The real "HD-Era" begins Feb. 17th, 2009
by Vladimir Cole 
{ Feb 16th 2006 at 2:30AM }
Just in time for the Microsoft Xbox 720, Sony PlayStation 4, and Nintendo ON comes this announcement from the White House: Bush just signed into law a bill that mandates the end of analog broadcasts. By February 17th, 2009, all TV broadcasts must be digital.
Though digital signals can be broadcast in any resolution (including non-HD resolutions), this
announcement has the potential to spur the sort of rejuvenating modernization that will ultimately mean widespread
adoption of HD-capable television sets.
The government often lets "deadlines" like this slide, but if they hold fast then perhaps we'll finally be able to write a blog entry here on Joystiq without some nutty neo-Luddite flaming us for pushing HD when his black-and-white 14"-inch works just fine, thank you very much.
[Via HDBeat]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tom Tuttle from Tacoma @ Feb 16th 2006 2:38AM
Maybe then Nintendo will actually support it. Japanese Luddite-esques.
The one @ Feb 16th 2006 2:41AM
oh comon calling it the xbox 720 is just plain stupid how do they know it wont be called the xbox infinity or something?
x7 @ Feb 16th 2006 3:01AM
Digital /= hd... hd is higher resolution picture, digital us just the method it reaches the consumer. Gov has wanted the transition to digital tv for some time so it can have the airwaves back that it previously split up among tv stations. Ofcourse, attempts to push the market faster than it wants to go or in a direction it has no intention of going do not often end in success. Honestly,the transition from black and white to color is huge compared moving frorm standard to hd resolutions (of which we have yet to pick a standard). Most ppl dont see the difference, confused like poor cole. Hd means to them nothing but digital , flatscreen, plasma, and lcd; they will plug in there hd tvs /w anolog cables and think of how amazingly better the picture. Too many 360 owners I know are forgetting to turn on the hd button on the 360 connecters, or even worsing thinking they have an hd picture /w their 360 on a standard tv. Hell even IGN admitted in a review that they forget to turn theres on. Ofcourse, after they did the difference was so HUGE (exactly as huge as it was b4 they turned it on).
ill trooper @ Feb 16th 2006 3:13AM
Wait... They announced the release date of the PS3?
Snap!
dontspamme @ Feb 16th 2006 3:14AM
FYI- Digtal broadcasting and HD broadcasting are NOT the same thing. You can watch digital TV signals (over the air for free, digital cable, or satellite), on digital TVs, in 4:3 mode; that's not the same thing as HD.
woodcubed @ Feb 16th 2006 3:14AM
I don't really understand this whole thing. Why do we need to legislate digital television? What benefits does it provide are so necessary that it be forced upon the entire country. I say that not because I am against a better resolutiom, but because I know that I will end up paying for either a new television or a new cable box, and certainly some new subscription service. At the same time the old analog channels will be sold for private use, so I can't see any benefit from freeing those up. And of course, to the previous commentators- digital broadcasting has nothing to do with game consoles and what resolutions they support. Games play fine as things are right now.
ill trooper @ Feb 16th 2006 3:22AM
In reality, however, this is less about quality and resolution and more about content control, as digital signals are where they encode messages like 'This program cannot be recorded' or 'do not allow analog transcoding' and other fun things the media giants that U.S. government spends a lot of time pleasing.
Some interesting roadsigns of what's around the bend:
http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/1601/cea_and_hrrc
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060209-6151.html
http://www.hbo.com/corpinfo/cgmsafaq.shtml
And sorry 'bout the double posting...
deathscythe @ Feb 16th 2006 3:24AM
again as #3 said, Digital does not mean higher resoultion. Just a means of devilery. Making the signals digital as opposed to analog allows for more space in the airwaves for other purposes...wireless internet for example...
skyrous @ Feb 16th 2006 3:32AM
This is exactly why The Nintendo Revolution doesn't support HD. at the moment relatively few people have digital/HD tv and a lot of people can't tell the difference anyway.
Why jack up the cost of the hardware and the development costs of the games for a technology that most people won't use?
the next nintendo console will support HD because it will be worth it by then.
Tmoney @ Feb 16th 2006 3:40AM
If I remember correctly this date has been pushed backed twice now. When digital ready televisions first hit the market early 2006 was the first date the congressional committee set to end analog broadcasts. When 2006 started to come into view and digital ready televisions hadn't become the standard in viewers homes, they moved it back to the end of 2007. And again not enough people own HD televisions for the politicians to turn off analog broadcasts. If at least 50% of all televisions in homes arent digital ready expect this date to move back again. Make no mistake the government and businesses would love for the transition to happen today, as the end of analog broadcasts would open extremely valuable airwaves for new uses. Politicians though will continue to push it back until digital ready televisions are the standard in homes, as they fear the outcry and anger of voters who no longer have any television to watch. No television=More free time for angry voters=Lots of nasty letters and no reelection.
(Also there is talk that the government will have to subsidize all or some of the price for converter boxes (boxes which will make analog only televisions able to view digital broadcasts), an expense the government isnt too excited to pay for.)
Bloo @ Feb 16th 2006 3:41AM
"Why jack up the cost of the hardware and the development costs of the games for a technology that most people won't use?"
I guess with your logic we should have stuck with Black and White TV too?
EiZei @ Feb 16th 2006 3:59AM
Pff.. our goverment has already decided that analog broadcasts will end mid-2007. They did push that deadline once but at least they have quite an amount of leverage since half of television channels here are operated by a single state-owned corporation.
fawazr @ Feb 16th 2006 4:00AM
The push for digital is an odd one since schools, PTAs, doctors, and regular citizens aren't the ones calling for the legislation. It's funny to hear the occassional cynic say that American democracy is owned by corporate entites, but it's disquieting to have the claim proven true. I mean, I like me some HD gaming, movies, pr0n, whatever, but when congress starts telling me what type of equipment I should have in my home, all at the behest of lobbyists and industry, I get annoyed.
Varian @ Feb 16th 2006 4:00AM
Wow, Vladimir Cole certainly is consistant in putting out the most opinionated and bitter pieces on Joystiq.
The fact is that wrapping a business model of a video game console around HD TV is pretty stupid unless you are planning for a ten year console cycle (which Sony apparently wants to do. After all, the PS1's model revolved around the cd, the PS2 around the DVD, and PS3 around the blu-ray. After that, the format of discs may become obsolete to digital downloads).
Only in North America is there any demand for such huge tvs. A console must be designed globally, not just for Americans (I'm looking at you, Xbox). And even with that demand, the household penetration is so low as to be ridiculous at this time to wrap a console's feature around HD TV capabilities (Consoles are in the entertainment business, not the technology business which many don't seem to realize). Consider that while a new HD TV is in the living room, the TVs in the bedrooms and the kid's rooms are NOT the big screen HD TVs.
The law Bush signed simply alters how broadcasts will work. All the old TVs will still pick up the broadcasts because most American televisions use a type of cable or satellite already. The old broadcast is already dead. Very few people use the old broadcast anyway.
But by the way how VC has worded this blog entry, you would think that all 'non' HD TVs suddenly fall over and die in 2009.
At the end of the day, the HD TV will have made little to no difference in the console's gaming except to raise the art costs for development. Oh yeah, the games will also cost more. ($60+) [And no, going from black and white to color isn't a comparison because people could see a difference. Very few see any difference with the HD TVs...)
I feel real sorry for those poor souls manipulated by a corporation's marketing to waste a lot of money on a HD TV for a video game console. All that money... gone.
BTW: Nintendo ON wouldn't even need a TV.
tao @ Feb 16th 2006 4:01AM
9. ("Why jack up the cost of the hardware and the development costs of the games for a technology that most people won't use?"
I guess with your logic we should have stuck with Black and White TV too?)
Yeah, because color tv's are *ahem* "a technology that most people won't use." Nice logic.
ks-c @ Feb 16th 2006 4:24AM
umm... how exactly would a neo-luddite post a flame in the comments section? And isn't neo-luddite a contradiction in and of itself?
Probot @ Feb 16th 2006 4:25AM
I was under the impression that Digital signals had nothing to do with High Definition TV. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't ceasing analogue signals just mean that bunny ears antenae stop working? I know some people still get TV that way, but I'm sure they are in the minority now.
I'm for it on the grounds that it will free up the frequencies for other stuff, such as wireless internet. As for stations stopping people from recording shows, well, I don't have anything against a company protecting it's products. Plus, I'm sure people will get around it; they always have and they always will.
And ill trooper, if you put links inside parenthese, then they'll work fine.
Here are the links posted in #6:
(http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/1601/cea_and_hrrc)
(http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060209-6151.html)
(http://www.hbo.com/corpinfo/cgmsafaq.shtml)
(http://www.hbo.com/corpinfo/cgmsafaq.shtml)
Truf @ Feb 16th 2006 4:55AM
As some people have already pointed out this has little to do with HD. While HD is a related issue to a point, it is a separate issue to this story.
This story is about the change over from analogue to digital signals
skyrous @ Feb 16th 2006 6:18AM
Gee I thought i made myself clear in my original post. actually I did make myself crystal clear.
People aren't gonna start buying hdtv's until they're as cheap as sdtv's and at that time manufacturer's will stop making sdtv's. People aren't gonna buy hdtv's to play video games they're gonna want to watch tv with them... and not until they can afford them. nintendo has no control over any of that and neither does microsoft, though sony kinda does since they make tv's. At this moment clearly the market is still sdtv by a large margin and isn't going to change for a few years yet. So why spend a ton money supporting it? Just as nobody's rushing out to buy an hdtv to play the xbox 360 nobody's going to rush out to buy an hdtv to play high definition mario.
5 years ago nintendo took a look at the internet and correctly figured out that online gaming isn't worth it. and if you at look at the pitiful number of XBL subscriptions since the release of the original xbox you can't argue with nintendo's logic. Hardcore gamers condemned them for the choice but the vast majority people didn't notice or care that you could play online with xbox and you couldn't with gamecube. Online play wasn't a factor in the last generation of video games.
Today most people have a high speed connections instead of dialup, bandwidth is much cheaper, 802.11 standard is proven and equipment is cheaply available. The market has matured and even xbox 360 is seeing much more activity online. Nintendo is jumping into online bigger than anybody, they let microsoft spend vast quanities of money and make all the big mistakes to support a service that less than %5 of their user base ever bothered with. Nintendo's spent that time taking notes on microsoft's mistakes and now they're going to do it right.
back to my original point hdtv isn't going to be a factor in video games for 3-5 more years so why spend all that extra money on it now? This is the one unique factor that's allowing them to launch at $200 instead of $400 like everyone else. 5 years ago or 5 years from now this strategy wouldn't work. But right now nintendo is perfectly positioned to pick market share just by being cheaper than everybody else.
Alex K. @ Feb 16th 2006 6:42AM
remember, this bill does not affect cable/satellite. it only affects local stations.
so it doesn't mandate that TVs have to get rid of any analog inputs or anything.
i.e. there's nothing that makes the revolution have to be in HD. in fact, it's not mandating HD, it's mandating digital antenna signals (big difference. the stations do not have to broadcast at a higher resolution).
ScottE @ Feb 16th 2006 7:36AM
The transition to Digital is for the main purpose of selling the 700mhz Analog Spectrum to other sectors.
(PDF WARNING)
Good Information source about the Digital Switch.
http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22217_20050812.pdfThe transition to Digital is for the main purpose of selling the 700mhz Analog Spectrum to other sectors.
(PDF WARNING)
Good Information source about the Digital Switch.
http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22217_20050812.pdf
Hank Cazorp @ Feb 16th 2006 7:38AM
Forget about being a Luddite, whatever happened to simple political common sense? Would somebody show me in the US Constitution where the Government is authorized to "mandate the end of analog broadcasts?"
Jay @ Feb 16th 2006 7:38AM
this is a little behind of America no? The UK planned to switch off the analogue systems years ago. I think it might have even started. They're pushing everyone to getting Freeview (free digital TV) which is really snazzy. get a set top box for as little as 30 and you get loads of extra channels. The BBC/Government folks said that they're starting to shut off analogue in later 2006 and hopefully turn off the final spot (London) in 2008.
Scooby Doo @ Feb 16th 2006 8:07AM
I have a hard time believing that we (the U.S.) will be moving to all digital broadcasts by that year. It seems much too aggressive to me. For as rich of a country as we claim to be, we have a lower income class that would be adversely affected by this kind of switch. In fact, I think if they tried to force all the users into digital broadcasts, there could be Constitutional challenge because it has the potential to impede a citizen's access to the press, in this case, TV news broadcasts. Think class-action lawsuit against the U.S. government, and potentially TV manufacturers as well, for infringement on our bill of rights. It's a little bit of stretch, but in this country McDonald's can be sued because the coffee they sell is 'hot' so I honestly believe there would be legal challenges.
I think that the only way they will be able to mandate the switch over to digital is if they work with the manufacturers to come up with a very inexpensive analog-to-digital converter (like $10-$15 dollars) and some form of rebate program. Basically, it would need to have almost no cost associated to the end user because while I scoff at $15 dollars, try telling that to an elderly widow on a fixed income. A large number of laws in the U.S. are specifically there to level the playing field for varying income classes. (Although things are still unbalanced in a lot of categories.)
Personally, I'm nowhere close to buying an HDTV. I would say I watch maybe 2-3 hours of TV a week and although I use my TV for gaming, I just haven't seen the kind of night and day difference that others have. HDTV looks better...noticeably better...but not $500 better. No, I'll wait until I absolutely have to because I'm perfectly happy with my standard set. I applaud the early adopters though, especially since it means you're the ones absorbing the R&D costs for the rest of us.
Jesus of Suburbia @ Feb 16th 2006 8:08AM
I'm from Ireland and I have no Knowledge of American presidents except how stupid George Bush is, anyways will he still be president by Febuary 17th 2009? because i dont want to see his face in high def or Tony blairs or that hidious thing he calls his wife.
Jesus of Suburbia @ Feb 16th 2006 8:12AM
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e210/nintendo2005/crazy_frog_cherie.jpg
Scooby Doo @ Feb 16th 2006 8:39AM
Would somebody show me in the US Constitution where the Government is authorized to "mandate the end of analog broadcasts?"
Technically, it is. The U.S. Constitution grants the Executive Branch the majority of control over our infrastructure. In this instance, it's the FCC that holds the power to determine what kind of broadcasts are allowed or prohibited. The Legislative Branch (Congress) can enact laws that tell the FCC what to do, but since they mainly go with the recommendations of the government entity (the FCC, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, etc.), I think of Congress more like an oversight committee than a policy maker. Sure you can throw in the lobbyists who can effect a Congressman's decisions, but most of these branches of government have a pretty long leash for enacting their own regulations and guidelines.
While the Consitution doesn't exactly specifically spell out that the FCC can do this, it also doesn't specifically prevent them from doing it either.
Thomas Crymes @ Feb 16th 2006 8:40AM
HD Beat has had several articles stating that standard TV plants are being shut down one by one. Pretty soon, you won't be able to buy an analog TV. Then it is only a matter of time before most people have HD anyways.
2009 is not aggressive. It is two or three years too late. I'm so glad HD gaming is available, because I was getting a little tired of having to put up with low res gaming in my living room. The difference between standard and HD is night and day. The people who don't, seem to be busy talking themselves into believing there isn't a significant difference because they don't want to spend the extra money.
I guess there is only one question that matters. If you are a PC gamer, do you game at 640x480 resolution? I'm guessing that most of you wouldn't dream of gaming at a resolution that low. When I have to game at 800x600 I'm a little miffed. I'm glad Microsoft and Sony are paving the way for HD gaming. I was hoping for HD resolution with the XBox, but never got it (except for Dragon's Lair 3D, which sucked).
Release your shackles and step into the light!
Thomas Crymes @ Feb 16th 2006 8:43AM
Oh, and a possible reason for legislation is so the TV manufacturers aren't sued when people still using rabbit ears and standard cable are no longer able to use their TVs.
jc @ Feb 16th 2006 8:51AM
Last I heard, the US Government is expecting more than $9 billion from the sale of the analogue bandwidth.
With that kind of income, I expect they will do everything they can to keep their deadline.
Scooby Doo @ Feb 16th 2006 9:11AM
Alright, I finally get some chance of debate here. Thomas, there's a couple of points I'd like to make on your rebuttal.
"HD Beat has had several articles stating that standard TV plants are being shut down one by one. Pretty soon, you won't be able to buy an analog TV. Then it is only a matter of time before most people have HD anyways."
-First of all, don't you think an HD magazine might be just a little bit bias about their forecasts for when the rest of us are converting over? Secondly, that's just the manufacturing side. In the past ten years, I have bought ONE new TV and that was only because I had to keep my significant other happy. Just because they stop making Standard Def sets doesn't mean that the next day, everyone has one. It affects new purchases and people who are replacing a broken set. You need to factor in the average life cycle of a current product before trying to determine when new technology will become mainstream and for me, my TV's last for many, many years. (Hence why I think 2009 is still aggressive for a technology that has become a staple of American life.)
"The difference between standard and HD is night and day. The people who don't, seem to be busy talking themselves into believing there isn't a significant difference because they don't want to spend the extra money"
-Okay, I don't like having words put in my mouth. You are not me and should not speak on my behalf. The fact is I've looked at several SDTV's and HDTV's side-by-side, viewing the same DVD at the same time. While I saw an improved clarity, I was not blown over. That is a PERSONAL OPINION. If you feel that the difference between HDTV and SDTV is so important you have to switch, that's fine, but don't tell the rest of us that we're 'deceiving ourselves' because we all have our personal taste and expectations.
"I guess there is only one question that matters. If you are a PC gamer, do you game at 640x480 resolution? I'm guessing that most of you wouldn't dream of gaming at a resolution that low. When I have to game at 800x600 I'm a little miffed. I'm glad Microsoft and Sony are paving the way for HD gaming. I was hoping for HD resolution with the XBox, but never got it (except for Dragon's Lair 3D, which sucked)."
-Actually I think you're guess is wrong. While I agree that the majority of the gamers here try to run games in the best resolution possible, I think the majority of them would prefer that their game run smoothly. We're all after the most immersive gameplay experience possible, but glitz and dazzle doesn't guarantee a good game. I still play the old StarFlight PC game (in EGA mind you!!!) just because it's one of my all time favorites.
This HDTV debate has come up several times now since Nintendo said the Rev isn't going to be enhanced for HD but will support 480P and I have one question all you HD enthusiasts:
Why do you feel like you have to 'convert' the rest of us? I swear I feel like I'm in a Star Trek episode and you're the Borg. "You will be assimilated to HDTV. Resistance is futile.
Lone Starr @ Feb 16th 2006 9:41AM
Scooby Doo,
The 10th Ammendment explicitly states that powers not delegated to the federal government are the powers of the people -- if anything, it would be a state issue. And where does it say the executive branch has the powers of "infastructure?"
Jay @ Feb 16th 2006 9:42AM
I was a little confused there. Why do so many people think that digital TV is HDTV? have you not been educated about it fully? there's analogue and digital. then theres HDTV. its a separate thing altogether the only linkage being that SD digital and HDTV digital are both digital.
Beautifully though, I got a Digital TV receiver for my Mac and the picture quality is stunning. I've played around with an Xbox 360 hooked up with VGA to my 2005FPW monitor in 720p, image was good. Hooked up my Mac with digital TV and the image was nay identical. Sure you can argue that the TV is a lower resolution and isn't identical, but visually. if you didn't know that the Xbox was in HD you would never have guessed.
I've totally lost what I'm on about. but a real time de-interlaced TV image is beautiful and to me, a graphics designer, game maker and producer the image is really not worth however much a HDTV, HD subscription and whatever other cost is included. until it gets *REALLY* good its just a minor update.
robrob @ Feb 16th 2006 9:47AM
LOL @ people (non HD owners, for sure) saying things like "Very few see any difference with the HD TVs...".
Brian @ Feb 16th 2006 10:03AM
HDTV, digital signals, people might lose their TV? This could really hurt the poor people in our country who could lose their TV! ::GASP:: Wait, it's just television. Television is not a right. It's not a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. It's a box with pictures and sound. It entertains us from time to time and is a good distraction. However, if some people had to live without TV, the world would probably be a better place.
epobirs @ Feb 16th 2006 11:01AM
Scoob, a DVD is a highly flawed means by which to compared an HD monitor to a SD monitor. Even with upconverting a DVD is designed for playback on SD screens and is never going to show off an monitor as well as native HD video. Upconverting can improve image quality but it cannot add information that simply isn't there. In the process of going from film to a D1 master for making an NTSC DVD a LOT of image data is lost.
I've seen the demo reel for Blu-ray Sony has compiled from several recent and recent classic films. (This will probably be updated include even more recent films if the launch delay runs long enough. The tech is ready but the DRM issues are not.) The difference between it and upconverted DVD of the same footage is huge, even on a smallish screen. It's like hearing a song on a high-end audio system after years of only hearing it on the radio. You discover huge amounts of sensory detail that were previously lost or mangled. In the case of HDTV it really drives home that the color NTSC standard is largely unchanged from the days of the first Eisenhower administration when the first color RCA model went on sale. (Which was the equivalent of $7,000 in 20034 dollars, so HDTV is already far more accessable pricewise.)
A field of grass goes from being a green blur to a collection of individual blades. A note held up for the audience POV goes from being difficult to read to clear as a piece of paper in your own hand. An upconverted DVD cannot demonstrate this.
As for your purchasing habits, you are engaging in a fallacy. If you haven't made any purchases you have little or no bearing on the market. Product development is driven by people who are actually buying stuff or indicating they want to buy but cannot find what they want.
The market is driven by those who buy stuff. When they increasingly tend to buy something that something gains in support. This is especially true when the item has a follow-on market in accessories and software. When HDTV's represent the most profitable portion of the TV market it drives a shift to target those consumers. HD screens already represent the largest profit center on margins since there has been so little feature growth in NTSC screens for much of the last decade the only basis for competition has been price. At the same time DVD has created an interest in using upconverting to display on ED and HD screens while cable and satellite options finally brought genuine HD content to a large number of homes. HD movies at retail and HD video games only serve to complete the market for making HD the standard going forward. Pricing for good HD sets is already well below where previous major trends in TV, such as color and screen size, achieved dominance. (This includes factoring inflation.)When you put all of these things together you have a product that, like it predecessors in color and screen size, prompts a new purchase regardless of whether the existing equipment continues to function. The volume growth of HD sales has grown steadily and is well on course to dominate TV sales overall before the deadline for the digital switchover.
And no, this isn't rushing the technology at all. 720P sets could easily have been marketed for reasonable prices starting in the late 80s. The hitch was on the content side, much as it was for color screens for many years. The amount of HD content since the first screens went on sale in the US has grown at a rate many times greater than it took for color.
New consumer technologies can catch on with lightning speed these days, especially when you consider how rapidly the price of digital electronic device can drop once a strong market is identified. Once the right factors are in place growth can be explosive. Cellphones did this when the right combination of hardware and service price became widely available. DVD took less than three years to become a major success, doing more business than Laser Disc had done in nearly two decades. Personal digital audio players went from nothing to a multi-billion dollar market in the space of just a few years. It happened quickly because there were no regulatory issues in the way. All it took was reaching the right combination of price, features, and marketing.
We aren't trying to convert you. We're just refuting your flawed arguments. It doesn't matter to us if you wait until your existing set become inoperable before buying an HD unit. We're just explaining why you'll be like the people who bought their first color TV long, long after virtually all new programming was in color just because their B&W set hadn't failed yet. The Revolution will almost certainly be the last console that doesn't target HD heavily. By the following generation the prices of screens and the hardware cost of driving them will be far too low to scrape for nickels and dimes from the NTSC holdouts.
As for the digital aspect, this is solely an issue for those dependent on OTA broadcasts for their TV's input. If a change of this nature had been imposed in a past era before cable/satellite became so common it would have been a thorny issue. But today this affects so many fewer homes that the changeover will occur with much of the populace not noticing. They've already for years had a box from their cable company converting the digital signal to analog output to their screen. There could be a complete blackout of OTA broadcasts and they wouldn't never know if it didn't get covered on CNN.
Scooby Doo @ Feb 16th 2006 11:03AM
I don't know if people are truly confused about digital vs. HD. No, I think that a lot people feel that digital broadcasts are the Trojan Horse for TV manufacturers to push HDTV. Come on, I'm one of the few people here saying that I don't think we'll go all-digital by 2009 and yet I had my cable upgraded to digital last year. I'm not confused, I just feel that there are some very legal challenges to changing this form of media. Just in the postings on this topic, it appears that there is good chunk of the population that feels that HDTV is a feature they don't need. I think the fear that many people have is that somehow these technological changes will have a fiscal impact and if you're in the camp that feels they don't need HDTV...or even digital broadcasts for that matter...why should the government get to mandate it?
And I still argue that while they may require all TV stations to broadcast with digital signals by 2009, they won't be turning off the old broadcast signals at that time. While I may personally agree that television isn't a necessary media and there are plenty of alternative forms, from a legal perspective it's considered something that every American is entitled to because it will give access to the press and to information. However, it's hard to retrieve any kind of legal presidence because the only thing that comes close is the way the FCC blocked/allowed certain cell phone frequencies and that was a completely different beast. Just about everything else, Color vs. Black/White TV, AM vs. FM vs. SW signals, etc. were brought about because of consumer choices and available technology, not necessarily because of a Federal Mandate. The Judicial branch still has a strong opinion to protect the needs of the few. If even one person can't afford the $40 up front...even with a rebate...and that would prevent them from watching some regurgitated political/news broadcast, the court would probably side in their favor. And Congress isn't going to rewrite the Bill of Rights, laws considered almost holy in terms of Consitutional Law, to try and push FCC legislation. It would be political suicide. So I still argue that until ALL the legal and financial hurdles are overcome, 2009 is just a target date that the government will continue to push back.
Einhanderkiller @ Feb 16th 2006 11:07AM
My 9" TV works just fine, thank you very much.
arrakisman @ Feb 16th 2006 11:13AM
Here is the current bandwith chart from the FCC. Notice how much bandwith is used up by the TV channels. The digital signal is much smaller.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
David @ Feb 16th 2006 11:24AM
For some reason it says there are 38 comments but I dont see any -_- anyway...
This isnt really new persay it's been known for quite some time. But it's also not technically the end of analog broadcasts. What it is ending is broadcasts over the air, i.e. one that you would need an antenna to recieve. Analog will still be possible via digital cable from your favorite company.
Scooby Doo @ Feb 16th 2006 11:27AM
"The 10th Ammendment explicitly states that powers not delegated to the federal government are the powers of the people -- if anything, it would be a state issue. And where does it say the executive branch has the powers of "infastructure?"
Okay, you really want me to bite on this one? Here is the section of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3:
he [the President otherwise known as the Executive Branch] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
I used the term 'infrastructure' because it's much easier than trying to explain that the Executive Branch is the presiding arm that develops the rules and regulations which organize our lives. These include things like radio and tv broadcasts, the parks and recs division and the Federal Reserve. The whole purpose of 'government' is TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE. The Executive Branch not only makes nominations for these divisions, but is also considered their 'boss', for lack of a better word. The U.S. Constitution is THE document that spells out what each branch of government does and what they cannot do with wide brush strokes, hence why I say that U.S. Constitution is the presiding document that says that FCC CAN decide what frequencies are allowed.
Desert @ Feb 16th 2006 11:43AM
All this means is that the communications lobbyists are not giving them enough money.
Matt @ Feb 16th 2006 11:48AM
Strangely enough, people seem to have forgotten the political significance of this law. This law was highly anticipated by the majority of American media corporations, but they'll take it with a big grain of salt as it is also largely for show. Overall it's fairly benign and meaningless legislation drafted only to placate the media lobbyists.
Chances are exceptionally good that this law will be repealed by the next President at the beginning of his/her (Hillary?) presidency, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat. This is simply due to the fact that doing so will be perceived as performing an act for the lower classes. By 2009 nearly all American network affiliates will be simul-broadcasting in both digital and in analogue anyhow (most do now), and hence won't affect the industry in any significant way.
Nathan @ Feb 16th 2006 11:48AM
"Just in time for the Microsoft Xbox 720, Sony PlayStation 4, and Nintendo ON..." What?
So, seeing as how Sony and Nintendo's next-gen devices aren't due out till the end of '06, the writer, blogger or whatever Joystiq people call themselves predicts next gen gaming to last under 3 years rather than the 10(?) the manufacturers are planning them to last? Gonna be a lot of unhappy gamers out there.
x7 @ Feb 16th 2006 12:15PM
LOL @ people (non HD owners, for sure) saying things like "Very few see any difference with the HD TVs...".
Assumptions make an @$$ out of you and me...
1 for one know exactly what hd looks like as ive been playing pgr3 on my hdtv at 720p
The fact is most ppl wont know and wont notice because MOST ppl sit further than 3 feet away from their tvs in the livng room.
ck @ Feb 16th 2006 12:25PM
I like looking at all these postings and people regurgitating things they've "heard" or "read" without any real evidence. Where's the $40 rebate coming from? Who's stopping production of Standard TV's?
C'mon people, this is why everyone's confused about this issue - a lot of people don't know the facts. I don't know the facts. I would like to find out. I clicked on some links people posted, but a lot of it was technological jargon or just plain boring that I didn't want to read any more of it.
There's got to be an informative, easy-to-understand site out there. Any ideas?
epobirs @ Feb 16th 2006 12:30PM
Matt, simulcasting is only a transitional phase. The issue isn't whether signals are analog or digital but also the spectrum allocations. Many broadcasters have to give up or trade a chunk of their spectrum allocation when the deadline comes.
Since a digital version of a regular NTSC channel (including MPEG compression) needs far less bandwidth than an analog version the aim of the plan is to free up spectrum to allow an ongoing transition to HD and for growing spectrum needs for wireless data services.
Digital cable systems have already been doing this for a good while. Where they could once squeeze 100+ analog channels, going digital end to end allows for several times as many channels including HD, data and VOD.
Regardless of party once all of the business interests at every level have committed to the date there is no turning back. Changing the schedule would be horribly expensive and damaging to the national economy. The most a politician could do to win votes out of this is attempt to increase federal subsidies for the converter boxes OTA users will need for analog sets.
m3mnoch @ Feb 16th 2006 12:45PM
epobirs. lots of good info there. i just want to add that it's not necessarily the trickle that has been hd content coming on that is the problem.
the trickle of hd content is actually just a symptom.
the actual problem with hdtv adoption is that there's no consumer pain point to solve. not like the move from vhs -> dvd (a technology that caught 'fire') or the move from broadcast -> dvr. (also caught/catching fire)
with dvd, you didn't have to rewind!
with dvr's you now CAN rewind!
hdtvs are seen as technology just for the sake of technology by the majority of consumers. they don't need to see every blade of grass. they don't care what's on that piece of paper. they don't want to see all the pores in william h. macy's face. they don't feel like they are missing anything of value by not upgrading -- they still get the same content, writing, sound and features as an hdtv owner. just with a little less fidelity. not to mention it's confusing: 720p? 1080i? dlp? lcd? what?
it's the same reason not everyone has a big screen tv. people don't feel like they are missing enough to pay 3 or 4 times the price for a big screen. (meaning ~$300 for a 27" or going to ~$1000 for a big screen)
so, until a killer app comes along, we're just going to see hdtv growth through attrition. as old tv sets die, hdtv prices are pretty comparable to standard definition prices so they "might as well get an hdtv."
it's consumer apathy that's killing the hdtv market.
multiply that by about 10 and you are seeing the hints of consumer apathy that will control the high def dvd market too. the problem there is that many people already think dvd is high def. heh.
yeah. it's pretty safe to say that high def dvd is going no where for a while. growth through attrition. awesome.
m3mnoch.
dsub @ Feb 16th 2006 12:56PM
I'm glad it's being controlled as well. I have maybe 15-20 HD cable channels, but this will only help the matter. I understand that "digital" doesnt necessarily mean "HD" but wouldnt it make sense for most companies to just upgrade to HD equipment anyways? Afterall, it is true that TV manufacturers are now starting to stop making regular TV's. Panasonic was the first, and they haven't been making any since the end of the year.
I don't understand how some gamers are so against the transition to better technology (in this case HDTV) yet they get so excited about a new console, which essentially ushers in the era of no more support for the old technology, forcing you to buy the new technology if you want to keep enjoying new games. Did you buy a DVD player when movie studios stopped making movies on VHS? No, because odds are you already had one. Did you get Windows XP when you already had Windows 98? It's all the same thing! We've always had to upgrade our technology. I think alot of this anti-HDTV talk comes from the myth that an HDTV costs over $1000. This is totally false guys.
I just got a really nice panasonic 30" HDTV (perfect size for your average room) it's got 2 comoponent HD inputs and an HDMI input, plus it up-converts all 480p signals to near-HD quality...for $620. If that's too much for you, wal-mart has considerable quality philips 30" HD sets for $500. By the time 2009 floats around these sets will be in the $200-300 range, just like they are now for a standard 30" TV. I don't see what the big deal is.
Lone Starr @ Feb 16th 2006 12:57PM
Scooby,
Using Article II Section 3 is a stretch. While what you posted about this section is certainly true, don't you think that this whole thing might be outside of what the founding fathers originally intended?
And the Executive Branch should not develop "rules and regulations which organize our lives" -- that is the job of the Legislative Branch. As you correctly state later on, the Executive Branch enforces and carries out the laws (which is what happened in this case.)
All I am saying is that basically (as your post demonstrates) the Executive Branch has become much more powerful -- more so than people often acknowledge.
Portnoy,
The money for the rebate will have to come from somewhere. If you are a taxpayer, chances are, you will be paying for it. The cost will just be so diffused that it will be hard for anyone to care.