FCC Speeds Up Digital TV Signal Deadlines 423
sbinning writes "The FCC, in a 4-0 vote decided that all medium-sized televisions, screens between 25 and 36 inches in diagonal, must be able to receive both digital and traditional analog signals by March 1. This is four months earlier than the commission had decreed three years ago. Now if they just mandate more intelligent programming."
When this standard is apparently so bad (Score:2, Funny)
I never did understand... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I never did understand... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I never did understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Re:I never did understand... (Score:2)
Re:I never did understand... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm in the same boat as you, so maybe some kind soul will mass produce these things. Otherwise, you're face with buying several converter boxes, setting each one on a particular channel, and creating your own in-house CATV system. I guess a couple of houses on the block (or an apartment complex) could gang up their money, buy enough of the converters to cover local channels, have a multiplexer, and create their own CATV system...
Re:I never did understand... (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're asking for is a block converter.
In the earlier days of cable when many if not most TVs still had rotary tuners, the cable companies put channels other than 2-13 on other VHF frequencies. The cable boxes from the cable companies generally tuned one channel at a time and shifted it to VHF channel 2, 3, or 4 so that you could set your TV to that channel and then choose channels with the cable box.
There were aftermarket devices which shifted the cable channels up to the UHF broadcast frequencies simultaneously so that you could tune them in with your television's UHF tuner. They were called block converters because they converted a block of channels up in frequency at the same time instead of one at a time. If you put a splitter on the output you could watch two different cable channels on two different televisions at the same time without needing a cable company cable box (or paying rent on it) for either set.
It might be possible to come up with something like that for broadcast digital channels, but don't expect anything like that for cable and satellite channels. Satellite and cable companies, especially cable companies who see "cable ready" televisions and VCRs as having cost them a fortune in lost cable box rentals, aren't going to want to surrender even that much control. The cable companies can hardly wait to go completely digital and re-use a lot of the analog frequencies for other revenue opportunities.
So whenever you hear about how great digital is going to be for the consumer what they really mean is how greater the number of opportunities for spending money the consumer will have.
Re:I never did understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
The gov is fine with this since the money is earmarked to pay off the deficit. In reality, buying an HDTV has the positive side effect of lowering the national debt. It's a very good plan, if you don't mind being used for high level money making.
Re:I never did understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I never did understand... (Score:4, Informative)
Timber company A "leases" X acres of National forest, logs it, replants, and maintains it until the lease is up, then the US government rebids that section at some point later in the future when suitable for timber harvest.
Some acreage is permanetly set aside for perpetuity, but the bulk can be responsibly managed till domesday by the consumers.
Before some of you say, ANWR was set aside in a similar fashion, not so fast, read the ANWR creation act (79 or 80, late Carter Admin). It explicitly allows for sections of oil exploitation, the Bush admin is just calling in the option on that section of the act.
Re:I never did understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Until that time, however, I'm standing with all the people who can't afford a new TV or converter. The primary consumers of normal rf-based (non-satellite, non-cable) broadcasts are precicely the people that can't afford this change. It's a decidedly stupid idea.
Re:I never did understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
You won't need a "free converter" if the manufacturers would integrate the receivers into the TVs and that's exactly what the FCC is mandating. I never did understand why companies don't provide the product people want - half the people with "wide screen" think they're getting HDTV. Oh that's why - they can sell a cheaper product and people will *think* it's what they want.
That said, didn't the courts just decide that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate devices? i.e. they can't mandate the broadcast flag, so why should they be able to mandate recievers?
It doesn't really matter, most of them just leave the tuner out entirely and call it a "HDTV Monitor". I'll stick to the HD2000 in my Linux box until things get reasonable. Maybe I'll build the $300 projector described on TomsHardware a while back :-)
Re:I never did understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I never did understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I never did understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I never did understand... (Score:2, Insightful)
They want to sell the signals that are currently being used for broadcasting and they are going to do so in the name of digital progress.
Now if you don't mind I have about 300 shows to watch right now.
Re:I never did understand... (Score:3, Funny)
From fcc.gov:
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.
The FCC is charged with regulating who may broadcast and receive to and from the electromagnetic spectrum, an inherently public resource. Some of these bands they regulate more strictly than others. One of the bands they regulate strictly is the one on which television signals are broad
Re:I never did understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Screw it, I'm going to Starbucks to have a triple-latte and complain about the deforestation. That's where they like...chop down trees for no reason...right?
Re:I never did understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
You wouldn't want TV over your air traffic control spectrum, or in your cell phone spectrum. Similarly you wouldn't want someone with a 3MW transmitter irradiating you. The government long ago divided up the airwaves into categories and sold chunks of it to interested parties. Th
Re:I never did understand... (Score:2, Insightful)
In exchange for FORCING the public into following the TV broadcaster's desires the FCC also FORCES the broadcasters to follow our collective desires...
Or did you think it was a lucky coincidence that only one person broadcasts on a TV frequency at a time in any given area?
Re:I never did understand... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I never did understand... (Score:4, Interesting)
And the NAB (TV station lobby) is still mad about loosing that one. Even though there never were any stations on the air above channel 70, and even though the UHF stations never made a dime until cable and the Fox Network.
Once a business gets something from the .gov (for free in exchange for "serving the public interest" whatever that means), it becomes something they are entitled to, much like welfare. I'm not so sure modern "local" television meets the FCC requirement for free bandwidth anymore, but the day the FCC charges a broadcaster for spectrum is the day we'll all need descramblers for our televsion.
The only reason there was so much spectrum allocated in the first place was because of RCA's influence over Washington after WWII. If the broadcast stations would have allowed some flexibility in spectrum management, this mess may have been avoided.
Re:I never did understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC is the Federal Communications Commission. They are in charge of _everything_ that passes over the air waves. The advent of digital television will clear up many of the airwave bands.
Its progress, you've got to have progress!
Re:I never did understand... (Score:2)
Re:I never did understand... (Score:5, Informative)
A really good book about the whole HDTV system is Defining Vision [amazon.com]. Visit your local library, and read more about it.
Re:I never did understand... (Score:3, Informative)
besides, they want the VHF airwaves to about 180 MHz (in the neighborhood, but I'm not close to a spectrum map right now) for public service and cellphones, so to keep a live media out there with local service, considered critical for national security, they have to trade broadcasting up to channels 14 and above to approximately 49.
it all converged, and we have HDTV
Re:I never did understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
And, for those who are concerned about such things, Congress is trying to figure out how to pay for t
Re:I never did understand... (Score:2)
The government can regulate interstate commerce.
I don's see why you're shocked, the govt regulates almost all products. Safety standards for toys and automobiles, black boxes in airplanes, food labling, lead content, "made in the USA" requirements for automobiles, assault weapon bans, decency rules for broadcasters, etc, etc, etc...Anything they can justify being for the common good can and will be done!
Re:I never did understand... (Score:2)
Intelligent programming? (Score:2, Funny)
Faster (Score:4, Interesting)
If you dont know digital sets are able to recieve special content like the name of the program all off the air.
Re:Faster (Score:2)
Re:"off the air"? (Score:2)
Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:5, Funny)
Now go mow the lawn!
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:2)
Yeah, once they get hooked on just how good HDTV looks, their kids will have even less reason to get off the sofa and get some exercise.
Seriously, it is entirely reasonable to think that this requirement will actiually lower the price of televisions due to economies of scale. Once implemented, all tv's 25" and up will have digital tuners which probably means an order of magnitude more combo analog-digital tuner chipsets being produced which should lead to a
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:3, Interesting)
I should reiterate, since
A digital tuner is cheaper than an analog one. Once the analog yoke is thrown completely, it should shave a few bucks off production costs, and since there's healthy competition in the field, it should translate to lower prices on the shelves.
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:2, Troll)
It sucks that poor people can't afford 32" TV sets.
I make more than an average US salary, and it was a big deal for me to plop down $1,600 for my 43" HDTV a while back.
WTF? Poor people get shit on all the time. That is what they are there for.
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:2)
External HDTV tuners are $50 today so what will the price be when they produce them by the millions? $20? $2?
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:2)
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:2)
$200 is currently the average price of such a device and will be for another year or two until more manufacturers get into it.
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to sound too crazy, but TV is the primary means that corporate American and the government has to communicate with the people at the lower 50% of the money chain. Whe
I disagree. (Score:2)
Once a digital tuner becomes standard and manditory, they wont be able to do this. Most people cannot justify (or even afford in most cases) these prices for TV sets. The NBC/Universals and Viacoms of the world will be leaning hard on TV makers to lower prices
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:3, Insightful)
As well as the companies that profit off of convincing America's poor to buy things they don't need via advertising.
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like it's all that hard to become a millionaire after 40 years of working and saving, if that's really your first priority. Most people prefer TVs, however. (And there's nothing really wrong with that, but don't go blaming "the man" for the result.)
Year? HDTV Info (Score:5, Informative)
While trying to confirm that I found an interesting page:
http://www.hdtv.net/faq.htm [hdtv.net]
Does anyone know the stats on how many stations are digital?
Re:Year? HDTV Info (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Year? HDTV Info (Score:2)
Re:Year? HDTV Info (Score:4, Informative)
http://goodguys.com/hdtv_faq.asp [goodguys.com]
Now, these are both Pro-DTV sites.
What I'm also looking for are criticisms of DTV-- other then the obvious arguments about DTV being expensive.
Re:Year? HDTV Info (Score:2)
That article does state that it's only a problem in big cities, and that better receivers are starting to help, though.
Re:Year? HDTV Info (Score:2, Insightful)
How about all that horrible pixelation in low contrast areas of the screen because of the extreme compression being used? I'm not the least bit impressed with digital or DVDs. My old 12 inch video disks looked just as good...better to me. If you want real quality, you need a 1 inch VTR with component video out. It still makes the best picture I've seen. And it's analog. So searching rapidly through the tape is easy. Besides, DTV is expensive..., but then,
Re:Year? HDTV Info (Score:3, Interesting)
There's not too much to criticize. Everyone knows it's an inevitable step in the right direction.
You can complain about artifacts of digital video, but it's still better than the artifacts of analog broadcast. You can complain about the reduced broadcast range. You can complain that they didn't go further, making 1080 progressive. You can complain that they didn't choose a better codec, such
90+ percent of markets Re:Year? HDTV Info (Score:2)
Powell's power move (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Powell's power move (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope to goodness you're kidding. How about some subsidies for education or housing instead?
Re:Powell's power move (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Powell's power move (Score:3, Insightful)
Housing subsidies are very dangerous because they create dependencies. They are also very expensive because they have to be continued year after year, potentially forever. The Section 8 rent subsidy programme is a good example of this. Worse, it bids up the price of housing for everyone else, which is just horrible.
However, the supply of TVs is effectively unlimited, so subsidies for TVs are likely to do very little harm other than their cost. A $200 subsi
Subsidy would do more harm than good! (Score:2)
Oh God, you're probably right. Just what America's poor needs -- more mind-numbing television. A quick review of over-the-air broadcasting during the hours of 9-5 (e.g. "work hours") leads me to think the poor would be better of WITHOUT television
Re:Subsidy would do more harm than good! (Score:3, Insightful)
> the damned box went black and they were forced to pick up a
> book
Am I the only one who is a little disturbed by seemingly classist statements like that above? I'm reading the above as "the poor are too lazy!" They should open a book and get real jobs!
Sure there are lazy poor people. There are also lazy middle class people and lazy rich people, too. Being poor doesn't mean someone is lazy. Sometimes it's just nearly impossible for
Re:Subsidy would do more harm than good! (Score:2)
What percentage does the switchover apply to? (Score:4, Interesting)
So of the 10% getting their television over the air, I'd sure guess that a large percentage who aren't interested in cable or satellite also aren't buying new fancy TVs every couple of years. Their choices are probably going to be buy a new TV or switch to satellite or cable and continue to use their old TV.
So is it only a portion of the 10% that would be affected when the big switch happens?
Re:What percentage does the switchover apply to? (Score:2)
Or to get a converter box. I've been watching digital TV for well over a year now using a tuner box. There's some talk about subsidized converter boxes, but right now one can set you back $200-$400. And it's not always easy to find one, because the big box electronics stores would rather sell you a subscription to satellite TV.
Re:What percentage does the switchover apply to? (Score:2)
Cable TV doesn't have to switch over then either.
I don't think that's entirely accurate. Many people who do use cable only have the "basic" version for stuff like weather, news, some sports, and the broadcast channels (so they don't have to deal with antennae). Basic cable, for the most part, is analog. So, those with basic service would need a converter/new set, too.
Re:What percentage does the switchover apply to? (Score:2)
In the long run, the cable companies are planning to eliminate all of the analog channels.
Re:What percentage does the switchover apply to? (Score:2)
they live on the satell
Re:What percentage does the switchover apply to? (Score:2)
Re:What percentage does the switchover apply to? (Score:2)
That price is off by AT LEAST an order of magnitude.
Please please (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything but that! Programming is none of their business. You should know that by now. Especially after the "Janet" thing. Technical standards are the only thing theFCC should be messing with.
My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV (Score:5, Insightful)
If the FCC really wants me to switch to the new Digital TV, I figure I should be able to get an equivilant system for an equivilant price.
I'm willing to update if I get something better, I'm NOT going to pay a ton of money just so that I can get the same service with more pixels.
My requirements before I buy a new digital television:
If I can't get this, I don't see why I should switch. Why should I pay more for less?
The price should come down over time (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC is hoping to tell everybody, "Look, we're going to DTV, start making it," which should drop the price to the point where an adapter for your existing TV is $50. (The manufacturer
Re:My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV (Score:2)
Re:My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a calculator: http://eh.net/hmit/compare/ [eh.net]
Re:My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV (Score:2)
True - but $400 is a lot easier to make today than what is was in 94. Glad paychecks did not follow inflation.
Re:My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV (Score:2)
Because the FCC, who represents the public interest, has decided that the switch to digital TV will be a better use for the public airwaves.
When the FCC forces a company to do something like this, people cheer. When the FCC does something that affects the public, you get nothing but complaints.
I certainly believe the FCC has handled this whole thing quite poorly, but saying that cheap TV sets are a right is completely ridiculous. When everything switched over from black
Re:My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV (Score:4, Informative)
That took me about 30 seconds to find. Best Buy happened to be the first retailer I hit, but I'm sure you'd have similar results elsewhere.
1) Granted, it's $329 instead of $250, but it's also 27" instead of 21". Don't forget to factor inflation.
2) In a few months, a TV like that will be required to receive free over-the-air transmissions, so I'm sure you'll see a model sometime closer to the end of this year with those features.
3) I don't know what sort of Home Theater equipment you have, but this thing has plenty of inputs and a line-level audio out, so I don't see how it couldn't.
4) Done plus 6"
5) There's a 26" Widescreen Samsung CRT on that same site for $450, so it's $120 more.
6) Wouldn't we all like that. Hell, you can't say that about anything, and it's not a by-product of DTV or not. My folks have a cheap Magnavox from the mid 80's that still works, and I've seen quality, name-brand TVs from many different time periods crap out. This one will be a crapshoot. Also, how exactly will you judge that something will last 11 years without a single problem?
Remember: $8,000 65" HDMI-equipped LCoS TVs with 1080p display capability are NOT the only DTVs out there.
Re:My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV (Score:3, Informative)
I've seen that TV in purpose and have considered it.
Trouble is, it doesn't come with an HDTV tuner. It's "HDTV Ready". Tuners cost $250 [bestbuy.com], and I'll still need to get cable/satellite (what a rip off) or a HDTV antenna ($30+, which is acceptable). Either way, this is $300 more then the $250 solution I'm looking for.
Also, how exactly will you judge that something will last 11 years without a single problem?
Well first off,
Re:My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV (Score:3)
The free market (Score:2)
Re:The free market (Score:2)
-N
Re:The free market (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The free market (Score:2)
Re:The free market (Score:3)
Re:The free market (Score:2)
City guy: Why do all the farmers paint their barns red?
Hardware store guy: 'Cause red paint is the cheapest.
City guy: Well, why is red paint the cheapest?
Hardware store guy: 'Cause we sell a lot of it.
The lesson is that the status quo tends to be reinforced. It may not be the most advantageous in the long run. The FCC want's to eventually eliminate the current Analog television signals, which given today's technology, is an inefficient use of the br
Re:The free market (Score:2)
So, you see, the free market isn't coming up with the decision that the FCC wants. Hence, regulation is needed.
Re:The free market (Score:2)
Intelligent Programming (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know. I'm worried that televisions will get too intelligent in the future. I have a recurring dream that I am watching my new LCD "Buck Rogers in the 21st Century" TV and a commercial comes on, so I get up to make a sandwich but as soon as I start to leave-- the show comes back on. Then when I sit back down to watch it the commercial comes back. Every time I try to get up this happens again. So I give in and run to the kitchen while my show is on. But it's a dream so, you know, I'm always running in slow motion. Finally I make it and I can hear my show in the other room while I spread peanut butter and jelly on two slices of bread. It sounds really good. I can tell from the laughtrack that I'm missing some really funny shit. I literally throw the knife in the sink from four feet away and run as fast as I can to the couch. My show is still on. I made it. My butt touches the couch cushion as I take a bite of my sandwich and fix my eyes on the screen... just in time to see the commercial.
Programming (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now we have the FCC mandating that TVs must provide digital reception as well as analog. What am I missing here?
I can't say I disagree with either decision, but there seems to be some level of conflict between the two activities here.
Re:Which is it? (Score:3, Informative)
What they should be imposing (Score:3, Interesting)
My favorite part (Score:4, Interesting)
But we do have an option, since so far the FCC hasn't ruled that every home is required to have a TV.
turn it off (Score:3, Insightful)
You sure? (Score:3, Funny)
I know you're kidding, but are you really sure you want THIS administration to decide what constitutes "intelligent" programming?
EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE... (Score:3, Interesting)
Did I misunderstand the ruling regarding the broadcast flag, or is the FCC ignoring the meaning of it?
Re:Need low cost converter boxes ! (Score:3, Interesting)
As for connectivity, my atsc tuner has outputs for composite, Y/C, component, RGB, DVI, and IEE1394a , so it can be used with most any modern televison. Add an RF converter and one can even connect a coax only TV. However, the higher resolution signals (480p, 720p, 1080i) are only output through RGB, DVI, and component.