Netherlands Turns Off Analog TV; World Doesn't End
from the news-at-11 dept
For years and years, the FCC has wanted to reclaim some of the spectrum currently allocated to broadcasters to broadcast analog (free, over the air) TV. They gave the broadcasters a bunch more spectrum to convert to digital broadcasts, which the broadcasters have dragged their feet on for a variety of reasons (in large part because they knew they held onto a ton of valuable spectrum that the government had given them for free, and they wanted to try to profit off of it for as long as possible). Originally, they only would have to return the spectrum once 85% of the country could received digital broadcasts -- meaning, as long as they took their time, they'd never have to do anything and could just sit on the spectrum. The government has been getting fed up and started putting deadlines on shutting down analog broadcasts, so hopefully we'll see that happen before the decade is out. This really only impacts a very small percentage of people: those who have old sets and watch over-the-air broadcasts, rather than cable or satellite TV -- but those folks tend to be vocal voters (often elderly) and politicians hate the idea of pissing off anyone's grandmother. Still, they should feel good that over in the Netherlands, they've successfully turned off analog broadcasts as of today, and the world hasn't ended.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, you certainly took your time before reaching that conclusion, Mike. NOT!
Furthermore, I don't think we'll hear much from those that have been hurt financially or inconvenienced. Any arguments they might have had were "over there", and they are long past.
I agree with you on the stance of the broadcasters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're joking right?
Sorry, most of this county is rural and most televisions analog. Premiums to view local channels (some, not all, are available) on Dish are an additional $10 per month and they go out during every decent rain or big storm (when we need local the most). I'm not certain but believe cost on DirectTV is the same. To get locals on cable - $15 extra per month. No more analog and the only option being $120+ per family per year or the purchase of 20 digital recievers with analog outputs... the world will end if that switchover is forced without 5-10 years of all TVs sold in the US supporting both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're joking right?
This same line of thinking would have meant that we would have delayed mass production of the automobile because a lot of people still rode horses and travelled by horse-drawn cart. It's also like saying that we aren't going to sell home computers because a few people got spooked by HAL in 2001.
I'm sorry that you and your family own a colony of non-hi-def TVs, but I don't agree that they should delay (yet again) the change-over because you don't want to suck it up and face the inevitable: you are going to need to adapt to the new economic reality and either buy a new TV, a new converter, or cable service. Sorry, but that's the way that it happens.
Don't like it? Then I don't know what to tell you other than stick to watching your VHS tapes.
The sun will still rise in the East and set in the West... Kids will still be born, and people will still die, and George Bush will still be an idiot. The world won't end... Just your ability to watch it using technology that is rapidly hurtling towards total obsolensence.
Cheers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're joking right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're joking right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're joking right?
Horrors!! The U.S. doesn't have the clearest television reception. How absolutely dreadful!
Obsolesence? My 17 year old TV is going strong and looks just as good as it did when it was brand new. It was built to last -- old fashion concept, I know.
The only reason that his 5 year old TV is near "obsolesence" is that the government wants to force digital broadcast. Otherwise, his TV is just fine.
By the way, for me, I don't care. We don't do cable, broadcast, or satellite. The kids have to read for entertainment and are doing much better in school as a result.
If you're really interested in freeing up spectrum have the government take back the digital broadcast spectrum that they gave away and then auction it off in 25 year chunks. After all, people who have HD TVs are probably the same people who have cable or satellite. There's no reason to give them a free ride on the public air waves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You're joking right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're joking right? - Are you crazy?
The only reason that the technology "is rapidly hurtling towards total obsolensence" is that the government is forcing it. The analog signals still work fine, and I have not yet found a replacement for my 13" portable that I take camping and fishing that will work with digital.
I say that when the "shutdown analog day" comes, file a massive class action suit against the government to replace ALL analog equipment that suddenly stops working. And that's not just TVs, but also VCRs, DVRs, DVD recorders, and portable radios with TV band audio to name a few others. Why should we pay large sums of money because of a STUPID whim of our government?!?!?!
And, yes, the broadcasters will lose large numbers of viewers when this happens, that is why they are not in any hurry to switch!
You can't buy replacements for some of these items that will support digital signals!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You're joking right? - Are you crazy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You're joking right? - Are you crazy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're joking right?
Most newer TVs pick up digital over-the-air broadcasts, or you buy a tuner for your older ones. Problem solved - anything that frees up bandwidth for potentially fun-and-exciting stuff like WiMax is fine by me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're joking right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're joking right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're joking right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time will tell...
There is no way to tell what kind of consequences will result from it until time passes. TV stations in the Netherlands might find that they only have 25% the viewers that they did previously, but there is no way to know by the short few hours after you pull the plug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analogue in Australia
In our household of 4 people, we have 6 TVs only one of which can receive Standard definition digital (Australia is getting High Def Digital). And that tv is small portable LCD with a dvd player. Great in the kitchen, but its not a "viewing" TV.
When we do make the cut to digital I'm considering setting up a PC to receive digital from the antenna, and pipe back out in analogue through the existing lines around the house. Or just buying the set top boxes - but I can't "tinker" if i do that :p.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hilarity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll admit
you either get it or you don't. I can see how this would be a pain in the arse to people not willing to either afford satellite TV or be screwed by Charter cable in our area.
It wouldn't hurt me, but it's not time yet to pull the plug in the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have cable or satellite (with a box) this will not affect you.
If all you watch is the grainy local channels with rabbot ears - the government is going to BUY you a box that will convert the new digital broadcast signals to analog.
So nobody in the US will lose out either, other than the minor inconvenience of hooiking up a box to their TV.
The signals will be stronger and most television stations will begin broadcasting 2-4 channels rather than their current single channle. (Actually many major market stations already do this - digitally) The main problem with digital broadcasts at the moment seems to be very low quality antennas on the market, possibly due to the feet dragging conglomerates who hate change. This will only improve as people demand better - which will happen as soon as the deadline nears and people try out the new upgrade boxes.
The old unused analog spectrum will eventually be used for wireless broadband for everyone, everywhere as well as a host of new services.
This is the future, deal with it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wahh you old 1940's 210 lines TV that won't work.
Wahh what about your laserdiscs not working on DVD players.
Wahh what about all that 8-track content you have
Wahh what about that old analog satellite recievier not working with new digital services into'd in the early nineties
Wahh Wahh march of progress / capitalism / consumerism
If you want to be a luddite go become Amish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State by State
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lag at what . . . watching TV? Omigawd, I'd be so embarassed.
"This same line of thinking would have meant that we would have delayed mass production of the automobile . . . . ."
The government didn't force anyone to buy a car, or stop using horse and carriage. That happened the good old free enterprise way. People made their own choices. Ditto for computers.
"Don't like it?"
No. I don't like being forced into consumer type decisions. And if we never - ever - went all digital,
"The sun will still rise in the East and set in the West... Kids will still be born, and people will still die, and George Bush will still be an idiot. The world won't end..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. Lag at making good use of the spectrum currently owned and wasted by TV broadcasters. It's a TON of incredibly useful spectrum. It would enable wireless communications much better than what we have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Auction off both spectrums
The government could reclaim the spectrum given to the broadcasters for HDTV signals. After all, those with HDTVs are more likely to have satellite or cable (or at the very least more likely to afford it).
Once the spectrum is back in government hands, they should auction it off in 25 years chunks (versus just giving it away).
Actually, they should probably do this with both HDTV and analog TV spectrum. If TV is really the best use of the spectrum then companies will spend to get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom
No one will get cut off. The gov't plans to spend a billion to offer converters to those with old TVs. They'll make much more than that back in selling off the wasted spectrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom
What's the problem, radio broke? Why is television required for emergeny information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replies
Rick: Close, but some people won't know about the program or will be afraid to participate because they are worried about being scammed.
Frank: Radios don't work so well for the deaf and hard of hearing.
My thoughts: The entire plan is a bit ill-concieved. I have 2 HD TVs and both regular and HD DirecTV dishes, but I'm still concerned that I will miss local news on my portable/DC televisions during (admittedly rare) emergencies (US power outage in 2003, the ice storm of 98, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Replies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out
of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts
are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future,
even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest.
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law.
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court
and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
o Life Line, 1939 - Robert Heinlein
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute...
Disclaimer: Though I'm far from elderly, I have an old set and watch strandard analog broadcast TV. Don't have much use for cable, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uk.. freeview...
I've got a few older tv's and no real plans to change them soon (they work). got a 'freeview' box, converts digital signals to analog, output via a SCART cable to my tv, works reasonably.
only problem is the sodding thing keeps freezing, also when reception is poor you get nothing, with analog you could watch it even if it was poor.. progress i guess.
I'm in the catagory of 'as long as it works' the little freeview box costs 20ukp, no record features, minimal 'interactive' (no upwards connection) but it works. basically think of your tv as a monitor, it just displays what its told to via the SCART input.
like i say the only problem is the digibox is obviously a computer of some sort, and tends to crash if you press the remote buttons to fast.
I'd give it 8/10, i dare say you'll get something similar stateside, but if you are getting a $50 credit towards the cost expect it to cost *at least* $50... mind you over here we have to buy our own :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get off your high horse
And great. the Gov't will give me $50 credit towards a new tuner. (probably in our taxes) That means I need to come up with the money first THEN they'll give it back. And how much will these tuners cost? $100? Just great!
The whole thing is just stupid. The gov't trying to tell us what we need. I thought they were supposed to be working for us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital doesn't = HD
Digital doesn't equal HD in europe (like it seems to in the US). For example freeview in the UK is standard definition TV over digital signal. All the turn off means is that you need a new tuner (called a freeview box) that costs anyting from GBP20 to 100.
The UK has had the digital service for nearlly 4years now, the price of the freeview box had plummeted, turnoff isn't complete untill 2012. Many TVs now come with built in free view tuners. The same masts used to broadcast analog are used to broadcast digital. HD is possible over freeview but not in production yet. The European system uses DVB-T a verry common world wide standard that is being adopted verywhere except US and Japan. This is also driving down costs.
Simply put there is no reason why this can't work in the US if the FCC had a coherent plan, which they don't. Costs will be higer in the US initiall because the only digital signal systme in US is ATSC - which is unique to the US. This is like mobile phones all over again, the US adopts a different standard from the world and lags.
Howver there is no reason a decent plan won't work in rural america as well as it will work in rural france, germany or UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf are you saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
depending on how much noise is generated, digital and win or lose over analog. but remember, analog is "pure" it is natural. digital is broken/disjointed. not smooth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was in the ice strom of '98, near DC, and I must say that the Fireworks from the High-tension power lines was something to see. It did stike me as somewhat stupid that places with power were being annouucnde on TV (I saw this before the power went down in my area), but not on radio. Now to me It seems better to use radio, since a battery radio is lighter, more poratble, and lasts longer than a portable TV, especially in those days when you still had to be pretty rich to have a decent LCD one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're joking right? by George
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Air Waves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no excuses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So where are the battery powered converters?
Also what about RVs with built-in analog sets and no room to squeeze in a converter. Junk them all?
Except for satellite, EVERY radio station today is still compatible with every crystal set, floor standing tube radio, and portable transistor radio or car radio ever produced, but with the reletivly recent automation of radio stations these days, very, very few of them carry real-time local evacuation news of any real use to fleeing emergency victims.
I still own functioning 8-track player/recorder, 3 'vinyl' phonographs, a reel-to-reel recorder and a betamax recorder. Every public road built today is still backwardly compatible with every motorized or even ox-drawn vehicle ever used if desired, every telephone ever hooked up to the telephone system is still functional, even though new ones are available for $5 (my Mom still uses a standard black, hard-wired, rotary dial phone installed by the phone company in the 40's), 90% of PC software ever written is still usable on every new computer produced today and until now every TV show broadcast is still compatible with the oldest black-and-white TV set still working...
It's called "backwards compatibility" and most companies (except apparently Apple...) would be out of business quickly if they didn't support it. I know the Gov doesn't know the meaning of it, since they still stupidly, gladly pay regularly for $200 hammers and $5000 toilet seats, that are obsolete in 3 years, but they cannot be allowed to force it on the rest of us. Is this perhaps their way of solving the recession problem by making everyone spend money on new TV equipment and support the electronics industry?
I wonder if people who bought extemded warrantees on sets which will stop working in 2009 will need be 'repaired' or replaced for free. What kind of uproar will this cause among the insurance industry whose lobbyists MIGHT actually be big enough to be heard by the Gov? How about all of us who bought high-end TVs from manufacturers prior to 2005 expecting them to last reliably, without additional maintenance and expense, for at least 5-10 years? What are our rights? What about the first person who dies in late Feb 2009 because they didn't receive the TV news notification of a fatal approaching weather pattern or flood evacuation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pocket tv
I have 3 tv's, 2 pocket lcd tv's and 1 12 volt camping tv. Please post the "ship to" address for every congress member and ship your old, but fully functional TV to them. It's cheaper than the local landfill charges.
I called the digital tv 800 # and asked for a battery powered downconvertor, they couldnt respond. So, no more power outage tv's!
Please ship every tv you own that you know is now made obsolote! give them a hint!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
battery stuff
Digital TV is great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few problems...
The spectrum taken up by some of the decommissioned channels, such as UHF channels 52-69 is going to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. There is no guarantee that what goes on these chunks of spectrum will be something that you can use nor that you will be able to use it for free. For instance, Qualcomm was awarded a nationwide license for what was formerly UHF channel 55 to be used for their MediaFlo system. These are multiplex audio and video broadcasts to mobile phone handsets. But guess what--you have to pay a subscription fee to receive them.
They say that the house always wins, and in this case, that is true. The "house" is the FCC, which will be collecting the big bucks in the spectrum auctions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]