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?"
According to the article, yes. And based on the new box my dad recently got, that's exactly what Comcast is doing.
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). [emphasis mine]You can also read the same answer off the FCC's website in this PDF of their press release.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
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!
Well in this case, it's not really so much about the end user. An analog TV station takes a LOT more bandwidth out of the RF spectrum to transmit and is thus wasteful. The TV stations could save a lot of money just giving away digital converter boxes and auctioning off the spectrum.
Don't a lot of cable subscribers already have a box that lets their analog TV set gets digital cable signals? I know I do, and I only got it because it was part of a package deal that was actually cheaper than not getting it (considering that I also have internet service through the cable company).
They're happy about it because a ton of people in the world view things in terms of what it costs per month. A lot of people would much rather pay $30 or $40 for cable every month for 5 years than spend $600 and get a decent HDTV set. And as far as I'm concerned, this is a perfectly fair deal. The FCC wants to clean up and consolidate the spectrum (and they should, because UHF is way under-utilized), cable companies want more customers, and a few people out there prefer to get cable rather than (gasp) buying a whole new TV set.
Over the air digital television broadcasts use a modulation scheme known as 8VSB, while digital cable uses QAM. 8VSB tuners are quite common--it's very difficult to buy a new set without one-- but QAM tuners are less so.
It's not a double standard. It reflects market realities.
Anybody who bought an EDTV plasma without realizing that EDTV is only 480p and not HD doesn't deserve any sympathy. Learn to read the material about what you're buying. If the price looks too good to be true (HDTV plasma for $1000 several years ago? You can bet it's EDTV and you just didn't read), it probably is.
Huh? The only items that currently requires HDMI in order to play "HD" content are upconverting DVD players. True HD players (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray) can play their high-def content over component, as can HD video game consoles like Xbox 360 and PS3, and HD cable and satellite boxes.
If you really want to highlight poor early adopters, you only have to look at the guys who bought 1080p sets before those sets could actually accept 1080p signals. Again, that could've been avoided by reading reviews and such, but it's not quite the same as reading the sign in the store that says "EDTV (480p)".
If you're spending $10K on video hardware (TV, video players), you're doing it wrong. I'm not quite an early adopter, yet I'm currently on my second HDTV. I've not paid more than $2000 for either set (first was a 46" RPTV CRT 480p/1080i in 2001, current is a 50" DLP 720p bought in 2005), and I'll probably upgrade again in 2009 or 2010, depending on how prices go and what's available. I can guarantee you that I won't pay more than $2000 for a new TV set. On the video player side of things, I bought a progressive scan DVD player to go with the first TV for $400. I replaced that with an upconverting DVD player for the second TV for $100. When I upgrade my TV next, I expect to be able to buy either a HD-DVD player for $100 or a Blu-Ray player for $200, depending on whichever finally "wins".
You might argue that $2000 every 5 years is still too much, but:
everywhere you used HD in your post.. switch it to digital. digital!=HD
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
The "US is behind in mobile phones" argument is bullshit. You might argue that the contract model we use is broken, and it probably is (although it does result in surprisingly good deals for many subscribers). But we have the same technologies as the rest of the world (GSM/UMTS/HSDPA), in addition to CDMA2000 (which is also used by South Korea, Canada, and some other countries) and iDEN. We have two healthy national GSM carriers (and soon two national GSM/UMTS carriers). I can buy any of the fancy GSM/UMTS phones out there and use it on a US network (assuming that it's unlocked and has the right bands).
Maybe you think we should have enforced a GSM monoculture like the EU. But that's not the way we do things in the US, and our way seems to be working out fine.
And I can't believe how terrible the sound quality is on GSM networks compared to CDMA networks.
GSM EFR (or the equivalent AMR-FR) sounds better than CDMA. Unfortunately, AT&T is running half-rate AMR (AMR-HR) on most of its network to increase capacity. AMR-HR is passable, but it's definitely not as good as EFR or AMR-FR.
FYI, the CDMA vocoder has a lot of noise cancellation, which is one reason it works with lower data rates.
Yes but then you watch the TV. Imagine how much extra time you have - to code! - without a TV.
We gave up ours around 2001 I think. Best decision we ever made.
]{
Not only that, but digital cable REQUIRES a set top box because they encrypt the BASIC CABLE channels? So, even if I go out and spend $4000 on a giant wall mount Digital LCD panel, I still have to have the SET TOP BOX unless I want to limit myself to OTA (Over The Air Broadcast) HD channels and Digital Mexican Music stations. I want the FCC to mandate that DIGITAL CABLE has to work the same as ANALOG CABLE so I don't need a SET TOP box for NON-PREMIUM CHANNELS.
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.
NTSC and ATSC use the same amount of bandwidth (6 MHz). The spectrum savings are from the ability to pack the stations more tightly, in space and frequency, in the broadcast band. ATSC is more resistant to interference, so less spectrum is wasted on guard bands and geographic separation.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
This is my #1 gripe about going digital. I want the same convenience I have of screwing the coaxial cable into my TV and the TV can tune the channels (usually 70 or so). I don't want a set-top box. I want to be able to go to Best Buy or some A/V store and buy a TV that will tune digital channels. Hassle free. Until then, cable operators can pound sand.
I have the same Comcast basic cable service I have had for 5 years with no cable box and my QAM equipped tv can pick up 75 digital channels including several HD 720P and 1080i channels. I may be that some cable systems are not useful with QAM, but a lot are.
How is that different than what cable operators do today? The GP wanted to watch the non-premium digital tier of a cable operator, including HD channels, without a set top box.
But, since your comment can be applied to other service providers (satellite, IPTV providers) I'd ask you what you would define as a cheap set top box that a service provider should provide for *free* to their subscribers? Whatever price point you come up with, how would that enter into the business plan of the video provider? Should they provide free set tops for an unlimited number of TVs or just the first one? Would this set top box be expected to work with the same quality as a more expensive set top (fast channel changes, quality designed remote, optional remotes for the vision challenged, etc.)? I would love to know where I could find these cheap set tops.
By the way, since we're rapidly approaching the deadline for OTA stations to turn off their analog broadcasts can you point me to a cheap OTA tuner that I can use to receive these channels if I don't have access to cable TV? I would actually love to be able to receive the SD broadcasts currently available in my DMA but I can't seem to be able to find a set top box that will work with my analog TVs as the FCC has mandated.
"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." --Howard Aike
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.
all I know is i don't want to have to buy/maintain 6+ cable boxes. I've got a 7" tv in my kitchen, what am I supposed to put a box on top of it?