Digital TV switchover date: December 31, 2008

So last we heard, some high-tech honchos had gotten together to press Congress on the issue of the official digital TV switchover date. That legislation is now drafted, and sets a December 31, 2008 date by which broadcasters who're still hogging those analog airwaves have got to give it up. One of the issues still unresolved is what to do about the nagging problem of the 20+ million American households that are still using antenna-based TVs, who are gonna be understandably disgruntled at the prospect of needing to go in on some new gear just to keep the tube a-pumpin'. Lawmakers are (this just in!) split down party lines, with Republicans favoring a subsidy for low-income households and Democrats favoring a subsidy for anyone who buys a set-top box.

[vance @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

The farce of modern-day politics is that you can have each side hotly defending a certain issue, simply because it's the opposite of what the other side proposes.

[Brian @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

<laughs>

[Bart @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

A bunch of BS#@$%^&! Are they going to provide a subsidy for the disposal of my 5 TV's, all of which work fine.

[nemi @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

by the time this switch over happens the HDTV off-air STB willhave dropped form the $150 they are today to <$50. After thanks giving (2008) special rebates they will be $10.

After mailing in your FCC / Government rebate you will end up paying -$50.

:-D

[cheeze @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

nice that the deadline occurs right after the 2008 election.

[Bart @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

Good point, cheeze

[Matt2 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

but bush will still be in office after the election for awhile so this will get passed into law and then we will be a socalist sicotiey oh wait we a re now usa isnt democratic we are controlled like the cubans

[n8 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

The subsidy is for the broadcasters, not the consumers, really. Broadcasters get the airwaves for free, and then they get a subsidy to make sure that everyone can view their programming. Totally stupid, backasswards corporate welfare.

[sliu @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

Note that they placed it right after the next presidential election so that they next prez will be the one to bear the brunt of criticism

[Bart @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

Do not give too much credit to Bush. It is a long time plot to take over America. The Cuban's tried their cigars, Now they have another approach.

[David @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

To help pay for the subsidy, all Americans must watch a minimum of thirty-five commercials per day.

Higher-quality TV means more people watching and less people thinking. Of course, I'm still looking forward to it.

[Brasten Sager @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

What are you guys all bitching about?

Nobody's saying your televisions won't work. You'll likely just have to pick up a new receiver or converter box of some sort.

Quite frankly I think it's pretty impressive that they're even considering a subsidy on personal entertainment technology purchases.

[Bart @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

purchases.
LOL! What about the invesment most of us already have?

[Ken @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

What load of sh**, like I want my tax dollars go to some broke people. They already get plenty of freebies. I will be damned before I let this happen.

[yuppicide @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

Yep.. you will need a box (most likely they will become built into future cable boxes) that converts an HD signal into something your old television can watch.

[dhiren @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

For the investors out there, how would we play this in the market?

[al @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

wow, i didn't realize so many people who visit a gadget website still only have antenna television. Because you all know that this won't affect anyone with cable or satellite at all right??

[pacey @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

Ok, here's the deal.

There have been some sort of deadline set for the switch from analog to digital since 2000 or so, there has just been a loophole saying that something like 80% of the marked had to have HDTV's in order for the broadcasters to be forced to give up the analog spectrum.

this new legislation looks like it closes the loophole. This hole is considered to be partially responsible for the gradual decrease in HDTV prices. Since there was no rush for broadcasters to switch, there was no rush for manufacturer's to drop prices.

Of course, I don't think the US Gov't should be subsidising anything entertainment based. If you can't afford the new tv, or set top box converter, then read a freaking book, go out and play, do something else.

Maybe this will finaly solidify a final switch over date, hopefully drop HDTV prices, and give the US Govt back the analog spectrum.

[ls @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

I already don't have analog reception, because I'm in a bad spot with an inferior antenna. My digital reception is good though, and I switched my main HDTV set over from cable to an ATSC tuner more than a year ago.

My problem is that the other smaller TV sets in the house are pretty much useless, and I'm not going to spend the $150 on a tuner for each of them. I'm surprised that not one manufacturer sees a market for a cheap (ca $50) SDTV only tuner, even at this point.

Some stations are already digital only. A local college station is begging people for old used tuners that they can lend their students for watching educational programs at home.

[otakucode @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

If you don't have an HDTV by now, I think you would be hard pressed to claim that you actually care enough about TV to even mind whether or not you get cut off... But the earlier poster was right, this applies to over-the-air broadcast ONLY. If you have cable, you're safe. If you use satellite, you might be safe, depending on your "locals" situation. If you can't watch your locals any more, don't worry. Network TV is horrid anyway. Over-censored and soft-minded. Subscribe to some premium channels and grow up. Let your kids watch it and they'll grow up too, instead of just growing and turning into giant kids.

[Peteo @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

Im sure if there is any subsidy, it will only be on products that support the brodcast flag.

[Roopesh Sheth @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

What a crock of crap!!! Now we, the people who've upgraded to digital TVs, are screwed for an additioal 2 years, stuck watching crappy analog TV.

Thanks Bush-f*ck

[Steve @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

I say we all use this as an excuse to *gasp* stop watching TV. We could expand our minds while telling all the miserable effing bozos behind mass media and this rotten legislation to go F themselves.

Now ask me how I _really_ feel about it. ;)

[Casey @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

About time...

I'm sick of having only 9 HD channels. I say make it faster. Just like the prices of computers, they'll come down so that every poor redneck can have one. It's funny that some of these families I know are so poor, they live in trailers that are falling apart, but you can walk in and see a big tv and a new computer.

I don't know how many times I've walked into Circuit City and seen a family of 6+ walk out with a $700 computer when it's obvious they "can't" afford it, where they could have spent their money more wisely. Double that for Wal-Mart.

Just like computers, they'll find a way to scrounge up the $30-$50 that it'll cost in a few years for this hardware.

[Finishing.Law.School @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

Give everyone a subsidy with a sticker proclaiming "Your tax dollars at work!"

[Yuppers @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

#23, Casey, you sound like a rich, elitist, pig. There are no worries on any of this, it won't happen in 2008, it will keep getting delayed, again and again. Years and years will pass. If "they" were serious about it they'd ban the sale of analog TV's.

[John @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

Dammit, what am I gonna do with my collection of antique TVs that I can STILL watch TV on!? And God forbid they do this to radio too!

[Samuel Lago @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

in the UK we get our ignal 'till the end of the decade, and were promissed an IP infrastructure sometime around then too!

[juepucta @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

You just wait and see a boom in little contraptions you plug to your TV and turn digital into analog. 20 bucks and you can keep your old TVs.

G.


PS: isn't that the date Skynet goes live too? :P

[Matt Baron @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

Subsidized TV. Now I've heard it all.

[Matt Baron @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

>>"If you don't have an HDTV by now, I think you would be hard pressed to claim that you actually care enough about TV to even mind whether or not you get cut off..."

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Where do you live?? I barely know anyone with an HDTV, and I don't consider my friend's to be poor.

[Jason Anderson @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

HDTV's are way too expensive. And I frankly don't see a big deal yet. Not until all TV is broadcast in HD. ALL of it.

For one thing, I have a TiVo. And I love it. Its video is FINE for me. Even at lowest quality.

I've seen HDTV's on regular broadcasts and they look like crap. I saw them on HD mode and I see no difference. No big deal. Aside from more pixels, which I CAN'T EVEN TELL ARE THERE, the picture looks exactly the same to me from 6 feet away. I sit 6 feet from my 24" RCA Tube and I see no difference, nor can I count the pixels. If I can't count them, I don't need HD. I don't care about HD right now. I'm in the market for a new TV anyway. It'll be a tube. It'll be a big tube. And it'll be non-flat.

I'm all for the switchover though. But right now, I see no big friggin' deal with HD.

[Bob Miller @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

The IP royalty cost for a proposed digital receiver/converter to analog device is around $16 alone. Manufacturers like to mark up all cost so just royalty cost will be north of $30 IMO.

The FCC has mandated digital receivers in all TV set soon. Our Republican Administration that beleives in less government sees fit to force us to buy such receivers because we have refused to buy them on our own. That means the 87% of folks who depend on cable and satellite will be forced to buy receivers they will NEVER use.

Very few are purchasing digital receivers. Very few are making them and retailers are very non interested in selling them. Does this tell anyone anything?

In the UK on the other hand they are selling digital receivers at 500,000 a month or 3 million a year. Since the US is 6 times the size of the UK that would be 18 million a year. If we had been selling that many digital receivers in the US over the last 7 years of our digital transition we would have bought 126 million. Since their are only 110 million homes in the US the transition would be over.

Why are ALL countries who have digital transitions doing far better than the US? Because their governments did their homework and chose a modern well designed digital modulation that works while the US Congress was controlled by special interest who stuck us with MPEG2 and 8-VSB. The US has the worst modulation in the world by far.

France is using COFDM and MPEG4 for HD. China, Japan, the UK, Australia, France etc will all be light years ahead of the US in DTV.

Before Christmas you could buy a DTV receiver in the UK for $35 on sale. Normal prices are $50 and up.

Because of our corrupt political process the US citizen ends up paying the highest prices and gets stuck with the worst technology. Our polititions do not represent us anymore. They represent the corporation whether domestic or foreign. Anybody can buy them. Our DTV transition is proof.

[Galley @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

At this rate, they will never make the "switch". True, it could cost the government 1-2 billion dollars for the subsidies, but they stand to make $30 billion from the spectrum auctions! Death to analog TV!!!

[e.Swede @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

A. Access to television is not a right.

B. The government should not legislate the evolution (or retardation) of technological advancement. Let innovative risk-takers read consumer demand and create markets to meet consumer desires.

[Jeff Carroll @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

Given that the original spectrum giveback date was sometime next year, what this tells me is that the DTV conversion process is two to three years behind schedule.

Of course the whole issue is academic for most folks (especially the overfed Fox News fans who would like to turn this thread into an economics lecture), but there are people, particularly in rural areas in small media markets, who may face the possibility of losing local television altogether if small-market UHF broadcasters cannot recoup the substantial costs associated with converting their studio and transmission facilities.

We've been living with the aftermath of the Reagan FCC for more than twenty years now, long enough for most folks to have forgotten that broadcasters are supposedly licensed by the federal government to operate in the public interest. Part of what was once meant by "public interest" are things like weather radar and local news reporting that no one, no matter how wealthy, will have the option to receive if the local broadcaster who provides them goes out of business.

[Jim Padgett @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

A subsidy ? If you can't afford the new service get over it or go to a friends house to watch. Go buy you prescriptions or some dog food. Everything is made into some politican football. Get OVER IT GUYS....

[yachyx @ Dec 19th 2005 1:21AM]

i had a question...i understand in 3 years the gov't wants me to buy either an HDTV or a digital tuner. will i then have to subscribe to cable or satellite TV at a monthly fee, or will there be a new, free, (though limited, like analog currently is) service?