The end of analog TV ??

[BJ_M]

Will America’s favorite technology really go dark next year?

By Michael Rogers
Columnist
Special to MSNBC
Updated: 5:16 p.m. ET April 24, 2005

Depending on the outcome of discussions in Congress, television as we know it may end at exactly midnight Dec. 31, 2006.


That’s the date Congress targeted, a decade ago, for the end of analog television broadcasting and a full cutover to a digital format. If enforced, that means that overnight, somewhere around 70 million television sets now connected to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will suddenly and forever go blank, unless their owners purchase a special converter box. Back when the legislation was written, New Year’s Eve 2006 probably looked as safely distant as the dark side of the moon. But now that date is right around the corner and Congress and the FCC are struggling mightily to figure out what to do.

Congress, however, left itself a loophole in the 1996 legislation, and could actually let the cut-off date slide by. But powerful lobbyists now are pressing legislators to set a “date certain” for the analog lights-out. The debate over when to throw the switch is a strange brew of big money, high technology, homeland security and a single, unanswerable question: just how angry are the couch potatoes going to be? It’s also a textbook example of why the future almost never happens as fast as technologists promise.

It all started back in the Eighties, when the Japanese shocked American consumer electronics companies with trade-show displays of high definition television sets that delivered razor-sharp images and stunning audio. Everyone from Congress to the Wall Street Journal raised outcries: America’s favorite technology was being taken over by the then-fearsome Japan Inc. As a result, a group of American companies formed the “Grand Alliance” that leapfrogged the Japanese technology by inventing digital HDTV. Thus, early on, HDTV invoked not just pretty pictures, but national pride and economic development. (Ironically, Zenith, the most all-American commercial participant in the Grand Alliance, is now South Korean-owned.)

One drawback to the U.S. version of HDTV was that to make it work, all broadcast television (not just high-definition) would have to convert to digital, meaning that every American television set manufactured since 1946 would be rendered obsolete. To ease the transition, Congress generously gave all television broadcasters additional channel space so that they could keep broadcasting their analog signals while they installed and launched their digital channels. The deal was that they would give up their old channels when the transition was done. That part worked: Over 1400 broadcasters now transmit in digital as well as analog, reaching 99 percent of the U.S. television market.

During the same period consumers were supposed to buy digital television receivers. That part didn't work.

The only digital televisions on sale thus far have been big-screen, high-priced HDTV sets. Not until next year will manufacturers start selling smaller-screen sets with digital tuners — and under current law all sets won’t have digital tuners until 2007. Thus at present there are only about 30 million televisions with digital tuners in American homes, out of a total of several hundred million installed sets.

That’s where the Congressional loophole comes in. Congress can ignore the end-of-2006 cut-off if fewer than 85 percent of households have digital television sets.

But Congress needs to do something nonetheless. For starters, there’s the remarkable fact that Americans are still buying over 20 million analog sets each year, all of which could be obsolete rather quickly. If Detroit was selling cars that used a type of gasoline that would soon no longer be available, consumers would expect to be informed. Thus analog sets clearly need some kind of warning label, and proponents of a “date certain” say this will make the labels far more meaningful: i.e., “This television will no longer receive over-the-air signals after December 31, 2006.”

The really big question: What will happen to all those old-fashioned television sets we’re still buying when the analog transmitters go off the air? To continue to receive free broadcast television via antenna, you’ll have to buy a digital converter box; cost estimates range from $100 or so in 2006 down to $50 by 2008. (Those converters won’t turn older sets into fancy high-definition sets; they will only restore conventional TV service, in digital format. The picture quality will be fairly comparable to today’s analog version, although there will be some improvements for people who use antennas — no “snow” or “ghosting.” On the other hand, when digital signals are weak, there is often no picture at all.)

Many analog television owners won’t need a converter: 85 percent of Americans now get all their television from cable or satellite providers, so for the most part the change-over won’t affect them. (A lot of those households, however, also have second and third sets in basements or bedrooms that do rely on over-the-air signals.) The real problem is the 15 million or so U.S. households whose only television service comes over the air. For these people, predominately lower-income and disproportionately black and Hispanic, the cut-off will be bad news indeed.

Most discussions in Washington contemplate some sort of free or subsidized converters for low-income households, paid for by the government, perhaps with the help of broadcasters or consumer electronics manufacturers. Estimates for the costs of that subsidy range from under one to several billion dollars — the cost declining as the cut-off date is moved further into the future. Proponents argue that the cost of the subsidy is small compared to the economic benefits, although last year the Bush administration indicated it was not in favor of subsidized converters.

If consumers aren’t ready for the transition, and the government is going to get stuck buying a billion dollars of converter boxes, why not put it off indefinitely? The broadcasters don’t seem to be in any hurry: They have both their old analog channels plus the opportunity to experiment with digital broadcasting. But consumer electronics manufacturers are pushing Congress hard. Switching everyone to digital TV could be the biggest bonanza the industry has seen since the mid-Eighties, when the advent of audio CDs fuelled an enormous upgrade market.

In addition, both Silicon Valley and your local police force are lobbying for an early analog cut-off. The reason is simple: when the cut-off happens, TV channels 52 – 69 will no longer be needed, freeing up broadcasting spectrum for other purposes. Public safety workers have been promised four of these channels — a commitment even more pressing in the wake of the 9/11 Commission’s finding that the nation’s first responder communications systems need a major upgrade. And companies like Intel and Cisco want to use other parts of the newly freed spectrum for very powerful wireless broadband networks that could offer seamless high-speed Internet service virtually everywhere in the U.S. Other advanced uses will materialize. Already, cell phone pioneer Qualcomm plans to use some of the spectrum to build an advanced video network for mobile phones. And finally, there’s a bonus for the U.S. Treasury as well—much of the new spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidders, raising billions of dollars.

So what’s Congress going to do? The next move belongs to Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, who is expected to introduce a cut-off bill sometime in the next few months. Barton, R-Texas, is a firm proponent of setting a “date certain,” though he is not necessarily wed to the December 31, 2006 deadline. In public comments, however, he has made it clear that he favors a date sooner rather than later — as do other key congressional figures, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who won an award for “Best DTV Government Leadership” last month from a major consumer electronics group. Possible legislative scenarios range from an aggressive decision to enforce the 2006 cut-off to a more gradual, region-by-region approach that might even extend to the end of this decade. The latter would severely frustrate technologists, but provide plenty of time to ease consumers into the new world.

How will it turn out? At the moment no one really knows. Back in 1996, when the digital television transition was first proposed, media analyst Gary Arlen observed wryly that “it will be easier for Congress to take away Social Security than television sets.” Ironically, now Congress is worrying about both things at the same time — and neither problem seems to have a painless solution.

[Gurm]

Since 99.99% of the American populace does NOT have a high-def or digital TV or cable box... I don't see this ever flying.

[dcsos]

That's my demographic..Using Rabbit ears puts me in this category

The real problem is the 15 million or so U.S. households whose only television service comes over the air. For these people, predominately lower-income and disproportionately black and Hispanic, the cut-off will be bad news indeed

[Richard_G]

[b]For starters, there’s the remarkable fact that Americans are still buying over 20 million analog sets each year, all of which could be obsolete rather quickly.

and most of them are still 4:3 too!!

The same situation exists in the UK, but it has been announced that the shutdown of analogue will only happen when 99% of the population can receive digital transmissions. Note, can receive, not are receiving. This figure has been exceeded already, over 90% of the population can receive terrestrial digital transmissions (Freeview) and anyone who can't can get them from satellite. Freeview boxes are down to under £40 (about 75$US) and the takeup is phenominal. I wouldn't be surprised if they are actually given away when the time comes. Maybe the broadcasters have a lot to do with this, they are heavily promoting extra channels which are only available digitally. The public aren't changing over because they are worried about analogue being switched off, they are changing over to get the extra channels, proper widescreen (as the vast majority of TV sets now bought in the UK are widescreen, you have difficulty finding a 4:3 TV set!) and superior picture quality.

[Gurm]

Most TV sets in the USA are 4:3 analogue regular definition. When I say most, I'd wager 90+%. In the store - in major department stores such as Walmart or Kmart - better than half of the new TV's are 4:3 analogue, non-HD. People can't AFFORD HDTV's, digital TV's, or widescreen TV's. Hell, I'm a movie junkie and _I_ can't afford them.

[mbellot]

Maybe Dec. 31, 2026...

Look at the reality of it.

Color TV was forced to be compatible with B & W, we couldn't force millions to throw out B & W TVs afterall...

The hue and cry from the Jacksons and Sharptons would shake DC for months.

I seriously think the article WAY underestimated the "rabbit ear" crowd.

I still have an OTA antenna, even though I have a DSS Dish. Paying for local channels is not my idea of smart, $36 buys a baby sitter for the night.

Analog broadcast won't be shut off for quite some time. The buying public simply won't put up with it, especially since broadcasters are currently broadcasting in both formats.

Uncle Sam (or the broadcast industry) wants to shove digital broadcast down my throat? Send me free converter boxes for each TV I own.

[spiderman2k1]

Just look at http://www.voom.com/ LOL!!!

[ktnwin]

I can imagine the followings to come next year

1) the price of the converter box (HDTV tuner to be exact) will come down in price as there are a lot of demands (meaning manufacturers will rush out a lot of these HDTV tuner boxes, I had to buy one for my wide screen HDTV ready unit, 300$ a pop), hopefully less than 100$/each
2) the existing roof antenna may be capable to capture off the air HDTV programs ( I also bought one at Radioshack ), if not, just buy a new one (70$ at RadioShack)
3) then everyone with analog TV (the "expensive" kind, big screen for example) can still use it if desired

AND
price of HDTV (including built in tuner) come down to the analog units level as there are more demands. The reason they cost more today is mainly due to the lack of demand. High volume always means lower price. PC price is a great example of this.

Crossing my fingers.

[Ghostmaker]

I feel sorry for those who are still buying new analog TV's. Wouldn't it be a nice idea for the idiots that sell TV"S to inform the buying public that there buying future analog junk???

Until the cost of a 30 to 32 inch HDTV with built in HDTV receiver is close to the same analog tv in price. It won't happen. I might be blind but I do not feel the improved picture warrants spending a few grand. I work to hard to make a living to piss my money into TV's.

Vote out your congressman now (they all suck)

[EvilWizardGlick]

I thought congress already sold off the analog spectrum. They need everything to go digital otherwise the budget is screwed.
I heard that on C-SPAN a couple of years ago.

After seeing High Definition, I just want more.
HD televisions are affordable, all you need to do is SAVE.
I think WALMART carries a 30 inch for around $399. And that price will be dropping.
My cable tech was out and telling me about these tuner cards some tv's can take. They are like a pci card, but tune digital and high def. Unfortunately they are not two way yet, so no on demand. But that is coming.
All my future televisions will be widescreen high definition.
I have no problem with the evolution of technology, how many Model T's do you see on the road today?
David Brin says tomorrow is the Golden Age, not yesterday, so why look back and live in the past?
For those who think cableco's, networks or government will not drop analogue, a few years Adelphia in Buffalo turned off 1500 analogue boxes just before Superbowl Sunday. People were forced to get either digital boxes or upgrade their tv's.
Digital convergence is coming. Television, Telephone and internet access all one one cable. On Demand High Definition television at that.
Praise Jesus, the future looks good.

[oldfart13]

I don't know about the USA but where I am the change to HDTV is going over like a lead balloon. The local station has an out from the CRTC and won't need to convert, so says the owner. He'd die before spending the $$ necessary to convert the station over. They have a monopoly on TV broadcasting in this area and the CRTC fears the owner shutting down the stations! There is no other other options for over-the-air broadcasts in this area as they also own the only land capable of putting up a transmitting antenna! So much for the grand alliance...

[adam]

Well this is US legislation so we can really only look at the US population. I agree that the HD population is still in the extreme minority, but in my opinion this is changing ridiculously fast, and as the article states, this directive is pushing manufacturers to start mass producing of non-HD digital tvs that are more comparable to analogue sets in price. I can honestly say that I cannot find an analogue tv set in any major electronics retailer anywhere in Texas (except for maybe the rinky dink 13" ones with the VCR built in.) All they sell now are digital and HD tvs, and I see people buying them up right and left. The sets are also getting very reasonable in price. I can find a small (24-27") HD tv at Sam's Club (Walmart wholeseller) for around $350.

I can understand not wanting to ditch your current analogue set, but I don't see how anyone could justify buying a new analogue tv now. The HD sets really are not that much more expensive when you consider the life of a tv, and the difference in quality is substantial. (Remember I'm talking US here.)

I can't wait for the total switch to digital but I don't think it will happen by 2006 either. I'm actually much more excited about HD-DVDs and won't bother buying an HD set until there is a good selection of them.

[ViRaL1]

Uncle Sam (or the broadcast industry) wants to shove digital broadcast down my throat? Send me free converter boxes for each TV I own.

Why? So you can get the broadcast television that you're OWED?

I'm sure there would be a backlash if things switched over at the end of next year, when you consider the cost of a DVD player versus am HD ready TV; and some people STILL won't move up from VHS. On the other hand, there's no sense dragging our feet either. I think that the move will come more quickly and we'll ALL benefit once things move from analog to digital. I think that if places did more to inform customers that an analog TV won't be very useful after say 2010 (I think this is a good 'date certain' for all digital), the upgrade process will accelerate. As long as people continue to invest more money in soon to be obsolete technology, the more things will stagnate.

[rgs_uk]

> Depending on the outcome of discussions in
> Congress, television as we know it may end
> at exactly midnight Dec. 31, 2006.

Population of the world: 6,379,157,361
Population of the USA: 293,027,571

So I don't think TV as 'we' know it will be ending due to anything that the US Congress decides. Nor is it 'the end' for analogue TV. Maybe the end of it in one country which comprises less than one twentieth of the World's population.

[Kingnog]

What happens to portable tv's? I'm pretty sure they're not going to create 3" Hi-def televisions.

[rgs_uk]

It's a bit of a weird situation you have over there because you don't seem to have much incentive for the public to buy a digital box to convert an existing set (no extra channels on offer). The HD sets are too expensive and you don't have cheap none-HD widescreen sets available.

Plus you have had the same system for ever. Britain had a 405 line service and 625 line colour was launched in the late 1960's. Everyone had to upgrade. 405 was finally switched off in the mid-1980's and anyone who still relied on it was given a new TV by the Government. There is no HD TV here just yet, so we get widescreen 625 line digital.

[Nilfennasion]

There is actually a major advantage to using a converter box, anyway (I have one in case anyone cares). Converter boxes cost as little as $180 here, and I hesitate to remind that Australia is a country that often pays the highest relative price in the world for new consumer electronics items. The price of a widscreen television of a decent size begins at about $1000 or so. $2000 if you want LCD, and about $3000 if you want plasma. Even if you don't want the HDTV signal, a converter box makes sense because if you find there's a new feature you cannot live without, replacing the box is much easier and cheaper than replacing the display.

[richdvd]

Since 99.99% of the American populace does NOT have a high-def or digital TV or cable box... I don't see this ever flying.

You might want to do a bit of research on that.

[adam]

You can start by just reading the article

85 percent of Americans now get all their television from cable or satellite providers

[guns1inger]

In Australia they originally targetted 2008 for full cutover to digital. I can be done, as they set a cut over date for analogue mobile phones and met it (OK, they rolled out CDMA on the same infrastructure - the telcos were happy as it didn't cost them, but the consumer had to buy new phones).

Current digital situation in australia :

1. Only the pre-existing free-to-air networks have digital rights
2. They may only broadcast their normal fair, and if they set up a second or third channel the content is restricted to news, childrens and a few other non-entertainment programs. No movies, no drama.
3. There are very few true HDTV sets available. Most downscale HD broadcasts to fit resolutions as low as 480p.
4. There is only one DVD recorder on the market at present that has a digital receiver.
5. Only 20% of broadcasts need to be in HD. Much of it is simply upscaled SD.
6. The Australian standard for HD is is high as 1080i, and as low as 576i (SD is 576i)
7. Digital penetration has been surprisingly low, given that Australia is a great early adopter of technology. Per head we were the faster adopter of DVD technology, mobile phone technology, VCRs etc. Digital has been very slow.
8. There is no killer app for digital. The on reason they can give is picture quality, then they sell the customer a 150cm plasma screen that runs at a lower res than my 486 used, and any customer has gone backwards in picture quality (although it is larger).

A friend of mine came into some money 18 months ago. We went out an bought this huge plasma with a HDTV box and an amp. The amp stayed in it's box for over 12 months because he didn't have speakers to suit. It is only now, 18 months after the fact (and well away from his wife's hearing) that he can admit that it was a waste of money. His picture quality is less that his old CRT, you have to sit 30 feet away to not be distracted by the picture flaws, and it's the same old content. It's is not that his TV is broken, just the the tech is rubbish and we are being sold it as something it is not.

The only reason I bought a digital box is because it is one of the few digital PVRs and my VCR had just died (again). It is SD (as yet there isn't a HD PVR available in Australia, although they are coming) which is more than enough given that a) HD content is that same as SD content, b) I have yet to see anything labelled HD that has the same visual quality as my 72cm Loewe tube. Size doesn't matter if the picture quality is crap (plasma, LCD).

Keep your analogue TV's. They will work for many years to come unless there is a compelling reason for consumers to change. As yet, there isn't.

[mats.hogberg]

Well, here in Sweden, analog broadcast is just starting to be shut down region by region. IIRC the whole country will be "digitalized" in 2007.
So, I'm waiting for TVs with digital reciever to start showing up before "upgrading". External D/A boxes seems a thing of the past already (and you need one/analog reciever too - that'd make 5 in my household!). Now, all cable companies will do the digital to analog conversion for you, so only those with their own aerial will be affected in the short run.

/Mats

[lumis]

if the 2006 deadline is real, the hdtv converter boxes will be free or very cheap ($5).. there is no way the big 4 networks would allow millions and millions of people not to watch their programs.. because if people arent watching, they arent making near as much money from advertisers.

if the deadline isnt real, it'll get pushed back a few more years, until prices for the tv's come down to a resonable level.

what should happen.. hdtv's should come down to a reasonable price, and they should come with built-in tuners for hdtv content, none of that 'extra box' bullshit.

$150 = 19/20inch
$200 = 25 inch
$250 = 27 inch
$300 = 32 inch and so on..

i dont think people have much to worry about as far as their tv's becoming obsolete and having to run out & buy a $300 converter box or $2,000 hdtv.. that would exclue millions of people from watching tv for quite a peroid of time... and as mentioned earlier, the big 4 networks wont let that happen.

this christmas season would be the perfect time for hdtv's to become the new fad.

[Gurm]

Right now, the CHEAPEST "hdtv-ready" (not HDTV, just "ready" which could mean ANYTHING) is about $400 for a teeny-tiny model. Models in the 30" range? Start at $1200. That's ridiculous. An absurdly nice JVC 32" is about $400 right now. Nobody in their right mind in middle-class blue-collar America would pay 3 times as much for a TV that doesn't look ANY better to them.

As for "85% of Americans get all their TV from cable", that's ridiculous. There are gigantic swaths of America where there ISN'T cable. And not everyone owns a satellite dish. I think that 85% number is really optimistic. Add to that the fact that even in the areas where there IS cable, much of it is analogue-only one-way cable. Trust me, I know - until recently I lived in Pennsylvania. Most of the state is one-way cable, no broadband, no digital, gotta make a phone call to get pay-per-view.

This is like those initiatives that assume that the whole country will have broadband by 2010, and in reality 75% of PC users still have an analogue modem.

[BJ_M]

thats weird - you can buy a HDTV 30-32" here (canada) for 800$ -$1000 ($680-800US) - and thats for a CRT model and not just "hdtv ready" , but full blown wide screen hdtv with digital inputs and 720p and 1080i playback .. and several brands ..

large screen (over 30") are almost all hdtv now and dirt cheap ..

canada also has more HDTV's per capita than anywhere else in the world (i just heard that on the news this morning) by a large margin ...

must be the long winters ...

but in terms of broadcast - almost non (is there even any?) over the air HDTV and about 10-20 HDTV channels on cable is all I think (maybe a few more) out of the 800-900 channels i can get .. a few more than that on sat dish ..


of course in canada downloading is quite rampant - maybe that has something to do w/ it ..

[EvilWizardGlick]

HD ready means it needs a tuner, like a cable box.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2601425
Sanyo 30" Widescreen HDTV With Integrated ATSC Tuner, HT30744
$598.00

Panasonic 30" Widescreen Pure Flat HDTV Monitor, CT-30WC14

$797.00

http://ww1.onecall.com/SSF_248.htm
46H84 46 Inch Tabletop HD Ready CRT Projection TV
Was $1399.00

I don't consider any of those prices unreasonable.
A little saving and anyone can buy one. Or they can be bought on credit.

[guns1inger]

Sony HD ready Wega 72cm (no HD box) AU$4000 (They throw in the horrible stepping artifacts free, of course). Figure another AU$600-$800 for a HDTV STB. Cheap, really crappy plasma 105cm start at around AU$2999. Only a few imports, mainly from Germany, have digital tuners or the facility to host digital tuners internally.

You still pay AU$800 - $2000 for a high quality 100hz flat CRT (German at the higher end, japanese at the lower). And that's for SD capable.

[ViRaL1]

Looking at Pricegrabber, HD ready sets in the 28" - 32" range start at under $400. I suppose if you only shop retail, you'll be seeing higher prices, but I'd think not 2x to 3x as much.

[lumis]

[speaking to tv makers, big tv stations]

you cant screw people over when dealing with something like this, as much as you'd like to you just cant.

you've got to make inexpensive hdtv's, you'll make way more money if you price yourself in to the average pocketbook of joe consumer, instead of making hdtv a premium product.. that also means putting an hdtv tuner in there too..

even if the consumer never uses the built in tuner because they've got a dish/box with rca, s-video, rgb, dvi outputs.. but there are some people who cant get a dish & cant get cable that rely on an antenna. even with your own wishful thinking esimate that 85% of people in the US use a dish/cable box, that still leaves 44million people.. people that only watch broadcast tv (the big 4)..

you're already losing viewers to the internet, do you really want to lose them to something preventable like this?

/me stops talking to himself

[EvilWizardGlick]

[speaking to tv makers, big tv stations]

you cant screw people over when dealing with something like this, as much as you'd like to you just cant.

you've got to make inexpensive hdtv's, you'll make way more money if you price yourself in to the average pocketbook of joe consumer, instead of making hdtv a premium product.. that also means putting an hdtv tuner in there too..

even if the consumer never uses the built in tuner because they've got a dish/box with rca, s-video, rgb, dvi outputs.. but there are some people who cant get a dish & cant get cable that rely on an antenna. even with your own wishful thinking esimate that 85% of people in the US use a dish/cable box, that still leaves 44million people.. people that only watch broadcast tv (the big 4)..

you're already losing viewers to the internet, do you really want to lose them to something preventable like this?

/me stops talking to himself

But they ARE inexpensive. And they are getting even cheaper.
My 32 cost nearly $700 eight years ago. My 42 cost about $1500 four years ago. Both are Toshiba's. The 42 is HD ready.
Prices have dropped since then.
Big deal if it has an internal tuner.
And with China gearing up to flood the US with cheap inexpensive electronics, I expect prices to drop significantly by Christmas.
Plasma is still outrageous, but COSTCO seems to carry some for under 2k, those being 42 inches.

[Gurm]

HD ready means it needs a tuner, like a cable box.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2601425
Sanyo 30" Widescreen HDTV With Integrated ATSC Tuner, HT30744
$598.00

Panasonic 30" Widescreen Pure Flat HDTV Monitor, CT-30WC14

$797.00

http://ww1.onecall.com/SSF_248.htm
46H84 46 Inch Tabletop HD Ready CRT Projection TV
Was $1399.00

I don't consider any of those prices unreasonable.
A little saving and anyone can buy one. Or they can be bought on credit.

ROFLMAO!

CREDIT?

Ok, so you're suggesting that the people of the United States, already addicted to credit card debt TO THE HILT, drop $600+ on a new TV? EVERY LAST ****ING ONE OF THEM?

Are you INSANE?

Also, let's be honest here - we're talking about people who, WHEN the old TV can't be fixed any more (NOT before that), will buy a $200 TV. Period.