Slashdot Mirror
FCC Mandates Digital Tuners
Gekko writes "The FCC has caved to pressures and has rolled back their mandate to requiring HDTV to 2007." A follow-up to this article: looks like the answer is "yes", although an extra year's delay has been added. Cherish your analog televisions, they will be collector's items. Update: 08/08 20:38 GMT by M : Declan McCullagh notes that there was also a vote on the broadcast flag concept to prevent copying of digital television - a set of draft regulations will be released next week.
Free Mac Mini
Nothing like the bitter taste of having content "protection" crammed down your throat.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
At what point does the government have the power to dictate that an entire industry must change it's technology? It's not as if this is an issue of public safety. I just don't understand how the Feds create these kinds of requirements.
Personally I think this is a big victory for the Digitial (and HDTV) future. While the arguments of "people have satellite or cable" are valid, there is a VERY larger percentage of people that do not have either.
I have been putting off the purchase of a new TV exactly for this reason, I don't want to screw around with an external tuner. Put it in the TV.
Analog/Digital converter, cable boxes, Satellite Boxes, have you not been reading the articles you guys have been posting? This will be a $50-$200 purchase, in 4-5 years, at that, and no replacement on analog sets is required.
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
In this instance, it's because the government leases the airwaves to the companies.
Well, the FCC passes out licenses to broadcasters. Basically the broadcasters have to switch or they will lose their licenses. I'm not saying that the FCC should be allowed to do this, but that doesn't mean that they can't.
Why does the FCC need to mandate this? The FCC didn't mandate that all new televisions be color when color tv started. They didn't mandate that all radios must receive FM when that was started. They didn't mandate that all radios receive and decode stereo signals when that started. They did mandate certain types of compatibility with television and radio standards, which seems reasonable. If the market isn't willing to pay for digital television, is there really a compelling national reason to mandate it?
Yea, we all love that clearer and prettier picture on those tv's. But for me... I'm not going to buy one anytime soon. Why? Well... what am I going to with it? What show on tv is going to be better than it already is with a better picture? Not many. Most shows aren't that great to begin with, so a better picture won't help.
Yea, it might be nice to get it just for DVD's, so you get a better display, but then i always have my computer there, though it does have a small screen, it has better resolution. Or borrow a projector and screen and plug it into the computer.
But other than having the perfect home MOVIE entertainment system, I don't really see any need to buy, or push, for hdtv in the home, when the shows don't even warrant this.
Of course, if they can somehow make these tv's cheap, then people will buy them, on their own accord. Forcing upgrades isn't exactly the most fun thing for consumers, who are the ones who actually pay for this stuff.
nothing was said about broadcast flags, does this mean there wont be any? Or that it's still under debate? or did the FCC actually say "screw you" to the MPAA?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
After years of consumers voting with their wallets for good ol' analog TV because they're plenty satisfied with the current quality and not satisfied with the extra cost of a digital TV, the Feds now seem quite bent on forcing them to buy digital. I don't get the motivation here. What do the Feds get from forcing mass change to HDTV?
I've seen the commercials on TV touting HDTV, but I (not alone among TV consumers) am quite happy with the one I have. Is HDTV going to make watching NBC news somehow more exhilerating? I doubt it. Are they trying to shore up a sagging HDTV market? Is there a market for something that few people are adopting?
I remain unconvinced that this idea is in anyone's interest, and would love to see some concrete arguments in favor of it.
What is your Slash Rating?
The FCC mandated that all broadcasts be digital by 2006. That doesn't mean they have to be high def. You can broadcast in 480i in digital by 2006 and still be in compliance. They FCC has now ruled that the digital tuners have to be in TV's. They didn't say they had to be HD tuners.
Digital TV isn't necessarily HDTV. Make sure you understand this point.
He asked me: "When did we, the public, without which public television would not exist, vote that we wanted to move to digital television? How is it in the public interest to move public programming to a new standard for which most people don't have televisions and which will eventually necessitate the the purchase of a new set?"
Good questions, and he's starting to understand some of what is going on in the name of progress that is starting to encroach on the public good that he, and really all of us, are used to.
The nightmare scenario for him, of course, would be that he couldn't be able to time-shift News Hour, Washington Week, and The McLaughlin Group because of digital no-record flags. He tells me that the majority of the TV he watches is recorded with only a small portion being live.
Of course, my dad also says that the problem with TV isn't that there is too little good stuff to watch, but rather that there is really too much. He loves his TV.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I aggree. It'll take a while for the manufacturers to work out integrating all of the digital features. I think I'll keep my ancient "analog" (actually digital internally) TV until 2010 or so. In the meantime I'll buy one or more settop digital converters with S-Video out.
BTW, There's gonna be a LOT of howling by Joe SixPack on the radio talk shows when the day comes that there will be no more analog broadcasts.
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because for all our DRM and Govt. intervention issues, we're the guys that buy the stuff first at the highest cost because we've-gotta-have-it-now.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
I believe the FCC will be able to make money by relicensing the current frequencies. Compressed digital signals use less bandwidth than uncompressed analogue signals, so the FCC can resell the spare bandwidth (eg for 3G networks). That's the government's plan in the UK, anyway - I assume the FCC has something similar in mind.
Whathappens to TiVo and other DVR boxen now? once analog is gone, and the HDTV digital tuner is embedded into the box, there's no access point to divert the data to a third-party box.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
What is the effect of a broadcast flag on digital tuners that are currently on the market? Do they bypass the flag? Will they not work? Will they somehow recognize and follow the flag?
Given that the flag issues is not yet worked out, and we're now mandating the digital tuners, are we designing a great big hole in the system or are we requiring millions of people to buy equipment that will be obsolete in just a couple of years?
hmm - is the reason the broadcasters and content guys are pushing the integrated tuner because they know that means when the old pre-flag set wear out, those tuners will be gone?
Also - can't manufacturers get around this by calling their sets "monitors" and not televisions. In the old days a "monitor" was a tunerless tv, and with advent of hdtv resolutions/capabilities, the dividing line between the newer meaning of (computer) monitor and tuner-less TV essentially disappears.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
(unfortunately I can't take credit for this one. It was written by a fellow slashdotter a while back, and I've lost the attribution. If the author is still out there, let me know and I'll send you a beer ;-) )
For those interested in a brief history of HDTV, here it is:
Here's how it went:
Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
FCC says "What standards?"
Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."
Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I live in detroit, and get nice Canadian stations as it stands. I get all my hockey imported :D
However, If they manage to force it without any DRM strings, I won't fight it because of the better health implications of digital transmissions, like lower power.
If you think crack heads are bad, wait till you see what happens when the government tries to turn off the TVs. The white house will be purged.
Here's a random anti-TV site. Google for more. http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/.
Speak truth to power.
Quite simple really, they are owned by the big entertainment companies. The entertainment companies are the ones who want this, so they can put DRM in the framework and force it on all of their evil, pirating, unethical customers.
But I am guessing that they'll have to find some way to ease this into the customer's butts, cause it won't go over at all if they try to cram it in all at once.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Its a 20 year old Curtis Mathis 25" TV. Other then the fact that it only has coax in, and that the remove is broken, it still works fine. I just end up using the VCR remote anyways.
Speaking of which, I still use an amplified settop attenna to pick up the four local broadcast stations (go UHF! UHF! UHF!). Get all the networks, and the whole setup cost me about $75 ( $25 for the TV, $50 fot the attenna). Less then the setup fees + first month of satelitte or cable.
Of course, now that I'm moving to a metro area, I'm debating picking up cable just for modems....
Whenever I see this topic coming up, I'm reminded of the #1 quote on the #geekissues quote database involving inventing a device with which he could stab people in the face over the internet. Will people please learn the difference between Digital TV and HDTV? Thank you.
There's no question that government has the power to do this (though whether it should is of course another matter). The Constitution gives the Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. If Congress says you can't sell an analog TV, you can't sell an analog TV. Congress explicitly passed a bill mandating a transition to digital TV, ordering the FCC to handle the details.
I must say that I am distressed about the "Digital Age." As more and more of the analog forms of transmission are eliminated the ability to censore, stifle, and prohibit the exchange of information grows stronger. I have pointed this case out time and time again and as such I will point this out again also:
/. to rant.
...
Under the DMCA analog transmissions (i.e. non-digital, verbal, print, etc.) are covered under the anti-curcumvention clause. This in effect can make it illegal to discuss a topic. Here is how:
I make a product called the Widget Foobar 3K (3000 calories). It is a potentially dangerous form of addictive candy with sharp edges and big pointy teeth. With digital television (Which is encrypted btw) I broadcast a commerical.
Pan 3 hours after the launch and 10 kids die (This is an absurd but clear way to describe this) from the WF3K. I as a parent or survivor want to warn the world so I hope on
Because the commerical is digital and encrypted I cannot use ANY content that was encrypted. So I cannot say the name of the product (That is encrypted information via the TV) which hampers the fact that I cannot describe the item (Any information that is in the encrypted broadcast is covered via the DMCA) and I am unable to warn parents, who for some odd reason, were unaware that eating razor sharp candy with 3000 calories might be bad for your child.
Knowing I cannot write about it I decide to run out in the street and shout about it. Sorry, verbal communication is catagoized as AN ANALOG transmission over public airwaves, again covered by the DMCA.
This is an extreme case (In fact virtually impossible, exaggerated to illustrate the mechanism of the censorship.) Now here is the very likely and REAL impact.
--- Begin Reality Check Version 4.0 ---
--Checking Human RAM
--(Barring Mental Illness this will return OK)
--Memory Check Complete, Forgot FirstKiss.Mem
--Attempting to reclaim FirstKiss.Mem
--File FirstKiss.Mem has file error type: WASDRUNK
--Unable to Recover.
--Memory Check: OK (.0000000000000001% tests bad)
--- Reality Check Version 4.0 Complete ---
--- Loading Reality OS ---
Ok here is the real solution.
You are a book publisher publishing classical literature. Sales are down thanks to Project Gutenberg. You decide to complete by making a digital version of Hamlet (for example.) The attempt fails as Gutenberg is free and you $1.00 copy of Hamlet is a buck to high.
Now you get nasty and evil. Perhaps your parents didn't love you enough. Who cares. You decide to use the DMCA to crush PG. How you ask? Simple.
You make a crap-tacular encryption system to encode your EBook. Done.
You Publish your Ebook and sell it. (Few Buy of course.)
Under the DMCA the circumvention of an Encryption scheme is a violation. (Check the law, it doesn't mention anything about the content, just the encryption itself.) Covered under this encryption is Analog transmission (i.e. Recording digital TV with a camcorder by pointing the camcorder at the T.V screen) is a violation. Just as reciting Stephen King's "Pet Cemetary" in public word for word is a copyright infringment.
Now suddenly PG is violating the DMCA! How? By providing an unencrypted version of the same text. There isn't a copyright infringment, merely a DMCA violation. No Mr. Ebook publisher can charge $200 per page to read Hamlet (which no person can afford, effectivly banning the book) and no person living under DMCA juridiction can publish their own version (as it would contain data within the encrypted version of the book.)
Now PG gets sues into obscurity and the book publisher has found a whole new level of book banning. Don't like someone's review? Digitally run an ad on HDTV with all the specs, the independant reviews cannot mention ANY of the data contained in the transmission as it would violate the DMCA (How about pictures... I wonder if they took a picture of you and broadcast it, would further pictures of yourself be a violation? Creepy...) We are NOT talking about copyright, fair use, etc. We are looking at the DMCA at an entity of it's own.
Why burn books when you can Hijack them? Think I am a few donuts short of a baker's dozen, probably. But I tend to plan for "Worse Case" scenarios (That is part of my job) and this has way too much danger to turn into a nightmare of a Ray Bradbury book.. (Can you guess which one?)
Think of the capacity for social enginneering! Contol the information and you will control the world.
Knowledge is power they say, and the wicked crave power, and let me ask you this: Those who are wicked and powerful, do they like to share power?
Digital TV consumes the same amount as analog TV, OR LESS.
Broadcasters have two options going digital: Higher quality, same channel bandwidth. Or current quality, something like 1/4 channel bandwidth.
Color TV was a better signal in the same bandwidth, and had a lot to offer for the consumer. Full res HDTV is the closest analog to this, but offers less to the consumer.
When FM started there was plenty of spectrum in the broadcast band - In fact, the FCC gave broadcasters excessively wide channel spacings. (Needed for technical reasons at the time, no longer necessary. This is being taken advantage of by current standards proposed for digital radio broadcasting that have both the old analog signal AND the digital signal occupying the same channel.) FM also offered a lot for the consumer.
The problem with standard-res low-bandwidth TV is that it offers very little of visible benefit to the consumer. The beneficiaries are the broadcasters (Theoretically they can broadcast 4 standard-def streams in the bandwidth they are already licensed for), and later the consumers, although indirectly. As someone pointed out in the recent Sprint/2.5G/3G cellular thread, the main thing holding back 3G is spectrum. Care to take a guess where some of that spectrum was supposed to come from??? Yup, bandwidth freed up by moving TV broadcasts to digital.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
...thats fine. I just bought a new TV a year ago. I will use that MF'er till it breaks. When it does, I will not buy a new one. I'll just read books or something.
Sorry, I'm not going to be a sacrificial lamb to the FCC..
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
Reminds me of a passage from Atlas Shrugged:
It's scary to read that book now... much of the dialog sounds like it was written in the last 10 years... not in the 50s.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
Why is it the same thing in Europe and USA that government decides whether people want to watch analog or digital TV. If no-one is interested in your stupid DTV then it just is so. If no-one is interested in taking the business risk involved, you loose. If no-one is interested in sending digital broadcasts then accept it. If people really would see the benefit in it, noone would have to force be forced to do it. There's is no valid reason why digital and analog TV could not co-exist for 10 years, for example. During that time also other people than those who sit in every countries Digital TV committee would have time to judge whether there is any point in it for them as individual or not. Well, I quess this is not the first them when some new cool new technology is tried to be pushed to market by force. Mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble.... :)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I haven't been following this too closely. Does this mean that everyone will have a cable or sattelite connection to watch TV? For people in rural areas, that really means the only choice is satelite. Currently there is only 1 real company (DirecTV) that provides that service. Isn't the government handing them the market on a silver palter? I'm confused!
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Which means, that in the city, I always get my text messaging and the like, but in some areas (out in the woods) it's typical to have analog-only service. Not only does this not bother me, I appreciate having some service over none.
Why can't they do this with televisions? Put a tuner in their that will work with both types of channels? If the FCC simply required that all new TVs were "dual mode tuner" TVs, rollout of HDTV would be *ALOT* less painful!
I'd imagine that the analog tuner circuitry would quickly drop to a single $3 chip...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Actually, I don't see anything about content protection in this. What is happening, is that the broadcasters want to force all HD sets to have the digital tuner for over-the-air broadcasters. Since tuners increase the set prices to the tune of several hundred dollars right now, this is actually going to slow down adoption of HDTV by making the sets overly expensive. Also, folks who intend to get their channels via cable or satellite will be forced to spend money on a tuner they won't use. The only beneficiaries of this move will be the electronics manufacturers, who will have higher revenues. Perhaps the retailers will get a bit more markup as well. The broadcasters aren't going to benefit from this move until they turn on their %@$#! DTV signals. If they'd get on the ball, they'd create demand for the digital tuners.
Unfortunately, that still isn't going to change the fact that broadcasters are rapidly becoming irrelevant, with most homes opting for cable or satellite signal delivery. Heck, a lot of folks are buying big HD-ready RPTVs just to have a higher quality (widescreen, progressive-scan) monitor for their DVD collection. With mandatory tuners adding to the price, this market might dry up quickly.
On the "glass is half full" side, maybe the tuners will get cheaper once they're in all the TVs.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Yeh,
Why don't they mandate digital radion, it's been arround a hell of a lot longer than T.V.
Oh i remember, they want to sell the air again.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I have had a HDTV (without a tuner) for about a year, I bought a tuner (nice one too)a few months ago and was disapointed,I even bought a fancy antenna. There was only 4 channels that broadcast hdtv and the quality ranged from amazing to _realy_ bad. Left it hooked up but did not use it for a while, then I had it scan for new channels last weekend and lo and behold six new channels! It looks like the local TV stations have been upgrading becase the the quality seemed to of increased also. Now it's worth it, six month ago I am not so sure.. HD is fast becoming "worth it".
"think of it as evolution in action"
I aggree with the other commenter, this is not a troll
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I'm going to go ahead and start saving up to buy a digital tuner now (RCA has a model that doubles as a DSS receiver for ~$550) before the MPAA and RIAA get a chance to force DRM into the standard. It will probably be pricey, but if this the only way I'll be guaranteed to record broadcast television, so be it.
The problem is, the balanced budget agreement signed in 1997 already factored in this money as part of government revenues, and budgets were set assuming the money would be available on schedule. The first auctions were supposed to start this September.
Of course, virtually nobody actually owns a digital TV in 2002, so now the FCC is panicking.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
(What's more, am I the only one who's noticed that a good analog broadcast signal looks better than most people's analog cable these days? I don't use cable myself, but a lot of the cable hookups I've seen give pictures that are full of ghosts, poor color, etc... )
Breakfast served all day!
In the UK, traditional analogue terrestrial services will be switched off at around the same time as yours in the US (possibly earlier), although with the recent collapse of ITV Digital, this proposal may be shifted further into the future. This has been planned since UK Digital was turned on in 1999.
I can understand why US authorities might want to move over to a completely digital service, freeing up Analogue frequencies to be used for more Digital services. After all, a digital receiver (which will only pick up free to air channels) is around £90 here, which is bound to drop in price when the demand shoots up after Analogue broadcasts are turned off. I don't believe this is as much a conspiracy between electronics companies (the majority of which are Japanese anyway) that some of you make it out to be.
I agree with the poster above who mentions the thinking behind HDTV: is anyone really too bothered about watching anything other than movies in high resolution? I can't see myself being desperate to watch Jerry Springer on HDTV, irrespective of the views I have on the actual program itself.
What's especially interesting is that the tuner is only used to pull air-based HDTV signals, thus adding additional cost with no practical use to all the cable/sat owners if the boxes.
It would probably be cheaper to just send them money so they can buy new TVs.
It would also be cheaper to send them food rather than continually subsidise farmers to grow more for purely political reasons and then have to pay to destroy it. Yes, I'm off-topic and expect to be moderated as such, but this rather irritates me.
This is not an anti-US rant, either; if anything, the European Union is probably an even bigger criminal in this case.
not until they inprove the quality of the programming I wont...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
According to the current screwed up Supreme Court precedent, no, because intrastate commerce "affects" interstate commerce. "The seminal case, of course, is Wickard v. Filburn, sustaining federal regulation of a crop of wheat grown on a farm and intended solely for home consumption. The premise was that if it were never marketed, it supplied a need otherwise to be satisfied only in the market, and that if prices rose it might be induced onto the market."
This is no shit. They have budget plans that expect $18 billion from auctioning off the analog spectrum. They can't auction it off if it is still transmitting analog TV. Thus they have to force everybody over to digital.
$18 billion is a lot of money even in these times.
Infuriate left and right
As a libertarian, I can name only a few areas where the gov't has a legitimate function. Regulating the common radio spectrum is one of them.
This isn't about regulating the radio spectrum, it's about regulating the sale of devices which happen to use the radio spectrum. Further, what right does the federal government have to regulate intrastate use of the radio spectrum? These televisions could still be used for reception of low-power stations which do not interfere with those in other states.
(Not really a response to the previous article, other than to the fact that it's continuinuing to copy the mislabeling that yahoo (or somebody further upstream) started.)
Darn it, they're talking about DIGITAL RECEIVERS.
A DIGITAL TUNER is a device that selects an analog signal using a digital specification of the desired frequency. Doesn't matter if the signal itself is analog, digital, or whatever. A TUNER doesn't even DEMODULATE it. It just shifts its frequency to that of the IF amplifier (perhaps also amplifying it a bit and starting the process of filtering out nearby signals by attenuating those that are more than a few megahertz away from the desired signal.)
A DIGITAL RECIEVER takes a DIGITAL SIGNAL and extracts the modulation.
If this is "News for Nerds" let's get the terminology right.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Um, what?
Here in the UK, we're slowly but surely switching over to all-digital broadcasts. I forget when the analogue turn-off date is, but we seem to be on target (more or less). You can't get a new cable or satellite installation these days that isn't digital, and the BBC is picking up the broadcast digital stations.
This is all done with a little box that sits under your TV. It decodes the digital data, and then you plug in a SCART connector or S-Video or whatever you like and watch it on your analogue TV. Usually the boxes come free when you sign the contract. For broadcast, you'll probably end up buying the boxes for under 50 UKP, but then the channels are all free.
So what am I missing? What's all this stuff about having to replace your TVs?
I sure as hell am not. This would lead to a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation, where everyone would stamp all over everyone else's transmissions, so that noone would get any use out of radio transmission. Kiss your cellphone goodbye. Kiss the radios in your police cars and ambulances and airplanes goodbye.
Secondly, regulation of transmission keeps devices from interfering with each other. It's quite possible to broadcast a signal that will prevent your cable TV from working properly, for instance. It's quite possible to broadcast a signal that will kill someone with a pacemaker. But the current regulations prevent this.
And if you deregulate everything, they'll somehow be less able to do that?
Anarchy on the airwaves would be about as bad as real anarchy in real life, i.e. get ready for someone to kick the shit out of you.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Just a few of the players:
The FCC, which wants to reauction the existing licenses for lots of bucks
The military, the EU, the FCC, and others who desperately want to grab some of the VHF station bandwidth
The existing cell phone companies, who don't want any new bandwidth to become available
The remaining cell phone dreamers, who want more bandwidth so they can pay billions for it
The content providers, who want to use the move to digital to impose copy protection
The hardware mfgs, who are deeply conflicted: they would love to sell everyone a new TV (at least as of the 1990 census, 98% of US households had a TV while 94% had flush toilets), but who don't really want to get involved with copy protection and who are afraid everyone will just stop buying for a while
And finally, the consumer/voter, who watches 60 hours a week of TV and who may not care much about school taxes or world peace, but who WILL get off his butt and vote any congressman who interrupts his TV watching out of office so fast the Capitol will be smoking.A big, big fight with everyone being both a good guy and a bad guy. What fun!
sPh
OK, so the government bans analog televisions just because they could possibly used to receive analog television signals. What if I want to use the analog television set for viewing DVDs with my analog DVD player? Seems to me like banning razor blades just because they could possibly be used to hijack airplanes.
Why do you think you need a 60" tv to get DTV? Why do you think DTV requires 16:9 vs 4:3? Why do you think DTV = HDTV? Where is this info comming from?
Listen, you can use the same flippin tubes you have now. Just need a different tuner. The industry claims that this will add $200 to the price of a TV. IMHO, this is probably FUD. When DVD first came out, it was expensive too. Now players are under $100. Mass prodution does wonders for driving costs down.
The local FCC, Ficora (Finnish Communications Regulation Authority) has ruled that all analog broadcasts will be ended in 2006 here. There has been quite a lot of talk about this since virtually no-one seems to be willing to buy a new digital television set for this.
A small amount of people have already bought digital tv's but the deadline is too soon for the majority of people. Digital tellies are currently too expensive for the average John Doe and neither are the commercial tv channels interested in providing anything special for those who're watching the programmes digitally (since nobody has the equipment for them).
hapo
At what point does the government have the power to dictate that an entire industry must change it's technology?
:) I find it odd that the FCC feels it has to take this course of action rather than saying the stations won't be allowed to broadcast in analog after 2007. The people who need the tuners will get them while the vast majority will just get nothing and recieve their signal over sattelite or cable. The problem is that if they don't than people will just stick with analog and they can't pull the plug on it without disconnecting a lot of people. I feel it would of been a wiser decision to make any TV including a analog antenna to also have a digital tuner there by allowing the sattelite and cable people to continue while still enabling the change-over.
When that industry is using airwaves that it doesn't own and the government wants to use them for something else. If your soccer team has played on a certain field for a while but then the town says we want to turn it into a park in a couple years to use this other field do they have that right? It's the town's field and they can do what they like with it, you knew that when you started playing there.
However this situation is a little different now that I read the article
I stole this Sig
Those antennas are for VHF. They've already moved some spectrum from TV to cellular. The upper end of UHF was moved. They plan to move more. It doesn't require meter long anntennas. I'm not sure if anyone wants TV's VHF spectrum.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
This affects the manufacturers, not the broadcasaters. So what if they simply refuse to incorporate digital receivers into their products? The TV sets don't broadcast, so they don't require a license. What they're receiving is public airwaves, so they can't be forced to receive only certain frequency ranges (think cell phones and scanners).
Of course, the broadcasters can pull the plug in 2007 and go all digital, but if the manufacturers simply refuse to comply, then suddenly 95% of the market simply doesn't exist anymore. Those who get cable, satellite, or only watch DVD's, VHS, etc don't even need it, unless the mandate covers all of those as well. That market can still buy the non-digital TV sets with the caveat that after 2007 they won't recieve traditional broadcast TV anymore.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Well yeah, any signal sent over the airwaves is fundamentally analog at the carrier level -- as is the "digital" signal carrying this message over at least some portion of the phonelines between my computer, Slashdot's, and yours. Unwrap that layer and the useful part of the signal is digital.
-- Alastair
your proposal is acceptable!
-FCC
This is how you know you're a geek the power goes out and you are unemployed and unemployable. Yes I know I can't spell
"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical. But, then, I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I'm never reading again!" -- Officer Barbrady, South Park Police Department
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Michael Powell the FCC Chairman said and I quote
"I honestly don't have any idea what public interest is."
OK Mike so I guess youz a ho for the media companies.
Actually, I don't see anything about content protection in this.
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean that it's not there..
One of the problems with this whole "digital tuner" thing is that "content protection" is built into the standard.. there is a flag (part of the broadcast) which (if set) will tell your VCR/PVR/whateVeR that it's not allowed to record this particular program... it was originally allowed by the FCC because the broadcasters claimed that they'd only use it for pay-per-view events and the like, but it slowly spread to include first-run movies, and (now) pretty much everything... so you can say goodbye to time-shifting anything broadcast by your local network.
And thanks to the DMCA, you'll be prevented from modding your VCR/PVR/whateVeR to ignore it.
More info can be found here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For reciving, a tuned antenna is nice, but not really necessary. You can recieve of fof almost anything. Transmitting is where it's essential to have a tuned antenna as it effects the amount of power coming out. That said, I am a ham, and there are VHF (2m band is VHF) antennas as small as my thumb. Sure, they are not the greatest, but they work.
Gorkman
The reason for the mandate is simple. The most important reason is not because of consumer demand, or because digital is going to offer consumers more choices, or because it allows hollywood to protect their content more effectively.
The most important reason is that when the analog space is vacated, this will allow the FCC to auction the spectrum for billions of dollars. When have you ever seen the governement walking away from billions of "free money"?
It's almost comical to see the FCC and the CEA to dance around this issue. Think about it: only 10 to 20% of all Americans get their TV via OTA antennas. Why is this mandate only focused on digital OTA? If the FCC were honest about their motives, they would be focusing thier attention on Cable Set-Top-Boxen.
One thing I can see coming up is a lot of very confused and angry consumers.
Sure there are going to be boxes (like digital cable boxes now) that allow you to watch the new content on an older TV.
But in systems now, most people have cable installers hook up even the simple boxes we have today. Are people going to want to hire someone to install a box for broadcast, even assuming they can afford the box?
Also, I can already see the worst issue - macrovision. I'm sure all of these digital recievers will support macrovision, and when people hook the boxes up to old VCR's (which they will do in droves, don't tell me PVR's will even have a 20% penetration by 2006) they are going to get bad pictures and return the boxes.
I've already seen a preview of this in action - recently I was in a target and a wal-mart on two seperate occasions returning something, and each time there was a person ahead of me exchanging a game console for a brand new one "because the picture was all messed up watching DVD's". I explained to the people each time what Macrovision was and that they had to run the signal straight to the TV, but it really made me wonder how many perfectly good consoles get returned TODAY because of macrovision, much less a future box that everyone in the US will need to watch TV.
I have no idea what happens when every TV junkie in the US gets mad at government, but it will sure be interesting to find out. I expect major firefighting efforts from the government on this issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's funny is that I said exactly the same thing after reading the Perl Cookbook.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
- Virtually none of the HDTVs on the market can display 720p or 1080p, nearly all can show 480p and 1080i.
- Entry level HDTVs retail at about $1700, and it only gets more expensive from there (I paid $1900 with a wooden stand)
- A 36 inch (nearly the smallest size available) Toshiba HDTV weighs just over 200 pounds and barely fits through the front door!
I seriously doubt that ABC, or anyone else, is going to transmit 720p anytime soon. I'm no expert on the rest of that stuff, but having gone through the comparative shopping experience only a few months ago, it's safe to say that there just aren't (or weren't a few months ago) almost ANY televisions capable of displaying 720p. I opted for a cheaper model anyway, mostly due to limited space in the living room.The picture is really nice, but then a lot of the $2000 analog TVs had pretty damn good pictures too. I almost never watch TV (girlfriend watches a little, maybe 1-2 hours a week), but every now and then we rent a movie. I usually have a couple beers and she often has a wine... so the picture could be crappy. The sound is what's important... or the lack of that 15 kHz sound that emits from nearly all analog TVs and gives me a really bad headache.
Anyway, my main point is that all the HDTVs I saw... and I looked at a good number, could display 480i, 480p and 1080i, but definately not 720p.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Well, not everything is a conspiracy for the same reasons. OK, maybe the entertainment industry isn't the only thing behind the mandate, but you can bet the mandate isn't solely for the benefit of the "consumer". It is likely all about money. But the turd will be shined, and presented as being done "for the good of the consumer".
But don't think that the entertainment industry won't be getting their grubby paws into this and try to get DRM established.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The FCC has mandated broadcasters convert to digital broadcasts by 2006. This is an ongoing process, and many (most in my area) already broadcast digitally.
This new mandate addresses TV manufacturers, requiring them to include digital tuners in ALL TV's by 2007. It requires them in all 36" and larger TV's by 2004 (a pretty agressive time line).
This follows the FCC's strong recommendation (not requirement) for the major TV networks to provide at least half of their prime time programming in HDTV. CBS hsa been doing that for a long time, ABC is quickly catching up, and NBC (the laggard) should be there in the new fall season. Fox provides digital widescreen (480p) programming already, and even WB will be doing HDTV in the fall. HBO and Showtime also have a HDTV channel, with a lot of 1080i movies.
So, this is a major step in the FCC's digital conversion plan.
- Make DTV broadcasts available to everyone; well on it's way.
- Make more HDTV content available; moving along nicely.
- and lastly, make the TV sets that people buy support DTV. This was a bit tougher, because all the other forces effecting the Consumer Electronics industry (like the MPAA). But, this is a swift kick in the ass from the FCC, which should take care of it.
I had cable (Time Warner) up in Ithaca, NY at school.
Now that I'm back home in central Jersey, where my parents refuse to get cable, I'm stuck with broadcast until I get around to installing a Dish receiver (dependent on if/when my current summer internship turns into a permanent job).
Analog cable blows away analog broadcast. Period. And we have a pretty decent antenna pointed towards NYC. Only 1-2 channels could possibly compete with the quality of analog cable, and after 9/11, it became even worse. (Another advantage to cable - If a terrorist blows up a cable junction or distribution center, it's not too expensive to rebuild an equivalent system. When a terrorist attack destroys the WTC, there is NO replacement for one of the tallest antenna towers in the country.)
Now a terrorist zorching one of the geosync TV satellites would be a different story - But the likelihood of that is EXTREMELY low unless it gets cracked. Given the kind of target such a sat presents to crackers, if it hasn't been cracked already, it's VERY unlikely it will ever be cracked.
I'm not counting client-side free TV cracks in the above example. I'm talking about Captain Midnight style takeover/DoS attacks.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Even assuming you are right, here's a short way out for Project G: change all texts slightly. Copyright changed texts as improvements. (There's prescedent for this - companies have changed and copyrighted logarithm tables with numerical inaccuracies in them.) When Mr. Ebook brings forward his case, say, "Woah, wait a minute. What are you doing with *our* copyrighted texts? You have no right to rebroadcast those, encrypted or no!"
You are an idiot. Do you even have a pulse?
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Where do you get "over 100" anyhow? There used to be 82 (numbered 2-83), but the FCC already did away with 70-83 some years back, so there are only 68 now. Part of the FCC's push for digital television broadcast is that it will enable them to reclaim more of the band for other uses.
The whole setup is a crock. They shouldn't get ANY free spectrum. Each available 6 MHz television broadcast channel in a given market should be up for auction every five years, except for a small number (20% or so) to be set aside for public broadcasting (non-profit).
I get the feeling that even the digital sets, will (for a while at least) have an "analog output" similar to your coax output from your VCR (for the cable passthrough). You can then record whatever you want after it has been converted to analog.
Barring that, you could always just find the output of the DAC in your TV's guts and run the analog output to your video recorder. Technically this isnt really breaking the DMCA because you arent circumventing any DIGITAL copyright protection. You are just using the analog signal slightly differently then intended.
Slightly OT: You can bypass almost any digital copy protection using analog. Its not as degrading as you may think. The output of any digital to analog converter can be directly input into an analog to digital converter and copied onto whatever medium you like. Again - since the signal is no longer digital, they cant really say you did anything wrong (but they will sure try).
What if the government had mandated...
...Beta compatability in all VCRs?
...6502 compatability in all CPUs?
...padded handcranks for all automobiles to prevent injury?
This would have been great news for everybody who wants to use a C-64 to control a model-T while they their kids watch Brady Bunch re-runs in the backseat. It would have been bad news for just about everybody else.
Too bad nobody in government has a clue. Any idiot can see that having the ability to install software-based decoders in the set is the way to go. Commiting to a standard 5 years in the future is grade-A 99.44% pure idiocy. Waytogo guys.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
From what I understand, all broadcasters still must have their stations broadcasting digital signals by 2006 (some sooner depending on their size). The TV manufacturers are required to have the tuners by 2007.
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
Television is analogous to alcohol. Too much of it is bad for you; not in the same way, certainly, but passively absorbing entertainment is as mentally degenerative as chugging liquor is bad for your liver. Experiencing it socially, with friends or family, in limited quantities, is okay, but more than that and it's basically an unhealthy addiction.
And yeah, some people can resist it better; I know at least one person who probably watches 20 hours of TV a week, and is also insanely intelligent, interested in vast numbers of things not related to TV, always has lots of energy, etc. But most people are not like this.
Do what I did. Pick one or two shows you really like, and watch only those. Leave your TV off the rest of the time. Read more books. Go for a run. Go to the gym. Play a sport. Write your senators and representatives, and tell them what political issues you're angry about!
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Requiring everyone to broadcast in digital is not as evil a concept as some people think. Part of the reason for it is to get people to stop using the analog channels, so that they can be reclaimed. There's only a limited amount of frequency out there, all of it in the public space regulated by the FCC (a public agency), and we need to be frugal with it. By moving everything to digital, we can take the bandwidth used currently for analog broadcasts (the VHF and UHF bands) and use them for something else. That's a good thing! As for the price, expect the cost to come WAY down around 2006, when companies start pumping out sets at a high rate. By 2007 or 2008, the price will only be marginally higher than it is now for a high end analog set.
Now, if the FCC also mandates that it has to be a DRM-encrypted digital, I'll go apeshit along with everyone else. That stuff is bad for your health, and it's THAT which would turn all current digital sets into expensive paperweights. As long as the DRM crap is kept out of it, it's a perfectly legitimate action to take.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
How many people still watch OTA broadcasts?? If FCC mandated that everything be digital tomorrow and shut down the analog signal then what would happen? Digital to Analog converters would be needed by everyone who doesn't have one already. This does not make your TV obsolete. You just have to buy a new box. They won't be expensive either, really they won't.
This is not HDTV.
This is not Cable TV.
This is not Satellite TV.
This is OTA broadcasts. Digital transmissions will use much less bandwith than the current analog ones, the govn't really has a good reason to push this!
But then again, you guys still use your inches and feet so I guess you're just stubborn like that. (joking.. joking.. I swear!)
It is a matter of access to technology and public safety. If terrorists (teehee) knock out the local cable company, how would you get news and information??
Consider DirecTV where you often need an antenna for getting local stations, how do you do this without a tuner??
Consider the destitute that cannot afford cable. If TV's were shipping without tuners, we would most likely be in a situation where welfare would have to consider cable a "necessity". (See Canada)
This is more than a technical issue, it is a social issue as well.
~Hammy
The government wants this done so that they can resell the analog spectrum and make lotsa cash to blow on ridiculous pork-barrel stuff that they wouldn't be able to justify a tax increase for. That's why there's a push for this. As for the DRM stuff, do you seriously think that we're going to get digital tv without DRM? If you answered "yes", I'd like to talk to you about this bridge I'm selling.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I work in TV and wrote this piece a while ago.
:) I tossed it up on a web page for reference.
I originally wrote it to explain HDTV to my buddies on our fraternity mailing list. The reference to "your asses back to Sun-day!" is an inside joke reference to our hell week process.
I'll officially GPL it, so repost it as you see fit. Mentioning my name would be nice.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
In the past, broadcasters tried to promote the idea of using DTV spectrum for non-HDTV uses. You can read a little here about the process. Preston Padden of Disney/ABC got slammed by congress for even suggesting they wouldn't broadcast HDTV.
The broadcast networks are committed to HDTV at this point.
The problem is that there is no business model that pays for the increased cost of HDTV production and broadcast with increased revenue. Sad but true.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
They won't be expensive either, really they won't.
Current DTV tuners are >$500. The TV manfacturers say it's a minimum cost of $250 per TV. Who is going to pay all this money?
This is not HDTV.
It specifically is for HDTV.
This is OTA broadcasts. Digital transmissions will use much less bandwith than the current analog ones, the govn't really has a good reason to push this!
DTV broadcasts use the same amount of bandwidth (6 MHz) as NTSC TV. There is no bandwidth savings.
The problem is that government is not mandating a format or spectrum allocation. They've already done that. What they are doing is creating rules to make the business plan of DTV broadcasters work. It's basically the same as the government requiring that all computers can run Windows.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
sPh
Sorry - it was Pickering.
sPh
It has an obligation to enforce the treaties that we have signed on spectrum use.
I disagree. The federal government doesn't have the right to enter into treaties which abridge the rights of the people or the states.
We agreed to abide by WARC allocation of spectrum quite a while ago.
I don't remember agreeing to anything. I don't remember my state agreeing to anything either.
In addition, broadcasting radio and TV are frequently interstate in nature.
Yeah, and inner city fathers frequently abuse their children. What's your point?
You are assuming that the current way we use the radio spectrum is the only way. But it's not!
Read up on digital radio and mesh networks. Imagine the spectrum as one extremely high speed Ethernet. Each device has it's own address and each device transmits when it has something to say - collisions from many devices would resolve the same way they do on Ethernet.
This way, everyone shares the wide spectrum (giving us great data transmission rates), without the need for the artificial scarcity.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Macrovision fluctuates the intensity of the signals in your video, and since a VCR has automagic gain control (AGC), the picture gets really bright and then really dark and it's hard to watch.
;D
As a matter of fact, I've had to explain it to my ex-g/f's sister a few times. Conversation typically went like this:
Her: "WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS DVD BACK IT IS BROKEN!"
Me: "Is the PS2 plugged straight into the TV?"
Her: "Yeah! Through the VCR, straight into the TV!"
Me: "Plug it into the back of the TV."
Her: "NO that's useless it plays games fine through the VCR."
Me: "Just try it."
She runs downstairs and I don't hear from her for a while.
I think you have to be pretty hardcore about your TV watching to be sitting there going "damn, I really need better resolution". Come on!
I'm on Dish Network, got plenty of channels and still have to search to find anything worth watching half the time.
Soooooo....when my TV dies I'll just pull my Dish account and call it quits. It just seems a strech to be forced to pay more for something I don't need (high definition) to watch something for entertainment.
Something like 3D or 4D might be worth a price increase in the receiver.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I used to do remodelling. Not the fancy sort where Jane Smith needs to rework the kitchen to fit in a truckload of new Jenn-Aire appliances, but the dirty sort where Jane Smith burns up half of her house with her new Jenn-Aire appliances and needs someone to rebuild it.
One of the larger jobs I was involved in was a Salvation Army thrift store. The insurance company wrote off all of the stock on the sales floor, and our instructions were to get rid of everything.
Among the barely-used Atari joysticks and the Timex-Sinclair computer that I brought home with me, was an ancient, portable General Electric radio.
This thing has a single speaker, a switch for AM/FM, and knobs for tuning and volume. It runs on a 9V battery. It gets better AM reception than the $500 Rotel tuner/preamp attached to my stereo or the $350 Blaupunkt in the car, and I have no trouble getting clear reception of stations several hundred miles away, even during the day.
It was marked at $6.
If terrorists (teehee) knock out the power company, how would you get news and information??
Radio.
(Some restrictions may apply. Tuner not available seperately. See store for details. etc.)
Kid-proof tablet..
I am writing this letter as a private citizen who is greatly concerned about current and past FCC actions when it comes to copy protection. I'm referring to decisions already made about copy protection in cable boxes, as well as the upcoming Digital TV Broadcast flag.
d g_fcclet.html). I'll close by sharing my "letter to the editor" in case the FCC makes the broadcast flag mandatory. I think the public will find these arguments quite compelling. As an industry expert and BPDG participant, I should note that the restrictions mentioned in the second paragraph are technically feasible and will quite likely be imposed unless there is a specific government regulation that stops them.
I'm an expert in applied cryptography, and in my prior job I was the security architect for the Atalla/HP Network Security Processor product line that handles more than 70% of the Banking ATM transactions in the USA. I was also a participant of the BPDG process, although I submitted no formal comments.
The FCC decisions in favor of control will eliminate legal activities of ordinary citizens, and are in effect a non-congressional grant of privilege to whomever controls the settings of these so-called copy protection flags. Since this control has historically ended up in the hands of the copyright holders (such as the RIAA and MPAA), the effect has been to steal rights from the citizens and give them to the copyright holders.
The FCC should reject any call towards mandating the so-called copy protection provisions. Failing that, it is absolutely mandatory that the FCC control and police any use of the copy protection signal. I will agree that government meddling in this area is not welcome, but with these decisions the FCC is already doing just that! The way the MPAA misused section K of the DMCA is a clear warning as to how the broadcast flag will be misused if copyright holders are left in control (see below).
I'm not going to discuss the issues in any further detail, because they have already been well described by the EFF's letter (http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/20020807_eff_bp
What you're proposing is a different way of ordering the radio spectrum, not anarchy.
How well would Ethernet work if competing signals are going over the same wires? If someone is trying to run token ring on the same bandwidth at the same time?
Obviously, for all those nodes to intermesh properly, there would have to be rules in place and clear specs of how a node operates.
Moreover, it doesn't eliminate the need for regulation. How well would your digital radio work when people are driving unshielded electric hotrods past your house, for instance?
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
The FCC, at the behest of Hollywood funded congressmen, is adding a so-called "copy protection flag" into the Digital TV (HDTV) standard. This flag will give Hollywood the ability to prevent citizens from performing normal actions like recording a TV show for later viewing and using a "fast-forward" button on the shows they do allow you to tape!
Hollywood says they need this power to control your legal actions because of "piracy", but they are the real pirates because this is a massive theft of normal people's rights. Today people can make legal copies of TV shows, can legally bring these copies over to a neighbor, they can legally "pause" or "fast-forward" through the recording as they want. This FCC mandate will allow Hollywood to prevent people from performing all of these legal actions.
The FCC mandated flag is in response to intensive Movie/TV/Music industry lobbying efforts. Hollywood first tried a congressional bill, but has now made an end-run using the FCC and government bureaucracy. The FCC mandate was requested by Congressman Berman of California ($186,891 in 2002 donations), and Senator Hollings of South Carolina (only $33,000 in 2002, but $287,534 in 1999-2000).
Congressmen Hollings and Berman are just the latest who have given Hollywood and the Music industry big government hand-outs. Copyright piracy is the universal excuse for these laws, but in the end it is the ordinary citizens who are being stolen from. The length of copyrights has been extended 11 times in the last hundred years. Disney is Congressman Berman's number one contributor, and has successfully extended the copyright term from 28 to 95 years (so far). Disney was quite willing to use (free) public domain stories like Snow White and Pinocchio to make movies, but they have made an even better investment by getting laws passed so that the Disney versions won't properly go back into the public domain.
Lets look at the last time congress "helped prevent" piracy. Hollywood was screaming about potential piracy from video rentals, and Congress responded with section K of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA mandated that all VCRs built after 1998 had to have "copy protection" built-in. Hollywood promptly used the DMCA mandate to make all VHS _and_ DVD movies "copy proof", not just the VHS rentals.
What Congress and the DMCA actually did was to give Hollywood the ability to prevent people from performing legal actions. My new VCR prevents me from backing-up tapes that I own, something that is perfectly legal and necessary (since my toddler has already worn out a number of VHS tapes). Hollywood argues they can do this (with a straight face) because congress actually restricting which tapes they could copy protect would be government meddling.
In summary, the FCC mandate to add content control to HDTV is not actually about preventing copyright abuse. The government mandate will help Hollywood steal your rights, and eventually your money. Contact your Congressional Representatives and let them know what you think of this.
One of the problems with this whole "digital tuner" thing is that "content protection" is built into the standard.. there is a flag (part of the broadcast) which (if set) will tell your VCR/PVR/whateVeR that it's not allowed to record this particular program....
Exactly. It's in the broadcast standard, so whether the tuner is built into the TV or is an external unit doesn't really make a difference.
As far as time-shifting goes, I can see broadcasters turning the protection on for movies and such, and consumers just accepting it. Since they're all used to seeing the FBI warning at the beginning of every tape they watch, they'll understand that new technical stuff has happened and now they're physically unable to record movies off TV instead of just being threatened.
They've never been threatened about recording sitcoms, though, so they'll get pissed off if they can't tape Everybody Loves Raymond and watch it later. I would think the broadcasters will avoid shooting themselves in the foot and be judicious with the no-copy flag. I could be wrong though - no one has ever gone wrong overestimating the stupidity of TV executives.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Anarchy is a situation where NO rules apply, that's the definition of the word.
What you are describing is a situation where different, more minimal rules apply. And the highway is a good example, by the way.
Anarchy is a bad term to use for that, because a) it's incorrect, and b) it has connotations of mob violence and the worst excesses of licence. The marketing potential sucks. : )
I don't know what term you would use instead, "open radio," maybe?
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
I think there's much truth to television being frequently interstate in nature. Television DXers have proved this point- given the largely unpredictable nature of radio propogation, to affirmatively state that your radio broadcast of any significant (enough for a real, sustainable, marketable audience) strength cannot be received out of state takes a lot of guts. People can (and some do) build really big directional antennas.
-bugg
to affirmatively state that your radio broadcast of any significant (enough for a real, sustainable, marketable audience) strength cannot be received out of state takes a lot of guts. People can (and some do) build really big directional antennas.
The question should not be "is it possible for my broadcast to be received in another state," it should be "has anyone received my broadcast in another state, and is my broadcast interfering with that of someone in another state." Directional antennas can be used for sending as well as receiving, you realize.
To use your reasoning, I should expect modulated IF to come out of the phono sockets on the rear of my VHF "tuner", unless it is referred to in the brocure as a "receiver", which should then have loudspeakers, otherwise it's not doing it's job...?!?!?!?!
Right. Sorry. Yes, in at least the case of hi-fi audio "tuner" and "receiver" have been used respectively for devices that deliver receive RF and deliver low-level audio signals from those that also include amplifiers suitable for driving loudspeakers.
However, at least back when I was repairing them for college money, television systems separated into separate receivers and monitors weren't common outside a studio (or even inside one). "Tuner" applied to a television was a term-of-art for the heavily-shielded subassemblies that took antenna signals, power feeds, and possibly remote-control signals, and delivered IF over a coax to the IF amplifier.
In this context a "digital TV tuner" would be one that selected the station digitally, not one that was involved in receiving a digitally-modulated signal.
So when I saw the article I wondered why the HELL the Fed would want to mandate that all future televisions specify the channels digitally, rather than have continuous tuning adjustments. It wasn't until I had read a few responses that I realized what they were talking about.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way