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."

31 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. I never did understand... by leeharris100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I still don't understand why the FCC feels like they need to interfere with the standards of television. Can someone please explain why this is a necessity?

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. Re:I never did understand... by mcc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because that is their job.

      From fcc.gov:

      The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.

      The FCC is charged with regulating who may broadcast and receive to and from the electromagnetic spectrum, an inherently public resource. Some of these bands they regulate more strictly than others. One of the bands they regulate strictly is the one on which television signals are broadcast and received. As part of this the FCC defines what are the standards of televisions.

      Well, that's all for this week. Be sure to tune in next time on "fun questions from slashdotters", when a Libertarian playing dumb will want to know why the Department of Education feels like it has to keep getting itself involved with the schools

      --
      Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
    4. Re:I never did understand... by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 5, Informative

      All TV's with screens 13 inches or larger in the united states sold after 1993 are required to have a closed caption decoder.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:I never did understand... by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some of the spectrum is already earmarked for public safety communications.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    7. Re:I never did understand... by grumling · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well, that's what they want you to believe. The reality is, the FCC wanted to allocate unused adjacent channels (like, if you have a channel 6 in your area, you'll also have a channel 8, but not a channel 7 -just like Springfield) for PUBLIC SERVICE, such as POLICE and FIRE radio service. The reason for the spaces was because early tuners were to wide-banded. When cable ready TVs were designed to handle adjacent channels, the rule was seen as not necessary from an engineering standpoint. So, the local broadcasters (through the NAB) went apeshit on the FCC and congress and threatened to make sure the congresspeople didn't look good on camera and would be investigated to death if 1 Hz of bandwidth was taken away from them. The FCC didn't buy it, so they said that they needed the bandwidth for HDTV. At the time, NHK in Japan was running HD programming on a 12MHz analog carrier. The NAB convinced the FCC to allow a similar, but incompatible (screw you Sony!) system for the US. The FCC said sure, but it has to work in 6MHz instead of the 12MHz of the NHK system. Several manufacturers and MIT began work on a HD video system that nobody wanted. RCA/Thompson came out with a somewhat NTSC compatible system, MIT had a variable compression/aspect ratio system, and General Instruments had a digital transport system, but the compression didn't work so good. The FCC held a bake off so each system could be evaluated. The RCA system didn't look so good, and took up several racks and required the testing center to upgrade their power. The MIT system really didn't go so well either, but they had the best idea of how it would work. the GI system worked very well, and took up one rack. MIT and GI joined forces and started seeing positive results. So the FCC made them all join forces in what became the Grand Alliance. The HD system on the air today is the result. The FCC really wants to get rid of those analog transmitters, just because they've started down this road, and they have to get to the end. The spectrum will still be going away, so that our police and fire departments will be able to communicate in a much better band, with modern comms systems.

      A really good book about the whole HDTV system is Defining Vision. Visit your local library, and read more about it.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    8. Re:I never did understand... by silentbozo · · Score: 4, Informative

      There will be plenty of these boxes (so a local cable co-op can grab off-the-air signal to transmit to subscribers), but I'm not sure they will within the price range of most consumers. To give an example, a selective channel amp (to grab only channel 13, and insert it into a CATV multiplexer) costs about $120-$200 on eBay.

      I'm in the same boat as you, so maybe some kind soul will mass produce these things. Otherwise, you're face with buying several converter boxes, setting each one on a particular channel, and creating your own in-house CATV system. I guess a couple of houses on the block (or an apartment complex) could gang up their money, buy enough of the converters to cover local channels, have a multiplexer, and create their own CATV system...

    9. Re:I never did understand... by grumling · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The FCC created the 800 MHz cellular and two-way radio bands by chopping off the top of the UHF TV band.

      And the NAB (TV station lobby) is still mad about loosing that one. Even though there never were any stations on the air above channel 70, and even though the UHF stations never made a dime until cable and the Fox Network.

      Once a business gets something from the .gov (for free in exchange for "serving the public interest" whatever that means), it becomes something they are entitled to, much like welfare. I'm not so sure modern "local" television meets the FCC requirement for free bandwidth anymore, but the day the FCC charges a broadcaster for spectrum is the day we'll all need descramblers for our televsion.

      The only reason there was so much spectrum allocated in the first place was because of RCA's influence over Washington after WWII. If the broadcast stations would have allowed some flexibility in spectrum management, this mess may have been avoided.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    10. 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
    11. Re:I never did understand... by bofkentucky · · Score: 3, Informative

      FCC/ITU Frequency allocation is best described in a manner similar to how modern federal land leases for grazing/forestry rights work.

      Timber company A "leases" X acres of National forest, logs it, replants, and maintains it until the lease is up, then the US government rebids that section at some point later in the future when suitable for timber harvest.

      Some acreage is permanetly set aside for perpetuity, but the bulk can be responsibly managed till domesday by the consumers.

      Before some of you say, ANWR was set aside in a similar fashion, not so fast, read the ANWR creation act (79 or 80, late Carter Admin). It explicitly allows for sections of oil exploitation, the Bush admin is just calling in the option on that section of the act.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    12. Re:I never did understand... by unitron · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "What I'd like to see is a transverter box of some kind that I can hang off my antenna that will shift the frequencies received back into the normal TV band and convert from digital to analog (which would technically not make it a transverter, but you get my drift). Has anyone seen anything like this on the market?"

      What you're asking for is a block converter.

      In the earlier days of cable when many if not most TVs still had rotary tuners, the cable companies put channels other than 2-13 on other VHF frequencies. The cable boxes from the cable companies generally tuned one channel at a time and shifted it to VHF channel 2, 3, or 4 so that you could set your TV to that channel and then choose channels with the cable box.

      There were aftermarket devices which shifted the cable channels up to the UHF broadcast frequencies simultaneously so that you could tune them in with your television's UHF tuner. They were called block converters because they converted a block of channels up in frequency at the same time instead of one at a time. If you put a splitter on the output you could watch two different cable channels on two different televisions at the same time without needing a cable company cable box (or paying rent on it) for either set.

      It might be possible to come up with something like that for broadcast digital channels, but don't expect anything like that for cable and satellite channels. Satellite and cable companies, especially cable companies who see "cable ready" televisions and VCRs as having cost them a fortune in lost cable box rentals, aren't going to want to surrender even that much control. The cable companies can hardly wait to go completely digital and re-use a lot of the analog frequencies for other revenue opportunities.

      So whenever you hear about how great digital is going to be for the consumer what they really mean is how greater the number of opportunities for spending money the consumer will have.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    13. 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 :-)

  2. Faster by mboverload · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hope they also mandated them to include metadata in their broadcasts.

    If you dont know digital sets are able to recieve special content like the name of the program all off the air.

  3. 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 viva_fourier · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good, maybe they can get off their lazy good-for-nothin' keesters and get a job!

      Now go mow the lawn!

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
    2. 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.

    3. Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This has nothing to do with HDTV, but standard resolution digital signals.

      I should reiterate, since /.ers don't seem to understand this. THE FCC IS NOT MANDATING OR FORCING ANYONE TO SWITCH TO HDTV.

      A digital tuner is cheaper than an analog one. Once the analog yoke is thrown completely, it should shave a few bucks off production costs, and since there's healthy competition in the field, it should translate to lower prices on the shelves.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    4. 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.
  4. Year? HDTV Info by thebatlab · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, it wasn't clear from the article but from some reading I assume they mean March 1...2006. Yeah sure, may seem obvious to some but a date with no year can mean many things.

    While trying to confirm that I found an interesting page:
    http://www.hdtv.net/faq.htm

    Does anyone know the stats on how many stations are digital?

  5. What percentage does the switchover apply to? by MDMurphy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you believe the 90% number for cable/satellite homes, then only 10% get their TV over the air. I get mine via DirecTV, so a switch in the local stations won't affect my home TVs at all, just the little Sony LCD one I have. Cable TV doesn't have to switch over then either.

    So of the 10% getting their television over the air, I'd sure guess that a large percentage who aren't interested in cable or satellite also aren't buying new fancy TVs every couple of years. Their choices are probably going to be buy a new TV or switch to satellite or cable and continue to use their old TV.

    So is it only a portion of the 10% that would be affected when the big switch happens?

  6. 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?
  7. 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
    1. Re:My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV by Malc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget, 250 1994 dollars is equivalent to $300-$400 at today's prices due to inflation.

      Here's a calculator: http://eh.net/hmit/compare/

    2. Re:My requirements before I buy a (H)DTV by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Okay

      That took me about 30 seconds to find. Best Buy happened to be the first retailer I hit, but I'm sure you'd have similar results elsewhere.

      1) Granted, it's $329 instead of $250, but it's also 27" instead of 21". Don't forget to factor inflation.
      2) In a few months, a TV like that will be required to receive free over-the-air transmissions, so I'm sure you'll see a model sometime closer to the end of this year with those features.
      3) I don't know what sort of Home Theater equipment you have, but this thing has plenty of inputs and a line-level audio out, so I don't see how it couldn't.
      4) Done plus 6"
      5) There's a 26" Widescreen Samsung CRT on that same site for $450, so it's $120 more.
      6) Wouldn't we all like that. Hell, you can't say that about anything, and it's not a by-product of DTV or not. My folks have a cheap Magnavox from the mid 80's that still works, and I've seen quality, name-brand TVs from many different time periods crap out. This one will be a crapshoot. Also, how exactly will you judge that something will last 11 years without a single problem?

      Remember: $8,000 65" HDMI-equipped LCoS TVs with 1080p display capability are NOT the only DTVs out there.

  8. Re:Year? HDTV Info by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I also found this link at GoodGuys to be pretty informative:

    http://goodguys.com/hdtv_faq.asp

    Now, these are both Pro-DTV sites.

    What I'm also looking for are criticisms of DTV-- other then the obvious arguments about DTV being expensive.

    --
    94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
  9. 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?

  10. Intelligent Programming by craXORjack · · Score: 5, Funny
    Now if they just mandate more intelligent programming.

    I don't know. I'm worried that televisions will get too intelligent in the future. I have a recurring dream that I am watching my new LCD "Buck Rogers in the 21st Century" TV and a commercial comes on, so I get up to make a sandwich but as soon as I start to leave-- the show comes back on. Then when I sit back down to watch it the commercial comes back. Every time I try to get up this happens again. So I give in and run to the kitchen while my show is on. But it's a dream so, you know, I'm always running in slow motion. Finally I make it and I can hear my show in the other room while I spread peanut butter and jelly on two slices of bread. It sounds really good. I can tell from the laughtrack that I'm missing some really funny shit. I literally throw the knife in the sink from four feet away and run as fast as I can to the couch. My show is still on. I made it. My butt touches the couch cushion as I take a bite of my sandwich and fix my eyes on the screen... just in time to see the commercial.

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  11. My favorite part by adminispheroid · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From the article:
    Television manufacturers and retailers supported the petition, while broadcasters opposed it.
    So what's missing here? That's right, there's apparently no interest in what consumers want.

    But we do have an option, since so far the FCC hasn't ruled that every home is required to have a TV.

  12. turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What we really need is more intelligent viewers.