# FCC on Downcoverting HD



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

http://www.tvpredictions.com/yourhdtvpicture053006.htm

You HD fans need to write Congress now if you have cable!


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

HD downconversion is O.K., as long as they also offer the HD signal. The cable companies are not stupid. If thye offered only the downconverted signals, those with HD sets would leave for satellite (or just get the signals OTA if the stations are receivable).

The ONLY reason downconversion is being considered is so those who own only analog TV's will not end up with nothing to watch after 2007 (or is it 2009).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Paul Secic said:


> http://www.tvpredictions.com/yourhdtvpicture053006.htm
> 
> You HD fans need to write Congress now if you have cable!


I'm not sure this is the correct analysis of the situation. I'm pretty sure that DBS has already been here and has lost the battle. At the same time, Dish is doing exactly that with their SD outputs on HD receivers.

Since some of the networks are already letterboxing their programming (Sci-Fi is an excellent example), I'm not sure the time hasn't come for enabling the distributors to down-convert at the STB. I don't think that the intent is to discontinue offering the HD content in HD. It simply comes down to the methodology of arriving at the SD content.

I'd kind of look forward to more bandwidth devoted to a single HD feed at the broadcast level as opposed to jamming an HD and one or more SD signals into the 6MHz bandwidth.

The most rotten part of the whole process is that digital is being marketed as a much better picture simply because it is digital. HOGWASH! It is better for the broadcasters and distributors because it can be compressed.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

> At the same time, Dish is doing exactly that with their SD outputs on HD receivers.


 That is precisely what I'm doing today. I have a 921 hooked up via the S-video jack to a 27" Sony Trinitron. The best PQ comes off the OTA stations' HD broadcasts , followed by the SD satellite channels (which look better than they did via my old 4000). The worst looking channels are the LIL's (which I only had for a short time).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Michael P said:


> The ONLY reason downconversion is being considered is so those who own only analog TV's will not end up with nothing to watch after 2007 (or is it 2009).


Cable cares little for those with analog televisions but they'll appear as heros for offering a "reasonably priced" alternative to a DTV tuner. Long after NTSC goes away, cable will continue to offer NTSC outputs on their STBs.

The ability to synthesize SD programming from HD programming will simply make it profitable.


----------



## compubit (Jun 8, 2004)

One other reason I'm sure cable is happy, is that they'll be able to have the DT channels on their basic package, and not require a converter box. 

Trust me - I know some of my relatives - they want one wire going into one TV set - no fancy boxes or multple remote controls to manage (heck, some relatives just got rid of the TV that still went up to Channel 83...)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Paul Secic said:


> http://www.tvpredictions.com/yourhdtvpicture053006.htm


Despite the "gloom and doom" predictions ... this is allowing access to programming for those without HD sets. Cable and satellite will still do what is best for a competitive advantage and that is to give people the best picture that they can. All it really means is that when NTSC over-the-air shuts off there won't be millions of people without their local stations - with no chance to see the feed in any resolution.

This is a step in FAVOR of Digital Television, and HDTV. The more cable systems and satellite systems that provide OTA DT tuners (such as E*'s receivers) and pre-downconverted feeds (such as the proposed cable feeds) the quicker America reaches the 85% mark and the old NTSC broadcasts go away - allowing stations to concentrate on their DIGITAL FEEDS including HDTV.

Some nights I wonder if the local stations are even monitoring their "HD" digital stations ... the NTSC signals almost always seem to be produced better. The exception is the owner that decided to go full HDTV as of earlier this year. Their entire station is produced for HD and is broadcast on cable in this manner. Their NTSC stations are the downconverts. This FCC decision is a step in that direction ... allowing stations to MOVE ON to concentrate on digital and let others do the downconvert.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Michael P said:


> HD downconversion is O.K., as long as they also offer the HD signal. The cable companies are not stupid. If thye offered only the downconverted signals, those with HD sets would leave for satellite (or just get the signals OTA if the stations are receivable).
> 
> The ONLY reason downconversion is being considered is so those who own only analog TV's will not end up with nothing to watch after 2007 (or is it 2009).


On December 31st 2008 at 11.59 PM analog signals are to be shut off, unless Congress changes it's mind which possible. Hopfully not because it could go on & on.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Actually the cutoff date is in February of 2009. I belive the 18th.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/ALA_v_FCC/20041004_Initial_Brief.pdf

Not so fast the link above is the PDF filling for a suit to stop the switch to HDTV


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

harsh said:


> Cable cares little for those with analog televisions ...


I'd have to question this. The *vast* majority of TV's out in the world are not digital capable. Even in homes where people participate in Forums such as this, there are likely a couple of analog sets being used as secondary sets.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> Actually the cutoff date is in February of 2009. I belive the 18th.


Close!

The "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005" puts the date at February 17th, 2009.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the $1.5 BILLION investment in developing an "inexpensive" D-A tuner box bears any fruit. I'm betting that they could cost-reduce the 811 to a point where they could give out boxes to anyone who wanted them for free and still have more than a billion dollars left over.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Before long every new TV will have ATSC. The majority of TV users rely on cable boxes, satellite receivers, or other source besides NTSC. ATSC tuners have dropped in price and should continue to drop. By the time that analog is shut off, the remainder of conversion to ATSC will be great but not impossible.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

tomcrown1 said:


> http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/ALA_v_FCC/20041004_Initial_Brief.pdf
> 
> Not so fast the link above is the PDF filling for a suit to stop the switch to HDTV


Not exactly...
It's a filing against the "broadcast flag" technology (copy prevention).

BTW: they give "definitions" for various acronyms. Check out what they believe "D-VHS" stands for


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SaltiDawg said:


> I'd have to question this. The *vast* majority of TV's out in the world are not digital capable. Even in homes where people participate in Forums such as this, there are likely a couple of analog sets being used as secondary sets.


Given the lifetime of a modern television, I'd guess that as many as 1/3 of the televisions in operation today will bite the big one or be naturally replaced before the cutoff. Another significant portion of the populace is waiting for digital tuner to appear in the $99 portable TV combo.

I'd be much more concerned about cable operators cutting off analog cablecast than broadcasters shutting off analog transmissions.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

harsh said:


> Given the lifetime of a modern television, I'd guess that as many as 1/3 of the televisions in operation today will bite the big one or be naturally replaced before the cutoff. ...


Interesting, if jaded, perspective. Don't be confused by Forums where most are airing problems as opposed to boring reports of trouble-free operation.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I have 2 TVs... My oldest one is a really nice 32" that I bought in 1995, and it is still going strong some 11 years later. Knock-on-wood, I don't see any need to replace it in the near future. My HDTV is only a few years old, and if I get similar life from it I would expect it to be around for another 8-10 years and its possible my 32" may still be in use then as well!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SaltiDawg said:


> Interesting, if jaded, perspective. Don't be confused by Forums where most are airing problems as opposed to boring reports of trouble-free operation.


I'm jaded from trying to find someone locally who would be willing to fix any newer television. The repair people say that they can't get the parts necessary to work on the newer televisions.

Like any righteous pain-in-the-neck consumer, I asked around among the TV repair crowd and they were more interested in talking about refurbishing 1950's vintage Philcos because they could find the parts and fix them.

I personally have one RCA that is 30+ years old and a Sony XBR50 that is about 17 years old. The Sony has been in the shop once and the RCA has never missed a beat. It will be nostalgia that keeps those units around because I could functionally outdo either of them with a $200 "tabletop" model with built-in NTSC and ATSC tuners.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

I would rather watch an HD show down converted than an analogue signal up converted. I have seen HD down converted to 480i and it looks better than any analogue picture I have ever seen.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Since the topic of this thread and the ensuing descussion has nothing
whatsoever to do with Dish or DBS in general, shouldn't it be more
appropriately placed in the "General Discussion" forum?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm assuming Paul chose the E* forum so the topic could be discussed by E* customers. E* also supports the downrezzing of HD to SD and has filed with the FCC suggesting the same solution as the cable companies - the provider doing the conversion from ATSC to NTSC.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

harsh said:


> Close!
> 
> The "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005" puts the date at February 17th, 2009.


From Wikipedia.org

On February 17, 1958, Pope Pius XII designated Clare as St. Clare of Assisi as the patron saint of television, on the basis that, when she was too ill to attend a Mass, she had been miraculously able to see and hear it on the wall of her room.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tower Guy said:


> From Wikipedia.org
> 
> On February 17, 1958, Pope Pius XII designated Clare as St. Clare of Assisi as the patron saint of television, on the basis that, when she was too ill to attend a Mass, she had been miraculously able to see and hear it on the wall of her room.


Another sedevacantist heard from.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

KingLoop said:


> I would rather watch an HD show down converted than an analogue signal up converted. I have seen HD down converted to 480i and it looks better than any analogue picture I have ever seen.


Definitely. I'm currently running the signal from my cableco's Motorola DVR box to my Sony WEGA through the component output/inputs, and use the available HD channels rather than the analog versions. Even at only 480i I get a great picture.

Yes, cable has kept the basic tier of analog channels for the many Luddites in their consumer base, and for the advertising advantage that you can hook all the TVs you want without boxes. But the truth is that they would love to put a digital box on and/or send a completely digital signal to every TV their customers own. They have been working for years to get their customers to upgrade to digital boxes. First of course they would love to be able to charge rent on all those boxes, but even more importantly, they would like to have that bandwidth opened up. It would allow them to offer more channels, more video on demand channels, more bandwidth for telephone services, and greater bandwidth for internet access. If they have the bandwidth they can charge more for faster connections. The cablecos would love to get rid of those 70 or so analog channels. And I hope that at least by 2008 they can get rid of all or most of them. In the future I could see the cablecos offering a very basic, local only, package in downconverted analog, for the extreme luddites or that third or fourth tv that just isn't worth the cost of a box.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Remember that cable companies are currently required by FCC rules to provide their basic channels in a form that does not require extra equipment for cable-ready TV sets. Analog won't go away until that rule goes away.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Definitely. I'm currently running the signal from my cableco's Motorola DVR box to my Sony WEGA through the component output/inputs, and use the available HD channels rather than the analog versions. Even at only 480i I get a great picture.
> 
> Yes, cable has kept the basic tier of analog channels for the many Luddites in their consumer base, and for the advertising advantage that you can hook all the TVs you want without boxes. But the truth is that they would love to put a digital box on and/or send a completely digital signal to every TV their customers own. They have been working for years to get their customers to upgrade to digital boxes. First of course they would love to be able to charge rent on all those boxes, but even more importantly, they would like to have that bandwidth opened up. It would allow them to offer more channels, more video on demand channels, more bandwidth for telephone services, and greater bandwidth for internet access. If they have the bandwidth they can charge more for faster connections. The cablecos would love to get rid of those 70 or so analog channels. And I hope that at least by 2008 they can get rid of all or most of them. In the future I could see the cablecos offering a very basic, local only, package in downconverted analog, for the extreme luddites or that third or fourth tv that just isn't worth the cost of a box.


According to TVPredictions.com only 20% of the TV viewers in America has Digital/HD sets. This board is just a tiny tiny part of the country. Having said that I would like to buy a LCD HD set come December. However I need $3.000.00 worth of work done on my teeth. I'm on Medi-Cal but I've been paying lots of money to this great dentist in Oakland. Medi-Cal took him of because he lost one file when he moved in 2003. A friend told me to go to Highland county to see a dentist. My attendant made an appointment for July 28th. If they can work on me in my wheelchair & give me Novacane & laughing gas I'll go there. If they want to put me to sleep I'll walk out, because it makes sick. So my HD future rides on this.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

FTA Michael said:


> Remember that cable companies are currently required by FCC rules to provide their basic channels in a form that does not require extra equipment for cable-ready TV sets. Analog won't go away until that rule goes away.


I'm sure the new "Digital" only requirement will supersede that one. Comcast simulcasts EVERYTHING in digital in my area. I think that Sat is a better quality picture though. Kind of like the difference you would see between Composite cables and HDMI. Both look good, and if you never saw the difference you would be happy with the RGB. However, Knowing there is something better out there... Well, I've made up my mind  .


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

KingLoop said:


> I'm sure the new "Digital" only requirement will supersede that one.


Not sure I'm 100% up on all the details... but all I've ever heard the digital cutoff requirement apply to was OTA broadcasts. I haven't seen anything that would require cable or satellite to move to digital only after the cutoff.

IF this requirement did apply to ALL tv broadcast... then that would apply not just to cable analog, but to the BUD satellite people too who are still getting analog in some cases.

I don't think this law actually applies to anything but OTA.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDMe said:


> I don't think this law actually applies to anything but OTA.


When analog OTA goes away, there will be no more domestic analog content to rebroadcast. Even the analog BUD stuff is largely, if not entirely, converted from a digital source.

There will doubtless be some homebrew analog FTA or cable access content, but probably nothing that is going to be redistributed.

The FCC and Congress have thrown over a billion dollars at coming up with a digital tuner and I'm sure cable would be more than happy to furnish you with one of those (the more painful it is to use, the more likely you'll come into the 21st century) rather than waste 420MHz+ on delivering 70 analog channels.


----------

