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

I never did understand...

[leeharris100]

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?

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.

Re:I never did understand...

[silverkniveshotmail.]

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

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...

[Detritus]

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

Re:I never did understand...

[grumling]

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.

Re:I never did understand...

[silentbozo]

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...

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.

Re:I never did understand...

[unitron]

"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.

Faster

[mboverload]

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.

Say goodbye to $200 32" sets

[mconeone]

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

Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets

[viva_fourier]

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

Now go mow the lawn!

Re:Say goodbye to $200 32" sets

[The Salamander]

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

Year? HDTV Info

[thebatlab]

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?

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?

Intelligent Programming

[craXORjack]

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.