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

[BronsCon]

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?

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!

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

[prockcore]

everywhere you used HD in your post.. switch it to digital. digital!=HD

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.

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

[kestasjk]

Maybe a digital to analog converter will be invented.

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

[Proudrooster]

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.

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.

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?

Re:What happened to 2009?

[rkcallaghan]

tekrat wrote:

The guarantee is that every 5 years, you need to spend 10 grand on another entertainment setup. This, and excessive advertising, have combined to push myself and my household entirely out of the market. Now they get nothing. We don't own any TVs, PVRs, or any of that nonsense. We don't pay money every month for cable TV or satellite that still has ads that we have to pay a further subscription to try and skip the ads on tivo and run in to intentional scheduling errors, or any of their other BS. We're done, and we've been done for almost 3 years now.

Instead, we have one computer that has a large monitor. Now, admittedly, our "large" monitor isn't anywhere near the size of a 2000 inch TV that takes up an entire wall of most people's living rooms. But we've gotten over that. We can still comfortably watch any movie we want in DVD format. With no commercials, on our schedule. I know some slashdotters will still get up in arms about the DRM on the DVD format and whatnot, but we're a regular, non ubergeek family. We don't care. Now the only money anyone gets from us in this fashion is the $17/month it costs for Blockbuster Online.

Isn't that fun? Not really; and I don't suspect our family will be the last to be pushed out of the market by their bullshit. When you add it all up; its just not worth it anymore. Now we spend the money doing other things; going out and having fun. It's alot better for our relationship, too.

~Rebecca

Re:What happened to 2009?

[Osty]

There is also the matter of brochures selling anything above 480p as HDTV (how many people have bought 1368x768 displays thinking they were getting full HD capability?) and the later drum-up of Full-HD 1080p TVs.

Uh ... 1368x768 is enough to do 720p (1280x720). The "Full-HD 1080p" crap is just that -- crap. HD is defined as 720p, 1080i, and 1080p (and 1080p isn't actually in the HD standard anyway). If you can do 720p or better, you have an "HD" display.

Since nearly no digital TVs come with CableCard slot, even people with shiny new FullHD TVs won't be able to have digital cable service without an external tuner box.

Every HDTV for the past 2+ years has come with a CableCard slot. The problem is not with TVs without CableCard slots but with cable companies that only support CableCard because they're legally obligated to do so. They'll run you through the ringer with broken cards, requiring a tech visit to plug a card into your TV and call a phone number, and that's assuming you can even get them to admit that they offer CableCard support.

Since digital TVs are currently useless (as a TV) without an external digital cable box

Assuming you purchase an HDTV with an HD tuner (as opposed to an "HD-Ready" TV which means it supports the resolutions but doesn't have a tuner), you can get ATSC HD channels over the air in nearly every market. So just how are HDTVs useless without an external cable box?

I'd vote for dropping tuners and selling large-area computer-entertainment/living-room display units instead of TVs - save $100 on redundant/unnecessary/unwanted RF bits (NTSC+ATSC+QAM tuners) and associated licenses/certifications/whatever.

That's exactly what TV manufacturers have been doing for at least the past 7 years, with "HD-Ready" sets. Most TVs still have SD tuners simply because it costs next to nothing to add, but you can even buy sets without that if you look around.

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

[Bemopolis]

Oh no, not another WIndows-vs-Mac debate.

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

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

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.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

• No one except a very few luddites (and older OnStar users) use AMPS in the US.
• The FCC ruled years ago that, as of February 2008, Cellular band (850MHz) providers are no longer required to provide any AMPS service.
• PCS (1900MHz) carriers (T-Mobile, Sprint) have never been required to provide AMPS service. Neither T-Mobile nor Sprint have ever provided analog mobile services
• Verizon and Sprint have already deployed national 3G (CDMA2000 1xEV-DO Rev A) networks.
• Sprint will begin deploying WiMAX at the beginning of 2008
• AT&T is in the process of a major UMTS/HSDPA launch. Major metro areas are covered, with more to follow in the fall.
• T-Mobile is launching UMTS/HSDPA this fall. They are late not because of a lack of hardware but because of a lack of spectrum (which they rectified during the AWS auction).
• There are over 85 million GSM subscribers in the US, more than any country in Western Europe.
• Unlimited GPRS/EDGE/HSDPA/EV-DO is standard in the US. Billing by the megabyte is rare. I pay $20/mo for unlimited GPRS/EDGE.
• Unlimited nights, weekends, and calls on the same network are common in the US.
• We don't pay to call customer service.
• Roaming rates in Canada/Mexico are less than roaming rates in Western Europe, despite the fact that there are legal limits on the rates in Europe.

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.

Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages

[mh1997]

4. This ushers in a techno-utopia where your flying car downloads traffic data from the internet and avoids jams automatically, your Skype mobile phone lets you call anywhere in the world for free, and Google brings back Firefly to promote their iPhone-enabled video on demand service.

Also, as your flying car comes crashing out of the sky because you forgot to fill the fusion chamber with beer and banana peels, it instantly IMs all your contacts that your funural is scheduled for this Saturday at 11AM. With the convergence of technology, your car would also upload the video of your impending demise to youtube so that everyone can see that you were a dumbass.

Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages

[Detritus]

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.

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.

Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages

[D'Sphitz]

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?

Define Available

[Nymz]

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.

Re:Define Available

[_xeno_]

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.

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:Not like it really matters . . .

[suv4x4]

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!

You realize the industry is in a transition. There will be chaos and panic and random merges or non-scifi shows on Sci-Fi for some time to come. Newspapers are migrating online, CNN released their video service for free. Classic TV scrambling to hold "eyeballs" lost to torrents and online shows.

It's nothing to wonder about.

In 10 or so years, new leaders will emerge, producing content in a very different way, and they will likely be nothing like the current ones.

If TV isn't worth watching right now, don't watch it. You'll find there are plenty of better ways to get entertainment in or out of your home.

U-verse can & does support NTSC

[peterkorn]

It doesn't matter whether the signal coming into the house is HDTV, SD, or whatever (digital in any case, via IP). What matters is what kinds of TVs their service will drive.

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!

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.

Great...

[zapwow]

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!

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.

Re:It's just television

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

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.