Hi All:

I have a Panasonic DVR/Hard Drive recorder with an analog tuner in it. My Time Warner cable runs directly into the DVR recorder RF in and then the output of the DVR recorder runs over to the input of the analog Zenith TV.

With this setup, I can have the DVR recording one program while I watch another program on a different channel on the TV by using the TV/Video toggle on the DVR recorder.

My question is this. With the end of analog coming, if I get one of the standard digital to analog converters and have the cable from the wall run into the converter and then the output of the converter run into the input of the recorder and leave the recorder and tv connected, will I still be able to use the record one channel, watch another channel feature?

Or will this no longer work since the TV also has an analog tuner in it?

Also, is it possible just to place a single converter in the cable line when the cable first comes into the house to convert everything back to analog, or must a converter box be placed at each TV in every room? In other words, can you fix everything with one D to A converter box or must this be repeated for each TV?

I definitely want to keep the ability to watch one show while recording another. I've got a feeling this will no longer be possible!

Thanks!
Drew

The "end of analog" in 2009 only applies to over-the-air. As long as your cable provider sends analog, it's business as usual.

Ahh okay, I had thought that cable providers also had to stop sending analog and only send digital. So, it only affects folks who watch TV over the air? Regular analog cable users are not affected at all?

That is true, but keep in mind that the cable-co's are begining to shrink the analog offerings and some have already gone all digital with probably more to go. For now you are okay to do what you are doing.

Yes, it is the difference between being forced to switch from analog to digital (as is the case with OTA broadcast television) and being provided substantial incentives to switch from analog to digital (as is the case with cable television).

Thanks Guys!

So for now and for as long as my local cable company sends analog down the line, my current set up will work and I won't lose the ability to watch one channel while recording another with the DVR? Everything will stay as is.

It must be anticipated that many cable companies will eventually send only digital. Is this why many TV manufactuers and DVR manufacturers have cut back or eliminated production of devices with analog tuners in them?

Thanks!
Drew

That's actually not the case. Generally, currently-produced televisions either have no tuners (the minority) or have both digital and analog tuners (the majority).

Thanks.

I'm just really confused. This article seems to say that analog TVs will no longer work after the cut off date whether getting over the air channels or whether receiving analog able, unless you have a digital to analog box between the cable jack and the TV.

http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=49504&format=html

I'm just really confused. This article seems to say that analog TVs will no longer work after the cut off date whether getting over the air channels or whether receiving analog able, unless you have a digital to analog box between the cable jack and the TV. In addition to the statement "According to the National Association of Broadcasters, almost 60 percent of consumers remain unaware of this transition and what it could mean for their television sets. ", it should also include "80 percent of the consumers and one reporter that are aware of the transition, don't understand it.".

The reported didn't do enough research to write about the issue. Happens all the time in the media. This paper should allow user feedback on stories so that someone could correct this article.

-Robert

Yes, it is the difference between being forced to switch from analog to digital (as is the case with OTA broadcast television) and being provided substantial incentives to switch from analog to digital (as is the case with cable television).What substantial incentives? You mean from the FCC to the cableCos, and not to the customer?

I'm sure the folks on Comcast in Chicago are wondering about that as they now have to rent STBs to get the digital channels they used to have on all TVs w/analog expanded basic.

One reason cable wants to go all digital that is a benefit to customers is that they can fit more channels into the available bandwidth (about two HD or six SD where one analog SD fit before.)

What substantial incentives? You mean from the FCC to the cableCos, and not to the customer?Yes, indeed. Very significant waivers are being granted to companies willing to commit to all-digital by the end of 2009. The FCC has employed this tactic a couple of times already.

I'm finding that at least 60% of people who work in the Television Broadcast industry have no clue about this, either.

Thanks Guys!

So for now and for as long as my local cable company sends analog down the line, my current set up will work and I won't lose the ability to watch one channel while recording another with the DVR? Everything will stay as is.

It must be anticipated that many cable companies will eventually send only digital. Is this why many TV manufactuers and DVR manufacturers have cut back or eliminated production of devices with analog tuners in them?

Thanks!
Drew
Yes, as long as your local cable company sends analog, your setup will work. If and when your cable company switches to all-digital, they will surely give you the option of getting their cable digital tuners (not necessarily the same as an over-the-air digital tuner). You would need one tuner for each device, so you would need two digital tuners to still be able to watch one channel while recording another. They may or may not charge you extra for that.

If the manufacturers are building anything without tuners, it's beacause they (for instance) don't think anyone would buy a "$60 VCR" or "$90 DVR Recorder" if it had to be sold for another $100 more to get a Digital Tuner inside it.

Analog tuners aren't going to go away any time soon. But, many devices are being sold with no-tuner-at-all, to get around the DTV Tuner mandate.

The problem with even having a digital tuner is that currently most cable cos are encrypting their QAM channels, and only leaving the broadcast basic items "in the clear". This means that even if you have a digital tuner, once your system goes all digital you may still need a cable box to record channels at the "family" package level (USA, FX, etc.). That's what bothers me most.

Just to be clear, I'm not complaining about premium content - channels like HBO will continue to be encrpyted, and I'm fine with that. But I think it's stupid to have to get a cable box just to watch the Food Channel on my kitchen TV...

You can get a TV with a CableCard interface, then you won't need an external STB.

But I think it's stupid to have to get a cable box just to watch the Food Channel on my kitchen TV...Or you could send it the signal from another set's cable box wirelessly.

You can get a TV with a CableCard interface, then you won't need an external STB.But manufacturers are bailing on this in favor of some future OCAP solution, fewer TVs available with it now. Apparently because there's been too many probs with CC and customers aren't demanding it - most already have STBs.

Just throwing out an option that can work today. Your call for what works best for you. ;)

You can get a TV with a CableCard interface, then you won't need an external STB.

Yes, but I'm still being forced to rent a piece of equipment to watch the basic channels that were available on any TV in my home on the analog system.

My gripe is that I'm losing the functionality that I had before, and at the same time incurring more costs. I have no problem upgrading my system to digital - it's something that is long overdue. But I have a big problem with cable companies encrpyting everything, and making it that much more difficult to enjoy regular TV programs in my home.

Surely I can't be the only one annoyed at this?

I can understand what you're saying - you can thank all your friends and neighbors who "acquired" programming they hadn't paid for (as well as the compression that can be done digitally, to provide more bandwidth) for part of that as well.

With satellite - if you want each TV to get it own programming - you have to have a tuner for it. Not much different with digital cable.

I don't think people mind the extra STB as much as they do the idea of having to rent additional equipment to get the channels they got before with just their basic cable subscription. If the cable companies don't tack on an additional rental feel for those boxes, I think people would be okay with it.

Yes, but I'm still being forced to rent a piece of equipment to watch the basic channels that were available on any TV in my home on the analog system.

My gripe is that I'm losing the functionality that I had before, and at the same time incurring more costs. I have no problem upgrading my system to digital - it's something that is long overdue. But I have a big problem with cable companies encrpyting everything, and making it that much more difficult to enjoy regular TV programs in my home.

Surely I can't be the only one annoyed at this?

I have Comcast and they encrypt pretty much all of their channels, except the locals and their music channels (80's, Soft Rock, so forth). Using my TV's analog tuner, I can see all my cable channels. But switch over to digital and I get locals and that's it. I can't get the channel's that are being paid for. So, no, you're not the only one.

I don't think people mind the extra STB as much as they do the idea of having to rent additional equipment to get the channels they got before with just their basic cable subscription. If the cable companies don't tack on an additional rental feel for those boxes, I think people would be okay with it.I agree that most would be happy with this, not that it will happen.
But I mind having them because they limit functionality (e.g. rolling your own HTPCs without having to use IR blasters), suck power, generate heat, and serve up ads in the guide. Add that to the ridiculous rental fees ($6.95/mo for HD STBs on Comcast in the ATL) and you get the sense of frustration that the analog users have with the digital cable switch. I'm just glad that the locals are available in the clear for HD.

Thanks for the replies everyone - it's good to see that I'm not the only person up in arms over this.

I understand the fact that cable piracy has something to do with the move to encryption, but it's a mute point under digital cable. The so-called "black boxes" of years ago are no longer available under digital systems, so the premium channels will always be safe. And as far as the rest of the channels go, if someone only orders the broadcast basic package, it's easy enough for the cable co to add a filter at the distribution node to block the other unencrypted channels that the customer did not pay for.

Like I said previously, I don't mind having to upgrade my tuners. Any new TV I buy will of course include a digital QAM tuner, and I expect DVD and HD recorders to have them soon enough (unless some already do). You can't stop progress. But if I have that equipment, I should be able to make use of it.

I remember back in the day when the cable cos required boxes for all analog programming (this was back in the 1980s in my area). Their reasoning was that, at the time, many TVs weren't cable ready. The same is true today - most TVs in the home are not QAM ready, so I can understand the need for boxes on that level. Still, the only reason I can think for requiring them is to just wring out more money from every customer, the same as it was back then.

.. it's easy enough for the cable co to add a filter at the distribution node to block the other unencrypted channels that the customer did not pay for.

They don't want to have to change "hardware" for each sub, whether it be at the headend or the customer drop. They would prefer to perform control/security via "software". So, if you want any additional channels above and beyond what's provided unencrypted, it's either an external STB or CableCard. That's about all one can do "today".

Once a system goes digital, there are no physical tiers. Any channel can be placed any place in the spectrum, and can be moved any time. So, tiering traps and filters are going bye-bye.

Yes, but I'm still being forced to rent a piece of equipment to watch the basic channels that were available on any TV in my home on the analog system.Due to limitations of the technology and the nature of the market -- limitations that cable companies are seeking to rectify, incidentally bringing their offerings in this regard more in line with how satellite services offer the same services.

My gripe is that I'm losing the functionality that I had before, and at the same time incurring more costs.Get over it. All that matters is whether the price is worth it for what you're getting -- NOT whether or not you USED to be able to get a BETTER deal.

If the price is worth it, then pay it. If the price isn't worth it, cancel your subscription. Find someone willing to sell you want you want, how you want it, for how much you want it for. If you can't, then that is as powerful a message as any that your desires are unreasonable.

The only inexpensive service that cable customers are entitled to is lifeline cable -- broadcast channels and public access channels. That's IT.

Surely I can't be the only one annoyed at this?Surely not. A vast majority of people don't like spending a lot of money on anything, even if it is worth it to them. That doesn't make the grievance valid.

I can understand what you're saying - you can thank all your friends and neighbors who "acquired" programming they hadn't paid for... for part of that as well. That's a good point. If everyone could be expected to be honorable, none of this would be an issue.

I'll have to disagree there... I'm paying for cable channels now, but if I want to use my digital tuners (I even have a QAM), I get pretty much nothing. I can't watch USA in digital, not the Travel Channel or anything. I get the locals and that's it. And eventually, when everything goes all digital, if I want to watch the channels that are already being paid for, I'll have to dish out MORE money to Comcast. I dunno, that's like buying a lawnmower than having to pay $5 a month just to use it. I think it's just the cable company's way of screwing the customer over.

I'll have to disagree there... I'm paying for cable channels now, but if I want to use my digital tuners (I even have a QAM), I get pretty much nothing.Why aren't you blaming your television manufacturer? Should they have anticipated that cable companies would want to keep dishonorable people from stealing service?

I dunno, that's like buying a lawnmower than having to pay $5 a month just to use it.I don't know about you, but many people buy lawnmowers that require them to pay for fuel to make them go.

I think it's just the cable company's way of screwing the customer over.I think that's just a thing people say when they don't want to acknowledge the reality of business. I'm being a bit serious there. The cable company is in business to make profit. Working to piss off customers would be WASTED EFFORT on their part. They have absolutely no interest in wasting anything. They are charging how much they feel their services are worth, and charging in a way that they feel is most conducive to long-term shareholder value. As they should -- as they better, unless they want to be sued by their shareholders.

We consumers don't have to like it. However, casting it in the erroneous and nefarious way you have helps no one.

I think that's just a thing people say when they don't want to acknowledge the reality of business. I'm being a bit serious there. The cable company is in business to make profit. Working to piss off customers would be WASTED EFFORT on their part. They have absolutely no interest in wasting anything. They are charging how much they feel their services are worth, and charging in a way that they feel is most conducive to long-term shareholder value. As they should -- as they better, unless they want to be sued by their shareholders.

We consumers don't have to like it. However, casting it in the erroneous and nefarious way you have helps no one.

I like their products. I just feel that since I am ALREADY PAYING for the channels, I should be able TO SEE THEM. And they put out set-top boxes because they know people will buy them just to see the channels in digital. If they have a stranglehold on the consumer who wants to see channels, they can put out tons and tons of hoops and people will go through them, no matter the cost. The cable company IS in a business to make profit, and they do things like that "double taxing" to turn a bigger profit.

I want to pay for cable. I just don't want to have to pay additional money to see what I'm already paying for! Now, even if it was just a one-time cost for a STB, that'd be a lot better. But having another monthly fee? That's so stupid. Why not charge a fee for using the remote control? They'll turn a profit there, too.

If you were ALREADY PAYING, then you'd get them. The reality is that getting those channels REQUIRES both a service fee and a fee for the equipment to decrypt the channels. That's the reality. Not liking the reality doesn't change it. What you're really saying is that you want the service fee to include all the equipment fees. However, that would be UNFAIR. Some people have more equipment than others. Why should someone with only one television pay the same as someone with six televisions, given that the value proposition is different AND the cost structure is different?

They put out set-top boxes because it is the easiest and more reliable way of providing SECURED tiered service. If everyone was honorable, and would agree not to watch channels they didn't pay for, then secured tiers wouldn't be necessary. However, people are selfish, and so secured tiers are required. There is a price for living in a society with dishonorable people.

There is no stranglehold. If you don't like the offer, unsubscribe. Television is not a necessity. Doing without it will show them that you actually are dissatisfied. Paying for it an complaining is the same as paying for it and not complaining -- talk is cheap.

There is no "double taxing". That is only more rhetoric that provides no real information, but rather just tries to cast a routine, appropriate business practice in a nefarious way.

The lawnmower analogy wasn't the greatest (it's comparing a good to a service), but it's on the right track. A better example might be phone service. In days past, you suscribed to phone service and purchased your phone from the phone company. This was because the phone company required you to do so, as they claimed that third-party phones could compromise the security of their network (I'm sure the extra profits had nothing to do with it). Eventually, that was deemed an illegal practice, and the market was opened up.

We're starting to see similar arguments in the cell phone market. Service providers claim that "unauthorized" phones are dangerous to the security and service of their network, but consumers and law makers are starting to see otherwise. Again, the providers want to sell you their phone with a hefty contract, as it guarantees a certain level of revenue. Eventually, this could go the same way the landline phone market did.

This brings us to the cable market. Just as in the phone example, the cable cos required you to rent their hardware in order to view the service you're paying for. In an effort to change that, the separable security mandate was imposed by Congress, and in certain scenarios, consumers will have the option to purchase whatever viewing equipment they like (including a TV with a CableCard slot). Of course, there's still the CC rental fee to deal with, which is also being imposed by the cable cos (and regulated by the government). As an aside, the original decision on separable security stated that software measures alone would be acceptable, which would require no additional rental fees for the consumer.

Getting back to unencrypted QAM, due to franchise agreements, the cable cos have no reason to offer the service. If there were free competition within the cable industry, clunky STBs and CCs would be a thing of the past. Someone would get it right, and all the players would have to come on board in order to compete.

And as far as paying more for more TVs, let's go back to the phone analogy. Under the current analog cable model (for most systems), you can watch local and family channels on any cable ready TV, but premium channels can only be viewed with a STB or CC. For phones, however, you can call any number from any extension in your house. Further, how many phones are in your house? 1, 2, 6? Do you pay for the ability to make calls from each? No. TV should be no different. No matter how many TVs I have in my home, there is no additional cost to the cable company. So charging based on the number of TVs would indeed be double dipping.

No, television (cable, satellite, whatever) is not a necessity, and if these things bother you enough, then yes, by all means drop the service. However, that's not going to change the reality of the situation. Not enough people understand how the technology works to stand up and question the actions of the cable and satellite providers. So, we end up receiving the service that is the easiest for the provider to serve, and not necessarily the best. The cable/satellite industry is by no means the only one where this is a problem, of course, but I'll leave it there considering that this is the Cable TV forum.

You're wasting your breath arguing this with a pure laissez-faire capitalist like bicker. Gov't should have no role, business always acts in the enlightened (cough) views of their investors (and too bad if that's not for the common good), and we're all sheep for sticking with the oligopoly anyway.

So get over it.

The lawnmower analogy wasn't the greatest (it's comparing a good to a service), but it's on the right track. A better example might be phone service.Okay, you bought a telephone that supports Caller ID. However, without paying for Caller ID service from the telephone company, the fact that you paid for a telephone with Caller ID capability doesn't earn you Caller ID service.

The point is that getting those channels you want REQUIRES both a service fee and a fee for the equipment to decrypt the channels. That's the reality. It is the way things are priced. For all you know, you could end up paying MORE if things were priced the way you are thinking. If they change the structure of the pricing, they'll necessarily change the amounts charged.

We're starting to see similar arguments in the cell phone market.My cell phone has the ability to receive services that I have to pay EXTRA for.

Service providers claim that "unauthorized" phones are dangerous to the security and service of their networkUnlike cable, there is already a system in place for software-based security for cell phones.

Okay, you bought a telephone that supports Caller ID. However, without paying for Caller ID service from the telephone company, the fact that you paid for a telephone with Caller ID capability doesn't earn you Caller ID service.

You're missing my point. Obviously, ordering basic cable does not entitle you to the premium channels. It's an extra service that costs more, just like Caller ID. No one is arguing that. My analogy compared a phone company requiring you to use their phone on their network with a cable company requiring you to use their box on their network. Features have nothing to do with it.

The point is that getting those channels you want REQUIRES both a service fee and a fee for the equipment to decrypt the channels. That's the reality. It is the way things are priced. For all you know, you could end up paying MORE if things were priced the way you are thinking. If they change the structure of the pricing, they'll necessarily change the amounts charged.

Yes, that is the reality of the situation right now. But, that does not mean that it is the best model for the consumer. That was my point about competition in the marketplace.

Maybe I'll pay more, maybe not. That's for the market to decide. And personally, I'd be willing to pay more if it meant having the setup I want. That's called value.

My cell phone has the ability to receive services that I have to pay EXTRA for.

Congratulations - so does mine. But again, individual services have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. My point was that the cellular companies dictate the models of phone that are available to you. It would be no different than Comcast telling you what TVs you were allowed to use with their service.

Unlike cable, there is already a system in place for software-based security for cell phones.

And despite this, the carriers still won't open their networks. So what's your point?

I'm not saying that STBs and CCs have no place. If you're TV doesn't have the technology, either replace it or use a box. And if you want premium content, you need a model that supports security. But if I have the technology and I don't want premium content, I shouldn't need extra hardware because the cable co says I have to have it. Is that going to change because I'm ranting about it on an internet forum, or because I choose to cancel my cable subscription? No. But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

You're wasting your breath arguing this with a pure laissez-faire capitalist like bicker. Gov't should have no role, business always acts in the enlightened (cough) views of their investors (and too bad if that's not for the common good), and we're all sheep for sticking with the oligopoly anyway.

I'm starting to think you're right...

You're missing my point. No, I just think you're expecting more than you were promised.

Yes, that is the reality of the situation right now. But, that does not mean that it is the best model for the consumer.Of course. What made you think that it would or should be?

And despite this, the carriers still won't open their networks.Yet I have my TiVo Series 3 connected to Comcast's open cable television network. Meanwhile, try that with DirecTV or Dish Network!

I shouldn't need extra hardware because the cable co says I have to have it.You don't. You can always put up an antenna. It is only when you're using their network, which is subject to abuse by others, that you need a "ticket to ride". And regardless of whether there is a separate fee for it or it is included in the service fee only matters if you have more than one outlet, and like I said before, it is UNFAIR to charge everyone the same when some people are getting more value (flexibility) and costing more expense than others.

What you are advocating for, even if you don't realize it, is unfair.

I don't want premium channels. I get about 70, that's plenty for me. However, my point was that watching through my digital TV I *cannot* watch those channels. I don't want HBO. I don't want ESPNHD or whatever. I want what I paid for, and I cannot do that unless I pay EXTRA money for a STB. They are already deciding which channels I can or cannot recieve, so why not just allow me to watch it in digital simulcast? I already know from threads here that it's actually EASIER for them to send channels digitally, and since I can pick up local channels digitally, plus TBS and WGN, I know I have the CAPABILITY to get the channels, and they have the resources to, they just want me to pay them extra money for a middle man that doesn't need to exist.

Tough cookies - if some of your friends and neighbors hadn't been so eager to acquire signals that they didn't pay for, then digital cable (in the security sense) wouldn't have been necessary. I foresee a day that the only analog channels will be the local broadcast channels (and they will be down converted digitals).

The other thing that digital cable provides is MORE channels - so the cable company is making better use of it's bandwidth.

Maybe a better way to look at it, is..........

On 2-18-09, or whatever the date is, your current analog Cable TV company becomes a thing of the past. Outta business. Kaput. Gone.

In it's place comes, 'ta da'......Digital Cable TV.

All the old rules are out the window. You can subscribe to "new and improved" Digital Cable TV, with the set-top boxes and fees, or you can try satellite (with set top boxes and fees), or you can watch OTA (no fees, maybe a STB, though). Or, read a book.

Better or for worse, the TV industry is changing.

Analog cable TV is going to hang around for some time to come. 2-17-09 (or whenever) doesn't really mean anything in the cable TV world.

Sure, eventually most of the analog transmissions of the various channels will go away and only their digital format will be available, but it's most likely that there will still be ~20 or so analog channels on the system for some time.

If "multicast must-carry" happens, there will be 35+ analog "local" channels on Comcast in SLC. My sources say they are working very hard to come up with a $75 STB, so they can get rid of the analogs entirely.

Comcast is installing Motorola's DCT 700 now, which is a basic SD converter. Sort of looks like a Motorola SB5120 cable modem. It only has composite and RF outputs. It doesn't even have a display. It does do 2-way, so On-Demand is still available. Costs about $50.

they cant use the DCT 700s anymore (Well order new ones) cause they didnt commit to going all digital by end of 08. The cheapest DCHs are way more then $50-75

FWIR, they'll hit the $50-$75 price point well before the deadline.

Which, given Comcast's current STB rental rates, will mean buying one will payback in a year. Way overdue IMO.

also, what's the point in a tv having a tuner that supports well into the 100+ channels when it's rare to even get beyond the 60's or 70's without a box from said service provider. which makes all but channel 3 or the "video" channel for whatever connector you are using.

That really argues for purchasing an HD monitor rather than an HD television. You're right... integrated tuners are pretty much like any other integrated devices: Non-upgradeable, not flexible, etc.

Boy, oh boy.

Once again, the everyday individual has been BRAINWASHED(myself included) into thinking that "YOU NEED CABLE TV!"

No more type.

Must go give offering(MONEY) to new God, or I will be punished.

Forgive me new Lord.

You are master of all.

I am weak in your presence.

Must watch NFL, MLB, Reality TV, Larry King, Bill O'Riley, MSNBC, CNBC, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, ............................................................ .

DEAR GOD, HELP ME STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

also, what's the point in a tv having a tuner that supports well into the 100+ channels when it's rare to even get beyond the 60's or 70's without a box from said service provider. which makes all but channel 3 or the "video" channel for whatever connector you are using.

The OTA 8VSB Tuner is for those times that the Cable is out :D . The QAM tuner is just there because it was easy to implement, and looks good in the ads.