Slashdot Mirror
FCC Says Analog TV Lives Until 2012
walterbays writes ""The FCC voted 5-0 to require that cable operators must continue to make all local broadcasts available to their users, even those with analog televisions." I don't understand how AT&T manages to deliver U-verse without any analog channels. Did they get it classified as not-cable and exempt from existing rules? Or as a result of this vote, will they suddenly have to drop 50 SD channels to make room for 5 NTSC channels?"
I've been arguing it here for years- we aren't going to switch to digital TVs anytime in the next 5 years. Too many people still only have analog TVs. Watch them decide to push back the OTA deadline next. Until analog only TVs are under 5% of the install base, they won't make that move.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Seriously, I would love to know what this has to do with AT&T. Of course U-Verse was declared not to be cable, since it isn't cable. How is this relavent in the context of the article? A non-cable television service doesn't have to follow the same rules as a cable television service? What a shocker!
Mod me as you will, but you know you're thinking the same thing.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
If the FCC is confident, I hope this changes some conspiracy theories about the world ending. I wonder if anyone making the decision on this topic took a double take at the date and laughed. I know I would have.
Copper phone lines still rule..."You can have my copper when you take it from my cold, dead hands" man says
Somehow PC game company still manage to make money against the console "PC Killers"
Wireless is the Ethernet Killer - though millions of people haven't figured out how to secure they're ethernet or wireless systems
Slashdot is still relevant
Every few years the so-called "deadline" keeps getting pushed back. Looks like I can keep my regular old TV set for a few more years.
And what makes this more hysterical is that the early adopters got screwed, buying plasma TVs only to find out they didn't support HD. Then the next set of adopters bought HDTVs, only to find out they were not HDMI compatible, and therefore, couldn't run HD content.
So, this new push-back of the deadline gives the content makers and the hardware companies more time to develop a whole new DRM scheme to screw those of you who just bought HDMI compatible equipment.
The guarantee is that every 5 years, you need to spend 10 grand on another entertainment setup.
Isn't that fun?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The set top box converts it.. so wtf are you smoking?
The only way to really get up to date is to have the balls to dump the past.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Would it count as support if the cable provider sells the converter of the digital signal to analog to those who need it?
I bet if they just stoped the analog signal then all these morons that have just analog tvs would buy the $15 decoder box that is required to view the SD signal. Seriously FCC grow some balls you pussies.
Is offering a proprietary converter box (digital to analog), for a nice monthly fee, going to qualify as available? That could mean that citizens wouldn't be allowed to purchase any third party devices, essentially enlarging cable operator monopolies.
It seems like they'll pick option #2 here, and then either charge legacy users a fee to get a box, or just jack up everyones' rate by $5. Everyone is going to end up with a box either way, it's the only way to watch cable given that CableCARD so far is a bust and the cable companies seem anxious to start doing SDV rollouts.
And then there's the fact that the cable industry's main association is happy about this. What's up with that!?Seriously, by 2012, who the heck is going to even want to **own** a television anyway? On the bright side, I wonder what bittorrent will look like by then?
The declaration only requires the cable company to make the local channels available as NTSC in SOME way... they don't have to come out of the coax as standard NTSC analog cable. Instead, the cable company can just add an NTSC output to their cable box and decode the SD-compressed digital channels in there.
-ts
1999 saw 1080p devices pumping the NASA shuttle launch at your local Magnolia Hifi Store. Now the entire switchover is going to take 13 years? This FCC makes my ass ache. Progress at a snails pace. This isn't being prudent. This is about raping the masses. By 2012 the HDTV you bought today won't even be supported.
there isn't much choice you fat fucking Americans could do about it
Excuse me, but I don't fuck fat.
I would have already colluded with other television manufacturers to produce units that would spontaneously fail after 2 and a half years
Doesn't Sony already do this now? Maybe the other manufacturers played a trick on them.
Like our cars! Come to think of it, there's another industry that you lazy, fat-assed, dumbfuck Americans couldn't compete.
Yes, the non-U.S. car companies are smart to go to great lengths to prevent their factory workers from organizing. I'm sure you are aware of the Fun Fact that most U.S.-based factories producing Asian cars are non-union.
Troll, of course.
Vote Libertarian
Typical U-verse (as delivered to my house in Oakland, CA) uses a Motorola VIP1200 IPTV set-top box (see http://www.motorola.com/content.jsp?globalObjectId=7460-10536-10543), which among things has an NTSC composite video output connector (see http://www.motorola.com/mot/image/16/16315_MotImage.jpg). It will even send a signal via an RF coax connection fercrissake!
Excuse me, but I don't fuck fat.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that Slashbots ever fuck anything.
One of us is confused -- either me or the summary. From my parsing of TFA, it seems to me there are two separate things going on here that are being intermingled.
First, there is a rule requiring cable companies to do what they already do, for the most part -- have analog outs on their digital set top boxes. I don't think they'll care so much about that.
Second, there is a rule that they must continue to carry local channels, even after the digital switchover, some of which they'd love to replace with more lucrative pay cable channels.
What I can't tell from the summary or the article is if both of these requirements are in effect until 2012 or just one.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Now my crackpot friends have something to add to their theories... the Mayan Calendar, the solar system passing through the plane of the galaxy, and the end of analogue tv MUST mean that 2012 is the end of the world!
Its preaty rediculos how low the illitteracy level on slash/dot is become, so we need peoples like you to nip the bed spelling in the butt.
It's a shame the world ends that year according to the Mayan calendar...at least we'll be able to watch the Apocalypse in HD.
Maybe the cable companies could simply send their basic channels over QAM in the clear so all you need is a QAM compatible converter box(which already exist
and QAM is already part of the tuner of many digital tvs)
That way the cable companies could simply offer cheap QAM boxes to their customers without having to give them the full featured digital cable box.
get over it. It's not the end of the world if poor people want to watch fuzzy TV.
And I can't believe how terrible the sound quality is on GSM networks compared to CDMA networks. I'm glad there are choices in the US. One technology to rule them all kind of sucks.
Also it's just a cellphone, many people don't have cellphones, get over it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You don't need a set top box for analog cable, it doesn't mean much any more, but most tv's made in the last couple of decades are "cable ready" meaning you can just plug the cable into the back of the tv and go, no set top box required. Of course you don't get premium channels, PPV, on demand, etc.. but in my area at least you can get a good 70 or so analog channels off the Time Warner cable, and it sounds like I've got at least 5 more years before I've got to worry.
AT&T and Verizon get out of it by not carrying any analog channels. Cable has this option as well, but will have to provide Set Top Boxes to all of their subscribers (just like AT&T and Verizon do) which they don't do now, especially in small and rural markets. Also this doesn't apply to all, or even most, channels it only applies to must carry channels, which are channels that the cable company (or telco) is required to provide... requiring them to provide these channels to all of their subscribers makes sense to me.
If I were a television manufacturer, I would have already colluded with other television manufacturers to produce units that would spontaneously fail after 2 and a half years.
Gold Star (now LG - "Lucky Gold Star", not "Life's Good" as they claim) used to be infamous among electronics service techs for powering everything from the CRT filament to the audio stages from the flyback transformer. Crank up the volume too loud and for too long, fry the audio amplifier, which overloads the flyback, which takes out the horizontal output transistor. Now you have a dead TV and a service bill more than it would cost to replace the set.
They did that a *long* time ago. The days of 20+ year lifespans from TV sets are long gone. It's like the days of the 20+-year-old Maytag washer.
(In other news, I have a Sony Trinitron KV-1710 from 1975, and a KV-1926 from 1988, both of which still work perfectly. My first color TV was a 1970 Admiral Solar Color, which I had until 1996. But I see lots of newer sets (2-5 years old) at the curb.)
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Over-the-air HD looks like crap anyway. They are not using enough bandwidth and/or the codecs are not good enough to handle LARGE amount of change in a scene. Watch any football game, when the scene is still, like on a player/coach or just before the ball snaps, it looks incredible. But once 22 people moving along with the camera angle, the clarity and sharpness are gone until the scene settles down. No, it's not motion blur, it's insufficient bandwidth to accurately decode the scene. You can also see in the first 1/8 or 1/4 second when a scene changes, everything is blocky, then comes into sharp focus. Or watch as logos fly across the screen, you'll see the blocky artifacts there too. I'm just surprised that more people are not complaining about the quality.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Which is basically your local over-the-air stations... They can switch everything else over to digital unless they have an agreement with the content owner that requires them to provide it over analog.
Actually, if analogue TV transmissions stops, then I just won't bother buying a TV. A computer is good enough for what little motion video I watch and I have a strong suspicion that many people will do the same thing. A complete switch to digital will likely cause the TV stations to permanently lose a lot of viewers.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Well of course, isn't that when the world ends.
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
So cable companies dont like money? Put it to you like this money thier gonna make a killing by providing digital convertor boxes for a fee. Like your crack dealer ... firsts one at no cost. Cable isnt gonna give up that opportunity.
Silly FCC.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
... will make a similar announcement in 5 years saying analog TV will still last until 2022.
So people are happy with the status quo (or don't care enough to bother changing in any case)? Good for them! To be honest I find it refreshing to hear that so many people appear to have better things to do with their time (and money) than worry about getting a marginally better picture/sound on their idiot box. Kinda restores my faith in humanity (well, slightly anyhow).
....we'll never switch to HD completely, and when we do we'll be probably using 720p while the rest of the world is probably using 1080p or higher. FCC is a joke now, just force the damn consumers to switch already.
there's some artifacts but it hardly looks like crap. lets compare analog to HD and see which looks better shall we...
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
For TV
Digital (unless HD) Analog
to the US adoption of metric system?
why does the fcc get to regulate that. I can see, maybe, them controlling the air waves, but they should have no control over the cable companies. And why, do they require cable to host local channels, isn't that the whole point to get it off the air? and cable is paid, not forced, so shouldn't they not have to follow the tv air rules.
I hate the fcc, they seem to do everything in their power to hurt cable companies, which in turn hurts us consumers.
I'll soon switch from analog to digital & here is why:
My old TV is dieing.
My CRT from 1995 is finally giving up the ghost after 5 apartment/houses in 3 states.
And that is the only reason why.
I don't care about how good HDTV looks. I don't care about how flat the TV is. In fact, with a flat screen my cabinet no longer matches my TV (size wise). In fact, when I price compare I might just buy another CRT. Although I would prefer not to as I am buying for the next decade.
And there are a lot of other people out there just like me.
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
Interesting point. Around 1998, a friend who was moving from a giant house to a smaller place gave me a lot of stuff. One of these was a floor model 27" Sony from the early 80s. Worked like a champ even though it was getting near two decades only (also impressed with the number of AV inputs, functionality and even parental control considering the time).
Worked perfectly until ~ 2005 when an extended series of power fluctuations in the area managed to screw the picture, a microwave, monitor, vacuum cleaner and several UPSes
I find it hard to believe it's Trinitron replacement will be still cranking in 2025.
-William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
Ok, let's compare. Analogue TV - hrm, the edges look a little fuzzy. HD - wow, that's really sharp, oh wait they moved the camera a little and now it's got big MPEG artifacts the size of my thumbnail. Think I'll stick with analogue, at least until digital TV doesn't look like ZX81 graphics.
I am in the UK so maybe there is some kind of different technology over in the US but i simply don't understand: "They can either convert the digital SD signal to analog SD and pipe it across their lines (which means using more bandwidth and carrying three versions of a single channel) or they can offer digital SD only and roll out converter boxes to all their subscribers (which could be expensive)". In the UK all digital cable channels work like this, there simply isn't a TV that you can buy that can pick up digital cable signals without a digital cable box and you just get one when you sign up to cable. Most of these boxes only have analogue outputs, the only ones that have any kind of digital outputs are the DVR/HiDef boxes that you pay extra for, these have HDMI outputs as well. What kind of input do these TVs have that can somehow pick up digital cable signals without a cable box. Do the have some sort of built in DVB-C decoders or similar?
My Sony TV (a high end model when I bought it - back in my student days, with my house mate) is 13 years old. The picture quality is still excellent. I have no intention of replacing it. I have digital satellite (this is in Britain, I only bother with the Freeview channels, I don't have a subscription to anything). However, my digital satellite box spends most of its time as a radio for BBC Radio 4 and BBC 6 Music.
The Sony TV is also great for retrocomputer use for my collection of Sinclair Spectrums and a BBC Micro (the picture quality from the latter with the RGB cable is excellent).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The sale of the 700 mhz spectrum would have opened the door for people in rural areas to have wireless high speed broadband, I guess that isn't on the top of our priority list.
The most pressing reason for me ---being in Denmark, where the switch will decidedly happen in 2009--- is that nobody seems able to give a clear answer about what that "box" really is.
The most enlightened answer I got was that you will need a converter box, even for new tv's.
What I *really* want to know, and nobody seems able to answer, is *what comes out of that box?* Does it deliver an analog antenna signal, or one analog tv channel? This is important because in one case I can't use my own tuner, and that's a bit daft when I have a VCR as well. If one has to manually set the channel on this additional box, all television recording becomes, well, tricky at best.
Perhaps that's what they're after, and they're just not saying (remind you of online radio, anyone?).
"Good news, everyone!"
Here in Finland we shut down the terrestrial analog signal 1.9.2007 (first of September), meaning the only way to watch TV via antenna is to have an DVB-T converter/set-top-box (a digi-box as we call it here). As the shutdown came closer it was apparent that not enough cable homes had DVB-C converters, and the cable companies were allowed to convert a few digital channels to analog and distribute it to homes for a few months. After that all the cable homes need a DVB-C converter to watch TV.
Today most televisions sold in here are LCD or plasma and many of them are already equipped with integrated DVB-T and/or DVB-C. Set-top-box converters cost around 50-600 euros, varying from simple devices without Conax pay-tv-slot to 250 GB twin-tuner systems allowing to record multiple channels at the same time. I guess it won't take long harddisks are going to be integrated to TV's also (if haven't been done yet).
Switch to all-digital TV has caused a lot of "conversation" here in Finland. The most popular topic is to complain about government forcing people to buy expensive devices "for nothing". Other topics include the Finnish Broadcasting Company's (YLE) decision to use DVB-subtitles (which is a good thing except the earlier DVB-converters had rough time doing them right), the inability to broadcast HD signal with the current standard, the quality of picture due to lowish bitrates as "too many" channels are broadcasted in a single multiplex, and other general problems, mostly about earliers set-top-boxes and their bugs.
IMHO the change has been all good.
As soon as a cheapo Chinese Set top box comes out that only costs the cable companies $50 a piece, we will have all digital cable. Why? Because they can afford to rent them for free to customers. It would be more than worth it for them sinc ethey will be abe to free up so much bandwidth by dropping the analog spectrum.
The reason people with old TVs don't want to pay an extra $5 a month for digital TV is they see no benefit, and I don't blame them. It would not look any better at all on their 27" TV from 1990 than a decent analog picture.
everything is better in B&W
For years consumer electronics firms have anticpated the digital convergence, where the television becomes the computer and everything else all rolled into one. I've worked on a few of these projects. But the consumer electronics companies won't be the ones to do it: they do not understand software, design bare bones hardware, and seek to keep everything proprietary for customer lock-in. WebTV is probably the most notable of these failures.
Digital TVs are crappy, inflexible computers. The convergence is happening, but it won't be the TV that reigns: it will be the computer in what Steve Job's refers to as the 'digital hub'. Duh. Been saying this myself since '92. Amazingly, he seems to be the only exec who understands the forces behind the convergence.
The computer will be the television. I already have a 30" LCD monitor on my desktop. My computer can play a huge variety of formats in many resolutions. My computer is already attached to a cable company data network. When/if cable companies wise up and start the leverage their data services, offering on-demand video via software clients over their data networks, the convergence will really pick up.
But the cable companies are just as stuck in their thinking as the consumer electronics firms: it could be that iTunes or like technology ursurps their current potential advantage for content delivery AND presentation, not through anything other than corporate vision which doggedly persues ease-of-use.
"You have liberated me from thought."
I prefer shades of grey, myself.
My free, grey shady TV, which works on battery, car and 110V power is only 6". OTOH, my main Linux box has dual monitors - 32" and 20" monitors.
I didn't realize I'd entered a raffle about 20 years ago when my name was announced as the winner of A NEW TV!!! It also has an AM/FM radio, non-digital too.
First of all the dropping of broadcast analog TV is going to affect about 5% of people so its time to do it. If you don't believe me walk into a room with 100 people and ask the people who only watch tv they get with bunny ears or a big antenna (not dish) on their roof to raise their hands. Now ask everyone with an HD TV to put their hands down. Thats how many people are even going to notice this switch. Tell those people to get a digital to analog converter if the don't like what they see next. Now invite them all to my house. Everyone who has ever come over to my house for the first time is confused as to how I get HD TV and don't pay anyone. I tell them all with bunny ears. After we pick the brains of the walls cause their head just exploded I explain to them the wonders of Digital Broadcast. As for this new ruling by the FCC. Fine the cable companies have to give out free digital to analog set top converters for a while. Still no reason not to switch.
In short, until digital is a zero-cost option, I'll stick with analog TV. There just isn't that much on TV which interests me enough to purchase & install some new-fangled hardware. My analog TV (29" Panasonic, was a cast-off from a friend) plays just fine with my Basic Cable, VCR and DVD player.. and every one of my video game consoles. I only have the cable package, as it represents a net savings of $5/month when bundled with Comcast cable Internet.
As I'm sure you've noticed, there is a dilution effect coupled to the increase in available channels. That is, if the number of channels suddenly doubles from 100 to 200, there is not a commensurate doubling of programming.. and any net increase in programming is tied to an increase in the frequency and length of commercial breaks.
So, they can shut off the analog broadcast, and shut off a viewer - or give me a free converter, and keep their viewer. If it's the former, I can't say I'll really miss much.
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
This reason is precisely why the FCC should be pushing harder towards a fixed analog cutoff deadline. Todays analog TV had a good run. Cable companies could provide (as they do now) converters and HDTV antennas for the 'wireless guys' can convert to old fashion RF/composite/s-video if needed. We need to make the break though. Sooner, not later. I want my UHDTV before 2200.
Let's not forget that the airwaves are a public domaine and every citizen has the right to them. Part of the foundation of this democracy, be it good or bad, is the right of every citizen to have free and unincumbered access to information. It is to the benefit of all that we do everything possible to maintain that right. For those that would dump the old standard, how do you propose to provide this access without cost to each citizen? Remember that while your own life may be wealthy in many ways, there are far more others out there, who's sweat and toil have made this possible and to exclude them would in itself be a crime against humanity, not to mention civility.
In The Netherlands they switched off the Analogue signal last year. Only digital in the Ether.
http://www.signaalopdigitaal.nl/ (in Dutch)
Ok, let's compare. Analogue TV - hrm, the edges look a little fuzzy. HD - wow, that's really sharp, oh wait they moved the camera a little and now it's got big MPEG artifacts the size of my thumbnail
Sounds like your HD broadcaster is trying to use too little bandwidth. I don't get any such artifacts when watching BBC HD.
That said, I have noticed that US imports (e.g. Heros) seem to be much lower quality than the BBC's own programmes - no artifacts, but the picture is significantly more noisy as if they used cheap fisher-price HDTV cameras. It's like the difference between a photo taken on a full frame DSLR and a photo taken on a digital compact with a tiny sensor - the picture is sharp in both cases, but noisy on the compact.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
doesn't encrypt basic cable channels. NTSC or QAM, Analog or Digital channels, it can all be tuned using the built-in tuner of my TV. The set-top box is only required to decrypt PREMIUM cable...that's the only cable they care about people stealing.
I don't get any such artifacts when watching BBC HD.
This is BBC HD I'm talking about. They're the "least worst".
My current TV is a 25 inch Philco bought new in 1995. It's still going strong. I have no plans of replacing it until the HDTVs drop to around $350 for something of a similar size.
And for my previous, Troll?? nice moderating skills :-D
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Heroes was done with available light HDV footage. BBC stuff, from what I have seen is much more carefully lit.
It's been a bad trend recently in the US
Everything you watch looks like it's a classic!
No one except a very few luddites (and older OnStar users) use AMPS in the US.
AMPS is still very much in widespread use in the US.
All over Alaska, AMPS is what works due to the vast expanses and rugged terrain. Only in the (very few) larger cities is GSM and CDMA in greater use in that state. The majority of the used AMPS phones sold on Ebay, etc, are bought by Alaskans.
All along the Gulf Coast, AMPS is the prevalent cellphone technology used by the maritime world there. GSM and CDMA signals will not carry very far out over the water. There are many AMPS tower operators along the Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida shorelines running sectorized anntenna arrays pointed out over the water where you may be able to get AMPS signal/dialtone easily 30 miles out or farther. The used/refurb AMPS handset market for the Gulf mariners is 2nd place behind Alaskans. Good used Motorola bag phones sell especially well to the shrimp boaters.
Many burglar and fire alarm companies have AMPS phones integrated into their customer premises equipment where landline phone service is not readily available, they are scrambling fast now to replace hardware which has worked fine for years and in their point of view is only being made "forced into obsolescence" due to someone else's desire to gouge more money out of them.
All over rural US, like the vast Great Plains over western Oklahoma, eastern Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska, today you can drive for miles and not get a GSM or CDMA signal, but you can get an AMPS signal. I fly all over this region in small aircraft (servicing the agricultural spray plane industry) and make sure I carry a cellphone that still has AMPS capabilities because if I'm out in Bumfock, KS working on an Air Tractor and need to call Olney, TX for spare parts, my cellphone still works out here in the middle of nowhere. Needless to say, if my own plane has a problem and I have to dead-stick it into some farmer's field 40 miles from the nearest town, I want to be able to call and get a ride. I've got a Nokia CDMA phone from US Cellular, and it still has AMPS fallback capability. The brands and models of cellphone handsets that still have AMPS capability are getting fewer and farther between (some Samsung, LG and Kyocera models now that Nokia is out of the CDMA biz), however, and the only carriers that still have them are Verizon and US Cellular, and probably this time next year, you won't even be able to get any more phones that can do this as they are all being discontinued. The carriers are not building any new GSM or CDMA towers out in these rural areas anytime soon however, and the AMPS towers have been here since the late 1980's, so soon these rural regions are just flat outright going to be just S.O.L. for wireless phone service until the big carriers decide to build out their networks some more to these (very unprofitable) areas. The private operators who are running the old AMPS towers are not going to shut them down in Feb 2008, but are going to keep them running as long as the equipment hold up, but when it fails, they won't be replaced.
We still have AM radio long long long after FM radio was introduced. I see absolutely no reason to get rid of all analog TV. It is a stable mature technology. They may want to get rid more of UHF bands. Besides analog TVs are cheap.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
In the UK the digital tv signals are in spectrum space, close to the analogue stations so you don't necessarily need to buy a new terrestrial aerial.
However, the quality of the analogue tv, both the audio and video have been progressively been made worse to make digital tv look good. Digital FTA (free to air) tv is over-compressed to hell and back video and very substandard low bitrate audio. Satellite digital tv is better than terrestrial FTA. Both systems suffer from idiotic channel number changes for seemingly no reason meaning people re-tuning boxes (complicated thing for older people / technophobes), mucking up the order of many user pre-set stations lists. Analogue tv you just setup and forget about it.
And these problems are just talking of standard definition tv, you don't even want to think what will happen if they ever put HD video out, more compression, more rubbish etc.
The same problems exist with DAB-radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Broadcasting Digital Audio Broadcasting). The quality of FM radio, (DAB hopes to replace FM), is being made worse and worse. DAB in the UK is seriously low bitrate MP2 audio, some of the lowest bit-rates in the world, and many stations that are in stereo on FM are in mono on DAB, saves money. The DAB CODEC is a seriously old, and the error correction for DAB radio is cr@p.
While many countries around the world are going straight to DAB+ (more up-to-date CODEC and error correction compared to DAB), the UK is flogging DAB because the companies don't want to spend money on the more efficient and better system.
So, from the UK point of view, digital tv and digital radio are horrible technologies being used to squeeze as many cr@p stations as possible into the space, whilst making the experience of viewing and listening painful to eyes and ears.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
I would love to be watching HDTV...I have a capable set, and planned to be an 'early adopter' since I like shiny new toys.
I've got the HD set (a nice Toshiba HD 36" tube I've had for 4 years now), even bought a giant HD-capable antenna (since I'm in a medium-crappy reception area, it was needed anyway).
However, the last part - a set-top HD decoder - is eluding me. None of the typical candidates (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) sell such a thing, and I'd really like to see the quality before I buy.
As I said, I have mediocre reception anyway, and I infer that what results in static (in an analog signal) would essentially mean dropped signal entirely in a digital transmission - is this correct?
How fault-tolerant IS it?
I'm unready to drop $300 on some unreturnable web-purchase, which may simply not work for me. Anyone have any experience with OTA HD signals? Particularly in marginal signal areas to start with? Anyone? (expects nothing but crickets....)
-Styopa
I'm going to continue integrating the MythTV into my life as if 2009 is still the doorway to a digital future.
But, you know, I'm honestly not that surprised that they caved -- again. I think there is still a lot of consumer confusion about camera-to-screen digital vs. converter boxes and LCD TVs running analog tuners vs. digital. Probably some backlash from stations that don't want to spend a penny either. Only one of our broadcast stations here is doing local news 16:9 and it looks like our ABC is still using analog cameras exclusively for local work. And they have to nail down that DRM better, don't they?
Do you live here? Go to a mall. Every prostitot walking around there has a cellphone (and is usually on it). I know of maybe 5 people in my extended family/friend circles that don't have a cellphone and I'm from a very rural area in the midwest. The primary contract provider in that area (Cingular/ATT) required phone updates (mostly free) so that they were GSM-capable several years ago.
Rumor has it that a boatload of new HD channels will be going live in MPEG 4 on or around this Saturday on DirecTV. I recommend checking AVSForum.com in the HD Programming section for up to date information. DBSTalk.com might be a good place to check as well.
...and yet there's a HUGE campaign going on right now with cable repeating ad nauseam "When Cable Competes, We All Win!" which is code for "when Cable stifles all competing information to perpetuate their unholy monopoly, they win."
The problem is, Cable(tm) has succeeded in ensuring that people don't seem to grasp what "Digital Broadcast" really means. It means more channels, all in perfect quality--superior to 1080p HD over digital cable because it isn't filtered and compressed to all hell--with digital surround sound over rabbit ears. It means the potential for Cable to lose a good portion of its customers as they realize in many cases, the superior product is free.
For that latter reason, Cable is doing everything it can to ensure the average schmuck has no idea what is going on and simply equates HDTV=Cable.
So this is good news for me. Signal strength is about at 40% for PBS, which is watchable in analog, but not in digital.
PS. if you are going to get a digital TV tuner card for your computer, DON'T get the Avermedia A180. It is shit.
Why do they have to keep transmitting analogue signals just because of the television type? What's wrong with just giving people digital set-top boxes like they do in the UK?
Several things are missing from what they are really saying. They are saying cable operators need to provide the local broadcast to folks even with analog TV's. That doesn't mean they need to have analog channels on the cable, that means they need to provide a means for a analog TV to use the signal. They are doing this as they have been getting rid of the over the air broadcast of local channels in analog. So to fill that whole for folks still not willing to upgrade to a digital TV, they need to still provide a way to get those local channels on their old analog TV. However this just means that cable operators need only carry digital channels on the cable and provide a set-top-box to output analog signals for older TV's. Which is what they are leaving up to the cable operators as to how they want to provide that.
Already Time Warner has started to shift this way. They now have digital versions of all their analog channels that a digital STB can use. Yet still output them as analog to your TV. And in the near future direct analog without an STB will be removed from their offering. This is not totally a bad thing. As the digital version output at your STB to analog is a better quality picture than direct analog thru the cable. So its an upgrade even for analog TV's in quality..
the crackpot theories.. the end of the world.. the mysterious cyclical calendars.. and, come to find out, the mayans were only predicting the switch from analog to digital tv.
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
How does "get over it" come off has some terrible insult?
I think it's much more offense to go around calling people "retarded". You should be ashamed of yourself.
Nobody understands your remarks about Slater, and what he has to do with this.
IPTV does NOT have to remove channels to add others. That logic only works for NON-IPTV. And, hello, digital to analog conversion (eww, hard) puts digital TV onto my analog set. DUH?
From TFA:
"After yesterday's ruling, cable operators will have two choices come February 2009. They can either convert the digital SD signal to analog SD and pipe it across their lines (which means using more bandwidth and carrying three versions of a single channel) or they can offer digital SD only and roll out converter boxes to all their subscribers (which could be expensive)."
AT&T doesn't have this problem with their service since all of their customers need set-tops, which all have analog outputs (satellite and Verizon fall into this category as well). Cable has a problem since customers can get away with just running the coaxial cable into their TV and getting analog channels. If broadcasters go digital, cable companies could just incorporate these channels directly into their systems - but without analog downconversion in the system or a converter box to do it at the home, those customers won't be able to see it on their TV.
This feels like the FCC covering all the bases - people were mostly thinking about customers with off-air antennas not being able to get channels, but some cable customers could've been left in the dark as well.
Ignoring all the other issues for a moment... I prefer the picture quality of my analog cable TV to the digital cable I see at my friends' houses. Slightly soft analog picture > "sharp" digital macroblocks.
... but I don't want to actually spend money on watching TeeVee if I can help it. The only reason I got Cable was because DSL in my area sucked so much ass I couldn't stand it. I actually had cable when I first moved to Oakland many years ago, but it kept going out for a week at a time, and the picture quality was really bad when it was on. I complained, got really crappy customer service, so I dropped it. I still feel like an sucker for turning it back on and sending them $60 a month (broadband and minimal cable teevee). Anyway, unless my teevee goes out, and only if I actually miss it if it does, I'm not going to spend any more money on something that already sets fire to way too much of my time. I'd rather spend the money on computer stuff and bicycle parts. Secondly, why is the FCC selling off the public's property (the airwaves) to the highest bidder? To me, that is like selling off Yosemite to shopping mall developers.
I find your use of the word "retarded" extremely offensive.
YOU NEED TO LEARN SOME MANNERS!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Your $4000 TV should be able to take a cablecard, which addresses those issues.
This comitment to analog technology is just as much a problem for cell phones as for TV. This desire to keep the old stuff going is what keeps USA in the cellphone middle ages.
Actually the desire of the cellphone companies to serve only dense population centers has more to do with it.
Look at the map of coverage for AMPS (virtually the whole continental US) versus TDMA, CDMA, and/or GSM from the various carriers (essentially cities, large towns, and a subset of the interstates between them.
I got my AMPS/TDMA subscription from AT&T back in '99 or so - when building a house in Nevada. I'd have gone with Verizon, but the site is right in the coverage footprint of the LAST cell in AT&T's net and JUST BEYOND the last cell in Verizon's.
For the last several years AT&T has been trying to get me to switch to GSM. But they haven't updated that cell. And they apparently have no plans to do so. If I were to update, I'd lose service - as I no doubt will if/when they shut down all their AMPS and TDMA cells (currently threatened for next Feb).
The current generation of management has apparently forgotten that one of the points of cellphones is the ability to remain connected to the phone system when out in the boondocks - not just traveling between cities but also when going to, working in, or playing at places off the beaten track. In low usage areas a single cell can handle an enormous area. Maybe it won't ever carry enough of the traffic to directly pay for itself - but it DOES pay because its presence increases the utility of the total system.
(I guess they'll just have to learn the hard way, when somebody who DOES "get it" finally provides coverage for the customers they abandoned - whether by cellphone, wireless internet, or satellite - and a bunch of other people drop their subscriptions and migrate.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It won't change any time soon, unless the FCC allows companies that purchased the old analog spectrum (a few years ago and then lost use through TV network extension of use of spectrum) "to use unused and unlicensed TV spectrum (the so-called 'white space') for wireless broadband" of Internet service. I worked for a rural wireless service provider that had purchased the use of some of the old analog spectrum for Internet service and couldn't use it. They purchased equipment to use the spectrum and can't use it the intended way because FCC is still letting broadcast TV stations use the airspace. The FCC even made them degrade their service for the benefit of the interfering TV stations. Now if the FCC would allow them to use the 'white space' for Internet service until the complete switch the broadcasters might not drag their feet so much (Tuesday the 11th's "Broadcasters Oppose Wireless Net Service" http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/09/11/0143231.shtml/).
All local channels are supposed to be transmitted without any encryption on cable systems. For digital cable this means that all you need is a STB that supports QAM tuning. You can get this today in most ATSC capable DVD recorders. If you don't have a subscription television service, you can also wait until next year to get your $40 subsidized coupon for a standalone ATSC STB (which will most likely also support QAM).
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
...And then 2015. Then maybe 2017. Nah make that 2020! lol Well good, actually. :)
Shouldn't the comparison be between the USA as a whole, versus the EU as a whole, or between individual US states versus individual EU countries?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Why should I be inconvenienced by having a separate box, separate remote control and no ability to set my VCR to record shows on different channels all so the cable company (which charges too much anyway) can broadcast digital to save THEM money. I am just plain not interested in digital anything to do with TV. I watch less than four shows a week, and frankly, for the trouble, I would rather download them than play the cable company's game. Oh, not only am I paying too much for reruns and commercials, but that box thing costs another $XX per month, per TV. Add that to the not worth it column. I grew up in the country with little to no TV (depending on reception), so it is not a big priority for me. You people with your Tivos and fancy HD plasma TVs can have all you want with this hassle. Oh, how I loathe 2012 for my TV. I ask god to strike his mighty hand down for another push back.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
The post I meant to reply to, which I can't find now, was talking about supposedly requiring cable providers to provide all of basic cable in analog indefinitely.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.