The end of analog TV

[Baltovibe]

Hope you all saved up enough money for those High Definition TVs (HDTV) that you may be forced to buy if you want to continue watching TV!http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7593620

[millster]

I'm ready for it. Just got my HDTV last weekend.However, just a note. You'll still be able to use a standard television it will just require purchasing a set-top box to make it receive the signal and you won't get the added benefits of full HD. My question is how much said set-top box will cost because even my new Toshiba doesn't have a built-in HD tuner. The built in tuner is still analog. I wonder if the mandatory digital broadcasts will bring the costs of the HD boxes down or not?

[ToolGuy]

Do not believe it, an adapter will be made... Can you imagine how many people would be mad to just throw out their TV's because they just do not work any more?Look how long black and white TVs are and were made for.HD radio is coming too only normal radios will still work.

[kharman]

you should believe it...the analogue airwaves are already being sold to cell phone companies...you'll lose the signal in your tv set, but you have incredible reception on your cell phone...as for me, i've had a widescreen HD tv for three years now...i have 12 channels of high def, and i hardly watch anything else....i'll watch grass gorw if it's in HD, it's that good...Quote, originally posted by MiVibe-ToolGuy »Do not believe it, an adapter will be made... Can you imagine how many people would be mad to just throw out their TV's because they just do not work any more?Look how long black and white TVs are and were made for.HD radio is coming too only normal radios will still work.

[Reynoma]

According to the article, the "turn off" of analog only effects those of us who (1) have a non-HDTV and (2) rely on a rooftop antenna for signal (cable and satelite) - so most of America will not have to buy new sets.

[kostby]

This comment should probably be in Political Asylum, but here goes...If you think 'Joe Sixpack' is mad about 'privatizing' Social Security, shipping jobs overseas with NAFTA, the rising cost of gasoline, abortion rights, Congressional ethics questions, and the War in Iraq...JUST WAIT until you TRY to turn off his ANALOG TV!!!It may happen in the next decade, but it sure AIN'T gonna happen during the Bush administration.

[rasermon]

I been switched over since last Nov. of 04. I bought a Samsung HD terrestrial receiver to go along with my Samsung 46" DLPâ„¢ HDTV Monitor (HL-P4663W). I hooked it up to a directional UHF antenna in the attic ($25 +$60 preamp for the length of the cable) I had perfect HD from all of the local stations. I'm still waiting for Fox get get on the air. Once you watch local programing in HD you never want to go back to SD. The PBS High Definition channel is outstanding.

[Mase]

Man I need to get with the times! I still have an early model 48" lcd flat panel tv running on S-VIDEO. No HD capability . I really hate seeing all the pixelation I get from my non-hd satellite.It's good that analog broadcasting will finally be obsolete. I'm tired of seeing my grandparents' foiled-wrapped rabbit ears on the tv in their spare room whenever I visit!

[esjones]

Quote, originally posted by millster »I'm ready for it. Just got my HDTV last weekend.However, just a note. You'll still be able to use a standard television it will just require purchasing a set-top box to make it receive the signal and you won't get the added benefits of full HD. YES! Folks, "digital" TV doesn't necessarily mean HD, as millster correctly points out. Also, the key word in the FCC announcement is BROADCASTING. If you pick your TV signal off of cable, the new regulation doesn't affect you at all. Cable companies and cable channels are not broadcasting in the sense that the FCC uses the term, which is to mean over-the-air broadcasting.

[Mavrik]

I was thinking there could not be a way the companies could FORCE people to buy a new product. Absolutely no way and while sure the box may need to be purchased, its not like the mass population is going to be forced to buy a HDTV. Cause those bad boys can cost more then some trailers in a trailer park

[kharman]

it is true that cable stations aren't broadcasting, but they are making the transition to HD. TNT, USA and TBS are already transmitting in HD. The cable companies will most surely universally switch to the medium once the majority of sets being sold are HD ready or HD capable...it may not happen fully in 2006, but it will happen....

[scott_h]

I've had a 65" HD RPTV for over 2 years. As already stated, once you get used to watching HD, you can hardly stand to watch anything else (at least on a larger set). My satellite box down converts HD so that I can watch HD channels on my non-HD TV, so I'm guessing that's the kind of thing that would be required. You'd be getting an HD signal, but not watching it in "true" HD. When I first got HD, the offerings on the networks were pretty slim. I haven't taken a count lately, but I'd guess that well over 50% of nightly programming is now available in HD.

[silver_vibe]

Quote, originally posted by Baltovibe »Hope you all saved up enough money for those High Definition TVs (HDTV) that you may be forced to buy if you want to continue watching TV!Congress can ignore the end-of-2006 cut-off if fewer than 85 percent of households have digital television sets. Considering most new tvs still come without an hdtv tuner, we won't hit the 85% mark by the end of next year.

[ColonelPanic]

The guys at work are convinced that the type of TV I have at home is one similar to the one I have attached. I never turn the TV on anymore, haven't for some time now. Ahh, it's nice. No HDTV for me!

Attached files

[ToolGuy]

Quote, originally posted by ColonelPanic »The guys at work are convinced that the type of TV I have at home is one similar to the one I have attached. I never turn the TV on anymore, haven't for some time now. Ahh, it's nice. No HDTV for me! Well with a TV like that you would have to wait for the tubes to warm up, I would not watch it either!!! OK I have a dish so I guess it does not apply to me... Regardless, I do not watch much TV to begin with.

[esjones]

Quote, originally posted by scott_h »My satellite box down converts HD so that I can watch HD channels on my non-HD TV, so I'm guessing that's the kind of thing that would be required. You'd be getting an HD signal, but not watching it in "true" HD. Once again, All HD is digital.All digital is NOT HD.This difference may be lost on most, but it is NOT inconsequential.

[Baltovibe]

I guess my worry is what will happen with the cost and convenience of receiving a TV signal of any type.Currently I get Comcast Basic Analog Cable service for $54 a month (ouch!). They keep trying to get me to convert to Digital Cable for an additional $15 a month, which I am not willing to do for another reason other than cost.For example, I have 4 analog TVs, 2 VCRs, and 4 DVD recorders (all of them with analog tuners) that I have hooked up to my analog cable line. That means that each device can operate and tune a program separately without any additional devices (like a cable box).If I were to upgrade to Comcast Digital, then it appears that I would have to get a separate cable box for each device I have if I want the same functionality that I had before. I can't imagine how much additional cost it would be for having 10 cable boxes to rent or lease.My fear is that when the requirement of providing analog signals ends, Comcast will force me to go digital with its associated costs. And that would be a tough choice for me, since I do like watching and recording TV.I have checked into the dish (about $40 a month), but they want $5 a month for EACH additional outlet, up to only 4 outlets total.So, I hope the date for the cutoff of analog is a longways away (hopefully 2020 or later )

[Baltovibe]

Quote, originally posted by millster »I'm ready for it. Just got my HDTV last weekend.Most Monitors Won't Play New HD Video http://www.pcworld.com/news/ar...0.asp

[millster]

Sigh... Here we go with the copy protection garbage again. Man this gets old. Everything they try to copy protect they end up screwing up. Oh well. Just another reason to forego Vista, I guess.Lucky for me, my HDTV does have an HDMI port.Thanks for sharing Baltovibe!

[Baltovibe]

Looks like analog will cease in 2009.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9697337

[Baltovibe]

Another article on the subject:Quote » If you have a TV set that receives signals over the air, pay attention to Congress. It's about to pick your pocket by turning every one of those sets into a paperweight - unless you pay $50 ransom for each set.The vehicle for this exercise in highway robbery? Legislation setting a firm date for the switchover from analog to digital TV broadcasting, abandoning the technology broadcasters have used since the dawn of the medium.Sometime in 2009, you'll need a new digital television to watch your favorite shows over-the-air, or you'll have to buy a converter for your existing set.The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee this week picked midnight on Dec. 31, 2008, for the change. Not surprisingly, the committee disagreed with its Senate counterpart, which chose April 7, 2009, during markup of its switchover bill last week.The later date would give us a chance to watch postseason bowl games and NCAA basketball finals before our screens go dark and all hell breaks loose.That's only one difference between the House and Senate bills. The other critical question is how much money Congress will provide to help the poor, elderly and maybe even ordinary citizens who want to know why they suddenly have to pay to continue watching TV over airwaves they already own.House Republicans had their answer yesterday - $990 million to subsidize consumers who purchase converter boxes. Those boxes are estimated to cost $40 to $60 apiece. Figuring in administrative costs, the money would cover roughly 20 million sets.Unfortunately, the National Association of Broadcasters estimates that 73 million sets will be affected. So if you own one of the other 53 million, you'll have to buy a new set, pay for a converter, or just chuck that otherwise perfectly good TV into the trash. We won't even talk about the environmental nightmare that presents.As the markup session wore on, Republicans beat back a Democratic attempt to expand the subsidy to $4 billion, which is about a billion more than the Senate provided in its version.So Democrats are already lining up to make this a prime Republican- bashing issue."This is a government-forced condemnation of private property," Rep. Edward J. Markey declared in the very highest dudgeon.He's right, of course. But the Massachusetts Democrat didn't mention that this entire misbegotten scheme was hatched during the Clinton administration, with the full participation of his party.But that's water over the digital dam. You're probably wondering how this will affect you. So here it is in a nutshell:Any TV hooked up to a cable or satellite feed will be OK after the switchover, because the cable companies will continue providing analog signals to their customers.You're only out of luck if you're one of the 20 percent of U.S. householders who rely directly on broadcasters - because you don't want cable or can't afford it. You're partially out of luck if you're among 40 percent of cable and satellite customers who still have at least one set that receives over-the-air broadcasts.You'll only have to replace or buy a converter for the non-cabled sets.Unfortunately, this blatant rip-off - which critics rightly call the TV Tax - is pretty much a done deal. But it's instructive to understand how and why it happened - maybe we can keep it happening again in some other venue.It began in the mid-1990s, when an unholy alliance of lawmakers, broadcasters, TV manufacturers and wireless telephone operators got together to figure out a way for everyone to make a pile of money at your expense and mine.None of this had anything to do with demand from you or me or anyone else in the marketplace.Here's the scheme they hatched:Sometime in the first decade of the 21st century, TV broadcasters would give up the analog technology they've been using to send TV signals over the air for more than 60 years. They agreed to switch to a new, digital broadcasting system that sends video and audio as a series of zillions of ones and zeros - which no traditional analog set can decode. The broadcasters would also give up the radio frequencies they were currently using and switch to new frequencies.The broadcasters had to front a lot of money for new equipment to do this, but they get a choice of goodies in return. The first was technology that can provide a high-definition TV signal - maybe good enough to recapture some of the eyeballs they'd lost to DVDs and computer screens. Those are the HDTVs that home theater buffs are buying today.But here's the catch: The broadcasters don't have to broadcast in HD all the time. Instead, they can choose to use that same bandwidth to broadcast several digital channels in standard definition. That gives them a chance to reach more audiences and sell three or four times as many commercials - if anybody wants to watch what they're broadcasting.Another advantage of the technology: Digital broadcasting uses far less bandwidth than today's analog system. That will free up frequencies the government can use for other purposes. Some of it will go to "first responders," meaning police, fire and other agencies who say their existing radio channels are too crowded. That's why you'll see some of the snake oil salesmen in Congress touting this as a "national security" measure. This is pure baloney, of course.What Congress really wants is $10 billion or so from auctioning off the lion's share of that freed-up radio spectrum to wireless telephone and data service providers (who plan to make their money back sending music, movies and real-time porn videos to your cell phone.)Back in 1996, when the national budget was much closer to being balanced, that $10 billion seemed like a big deal. But today it's a drop in the deficit bucket - enough to run the occupation of Iraq for maybe three months. Then it's gone.Still, if you're a congressman of the GOP persuasion worried about preserving tax breaks for your buddies while deficits are going through the roof and your own fiscal conservatives are turning purple - well, any income that doesn't involve voting on a direct tax is welcome indeed.Did I mention the people who make TVs and converter boxes? Are they salivating over the prospect of selling millions and millions of new TVs, plus all those converter boxes? Of course they are.Heck, they're already selling 18 million analog TVs a year, knowing full well that customers will have to convert them or replace them in 2009.Who winds up paying for all this? You and me.This is one of the most disgraceful performances in the history of government, and every legislator who voted for it, anywhere along the line, should be ashamed.Copyright © 2005, The Baltimore Sunhttp://www.baltimoresun.com/te...nists