FCC Requires ATSC tuners!!

[tenth_t2]

Although this is still a ways out, this is a positive and encouraging step in the right direction.  Here's a link:
 http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/08/news/fcc_digital.reut/index.htm

Greg O.

[gparris]

Yes this is encouraging BUT the majority of all Americans get their TV from cable or satellite and the FCC's attitude is the 1950's concept of OTA as if the other technologies DON'T exist. This does NOT mean that the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) can try a number on us, the consumer, by using it as a leverage to scream that the digital tuners will add to the retail price of TV sets by up to $250 is nonsense and scare tactics. The cost a few years ago for close-captioning was fought also, and the cost to the consumer was very little and the FCC got its way. But the real reason is our government wants its analog spectrum back and this to make all sets receive the digital signals. As you know, the average guy won't buy anything unless it is already standard, not optioned. Most consumers think that the HD and DTV tuners are already in their sets OTA so the FCC is making so. But do NOT think the govt. is asking for DTV cable interlinks or tuners for HD as most people get it!!!!
FORGET that little notion. This is the 1950's,right?

[Tom Snyder]

 

majority of all Americans get their TV from cable or satellite

Precisely!

And therein lies the missed opportunity the FCC had to jumpstart the critical mass for HDTV. The other decision they were wrestling with at this little confab this week is "must carry for cable, and the answer is simple:

"Must Carry" needs to mean digital signals as well. ASAP. Period.

If Time warner is carrying Channel 6 Digital, 6 can keep broadcasting a 2 milliwatt signal till 2015 for all I care. Hundreds of thousands of Southeastern Wisconsin viewers get the digital signal on their cable box, plug the three colored plugs into the back of their HDTV and enjoy the best picture they've ever seen (well maybe a Fox affiliate isnt the best example to use for this)... they don't have to (convince their wife to let them) hook up some big (or little) ugly antenna and/or spring for a $500 Set top box. And the TV stations don't have to paythe huge electric bills they're blaming for their reluctance to convert to full-time digital.

And the people who don't give a crap about Digital, just plug a mandated digital-to-analog output from the same cable box into their regular TV set and notice that their picture is perhaps a bit better than it was before with their old cable box.

If the FCC really wants HDTV and not just some Multicasting end-run strtagey, that's easy too... they just mandate that must carry means 1 channel per station.

And they should do it with Satellite, too.

But this will happen when monkeys fly out of my butt in 1080i!

The "TV's-must-have-digital-tuners rule" probably eliminates any hope of mandated must carry.

[This message has been edited by Tom Snyder (edited 08-08-2002).]

[Kevin Arnold]

It's really too bad that cable wants to carry HD signals using their own QAM encoding thus rendering useless the tuners inside the sets. This is like the bad old days when there were no cable ready sets and you had to rent the damn box for $5 extra a month just to get the programming. It turned each set into a underperforming monitor stuck on channel 3. To tie this all together they should mandate cable carriage of the ATSC signal as transmitted.

[kjnorman]

 

Originally posted by kjarnold:
This is like the bad old days when there were no cable ready sets and you had to rent the damn box for $5 extra a month just to get the programming.

Ah, but this is exactly what the cable companies want.  They want you tied to THIER cable boxes so they can get that extra $5 per month.  Their don't give a rats arse (please excuse my English) about the quality of the box so you will still not get the best picture possible, and you will not have any choice in how to improve it either.

Kerry

[Joseph S]

 

And the TV stations don't have to paythe huge electric bills they're blaming for their reluctance to convert to full-time digital.

The thing I don't understand is if digital requires so much less power then why isn't it beneficial to everyone to kill the analog system as soon as possible? Cable/Sat carriage is important, but to focus solely on that does nothing but leave the customer tied to monthly fees forever. Plus, we won't need a seven hundred foot high antenna to pick up the pirate TV Fox affiliate because we will get full power.

Why can't we all receive a strong digital signal for free and not pay the outrageous prices of TWC? What is a TV license for anyways? If WI$N wants to be a local cable news station then let them, but they should forfeit their local license.

The tuner is not going to be an expensive addition at all. There will be no required variety of video outputs, no supplemental power supply, and no digital audio out such as those on the current standalone units. The companies should have no problem putting out digital sets for approximately the same price as current sets put out this year.

(Side: Why is it that almost every house in Milwaukee already has a monster antenna on the roof? Was analog that bad from the get go? Were people trying to pick up out of market stations because the local fox, abc, upn, and wb stations were so bad?   or is it for Chicago and Michigan radio reception?

[Gregg Lengling]

Most of it was to remove "Ghosting".  On analogue signals, multipath creats ghosts and that's what most of Milwaukee got with indoor antennas, the old rabbit ears.  I don't know why everyone is so reluctant to make the switch.  Hell even a minor STB to convert the ATSC stations to NTSC in mass quantities should be pretty cheap.  I remember when UHF came to town and my dad (we were rather poor), saved his beer money and bought a set-top UHF convertor.  DUH I think you're right...come on locals, go for it and get all the digital stations up to full power and full height...after all you got the license and frequency for free.  In my business and the cellular/pcs business there is no such thing as free spectrum, we have to bid for our spectrum and pay big bucks while the broadcasters get it for free.  I guess if you have a big enough lobby in DC you can get anything for free...maybe even a free lunch.


------------------
Gregg R. Lengling
RCA P61310 61" 16x9
glengling@ameritech.net

[Tom Snyder]

The story caught Cuprisin's attention...Still has his obligatory "thousands of dollars" but at least he didn't drag out his tired "handful of viewers" or "so few that local TV station managers are on a first name basis with all of them" line.  

http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/aug02/64974.asp"> Here it is.

[Tom Snyder]

 

The thing I don't understand is if digital requires so much less power then why isn't it beneficial to everyone to kill the analog system as soon as possible?

It's only less power if you're trickling out a less than full power signal (like 6 and 58). In a chat here with Channel 58's GM a few months back, he pointed out the fact that full power UHF signals take a ton o'juice... a lot more than their VHF counterparts.  Channels 4,6 and 12 all are moving to UHF channels for digital and so will cost lots more per year to broadcast.

See http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/hallchat1.html  

[Matt Heebner]

I did notice in both articles (Tim's and the article in the Business section), their main point was about price, and how it would affect the prices of TV's, and how consumers would be bothered by it.
 Yes, Heavens, another whole $250 (it will be a lot less!) added to a TV. What they fail to realize is that the market will determine prices of tuners. Right now there is only a handful of manufacturers that make these. When they have to put tuners in, everybody will be giving the TV makers the lowest prices they can. Look how fast TV prices have come down in two years, or DVD players, or digital receivers. To make an assumption of what something will cost in 2 years, and closer to 5 years is crazy talk, especially when there will be major competition.
In my opinion, another negative article about the digital transition.

Matt

[techguy1975]

 

Originally posted by Tom Snyder:
The story caught Cuprisin's attention...Still has his obligatory "thousands of dollars" but at least he didn't drag out his tired "handful of viewers" or "so few that local TV station managers are on a first name basis with all of them" line.  

But.....its true..  There *ARE* only a handful of early adopters.  I'd say quite a large majority of people (myself included) will not think of upgrading for several years at least.

I'd love to see what is out there, but I cannot justify spending the money for new set (I just bought a set about a year ago).  Unless someone here wants to donate one for me, then I'm all for it....  

[Matt Heebner]

Well, you will be faced with a decision in about four years. Are you going to pay for a down-rez digital to analog converter box, or are you going to get a new digital TV?
Everybody thinks that the 2006 analog shut-off won't happen but I think differently. The government WILL have their money from the spectrum sell-off. They are counting on this 5-10 billion dollars. If the transition continues to go slowly, I think we will see even more ramped up efforts by congress and our senators to REALLY get things moving...by mandating things their way which might not be the best way for consumers. The FCC's decision on tuners, and the copy protection bill (if Hollywood and manufacturers can't agree) are evidence of this.
The faster people (and broadcasters, and manufacturers, and Hollywood) get their act together and stop fighting the future, the less government intervention we will have.

Matt

[Tom Snyder]

Ah... the curse of being an early adopter.

We're the guys who pay the big bucks for the first iterations of new technology until it can finally reach critical mass and force the prices down for guys like you...

And you don't even appreciate it!  

Actually I don't fault anyone for waiting a while to buy an HDTV to wait for the prices to come down... but I just don't know if I'd buy an NTSC set in the meantime...

[techguy1975]

 

Originally posted by Tom Snyder:
Actually I don't fault anyone for waiting a while to buy an HDTV to wait for the prices to come down... but I just don't know if I'd buy an NTSC set in the meantime...

I wouldnt either..  I bought the set 2 years ago, because I needed at the time, and buying a DTV wouldnt make sense, plus I couldnt afford it.  I will probably buy a new one in a few years, when prices come down some.

I would love to be an early adopter too...but, I just dont have the money too.  

[borghe]

What I don't understand is why OTA in general has become such a non-issue? Everyone quotes saying 85% of the US gets it's signal from cable. 75% of Milwaukee gets its signal from cable. WTF?!? Is it so hard to go out and buy a set of rabbit ears or a rooftop? I just don't understand how in the age of wireless, we are actually trying HARDER to promote wiring our houses for cable. People are just lazy I guess. And the quality sacrificed by using the cable or sat signal is appaling also. I have locals now, but didn't start subscribing to them through DirecTV until I got my DirecTivo, and even after having them for a while I would still get rid of them if I didn't have the ability to time shift them. They look streaky and washed out compared to my OTA analog signal on my E86. And it's the same story with TWC's locals.