US analog TV switch-off in 2009

BBC ^ | 2/2/06 | n/a

[RockinRight]

3)You will probably have to get cable or a satellite dish if you don't already have one. The reach of digital signals is not as far as existing signals. (Now, in the suburbs, a weak signal might give you some snow; after conversion, a weak signal will give you a blank screen).

Somewhat true. However, you're still good for 60 miles or so over flat terrain.

[Peach]

Agreed. It's sickening. Absolutely sickening. Why is our Congress doing this? Who is getting paid of that they're beholden to?

[RockinRight]

True HD is awesome. However, I don't think it should be forced or funded by a $1.5 bln handout.

[edcoil]

So how am I suppose to use my portable one I use when camping?

[unixfox]

As usual the recipients of this "necessity" will be to those who do not pay for it.

Is this a great country or what? I mean what's left of it.

[BlueNgold]

Your TV will still work.
If u currently have digital cable or satellite you wont need to change a thing.
If you have cable, but do not have digital cable, then you will need to upgrade to the digital box. Some cable providers are no longer supplying analog boxes, so if you want any pay-per-view or subscription services your box will be digital anyway.
If you use a regular antenna to receive your signal then you will need a box that costs around $50 under current pricing, which will probably drop over the next few years. This is not a huge deal.

Disclaimer - I admit freel that I've had digital cable for several years so I see this issue through my own prism. I consider the additional $12 I pay per month well worth the money.

[ASA Vet]

So, let me be sure I understand this.
The TV I don't watch now will be unwatchable in a few years?

[ThinkDifferent]

In less than 3 years, your current TV won't work unless you buy a converter box

You'll be fine if you have cable.

Don't buy a TV between now and then.

Probably wise. In addition to the factors you list, the MPAA luddites are demanding ridiculous copy protection requirements, and if Congress gives in then existing digital TVs could be obsoleted.

Your picture quality probably won't show a noticeable improvement. Digital doesn't necessarily mean high definition.

Most networks are broadcasting a decent amount of HD content today, and there really is a huge difference in quality if your TV can display the full resolution.

[tubebender]

Is my desktop Sharp Aquos 20" Digital ready?

[PeteB570]

Why in the world should government give people $80 so they can watch TV????

Talk about a waste on money.

[Wolfstar]

It's one of the biggest scams that's been put over on the American people this century.

Given that the century is only starting it's 6th year, that's not saying much. ;-)

However, I do get your fundamental point and agree with it.

[Rocky]

About 16% of US viewers rely on over-the-air transmissions, while more TV sets use only an aerial to watch TV programmes.

Huh?

[TaMoDee]

Your not after 2009!

[savedbygrace]

Tbat's a great post. 100% spot on.

From the beginning, 20+ years ago, this HDTV thing has NEVER been consumer driven. Never.

It's always been a way for congresscritters to force lobbyists to belly up to the bar with more $$$$$$. Theie cover has been the bandwidth that will be freed up and re-sold for other functions. It's a charade and a scam coiled together.

Now if we were really getting full bandwidth HD, it would be a different animal. But the highly compressed streams that we're all gonna get is full of artifacts and nasty looking images. Consumers who don't know what to look for when they're looking at HD will think it's better than what they have now. They are sadly deceived by their ignorance.

When friends show me their new HD set displaying HD digital cable or satellite programming, and beam excitedly as they ask me, "Isn't that great?" I have to bite my tongue hard, and say, "That's really something all right."

[Petronski]

You're sickened by the subsidy for cable boxes, right? That's Marty Meehan. He's an idiot.


But turning off analog is a good thing because analog tv signals are big and sloppy compared to digital, and all that bandwidth will be used for new and better things--so goes the tale.

[RockinRight]

Probably digital READY, but not w/o a converter. This converter would give you a true HD picture. The same converter hooked to a regular TV set would just give a regular, clear picture.

[Peach]

But turning off analog is a good thing because analog tv signals are big and sloppy compared to digital, and all that bandwidth will be used for new and better things

If that's true, it's at least a relatively decent reason for making this decision. I guess. What I know about all this could fit on the head of a pin and still leave room.

[Petronski]

They claim new and better things. I'm a tech optimist, but there's no way to know.

[trebb]

Most dish systems use digital.

[Obadiah]

)Your picture quality probably won't show a noticeable improvement. Digital doesn't necessarily mean high definition. The broadcaster can choose to give you a quality about like what you have now, and split the allocated spectrum to use the rest of it for other income-producing activities.

It's one of the biggest scams that's been put over on the American people this century.

Exactly right. Most people oooh and ahhh thinking they're talking about HDTV - not. And guess what? Broadcasters will send only marginal signals and simply split the rest to make more money. It is a scam and the consumer will be the loser.