I am sorry if this question is OT. But, I believe that the answer to this question answer will affect just about anyone in this group:
All current TVs, VHS tape and tape recorders will be trash within 2 years due to the pending changeover to HDTV (High Definition TV).
Will I be able to use my DVDs, my DVD player and my DVD recorder with the new HDTV sets?
Can my DVDs be converted to the new HDTV format, or will all DVDs and related equipment be trash, too?
I guess if you were go on a hunt for the most useless HDTV receiver/display imaginable, one that has no direct video inputs, then you might find your old equipment worthless but I've never seen such a beast for sale. Your DVD player will still play back standard DVDs with no conversion required. Your VCR will still play back pre-recorded standard tapes with no conversion required. Your DVD recorder will not record HDTV video. Your VCR will not record HDTV video.
A current TV will display HDTV off-air signals if one of the promised conversion boxes is added and I suppose that this means that this degraded signal will be recordable with old recording devices although I imagine that anything coming through the conversion process will be bad enough without the added degradation of recording/playback.
SENATE PASSES BILL TO SET FEB. 17, 2009, FOR ALL-DIGITAL TV
Critics say consumers need bigger subsidy to buy converter boxes.
by Jennifer C. Kerr of The Associated Press
Washington, December 22, 2005 - 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.
Consumers who have newer TV sets capable of receiving digital signals will not notice a change when the switch is made in 2009, nor should satellite television viewers and the roughly 26 million households with digital cable. Cable industry representatives say there is the potential for a service disruption for some of the 40 million cable customers without digital. If they still have an analog TV set in 2009, they could lose some stations. For those households, cable operators would convert digital signals back to analog for the major broadcast stations. That may not happen for smaller, independent stations unless those stations and cable operators work out a deal or Congress intervenes.
Analysts expect some agreement. ''It seems likely that Congress will plug this gap at some point before the hard date cutover,'' said Paul Gallant, media policy analyst at Stanford Washington Research Group.
Under the converter box program, consumers with analog sets would be able to request two $40 coupons to help buy the set-top boxes, which are expected to cost $50 to $60 each. Democratic lawmakers and consumer groups say that the $1.5 billion would fall far short of helping pay for every set eligible for a converter box. ''We think this is unfair, unworkable and unacceptable. It virtually ensures that on Feb. 18, 2009, tens of millions of televisions go black,'' said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst with Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. The group says the fund - after subtracting operating and other costs - would cover fewer than 17 million households.
An estimated 21 million households do not get cable or satellite service and rely solely on free over-the-air TV. Consumers Union estimates an additional
20 million homes that have cable or satellite do not have all of their TV sets hooked up to the service and would need converter boxes. There is no income cap for those who may request the coupons. GOP supporters such as the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, have said that lawmakers do not expect to subsidize wealthier homes.The move to all-digital will free valuable radio spectrum, some of which has been allocated to improve radio communications among fire and police departments and other first responders. The government would auction the rest of the spectrum for an estimated $10 billion, though private estimates put that number higher. The bill also would provide $1 billion for public safety to upgrade their communications systems.
The Feb. 17, 2009, deadline was a compromise. The House initially proposed ending analog transmissions on Dec. 31, 2008; the Senate had backed April 7,
2009 - after the NCAA basketball tournament. The Senate had also initially proposed a $3 billion converter box subsidy.
How assenine !!! Leave it to the government to screw everything up. They should provide those converters free of charge if they pull this shit. I personally am completely satisfied with tv the way it is. The only way I'd even consider having a HDTV in the house is if it was given to me free, including the antenna to go with it. I've seen HDTV, I'm not highly impressed with it. Yeah, the picture might be a little clearer, like I really need that to watch the evening news. Just more nonsense so someone else can make alot of bucks.
As far as VCRs, I'd imagine they would require a converter too, since they have a standard tuner. But they would still PLAY tapes.
Once again, the govt. is taking away our rights. It should be left to the individual broadcasters to make the change. As far as I know, most of them are now transmitting both the conventional and the hdtv signals.
This keeps getting pushed back and I bet it gets pushed back again. As long as there is some old fart in flyover country with a 1946 DuMont who writes their congressman they will back off.
Notice the phone company STILL supports rotary dial phones.
So many myths about this:
1) There is not changeover to HDTV, there is a changeover to digital TV.All HDTV is digital, but not all digital is HD.
There is a mandate that all broadcast stations broadcast digitally by a certain date.
2) There's nothing saying that stations will suddenly shut off their analog tranmissions, only that they turn on the digital tranmission.3) Standard def DVDs work wonderfully on an HD set.
4) Just because TV antennas start broadcasting digitally doesn't affect your current VHS tapes and existing TVs. If the broadcaster DOES turn off their analog signal, you WILL need a digital receiver hooked to your analog TV.5) If you're using cable or satellite, none of this matters to you anyway.
Wire-line phone company support for rotary phones doesn't keep the government from reaping billions of dollars from re-selling broadcast spectrum licenses.
That's the major driving force for digital TV, it's not about better pictures or consumer demand, it's about squeezing TV into a smaller slice of frequencies so the government can re-sell the huge bandwidth now used for analog TV. Congress is perfectly happy to impose unfunded mandates on communications companies and state/local governments, but this is something that stands in the way of billions of dollars of their own pork!
I'm sure there were people who were completely satisfied with black and white TVs and 33 1/3 LPs too.
You've obviously never seen a true HD picture. Either that or your eyesight sucks bad. Seriously. EVERY person who has come in and seen HD on my set immediately notices the difference, and the "wow" factor is immeasurable.
The spectrum is owned by the government. Yeah, I know, it's "public" but just try and broadcast something without a license.
Yeah, that would be great. And we'd have format wars from city to city, station to station similar to Vhs/Beta, CD, DVD, and now HD-DVD format wars.
Actually I think they are doing a good job. Consider that this change has been known about for a long time. It would have been possible to provide digital compatibility in all sets manufactured since then at very low cost. Note: that is not the same as digital capability it only means they could dumb down the signal to analog. Look to the manufacturers who did not do this. Rather than spending a few dollars for each set and selling the consumer on the deal, they just kept putting it off.
Also consider the consumers who have known about this also for a long time and who have not considered it when buying new TVs.
I expect to pay a few dollars for converters of a couple of my old TVs, but it is not going to kill me. I can remember when UHF came out and converters were used. Lots of people shared your opinion back then and after all was said and done, they all lived through it and most appeared to be happy with the final outcome.
"How assenine !!! Leave it to the government to screw everything up. They should provide those converters free of charge if they pull this shit. I personally am completely satisfied with tv the way it is. The only way I'd even consider having a HDTV in the house is if it was given to me free, including the antenna to go with it. I've seen HDTV, I'm not highly impressed with it. Yeah, the picture might be a little clearer, like I really need that to watch the evening news. Just more nonsense so someone else can make alot of bucks.
As far as VCRs, I'd imagine they would require a converter too, since they have a standard tuner. But they would still PLAY tapes.
Once again, the govt. is taking away our rights. It should be left to the individual broadcasters to make the change. As far as I know, most of them are now transmitting both the conventional and the hdtv signals. "
You probably got your shorts all in a knot when 8 track tapes, LP's, laser discs, analog cell phones, and a lot of other technology bit the dust too. If you have cable, which the majority do, then it's a non-issue, as the cable company takes care of it. If you have satellite, the satellite receivers have been capable of receiving HD for years now and people have been buying into it because they want HD. Those two options take care of 85% of US homes. And both of these options send out a feed that will work with your existing TV and VCR.
The phase in of digital tuners into TV sets is well under way, with all large TVs already required to have them. Even small ones get phased in over the next couple of years. And just about everyone agrees that HD is clearly superior to std TV.
Worse case, if you rely on receiving analog via an antenna, you'll be able to buy a converter for $70. And the govt is gonna chip in $40 or so of that, which IMO is a $1.5Bil waste of the tax payers money. I don't think $35 is gonna break anyone.
"Larry Bud Dec 30, 12:24 pm show options
2) There's nothing saying that stations will suddenly shut off their analog tranmissions, only that they turn on the digital tranmission. "While I agree with your other points, this one is incorrect. There;s only nothing if you consider Congress to be nothing. The shut off for NTSC has been spelled out for years by legislation passed by Congress. The deadline just keeps getting pushed out. Currently it is set for
2009. They want to shut if off so Congress can sell that portion of the spectrum for an estimated $10Bil.It is a strange situation, and the first time such a move has been tried without mandating that everything be backward-compatible, so people aren't used to having things change on them like this. It's going to happen and even out here in rural America, several stations are broadcasting in both formats already. They hope to minimize the outcry when/if the changes go through (which they will). Only one station here so far has announced when it will cease analog transmissions; 2007. I think it's too early to be able to predict much about what will happen over the next decade with any reliability but it should be interesting. Personally I would have preferred to see the market ditate which format exists in ten years or whenever even, but our gvt sees a huge advantage to the hdtv (and all the other names that have come about for it) and are going to push it thru one way or another. They WANT and think they need those frequencies that will be freed up. One of the most irritable parts of this is, even if stations WANTED to continue to broadcast in both formats, which a lot would, they eventually aren't going to be allowed to. IMO, the only pro-active thing we (tinw) can do about it is to be certain that any TV we buy that we want to keep for more than a few years, had better be hdtv format capable or it could end up being a wasted money situation. It's really bugging me that so many companies are alreadystarting to label their sets as "HDTV Ready" because for many of them, all that means is they've added a cheap input for a converter box to feed into it - which is also going to be a big business in the near future. Radio Shacks and X-10's of the world are going to love it!
I don't think we'll see the old VCRs, TVs & other systems et al being no good because there will shortly be a plethora of "converters" available from every spammer/crammer/scammer/store in existance, who may or may not deliver what they claim. It's just the way things go.
Anyway, my two cents,
Pop
"Bob" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com... : SENATE PASSES BILL TO SET FEB. 17, 2009, FOR ALL-DIGITAL TV : : Critics say consumers need bigger subsidy to buy converter boxes. : : by Jennifer C. Kerr of The Associated Press : : : : Washington, December 22, 2005 - 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. : : Consumers who have newer TV sets capable of receiving digital signals will : not notice a change when the switch is made in 2009, nor should satellite : television viewers and the roughly 26 million households with digital cable. : Cable industry representatives say there is the potential for a service : disruption for some of the 40 million cable customers without digital. If : they still have an analog TV set in 2009, they could lose some stations. For : those households, cable operators would convert digital signals back to : analog for the major broadcast stations. That may not happen for smaller, : independent stations unless those stations and cable operators work out a : deal or Congress intervenes. : : Analysts expect some agreement. ''It seems likely that Congress will plug : this gap at some point before the hard date cutover,'' said Paul Gallant, : media policy analyst at Stanford Washington Research Group. : : Under the converter box program, consumers with analog sets would be able to : request two $40 coupons to help buy the set-top boxes, which are expected to : cost $50 to $60 each. Democratic lawmakers and consumer groups say that the : $1.5 billion would fall far short of helping pay for every set eligible for : a converter box. ''We think this is unfair, unworkable and unacceptable. It : virtually ensures that on Feb. 18, 2009, tens of millions of televisions go : black,'' said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst with Consumers Union, : the publisher of Consumer Reports. The group says the fund - after : subtracting operating and other costs - would cover fewer than
17 million : households. : : An estimated 21 million households do not get cable or satellite service and : rely solely on free over-the-air TV. Consumers Union estimates an additional : 20 million homes that have cable or satellite do not have all of their TV : sets hooked up to the service and would need converter boxes. There is no : income cap for those who may request the coupons. GOP supporters such as the : chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton, : R-Texas, have said that lawmakers do not expect to subsidize wealthier : homes. : : The move to all-digital will free valuable radio spectrum, some of which has : been allocated to improve radio communications among fire and police : departments and other first responders. The government would auction the : rest of the spectrum for an estimated $10 billion, though private estimates : put that number higher. The bill also would provide $1 billion for public : safety to upgrade their communications systems. : : The Feb. 17, 2009, deadline was a compromise. The House initially proposed : ending analog transmissions on Dec. 31, 2008; the Senate had backed April 7, : 2009 - after the NCAA basketball tournament. The Senate had also initially : proposed a $3 billion converter box subsidy. : : : : "Walter R." wrote in message : news:bzctf.9481$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.socal.rr.com... : > I am sorry if this question is OT. But, I believe that the answer to this : > question answer will affect just about anyone in this group: : >: > All current TVs, VHS tape and tape recorders will be trash within 2 years : > due to the pending changeover to HDTV (High Definition TV). : >
: > Will I be able to use my DVDs, my DVD player and my DVD recorder with the : > new HDTV sets? : >
: > Can my DVDs be converted to the new HDTV format, or will all DVDs and : > related equipment be trash, too? : >
: > -- : > Walter : >
: >
: :
"Larry Bud" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
And guess what, that equipment still works. B&W TVs work without alteration to receive color signals, they still make LPs. Also, the government didn't mandate a change to color TV. In fact, they forced broadcasters to do it in a way that the equipment then owned by consumers would be backward compatible.
Not the same situation at all.
Brian
The marketplace will insure that cheap converter boxes are available.
It is more important to the advertisers who support free tv that the great unwashed masses continue to watch, even if a subsidy must be paid.
One thing no one has mentioned is simply that the existing NTSC analog system is obsolete for the 21st century.
It is a wonder that a standard for color TV approved in 1953 is still the system used today in 2005, over 50 years! It is a miracle that the picture is as good as it is. The only significant change was the adoption of a standard for stereo audio in the mid-1980's.
Imagine what it would be like if someone forced you to use a 50 year old modem, or a 50 year old computer. Do you know what punch card is?
Non-technical people may not be familiar with the compromises that were required such as interlacing, and the addition of a color sub carrier inserted to preserve a 6 Mhz bandwidth limitation. The 4:3 aspect ratio selected way back in the 1940's cannot do justice to the aspect ratio of modern movies 16:9 . You must either pan and scan the movie (cut off up to 2/3 of the frame), or broadcast in the "letterbox" mode, both of which most people find to be unacceptable.
Today's NTSC signal is composed of a large number of synchronizing pulses (horizontal, vertical, color, blanking intervals) etc. all of which, in today's digital world, is hugely inefficient and wasteful of spectrum space. Analog signals are also particularly susceptible to interference, ghosts, and reflections.
Yes, there will always be those that say, well, the existing system is "good enough". Why not just keep it? These people may still have rotary dial phones or a Model - T in the garage.
Digital TV is going to be a better deal for everyone and it is long past due?
Beachcomber
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ,,, .
I fear if we left it up to the individual broadcasters we would have a dozen more more incomparable different systems right now. This is sort of like deciding which side of the street to drive on. It is best if we all do the same thing at the same time. :-)
One problem that nobody seems to be concerned about is this scenario.
There is a major problem coming your way. Whatever come through your part of the world. Fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or your favorite disaster. The power goes out in your home. But you know the Emergency Broadcast System will give you the latest life saving information
You grab your old battery operated or hand-held TV and it won't pick anything up.
As you kiss your ass goodbye, be comforted by the words from Washington.
"I am from the Government and I am here to help you!"
Yeah, I wrote to both senators. Big deal.
Charlie (in hurricane country)
" It's really bugging me that so many companies are alreadystarting to label their sets as "HDTV Ready" because for many of them, all that means is they've added a cheap input for a converter box to feed into it - which is also going to be a big business in the near future. "
HDTV ready means a lot more than a cheap input for a converter box. First, it means the set is capable of displaying HD resolutions, eg
1080i or 760P. There is a significant manufacturing cost differential to build the tube and circuitry to support that. Second, all the large screen TVs already have to not only be HDTV ready, they also must now have a built in digital tuner. I don't remember the exact schedule, but the FCC required this already for large screens. They are working their way down to smaller screen TVs so that in a couple more years, all TV sets sold will have to have digital tuners.The rub here is that most of us won't ever need or use the digital tuner. If you have cable or sat, that is handled by the STB. But the idea was to shove it in, get the volume up, and have all of us pay for it so that it will drive the cost down for the small percentage of folks who still rely on OTA broadcast. Of course the final irony is that now Congress is gonna hand out $1.5Bil to pay for converters for those that don't want to buy a new TV anyway.
If you're too damn stupid to prepare for your local disasters, too damn cheap to by a radio, and and such a bastard that you don't have any friends to bail you out, you're no great loss to the world, anyway.
"The marketplace will insure that cheap converter boxes are available.
It is more important to the advertisers who support free tv that the great unwashed masses continue to watch, even if a subsidy must be paid.
One thing no one has mentioned is simply that the existing NTSC analog system is obsolete for the 21st century.
It is a wonder that a standard for color TV approved in 1953 is still the system used today in 2005, over 50 years! It is a miracle that the picture is as good as it is. The only significant change was the adoption of a standard for stereo audio in the mid-1980's.
Imagine what it would be like if someone forced you to use a 50 year old modem, or a 50 year old computer. Do you know what punch card is?
Non-technical people may not be familiar with the compromises that were required such as interlacing, and the addition of a color sub carrier inserted to preserve a 6 Mhz bandwidth limitation. The 4:3 aspect ratio selected way back in the 1940's cannot do justice to the aspect ratio of modern movies 16:9 . You must either pan and scan the movie (cut off up to 2/3 of the frame), or broadcast in the "letterbox" mode, both of which most people find to be unacceptable.
Today's NTSC signal is composed of a large number of synchronizing pulses (horizontal, vertical, color, blanking intervals) etc. all of which, in today's digital world, is hugely inefficient and wasteful of spectrum space. Analog signals are also particularly susceptible to interference, ghosts, and reflections.
Yes, there will always be those that say, well, the existing system is "good enough". Why not just keep it? These people may still have rotary dial phones or a Model - T in the garage.
Digital TV is going to be a better deal for everyone and it is long past due...
Beachcomber "
Well said Beachcomber! There is no question that HDTV is a big step forward. And I don't see it being such a big deal to pay $70 for a digital tuner in 2009 for those that need one. That would be the 15% or so of homes that receive via OTA instead of cable or sat. And the govt is even gonna hand out $1.5Bil to give them about $40 of the $70, so the real cost will be more like $30 And of all the screw jobs Congress gives Americans in the form of wasted money and higher taxes, why should this be such a big deal? Maybe Joe Six Pack should look at how much is taken out of his check each week if he wants to bitch about something.
| I don't think we'll see the old VCRs, TVs & other systems et al | being no good because there will shortly be a plethora of | "converters" available from every spammer/crammer/scammer/store | in existance, who may or may not deliver what they claim.
I really hope someone comes out with a good converter box for NTSC VCRs/DVRs soon. It would have to include per-program aspect ratio selection (so you don't end up with a tape of letterboxed, pillarboxed 4:3 material) and a reasonable timer. It would be nice if it could control the VCR reliably so you don't have to set _two_ timers. Last time I looked such a converter was not available at any price: the closest I could come still requires me to reset the aspect conversion manually.
Of course, I'd be happy with a selection of ATSC-equipped DVRs that have similar capabilities to current NTSC versions without extensive new DRM hobbles. For that matter, I wish they'd hurry up with the ATSC-equipped
9" and 13" TVs. Maybe if more ATSC-compatible products were available now the cutover deadline would look less drastic.Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.