FCC Says Analog TV Lives Until 2012 412
walterbays writes ""The FCC voted 5-0 to require that cable operators must continue to make all local broadcasts available to their users, even those with analog televisions." I don't understand how AT&T manages to deliver U-verse without any analog channels. Did they get it classified as not-cable and exempt from existing rules? Or as a result of this vote, will they suddenly have to drop 50 SD channels to make room for 5 NTSC channels?"
The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to really get up to date is to have the balls to dump the past.
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to really get up to date is to have the balls to dump the past.
It's not a matter of the technology not being available like cell phones. The problem is that for many people, the old stuff (analog TV) is good enough so they don't see any reason to move to digital TV.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that adjacent channels are no problem is, of course, a huge step.
What annoys me is how hard it is to find a simple, cheap set-top box. I'm absolutely fine with the 25" tube TV I got from Goodwill fou
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's just television (Score:2, Insightful)
And I can't believe how terrible the sound quality is on GSM networks compared to CDMA networks. I'm glad there are choices in the US. One technology to rule them all kind of sucks.
Also it's just a cellphone, many people don't have cellphones, get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, GSM doesn't always sound worse than CDMA. It depends in large part on where you are, as different codecs are used under different conditions (signal strength, remaining battery, cell site congestion level, etc.).
Re:It's just television (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure the GP means UMTS and HSDPA, not GSM which predates CDMA.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OIC
Re:It's just television (Score:5, Informative)
GSM EFR (or the equivalent AMR-FR) sounds better than CDMA. Unfortunately, AT&T is running half-rate AMR (AMR-HR) on most of its network to increase capacity. AMR-HR is passable, but it's definitely not as good as EFR or AMR-FR.
FYI, the CDMA vocoder has a lot of noise cancellation, which is one reason it works with lower data rates.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:4, Insightful)
My cell phone makes and recieves calls, and if I wished to pay to activate the service will send and recieve text messages. How much more do you need? The US stays in the 'dark ages' because the market doesn't demand much more than basic functionality - anything more is mostly sizzle, not steak.
Parenthetically speaking, I find it fascinating how often the Slashdot Hivemind bemoans and curses the US consumer for tossing away perfectly good items and using disposables when reuseables are available - but claims the reverse when it keeps the Hivemind from getting a shiny new toy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Insightful)
Some dinky towns have better coverage than most cities. and the call quality is worse than my old 80's speak and spell.
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Informative)
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
The "US is behind in mobile phones" argument is bullshit. You might argue that the contract model we use is broken, and it probably is (although it does result in surprisingly good deals for many subscribers). But we have the same technologies as the rest of the world (GSM/UMTS/HSDPA), in addition to CDMA2000 (which is also used by South Korea, Canada, and some other countries) and iDEN. We have two healthy national GSM carriers (and soon two national GSM/UMTS carriers). I can buy any of the fancy GSM/UMTS phones out there and use it on a US network (assuming that it's unlocked and has the right bands).
Maybe you think we should have enforced a GSM monoculture like the EU. But that's not the way we do things in the US, and our way seems to be working out fine.
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:5, Insightful)
Now there's a good argument. 85 million is more than any country in Western Europe,
because there are no countries in Western Europe with that many people. You probably
think the US has the biggest broadband uptake in the world as well? Percentages, anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Um... Where you aware that Analog Cell Phone technology is being suspended in 2008 by most of the major carriers in the nation?
They are dropping Analog but continuing with the CDMA and GSM. The continuance of Analog is purely the decision of the carriers and is no longer any kind of requirement. I don't call that middle ages.
But then it's easier for the Cell Phone Industry. They are highly captive about their customer base and make a big deal about continued phone upgrades and contract extensions. I d
Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If we (society as a whole) can actually see some benifit from going digital and selling off the old spectrum, we should do it as soon as
Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
1.) Broadcasters have done a rotten job of educating the public on any benefits of going digital. Not a word has been broadcast outside of the geek forums like here on just why one would want to go digital. Nobody has explained either just how they are going to get that digital signal to distant recievers that currently get really fuzzy reception on analog. Is it going to require a cable run? Is it going to be broadcast? Just exactly how are they going to transmit the signal has been left out of any information you get on it today.
2.) Many see the switch to digital as the death of free (as in beer) TV they have grown up with. They think that the digital signal they get will be charged for much like cable / satelite is and nobody has refuted this in public. Also, given the lie that was perpetrated by the cable companies when they were first getting established of lower prices as things move forward, it is little wonder the average Joe is gun shy.
3.) Other than huge corporate profits for the winner of the spectrum bid, the average Joe has no idea why this switch is need now. For example, they don't realize that some of that spectrum is needed by emergency responders because it can be received inside of buildings (something the 9/11 commission found they can't do now). So the average Joe again only sees the obscene profit the Government is going to make on the sale of the spectrum and seeing little benefit to themselves by it.
4.) This is probably the biggest reason... It requires the purchase of new equipment just to recieve the crap that is regular broadcast TV. It is an expense that many see as unnecessary for the quality of programming local TV has to offer.
5.) The retail stores and TV manufacturers have done poorly in obsoleting the analog TVs they sell. In fact, they have become even more attractive because of their price reduction without any warning that they will be obsolete when the switch is made. So instead of less analog TVs being produced and sold there are more.
I'm sure there are even more obscure reasons people will give. They won't switch without being forced into it no matter how long a time frame they have. They just don't see any benefit to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well , at least in Belgium
- It only works for 1 tv ( you have to pay more of you want to receive it on more tv's )
- I have to pay money for each film i want to see later ( as appsosed to just recording it for free )
- There is no difference in quality , since i only have a regular tv ( the digital signal gets converted back to analog )
So why would i pay more , to have less ?
If they force the switch , i'll just get every
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't you just plug multiple DVB-T tuners into the same antenna? Sure, if you're using DVB-S you need a multi-LNB and multiple cable runs, but for DVB-T it isn't a problem.
- I have to pay money for each film i want to see later ( as appsosed to just recording it for free )
Why can't you just record it like normal? Either plug your VCR into the analogue output of a DVB-T tuner, or get a PVR or DVD recorder (even buil
But what comes out of the box? (Score:3, Insightful)
The most enlightened answer I got was that you will need a converter box, even for new tv's.
What I *really* want to know, and nobody seems able to answer, is *what comes out of that box?* Does it deliver an analog antenna signal, or one analog tv channel? This is important because in one case I can't use my own tuner, and that
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are also a number of negative reasons for going to DTV/HDTV, some listed in other posts. The most notable for me, which I am surprised has not been noted here, is fair use reasons. MPAA & major sports leagues (e.g. NBA, NFL, NASCAR, etc.) are all waiting for DTV to come in because it can support the broadcas
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcast TV can be digital or
Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
No, in my experience you normally have a "cable-ready" analog TV and just plug the coax straight into the back of it, which is the way it's supposed to be. Then you just use the normal remote that came with the TV to tune to channels.
The last thing I want is a damn extra box with an extra remote with extra cords and extra complexity and extra frustration!
Hell, you know what? With all this fucked-up DRM and CableCard and incompatible whoozits and whatzits and bullshit, digital TV doesn't work the way it's supposed to (see above for my definition of "supposed to") anyway! Maybe once they drop the damn DRM entirely and just let the TV plug directly into the wall, then digital TV will be ready for prime-time. Until then, it's not!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The decision to not buy a HD set is reinforced by talk of US Government credits for HD tuner purchases, and learning the cable population they are good till 2012.
Let us not forget the date of HD *only* broadcasts was pushed out 2 years. It was 2006, and is now 2008.
Why would the population who is happy with standard NTSC change their way? There are not a lot motivating
Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biggest bar to all of this is the price-point.
Either you go and buy a $150-220 SDTV/EDTV DVD recorder or a $180 tuner unit right at the moment (I went and bought the DVD
Recorder option this week because analog NTSC reception in the area just flat sucked canal water- SDTV currently has a few
issues for me, but with a little more antenna amplification or a slightly higher gain antenna on
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK a couple of weeks ago, with analog switchoff a couple of months away in some parts of the country, Tesco started selling set-top boxes for £10 [informitv.com] - thats around $20. So get talking to some Chinese manufacturers, I'm sure they can do the same for the US market (different encodings on both the analog and digital ends, but still it shouldn't be in the same ballpark).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate the cable industry. They can't just give us a cablecard that does everything their boxes do. The first revision (if you could find them) didn't allow for on-demand programming because it was a one-way street, no talky talky with the cable provider. In my area I get to choose from Time Warner or...Time Warner. Since they took over for Comcast, I don't think I've seen a single channel with accurate
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The worse cable providers get, the more attractive satellite looks.
I've been on satellite for almost 20 years. I'm using directv now, while they are as evil as any other company compaired to the cable they seem to be angels. The HD box that I paid 800 bucks back in 2003 about, blew up a few weeks ago. They fedex me a new one the next day and had some monkey out there a week later to install a new 5 lnb dish for me, for free. Well not for free, I'm stuck with them for anohter 2 years but that seems to be fine with me.
Directv seems to be going through some changes ri
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually that seems reasonable. Are you saying that it's too much to ask for a public service to follow some sort of digital emissions standard?
The FCC seems capable of enforcing an emission standard for OTA broadcasts... wait I forgot large cable companies contribute to political campaigns - never mind.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They could either provide any number of [cheaply made] set top boxes for free to their customers, or only provide the lifeline channels (lifeline = the dirt-cheap mostly-non-advertised package they're required to offer now) in analog leaving the rest of the bandwidth on their wires free for digital.
How is that different than what cable operators do today? The GP wanted to watch the non-premium digital tier of a cable operator, including HD channels, without a set top box.
But, since your comment can be applied to other service providers (satellite, IPTV providers) I'd ask you what you would define as a cheap set top box that a service provider should provide for *free* to their subscribers? Whatever price point you come up with, how would that enter into the business plan of the video provider?
What does this have to do with AT&T? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod me as you will, but you know you're thinking the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it were cable, all that means is U-verse needs to provide a digital-to-analog RF modulator at the home. Those have been around for 30 years or so, as some of you who had "home computers" in the 80s might remember. (Hint: Those were digital, but somehow managed to display on an analog screen.)
"Bu..bu..bu..but the source is analog?!" I hear some gasp. So? Films (you know, the kind shot on actual 35mm or 70mm film stock) are analog too... And yet you somehow watch them on your DVD player, quit
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T is all digital (Score:2, Interesting)
What happened to 2009? (Score:5, Interesting)
And what makes this more hysterical is that the early adopters got screwed, buying plasma TVs only to find out they didn't support HD. Then the next set of adopters bought HDTVs, only to find out they were not HDMI compatible, and therefore, couldn't run HD content.
So, this new push-back of the deadline gives the content makers and the hardware companies more time to develop a whole new DRM scheme to screw those of you who just bought HDMI compatible equipment.
The guarantee is that every 5 years, you need to spend 10 grand on another entertainment setup.
Isn't that fun?
Re:What happened to 2009? (Score:5, Interesting)
But now cable providers are required to provide SD, signals to analog sets till 2012? Isn't this now an unfair double-standard?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a double standard. It reflects market realities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What happened to 2009? (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, we have one computer that has a large monitor. Now, admittedly, our "large" monitor isn't anywhere near the size of a 2000 inch TV that takes up an entire wall of most people's living rooms. But we've gotten over that. We can still comfortably watch any movie we want in DVD format. With no commercials, on our schedule. I know some slashdotters will still get up in arms about the DRM on the DVD format and whatnot, but we're a regular, non ubergeek family. We don't care. Now the only money anyone gets from us in this fashion is the $17/month it costs for Blockbuster Online.
~Rebecca
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just saying, it's undoubtedly within your budget range.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We gave up ours around 2001 I think. Best decision we ever made.
]{
Re: (Score:2)
i purchased a 70 inch hdtv 2 years ago. everyone couldn't believe i spent that kind of money on a tv. I then proceeded to question the same people about how much they spent on motorbikes, sailing and other water based hobbies they have.
My TV was a pretty cheap investment for the amount of pleasure i get out of it. I also use it a damn site more then said peoples jetski's and motorbikes.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a phrase: "idiots and their money".
If the 2009 deadline was withheld, how would those early adopters end up in a better situation? They'd be even worse off.
Bottom li
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For those who wait and watch early adopters, reading about them bitching about it is entertaining.
There is also the matter of brochures selling anything above 480p as HDTV (how many people have bought 1368x768 displays thinking they were getting full HD capability?) and the later drum-up of Full-HD 1080p TVs.
Since nearly no digital TVs come with CableCard slot, even people with shiny new FullHD TVs
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh ... 1368x768 is enough to do 720p (1280x720). The "Full-HD 1080p" crap is just that -- crap. HD is defined as 720p, 1080i, and 1080p (and 1080p isn't actually in the HD standard anyway). If you can do 720p or better, you have an "HD" display.
Re: (Score:2)
Now there's cheaper 1080p panels available
At my viewing distance, I can't see the difference between 1080p and 720p, so hanging out for a lower priced 1080p panel would have been a waste of time. Now that there's 42" 1080p panels available, some people must
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Anybody who bought an EDTV plasma without realizing that EDTV is only 480p and not HD doesn't deserve any sympathy. Learn to read the material about what you're buying. If the price looks too good to be true (HDTV plasma for $1000 several years ago? You can bet it's EDTV and you just didn't read), it probably is.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you absolutely insist on having the latest and greatest shiny new toy. OTOH, in the 17 years I've owned a TV - I've spent a grand total of $850. My first TV was a hand-me-down (still in service in one of the kids bedrooms of a former tenant), the second cost $50 used (still in service in the parents bedroom of the same tenants), and the third cost $800 eight years ago - and sits in my living room today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Point being, there certainly is a tangible difference. It's a shame the salesman didn't
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. All current Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players decode Dolby TruHD and DTS-HD in the player, outputting uncompressed PCM - which HDMI 1.2 has no trouble carrying and your receiver should have no trouble decoding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Funny thing is, I've had sales people say almost exactly that to me though about a different technology. It's really hard to get them t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Define Available (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Define Available (Score:4, Informative)
According to the article, yes. And based on the new box my dad recently got, that's exactly what Comcast is doing.
You can also read the same answer off the FCC's website [fcc.gov] in this PDF of their press release [fcc.gov].
Re: (Score:3)
Is offering a proprietary converter box (digital to analog), for a nice monthly fee, going to qualify as available? That could mean that citizens wouldn't be allowed to purchase any third party devices, essentially enlarging cable operator monopolies.
Exactly. This isn't the FCC getting tough on the cable companies to give consumers something they want, this is the FCC being manipulated to give the cable companies a good excuse to get everyone using digital cable boxes.
The FCC could have required the cable companies to output a digital signal compatible with the new subsidized converter boxes for over the air broadcasts. And thus make sure that basic cable was broadcast in the same digital format without DRM that would come over the air. Instead, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This Article Confuses The Hell Out of Me (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like they'll pick option #2 here, and then either charge legacy users a fee to get a box, or just jack up everyones' rate by $5. Everyone is going to end up with a box either way, it's the only way to watch cable given that CableCARD so far is a bust and the cable companies seem anxious to start doing SDV rollouts.
And then there's the fact that the cable industry's main association is happy about this. What's up with that!?Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't a lot of cable subscribers already have a box that lets their analog TV set gets digital cable signals? I know I do, and I only got it because it was part of a package deal that was actually cheaper than not getting it (considering that I also have internet service through the cable company).
Re: (Score:2)
or they can offer digital SD only and roll out converter boxes to all their subscribers (which could be expensive).
It seems like they'll pick option #2 here, and then either charge legacy users a fee to get a box, or just jack up everyones' rate by $5. Everyone is going to end up with a box either way
I think the process has already started in a few markets. I recently saw a tiny, very simple digital converter box (Motorola DCT700 [motorola.com] from Comcast) connected to my friend's analog television in Novato, CA. It's smaller than a cable modem and has only two video outputs: coaxial and composite. I assume something like this is enough for analog televisions and I don't think they will be too expensive in 2012.
Of course, that won't stop the cable companies from using any excuse to jack up their rates.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a freeview decoder in the UK for less than 20 quid retail.
This box decodes an MPEG stream out of the analog over the air broadcast.
Decodes this MPEG stream and outputs it as an analog signal to plug into your analog TV.
Provides tuner functionality to switch between channels / MPEG stream and decodes the 7 day over the air program guide plus a viewer for it and various other MPEG 'multimedia' functions.
Now if you've got digial cable you'll still need a b
Not like it really matters . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, by 2012, who the heck is going to even want to **own** a television anyway? On the bright side, I wonder what bittorrent will look like by then?
Re:Not like it really matters . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
You realize the industry is in a transition. There will be chaos and panic and random merges or non-scifi shows on Sci-Fi for some time to come. Newspapers are migrating online, CNN released their video service for free. Classic TV scrambling to hold "eyeballs" lost to torrents and online shows.
It's nothing to wonder about.
In 10 or so years, new leaders will emerge, producing content in a very different way, and they will likely be nothing like the current ones.
If TV isn't worth watching right now, don't watch it. You'll find there are plenty of better ways to get entertainment in or out of your home.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop watching crap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the 8th season finale episode (for those don't remember) and the last with Richard Dean Anderson as a regular.
And I very wholeheartedly agree. That show went on (at least) two years longer then it should and the 8th season finale was so wonderful, it should have been the series finale.
Hello!! Cue 1999 Senate Hearings... (Score:2)
1999 saw 1080p devices pumping the NASA shuttle launch at your local Magnolia Hifi Store. Now the entire switchover is going to take 13 years? This FCC makes my ass ache. Progress at a snails pace. This isn't being prudent. This is abo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1080p devices were not available until 2005, so there's no way you were watching a shuttle launch on a 1080p device in 1999.
You don't need to wait for the switchover in order to enjoy HD content now, or even 5 or 7 years ago. Most major markets have local stations that broadcast HD OTA (including PBS channels). Most cable operators provide local channels in HD as
U-verse can & does support NTSC (Score:3, Informative)
Typical U-verse (as delivered to my house in Oakland, CA) uses a Motorola VIP1200 IPTV set-top box (see http://www.motorola.com/content.jsp?globalObjectId=7460-10536-10543 [motorola.com]), which among things has an NTSC composite video output connector (see http://www.motorola.com/mot/image/16/16315_MotImage.jpg [motorola.com]). It will even send a signal via an RF coax connection fercrissake!
No big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
First, there is a rule requiring cable companies to do what they already do, for the most part -- have analog outs on their digital set top boxes. I don't think they'll care so much about that.
Second, there is a rule that they must continue to carry local channels, even after the digital switchover, some of which they'd love to replace with more lucrative pay cable channels.
What I can't tell from the summary or the article is if both of these requirements are in effect until 2012 or just one.
Great... (Score:4, Funny)
easy solution: unencyrpted QAM (Score:2)
and QAM is already part of the tuner of many digital tvs)
That way the cable companies could simply offer cheap QAM boxes to their customers without having to give them the full featured digital cable box.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe in the 22nd century (Score:5, Insightful)
"TV Lives Until 2012" (Score:2, Funny)
CRTC in Canada... (Score:2)
The digital TV switch is already happening (Score:3, Interesting)
Digital TVs are crappy, inflexible computers. The convergence is happening, but it won't be the TV that reigns: it will be the computer in what Steve Job's refers to as the 'digital hub'. Duh. Been saying this myself since '92. Amazingly, he seems to be the only exec who understands the forces behind the convergence.
The computer will be the television. I already have a 30" LCD monitor on my desktop. My computer can play a huge variety of formats in many resolutions. My computer is already attached to a cable company data network. When/if cable companies wise up and start the leverage their data services, offering on-demand video via software clients over their data networks, the convergence will really pick up.
But the cable companies are just as stuck in their thinking as the consumer electronics firms: it could be that iTunes or like technology ursurps their current potential advantage for content delivery AND presentation, not through anything other than corporate vision which doggedly persues ease-of-use.
the switch (Score:3)
This reason is precisely why the FCC should be pushing harder towards a fixed analog cutoff deadline. Todays analog TV had a good run. Cable companies could provide (as they do now) converters and HDTV antennas for the 'wireless guys' can convert to old fashion RF/composite/s-video if needed. We need to make the break though. Sooner, not later. I want my UHDTV before 2200.
Digital does not mean HD (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were a television manufacturer, I would have already colluded with other television manufacturers to produce units that would spontaneously fail after 2 and a half years.
Gold Star (now LG - "Lucky Gold Star", not "Life's Good" as they claim) used to be infamous among electronics service techs for powering everything from the CRT filament to the audio stages from the flyback transformer. Crank up the volume too loud and for too long, fry the audio amplifier, which overloads the flyback, which takes o
Re: (Score:2)
Worked perfectly until ~ 2005 when an extended series of power fluctuations in the area managed to screw the picture, a microwave, monitor, vacuum cleaner an
Re: (Score:2)
The Sony TV is also great for retrocomputer use for my collection of Sinclair Spectrums and a
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone with phone service provided by either their cable providers or cell providers had to wait a month.
So while all my neighbors were freaking over how their friends and families made out after the storm, I just had to wait a week and I could call mine. Because sometimes, old technology has stood the test of time because it WORKS.
You kooky, crazy early adopters go right on ahead forging into the technological wilderness with every dime