The date is 2009 for dropping regular TV broadcasts. But old TV's won't become useless, you just purchase a translator box which is suppose to be about $50. There is some talk that the government will even provide coupons for translator boxes for low income families.
Number 2 is not correct. There is a date that stations must broadcast digital. and there is a date when the stations must stop broadcasting in analog (2009). They have to stop broadcasting in analog because the space will be used for other purposes.
Actually we all would be better off if they gave us $40 to not watch TV.
"Larry Bud" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
I've read of Congress considering legislation to provide some sort of payment for those low-income people who need a converter.(thru tax monies,of course) Converter or not,some people who receive over-the-air TV will NOT be able to receive digital TV signals regardless;analog TV degrades gracefully and is still watchable even with some noise displayed on-screen,but digital TV is either ON or OFF,those with satellite TV dishes know about this,like when a storm causes "rain fade",their signal drops out and their screen freezes,often pixellated,until enough signal returns.
There are people that believe 33 1/3 LPs are superior to CDs,value them highly,and pay a lot of money for them.They're still around,too.
IMO,*content* is far more important than resolution.
Government can establish digital TV standards,but should not be mandating a full changeover.The broadcast TV market should have determined that;if the market is there,then broadcasters would change over. But,truth is,the market was/is NOT there,it had to be forced.(cable can do whatever they want,as they have done for many years.)
BTW,Beta/VHS solved itself WITHOUT gov't interference,same with the CD/DVD formats.
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in news:Neetf.258086$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
Not relevant. My TV died a couple of years ago,and all that was available were the same old TVs,no HD receivers or converters AT ALL. That TV is expected to last for 10-15 years.
But the regular channels were (and still are) *still available*. One bought a UHF converter IF THEY WISHED TO,not because they could not receive TV at all if they did not.
It's kind of sad that the government is willing to subsidize TV Watching in the form of converters...
Health Insurance?... No! Help with prescription drugs... No! Loans for college?... No! A National Symphony Orchestra?...No!
But they will pay to make sure you can still watch Leno, Letterman, guess who will be the last to get kicked off the island and view people eating bugs on TV. Keep them dumb and happy!
Beachcomber
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Not the same thing;those were MARKET decisions,not forced by government.
Suppose you just bought a new car.Then the FEDs decide that ALL cars must be electric drive by 2009(thanks to enviro-nuts and Kyoto ;-} ). Your car must *come off the road*,or be converted to all-electric drive,no gasoline or diesel will be sold after that date. Are you going to be happy about that?
Jeez,some people on fixed incomes are already eating dog food so they can afford their meds,or doing with half a presecription because they can't afford a full purchase.
I've got three TVs;am I going to get THREE vouchers? No.
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
It's got one BIG advantage over digital TV;analog TV degrades gracefully,and is still watchable even with some noise,while digital TV is either a great picture or NO picture.Not everybody lives in areas with good TV reception,and some cannot use outside antennas like those in apartments. Just look at Direct TV when a storm goes through;the picture freezes,and pixellates,unwatchable.That's what you get if you are in a weak zone,and digital TV is way more sensitive to weak signal.
Supposed gov't forced you to buy a new PC every so often,instead of allowing the MARKET to decide? Or maybe a new operating system,to meet government standards?
Not relevant.
Yeah,just check out digital TV's freezes and pixellations.Any small sat- dish owner can tell you about them.
Then the MARKET should have been able to decide the issue,like it did for Beta/VHS tape systems,or 8-track/cassette/CD/Ipod audio.Not government.
Maybe they don't HAVE an extra $70 to spend just because the gov't wants to force a change.Maybe they have more than one TV.(and you need a converter for each VCR you plan to use to record off-air with.)
BTW,-where are- these $70 converters?
Government is forcing the change because they see big bucks in auctioning off all that bandwidth they get back from the broadcasters.
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in news:bBgtf.8196$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
It worked OK for Beta/VHS. The market(people) decided.
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in news:52itf.382296$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
In many marginal signal areas,that converter box will still not work,where good old analog NTSC works fine,if with a little noise in the picture. Digital TV is either perfect display or NO display,no inbetween. Analog TV degrades gracefully.
"Jim Yanik Dec 30, 6:56 pm
Not relevant. My TV died a couple of years ago,and all that was available were the same old TVs,no HD receivers or converters AT ALL. "
I don't know where you have been or what you have been looking at. There have been HD receivers, HDTV ready sets, and HDTV's with built-in tuners for a long time, certainly more than a couple of years. I last went shopping for a TV 3 years ago and there sure were lots of all of the above not only available, but being actively pushed and displayed by stores. In NYC, one of the problems after 911 was the lack of HD transmission from NYC because the ATSC transmitters were located on the WTC, which meant people who already had bought HDTV's here had a problem because the transmissions ended until replacements coudl be built. And that happened over 4 years ago.
Some more data points. The FCC required every TV set 34" or larger to have a built in digital tuner starting in 2004. By March, all TV's 25" or larger must have them. Everyone that was paying attention knew this as it was widely reported in the media. If you decided to buy a TV that isn't HD compatible a couple years ago, that was your decision. This conversion will have been going on for over a decade by the time NTSC ends in 2009. And to have to pay maybe 40 or 50 bucks in 2009 so that the world can move on doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me.
The Beta/VHS issue did not have to share the same bandwidth. Broadcast signals share the same bandwidth and you can get a lot more digital stations that analog in that same space.
"It's got one BIG advantage over digital TV;analog TV degrades gracefully,and is still watchable even with some noise,while digital TV is either a great picture or NO picture.Not everybody lives in areas with good TV reception,and some cannot use outside antennas like those in apartments. Just look at Direct TV when a storm goes through;the picture freezes,and pixellates,unwatchable.That's what you get if you are in a weak zone,and digital TV is way more sensitive to weak signal. "
You probably prefer 8 Track tapes over CD's, VHS tapes over DVD's and analog cell phones over digital for the same virtues.
"Supposed gov't forced you to buy a new PC every so often,instead of allowing the MARKET to decide? Or maybe a new operating system,to meet government standards? "
"Then the MARKET should have been able to decide the issue,like it did for Beta/VHS tape systems,or 8-track/cassette/CD/Ipod audio.Not government. "
The govt has regulated the broadcast industry from day one, because there is finite broadcast spectrum and you can't have everyone broadcasting at any power and on any frequency, can you? For the FCC, in cooperation with the industry, to want to put a graceful end to a broadcast technology that has been around for half a century and have it replaced with something most of us find far superior, doesn't seem extreme. Not when the small minority that will need a converter can buy one for $40. And the industry was part of the discussions, standards, and schedules for setting up ATSC and ending NTSC. They recognize the need and aren't complaining as they don't want to keep two transmitters running forever.
"Government is forcing the change because they see big bucks in auctioning off all that bandwidth they get back from the broadcasters. "
Yes, that's partly true. They want to auction off the old spectrum. However, for the US govt, even $10bil which it is expected to bring, is pretty small potatoes these days. I'm sure you'd prefer to waste valuable broadcast spectrum for a dwindling audience, when an easy conversion can take place that most of us have no problem with. Already 85% of US households receive via cable or sat. Should we tie up a national resource, that can be put to better use, forever, because some people will want to wait another 30 years?
I don't need a tuner, because like most people today, I have cable. And even if I did need one, I would be happy to buy a digital tuner for $70 in 2009 if I needed it, because I recognize that digital broadcasting has significant advantages and I would like to see it happen faster, rather than sit around and wait for every last TV to wear out.
As a professional TV Maintenance Engineer with over 25 years experience in broadcasting and transmission technology, I can tell you from experience that the reception threshold for signal strength on a digital system is 50%.
That is, if you can pick up at least 50% of the available signal at your location with your antenna, assuming all else is well, you will get a "perfect" picture. No ghosts... No reflections... No Snow. It is a video bitstream just like your Direct TV or DISH Network system.
In practice, this actually extends the usuable range of terrestrial tv to beyond what the primary Grade one contour is now. (More households get a usuable picture per licensed station).
Yes, those that live in what is call the fringe areas (60 miles +) from the transmitter may have problems unless they go with an upgraded antenna, amplifiers, cable, or direct-broadcast satellite tv. There are also translator stations that will relay the digital signal with zero degradation. The point is that there are options.
Digital is better. Digital is the future.
Beachcomber
Beachcomber
Very true... and there are more reasons that broadcasters are regulated.
There is a lot, and I mean a lot of big money involved. Your local TV station is a million dollar investment for some company, (the big networks themselves if you live in a major city). Each station has a general manager, a sales manager, hungry salespeople with expensive tastes, not to mention the often oversize salaries paid to the anchors, reporters, and other news gathering people.
There are installment payments being made on a big Lexus and many mistresses to be paid off.
They have an association called the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) that needs to meet in Las Vegas every year so that they can throw around their big money and give each other awards of high praise. Often the President himself will speak at their gathering.
In other words, there is a lot a stake for these people and they work closely with the FCC and the government to minimize the more unworthy regulations and keep the money train flowing. They generally get what they want. Otherwise, we would already be fully converted to digital TV. The NAB's interests are to delay...delay...delay (2009 sure! No problem)
Beachcomber
It's hard to see the satellite weather channel on the radio. If there is a hurricane out there it is nice to see which way the eye wall is going so you know what is going on and which way to expect the wind. In the 5 hurricanes we have had here in the last 2 years I found the TV to be significantly more valuable than the radio.
Not to mention the fact that 10% of the population has significant hearing loss and relies on TV, not radio, for information. TV has the additional advantage of being able to show captions, unlike radio.
Beta was better quality. VHS was cheaper and offered recordings of up to 6 hours (at degraded quality).
The cheaper system prevailed.
Remember the original versions of Windows? They sucked... multiple crashes, general protection faults, slow and sluggish...
The original Windows was a copy of the superior Macintosh Operating System, specifically, the graphical user interface (mouse - pull down menus). The problem was that Macs were expensive and (at the time) had less than 20% of the world's computer market share compared to the "PC compatibles" even though the Macintosh worked a lot better.
The cheaper system prevailed.
The great "what if" in history is that if Apple had cut their prices and opened up their operating system at a critical time, the world might have gone over to the Macintosh instead of the PC world we live in today. Can you imagine Bill Gates working for Steve Jobs?
Beachcomber
Lets compare apples to apples. I certainly preferred 8 track to cassette if you got a quality 8 track cartridge. They used wider tape that ran at a faster speed across the head. The sound on a good machine was much better.
8 track was killed because cassettes were cheaper to produce and the record labels didn't care if they broke immediately. Then you had to buy another one.They love CDs because they are cheaper than tape to produce and they charged more for them.
Jim, remember you've got until 2009, this is (almost) 2006. How old are those TV's? In 2009, they will all be 3 years older and, as pointed out by many, if you really want to extend their life, you can, by buying some inexpensive equipment.
You don't buy a car expecting it to last forever do you?
Be thankfull you live in the USA where mostly bad, (but sometimes good) tv is still free.
If you lived in England, the TV police would be cruising around your house in mobile radio-detection vans ready to rip you off (for black & white) or rip-you-off bigtime (for colour TV) with a hefty yearly fee.
Beachcomber
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.