They were supposed to have gotten rid of it earlier, but they found that not enough people had switched over. Hey, crappy programming in high definition is crap that you can see really clearly.
When they turn off the signal, people are going to be really pissed that their video recorders won't work any more. This issue doesn't get mentioned very much.
When they turn off the analog signal, digital to analog converters will likely be made available for little or nothing to people who need them (that would only be people who receive their TV signals over the air). The amount of money that the federal government will be able to make, by auctioning off the portion of the spectrum that will be returned to them by the broadcast TV companies will easily offset the cost of distributing these converters to those who need them.
These converters will allow all existing equipment to continue to work properly.
Edit: I guess I should have read the article first. Every household in the country, regardless of whether they need them or not, will be issues two coupons that each be be used to purchase a converter box. Since most people get their TV signal from cable or satellite, they won't need them. Therefore, I would assume that the people who actually do need them will be able to get extra coupons from those who don't need them.
I wouldn't be surprised if some group organized a methodology for people who don't need their coupons to donate them to those who need more than 2.
Well, digital TVs still cost too much. And not only that but they had to throw the plasma and LCD "revolution" in with the digital revolution to jack the prices up that much more. No wonder people don't want to switch. I watch my TV maybe once a month. WTF would I want to spend $1500 on a digital one?
The reason that it will go away is that the government "loaned" additional spectrum to the existing TV broadcasters to use for their digital broadcasts during the transition period. Once the analog signals are turned off, the TV broadcasters will be required to return one of the two chunks of the spectrum, that they are using, back to the government, who will then be able to auction it off to the highest bidder(s). Broadcasting in both analog and digital is costing the broadcasters money that they can't recoup in advertising revenues and is costing the government because a valuable asset is currently being used at no cost. It's in the best interest of both the government and the broadcasters to complete the transition to digital.
The spectrum used for AM radio, on the other hand, is not on loan. There are still licensed radio stations that are using it and will continue to use it.
It seems that such devices do not yet exist. They would not be the same as the "top box" you can currently buy to watch a digital broadcast signal on an analog TV. To continue to work properly, the video recorder needs a full set of VHF and UHF channels delivered continuously to its RF input jack. (i.e. simulating what it normally gets from an antenna.) This is the only way it is capable of automatically recording from different channels in sequence, since the RF tuner is inside the video recorder.
The proposed $40 box would have to give the full functionality of a multi-frequency downconverter, plus digital to analog conversion. Somehow I don't see this happening for the price.
(Yes, I know you can get programmable set top boxes that can be manually synchronised with the operation of a VCR for recording via the A/V jacks, but my guess is that very few people will figure out how to do this effectively. It's not trivial to get it right.)
Have you noticed how much worse digital is when reception is poor?
A situation that just puts a bit of "snow" on your analog picture makes your digital receiver almost unwatchable with flickers and splatters and dropped frames.
Ah, progress.
[Link]
pinc_noiz Deactivated User
758 Posts 6/05
Posted - Mar 14 2007 : 4:34AM
Things like "too much" and "would I want to spend" are quite personal, but on "the digital revolution to jack the prices up that much" and "no wonder people don't want to switch" either you or me are missing out on correct/complete info IMO.
Some links that could place questionmarks at these remarks: "2007-02-14 DisplaySearch reports 2006 10"+ LCD revenues rise 19%, led by TV panels up 85%" (or have a look at one of the other statistics provided on this site, or go here, here, or to any other open-access market-reseacher for that matter).
Well, they better figure out how to use them because that's what they will be getting. Also, the vast majority of VCR's have the ability to change the channel on a set top box using a wired RF transmitter.
VCR's using the converter boxes will have the exact same capabilities that they do when people have them connected to their cable boxes.
It works both ways. With digital signals, either the signal is good enough or it isn't. People who live in fringe areas where they currently get a little bit of snow, will end up experiencing perfect pictures with a digital signal. However, those who currently just outside the fringe area and get a relatively poor signal now, will end up with absolutely no signal at all.
They will still be faced with a need for two set top boxes if they want to record one show while watching another. Until now, that has been a function that their VCR would do for them (except on cable).
My guess is that people will abandon their VCRs and buy a set top box with a built-in hard disc recorder. They just don't know this yet.
True. It's only their ability to record broadcast tv from the antenna that will be lost.
In my experience it does not seem to be working out this way. People I know who had good reception on all analog channels are experiencing drop-outs or no reception on digital channels at the same location. Propagation modes at different frequencies may be affecting this perhaps.
Are the stations that are broadcasting in both digital & analog doing so with the same amount of power? Some of the stations here are using lower powered transmitters for their digital signal right now. Once the conversion is complete, they will start using their higher powered equipment for the digital transmissions.
Because the government has only mandated that stations transmit a digital signal, with no mention of how powerful that signal must be, in relationship to the analog signal, there are some companies who are broadcasting digitally at the lowest power possible in order to save money. They figure that the vast majority of the people who have digital equipment also have cable or satellite. So broadcasting at a higher power is just a waste of money.
Posted - Mar 13 2007 : 12:55AM