Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jan 2009 Deadline for HDTV Cutoff

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the gimme-1080i-now-already dept.

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. "

21 of 585 comments (clear)

  1. Not an HDTV cutoff. by sweeney37 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Not an HDTV cutoff. by crow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, technically it's the elimination of NTSC broadcasts, with only the new digital ATSC broadcasts. However, at least in Boston, most ATSC broadcasts are in 720p or 1080i only, so they are HDTV (even if they're just upsampled SDTV shows). That's probably true in many places.

      So the distinction between DTV, ATSC, and HDTV from a broadcasting perspective is really just a nitpick that can be ignored for all practical purposes.

      (Of course, from a television perspective, there's a huge distinction between simply displaying ATSC, and displaying HDTV resolutions.)

    2. Re:Not an HDTV cutoff. by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that DTV and HDTV are the same size in terms of radio spectrum. HDTV = High Definition Television, which is done digitally. DTV = Digital Television. So HDTV is a subset of DTV. No one is ever going to be forced to broadcast HDTV. They are being told by the FCC to go digital. That is all. There is no cutoff to switch to HDTV. Some stations are even planning on still broadcasting at low resolutions and thus be able to fit in the same spectrum different shows (it's called multi-casting http://www.pbs.org/opb/crashcourse/digital_v_analo g/multicast.html). What resolution a broadcaster decides to send their signals in is their choice, but they must do it in digital.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
  2. Great... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Millions of people now HAVE to buy new TVs. Is it time to invest in Sony?

    1. Re:Great... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why are Americans so resistant to change?

      Sorry, but that is the wrong question. The correct quesions are: Why are we being forced to spend our money on a TV or a set-top box? Why are my tax dollars being spent on subsidizing the purchase of a set-top box?

    2. Re:Great... by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...HAVE to buy ...

      Because as we all know, human civilization will collapse without television.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:Great... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Funny
      Why are Americans so resistant to change??

      Considering that a good portion of populace is still fighting against evolution, I think it might be pathalogical at this point.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    4. Re:Great... by drakaan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They're not resistant to change, they're resistant to being forced to spend money.

      Here's the problem you're going to run into, although it'll be a small problem by that time. Right now, the *only* people in the US that know about analog broadcasts going away in 2009 (or the fact that that's a new deadline) are the broadcasters and the geeks that read sites like slashdot.

      My wife is reasonably well-informed (she reads the news online and browses fark every day), and had no clue what I was talking about when I mentioned it a few weeks ago. My neighbors are clueless, and looked at me like I was crazy when I told them that it was a good thing they had satellite TV, etc.

      Here's what I'm guessing: The broadcasters are betting that by 2009, just about everyone will have cheap satellite or cable TV, and (as someone pointed out to me in a previous story on this subject), the people that don't are probably limited enough in purchasing power that it'd be worth the risk to ad revenue to go ahead with it anyway.

      You'll hear one or two stories on the news saying "Still using rabbit-ears? Not for long...", then make a small stink about being forced to do it, so people will be mad at the FCC for "springing" it on them, and life goes on as normal.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    5. Re:Great... by the_weasel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Absolutely. I mean look what happened to the Romans.

      They had no television. Where are they now?

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    6. Re:Great... by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Simple, radio spectrum is valuable and limited. Analog TV uses a lot of radio spectrum. One they get rid of Analog there will be a lot of spectrum available for the government to resell to others. Effectivly the FCC is saying that in 2009 all broadcasters will be revoked their license for existing analog spectrum. It will be resold at a much higher price, and used digitally so many more things can use it. Hopefully much of it will be allotted to the public for things like WiFi, but that is yet to be seen.

    7. Re:Great... by juanfe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's what I'm guessing: The broadcasters are betting that by 2009, just about everyone will have cheap satellite or cable TV, and (as someone pointed out to me in a previous story on this subject), the people that don't are probably limited enough in purchasing power that it'd be worth the risk to ad revenue to go ahead with it anyway.

      That's precisely the issue--that a technology architecture and phase-out process was taken that can have, as a net result, excluding those who cannot purchase new equipment because they are on limited incomes or can not afford or cannot receive services such as cable or satellite.

      I think we need to remember that that the public airwaves are a public good that has merely been loaned out to broadcasters, and that they need to treat it as more than a vehicle to peddle their wares. They can and should serve a public need--i.e. emergency broadcasting, public television, network television, etc, and transition plans to DTV should have a clear path for making sure that large groups of people aren't systematically blocked out from what is, nowadays, an essential medium.

      --
      ***Foucault is watching you..***
  3. *shrugs* Doesn't matter by Lothar+0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    All I use my analog TV for is watching stuff I downloaded to my computer anyway.

    --
    "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
  4. That is good news! by homerules · · Score: 5, Funny
    Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those without subscription television services will see blank screens unless they buy new units.
    Those without HDTV will see a huge jump in programing quality.
    --
    Get a FREE Sony PS3
  5. Re:Absolutely unncessary! by Shkuey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First of all this has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIGH DEFINITION.

    It has everything to do with digital broadcasting taking up FAR LESS of the broadcast spectrum that they want to free up for other uses. If the government doesn't step in, that huge portion of the spectrum would be tied up in archaic uses forever!

  6. Re:In the year 2000... (and 9) by macrom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    2009 will be the perfect time to officially throw away your TV

    I doubt it. I'm sure we'll see this in July of 2008 :

    Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2012 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts.

    Add 3, wash, rinse, repeat.

  7. Since they removed my editorial... by stlhawkeye · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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
  8. Re:How does forced obsolescence promote public goo by justforaday · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  9. Arg.. by dustinbarbour · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  10. Digital Television != HDTV by KillerBob · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  11. Re:In the year 2000... (and 9) by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My greatest fear is that I have trouble picking up all the major networks right smack in the middle of Silicon Valley with rabbit ears. There are networks where I can only pick them up as a sideband of another TV station because their main tower's ATSC feed doesn't have enough power to reach here. The NTSC feeds reach me for those stations just fine, albeit with some multipath distortion and/or other noise. Basically, ATSC requires an exceptionally clean signal (at least with my tuner hardware) to be able to resolve a signal.

    Now I think about my parents in rural western TN. There are three stations (NBC, ABC, PBS) within an hour. The other network stations are between 2 and 3 hours drive away. They can pick up some of those stations in NTSC (albeit noisily) with rabbit ears, and halfway decently with an external antenna, After the NTSC cutoff, judging by what I've seen with my receiver out here (comparing to the analog signal strength), my guess is they -might- be able to pick up the stations an hour away with the external antenna. The signals from two hours away will be weak enough that you'll just see a black screen.

    Basically, the ATSC switch had darn well better be accompanied by new FCC rules that regulate cable companies like telephone companies, requiring near-free basic universal service across the country. If not, there are a lot of people who won't be able to find out even basic weather forecasts because ATSC just plain sucks in anything remotely approaching fringe reception areas.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  12. Re:Look at the positives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We might take a hit in the pocketbook, but isn't it time that our country got with the times?"

    No. I have to make ends meet. I don't care about owning the newest and latest technology, I care far more about putting food on the table. Amusing that I'm posting to Slashdot, but I do like to know what is going on -- regardless of whether or not I'm interested in buying anything.

    I am not interested in someone spouting off that other countries are better off. You like it? Move there. 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! Waste your own damn money, I have better things to use it for.