Analog Hole Legislation Formally Introduced

[ROF]

DirecTV charges extra for locals, it's $5-6 per month more. Always has been. Unless something recently changed, or is only in your area.

And what REALLY SUCKS about getting locals on satellite or cable is the fact that many people can get a cleaner picture with a $5 pair of rabbit ears from the dollar store.

DirectTV Choices

You're right about the rabbit ear thingy though.

[GullyFoyle]

I don't care for locals. If it were not for a handful of shows I would never watch them. I never watch them during the day. And maybe dvr a couple of shows nightly.
Movie channels are where it is at. Those and a handful of special interest, G4 for the kids or BBC america.
I'm hoping for ala carte. Bye bye sports, music, religious, shopping and news.
I think it works out to about twenty channels less.

[ROF]

The only movie channel we have left on our bill is HBO. We keep that for it's original programming and not really for the movies. With DVDs being so cheap today I don't find the need for watching movies when HBO wants to show them.

[lordsmurf]

Oh I get this one. DirecTV's basic package is now gone. It used to be $35 plus $6 extra for locals. Now it's $41 for the basic package with locals. How nice.

[painkiller]

For everyone's benefit, I am holding in my hands my most recent Directv staement - and from one year ago. I joined well before that.

It doesn't breakdown the separate costs anymore, that I started with.

When I first got Directv Total Choice package - I was informed that I could add a package of local channels (for here in Baltimore) for 4.95 (or 5.95) per month.

At the time I decided to get Directv, the advertised pricing structure for one tv/with vcr hookup was around 35.95 per month. The Total Choice Plus added a few more "basic" channels (that I used to get on cable before dumping them for this) for an additional $1.

So that makes it $36.95. With one local package added - that brings it to $41 or $42.

Seems to match up with their present advertising.

But. That doesn't mean they are not charging the consumer for local channels. You just don't see the itemization anymore that there used to be.

[ROF]

So even with DirecTV you still get local stations if they are offered in your area as part of your package price? I receive MTV and assorted other channels in my cable subscription that I could do without but I certainly wouldn't want to go to an itemized billing for every station. I take the good with the bad when it comes to cable.

What's amazing is some people feel the government owes them a TV Tuner that can receive broadcasted stations. TV is a luxury not a right. If you think it is a right, please step outside and view the best possible broadcasting available. It's guaranteed to not contain any censors unless you live in an area that does so. I frequently drink my evening coffee on the porch just to watch the antics of my crazy neighborhood. Some nights are better than others but there is always something going on. Sometimes I even find the need to get up and find out what all the commotion is around the corner. Try that with cable.

[thevoelk]

TV may not be a "right" in your eyes, but your taxes make the OTA "free". Just because you don't directly pay for it, doesn't mean you aren't. And since you eventually paying for it, you should be entitled to it. Especially when senators, making $150K, can easily afford a $1000 HDTV, it's not an easy purchase for most.

[edDV]

TV may not be a "right" in your eyes, but your taxes make the OTA "free". Just because you don't directly pay for it, doesn't mean you aren't. And since you eventually paying for it, you should be entitled to it. Especially when senators, making $150K, can easily afford a $1000 HDTV, it's not an easy purchase for most.

Are you talking about public television? Go ask them for a tuner if you think it should be free. They will ask you for a "donation".

[ROF]

TV may not be a "right" in your eyes, but your taxes make the OTA "free". Just because you don't directly pay for it, doesn't mean you aren't. And since you eventually paying for it, you should be entitled to it. Especially when senators, making $150K, can easily afford a $1000 HDTV, it's not an easy purchase for most.

I pay for the roads I drive on too. Can I rip them up or make my own detours because I own them? I pay taxes for schools. Can I walk into them anytime I want to and just sit down in any classroom? I owe them too huh? Your arguement makes no sense especially considering to receive DTV you only need a sub $50 investment.

[lordsmurf]

Your arguement makes no sense

Yours does?

There is a difference between solid matter and non-corporeal products.
Sort of how infringing copyrights is not the same as stealing candy from a gas station. Airwaves are not even remotely the same as a chunk of concrete off the roadside.

Until people can learn to live in a world of many variables, not a constant of either black or white only, we're all screwed.

edited for grammar

[GullyFoyle]

TV may not be a "right" in your eyes, but your taxes make the OTA "free". Just because you don't directly pay for it, doesn't mean you aren't. And since you eventually paying for it, you should be entitled to it. Especially when senators, making $150K, can easily afford a $1000 HDTV, it's not an easy purchase for most.

I pay for the roads I drive on too. Can I rip them up or make my own detours because I own them? I pay taxes for schools. Can I walk into them anytime I want to and just sit down in any classroom? I owe them too huh? Your arguement makes no sense especially considering to receive DTV you only need a sub $50 investment.

Actually you can influence roads and schools you can get elected to local office like the school board. That is what happened with those goofy Intelligent Design people in Pa who just got the ir asses kicked. It is also the dark spot in Kansas.
The above is something that can not be done with broadcast.
Fact is it is the peoples airwaves. We own them why should we pay for broadcasts? Actually broadcasts are already paid by advertisers. They pay for access to markets. Those markets being we the people.
You know we the people that have been forgotten by our money grubbing corporate owned politicians.

[mbellot]

What's amazing is some people feel the government owes them a TV Tuner that can receive broadcasted stations. TV is a luxury not a right.

TV is not a "right", if it were you could buy them with food stamps.

But there is some due diligence required on the part of the government to inform (and indeed protect) its citizens prior to making such a sweeping change. It is, afterall, OUR AIRWAVES they are administering.

And lets not forget this is the same government that FORCED color TVs to be backward compatible with B & W so as not to create a similar fiasco around this "luxury".

If the government wants to shut off analog broadcasts they need to make the switchover less of a total screw job.

You should not be able to buy a new TV (of any size) without an ATSC tuner. This should be true for a minimum of 7 years (typical life expectancy of a plasma TV + 1 yr), maybe longer. My current "big" TV is over 10 years old and I have no desire to replace it, it works just fine. I also have smaller (and much newer) sets in the kitchen and basement, none of which have ATSC tuners.


As to the matter of DTV's pricing structure, I've been a customer for over 10 years and the locals are still "extra" in my mind. They may have rolled them into a new basic package, but that package is more than I am paying (and the difference is the cost of local channels).

Oh how I wish the government would force ala carte packaging on all these jerks. I'd pay $1/channel for the 10 - 12 or so channels I give a crap about and never miss the rest of the dreck.

[edDV]

I still think the answer is for Gates to divert some of his money from aides research and feeding the poor to buying a major movie studio and a TV network and then publishing portable digital media that pass through all these encryption boxes unflagged.

It would be just the thing to stimulate sales of his MCE computers, home media networking servers and portable playback devices.

The others would be envertually forced to lighten up on their draconian HDCP and broadcast flags.

[edDV]

But there is some due diligence required on the part of the government to inform (and indeed protect) its citizens prior to making such a sweeping change.

The ATSC DTV plans were announced in 1998. 11 years notice is not enough? The cutoff has been delayed from 2006 to 2009. That delay is causing us taxpayers billions in lost revenue to the treasury from spectrum licenses.

You should not be able to buy a new TV (of any size) without an ATSC tuner.

That would have added $400 to the price of every TV in 2004, $150 today and ~$25 by 2008.

Meanwhile only about 12% of TV sets use an aerial to receive OTA TV. So all that money spent would be wasted.

The tuner (OTA, cable, DBS, broadband, etc.) should be considered a separate choice from the DTV display.

[mbellot]

Your arguement makes no sense especially considering to receive DTV you only need a sub $50 investment.

Sorry ROF, but its NOT a sub $50 investment.

Its sub $50 up front for hardware and then a minimum of $41 per month thereafter.

Thats about $500 per year for TV if you amortize the equipment cost over six years.


And if by some chance I've misunderstood your use of DTV (DirecTV is the assumption above), when you actually meant OTA digital TV, then I'd like you to post a link to the sub $50 converter box. BTW - I have three TVs, so I hope the box is less than $17 to keep my investment "sub $50" as you suggest.

The ATSC DTV plans were announced in 1998. 11 years notice is not enough?

Not when you can still buy TVs that will not receive digital OTA signals, and we are three years from the cutoff.

What if the government mandated in 1998 that by 2009 all cars had to have anti-lock brakes or they couldn't be on the road? Now imagine you just bought a new car last year without because it wasn't widely known and manufacturers have not been required to equip new cars with anti-lock brakes until the 2009 date.

How many Best Buy employees can counsel their prospective customers on the financial pitfalls of buying a TV without an ATSC tuner?

You really think the government has informed the general population?

The tuner (OTA, cable, DBS, broadband, etc.) should be considered a separate choice from the DTV display.

So then why are you complaining about this legislation? If yoiu need to consider them all separate equipment I guess you just need to buy a new display device.

[edDV]

Oh how I wish the government would force ala carte packaging on all these jerks. I'd pay $1/channel for the 10 - 12 or so channels I give a crap about and never miss the rest of the dreck.

The government should stay out of it. It is none of there business.

The result would probably be a basic connection charge of say $20-30 before you get your first $1 channel. Then the gov't would leap at the opportunity to tax that connection charge 15% the first year and add more "special taxes" from then on just like they did on landline telephone.

We are still paying ALGORES school Ethernet wiring charge on the telephone line.

[edDV]

The tuner (OTA, cable, DBS, broadband, etc.) should be considered a separate choice from the DTV display.

So then why are you complaining about this legislation? If yoiu need to consider them all separate equipment I guess you just need to buy a new display device.

You totally missed the point. Why force 88% of consumers to pay for an OTA DTV tuner that will never be used? Especially when they add hundreds of $$$ to the price of the set?

You seem to be confused about the year. We are in 2005 not 2009. In 2009 the analog cutoff will require a DTV tuner be added to an analog set. By then the prices will be trivial.

Separate boxes and modular components are the norm for computers and home stereos and should be for the TV system.

Again you missed the point of this thread. The proposed "analog hole" legislation obsoletes all existing analog HD connections between set top boxes (cable, dbs, computer cards) and HDTV sets. Until late 2004, HDTV sets only had analog component connections.

Unlike your analog TV analogy, there is no box regardless of price, that would allow these early HDTV sets to be used with DTV (OTA), cable or DBS tuners if this law passes. That HD analog connection is what they are prohibiting. And if it passes as written, this would go into effect as early as 2007.

[painkiller]

With respect to the "ala carte" notion of re-packaging the channels that you get.

I very much doubt that would be a good thing - I would think, if forced to provide it in this way - the distributors/deliverers would find just more reason(s) to hike the prices on all of us. Some may not think so now, but give it time.

If you (distributors/deliverers) found your revenue source cut up into smaller pieces - wouldn't you work to improve your cash flow?

[GullyFoyle]

With respect to the "ala carte" notion of re-packaging the channels that you get.

I very much doubt that would be a good thing - I would think, if forced to provide it in this way - the distributors/deliverers would find just more reason(s) to hike the prices on all of us. Some may not think so now, but give it time.

If you (distributors/deliverers) found your revenue source cut up into smaller pieces - wouldn't you work to improve your cash flow?

Not at all. Cable/Dish/Directtv raise their rates continually anyway.
Way back when C-Band was Ala Carte without any loss. Sure you could buy packages that were discounted, but you could also go for individual channels. Some channels were bundled Like Sundance and something else.
C-band started losing clients when everything started going digital.
Until then it was profitable and they may still be offering 4dtv for the Digital and HD stuff.

[GullyFoyle]

We are still paying ALGORES school Ethernet wiring charge on the telephone line.

Little clarification
http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/010406-tk.html

The "Gore Tax" Finds a Friend: George W. Bush

Issue #2
April 6, 2001

by Adam Thierer

You would think that if there were one federal program President Bush would want to kill, it would be the "Gore Tax," named after his opponent in the last election. Yet not only do Bush administration officials not want to kill this program-which imposes hidden taxes on phone bills to help wire schools to the Internet-they won't even support proposals to limit it.

At a March 7 hearing of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Education Secretary Roderick Paige announced that the administration was backing away from a plan to consolidate the off-budget "E-Rate" program, as it's officially known, into other federal education programs. That's too bad. The E-Rate program is a classic example of an unnecessary and unconstitutional federal program that demands immediate attention before it balloons into a perpetual federal entitlement.

E-Rate is shorthand for "education rate," or the reduced prices for technology and telecommunications services that schools and libraries are eligible for under the program. Championed by former Vice President Al Gore, the program was part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Initially, the E-Rate program was administered by a quasi-government entity, the Schools and Libraries Corporation, formed by the Federal Communications Commission in May 1997 without the consent of Congress. After questions arose regarding the constitutionality of the FCC's creation, the agency shifted responsibility to a non-profit organization known as the Universal Service Administration Company (USAC).

While the FCC's sleight of hand lessened constitutional concerns by seemingly shifting management to a non-profit group, in reality it was business as usual because the USAC takes its orders from the FCC. Consequently, the FCC has continued to demand that the E-Rate program be funded through a complex system of industry mandates and hidden taxes to help lower the costs of installing communications and computer technologies in classrooms and libraries. The FCC has also continued to dictate the amount of annual funding for the program, currently $2.3 billion per year.

President Bush's original proposal to reform E-Rate was modest. The president wanted to make the program marginally more accountable by shifting administration to the Department of Education and requiring a formal appropriation for the E-Rate in the federal budget each year.

That got it half right. To the extent that schools and libraries receive public funding for their technology needs, those funds should be incorporated into a formal budget subject to open debate and a vote by elected legislators. Unfortunately, the administration was proposing that these reforms take place at the federal level instead of the state and local level, where education spending decisions should occur.

The optimal solution would be to end federal involvement altogether and allow the states to operate the E-Rate program on their own, if they so choose. While the jury is still out regarding the sensibility of increased reliance on technology in the classroom, those educational institutions desiring funds for communications and computing services should petition their state or local leaders for such funding, the same way they would for any other educational tool or technology. There is nothing unique about communications or computing technologies that justifies a federal entitlement program while other tools of learning are paid for through state and local budgets.

For example, consider textbooks. Everyone would agree that textbooks are an indispensable teaching aid. Policy makers have never suggested, however, the inclusion of a hidden tax in the cost of new novels to help lower the cost of textbooks in the classroom. Such an absurd cross-subsidy would be considered inefficient and unfair. Yet that is how the E-Rate program operates. Hidden taxes on the phone bills of average Americans cross-subsidize school wiring efforts.

It is inexplicable why the Bush administration has decided to surrender on E-Rate reform. Worse yet, the administration's reluctance to pursue serious reform now paves the way for the E-Rate program to become a full-blown national entitlement program. And with time, the burgeoning E-Rate lobby will pressure the FCC to expand the grab bag of high-tech goodies that should be subsidized. Today it's advanced phone service, high-speed Internet access, routers and hard wiring. As for tomorrow, who knows?

There's a perfect candidate to run the E-Rate program in an administration that has abandoned all opposition to it. His name is Al Gore.

Sounds like a Bipartisan give away to me.

[edDV]

Yep there is little difference between the parties when it comes to spending taxpayer money.

And wireless technology long ago obsoleted ripping walls for Ethernet. Temporary taxes are seldom temporary. They create a beaurocracy that lives on and grows even though the reason for its existance has long passed.

[mbellot]

The tuner (OTA, cable, DBS, broadband, etc.) should be considered a separate choice from the DTV display.

So then why are you complaining about this legislation? If yoiu need to consider them all separate equipment I guess you just need to buy a new display device.

You totally missed the point. Why force 88% of consumers to pay for an OTA DTV tuner that will never be used? Especially when they add hundreds of $$$ to the price of the set?

You seem to be confused about the year. We are in 2005 not 2009. In 2009 the analog cutoff will require a DTV tuner be added to an analog set. By then the prices will be trivial.

So which is it, adding hundreds to the cost or the price will be trivial? Regardless, OTA tuners are "standard" equipment on TVs. Would you like to buy a car with optional steering system?

I am not confused about the year. I also don't consider a TV to be an annual purchase. This is something that should be prepared for a decade in advance. And that doesn't mean someone in Congress mentions it once back in 1998 with no pressure placed on the manufacturing industry to conform to the deadline.

The simple fact is that the cost would already be trivial if they had started implementing the hardware. Early adopters always pay the price for the general public (I know, I paid $1000 for my DirecTV system back in 1995).

Separate boxes and modular components are the norm for computers and home stereos and should be for the TV system.

Why, because you say so? Apple computer has carved itself quite a niche by bucking the modular component trend.

Unlike your analog TV analogy, there is no box regardless of price, that would allow these early HDTV sets to be used with DTV (OTA), cable or DBS tuners if this law passes.

Not strictly correct. You would be able to use your HDTV, just not with an HD connection. So its not HD, big f-ing deal - use the SVHS input/output on your modular component setup.

[edDV]

The tuner (OTA, cable, DBS, broadband, etc.) should be considered a separate choice from the DTV display.

So then why are you complaining about this legislation? If yoiu need to consider them all separate equipment I guess you just need to buy a new display device.

Didn't you start this complaining the gov't was obsoleting your analog TV sets? That is what brought you here. Now you are defending the gov't-Hollywood plan to obsolete "HD Ready" pre 2005 HD sets purchased by the early adopters at top prices ($2-20K for most).

Which is it?

So which is it, adding hundreds to the cost or the price will be trivial? Regardless, OTA tuners are "standard" equipment on TVs. Would you like to buy a car with optional steering system?

Hundreds today and trivial when it all gets on a chip in 2009 and millions need to buy one. You didn't answer why all TV sets need a DTV OTA tuner today when only 12% watch TV that way. The only reason they are being added is the government requirement that all sets over 27" have one.

Why should the rest of us be forced to pay tens to hundreds more for something that will never be used? Should all cars be forced to have wheel chair access?

Cars are sold with many options. What if suddenly all cars with greater than 4 cylinders were banned from the cities. Would you sheepishly take the bus?

Separate boxes and modular components are the norm for computers and home stereos and should be for the TV system.

Why, because you say so? Apple computer has carved itself quite a niche by bucking the modular component trend.

So are you saying the gov't should force all computer makers to follow the Apple model?

Unlike your analog TV analogy, there is no box regardless of price, that would allow these early HDTV sets to be used with DTV (OTA), cable or DBS tuners if this law passes.

Not strictly correct. You would be able to use your HDTV, just not with an HD connection. So its not HD, big f-ing deal - use the SVHS input/output on your modular component setup.

Would you accept a government enforced device on you car limiting you to 25MPH unless you bought a new car?

You came in here bitching about the gov't and now you advocate totalitarian control?

[GullyFoyle]

Yep there is little difference between the parties when it comes to spending taxpayer money.

And wireless technology long ago obsoleted ripping walls for Ethernet. Temporary taxes are seldom temporary. They create a beaurocracy that lives on and grows even though the reason for its existance has long passed.

There are a couple of War taxes still being added to bills.
The most recent is a Vietnam Era tax added to phone bills.
Then there is a WW1 highway tax.

[mbellot]

The tuner (OTA, cable, DBS, broadband, etc.) should be considered a separate choice from the DTV display.

So then why are you complaining about this legislation? If yoiu need to consider them all separate equipment I guess you just need to buy a new display device.

Didn't you start this complaining the gov't was obsoleting your analog TV sets? That is what brought you here. Now you are defending the gov't-Hollywood plan to obsolete "HD Ready" pre 2005 HD sets purchased by the early adopters at top prices ($2-20K for most).

Which is it?

No, actually you started it by saying you should have the right to personally sue Congress for obsoleting YOUR equipment. Rather funny (not to mention quite self serving and two faced) considering your stance concerning them obsoleting MY equipment.

So which is it, adding hundreds to the cost or the price will be trivial? Regardless, OTA tuners are "standard" equipment on TVs. Would you like to buy a car with optional steering system?

Hundreds today and trivial when it all gets on a chip in 2009 and millions need to buy one. You didn't answer why all TV sets need a DTV OTA tuner today when only 12% watch TV that way. The only reason they are being added is the government requirement that all sets over 27" have one.

Why should the rest of us be forced to pay tens to hundreds more for something that will never be used? Should all cars be forced to have wheel chair access?

By your logic they should remove the current OTA tuners from all TV sets as well. Save 'em a couple bucks for that pitiful 12%, huh?

I'd love to see you explain your component equipment theory to the guy who just bought a 13" TV for the garage. Now he's told he needs to drop another $50 just to get OTA channels so he can watch football while scaling the days catch.

Cars are sold with many options. What if suddenly all cars with greater than 4 cylinders were banned from the cities. Would you sheepishly take the bus?

Nope. I'd just continue to drive my 4 cylinder Camry anywere I pleased.

Besides, your example is a sudden ban. If there were plans for the last ten years pass the ban then I would expect the car manufacturer's to start planning for it by making cars that comply with the ban before it goes into effect.

Kind of like I would expect them to include ATSC before it becomes the ONLY way to receive OTA broadcats.

Separate boxes and modular components are the norm for computers and home stereos and should be for the TV system.

Why, because you say so? Apple computer has carved itself quite a niche by bucking the modular component trend.

So are you saying the gov't should force all computer makers to follow the Apple model?

But the government doesn't control and administer all computers the way they control and administer all the airwaves.

Unlike your analog TV analogy, there is no box regardless of price, that would allow these early HDTV sets to be used with DTV (OTA), cable or DBS tuners if this law passes.

Not strictly correct. You would be able to use your HDTV, just not with an HD connection. So its not HD, big f-ing deal - use the SVHS input/output on your modular component setup.

Would you accept a government enforced device on you car limiting you to 25MPH unless you bought a new car?

If they passed such a law I guess I'd HAVE to accept it - thats why they are called laws.

You came in here bitching about the gov't and now you advocate totalitarian control?

Hardly. I simply expect them to look out for the best interests of ALL their constituents.

I don't argue that digital OTA is a better option. I'm only arguing with the totally inept way its being handled.

Using your computer analogy how would you feel if the government threw away TCP/IP in favor of some new protocol that only new computers support. Ok, you can buy an adapter card for your existing PC to get on the net, but all the other network attaached devices you own are suddenly worthless because they weren't designed in such a way as to be compatible, even though the new protocol was announced a decade ago.

Not a big deal if its just one PC, but make it three PCs, a couple networked printers and several network attached storage devices and suddenly it becomes a big (and costly) hassle.

[Supreme2k]

There is a difference between solid matter and non-corporeal products.
Sort of how infringing copyrights is not the same as stealing candy from a gas station. Airwaves are not even remotely the same as a chunk of concrete off the roadside.

Until people can learn to live in a world of many variables, not a constant of either black or white only, we're all screwed.

Never ever, EVER use that argument!

Have you learned nothing from being on both sides of this board?

1. Stealing a signal is equivalent to rape
2. It is also the same as grand theft auto (not the game that causes children to become vicious criminals).
3. signal interception is the same as robbery (stealing a rolex or looting televisions).

[nwo]

so my home made porn will have DRM!

[Dv8ted2]

If they passed such a law I guess I'd HAVE to accept it - thats why they are called laws.

Not really.....You could exercise civil disobedience.

[mbellot]

If they passed such a law I guess I'd HAVE to accept it - thats why they are called laws.

Not really.....You could exercise civil disobedience.

I said accept, not obey.

Pretty much everyone accepts posted speed limits as law, but the courts and "Traffic Safety" schools are chock full of people who chose not to obey that particular law.

If instead you don't accept the law I guess you'll either stop driving or start a murderous rampage against the politicians who made the laws and the cops who enforce them.
uh oh, didn't mean to give edDV any ideas there...

[edDV]

mbellot, I see two separate issues here:

The first is the 7-11 year plan to move TV broadcasting to higher frequencies thus obsoleting analog TV tuners.

The second is the introduction of encryption schemes that restrict reception of TV broadcasts to certain types of approved equipment.

First lets summarize the issues around the moving TV broadcasts off the VHS band up to UHF. This was decided as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The reason to do this was to free the VHF band for low power telecommunications and other wireless technologies that were seen to carry higher priority for society. High power wideband TV transmitters had to be removed from these frequencies in order to free bandwidth and reduce interference for these new services. Further it was decided that the govenment would auction licenses to future VHF users and thus raise considerable revenue for the government (>$10 billion).

It was that decision that obsoleted the VHF tuners in analog TV sets. In order to fit all TV broadcasting into the UHF bands, a compression scheme was needed. Continuation of analog transmission would have resulted in unacceptable interference between the closely spaced stations. So it was decided to abandon analog broadcasting altogether for digital technology that would multiply potential channels by 5x*, allow close channel spacing and allow even more compression in the future. This decision obsoleted the analog UHF tuner in current TV sets.

The new digital scheme required development from scratch. By 2002, the ATSC DTV system had been developed and experimental broadcasts had started from temporary UHF stations. Early DTV tuners preformed poorly and were very expensive. If these early expensive turners had been required in every TV set, they would have quickly gone obsolete as the system evolved. By 2004, tuners were beginning to achieve adequate performance but deployment would have added approximately $400 to the price of every TV set. By 2005, large parts of the tuner have been reduced to chips, performance has improved and costs are in the $100 range. In 2006, all sets larger than 27" will be required to have such a tuner and prices for those sets will go up.

I would support requiring provision for a modular DTV tuner in all analog TV sets (not just large ones) but since only 12% of users have need for such a tuner, I think the tuner itself should be made an option and be available to those who want it. Note that nobody "requires" such a tuner until 2009 when analog service is turned off. By 2009 DTV tuners will be very inexpensive to produce and will perform much better.

Your position seems to be that the government should force all TV sets to include ~$100 DTV tuners now. This would double the price of small sets and add ~30% to the mainstream 27" analog TV. As it stands now, sets larger than 27" will have to carry this burden for a feature that will not be needed until 2009 and then by only 12% of users.

External set top DTV tuners are expected to be priced ~ $20-50 in 2009 when they will be needed.

I'll address encryption in a separate post later.

* Some of this additional channel bandwidth can be combined to provide HDTV service. HDTV is irrelevant to this discussion of analog sets.