# The end of Analog TV?



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From MSNBC:

*The end of analog TV - PRACTICAL FUTURIST*

Depending on the outcome of discussions in Congress, television as we know it may end at exactly midnight Dec. 31, 2006.

That's the date Congress targeted, a decade ago, for the end of analog television broadcasting and a full cutover to a digital format. If enforced, that means that overnight, somewhere around 70 million television sets now connected to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will suddenly and forever go blank, unless their owners purchase a special converter box. Back when the legislation was written, New Year's Eve 2006 probably looked as safely distant as the dark side of the moon. But now that date is right around the corner and Congress and the FCC are struggling mightily to figure out what to do.

Congress, however, left itself a loophole in the 1996 legislation, and could actually let the cut-off date slide by. But powerful lobbyists now are pressing legislators to set a "date certain" for the analog lights-out. The debate over when to throw the switch is a strange brew of big money, high technology, homeland security and a single, unanswerable question: just how angry are the couch potatoes going to be? It's also a textbook example of why the future almost never happens as fast as technologists promise.

FULL ARTICLE HERE


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

I wouldn't bet on it happening on that date, we are not ready and yes the couch potatoes would rise up!!
Just my 2 cents.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

It's only OTA and yes they need to have it end on that date hard, and none of that 85% crap. I wrote a nice letter to my senator asking for him to support this very bill


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

It won't happen. Many are happy with the picture they have and are moving slow to HDTV. It's not like when color television came along. I have HDTV and it's great but it's not like going from black and white to color tv . The change is not that great for most buyers.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Why do people keep thinking that someone has to buy an HDTV to get the digital signal?

This analog shutoff will only affect the 20% of TV viewers whose sole source of programming comes from an off air antenna.

And out of those households 10 million of them will be eligible for the rebate program. The rest will buy the digital to analog converters that will cost around 50 bucks.

No need to delay this transition any longer


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

I understand the distinction between digital and HD, but I don't support the cutoff date. As digital-capable sets become a larger part of the market, broadcasters will eventually decide that it's in their best interest to transition to digital. A government mandate to do so isn't necessary. That just makes them the bad guy in the process to a lot of angry citizens.

Some people who currently get a marginal but acceptable OTA analog signal would see a black digitally broadcast screen, courtesy of the government. 

The financial bite to the consumer of buying converters will be more significant to some than to others. A household with several rabbit-earred TV's will be more affected than one with cable or satellite, for example. If the cutoff is actually enforced, I believe people who need converters should get them free.

The mandate would be a real shot in the arm for the manufacturers of TV's. I wonder if it would affect our trade (im)balance...


----------



## Gm2 (Apr 10, 2005)

Even some cable companies have gone all digital but not that many. what about the 2-99 channels?


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Cable can keep their analog distribution as long as they like. It's only the over the air analog signals that will cease. Again only 20% of american househols are using them and most of them will be converted for free by the government


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

BFG said:


> most of them will be converted for free by the government


Ah. Again my tax dollars going to work so that grandma and grandpa Smith can watch crystal clear digital programming on their 19" TV while unemployment/homeless/schools/police/etc all go with budget cuts because "there just isn't enough in the budget" to cover it.


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

Supposedly, the analog spectrum is worth billions, if the government auctions it off.

So giving converters, to those that need then, would seem a small price to get the spectrum back.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Mark Holtz said:


> From MSNBC:
> 
> *The end of analog TV - PRACTICAL FUTURIST*
> 
> ...


They'll extend it because 100 million viewers won't stand for it and most don't know or care about the transition.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

rcbridge said:


> I wouldn't bet on it happening on that date, we are not ready and yes the couch potatoes would rise up!!
> Just my 2 cents.


If the government expects the transition to go through, they need to advertize heavily!


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

clapple said:


> Supposedly, the analog spectrum is worth billions, if the government auctions it off.
> 
> So giving converters, to those that need then, would seem a small price to get the spectrum back.


A little optimistic aren't we? After every politician gets finished taking his (or her) share of the auction procedes to fund his (or her) pet projects, I'm sure the remaining $2.45 will buy the power supply for one of the converters. My guess is in reality that any proceeds from the auctioning of soon-to-be-free spectrum has already been spent somewhere.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

No, the money for the converter box rebates would come from the sale of the spectrum.


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

I fully agree this needs to happen but it won't happen in 2006!!


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

It's the end of 2006. so there's like a year and a half.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Its gotta happen sometime and the sooner the better so might as well get it over with. This will speed up the transition to digital and advancements of television.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I'm sticking with my prediction of 2010.

In reality - even the 85% can be made pretty easily - if you put ALL cable / DBS viewers in the "digitally served audience" (and I see no reason they couldn't). The big issue is getting the broadcasters to step up to the plate and start doing fullpower (the stations that already are full power now are to be commended), as well as getting ATSC tuner boxes out there for a nominal price.

Situations like Denver may need federal intrevention to make it happen there, though.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Then you have to go to the second side of the coin. Remember that there are going to be more and more baby boomers retiring in the years to come. And alot of them are going to be counting on just there social security for there retirement. Therefore cable and satellite are not going to be a cost they want to have to pay, or in some instances can not afford to pay. So alot will just have an antenna or rabbit ears. Who is going to pay these millions or billions of dollars for this service for them. Either converter boxes or TV's. They will not want to pay the high cable prices for cable, and some will not be able to afford a satellite service, and they won't be able to afford new TV sets either. Remember it is the older generation that always shows up at the polls to vote for any and all elections of every kind. So if we have a bunch of senators or congressmen that want to jump on this band wagon, they better have some real deep pockets to make the change over. Or suffer the wrath of the older voter and get kicked out of office. And then you have the organizations like AARP who haven't even took up the issue yet. Our taxes will have to go up to pay for this system, no ifs ands or buts. Remember years back congress said the air waves are free to the American people. Not that you have to buy this or that to make it happen.


----------



## DS0816 (Mar 29, 2002)

If more people spent time in Japan -- and even lived there for a brief period -- they'd understand just how _laughable_ our so-called television technology truly is. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if people make the connection in this area that they do _other_ issues in which Japan also kicks the U.S.'s ass.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

dAVE said:


> Then you have to go to the second side of the coin. Remember that there are going to be more and more baby boomers retiring in the years to come. And alot of them are going to be counting on just there social security for there retirement. Therefore cable and satellite are not going to be a cost they want to have to pay, or in some instances can not afford to pay. So alot will just have an antenna or rabbit ears. ...


You're kidding, right? The senior demographic is HEAVY into TV, and have had cable or satellite the longest. They may not understand or care about HDTV, but that's not the issue.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

The Japanese and Europeans think we are crazy to PAY for our TV programming. And, they have far higher standards for the technical quality..........somewhere (wish I could find it and get an OK to post it) I have an old "TV Guide" article about, how, Europeans and Japanese replace their TV antennas regularly, have their TVs tweaked to perfection, and scream loudly when there is any problem with the stations' transmissions. 
Now, if Americans would put as much pride in to their TV reception as they do with their cars (oil change=antenna replacement, rotate tires=replace coax  ), TV would look great.


----------



## catman (Jun 27, 2002)

IF , that happens then bush can pay for new HD tv's in homes . He caused 3 million to be out of work . THEN tell japan to make MORE HD tv's . right now HD tv's are selling for $3,000 "normal " people can't afford them .


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

You don't need HD to be digital. That's the whole point. You can buy an HDTV tuner from Walmart RIGHT NOW that can downconvert to your analog set - see http://www.walmart.com/catalog/prod...19&dept=3944&path=0:3944:133276:133270:164116

And this tuner is only $200 - prices should be coming down on such tuners - in fact, there is a mandate out from the FCC that all TVs will have digital tuners by the end of 2007 - including the 13 inch lowend models.


----------



## Laverne (Feb 17, 2005)

kenglish said:


> ....Now, if Americans would put as much pride in to their TV reception as they do with their cars (oil change=antenna replacement, rotate tires=replace coax  ), TV would look great.


More car analogies, gotta love this place!  


catman said:


> ....right now HD tv's are selling for $3,000 "normal " people can't afford them .


Really? Then the "normal" people you know must be shopping in the wrong place! I bought my 32" Sony for $800-something. It just happened to be the exact model we had been looking at. It was a return at CC, and we have yet to find anything wrong with it. A lot of "normal" people don't have room for some big monster in their LR, never will have a HT, certainly not with its own room, and still buy CRT's, which are WAY cheaper than $3,000. Hell, you can pick up a cheap HDTV (WITH its own tuner) at WM for $600-something. (Some people even report these are decent TVs.) And LOTS of "normal" people shop there.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

So even the podunk little 5 inch black and white $20 TVs you can get at Big Lots will have to have digital tuners if manufactured after 2007?


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

They could get a satellite or cable service and only subscribe to locals if they are on a limited budget.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

I think the problem is that the shutoff date is too close to the requirement to install digital tuners. If I remember the dates right manufacturers will not be required to put digital tuners in every tv set they sell until after the shutoff has already happened. The 100% deadline on 25 inch and larger is only 6 months before the shut off. 

Even now, ~1.5 years before the current shut off deadline the only tv sets I see at electronic stores with digital tuners are in the $2000 range or more. I have never seen an average 25 inch tv with a digital tuner. Its also a rarity to even find a digital set top box.

The earliest date I can see is 2008. It can't happen until digital tuners are the norm not the exception.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I seen a 31 inch HDTV for around $600 last year. Surely they are even cheaper now.


----------



## lazaruspup (Mar 18, 2005)

Jacob S said:


> I seen a 31 inch HDTV for around $600 last year. Surely they are even cheaper now.


Yes, but odds on it didn't have a digital tuner in it. I have tried unsuccessfully to find a decent sub-$1000 CRT tv for my bedroom with a digital ota tuner it.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Walmart
30" CRT
$547
Decent


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

kenglish said:


> The Japanese and Europeans think we are crazy to PAY for our TV programming. And, they have far higher standards for the technical quality..........somewhere (wish I could find it and get an OK to post it) I have an old "TV Guide" article about, how, Europeans and Japanese replace their TV antennas regularly, have their TVs tweaked to perfection, and scream loudly when there is any problem with the stations' transmissions.
> Now, if Americans would put as much pride in to their TV reception as they do with their cars (oil change=antenna replacement, rotate tires=replace coax  ), TV would look great.


There's a bit of a difference, eh?

Roughly the same population stuffed into a tiny fraction of their space: "The dwelling area of Japan covers only 4.8 percent of land usage."

It's a lot easier to do OTA under those conditions.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

catman said:


> IF , that happens then bush can pay for new HD tv's in homes . He caused 3 million to be out of work . THEN tell japan to make MORE HD tv's . right now HD tv's are selling for $3,000 "normal " people can't afford them .


Yeah - it's all Bush's fault. 

Anybody know the CURRENT unemployment numbers?

They seem to have fallen off the media's radar lately haven't they?

BTW, Germany's unemployment is over 12% Ain't socialism grand?


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

If "Significantly watched" does go into effect and DTV does allow me to received the Washington stations, then Analog to Digital won't be a factor. Till then, I am denied my local sports teams (Washington Redskins/ Washington Nationals) as I am considered to be in the Baltimore viewing area, the only way I can get their games would be through my analog tuners.


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

lazaruspup said:


> Yes, but odds on it didn't have a digital tuner in it. I have tried unsuccessfully to find a decent sub-$1000 CRT tv for my bedroom with a digital ota tuner it.


Saw a 30" HDTV in Costco yesterday, for $599. Would have purchased one; but with speakers on sides, too wide for my cabinet. Need one with speakers on the bottom.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

kenglish said:


> The Japanese and Europeans think we are crazy to PAY for our TV programming. And, they have far higher standards for the technical quality..........somewhere (wish I could find it and get an OK to post it) I have an old "TV Guide" article about, how, Europeans and Japanese replace their TV antennas regularly, have their TVs tweaked to perfection, and scream loudly when there is any problem with the stations' transmissions.
> Now, if Americans would put as much pride in to their TV reception as they do with their cars (oil change=antenna replacement, rotate tires=replace coax  ), TV would look great.


A lot of those countries require yearly payments to the state run tv station. I think thats crazy. Imaging the outrage if PBS sent everyone a $150 bill every year and would throw you in jail if you didn't pay it. I read that Japan doesn't enforce theirs much but the BBC is strict.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

kb7oeb said:


> A lot of those countries require yearly payments to the state run tv station. I think thats crazy. Imaging the outrage if PBS sent everyone a $150 bill every year and would throw you in jail if you didn't pay it.


Indeed... that's what the IRS is for... streamlined, unified billing for all government-funded services.... so much more efficient...


----------



## JonBlack (Feb 24, 2005)

I would be very surprised if they actually shut off the analog signals at the end of 2006. It would be a pleasant surprise but a surprise nonetheless.


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

I love HDTV but it's not like going from black and white to color.


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Rural America will be hit hard by this. 

Our only over the air channel that is supported by its owner is the local PBS. We have a translator district that bills everyone in the county about $100 a year and you pay on the honor system, or return a note saying that you get cable or satellite. Anyway, there is no way this struggling translator district can afford the cost of switching to digital, so they are already talking about going dark rather than trying to convert.

Lots of small towns will lose their low power UHF channels.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

lazaruspup said:


> Yes, but odds on it didn't have a digital tuner in it. I have tried unsuccessfully to find a decent sub-$1000 CRT tv for my bedroom with a digital ota tuner it.


And why isn't the FCC demanding they put digital tuners in sets now? It doesn't make any sence. They're holding the digital tranistion up by 5 to 10 years.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

lee635 said:


> Rural America will be hit hard by this.
> 
> Our only over the air channel that is supported by its owner is the local PBS. We have a translator district that bills everyone in the county about $100 a year and you pay on the honor system, or return a note saying that you get cable or satellite. Anyway, there is no way this struggling translator district can afford the cost of switching to digital, so they are already talking about going dark rather than trying to convert.
> 
> Lots of small towns will lose their low power UHF channels.


I think rural areas should have more time to convert. Since there are fewer people there should be less demand for spectrum.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

joblo said:


> Indeed... that's what the IRS is for... streamlined, unified billing for all government-funded services.... so much more efficient...


Except it averages out to about $1 a year per tax payer. I also read they have to get $5 in donated money for $1 of federal money.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Nobody around here would pay $100 a year for a station or tower.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Paul Secic said:


> And why isn't the FCC demanding they put digital tuners in sets now? It doesn't make any sence. They're holding the digital tranistion up by 5 to 10 years.


There IS a mandate for all TVs to eventually get ATSC tuners. In a shocker of a move, the manufacturers asked that all 27 inch sets get the same deadline - I think by July or December this year. Next to go wil be the 19/20 inch sets, witht he 13 incher by July 2007 and all other devices by Dec 2007. You can assume that any large screen that doesn't was made earlier, because shortly, all of THOSE will be required to have a tuner.


----------



## pomeroy (Jan 3, 2005)

Last I checked I lived in the USA not some communist country

People don't take well to being forced to change

The FCC can go to ****  and take there HDTV with them

Onething I think people don't realize about HDTV is that programs will be copyprotected!! :eek2: meaning you can't copy them! 

The VCR & DVD recorder won't be worth a **** because it won't record HD and the new HD Recorders won't be out for another year and you can bet they will be made to comply with the new copyprotection.

Yeah people might be excited about having HDTV and think they won the battle over the old tv 
but in the end the FCC wins and we lose


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

pomeroy said:


> Last I checked I lived in the USA not some communist country
> 
> People don't take well to being forced to change
> 
> ...


In no scenario does the FCC really win... they are the regulating body, not the driving force really. Consumers are driving, the motion picture industry is driving, TV networks are driving... the FCC is mainly listening and trying to come up with rules and regulations that appease as many folks as possible.


----------



## PHL (Jul 15, 2004)

clapple said:


> Saw a 30" HDTV in Costco yesterday, for $599. Would have purchased one; but with speakers on sides, too wide for my cabinet. Need one with speakers on the bottom.


I'm in the same boat. Try the Toshiba 30HF and 34HF series. The 34 inch widescreen is 33 5/8 inches wide. It's kind of pricey (1299 at best buy) but it's the narrowest HD set I've been able to find. I'm not ready to pull the trigger yet, because of the price, but this may be an option for you. You may also want to consider a rear projection set and forget about using your cabinet. For 1299, you could get a 50-60 inch rear projection.

Sorry if I hijacked the thread a little. I just wanted to help clapple out.


----------



## leegart (Dec 18, 2004)

BFG said:


> It's the end of 2006. so there's like a year and a half.


There are too many analog TV sets out there including the small portable TV's. People will not want to spend money on a (portable??) converter box for a portable TV and have to lug it around! Also, will they make ones that are battery operated? Extend the deadline!! :soapbox:


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

85% of people who watch TV get their service use cable or satellite.

That only leaves 15% of the rest to either get a digital to analog converter or move to cable/sat. The government would pay for a majority of that percent to convert them using the profits of the analog spectrum sale.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

BFG said:


> 85% of people who watch TV get their service use cable or satellite.
> 
> That only leaves 15% of the rest to either get a digital to analog converter or move to cable/sat. The government would pay for a majority of that percent to convert them using the profits of the analog spectrum sale.


Do you have some reference to a statement by the government to that effect? If that's the case, I can see a market developing where that 15% buys sets from the other 85% (should be able to pick them up for a song), gets free converters and re-sells the combination back to the 85% at a profit.

It will be interesting to read the specifics in the plan you'll identify for us.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

BFG said:


> That only leaves 15% of the rest to either get a digital to analog converter or move to cable/sat. The government would pay for a majority of that percent to convert them using the profits of the analog spectrum sale.


There are at least 64.7 million US TV households. (http://www.nielsenmedia.com/newsreleases/1999/newustvhouseholds.html)

There are at least 2 TVs per household. (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=27633) And that doesn't count all the portable or other analog TVs that exist in cable/DBS households.

64.7 million x 2 x 15% = 19.4 million television sets

Assume that manufacturing ramps up to create that many digital converters at the low price of $50 each.

19.4 million x $50 = $970 million
Add some promulgation costs, and it's easily over $1 billion.

The transition from analog TV to digital TV is desirable and inevitable. But what if waiting for another year or two could cut that analog-only rate from 15% to 10% or less? Can you casually suggest that throwing hundreds of $millions to speed up this transition by a year or two is the best use of public money?


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

they wouldn't pay for all of that.

It would only be about 8-10 million households qualifying for a rebate of 1 analog to digital converter. this would cost betweeon 400 and 500 million dollars. The revenue from the sale of the analog spectrum would be between $5 billion to $17 billion.

First of all your numbers come from 64 metered markets of neilson and is not the number of households and is not the number of over the air viewers (I did see you only took 15% of that number though).

But this page says what the total number for all markets is http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

109,590,170 x 15% = 16,438,526
subtract the 10 million that the government will cover leaves
6,438,526 households to spend the $50 themselves to get a digital tuner


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Probably only the low income households would apply for the digital to analog convertor.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

BFG,

Can you provide a reference to a government plan that provides reimbursement details?


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

It's part of Sentaor Joe Barton's plan, he's the one who would be drafting the legislation.

This is a blurb about what he said at the Consumer Electronic Association’s 10th HDTV Summit

Barton added that his preferences for the
bill are to have a Dec. 31, 2006, hard cutoff
date, omit multicast must carry, and have a
means test for low-income citizens to qualify
tor "a rebate" to reimburse them for the
purchase of a digital to analog converter box.
The bill would count all digital cable and
satellite households as DTV households.
Barton estimated the reimbursement
would affect between 8 million and 10
million households and would cost between
$400 million and $500 million.
"If you auction the spectrum for $5 billion
to $17 billion, you can afford to pay
$400 million or $500 million to make
this convetsion," he said.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

BFG said:


> Barton estimated the reimbursement would affect between 8 million and 10 million households and would cost between $400 million and $500 million. "If you auction the spectrum for $5 billion to $17 billion, you can afford to pay $400 million or $500 million to make this convetsion," he said.


Saying you can afford the converter subsidy is a bit like saying you can afford to fly to another state to pick up the check from a relative's estate. You'll get the money a little faster, and you'll come out ahead, but you'd get to keep more of your one-time windfall if you'd wait for normal delivery methods.

Even if you accept Barton's numbers, suppose that waiting another year reduces that subsidy by a third or a half. (Think how quickly DVDs and CDs caught on once they reached a tipping point.) Is it the best use of $100 million or more of public funds just to speed up the eventual transition?


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

BFG said:


> It's part of Sentaor Joe Barton's plan, he's the one who would be drafting the legislation.
> 
> This is a blurb about what he said at the Consumer Electronic Association's 10th HDTV Summit
> 
> Barton added that his preferences for the bill are...


That's not quite the same as an actual policy to do something. Others will have to agree before anything official occurs. I'd be willing to bet that 100% of the people in Congress would say they prefer to have trade and budget surpluses...


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

They could figure how much interest they could get off of the money by having it not instead of waiting to get it later and figure they would be ahead to go ahead and pay out the money to get the transition done sooner.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

What happens to all those households that have more than one TV set? Some people have a set in every child's room, one in the kitchen and one in there bedroom. Who's going to pay for those converter boxes? Remember most households only have one good or outstanding main viewing TV. The numbers you are using are only assuming there is one TV in every household. So instead of shutting off 10 to 15 million sets, you are turning off 20 to 30 million sets. Who is paying for those converter boxes? The government with your tax dollars? I would be screaming all the way to the polls if this happened to my household. I would definitely tell all my friends and neighbors to make sure they voted out all politicians that voted for this bill. Who is to say that the manufacturers would not be a little bit greedy knowing that the public had to buy there product or do without TV all together. So now we have upped the anti to 1.5 or more billion. Yes I am one of the few or lucky ones that can afford to have DISH Network. So I do get a Digital Box and excellent pictures on my screen. But everyone does not have this benefit or can afford it.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

"let them take cable" ...

I crack me up sometimes - that was such a good shot, I just had to take it...


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

"More car analogies, gotta love this place! "

I take down my outside (on the balcony) antennas once a year and take them to the car wash. Get's all the old road soot out of them.


----------



## PROXUS (Apr 26, 2005)

mainedish said:


> It won't happen. Many are happy with the picture they have and are moving slow to HDTV. It's not like when color television came along. I have HDTV and it's great but it's not like going from black and white to color tv . The change is not that great for most buyers.


 

maybe...It's not that great for people who can't afford it, but don't tell me that change is not that great in general.

I will say it's exact same step like going from BW to COLOR.
It's like getting glasses for your eyes. You can see sharper :eek2:


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

AllieVi said:


> Do you have some reference to a statement by the government to that effect? If that's the case, I can see a market developing where that 15% buys sets from the other 85% (should be able to pick them up for a song), gets free converters and re-sells the combination back to the 85% at a profit.
> 
> It will be interesting to read the specifics in the plan you'll identify for us.


If I have Dishnetwork will I have to buy a new TV set whenever the transition takes place? All of my sets were bought between 1999-2002.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

No.


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

No your set will be fine but if you don't have a tuner to pick up the digital signals, something will be needed to do so, how will they handle that situation remains to be seen.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

"If I have Dishnetwork will I have to buy a new TV set whenever the transition takes place? All of my sets were bought between 1999-2002."

Nope! You won't even know 2006 existed. Only broadcasters have to "step up to the plate" . All other forms of delivery are exempt.


----------



## Bob Haller (Mar 24, 2002)

This was altogethe preventable. Digital tuners should of been REQUIRED on all tvs built a year or two after the law passed mandating the end of analog tv.

somehow I think you are overlooking a voter backlash...

you mean my tv wouldnt work at all? Most homes have way more than 2 tvs...

living room, dining room, kitchen, each of 4 bedrooms, basement rec room.

True many are OTA only.

voters will never stand for their tv no matter how old being turned into a paperweight...

this aint going to happen


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Let's expand a bit on what kenglish just said - If you are getting your locals via DBS or analog cable, you will never know the transition to OTA DTV has taken place. If you receive your locals OTA - you will need an ATSC tuner for each TV that does so. As time goes by, more and more TVs (in all sizes) will be required to have a built in ATSC tuner, so that by Dec 2007, ALL TVs 13 inches and larger will be required to have a builtin ATSC tuner (although this does NOT mean they are required to be HDTV). This date is a "manufactured by date" - so you will no doubt see TVs sold after that date w/o said ATSC tuner - clearing out the warehouses so to speak.

My personal expectation is that standalone ATSC tuners will continue to come down in price - you can find one at www.walmart.com right now for $200 - and this tuner can output to your current NTSC set.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Bob Haller said:


> This was altogethe preventable. Digital tuners should of been REQUIRED on all tvs built a year or two after the law passed mandating the end of analog tv.
> 
> somehow I think you are overlooking a voter backlash...
> 
> ...


Thats what I've been saying: They should have putting digital tuners in TVS since 2000. Half of the country doesn't know what DTV is, I'm telling ya. Joe sixpack is gonna be hopping mad when his TV goes black!


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Paul, nobody here is disagreeing with you on THAT point. That's also why you won't see the transition until 2009 or later.... I'm still with 2010 myself.


----------



## Bob Haller (Mar 24, 2002)

2015 at the earliest.

average tv these days lasts at least 10 years. so if you bought a analog tv today, you wouldnt expect it to go black for at least 10 years.

government wants to sell analog bandwidth for big bucks. they will have to use some of that money, to pay for free converts for everyone..

dgital tuners should of been required...


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

My recent 25" Samsung has lasted 17 years so far and still had a good picture when I sold it for $150. I have lesser sets with high mileage also - a monitor has over 20 years on it, and a small set in my kitchen is coming up on 12 years. I would say that the average usable life of a CRT-based set is more like 15 years. 

I will be replacing five CRTs with flat-panels over the next couple of years, including the addition of 2 more HD panels.

Life is good! :icon_da:


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

My bigscreen tv is 11 years old and still ticking. It had a new bulb or was repaired before I bought it from a guy back in 2000 so it has some life in it still yet.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Nobody is saying your TV can't be used - its just that you will need an external ATSC tuner to view OTA - like you do now for DBS (or use a digital cable box). And nobody is forcing the cable companies to do anything digital - they're going the digital route with the STB to help stop piracy - I'm also willing to bet that eventually the only thing analog left on cable will BE local channels.

My advice - wait for a while. Yeah, I know there is a $200 ATSC tuner that you can order at walmart.com . But - the tuners will get cheaper and better the longer you wait. If analog was going to be shutoff tomorrow - I'd be the first one to order the walmart unit, just to have it as an OTA backup. I'm sure there are some other benefits to having it. But I currently get a spectacular OTA analog picture. My major reason right now for taking locals on DBS is so I can record them on my DVR. If I could get a tuner for $100 - I'd have it. Until then - I'm cool.


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

Bottom line. The money the government will get from the auction of the analog spectrum is already spent.

Do the research. Bill Clinton already spent the projected proceeds to balance the budget in the late 90's


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Things may start to heat up a little bit. It seems like AARP has put a small article in its newletter to let the retired people or over 50 crowd to let them know what is coming and that there TV's may go blank next year. Look for AARP to start lobbying next year early to prevent this from happening right away. As I stated in an earlier post. The older generation does most of the voting in the off years. Politicians do not want to get voted out. The money that has been spent already from the analog system is going to have to bee redirected for free Digital Tuners for this crowd or find a new line of work. As is usual with politicians they seem to want to spend money before they have it. They don't have the money yet and it is spent already. Go figure.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

i've got about 4 TV's in my home hooked up to my Direc Tv System that are split off signals via 2 and 3 way splitters to view Direc Tv in 1) my living room. 2) my bed room. 3) my Computer Room. 4) my garage to hear baseball games when i am outside during the summer. They will play hell trying to get me to convert over to digital. I don't have the money to replace all my TV's with HD Crap. I'll go dark before I Transition. Lock myself up in the house bolt all doors and load my gun with the hammer cocked before i let the government force me to hook up some little converter box!!!!!!!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

"HD Crap" -- a new oxymoron! 

Bill, you might want to ease up on the caffeine. :flaiming


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

And I thought this crowd would understand ---

Msguy - there is NO requirement for either the broadcasters OR the consumers to go HDTV, merely digital ATSC. And what would be different about putting in ONE ATSC tuner box similar to how you distribute DBS now ? NTSC (analog) modulators are not that difficult to find.


----------

