- Related Stories
-
Bill proposes new deadline for digital TV
October 14, 2005 -
Katrina spurs federal action on VoIP
September 22, 2005 -
Digital TV changeover suggested for 2009
July 12, 2005 -
Tuning up for HDTV
September 15, 2004 -
No more delays on digital TV
May 4, 2004
That requirement could appear as an amendment to a draft digital-television bill currently scheduled for a committee vote on Thursday, said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican. The existing bill calls for a "hard deadline" of April 7, 2009, by which all analog broadcasters must give up their piece of the spectrum and switch to all-digital transmission.
"Can we really afford to wait until 2009 to transfer this spectrum?" McCain said at a Tuesday morning policy event here hosted by the New America Foundation. "I don't think so."
What's new:
Sen. John McCain and other lawmakers are pushing for a quick shift to digital television broadcasting, which would free up radio spectrum for use by first responders in emergency situations.
Bottom line:
Although a complete transition to digital TV broadcasts is due by April 7, 2009, under an existing bill, McCain and others want to see it happen by late 2006 or early 2007.
The impetus for moving up the deadline, McCain has maintained, is that the television channels on which analog broadcasts operate are occupying valuable spectrum that emergency workers need to communicate with each other. The government plans to allocate a chunk of the freed-up spectrum for that purpose and to auction off the rest for billions of dollars to companies eager to deploy new broadband services.
At Tuesday's event, the senator was backed by several officials who have worked closely with emergency response issues.
Timothy Roemer, who served on the 9/11 Commission, said the group found disjointed communications among emergency officials at Ground Zero and recommended increased spectrum as a solution to the problem. Waiting four more years for the shift is way too long, he said: "I think Congress is neglecting its responsibility to protect its citizens."
Greg Meffert, chief technology officer for the city of New Orleans, said he agreed that the time to act is now. "If this spectrum was available on Aug. 28, 2005," he said, referring to the date Hurricane Katrina struck the port city, "a lot of things would have been different."
Others chalked up the tech benefits that could be derived from the switch. The analog, or 700 MHz, band has been touted for its natural physical properties--that is, theoretically, its signals travel straighter and farther and don't necessarily require a clear line of sight, arguably cutting back on engineering costs.
Robert LeGrande, deputy chief technology officer for the District of Columbia, demonstrated a system called the Wireless Accelerated Responder Network, which 15 public safety agencies in the region have been piloting through an "experimental license" on a piece of the analog spectrum. The system allows public safety officials to talk to each other across thick-walled, cement buildings and in subway tunnels--something they couldn't do as readily at other frequency bands. Users can also share streaming video and images from disparate locations.
LeGrande said his ultimate goal--"to build an interoperable broadband wireless network from the Atlantic to the Pacific"--isn't possible with the current amount of spectrum that's available. He said the Washington, D.C., region is ready to deploy a wireless broadband network for its first responders by next summer, and it's pushing on its own to clear local broadcasters off the spectrum by the end of 2007.
High-tech endorsement, consumer concerns
Enthusiasm for the shift to digital television extends well into the technology realm. On Friday,
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates and other high-tech officials
sent a letter to lawmakers in Congress that urged a speedy transition to DTV, according to an Associated Press report. Freed up radio spectrum, the letter said, could be used in part to supply wireless broadband service to rural and poor areas.
Under current law, the digital television shift was scheduled to occur by Dec. 31, 2006, or whenever 85 percent of households are able to receive digital broadcasts.
From the consumer's standpoint, the switch can be achieved in several ways: buying a television equipped with a digital tuner, buying a digital-to-analog converter box (estimated cost: $50) for one's existing analog television, or relying on cable or satellite signals, the providers of which intend to upgrade as necessary.
By one consumer group's count, as many as 80 million television sets rely on analog signals, and would need to be wired for digital cable or outfitted with the digital-to-analog converter boxes. But by 2009, only about 7 percent of television viewers--still several million--will be relying solely on analog, "over-the-air" broadcasts, according to Consumer Electronics Association estimates.
Licenses to use the newly freed-up spectrum would be put up for sale beginning Jan. 28, 2008, according to the draft proposal. Of the money raised, $4.8 billion would have to be transferred to the general Treasury fund by Oct. 2, 2009, to offset other federal expenses or tax cuts.
Other proceeds would go to a fund specially designated for subsidizing the cost of digital-to-analog converter boxes, converting low-power TV stations from analog to digital, and "providing systems to coastal states affected by hurricanes and other disasters."
That fund would also bankroll programs to implement the Enhance 911 Act of 2004. That measure calls for upgrades to emergency call center answering points so that they can access the "enhanced" 911 network, which is able to pinpoint a caller's geographic location.
See more CNET content tagged:
spectrum, John McCain, deadline, digital television, emergency response
"Can we really afford to wait until 2009 to transfer this spectrum?" McCain said at a Tuesday morning policy event here hosted by the New America Foundation. "I don't think so."
The freaking country has stood perfectly fine for 200 years without completely collapsing... what the hell difference will 4 more years make?
I wonder what the *REAL* motivation (aside from political "attention" mongering) is behind this... what lobby group is putting on the pressure?
usually unimportant reasons. The move is on to digital TV and I
favor making the push as fast as possible.
In the late 40's or so, a less than mediocre TV broadcast system
was chosen, with various political hogs at the trough. We also
got an inferior FM-Stereo broadcast system in the same way.
Now, CD's and Satellite radio have virtually eliminated local
broadcasting for the people who care about audio quality, and
for those who dislike the geographic bounds on terrestrial
broadcasting stations.
Now it's time to upgrade TV to true quality, digital HDTV. It's
going to happen, so let's do it and get on with our lives. Those
of us who care will appreciate the image quality (if not the
content quality). The rest of the viewers can stay with their NTSC
TV's and a small set top box. We did it before, with add on UHF
tuners. No big deal. We can do it again.
I'm sure it is possible to produce something valuable... but unfortunately the same uninformed masses that buy into the idea that the politician is selling (about needing digital TV to get spectrum for emergency services) are the same people that buy Britney Spears and are the same people that think reality TV is compelling... These kinds of people will take whatever crappily supplied multiply-transcoded mush of a digital signal, pump it into a [soon to be] cheap $300 "digital TV" (that is really only just SDTV or EDTV and **not** HDTV) and think they're state of the art.
/me ****SHIVERS**** at the insanity of it all...
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/csrptpg.html (Choose first report scroll to page 115 Table B-1)
There is something like 108 million TV households in the US. 92 million of them get signals from something OTHER than broadcast (cable, satellite, etc). Let's dump broadcast - reserve some of its spectrum for emergency use, auction off the rest, use 0.0001% of income from that to buy the remaining 10 million people basic cable. Since this is by far the best spectrum (that?s why it was handed over to CBS and other ultra-powerful media in the 40s), we?ll also get cell phones that never loose signals and transmit data at 1Gbps.
I expect better from McCain.
The reason, they will split up each HD channel bandwidth to transmit 6 regular definition junk.
We need less channels, but all high definition.
Who needs 500 channels of mediocre quality programming? Only cable operators and broadcasters. They will tell you , we give you up to 500 channels of programming, so you might think you are getting value. In reality it gives them more chances to get more commercials from advertizers. Let's rebel, and let everybody know, what's happening. And it's pathetic.
spectrum licenses will be used in part to pay "for
tax cuts".
So in other words, poor people need to buy set top
converters so Bush's rich constituents can keep
their tax breaks. That sounds like a transfer
payment to me; kind of like a reverse Robin Hood.
The other thing that gets me is that there is
plenty of spectrum for "first responders" now.
Exactly how many UHF channels broadcast snow right
now? And how many others broadcast Shop At Home
drivel?
I predict that maybe 12 MHz is given over to public
use (police, fire, etc.) if we're lucky. And the
rest (100 MHz) gets sold to private interests.
Like cellular companies, who then get to charge us
exhorbitant rates to use it.
Senator McCain, you have disappointed me.
The answer does not require bandwidth as it will not change that mindset. Rather the answer is a standardization of communications between disparate agencies. Given that every constituency has their own communications "guru" and just as many companies that have incompatible equipment this won't happen anytime soon.
Fred Dunn
people are very concerned about the distinct shortage of bandwidth
for governmental and civilian services. If you are in anyway serious
about your claim that there is plenty of bandwidth to go around,
many people in DC would definitely like to hear from you.
Only 15, maybe 20% of households (mostly poor and/or rural, or "anti-boob-tube") get their reception solely off of the air. However, even in houses with cable or satellite, large numbers have 1 or 2 (or more) TVs which aren't connected to the cabling. That's where the added problems come in.
are digital, the outputs are as yo choose. Analog programs are
converted to digital before transmission. And any good set top
box will provide the output in either composite video or
component video. I have no trouble running analog TV sets with
an HDTV tuner showing HDTV (digital) programming. The video
is not as good as it is on the big HDTV set, but it works better
than normal TV.
That's DirecTV, but cable does the same thing. A new set top
box, perhaps, but no more. It could be free, or it might cost.
Anyone remember adding a UHF tuner box to the old VHF only
TV's ???
Life does have relatively cheap options in this case
According to what I know of this ...originally by the end of 2006 all analog tv broadcast signal would stop thus everyone would need a digital signal receiver which most newer Tv sets already have built in...but those who have older sets would only get snow once the analog signal goes dark...the cable companies have been pusing this for a quite a few years...so I am not sure where you got your info from ...but it was incorrect
Sure, this is all about the money. What's new in America? However, it does have some obvious benefits. Replacing 60 year old technology is just the start. There's a reason everything is going "digital" these days. It's more efficient, costs less, and provides higher quality. The whole "freeing up spectrum" thing for "public safety", while overstressed, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Today, you can buy TV's with digital tuners for the same price as an analog TV. Sure, it's no widescreen plasma, but we're talking about poor Grandma that can't afford cable/satellite. A $50-$100 tuner box (if not cheaper given subsidies/scale of economy) and she's watching all the normal OTA signals as she is now. In most major markets the big broadcasters started dual broadcasting several years ago anyway. The signal is already there.
- Just rip the band aid off
- by punterjoe October 20, 2005 9:40 AM PDT
- I look at the US DTV transition & compare it to Germany, England & other markets, and cringe. We're approaching it the same way we approached the metric system, the dollar coin (which was supposed to revolutionize vending machines in the 70s) and other change. We tout the progress, then laziness & fear of change kicks in & we cling to the status quo.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(29 Comments)Broadcasters got 2 for 1 licenses when they agreed to go digital. Now it's time to live up to their end of the bargain & surrender their analog channels (& finally go fullpower on their digital ones). Of course this was to be accompanied by the "$99 set top box" for legacy sets, which seems as far away as it did in the early 90s when this transition was being pitched. Faced with the prospects of every legacy set becoming a doorstop, the powers that be would overcome their inertia & get to work on a solution. Let's just take the plunge & get it done with!