Analog TVs to go dark in 2009
posted Jul 2nd 2005 3:00AM
If you're the owner of one of the 80
million non-cable, non-digital TV sets in the U.S., you're running out of time: according to consumer advocates, when
the government gives the OK to shut off all analog broadcasts — possibly by
January 1, 2009 — your set will go dark, and no amount of
kicking, shaking or banging will bring back the picture. Serious. To recap, advocates (who've inflated the number of
those who'll be affected from 20 to 80 million since the last
time they invoked the PR machine) are proposing that the government subsidize the sale of converter boxes for
non-digital couch potatoes, at a cost of up to $3.5 billion, to be paid for through the sale of the old analog
spectrum. We have a better idea: if you're still using a broadcast-only, non-digital set in four years, the government
can give you a VHS deck and a collection of appropriate videos (we're thinking the complete "Welcome Back, Kotter," and
"Joanie Loves Chachi"). Chances are, you'll never even notice the difference.
go to sleep you engadgeters!!!!
Your TV won't go dark, it isn't the end of the world.
The UK switched to digital and they can still use the same old TV with the addition of a 40 USD "Digibox" which converts the digital signal into something which your old TV will understand.
#1, im in china (as of now, its 3 pm :-D)
as long as my tv continues brainwashing me, im good.
All this will means is even less people will watch TV, I would miss it, I won't buy cable tv because I don't like paying for more commercials. Networks are already starting to choke at people not watching TV or TiVo'ing shows anyway so this will just hurt them even more.
Maybe some of us 20-80 million just can't afford to buy a new HDTV, I know I can't. The 27" Zenith I got for free and fixed works just fine so pay up if you think it's oh so great. I've yet to see any inexpensive (sub $300) TVs that will stand the test of time. No way in hell am I going to buy an LCD or Plasma, thats just asking to replace it in 5 years.
Why shouldn't whoever gets use of the spectrum have to pay whoever has to give it up? It works that way for eminent domain land grabs, and the same sort of "scarce resource" arguments are made for the EM spectrum...
This is a really good (And the only)reason to get HDTV.. otherwise, I have no fight.
I haven't purchased a new TV in more than five years, so I might not mind getting a new one. :) I have not, however, been watching much TV anyway. I somehow dislike the fact of letting the TV control when I can watch something. Whatever I want to watch, I can find on DVD or get it digitally somehow ;) There seem to be more and more commerials every year and I get quite tired of being interrupted by them, too. Wonder if you can pass up on the new TV, get a capture card for your computer and pass the signal so your analog TV would understand it...
Nate MC, don't worry. You don't need to buy an HDTV. All you need is either a new tv that accepts the digital signal (no, that does not imply HD) or buy a digital to analog converter (the cost of which will be subsidized).
So, if you wish to continue watching TV after 2009 you should be able to do so at a very reasonable cost. Of course, if you choose not to spend any more money on TV the Feds will lock you away. So, in the end you will pay if you like it or not... Muhahahahaaha
Isnt TV a privilege? Why are they asking the goverment to waste tax payers money on replacing peoples box's/tv's...thats retarded.
If you cant afford to replace your tv, then don't watch it. Its a rip off and all the shows are garbage anyways.
The whole service is @ss backwards anyways, im PAYING $60 a month too view advertisements....
They should pay me too watch tv, or at the very LEAST make it free.
silly american policies, thinking about subsidising tv sets/converters when they could do with subsidising health care for those who need it!
In this world of ours, being "information rich" is what matters most now.
Here in spain our sets will go dark in 2010 (since i last checked), I dont think they are subsidising the converts, but they might just come up with something in the last couple of years because right now they cost around €300
They need to stick with the original Dec. 31, 2006 date. Sure, they will have to shell out $1-3 billion in subsidies for low-income people, but they stand to make $10-30 billion from the sale of the spectrum.
The thing that gets me about this whole selling the spectrum thing, is that the last time i checked, that was OUR spectrum. As in the people. Why should we "sell" it? Hey, let's "sell" them the moon, while were at it, so they can project ads onto it! Wouldn't that further the public good?
I have no idea what this means... I thought everyone was on HDTV by now? Slackers.
"silly american policies, thinking about subsidising tv sets/converters when they could do with subsidising health care for those who need it!"
I think you need to re-read the article. It's an analog advocate suggesting the subsidy, not any government policy.
Do you not have over the air digital TV in the US? Here in the UK we have Freeview (run by the BBC and Crown Castle) that pretty much anyone with a normal (ie. analogue, non-HD) TV can view without subscription, by purchasing a set-top box for about $50-60. These will even work with most people's existing analogue TV aerial. Your choice of channels isn't huge (about 30-40), but if you want more channels, you can subscribe to cable or satelite. For a couple of hundred quid you can even buy dual tuner Freeview PVR boxes. Really, there is no excuse for not being digital!
Me? I have Sky+ (satellite and PVR combo), *and* a Windows MCE box!
Incidentelly, why on earth do people call them set top boxes? Has anyone ever placed one of these boxes on top of their TVs? How to you stick one on top of an LCD or plasma?
Cheerio.
What I want to know is when we're going to seriously start talking about shutting down digital TV. The public clearly doesn't want it, and there's no reason they should (and plenty of reason they shouldn't). Shut it down now as a bad idea, and leave analog be. Those who want DTV/HDTV can pay for cable or Sat, there is no reason on earth the vast majority who don't care should have to subsidize a technology they don't want because of some asinine government mandate.
The whole idea of the goverment haveing anything to do with this in the first place screams "none of there bussiness". This should of been handled by the market not some goverment mandate
But really Jeff, how many things does the government stick it's nose into where we actually cheer and go, "IT BELONGS! IT BELONGS!". Uh... not that many.
But really Jeff, how many things does the government stick it's nose into where we actually cheer and go, "IT BELONGS! IT BELONGS!". Uh... not that many.
Actually, back in late 90s the UK government announced that they will be shutting down analogue service by 2002 or something. Then they realised people ain't changing their TVs so easily. Now in 2005, UK still mainly uses analogue signals (even Freeview hasn't spread completely yet).
2009 sounds like a good target in the US, but don't be surprised if they miss that target by few years.
To: elucard
Just keep your eye on ATI and Hapaugge (sp?). I've been time shifting digitally with my PC since 1999 (ATI All-in-Wonder PRO), never had a reason to go tivo cause my PC was just as good. ATI in particular seems to have a penchant for includinging more connectors than you'll ever need, so an agregate of composite, s-video, and maybe even coax will probably keep your old CRT-TV rotting your brain for years to come if you so desire :)
Totally with you 'Will', this ain't too big an issue for me since there's almost nothing on TV that I want to watch anymore. The afore mentioned time shifting was in it's hay day when they were still re-running 'Babylon 5' and 'DS9', and 'Smack the Pony' on Bravo. Now it's pretty much just specific news stories, documentaries, or history channel specials that I'll capture (ok 'Myth Busters' too if I plan to be out...) . The rest is crap.
As for paying to view advertisements...that has always been a gripe of mine about cable TV as well. It's like those 'free' dial-up ISPs. It's not free, it's just paid for by the advertising you have to put up with. Hey, that's fine, I get my email one way or another right ? But if I'm going to just out and out directly pay for the content, why do I have to put up with ads ? It's just silly...
Whatever happened to the FCC clause requiring to meet a percentage criteria before throwing the switch?"
http://www.digital.com/switch
This story -- not the issue, the story -- is hyperbole and just plain stupid. Analog televisions won't go dark. What will happen is they will no longer be able to directly receive over-the-air broadcasts, which is another thing entirely.
They'll still work fine to display video material on DVD, tapes if you still have them, recording systems, grounds cameras, baby monitors, video games, and so on ad nauseam.
Given the (lack of) quality and the (incredibly over-saturated) commercial content of US broadcast television, one has to consider that loss of broadcast stream compatibility may be a good thing.
Conversion from digital to "old" analog will be inexpensive initially, and probably get much, much less expensive from there. So there's not even any reason to be concerned on the basis of someone who -- for reasons I freely admit I will never understand -- actually wants to watch broadcast television.
Analog televisions of standard video capability will be useful until the day they fail electrically. This story reeks of sensationalist dung. Phooey.
#2: No they didn't. UK is still running analog and digital side by side.
I haven't seen any article about this mention portable TVs. I have one that I don't use very often, and I guess I won't be using it at all once the digital-only switch is thrown. Kind of a bummer when there are tornadoes bearing down on the city and I'd like to know if I should keep hiding in the basement. Do any portable TVs sold now (at least for a reasonable $100 or less price) support digital broadcasts?
The reason we have this issue is because the current analog standard is way too inefficient for the amount of spectrum available. Besides the government auctioning off some of the newly available spectrum, the government also plans to use part of it to create better communication devices for police, fire, and other government agencies so that when there is an emergency mass confusion doesnt ensue as we have seen before.
Funny how this sparks argument as though the "going dark" part is the news! Get on top of things people!!! :)
The analog shutoff was originally scheduled for... 2006! It's been pushed back so many times Michael Powell had to resign from the FCC due to muscle cramps. And it's been argued and whined ad nauseum so if you think you're contributing anything new... guess again! :p
This new number, 2009, is the only real news here.
I think Vegas has even money split between "later this century" and "never."
Oh, and to show how far behind you guys are... The government controls airwave allocation... always has. So if you wanna whine about this bein' "none of their business," better get to work on that time machine so you can shoot yourself back about 70 years or so to a day when your comments might actually be relevant!
-Pie
What I would like to know is if I buy HDTV to analog converters for my TV's will I be able to receive broadcast TV when they pull the plug on Analog? Presently I can receive 15 broadcast TV stations with an antenna. Living in a rural area approximately 40 to 70 miles (as the crow flies) from the broadcsat antennas with no access to Cable TV I would like to think that I would still have TV available.