Slashdot Mirror
Will America's Favorite Technology Go Dark?
Ant wrote to mention that MSNBC is reporting on the upcoming proposed digital television switchover planned for the end of 2006. From the article: "That's the date Congress targeted, a decade ago, for the end of analog television broadcasting and a full cutover to a digital format. If enforced, that means that overnight, somewhere around 70 million television sets now connected to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will suddenly and forever go blank, unless their owners purchase a special converter box. Back when the legislation was written, New Year's Eve 2006 probably looked as safely distant as the dark side of the moon. But now that date is right around the corner and Congress and the FCC are struggling mightily to figure out what to do."
Keep in mind, the original legislation did state that 85% of the TV viewership must be on digital TV before they will simply turn it off: "Under federal law, analog service will continue until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming." (from http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#needanewtv)
MSNBC is just making news of a moot point. Granted, they mentioned this in the text, too: "That's where the Congressional loophole comes in. Congress can ignore the end-of-2006 cut-off if fewer than 85 percent of households have digital television sets."
I really hate the media.
Your sentiments are said in other posts here on slashdot, albiet in somewhat less a humorous manner. However...
What, exactly, makes you think that only "rednecks" and fat people on welfare have antiquated TVs?
I'm most certainly not a redneck; I'm probably more hippy than redneck. My wife and I own one TV. It's circa 1995 or so, and still works fine. We don't actually watch TV, but use it mostly for movies. Sometimes I'll sit down and watch an episode of Law and order on monday night or something, but that's about it. I am most certianly not going to shell out $100+ for a new TV when my old one works fine.
Honestly, I doubt this legislation will impact many. Most people don't watch broadcast TV (they watch cable), so cable companies can decide if htey'll continue to send out 'antiquated' signals. For the most part, cable companies have already switched to digital, and have provided people with the appropriate digital cable box. Not an issue: the only people that will be impacted will be those that don't care enough about TV to pay for cable. They'll either get cable, or not watch TV.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
What a great story to start off National TV-Turnoff Week.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
This is NOT a conversion from analogue TV to HDTV. It is a conversion from analogue TV to digital TV and there is a BIG difference. Does sending a digital signal allow the broadcasting station to send a HDTV broadcast? Yes. Do they HAVE to transmit a HDTV broadcast? NO. The fact is a lot of consumers, how many I do not know, already have the capability to receive a digital transmission. This is done through a variety of methods such as subscribing to a cable or satellite service. Folks with either of those services will likely not notice a change.
Now the folks with an old analogue only TV set that are receiving their signal from rabbit ears are going to notice a change once the analogue signals are shut off. Some may subscribe to satellite or cable I suppose but there will likely be a fair amount that do not wish to and will complain LOUDLY. It will only get louder if the ATSC tuner boxes necessary to get their sets working with the new signal are too expensive. The other option of course will be to buy a set with an ATSC tuner built in but a lot of folks won't like doing that either.
Right now I would say it's quite probable that the switchover will be delayed.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
To quote from BoingBoing:
Among other things, it explains WHY a date was set for a crossover to HDTV. Sure TV works just fine now, so why switch you ask? Actually, it's NOT about trying to sell the public new TVs. It sounds simple, but that's a very narrow view that doesn't see the whole picture and all the politics behind what's going on. The linked article sheds quite a bit of light on that.In the Americas, the ATSC standard for terrestrial broadcasting that will be replacing NTSC. Instead of the channel allocation that DVB is using, ATSC retains the existing scheme and every local station gets another channel to broadcast on. The digital channels also have as much bandwidth as their analog counterparts, which allows for either high definition programming or simulcasting as many as six standard definition programs on one channel.
For example: WGBH is channel 2 in Boston but they run an ATSC digital simulcast on channel 19. With an ATSC tuner, you can tune in to the channel just by selecting 2 and the tuner reroutes it. When WGBH simulcasts, you can view programs on channels 2.1, 2.2, etc.
I think the problem is that high definition programming is being pushed but nobody is buying tuners. HDTV sets often don't include a built-in digital tuner, and most people who want DTV are getting QAM-standard converter boxes from their cable and satellite providers.
Since I'm studying in Munich right now, I look around at electronics stores and see plenty of DVB-PAL converters. People know that they will need them. Unfortunately, I think Americans without Cable TV are generally uninformed about the new equipment they will need. There are ATSC tuners that will work with NTSC TV sets but nobody is buying them and I haven't seen any retailing for less than $150.
The converter boxes will have to output an analogue signal which can be pirated in the usual ways.
"pirate" is the wrong term here. "recorded under our fair use rights" may be better.
There is not an affordable way to digitally capture an analog HDTV signal at the moment. The equipment to do it costs thousands of dollars. This is why everyone wants to do it BEFORE it get's converted to analog...
"pirate" is the wrong term here. "recorded under our fair use rights" may be better.
Clear your mind and prepare for this: The US has better rights than the UK when it comes to "fair use". In fact, we in the UK have no real concept of it.
For example, it is illegal to record music onto another medium - buy vinyl, you can't put it on cassette for the car. Buy CD, you can't rip them. Not legally, anyway.
In fact, the last time I looked at it, it was illegal to _lend_ someone music - if I want to let you listen to my CD, I have to bring it to your house and be there while it's played. You can't listen to it if I'm not there.
Time-shifting _is_ allowed, but you cannot keep the recording at watch it again and again.
So, from a UK point of view, almost everyone with an mp3 player (for example) is a "pirate", unless they have bought their music exclusively from online sources with a corresponding license. Grannies (or anyone else) who share recorded TV programmes are pirates too, as are people who lend CDs, cassettes, DVDs, VHS videos, and vinyl records to others.
So, from _my_ p.o.v., there is no "fair use" except time-shifing. Sorry for using the term "pirate", which doesn't really reflect the reality in the USA and probably several other places. I really don't know the europe-wide position on this, and I _suspect_ that Australia has laws at least as strict as ours.
Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!