Analog TV broadcasts to end by 2009

[sabra]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10563834/

Analog TV broadcasts to end by 2009
Broadcasters get firm date for all-digital transition from Congress

WASHINGTON - It’s still three years away, but there now is a firm date for the transition to all-digital television — the biggest change in the industry since color TV.

Legislation passed by the Senate on Wednesday would require broadcasters to end their traditional analog transmissions by Feb. 17, 2009, and send their signals digitally. Such technology promises super-sharp pictures and better sound.

The plan also would allocate as much as $1.5 billion for a “converter box” program to help people with older, analog TV sets that would lose their signal in the digital era. Consumer advocates say that is not enough money.

The digital deadline was part of a larger budget bill that narrowly passed the Senate. House approval is expected and President Bush praised the Senate vote.

[CatholicEdHead]

1. This will probably be put off again

It will not take much public outcry to allow a longer period of time so people can gradually replace their TVs.

[salin]

13. agreed.

the foolish idea that Congress could force all americans to buy a new, more expensive tv on a short time frame was ludicrous.

Throw in the tight economic times being faced by many, esp the higher costs of living (increased heating, increased gas, increased food costs due to the first two increased being passed on to consumers, and increased healthcare) in a period with slower wage growth - and the resistance will grow. Right now, most folks are not even aware of this awaiting cost, and that it is mandated by wealthy congressional representatives. As the date draws more near... and there is more coverage, resistance will become louder and the date will be put back again.

[Voltaire99]

50. I expect that, too.

The decline of the housing market and the end of cheap credit aren't going to lead to a rash of TV-buying.

[BiggJawn]

52. "Short" time frame?

Aw, c'mon, folks...The damn writing's only been on the wall for almost TWENTY YEARS now...

Back in the late 80's they claimed the projected switch-over was going to be in 1992, then 1999, then 2001, then 2006, then 2007, NOW 2009...

I'm glad I'm not at my last job anymore, so I don't have to tap-dance around city councilors and franchise board members who would be asking me "So.... When's this 'Digital TV' we gave you almost a Megabuck to convert over to by 1999 supposed to be here? Hmmmmm?"`

You are 100% correct in your statement that the date will be put back again, though. As it has been numerous times in the past, NO Congress-critter wants to commit politcal suicide by being the one that made Aunt Tillie's 1954 9" Hallicrafters portable useless. Why, it may be 50 years old, but it works JUST FINE (if you let it warm up for 6 hours first)...

This has been coming for YEARS. It wasn't until faced with the immediate prospect of that 54" they bought 3 years ago becoming useless or needing a converter box that Joe Sixpack has woke up to that possibility.

[trogdor]

55. What about the waste disposal.

CRT's are nasty little buggers containing heavy metals and all kinds of other shit that requires special handling. You can't just throw them out with the trash - or at least you shouldn't be able to. What will happen when hundreds of millions of them end up at the curb on trash day all at once? Did Congress think about recycling or anything?

[BiggJawn]

62. What happens to them NOW?

This season it seems almost every person I saw at the store was heading out with a new at LEAST 27" TV on their cart. What happens to the old one it replaced?
What happens to the ones that crap out now? What happens to all the computer monitors that either crap out or get replaced by flat-panels?

The reason this "transistion" has dragged its feet is because of the "80%" rule they were following, the one that said that NTSC Analogue would stay in place until 80% of the households in any market had a DTV set. But they forgot to tell the people who make boob-toobs, because they (congress) had to put in another recent rule requiring DTV tuners in all new TV's being sold. But AGAIN, the TV makers flopped around on the floor until they got their exemption for all new sets below a certain size.

And your typical Bubba shopper, with their genetic inability to see any further down the road than the next Super Bowl, instead of buying and demanding sets with DTV tuners, said "Hot DAMN, Marhta! A 24-inch Teeee-Veeee fer only a Hundert an' twenny bucks!", not realising (or caring) that it would either be useless or relegated to VCR/DVD player service before it crapped out.

So now the government has decided "This bullshit has dragged on long enough" and mandated that analogue TV will DIE in 2009.

They TRIED to ease the transistion in, but we weren't having none of it. and we STILL don't want it.

[pintobean]

73. I suggest we have a program

so that we can donate our old TV's and ship them off to poorer nations that can use them.

[trogdor]

92. Do they use the NTSC color system?

Most countries use PAL.

[onenote]

65. this time its gonna stick

I wouldn't count on this being put off again. By the time the transition date (Feb 17, 2009) rolls around, the number of homes without (a) cable; (b) satellite or (c) a television capable of receiving digital signals over the air is going to be pretty small. The legislation provides for around a billion dollars to consumers to offset the cost of buying a device to convert the digital signal to analog if they don't have cable or satellite or a digital-ready set. Each consumer can get two coupons for $40 each. It is expected that the basic converter box will cost between 40 and 50 bucks.

What is likely to be pushed back is the deadline for requesting and using the $40 coupons. As it now stands, you have to request the coupons bewteen January 2008 and March 31, 2009 and you have only 3 months to use the coupon was you get it. I wouldn't be surprised to see those dates shift around.

onenote

[mahatmakanejeeves]

67. Aunt Tillie's 1954 9" Hallicrafters portable

Tell Aunt Tillie to put that Hallicrafters on eBay. The money she makes ought to be enough to buy a new 54" plasma TV.

[BiggJawn]

83. Yeah, and a year's worth of Dish Network, too....n/t

[TheWraith]

95. You don't need to buy a new TV at all.

All you need is a little digital reciever box which sits between the TV and the antenna and converts the digital signals into something old TVs can read. Or, if you're one of the millions of people who gets their TV entirely from cable or satellite, then you don't need to do anything, as you're already covered.

[BrightKnight]

44. .

self delete

[cannabis_flower]

74. Big deal....

By the time this happens digital TV's will be how many years old? You will be able to buy a used one for a fraction of the amount that a new one costs. The digital ones have already gone way down in price since they came out.

For example - here's one I found on Froogle for $80:

KLH Digital - 20" TV!! Great Deal!!
Great TV! Almost never used! Got for Christmas, has been lying around. In great condition. Regular $129.99 Features Closed caption decoder ...
Add to Shopping List

$80.00
Sell.com

[No Exit]

81. How many people will finally just say "to hell with it"?

We have all been conditioned to think that average Americans just can't live without their "idiot box". I know I've always thought so, too.

But... maybe I was wrong. Maybe some people won't bother. Maybe they JUST WON'T BOTHER.

We all know a few people, virtually all over 60, who won't fool with cable TV. Or, at least, *I* know some like that. My well-educated aunt and uncle, who are in their 80's and in pretty good health, just don't bother to watch much TV. I don't think they have cable. They are well-acquainted with "the idiot box". They raised 4 children, starting in the 50's, and I know my cousins watched all the same shows I watched.

This same aunt and uncle are uninterested in the internet. (I don't agree with them on that; as for the TV, I don't see anything wrong with their shunning it.)

The wife of another friend is 78 years old. He, who is about 73, uses the internet and other aspects of the computer. She does not use the computer. She just doesn't care for it.

There are going to be some people who just say "to hell with it".

I, for one, would be content with just the internet. I know, however, that the internet is also subject to manipulation like this TV thing is undergoing. We shall see.

Many of us get our news from TV and the computer, but maybe we shouldn't all cancel our subscriptions to those paper newspapers just yet.

Some time ago, I and another poster on here were wondering what the country would be like if we didn't all have these TV's blaring propaganda at us all the time. Maybe, just maybe, just MAYBE, we may get to find out.

[KingFlorez]

2. Not fair

Analog has existed for years and there is no reason to take it away. This will just force people to have more equipment and cause poorer families to be without television at all.

[HereSince1628]

5. Well, it's about selling new expensive televisions

who in broadcasting cares if someone can't afford it? Free broadcast TV will be history by then, too.

[aquart]

17. Which are made overseas. How does this help US?

[HereSince1628]

19. I guess you aren't part of the international investor class either.

We need to get with the program. NO ONE in government gives a shit about us in the US--after all we are the overpriced problem being fixed by globalization.

[NashVegas]

18. It's More Than That

They intend to sell the publicly-owned airwaves of the analog broadcast spectrum.

Broadcasting frequencies have always been publicly owned and regulated because anyone with the right equipment can broadcast. Regulation - and licensing - keeps the airwaves from being a free-for-all clusterfuck.

Unfortunately, the majority population of the US is blissfully unaware of why the airwaves are a uniquely public asset. And in a few years, they'll be auctioned off into private hands.

[onenote]

48. in the past they were just given to private entities

auctioning them off isn't necessarily a bad alternative to the status quo, which gives public airwaves to private entities for essentially nothing...

onenote

[annabanana]

51. I did not realize that that was the primary reason...

I thought it was to avail themselves of many more frequencies.. I thought the use of them would continue to be leased....

"free" TV is almost finished, then..

[trogdor]

58. It's already toast.

You see, back in the days, the largest manufacturer of TV sets was RCA, which just so happened to be the twin brother of NBC, the leading purveyor of television programming. If RCA wanted to sell TV sets, RCA had to put on something worth watching. If CBS and ABC wanted a piece of the action, they had to compete with NBC. So up until the 80's, there was always something good on when most Americans wanted to watch TV. NBC was the first of the Big Three to go "all color" in 1967. Why? Because RCA was the world's leading company in the manufacture of color TV sets. In fact, RCA invented the color TV system still currently in use in the USA, and still held most of the patents for U.S. color TV.

Nowdays, analog TV technology is in the public domain, 27" color TV's can be had for as little as $199, and since there is no longer any reason to put anything worthwhile on over the air, broadcast TV sucks donkey balls. You have TV networks on cable that cater to certain audiences, say, people who would purchase Enzyte and various kinds of herbal diet pills over the phone. Trust me, TV is already dead.

[POAS]

3. Wait till it goes into effect and people on the

fringe areas find that even with the converters they won't get a signal without installing massive antennae.

[alfredo]

4. Well, those people are not well socialized and will be reeducated

so they will gladly accept their place within the Corporate States of America.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

6. Not in my little nutshell of experience...

I have a small HD antenna and pick up all the local channels plus some I could not get before. With no ghosts, snow or flickers. I absolutely LOVE it. The digital bandwidth lets stations air 2-3 different sets of programming. I get two different PBS and other things locally that we never had available before. And this is in rural Alabama.

[Wilms]

7. "Rural" may be why.

I'm not so sure that it works all that well in the urban settings.

That which causes "ghosts" or "snow" on an analog receiver has caused a blank screen in digital.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

10. You are right on that... It's an "all or nothing" sort of broadcast

with Dolby 5.1 and crystal clear pictures. I would imagine that if you could pick it up with an analog antenna, you will be able to pick it up with a digital antenna and receiver. Cable or sat is a moot point except that I actually get things off the airwaves that I cannot get on my DirecTV. If it weren't for CSpan and a few other networks, I would drop my Satellite with no regrets now.

I would think that in larger population areas with more channels, it will effect the Cable and satellite industry significantly.

I don't know what the average lifetime on a television is, but I would imagine that it's not a lot over five years and prices are dropping on HD TVs. While I agree that it will represent a hardship on many with small budgets for entertainment, it will greatly expand the availability of more diverse programming.

[AndyTiedye]

23. It will push people onto cable who are watching over-the-air now

Many will not be able to receive digital broadcasts due to being out of range.
Instead of a little snow in the picture, you get no picture and no sound.

Others will sign up for cable to avoid the high cost of purchasing DTV equipment,
since the cable stuff either is analog or converts to analog anyway.

[BiggJawn]

63. All 15 of them?

"It will push people onto cable who are watching over-the-air now..."

Cable penetration in most urban areas is what, 99.7% or something like that?
I recall that the National Average is 65-70%, so most urban areas would have to be higher.

[B3Nut]

86. We don't have cable...

or satellite. If the rabbit ears can't pick it up or the DVD player can't play it, we don't watch it. Hopefully the set-top converters will be cheap...I'm not one to find television worth spending any real money on. I bought our RCA 26" console (early 90's vintage) at a yard sale for $8. We can't really justify spending $30-50 a month for digital TV (we have the choice of either Charter cable or digital TV from our small-town phone/DSL telco).

If the television went blank, I wouldn't notice much.

Todd in Beerbratistan

[BiggJawn]

90. Neither do I.

And if it went blank, I wouldn't miss it much, either.

well, I'd miss waking up to the local Weather Girl, but I'd get over it...

I'm excited about the new technology, but I gotta tell you, afte we installed an antenna on the roof of the 4-story building we're in and hooked up the HDTV receiver, what we discovered was that Jerry Springer in 1080i is *STILL* Jerry Springer.... :(

The Tecnology has FAR outstripped the Content.

[VegasWolf]

11. I have both cable and satellite. Ghost signals only occur on cable

( non digital) due to cross-interference with broadcast stations. Satellites are all digital and should never have ghosting. Call your repairman if you do because you probably have a break in the cable somewhere. and I live in urban areas.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

12. I have satellite only.... All digital and no "real" ghosting but the

difference between HD and digital (especially from the local channels the sats now carry) give a semi ghosting effect at times.

[VegasWolf]

14. What do you mean by HD? Off the airwaves HD or satellite. Local

channels can only cause ghosting with non digital transmissions.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

20. High definition... DirecTV picks up the local analog broadcasts

and retransmits them digitally with the original analog picture defects and all (At least that's what I'm guessing).

Right now, on an analog television playing a digital signal, there is some very minor ghosting on the 21" flatscreen monitor I use here in my office. My 55" HD box will show the same thing on the non-HD channels (airwave or broadcast... The broadcast HD is as perfect as the satellite HD).

[Rosco T.]

24. Correcteamundo... right now even Sat locals are only as good..

... however, DirecTV has started to roll out HD LOCALS, so everything will be crisp and clear digital.

[VegasWolf]

25. Yes, but Direct TV is sending you local channels digitally encoded.

I have local TV channels added to my Direct TV tier. Your problem may be that you are using the
analog output signal to your TV. That small stretch of cable from the box to your TV ideally shouldn't be picking up too much interference. Do you have any other inputs to your TV that are not analog ( eg, component )? Then you could completely eliminate that problem.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

28. I use component connections on my smaller monitors and 1080i on the

HD. The audio is optical. The ghosts are from their source and they pass them on. No analog in this house. I love (too much) gadgets and AV. Running an Onkyo/Pioneer/JVC 5.1 surround system that I had built into the house.

The 1080i is as good as you can get.

[VegasWolf]

35. Good! That sounds like my system! No analog for me. I'm confused

what you mean when you say the ghost signals are from the source. Ghost signals occur when idendical signals from two different sources are overlaid on your TV. Are you saying the Direct TV is sending you a bad feed for your local coverage? Sounds like you have a great system. It would be a real shame to have to deal with ghosts and snow!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

39. I am being ULTRA picky here. The "ghosting I am referring to is minimal

and only noticable in high contrast situations where it might also be described as an aura. the only quality problems I really have is the poor resolution off of DirecTV's rebroadcast of analog signals from local stations.

I'm really pretty happy with DirecTV all in all (except the fact they are charging me extra for minimal HD programming.

[POAS]

8. But how far are you from the braodcast towers

it isn't the distance from the city that matters since the towers are almost always out in the outskirts. How far are you from the antennas and are you line of sight (no intervening hills of large buildings)?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

30. I don't know exactly, but I would guess between 20 and 50 miles depending

on the staion in question.

[AndyTiedye]

22. All the Digital TV Signals are Too Weak Here

The hills and the trees absorb too much of the signal for any digital TV signals to make it here.
I have a large roof antenna and a booster, but even the closest and strongest digital stations
are still far too weak. This is only 30 minutes from San Francisco, but with a hill in the way.
Obviously, those who really live out in the boonies won't able to pick up anything.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

32. I'm seriously out in the sticks here. The nearest city is Huntsville, AL

and most of the stations are run by luddites.

The only thing I can think of is that I had the antenna professionally installed (for free) when I hooked up with now defunct Voom TV which was a HD sat system.

Right now, the stations are splitting their power and broadcast abilities with the analog signal they also broadcast. I hope that when the analog signals get dropped, they will be able to increase power to their digital signals.

[skids]

9. Great. Just great.

All those old TVs people were voluntarily storing in their dens in the pale hope that it might come in handy someday will now be headed out to the curb, and inside them, all sorts of undesireable waste chemicals.

[VegasWolf]

15. True. But a whole bunch of people who have cable will stop getting

ghosts and snow from the cross interference.

[Psephos]

78. Maybe it's better to take care of them once and for all

It's not like they were going stay entombed in those dens and garages forever, anyway. :-)

Peace.

[TrogL]

16. So when is the price on compatible TV's gonna come down

I'm not paying $4,000 for a proper sized TV or $1500 for a TV smaller than my monitor.

[Rosco T.]

21. Prices are down almost 50% from last year...

a good 30"-32" widescreen tube can be had for $400-$600
a good 43"-47" widescreen flat can be found for $1400-1600 (at COSTCO no less).

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

26. You can get a 30" LCD widescreen for $799.00

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=90133085&SearchEngine=Froogle&SearchTerm=90133085&Type=PE&Category=Elec&Gad=0&dcaid=17379

For $2000.00 you can get pretty much whatever you want. $4000? You could be the envy of all gadget wonks!

50" Toshiba LCD $3999.

for $1099, you can get an RCA HD 52" projection.

or a 27" HD for $429.00

Add to that the prices will be going down on HD sets as the technology ages.

[POAS]

27. Digital pictures do NOT mean digital reception

The tuner must be capable of receiving digital signals, most sets today (even those with digital pictures like LCD's) do not have digital tuners.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

29. That's a given. The boxes are cheap and getting cheaper.

BUT! HD recording capabilities are still way too expensive in my opinion.

[POAS]

31. Agreed on both counts

But the less tech savvy will be buying a set with a digital picture and scream bloody murder when the set won't pick up those digital and HD signals (over the air).

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

33. I'm sure you are right, but we can hope for salespeople to have

some integrity in selling to the public.

[POAS]

36. ROFLMAO n/t

[Rosco T.]

68. I just got an HDTivo from DirecTV...

records both HD from DirecTV and OTA HD..

$199 after $200 rebate.

[trogdor]

59. They're sold out, but here's the final cost.

Items $779.99
Shipping & Handling $43.95
Tax $0.00
Total $823.94

[Catch22Dem]

41. I have a 53" HDTV

$1800, and definitely bigger than my monitor.

[MrPrax]

34. Does this mean what I think?

I get 4 channels with rabbit ears and that's about all I want...so that will be gone?
What next radio gone?

[VegasWolf]

37. Yes, it means that all you will get off your rabbit ears is static! nt

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

38. When I switched to digital, I got 9 channels where before I got 4.

Where before there was channel 48, now there is 48-1, 48-2 and 48-3. all from the same station but they can broadcast a lot more information with less bandwidth going digital.

:toast:

[daleo]

45. About 2% of the static is cosmic background radiation from the big bang

Or so I have read. Who needs crappy reality shows, when you can watch the origin of the universe.

[0007]

94. Before 24/7 tv, I used to get up around 4 pm and watch

test patterns. Now that we're in the fast lane, life is gettin' groovier, we have the origin of the universe.

[Lorien]

54. Me too. I WILL NOT pay for cable

no signal-no TV. Sorry gov'ment-I'll just use Netflix instead!

[Rosco T.]

69. No one said you HAD to pay for cable....

a one time HD-Converter box, and I expect by the time this comes around they will be $30 OR LESS...

you can bet your ass that local station will WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE THE CONVERTERS... so they will end up
subsidizing them...

and no, they are not ALLOWED to make a ONE CHANNEL BOX. It may have their logo on the outside, or may have their
station logo on the EPG (digital broadcasts have a built in guide like a cable box), but that was covered inthe
legislation.. NO SINGLE channel boxes.

[NotThatNolan]

75. I wouldn't worry about it.

Time machines should be forthcoming, so you can always travel back to 1950.

[WinkyDink]

40. WHY?? Why is this a GOVERNMENT concern,

whether my TV has sharp pictures or not?
WHO, IOW, is raking in the dough for this boondoggle??

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

42. It's not the picture they care about...

its what's IN the picture that they are working on.


1984.1984.1984.1984.1984.1984


!!

[robbedvoter]

53. They also want you to have the best oil, bestest drugs - only the

best for ya! Your government loves ya, baby!

[psychopomp]

43. Won't anybody with a personal computer and broadband

be able to watch? That seems to be the obvious workaround for the problem of the high cost of hdtv's.

[KittyWampus]

46. My family has an Inn... we'd have to buy SEVEN of these fucking things

[Rosco T.]

70. if you're a business.. they'll be a 'cost of doing business'...

and as I said, they will be WAY DOWN as the time goes on.... you can get them now if you shop for about $90 each (hell, Radio Shack blew out older models a few months ago for $20...

[mitchum]

47. Yet the content will remain inane...

scripts written not by monkeys with typewriters, but by monkeys with filing cabinets.

[hatrack]

60. Correct - digital shit instead of analog shit

Yet another argument for not having one of the frickin' things.

[kineneb]

49. question to experts

I have a TV card in my computer which is hooked up to the cable service. We use the service mostly for the cable modem. Will I need to replace the card or will the signal from the cable remain analog? I rarely watch the thing anymore, but I would prefer not to have to replace another piece of hardware.

[Rosco T.]

71. cable will still be 'effectively' analog...

for quite a while..

[onenote]

79. I'll take that bet

By 2009, most cable subscribers will be served by systems that have converted to all digital. Guaranteed.

onenote

[Rosco T.]

84. Even 'so called' DIGITAL CABLE isn't 'digital'...

it refers to the source of ORIGIN of the channels (ie. digital feeds to the Cable Headend) and then the feed to the cable box in your home (the digital box). It's still analog from the cable box to the TV set.

[onenote]

88. you are correct

Same for satellite.

onenote

[rd_kent]

56. Big deal!!!

Most (around 85% from what I can dig up) people get TV from cable or a dish. That means those few holdouts who will be left in 2009 will have to buy a converter box and antenna. So what? welcome to the 21st century.

[SmokingJacket]

57. Just imagine all the TVs stacked up in landfills.... nt

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BiggJawn]

64. The "Emergency Communications" argument is a Red Herring.

Sure, EMA officials testify that they need MORE channels to be able to communicate between agencies, but that's only because that's what their friendly local Motorola Rep told 'em to say.

The problem has never been a lack of channels, it's a lack of interoperability between the AGENCIES on those existing channels.
Project 25 (P25) addresses this problem, but the fault lies with greedy 2-way radio sellers who keep selling non-compliant radios to un-suspecting departments. It's a voluntary standard, and as such there's no hurry amongst the makers of radios to get on the bandwagon. Hmmm....There's a pattern here...

So when John McCain says "We NEED that spectrum for Homeland Security!" he really doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just parroting what some lobbyist told some aide of his.

Go here to read about P25:
http://www.tiaonline.org/standards/project_25/

[libpunkmom]

66. Ok. (flame suit on) I keep reading

people saying that the televisions aren't that expensive ($700,$1800) and that roughtly only 15-25% of the population doesn't use analog. Guess what for some people that realatively lower priced televisions is a month's wages. Some people can not afford cable or dish. I can't! And I don't believe that my family are the only ones who can't afford something like that. Maybe in '09 I could afford it, maybe not "who knows.." All this is a way for big companies to make big money, and a way to make the "public airwaves" not so public.

[Rosco T.]

72. You DON'T have to buy a new HDTV dammit...

HDTV does not equal DIGITAL...

as of the middle of next year, ALL TV's will have to have an ATSC (ie. digital) tuner built in. Even lowly 13" portables.

ALL OF THEM.

and digital adapter boxes for older sets will end up under $30 by the time '09 gets here or even lower.

people are making a big ado about things that aren't happening.

You WILL NOT have to replace your TV, you can get a converter

you will NOT have to spend $700 plus for a new set, those are HDTV prices... normal DIGITAL sets won't go up that much if at all...

[AndyTiedye]

85. The Converter Won't Work in Weak-Signal Areas

Neither will a new set, most likely.

If digital signals are weak some packets get dropped and it tries to interpolate.

If too many packets get dropped, you get nothing.

You may recall that your cellphone used to switch to analog mode when it got into a fringe area
and the signal was too weak for digital. You could still get through, but there would be noise
on the signal. Newer cellphones don't do this. They just don't work when the signal gets too weak.

DTV is the same way.


I'm not that worried about it -- I don't watch much TV anyway.

[onenote]

89. weak signals are not unique to digital

Plenty of folks get weak signals with analog broadcasts. That's how cable TV got started...as a means of bring over the air broadcast signals to people who couldn't get a good signal over the air. The difference with digital is that if the signal is weak enough, you don't get anything at all (instead of a ghosty, fuzzy picture).

onenote

[BjohnsonMN]

76. What is wrong with analog?

I have never heard anyone complain about the picture or sound quality of a decent analog television set assuming they have cable or live in an area that gets good reception. I simply don't see the need for everyone to upgrade for a tiny difference in sound and picture quality. Honestly the HDTV that I have seen has not impressed me, I can barely tell a difference betweeen HD and analog and I am not excited about having to shell out hundreds of dollars for a new television when my old one has never given me any problems. This is a huge waste of money and resources, I will not buy an HDTV if that means I have to give up television so be it.

[ramapo]

77. This is crap

I won't embarrass myself by admitting to how many TVs are in my house but I expect that they'll all be still working in 2009 and I have no intention of purchasing converters. This looks like payola to me.

[onenote]

80. do you have cable or satellite?

If so, you probably won't have any need for a converter. If you don't, and you really have a bunch of tv's, you'd rather have them collect dust than spend $40 bucks for a device that converts digital to analog? (And the first two of those devices will effectively be free if you take the govt subsidy). Its your choice, but it seems rather foolish if you enjoy watching tv enough as to have as many sets as you imply.

onenote

[suston96]

82. Lemme tell ya something...

I was able to tell the huge difference in an HDTV signal and the other obsolete one (laugh) when watching the Red Sox in 2004. It was on a brand new Samsung 30" flat picture tube model.

You could see the features on people's faces behind the batter and the catcher and the ump. The little picture elements are really sharp and defined.

I am not wealthy but if I am going to be spending hours watching TV I want to enjoy it. We have a 42 inch Samsung projection HDTV and that Samsung 30". The large set does NOT have a built in digital tuner but the 30" does.

As to prices? Y'all may be too young to remember when RCA color TV first came out but it didn't take people very long to switch to color even if the new sets cost 3 or 4 times more than a B&W.

And earlier posters are right. Prices are all over the place and are subject to dropping in all areas including TV sets and set-top boxes, and the rest, as the competition between the makers heats up. There are good times ahead.

The Red Sox in 2004 and The Patriots in 2004 AND 2005 - all on big screen/wide screen HDTV. Could watching TV have been any better?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

87. "didn't take people very long to switch to color "

My dad held out until 1982. He was extremely stubborn like that. It was not atypical of him.

[trogdor]

93. NTSC color TV was introduced by RCA in 1954.

The first available set had a 15-inch round picture tube and cost almost as much as a new car. There were 68 hours of color programming in 1954, all of it on NBC. Color kinda languished for the next decade or so until prices for new sets reached the realm of affordability and the amount of color programming increased. NBC went "all-color" in 1967. Ever wonder why the uniforms, bridge railing, and blinking lights in Star Trek were bright primary colors? You guessed it. RCA wanted to sell more color TV's.

[eppur_se_muova]

96. For years, I only watched a B/W portable. Kept it from looking too real.

I started watching color only after (1) someone gave me a color set for free, (2) I moved into an apt where Basic Cable was included in the rent, (3) B/W portable quit working. I moved out of the apt a few months later and have not watched the color set since -- that was 2000.

I sometimes wonder if there's anything on TV, but then I remember...

[rd_kent]

91. How many people actually get TV over the air?

The best I can come up with is estimated around 10-15%. I think by 2009, that # will decrease into the single digits. Those left at that time probably only get 1 or 2 channels anyway, so they wont upgrade and will just stop watching TV.

[eppur_se_muova]

97. Probably the poorest, least educated 10-15%. Well, SCREW THEM!

:sarcasm:
edited to add sarcasm icon for the slow

[mahatmakanejeeves]

98. Alexandria, Virginia, here.

I am too cheap to want cable. There are several TVs in the house, all receiving signals over the air. Some TVs in the house can't receive certain stations well, while others can. We get 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 26, 32, 45, 50, 54, 56, and 66. 2, 11, 13, 22, and 45 are in Baltimore and Annapolis, and they come in better than the DC stations. In fact, 22, the farthest away station, comes in with the best picture of all the stations we receive. 4, 5, 7, 9, and 32 are the DC stations. 14 is a Spanish language channel. 26 is in Arlington, and it barely comes in. 56 comes in the worst of all. 23 is weird, a low power TV station. There's another one of those, but I can't recall the channel right now. We used to get 53, but it seems to have been supplanted by 56, which is nearly impossible to get.

[stevedeshazer]

101. If it doesn't come through my rabbit ears, I ain't paying for it.

[sellitman]

99. We have one OLD, OLD set in our house...

If that one won't work in 2009 then I won't own a TV. I won't miss it for a second.

Fuck digital TV

[stevedeshazer]

100. Won't this just open up pirate TV broadcasting in a big way?

Sounds like an opportunity to me.