Jan 2009 Deadline for HDTV Cutoff

stlhawkeye writes "Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2009 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts. Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those without subscription television services will see blank screens unless they buy new units. "

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

2009 will be the perfect time to officially throw away your TV

I doubt it. I'm sure we'll see this in July of 2008 :

Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2012 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts.

Add 3, wash, rinse, repeat.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

My greatest fear is that I have trouble picking up all the major networks right smack in the middle of Silicon Valley with rabbit ears. There are networks where I can only pick them up as a sideband of another TV station because their main tower's ATSC feed doesn't have enough power to reach here. The NTSC feeds reach me for those stations just fine, albeit with some multipath distortion and/or other noise. Basically, ATSC requires an exceptionally clean signal (at least with my tuner hardware) to be able to resolve a signal.

Now I think about my parents in rural western TN. There are three stations (NBC, ABC, PBS) within an hour. The other network stations are between 2 and 3 hours drive away. They can pick up some of those stations in NTSC (albeit noisily) with rabbit ears, and halfway decently with an external antenna, After the NTSC cutoff, judging by what I've seen with my receiver out here (comparing to the analog signal strength), my guess is they -might- be able to pick up the stations an hour away with the external antenna. The signals from two hours away will be weak enough that you'll just see a black screen.

Basically, the ATSC switch had darn well better be accompanied by new FCC rules that regulate cable companies like telephone companies, requiring near-free basic universal service across the country. If not, there are a lot of people who won't be able to find out even basic weather forecasts because ATSC just plain sucks in anything remotely approaching fringe reception areas.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

It's just one data point but my analog reception is marginal due to distance, geography and being limited to an indoor antenna. I get better reception of the digital signals. It isn't perfect, but it's much more watchable than analog. It eliminates all of the snow and ghosts.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

Digital is not HDTV, though HDTV is a digital signal. Digital Broadcasting uses the radio spectrum more efficiently, so by mandating that broadcasters change over to digital now freed spectrum can be auctioned off at insane costs for other forms of wireless communication.

This mandated switch is more motivated by money than it is superior technology. The US wants the billions in revenue that the auctions will bring in.

Not an HDTV cutoff.

this is the cutoff to convert to DTV not HDTV. how is the public supposed to figure it out if even the nerds can't get it right?

Mike

Re:Not an HDTV cutoff.

Yes, technically it's the elimination of NTSC broadcasts, with only the new digital ATSC broadcasts. However, at least in Boston, most ATSC broadcasts are in 720p or 1080i only, so they are HDTV (even if they're just upsampled SDTV shows). That's probably true in many places.

So the distinction between DTV, ATSC, and HDTV from a broadcasting perspective is really just a nitpick that can be ignored for all practical purposes.

(Of course, from a television perspective, there's a huge distinction between simply displaying ATSC, and displaying HDTV resolutions.)

Re:Not an HDTV cutoff.

Even for SD, it's worth the switch from NTSC to ATSC. The improvement in the color resolution is visible, and the digital sound is very good

But it really sucks if you're on the fringes of the broadcast. The place I stay over the summer in Maine, during the day we get a pretty snowy picture and some static in the sound in over analog--but you can still keep track of the ball game, catch the news, etc. With digital, we get a frame popping up every 4-5 seconds and no sound.

At night, both come in clear and the digital picture is nicer.

But I'd gladly give up slightly nicer picture at night for watchable during the day (even if snowy).

Re:Not an HDTV cutoff.

Except that DTV and HDTV are the same size in terms of radio spectrum. HDTV = High Definition Television, which is done digitally. DTV = Digital Television. So HDTV is a subset of DTV. No one is ever going to be forced to broadcast HDTV. They are being told by the FCC to go digital. That is all. There is no cutoff to switch to HDTV. Some stations are even planning on still broadcasting at low resolutions and thus be able to fit in the same spectrum different shows (it's called multi-casting http://www.pbs.org/opb/crashcourse/digital_v_analo g/multicast.html [pbs.org]). What resolution a broadcaster decides to send their signals in is their choice, but they must do it in digital.

Great...

Millions of people now HAVE to buy new TVs. Is it time to invest in Sony?

Re:Great...

Why are Americans so resistant to change?

Sorry, but that is the wrong question. The correct quesions are: Why are we being forced to spend our money on a TV or a set-top box? Why are my tax dollars being spent on subsidizing the purchase of a set-top box?

Re:Great...

Simple, radio spectrum is valuable and limited. Analog TV uses a lot of radio spectrum. One they get rid of Analog there will be a lot of spectrum available for the government to resell to others. Effectivly the FCC is saying that in 2009 all broadcasters will be revoked their license for existing analog spectrum. It will be resold at a much higher price, and used digitally so many more things can use it. Hopefully much of it will be allotted to the public for things like WiFi, but that is yet to be seen.

Re:Great...

Why are Americans so resistant to change??

Considering that a good portion of populace is still fighting against evolution, I think it might be pathalogical at this point.

Re:Great...

They're not resistant to change, they're resistant to being forced to spend money.

Here's the problem you're going to run into, although it'll be a small problem by that time. Right now, the *only* people in the US that know about analog broadcasts going away in 2009 (or the fact that that's a new deadline) are the broadcasters and the geeks that read sites like slashdot.

My wife is reasonably well-informed (she reads the news online and browses fark every day), and had no clue what I was talking about when I mentioned it a few weeks ago. My neighbors are clueless, and looked at me like I was crazy when I told them that it was a good thing they had satellite TV, etc.

Here's what I'm guessing: The broadcasters are betting that by 2009, just about everyone will have cheap satellite or cable TV, and (as someone pointed out to me in a previous story on this subject), the people that don't are probably limited enough in purchasing power that it'd be worth the risk to ad revenue to go ahead with it anyway.

You'll hear one or two stories on the news saying "Still using rabbit-ears? Not for long...", then make a small stink about being forced to do it, so people will be mad at the FCC for "springing" it on them, and life goes on as normal.

Re:Great...

Here's what I'm guessing: The broadcasters are betting that by 2009, just about everyone will have cheap satellite or cable TV, and (as someone pointed out to me in a previous story on this subject), the people that don't are probably limited enough in purchasing power that it'd be worth the risk to ad revenue to go ahead with it anyway.

That's precisely the issue--that a technology architecture and phase-out process was taken that can have, as a net result, excluding those who cannot purchase new equipment because they are on limited incomes or can not afford or cannot receive services such as cable or satellite.

I think we need to remember that that the public airwaves are a public good that has merely been loaned out to broadcasters, and that they need to treat it as more than a vehicle to peddle their wares. They can and should serve a public need--i.e. emergency broadcasting, public television, network television, etc, and transition plans to DTV should have a clear path for making sure that large groups of people aren't systematically blocked out from what is, nowadays, an essential medium.

Re:Great...

...HAVE to buy ...

Because as we all know, human civilization will collapse without television.

Re:Great...

Absolutely. I mean look what happened to the Romans.

They had no television. Where are they now?

Re:Great...

I dunno. Does WalMart sell Sony TVs? Find who they resell and invest there.

Re:Absolutely unncessary!

First of all this has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIGH DEFINITION.

It has everything to do with digital broadcasting taking up FAR LESS of the broadcast spectrum that they want to free up for other uses. If the government doesn't step in, that huge portion of the spectrum would be tied up in archaic uses forever!

Re:Absolutely unncessary!

ATSC allows the FCC to pack the same number of stations in a smaller broadcast band due to ATSC's superior resistance to interference from transmitters on the same or nearby channels. The channel size remains the same (6 MHz), but the minimum space in between transmitters, both in frequency and geographical distance, is being reduced.

Suggested output

Here's the suggested output that will be broadcasted into analog TV's:

"Nothing for you to see here.
Move along."

*shrugs* Doesn't matter

All I use my analog TV for is watching stuff I downloaded to my computer anyway.

That is good news!

Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those without subscription television services will see blank screens unless they buy new units.

Those without HDTV will see a huge jump in programing quality.

How does forced obsolescence promote public good?

If there was no longer a need for something, it would become obsolete on its own. Demanding that something become obsolete is quite suspicious.

Re:How does forced obsolescence promote public goo

Demanding that something become obsolete is quite suspicious.

You misspelled American.

<flamesuit on>

Look at the positives

While analog could still be used we're trying to move technology forward.

In a similar sense, sure people can get by using their 56k lines, but wouldn't it be a lot better if everyone had access to fiber, cable, or something else along those lines?

It seems to me that at least part of the reason that America isn't the most technologically advanced nation in the world is because we like to hold on to dying technologies. In the next few years we're going to be seeing HD-DVD and Blu-Ray technology emerging into the marketplace, but a lot of people will still be using VHS.

We might take a hit in the pocketbook, but isn't it time that our country got with the times? I don't mean that we should adopt every new technology even if it's only marginally better, but we shouldn't cling to old technology when there are clearly better alternatives out there.

Re:Look at the positives

"We might take a hit in the pocketbook, but isn't it time that our country got with the times?"

No. I have to make ends meet. I don't care about owning the newest and latest technology, I care far more about putting food on the table. Amusing that I'm posting to Slashdot, but I do like to know what is going on -- regardless of whether or not I'm interested in buying anything.

I am not interested in someone spouting off that other countries are better off. You like it? Move there. I'm happy not being force to waste money every time someone decides that a current technology is obsolete and everyone should be forced to upgrade! Waste your own damn money, I have better things to use it for.

Since they removed my editorial...

...this decision is being pushed by the government because they want control over the current analog frequencies, which they will then resell and lease to private industry to generate another revenue stream for the government. And who is payinf ro it? As usual, we are.

Arg..

Is it just me or has the TV-viewing American public gotten totally fucked or what? First we have free TV.. all we needed was a TV and an antenna. This, of course, was supported by advertising. Fair enough.

Next comes cable TV. Sweet! Immunity from foul weather, better content (at least initially) and no commercials! "What's that you say? No commercials? Sorry buddy, I see commercials every damn day on cable TV." Ah yes, friends.. if my recollection is correc, cable TV was supposed to be commercial free as it was a subscription service. But oh how the mighty dollar wins all. We now get 20 minutes of television entertainment for 30 minutes of viewing time (for thsoe wihout a DVR) AND we pay for it!

The boss is calling.. gotta run.

Digital Television != HDTV

High Definition TV != Digital TV. You require a digital framework to provide HDTV, but having a digital framework does not imply HDTV. Sets aren't going dark when it comes into effect, but the quality of signal is going to improve greatly.

Canada has had this in effect for a while. The deadline was January, 2005, and as of this writing, all TV channels are available digitally. Except, of course, some of the channels that come from the US. The difference in signal quality is very noticable when watching one of them. Most of the networks are already digital, BTW.

It's still compatible with OTA transmission, as well as analog cable signals. Old TVs can still see it, because the mandate was not to eliminate analog signals, it was to ensure digital availablility. Those of us who have an HDTV, or a digital/satellite receiver have a digital signal, complete with better sound and picture. Those of us on analog still have analog TV.

silly timeline.

the fun part is that NEW analog tv sales STILL outpace HD or even Digital capable Tv sales significantly.

Also digital Tuners that will convert to analog are still INSANELY priced.

when I can get a DTV to ATV tuner for $99.00 then I'll agree that it's a good time to switch.

with DTV's still well over $800.00 and DTV transmitters still 5X the price of the analog gear it is not going to happen.

and everyone forgets about the small town UHF channels. Who is going to buy them a new transmitter when they can barely afford pro-sumer 4 year old camcorders for their news?

Oh and the small college tv channels? what about them?

Who is going to buy them 20 million dollar transmitters?

TV is not a necessity

I was born in 1971 and didn't have a TV until my second year in college. (1990). This was a concious decision by my parents. I saw a little TV at my friends' houses. But as a family, we did just fine without one. The notion that tax payer dollars should pay for converter boxen is ridiculous. I would venture to say that if you're the type of person who needs taxpayer dollars to keep your old set running, you're probably the type of person who would be better off throwing your TV in the garbage and going outside for a walk.

This is a _GOOD_ thing

It frees up wasted analog RF spectrum space, this can be as much as 6x less when moving to digital format. The upside to this for end-users is that the picture and sound will be much more reliable in the sense that noise that can be seen in the channel currently should be eliminated. There still can be tiling due to transmission problems, but in general the quality is much improved. I'm sure some company will offer a digital tuner that makes the conversion from over the air digital to analog for older tv sets. If people continue to waste RF space by supporting old and unefficient systems it will really stiffle wireless innovation.

right.

I'll believe it when my screen goes blank.

I've marked it on my calendar!

Now I know exactly when to throw out the old TV, cancel our cable television service and drop the NetFlix subscription... that should save us about $100/month in subscription fees alone. We could use the extra $1,200/year to put into our other projects.

January 2009, check. Thank you for the reminder.

My daughter will be 4, and that's just enough time for me to educate her about the corruption in mass media and broadcast television.

With the broadcast flag being fully entrenched by that time (whether passed via a rider on some unrelated bill or otherwise), and media being contorted to represent the "Truth" as given by the current administration in power (can you say "Al Jazeera"?), there really is no point to watching TV.

We can't control our media (even media we've bought in the store, er, I mean "rented"). We can't even skip past the commercials on DVDs now. How long before we can't skip past commercials on television too?

• Will the broadcast flag enforce that too? Maybe we can change channels, but it will force our sets into Picture-in-Picture mode, with the second channel playing in the little window in the corner, with volume dedicated to the commercial.
• Will mute even work for commercials?
• What about time-shifting television programs?
• Will the new sets allow programs not "authenticated" for playing at a different time work?
• Will all media just become "pay-per-view" like it is in the hotels?

The best HD reality shows lie right outside my front door.

create more FM stations in 59-88MHz!!

Current FM in the US is 88-108 MHz... a mere 10 MHz.. Imagine how many stations we could have, including non profit public interest stations, unlicensed local low power stations, etc with another 29 MHz!?!?!

In medium sized to major cities the FM territory has been maxed out forever. There is clearly purpose, demand, and need to having more stations. The technological cost of extending FM receivers and setting up transmitters is relatively minimal.

Of course we'd have to fight broadcasters for the same reason we've fought them, and lost, on digital radio- more stations make their "property", the existing licensed stations less valuable.

Yes, I use and love internet radio, but FM radio is what the vast majority of people have easy access to. It's what you hear when you eat out and when people drive by with their radios cranked up. At least with massively more stations it wouldn't be the same old 'format'ed sh*t.

And the benefits to letting schools, community groups of every stripe, and pretty much anybody operate low power FM stations with a range of 1-5 miles would be enormous just in terms of the cultural development it would bring. Information wants to be free, but your average 'born in the ghetto' gangster, just to choose an example, doesn't know it because he grows up listening to Ninety-Whatever The Box where he's just a groomed product for the advertisers looking for the 16-29 urban male.

Come on.. auctioning everything off to the highest bidder just ensures that the highest bidder runs society.. and occasionally that turns out to be good, often is ok, but also frequently sucks bigtime.

-dj_virto