Slashdot Mirror
Jan 2009 Deadline for HDTV Cutoff
stlhawkeye writes "Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2009 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts. Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those without subscription television services will see blank screens unless they buy new units. "
2009 will be the perfect time to officially throw away your TV (Well, keep it for parts) and curl up with a good book.
Oh, but I know what you're thinking: "But HyperChicken, I need my PS3/Xbox360/Revolution". So hook them up to a monitor.
Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
this is the cutoff to convert to DTV not HDTV. how is the public supposed to figure it out if even the nerds can't get it right?
Mike
Millions of people now HAVE to buy new TVs. Is it time to invest in Sony?
M.
A draft bill setting the deadline has bogged down in the House over whether the government should subsidize the purchase of $50 converter boxes for the 15% of households that get their TV signals via antennas. The boxes would convert digital signals to analog.
This is my favorite part of all of this. Not only are those of us that can afford digital TV being double-fucked for the creation of the HDTV standard and then having to pay for the tuner for something we just don't need, we now may have part of our tax dollars pay for someone else's digital tuner converter that can't afford HDTV! Absolutely unnecessary.
Let the market's consumers decide when it wants to adopt a technology. If only 5 million people have adopted the technology so far it's probably because it is infantile, unnecessary, and/or expensive. We do NOT need the government meddling in this and creating headaches, money issues, and horseshit for us. No matter what the pro-TV people say, HDTV is *not* something that the government needed to mandate. There are thousands of other far more important things they could have put time, effort, and dollars towards rather than making sure Friends and Seinfeld reruns, reality TV, and soaps come to you in crisp video.
I have posted on this same exact topic numerous times before but here's one of them.
HDTV is a SUBSET of Digital TV
The cutoff is for DIGITAL TV, not HDTV
Here's the suggested output that will be broadcasted into analog TV's:
"Nothing for you to see here.
Move along."
All I use my analog TV for is watching stuff I downloaded to my computer anyway.
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
2009 isn't that far away, and plenty of people have portable TVs or good old fashioned rabbit ears. A lot of that will just be junk without an aftermarket tuner. Radio Shack will probably do a bang-up business in cheesy HD-to-NTSC widgets. Hell, an entire province in China could live for a decade off of this decision.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
When the price of a HDTV get below $500 it will be affordable to many more people.
But unless they start broadcasting better quality shows instead of the same crap themes since the fifties I won't even shell out that much.
With the state of television programming as it stands I'm not altogether sure I want to be able to see it that clearly in the first place.
Then again, I read a lot so it won't affect me that much.
The world according to SComps
"Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those without subscription television services will see blank screens unless they buy new units."
How about those with old TV sets?
I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that still have old TVs and just use the antenna to get a few local channels, and they are probably happy with that. Will they need to upgrade, or will there be some backwards compatability?
Get a FREE Sony PS3
If there was no longer a need for something, it would become obsolete on its own. Demanding that something become obsolete is quite suspicious.
What this will thankfully do is free up some much needed frequency spectrum. Analog TV uses up a hell of a lot of prime frequency real estate which could be used more efficiently. Hopefully this will spurn new wireless standards with better coverage and capacity.
In a similar sense, sure people can get by using their 56k lines, but wouldn't it be a lot better if everyone had access to fiber, cable, or something else along those lines?
It seems to me that at least part of the reason that America isn't the most technologically advanced nation in the world is because we like to hold on to dying technologies. In the next few years we're going to be seeing HD-DVD and Blu-Ray technology emerging into the marketplace, but a lot of people will still be using VHS.
We might take a hit in the pocketbook, but isn't it time that our country got with the times? I don't mean that we should adopt every new technology even if it's only marginally better, but we shouldn't cling to old technology when there are clearly better alternatives out there.
This will scare the crap out of all the grandma's when their tv's goes blank on Dec 31 11:59PM and think the world is comming to an end =) At least my G-mom will.
Screw my karma.
When I first got a HDTV I remember watching the 30 minute movie loops for 2-3 hours. I just love the clarity of HD but my family members did not like me.
What does your Credit Report look like?
This is a giant change in infrastructure that needs a push from Big Brother. Without the helping hand of government, you wouldn't have been able to post your reply.
Sometimes, just sometimes, government intervention is good, because 85% of the people will benefit while the measly 15% of technological throwbacks are forced out of their near-Amish technological stone age.
I mean, why should the government pave roads? My horse and buggy was just fine on the gravel!
Phew! I was really worried that Lothar+0 might not be able to use his TV. Now my fears are quelled.
So what are we waiting for!?
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
For years we've been hearing that the HDTV cutover date was sometime in 2007. What happened??
I am sure someone will broadcast a analog signal for us ;)
Corp. America just wants MORE money...
...this decision is being pushed by the government because they want control over the current analog frequencies, which they will then resell and lease to private industry to generate another revenue stream for the government. And who is payinf ro it? As usual, we are.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Demanding that something become obsolete is quite suspicious.
You misspelled American.
<flamesuit on>
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
HDTV is almost like a third generation of TV technologies. Gen 0 - TV (black and white) Gen 1 - Color Gen 2 - Enhanced/High Definition Color Gen 3 - ??? So tell me why we are widely adopting EDTV/HDTV as such a permanent standard when it seems more like a stepping stone or transitional stage in broadcasting? Don't get me wrong, I think HDTV looks much better than any analog signal, or even a 480p DVD, but shouldn't we be adopting something a bit more advanced if we're going to force such a widespread acceptance?
...and the picture is crap. You have to be like EXACTLY 7' 8-1/2" away from it, and DIRECTLY in front of it. His excuse is that he does not have the proper set-up for it yet. That means that he does not have fiber-optics from his receiver basicly. I can't understand how it will turn out for the folks that cannot afford to buy a lot of new stuff for their TVs. I mean, not that you have to buy one for $3,000, but it seems kind of useless to -up- your signal, only if you're going to have the same viewing area.
Well I guess you could argue that the extra equipment people would buy (ie set top boxes, new tvs etc) would be part of the "public good" as it generates tax revenue (along the same lines as the story on /. a few weeks ago about people having their houses torn down for corporations which would generate more tax revenue), and the other thing would be the freeing up of the radio spectrum which the analogue signals currently occupy (I'm assuming that the replacement digital content would use less?) for something else (for what, I don't know though).
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
While it will should be great to broadcast HDTV signals by this cut off, realize that HDTV signals can always be downscaled to be displayed on non-HDTV televisions.
For a time in the 70's and 80's, most people bought an external cable convertor box that would allow them to receive more channels then the basic TV set at the time could allow, all with the convenience of a remote control. After about 10-15 years, ALL televisions were essentially made incorporating a cable convertor and remote control, and the trend for external boxes ended.
Digital cable and HDTV has reintroduced this trend as televisions still mostly lack the ability to decode and receive DTV broadcasts, most people have accepted the norm of using an external cable box to view their cable content. Whether they will use a box to get enhanced HDTV content, or use a box to downscale HDTV to be viewed on older sets, the trend for external boxes will be here for another 5 - 10 years, until all televisions integrate DTV and HDTV cable convertors.
Everything old is new again, the cable convertor box all but went extinct only to be introduced now in a digital format. Although, I prefer them now with digital recorders, digital surround sound, and high quality pictures.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Quite heavily at TV Snob.com and boy are people confused on even what to buy - if they can convert their existing sets, or if they even want to continue watching TV - just kidding on that front. I think this is a total disaster for TV - there should be more options for people and legacy is legacy - it should still work somehow.
-- Jay Brewer -- http://www.blogpire.com
Is it just me or has the TV-viewing American public gotten totally fucked or what? First we have free TV.. all we needed was a TV and an antenna. This, of course, was supported by advertising. Fair enough.
Next comes cable TV. Sweet! Immunity from foul weather, better content (at least initially) and no commercials! "What's that you say? No commercials? Sorry buddy, I see commercials every damn day on cable TV." Ah yes, friends.. if my recollection is correc, cable TV was supposed to be commercial free as it was a subscription service. But oh how the mighty dollar wins all. We now get 20 minutes of television entertainment for 30 minutes of viewing time (for thsoe wihout a DVR) AND we pay for it!
The boss is calling.. gotta run.
What is your penile percentile?
Last Post
Perfect excuse to get cable or at least a new TV in the next 4 years.
This is Slashdot - what do you expect???
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Because of the chicken/egg problem - left to their own free will, customers won't buy DTV sets unless there is programming on the air to get and broadcasters won't start DTV b'casts unless there's a viewing public with DTV sets. NASA TV recently switched off analog transmissions.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
There's only a limited amount of spectrum, and broadcast TV takes up a lot of it. That frequency could be used for more, cheaper cellphones, or even always-on internet, like wi-fi but that can go through walls more easily. Rather then one hub per house, you could have one hub per block or even larger radii.
In other words, yes a switch costs money, but if properly used the new spectrum would create even more economic value.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
A small handgun makes any tv remote control.
Yeah, right.
One of the intresting things about HDTV is that analog broadcasters can send out multiple streams, one the local stations around here has a 24hr radar view. Which is kind of intresting.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
High Definition TV != Digital TV. You require a digital framework to provide HDTV, but having a digital framework does not imply HDTV. Sets aren't going dark when it comes into effect, but the quality of signal is going to improve greatly.
Canada has had this in effect for a while. The deadline was January, 2005, and as of this writing, all TV channels are available digitally. Except, of course, some of the channels that come from the US. The difference in signal quality is very noticable when watching one of them. Most of the networks are already digital, BTW.
It's still compatible with OTA transmission, as well as analog cable signals. Old TVs can still see it, because the mandate was not to eliminate analog signals, it was to ensure digital availablility. Those of us who have an HDTV, or a digital/satellite receiver have a digital signal, complete with better sound and picture. Those of us on analog still have analog TV.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
Look at me! I'm better than all of you!
What is your penile percentile?
the fun part is that NEW analog tv sales STILL outpace HD or even Digital capable Tv sales significantly.
Also digital Tuners that will convert to analog are still INSANELY priced.
when I can get a DTV to ATV tuner for $99.00 then I'll agree that it's a good time to switch.
with DTV's still well over $800.00 and DTV transmitters still 5X the price of the analog gear it is not going to happen.
and everyone forgets about the small town UHF channels. Who is going to buy them a new transmitter when they can barely afford pro-sumer 4 year old camcorders for their news?
Oh and the small college tv channels? what about them?
Who is going to buy them 20 million dollar transmitters?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You find me a God damned $50 converter box. Try $200+ (more than most TV's)
These people have their heads planted so far up their asses that they don't have the slightest idea what the market is like. At least they are finally figuring out that 99% of their advertising cash was about to disappear.
Consumers don't give a shit about HD. They want better programming and cheaper TV's. Period. Videophiles want better quality but that's only a small percentage of the viewers.
It is a completely fabricated banning of a technology so that electronics companies can sell everyone a new TV at once.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
I was born in 1971 and didn't have a TV until my second year in college. (1990). This was a concious decision by my parents. I saw a little TV at my friends' houses. But as a family, we did just fine without one. The notion that tax payer dollars should pay for converter boxen is ridiculous. I would venture to say that if you're the type of person who needs taxpayer dollars to keep your old set running, you're probably the type of person who would be better off throwing your TV in the garbage and going outside for a walk.
Well, for those that fail to upgrade at least they will be able to play their Nintendo Revolutions without a problem. Obviously Nintendo has decided to market to those people who will have nothing else to do with their old TV's... Brillant!
The broadcasters don't want users blaming them for not having TV, so they go to congress and ask them to pass the law. So now, when all the poor people can't watch TV, they can say "it wasn't our fault, congress made us do it"
lol
Another pet peeve of mine. Its not that they're required to switch to HDTV, its that they're required to switch to digital broadcasts, which dont necessarily have to be Hi-Def (720p/1080i/1080p).
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
He shouldn't have gotten a plasma in the first place, or spent a lot more on it.
Also, as has been stated before this switch over isn't for the companies to start broadcasting in HDTV, it is for them to switch to digital brodcast. HDTV uses digital, but you can also use it to broadcast plain old 480i as well. You don't have to have an HDTV for this switch over, just one that will take a digital signal.
"Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2029 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts..."
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
It's about money from big corporations !
The present day concept of auctioning the spectrum is a giant waste. Anyways the government shouldn't be in charge of this since they are not independent. We need a group with integrity to handle our medium for 'free speech'. Congress does NOT have your interests in mind.
Solution: The answer is something like the internet highway but with with wireless. Have individual frequencies beamed like slices of a pie. They would be narrow. Who said the RF spectrum doesn't have the bandwidth ?
By the way , I saw an article on this in Pop.Sci. about a year ago.
Could also be used for satellite systems !
From the article "Congress also wants to auction the spectrum to wireless high-speed Internet services. Such an auction is expected to raise up to $30 billion for federal coffers." Which I'm sure will be applied to our ballooning war debt.
As an added incentive, there's all the campaign contributions that the Washington hoi-poloi will get from hardware manufacturers, cable providers, wireless wanks, etc. ad nauseum.
But the long and short of it is that that cute little portable all in one TV will be relegated to semi-functional door stop status if the politicos and industry has their way.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
The problem with tv and tv standards is that a lot of people don't know what the differences are. This article is about broadcast standards, which means what the Networks, ie ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, WB, etc, broadcast over the air which people can then pick up with an antennae. The government wants to change the standard from analog to digital, which means that anyone who wants to get free over the air tv would need a digital decoder to decode the over the air mpeg stream.
Now to the HDTV vs DTV issue. This change has nothing to do with HDTV. HDTV does not have to be digital, I believe some stations are broadcasting analog HDTV right now. HDTV is a tv standard that has a resolution of 1920 x 1080 or 1280 x 720, while standard definition television, which is what the majority of people watch is 720 x 480 or 640 x 480. HD refers to resolution not digital or analog.
not with all the porn tapes i have
Doesn't digital TV give broadcasters more control over the content? I kind of like the environment of analog content; broadcasters aren't privy to my consumption habits and I have a lot more convenience now that most likely will have to be paid for in the future. In addition, this will make it easy to legislate a broadcast flag for no home personal use of content unless paid for, in additon to DRM concerns. We all know the current environment of consumers being sued by the content moguls; this will give them a better tool to sue the little guy. Aren't analog broadcasts considered part of the public domain so the public can record content? With the future of digital everything, the content moguls are going to have the publics nuts in a vice grip with no public domain material. I don't know about you, but I enjoy the freedoms and convenience that come with the limits of todays technologies; DVRs, portability of content, privacy. Tomorrows technologies, even though quality wise might be better (HDTV is awesome), seems to come with a leash and a loss of personal privacy. I don't feel the content moguls should get my usage habits for free; I should get something in return instead of targetted with commercials. Since when is receiving personalized commercials a benefit. It is only a benefit for those that are advertising and those that distribute advertisements.
What will happen with Nielson ratings when DTV is mandated? Obviously, digital tuners will be making notes of what is being viewed.
It frees up wasted analog RF spectrum space, this can be as much as 6x less when moving to digital format. The upside to this for end-users is that the picture and sound will be much more reliable in the sense that noise that can be seen in the channel currently should be eliminated. There still can be tiling due to transmission problems, but in general the quality is much improved. I'm sure some company will offer a digital tuner that makes the conversion from over the air digital to analog for older tv sets. If people continue to waste RF space by supporting old and unefficient systems it will really stiffle wireless innovation.
permanent multicast of *.tar.gz and *.rpm :-)
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
If there was no longer a need for something, it would become obsolete on its own. Demanding that something become obsolete is quite suspicious.
I agree, and if this were being justified entirely on the basis of "obsolescence" I would be strongly opposed to it. The justification for this decision though is based on the desire to cut down on the portion of the spectrum monopolized by television signals. Digital TV can fit far more channels into a smaller section of spectrum, allowing us to use the old spectrum for things like cell phones and wireless internet connectivity. This is supposedly less about obsolescence and more about reducing bandwidth consumption. Of course, I'm still rather suspicious of the claimed motivation.
Atanamis
Having watched the whole thing on CSPAN last night while fighting insomnia. The idea is that spectrum needs to be recovered for use by radio. First responders are slated to get a huge chunk of it. Fire, ambulance, police, etc. That would be the promotion of public good.
2b2b2b415448300d
I find this interesting to see where the world is on this.
Apparently governments around the world are deciding what to do with TV.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Plasma has close to the same off-axis viewing as a CRT, which is to say it's significantly better than LCDs. The technology shares much in common with CRT displays. So either his set is bad or he doesn't have a plasma TV. Viewing distance is also largely irrelevant, unless you're sitting so close that you can count the pixels, or so far away that you can't see the screen.
As for the picture, the rule is garbage in, garbage out. A 70" screen isn't going to do you a world of good if you're watching standard-definition images.
A high-definition image on a properly set up high definition display (be it plasma, LCD, RPTV, etc.) will be stunning. If it is anything less than that, either the source is bad or it was improperly set up.
I'm waiting for someone to essentially say that anyone who still relies on broadcast TV in 4 years (and who cannot afford a new television) needs to stop watching TV and get off their ass to get a new job.
:)
But come to think of it...I think I just said it, didn't I?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
It doesn't have to do with BW vs SD color vs HD color, it just has to do with using more efficient modulation. They are saying that TV stations must use digital modulation instead of the old analog modulation so they can more efficiently use the spectrum available. With digital modulation people could transmit BW, SD color, or HD color with each using up less bandwidth than it would require if they were transmitted using analog modulation.
while (1) {
if (FCCDeadline < 2_YEARS) FCCDeadline += 3_YEARS;
}
I'll believe it when my screen goes blank.
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
The switch to digital essentially allows for the ability to cram ~6x the number of channels in the spectrum than there are currently.
The part that's total crap about it is that all of those extra channels are again going out to the same broadcasters who already have access to the previous ones. To understand that, one needs to know that the big broadcasters do not own the spectrum they broadcast on, the government leases it to them. This changeover is a perfect opportunity for many of the newly-created channels to go to organizations who put out smaller locally produced shows. Now that anyone with $2000 for a computer, some video-editing software, a DV camera, and some skill can make decent productions, there are a lot of other people (who are not affiliated with NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, etc) who have something to say, but are denied access to leasing the airwaves directly, and are certainly denied access to putting their ideas across on any of the above if it doesn't fit with any of the major network's plans.
The other travesty is that the government is practically *giving* these airwaves away, when they really could and should be charging tens of billions of dollars or more. The government is planning on giving these airwaves away to the same people who already have them, and then once its a done deal, the broadcasters will be further entrenched, in the same fashion as they currently are.
If this aggravates you, call your congressperson. Call the FCC. Do a google search for "media reform". We need to act and create a groundswell.
It's your access to wider free speech that is being given away to those who already have far too much free speech and take full advantage of it to their own ends.
*** once i really listened, the noise just went away. -liz phair
You misspelled American.
"Demanding that something American obsolete is quite suspicious."
I don't get it.
To tell the truth, for a couple of years, I've been trying to buy something that would convert HDTV signals to something my 27" CRT-based VHF-UHF-cable ready receiver can use.
So every time I drop into a place like Radio Shack or Tweeter I ask about HDTV converters.
So far: they don't have one, they've never heard one, they don't know what I'm talking about. I have no idea whether we're talking fifty bucks or two hundred bucks or... whatever.
My conspiracy theory is that the manufacturers simply won't make converters available, in hopes of forcing people to buy all-new television receivers
(If you must know why... when they put a new roof on my house, the roofers just chopped off the roof antenna and threw it away, figuring it couldn't possibly be in use. To make a long story short, I've been making do with an indoor antenna and as it happens it works acceptably on every channel EXCEPT our PBS outlet, channel 2--which also broadcasts in HDTV.
I've been figuring that, given that I get UHF beautifully with an indoor antenna, I could probably receive HDTV as well...)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
HAH .. so in 2009 I build a TV tower like Lo Teks in Johnny Mnemonic ..... ....
...
just wonder how I'll power all those crap cathode ray tube powersucking monsters
more seriously : did anyone think of how much toxic wate will be generated by that action if people really end-up selling their TVs ?
Yes I mean you can buy a converter for that time (and now) for sure, but how many will be able to afford ?
Also maybe it is a good time to start a pirate/private TV station/broadcast (hey broadcasting equip will be cheap too) for the masses that won't buy subscription/hdtv tuners and other gadgets that are obviously forced on them due someone needs MORE CASH in their pockets
Do most Hauppage cards support HDTV? I just bought one not long ago, and I don't plan on replacing it anytime soon (altho this is a long time off). This pisses me off, I don't want to replace all of my TV's. I'm willing to bet Sony et al are pushing this for precisely that reason.
Obscure 70's Steve Martin reference - "Maybe it's the needle"
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Let me explain again...
They want to stop broadcasting analog, not force High Def signals
Get it?
You're talking about something else, and even at that you're forgetting that the industry is poisoning the people with words like "HDTV Ready" and "HDTV Compatible" which doesn't mean they'll have a High Def picture, it means they can accept and HDTV input. For this, I think the government should force the industry to create public awaraness, or even better force 2 standards like 1080p 60fps (HDTV) and 480p 30fps (DTV) so that the companies can stop playing on the confusion.
But you don't think the government should mandate HDTV, I guess you don't own a company and sell products. The government (in theory) is mandated to help the regular person not get screwed, but people like you give the government ammunition to not have to adhere to this, or at least come up with reasons why not to.
cheers... although you piss me off a bit, I hope you agree that this is only a friendly discussion, I mean it's not like you touched my girlfriend :)
Who even watches TV anymore? I discovered how much bullshit it was five years ago, and haven't watched it since. I think the whole HDTV idea is just to generate new hype for TV, which is losing popularity to other entertainment options.
Digital OTA (off-the-air) broadcasts are so much clearer and steadier than analog -- even when the analog reception is unwatchable! -- it's a shame we're not moving faster toward a digital-only system. Cable and satellite providers definitely stand to lose ground because of this, so I can see them lobbying against digital OTA. From the public's perspective, though, digital OTA is unstoppable now, which puts good pressure on cable and satellite providers to further improve and distinguish their services from the free OTA programming.
Hopefully we can start a new trend of linking to relevant CRS reports on OpenCRS so we can all see what our congresscrooks in DC are being told about a particular topic. I'll start.
CRS Report 31260, "Digital Televsion: An Overview", June 22, 2005
Intelligent Life on Earth
There some concern fancy big TVs will exacerbate the energy crisis. TVs are on there way to being the biggest energy hogs in the house. Computers almost fit this category, but they had to become green to become portable.
I use over-the-air digital TV, and having used it, no one who even looked at the two would want to stick with analog. I'm 50 miles away from San Francisco and I get perfect video, without even mounting an antenna on my roof (it's inside my attic).
I think the government probably needs to nudge people a bit, because older people who would benefit most (they like TV with no monthly fee) won't even look at the new stuff unless the government gets involved.
My only real concern with digital TV is that broadcasters seem to want to compress the hell out of the main channel so they can put in additional channels full of news, weather or infomercials. So instead of 1 good looking SD channel, or 1 good looking HD channel, I get 1 crappy looking SD channel and 3 more crappy-looking channels of junk.
Oh, and and the broadcast flag.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Why, please, tell me why the Government is making this big push to go to Digital. If there were a demand for it, it would happen with out laws. It is called a free market. People wanted Tivo, and poof, here it is, without the Government getting involved. And look how silly the Congress looks debating on subsidizing a $50 cable box. I am sure that Scientific Atlantic or whatever cable box manufacture would love for that to happen.
For Gods Sake! We are Talking about TV! I do not want my taxes to pay for someone else's cable box! Screw That! I think that they should subsidize me a new Plasma TV that I can't afford.
Besides don't they want kids getting out of in front of the TV?
We are Talking about FREAKIN' TV people! This really pisses me off. Anyone else?
"If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
You are not going to pry that TV from my cold, dead hands (to paraphrase a line from former NRA boss Charlton Heston).
Do you really want to remove so many peoples opiate so quickly, and all at the same time?
I sure wouldn't want to be a politician, right or left, when this switch goes down - even giving away the 15% freebee boxes.
I agree with your assesment of the value of people ridding themselves of TV, but I don't think it could cause some real instability in society at large to go cold turky like that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nobody'll absolutely have to buy a new digital TV.
Cable/Fios/Satellite already (or will) subsidize digital boxes for a nominal monthly fee and if you want to stay with free-to-air broadcasts (really, why?) then you can go to BestBuy and get once.
Mozilla stole tabs from NetCaptor. So what? Right?
When I first read this I thought "DirectTv" and agreed
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
the more likely year of adoption in the USA, right after we convert to the Metric system.
After our 10 year old 19" magnavox died last week my wife and I went shopping for a 21-24" HDTV and discovered that they are still in the $1K-$3K range. We ended up buying a 23" silvania for $150. I'll bet that it will still be usable in 2015 after the broadcasting lobby makes the appropriate number and amounts of "campaign donations". After all, Democrat or Republican, we have the best Congress money can buy.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
"Meanwhile, lawmakers are eager to reclaim the analog airwaves to improve public safety radio communication. Congress also wants to auction the spectrum to wireless high-speed Internet services."
In a related story, an 88 car pile-up on I-5 today seems to have been caused by an inattentive driver who was configuring his wireless high-speed to receive improved public safety radio communication.
Panasonic and Samsung are number 1 and 2 respectively in Plasma. I dont know if Sony will really be the brand of the future for people's replacement TVs. Time will tell.
--------- I have no signature
More accurately, "After the impending end-of-2006 deadline for cutover to all-digital broadcasting impels broadcasters to pressure legislators to let them continue business as usual for an additional three years before they have to actually do anything, continue to repeat their whine that over-the-air viewers (12% of all households with TVs, according to a CEA study) will be unreasonably impacted by the change." This despite the fact that a process for conversion to digital broadcasting by 2006 had been established back in 1997 (obviously, nine years isn't enough time to prepare), and that as of January 22, 2001, there were 177 stations transmitting DTV signals in 61 markets (serving nearly 67 percent of U.S. TV households), according to an NAB survey -- every day a broadcaster can avoid replacing their analog equipment with digital is one more day that they don't have to take a hit against their profits.
So they want to force us into buying new TV sets by breaking backward compatibility... Just so they can loan the analog signal to companies which will charge us for the service ! Hmm... This looks a lot like Microsoft's way of doing things ! Remember when Microsoft tried to change their licensing and offer Office for a monthly fee ? They changed their mind when they saw nobody was following ! I say screw them ! They'll have to wait till my TV set dies before I buy another one ! And I hope everybody will do the same !
It's a spectrum hog, just like your crappy old car the get 7 MPG and spews out smelly grey smoke. I want those channels recycled for UWB and other wireless services. Some might even be new unlicensed Part 15 bands so The Man doesn't get even his geedy capitalist hands on them.
In addition, I live in the SF Bay area where reliable reception of both analog and digital TV is impossible in most areas without a 70 foot antenna tower. So conventional TV broadcast frequencies are useless to me anyway.
Since by 2009 you will be able to build a digital receiver with NTSC analog modulator for about $10 I suspect stations will be able to offer free or dirt-cheap receiver-converters for those poor folks too poor to shell out 50 bucks for a new digital-ready TV so they can watch The Newlywed Gaem or whatever crap that's still on analog TV. Shoot, by 2009 nice plasma TVS are gonna cost about $200.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
You know one major reason I'll give up my old TV when it's pulled from my cold, dead hands? Because making TVs widescreen (at least now) is stupid. Ok, so it's great if you're watching DVDs or something, but I easily watch "regular" stuff (I have DirecTivo BTW) 20 times more often than DVDs, and it's all standard 4:3 stuff. Because all the new DTVs are 16:9, it basically means that you're getting (ballpark) 40-50% of the screen size as "usable" screen..which means that 52" 16:9 TV is more like 30-35" for "standard" programming. What a ripoff! Why should I spend several thousand dollars on a DTV when for a few hundred bucks I could get a "regular" TV that's going to give me the same size picture for 4:3 programming (which is still the norm for virutally everything, especially when you factor in the cable channels). They don't give me the CHOICE to buy a 4:3 DTV if I want to. I'd much rather watch DVDs letterboxed (1-2 times a week) than watch everything else letterboxed on the sides for who knows how many hours a week). Talk about a big-league ripoff!
Are they still flogging that "Joe Millionaire" show? Or is it "Survivor 22, Special Victims Unit" now? Good riddance to bad rubbish. Maybe we can use the spectrum for something cool like unlicensed super-duper wifi.
A blank screen? As a broadcast engineer, I can safely say that analog viewers won't see a blank screen after the cutoff. They'll just see snow.
Why don't the Media corporations (Broadcast, DVD, etc.) offer huge incentives for switching to digital? Or at least have a deal with the hardware manufacterers to offer the digital TVs at a huge discount to the consumer. Maybe a trade-in allowence, rebates, etc.
Do like the game console companies do... take an initial loss, make up for it in content.
Now I know exactly when to throw out the old TV, cancel our cable television service and drop the NetFlix subscription... that should save us about $100/month in subscription fees alone. We could use the extra $1,200/year to put into our other projects.
January 2009, check. Thank you for the reminder.
My daughter will be 4, and that's just enough time for me to educate her about the corruption in mass media and broadcast television.
With the broadcast flag being fully entrenched by that time (whether passed via a rider on some unrelated bill or otherwise), and media being contorted to represent the "Truth" as given by the current administration in power (can you say "Al Jazeera"?), there really is no point to watching TV.
We can't control our media (even media we've bought in the store, er, I mean "rented"). We can't even skip past the commercials on DVDs now. How long before we can't skip past commercials on television too?
The best HD reality shows lie right outside my front door.
The problem is the retirees on fixed incomes. When the grannies have no game shows to watch, soon they'll be running in packs on the streets, knitting sweaters for unsuspecting citizens. Do you want that in your neighborhood!!??
Sweet! That means I only have to wait 3 1/2 years for my wife to cave in and let me buy a new TV!!!!
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I bought an analog tv last year (went without for about 7 years previously) and got some flack about not buying a DTV. I figure at the time of actual cut-off, I'll get digital, HDTV etc. for some mass-market price so it won't hurt at all. It'll be bigger, brighter, better sound, less energy, smaller size, etc. etc. and I'll probably pay the same as I did for the one last year.
Thanks to all the early adopters for subsidizing the technology development!
I wish I had these kinds of deadline moves at work!
One of things people forget when talking about DTV is this:
All High Definition TV is Digital TV. Not all Digital TV is High Definition.
People who have older, analog only sets will need to purchase a new TV that can decode digital signals or a set top box that can decode and output to the old TV.
People who have cable or sattelite will only need a new box if they want HDTV.
--Mike
The broadcasters will be switching to digital and offer 10 free channels where they only had one. The federal government (people who pay taxes) in turn gets to resell the spectrum to wireless providers for new things like roaming intenet service.
on the T.V.s in this country would be a good thing.
People might read a book, go out and see a live theatrical performance or, heck, even talk with their spouse, children, friends, etc.
I say, just pull the plug on T.V. all together and make the U.S. a better place as a result.
Well, other than professional football, please leave that on T.V., please, I beg you!
As I and others have said countless times, this has absolutely nothing to do with HDTV. This deals solely with digital TV, which does include standard-definition 480i. Perhaps a better title would be "Jan 2009 Deadline for Analog TV Cutoff", since the title insinuates that January 2009 is some date set to shut down HDTV broadcasts.
FC Closer
"Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2009 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts. Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those without subscription television services will see blank screens unless they buy new units." Yay! Free at last!
what is the big deal with sending analog signals and why the mandatory cutoff? why not just require digital signals to be sent by such a date, then downconvert them and still send the analog ones? what the hell are they thinking making every tv get an upgrade?
Isn't someone offering a D/A receiver/converter that will connect to an analog TV? If you have a DVD or VCR with digital receiver capability, why couldn't manufacturers just include a D/A signal converter to accomplish the same thing? Thus, no one has to "throw away" their perfectly servicable analog TV.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Unless they can offer HDTV for the same price as my current, basic, subscription of $15, then I won't be watching TV after January, 2005.
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
and until this consumer product drops to the sweet spot of $500, it's still way too overpriced, according to my Marketing 101 classes from my first degree.
... when the electronics pricing is lowest ....
Hmmm, sounds like I should buy an HDTV set on President's Day 2006
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Although in some area's (at least in Berlin), it is already gone.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
But nobody will be able to get the signal! (And there'll be too many f*cking ads! It will be unwatchable.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Jan 2009 is carefully chosen to be right after the next big election, Nov 2008. The broadcasters have tremendous influence in elections through control over TV coverage. If the broadcasters still don't like the transition plan in summer 2008, they will be able to arrange a further deadline extension through pressuring the political parties.
...the parent is correct, millions still use OTA analog TV with rabbit ears or external antennas in the US. It's a huge number still, estimates are 13 million to 22 million households down in this url.
= 2005-05-27
http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/issue.php?w
anyone who still relies on broadcast TV in 4 years (and who cannot afford a new television) needs to stop watching TV and get off their ass to get a new job.
So how do I get around "Sorry, we went with another candidate" every single time I interview?
Q. What do you call the second best person for every job in town?
A. Unemployed.
In 2001, over 30 percent of the Canadian population lived in predominantly rural regions. In the 2000 census, more than 20 percent of the US population lived in rural regions. I grew up in one of these regions. Our options for internet were dial-up, or none. Then came the advent of satellite internet, for which you required a giant, ugly dish in your backyard, as well as hundreds of dollars a year in fees.
Some people use dial-up through choice, and some use it through necessity. Similarly with analog television, out in the country, there is no way to get a digital signal. There will be no way to get a digital signal until tv stations start broadcasting them. The largest selection of channels will always be available in analog, UNTIL those analog broadcasts are shut down. That is why people are not buying digital sets. How would you feel if someone told you that you had to use Internet2, even though there are many fewer sites on it, but don't worry, in five years we're turning off Internet1, so your existing connection will be useless anyway.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
If there was no longer a need for something, it would become obsolete on its own. Demanding that something become obsolete is quite suspicious.
I don't get you geeks nowadays.
Go try and browse the web with Netscape 4. I dare you.
I wish the deadline were Jan 2006. I mean, analog will still work until 2009. That means that if you bought an analog TV today, it would be fully functional for almost 4.5 years. Add to the 4.5 years however old an existing TV is. If your TV is OK for you in 2009, and you do not have cable or satellite, you are required to spend 50 bucks or so to hack your old TV to accept DTV signals.
I don't even know if most nonportable analog TVs even come with OTH antennas, so people have been used to buying and using addon antennas already for a while.
HDTV is the shit. Everyone, even wives, can clearly tell the difference. Its a good thing.
For those too lazy to click the link:
;)
Refurbished DTV converter: $162.95
Original list price: $399.95
Gee, maybe the gubment plans to subsidise $349.95 of the cost to offer them at $50.
I knew the people in charge weren't stupid enough to think $50 converters were available.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
The next revolution will not be televised.
I still think the broadcasters should all start using multicasting - they could put cable out of business. Let me plug this again: Digital Fox stations should air Fox Network, Fox News, Fox Kids, and the other one (is it Fox sports?). PBS should run their news/financial shows, PBS kids stuff, and some form of public servie - like 24 hour commercial free weather or a channel guide. If all 8 stations available at my house would run just 2-3 subchannels it could make paying for cable look really stupid to most people.
Also, this transition has been coming for over a decade. Anyone who bought a TV in the last 5 years should have done a little research and planned ahead - for me that meant not paying more than a couple hundred dollars for a 27" TV that will be obsolete in a few years. The key is that it's always been "just a few years" down the road. Anyone who feels "fucked" should have spent less time in front of the TV and learned what's happening in the world.
If I understand correctly, each 19Mb/s allotment that stations receive is 6MHz wide. How much bandwidth does a current single analog signal take? 6MHz, right? How does that lead to "DTV takes up far less of the spectrum", when it clearly doesn't?
A 6 MHz NTSC band can carry one SDTV stream. A 6 MHz ATSC band can carry four high-quality SDTV streams or one HDTV stream. If you're willing to accept more distortion per stream, a 6 MHz ATSC band can carry one HDTV stream and two SDTV streams. For instance, WANE-TV in Fort Wayne, Indiana, has CBS in HD, UPN in SD, and weather radar in SD, all on a single 6 MHz ATSC band, where it would have taken 18 MHz (CBS in SD, UPN in SD, and weather radar in SD) in NTSC.
The debate around this runs hot, while digital provides better audio/video there's a few drawbacks (such as the high cost of recievers, and need to have a reciever for every TV) which is making people frustrated.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
Will this expand or susequently diminish the FCC's censorship of the "free" channels?
I'm a little confused on the alternatives. Basically the gist is that you won't be able to receive transmissions without cable/satellite, right? Will digital TVs receive antenna signals? please clarify for me. My assumption was that there would be no use of broadcasting spectrum by television signals. Let me know if I'm incorrect in my assumption.
I don't see how they could police the major television networks (free tv) if they aren't using the FCC's airwaves anymore. Wasn't that the catch 22 of the past?
Why is this modded informative. The poster has no clue. Pick a decoder. Terrestrial Receiver/Decoders have been out for at least 4 years.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
There are people out there who don't have cable??? How long before they are accused of "stealing" broadcasts....
Current FM in the US is 88-108 MHz... a mere 10 MHz.. Imagine how many stations we could have, including non profit public interest stations, unlicensed local low power stations, etc with another 29 MHz!?!?!
In medium sized to major cities the FM territory has been maxed out forever. There is clearly purpose, demand, and need to having more stations. The technological cost of extending FM receivers and setting up transmitters is relatively minimal.
Of course we'd have to fight broadcasters for the same reason we've fought them, and lost, on digital radio- more stations make their "property", the existing licensed stations less valuable.
Yes, I use and love internet radio, but FM radio is what the vast majority of people have easy access to. It's what you hear when you eat out and when people drive by with their radios cranked up. At least with massively more stations it wouldn't be the same old 'format'ed sh*t.
And the benefits to letting schools, community groups of every stripe, and pretty much anybody operate low power FM stations with a range of 1-5 miles would be enormous just in terms of the cultural development it would bring. Information wants to be free, but your average 'born in the ghetto' gangster, just to choose an example, doesn't know it because he grows up listening to Ninety-Whatever The Box where he's just a groomed product for the advertisers looking for the 16-29 urban male.
Come on.. auctioning everything off to the highest bidder just ensures that the highest bidder runs society.. and occasionally that turns out to be good, often is ok, but also frequently sucks bigtime.
-dj_virto
I guess Microsoft's policy of not wanting any talented people working for them extends to their technicians and it just sounds so bad that not even they dare put it out there.
What would be the audio version of Windows anyway?
Nails on a blackboard for usability.
Cars crashes for stability.
Wood breaking, flies buzzing and mosquitoes getting slapped for security.
Nah. I don't think I'm being fair there.
An audio version of Microsoft would have to be a loud, wet-sounding fart in a crowded elevator. And then silence, followed by gagging sounds.
Can you imagine how inane Clippy would sound? Like Bullwinkle J Moose discussing the food in Potsilvasia.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Just to clarify, here is a chart of the bandwidth we are talking about here
GENERAL TELEVISION FREQUENCIES
VHF Band - Ch. 2 - 13 54 - 216 Mhz
Low Band - VHF Ch. 2 - 6 59 - 88 Mhz
Mid Band - UHF Ch. 14 - 22 121 - 174 Mhz
UHF Ch. 95 - 99 91 - 120 Mhz
High Band - VHF Ch. 7 - 13 175 - 216 Mhz
UHF Band Ch.14 - 83 - - 158 70 - 1002 Mhz
Your cable company will doubletalk you into paying for digital cable-only channels, but any *broadcast* channels should be included without charge.
Right now, they may only be carrying the analog version. But, if they carry the digital version, it should be free. And after 2009, the digital version is the only one they'll have.
My cable company carrys somewhat less than half of the local OTA digital programs, so I still find it worthwile to use an antenna. But I do get the networks in HDTV over cable without additional charge, using my own tuner.
Just try it. If it doesn't work, file a complaint with the FCC. This is part of the convoluted must-carry rules that your cable company would like everyone to forget about.
Its you're speeling, sudpit!
Apart for the Gimli Glider ( http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html ) it went pretty smoothly.
Of course it would be utter carnage in the skies over (or on the landings in) the United States.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The solution is simple, just make the set top conversion boxes available at $5 or $10 by using the revenue from the sold spectrum. Why should the poorest of people be forced pay for the good of all for something as basic as local tv?
I see a big need for HDTV to Analog converters in the future.
Hey you out there - please wake up, just once! /.'s not an all-american platform.
/.'s readers.
Yep, you've read right. This news article is suffering badly from not having a phrase like "in America" in it.
As analog TV will have a long future in other parts of the world, the information "HDTV is here - come and get it" must sound like a great joke for most of
But there are others who are smiling about the article here:
I for example reading this from good old Europe haven't been able to access any analog TV broadcast in my region for about 1 1/2 years - everybody has changed to digital TV already...
Wasn't there a ruling that prevented this kind of thing from happening? I think it was a battle of rotary telephones vs digital phones, but I can't find the case anywhere.
Her, uh, 'groonblid'* would LOVE to get a fast line because she can hardly play her on-line games. When she lived downtown, her Sympatico account was great but now, she's got a Jones for even half the speed.
*My ex-wife married another woman. Ain't life in Canada great? I think so. She's happy, her 'groonblid's happy and I'm happy married to somebody else. Win-win all around. (When you can't compete, best not to beat yourself up about it.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"broadcasters told Congress Wednesday they would agree to give up their analog channels and start broadcasting only in digital by 2009."
They can demand analog shut down, but in reality exceptions and extensions will be with us a long time. Broadcasters are NOT going to go easily into that good night. They have had free use of the best spectrum in history, and paid for politicos, aided by the best lobbyists in the industry, will shill on behalf of the part of our population which will not be able to afford a change. You don't want to tune out the stupid...they watch FOX news and vote accordingly. As long a a lobbyist can raise a pen on K street, or a legislative aide can say "thank you" for a campaign contribution, there will be "delays", "extensions" and "temporary use of VHF". The Federal Government will not crack a ruler across the knuckles of the broadcast industry...unless maybe the deadline bill has a broadcast flag rider :)
Actually, the very mind-numbingness of the content, combined with the fact that all the 'good' shows are always getting canceled because they don't pull in a bigger audience per dollar spent on production, are killing the goose that crapped all over the golden egg.
I'm looking forward to the first shows being 'podcast' over the net (with DRM, just like iTunes, heck, maybe ON iTunes for all I know,) that I can download when I want to pay for the content, and watched, as often as I want and when I want to watch them.
Conbine that with Google or a specialized content aggregator (like iTunes) that is watching out for interesting content and organizing it, and you've got a winner.
The digital revolution will be the death of broad casting. Everybody will be happy except the current model media outlets. They're going away too. The best part is that since they're not in the production business, there might be agony but there won't be screaming. And the concept of Neilson ratings will become obsolete.
The content producers will be happy because they will collect revenues asychronously directly from their audience.
The necessity for 'selling' some humourless media exec on the merits of some comedy show will be obviated. It wont be about trying to compete with some other show at a specific time slot.
Its going to become a question of values. Is my content worth it that my audience will pay me to watch it and pay me for more of it.
And remember records, CDs, DVDs, MP3s and iTunes, or mail, emails, web sites, or slashdot engines, blogs and podcasts were just the beginning on the long continuum of asynchonous communication.
I for one see better things ahead.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
They're expecting to get 30 billion dollars from auctioning the bandwidth.
If they bought a $50 digital converter box for all 120 million households in the US (not just the 18 million analog-only households), that would leave them 24 billion to put towards balancing the budget (or pay for a couple of weeks more war in Iraq).
If you're blind, what do you need all the pretty pictures for? Pretty useless is more like it.
That is NOT to say we should all go around poking ourselves in the eyes with pointed sticks. But sensory technology depends on the sensory equipment available.
I personally think that HDTV as a quality barrier is fine (720i is fine since I can't quite fit 1080i on my monitor.)
Its the CONTENT that is being ladled at me that I object to.
I also object to being forced to watch parts of, or miss entirely, what I would watch because they can't time shift.
Broadcasting with ads makes no sense in a narrow receiver world. We have the technology and were gonna use it.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
They really pulled a fast one on the American public. Now naturally the switch to digital will not happen (i'd like to see the congressman that will risk pissing off millions of TV viewers) and the result will be that the TV stations will get to keep more or less permenantly all the new digital spectrum as well as the old analog spectrum.
And thus the TV stations double their spectrum. How much are they paying for all this spectrum you ask? Well, they are paying exactly nothing. Because you see TV stations serve the public interest. I know, I am laughing too.
3 Years ago, my HDTV box was an open box $400 deal (full price was $1000). When it got messed up, DirecTV replaced it with a $750 top of the box less than a year later. 18 months ago, you could get a basic HDTV box for $200-$300, where our prices are sitting.
Right now, there is no demand for a $50 box, because analog works for 15%, and the other 85% have satellite/cable. DirecTV is already planning to obsolete my HD Tivo, but I'll keep my antenna and it will work for a few years until something compelling replaces it.
However, we can get for $200 a basic HDTV decoder... that's a start. The deadline was pushed off another 3 years... I expect $100 entry level ones within the next year or two. The prices will keep dropping for the electronics, people will keep complaining, and the deadline will keep get pushed off.
HOWEVER, while this is happening, more and more ATSC-ready televisions will be sold. Sure, people with 20 year TVs will be upset, but by the time the switch REALLY happens in 2012/2015, any 20 year old or newer set was built in the 90s... Its just a matter of time until most people have ATSC-ready sets.
It just involves pushing deadlines back but making the equipment happen. When things get close, Wal-mart will get a factory in China putting out $20-$50 boxes, and people will whine, and somehow, Wal-mart will walk away with a $30-$40/box subsidy, make real bank, the left will scream and yell about corporate give-aways, but the transition will happen... And somehow, the corporate give-away will exceed to auction revenues, but we'll all move on with our lives...
Alex
And the number one reason Bittorrenting TV shows is going to become more mainstream than the quarter pounder with cheese is....
I think commercial free cable is an urban legend.
Back in the 1970s, what cable "was" was highly open to debate. In rural areas, it was just a community method of distributing a satellite feed of network programming. In urban areas, it was movies and porn.
When "cable" channels began to be added to the mix in both areas, these were largely commercial free, not because their owners were generous but because their household penetration was some small number under 10 percent of households and there weren't many/any advertisers willing to spend money to reach those people who were already being reached via network ads -- which would have been shown on network satellite feeds replayed in rural areas, and on "superstations" that were just pumping their local signal to a bird in the sky.
There just wasn't any money initially in buying commercials on early specialty channels. ESPN -- the people watching Iowa State play Minnesota on a Tuesday night were either watching in Iowa or Minnesota on OTA channels, and it was thought that a regional game wasn't really of any interest on ESPN, thus nobody watches, thus no ads on ESPN, or the *appearance* of no ads on ESPN.
Why bother. Long before the deadline most of us will be watching outsourced Bollywood TV over the internet.
Part of me believes that this adamant point of switching to digital somehow revolves around something more sinister.
Perhaps they want to remove radio signals from television and other mediums to clear up the airwaves so that RFID tags on money and many other products can be used more effectively perhaps on different frequencies. They say that the RFID tags can only be scanned within 50 meters, but what if they are able to track the signals much like how air traffic controllers keep track of every flight in the country?
This would allow them to keep tabs on people of suspect, or pretty much anyone they want. Why else would they move so quickly or suddenly say to those who cant afford cable or a high def system "tomorrow you can't watch anything" then using the guise of better quality picture to have more adopters and less protests to make sure everything goes through without a hitch.
If the tv manufacturers would drop the price of the HDTV's to something more manageable this probably would be less of an issue for broadcasters.
But in typical capitalist sense, that won't start until Feb. 2009.
Insert Sig Here
One small fly in the mix. Digital signals require a good mast mounted outside antenna well aimed at the signal source. Rabbit ears need not apply.
.... wait they can't get DIGITAL TV).
Well here in the S.E. US we have problems this time of year with HURRICANES that tend to disrupt power and blow down outdoor antennas. I can receive something on a battery operated TV right now with a monopole (rabbit EAR?) antenna (OK a bit snowy picture, but usable). After 2009, that won't work anymore. I'd like to see the changeover with a provision that in the case of an emergency, the stations MUST REVERT BACK to NTSC ANALOG broadcasting so people who are in shelters or home in the dark can still get the news. (yes there is still radio, and some radios can get TV,
I am in the market to buy an HDTV. I currently have 2 NTSC televisions: a 23" and a 27". I *WANT* to buy an HDTV set. Here is my question:
HOW can I get rid of these 2 televisions? I don't want to just throw them in the trash.... that would pollute the landfill.
That's a lot of TVs (containing mercury, amoung other baddies) heading for the landfill all at the same time. Or recycled? A big burst of recycling followed by a big pause (since the percentage of sets that are new would be then high) is not good for any industry. I think the need for TV recycling and provisions to handle it should be part of the requirements for the cut-off.
I do need to point out here that digital radio supports up to eight separate FM channels in the same band as the current 1 analog channel :D.
It won't be as maxed out once digital radio becomes more commonplace. That being said I'm not floored by the audio quality of either DAB in Europe or Ibiquity in the USA. 128kbps encoding doesn't cut it :)
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
There's no reason to - DVDs are better *AND* cheaper.
Of course, that analogy doesn't apply to digital television. Better, but not cheaper.
paintball
>Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those
/. readers please send some letters to the editor here so that patently misleading statement like the above are not found anymore.
>without subscription television services will see >blank screens unless they buy new units.
Can
Broadcasters are afraid because it costs them lots of money to broadcast digital TV not because consumers won't be able to receive it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can't tell me that nobody will find a market in selling little boxes that convert digital tv signals into an analog feed for your "old" television. It's inevitable.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
can you imagine what all the garbage dumps are going to look like come 2009?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I'm happy not being force to waste money every time someone decides that a current technology is obsolete and everyone should be forced to upgrade!
They're not deciding it's obsolete. They're deciding that if they lobby The Powers That Be to force you to switch to an incompatible technology (and thereby make a purchase), you'll probably eventually cave and buy one of their products, thus lining their pockets.
And The Powers That Be are deciding that this is a Good Thing[TM] because it lines their pockets as well.
And the sad thing is that 95% of us will indeed eventually cave sooner or later and line all of their pockets needlessly (doubly so when you consider just how wealthy the media and manufacturing moguls already are), costing us a bit of food on the table and retirement security, despite our Valorous protests of "Then I Shan't Watch TV After 2009!" here on Slashdot.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
OK, here's my gripe on this. We live in eastern Virginia, well north of Norfolk and east of Richmond, and south of DC. We have satelite TV, and thus would be unaffected by this, right? Wrong. The FCC classifies us as being local to the Richmond market area. Our small, rural county of just over 9,000 is situated right on the Chesapeake Bay, and is very dependant on marine forcasts that are provided by the Norfolk television stations. Because the FCC classifies us as Richmond area, however, we are not allowed to get the Norfolk local stations on Satelite. Point in case of how we are screwed over by this, as we'll have to get either a new TV or a new box of some sort to *attempt* to pick up the digital signal for Norfolk. However, as previously mentioned, this signal is going to be more difficult to pick up because it needs to be clearer for it to work right (we are on the fringe of what you would call the Norfolk transmission area). So, add onto the laundry list of things the FCC needs to change, is the availability of multiple markets "local" stations to users, no matter where they are, so we will be able to get the Norfolk local stations through the Satelite.
Great. Now I get to listen to people who can't even manage to pick up our low VHF station with their fillings *now* try to pick up our UHF DTV with an expensive receiver.
What a giveaway for Broadcasters!
*cough**BULLSH*T**cough*
...didn't they say that OTA broadcasts were to be all HDTV by June 2k5? And notice the time gap this time, 4 more years.... Is it just me, or does the phrase "four more years" only bring agony to mind?
Another data point: from a location near Annapolis, MD, I have occasionally managed to receive solid DTV signals from Philadelphia, PA (a 2.5 hour drive). Meanwhile even analog UHF signals from Washington, DC (a 30 minute drive) can be really difficult to pick up.
If you look at the map you'll see that the line to Philadelphia is almost all over water. There's a low (almost unnoticable) ridge between me and DC, though.
Say they install this broadcast flag. Say they make you watch DTV. Say they force the commercials not to be muted. People will just give up on TV. Your attitude will be more rampant than you think. Only when the government mandates that you leave your TV on all day will we have a problem (a la 1984.) People will not feel that it is worth the hassle to watch Jerry Bruckheimer's (or however you spell it) latest Reality TV Show or Drama if it just pisses them off to no end. Television is still a business that derives its income from viewers, albeit indirectly. If people stop watching, then the advertisers stop paying. Also, all these FCC regulations can only apply to Broadcast stuff. I am sure that eventually some entrepeneur (maybe you or me) will come along and offer subscriber programming without ads and without flags. And he will make a boatload of money. The market is still driven by the consumer.
Have a TREE in your yard?
What about multiple Trees?
Oh.. Have a fence around the yard?
A Shed?
A House Next Door?
If you do.. you know.. that you have HD Must Not SEE TV. Its amazing how this works. HD TV is supposed to have better reception than normal since its more "robust".
Sorry am still laughing at that. I got duped into thinking that since I got fuzzy connection on analog but could still make out the figures etc that HD would be available to me..
And then after getting a decent reciever.. to constantly get told its your antennea... and then buying the super duper model after looking on the internet..
and having antennaweb tell me I should be getting great reception.. I realized something...
DirectTV aint so bad looking after all...
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
No one will have to throw anything away. ...
They'll be able to buy a *cheap* DTV to AnalogTV
converter 'cuz MANY people will still have
analog TV sets and some guys in a garage or some
guys in Korea will make one available for $25 bucks