FCC Extends Analog TV Support until 2012

[cr33p]

Looks like that soon to be single tuner DT box everyone has will have a little more time to live. Check it out over on the http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/fcc-extends-analog-tv-support-until-2012-299239.php

[jsmeeker]

again???

stupid. How many times will they do this?


This is gonna piss off the people that were wanting to bid on that spectrum.

[MickeS]

This is for cable operators. It is NOT related to the OTA analog shutoff, which is still scheduled for 2009.

After yesterday's ruling, cable operators will have two choices come February 2009. 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).

Not much of a change than what everyone expected would happen.

Note: this is NOT a requirement for the cable operators to continue analog signals, only that they must enable analog TVs to work somehow.

[Marco]

Might want to read the whole story, smeeky ... Broadcasters will still be starting digital-only broadcast in Feb 2009 ...

[bicker]

The most interesting part of the regulation for me is the part where they clarify that cable systems can convert HD signals to analog either at the head-end or via a converter box. Folks should be well-aware that there is therefore no requirement that analog be provided in-the-clear after February 2009. (This was an essential aspect of the regulation, since cable systems wanted the flexibility to be able to comply with the regulation via SDV.)

[jsmeeker]

Might want to read the whole story, smeeky ... Broadcasters will still be starting digital-only broadcast in Feb 2009 ...

reading the post isn't good enough now? You want me to read the linked story to confirm the post is actually true?

That's asking A LOT out of me, isn't it?

:D

[jlb]

I read this at Zatznotfunny.....

Over there they referenced this link:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6477713.html

and one notable passage from there:

After an 11-hour delay to the start of its monthly meeting, the FCC voted 5-0 at about 10 p.m. to require cable systems to distribute local TV stations that demand carriage in both analog and digital formats for a three-year period starting Feb. 18, 2009. That’s the day after all 1,756 full-power TV stations must turn off their analog signals and rely exclusively on their digital feeds. Cable systems that are all-digital are exempt from the FCC’s dual carriage mandate.


While I am happy about this as it gives me a little more time to save up for an HDTV and increased cost in cable packages, I wonder about this quote from above:

Cable systems that are all-digital are exempt from the FCC’s dual carriage mandate.

This gives the cable companies the opportunity to shift to "all-digital" at the OTA cutoff point and not have to follow the analog must-carry. We all knew this was going to be the case, but I guess they have at least formalized it.

Am I reading this correctly?




Regardless of if I am reading this stuff correctly, it is confusing and I am sure a great deal of the public either doesn't know what is going to happen in 2009/2012 (or not) or is being given terrible misinformation from people at stores, cable companies, etc......

[client]

why don't they just extend it indefinitely instead of posting false dates?


just a thought. then again, they are a government agency....

[kdmorse]

This gives the cable companies the opportunity to shift to "all-digital" at the OTA cutoff point and not have to follow the analog must-carry. We all knew this was going to be the case, but I guess they have at least formalized it.

Am I reading this correctly?

For cable companies that are all-digital, all their subscribers already have STBs, or QAM capable TV's. Thus they're logically excluded from all of this.

Cable companies that are not all-digital, are permitted to go all-digital, but *only* if they provide all customers with STB's for each TV. (I'm not sure who pays for the new STB, I'm not sure charging the consumer is prohibited).

Really - all this ruling means is that cable companies can not just drop their existing analog lineup of broadcast channels the day of the OTA shutoff, point their fingers at the feds, and say "Sorry! It's not our fault!". The feds are mandating that the cable companies provide means for those customers to still receive those channels when the OTA shutoff occurs.

At least, that's my understanding...

-Ken

[MickeS]

jlb, looks like it. Newsreports can be misleading, but it does make sense.

The part that disappointed me the most (really, the only part) was this:
Lobbying pressure from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association forced Martin to yield not only on perpetual dual carriage but also on a second priority: Requiring cable systems to transmit “all content bits” in a digital TV signal, thereby eliminating the use of signal compression and statistical multiplexing that husband bandwidth.

It would have been nice to see a mandate that they don't compress the signals.

[jlb]

Could set-top boxes just be digital to analog converters of somesort, as opposed to a box you use to tune your channel? If so, could you then input the resulting signal into a dual tuner TiVo and be able to tune two channels? Would updated guides be necessary?

I would love as much time as possible to save up for the TV I would really like, as opposed to affording right now. But I guess it gives me the ability to go to the WAF with the following: Honey, we have to get a new TV and a TiVoHD. Without it, we won't be able to record our programs.

[kdmorse]

Technically, yes. Likely to ever be seen? no.

-Ken

[bicker]

Cable companies that are not all-digital, are permitted to go all-digital, but *only* if they provide all customers with STB's for each TV. (I'm not sure who pays for the new STB, I'm not sure charging the consumer is prohibited).I believe the fee must be "reasonable".

Really - all this ruling means is that cable companies can not just drop their existing analog lineup of broadcast channels the day of the OTA shutoff, point their fingers at the feds, and say "Sorry! It's not our fault!".I believe the point is quite the opposite: They can't blame the FCC, because the FCC said explicitly they can comply with the regulation either by converting digital to analog at the head-end or via converter box.

[ZeoTiVo]

and still DBS just skates by unscathed by all this.
They compress channels and make people pay fees for each TV in the house.

but it will be the unknowing consumer who will get slapped with needing cable boxes for each TV when only the first one is free upon conversion. At least with DBS you know you are getting fees for each TV going in

[yunlin12]

What happens now to the folks in Chicago that just lost all their analog channels?

[vman41]

Could set-top boxes just be digital to analog converters of somesort, as opposed to a box you use to tune your channel? If so, could you then input the resulting signal into a dual tuner TiVo and be able to tune two channels? Would updated guides be necessary?

A company called Broadlogic has developed the chips that would be the core of such a device.

[LoadStar]

What happens now to the folks in Chicago that just lost all their analog channels?
Nothing.

Basically, this changes practically nothing for anyone, neither cable customers nor providers.

In short, what this ruling says: cable providers have to provide analog television owners a way of being able to receive the digital broadcast channels -- even after analog broadcast goes away. When the analog broadcast goes away in 2009, this can be accomplished in one of two ways:
1) providing all analog customers a cable box to be able to tune the digital channel, or
2) down-converting the digital broadcast channel to analog, and retransmitting it in analog to all customers.

Since the cable system in question already provides the required cable box, they're fine.

[bicker]

Indeed, and Chicago serves as a model for how this will likely be done, nationwide, come February 2009.

[jlb]

A company called Broadlogic has developed the chips that would be the core of such a device.

http://www.broadlogic.com/tpix.htm

The TeraPix sounds like a neat chip/solution/whatever. What it seems like it would allow you to do is hold off on buying an HDTV if your cable co goes all digital as their solution. It seems like it would allow you to not have to have a cable or set-top box at every TV or device.

It also seems like it would help keep a S2DT going for a while as a dual tuner device. However, the only thing I am not clear on is this........ Let's say your cable co goes all digital. Let's say you then install a Broadlogic (or similar) "Box" to convert the signal from digitial to analog so you can feed it direct to your S2DT. What would happen with channel numbers and guide data?

[classicsat]

Could set-top boxes just be digital to analog converters of somesort, as opposed to a box you use to tune your channel? If so, could you then input the resulting signal into a dual tuner TiVo and be able to tune two channels? Would updated guides be necessary?

Technically yes, but it would be prohibitively expensive for a typical homeowner. Such a system would involve a tuner per channel, and a cable RF modulator, which could cost in the neighborhood of $100/channel. Practically, just get a TiVo HD.


I would love as much time as possible to save up for the TV I would really like, as opposed to affording right now. But I guess it gives me the ability to go to the WAF with the following: Honey, we have to get a new TV and a TiVoHD. Without it, we won't be able to record our programs.
You don't need a new TV just yet. A TiVo HD will work fine with your old one, for like cable STBs, it outputs old style analog TV signals, albeit in just A/V, so you will need an inexpensive RF modulator to work with an older TV that has RF in only.

[classicsat]

What happens now to the folks in Chicago that just lost all their analog channels?
TMK, they lost all their analog "cable" programming. They still receive some OTA stuff in analog, and will for some time to come.

[MickeS]

I just hope TiVo works out a way to get correct guide data for unencrypted QAM channels without CableCARDs. In that case, many people can get a TiVoHD and use it just like they use analog S2 models today.

[jlb]

.......You don't need a new TV just yet. A TiVo HD will work fine with your old one, for like cable STBs, it outputs old style analog TV signals, albeit in just A/V, so you will need an inexpensive RF modulator to work with an older TV that has RF in only.


Oh I totally agree with you. I am just trying to minimize my total cost right now.



I just hope TiVo works out a way to get correct guide data for unencrypted QAM channels without CableCARDs. In that case, many people can get a TiVoHD and use it just like they use analog S2 models today.

+100

[BobCamp1]

and still DBS just skates by unscathed by all this.
They compress channels and make people pay fees for each TV in the house.

but it will be the unknowing consumer who will get slapped with needing cable boxes for each TV when only the first one is free upon conversion. At least with DBS you know you are getting fees for each TV going in

Of course DBS compresses signals -- they have limited bandwidth too. If you force DBS to not compress, that will limit the number of channels they can send. They wouldn't be good competition, they'd go out of business, etc. I thought you were all for competition -- I must be in the wrong forum. :)

I think compression doesn't noticeably degrade the signal. DBS had a problem with HD MPEG-2, but MPEG-4 is working MUCH better. If you still think it is a problem, don't use DBS. Somehow I think people who are poor and were receiving NTSC OTA are not going to be picky about signal quality.

Of course DBS makes people pay a fee for each extra non-DVR box. So does you cable company. If you are that poor that you cannot afford the extra $5/month fee, maybe you shouldn't own more than one TV in the first place.

Are cable companies going to offer a free box with basic cable? I didn't read that anywhere in any of the press releases. If they are all digital, do they even have to have a basic cable tier anymore?

[ZeoTiVo]

Of course DBS compresses signals -- they have limited bandwidth too. If you force DBS to not compress, that will limit the number of channels they can send. They wouldn't be good competition,

My point is simply that the FCC should be including DBS in these types of regulations. Sure they may not get the exact same regulation as cable due to differences in delivery and how they currently sell service but we continuously see loose regulations with indefinite time lines and I think it is in part due to the fact that cable has the very valid point of they also can nor be put at a disadvantage in competing with DBS

[MickeS]

My point is simply that the FCC should be including DBS in these types of regulations. Sure they may not get the exact same regulation as cable due to differences in delivery and how they currently sell service but we continuously see loose regulations with indefinite time lines and I think it is in part due to the fact that cable has the very valid point of they also can nor be put at a disadvantage in competing with DBS
I agree with that. I think the only reason cable is so regulated is because of their monopoly status within the local municipalities where they operate, a status at the local level which the DBS services do not have.

But in really, they often (not always though) compete for the same audience on similar terms, so DBS should be regulated in the same manner in many aspects.

[restart88]

What happens now to the folks in Chicago that just lost all their analog channels?

They'll switch to DTivos. :D

[ebockelman]

My point is simply that the FCC should be including DBS in these types of regulations. Sure they may not get the exact same regulation as cable due to differences in delivery and how they currently sell service but we continuously see loose regulations with indefinite time lines and I think it is in part due to the fact that cable has the very valid point of they also can nor be put at a disadvantage in competing with DBS

DBS is treated exactly like the all-digital cable systems in this.

[bicker]

At this point, the FCC regulates cable because it can and wants to.

[bicker]

DBS is treated exactly like the all-digital cable systems in this.Not quite. DBS effectively complies with this regulation but is under no obligation to do so. They could go all-digital, if they wanted. (They can barely think about getting the digital signals from the 1000s of local channels, so thinking about it in this context is really only an academic exercise.)