Digital Switchover Countdown

1. Pudifoot
   February 17th, 2008 at 1:50 am

   Does anyone else find it disturbing that their are laws that are going to forbid sending analog signals? shouldn't this be decided my the free market?

2. VonSkippy
   February 17th, 2008 at 2:36 am

   No, they're just making better use of a already crowded resource (i.e. the EM Spectrum). For the few Luddites still using rabbit ears, welcome to the 21st century.

3. JM
   February 17th, 2008 at 3:58 am

   sounds like a plan to get people to buy new tvs and converters. and as for the "crowded" theory.... I only get maybe 5 stations.... digital has over 100.... which is the crowed resource?

4. aerio
   February 17th, 2008 at 4:01 am

   Crud, I was just wondering about this today. Only one more year to use my four inch screen portable dial tv.

   Memories.

5. violet/riga
   February 17th, 2008 at 5:33 am

   Naughty US bias! You may have confused a few people outside of the US with that intro!

   In the UK analog(ue) TV will be totally turned off in 2012, with different regions being switched off over the coming years.

6. MoonCake
   February 17th, 2008 at 7:04 am

   aww pudifoot.. why you gotta target people like little ol' me (btw i'm only 22)? just because i don't pay for cable and am slightly agitated that i'm being forced to rid the top of my tv of it's characterizing rabbit ears doesn't mean i'm afraid of change. although agreed that some people will probably protest and whatnot, it's the principle of forcing us to change our viewing pleasure that annoys us.

   but seriously, i don't have cable because it isn't a necessity. although it's great that this digital takeover will allow for more airspace, i really just think it's more of a marketing ploy for the electronics industry. how does having a digital picture make tv viewing more pleasurable? if you're watching a show, are you going to understand the plot, laugh, cry, and enjoy yourself MORE with a digital signal over analog? i don't think so. we're made to think that television is our only source of entertainment; that we all rely on it to get us through the day. what happened to reading a book? playing board games? GOING OUTSIDE?

   another thing.. like i said before, it's great that there will be more airspace due to this switch. but this is where development really needs to be looked at. this is the step that the industry tends to childishly look the other way with their fingers in their ears, humming and saying "i can't hear you! i can't hear you!" by compressing the signal, yes there is more airspace. BUT- compressing the signal doesn't take away any of the already existing channels. with more available airspace, of course more networks will snatch them up and fill them up again. won't that cause some kind of overload decades from now? i already feel that there is an information overload these days, what with all of our technologies, but what about 10, 20, even 30-50 years from now? there will be so much information out there we won't know what to do with it (similar to how seniors feel today). we will turn to different forms of entertainment because we'll grow tired of all the crap on tv, the internet, our i-pods, cell phones, portable players, and GPS devices. we already have the i-phone, which encompasses all of that. what's next? what new gadget will take us into tomorrow? all i know is that a clear signal on my tv isn't going to motivate me to buy satellite or cable. only if jon stewart, the steves, and judd apatow created their own channel, cable just isn't worth $50 a month.

7. MrPumpernickel
   February 17th, 2008 at 9:53 am

   Or if you live in Sweden they've shut down and gone completely digital already.

   My money on why the switch has occured borders on the paranoid, it's about pacification and money. They make more money and with more channels with even more crap to watch the people become more pacified and stop caring about other wordly things, like politics or social issues for instance.

8. CKS2996
   February 17th, 2008 at 10:21 am

   The "lost" bandwidth (CH52-69) is going to two way communications (the auction Google had a hand in setting the runes for a few months back).

   In real world terms, the CW, My, or Univision affiliate will leave upper UHF and become a sub-channel on a CBS, Fox, or NBC digital broadcast, or something like that.

   The benefits of digital TV (on an existing SD set) is you will get a stabler picture (no snow or ghosting), a couple more channels (although lower value), and an EPG (although some newer sets may already have an EPG).

   At the end of the day though, there really isn't a whole lot gained by the end user by going to digital OTA.

   Those that don't need cable or satellite will get one of the DTV tuners. It isn't hard, or particularly expensive. I have satellite, so am unaffected, really.

9. ted
   February 17th, 2008 at 10:35 am

   My parents are hardly luddites - they have a good tv that's lasted them for several years, and provided for their limited television needs.

   This is pretty wasteful - a lot of tvs will end up in garbage dumps way before they should. It would be a good idea to get a massive electronics recycling program going.

10. Tom
    February 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    I heard the government was going to subsidize digital tuner boxes for those who don't want to get new TV's. I think with the subsidy they will be something like $20.

11. Miss Cellania
    February 17th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    According to the linked article, it's $40, which should about cover a tuner.

12. Pudifoot
    February 17th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Mooncake: I didn't mean that the tv stations should or should not make the switch. I am just concerned that it is the government that is making the call. If there is still enough money to be made in broadcasting in analog, then the tv stations should be able to do that. eventually there will not be enough viewers to make it worth the station's effort, and they will stop the analog on their own. I don't see why the government NEEDS to step in.

13. Tony
    February 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Luddite?
    The way I see it, people who pay $50+ for television are the fools. Cable and Satellite channels are nothing more than reruns from free network television that they show over and over, especially with weekend "marathons". If I wanted to watch the same show over and over, I'd get the DVD.

    There are about 15 really good channels on Cable/Satellite. The rest are crap. Think about it... you are paying for channels like Home Shopping and QVC, or other channels like MTV which run MORE commercials than free channels.

    With my $70 outdoor antenna, I can get about 15 different channels from 2 different cities. $50 more for a pre-amp, and I get 6 more channels. Add a $40 converter box, and I get even more on the expanded digital spectrum. And my total investment has been less than $1 a month (when spread out over the years).

    Oh, and Netflix helps alot, too.

14. Pol x
    February 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

    in the uk we have digital tv already, we call it freeview, and it is a cheapo little box that goes between your standard coaxial ariel and the old tv.

    Where you would only have 5 channels, yes seriously 5 channels, you now have about 70.

    A freeview box can be had for £20 from Maplins ($40 from Radio Shack)and it seriously takes longer to decribe that than it does to install.

    As for the 2012 cut off date, it will by then be 3 guys on the Isle of Uist who object to buying anything new at all.

    The UK is good for that sort of entrenched craziness.

    It's craziness if you're poor, eccentrics require more funding.

15. Sniperman
    February 17th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    all tv signals will prolly end on 2012 anyway
    http://survive2012.com/

16. Ant
    February 17th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    Guys, just get the converters for your old TV, VCRs, etc.

17. Carl Huber
    February 17th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    LUDDITES? Don't something like 50% of Americans still watch "free" television?

    Anyway, do what I'm doing. The government is sending out coupons ($40) for the converter receivers ($60)...it'll take the sting out of this stupid thing. I don't have the website handy but it should be an easy google search away.

18. Miss Cellania
    February 17th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Carl, it's in the linked article.

    https://www.dtv2009.gov/

19. Carl Huber
    February 17th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Yeah that's the one. Heh, thanks Miss C. But anyway, I still reject the thought of being an object of scorn because I don't fork out a bunch of money every month for Television. A Luddite? I'm a web-and-graphic designer for goodness' sake, I work on a cutting edge computer every day and my other digital projects at night - it's just that Television isn't a priority.

20. Rob
    February 18th, 2008 at 12:18 am

    I'm astonished. I had no idea people still watched television!

21. Alex
    February 18th, 2008 at 5:11 am

    It'll probably be pushed back anyhow (wasn't the original "deadline" for this was in 2002?)

22. CKS2996
    February 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    A few points:

    I think it is cut and dried. People and industry are expecting it and gearing up for it.

    The Government (in the USA anyways), wants to take some TV channels for two way communications (they will auction the spectrum off, hence it is their financial interest).

    Existing perfectly operable analog TVs won't become useless, that is what the convertors are for. The voucher program was devised to make it easier for the
    economically disadvantaged to get a convertor to keep the free OTA TV they receive.

    US OTA won't be as good as Freeview in the UK, at least to begin with.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT