The End Of Normal (analog) TV Broadcast

[Skink000 0]

Here is the info.   

 

http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html

 

                                     
This is another doc from the FCC.   

"Did you know that February 17, 2009, is the date set by Congress for all TV stations to stop analog broadcasts? After that date, consumers with analog sets will need to obtain a separate converter box to watch over-the-air TV. Beginning in 2008, consumers with analog TVs receiving over-the-air broadcasts will be able to obtain two coupons worth $40 each towards the purchase of converter boxes from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA will publish rules on how to obtain and use the coupons sometime in 2006."

What do you think?

[Fischbob 9]

My take is, what's the point? There's no need to make us throw out all our old TVs. If networks want to broadcast in DTV, they should be able to do so, and if any channels want to stick with analog, they should also be able to.

[Constantina 5]

In Britain, they scheduled the switch-off for 2012.

-------------------------

Constantina

at Athens and Midlands, NSWiki, SC4EVER.com and Simtropolis

London 2012

[Makollig Jezfahted 0]

^^^ Indeed, although they start in 2008

2008

Border (2nd Half)

2009

West Country (1st Half)

HTV Wales (2nd Half)

Granada (2nd Half)

2010

HTV West (1st Half)

Grampian (1st Half)

Scottish Television (2nd Half)

2011

Yorkshire (1st Half)

Anglia (1st Half)

Central (1st Half)

2012

Meridian (1st Half)

Carlton / LWT (London) (1st Half)

Tyne Tees (2nd Half)

Ulster (2nd Half)

[Voar Tok 4]

Here in the US, they've already started the process.  I had to change out my grandparents TV because the old one was dying, and me and my brother found out first hand how heavy those things really are (especially the screen).

[Easy Bakes 253]

TVs today dont last very long anyway.

[Micah 16]

Oh yeah... I heard about this. In fact, my profesor told me about this. It was quite interesting to see how mad he got. Anyways, he was telling us how things break down on purpose so that we have to buy new stuff all the time.

Remember how long cars use to last?? Now look at how long our cars last. Anyways.

(Wow, am I off-topic or what!?!)

[hello_SC4 1]

Originally posted by: Micah

Oh yeah... I heard about this. In fact, my profesor told me about this. It was quite interesting to see how mad he got. Anyways, he was telling us how things break down on purpose so that we have to buy new stuff all the time. Remember how long cars use to last?? Now look at how long our cars last. Anyways. (Wow, am I off-topic or what!?!)quote>

Yes, well, remember how much electronics cars used to have? And how much they have now? If we built cars with the same equipment today they would last just as long. And besides, most of today's cars still last long, but they just get changed more often that they used to.

Anyway, about DTV, the switch will be done very quickly here. We don't even have DTV broadcasts yet, yet by 2015 we are scheduled to finally turn off analog.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Yet again the governments bow to big business and help them churn their market.

[lakeyboy 12]

In Australia, when digital broadcasting started on January 1, 2001, the Australian Government planned to shut off the analog signal on January 1, 2008 but now because of the slower than expected take up of digital TV and not enough people buying digital boxes for their TV's, the government wants to add two years to the signal to make it cease on January 1, 2010.

I personally don't need to be worried. In my house there is already 3 digital boxes (2 standard, 1 high definition for my plasma)

[hdorriker 190]

I predict that following the discontinuation of Analog TV simulcast, there will be a flood of strange/awesome/weird/crazy independent pirate TV stations taking up the newly freed-up RF spectrum that was once used for VHF/UHF.

Although, in all liklihood, if this were to happen it wouldn't be all indie and cool and stuff, and more like the cheesiest public-access only without restrictions.

[The Terminator 0]

yes, this seems good to us tech nerds, but lets imagine that were Poor, live in a bad neighborhood in a city like Newark or Detriot, and you have a set from 1985 because you cant afford a new one, and come 2009, the cheapest digital set is lets say $300, and you need that money to pay the rend and feed youre family. now you dont have a TV. this is just the rich media pigs way to screw the poor

[Cjah 15]

Originally posted by: The Terminator

yes, this seems good to us tech nerds, but lets imagine that were Poor, live in a bad neighborhood in a city like Newark or Detriot, and you have a set from 1985 because you cant afford a new one, and come 2009, the cheapest digital set is lets say $300, and you need that money to pay the rend and feed youre family. now you dont have a TV. this is just the rich media pigs way to screw the poorquote>

100% true my friend.....

I have an old,but perfectly working Curtis Mathes TV system from 86 and thats the only TV I have ever had in my room....Yeah my family is kinda poor,but we don't like to waste our money on stupid and uneeded things like Digital TV...

but yeah....The Government makes this happen only because of the Biusness it will create...not because the people want it....

I remember didn't they originally say Analog would be done by 2006?

[Praetorian Cohort 0]

Analog TVs can display signals from digital channels, albeit at 640i instead of 720p. Some stations are already broadcasting primetime in digital.

All our TVs are high-def anyways. Can't wait until it becomes industry standard.

[dev 47]

Originally posted by: Skink000 Did you know that February 17, 2009, is the date set by Congress for all TV stations to stop analog broadcasts?quote>

Yep.

Big deal? No...
All you have to do is buy an apapter...and they are even thinking of buying those for people who can't afford them... We need to make sure the less than fortunate have their dose of Desparate Housewives don't we?

Digital is the new standard...simple as that.

[Firebird 40]

Two, $40 coupons. That tells me that the converter will be expensive.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Cjah

Originally posted by: The Terminator

yes, this seems good to us tech nerds, but lets imagine that were Poor, live in a bad neighborhood in a city like Newark or Detriot, and you have a set from 1985 because you cant afford a new one, and come 2009, the cheapest digital set is lets say $300, and you need that money to pay the rend and feed youre family. now you dont have a TV. this is just the rich media pigs way to screw the poorquote>

100% true my friend.....

I have an old,but perfectly working Curtis Mathes TV system from 86 and thats the only TV I have ever had in my room....Yeah my family is kinda poor,but we don't like to waste our money on stupid and uneeded things like Digital TV...

quote>

I always rolled my eyes when my parents started a rant with "back when I was your age" but I'm going to do it anyway . . .

Back when I was a kid, all of this electronic stuff wasn't "required". It didn't exist. We didn't have any $200 toys. Not because my family was all that poor (we were basic, middle class Americans) but because $200 toys did not exist.

Go look at your PlayStation or XBox or whatever it is you have and count up what you spent on the system itself plus the various games. There are many 8 year olds who have a pile of equipment costing several hundred dollars.

Today, you can ask a high school student to remove the various hardware he carries around and odds are good you will find a $100 picture cell phone, a $300 ipod (or some other form of mp3 player), and a $50 jump drive.

When did it become "required" to have all of this stuff?

There is part of me that agrees, yes, digital TV is better: let's convert. And then there is the part that says: you are requiring me to buy what?

It's bad enough that we trash billions of dollars in computer equipment just because it is obsolete. Now we are trashing TVs too.

... end rant ...

[defcon pilot 0]

This is the most useless thing ever to happen in the history of television. Why can't we stick with the old? WHY do we always have to get "the latest stuff"? All they're doing is helping these businesses that sell those adapters make more money. Well, I think they've got plenty already! Like Ski said, when did it become "required" to have all the latest stuff?

[justanothersim86 83]

My, my, my. How things have changed in 10 years.

Purely an excuse for them to make even more billions of dollars. I don't watch must television anyways.

[Skink000 0]

Lets just hope the transition goes better then the United States

transition to metric.  God I love this country.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: The Terminator

yes, this seems good to us tech nerds, but lets imagine that were Poor, live in a bad neighborhood in a city like Newark or Detriot, and you have a set from 1985 because you cant afford a new one, and come 2009, the cheapest digital set is lets say $300, and you need that money to pay the rend and feed youre family.quote>

You make an interesting point. However, I saw a TV on sale at Costco for $149.99. Now that everyone wants flat plasma screen TVs, the price of ones that use tubes has dropped sgnificantly.
Now I doubt your poor family in Newark or Detroit has a Costco membership, but you could likely get a similar price from someplace like WalMart.
May be cheaper stil to just get the converer, though. Especially with those coupons.

It is also important to note that you ony need a new TV if you're recieving your signal via an antenna. Cable or satelite TV, since it's recieved by a seperate box, not the TV itself, can be viewed by any TV with a coaxial cable jack, even if it's broadcasting in digital (which all US Cable and sateite providers now are). You just need your box to be digitally capable, which it always is if you're subscribing to the service. Pirate boxes (which you may find a few of in poor neighborhoods), however, will likely have trouble.

[defcon pilot 0]

Perhaps. But I still think that this shouldn't take place. Why do people have to waste their money?

@Skink000: Yep. And it's all because the big companies "couldn't afford the cost of changing every single little device to use metrics"... Pff. Yeah, right.

[vidioman 21]

I got myself a TV in 2002, and it is digital. My mom got a TV in 2003, for the same price (but it's 27in not 19in) and it's not digital. I can tell you the reception with digital is much, much better! No fuzz, no interference from the American networks, and considering the frequency is much more exact, there is more room for channels and more features. Like up north, where they get a good chunk of what we think are cable only channels, over the air.

Think of it like cell phones. Before digital cell phones, you had analogue ones, and they had static, dropped out, and the signal sucked. Now we have digital cell phones, and they're much clearer. Thats what digital TV is like. And before you complain about the cost, we can get digital TVs for less than 150$ dollars here in Canada, it should be that hard, and it's in 2009 when the US switches anyway (Canada I think is 2010 or 2012) it's better than it sounds. And the converta boxes shouldn't be too expensive, it'll be like the cheap cable boxes from the 90s for TVs that couldn't handle cable channels (my dad still has a TV with only 13 channels on it's dial)

HD TV won't be standard until closer to 2020, and by then HDTV will be pretty affordable. Currently there isn't enough market for it, and it costs more to transmit HDTV signals with our technology.

People in smaller markets will notice the change last because smaller stations can't afford the upgrades. CJBN Kenora covers less than 80,000 people, so their equipment is out of date and the station is really low quality. (like many towns up here, they're still running windows 95 )