Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Speeds Up Digital TV Signal Deadlines

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the forced-upgrades dept.

sbinning writes "The FCC, in a 4-0 vote decided that all medium-sized televisions, screens between 25 and 36 inches in diagonal, must be able to receive both digital and traditional analog signals by March 1. This is four months earlier than the commission had decreed three years ago. Now if they just mandate more intelligent programming."

12 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. Say goodbye to $200 32" sets by mconeone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is going to hurt America's poor the most.

    1. Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets by The+Salamander · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People not being able to afford a TV can only HELP them.

    2. Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Woe be to those who dare to critisize the Holy TeleVision, bringer of all that is good. Every time this comes up, anyone who dares suggest that you might be better off not watching TV, they get mod-bombed to oblivion. It's a sad thing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. Re:I never did understand... by cazbar · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The switch of television to digital has an advantage that is very much in the interests of the FCC. When television goes digital, not as many frequences have to be reserved for television. The freed up frequences can be reserved for other purposes or even remain unregulated for anybody to use.

    Sounds like a good idea to me.

  3. Re:I never did understand... by e9th · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, we wouldn't have UHF stations (maybe that's good, maybe not) or closed-captioning (which I use a lot, even thought I'm not deaf) unless their inclusion in new TVs hadn't been mandated.

  4. Please please by iminplaya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now if they just mandate more intelligent programming.

    Anything but that! Programming is none of their business. You should know that by now. Especially after the "Janet" thing. Technical standards are the only thing theFCC should be messing with.

    --
    What?
  5. My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    11 years ago, I bought a 21" Television for $250 and some rabbit ears for $15. This setup has worked for me for the last 11 years. The visual quality isn't as good as your $2000 setup, but it's good enough for me, my wife & our friends.

    If the FCC really wants me to switch to the new Digital TV, I figure I should be able to get an equivilant system for an equivilant price.

    I'm willing to update if I get something better, I'm NOT going to pay a ton of money just so that I can get the same service with more pixels.

    My requirements before I buy a new digital television:

    1. Price around $250
    2. Can receive free on-air broadcasts with a $15 antenna.
    3. Works with my existing A/V equipment.
    4. 21" screen
    5. Would be nice to have a TV that properly shows the 16:9 ratio. I'll pay an extra $50-100 for this feature.
    6. Lasts 11 years without a single problem


    If I can't get this, I don't see why I should switch. Why should I pay more for less?
    --
    94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
  6. Re:Powell's power move by mattdm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In addition, Congress would likely approve subsidies for low-income residents who can not afford to buy a new set.

    I hope to goodness you're kidding. How about some subsidies for education or housing instead?

  7. Re:I never did understand... by satanami69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quick history. When the analog space is freed and available from the conversion to digital, that space will then be auctioned off, most likely to closed bid communications companies.

    The gov is fine with this since the money is earmarked to pay off the deficit. In reality, buying an HDTV has the positive side effect of lowering the national debt. It's a very good plan, if you don't mind being used for high level money making.

    --
    I really hate Dan Patrick.
  8. turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What we really need is more intelligent viewers.

  9. Re:I never did understand... by drakaan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I guess that as soon as the FCC goes public with their "free digital set-top converter" program, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.

    Until that time, however, I'm standing with all the people who can't afford a new TV or converter. The primary consumers of normal rf-based (non-satellite, non-cable) broadcasts are precicely the people that can't afford this change. It's a decidedly stupid idea.

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  10. Re:I never did understand... by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Actually, I was a person who never had cable TV - Not paying $50 per month is exactly the reason I can afford something like a $2000 HDTV. Not buying one yet is another reason I've still got the cash. The poorest people I know (some on welfare) all have cable TV - they let the phone go dark before the cable. Bill collectors use the phone, the TV keeps the kids busy.

    You won't need a "free converter" if the manufacturers would integrate the receivers into the TVs and that's exactly what the FCC is mandating. I never did understand why companies don't provide the product people want - half the people with "wide screen" think they're getting HDTV. Oh that's why - they can sell a cheaper product and people will *think* it's what they want.

    That said, didn't the courts just decide that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate devices? i.e. they can't mandate the broadcast flag, so why should they be able to mandate recievers?

    It doesn't really matter, most of them just leave the tuner out entirely and call it a "HDTV Monitor". I'll stick to the HD2000 in my Linux box until things get reasonable. Maybe I'll build the $300 projector described on TomsHardware a while back :-)