The FCC deadline of 2006 just isn't going to happen. Money talks and when you have certain corporations dropping money into the pockets... strike that... into the good government for research projects, the FCC can do what it wants, and it will -- at will regardless of protest. And what will the public do, at least the vast majority? Nothing that's what [ithaca.edu]

      I expect to see a bunch of noise made in the news about this once the deadline approaches,

      Yea sure you will. Just like when the coun

    • Hey, we'd have bought into the technology sooner if (a) it were actually in the stores, and (b) the incomplete bits of it that *are* in the stores weren't all sporting a price more appropriate to an automobile than to a TV set.

      I bought a TV last year, and I'd have bought a reasonably-priced one with a digital tuner if there *were* any TV sets with digital tuners.

  • Of course! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:24AM (#7606876) Homepage Journal
    Since migration to digital TV is going so well in the rest of the world...

    I'll get a digital TV tuner when one is bundled in a video game console that I want. That's why I have a DVD player.

  • digital Soupy Sales (Score:3, Interesting)

    by davejenkins ( 99111 ) <slashdot&davejenkins,com> on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:29AM (#7606888) Homepage
    Digital, fine. I'm still convinced that Soupy Sales is running the networks here.

    This still won't improve Japanese television much. All the shows come down to 4 types:
    1. Simplistic travelogues to remote regions of Japan, where some little Tokyo cutiepie samples the local ramen, miso soup, and makes smirking comments about the funny accents when talking to some old man (NHK)
    2. Two or three guys hanging around in some little bar, making snide comments about the girls they bring on the show, while idolizing their rice rockets (FujiTV)
    3. Trivia game shows (with trivia so obscure that the shows _must_ be rigged) with the panel of stars (think matchgame 75 crossed with Jackpot)
    4. Samurai weekly adventures on the level of "Gunsmoke" or "Rockford Files"
    /glad I haven't invested in that plasma TV yet
    • You forgot, --Cooking shows --Cooking shows with celebraties --Cooking shows with celebraties going to resturaunts and trying food. --More cooking shows I swear I don't know how Japanese people are so damn skinny. All they talk about is food. Maybe that's the answer! Just talk about food long enough and you'll eventually trick yourself into thinking you've eaten!

    • Re:digital Soupy Sales (Score:5, Interesting)

      by macshit ( 157376 ) <[snogglethorpe] [at] [gmail.com]> on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @02:26AM (#7607110) Homepage
      I agree that J TV often sucks, but hey, so does U.S. TV (UK TV, OTOH, is far better than both).

      But still there's a fair amount that's entertaining, if not very highbrow, e.g.:
      • Wacky public service shows, like a half-hour long celebrity extragavanza on how to properly freeze food or put your recycyling out on the curb (really).
      • Anything involving that comedy duo of the tall blonde cheerful looking guy with a mohawk, and the short stubby bitter looking guy with the really thick glasses (what the hell are their names?). They seem to have hosted a million wacky shows, and all of those I've seen have been very funny (like the one where they [and their cohorts] had 1 minute 30 seconds to perform these bizarre skits involving Complicated and Very Strenuous Actions, with no prior rehearsals)
      • Spooky Mysterious `This Really Happened' [Could it be ... Satan?!?] shows. I think these are really well-done, much spookier than the equivalent shows I've seen in the U.S.
      • Cross-dressing comedy
      • Shows involving pain

      • Re:digital Soupy Sales (Score:2, Interesting)

        by BJH ( 11355 )
        The comedy duo you're thinking of is Kyai-n.
        I gave up watching them when they did a late-night show where Udo Suzuki (the tall one) got fucked in the ass by a drag queen.

        (Moderators: Yes, that really happened. No, this is not a troll.)
      • Don't forget Japanese shows that have made their way over here to the states. Like Most Extreme Elimination Challenge [spiketv.com] for example, which is a redubbed (hilariously too I might add, although I wouldn't be totally surprised if they really said those things in the real Japanese version. My friend from Osaka told me its based off a very old Japanese TV show called Takeshi's Castle [ntlworld.com]. Makes me wish I could afford to get Japanese channels on the cable for my dorm. Actually....makes me wish I could afford cable
    • Meh, the TV is just like it is anywhere else. 95% crap, 4% average stuff, and 1% awesome.

      I personally like the NHK late-night atmosphere videos, and On Air Battle. 99 has some good shows, and that one super-bizarro "Black News Network" (or whatever it was) with all the North Korean exercise videos and bizarre segues was great (don't know if it's still on).

  • A little quick? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Trbmxfz ( 728040 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:29AM (#7606890)
    Viewers will replace about 100 million old TV sets

    Hmm... Just 8 years for the population to replace all of their TVs sounds a little quick. Or does absolutely everyone in Japan replace their equipment way often?

    Wouldn't lots of people be pissed off if such a change was announced in the USA? Your opinions are welcome.
    • Japan: 2011
      USA: 2006
      Norway: 2007

      Those are the deadlines I know. Japan certainly aren't the earliest.

    • Just 8 years for the population to replace all of their TVs sounds a little quick. Or does absolutely everyone in Japan replace their equipment way often?

      indeed, but it's all part of the japanese strategy to give their industries a head start. it helps them to retain their competitive edge internationally.

      create a home market and then try to export it.

      it matters little what the FCC does. the US is only 280 million people. tv's - even fancy digital ones - are commodity items. the market is totally rul

    • Who cares, it's just TV. I don't even have one.

  • If they have to ask... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dagg ( 153577 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:30AM (#7606891) Journal
    Local TV stations, which are supported by residents in their areas, will struggle to further improve their community ties. In fact, the wave of digitalization will pose questions about their very reason for existing.

    If they have to ask, then they should just give up now.

  • Digital TV? (Score:3, Informative)

    by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:34AM (#7606904) Homepage
    Digital TV is a wonderful idea, crystal clear picture and all, but the real question is, will anyone really notice a difference. Do I really need to be able to count all of the wrinkles on Ted Koppel's face?
    I'm currently working on a degree in Broadcasting, and the US mandated transition to digital is not going to happen in 2006, no matter what the FCC says. I'll be impressed if it happens by 2016.
    At home, I still use a 11 year old television and an 18 year old television. I'm not going to replace then until they break, and I'll be damned if I'm going to buy (or rent, if the cable company gets its way) a digital converter box to watch tv.

    It's not happening here in the US, why does Japan think that it's going to happen there?

    • Re:Digital TV? (Score:3, Informative)

      by doormat ( 63648 )
      and I'll be damned if I'm going to buy (or rent, if the cable company gets its way) a digital converter box to watch tv.

      The FCC has mandated that Cable Co's allow people to buy digital set top boxes (and cablemodems too), and also has set a date for the end of leasing equipment, see FCC Mandates Retail Sale Of Cable Set-Tops And Modems [cabledatacomnews.com]. I personally think you should be able to lease or own, not one or the other.
      • Well, it's been more than 3 years since the cable companies were supposedly required to allow the retail sale of converters, and I've never seen a legitimate (i.e. non-spam) purchase offer for any cable box, analog or digital. In fact, my cable provider (Charter) has actually run commercials stating that it's illegal to use any boxes you've purchased.

        Cable modems, however, are freely available in the retail market, but some operators seem to have a habit of "accidentally" disconnecting people who have the
    • In Australia many of the Free to Air broadcasts originate from the highest population centers, eg. Sydney and Melbourne - generally due to cost cutting exercises over the past years.

      Signal is transmitted across the country by cable, then rebroadcast as an analogue signal to the local transmitter where a TV receiver displays the picture.

      Over the past 12 months or so, many stations have moved from transmitting analogue TV across the country to sending an MPEG stream down the wire for rebroadcast.

      When pack
    • It's not happening here in the US, why does Japan think that it's going to happen there?

      Because Japan is more advanced technologically with respect to TV!

      Because the US went for analogue cable and NTSC to get there first and other nations waited a while and went for newer technology the US is stuck with legacy equipment which causes 'upgrade friction'. Joe public will not see the advantages of upgrading and so be very reluctant to. This is why cable providers are trying to push HDTV as it is an improve
    • [not going to happen in 2006]

      Sure it is. The FCC has the power to say, "you can't sell that old gear anymore. You can't operate that old gear anymore." and make it stick. The broadcasters will either convert or go off the air. The set manufacturers will either bring out DTV or leave the U.S. market. There will be no more "type acceptance" for analog TV equipment and no licenses or renewals for analog TV transmissions.

      What exactly *do* they teach you in that broadcasting school?
    • I think you're entirely correct for that reason. Digital television is having difficulty making significant inroads for two reasons. One, the cost of digital televisions that support HDTV is still abnormally high compared to the traditional analog set. In this economy, people are more likely to choose the cheaper set. And two, there aren't enough advantages to digital television that would cause the average customer to get rid of the traditional set.

      It's sort of like, for me, when DVD first came out.

  • Surprised that they are so far behind Europe ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hattig ( 47930 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:34AM (#7606905) Journal
    Sure, our digital broadcasts aren't HDTV quality over here, but we've had Digital TV via Satellite for over 5 years now, and over cable and terrestrial for not that much shorter a time. Digital TV receivers are virtually free now (a non-subscription box can be had for around 50 pounds, so that shows how cheap the hardware is).

    So why the costs for receivers are so high in Japan I don't know ... I suspect price gauging of the poor old consumer, even if the receivers are more modern and HDTV, etc.

    HDTV capable TV sets are still extremely expensive though, but they aren't a necessity for receiving digital TV.
    • Digital TV receivers are virtually free now (a non-subscription box can be had for around 50 pounds, so that shows how cheap the hardware is).

      So for you 50 pounds is virtualy free? That's ~$85 US dollars! Can I get a job where you work? You guys must be rich in the UK!

      • It's cheaper than a 12 month contract at 8 pounds a month for basic cable, and it's only 8 quid when you get the telephone package as well.

        And remember that 50 quid includes a box and stuff. The decoder/receiver card must cost under 20 pounds on its own.

        ARGH why has Firebird decided that it wants me to use a US keyboard layout, even though Windows is still on UK layout...

  • Sorta offtopic question about digital tv (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A few weeks ago I missed one of my shows that i watch every week, so i downloaded it from a torrent site (shh dont tell anyone =P).. anyway, the version I got was HDTV.. it was widescreen and so clear.. I have a tv tuner card in my pc and now I'm thinking of upgrading to a digital tv tuner card (wintv-d if you must know, i like hauppaugge wintv cards)... how does digital tv work? Do i need a special antenna to get digital channels or does it come over my normal cable? If I do need an antenna.. do i have to

  • 2011? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Talez ( 468021 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:36AM (#7606915)
    Australia is like technology backwater and we're killing off analog TV by the end of 2008.
  • small local TV stations are at a disadvantage due to high costs of the new technology

    That's kinda how I feel about my small local television. I take it that my UHF dial won't pick up any of these new channels...

  • The Daily Yomiuri reports that small local TV stations are at a disadvantage due to high costs of the new technology.

    But won't the consumer be at an advantage as well cost-wise when crossing over from analog to digital? It's new technology and it's expected to be expensive at first... exactly the reason why I don't have an HDTV yet. The migration will be slow.

    Besides, for all the little fish in the sea, you've got until July 2011 - eight years! And I'm pretty sure you'll still have plenty of analog-de

  • dig*i*tal
    adj.
    • 1. Of, relating to, or resembling a digit, especially a finger.
    • 2. Operated or done with the fingers: a digital switch.
      (source [reference.com])
    I don't know about the rest of you but Japan's claims sure does sound fishy. What's next, Gadzooky smoke packets.

  • Hardware support (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brockgr ( 39689 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:45AM (#7606956) Homepage
    The new PSX (Playstation3?) will support terrestrial digital here in Japan - as well as being a DVD and PVR - a really very sweet device.

    What I want to see are Digital TV decoder cards for PCs. I can then just capture the TV on my PC and playback Hi-Def onto my TV without having to buy any other hardware. However there seems to be no sign of them. I guess teh MPAA (and local equivalents) are very scared that users will work around their "not-recordable" bits in the video stream.

    Gavin

  • Compelling Moments (Score:3, Insightful)

    by toxic666 ( 529648 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:50AM (#7606978)
    Does digital TV rate up there with other moments that were compelling enough to warrant the investment by consumers?

    1) 1920's -- Sound in the cinema.
    2) 1930's -- Color in the cinema
    3) 1950's -- Television
    4) 1960's -- Color Television
    5) 1970's -- Cable TV
    6) 1980's -- Large Screen TV
    7) 1990's -- Better Large Screen TV

    Keep in mind the producer's investment costs get passed on to the consumer. The advances mentioned were not mandated by a regulatory agency and passed the consumer test on their own merits.

    From what I have seen of digital TV it is gorgeous, but not something I would, by choice, spend $1500 on compared to what I can get from analog TV. I'm none too thrilled with the prospect of having digital TV and DRM forced down my throat at a higher cost.

  • How the Quest is going (Score:4, Informative)

    by DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <slashdotbin@hotmail.com> on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @01:54AM (#7606990) Homepage Journal
    Wow, I can't believe it's been almost a year since I posted this Ask Slashdot item Making the HDTV Vision Quest? [slashdot.org]

    So now seems like an appropriate time to tell you how the story came out. I recently bought a MyHD 120 card, and am very happy with the card (I plan on buying a couple more). However I can only get one Digital channel so far, and they're not broadcasting true HD yet. Digital does look nice, very nice, DVD nice, but still isn't HD. There is one channel in the area broadcasting HD, but I can't pull it in, even though I just bought a 3 foot square UHF antenna to do so. There are supposed to be 8 channels in my area broadcasting Digital, and I can only get one. And only one of the 8 are broadcasting HD (which I can't get as mentioned), and then for only about half of prime time hours. I'm told by sales people that the stations are only broadcasting currently at half power, but I have no way to confirm this. Even the one channel that comes in strong (full meter), suffers occasional complete drops, very much like early cell phone use. While the HD picture is probably going to be glorious (and digital is already very good), they really fell down on the job when it came to the carrier signal, and I think it safe to say VSB was an extremely poor choice. People are use to a signal fading in and out on analog, but still be viewable (you can still follow the story or hear the audio), when a sizable portion have digital, and find they loose signal completely from time to time, well there will be hell to pay. The FCC has quite the mess on its hands.

    BTW, when the one channel I do get is not in primetime, I switch to the analog sister station. The upconvert of local programing is like a 56k streaming video. Painful to watch.

    A year later and the Quest goes on.

    • Your experience doesn't sound typical for late 1993 - more like mid 1992.

      Today, the average HD junkie gets several HDTV channels from either DirecTV or Echostar, or if they're lucky, one of the few enlightened cable companies. Typical lineups includes HBO, Showtime, Discovery, ESPN, HDNet, and a PPV. A new satellite service called VOOM has 25 HD channels now, and promises 39 by February.

      In addition, most people (>90%) have multiple free OTA DTV stations in their area, receivable with hardware ranging
      • Surely you mean 2003 and 2002 respectively

        Anyway, I'm not exagerating, and I live in a relatively urban area about 2 hours from Chicago. Champaign Illinois to be precise. You seem to be lucky enough to live in a good coverage area, but I would be suspicious of your 90% figure for true, easily recieved HD, but I only have my one data point as experience.

        The antenna mentioned is a Channel Master 8 bow, but I am using it indoors in an apartment. Only ABC has any HD programming yet here (check titantv.co

    • You live in Colorado, don't you?

      - I also have a 3 foot square VHF antenna (the Channel Master one with 8 bow antennas)

      - I can recieve KDVR-DT Denver (32 UHF) from 66 miles away in Fort Collins, from the ground floor, reliably, even though KDVR-DT is only at 1/2 power.

      - VSB was *not* the wrong choice. 8VSB provides superior range with less power than CODFM. CODFM does better with multipath. The reason that your analog broadcasts are coming in better is because they are being boradcast at 1/2 power or less
      • Nope. Champaign Illinois
        Pretty Sad for a High Tech Area

        Channel Master 8 Bow, Yup, That's what I got!

        Trouble is I'm an Appartement dweller, and this sucker is bolted to the ceiling (but stearable).

        Cable carries no locals, no network affiliates in digital.

  • Old news... (Score:2, Informative)

    by F'Nok ( 226987 )
    Here in Australia we have had HDTV broadcasting over the air for about two years (I think) and the price of HDTV's is dropping relatively fast. Last year a plasma screen was a good $2500 Au, now I see them about for $1250 Au, in a couple years they'll be the same price as a standard TV was 7-8 years ago. They're not that expensive... 2008 is plenty of time to at least get a converter box.
    • Dammit, why are Plasma displays in the UK still 2000 pounds at the low end then? (42" Relisys) ... that's like 4 times the cost in Australia. Something isn't right :(

      I can't find Plasma displays in the UK that are smaller than 42" either. Even though all I'd want is a nice 1920x1080 32" display at most...
    • What the hell are you smoking?

      Plasma's are still at least A$5000 for a reasonable SD model, and A$8k for an HD (> 1024x768) model.

      The cheapest widescreen CRT's are A$1000, and the cheapest HD CRT is A$2000.

  • 2011? (Score:4, Informative)

    by MrSpiff ( 515611 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @02:01AM (#7607027) Homepage
    sweden is shutting down all public analog (terrestial) broadcasts in february 2008, why wait until 2011?
  • The TV producers or the TV purchasers? Or maybe it doesn't matter, since the government feels it has a vested interest in lining the pockets of the former at the expense of the latter.

    Groovy HD quality? Right, on your 20" home set tucked in a bookshelf, while the sounds from the street, kitchen or cat play so nicely with the uber-nuclear 17.1 sound that you get with digital TV.

    Face it, home TV has hit a wall, that other than going to the cinema, you really don't get the measurable performance improvemen

  • Everytime... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UserChrisCanter4 ( 464072 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @02:14AM (#7607075)
    Everytime I see an article or hear a discussion about DTV transitions, I hear a bunch of people ranting and raving about buying new TVs, or how their TV that Moses brought down from the mount works just fine and you can pry it from their cold, dead hands. It really does crack me up when you consider what's realistically going to go into this transition.

    First of all, The US deadline is now 2007, not 2006, per random circuit court.

    A) 108 million households in the US have televisions. Of those, just over 70% subscribe to cable or satellite. Satellite subscribers don't have a thing to worry about in this transition (unless they don't spend the $6/month to get televised local stations, which is definitely worth avoiding ghosting and reception issues). Satellite users really don't have to worry about this at all, since the sat systems will probably keep broadcasting in the same manner they were before the change; essentially a slightly differently implemented digital signal. Local stations will be transmitted in the same manner, and the signals will be decoded by their existing set-top box. No pain. Cable carriers could, in theory, take the exisitng off-air digital signals, convert them back to analog, and send them along over the lines (I'm not sure if any of the FCC rules have forbid this), although with continued uptake on digital cable services, they'll basically be in a situation similar to the satellite carriers. Of course, assuming they're not allowed to to retransmit in analog, it'll be back to how it was 10 or 15 years ago before cable-ready TVs hit the market; a $4 or $5/month (maybe even $10) for the box, with the option to purchase per FCC rules. The boxes still patch into the TV using the standard interfaces (composite/S-Video, RF for the old crap, maybe component or DVI for newer equipment).

    That leaves the off-air folks, the remaining 30%. Now consider what off-air DTV is. It isn't neccessarily HD (HD is a subset of Digital). DTV is MPEG-2 encoded video with dolby digital/AC-3 audio and 480 lines of resolution. Know what else uses that same video system? If you said the $20 DVD player they had on sale last friday, you're right. Essentially, you need an IC capable of decoding the stream, an antenna to get the signal in, and some RF equipment that can tune to that signal. In bulk, we're talking maybe $50, especially considering these won't be purchased for at least another 3 years. THe current cost of outboard ATSC tuners is mostly due to the fact that there's a very small market actually looking for them and the fact that they're typically designed to a little higher standards, given that they're usually interfacing to nicer HD equipment.

    So the remaining 30% of people breaks down thusly: people who don't care enough about TV to invest in cable or satellite, and people who can't afford to invest in cable or satellite. The former group might have one or two TVs (they don't care enough, remember), so using my random $50 price point (which I think is reasonably believable), they can retrofit their existing equipment for $100, or simply put that $100 into buying a new TV. You can get a new TV for $100, and if they buy it at that time, it'll be DTV capable (see below). For the people who are too poor to afford cable or sat, well, they were obviously capable of scraping together enough to get a TV. Not to be heartless here, but TV is not a right, and if you could afford to get one you can probably afford to save up $50.

    This all counts out the fact that one of the circuit courts of appeal upheld the ruling that all TVs larger than 13" are required to have a DTV tuner starting 2006 (I think it's '06).

    So what we basically have is a lot of handwringing over a bunch of scaremongering by media outlets ("current DTV boxes cost hundreds of dollars", "of course they do, there's not a huge demand for them") and the lack of understanding of simple television systems by a lot of people. Folks, it's gonna be a cheap-ass box that hooks into your cable jack or A/V input and tunes to a channel. It's not rocket science. You can go back to watching your 15 year-old wood-panel TV now, and you can keep watching it for years to come.

    • Re:Everytime... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by wrmrxxx ( 696969 )
      Sounds great to me. I only have to pay $50 - $100 extra to keep using what I already have. What could be fairer?

      People who purchased a TV set (and most people buying them now) did so in the expectation that they could use it to watch free to air broadcasts. As you correctly point out, it's not a right of any sort. But it is a fairly understandable assumption given the history of TV that most people are aware of: the TV signal has always been there, and it has always been available to any TV set. Now, the r
      • Consider this, your analog TV will still work - it's just there won't be any signal that it can receive (you can always get together with like minded individuals build a digital-analog converter get a hobby license and re-broadcast - humor, please don't bring up FCC rule 1437.45...)

        The law is for broadcasters - that THEY have to broadcast in digital. Your 'future expectations' of having equipment you purchased from one party pickup free signals broadcast by another party are quite ridiculous.

        I realize

        • with cheap equipment the small minority not willing to purchase it, for whatever reason, simply does not matter (if not willing to spend $50, chances are not likely to spend a lot on advertised products, so no value to advertisers, so no value as an audience).

          That strikes me as a market-decides sort of an argument -- the people we can't advertise to don't count part, especially -- which puzzles me just a titch. The current market doesn't seem to be driving people toward digital broadcasts or digital-capa

  • Germans have started this conversion too (Score:5, Informative)

    by PsyQ ( 87838 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @02:17AM (#7607087) Homepage
    Over there in Germany, the state of Berlin and Brandenburg is shutting down analog broadcasting also. People on welfare without enough money to buy a digital receiver will get one nearly for free from the state. Nice, huh?

    I think Germany's goals are somewhat close to Japan's in terms of "digital only" TV.

  • Most importantly... (Score:3, Informative)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @02:18AM (#7607090) Journal
    Several Japanese electronics giants have unnited to form a consortium and promote Linux in their hardware - Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Matsushita etc. Are they setting a 2011 target to give these firms enough time to come up with a mature hardware that works, rather than the hastily put-together Microsoft Windows XP Media Center stuff that is too expensive for what it delivers?

    Knowing that the Japs are excellent planners, I think they've made a very reaslistic appraisal of the situation. Well before 2011, the SCO menace would be settled oncee and for all, likewise Media Center would be in Service Pack 7 or thereabouts.

    -

  • The Real Question - Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stu72 ( 96650 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @02:26AM (#7607112)
    Come on - this is TV for crying out loud - does anyone actually give two shits if they watch Friends in analog or digital? And if they do, why on earth is the government involved? I can understand a government taking a high profile role in healthcare, pensions, crime fighting, defense, etc., but TELEVISION?

    If the logic goes that they are preventing a standards war, my question stands - who cares? Maybe if the TV industry wastes enough money on a standards war, TV would become expensive enough that more people will question their viewing habits.

    Without any goverment intervention, TV will become digital one way or another, eventually, just by natural technological progression. Why are we wasting tax dollars trying to hurry it along? Is it that freakin' important?

    I can understand tax dollars trying to hurry along progression of medical technologies, defense technologies, communication technologies, but TV?? Who cares?

    Don't give me that line about educational TV like PBS/Discovery Channel/TLC - they're great I know, but really, do they get that much greater in digital? I didn't think so.
    • There are two directions with DTV. #1 is getting more channels in the additional bandwidth. For instance, many PBS DTV stations run a 4-channel multiplex during non-prime-time. This way you aren't stuck with just kids shows during the day, they can also run local programming or adult educational shows.

      #2 is High-Definition. Some programming is really much, much better in HD. Some may not be.

  • dtv adaptors in the UK (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fiddlesticks ( 457600 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @03:28AM (#7607269) Homepage
    in the UK, outboard DTT STBs now start at 50 bucks

    here [idtv.co.uk]

    This is both caused by, and helps encourage, the fact that more than 50% of uk household have DTV (cable, sat or dtt)

  • Finland 2006 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @03:41AM (#7607296)
    Quotes from http://www.digitv.fi [digitv.fi]:

    - Finland entered the digital era when the multiplex representatives started up digital television broadcasts on 27th August 2001. This means that there are now six new television channels in three multiplexes, and the four existing channels can be received as digital parallel broadcasts. Viewers have a total of ten channels to choose from.

    - The area of digital broadcasts covers over 70% of the population. The television broadcasting network is to be digitalised in phases. The process is due to be complete at the end of 2006, when approx. 99% of Finns will reside within the transmission area of digital television.

    - The government has set up a target that the analogue broadcasting discontinues at the end of 2006.
  • Digital TV is great. Although some things need more than "digitalize" to get better.

    I can imagine a wide area in Japan all rolling on the ground with the pupils all enlarged (think Simpsons)

  • Digital TV NOT= picture quality (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fidigit ( 640647 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @06:11AM (#7607658)
    We need to debunk this idea the widely held view that digital TV will provide better quality picture.

    While it is true that it _can_ provide better quality, it can also provide _lower_ quality. It is all down to how much compression the broadcaster puts on the video.

    This is more than amply illustrated by the UK digital satellite broadcasts by Sky, where compression artifacts are highly noticeable. An example being the green pitches during soccer matches. The high compression looks at the pitch and says, that all looks quite similar, and renders it as a big green blocky splodge.

    Spectrum is a valuable commodity, do you really think commercial broadcasters are going to "waste" it on picture quality, when they could squeeze in another three TV channels - ignoring all of the extra advertising revenue that could bring?

  • Meanwhile, in Osaka... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by windside ( 112784 ) <pmjboyle.gmail@com> on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @06:14AM (#7607671)

    As far as English news sources in Japan go, I've always found the Daily Yoimuri highly dubious and I really don't see how a Chinese newspaper is relevant. Here's the story from the Japan Times [japantimes.com], which I read this morning over my granola, thinking "Jeez, I should send this to Slashdot."

    This story is pretty close to my heart since I'm working on a project in Japan right now that aspires to distribute digital TV content via the internet instead of conventional channels. My understanding is that every major electronics manufacturer in Japan is working on the same sort of thing, so reading that the Japanese government "has vowed to phase out analog broadcasting by 2011" doesn't necessarily mean that this country is headed the same way as the US. As usual, Japan will most likely do its own thing.

    • Hell yes. Post a status report or a link to the project. I've tried getting Japanese TV content here in the US, and it's pretty lame. I could get a whole package of [insert other country] TV stations for an extra $5-$10 a month on my satellite bill, but ONE channel of Japanese TV is $25 per month!!! And all I can get on streaming media is music videos and canned anime.

      If I could get a Playstation X or use my PC to watch digital streams over the internet, maybe it'd be quite a bit cheaper... would the st

  • HDTV broadcasts, not HDTV cable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stiller ( 451878 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @06:19AM (#7607680) Homepage Journal
    It is in fact silly to think that in 8 years, every television will have to be replaced by a HDTV because of a sudden revolution.
    Why, already a large number of people have broadband internet connections in their home. (At least here in Europe you can easily get 8Mbit for a very reasonable price)
    So chances are, in 1 or 2 years, some bright mind will start providing for all early adopting tech geeks by streaming HDTV standard compliant video from his website. This would only require an upgrade of whatever media player they'll be using.
    Soon after people will develop cheap (linux based, ofcourse!) standalone players that only require a monitor and an xDSL connection. A surge in HDTV set sales will be the result.
    Why should HDTV emerge from the same, centrally directed, mass-oriented cable companies? When did they develop something new? It will happen, but not in the form you're thinking of.
  • With the change to all digital and HDTV looming, I've heard rumours that they are expecting makeup application times for actresses to double, as all the wrinkles and blemishes hidden by current TVs will be shown in all their high definition glory otherwise. Personally, I find this amusing as hell.
  • ...that somebody actually makes TVs with digital tuners now. Maybe they'll think of selling them in the U.S. too! Right now the stores only have "digital-ready" boxes which are just hi-def monitors. There's usually some mumbling about a "set-top box" to make these incomplete TVs functional, but I don't see any of *those* in the stores either.
  • I doubt anyone will see this, because the story has fallen down under the slashdot main page...

    but HDTV's are coming out anyway. ANY television over 36" sold from this year forward are high-definition capable. Most next year are going to have tuners built in.

    Most plasma televisions are HDTV. Even glass tube televisions have to be HDTV by next year, I think.

    You guys act like no one's done anything in the last 5 years for this HDTV business. Try going into your local electronics store and ask about HDTV.

    G

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close