FCC to require digital tuners on TVs by 2007

[Nick]

A brief report on FOX News says the FCC has voted to require TV set mfrs to install digital tuners on all new TVs by 2007. TVs with screens 36" and larger are to have digital tunes by 2004.

[dlsnyder]

News travels fast on Nevele - you beat me to it! Here is a link to the story on the AP:

http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=TECHNOLOGY&STORYID=APIS7L981KO0

[Nick]

or go to the Washington Times (http://wire.ap.org/APnews/?SITE=DCTMS&FRONTID=HOME)

[James_F]

How did I know that Nick would like the Washington Times.... :D

[Phil Conger]

I can't see the justification for requiring digital tuners when only a small percentage of the public will receive digital programming over the air. According to a dissenting member of the FCC, 90 percent of TV owners are either hooked onto cable or satellite. Isn't that method what most of us will use to receive HDTV? Why require TV manufacturers to put digital tuners in new TVs manufactured after 2004 when most of us won't be using these devices? Some of the new satellite receivers already are HDTV-ready. In many places, only people living close enough to the transmitters and away from obstacles will be able to receive an acceptable HDTV signal OTA. Am I missing something here?

[James_F]

How do you net new transmitters installed? Have more sets out there. How do you get more sets out there? Require it...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by James_F
How did I know that Nick would like the Washington Times.... :D


Because the Unification Church owns Nevele?

[mnassour]

Originally posted by Phil Conger
I can't see the justification for requiring digital tuners when only a small percentage of the public will receive digital programming over the air.


We heard the same thing about UHF back in the 60s and cable-ready tuners in the 70s, Phil. Now, can you imagine a set with only channels 2-13?

[Nick]

...and B&W only????

[James_F]

Whats B&W? :lol:

[dlsnyder]

I suspect that by the time these sets start showing up in the stores they will also have the ability to tune 64 or 256QAM transmissions over cable. Since many of the chipsets coming to market now include that capability anyway why not design the tuner to accommodate it.

[James_F]

That makes sense.... Who knows, by that time PVRs will be built into the TVs... :shrug:

[lee635]

Originally posted by Phil Conger
I can't see the justification for requiring digital tuners when only a small percentage of the public will receive digital programming over the air.

You're missing free tv. ;)

If you don't put tuners in, as the one dissenting FCC member urged, then you effectively force everyone to get digital TV through a method other than over-the-air. I'm sure all the cable companies, DBS companies and "independent technician" organizations are patently against that nasty over-the-air stuff.

[Mike500]

The FCC wants to free up the analog NTSC system for sale and revenue. By 2006, digital tuners on TV sets will be cheap. It's like when vga computer video cards cost $1000. Now, you can't even give them away. 83% of viewers watch with cable and satellite. When no ota ntsc analog signal will be transmitted, both current analog and digital TV signals, cable and dbs providers will just convert the hdtv signal to the current satellite or ntsc analog signal at the headend. No expenditure will need to be provided by the subscriber. For OTA users with old analog sets, local stations will sell them at cost. The poor and seniors will get theirs from charities.

THE IMPACT WILL BE VERY VERY LITTLE!

[Mark Holtz]

Check www.100000watts.com . There are stations with Digital Transmitters on-line or under constructions.

[Jacob S]

I believe the cost will dramatically be reduced just as the other things have in the past and since everyone will have to buy it then it will just be figured in as another compenent cost into the tv's and eventually will not be that much more if any more than now. We have to advance somehow.

[James_F]

Or it will be like broadband. Available, but no one uses it. Not a great analogy, but..... :shrug:

[bogi]

Originally posted by James_F
Or it will be like broadband. Available, but no one uses it. Not a great analogy, but..... :shrug:


Broadband is used :) I.E Kazaa Some greedy companies like ATT limit broadband though:(

I wish i had Optimum Online:shrug:


Looking at the 1000Watts website for NYC allot of the Broadcasters had their Antenna on One world Trade Center:( Some of them were digital too:(

[James_F]

Originally posted by bogi
Broadband is used :) I.E Kazaa Some greedy companies like ATT limit broadband though:(

I'd disagree with that statement. While I think penetration has occured, its not like we would have hoped. Kazaa isn't a reason to get on broadband and since RIAA will kill it soon can't be expected to sholder the load. CNN, ABC and others charge for video feeds, but no one buys them. Outside of the college environment, there isn't any application that has the ease of use Napster,to get people to pay for broadband. Until someone figures out how to make money with broadband, only a select few will have it or be willing to pay for it. Email is the killer app of the internet and doesn't need more than a dialup to support it.

[Jacob S]

I think that digital will be more openly used than that though.

[James_F]

What incentive do they have? Why invest unless the government forces them to? :shrug:

[Geronimo]

It may have been in one of the other threads on this same subject. But in one we got into a debate about whether there was increased cost to the consumer.

In todays Washington Post an article mentions two estimates. One from the broadcast industry is $16 per set. The other from the manufacturers is $100 although i understand that is considered (by them) to be a low end estimate.


Not taking sides. just reporting what the two sides said.

[James_F]

Who knows what the cost will be in 2006/2007... look at how DVD player prices have fallen.. You just don't know what the cost will be.

[Nick]

Another rung on TV's ladder of technology that mfgrs gripe about having to climb. Funny, they didn't whine when they came up with PiP and charged us an extra 100+ bucks for that!

Poor babies! They'll get over it.

[James_F]

You are correct, and you can be damn sure that they won't lose money on HDTV integration.

[Jacob S]

It will be a lot more expensive at first than it will be later on, just as you have seen television prices drop in half the last 4 or 5 years, and dvd players drop to a fraction of what they were when they first came out, and vcr prices dropping as well, HDTV will continue to drop, and since these digital tuners will be in every television the price will drop faster and the cost will be a lot less than what it would be if only some would purchase the optional tvs with just the digital tuners.

They figure that if someone has the money for a big screen tv then they have the money to pay for the digital tuner as well, and if someone has that big of a tv, then they will want the best picture that they can get and have a nice set-up more than likely.

[James_F]

I don't think you'll notice the cost. Who can figure out where that $100 on the cost of a new set would come from... Its going to be transparent to the end users... What you'll see is the non integrated TV have a discount, rather than the integrated TV have a premium...

[Jacob S]

With the costs of new tv's going down, by the time the tv would come out, it would be the same as it is now anyways or maybe just slightly higher, with more features I am sure.

We have to advance somehow, and this is the best decision and best way of doing so.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Jacob S
I believe the cost will dramatically be reduced just as the other things have in the past and since everyone will have to buy it then it will just be figured in as another compenent cost into the tv's and eventually will not be that much more if any more than now. We have to advance somehow.


Any way you slice it adding requiirements increases costs from what they would have been without the mandate. As I mentioned elsewhere I have seen estimates of $16--$100 for the added cost. But that is measured from an estimate of set prices then not set prices now.

[James_F]

If its not HDTV it would be something else. But the market is so competitive, I would think they couldn't pass the cost on to the consumer... :shrug:

[Geronimo]

If I am not mistaken no one said they all have to be HDTV capable----- only capable of receiving a digital signal. Not all digital TV is HDTV.

[James_F]

Who know how many connector types they'll come up with between now and 2007...

[Mike123abc]

Interesting reading the various FCC comments on the HDTV tuner issue. The vote was 4-1 for it. The one that voted against it was against it because it did not also mandate cable ready.

Charlie must be loving it. If they mandated digital cable ready it would really hurt the satellite business since it could potentially remove all those digital set top box rental prices $5-$8/month that cable people pay. It would pressure the sat people not to have to charge $5/month per extra box, or charge less some other way to stay competitive.

The other interesting reading parts showed that current chip prices are running $75-$100 for the tuner section. But, these chips intergrate line doubling and other features so they also replace some chips that TV makers are already using.

Powell's main concern is that for minimal amounts in the future these chips would be in every TV, but if they were not mandated everyone wanting to recieve OTA would have to buy a box in the future for $250-$300. Estimates for TVs that would need OTA in the future varied from 15-30% (not all TVs in houses served by cable are connected to cable and people may not want to rent/buy a box to hook up others to recieve cable.)