These should have also been discontinued as of September 1, , unless the FCC granted special permission to a specific station licensee. With the transition from analog to digital TV broadcasting , to continue receiving TV broadcasts, consumers either have to purchase a new TV or implement a workaround to continue using an analog TV.
The transition not only affected analog TVs but VCRs and pre DVD recorders that had built-in tuners designed to receive programming via an over-the-air antenna. Cable or satellite TV subscribers may, or may not, be affected more on this below. If you still have an analog TV and are currently not using it, you can breathe new life into it with one of the following options:.
An analog TV can only display images in standard definition resolution i. So even if the program source is originally in HD or 4K Ultra HD , you will only see it as a standard resolution image. In that case, the above connection options will also work.
A standard definition signal will depend on the TV's upscaling capability to provide a better quality image for viewing. Although not desirable as a primary television especially in a home theater setup , an analog TV could be suitable as a second or a third TV. As years pass and the last analog TVs are finally disposed of hopefully recycled , the analog-or-digital TV issue will be put to rest.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Use precise geolocation data. Select personalised content. But even with the box, analog TV sets won't display the better picture and clearer sound that digital television DTV offers.
By next March, all TVs and other equipment that receives broadcast TV signals must have digital tuners, according to the Federal Communications Commission. Many TVs in stores and some already in homes are equipped to receive a digital signal. Some even receive high-definition television HDTV -- a type of digital TV service that offers super-sharp pictures and sound in a widescreen format. Viewers with cable TV also may need extra DTV equipment to view the new digital format, and those with a satellite dish may need special equipment to view HDTV programs, according to the FCC, which advises subscribers to contact their providers for more details.
Competition between the broadcast and cable industries has delayed the transition to digital, according to Benjamin, co-author of "Telecommunications Law and Policy. Digital signals will enable local stations to "multicast," or broadcast multiple programs on one signal. A local station could have a hour news or weather channel and a channel dedicated to high school football all broadcast over one signal. Multicasting is already available in many markets and will become more pervasive over the next few years.
More than 1, of the some 1, stations across the country have already completed the digital transition. Of those 1,, roughly are delivering additional programming through multicasting, according to Kris Jones, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters NAB.
Broadcasters want the additional programming because it provides more possibilities for advertising revenue. The cable industry, however, is reluctant to carry the additional programming because it could, in some cases, directly compete with cable channels. The quality of digital television broadcasts is better than an analogue signal. The subsidised set-top box also gives a much bigger selection of channels:. He took a moment before saying his acceptance speech. Nylon fibers can absorb moisture without causing skin irritation.
Greeff has seven of them. Who will, or should, be left with the burden of infrastructure start-up costs? Equitable principles suggest that, to gain the benefit, one must first suffer the burden. Perhaps a flexible licensing and revenue mechanism is more appropriate. So, in July , following passage of the first digital legislation, it appeared no stakeholders were satisfied with progress towards digital transition.
And the new players which get frequencies for datacasting can't use them for TV services, because that would be competition for the free-to-air TV business. Policy is made by keeping the warring commercial interests equally unhappy, rather than encouraging the creative exploration of the capabilities of a new and cost efficient technology to provide a flexible and interesting service mix. The legislation specified that a number of reviews on future directions for digital television and datacasting take place before The Government used the review process as the basis for finetuning the digital plan.
This included making a commitment to introduce a definition of datacasting which it argued would afford more certainty about service scope and ensure it remained distinctly different from television services.
Fine tuning for free-to-air broadcasters was mostly positive. They were able to offer digital enhancements to their main simulcast programs if these were directly linked to main channel programs and broadcast as separate multi channel programs.
Despite fine tuning, a number of critics continued to label digital policy overall as a direct impediment to consumer uptake of digital television. One academic, Franco Papandrea, was also highly critical from the public interest perspective. It claimed firstly that the cost of HD equipment would inhibit broadcasters from investing in new services. These were more likely than HD to be popular with consumers. But, as journalist Alan Kohler later pointed out, datacasting had been defined in effect as anything that was boring to ensure that anything that was interesting or entertaining continued to appear only on free-to-air television.
As a result, according to Kohler, as datacasting was supposed to have been the enticing extra that would have helped digital television take up, it would inevitably falter. Free-to-air broadcasters were supportive of the HD requirements introduced in the second round of legislation, but others stakeholders continued to voice concerns about the excessive cost imposed by mandating high definition. Predictably, free-to-air broadcasters were in favour of regulation to distinguish between datacasting and broadcasting.
Also predictably, the opposing view was that datacasters were unduly constrained under the legislation and that its driving force was protecting the interests of media mates.
Despite some speculation that Labor and the Democrats would combine in the Senate to vote against the legislation on the datacasting issue, they could not reach agreement on what a new classification would be. The Democrats saw content as a legitimate basis for a definition of datacasting, but Labor disagreed, and so the narrow definition remained.
During , while there was no kiss of death for digital television, neither were there outpourings of enthusiasm for its approaching debut. Australians have shown a remarkable propensity to take up new technology.
Not so with digital TV. Consumers are showing little interest. Manufacturers are wary. The reason is that the Government has nobbled nearly all the benefits of digital television, just for the benefit of the existing three commercial broadcasters.
Quite rightly, consumers will not buy digital television sets or digital television converters until they get value for money, and that cannot happen until the Government admits it got it wrong and changes the legislation.
When digital telecasts began with little fanfare in the five major mainland capitals on 1 January , few people had been enthusiastic enough to purchase a set top box.
Moreover, it was impossible for viewers to purchase integrated receivers, as none were available on the market. The Government did not appear concerned about the poor reception for digital; a spokesperson for Minister Alston remarking only that the digital transition would not happen overnight. Nevertheless, it was at last the digital television age and the wheels of transition began to turn, albeit slowly.
In July , after consultation with the broadcasting industry, ACMA determined simulcast start dates for a number of regional areas. The Productivity Commission had noted that a delayed start time for simulcast in regional areas would give broadcasters in these areas more time to plan for new services and to take advantage of cheaper equipment. Regional operator Southern Cross Broadcasting indeed blamed the high cost of conversion and the inadequacy of government subsidies for the closure of news units in five regional areas in Deadline for quota commencement was extended to 1 July In April , a leaked Cabinet submission indicated that the Minister favoured abandoning HD quotas and giving free-to-air networks the opportunity to multi channel.
The Prime Minister reportedly distanced himself from any suggestion that change was being considered and some journalists implied this was because he feared the substantial opposition it may elicit from media mates. Seven was enthusiastic about the idea, Nine opposed it and Ten was in favour of some form of subscription multi channelling. Whether it amounted to changing multi channelling rules, or some other incentive, it was clear something needed to be done to spark more interest in digital television.
In , the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts had made the astute observation that digital broadcasting would be determined by two key factors: whether convenient and reasonably priced reception devices were obtainable, and the extent to which individuals valued the services that were available. But by early , their importance was apparent.
The cost of digital television was a prohibitive factor in the take up of digital television and the majority of viewers were not convinced of its value. The Business Review Weekly in fact labelled digital television a flop, as only around set top boxes had been sold. This amounted only to 0. In the following months, prohibitive cost, combined with accusations about poorly thought out protectionist policy which only benefited commercial broadcasters, continued to be proffered as the principal reasons Australians had not embraced digital television.
A number of solutions were advanced to deal with the cost issue, including introducing a common set top box for both free-to-air and subscription television. This suggestion was immediately rejected by pay television operators, most likely because they saw it as providing yet another advantage to free-to-air operators. After an auction of datacasting licences was postponed in when potential operators withdrew their expressions of interest, citing the overly onerous restrictions, the Government promised to review the regulations.
The media appeared to grasp every opportunity to emphasise arguments about the prohibitive cost of digital television and consequent low take up rates for the technology. Reports took the line that ordinary people were not so privileged. They had to be content with experiencing wide screen digital at their local pub or electrical goods store. It declared multi channelling limitations, restrictions on entry to free-to-air broadcasting and datacasting licence conditions detrimental to the communications market.
It called for technologies to be synchronised and consumer choice, competition and innovation promoted. Multi channelling could be possible during the time broadcasters did not provide HD services. Similarly, allowing free-to-air broadcasters to multi channel could help them make better use of expensive broadcasting rights, and in turn, deliver greater consumer choice. Moreover, the ACCC was clearly sceptical of arguments that multi channelling fragmented audiences and concluded:.
No persuasive evidence has been presented to date to indicate that removing the prohibition on multi-channelling would harm the [free-to-air] sector. The easing of the restrictions on multi-channelling would provide [free-to-air] operators with the ability to offer new services to consumers and has the potential to provide a wider range of services to consumers.
With regards to datacasting, the ACCC added its criticism to that of many others. Existing restrictions discouraged innovation and denied datacasters the opportunity to explore consumer tastes and demand. They needed to be removed. It called for less restriction so as to allow competitive forces to determine which broadcasters survive in the market place.
This made a proposed switch off date appear increasingly optimistic. It led Williams to speculate that a possible solution may be to force people to purchase digital sets by setting a date beyond which retailers would not be allowed to sell analogue televisions.
It claimed further that while it had not committed to providing extra money to maintain the channels, it had maintained the level of ABC funding in real terms since their launch. It accused the ABC of ineffective forward planning which had funded the multi channels from one-off savings. As there had been no commitment given to ongoing funding, it was incumbent on the ABC to identify ongoing cost savings to finance the channels. According to this assessment, viewers wanted better pictures, not more channels.
The channel consisted originally of time shifted programming. Pay television was particularly critical given that anti siphoning restrictions prevented it from showing a number of popular sporting events. ABC 3 was promoted as an incentive for families to convert to digital technology. Between and February , in an effort to find out which parts of the digital television regulatory framework needed the most modification, the Government directed the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to conduct a series of reviews.
Findings from all reviews, except the duration of the simulcast period, were released in February Most conclusions were notable in that they were brief, restated ongoing issues and provided little indication about whether the Government intended to embark on new policy directions. The review of HDTV on the other hand, found that it was becoming more accepted. Some stakeholders were cautiously positive and acknowledged it may be a means to drive digital uptake.
Others were more enthusiastic and considered it would certainly be a factor as prices of equipment fell and more HD content became available. Release of a House of Representatives Inquiry report into digital television coincided with publication of the thematic reviews. According to Digital Broadcasting Australia figures, in September , only approximately Australian homes or 13 per cent of Australian television homes , had free-to-air digital capability. The inquiry heard a variety of explanations for low take up.
Source Bill Leak []. The Inquiry was notable in that marked disagreement among the free-to-air broadcasters surfaced. On the issue of content as an incentive for take up, the Seven Network concurred with media commentators like Crispin Hull, who had consistently argued variety of content was the key to encouraging consumer interest in digital television.
Hull noted that if the Government had allowed networks to broadcast more program streams, people would:. We would have had a choice of 15 programs instead of five. A new TV set would have been worth getting. The Nine and Ten Networks disagreed. They considered increased viewer choice would result in poor quality programming and impose extra costs on broadcasters.
The networks also had opposing views on HD as a means to drive digital take up. Nine and Ten believed an increase in the HD quota would have a positive effect. Regardless of the arguments about availability, content, HD and the potential of interactive services, the absolute bottom line with regards to digital television take up was still cost.
Moreover, while costs remained high, consumers were content to forgo the digital television experience. The period of concentrated review of digital television and a continued barrage of media criticism that accompanied it, confirmed what lack of viewer enthusiasm had been indicating, digital television was not an overwhelming success.
The answer to this digital dilemma, according to Senator Helen Coonan, who had replaced Daryl Williams as Minister in , would be found in a March paper which put forward new proposals and outlined preferred new transition options. Other matters that would have an impact on the way in which digital television would evolve were dealt with in the legislation.
Allocation of commercial television licences for services which would operate outside the BSB when the moratorium on new commercial licences ended in was also made subject to Ministerial approval. As could be expected, the various arms of the media were divided on the merits of the proposed reforms. Pay television operator, News Limited, believed the package would continue to protect a free-to-air broadcaster oligopoly. Free-to-air broadcasters, especially Publishing and Broadcasting Limited PBL, owner of the Nine Network were generally supportive, although they expressed some reservations.
After much debate, many threats, and some compromises, on 18 October , the media reform package was passed by Federal Parliament. The plan reset the conversion process timetable to commence in —12, justifying delay in the context of the experience of other countries which had been forced to revise original switchover dates.
Approximately 85 per cent of the Australian population was able to access digital services from local free-to-air sources and digital take up was almost 30 per cent. Further the plan noted that unless conversion sped up, as other countries completed transition, Australia may no longer be able to purchase analogue transmission and reception equipment or analogue programming.
So the plan was that government investment in the conversion process, which had already provided funding to the ABC, SBS and regional broadcasters for digital transmission, would be enhanced. The Opposition claimed none of the proposals would drive digital take up. According to Labor spokesperson, Lindsay Tanner:.
There is no money for the creation of new digital content to encourage consumers to invest in the equipment and there is no money to ensure that the poor and disadvantaged won't be left staring at blank screens when analog [sic] TV is switched off.
Spectrum for these datacasting transmission services was due to become available as a result of amendments to the Radiocommunications Act and the end of trials of datacasting services which were supposed to be completed at the end of Spectrum used in these trials was therefore potentially vacant for use by Channel A to provide a free-to-air digital only service to domestic television receivers and Channel B to deliver television content over hand-held mobile television devices.
It was offensive, according to one commentator, that Minister Coonan presented this policy as a win for consumers:. The networks already have too much spectrum and power and too little competition. That's the major reason why at least a decade after the Government first started trying to develop a policy that brought Australia into the digital age, it is still deferring the starting date while other nations have entered it. With nothing in the revised package for anyone but the networks, why would anyone support the proposed abolition of [media] ownership rules that, however anachronistic they might be in a digital age, protect the fragile diversity of the established media today?
Unless there are new entrants, new competitors and new and compelling content, where is the trade-off for less diversity of ownership and content? That makes them not just dreadful but dangerous policy. In reply to this type of criticism, Senator Coonan argued that selling the Channel A and B licences would be crucial in accelerating digital switch over and any objections to expanding the pool of bidders for the channels was short sighted. The Channel A and B discussion reflected wider concerns about the extent to which the media reform package would deliver diversity, but despite many objections from this perspective, as noted earlier in this paper, it passed both Houses of Parliament in late Telecommunications analyst, Paul Budde, made the point soon after that sales of the A and B licences could provide an opportunity for exciting new services to emerge and could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on what the Government decided could be done with the spectrum.
There appeared to be a high level of interest in using the Channel B licence for mobile television, James Packer for one indicating that PBL could make a bid for Channel B in partnership with Foxtel.
However, guidelines it produced in mid led to accusations that its content definitions for the channels made Channel A at least commercially unviable. Channel A and B spectrum had not been allocated when the election was called. Despite the problems with Channels A and B, during , there were a number of indications that plans for digital conversion were finally proceeding at a greater pace. The launch of a free electronic program guide was seen as the commercial television industry finally embracing the digital age and the numbers of households that had converted to digital rose from 10 in to 2.
Source: Paul Budde []. It was not clear about what conditions of access Labor intended to apply to the auctions, however. At the end of April , Senator Coonan accused Labor of having no plan for the rollout of digital television. Coonan asserted Labor had learnt nothing from its:. Despite its being a low priority in the election, Ross Honeywill, Executive Director of the consumer think tank, Centre for Customer Strategy, surmised that digital television could emerge as an election decider in This was most likely because the pace towards transition had accelerated significantly in the intervening period.
Almost immediately it announced it would revise the digital television switchover date for metropolitan areas to , and would become the final switchover date for all areas the regional switchover timetable was released in October and can be found at Appendix B. Early suggestions on how this could be realised were plentiful.
Professor Paul Kerin from Melbourne Business School, for example, urged the Government to provide free set top boxes to consumers. Further, as the American experience had shown, providing everyone with a set top box was complicated, expensive and subject to unforeseen delays.
Allowing free-to-air networks to show sporting events on the anti siphoning list on their new digital channels was another proposal. This option may indeed have convinced some viewers to switch to digital, but it was unlikely to have convinced sufficient numbers to justify seriously alienating pay television operators.
The ABC argued also that if it were appropriately funded, it could deliver enhanced services to drive digital take up. There was some speculation that allowing the long-discussed fourth commercial television licence to proceed as a digital competitor to existing free-to-air licences may promote digital transition. It was thought by some that if this solution were to be considered, the new network would need to present different program options to accommodate fragmentation of audience viewing habits.
The Government attempted to put an end to any speculation by declaring that auction of these licences would be delayed pending a review into the viability of the services. The free-to-air broadcasters sought concrete assurances from the Government about a possible rival and reportedly networks Seven and Nine delayed the launch of their digital channels in protest against the suggestion.
The Digital Switchover Taskforce released a legislative framework discussion paper in May which presented the Government with enhanced switchover options. Other options were to introduce legislation to deliver more flexibility to areas experiencing difficulty in achieving switchover readiness or staggered switchovers for smaller geographical areas within wider commercial television broadcasting licence areas.
And indeed, pay television operators were not impressed with what they saw as special treatment free-to-air broadcasters received in conjunction with the launch of Freeview.
This consisted of cancellation of an ACMA investigation of compliance with anti siphoning rules and an exemption for Freeview promotional material from advertising time limit requirements. Freeview initially implied that viewers would have access to 15 digital channels and an electronic program guide, but it was forced to modify its campaign after it was clear that there were not substantial content differences between its standard and high definition channels.
At the end of June there were 16 Freeview channels and an electronic program guide had been launched. Most of these were launched during the later part of Both Go! Seven and Nine HD channels are simulcasts of main network channels.
The Government launched a campaign to improve digital television uptake in April The campaign featured television, radio and online advertisements, a Get Ready for Digital website, equipment labelling see illustration below , point-of-sale information and training and accreditation for retail staff.
Source: Get Ready for Digital website []. The commitment to a firm switch off date made dealing with a number of transition issues critical for the Labor Government. In addition, the release of a switchover timetable in October revealed that once analogue self help retransmission sites, which provided transmission solutions in analogue black spots closed, many people in remote areas would receive no television.
It also committed to delivering a free-to-air satellite service to provide digital transmission to over a quarter of a million households which would be unable to access services from terrestrial transmitters. In October , a licence had been granted to the broadcast infrastructure company, Broadcast Australia BA , to carry out a three-year trial of datacasting in the Sydney area.
The trial involved a number of services, collectively known as Digital Forty Four, presented on one standard 7MHz multiplex. The BA trial was intended to demonstrate the sorts of niche in-home services that could be carried on Channel A following its scheduled sale.
However, due to circumstances elaborated upon in more detail earlier in this paper, the auction was postponed until after the election. While BA was keen to continue with the trials until a decision for permanent allocation of Channel A spectrum had been made, ACMA did not renew its licence to do so and the trial ended 30 April The end of the Digital Forty Four trial was widely interpreted as the final nail in the coffin for Channels A and B, given that the purpose of the trial was to demonstrate the sorts of niche services that could be carried on Channel A.
Decisions to extend the BA trial had been underpinned by the prospect that an auction of datacasting licences would take place at some time, but according to an ACMA spokesperson, there was no likelihood of that occurring in the near future and no rationale for continuing trials of datacasting services.
It appeared Minister Conroy was amenable to the advice of those who considered it unwise to try to fix something that was already broken. The digital dividend refers to the spectrum which will become available for other use once the switchover from analogue to digital television transmission occurs see diagram explaining the dividend below.
The question of what to do with the dividend has been increasingly raised as switchover looms. Source: Australian Financial Review []. There will be impacts for viewers, broadcasters and other users of spectrum from restacking.
A number of options for the use of the digital dividend were canvassed in the discussion paper. These included provision of mobile telecommunications services and mobile television services as well as improving the quality and scope of existing broadcasting services. The latter objective could occur as a result of more demand for the high definition program format or the extension of existing digital television services. Suggestions were also made regarding the fate of the Channel A and B spectrum.
It was expected that achieving a MHz dividend would require the inclusion of at least one of the channels. There was some leeway for the remainder of this spectrum to be used for new broadcasting services, nonetheless. This could potentially include expanding digital radio services to regional Australia. Comments on the digital dividend paper generally reflected the self-interest of stakeholders. Community broadcasting and Commercial Radio Australia, for example, argued that the dividend would maximise benefits to the community and the economy if spectrum was allocated to secure the future of digital radio.
It advocated its use for mobile telephony and broadband services. A decision on the size and location of the digital dividend was announced in June A contiguous block of MHz is to be released in the upper ultra-high frequency UHF band, comprising the frequency range to MHz inclusive. The Government intends to auction the digital dividend spectrum in the second half of On 30 June , when the switchover process passed another milestone as analogue television was officially turned off in the Sunraysia—Mildura area, it appeared transition was in its final stages and all obstacles had been overcome.
Given the tortuous digital journey so far, it remains to be seen if this is truly the case. At the beginning of this paper it was observed that the transition from analogue to digital television has been predicted to deliver viewers a 21 st century experience of on-demand programming, intelligent terminals and abundant channels. This tradition can be summarised as one reflected in concentrated media ownership which has fostered a situation where media barons have wielded an undue amount of influence over policy decisions.
Concerns about media manipulation and the preferential treatment of the broadcast media by policy makers have been expressed since the s. Certain media commentators singled out aspects of digital policy for particularly scathing criticisms. The Keating government designed its pay TV policy to limit the competition from newcomers to protect the profits of its media mates.
And when the newcomers proved more competitive than the government and its mates anticipated, the government simply changed the pay TV rules again. The Howard government is hardly any better. Its original policy to introduce digital television could not have been more carefully designed to protect the profits of its media mates by denying the public the full benefits of the new technology.
And when that outrageous policy didn't work, John Howard in effect told his new Minister for Communications to negotiate another media policy with the industry. Only if the industry agreed would the Prime Minister invest the political capital in reform.
The result, of course, was a policy that benefited the incumbents at the expense of competition and consumer choice.
0コメント