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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
80% of the US is able to recive digital TV
Depends on your definition of "able to receive".
If there's a broadcaster with digital transmission in the right range, you may be classified as "able to receive". What? You don't have a digital capable TV? Not their problem.
The reality is that people are still buying televisions, and at a good clip. TVs wear out sooner or later, and even a minor repair often costs more than a new set.
And before people whine and cry that this is just a big ploy to make everyone buy new TVs, remember that it was the manufacturer's association that was trying to block this. Yup. That's right. The people who you'd have to buy a new TV from were trying to prevent you from having to buy a new TV. I don't get it either.
Oh, and their estimate of $250 additional cost is a load of crap. Yes, it would cost that much (or more) today, because of supply and demand. This very same organization complained that IEEE-1394 should not be made the digital connection standard for TVs because it would raise the cost of TVs $100 per connector. Yes. IEEE-1394, aka Firewire. You know, that connector you have 2 of on your new $80 motherboard? In addition to about 20 other connectors?
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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
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
The FCC has a real Chicken and Egg problem. They mandated that all TV stations stop broadcasting analog signals by 2006. Then congress came along and said stations couldn't stop transmitting analog signals if fewer than 85% of the TV households were able to recieve the digital signal. 85% is an impossibly high number, and congress knows it. Cable TV and VCR's don't even have 85% market penetration so how could DTV have it in only 8 years?
Of course the FCC knows that any TV can view DTV signals with a converter -- they even put it in their FAQ but no one is going to buy a $200 piece of equipment to see what they are already watching down converted from DTV to analog. This also ignores whatever equipment people would need to actually recieve the DTV signal in the first place.
So, the FCC knows people aren't going to invest in the equipment until the analog signal goes away. And the analog signal won't go away until people have the equipment. The FCC has no choice but what they are doing. The only other alternatives would be to force consumers to buy converters (or give them away). The FCC already forced broadcasters to send the DTV signal, and they won't send both signals forever.
It will still take a long while for the tuners to get up tp the 85% level (even though that represents households and not sets) and I predict that number will eventually be lowered. Doing it this way will take much longer than the FCC originaly hoped, since it will first start with large TV's and then gradually all TV's, but it will happen eventually. And once the analog signal is turned off the number will climb rapidly. You can say now that you just won't buy a new TV, but eventually you'll need a DTV tuner to see anything at all. Much like the V-chip, DTV is something you will eventually have whether you want it or not.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian