FCC sends signal on must-carry
Federal regulators will vote Tuesday whether to approve a requirement — long-sought by broadcasters — that would force cable operators to carry analog and digital TV signals transmitted by some local stations.
The dual-carriage requirement pushed by FCC chairman Kevin Martin is intended to ensure that millions of analog cable homes don’t abruptly lose access to local TV signals when U.S. broadcasters make the switch to digital TV in 2009.
Martin and the broadcast industry contend that cable has a legal obligation to ensure that all TV signals can be viewed in homes wired to cable, whether that home is on an analog or digital system. Martin supports dual carriage because an analog-only home can’t see a digital signal without a set-top box.
Cable operators argue that all they should be required to do is to carry the digital signal, as long as customers are informed that leasing a digital set-top box will bring in the must-carry stations.
While the cable industry opposes Martin’s plan — and has threatened court action if it is approved — the National Cable and Telecommunications Assn. has offered a compromise. Under the industry trade group’s plan, most cable operators would carry both analog and digital signals for three years. There is another plan circulating that would extend the timeline to five years.
Yeah, yeah, we know. Some of you haven’t watched TV since Ed Sullivan was on live.
What’s it like in the rest of the world?
Cheers
Can we drag this out any longer? Forcing cable companies to carry analog with further hamper additional HD channels. It bullshit that I have to put up with 80 or so analog channels on Comcast, many of which I watch, just so some trailer trash who is too cheap to pay the 5 bucks for a box, can continue to watch judge Judy and American Idol.
The only problem I have is that my set top receiver does a crappy job with analog. I have about 70 analog channels that comes in fine when connected to a set. Run it through the Motorola 6200 box and it’s snowy. You have to split the cable and use the RF input to clean them up. That was the cable techs solution.
#2 Well the US still has what, 60-70% of national mobile phone coverage still analogue, so…what’s the hurry? Give it another 10 years…when metric kicks in as well…can’t rush these things….its confusing.
Cheers
This is actually a major technology story we need to be watching:
If Congress forces the Cable Cos. to carry analog, they will have a very narrow band to deliver future HDTV on, and to implement broadcast switching with. This will put them at a severe disadvantage against satellite, considering that DirecTV is about to provide a ton of HD channels (and has a Video on Demand solution in line). Likewise, broadcast switching still hasn’t been proven as a silver bullet: Remember when this was going to be used over phone lines? That hasn’t taken off, either.
If they can dump analog in ’09 things become much easier from a technology perspective… which would be good for all of us long term.
Silly me!
I thought we [Congress & FCC] were forcing the shift to digital broadcast, so that the valuable spectrum currently used by Analog broadcasts could be auctioned-off for other purposes…
Under the industry trade group’s plan, most cable operators would carry both analog and digital signals for three years. There is another plan circulating that would extend the timeline to five years.
So, we’re planning on that spectrum still being used for Analog broadcasts at least five-years after the 2009 switch-over… i.e. in 2014???
This is going to really honk a lot of cable customers off. I’ve 4 high end analog tuners, and I have yet to find a “set top” box with the same picture quality to feed DVD+-RWs and high-end analog TVs. My DLP projector can handle HDMI, but then I’ve got to go with the evil Verizon empire and enable the FiOS that’s already at the back door instead of using RGB inputs. Frankly, the RGB viewing seems better than an HDMI source, and I’m at a total loss to explain it.
Well, what do you expect? I’m a cranky geek. I still consider tube amps and high-end turntables superior to CDs. Sight and sound are analog, there just seems to be something “harsh” in the A-D-A conversion. Maybe it’s the cheap set-top boxes.
The cable companies are about to lose their shirts–
http://tinyurl.com/pxmla
The UK is cutting all analog signals starting this year, will take 5 years to gradually kill them all. We have very good free digital TV though, so its not really a problem.
#2 Well the US still has what, 60-70% of national mobile phone coverage still analogue
Guess what, that too will end next year when the FCC says carriers no longer have to support AMPS cell phone service.
RE #6: “I thought we [Congress & FCC] were forcing the shift to digital broadcast, so that the valuable spectrum currently used by Analog broadcasts could be auctioned-off for other purposes…”
They are…this article is in reference to continuing analog on cable tv systems not over the air and this has no impact on the sale of analog BROADCAST spectrum.
#2 – Can we drag this out any longer? Forcing cable companies to carry analog with further hamper additional HD channels. It bullshit that I have to put up with 80 or so analog channels on Comcast, many of which I watch, just so some trailer trash who is too cheap to pay the 5 bucks for a box, can continue to watch judge Judy and American Idol.
The conservative, wealthy, elitist class sense of entitlement strikes again.
TV used to be better. You bought one, plugged it in, and chose between your 3 to 5 local affiliates, and all was well.
Today, I need to spend the price of a good used car or more on a TV, an AV receiver, 500 pounds of electronics, and a 7.1 speaker system, and after laying out all that cash, I have a monthly charge of $100 or more so I can watch pushy salesjerks flip houses or pretentious models compete in runway walking.
And all the digital channels show horrid artifacting anyway…
TV sucks. Aside from C-Span, which looks good enough at any resolution, who fucking cares?
#2 – I hate to break it to you, but the world doesn’t revolve around you and your hi-def needs.
Some people can’t afford or don’t want to pay for all the crap you obviously can. Somehow, regardless of your obvious ignorance, you manage to make enough money to afford some luxuries. I’m going to take a wild guess and say you’re a spoiled piece of crap, and your parents put up with you taking 6-7 years to finish your communications degree at some local college. Some people aren’t so lucky
Heres the deal, cable companies want TV in EVERY home… thats how they make their money. If even a small percentage of the population is left out, they lose money. Thats why they don’t want this forced on consumers until digital TV truly reaches a mainstream price point.
#12
>>”TV sucks. Aside from C-Span, which looks good
>>enough at any resolution, who fucking cares?”
Hell ya. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks the problem with TV has more to do with programming than picture quality.
Who cares if it’s HD it it’s still just a steaming pile.
FCC,
ALSO told cable corps that they were to be able to sell individual channels, 5 years ago….AND it still hasnt been done.
Take ALL the channels, they send to you.
Take out all the channels you dont watch…
You PROBABLY watch about 15-20…out of all the channels..
SO why do I have to pay MORE, because 1 channel went up in price to cable, THAT I DONT WATCH??
This is my UN- channels…
No sports,
no religion
No sales channels, MSN QVC, so forth.
No spanish,
No news,
After all that, It should be pretty cheap.
#15. Actually, it will likely be much more expensive. popular channels subsidize the unpopular ones. I used to favor ala carte cable myself, but the economics of the whole thing point to a person with a one channel subscription having to pay a lot more than they currently do for the ‘500 channels and nothing on.’
#14. TV is a heck of a lot better than the ‘vast wasteland’ days, with the rise of serial drama (Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Heroes, etc) leading the way. Keep filling the rest of the schedule with cheapo ‘reality’ shows and spend the savings on this stuff, I say.
>>Who cares if it’s HD it it’s still just a steaming pile.
Not me. I can watch late-night informercials starring Jack LaLanne and reruns of Law & Order in regular definition just fine.
Waaaaaaay too much time and money spent on digital tv and exotic, incompatible DVD formats, and waaaaaaaaaay too little on the content.
#11 this article is in reference to continuing analog on cable tv systems not over the air and this has no impact on the sale of analog BROADCAST spectrum.
Thanks, Ben.
I was confusing “transmitted” with “broadcast”.
…that would force cable operators to carry analog and digital TV signals transmitted by some local stations.
#16 – I call BS. C-Band systems have always been a-la carte & the prices are much lower than bundled cable/DTH packages.
#10 “Guess what, that too will end next year when the FCC says carriers no longer have to support AMPS cell phone service.”
Which means there will be a lot of people in the US who just will stop having a mobile (cell) phone. Look at the coverage maps of the US…
Other countries have already switched off there AMPS (analogue) service years ago – like Australia (China too). How were they able to do this while the US cannot?
Cheers
#19. so, the economics of the “big dish” systems – owned by a comparative few consumer households – are the same as that of cable TV, which is subscribed to by the masses?
Either way, the fact of the matter is that the cable companies, if forced to offer ala carte programming, will use it as an excuse to jack up the prices. no way are they going to let you or me have a $10-15/mo cable bill because all we really want is Comedy Central.
That is the standard industry response to any government mandate – to claim “compliance costs” and zap the consumer.
Who’s Ed Sullivan???? 🙂
#22 – 🙂
Dude… You got me for a second there…
16,
Fine I can/will pay $1 per channel… Thats $15 per month. NOT $50 for 100 channels that I WONT watch.
They USEd to have a tiered system.
Want sports? Pay $10 more.
BASICS about 20-30 channels, $10-20.
Want Spanish? $10
News channels? $10
did you know that MOSt of those channels are FREE, in the areas they are broadcast?
religion channels are FREE, they want you to listen, so why charge.
Turner channels USED to be free.
fox, abc, NBC, CBS, warner, and others are FREE.
MSN, QVC, others sales channels, FREE, because they WANT you to BUY something. If not, I dought they would be broadcast on cable. They PROBABLY PAY to be broadcast.
I would think that over 1/2 the channels are FREE if not paying to be broadcast.
GIVING those at a reasonable price to EVERY household would be easy. But they dont want to improve there facilities to give EVERYONE ACCESS.(yes I am in the rural area) And at $10 each, they would be making profit OUT the ears on basic channels they arent paying for.
#6: They are auctioning off over the air spectrum. The signals on coax that come from your cable company use their own spectrum in a shielded, closed system.
What I don’t like about this is that cable should be deploying optical fiber everywhere to increase their bandwidth and give more HD and internet options. But as long as analog must be kept on the line, coaxial cable will have to be laid down. Many cable companies cannot expense it for both, especially when the coax will only be used for a few years. In the end the cable subscriber who wants good, HQ programming gets screwed for the few that only want to watch Oprah and American Idol.
What is funny is that if you don’t subscribe to cable, you will need to buy a converter box. the government is even giving coupons out for these boxes. Why is the basic cable subscriber so special they don’t have to pay for a box when if you don’t subscribe you do? (did that make sense?)
Nobody seems to remember how this started! It had nothing to do with “valuable frequencies” or “better picture”. I love the argument that individual blades of grass can be seen, I always get really close to see the blades of grass!
This began in the 80’s with japan tv going digital and congress thinking it could protect american tv equipment manufacturers if they forced the U.S. to go digital. There are now NO tv equipment makers in the U.S. (of any consequence). It is another brilliant example of congress finding ways to export jobs and money and import junk.