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?"
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.
At least, when you can walk into your local government building and/or TV station and pick up a free (government subsidized) digital-to-analog box. If analog TVs comprise 95% of the market, but 90% of people take advantage of a free converter box, does this now mean only 5% of TVs are considered analog, as, with the box, they can pick up digital (even if only SD) signals?
If we (society as a whole) can actually see some benifit from going digital and selling off the old spectrum, we should do it as soon as possible. If that means some of us have to go without TV, well... It would affect the TV in my living room very much, but I still support it.
However, if AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, et-al are the only ones who will benifit, I say hold off as long as we can; until a majority vote indicates that it is time to move on, keep the current analog systems in place.
No acconting for marketshare, of course.
Scratch that. Let's consider market share for a moment. Perhaps now is the time. Perhaps, we'd be more productive if 95% of us weren't worryign about who's going to be the next american Idol?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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?
There are many reasons people won't convert until forced.
1.) Broadcasters have done a rotten job of educating the public on any benefits of going digital. Not a word has been broadcast outside of the geek forums like here on just why one would want to go digital. Nobody has explained either just how they are going to get that digital signal to distant recievers that currently get really fuzzy reception on analog. Is it going to require a cable run? Is it going to be broadcast? Just exactly how are they going to transmit the signal has been left out of any information you get on it today.
2.) Many see the switch to digital as the death of free (as in beer) TV they have grown up with. They think that the digital signal they get will be charged for much like cable / satelite is and nobody has refuted this in public. Also, given the lie that was perpetrated by the cable companies when they were first getting established of lower prices as things move forward, it is little wonder the average Joe is gun shy.
3.) Other than huge corporate profits for the winner of the spectrum bid, the average Joe has no idea why this switch is need now. For example, they don't realize that some of that spectrum is needed by emergency responders because it can be received inside of buildings (something the 9/11 commission found they can't do now). So the average Joe again only sees the obscene profit the Government is going to make on the sale of the spectrum and seeing little benefit to themselves by it.
4.) This is probably the biggest reason... It requires the purchase of new equipment just to recieve the crap that is regular broadcast TV. It is an expense that many see as unnecessary for the quality of programming local TV has to offer.
5.) The retail stores and TV manufacturers have done poorly in obsoleting the analog TVs they sell. In fact, they have become even more attractive because of their price reduction without any warning that they will be obsolete when the switch is made. So instead of less analog TVs being produced and sold there are more.
I'm sure there are even more obscure reasons people will give. They won't switch without being forced into it no matter how long a time frame they have. They just don't see any benefit to it.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.