FCC Speeds Up Digital TV Signal Deadlines

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."

Comments

Say goodbye to $200 32" sets

[mconeone]

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

Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets

[The Salamander]

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

Re:I never did understand...

[cazbar]

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.

Re:I never did understand...

[e9th]

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.

Please please

[iminplaya]

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.

My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV

[EnronHaliburton2004]

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?

Re:Powell's power move

[mattdm]

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?

Re:I never did understand...

[satanami69]

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.

Re:I never did understand...

[drakaan]

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.