# Perspective: When regular TV broadcasts go dark



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

*Perspective: When regular TV broadcasts go dark*



> *Perspective:* If you were caught off guard when the federal government rescheduled the changeover to the daylight saving time, be prepared for another shock just over the horizon.
> 
> On February 17, 2009, the analog over-the-air TV broadcasting we've known for more than 50 years is scheduled to end and be replaced by digital broadcasting. Once television stations drop their analog broadcasting and go digital, old-style analog TV sets will effectively go dark.
> 
> ...


Read the rest of the article at *CNet*


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

To me... this is irritating...

Some manufacturer out there has to come up to the plate and build an inexpensive box.

I am still STUNNED that they think this will cost $50/$100+ to build.

All we are talking here is the tuner, down converter, and then modulate to RF 3/4

No Bells... No wistles...

They have "economy of scales" here... 21,000,000 households (per the article).... 

Why do they have to cost so damm much?
I would think the local broadcasters would also would want to help with the cost for their area... I mean it is their customers after all..

It just baffles me..
Heck... make those companies that want to buy that air space... buy it now... and use the purchase price for frequency range to offset the cost of these boxes...

But if the government is to get involved... heck, put a contest out there or a bidding process for a company that can create a basic converter for $25 each...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I share your anger... but as long as the government is handing out $40 checks to anyone who wants to by an ATSC converter, they will always be higher priced than that. That's the downside of subsidizing. I'm a believer in market forces and I think that if this subsidy hadn't been enacted, the market would be flooded with cheap converter boxes by now (look at DVD players). 

But what's done is done. I am more upset at this article which uses scare tactics and invokes the elderly to try to agitate people about this issue. 

I think the time frame is fair, and there are steps in place to make sure that most people will be able to afford some sort of ATSC reception. Heck, you can buy a TV with an ATSC tuner at costco for under $150.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Get real, guys! $50 is NOT an unreasonable price to pay. Take a look at the price of analog TV tuner cards ror computers, which require no D to A conversion, no downconversion and no power supply. The cheapest I've found (with a remote) from Newegg is $24. Do the math! Normal retail channels will demand 5 to 10% profit on anything they sell. I bought an HD OTA set top box from Radio Shack about two years ago for $89 *ON CLEARANCE!* Remember, any set top box is going to have to receive HD broadcasts and downconvert them to 480i. 
Sixty plus years ago, when the FM broadcast band was changed to the current 88 - 108 MHz, converter boxes sold for over $20. Think of what that would be in current dollars, even allowing for the advances in electronics since those days.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

You are Right... $50 is not a reasonable price to pay...

The problem is... they are not $50 right now, and there are no signs that they will be. 

And there are a LOT of "entities" out there, that are starting to use the price point of the converters/tuners "today" as reason to extended the already three time extended conversion time line.

Right now... the only external converters I can find are up above $100... 
There are very few of them on the market..

But just that... with "today's" technology... there is no reason for them to cost more then $30... especially at the volumes that are going to be necessary.... 50,000,000 units.... 

IMHO... the companies that are making them... are keeping the price near the $100 mark, because they know after all these subsidies from the GOV... they are going to be down to $50-$60

There is no way these things can cost $100 to make..
And it is not like they are going to have to advertise them... 

These converters should already be on the counters at Walgreens, Grocery stores, and some of these smaller areas should already have "sessions" plan to tell their residents about the changes that are comming...


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> You are Right... $50 is not a reasonable price to pay...
> 
> The problem is... they are not $50 right now, and there are no signs that they will be.
> 
> ...


I can be selfish and say who cares since I already have HDTV.

You are right and these turners should be selling for $30.00 everywhere.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

The article almost seems like a 'they want to take away old people's medication'...then again, how many people over 65 read cnet? ;-)


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

How much do the MPEG-2 decoder chips cost in bulk? That's probably the long pole in the tent. Then you need the power supply, connectors, case, ...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Mikey said:


> How much do the MPEG-2 decoder chips cost in bulk? That's probably the long pole in the tent. Then you need the power supply, connectors, case, ...


Considering that is probably the same chip in the $30 DVD players (or at least similar). I bet the biggest cost is the down rez chips..

So maybe in a year, they will be $30...

I just don't want to see this deadline extended AGAIN... 
Not that I personally have a "stake" in the issue... It is just something that has to be done... and no matter how much you try to make sure no one is inconvienced it just isn't possible.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Some manufacturer out there has to come up to the plate and build an inexpensive box.
> 
> I am still STUNNED that they think this will cost $50/$100+ to build.


Due to economy of scale, by 2009 you may find a DVD recorder with a built-in 8VSB tuner for only a little more money. The first ones are due out shortly. The Philips will have a built-in hard drive for $330 list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_recorder#Comparison_of_2007_ATSC_DVD_recorders


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I guess the cost of the D-A Converter has something to do with what features the box has. When I watched the HDNet coverage of 2007 CES, one of the big manufacturers demonstrated a D-A converter that had closed captioning, a mini-program guide, and a remote. It was hooked up to a 13" B&W TV with a dial-tuner, set to channel 3, and it was pretty impressive.

I've been trying to remember who that was, but can't. I just found this press release for LG, and look what they're saying their D-A converter will be:



> Digital-to-Analog TV Converter Box -- Combining the latest advances in digital television (DTV) broadcast reception technology and consumer-friendly features in an affordable package, LG's digital-to-analog (D-A) converter has been developed to support the final phase of the DTV transition in the United States. This product, planned for 2008 introduction, is designed to provide DTV broadcast signals to existing analog TVs in anticipation of the end of analog TV broadcasting in February 2009. Basic features include the latest ATSC-VSB circuitry for optimum reception, a simple electronic program guide and remote control.


By the way, the official government Digital-TV web site has a lot of good information, but the audio is annoying! http://www.dtv.gov/index.html


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

The "converter box" is a little bit more complicated than a tuner, downconverter, and a modulator.

It's a small, high-speed computer which outputs video, audio, and a modulated RF NTSC signal....all received by a built-in OTA modem. So, I don't think that $50-60 is all that unreasonable. The FTA satellite receivers, using DVB-S standards, are very similar. Yet, they still cost about $100 minimum, and they are made to meet a worldwide demand, so their "economies-of-scale" must be about maxed out. Still, they run about twice what the goal of our "subsidized boxes" are expected to cost.

BTW, if you are an AVSForum'er, and wondered where "RobMX" is (since being booted off the forums), check the comments on the C-Net article  .


----------



## allargon (May 3, 2007)

Actually $50 is pricey for a TV that only costs $100 (or even $50 for the small portables). Considering that new EDTV's can be had for $200-$300 depending on the size, I think that many people will choose to bite the bullet and purchase. I think manufacturers and retailers know this and expect a huge rush. I hope recycling programs are in place for an influx of HDTV's. Unfortunately, most of the people that don't have cable/satellite are in poor urban areas or remote rural areas. People in remote rural areas will likely just dump their toxic metal TV's into landfills.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

n3ntj said:


> ...how many people over 65 read cnet?


Me! :wave:

65 is the _new_ 45. :sure:


----------

