Posted on 02/02/2006 11:01:53 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
US analogue TV switch-off in 2009
The US Congress has approved plans to force broadcasters to switch off their analogue television signals by 2009.
Setting a date of 17 February 2009 was called a "great technical revolution" by Republican politician Joe Barton, a main advocate for the change.
Congress has allocated $1.5bn (£844m) to ensure Americans can convert their TV sets to receive digital signals.
The analogue television switch-off in the UK is set to take place gradually from 2008-2012.
The US measures, which were part of budget legislation, were passed in December, but Democrats in the Senate forced technical changes to the bill.
Entitled
Moves to bring about the end of analogue broadcasting in the US have been under way for years.
Under existing law, broadcasters would be required to cease analogue transmissions when digital TV reaches 85% of the population, but this is a threshold which is not expected to be reached.
About 16% of US viewers rely on over-the-air transmissions, while more TV sets use only an aerial to watch TV programmes.
Under the new digital conversion programme, each family will be entitled to $80 (£45) towards the cost of a set-top box.
In the UK, BBC Two is to become the first station to go fully digital ahead of a full switch-off of analogue signals.
More than 60% of households already watch digital TV, while government help has been pledged for those aged over 75 and with disabilities towards the cost of conversion.
Huh?
This was written by someone with the BBC. I get the feeling that "over-the-air transmissions" and "aerial" don't mean the same thing to us as they do to the writer.
Anyway, I'm as confused about it as you are.
Why can't they leave it along like they did Black and white verses color?
But back in 1940 when they set the standard. there were few TVs and the ones that were out there were easy converted to the 521 by the manufactures for free. Other than that short CBS color thing it’s been the same.
Ah, the national government getting involved again in something that is none of its business. But they're Republican so that means it's alright...
I don't know. I think there's enough out there for them to be serious this time. I was in the industry back in the mid to late 90s when this talk was coming around. The industry has caught up, all new TVs are out there, and some of the big players have talked about dropping larger analog sets from the line. I will still wait as the price is going to come down a little more. I still remember the first one I saw (42" IIRC) for around $15k about 8-9 years ago.
I have my sunk cost already and it wasn't any more than the uniformed fools buying their rear projection 50-60 inch analog TVs. Unless you're talking about the bite to give $80 bucks for convertors for poor peoples, what is the extra cost? If it's not convertors, it will be iPods for the poor chilluns...... All that said, I'll be thinking of you when I'm watching true HD 16 by 9 on Monday nights on my 16:9 38" HDTV.....
I watch trends early and followed one or two HDTV sets closely for 2-3 years and waited until the price dropped drastically. In the end, the cost wasn't any worse than a big screen analog TV.
Essentially, the cable systems will just have to change their head-end receivers, then they can still distribute in analog for the time being. In fact, you may see a reversal in marketing tactics. Right now, they're selling their digital capabilities, in '09 you'll see cable systems selling the fact that you can still get your favorite channels without a converter.
As systems evolve, they're gradually going digital with their distribution because it allows better use of available resources.
For those on the thread who see some kind of intrusion on freedom of choice, it's important to note that this isn't a dictate to current broadcasters regarding how they transmit on their current channels, it's a requirement for them to give up their current frequencies, and move their transmissions to the UHF frequencies dedicated to digitial. Once the current analog frequencies become available, a significant portion of them will go to public safety and homeland security functions.
Say what?
Well, in a way, they have. They made cars that won't run on unleaded fuel useless. Somehow, though, we all survived.
Finally! some sense on the topic. There's no conspiracy here. The most recent example of 'forcing the market' was discontinuing UHF TV from Channels 70 through 84(?) That my friends is now the band reserved for cellular phone transmissions. Now, how many of you conspiracy nuts out there think that was bad? If you do, throw the cell phones away.
And for you afficionados who know that Cell is in the 800-900 MHz band, I know that. And I also know that PCS is higher up in the 1850 to 1950 MHz band, but the same sentiments apply.
Technology advancement requires relinquishment of out-dated equipment. ("God Damn it! I'm gonna have to give up my pearl-studded buggy whip!")
Interesting screen name, I used to work with a bunch of guys who had that name for their job title.
The UHF move was related to the whole problem with Nextel signals getting into public safety radio systems. By getting those upper UHF frequencies, public safety will be able to get away from the vicinity of Nextel. Part of the deal involves Nextel spending a small fortune to reprogram almost every public safety radio in the country. When that whole thing's over, the channels for the much-touted national first responder system will become available.
Oh... wait... you were thinking about the old UHF channel divestment... I'm thinking about the new one. It's all related to the scarcity of spectrum space, though. What we've got, we've got, and we ain't got enough.
I think a couple of them already have. I'm going to try to wait until after the first Christmas after the swichover, unless prices really drop before then.
Either way, I view it as a good thing. I'm an engineer and have been following all of this because my business is antennas and radars and I love TV and was one of the first to go out and pay upwards of $1000 for a DirectV receiver.
BTW, "gaffer" has two meanings: 1. an old fart 2. an electrician on a movie set, etc. (I am and have been both).
Coincidentally, and the reason I chose the name is that it can be rapidly typed with only the left hand (the other, of course, reserved for the beer).
Thanks for the tip. I'll try to keep that in mind.
Really? I'm wanting a 34inch hdtv with a tube. Are HD signals analog?
Does that mean hdtv signals are already digital?
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.