Digital TV? Too Much Too Soon?

[Jack1000]

Hi Everyone,

The article below discuses the issue of the FCC's proposal to have all TV programing converted to digital by 2006. It's interesting but I have some problems with it:

Portland, Houston named among best cities for
digital TV

Copyright © 2002 AP Online

E-mail this story


By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (January 10, 2002 9:31 a.m. EST) - As the nation reaches the halfway point in its conversion to
digital TV, officials say Portland, Houston and Indianapolis are the best places to live if you're ready for full
surround sound, high definition and wide screen television.

The National Association of Broadcasters on Wednesday declared the three cities the leaders in the digital TV
conversion, with stations broadcasting television signals with the kind of resolution and sound effects once available
only in movie theaters.

The digital signal allows much more information to be transmitted, vastly improving video and audio quality while
also allowing data for home computers and electronic game equipment to "piggyback" to the TV.

Later this year, the association plans to add Washington, D.C., to its short "digital TV zone" list of the most
progressive metropolitan areas in the nation for moving into a new broadcast era that began when Congress
approved the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

By 2006, the old analog signal that has carried entertainment, news and sports across the nation for more than half
a century will be as extinct as the dinosaurs, according to the regulatory plan laid out by the Federal
Communications Commission.

"There's a huge gravitational pull toward digital in all electronics," said Edward "Eddie" Fritts, NAB president.
"Whether it's TV, cell phones or computers, digital is the future."

Now midway into its conversion to digital TV, the nation has 229 television stations offering a digital signal in 80
markets, reaching 73 percent of TV households, Fritts said.

By the end of this year, another 600 stations are expected to join the list.

The FCC began assigning every TV station in the nation a separate digital channel shortly after approval of the
1996 act, so stations can broadcast both an older analog signal or a new digital signal. Many stations have not yet
converted to the necessary equipment, and some face various technical problems posed by signal strength or
location.

Time is running out, however, under FCC rules that will require every station to broadcast a digital signal at least
50 percent of the time it broadcasts its analog signal, beginning April 1, 2003.

By April 1, 2004, the requirement increases to 75 percent until the full conversion deadline of April 1, 2005.

By 2006, stations are expected to begin switching off their old analog transmitters. Some will keep the same
channel numbers while others will have new channels. But the digital signal will allow the entire TV broadcast
industry to be contained in channels 2 to 51.

The FCC is reclaiming the higher end of the broadcast spectrum for other commercial uses. Some of it will go to
public safety agencies and most of the rest will be up for bid for various wireless services still on the drawing
board.

The agency does not comment on industry announcements, said spokesman David Fisk in Washington, D.C.

But he said FCC Chairman Michael Powell has made digital conversion a priority and it is working with broadcasters
to smooth the transition.

"Still, a lot depends on the industry and various issues that consumers will be dictating - marketing type of
decisions," Fisk said.

The big question for broadcasters is how soon consumers are willing to convert to TVs and other electronic
equipment that handle digital signals - much of it still very expensive.

But digital TVs have proved a popular item despite the recession, with holiday sales up 4 percent in 2001 compared
to 2000, said Jeff Joseph of the Consumer Electronics Association.

He said a total of 1.4 million digital TVs were sold last year, easily surpassing the 1 million-unit mark where
products typically begin to take off. As a result, prices have fallen 50 percent in the past three years, Joseph said.

"And if you look at other products, the more competitive the market place, the faster the price declines," he said.

By 2006, consumers will have to either purchase new TVs or buy a converter box that will translate the digital
signal back to the old analog format.

Fritts said the industry will be closely watching Portland, Houston, Indianapolis and Washington, D.C., to see how
broadcasters and consumers adapt to the digital conversion in hopes of learning lessons that can speed the national
switch.

But he expects it will be much faster than the switch from black-and-white broadcasts to color. In, 1954, the first
full year of color broadcasts, the major television networks broadcast just 68 hours of programming, compared to
more than 1,000 hours of digital programming they offered last year.

"If broadcasters had not grabbed the brass ring and agreed to make the transition to digital TV, we'd have been
considered passe," Fritts said.

************************************

I can not see how all this is going to take effect within 4 years period of time. IMO, it is like the government is FORCING consumers to digital tv, whether they like it or not! As I understand it, if the FCC gets it's way and analog signals are shut off by 2006, consumers would have to do one of three things:

1. Upgrade to digital cable service if they hadn't already done so OR

2. Buy a new digital TV OR

3. As the article states, buy an analog converter so that if they don't have cable, their present sets will be able to take the digital signals and transmit them back to the old analog format,

IMO, it's a government monopoly is what it is. I submit a question, what makes a digital TV a digital TV? Do you have to go out and buy a high definition set or even a standard definition set if you don't have digital cable? I have analog cable and have no problem with the eventual digital upgrade, I just wonder how the rest of the nation is gonna feel about spending $1,500-3000+ for a digital TV if they choose not to have digital cable. Consumers should have freedom of choice and the feds should not have the right to infringe on a technology if people don't want it. I welcome your comments on the article/this topic!

[Bootsy Whoosh]

Thanks for posting this Jack. I was actully mulling over the whole "government forcing digital on us" thing just yesterday, and wanted some more information on it.....

Here's my thoughts:

Originally posted by Jack1000
But the digital signal will allow the entire TV broadcast
industry to be contained in channels 2 to 51.

First off, could someone explain to me how that works? I don't see how it would be at all possible to fit all TV channels into 49 stations, when there are over 150+ available. Unless the author of the article was simply unclear and meant to say something along the lines of "the digital signal will allow the entire TV broadcast industry to be contained in the bandwidth currently being used by channels 2 to 51."


************************************

Originally posted by Jack1000
IMO, it's a government monopoly is what it is. I submit a question, what makes a digital TV a digital TV? Do you have to go out and buy a high definition set or even a standard definition set if you don't have digital cable?

As I understand it, you won't have to buy a digital TV, but you will have to buy a converter. Also, using a non-digital TV means you have to pay extra for the converter but you won't reap any of the benefits of a digital signal, becase I don't think the picture or sound will be any better if you are using an analog TV. I'm not sure about that though. I wonder if you are going to still be able to get the broadcast channels, if you don't have cable TV or satellite, or if you will still need to buy a converter box just for those.

Originally posted by Jack1000
I have analog cable and have no problem with the eventual digital upgrade, I just wonder how the rest of the nation is gonna feel about spending $1,500-3000+ for a digital TV if they choose not to have digital cable. Consumers should have freedom of choice and the feds should not have the right to infringe on a technology if people don't want it. I welcome your comments on the article/this topic!

I agree with you, Jack. After all, in theory (though certainly not in practice!) the airwaves are supposed to be owned by the American public, so the public should have some say in this. It is even more outrageous to consider that our government is going to sell our airwaves to the highest bidder!!! If the government owned the airwaves, and if they needed them for military reasons, or something, then maybe I would be ok with this. But for them to basically say "too bad for you, we want to sell these airwaves" is audacious!

Things are going smootly in Houston, Indy, and Portland, but what about Middle-of-Nowhere, Anystate, or Poor Rural Town, Anystate? There are counties in my state that are so poor that they can't even afford snow plows and salt trucks....how on earth are the people living there going to be able to afford this conversion? I suppose no one really cares about them, because after all, they're not the ones advertisers are peddling their wares to.

I guess that's all I have to say for now. It's getting late. But here is something interesting I found on the internet on the issue:

***********************************
Media Access Project (a non-profit public interest telecommunications law firm) has been a leading voice in a policy debate that will change the face of broadcast television as we have known it.

The FCC has granted television station owners vast quantities of additional space on the valuable public airwaves,or "spectrum," and it has not yet required them to make any significant corresponding financial or public interest contributions in exchange.

Broadcasters want to use this spectrum to switch from their current "analog" transmission system to digital broadcasting, a technology that will permit them to provide several free, subscription, and pay-per-view channels, paging and other non-program services. This "spectrum grab" would limit diversity in the marketplace of ideas and permit broadcasters to use 70 billion dollars worth of publicly-owned spectrum for their own exclusive political and financial gain.

MAP and other public interest advocates would like to see the extra capacity provided by digital transmission used for free time for political candidates, increased children's educational programming, and "public spaces" for independent civic discourse.

[Mossopp]

I can't believe you people are against digital TV!!! I've had digital satalite TV for the past 3 years and it's the coolest thing ever!!
Cable TV never really took off in the UK cos it was only really major cities that had it. Analogue satalite was big in the early 90's but it was superceded by digital satalite which offered much more channels. The public lapped it up and, as a result, all analogue satalite broadcasts stopped for good last August.
In the UK, if you don't have digital tv it's only possible to get 5 channels. There are 2 main providers of digital TV here - Sky digital and ITV digital - I have Sky Digital and, as well as allowing me to watch the 5 regular channels in flawless sound and picture quality, I also get over 150 other channels - and all I pay is £35 a month!!
I see what you're saying - it's the public who watch these channels so they should be allowed to decide whether they want digital TV or not, but I gotta say - if you don't want digital TV then you obviously have no interest in television at all!!! I don't know what the exact specifications of digital TV in the US are but with my Sky system I can -

* choose from over 150 channels
* play games on my TV via my Sky digi-box
* go online and send e-mail via my TV
* shop via my TV
* have access to 16 movie channels (many of them in widescreen) and see movies up to 2 years before they appear on normal TV
* watch everything with 100% perfect sound and picture quality

Digital TV has really taken off in the UK and our government has also proposed taking regular broadcast TV off the air by about 2008. The only difference seems to be that here we have absolutely no problem with that.

[theshark8777]

First of all, the channel 2-51 thing is for broadcast channels only. Those would be your over the air channels, such as CBS, NBC, FOX, etc.
Second, if you have digital cable or DirecTV, you already have a digital converter to run on your analog tv. And it does increase picture quality tremendously in an analog tv. (at least in Directv's case, I've never really seen digital cable)
Also in 4 more years, those TV's will be reasonably priced for a normal person. I have already seen them drop tremendously in the last 2 or 3 years, and like any new technology, prices will drop. Look at DVD players 3 years ago. They ran for about $400. now you can get one for under $100.
As for airwaves being owned by the American people, I disagree with that. If that was the case we wouldnt need an FCC. The airwaves are pretty much "owned" by the government, at least regualted by them.
I dont know what this digital tv has to offer, or if it will really be worth it. The only true digital broadcast I happened to see was when I was at a Best Buy in Indianapolis, and it looked pretty good, but I guess we'll all have to wait and see.

[Sean Snow]

While I really want digital TV (And this is a good way to get it w/ all the channels for my parents), but this is unfair. While it is all true about it being better, it's not fair for those people who can't afford TV. My mother knows a lady who has 8 children, she and her husband both have three jobs and they barely make it. How is she going to afford it?

Though this is very good progress, they shouldn't be pushing it on people. Thats like telling everyone to die their hair blonde. What if they're bald? LOL

[Bootsy Whoosh]

Originally posted by theshark8777
As for airwaves being owned by the American people, I disagree with that. If that was the case we wouldnt need an FCC. The airwaves are pretty much "owned" by the government, at least regualted by them.

It's not really a matter of whether you agree or not, it is a fact that the airwaves are supposed to be owned by the American public. (In theory, but not in practice, which is what I said in my post.)

I don't dispute that the airwaves are regulated by the FCC---regualtion of the airwaves is the purpose of the FCC....however the public still supposedly owns them, which means the public should be able to give input to the FCC on how they want their airwaves regulated. However, it doesn't usually work out that way, the FCC usually just does whatever they want anyway, without any regard for what the public wants.

I think the government should stop lying to us on this issue. Stop telling us we own the airwaves, stop perpetuating the myth that the public has any say in any of this.

[Bootsy Whoosh]

Originally posted by Mossopp
In the UK, if you don't have digital tv it's only possible to get 5 channels. There are 2 main providers of digital TV here - Sky digital and ITV digital - I have Sky Digital and, as well as allowing me to watch the 5 regular channels in flawless sound and picture quality, I also get over 150 other channels - and all I pay is £35 a month!!

Sounds to me like your love of digital TV stems from a combination of all of its good features, but also from a very important lack of alternatives. Here in America you can still get up to 70 channels on analog cable. If you like TV even the littlest bit, but 5 channels is all you can get without digital TV, then of course you are going to want digital TV.

Additionally, I have to ask....are you actually paying the "mere £35 a month" (roughly equivalent to 50 US dollars), or are your parents paying for it? $50 a month may be no biggie for my parents, who have been working for years. But $50 a month is a whole 'nother ball of wax for many working class people, a struggling college student or someone just starting out in the work force. I understand that at certain points in one's life it might be necessary to sacrifice, and go without cable TV, but it's nice to have options. The forcing of digital upon the public means you have absolutely no options left anymore. In America it's even worse....if you don't get digital TV, you'll only be able to get 2-5 stations, depending on where you live. (I know someone who can only get ABC and CBS w/o cable).

Originally posted by Mossopp
if you don't want digital TV then you obviously have no interest in television at all!!! I don't know what the exact specifications of digital TV in the US are but with my Sky system I can -

* choose from over 150 channels
* play games on my TV via my Sky digi-box
* go online and send e-mail via my TV
* shop via my TV
* have access to 16 movie channels (many of them in widescreen) and see movies up to 2 years before they appear on normal TV
* watch everything with 100% perfect sound and picture quality

I think it's more than a bit of a stretch to say that all people who may be wary about the digital revolution obviously don't like TV. On the contrary, I am quite fond of TV and watch it often.

At this point in time, Americans can't do all that with digital satellite/TV. My parents have a digital satellite, but we cannot surf the internet, nor shop online, nor play games with our satellite. Additionally, right now at least, access to 150 channels costs more than $50 a month.

[Mossopp]

Yeah Bootsy - I pay the subscription myself. Although it is a bit of a pain cos they keep putting the price up. When I first subscribed about 3 years ago I was paying less than £30 for the exact same channel package I'm paying £35 for now. The only reason it's that much money is cos I have all the available channels. Sky Digital channel packages start from £12 for the cheapest package and go all the way up to £35 depending on what you wanna watch.
There's no point in getting worked up about it. If they're gonna turn off regular TV then digital is the only other option you have (unless you throw your TV away altogether which, quite frankly, would be madness ) It's exactly the same situation as when "they" decided that vinyl wasn't any good anymore and that all music should be on CD. I know loads of people who liked vinyl, but if "they" say it's no good then you gotta do without...

[Sean Snow]

Originally posted by Mossopp
It's exactly the same situation as when "they" decided that vinyl wasn't any good anymore and that all music should be on CD. I know loads of people who liked vinyl, but if "they" say it's no good then you gotta do without...

But vinyls just faded out, but in this case they're just yanking it completly just like that over the next few years. And I don't know many people who knew about this either, so they might end up in trouble..but it'll make headlines by then lol.

BTW, According to my mom they're doing that in Germany now too. Hmm...a growing trend? LOL

[Bootsy Whoosh]

Originally posted by Mossopp
There's no point in getting worked up about it. If they're gonna turn off regular TV then digital is the only other option you have (unless you throw your TV away altogether which, quite frankly, would be madness ) It's exactly the same situation as when "they" decided that vinyl wasn't any good anymore and that all music should be on CD. I know loads of people who liked vinyl, but if "they" say it's no good then you gotta do without...

You do bring up a good point....the cost of digital cable/TV only keeps going up with time. So while the cost of digital TVs may plummet, the cost of the service will likely only continue to rise.

I personally am not too much worked up about it. Then main sticking point with me is that the government is forcing it on us so that they can sell "our" airwaves for their profit.

In my opinion though, it isn't quite exactly the same as "they" deciding to change from vinyl to cassette to CD, or VHS to DVD, I guess because we don't know exactly who "they" are, other than invisible market forces and big business. I guess in this case it's just easier to point the finger at someone specific, so people get more upset about it.

I generally am of the view that one has to pick their own battles, and in my mind there are far more important things in this world to get upset about than digital TV. However, in some ways, the government enforcement of digital TV on the public just seems to be another example of corporations getting their way with the government (as I'm sure the switch will be extremely profitable for satellite/cable providers, as well as TV manufacturers), as opposed to the people having their voice heard, which happens far too often in this country. Guess it's just "the man" bringing us down again.

to digital