backtop

Print 22 comment(s) - last by androticus.. on Jan 3 at 10:55 PM
FCC says broadcasters can transition to digital broadcasts early

Many fans of TV are aware that the FCC has mandated that TV broadcasters migrate from the analog frequencies used to broadcast over-the-air programming to digital signals.

This move from analog broadcasts will open up the currently used frequencies for emergency services and the new 700MHz frequencies for mobile data services. This is the wireless spectrum that Google and others plan to bid on that will allow for broadband wireless Internet connections over long distances.

The FCC recently approved changes to the rules that require broadcasters to move from analog to digital signals early in 2009. The new rules don’t push the date for migration to digital broadcasts back. Rather, the new rules allow broadcasters to migrate to digital broadcasts before the deadline and also allow for phased transition to digital broadcasting.

The FCC says broadcasters can migrate all or part of their broadcasts to digital before the February 17, 2009 deadline,"if doing so is necessary to achieve their transition."

The FCC Chairman Kevin Martin issued a statement saying, “The rules we adopt in this item attempt to provide broadcasters the flexibility they need while at the same time ensuring that any disruption to over-the-air viewers is minimized to the fullest extent possible.”

Some over-the-air TV viewers are worried about the transition as it will make TVs that don’t have integrated digital tuners obsolete. The U.S. government decided to subsidize up to $40 of the cost of digital converters, which will allow over-the-air TV viewers to continue utilizing analog TVs after the switch. LG Design was the first manufacturer to gain approval for its subsidized digital converter in 2007.

In lieu of the mandated switch in early 2009, the LCD TV industry is booming. Some major electronics retailers such as Best Buy are no longer selling analog TVs. TV viewers who are on satellite or cable services and don’t own digital televisions will be able to continue their TV services without any changes.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
....
By pauldovi on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By ElFenix on 1/2/2008 5:15:44 PM , Rating: 3
the FCC in general exists because prior to the FCC the airwaves were a giant cluster &*(% of worthlessness. there were so many stations attempting to broadcast on top of each other that almost nothing got through. probably the best example ever a tragedy of the commons.

as for the DTV switchover? i guess at some time the stations leases on the airwaves have to end.


RE: ....
By MozeeToby on 1/2/2008 5:24:00 PM , Rating: 5
The switchover effectively creates a huge new chunk of wireless bandwidth. Digital signals can be sent using much less spectrum than analog signals with opens up the new 700 mhz spectrum the phone companys are about to pay billions for the right to use.

And before anyone says that charging them billions is just going to make them take advantage of their customers to re-coupe the costs, that's not how business works. If the spectrum was free, their profit margins wouldn't stop trying to screw us, they would just have higher profit margins.


RE: ....
By TomZ on 1/2/2008 5:51:30 PM , Rating: 3
The cost of the licenses, however, does force these spectrums under the control of very big business, which may be a good thing or bad thing, depending on your views.


RE: ....
By theapparition on 1/3/2008 9:13:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The switchover effectively creates a huge new chunk of wireless bandwidth.

Correct.
quote:
Digital signals can be sent using much less spectrum than analog signals with opens up the new 700 mhz spectrum the phone companys are about to pay billions for the right to use.

Not completely correct. Digital signals do not inherantly use less spectrum. The DTV broadcasts use the exact same 6MHz bandwidth per channel as the analog ones did. The reason the FCC is freeing up tons on UHF bandwidth is because it's just not used. In most markets, there are at most 10-12 broadcast stations, yet there are 67 total available channels. Since that's a complete waste of bandwidth, the FCC is licencing the spectrum from channels 52-69.
When the VHF/UHF system was originally thought of, there were 80 available channels, and the thought that all of these would be occupied by broadcast companies. Kind of disappointing in retrospect.


RE: ....
By androticus on 1/3/2008 10:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
The proper thing to do would have been to institute property rights in airwaves, just as in land. The government has no business controlling the content of broadcasting, any more than they have any business controlling the press and publishing.

Once the precedent of regulation and control is established in over-air broadcasting, it is then only logical to control cable, which is starting to happen. And then, some smart liberal (or conservative) will say, "Hey... we control all broadcasting, why shouldn't we be regulating Internet content?" And they would be right, and so it too will come to pass.


RE: ....
By MozeeToby on 1/2/2008 5:20:12 PM , Rating: 5
Because if it wasn't regulated you would have cell phones, tv stations, wireless headsets, radio, video game controllers, mice/keyboards, internet access, and just about anything else that is wireless fighting to use the same spectrum.

There is a limited amount of spectrum, and compitition would become war fought among companies trying to leverage it. Without regulation, what's to stop some idiot from setting up a TV transmitter in his backyard and knocking out everyones cell phone reception for a 100 mile radius.

Yes, the free market is great, and yes it can solve a lot of problems. But it can't solve everything.


RE: ....
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2008 7:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
No. Spectrum is no different than any other property. If you buy a chunk, you own it, and the government protects you from having others move in on it.

You can argue about whether treating the airwaves as a public trust is beneficial or not...but it certainly isn't neccesary.


RE: ....
By Oregonian2 on 1/2/2008 7:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can argue about whether treating the airwaves as a public trust is beneficial or not...but it certainly isn't neccesary.


True. It's only needed for a good result.

Note as well, that the airwaves are controlled by international treaties too. Having the government control things helps cut down on invasion by other countries (to stop our airwave pollution) caused by companies using whatever frequencies and power levels they felt like (in a non-government controlling scenario). EM waves don't seem to know about stopping on borders even if political maps are provided to them.


OTA what about Cable?
By dolcraith on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: OTA what about Cable?
By MozeeToby on 1/2/2008 5:26:05 PM , Rating: 5
Cable companies are not required to switch to a digital signal. The new regulation is about freeing up spectrum, since cable is over a wire, it doesn't use any spectrum hence the rule does not apply. Now if your cable company chooses to upgrade to cable whether you like it or not, well not much you can do except complain/switch cable companies.


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By TomZ on 1/2/2008 5:32:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Now if your cable company chooses to upgrade to cable whether you like it or not, well not much you can do except complain/switch cable companies.

Government-created regional monopolies make that impossible for many/most people, but satellite and fiber-based IPTV do make for reasonable competitive options.


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By Curelom on 1/2/2008 5:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
The Cable companies may not be required to do so, but they are using this as an excuse. I talked to them a few weeks ago asking why they removed a channel from my basic analog cable, and they said they needed to move everything to digital due to the FCC mandate. Their rep told me this with a straight face as it were. He must have had some good acting classes.


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By Spuke on 1/2/2008 5:48:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Their rep told me this with a straight face as it were. He must have had some good acting classes.
The guy behind the counter doesn't run the company. It's equivalent to arguing with the guy that collects the shopping carts about the price of the soup. Maybe he just didn't know or maybe that's what he was told by the people that actually make that decision.


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By TomZ on 1/2/2008 5:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about that - the sales rep just repeats the lies from upper management to the customer. There's no accountability really.


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By Oregonian2 on 1/2/2008 7:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
There's some truth in that. The FCC mandate for OTA signals effectively makes the analog TV a dead bird. Because of that, a cable system that requires analog receivers for some of their channels would not be a good business move long term, even if they aren't required to do so in a government mandate sense.


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By Oregonian2 on 1/2/2008 9:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - For short term actions, it's probably some other motive. In the short term, HDTV's will probably have NTSC compatible tuners, but long term that feature may drop out to reduce costs. Besides, when "everything" including broadcast is digital, who wants to be seen providing analog (the "other motive")?


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 1/3/2008 3:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
They might not be forced to switch to digital, but the FCC mandate gives them the opertunity to do it. If they forced everyone to digital today, people will be pissed, but if they do it when the FCC mandate goes into effect, people will be more understanding.

I might be understanding it wrong, but if a station stops broadcasting in analog after the mandate, then how would the cable company be able to provide it as analog?

Cable is maxed out on bandwidth now. For every analog channel that gets dropped, they can add either 5 HD channels or 10 digital.

It pisses me off that I have to wait another year until we can get more HD channels. Comcast only gives us 8 HD channels and they told me that they can't add any until the switchover, they also won't get better cable boxes till then. If they asked me, I could find 20 analog channels that are wasting space.


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By rushfan2006 on 1/3/2008 4:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
Actually first - most TV channels outright suck and are wasted bandwidth - I really honestly can't believe the amoutn of pure suckage qualifies to be call a tv channel (let alone the suckage that qualifies as a "show" on said channels)...but that point aside - I was over my brother's for New Year's earlier this week and he was telling me how he read on the 'net a story about how Comcast was being barred (I believe by the FCC) from offering more HD channels to certain market - the jist of the reasoning was them using their monopoly-like ability to grab much more HD content than other non-cable services (the article was naming DirectTV as the complaintant).

Now two things about this - One I need to find that article to verify the truth to this story, and two - if its true it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Either the part of Comcast exerting monopoly pressure or the FCC limiting.

The only thing I have to say about comcast , and I've said it to the face of comcast VPs before to (as you know Comcast is HQ'd in Philadelphia, PA - I live like 20 miles from their HQ) - "I like your service, but you guys are a monopoly and you know it - and so you take advantage by charging outrages prices for your product."

Comcast is the only game in town for me unless I just want over the air TV , and I will never go back to dial-up for Internet access again.

The cable TV business - I challenge anyone to name a more shady "legal" racket than that. :)


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By Takemaru on 1/2/2008 5:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously after DTV is standardized, providers will no longer be able to get away with charging for it, it's an early adopter tax, after this year they can't charge for it as some special feature because there will be no more analog.


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By rdeegvainl on 1/3/2008 5:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
they'll still charge you, just list the cost under something else.


RE: OTA what about Cable?
By Screwballl on 1/2/2008 9:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
OTA means over the air. Since cable, regardless of the source, comes in over wires, they can continue to provide the same service analog or digital without interfering with the new DTV rules. I suspect someday they will require all channels to be digital for DRM and any analog TVs that still work at that time will need a box, until then the only people affected are those who use some sort of rabbit ears or TV antenna (not satellite) to get their local TV stations.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki