Analog TV broadcasts to stop by 2009?
posted Oct 7th 2005 3:30AM
Well, well. Digital Television takes a few baby steps
closer to becoming reality in the US as Senate Commerce Committee Chairman, Ted Stevens, said he supports a
2006 2009 hard date by which broadcasters would be required to shut off their analog signal — a date
by which 85 percent of all households must be covered. The government would then auction off the analog airwaves to commercial wireless
providers and set aside a fraction of the billions to be received to subsidize digital-to-analog convertors for those
without coverage or those who can't afford a swank new
ATSC digital boob-o-tube. After all, "watch
TV 'till numb" is an unalienable right, isn't it? Anyway, a bill to set 2009 in
stone will be considered on October 19 which would still have to groove its way around the US
system all School-House-Rockish-like, dig.
australia has already put a hard limit on analog broadcasting stopping on the 1st of january 2008. you guys are so slow :P
2012 in the UK, we're even slower!
Here's a question - what happens when every household still has a working TV in 2009? They'll still be able to tune into those exact same radio waves 'that are going to be sold off to private enterprise'. So once this flip over happens, what will I actually see on my TV? Will it just be pure static as normal, or will you know when you hit a transmitting frequency band?
wel, in the netherlands they are pulling the plug on the analog tv channels by 01-01-2006. Were are the fastest.
Why do they have to turn it off anyway?
I know it's progression but i'm in the UK and where I live I can't get freeview, can't get cable, can't even get channel 5 still!!!! And I don't want to have to be forced to pay for sky as well as my tv license....
On saying that I imagine you'll be able to get all kinds of tv on the net in a few years, you can now with a bit of perseverance ;)
I like that reference "groove its way around the US system all School-House-Rockish-like, dig." Jack Sheldon does a great job on that song.
A few things to consider when it comes to speed. The USA has a much larger infrastructure of analog TV. It will take more effort to switch it over. Smaller countries and developing countries can switch faster or adopt newer technology (think upgrade vs. buying new and dropping into place). Also, switching over will have to include testing things such as the Emergency Broadcast System. TV is a core vehicle in broadcasting EBS.
Dylan - You will need a digital to analog converter or you will just see static.
Rob - They want to turn it off because they want to use that part of the spectrum for something else. Also, maintaining both is a PITA for broadcasters.
For home TVs - I don't see this as much of a problem if you can just get a box - I would imagine some enterprising manufacturer will just make a small inline adapter (no box needed) - where this will be the biggest problem is portable TVs. I haven't seen a single manufacturer (like Casio) announce that handheld TV with be digital broadcast quality.
#8 - I was under the impression you would see a clipped image not static - it would essentially be letterbox as there will be extra definition data on top and extra enhanced data (like interactivity) on the bottom - analog sets can't read this extra data - so it will just be blacked out.
#5, they are turning on analog TV transmissions in the U.S. because the government stands to make $300 million from auctioning off the bandwidth. I still stand by the original 2006 date; 2009 is too long to wait.
Is there an online petition or way to write our congress person to get this shit voted down? They should have to stick with 2006. Millions of people bought Digital TVs in the past few years with the "promise" that everything will be digital by 2006.
Where are you, Roopesh? I live between two mid-size cities, and ALL of the channels are broadcasting in digital today. The analog is still there, but you can watch the digital if you have a tuner (I do).
Also, most people who bought TVs over the past few years did not get digital TVs. They got HD TVs instead. Only now are we seeing a lot of new models including the digital tuner. The HD TVs of past years will still need a digital tuner, as will every analog set.
FAREWELL TO FREE MEDIA.
The move to digital isn't just a huge windfall for the federales. It's going to be even bigger for local broadcasters. Pay per view is coming to your local station. $3.95 for the latest episode of Desperate Housewives, 49 cents for a rerun of Seinfeld. The only question is how many fools and suckers will actually shell out dollars to see what used to be free? And guess what? The pay TV will still be loaded with ads and informercials.
FAREWELL TO FREE MEDIA.
The move to digital isn't just a huge windfall for the federales. It's going to be even bigger for local broadcasters. Pay per view is coming to your local station. $3.95 for the latest episode of Desperate Housewives, 49 cents for a rerun of Seinfeld. The only question is how many fools and suckers will actually shell out dollars to see what used to be free? And guess what? The pay TV will still be loaded with ads and informercials.
300 million is nothing to the federal govt. They should just mandate that broadcaster must also broadcast hdtv.
The move will require all without cable and satellite to get a digital tuner, not just a digitalto analog converter, they are going to stop transmitting on the analog frequencies.
This is just another way the the average joe gets screwed by our own govt. and the tv broadcasters.
Boo Hoo Hoo! I won't be able to watch crap like American Idol or Nanny 911 anymore! Actually, I already gave up on broadcast television, & just use my set as a DVD & VHS viewer, & game display. If I want news, I have the internet for that.