Broadcast Engineering - Beyond The Headlines
6/25/07

Several powerful members of Congress say the FCC should be doing more to educate the public about the DTV transition. The FCC says that’s the job of another government agency; and, if Congress cares so much about DTV, where’s the money?

Congressional leaders, led by Reps. John Dingell, D-MI and Edward Markey, D-MA, think the analog shutoff is a public disaster waiting to happen.

They warn that most consumers are not aware of the transition to digital television and will be caught off guard after over-the-air analog signals are turned off Feb. 17, 2009. They place much of the blame for the lack of preparedness on FCC chairman Kevin Martin.

Martin responded that it was Congress that chose the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a division of the Commerce Department, to handle DTV public education and to administer a coupon program to help analog viewers get low-cost digital conversion boxes.

“Congress explicitly gave NTIA the responsibility for both the coupon box program as well as consumer education about the digital transition generally,” Martin wrote the congressmen.

But Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Markey, head of its Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee, think otherwise. “It is the commission that has primary responsibility among federal agencies for the overall digital television transition — to lead in consumer education about the transition,” they argued in a recent letter.

Martin also suggested to House members that if they want the FCC to increase consumer awareness, they should allocate more money for the purpose. “To the extent that Congress wishes to provide us with funds exceeding the $1.5 million we requested for consumer education efforts, we would welcome such an increase,” Martin wrote.

Dingell and Markey cried foul, saying that it was Martin who requested far too little money for the job because he gave it such a low priority.

The “National Journal” reported last week that Martin is circulating proposed rules that would enable the agency to use its existing authority to boost DTV education.

The proposal reflects several ideas suggested by the lawmakers, such as requiring cable and satellite providers to include DTV advisories in bills; requiring broadcasters to update the agency about educational efforts; requiring set manufacturers to include notices in equipment packaging; and mandating that retailers conduct employee training.

This is so ridiculous that it's past the point of being funny. I'm usually the first one to jump on the pile when its in regards to bash Martin, but he seems to be right here. I can't say that I know what responsibilities were given to the NTIA and such, but these two congressmen are just plain misguided.

If they wanted the FCC to handle the public awareness side of it, then fine. Give Martin the monies required for the effort. If not, then just back off.

Some of the suggestions attributed to the "lawmakers" seem illogical. Here's an example ... "requiring cable and satellite providers to include DTV advisories in bills" WTF?!?!?!?!?!? Now how would printing an advisory on a cable/satellite bill increase public awareness for OTA users????? Last I checked, OTA-only users didn't get a bill from Comcast (although I hear that Comcast is working on that).

How about this gem, "mandating that retailers conduct employee training"? Hmm, last I checked, most brick/mortar retailers do very little product training for any of their employees. Sure, they all know how to enter their ID numbers and work the register, but asking them to compare a couple of the products in their area will cause a brain explosion.

I have a suggestion on how to "get the word" out about the DTV transition. Maybe the politician should be forced to run a 15 second advisory at the end (or beginning) of every campaign commercial. Every TV viewer would be fully DTV educated after about 2 weeks during campaign season.

ft

This is so ridiculous that it's past the point of being funny. I'm usually the first one to jump on the pile when its in regards to bash MartinNo -- I'm the first one to jump on the pile when it is time to bash Martin. ;)

but he seems to be right here. I can't say that I know what responsibilities were given to the NTIA and such, but these two congressmen are just plain misguided.Absolutely. Let's save our criticisms for Martin for the truly bone-headed things he does/says/supports.

This is so ridiculous that it's past the point of being funny.

What's even more ridiculous is that after talking about this transition for over ten years that it's necessary to spend one plugged nickel on consumer education. A sad commentary on just how ignorant and helpless our society has become. A waste of time and money even discussing it.

Floor stack the set top boxes near the cash register at every Walmart, Best Buy, Safeway, etc. with a sign explaining in third grade English (and Spanish) what they're for and be done with it!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

They run PSAs OTA all the time, don't they? For things like reading to kids, and not abusing your family... How about some PSAs reminding analog OTA viewers that such signals will terminate in early 2009, and solutions will be readily available?

If ignorance were bliss, prozac sales would plummet...

What's even more ridiculous is that after talking about this transition for over ten years that it's necessary to spend one plugged nickel on consumer education. A sad commentary on just how ignorant and helpless our society has become. A waste of time and money even discussing it.

Floor stack the set top boxes near the cash register at every Walmart, Best Buy, Safeway, etc. with a sign explaining in third grade English (and Spanish) what they're for and be done with it!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Exactly! The problem I have with this current contretemps is the identity of its purveyors, Congressmen Dingell and Markey. If there are two politicians with less credibility, I don’t know who they could be. These guys stand for the propositions that there should be no such thing as personal responsibility and that big government always knows best.

What's even more ridiculous is that after talking about this transition for over ten years that it's necessary to spend one plugged nickel on consumer education. A sad commentary on just how ignorant and helpless our society has become. A waste of time and money even discussing it. Let's be fair. Television is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. If you want to rail about how ignorant and helpless our society has become, focus on something important, like the war, the economy, control over decisions regarding one's own body, etc. Those are things for which I would have an expectation that the general public would have a working knowledge.

Let's be fair. Television is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. If you want to rail about how ignorant and helpless our society has become, focus on something important, like the war, the economy, control over decisions regarding one's own body, etc. Those are things for which I would have an expectation that the general public would have a working knowledge.
Be careful with that statement around here. Many AVSers would rank cable/satellite TV above indoor plumbing, AC, diet cola and sliced bread. ;)

Let's be fair. Television is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. If you want to rail about how ignorant and helpless our society has become, focus on something important, like the war, the economy, control over decisions regarding one's own body, etc. Those are things for which I would have an expectation that the general public would have a working knowledge.
I agree, TV “is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things” but am less confident that the American public has a "working knowledge" of many important issues. H.L. Mencken may have been right when he said, “There's no underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” :)

Maybe if they ran a 30 second notice at the beginning of the crap shows that pass for television, the masses would be informed in a week.

I have a suggestion on how to "get the word" out about the DTV transition. Maybe the politician should be forced to run a 15 second advisory at the end (or beginning) of every campaign commercial. Every TV viewer would be fully DTV educated after about 2 weeks during campaign season.

ft

No, only allow political ads to appear on digital channels. Then you'll see how fast everyone gets educated and how fast those set-top boxes get distributed.

No, only allow political ads to appear on digital channels. Then you'll see how fast everyone gets educated and how fast those set-top boxes get distributed.
Now that's what I call "thinking outside the box".

ft

Just be greatfull that close to 70% of Americans receive their television over cable and this won't effect them.

For the ones that will be effected, they must start running PSAs during primetime shows about a year before. The converter boxes must be available widely priced ~$25 or it will be a disaster.

I work in a sears electronics dept. We already have signage warning of the transition posted all over the dept, and whenever we ring up a tv the system screen tells us to advise customers of the transition.

Now that the tuner mandate has filtered down to 13" sets the only tvs we have that don't have digital tuners are a very few leftover closeout models which will be gone long before 02/09. Set prices for the 20" & 13" CRT type SDTVS have jumped $50 or so due to the addition of digital tuners. Most have included both ATSC and QAM but several cheaper sets don't have QAM.

I make it a point to ask all my customers what their tv signal source is. The majority (60%) are using cable without a box, the rest except for a tiny 5% or so are on cable with a box or satellite.

An interesting side note is that the mfgs of vcr/dvd combo units, vcr/dvd recorder combo units, and dvd recorders are dealing with the transition by not including tuners at all (Panasonic is the exception) rather than raise prices by including digital tuners. No effort was made to educate the staff about this, and I guess the "line-in-recording-only" prominenently printed on the box didn't arouse suspicion among many of my colleagues as we are getting a lot of returns on these. If we stacked up digital stbs at the checkout I guarantee we'd have half the staff selling them to satellite subscribers or as magical boxes that turn any tv into HD.

I work in a sears electronics dept. We already have signage warning of the transition posted all over the dept, and whenever we ring up a tv the system screen tells us to advise customers of the transition.

Now that the tuner mandate has filtered down to 13" sets the only tvs we have that don't have digital tuners are a very few leftover closeout models which will be gone long before 02/09. Set prices for the 20" & 13" have jumped $50 or so due to the inclusion of digital tuners, some brands have ATSC & QAM but the real cheapies are ATSC only.

I make it a point to ask all my customers what their tv signal source is. The majority (60%) are using cable without a box, the rest except for a tiny 5% or so are on cable with a box or satellite.

An interesting side note is that the mfgs of vcr/dvd combo units, vcr/dvd recorder combo units, and dvd recorders are dealing with the transition by not including tuners at all (Panasonic is the exception) rather than raise prices by including digital tuners. No effort was made to educate the staff about this, and I guess the "line-in-recording-only" prominenently printed on the box didn't arouse suspicion among many of my colleagues as we are getting a lot of returns on these. If we stacked up digital stbs at the checkout I guarantee we'd have half the staff selling them to satellite subscribers or as magical boxes that turn any tv into HD.

CircuitCity (and I'm sure BestBuy) is also doing this on their website. When shopping for a new TV for my daughter recently, I noticed that all sub-$400 sets in their online inventory that did not include a dig tuner (mostly all CRT tube sets) had warning messages next to the price info (smart place to put it, actually) stating the lack of a dig tuner and what that will mean in '09.

The word is getting out, but PSAs would be a good supporting move.

Wasn't the govt. considering some sort of subsidized dig tuner program for low-income folks prior to the switch? Of course, this would likely end up being a massive clusterf**k, so maybe PSAs and warning stickers are the better route.

I think Steve is right, though. Existing analog TV retail stock will be long gone by '09. The switch is really going to be an issue with existing pre/non-dig sets already in use.

I truly wonder if these bureaucrats and politicians even remember why this transition is so important. Even McCain who was so adamant about speeding up the transition isn't making much noise on the issue anymore.

I am totally unsympathetic to the uninformed minority that will wake up with no Wheel of Fortune one day.

With most people having Cable or Satellite, what 2-17-09 really means is....

"Most people will STILL just have analog TV." Boy! What a "Digital TV Transition" we had.

I truly wonder if these bureaucrats and politicians even remember why this transition is so important. Even McCain who was so adamant about speeding up the transition isn't making much noise on the issue anymore.

Too busy trying to secure the nomination to concern himself with such matters. His campaign ads will be fully visible in the analog realm thru Election Day '08.


I am totally unsympathetic to the uninformed minority that will wake up with no Wheel of Fortune one day.

Or reality TV.

Ah....sheeple. Got to love 'em, Doc. ;)

CircuitCity (and I'm sure BestBuy) is also doing this on their website. When shopping for a new TV for my daughter recently, I noticed that all sub-$400 sets in their online inventory that did not include a dig tuner (mostly all CRT tube sets) had warning messages next to the price info (smart place to put it, actually) stating the lack of a dig tuner and what that will mean in '09.
The notices are actually required under a new FCC rule which went into effect in late May. A "consumer alert" has to be posted either on or near any analog-only TV, either in stores or on websites, warning that they won't work after 2-17-09 unless tethered to cable, satellite, a VCR, a DVD, or a game machine. Several companies -- including Amazon, Buy.com and Sears -- have already received citations, though nobody's been fined ... yet.

I haven't been to my local Best Buy lately (there's WAY too much temptation in there), but I did notice my local Wal-Mart has the warnings up on the dwindling number of analog-only TVs there.

An interesting side note is that the mfgs of vcr/dvd combo units, vcr/dvd recorder combo units, and dvd recorders are dealing with the transition by not including tuners at all (Panasonic is the exception) rather than raise prices by including digital tuners. No effort was made to educate the staff about this, and I guess the "line-in-recording-only" prominenently printed on the box didn't arouse suspicion among many of my colleagues as we are getting a lot of returns on these. If we stacked up digital stbs at the checkout I guarantee we'd have half the staff selling them to satellite subscribers or as magical boxes that turn any tv into HD.Yeah, I've noticed that as well -- one model says "external tuner box required." But I am seeing some WITH the tuners as well. They'll convert the signal to SDTV, of course, for legacy sets. Heck, if you don't want to wait for the government check, you can switch to DT now with one of those for less than an analog VCR cost a decade or so ago.

Can't the Government run some "public service" commercials between now & Feb. 09' to educate the masses with the $40,000 of my annual income that is being forcibly redistributed? :mad:

Where is the southern border fence? :confused:

We need to free up those emergency analog broadcast channels because Rome is Burning (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/rome.htm), The Barbarians are at the Gate (http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,564084,00.html) & al-Quada has a "dirty bomb," :eek: courtesy of Iran, ;) coming to a city near you. :cool:

Be careful with that statement around here. Many AVSers would rank cable/satellite TV above indoor plumbing, AC, diet cola and sliced bread. ;)

While that is true, it is probably also true that every AVS member has already prepared for analog shutoff.

However, we are part of the problem. WE are discussing it in a forum dedicated to HDTV programming. Duh. Maybe the discussion should be in the catchall forum that includes analog programming (which I only learned about by following a moved message, looked around, said, "this ain't Kansas.")

Several powerful members of Congress say the FCC should be doing more to educate the public about the DTV transition. The FCC says that’s the job of another government agency; and, if Congress cares so much about DTV, where’s the money?

Congressional leaders, led by Reps. John Dingell, D-MI and Edward Markey, D-MA, think the analog shutoff is a public disaster waiting to happen.

Typical partisian politics. You have 2 Dem's haranging a Republican. Reps Dingall and Markey have become cartoonish in recent years by how NOTHING in this transition is going to suit them, no matter what happens. It is because of this "wolf crying" Feb 17, 2009 will stand. No one wants to redredge this back up. And Reps Dingall and Markey need to remember that it takes BOTH houses of Congress and the President to make a change to the date now and with Immigration, Iraq War and the War on Republicans, no one has time to revisit this issue before the date. No one WANTS to revisit the date. But when in Congress, ANY ink is good ink.

Typical partisian politics. You have 2 Dem's haranging a Republican. Reps Dingall and Markey have become cartoonish in recent years by how NOTHING in this transition is going to suit them, no matter what happens. It is because of this "wolf crying" Feb 17, 2009 will stand. No one wants to redredge this back up. And Reps Dingall and Markey need to remember that it takes BOTH houses of Congress and the President to make a change to the date now and with Immigration, Iraq War and the War on Republicans, no one has time to revisit this issue before the date. No one WANTS to revisit the date. But when in Congress, ANY ink is good ink.
Quite right. In politics, the reputation of the advocate is at least as important as the position being advocated and, with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich, no member of congress has less credibility than either Dingell or Markey. “The Boy who Cried Wolf,” and all that.

The silver lining is that this is free publicity for the cutoff. The more important questions are the details of the STB subsidy. As for educating the public, I think they should use Paris Hilton as she has good rapport with the mindless.

My grandfather said this to me yesterday when I told him I'd get him a digital converter box for his TV.

"Excuse me, perhaps I'm dense, but why is it that I would have to PAY to get a box to recieve signals from the airwaves THAT I ALREADY OWN."

My response was that the FCC is going to have everything transmitted digitally. To which he said:

"Then the FCC needs to give me that box."

Of course what bothers him the most is that we all suckered into paying for televsion at all. After all we already own the frequencies they use on OTA, cable and Sat ;)

Then your reply should be "But the FCC didn't buy your TV for you."

And, "You don't own the airwaves; the American people own the airwaves, and they've decided that you have to pay to get a box to receive signals from them."

"Excuse me, perhaps I'm dense, but why is it that I would have to PAY to get a box to recieve signals from the airwaves THAT I ALREADY OWN."
No one owes your grandfather or any of the rest of us any viewable television programming. If he wants to see such programming, he must buy a television set--agreed? That TV must be equipped for viewing the content.

The entitlement mentality will ultimately doom this great country. What a shame some elected officials perpetuate it for their own gain. I could fix that problem with two simple words: Term Limits.

The entitlement mentality will ultimately doom this great countryUnless it's for large corporations.

Let's face it, with politicians from either side of the aisle, there is one speech you won't ever hear:
"Whoops, my mistake. Sorry about that. Now let's get started fixing the problem."

In spite of the screw ups, I think it will all work out anyway, the momentum has really reached the tipping point. I can remember cheap generic cable converter boxes just showed up on shelves before TVs started coming with cable inputs/tuners--in the end demands get filled by suppliers. Let this HD disc format wars be settled and we'll have it all!

No one owes your grandfather or any of the rest of us any viewable television programming. If he wants to see such programming, he must buy a television set--agreed? That TV must be equipped for viewing the content.

The entitlement mentality will ultimately doom this great country. What a shame some elected officials perpetuate it for their own gain. I could fix that problem with two simple words: Term Limits.

The trouble is.....He already bought the box/set/TV/VCR , but now the "government" is taking it away from him. The perfectly good set he bought (in good faith) a few years ago, expecting it to last for many years, is losing it's functionality.

That's what is going to burn a lot of folks. And, just wait until they go camping or picnicing the summer of 2009. They grab the old portable TV set out of the hall closet, thinking they'll watch a ball game while the weiners are roasting.......

I wonder how many people are going to raise the devil with their local retailers, when they finally realize that their 3-4 year old set is not going to work without an extra box, and no one told them until now?

Seems we talked this stuff up back in 1999-2000, when many of us first went on the air with DTV, then forgot to mention any more about it....until now.

I wonder how many people are going to raise the devil with their local retailers, when they finally realize that their 3-4 year old set is not going to work without an extra box, and no one told them until now?

Seems we talked this stuff up back in 1999-2000, when many of us first went on the air with DTV, then forgot to mention any more about it....until now.
It's all water under the bridge at this point. What the FCC should have done was require ATSC tuners on all devices a long time ago. As it is, TV's as new as 2 years old may not work after 2/09. Had they required the manufacturers put in ATSC tuners in 1998, then only a very small group would complain.

As it is, a obsoleted 2 year old TV is cause for complaint. A 10 year old TV being obsoleted is less of a concern.

As for the grandpa. He should be able to qualify for the $40 vouchers, so it's not a problem ... assuming that converter boxes cost less than $40.

ft

Ken will vouch for me on this one, you can crawl 24/7, lead in every newscast for a month and you will STILL get someone complaining they didn't know anything about it.

Case in point. In 1995 when my station changed from ABC to FOX, we did a month long campaign that included EVERY newscast and at the start of EVERY ABC program a crawl that stated on a X date the program you are watching will move to channel Y. After the switch happened, we were still swamped with calls wanting to know what happened to ABC World News and their favorite soap and NYPD Blue, etc.

You can't win. We will just have to do it and listen to all of the bitching. It will eventually go way.

This is so ridiculous that it's past the point of being funny. I'm usually the first one to jump on the pile when its in regards to bash Martin, but he seems to be right here.How can he be right when he says, in essence, "You should've given us more money than we asked for"? :rolleyes:

How about this gem, "mandating that retailers conduct employee training"?How about it?

Hmm, last I checked, most brick/mortar retailers do very little product training for any of their employees.Perhaps they don't, but clearly they should.

Exactly! The problem I have with this current contretemps is the identity of its purveyors, Congressmen Dingell and Markey. If there are two politicians with less credibility, I don’t know who they could be. These guys stand for the propositions that there should be no such thing as personal responsibility and that big government always knows best.Um, your characterization of their positions just indicates that they don't share your political views, not that they "lack credibility".

Ken will vouch for me on this one, you can crawl 24/7, lead in every newscast for a month and you will STILL get someone complaining they didn't know anything about it.

Case in point. In 1995 when my station changed from ABC to FOX, we did a month long campaign that included EVERY newscast and at the start of EVERY ABC program a crawl that stated on a X date the program you are watching will move to channel Y. After the switch happened, we were still swamped with calls wanting to know what happened to ABC World News and their favorite soap and NYPD Blue, etc.

You can't win. We will just have to do it and listen to all of the bitching. It will eventually go way.

Should we care about a person who is ignorant by choice, angry because of the consequences of his chosen ignorance, and wants some government agency to hold his hand through life ????

There are enough truely needy and deserving people that need help not to waste too much time and effort on the latter.

So I say "Let them watch snow !!!". :mad: :mad: :mad:

Ken will vouch for me on this one, you can crawl 24/7, lead in every newscast for a month and you will STILL get someone complaining they didn't know anything about it. Absolutely. Another case in point:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18571216-ahh-our-tvs-went-black-analog-to-digital-conversion

Here's a commercial establishment that somehow managed to avoid the incredible windstorm of controversy about Comcast in Chicago going all-digital. Months and months this has been a hot topic in the city, on the news, in the papers. For months, notifications have gone out to subscribers. And here's a customer -- a commercial customer no less -- and none of the folks working for the company heard about this change coming. In-friggen-credible.

You can't win. We will just have to do it and listen to all of the bitching. And ridicule it until it goes away.

How can he be right when he says, in essence, "You should've given us more money than we asked for"? :rolleyes:I was referring to the part where they handed the responsibility of consumer education to the NTIA. Now that it's painfully obvious that the NTIA hasn't done their jobs, they are bashing the FCC.

How about it?Well, how about Congress staying out of how private business are run? How about Congress take a look at the government organizations that are run very inefficiently, and thus wasting the taxpayer's money. I don't think the government should "mandate" how Best Buy wants to run their business, not unless they own shares in the company.

Perhaps they don't, but clearly they should.Agreed, but it's none of my business either. I'm tech savvy enough to do my own research. The only thing I need the BB salesman is for is to help me find where the product is and to take my credit card.

Lets face it, no matter how much publicity the transition receives, when it happens it will be a BIG deal in the U.S. There must be over 200 million TV's in the U.S...how can the chaos be avoided? It can't. When the transition occurs there will be bitching and moaning and people asking why their TV's went dark. It is unavoidable given human nature being reactive vs proactive....

ursa

Look for another extension regarding the analog shutoff date... 2011?

You can't win. We will just have to do it and listen to all of the bitching. It will eventually go way.

That pretty much sums it up now. The rest is mostly noise.

- Tom

How can he be right when he says, in essence, "You should've given us more money than we asked for"? :rolleyes:

You should remember one thing. The FCC did ask for more money to do that. When the bill came up for a vote, the partisans got together and "compromised" a new number. Dem's wanted more, Republicians wanted less so they compromised to 5 million or what ever it finally turned out to be (woefully too small because again remember the auctions of the unused TV spectrum channels 52-69 are paying for the coupons and the marketing so the less money allocated, the more goes into the general coffers to be spent by Congress. See the picture?) and yes, Chairman Martin is right, the FCC was NOT tasked by the bill (it is very clear wording so Dingall and Markey are being disingenuous, OK .......... lying) for the marketing and coupon program. Why the NTIA HAD to get involved is beyond me other than to give ANOTHER government agency something to do. The FCC and NTIA have NEVER played well together and this IS a train wreck waiting to happen. If the coupons don't work right or the marketing doesn't work as well as it should, be prepared for EACH agency to go after each other to save their own hides in front of Congress, who I am sure will have HUGE investigations to see why the transition was a colossal failure and leading the pack will be Markey and Dingall. Mark my words.

From the get go, this whole transition, starting with the Reed Hunt FCC (a Dem) in 1996 through now, has been set up to politically fail with NO forethought beyond the money that can be made for the federal government. There is enough blood on everyone's hands for this. Classic doing the right thing for ALL of the wrong reasons.

There must be over 200 million TV's in the U.S...

Double that number and you will be very close to the actual number.

Look for another extension regarding the analog shutoff date... 2011?That would be onerously unfair to the businesses (and individuals) that have invested millions and millions of dollars preparing for the shut-off. It would be like deciding on April 14 to extend the filing deadline for filing income taxes until December 14.

Look for another extension regarding the analog shutoff date... 2011?

The Congress has no stomach to jump back in those waters. It took too long to hammer the current 2009 date out. With all of the crap going on now with immigration, the war, the war on each other, no one has time to do the people's business. The Congress is only interested in one business these days, the business of re-election. And Feb 17, 2009 is RIGHT AFTER an election. That is why it was picked along with the fact it is between the Super Bowl and March Madness, both dates cited in the bill for the date being chosen in the first place. No one in their right mind is going to change that.

It would be like deciding on April 14 to extend the filing deadline for filing income taxes until December 14.

Well......... about THAT date........ :D

Okay, I'm just not going to care about anyone being upset by analog shut-off, even if it made obsolete a brand new television. Get this straight: The government owes you absolutely nothing when it comes to television. In fact, beyond "providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare*" of the country, the government pretty much owes you nothing at all. By the same token, they shouldn't be taking so much from you via taxation.

*Not in any way related to specific government programs referred to as "welfare," which are shameful in their perpetuation of dependency. Another thing that would be solved with term limits...

Okay, I'm just not going to care about anyone being upset by analog shut-off, even if it made obsolete a brand new television. ...Remember that when the government makes your brand new ATSC television obsolete is 3 years with XTSC transmissions.

Remember that when the government makes your brand new ATSC television obsolete is 3 years with XTSC transmissions.

That assumes that 3 years after the cutoff date anyone actually buys a brand new ATSC TV with the intention of hooking it up to an antenna.

But if they do, cable will still be there and I'm sure cheap $50 XTSC converter boxes will be available. ;)

- Tom

It's all water under the bridge at this point. What the FCC should have done was require ATSC tuners on all devices a long time ago. As it is, TV's as new as 2 years old may not work after 2/09. Had they required the manufacturers put in ATSC tuners in 1998, then only a very small group would complain.

As it is, a obsoleted 2 year old TV is cause for complaint. A 10 year old TV being obsoleted is less of a concern.


Agree 100% ... I wonder how many OTA viewers will be using sets or VCR's or DVD recorders etc older than 11 years old in Feb 2009 ....

That assumes that 3 years after the cutoff date anyone actually buys a brand new ATSC TV with the intention of hooking it up to an antenna.


Of course we will. I first did it in 2001 ....


But if they do, cable will still be there


Cable is not here. Never has been, and probably never will be. I don't mean because I don't choose to use it, I mean because cableco does not serve my rural location.

To be fair about all this... this is not the UK where the government has a TV tax. In that case, I'd say the government would have a responsibility to make sure your TV works.

But here in the US... you have to buy a TV, you have to repair it if it breaks... and there is no guarantee that you will be able to receive OTA anywhere. Sure, there are lots of TV stations all over... but no market guarantees you will get OTA reception. There are lots of folks who are in "dead" areas where they cannot receive OTA or are too far away from the broadcast towers...

So... why are some worried about "taking away" OTA from people with the digital transition when they aren't worried today even if those same people can receive analog OTA? I see lots of talk about how the poor or elderly need help to get the set-top box... but how did they get a TV and how did they get an antenna?

Years ago we put up an outside antenna for my grandfather... if he were still alive, we would make sure he had a set-top box similarly. If he hadn't had us to help with the antenna, he wouldn't have had TV then either.

It just seems like a convenient bandwagon to jump on... like how people get in groups to feed the homeless at Thanksgiving or Christmas, but then ignore them the other 363 days of the year!

People in this country need a great many things... some moreso than others... and TV is WAY down the list of priorities.

I've gone on record in other forums as saying this... so I'll repeat myself here. We should not be using taxpayer/government money to buy set-top boxes for people. Anyone who can use such a box must already have a TV, an antenna, a home, electricity, and food to live on... and that person does not need to be helped with a $40 set-top box. That person either can already afford it or knows people who can help friends/family.

What about folks without a home (homeless folks or victims of disaster like Katrina)? What about folks without food? What about folks in need of health-care?

All the uproar about "why is the government stealing my TV" is insane when compared to actual important life-sustaining needs that many in this country have.

When everyone is in a home, has food/clothing and health-care, and has electricity and the other essentials covered to live... then, and only then, should we be considering subsidizing set-top boxes for people to watch TV.

You're forgetting that TV also has a public service role in the interest of government, namely EBS, weather emergencies, etc. Yes, radio can also provide that but TV is the default information source.

And the UK TV tax is for the cost of providing programming, not for making sure the TV works.

It's all water under the bridge at this point. What the FCC should have done was require ATSC tuners on all devices a long time ago. As it is, TV's as new as 2 years old may not work after 2/09. Had they required the manufacturers put in ATSC tuners in 1998, then only a very small group would complain.

As it is, a obsoleted 2 year old TV is cause for complaint. A 10 year old TV being obsoleted is less of a concern.

As for the grandpa. He should be able to qualify for the $40 vouchers, so it's not a problem ... assuming that converter boxes cost less than $40.

ft

Nice idea, but 8VSB/MPEG2 chipset packages were cutting edge hardware in 1998 so the cost would have been prohibitive. And as long as we're Monday morning quarterbacking, we should have made AVC decoding mandatory so we wouldn't be in the mess of subchannels bitstarving the HD feed.

we should have made AVC decoding mandatory so we wouldn't be in the mess of subchannels bitstarving the HD feed.MPEG4 decoding will be mandatory in US receivers when MPEG6 is deployed.

Nice idea, but 8VSB/MPEG2 chipset packages were cutting edge hardware in 1998 so the cost would have been prohibitive.

Nah, that don't wash. 3 years ago CEA was complaining how just adding an ATSC chip would raise the cost of a set $250 per set. That never happened. Why? QUANTITY. Making chip sets in the amount that is needed for every set to have ATSC drastically brings down the cost point. What CEA DIDN'T tell you is that 90% of an analog SD receiver DOESN'T change to receive ATSC. It is just how it is demodulated. Do you use a NTSC chip or an ATSC chip? The remainder of the set stays the same. Yeah, LG gets a $10 to $13 royalty payment per set (they own the ATSC receiver patent), but even in the numbers we are talking about here (millions) LG works some good deals.

If CEA wanted to do it in 1998, they could have. They just didn't want to, and still don't. They came kicking and screaming all the way into the March deadline. Why? Simple math. The more stuff in the set, the less profit they make and the real profit is to be made in cable boxes, not OTA receivers. Cable's appetite for cable boxes is ravenous and they will buy EVERY TIME there is a new widget. Most OTA set owners don't. That is why they pushed so hard for new cable technologies and tried to not have to provide ATSC tuners in all TVs. They provide the ATSC chip because they are forced to by the government even now, not by choice.

Nah, that don't wash. 3 years ago CEA was complaining how just adding an ATSC chip would raise the cost of a set $250 per set. That never happened. Why? QUANTITY.True -- except, there is still a significant difference in price between what the old technology sets cost and what the new technology sets cost. Even with those big warnings that the televisions won't work for OTA after February 2009, people still buy them, because they're less expensive. People go into television departments and are shocked that the smallest ATSC-equipped televisions are still over $200. Except for my HDTV, I never paid over $200 for a television before, including the several big family room NTSC-equipped televisions we've bought over the years. Inflation? Yes. However, still -- where are the ATSC-equipped sets in the $80-$125 price range? I've bought several televisions, one for the kitchen, one for the loft and one for a guest bedroom, over the years in that price-range. However, I cannot replace them with comparable size and quality ATSC-equipped units for less than $200.

Sorry, but there is a substantial difference in price between NTSC and ATSC evident -- no way around that.

To be fair about all this... this is not the UK where the government has a TV tax. In that case, I'd say the government would have a responsibility to make sure your TV works.

But here in the US... you have to buy a TV, you have to repair it if it breaks... ...But dammit, the set DIDN'T BREAK. This is the equivalent of having the government come in and say "in 2009, all AC power will be 220 volts. None of your appliances will work. You need to replace them, at your own expense."

Exactly! The problem I have with this current contretemps is the identity of its purveyors, Congressmen Dingell and Markey. If there are two politicians with less credibility, I don’t know who they could be. These guys stand for the propositions that there should be no such thing as personal responsibility and that big government always knows best.

Best post of the day. But then I'm getting old and watch O'REILLY.

Ken will vouch for me on this one, you can crawl 24/7, lead in every newscast for a month and you will STILL get someone complaining they didn't know anything about it.

Case in point. In 1995 when my station changed from ABC to FOX, we did a month long campaign that included EVERY newscast and at the start of EVERY ABC program a crawl that stated on a X date the program you are watching will move to channel Y. After the switch happened, we were still swamped with calls wanting to know what happened to ABC World News and their favorite soap and NYPD Blue, etc.

You can't win. We will just have to do it and listen to all of the bitching. It will eventually go way.

Those creepy scrawls are still there. Only the message has changed and icons have been added. :rolleyes:

But dammit, the set DIDN'T BREAK. This is the equivalent of having the government come in and say "in 2009, all AC power will be 220 volts. None of your appliances will work. You need to replace them, at your own expense."To be fair, all indications are that the government will be providing converters to the people who really need them. Also, they did mandate that all new TVs be built to handle digital.

So in your analogy, all of your old appliances will still work with the proper converter (which the govt will subsidize) and all newer appliances are OK.

The whole situation was going to be a cluster-F, no matter what steps they took. It's to the point where the steps they take can limit the amount of inconvenience, and it looks like everyone is passing the buck. So I expect it to be as bad as it can get.

The shame of it all is that they could have taken steps to limit/contain the inconvenience a few years ago. But, as always, politics got in the way.

ft

But dammit, the set DIDN'T BREAK. Yet. It still might, and there is no reason to think that it never will.

There was a deliberate decision made to make the new technology NOT backwardly-compatible. That debate went on long and hard. It was a tough decision, but since the debate is over and one side won, it is nothing more than weasely to rehash it again. There are very good, winning reasons that ATSC is not backwardly compatible with NTSC.

Broadcast Engineering - Beyond The Headlines
6/25/07

Congressional leaders, led by Reps. John Dingell, D-MI and Edward Markey, D-MA, think the analog shutoff is a public disaster waiting to happen.

1st off, I disagree with this statement completely. This is NOT a disaster waiting to happen.

Dingell and Markey cried foul, saying that it was Martin who requested far too little money for the job because he gave it such a low priority.

Isn't that a typical politican? Instead of trying to find ways to resolve a problem they just blame someone for this past actions.

.... People go into television departments and are shocked that the smallest ATSC-equipped televisions are still over $200. Except for my HDTV, I never paid over $200 for a television before, including the several big family room NTSC-equipped televisions we've bought over the years. Inflation? Yes. .....

Bwahahahaha. If you want to shocked by the prices of TV sets, watch the scene in the movie "Used Cars" where they're standing in front of the TV store. Then come back here and tell us what the "sale" price of a tiny little 13 inch color TV was in the early 80's (hint: it was a lot more than $200). Inflation, right.. :rolleyes:

Luckily, I have my Quicken data going back a good ways:

6/12/1998 - 19" color television - $193.22 (including tax)

Bwahahahaha. If you want to shocked by the prices of TV sets, watch the scene in the movie "Used Cars" where they're standing in front of the TV store. Then come back here and tell us what the "sale" price of a tiny little 13 inch color TV was in the early 80's (hint: it was a lot more than $200). Inflation, right.. :rolleyes:

You got it. Adjusted for inflation, TV's today are still cheaper than the 1980s and 1990s for the non-HD models with ATSC/digital tuners, and low-end HD models.
And all indications are they'll keep on dropping through the rest of the year and beyond, as supply more than keeps up with demand, overhead costs lower by volume. And what do you get? A clearer, more colorful picture with over-the-air or cable/sat (no "snow" or ghosts" anymore!), and more over-the-air channels. As I learned 3 years ago: if you haven't seen PBS-HD, you haven't seen where the best PBS programs went to (repeats aside)...


But dammit, the set DIDN'T BREAK. This is the equivalent of having the government come in and say "in 2009, all AC power will be 220 volts. None of your appliances will work. You need to replace them, at your own expense."

Unlike power, however, only one thing is changing: the TV. And unlike "breaking", it just needs a converter box for it to continue to work. It's a cheap fix, and I also don't support the subsidy. Asking someone to pay $50 to change the standard of a TV to see improved picture quality and programming is not much to ask. And if you can afford a TV, you can almost always afford a box. If not, I think a donation to a public retirement home and similar from the public should cover it. But you are not entitled to a TV in this country, and thus, a converter box as well. The first statement in that last sentence is fact; the last one should be.

Having said that, since it is the public airwaves we are talking about, changing standards on a big scale such as this DO entitle us to be informed by the affected media, retailers of receivers, and by the government. Only the middle one has done a decent job, and only that over the last few months thanks to the latter.


The TV stations won't be crazy about it because they want cable/sat revenues, for the most part, and certainly in the top 20 markets. And the FCC/government isn't putting anywhere close to the effort they should.

That said, maybe that is not bad, because the converters won't be ready until early next year anyway in bulk, as well as the silly subsidy program.

You got it. Adjusted for inflation, TV's today are still cheaper than the 1980s and 1990s for the non-HD models with ATSC/digital tuners, and low-end HD models.Then why can't I find a replacement for my $193 19" color television with a ATSC tuner?

...
Having said that, since it is the public airwaves we are talking about, changing standards on a big scale such as this DO entitle us to be informed by the affected media, retailers of receivers, and by the government. Only the middle one has done a decent job, and only that over the last few months thanks to the latter.

...Not just informed, but compensated. The government is reclaiming the analog TV band and auctioning chunks off for a profit. They have a moral obligation to ensure that people affected by this change in the public airways are compensated. In this case, that compensation is the right to a no-cost converter box for each operating analog TV that was bought before the cutoff date was announced.

If some retiree on a fixed income has a 10 year old CRT that still works fine for OTA, why should he be punished by making him buy a converter, a device that wasn't required when he bought his TV. I'm not saying that this guy has a right to a free digital TV, but he does have the right to continue viewing his old TV.

I don't have a dog in this fight, since all five of my TV sets either have an embedded ATSC tuner or a DVI/HDMI input from an STB. But there are plenty of minimum wage or fixed income folks who put up a large portion of their discretionary spending a few years ago to buy an analog TV for OTA viewing, which may be their only entertainment/information source. Those are the ones I'm concerned about.

Then why can't I find a replacement for my $193 19" color television with a ATSC tuner?
I saw several at Wal Mart with an ATSC tuner less than $200.

Rick R

20" tube with digitial tuner

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5645597

Please don't take this as a recommendation :p

Not just informed, but compensated. The government is reclaiming the analog TV band and auctioning chunks off for a profit. They have a moral obligation to ensure that people affected by this change in the public airways are compensated. In this case, that compensation is the right to a no-cost converter box for each operating analog TV that was bought before the cutoff date was announced.

If some retiree on a fixed income has a 10 year old CRT that still works fine for OTA, why should he be punished by making him buy a converter, a device that wasn't required when he bought his TV. I'm not saying that this guy has a right to a free digital TV, but he does have the right to continue viewing his old TV.

I don't have a dog in this fight, since all five of my TV sets either have an embedded ATSC tuner or a DVI/HDMI input from an STB. But there are plenty of minimum wage or fixed income folks who put up a large portion of their discretionary spending a few years ago to buy an analog TV for OTA viewing, which may be their only entertainment/information source. Those are the ones I'm concerned about.

So you're saying the government should have provided converters for people who only had AM radios in their cars when FM came out? Should they have provided free lead substitutes for cars that didn't work on unleaded gas? Should you have been provided a free CD-ROM drive for that older computer that didn't have one when software stopped being available on floppies? Should Blockbuster provide you with a DVD player since you can't use your membership to get VHS tapes there anymore? Should game console companies provide you with a new unit when they change media formats so you can play the new games?

Things get obsoleted all the time. I'm sure people who bought into laser discs, minidiscs, 8-Tracks, 8mm film equipment, Divx players and Pocket Rockers would have loved to have continued support for them, but they aren't going to get it.

The TV's aren't broken. You have three choices: play existing tapes off your VCR or DVD player on them, get a digital tuner for new OTA content or subscribe to satellite or cable. Your equipment is your responsibility.

When touch tone service came about, you didn't see the phone company replacing rotary and pulse dial phones (despite the fact is wasn't that long before that they owned the phones). DirecTV and Dish Network are forcing many people to pay additional money to upgrade to MPEG4 equipment.

Sorry, but if you aren't leasing the equipment from someone, it's your responsibility to replace it if it no longer is compatable with the service it uses. When my family first got cable TV, we had a choice: buy a TV with a built in cable tuner or rent a box. We chose to get a new TV because we didn't want the box. Either way, it would have cost us something.

I have no sympathy. If someone can't afford a digital tuner, perhaps they need to be out working instead of watching TV.

They have a moral obligation to ensure that people affected by this change in the public airways are compensated.Sweetening the national coffers is more than adequate compensation for all Americans. The "moral obligation" is to ensure they make the decisions that are best for the nation as a whole, not necessary what you or someone else might want.

In this case, that compensation is the right to a no-cost converter box for each operating analog TV that was bought before the cutoff date was announced. Incorrect. In this case, that compensation is the aforementioned boon to the national treasury, but also, to sweeten the deal even more, they're providing $40 coupons toward the purchase of STBs. I'm not sure I agree with the coupons: I think that they should just auction off the spectrum without diverting any of the proceeds into this coupon program. However, I acknowledge that that's not the way thing ended up, and I'm mature enough to accept that, recognizing that things don't necessarily have to go my way in order for "moral obligations" to be fully satisfied.

That's great to see the prices coming down.

I have no sympathy. If someone can't afford a digital tuner, perhaps they need to be out working instead of watching TV.

Second best post of the day. But I'm STILL old and STILL watch O'Reilly.

Seriously, what is the actual governmental cost to furnish converter boxes. I would guess double or triple, or even 10 times, the cost of the converter box itself. Do we really need another bureaucracy that will never go away.

That's great to see the prices coming down.

Prices are definitely coming down. The discussion of television costs motivated me to go over to the Best buy website, where I found a 14" ATSC television for $129.99 and a 20" ATSC television for $169.99.

In any event, I tend to consider all current TV prices to be pretty reasonable. My first television was a 13" Panasonic color TV that I bought in high school, for $299 plus sales tax in 1977. 10 years later, I paid $399 for a 20" stereo Toshiba set. Even ignoring inflation, those price points will buy a lot more features today than they did then.

The flipside of this is that the lower prices today have come at the cost of build quality. That 1977 TV still works -- anyone think that even the high end televisions being sold today are likely to last 30 years?

So you're saying the government should have provided converters for people who only had AM radios in their cars when FM came out? Should they have provided free lead substitutes for cars that didn't work on unleaded gas? Should you have been provided a free CD-ROM drive for that older computer that didn't have one when software stopped being available on floppies? Should Blockbuster provide you with a DVD player since you can't use your membership to get VHS tapes there anymore? Should game console companies provide you with a new unit when they change media formats so you can play the new games?

Things get obsoleted all the time. I'm sure people who bought into laser discs, minidiscs, 8-Tracks, 8mm film equipment, Divx players and Pocket Rockers would have loved to have continued support for them, but they aren't going to get it.

The TV's aren't broken. You have three choices: play existing tapes off your VCR or DVD player on them, get a digital tuner for new OTA content or subscribe to satellite or cable. Your equipment is your responsibility.

When touch tone service came about, you didn't see the phone company replacing rotary and pulse dial phones (despite the fact is wasn't that long before that they owned the phones). DirecTV and Dish Network are forcing many people to pay additional money to upgrade to MPEG4 equipment.

Sorry, but if you aren't leasing the equipment from someone, it's your responsibility to replace it if it no longer is compatable with the service it uses. When my family first got cable TV, we had a choice: buy a TV with a built in cable tuner or rent a box. We chose to get a new TV because we didn't want the box. Either way, it would have cost us something.

I have no sympathy. If someone can't afford a digital tuner, perhaps they need to be out working instead of watching TV.

The one flaw in your argument... in each of those cases, a person can continue to use what they already have. You can still watch old VHS tapes now if you desire. IF your computer has a floppy drive, and you have floppy discs, you can still use it provided the computer is working.

The difference here is on Feb. 17, 2009 your perfectly fine working TV won't see anything but snow if you use an antenna to view television broadcasts. The only thing it will be able to do without that converter box is watch videos and play video games. It will become a monitor. You can't continue to use it to watch television broadcasts.

This wasn't the fault of the person who does not know. I can assure you that aside from you doing a search for digital transition or hdtv, you wouldn't know about it if you weren't already in the know. It sure isn't being discussed on the news (much) or in PSAs.

In a given month, I probably receive 15 or more "IMPORTANT: EMERGENCY, IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED!!!!!!!!" notices in my home mailbox. They are all either used car ads, ads for an extended warranty on my car, or some company wanting to buy my car and lease it back.

It's no wonder people don't pay any attention to the blitz of "emergency" information. Many of the ads I get now, are disguised as "official" notices from Government agencies or departments.

I think that having some national "day without TV" blank-screens would have a little bit of effect. TV ads won't work, since they get TIVO'ed. Maybe a bunch of "armed troops" on the side of the roads at rush hour, with gigantic piles of old TV sets in their trucks would get some attention.

2-18-09: National "Broadcast Engineers Call In Sick Day", if we can get thru.

Maybe they could run an analog-only crawl 24/7 for the last month or 2. Tell people if they are still watching on analog then it will only get worse. Make it progressively bigger each day. But analog only, so they know how to get rid of it. ;)

- Tom

Maybe they could run an analog-only crawl 24/7 for the last month or 2. [...] Make it progressively bigger each day.

Or shrink the entire image a bit every day, surrounding it with black bars on all four sides, until finally, on 2/17/2009, it "winks out" completely. :D

Put an explanatory crawl in the bottom bar, too.

The one flaw in your argument... in each of those cases, a person can continue to use what they already have. You can still watch old VHS tapes now if you desire. IF your computer has a floppy drive, and you have floppy discs, you can still use it provided the computer is working.

The difference here is on Feb. 17, 2009 your perfectly fine working TV won't see anything but snow if you use an antenna to view television broadcasts. The only thing it will be able to do without that converter box is watch videos and play video games. It will become a monitor. You can't continue to use it to watch television broadcasts.

This wasn't the fault of the person who does not know. I can assure you that aside from you doing a search for digital transition or hdtv, you wouldn't know about it if you weren't already in the know. It sure isn't being discussed on the news (much) or in PSAs.

You do have a good argument as of right now, but that will change soon. IF, and I repeat IF, the government and TV stations do their job, starting around February 2008, an ad blitz will start and tell you it's shutting down. If not, then the government and the media have failed you. However, once again, it is important to realize several things:

1. Low cost DTV converter boxes aren't ready yet en masse.

2. MOST people won't be affected, since their TV's have cable/sat boxes already,
and their customers are being notified, for the most part, of the cable analog shutdown, which is coming earlier than over-the-air (reference Chicago, Atlanta, etc in all but very basic channels).

3. Before we all go into a tizzy, ONE YEAR is plenty of time for people to plan. This isn't rocket science. Get a converter, or cable/sat, and...done.

4. Some people want their analog-only TV and the government shouldn't have to switch. There are people who resist major change to the detriment of society. There are valid concerns for some changes; this one, however, warrants none. It is inexpensive for consumers, contains very valuable programming and picture quality improvements, improves variety of programming available, reliability of reception with 6th gen tuners, etc.

5. Emergency managers and businesses reclaim needed bandwidth to improve emergency services and nationwide high-speed internet access. Just saw a study on how we're really falling behind on the rest of the world in terms of Internet speed. This can help, especially in rural areas.

Think about it: it is a one-time reasoanble fee to improve programming, picture quality, and Internet in the U.S., and I would also argue if you cannot afford the
box, then you shouldn't be spending much time watching TV until you can.

Broadcasters: run a crawl in primetime during "American Idol", The Super Bowl(tm), and your major ratings grabbers FROM TIME TO TIME telling them the channel you watch will go away unless you subscribe to cable/sat with a converter box, or over the air with a converter box. Advertise "an end of analog" party and have a huge barbecue with music with food at subsidized prices by sponsors. We seem to want to "party" for any and every reason these days;
turn it into a fun and educational event!

And have Ken pay for the event out of pocket. :D ;)

TV ads won't work, since they get TIVO'ed.
Something tells me if someone has a TiVo, this transition won't affect them. ;)

This wasn't the fault of the person who does not know. I can assure you that aside from you doing a search for digital transition or hdtv, you wouldn't know about it if you weren't already in the know. It sure isn't being discussed on the news (much) or in PSAs.

Yes, it is "the fault of the person who does not know." It is YOUR personal responsibility to "be aware", to "pay attention", and to "take action". If you don't, too bad for you.....

This transition has been in the works for over a decade. It's not a closely guarded government secret. It will be discussed more and more as the deadline approaches, but there will still be the whining idiots who will claim that there wasn't any warning and "it's not fair". Life isn't fair. It's a game. You either learn the rules and play to win, or it passes you by.

Anybody need a Betamax ?????

5. Emergency managers and businesses reclaim needed bandwidth to improve emergency services and nationwide high-speed internet access. Just saw a study on how we're really falling behind on the rest of the world in terms of Internet speed. While I agree very much with almost all of your post, the highlighted portions give me pause. Isn't the high-speed internet bandwidth issue largely a landline one - not one related to the broadcast spectrum?

Something tells me if someone has a TiVo, this transition won't affect them. ;)Unless it is a Series 3 TiVo, isn't it an issue for them too?

While I agree very much with almost all of your post, the highlighted portions give me pause. Isn't the high-speed internet bandwidth issue largely a landline one - not one related to the broadcast spectrum?
I assume the reference was to WiMax technologies that would allow broadband internet in places that may never be wired - as an alternative to expensive and cripple satellite broadband.

So in your analogy, all of your old appliances will still work with the proper converter (which the govt will subsidize) and all newer appliances are OK.
My VCR will not work with a converter. It will no longer record channel six today and channel eight tomorrow. It will only be able to record the channel the converter is set to.

Of course I don't use a VCR anymore and digital cable already has this problem, but there are a lot of people still using VCRs out there. People at work still share videotapes of games. I've never heard anyone at work say, "I'll burn that game to a DVD for you."

Think about it: it is a one-time reasoanble fee to improve programming, picture quality, and Internet in the U.S., and I would also argue if you cannot afford the
box, then you shouldn't be spending much time watching TV until you can. :D ;)

Calling it a fee is a little generous. It is a tax.

A tax is mandatory. A fee is optional. This is optional. It is a fee. Get a grip. It's only television.

My VCR will not work with a converter. It will no longer record channel six today and channel eight tomorrow. It will only be able to record the channel the converter is set to.

Of course I don't use a VCR anymore and digital cable already has this problem, but there are a lot of people still using VCRs out there. People at work still share videotapes of games. I've never heard anyone at work say, "I'll burn that game to a DVD for you."

They stopped selling VCRs in the UK over two year ago. Blockbuster hasn't rented VHS tapes for at least four years. The format is obsolete. I don't know where you work, but I have NEVER heard anyone say at my office "I'll burn that game to a VHS for you".

NEWS FLASH: Cassette is dead, VHS is dead, 8-track is dead, Beta is dead, 8MM camcorders are dead. TAPE is dead. Period.

I don't think there's nearly as many people using VCR's as you might think. Especially to archive or time shift off air programming.

P.S. A VHS VCR tuner will still work FINE with an analog cable connection long after 2/17/07.

NEWS FLASH: Your analog TV will be dead after 2/17/09 if you get your channels OTA, and it will be so because the government killed it, NOT because the industry made it obsolete. None of the examples you gave were caused by government mandate.

Given that the government will obsolete the sets (and stands to gain handsomely from the sale of the spectrum), I have no problem with the converter subsidy.

NEWS FLASH: Your analog TV will be dead after 2/17/09 if you get your channels OTA, and it will be so because the government killed it, NOT because the industry made it obsolete. None of the examples you gave were caused by government mandate.

Given that the government will obsolete the sets (and stands to gain handsomely from the sale of the spectrum), I have no problem with the converter subsidy.

And it's about time!

But I have no problem with the subsidy.

- Tom

Unless it is a Series 3 TiVo, isn't it an issue for them too?
Technically yes, but my theory is that if you are smart enough to hook up a TiVo, then you probably know about the transition. And already have cable or sat. :)

Technically yes, but my theory is that if you are smart enough to hook up a TiVo, then you probably know about the transition. And already have cable or sat. :)I've met some TiVo owners who simply have "no clue". ;)

Given that the government will obsolete the sets (and stands to gain handsomely from the sale of the spectrum), I have no problem with the converter subsidy.I agree and besides, this subsidy is a one-time event and a mere blip in the budget. This is likely a more worthy subsidy compared to others that go on year after year.

[QUOTE=slowbiscuit]NEWS FLASH: Your analog TV will be dead after 2/17/09 if you get your channels OTA, and it will be so because the government killed it, NOT because the industry made it obsolete. None of the examples you gave were caused by government mandate.
[QUOTE]

The government killed it because everything else is digital or almost all digital, it's grossly inferior to analog and a bandwidth hog, and going to digital is what the industry more than helped to develop.

Analog AMPS service for analog cell phone use is dying on 2/18/*08*, one year earlier. Should the government replace my cell phone as well? No. That also will hurt OnStar(tm), since they use AMP, too. Should the government buy new receivers for richer car owners? Analog, PERIOD, is obsolete...except for audio. :)
Another example is rotary phones. Should I pay for a touch tone for everyone if they banned that protocol in the future?

And as for where the money goes, I'd far rather see it go toward something that will keep fanatics from driving flaming vehicles into one of our airports, and securing our country, than another subsidy that will still somehow get screwed up and cost many millions of dollars in boondoggles so we can get lazier. Live long enough as I have, and watch as this unfolds. You will sadly understand what I am saying.

The subsidy is going to be a voucher... what use is that to anyone on this board? There's going to be a ton of unclaimed money when this is done. Congress, doubtlessly, will just love that.

I plan on purchasing two converters. Hopefully, my older TiVos will be updated to be able to drive them via IR blaster.

It amazes me that there are those who suggest that because 15% of the population will have to suffer a minor inconvenience and small expense to support a product that has about a ten year life expectancy, that we should somehow stop or delay progress.

The flip side. I recently installed an totally analog headend in a new construction assisted living facility. This equipment will be amortized over a seven year period. It converters DirecTV locals (and all other channels) to NTSC mono analog carriers, period.

There was no provision in the budget (or compelling reason) to simulcast ATSC OTA locals. Down the road, the problem, and irony with MANY legacy installations is that the will NOT support new DIGITAL TVs.

There is no government money for my company to upgrade analog headends to support pass through of ATSC off-air signal. We have hundreds of locations that still offer NTSC off-air reception in multiunit commercial installations, hotels, hospitals, colleges, etc. that need to be upgraded before 2/17/09.

At some point TV manufactures may drop NTSC tuners completely. So a brand new TV may still need a set top to convert signals from an all analog headed to the composite video inputs of a digital only TV.

The conversion is complex and will take several years to shake out. But that should not prevent us from moving forward. It still amazes me the amount of whining this issue causes when more important issues are ignored. It's only TV after all.

I've met some TiVo owners who simply have "no clue". ;)
Well, I did give my mother-in-law my old Series 1 ....... :eek: :D

How many of us are willing to take the TV sets from our aging parents right now, and avoid having to wait until 2009?

How many of us are willing to take the TV sets from our aging parents right now, and avoid having to wait until 2009?

Dunno. Do your folks have a hidef set? I could use another. ;)

- Tom

It amazes me that there are those who suggest that because 15% of the population will have to suffer a minor inconvenience and small expense to support a product that has about a ten year life expectancy, that we should somehow stop or delay progress.
As I understand it, 15% is the number of households that are OTA only for TV reception. That does not include the households which have cable or sat for their main TV or TVs, but who also have TVs in the kitchen, bedrooms, kids room that are OTA only. Sure they could hook them up to cable/sat, but that would cost money for the STB and many would have to run a co-axial line for the TV. You have to add those tens of millions of TVs to the mix as well.

10 year life expectancy? Does anyone have stats on how long people keep/kept their CRT TVs? I think there are a lot of people out there with 15 or 20 year old TVs. Until the arrival of HD TV and their changing inputs, rapidly improving display technology & falling prices, people kept TVs for a long time.

My take is that I think the February 17, 2009 date will stick for the full power stations. Not so clear on how the transition is going to play out for the low power and translator stations. But it is too far along to stop now, which in my opinion, is a good thing. I want analog to go away so all the last holdouts go full power on their digital signal. But even if the FCC can't get proper funding for a full PSA campaign until 2008, the FCC, NAB, and the CEA should be prodding the media - print & TV - for articles & columns on the pending digital transition. The more people who understand what is going to happen on 2/17/2009, the more people who will buy digital TVs in advance and can help grandma and the neighbor with their TV setup.

Broadcasters, through NAB is donating over a billion (with a "B") dollars worth of inventory to run additional PSAs about the transition starting in 2008.

A tax is mandatory. A fee is optional. This is optional. It is a fee. Get a grip. It's only television.

So then, a sales tax is really a fee, because you can opt not to buy anything? A property tax is a fee because you can opt not to own property? Shall I continue?

Dunno. Do your folks have a hidef set? I could use another. ;)

- Tom

My father quit watching TV after my mother died (she watched it the most). He only turns it on for the Weather Channel and tornado warnings.

So then, a sales tax is really a fee, because you can opt not to buy anything? A property tax is a fee because you can opt not to own property? Shall I continue?You don't like my analogy; fine; here's another one:

Tax money goes to the government. :rolleyes:

It feels like kindergarten in here, sometimes.

They stopped selling VCRs in the UK over two year ago. Blockbuster hasn't rented VHS tapes for at least four years.
When did they stop releasing movies on VHS? That would be "not yet".

The format is obsolete. I don't know where you work, but I have NEVER heard anyone say at my office "I'll burn that game to a VHS for you".
I work in a high-tech company surrounded by engineers and computer programmers. One other guy in my department has an HDTV.

"Did you tape the game last night?"

"Did you tape the game last night?"Yes, and people also say "when they "filmed Survivor" - and there was NO FILM involved! :rolleyes:

Technically yes, but my theory is that if you are smart enough to hook up a TiVo, then you probably know about the transition. And already have cable or sat. :)
I am inclined to agree, especially since the TiVo Series3 I bought in January failed last week and I had to spend the next 24 hours getting TiVo and Cox OKC to agree that my problems were caused by the TiVo box, not the CableCARDs, which it requires to pickup digital cable programming. TiVo then overnighted me a brand new S3 to replace the old one, which I appreciated, but my pleasure was diminished by the fact that the old CableCARDs would not work in the new S3. That took another service call from Cox to fix.

Owning a TiVo S3 if like having a relationship with a woman who, while beautiful, is difficult and has expensive tastes. I love my TiVo and would not be without it because it has capabilities not to be found on any other HD DVR. Still, I can’t imagine why anyone who is not a hard core HT enthusiast would even consider one.

My VCR will not work with a converter. It will no longer record channel six today and channel eight tomorrow. It will only be able to record the channel the converter is set to.
Well, it's a little early to say that your VCR won't work with a converter. It's not yet known whether the converter boxes (that the gov't will subsidize) will be programmable and/or have IR blasters to control a VCR. I suspect that they won't, but nothing is known at this point.

Owning a TiVo S3 if like having a relationship with a woman who, while beautiful, is difficult and has expensive tastes. I love my TiVo and would not be without it because it has capabilities not to be found on any other HD DVR. Still, I can’t imagine why anyone who is not a hard core HT enthusiast would even consider one.This is incredibly well-said. I wish this was emblazoned at the top of the Series 3 forum on the TiVo Community Forums. Some of the folks there are so blind to the tribulations associated with the S3 that they fail to be rational in response to fair and balanced comparisons presented to the alternatives.

10 year life expectancy? Does anyone have stats on how long people keep/kept their CRT TVs? I think there are a lot of people out there with 15 or 20 year old TVs. Until the arrival of HD TV and their changing inputs, rapidly improving display technology & falling prices, people kept TVs for a long time.How true. I still have TV's around that are 20 or more years old that work fine. It's the ones bought within the last few years that've already died or had problems.

Almost everyone I know, if not a senior using one for a main set, has at least a couple of them still in use in other areas of their home. At least among those with larger dwellings and a few family members.

Also, on the subject of falling prices for TV's, is it my imagination, or have small LCD's in general actually gotten more expensive just lately? I remember seeing 20" models for $299.99 a year or two back. Now I can barely find a 15" one for that price or lower.

And I'm including the cut-rate brands here, too.

You don't like my analogy; fine; here's another one:

Tax money goes to the government. :rolleyes:

It feels like kindergarten in here, sometimes.

At least we agree on your last statement.

Also, on the subject of falling prices for TV's, is it my imagination, or have small LCD's in general actually gotten more expensive just lately? I remember seeing 20" models for $299.99 a year or two back. Now I can barely find a 15" one for that price or lower.

And I'm including the cut-rate brands here, too.
I'm sure prices went up for those smaller models with the inclusion of digital tuners. LCD manufacturing costs might have gone up a bit, too.

10 year life expectancy? Does anyone have stats on how long people keep/kept their CRT TVs? I think there are a lot of people out there with 15 or 20 year old TVs. Until the arrival of HD TV and their changing inputs, rapidly improving display technology & falling prices, people kept TVs for a long time.

I've been a TV tech for 35 years and up until about the 2002 models, you could generally expect a set to be running just fine for 12 - 16 years. Repair parts start to disappear at about 10 years so a major repair on a 12 year old set is a bad investment.

There was a commissioned study a few years back (read it in one of those "not for purchase" trade magazines) that stated that the average person buys a new TV every 8 years. The "Industry" (manufacturers, marketing, sales, FCC, Government) chose to misinterpret the study to say that the average person replaces their TVs every 8 years. That's why someone (a TV manufacturer, don't remember which one) stated that there would be limited demand for converter boxes, probably because they calculated that people would be replacing all of their TVs twice as often as they actually do (8 years vs a more realistic 16 years).

Digital sets will probably not last 16 years, however, due to extensive use of surface mount electrolytic capacitors (commonly known as Fish-Caps due to the smell when the fish oil electrolyte leaks out) and BGA and PLCC integrated circuits. The history of these parts under high temperature conditions (inside of a TV for instance) is that the caps will leak and the chips will pop loose (as the boards warp) after about 6 or 7 years. The technology used is great from a manufacturing standpoint but it is not a durable technology when used in consumer electronic devices.

This is incredibly well-said. I wish this was emblazoned at the top of the Series 3 forum on the TiVo Community Forums. Some of the folks there are so blind to the tribulations associated with the S3 that they fail to be rational in response to fair and balanced comparisons presented to the alternatives.
Thanks. Some of the posters over at TiVo Community Forum do seem to have drunk more than their fair share of TiVo Kool-Aid. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the site is incredibly useful but the defensiveness of some of its posters can be wearing, can’t it? For example, notice some of the posts to the ongoing thread discussing how much, if any, the audio dropout and video blocking problems some of S3 owners have had is attributable to the latest version of the TiVo software, 8.3.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming, I stand by my position that there is little excuse for anyone interested enough in HT to spring for an S3 not understanding the pending demise of analog transmissions.

So if what I'm hearing is correct, the average TV lasts longer than the average marriage,
mortgage or car.

That being the case, you better buy one you're gonna be happy with.....

Some interesting info on expected life of CRT TV's here :

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/crtfaq.htm#crtelt

Update: note - I believe the comments at above link were written in the late 90's .....

I'm sure prices went up for those smaller models with the inclusion of digital tuners. LCD manufacturing costs might have gone up a bit, too.Yeah, I wasn't even thinking of the digital tuners, which they all seem to have now.

I was in Walmart today, and the prices on the small LCD's weren't really that bad there (they were out of stock on all of them except the Sanyo's - not surprisingly). I think the impression I had initially was probably a combination of two things - they haven't dropped as much as plasmas have, and not really much at all in the major brands the last couple of years, and I've been looking at a lot of models in places like Best Buy, where they tend to be priced a lot higher.

Digital sets will probably not last 16 years, however, due to extensive use of surface mount electrolytic capacitors (commonly known as Fish-Caps due to the smell when the fish oil electrolyte leaks out) and BGA and PLCC integrated circuits. The history of these parts under high temperature conditions (inside of a TV for instance) is that the caps will leak and the chips will pop loose (as the boards warp) after about 6 or 7 years.
Don't they also use these inside newer analog sets?

Now that TVs are in the digital realm, I think everyone should treat them like a personal computer. PCs get faster processors, more memory, larger storage devices, etc. Digital TVs are much the same in this technology spiral. Faster, cheaper, better. Can you imagine keeping a PC for 16 years? :o

The 25" RCA TV that I bought 20 years ago and was my main TV until I bought my 65" HDTV in 2000 is now in my guest room. I have guests watching it as I write this. It is connected to the second output of my 622. I have an even older 12" TV in my wifes office at home. It uses an older Dish Network STB.

I may upgrade to newer TVs but I still have the old ones. If OTA was available without huge antannas I would probably forgo the $5 charge for the extra satellite STB.

Rick R

I'm sorry if this is off topic, but I noticed all the CRT TVs at Best Buy are now digital, but still are 480i and not 480p (they specifically state 480i only). Any reason why TV makers aren't switching over to progressive? It seems like it would at least be a selling point for convincing people to go digital, even if we're not talking about High Def digital.

I'm sorry if this is off topic, but I noticed all the CRT TVs at Best Buy are now digital, but still are 480i and not 480p (they specifically state 480i only). Any reason why TV makers aren't switching over to progressive? It seems like it would at least be a selling point for convincing people to go digital, even if we're not talking about High Def digital.Several CRT sets at BB are 1080i. These are listed as HDTV and are 16x9.

There are probably two reasons that the 4x3 SD sets are 480i.
1) Product differentiation (people who care about 480p are probably buying the HDTVs anyways).
2) MORE IMPORTATLY: Though these SD sets now have an ATSC tuner, the basic chassis is still analog. 480p would require a different deflection system plus the video bandwidth would need to be higher as well. These sets are on the way out and manufacturers are simply not going to invest in designing a new chassis for them. They just probably were really pushing it, from a financial return standpoint,
to keep these models and comply with the FCC requirements.

I'm sorry if this is off topic, but I noticed all the CRT TVs at Best Buy are now digital, but still are 480i and not 480p (they specifically state 480i only). Any reason why TV makers aren't switching over to progressive? It seems like it would at least be a selling point for convincing people to go digital, even if we're not talking about High Def digital.My guess would be it's due to there being no 480P broadcasts. Progressive processing on a small CRT screen would add expense with little if any benefit.

ahhh, ok. I assumed (for some reason) that DTV broadcasts were going to be 480p. Don't know how that bit of misinformation got stuck in my head, but now I know better, thanks.

ahhh, ok. I assumed (for some reason) that DTV broadcasts were going to be 480p. Don't know how that bit of misinformation got stuck in my head, but now I know better, thanks.There may be some reason for that impression: First, the ATSC standards support many different formats, and 480p is one of them. Also, before FOX went with 720p, they were pushing FOX Widescreen, which was 16x9 at 480p. But, things have shaken out now, and the main channel on most digital broadcasts are either 720p or 1080i. Though, I have seen a couple of PBS digital (main channel) programs at 480p (16x9).

Don't they also use these inside newer analog sets?
In the older analog sets they were pretty much confined to the PIP circuits. Now, anything with Component Video Inputs will likely have some digital processing. The ATSC downconverting circuit boards on SD Digital sets will contain advanced processing chips.

RE: SD Digital not being progressive scan: If you are seated 10 - 12 feet away from a 32" TV, there is no obvious viewing difference between SD Digital and HD Digital. (I've seen them both side-by-side) If you're a gamer, then there is a difference because you are generally viewing at 3 - 6 feet.

I have seen a couple of PBS digital (main channel) programs at 480p (16x9).AFAIK these shows are 483/30i upconverted to 1080/30i. I've not heard of 480P being used since Fox went 720P. The only reason to use WS SD is to take advantage of existing SD interlace equipment, which is not capable of progressive formats.

RE: SD Digital not being progressive scan: If you are seated 10 - 12 feet away from a 32" TV, there is no obvious viewing difference between SD Digital and HD Digital. (I've seen them both side-by-side) If you're a gamer, then there is a difference because you are generally viewing at 3 - 6 feet.Good point. Besides processing, the horizontal scan frequency and video bandwidth also doubles for progressive. I'm not an expert on SD sets with digital tuners so I'll assume there's a possibility that some do allow progressive display for that purpose.

AFAIK these shows are 483/30i upconverted to 1080/30i. I've not heard of 480P being used since Fox went 720P.No, they really were 480p (this was a year or two ago), my 8300 showed it, and I double checked on the display. I haven't seen any lately (but I don't watch that much there either).

Now that TVs are in the digital realm, I think everyone should treat them like a personal computer. PCs get faster processors, more memory, larger storage devices, etc. Digital TVs are much the same in this technology spiral. Faster, cheaper, better. Can you imagine keeping a PC for 16 years? :o

Well, just because you enjoy replacing your TVs every couple years doesn't mean that the population at large is anxious to do so.

As is the case with so many prognostications about the convergence of computer and TV technology, your statement ignores the fact that most of us use televisions and computers in a very different manner. When I'm on my computer, I interact with it. When I'm watching television, I sit on a couch positioned some distance from the TV, and I let it entertain me -- not a remotely interactive experience. In view of the passive nature of the TV viewing experience, I suspect that the level of tolerance for upgrades and planned obsolescence is much lower than is the case for computers.

Well stated Thomas. Despite many attempts by the computer industry (and Microsoft in particular) to "get their claws on" TV, the American public has managed to keep their computers and TVs in different rooms. In fact, if you think about it, the opposite has happened - most people now get their computer connections from the TV cable! :cool:

No, they really were 480p (this was a year or two ago), my 8300 showed it, and I double checked on the display. I haven't seen any lately (but I don't watch that much there either).I'll take your word for that, but I suspect that was the transmitted standard and the original production was either 16:9 483/30i or 1080/30i. I've never personally seen any production in 16:9 480P.

Well, just because you enjoy replacing your TVs every couple years doesn't mean that the population at large is anxious to do so.

As is the case with so many prognostications about the convergence of computer and TV technology, your statement ignores the fact that most of us use televisions and computers in a very different manner. When I'm on my computer, I interact with it. When I'm watching television, I sit on a couch positioned some distance from the TV, and I let it entertain me -- not a remotely interactive experience. In view of the passive nature of the TV viewing experience, I suspect that the level of tolerance for upgrades and planned obsolescence is much lower than is the case for computers.

It depends. If you think of a computer TV combination as something you first have to boot an then watch on a desktop monitor then it doesn't fit will in the family room.

But for a half dozen years now all my home computing, web browsing, movie and TV watching has been on an always-on 24/7 computer, laying back in my recliner watching my front projector show a 4 ft high image on the wall in front of me. Yeah, I'm a nerd with all kinds of gear surrounding me and no need to make it stylish or user friendly for others. But it still shows it possible.

- Tom

Well, just because you enjoy replacing your TVs every couple years doesn't mean that the population at large is anxious to do so.

As is the case with so many prognostications about the convergence of computer and TV technology, your statement ignores the fact that most of us use televisions and computers in a very different manner. When I'm on my computer, I interact with it. When I'm watching television, I sit on a couch positioned some distance from the TV, and I let it entertain me -- not a remotely interactive experience. In view of the passive nature of the TV viewing experience, I suspect that the level of tolerance for upgrades and planned obsolescence is much lower than is the case for computers.DITTO!

But PC & TV equipment manufacturers would prefer consumers to do a "forklift (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/forklift_upgrade.html)" upgrade of their digital equipment every other year. :D

I upgrade PC and A/V equipment when it cannot do tasks I require of it. My current computer configurations have lasted over four years with only a graphics card upgrade and larger hard drive, so I'm pleased with that. I can see a motherboard + cpu swap within the next year, as well as a replacement for my TV at its five-year point. But I expect that next TV to last closer to 10 years (it will surely be 1080p-capable, and at least 60" diagonal).

My venerable Sony 32" CRT has served me well since 1989; it's currently my second monitor for my main "office" PC (primary is a fairly standard 21" LCD), and I use it to preview my digital video editing projects. Those Trinitron XBR tubes were the pinnacle of NTSC technology, in my book. I think the variety of ATSC television options makes it more difficult to identify an absolute "best" display device. DLP looks great to me, but many prefer plasma or LCD or LCoS.

I upgrade PC and A/V equipment when it cannot do tasks I require of it. My current computer configurations have lasted over four years with only a graphics card upgrade and larger hard drive, so I'm pleased with that. I can see a motherboard + cpu swap within the next year, as well as a replacement for my TV at its five-year point. But I expect that next TV to last closer to 10 years (it will surely be 1080p-capable, and at least 60" diagonal).

My venerable Sony 32" CRT has served me well since 1989; it's currently my second monitor for my main "office" PC (primary is a fairly standard 21" LCD), and I use it to preview my digital video editing projects. Those Trinitron XBR tubes were the pinnacle of NTSC technology, in my book. I think the variety of ATSC television options makes it more difficult to identify an absolute "best" display device. DLP looks great to me, but many prefer plasma or LCD or LCoS.I upgraded my home-built circa 2001, Rambus memory, PC to an HP m7350n last year. I "detest" OEMed Windows software builds so I replaced HP's WMC with WXP Pro SP2, swapped out the power supply, graphics card and RAID 0'd it. While the box is rather "spiffy" it still does not meet expectations... I'll probably wind up giving it to my in-laws & build another high end platform this fall/winter.

I've purchased (2) HDTVs since 2003 but won't buy another until Cable/FiOS providers open their networks and support two-way interactive DRM.

I think the variety of ATSC television options makes it more difficult to identify an absolute "best" display device. DLP looks great to me, but many prefer plasma or LCD or LCoS.I think this monitor (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=0&p=8&sp=20073&id=80823) is still considered by many to be the best for critical image evaluation.

I think this monitor (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=0&p=8&sp=20073&id=80823) is still considered by many to be the best for critical image evaluation.

Couldn't agree more.

I think this monitor (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=0&p=8&sp=20073&id=80823) is still considered by many to be the best for critical image evaluation.
I have one sitting in front of me right now in my edit room. I just wish it were bigger - and could accept an incoming feed of "Lost" on those late Wednesday sessions.... ;)

The sad part is, the trend in more production environments is moving toward those devilish flat panel displays. They can slip in a larger QC display with a smaller footprint and even divide the screen area up into several displays. I hate them because I hate having to clear away the ghosts when I park a still frame on them too long - even on the LCD units. In addition, I don't think the upconversion from SD is as sharp. Things that are tack sharp on the CRTs are somewhat smeary on the flat panels - at least to my eyes. Maybe I just spent to long in the linear SD world before all this HD stuff came along. I still have a lot of love for the Sony BVM-14F5U....

With most people having Cable or Satellite, what 2-17-09 really means is....

"Most people will STILL just have analog TV." Boy! What a "Digital TV Transition" we had.

:D Well done!!!!

You got it. Adjusted for inflation, TV's today are still cheaper than the 1980s and 1990s for the non-HD models with ATSC/digital tuners, and low-end HD models.
And all indications are they'll keep on dropping through the rest of the year and beyond, as supply more than keeps up with demand, overhead costs lower by volume. And what do you get? A clearer, more colorful picture with over-the-air or cable/sat (no "snow" or ghosts" anymore!), and more over-the-air channels. As I learned 3 years ago: if you haven't seen PBS-HD, you haven't seen where the best PBS programs went to (repeats aside)...



Unlike power, however, only one thing is changing: the TV. And unlike "breaking", it just needs a converter box for it to continue to work. It's a cheap fix, and I also don't support the subsidy. Asking someone to pay $50 to change the standard of a TV to see improved picture quality and programming is not much to ask. And if you can afford a TV, you can almost always afford a box. If not, I think a donation to a public retirement home and similar from the public should cover it. But you are not entitled to a TV in this country, and thus, a converter box as well. The first statement in that last sentence is fact; the last one should be.

Having said that, since it is the public airwaves we are talking about, changing standards on a big scale such as this DO entitle us to be informed by the affected media, retailers of receivers, and by the government. Only the middle one has done a decent job, and only that over the last few months thanks to the latter.


The TV stations won't be crazy about it because they want cable/sat revenues, for the most part, and certainly in the top 20 markets. And the FCC/government isn't putting anywhere close to the effort they should.

That said, maybe that is not bad, because the converters won't be ready until early next year anyway in bulk, as well as the silly subsidy program.

Finally, some common sense in this thread!!! ;) Well said!!

Maybe this is a non-issue for most, but there still are many folks who currently receive watchable analog TV signals in fringe areas, but have no cable access and may not be able to switch to satellite. From what I can tell digital broadcasts require a strong signal - and many digital transmitters appear to be running much lower power than the old analog transmitters are - at least that is the case in my area.

It seems apparent to me that the switch to digital will leave these folks TV free with no good options to get around that.

many digital transmitters appear to be running much lower power than the old analog transmitters are - at least that is the case in my area.That will change in February 2009. I suspect that most stations that have a low-power digital channel are planning on relocating their digital signal to their analog channel (at high-power) at that time. I know, for example, that WFXT here in Boston is planning to do just that.

I was concerned about the same thing, but another poster a few years back -- and my own experiences since then -- eased my concerns on the "power" front a little.

Here's my understanding now that I know better:

In analog, the visual signal is an AM (amplitude modulation) signal whose level actually fluctuates depending on what's being broadcast. The darker the picture, the higher the transmitted power. If it were running at 100% all the time, you'd be watching a black screen all day. The aural signal is FM, but it legally can't exceed 22% of the visual power, so if your channel 4 station is running at 100,000 watts ERP visual, it's only putting out 22,000 watts of aural power.

This also explains why your analog picture looks and sounds like crap and why there are so many varying degrees of "crap" -- the farther you get from the transmitter, the less that AM signal is going to be able to overcome the random noise out there. Your reception is limited by whatever noise you're willing to put up with.

With digital there's just one signal for picture and sound. It's also AM, but it runs pretty much at full level all the time. As long as your receiver can decode the signal, you'll see a picture that's as good as what the station transmitted. In this case, your reception is limited by your receiver's ability to find it. If it can't find it, obviously, you see nothing.

That's part of the reason why your stations' effective radiated power (ERP) will be lower with digital than with analog. UHF stations, it is assumed, will only need 500,000 to 1 million watts to cover the area of a 2.5 to 5 megawatt analog UHF.

As for those who will be on VHF, it appears all in my area will be under 40,000 watts, though I hope the FCC didn't overestimate in these cases.

With digital there's just one signal for picture and sound. It's also AM, but it runs pretty much at full level all the time. As long as your receiver can decode the signal, you'll see a picture that's as good as what the station transmitted.
.

I've seen this written dozens of times, but the "all or nothing" statement isn't true. My broadcast HDTV signals very often pixelate and freeze frame - and I'm less than two miles from the tower farm in Houston. It's so bad on ABC that I'm forced to watch the national HD feed on satellite instead (86 on D*).

I've seen this written dozens of times, but the "all or nothing" statement isn't true. My broadcast HDTV signals very often pixelate and freeze frame - and I'm less than two miles from the tower farm in Houston. It's so bad on ABC that I'm forced to watch the national HD feed on satellite instead (86 on D*).

Pixelation and freeze framing are actually caused by the signal quality switching between decodable (all) and undecodable (nothing).

"All or nothing" is often misinterpreted by people that if they can get a perfect signal this minute, they'll always get a perfect signal. They see this as a great feature of DTV. Unfortunately once Spring comes around and the trees sprout leaves, they find that their "all" signals sometimes go to "nothing" and don't know what the problem is.

I've seen this written dozens of times, but the "all or nothing" statement isn't true. My broadcast HDTV signals very often pixelate and freeze frame - and I'm less than two miles from the tower farm in Houston. It's so bad on ABC that I'm forced to watch the national HD feed on satellite instead (86 on D*).

If you are less than 2 miles from the towers, chances are you are overloading the receiver and causing your drop outs. The problem isn't signal level, the problem is multipath or "ghosting" as it is called in the analog world due to intermod. Reduce the signal and let your AGC work on the multpath. Pixelation is caused by multiple problems, including multipath and/or weak signal.

It's also AM, but it runs pretty much at full level all the time.Actually it's one of eight different power levels, but who's counting. On a spectrum analyzer it looks like constant envelope. Power is pretty evenly distributed through the bandpass.

Actually it's one of eight different power levels, but who's counting. On a spectrum analyzer it looks like constant envelope. Power is pretty evenly distributed through the bandpass.

The main difference between analog and ATSC is that for analog the average power varies with picture brightness and for ATSC it is constant.

I was concerned about the same thing, but another poster a few years back -- and my own experiences since then -- eased my concerns on the "power" front a little.

Here's my understanding now that I know better:

In analog, the visual signal is an AM (amplitude modulation) signal whose level actually fluctuates depending on what's being broadcast. The darker the picture, the higher the transmitted power. If it were running at 100% all the time, you'd be watching a black screen all day. The aural signal is FM, but it legally can't exceed 22% of the visual power, so if your channel 4 station is running at 100,000 watts ERP visual, it's only putting out 22,000 watts of aural power.

This also explains why your analog picture looks and sounds like crap and why there are so many varying degrees of "crap" -- the farther you get from the transmitter, the less that AM signal is going to be able to overcome the random noise out there. Your reception is limited by whatever noise you're willing to put up with.

With digital there's just one signal for picture and sound. It's also AM, but it runs pretty much at full level all the time. As long as your receiver can decode the signal, you'll see a picture that's as good as what the station transmitted. In this case, your reception is limited by your receiver's ability to find it. If it can't find it, obviously, you see nothing.

That's part of the reason why your stations' effective radiated power (ERP) will be lower with digital than with analog. UHF stations, it is assumed, will only need 500,000 to 1 million watts to cover the area of a 2.5 to 5 megawatt analog UHF.

As for those who will be on VHF, it appears all in my area will be under 40,000 watts, though I hope the FCC didn't overestimate in these cases.

1 million watts covers MORE than 5 million watts in every case I have seen.
The main problem is that...here's a dangerous thing to say...MOST people that receive TV via OTA have inappropriate antennas, and/or antenna siting. The FCC's determination of a station's coverage is for an outside antenna 30' up using 50' (or something like that) of RG-6 cable.

I know several DTV engineers at stations in Chicago. 60 miles away from their transmitter, one told me he was about to drop his analog from 5 MW ERP to 2.5 MW ERP to work on half of the transmitter. I am in a townhome that forbids outside antennas (sorry, I don't own the roof, so OTARD doesn't apply to me).
By using a ChannelMaster 4228 UHF antenna with a ChannelMaster 7777 preamplifier in my one-story attic, low in a river valley...my picture went from cable TV quality to...cable TV quality. I saw only a very, very slight rise in the noise level...even though I am most certainly fringe.

This same station also broadcast their DTV signal at 15.1 kw until last spring on channel 27. I was able to lock them most of the time, except when an analog station 80 miles northwest on the same channel, an utter blowtorch, cut in causing everything from a little breakup to a complete loss of signal. This on a third gen tuner, BTW. Until recently my FOX affiliate was at a flea-power 2.3 kw, 30 miles northwest. My 4228 and my 3rd gen tuner locked it with the antenna pointed 120 degrees off! With 2.3 kw around 600' AGL, they were getting reports 40 miles out of people locking their signal solidly!

This is why I am optimistic with new 6th gen tuners that with them being able to pull signal out of mud and reject multipath so well that soon, OTA reception with DTV will not be quite as big a problem as some think. Apartment dwellers 40+ miles out will be the big problem, IMO, and I think Ken would agree at least it will be a significant issue. Once analog shuts down, reception will be better as well, with a ton of analog interference going away.

Digital power output is based on the average level of on/off (square wave 1's and 0's) over 8 vestigal sidebands in the 5.3 MHz bandwidth, where analog power output is based on the peak variations of the video luminance level over a 4.2 MHz bandwidth. Same mode, amplitude modulation, but how that AM envelope is modulated and the duty cycle between the two are the differences.

That is why a 30 kW analog transmitter is the same exact transmitter as a 4 kW digital transmitter except for exciter, one being NTSC the other being ATSC. The way the AM signal is being modulated changes the duty cycle and therefore changes it from a 30 kW peak power transmitter to a 4 kW average power transmitter. You can always get MUCH more peak power than average power with the same amplifier because the duty cycle of the peak is MUCH short than the average LONGER cycle signal.

Technically, an analog black picture is only 75% power out if it has sync and 7.5 IRE set up and it is 100% power if it is black picture with sync only. That is why in the early days of TV, you NEVER left a transmitter sitting in black for any length of time because the longer it sat in black, the more heat needed to be dissipated because the average power was increasing above the rated level of the amplifier and if it stayed in black too long, it would damage the amplifier (tube in those days) and the station would be off the air. The brighter the picture the less power needed. If the brightness of the picture is beyond 100 IRE, (12.5% RF output) it is called, "pinching off the carrier" by the display of the RF signal in a spectrum analyser in that condition. It is actually visual overmodulation. That is also when you start to hear "sync buzz" in the picture. Your set is now trying to decode the aural carrier as sync since the video carrier is now so low in signal strength that the FM aural carrier is higher in signal strength and you "hear" the FM carrier as the detector is moving around looking for picture sync. (not true with older split receivers used in the 50's and early 60's.)

In digital you are never in a pinching the carrier situation since you never have low RF output in relation to the pilot carrier. The pilot carrier is always 10 dB higher than the average digital signal level. In that case, if you have low RF, you just never lock on the carrier.

As for stations running 22% aural power, very few if any run that high any more. Most run between 5 and 10% aural. It is a waste of power to run more than that with the quality of receivers today. Most stations started to cut back their aurals in the late 70's and early 80's.

A great deal of the blame for consumer unawareness of the analog/digital transition can be directly laid at the feet of television station owners and the NAB who dragged their feet in the early years, hoping HD would die. If all of the TV stations in the US were required to run a 60 second PSA detailing the basics of the transition 5-6 times a day for the next year, the public would know. And for that matter, the networks need to spend more time making the SD viewer aware. As an aside, I had one friend over who had never seen HD but had heard about it and figured it was a scam until he saw it and his mouth dropped open. There are many like him out there at this moment.

And newspapers can take part of the blame, as well. Most view TV as rivals and to this day do not designate programs as HD vs SD. So, there is plenty of blame to go around for congress, the FCC, and most of all broadcasters.

Except that Congress didn't direct the FCC to handle awareness (designating another agency with that responsibility), and by law, the FCC would not be allowed to do so without Congress' direction.

So, there is plenty of blame to go around for congress, the FCC, and most of all broadcasters.

It is pretty obvious where you are biased to, but in all truthfulness and fairness, yes, there is plenty of blame to go all around from the government, to the lobbyist, to the industry. But to blame broadcasters more than the government is unfair since the FCC/Congress has changed the rules several times since the introduction of digital television in 1995. As with any business, broadcasters will try and maximize profits, even at the expense of the government. The auto industry, oil industry, just to name a few play that game better than the broadcasters ever could. So while I agree with you that there should be blame to the broadcasters, it isn't any more or less than anyone else.

And starting next year, broadcasters are being required by law to provide PSA's to promote the transition and NAB has also got stations to donate an additional 1 billion dollars worth of air time industry wide to help reinforce the government required PSA's. That is airtime that stations could have sold to the same government officials who will be banging on the stations doors for the cheapest rate on the card, as they can, by law, every election cycle so stations will be left with even less inventory to help stay in business. My suggestion would be before you start slinging blame around, understand what is actually happening, who is doing it and who is being effected by it. The results might surprise you.

Once analog shuts down, reception will be better as well, with a ton of analog interference going away.

Analog cannot shut down fast enough for me. It dosen't effect me for my locals, although I have aquaintences in other areas that are plaged by NTSC-Analog interference on digital broadcasts.

Only somewhat relevant, but this month's 'PC Magazine' has an article mentioning that RCA is coming out HD/SD digital converter for $50, model DTA800. Makes me assume that other manufacturers will kick out something for $25-$30. At least there will be cheap convertors when the time comes, imagine how sticky things would get if people were asked to pay $100 or more!

I think the coupon program, itself, will keep prices high.

The converters will be very plentiful, as people find they aren't gonna work in their situations.

I hope there will be some info available that will warn people who have Cable or are on certain types of MATV systems (specifically QAM, or those that will not pass ATSC at all), that these boxes will not work.

Otherwise, you'll be finding them on e-bay, and curbside trash piles.

Only somewhat relevant, but this month's 'PC Magazine' has an article mentioning that RCA is coming out HD/SD digital converter for $50, model DTA800. Makes me assume that other manufacturers will kick out something for $25-$30. At least there will be cheap convertors when the time comes, imagine how sticky things would get if people were asked to pay $100 or more!

BIG QUESTIONS:

Will these cheap set-top boxes actually function as an HDTV tuner with HDMI and component outputs, OR will they simply downconvert everything to 480i NTSC through S-Video/composite/RF? Do they need to support HDTV ? If so, WHY?

How will they handle the aspect ratio issues? Audio options ? Closed Captioning ? What about QAM decoding ? Programmable remote ?

Most importantly, will they allow you to "add" digital channels without erasing existing ones. Nothing would be more frustrating than to have an antenna on a rotor, and having to rescan every time you repositioned the antenna. Some TV manufacturers still think that's an OK situation.

BIG QUESTIONS:

Will these cheap set-top boxes actually function as an HDTV tuner with HDMI and component outputs, OR will they simply downconvert everything to 480i NTSC through S-Video/composite/RF? Do they need to support HDTV ? If so, WHY?

How will they handle the aspect ratio issues? Audio options ? Closed Captioning ? What about QAM decoding ? Programmable remote ?

Most importantly, will they allow you to "add" digital channels without erasing existing ones. Nothing would be more frustrating than to have an antenna on a rotor, and having to rescan every time you repositioned the antenna. Some TV manufacturers still think that's an OK situation.I'd say that QAM and 1080i/720p would be overkill. We are talking about legacy TV sets here. If anyone has a set with component/DVI/HDMI inputs, they shouldn't be eligible for a subsidized converter for that set anyway.

As with any business, broadcasters will try and maximize profits, even at the expense of the government.
I don't want to sound like a hippie, but what happened to broadcasters providing a service to benefit the public?

Even the for-profit company I work for tells its customers when it knows one of its products is going to be discontinued. We can't afford to lose 10% of our customers.

I don't want to sound like a hippie, but what happened to broadcasters providing a service to benefit the public?

It is still there. Upon license renewal we still have to show what we have done in the "public interest." And when stations don't they get fined. Clear Channel just got fined today for stuff not in the public interest.

Even the for-profit company I work for tells its customers when it knows one of its products is going to be discontinued. We can't afford to lose 10% of our customers.

Technically, we aren't discontinuing a service. We are adding capability. I know what you mean, dropping analog for digital, but in all honesty, 85% of the public will never know anything happened on Feb 17, 2009 and there are provisions in the law that broadcasters have to run announcements in 2008 leading up to the analog shutdown as well as point of sales has to tell people who buy analog only sets they will not work OTA post transition. Broadcasters are also giving additional time as well in 2008. Truth is, if everyone who needs a new TV/STB, wanted to buy it now, there isn't enough inventory. Will there be ever be enough inventory? I hope so.

For broadcasters it is a no win situation. If we start talking alot about the shutdown now and people start a stampede for the equipment and it isn't available we will be accused of starting a panic. We will get that anyway I suppose. If we wait, we are accused of foot dragging. We can't please everyone. Is the transition messed up? Yes. Broadcasters admit it. The government admits it. NAB admits it. Is there blame enough for everyone? Yes. But we have gone too far now to change things and this is what we have been dealt and broadcasters will do what they think is best and sometimes that doesn't jive with some people.

Other than that, I don't know what else to say. Are you looking for a Mea Culpa?

I'd be curious on opinions as to how many non-cable/sat households will actually "bite the bullet" and get life-line or higher service cable/sat package rather than struggling with set-top boxes and antennas.

Personnally, I think it will be quite high.

I'd be curious on opinions as to how many non-cable/sat households will actually "bite the bullet" and get life-line or higher service cable/sat package rather than struggling with set-top boxes and antennas.

Personnally, I think it will be quite high.

I've gotta think quite a few. My nearest transmitter is 38 mi away, and several other are 60 mi away. It took a lot of effort and some expense to get through putting up a CM 4228, a CM 7777 and rotator. Now, I'm a bit nuts. I think trying to receive long distance UHF signals is fun.

Most people don't.

I've gotta think quite a few. My nearest transmitter is 38 mi away, and several other are 60 mi away. It took a lot of effort and some expense to get through putting up a CM 4228, a CM 7777 and rotator. Now, I'm a bit nuts. I think trying to receive long distance UHF signals is fun.

Most people don't.

I also wonder what % of "OTA only" viewers use simple indoor antennas and live with unstable pix, and what % have antenna installations that will actually support reliable DTV reception.

Getting up and repositioning the old silver sensor everytime you change a channel can get old quick.

I also wonder what % of households without cable/sat really can't afford it, and what percentage are cheap elitist snobs.

The local Fox station here in Knoxville has started airing ads about "The Big Switch" that talk about the shutdown and point people to their website. Most of the local stations have it on their websites, but this is the first mention I've seen about the shutoff on a local broadcast.

I'd be curious on opinions as to how many non-cable/sat households will actually "bite the bullet" and get life-line or higher service cable/sat package rather than struggling with set-top boxes and antennas.

Personnally, I think it will be quite high.

Cable is banking on it.

BIG QUESTIONS:

Will these cheap set-top boxes actually function as an HDTV tuner with HDMI and component outputs, OR will they simply downconvert everything to 480i NTSC through S-Video/composite/RF? Do they need to support HDTV ? If so, WHY?

How will they handle the aspect ratio issues? Audio options ? Closed Captioning ? What about QAM decoding ? Programmable remote ?

Most importantly, will they allow you to "add" digital channels without erasing existing ones. Nothing would be more frustrating than to have an antenna on a rotor, and having to rescan every time you repositioned the antenna. Some TV manufacturers still think that's an OK situation.

I'm going to go out on a limb since there were no details other than the important one-- it says to 'receive terrestrial signals and convert them for analog TVs'.

So, my guess would be simply an ATSC receiver that converts to 480i, nothing more. Probably just S-Video and RCA output jacks. Upon second reading I would scrap the HD angle, it probably just tunes in plain old DTV, no hi def with downconversion.

cavalierlwt, the analog converters will have to tune HDTV broadcasts in order to be ATSC compliant. They'll downconvert the signal to 480i and should handle aspect ratio according to the ARD flag the broadcasters send for each program (4:3, 16:9 center-cut, 16:9 letterbox). Center-cut probably wouldn't be used except for 4:3 content because it would crop the station logo on the bottom right of the screen. Someone on the forums is beta testing one of those boxes. I'm hoping he could chime in here. I'm wondering if the STBs will even have a setting for hooking them up to widescreen TVs. Probably no QAM support or surround sound, either. I'd be surprised if the thing even has a S-Video output.

Edit: found a list of requirements at http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0082/t.4382.html

The technical specifications direct that the boxes must:

- decode all video formats in ATSC A/53E Table A3, although original frame rate and spatial resolution need not be preserved.
- support a 4:3 center cut-out of 16:9 images; letterboxed 16:9 and "full or partially zoomed output of unknown transmitted image."
- process PSIP.
- receive Channels 2-69.
- include a 75-ohm F-type antenna input connection.
- include a 75-ohm F-type, selectable Channel 3 or 4 NTSC output.
- include RCA connections to output stereo sound and composite video.
- receive all multicast channels.
- comply with FCC rules on closed-captioning, emergency alerts and V-chip functions.
- power down to a 2 watt "sleep" state after four hours of inactivity.
- have a signal quality indicator, a remote control and the RF cable necessary to hook it up to a TV.

Other specs include a dynamic tuner range of -83 to -5 dBm, as opposed to -83 to -8 dBm set forth in A/74. Values for co-, adjacent- and taboo-channel rejection thresholds and static echo-delay tolerance are also given.

Electronic program guide and smart antenna features are optional.

The subsidy will not be provided for boxes that include recording or picture-in-picture functions or specialized outputs such as USB, Ethernet, VGA, HDMI, component video, DVI or WiFi. The NTIA can have the converter submitted for the subsidy program verified by the FCC upon request.

The last paragraph rules out HD output completely for anyone who was still wondering.

Thanks for the info, pretty comprehensive info at that!
:)

Good information. I guess it's understandable that the specs don't include 5.1 or HD output since the whole point of subsidized converters is to convert analog sets as cheaply as possible. Disappointing, perhaps, but understandable.

I also wonder what % of "OTA only" viewers use simple indoor antennas and live with unstable pix, and what % have antenna installations that will actually support reliable DTV reception.

Getting up and repositioning the old silver sensor everytime you change a channel can get old quick.

I also wonder what % of households without cable/sat really can't afford it, and what percentage are cheap elitist snobs.

What I REALLY HATE is to go in to a store, and they have a crappy pair of rabbit ears on an HDTV set "to show that, even crappy rabbit ears can sometimes get a digital signal", yet they don't have any real antenna for comparison.

The "gee-whiz" of "getting something " is lost when people think that is all the heck they're gonna get at home! People leave the store wondering if they are going to have to readjust their RE's every time they change channels, or if they'll lose the picture every time someone stands up to stretch their legs.

How about a small outdoor antenna connected up on an A/B switch, and show a photo of it next to the set?

Or, do they do this to show you that OTA doesn't work and you'll need to sign up for "Satellite Cable"?

Something that really baffles me.........

The official public information (saturation) campaign starts on February 18, 2008 (and runs for one full year).

The "coupon" program starts six weeks earlier, on January 1, 2008.

So, does this mean that "STB Scalpers" who know about the program before JohnQPublic, will snatch up all the coupons, and there won't be enough supply for Granny and the too-far-from-Cable folks?

As my granddaddy us'ta say, "Gubb-Mint" :confused: .

Rather, I suspect they're doing something very common in the consumer-facing world: Enough people will hear about the coupon program without saturation campaign to keep the operations offices working for the first six weeks. To the extent that the load will be lighter, due to lack of publicity, that gives this brand-new program the opportunity to work out the kinks, which anyone planning on requesting coupons during the first month or so of operations should EXPECT.

Rather, I suspect they're doing something very common in the consumer-facing world: Enough people will hear about the coupon program without saturation campaign to keep the operations offices working for the first six weeks. To the extent that the load will be lighter, due to lack of publicity, that gives this brand-new program the opportunity to work out the kinks, which anyone planning on requesting coupons during the first month or so of operations should EXPECT.

Brilliant.

And I seriously doubt there's going to be a black market or a contrived shortage of STBs. The cable industry, however, better have extra staff available on 2/18/09.

Not to mention Emergency Services, since many people will call 9-1-1 to find out if something really terrible has happened to knock out all the communications.

And, of course, the numbers of agitated (ex)viewers, who will hyperventilate or have palpitations.

Or, do they do this to show you that OTA doesn't work and you'll need to sign up for "Satellite Cable"?

No way! Why get something for free when you can pay good money for it? :D

cavalierlwt, the analog converters will have to tune HDTV broadcasts in order to be ATSC compliant. They'll downconvert the signal to 480i and should handle aspect ratio according to the ARD flag the broadcasters send for each program (4:3, 16:9 center-cut, 16:9 letterbox). Center-cut probably wouldn't be used except for 4:3 content because it would crop the station logo on the bottom right of the screen. Someone on the forums is beta testing one of those boxes. I'm hoping he could chime in here. I'm wondering if the STBs will even have a setting for hooking them up to widescreen TVs. Probably no QAM support or surround sound, either. I'd be surprised if the thing even has a S-Video output.

Edit: found a list of requirements at http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0082/t.4382.html


The last paragraph rules out HD output completely for anyone who was still wondering.

What bothers me is that the cost of outputting HD is the cost of component connecters and firmware. In other words zilch. They are making a box that has limited capabilities only to limit the number of coupons redeemed.

Rick R

What bothers me is that the cost of outputting HD is the cost of component connecters and firmware. In other words zilch. They are making a box that has limited capabilities only to limit the number of coupons redeemed.

Rick R


Wouldn't most HDTVs have HD tuners built in? This RCA tuner probably isn't aimed at HDTV owners without tuners as much as it seems to be meant for regular analog TV owners who are going to lose their OTA signal in 2009.
I do see HDTV tuners available at Best Buy, but they cost quite a bit more, around 3 times as much as the RCA DTV tuners.

What bothers me is that the cost of outputting HD is the cost of component connecters and firmware. In other words zilch. They are making a box that has limited capabilities only to limit the number of coupons redeemed.

Rick R

By design. The FCC outlined specifically what the "coupon" boxes would have as outputs. The only output will be 480i. These boxes are not meant for people who can afford them, but the poor who can't, or so they say.

By design. The FCC outlined specifically what the "coupon" boxes would have as outputs. The only output will be 480i. These boxes are not meant for people who can afford them, but the poor who can't, or so they say.

That was the original intent. But, with no concensus on who is really "poor", "handicapped", or "unable to pay", they took the easy way out. Now, everyhousehold qualifies for two coupons, presumably to use on the two older sets that are still kicking around in the basement or garage.

That was the original intent. But, with no concensus on who is really "poor", "handicapped", or "unable to pay", they took the easy way out. Now, everyhousehold qualifies for two coupons, presumably to use on the two older sets that are still kicking around in the basement or garage.Or on the only set that some old lady has, who can't see the use in paying for cable when OTA works, and couldn't care less about HD and 16x9.

Maybe you'd rather have the FCC go door to door with a social worker across the country, certifying individuals as "needy".

Maybe you'd rather have the FCC go door to door with a social worker across the country, certifying individuals as "needy".

Actually yes. Truth is the Census Department has the data and who it is specifically.

Maybe you'd rather have the FCC go door to door with a social worker across the country, certifying individuals as "needy".Why bother... when I'm complacent enough to work all-day-long so the Government can give away 40% of my income to those who don't. :p

Actually yes. Truth is the Census Department has the data and who it is specifically.Doubtful. A remarkably high number of people hide income -- they are able to do so either because they do business in cash and simply don't report it all, or because they have cooked up some other means of cheating the American people.

I'm complacent enough to work all-day-long so the Government can give away 40% of my income to those who don't. :p
Sucker!
;)
:D

Doubtful. A remarkably high number of people hide income -- they are able to do so either because they do business in cash and simply don't report it all, or because they have cooked up some other means of cheating the American people.

And I thought paying taxes was the biggest means of cheating the American people. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why bother... when I'm complacent enough to work all-day-long so the Government can give away 40% of my income to those who don't. :pInteresting that you would refer to the men and women in the military as people who don't work.

And I thought paying taxes was the biggest means of cheating the American people. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:No, paying taxes is fulfilling one's civic duty -- living up to one's obligations -- acting honorably. I am bewildered why anyone would see fit to attack taxpayers, who pay the costs of civilization which everyone benefits from. Attacking taxpayers seems to me to be the most craven type of pointless mud-slinging imaginable.

Actually yes. Truth is the Census Department has the data and who it is specifically.

And how much would that cost in bureaucracy? As long as the box can't support HD output, it isn't too ripe for abuse. Just leave it for the few people who only want (or can only afford) 480i on an existing set.

The government will make more than enough on the spectrum they are reclaiming and selling to pay the burden for those who don't wish to upgrade, and the rest of us can revel in our glorious HD.

We should also offer a free buggy whip to everyone who still pulls their car with a horse.

No, paying taxes is fulfilling one's civic duty -- living up to one's obligations -- acting honorably. I am bewildered why anyone would see fit to attack taxpayers, who pay the costs of civilization which everyone benefits from. Attacking taxpayers seems to me to be the most craven type of pointless mud-slinging imaginable.

I'm not attacking taxpayers and I don't mind paying taxes when those dollars are spent responsibly. Subsidizing set-top boxes is way way way out of bounds.

Interesting that you would refer to the men and women in the military as people who don't work.Did I say "military" :confused: or have you just implied it? :rolleyes:

I'm not attacking taxpayersThen you should go back and fix your message within which you did attack taxpayers, saying that, "paying taxes was the biggest means of cheating the American People." That's not even funny as a joke.

and I don't mind paying taxes when those dollars are spent responsibly.I'm sure that the legislators believe that they did spend the tax money responsibly. Given that they were actually elected by the people and you were not, I figure their determination is more valid than yours.

We should also offer a free buggy whip to everyone who still pulls their car with a horse.

Now THAT is taking things TOO FAR! :D

I'm sure that the legislators believe that they did spend the tax money responsibly.Obviously you don't happen to live in NYS. :p

I'm not attacking taxpayers and I don't mind paying taxes when those dollars are spent responsibly. Subsidizing set-top boxes is way way way out of bounds.
correct me if I'm wrong, but the set top box subsidy will be repaid in 1-2 years by income from auctioning off the analog frequencies.

correct me if I'm wrong, but the set top box subsidy will be repaid in 1-2 years by income from auctioning off the analog frequencies.I think that the payback is even quicker than that.

I'm sure that the legislators believe that they did spend the tax money responsibly. Given that they were actually elected by the people and you were not, I figure their determination is more valid than yours.
...and I'm sure when the board of directors of ENRON was chosen, people thought they would use the money responsably, too.

Don't be naive. Our elected officials burn through our tax dollars in any way they feel will get them elected, re-elected and will pay for their campaigns. Of course, perhaps you think every elected official is like Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

Tax money is spent in the best interests of special interests. The rest is spent on what ever war we get into every 5-7 years.

correct me if I'm wrong, but the set top box subsidy will be repaid in 1-2 years by income from auctioning off the analog frequencies.
You're wrong. That money has already been spent. You can't "repay" money you spend when you have a trillion dollar deficit.

I'm not attacking taxpayers and I don't mind paying taxes when those dollars are spent responsibly. Subsidizing set-top boxes is way way way out of bounds.

It's not a subsidy, it is compensation for the government action that is disabling perfectly good TV sets. It's not much different than compensation you receive when the state takes your house to build a new freeway.

Good point spwace.

It's not a subsidy, it is compensation for the government action that is disabling perfectly good TV sets. It's not much different than compensation you receive when the state takes your house to build a new freeway.

Good point, however the government makes decisions everyday that have negative trickle down economic consequences without compensation. What happens to a local economy when a military base is closed. Does the government give compensation when the value of a home decreases 60% overnight ??? Should they ???

The "taking" of real property is one thing, this is something entirely different.

P.S. The fact that there are those who still think the government acts responsibly is a scary thought indeed. :confused: :confused: :confused:

I posted the following articles on AVS about 3 years ago. The sad thing is, they still hold true today.

I've been puzzled for some time now why we don't see any "mainstream public" info about the digital transition. No PSAs, no print ads--nothing! It should come from the government, broadcasters, the CEA, or any entity who has the power to inform the masses. I talk to people at work sometimes that STILL have no idea about the upcoming change in the way we receive television signals. The only way for the complete transition to take place is to INFORM THE PUBLIC! I tell everyone I know, but I can't tell all 300 million of us. And some blame should also go to manufacturers and retailers who still sell analog sets. There needs to be, at least, a disclaimer to encourage buying a digital set over an analog one.

(next message)

Public awareness of digital transition

I try to keep somewhat informed (through AVS and a couple of other forums) on the status of digital TV, HDTV, and the eventual cutover to all digital broadcasting. There seems to be a lot of confusion/lack of info on the digital transition, currently scheduled for the end of 2006. Many people I come in contact with are still unaware that there is a move to digital TV. (I tell as many people as I can.)

As an average, everyday consumer, I see very little (if any) public service announcements, commercials, or any other mainstream information about the conversion. Since this transition affects almost everyone in the country, shouldn’t there be some information dispersed on the one medium that the transition affects: TV?

So here's what should have been published three years ago (or even now)???

"Effective 2/17/09, broadcast TV stations will begin transmitting exclusively in a digital mode. This means that if you DO NOT subscribe to cable or satellite, and depend on an antenna for reception, you will need to get a set top box.

Currently, you can't buy one, nobody makes one, and don't ask when, or where, or how much. There is no where to call to get further information. There are websites that explain WHY all this is happening and WHO it will affect, but still offers no concrete solutions.

So what can you do in the meantime??? Worry and wait. Stay tuned, we'll let you know when it's time to panic."

So here's what should have been published three years ago (or even now)???

"Effective 2/17/09, broadcast TV stations will begin transmitting exclusively in a digital mode. This means that if you DO NOT subscribe to cable or satellite, and depend on an antenna for reception, you will need to get a set top box.

Currently, you can't buy one, nobody makes one, and don't ask when, or where, or how much. There is no where to call to get further information. There are websites that explain WHY all this is happening and WHO it will affect, but still offers no concrete solutions.

So what can you do in the meantime??? Worry and wait. Stay tuned, we'll let you know when it's time to panic."
I still contend that the more advanced the notice, the better. Knowing ahead of time is better than being surprised with little notice. (that's where your panic sets in) Who knows? Instead of needing an STB, maybe some would like to start putting away a little extra for a new TV.

My main point was, though, the path of the information. The FCC, Congress, etc. are doing a poor job of getting the message out. With the current deadline of 2/17/09, the American public could have had almost 3 years notice. But now we're down to 18 months and still no widespread, mass-media notification.

I still contend that the more advanced the notice, the better. Knowing ahead of time is better than being surprised with little notice. (that's where your panic sets in) Who knows? Instead of needing an STB, maybe some would like to start putting away a little extra for a new TV.

My main point was, though, the path of the information. The FCC, Congress, etc. are doing a poor job of getting the message out. With the current deadline of 2/17/09, the American public could have had almost 3 years notice. But now we're down to 18 months and still no widespread, mass-media notification.

So what has been suggested that will happen is there will be a "soft-launch" of product availability before an aggressive public awareness campaign begins. This is to prevent a sea of wheelchairs and walkers parked out in front of Best Buy the night before, like the iPhone launch, or a new game box.

The boxes will be available for over a year before the cut-off.

Trust me, by the time this is over, you'll be sick to death of the "DTV Awareness Campaign". After the election in November 2008, every stinking unsold ad avail is going to have the Y2K apocolyptic announcement. You'll be glad you didn't have to suffer through three years of it.

Commerce Slates DTV Readiness Hearing (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6459954.html)

Otherwise, no coment. :rolleyes:

My main point was, though, the path of the information. The FCC, Congress, etc. are doing a poor job of getting the message out. With the current deadline of 2/17/09, the American public could have had almost 3 years notice. But now we're down to 18 months and still no widespread, mass-media notification.

As has been stated several times in this thread, the law that set Feb 17, 2009 also stated that starting Jan 2008, the coupons for the $50 STB's will be available and broadcasters will be required, BY LAW, to begin a campaign to alert the public about the demise of analog television broadcasting.

Now you may not agree with HOW it is being done, but it HAS been considered and a plan has been put into effect leading up to Feb 17, 2009 with the points that concern you.

Did I say "military" :confused: or have you just implied it? :rolleyes:News Flash: Military expenses are paid by taxes.

As has been pointed out, the tax argument is a red herring.

Here's an idea for the "DTV Awareness" P.S.A.:

R.E.M's classic "It's The End Of The World As We Know It" as the audio track, with David Letterman through analog CRT TVs off of a New York high rise.

Closing V.O. "Don't be left in the dark", with Audrey Hepburn in "Wait Until Dark" as the video.

Mancini music........fade to snow......

News Flash: Military expenses are paid by taxes.

As has been pointed out, the tax argument is a red herring.
Our founding documents explicitly direct the federal government to "provide for the common defense."
There's no such provision for entertainment.

Our founding documents explicitly direct the federal government to "provide for the common defense."
There's no such provision for entertainment.The government doesn't provide entertainment, unless you count "CSpan". That's a laugh. :)

The government doesn't provide entertainment, unless you count "CSpan". That's a laugh. :)

CSPAN is not intented to be "entertainment" but a vehicle to provide a public service with information live and recorded on how and what both houses of Congress are doing. Along with book reviews! :D

As has been stated several times in this thread, the law that set Feb 17, 2009 also stated that starting Jan 2008, the coupons for the $50 STB's will be available and broadcasters will be required, BY LAW, to begin a campaign to alert the public about the demise of analog television broadcasting.

Now you may not agree with HOW it is being done, but it HAS been considered and a plan has been put into effect leading up to Feb 17, 2009 with the points that concern you.
Actually since the coupons will not be available until Jan 08 and the compatable STB will probably not be available until then also, a publicity campaign before then will just lead to anger and frustration because nobody can get the required STB.

Rick R

Our founding documents explicitly direct the federal government to "provide for the common defense."
There's no such provision for entertainment.Using that argument, they shouldn't be charging for bandwidth.

I don't follow your free bandwidth logic, TVOD. I don't posit such a contention, regardless.

What gives the US Government the right to auction RF bandwidth?

I am interested in your train of thought on the bandwidth question, TVOD. Who do you propose should be able to lease that limited resource, and how do they acquire such control?

News Flash: Military expenses are paid by taxes.

As has been pointed out, the tax argument is a red herring.So are the roads we build, welfare, snow plowing & everything else... you're point?

The government doesn't provide entertainmentTell that to Leno & Letterman who have been making a living off their antics for years.

So are the roads we build, welfare, snow plowing & everything else... you're point?The point is your post said
Why bother... when I'm complacent enough to work all-day-long so the Government can give away 40% of my income to those who don't. :pAre you saying that you've figured out that 40% of your income goes to people who don't work and an addition amount goes to others that do?
Tell that to Leno & Letterman who have been making a living off their antics for years.That I completely agree with :D

I am interested in your train of thought on the bandwidth question, TVOD. Who do you propose should be able to lease that limited resource, and how do they acquire such control?
The formation of the FCC and its predecessor FRC was to control the growth of radio transmission as it was sliding into chaos from too many stations on common frequencies. The FCC has also had the responsibility of creating and enforcing standards to ensure the compatibility between transmitted material and retail receiving equipment.

In 1993 Congress allowed spectrum to be auctioned. As mentioned, the auction of released frequencies after the cutoff is expected to more than pay for the converter subsidy.

Dale Cripps had this article (http://hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2005/12/to_subsidize_or.php) in HDTV Magazine regarding the subject.

So far, the only thing gone wrong regarding mass communication of the digital TV transition is the lack of affordable STBs in the market. i see articles in magazines and newspapers about the analog cut off every once in awhile and that's the best they can do for now. There is no point in bombarding people with all kinds of announcements and press if they cannot take immediate action to accomodate the transition.

Manufacturers don't want to spend money making and shipping the STBs until they can get that free advertisement and subsidy, which they figure will help them sell boatloads of boxes. So it's manufacturers waiting for media and media waiting for manufacturers. That's why the government had to set hard dates for the coupons and PSAs to start and for the analog cutoff, otherwise it would take another decade to complete this transition.

Are you saying that you've figured out that 40% of your income goes to people who don't work and an addition amount goes to others that do?
The point I was trying to make is I feel it is ludicrous that taxpayers may have to subsidize an income challenged individual's desire to watch TV.

Obviously you don't happen to live in NYS. :pI used to, and even worked for one of those legislators, and let me assure you, they do "believe that they did spend the tax money responsibly" as I suggested.

correct me if I'm wrong, but the set top box subsidy will be repaid in 1-2 years by income from auctioning off the analog frequencies.Keep in mind that the object of the auction isn't to fund the coupon program, but rather to raise revenues for general purposes.

...and I'm sure when the board of directors of ENRON was chosen, people thought they would use the money responsably, too.How about AT&T? How about General Motors? How about K-Mart? How about Simon? How about Pioneer? How about Saunders? How about Kellogg? How about Uniden? How about Ralston-Purina? How about Partners Healthcare? How about Kimberly-Clark? How about Twentieth Century?

My point is that for every example of bad people managing companies you can mention, I can mention about 100 if not 1000 counter-examples. The point is that those folks were subjected, at least, to SOME level of vetting by their constituency, while random folks on the Internet have NOT. Your trust is misplaced if you believe what you want to believe from such a poor source, rather than believing what you don't want to believe from far better sources.

Don't be naive.Yes, you shouldn't be naive.

News Flash: Military expenses are paid by taxes.

As has been pointed out, the tax argument is a red herring.

Except the Constitution only provides for a standing Navy.

The point I was trying to make is I feel it is ludicrous that taxpayers may have to subsidize an income challenged individual's desire to watch TV.

The coupon program has nothing to do with income. Everyone, regardless of their income level, is entitled to two coupons to compensate them for receivers that will be disabled by government action.

Problem #1 with the "Digital Transition" is.....

NOBODY IS INTERESTED!

Whenever I try to contact anyone and explain what is happening, they just act like I'm trying to sell them a dish or something, shrug their shoulders, and walk away.

It will not be anything besides "a back burner issue" to the general population, until 2-18-09.

How about AT&T? How about General Motors? How about K-Mart? How about Simon? How about Pioneer? How about Saunders? How about Kellogg? How about Uniden? How about Ralston-Purina? How about Partners Healthcare? How about Kimberly-Clark? How about Twentieth Century?

My point is that for every example of bad people managing companies you can mention, I can mention about 100 if not 1000 counter-examples. The point is that those folks were subjected, at least, to SOME level of vetting by their constituency, while random folks on the Internet have NOT. Your trust is misplaced if you believe what you want to believe from such a poor source, rather than believing what you don't want to believe from far better sources.

Yes, you shouldn't be naive.

You are being naive. You completely missed the point in your attempt to pick apart and argue with everything everyone else says. Did you even read the quote of your very own post?

You indicated that because someone was elected to a post, they are qualified to (and do) operate in our best interests. I'm saying that's not always true. I also made no claims that anyone on the internet is more qualified. I only stated that those that are chosen to lead can be dishonest and self-serving.

The fact is, irresponsible and greedy people are chosen for their positions every day. Being "chosen" doesn't make you qualified or honest.

Everyone, regardless of their income level, is entitled to two coupons to compensate them for receivers that will be disabled by government action.

Until the NTIA runs out of them, full well knowing that there are NOT enough to go around to all of the 73 million sets NOT connected to an MSO.

The coupon program has nothing to do with income. Everyone, regardless of their income level, is entitled to two coupons to compensate them for receivers that will be disabled by government action.OK. I'm on board with that as long as it assures the shut-off date of February 17, 2009 for the end of all analog (NTSC) TV transmissions in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_States) :)

Problem #1 with the "Digital Transition" is.....

NOBODY IS INTERESTED!

Whenever I try to contact anyone and explain what is happening, they just act like I'm trying to sell them a dish or something, shrug their shoulders, and walk away.

It will not be anything besides "a back burner issue" to the general population, until 2-18-09.

Funny how the radios stations are promoting HD radio even though their analog FM channel isn't going away. Radio is doing everything in their power to get people interested in digital radio.....TV should be doing the same type of promoting. :rolleyes:

Funny how the radios stations are promoting HD radio even though their analog FM channel isn't going away. Radio is doing everything in their power to get people interested in digital radio.....TV should be doing the same type of promoting. :rolleyes:

Because they don't want you to switch to satellite radio. Apples and oranges.

And, in the case of the programming on most radio stations now, lemons.

I have a question related to the practical effect of the transition.

I subscribe to cable. Come 2/09 when our local broadcasters go digital, could my cable company choose to convert those signals to analog for their customers so they don't need the boxes on every TV.

I know here cable is already doing digital simulcast and they are pushing digital overall very hard.

I have eight TV's though and only 6 boxes. If they can convert the (nonHD) digital stream of the broadcaster to analog, I could still get by without having to add boxes.

So, will cable have the right or ability to do this or is this not an option for them.

Foxeng, if you read this, I am particularly interested in your thoughts on this.

GoIrish

I have a question related to the practical effect of the transition.

I subscribe to cable. Come 2/09 when our local broadcasters go digital, could my cable company choose to convert those signals to analog for their customers so they don't need the boxes on every TV.

I know here cable is already doing digital simulcast and they are pushing digital overall very hard.

I have eight TV's though and only 6 boxes. If they can convert the (nonHD) digital stream of the broadcaster to analog, I could still get by without having to add boxes.

So, will cable have the right or ability to do this or is this not an option for them.

Foxeng, if you read this, I am particularly interested in your thoughts on this.

GoIrish

This has absolutely nothing to do with cable operators. They can continue to use analog until the rest of time. This is only relevant to over-the-air broadcasters.

This has absolutely nothing to do with cable operators. They can continue to use analog until the rest of time. This is only relevant to over-the-air broadcasters.

I want to be sure I understand your reply, cable has the right after 2/09 to change the braodcasters digital signal to analog for their customers so they can continue to receive FOX for example, without a converter box ?

GoIrish

I want to be sure I understand your reply, cable has the right after 2/09 to change the braodcasters digital signal to analog for their customers so they can continue to receive FOX for example, without a converter box ?

GoIrish

Cable can already change the broadcasters' digital signals to analog. My local cable company (CableOne) already does it, using the HDTV channels as the source for the standard analog channels. The analog shutoff only affects over-the-air broadcasters, it does nothing to cable operators.

Cable can already change the broadcasters' digital signals to analog. My local cable company (CableOne) already does it, using the HDTV channels as the source for the standard analog channels. The analog shutoff only affects over-the-air broadcasters, it does nothing to cable operators.
Of course some cable systems (Comcast - Chicago) are dropping analog cable completely in favor of their own digital format (QAM) which may require a cablecard or Cable supplied box because even the digital tuner in your new TV won't show encrypted channels. (if it even does QAM)

In other words, your cable could transition to their digital format before the broadcast cutoff. IMHO, I think almost everyone will be using a 'box for the next few years, either for reception or for extra features (like a recorder).

Cable can already change the broadcasters' digital signals to analog. My local cable company (CableOne) already does it, using the HDTV channels as the source for the standard analog channels. The analog shutoff only affects over-the-air broadcasters, it does nothing to cable operators.One issue is going to be how the 16:9 is converted to 4:3. Some options are center-cut, 16:9 letterbox, or a 14:9 letterbox as a compromise. ATSC has AFD flagging to control the downconversion, but it remains to see how much it's supported by both the converter manufacturers as well as the networks and stations. As of the moment it's pretty much zip, which means the cable companies and/or viewers will have to set the mode manually.

I want to be sure I understand your reply, cable has the right after 2/09 to change the braodcasters digital signal to analog for their customers so they can continue to receive FOX for example, without a converter box ?


Actually, Congress has a bill in the pipe that would require the cable companies to send the HD feed as-is.

Problem #1 with the "Digital Transition" is..... NOBODY IS INTERESTED!Hehe... interesting. It isn't that nobody is interested, as such. The folks who are interested are already doing something. The others figure that no matter what it is, it cannot possibly be so earth-shaking as to require the attention at this time. They're mistaken. They're in for a big shock when the time comes.

Actually, Congress has a bill in the pipe that would require the cable companies to send the HD feed as-is.

My question specifically referred to the non-HD, post digital conversion signal.

GoIrish

Don't be naive.Yes, you shouldn't be naive.You are being naive. No YOU are. :rolleyes:

Can we stop with that now? The first time I was just going along with your juvenile exhortation in fun, but now it is getting to be a bit pathetic.

You completely missed the point You don't get it, do you? I actually truly and sincerely disagree with you. I absolutely think you're wrong, with respect. I'm not missing anything.

Did you even read the quote of your very own post?Did you? Let's see...

You indicated that because someone was elected to a post, they are qualified to (and do) operate in our best interests.Clearly you didn't. What I said is that people who go through a qualification/vetting/election process are more reliable bellwethers of good decision making than quasi-anonymous posters on the Internet. Your trust is misplaced if you believe what you want to believe from such a poor source, rather than believing what you don't want to believe from far better sources.

There is great joy some people seem to derive from "sticking it to the man" or in any way slinging mud at established institutions and decision-makers who, by the position they've achieved, have more power than other folks have. While decision-makers aren't perfect, and there are many anecdotal examples of bad decision-makers, the reality is that such anecdotal examples pale by comparison to the overall general reality that decision-makers put into power by virtue of qualifications, experience and professionalism make better decisions than random Joe's on-the-street.

I'm saying that's not always true. I also made no claims that anyone on the internet is more qualified. So you're basically saying nothing relevant to this discussion at all. Here's where you went off-track. The discussion was about whether legislators (and you took that to mean any people in power, which is an acceptable extension of logic) believe they are acting responsibly. I said that they do believe that they act responsibly. That's what I said, along with saying that since they were elected by the people, I believe elected officials more than I believe you, a quasi-anonymous poster on a discussion board. To which you responded with ENRON, as if that one anecdotal incident had any relevance whatsoever to the general issue being discussed. You may get some respect for such a reply from people already inclined to hate people in power, but your reply had no merit whatsoever. It's like calling someone a Nazi, because you don't like them. :rolleyes: I propose a new corollary to Godwin's Law: Call it bicker's law: Anytime someone brings up ENRON or Worldcom in a general discussion of corporate management, they've tacitly admitted defeat in whatever debate they're engaging in. Anecdotes prove nothing and the incidents associated with two out of thousands of companies are meaningless.

This has absolutely nothing to do with cable operators. They can continue to use analog until the rest of time. This is only relevant to over-the-air broadcasters.Cable operators could continue to send analog signals to retain subscribers who can't/won't upgrade their TVs, but what would the impact be regarding CATVs migration towards SDV to provide more HD programming?

I have a question related to the practical effect of the transition.

I subscribe to cable. Come 2/09 when our local broadcasters go digital, could my cable company choose to convert those signals to analog for their customers so they don't need the boxes on every TV.

I know here cable is already doing digital simulcast and they are pushing digital overall very hard.

I have eight TV's though and only 6 boxes. If they can convert the (nonHD) digital stream of the broadcaster to analog, I could still get by without having to add boxes.

So, will cable have the right or ability to do this or is this not an option for them.

Foxeng, if you read this, I am particularly interested in your thoughts on this.

GoIrish

Well, this will be a long post! :) Irish, all I can offer are my personal opinions based on my first hand knowledge of a few issues, and my general understanding of the television/cable business after 15 years of working in it and my workings with the FCC for almost 30 years and what people are publicly saying because most of this is not even fluid from a gaseous state yet much less close to being a solid fact and obviously why you are asking the question.

Right now, the big tussle is still over whether cable can down rez HD to SD for the transition (NO HD to save cable money). Congress and the FCC both have weighted in with some light jabs that they don't want to see downrezing. But any codification has been stymied by the cable lobbyist. Bottom line is bandwidth issues for cable. Now on the other hand, cable also knows if they DON'T pass HD, the revolt will be massive by the part of the customer base that buys the most expensive packages and provides most of their profit. I personally do not see cable doing something that directly hurts their bottom line. If they can get SDV working like they think they can, that legislative road block goes away and it will be codified because it will be a non issue to cable then. As long as bandwidth is an issue, it will be a legislative road block. My friends in cable have told me off the record their biggest concern is loosing the big spenders because they are the ones who can afford to change providers (translated - satellite - EITHER ONE and now FIOS where available) where as the frugal (that doesn't always translate into economically poor either and they know it) are more likely to stay because it is "cheaper to keep them" but these subs don't spend the money above and beyond the basics as a general rule, ie, no HBO, no PPV, no On Demand, no HD in many cases even if they have a HD set, etc, the items that give cable their true profit. But you take away their basic channels and they too will bolt as well.

As the Sinclair/Mediacomm debacle showed, cable can't live without the local stations and the myth that cable built up over 40 years that you can't live without cable was shattered totally and completely in just under 30 days. It laid naked cable's Achilles heel in a way cable didn't think it could. Because of that cable doesn't have a choice but to provide two versions of the locals, one SD one HD. In my own local TWC's case, they provide THREE versions on my local signal. One SD analog for those with no STB's, one SD that is upconverted to SD digital for STB's (why I have NO idea since both are being taken of the same analog feed to them!) and our DTV HD signal for the "HD tier."

Now, post 2/17/2009, I think something akin to this will have to continue for the reasons I stated in my second paragraph. The cablecos will have to either continue an analog channel for those with analog sets with no STB's, or give everyone a STB for every analog only TV set for free to maintain status quo (something the cable box manufacturers hope happens but the bean counters at cablecos don't) and provide a HD channel. Now for most people with analog only sets, they will more than likely see either a letter box version or a center cut version of the station since the cableco will be downconverting the HD signal to 4:3 480i. Now whether that is done in an STB or at the headend is yet to be determined and will be on a system by system basis.

In some cases stations may be willing to maintain a 480i 4:3 fiber version or multicast a SD channel on the DTV signal for cable as some stations do now for those analog only cable viewers. But I know in my area from the local engineers I talk to, they really don't want to continue to maintain separate signal paths of the same signal and they have all stopped sending an SD multicast signal via their DTV channels even though they still maintain a SD fiber feed to TWC, much to the chagrin of TWC who pushed REALLY hard for us all to send them our SD signal via a multicast on our digital OTA channels to make cable's life easier. The stations want to get back to the days of maintaining only one path to everyone. It is cheaper and easier to maintain and upgrade when needed.

Now, every station and cableco will handle this issue in their own way. In my own area, no station multicasts a SD version, but in both markets that border on our east and south, TWC talked several of the stations into sending them a SD version on their digital channel so their "SD channel will look digital quality." I seriously doubt they will continue that practice post 2/17/2009 because of the bandwidths on the DTV channel.

And that is my opinion.