Broadcasters OK 2009 analog TV shutdown

American broadcasters have agreed to get out of the analog TV business on January 1, 2009, paving the way for an auction of the analog spectrum that may raise as much as $30 billion. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue to battle over plans to subsidize analog-to-digital converters for consumers. Up to 15% of households continue to get their TV signal via over-the-air broadcast signals, and they will need to either upgrade to cable, get digital TVs or buy converter boxes — estimated to cost $50 — to continue watching television after analog signals are shut down.

[kerry @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Does anybody know if small, local stations will be able to upgrade their own equipment and move to digital broadcasting, too? I'm one of those too-cheap-for-cable people and find some of the best programming is on the tiny, unaffiliated stations where I live. I don't mind paying $50 for a digital converter box, but what difference will it make if I lose my favorite channels anyway?

[Jonathan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I'm not worried about analog TV at all, I've got cable. looks like the poorer, less fortunate members of society will have to resort to READING BOOKS.

[benjamin @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

TV apparently rots the brain.. so i choose to sit in front of my computer all day.

[Brian @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

What exactly will the converter box convert? If there isn't analog tv being broadcast, people aren't going to be able to watch anything anyway.

[Alcaron @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

#3....uhhhhhh....I'm going out on a limb here and saying it will convert digital ATSC (HD) into NTSC Analog....just....you know....a crazy guess....

[matt @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

RE: #4
The converter box is a decoder for digital OTA signal instead of analog OTA which some still use (who I do not know).

[Alcaron @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I'm not crazy....

http://www.varent.net/images/whatthe.jpg

[PK @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

This is all a ploy to sell digital HIFI televisions to the ordinary buying public.

[Billy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Who the hell ever said it was their right to sell a spectrum. How can a wavelength be sold as property? What's next, China's gonna buy AM radio?

[Chip Thomas @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

The converter boxes they are describing down-vert the signal from digital to analog (like they are broadcasting now). [How these boxes will interface with the rabbit ears these people are using is still a mystery. :)]

I'm betting cable will probably offer some analog package for the unconverted.

[JK @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Converter boxes? As in free-to-air digital? Sounds like the UK's Freeview service - you buy a �50 ox and it does digital over RF.

J

[..ak @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

How will this affect the current analog TV stations? Will I have to purchase a cable/dish service to view the currently free channels?

Or...

Within 4 years, will the newer TVs have a way of receiving digital information through sources that are don't require a monthly subscription that increases each month?

Now I understand how the British people feel with their TV Tax.

[Joe @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

The funny thing is that when TV came out, it was essentially "wireless" - then we went to cable which required a wire - now everyone is fighting to get back to the wireless approach between things like VCAST, HD OTA, BPL to some extent, etc. Amazing how after 50+ years we are going back from whence we came :-)

[Roopesh Sheth @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Damn it! This pisses me off to no end! I don't care if analog is being broadcast, but they need to make everything available in digital immediately. Many people, myself included, bought a digital/HDTV because we were told that at the end of the year everything would be digital.

Analog peeps - get a converter, upgrade to cable/satellite, or get some good books!

[spike117 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

analog tv stations will turn digital and broadcast their signal in digital the same as before. Right now there is free HDTV over the air. So the signal will still be free, itll just be digital. This is actually a good thing, because with a digital over the air signal youll either get perfect picture or no picture. No more fuzz.

[Zeljko Dakic @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

It is actually cool to shut down TV, I don't watch it much at all so I can't say I would be sorry if they stop broadcasting tomorrow. I don't have cable and don't intend to waste my money on wasting my time.
It would be nice to have Wi-Fi everywhere though.

[tennis guy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

"This is actually a good thing, because with a digital over the air signal youll either get perfect picture or no picture. No more fuzz."

Actually, I've found a marginal digital signal is almost un-watchable, because the sound cuts in and out constantly, wheras a marginal analog signal is not that bad. Of course, a strong signal is fine, but with my over-the-air digital receiver, I can only consistently receive four of about six or seven digital signals, and I only live 25 miles outside of town, and I'm using a high gain yagi antenna. I'm not so sure everyone will be pleased with this after the cut over...
.
.

[Rooben @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I don't understand the drive to help pay for the $50 converter box. Its 2005 - four years to save up, means that if you save a $1.25 a month, you can get it.

If you can't save $1.25 a month, you should sell your TV to buy yourself some food or something. Get a job.

[Man @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

#2 As for poor people you know that the government and the networks will set aside millions to buy them converter boxes.
Here's a bit of info to make you mad, in NYC if you were on welfare they paid to install cable and the bills would be zero or reduced, through Medicaid. The law supporting this ended just recently but free programs still exist,I think.

[Lost_Canadian @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

"How can a wavelength be sold as property?"
If there were no regulations for stuff like this, radio stations would constantly be fighting over frequencies (for example).

[TVGenius @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

To answer a few questions:

There are 1508 stations broadcasting in digital in the US right now, though not all at full power. Many TVs sold already have a digital tuner (usually referred to as an HDTV or ATSC tuner). Some OTA channels may move to a different channel, since the FCC is taking away 60-69. Also, since many of the 1508 that are on the air digital are also still on the air in analog, they are using two channels (hence not being at full power digitally, otherwise it'd cause interference in other nearby cities with stations on the channel they temporarily use).

For example, our CBS affiliate is on 13, but is using 16 for their low power digital channel, but like most will move their digital to 13 when they kill analog.

Stations on air digital:
http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/issues/digitaltv/DTVStations.asp

[benhc911 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

to Billy, I think they mean selling it like how a certain radio station has rights to have their station frequency. Selling of the spectrum will be localized likely, just making more radio I suppose.

[otakucode @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

The FCC is taking away 69?!

[Whiplash @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I still don't understand why the government is in such a panic to get digital TV in everyone's homes. I just don't see need. Is there something else besides a more detailed picture that digital provides that will present some great benefit to American society????? What am I missing people????

[Rick @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Excellent. This means no more TV for me, which means I will read more books and continue my steady ascent to superiority over the likes of all of you buying $5K toys on credit.

[rob @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

The government interest is not to bring better quality television to people, its that they gave away huge portions of the new digital broadcast spectrum away back in the 90's with the promise that they could sell rights to the existing analog spectrum to make up the revenue. The FCC, like it or not, gets to decide what broadcasts are legal on certain frequencies in our country. When the analog broadcasts go away in 2009, they finally get to reallocate that spectrum (and make some serious money in the process).

[Hig @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

If this does indeed spur some people to do things other than watch television, it will be good. Books are still there, people, and hopefully will become the dominate non-internet entertainment medium again! (<--been watching too much R.O.D)

[Samuel Lago @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I don't think the switch should be subsadised, look at both sides of the story. Those who change to digital get lots of free channels in digital quality and by 2009 everyone who 'believes' in TV will have switched.

If they don't switch then they must be stupid, and that means they will never know how to figure it out. This throws up two scenarios, the first that they sit there vegetating infront of static, which is not much better than what US TV is now. The second will be they go without TV and find a healtheir alternative.

Either way it has to be viewed as the logical progression, the old analogue technology has had a good inning's and now it is time to go forth and embrace the new technology.

[Anita Kiss @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Analog TV takes more than 300 MHz of spectrum right now. I can't wait for the FCC to consolidate all that, leave some for digital TV and auction off the rest. Who knows, Pehaps one day we'll have Wi-Fi on lower frequencies. That's sure to provide better coverage.

[Ken hollingswowrth @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

In reading the messages above I noticed one that said that they were only 25 miles from the bradcasting stations and didn't receive a quality Digital service. I live 40 to 50 miles from the bradcsters and live in the country where there is no cable TV. Does that mean the the only TV I will be able to watch is Satelite TV which doesn't include local bradcasting so I will not hear the news, see Public TV, be able to watch the weather or severe weather reports etc. Currently I am one of the many that hasn't invested in a digital TV becasue my current tv's, VCR's etc. are still working fine. When the TV was invented there was considerable time and effort invested to give the analog aspect ratio that was used for years to give the best picture for viewing. Now they are making the aspect ratio to match the wide screen of movies which makes a very wide small picture that requires a much larger much more expensive TV to give the same quality picture. I realize that the politicians like to give the masses what they want but they are always forgetting about the Rural constituents who are the backbone of the country. Without us rural folks who provide much of the work that is performed in this country including producing most of the food that everyone likes to be able to eat, this country could not survive, however since we represent such a small percentage of the population we consistantly are ignored. I would like to think that if they are converting from Analog to Digital that I can get a quality TV signal at 50 to 60 miles from the TV station like we can now with an antenna on analog. If the digital upgrate doesn't give us that then the Digital change isn't an upgrade it is a downgrade.