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?"

Comments

The digital TV switch isn't going to happen

[AuMatar]

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.

Re:The digital TV switch isn't going to happen

[mrchaotica]

If you subscribe to cable you normally have a set-top box that can take either analogue or digital.

No, in my experience you normally have a "cable-ready" analog TV and just plug the coax straight into the back of it, which is the way it's supposed to be. Then you just use the normal remote that came with the TV to tune to channels.

The last thing I want is a damn extra box with an extra remote with extra cords and extra complexity and extra frustration!

Hell, you know what? With all this fucked-up DRM and CableCard and incompatible whoozits and whatzits and bullshit, digital TV doesn't work the way it's supposed to (see above for my definition of "supposed to") anyway! Maybe once they drop the damn DRM entirely and just let the TV plug directly into the wall, then digital TV will be ready for prime-time. Until then, it's not!

What does this have to do with AT&T?

[BronsCon]

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.

Welcome to the Dark Ages

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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.

The only way to really get up to date is to have the balls to dump the past.

Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages

[toddestan]

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.

The only way to really get up to date is to have the balls to dump the past.

It's not a matter of the technology not being available like cell phones. The problem is that for many people, the old stuff (analog TV) is good enough so they don't see any reason to move to digital TV.

Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages

[DerekLyons]

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.

My cell phone makes and recieves calls, and if I wished to pay to activate the service will send and recieve text messages. How much more do you need? The US stays in the 'dark ages' because the market doesn't demand much more than basic functionality - anything more is mostly sizzle, not steak.
 
Parenthetically speaking, I find it fascinating how often the Slashdot Hivemind bemoans and curses the US consumer for tossing away perfectly good items and using disposables when reuseables are available - but claims the reverse when it keeps the Hivemind from getting a shiny new toy.

Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages

[dr_blurb]

> There are over 85 million GSM subscribers in the US, more than any country in Western Europe.

Now there's a good argument. 85 million is more than any country in Western Europe,
because there are no countries in Western Europe with that many people. You probably
think the US has the biggest broadband uptake in the world as well? Percentages, anyone?

Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages

[Lumpy]

You know what I want? I want a fricking cellphone call to be clear, understandable and to actually have service that is 100% inside oh, tiny towns of 300,000 or more population. I want my damned phone to ring when a call is coming in. I dont want the VM notification after the phone did not ring for some stupid reason. I want cellphone service to be reliable like it was back in the analog cellphone days.

Some dinky towns have better coverage than most cities. and the call quality is worse than my old 80's speak and spell.

No big deal

[xigxag]

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.

Maybe in the 22nd century

[flyingfsck]

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.

Re:It's just television

[jrumney]

And I can't believe how terrible the sound quality is on GSM networks compared to CDMA networks.

I'm pretty sure the GP means UMTS and HSDPA, not GSM which predates CDMA.