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

What happened to 2009?

[tekrat]

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?

Re:What happened to 2009?

[N1ck0]

So the FCC is insisting that all OTA broadcasts are digital by midnight on Feb 17 2009. They are so confident in this deadline that they are already selling off the spectrum used by analog TV.

But now cable providers are required to provide SD, signals to analog sets till 2012? Isn't this now an unfair double-standard?

This Article Confuses The Hell Out of Me

[rsmith-mac]

So the FCC is requiring that the cable companies carry analog broadcasts of local channels until 2012, but then what's this:

or they can offer digital SD only and roll out converter boxes to all their subscribers (which could be expensive).

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!?

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association applauded the decision, thanking the FCC for "engaging so constructively and fairly with our industry."

Not like it really matters . . .

[cashman73]

Has anyone noticed that the quality of the programming & content on television seems to be inversely proportional to the quality of the actual signal ? I mean, seriously,... has anybody seen the latest crap their trying to pump out at us these days? MTV hasn't shown a music video (or anything that actually even remotely classifies as "music", for that matter) since the early 1990s; there's championship "wrestling" on the Sci-Fi Channel (and don't even get me started on the so-called "sci-fi" called "Painkiller Jane" or "Flash Gordon" - please bring back SG-1!!!!); TechTV got merged with G4, and promptly went to the sh*tter quite fast; and most of the "news" channels don't seem to have gotten the message that we really don't give a rat's ass about Paris & Britney!

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?

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

[penix1]

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.