Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Digital TV Transition Date Approved - stop using analog signals in 2009
PCWorld ^ | Grant Gross, IDG News Service

Posted on 02/09/2006 3:33:18 PM PST by Calpernia

WASHINGTON -- Legislation requiring U.S. broadcasters to abandon their analog spectrum, opening up the "beachfront" spectrum to next-generation wireless services and emergency response agencies, is headed to U.S. President George Bush to be signed into law.

Late Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a large budget reconciliation bill that included a deadline of February 17, 2009, for broadcasters to stop broadcasting analog signals and move to digital television (DTV).

The House approval came after the U.S. Senate in December amended other parts of the House-approved budget reconciliation bill conference report. The final bill includes up to $1.5 billion in funding to provide two $40 vouchers per household to use toward the purchase of digital-to-analog set-top converter boxes. TV owners receiving over-the-air analog signals on older TV sets will need the converter boxes.

The legislation directs the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to begin an auction of the cleared airwaves by January 28, 2008. The High Tech DTV Coalition, made up of 18 IT companies and trade groups, pushed for a DTV transition deadline to free up the spectrum for new services such as mobile broadband, mobile video and WiMax.

Part of the spectrum will also go to help public safety agencies better communicate with each other.

(snip)


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: analog; broadcast; digital; digitaltv; legislation; nomorerabbitears; technology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 next last
To: Calpernia

I'm personally thrilled, but I can hear the Democrats now when the date starts bearing down: "This discriminates! We have to help the less fortunate buy digital TVs!"

MM


81 posted on 02/09/2006 4:38:11 PM PST by MississippiMan (Behold now behemoth...he moves his tail like a cedar. Job 40:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

You're explaining why the Dish and DirecTV pix are worse than off air images, but that doesn't mean it's an apples/oranges comparison. It's a comparison of video images from different sources. It's all apples (or oranges.) Some apples are not as good as others.


82 posted on 02/09/2006 4:42:58 PM PST by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

Ha. I understand. Just forget what I said, and enjoy what you have.


83 posted on 02/09/2006 4:43:42 PM PST by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

LOL

it's ok :)

Just sometimes the streaming was really bad and when he had the Orbit satellite (thank you Saddam for paying the bills!! LOL!!), the pictures were more or less what you can get over a metal coat hanger in the US.....


84 posted on 02/09/2006 4:45:49 PM PST by MikefromOhio (Brokeback Mountain: The ONLY western where the Cowboys GET IT IN THE END!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Revel
The main disadvantage is that weak Digital signals will not work. Those who use an atenna and get poor reception will have no usable TV signal at all when things go digital.

I have exactly that problem in Pocatello. My ATSC converter box does a fine job on DTV-23 (channel 6 analog, channel 10 plus subchannels). There are two other channels that work OK. The rest are unusable. The one usable channel is fortunately NBC. I can watch ER and the Olympics. It doesn't matter that the other ones aren't providing usable signal because they are providing no content that I wish to view.

85 posted on 02/09/2006 4:50:01 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
In much the same way as UHF was introduced to our TV tuners in the 60's, new TV sets will have Digital tuners introduced in a phased way over the next two years. For some reason those among the "less fortunate" seem to be able to afford new TVs, so they'll be fine.

The folks who'll need the vouchers are the rest of us, and then only the five percent or so who still have analog sets and view TV over the air. So, I figure even the Dems will have trouble demagoging this issue... not that that'll stop them from trying.
86 posted on 02/09/2006 4:53:47 PM PST by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
I don't get it. I get local stations via cable now. No one in my area is still on antenna. The signal's lousy.

You receive local stations via cable because they are *Local Stations*, and people in your area are interested in their programming. Because people demand it, your cable provider puts their signal on the lineup. But do not forget that there are MANY people much closer to that/those transmission tower(s) that receive that/those local channels FOR FREE. Because they can receive the signal at no cost, far more people are willing to watch the programming provided -which makes for a much larger advertising clientelle and prospective market for the sponsors.

87 posted on 02/09/2006 4:53:57 PM PST by Utilizer (What does not kill you... - can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
You're explaining why the Dish and DirecTV pix are worse than off air images

Of course.

but that doesn't mean it's an apples/oranges comparison.

Actually it does, if you really stop and think about it.

88 posted on 02/09/2006 4:56:20 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
And I don't see those old TV antenna on all the houses and buildings in the city, they're mostly on cable now too... not because they have to be, but because people want cable for the additional channels.

People want cable for two reasons; better signal quality -and as you mentioned, for channels not available on the regular BTV spectrums. If you have no interest in CNN, CMT, COURT TV, or The Food Channel (among others), half of the reason you would want to switch to cable or satellite TV is already of no importance. If you live within close enough proximity to the local stations that you can receive a decent (or at least semi-viewable for the programs you enjoy) signal FOR FREE, why would you want to squander part of your hard-earned wages on an unnecessary expenditure?

Then there are those who CAN NOT AFFORD cable or satellite television costs. They too make up part of the customer base in any populace, and no businessman worth his salt turns away a potential client if he has a chance to make a profit from a new sale.

89 posted on 02/09/2006 5:03:40 PM PST by Utilizer (What does not kill you... - can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
But there's no other choice for those of us who live far away from a major city, so we live with it and grunt.

Think again:

http://www.blockbuster.com

http://www.netflix.com

90 posted on 02/09/2006 5:04:50 PM PST by iPod Shuffle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
So what's the difference between being a local cable station and being a local broadcast station?

In a nutshell; a 'cable' station can reach only 'cable' suscribers. A commercial BTV Station has the potential to reach *EVERYONE*.

(that can put up a piece of wire high enough to capture the free signal out of the air) :p

91 posted on 02/09/2006 5:06:47 PM PST by Utilizer (What does not kill you... - can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

Looking at the TvRadioWorld listing for Pocatello, http://www.tvradioworld.com/region1/id/tv.asp?m=ida it appears that KPVI is the only high power DT signal at the moment. KISU, channel 17, is running about one third the power as 23, and KIKD's digital feed, on channel 36, is about .5 percent of KPRVI's (2.2kw vs 505kw.) Presumably, by the time the rest of them have something you want to watch, they'll have cranked up power to where you can watch it.

Strangely enough, there's a digital signal listed for channel 9, KIFI (right alongside their analog on 8), which seems odd because all the DT stuff is supposed to be UHF. Are you seeing a digital signal on 9?


92 posted on 02/09/2006 5:09:18 PM PST by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

I want my HDTV (broadcasts)!!

I can hardly wait of more HD content. I've had mine for a couple of months now and love it.

I get my signal from Time-Warner Cable, though I could get our five local stations over the air for CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX and PBS.

One of the odd things that happens is that on cable the stations get a chunk of bandwidth and will split it up into a couple of standard def versions with different content., often to the detriment of the high def signal. For example WRAL here has an all weather and all news feed, but there HD signal has such crummy compression you lose a lot. My understanding is that over the air is the same way.

On the other hand, some of the cable fed HD, like DiscoverHD, PBS, ESPNHD and others are literally stunning.

If you want a crash course in HDTV, home theater, hardware, etc you need to visit the FR of HighDef, the avsforum.com.

93 posted on 02/09/2006 5:12:32 PM PST by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
My understanding is that over the air is the same way.

Yup. That, and the multiplicity of HD standards will be an ongoing battle of years to come.

94 posted on 02/09/2006 5:14:43 PM PST by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

I've heard that with DTV, the entire analog television spectrum will fit in the space between channels 5 and 6, and those low frequencies can be used for things like wireless internet is able to travel greater distances and travel through walls.


95 posted on 02/09/2006 5:15:35 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
OK,it's like this. Broadcasters have traditionally made all their money by charging for advertising and the listener and viewer enjoyed the content for the cost of having the appliance only.This assured everyone,rich or poor could be informed and entertained.This concept is actually almost unique as many other countries require a annual tax be paid to own,much less listen and watch, a radio or tv. Some people hate the idea you are not paying a monthly fee to watch despite the profit the broadcasters are making and since encoding analog is too expensive, digital is the answer.. New digital technology makes subscription based "service" easier.

I already have a converter that cost $200 after rebates because I am a sucker for technology and wanted to see what was being broadcast;found the same stuff as regular channel only you can see the actor's zits now. And lots of PBS stuff.Hardly use the darn box. Currently over-the-air tv is on 68,down from 83, channels, scattered through the VHF and UHF spectrum.About 15 TV channels were changed to cellphone and two-way radio uses. HDTV signals are only on UHF channels,so all over the air free TV will be UHF only after 2009/Barring other changes you will probably need a good UHF antenna.Amplified rabbit ears are a waste because they tend to just amplify the noise and you still don't get a picture.(Tried a deluxe Philips set,took 'em back.Whew!) If you lived in a rural area and have learned to accept a somewhat snowy or weak picture but enjoyed the programming;well tough! Big brother thinks you shouldn't watch less than perfect pictures so you get no reception. I hate decisions like this.

If you have a decent all channel antenna the UHF portion will continue to bring in a signal usable by the HDTV box or set.

And your current or new analog set(notice analog sets are being sold by the millions still?and very cheaply ,too!They are not selling off old stock,those are brand new sets at WalMart and other stores.)will still work with your current DVD player and VCR. The longer range plan is to make everyone view using a unit which checks for your Digital Rights Management certificate through the DVI connector and there is to be no way for the consumer to record without buying rights linked to his own viewer.For now you can run the output of a HDTV converter box through your current VCR or DVD recorder using the channel3/4,S-VHS or composite jacks. You will of course be limited to 480 or less resolution probably also letterboxed/I.E. with blank or black space above the viewable picture;and if that format is not broadcast as part of the DTV signal,too bad. Eventually they can choose to just broadcast in the encoding format that requires DVI connections(and monthly payments!) I cannot understand how so called conservatives so hate the poor having free tv since it is PAID FOR BY ADVERTISING. All those subscrition satellites can of course track everything you watch as can satellite radio,OnStar,your GPS cellphone(you really believe that buton turns off GPS HA!HA!). Let them collect and sell your info but I bet you ccan't get the same info about the elite ,and certainly not as cheaply. For now ,enjoy what you find on tv and remember this is actually yet another Clinton legacy endorsed by Bush.Like Internet over powerlines,they keep telling you a quart can be stored in a pint bottle----but only if something is left out.. HDTV was supposed to revitalize American electronics industry,funny thing is all the boxes are made in China ! Any law passed by Congress can be changed ,no one has succeeded in changing the laws of nature.

96 posted on 02/09/2006 5:17:55 PM PST by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a creditcard?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
You're correct, and I've read that the FCC has been toying with the idea of allocating the analog spectrum for such things as wireless high speed internet once every station is fully DTV enabled.

Interestingly enough, there is quite a fight to get a DTV tower up in Denver, Colorado, by a group formed by all the TV stations in Denver. Instead of one tower per station as it is now, they all plan on having their DTV antenna's on one tower. But, of course, and environmentalist group is preventing that from happening.

97 posted on 02/09/2006 5:24:06 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
If you lived in a rural area and have learned to accept a somewhat snowy or weak picture but enjoyed the programming;well tough! Big brother thinks you shouldn't watch less than perfect pictures so you get no reception. I hate decisions like this.

If you lived in a rural area like me, your local stations come from New York, Denver and Los Angeles by satellite TV, and you won't need a converter box. Hopefully, if the satellite companies have their way and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is amended, those of us like me who have never received an OTA (over-the-air) signal with either an outdoor antenna or rabbit ears, will be able to choose which "local" stations to watch.

I personally don't mind the New York, Denver and LA locals (I like the time-shifting capability). But I would much rather have a station in say, Montana, in place of the Denver stations, and still retain the ability to timeshift.

98 posted on 02/09/2006 5:28:49 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
an environmentalist group is preventing that from happening.

The anti-fried-bird lobby?

99 posted on 02/09/2006 5:29:27 PM PST by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

The fried-liberal-skull lobby. This tower would be located located near Boulder. LOL


100 posted on 02/09/2006 5:31:02 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson