The end of analog TV ??

[dcsos]

This horseplay about only being able to record under certain conditions will be defeated faster than you can shake your extremities.

OK YOU and I will get hold of these mods, but is this
true for average JOE?
Why would he buy into the increased quailty if he now had to hunt for a hack to record the content ?

[Topher5000]

A co-worker just bought a new TV. I told him he might want to get an HD set, but he said that he'll spend the $400-$500 CAD now & then get an HD set later, when the prices have fallen more.
Personally, I think that the prices are fairly reasonable for a CRT-based set. Even the DLP prices have fallen. I bought a 56" Zenith RPTV in '99 & paid $2500 for it. These days, that would buy a pretty sweet 57" set. My next TV will be a front projector as those are pretty inexpensive, too.
As for picture quality, I think that regular TV looks like crap on an HD set. Perhaps the ones I've seen could be adjusted better, but the pic just doesn't seem too smooth. It might look better if the picture's set to interlaced for regular TV.
I too am worried about the broadcast flag. The broadcasters probably won't use it to prevent time-shifting, but the possibility's there. I've read that they'll use it to limit the signal at the component outputs to standard def since there's no copy protection on component outs. Sounds fair enough, as long as any HD recorder has HDMI inputs.

[bugster]

This horseplay about only being able to record under certain conditions will be defeated faster than you can shake your extremities.

OK YOU and I will get hold of these mods, but is this
true for average JOE?
Why would he buy into the increased quailty if he now had to hunt for a hack to record the content ?

Well, it looks like its not a problem anymore!!

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=267786

[edDV]

You could turn off the analog transmitters tomorrow and only about 20% of people would notice. Cable and DBS customers (>80% in urban areas) would be uneffected assuming the company switches to the digital n.1 feed overnight.

That old TV in the garage that uses rabbit ears would no longer receive ch-2-7 unless you ran a cable to it or bought a DTV tuner and UHF antenna.

If you do buy the DTV tuner, you will find many new channels and services available there.

The most directly affected will be the rural customer still using a VHF antenna on a tall mast. He may find that the DTV stations are more difficult to receive without switching to a much larger UHF antenna with booster amp. Most will opt to go with Dish or DirecTV DBS instead.

[handyguy]

I wonder if we have to go back to rabbit ears then.

I don't even think tv manf's care too much, because most tv's are supposed to have hdtv tuners in the sets these days but they don't.

[edDV]

I wonder if we have to go back to rabbit ears then.

I don't even think tv manf's care too much, because most tv's are supposed to have hdtv tuners in the sets these days but they don't.

The US FCC and Congress want to force TV set manufacturers to add ATSC DTV tuners to sets with > 27" picture size. This will add an unnecessary $150-200 cost to every set while the tuner will go unused by the 80% who get their signal from cable or DBS.

The reasoning by Congress is that forcing the manufacturers to include tuners will drive costs down for STB (set top box) tuners that are needed for DTV reception on analog TV sets. Only Congress reasons this way. This is an pointless tax at a minimum and wasteful government social engineering at the worse.

In the US DTV, Cable and DBS all use separate tuner technologies. The tuner should logically be a separate piece of modular hardware than can be traded out as needed.

[ozymango]

You could turn off the analog transmitters tomorrow and only about 20% of people would notice. Cable and DBS customers (>80% in urban areas) would be uneffected assuming the company switches to the digital n.1 feed overnight.

True. But in saying only 20% of the people would notice ... a lot fewer than 20% of the people who have a computer own a Macintosh. Thus ... what, exactly?

As for "cable" customers -- we (my family in my home) have cable TV, but we don't use the company's tuner box. I don't have any personal complaints against the US switching to digital/HD TV but I think there are some legitimate concerns involved, especially when it comes to the tuner issue -- in the old days of cable TV, the cable companies had a monopoly on what kind of tuner a person could use to watch that companies' TV signals. It was a big deal when "cable ready" TVs and VCRs became available -- because it gave the average consumer some degree of "power" over their own viewing choices (remember the old days when you couldn't watch one channel and tape another because your VCR couldn't receive some channel that your cable company broadcast)?

Again, I'm not against the switch, but I also don't like the idea of letting the cable companies decide pretty much what we'll watch -- which is what will very likely happen if somebody (even the dreaded FCC) doesn't push like hell for digital tuners to be included in TV sets. Take a look around right now and it is not a simple matter for your average person to get a digital tuner/TV combo that isn't based on checking with your local cable company first to see what will work with what.

At the moment, digital/HDTV is a big gimme for cable and satellite companies -- "Don't worry about buying your own tuner, we, the cable company, will take care of everything! Use our box! Only $9.95 a month rental! This technology changes all the time, and if you buy from somebody else, we can't guarantee it will work with our system! Oh, and you only have basic cable now? Sorry, that doesn't support HDTV -- but we're offering this super sign-up discount where your first month of HDTV is $9.95 (and only $69.95 a month after that)!"

[progrocktv]

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.

SAVE??? With the majority of the American polpulation either breaking even, or unable to make their monthly expenses how can people SAVE money??? And for those that can, using that saved money to buy HDTV is not a priority. With the price of gas the waiy it is and escilating energy bills, the word SAVE is leaving the American vocabulary.

[ozymango]

The reasoning by Congress is that forcing the manufacturers to include tuners will drive costs down for STB (set top box) tuners that are needed for DTV reception on analog TV sets. Only Congress reasons this way. This is an pointless tax at a minimum and wasteful government social engineering at the worse.

So who's "forcing" digital tv/HDTV on us, the consumer-at-large? We, the average TV-viewer, asked for this for all these years, so we're finally getting it? Why do I have to change over? I'm happy with my current TV setup -- why do I need to switch? Sounds like social engineering to me!

In the US DTV, Cable and DBS all use separate tuner technologies. The tuner should logically be a separate piece of modular hardware than can be traded out as needed.

Sure, a tuner is a separate technology. But a TV set is a whole bunch of separate technologies interacting -- though I like your idea that hardware be modular so we can swap-out stuff we don't need or like.

Funny, that's how it used to be in the "old days" -- I need a new clutch for my car, that's a separate technology, I could just swap it out. I have a VCR with a broken belt, the rubber technology is separate from the electrical technology, I could just swap it out.

Heck, might as well use computers with separate IO cards for your hard drive, printer, and serial ports, those are all different technologies! And video cameras and camcorders, the lenses are one technology, the CCD another, and the tape transport still a third -- I would love to be able to trade out the parts as I see fit.

Yeah, like that's gonna happen. Not that I disagree with your technical point! But I think you may have a somewhat different view of a TV set than a lot of the "average" people I know -- they plug it in, turn it on, and voila, a pictures appears magically before their eyes. With sound! In color! Amazing! There are four zillion different technologies all working together to create this voodoo-black-magic -- which is how about 80% of the people who watch TV actually see a TV set: Magic box with moving pictures and sound and who cares about the technology as long as I can watch "Desperate Housewives"? Bless their hearts!

[adam]

I don't understand how the switch gives cable or other subscription based services control over what you watch. Sure the switch may push some people to finally break down and get cable, but all this switch does is alter the format and method of recieving over the air broadcasts, which you pay for by watching the ads. Its not like you are entitled to them just because you own a tv.

The same programs are going to be broadcasted, you just need to upgrade your equipment to recieve them. Its like Microsoft only offering software that runs on Win2k and up. You either upgrade your os (buy a new tuner) or you do without or you find a competitor (cable, satellite, etc..)

[progrocktv]

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.

Uh, what planet are you on? Oh, just buy it on Credit?????? With the average American owing credit card companies $7,000+ another $1,500 won't hurt for a nice new HDTV right?

[adam]

progrocktv on this planet price is relative. I'm sure many people don't consider $800 to be out of the question for a device that should last well more than 10 years. Compared to other forms of entertainment even a $1500 tv is damn cheap in terms of cost versus longterm value. Everyone's mileage will vary.

And yet again, this switch will only push the prices of digital and HDTV's down further.

[edDV]

You could turn off the analog transmitters tomorrow and only about 20% of people would notice. Cable and DBS customers (>80% in urban areas) would be uneffected assuming the company switches to the digital n.1 feed overnight.

...

As for "cable" customers -- we (my family in my home) have cable TV, but we don't use the company's tuner box. I don't have any personal complaints against the US switching to digital/HD TV but I think there are some legitimate concerns involved, especially when it comes to the tuner issue -- in the old days of cable TV, the cable companies had a monopoly on what kind of tuner a person could use to watch that companies' TV signals. It was a big deal when "cable ready" TVs and VCRs became available -- because it gave the average consumer some degree of "power" over their own viewing choices (remember the old days when you couldn't watch one channel and tape another because your VCR couldn't receive some channel that your cable company broadcast)?

You have a very legitimate point here for cable customers although the issue is mute for DBS, you have to use their tuner box for everything.

I'm not sure how the FCC has ruled on this issue and it may be time to call Congress. Currently, when you subscribe to cable HD/DTV service, you need a different tuner box ($5/mo extra for Comcast) and you get additional DTV channels n.1 and sometimes n.2, n.3, n.4 for some channels (only PBS here currently). n.1 alternates between SDTV and HDTV during the day depending on programming.

If the cable company {{Requires}} stepping up to this service (box+fee) when the analog broadcasts stop, then that is a complete ripoff and should be stopped.

The way it should happen is the cable company provides the n.1 (SD downconverted) feed over the old analog cable channel. Thus analog Channel 4 will still be analog channel 4 but carry the 4.1 SD feed. Therefore the customer sees no difference on his "cable ready" analogTV.

If the FCC allows cable companies to force customers into a new STB tuner, then there should be a major protest mounted.

Again, I'm not against the switch, but I also don't like the idea of letting the cable companies decide pretty much what we'll watch -- which is what will very likely happen if somebody (even the dreaded FCC) doesn't push like hell for digital tuners to be included in TV sets. Take a look around right now and it is not a simple matter for your average person to get a digital tuner/TV combo that isn't based on checking with your local cable company first to see what will work with what.

This is true, they generally scramble everything digital except the local DTV channels. The FCC did rule last April that the local DTV (SD and HD) channels cannot be scrambled by the cable company when carried on their cable "digital" channels. Some STBs pass the DTV MPegTS stream out a IEEE-1394 connector unscrambled.

The FCC gets a major from me for that decision.

The local DTV station still has the right to scramble its signal if desired.

At the moment, digital/HDTV is a big gimme for cable and satellite companies -- "Don't worry about buying your own tuner, we, the cable company, will take care of everything! Use our box! Only $9.95 a month rental! This technology changes all the time, and if you buy from somebody else, we can't guarantee it will work with our system! Oh, and you only have basic cable now? Sorry, that doesn't support HDTV -- but we're offering this super sign-up discount where your first month of HDTV is $9.95 (and only $69.95 a month after that)!"

Such is life. DBS is even worse, you sometimes must buy the box, later they obsolete it forcing you to buy another.

[ozymango]

I don't understand how the switch gives cable or other subscription based services control over what you watch. Sure the switch may push some people to finally break down and get cable, but all this switch does is alter the format and method of recieving over the air broadcasts, which you pay for by watching the ads. Its not like you are entitled to them just because you own a tv.

I meant that in the context of what edDV wrote about how 80% of the viewing audience already has cable so making built-in digital/hdtv tuners mandatory is social engineering. (my emphasis, and I am paraphrasing there). Also, when I get cable, I still get the ads from my over-the-air channels, so I pay by watching the ads and I pay for the cable. I don't begrudge the cable my basic cable bill but dag-nabbit, they ain't getting any more money out of me for one of their cable boxes! :P (Also please note that I am venting in these posts, so take this in "crotchety-grandpa mode").

Right now, I challenge anyone with limited technical understanding to walk into an electronics store and buy a digital TV tuner. I've tried, because I went shopping with a friend who was looking for one -- and let me tell you, it's a pain in the butt. And my big question is -- why is it such a pain in the butt? Because either the TV manufacturers or the stores selling TVs just don't see the "market" for stand-alone tuners. And why not? Exactly for the reason edDV notes -- just hook up to cable TV, it's an easy switch.

I think -- wrongly or rightly -- that most people, are basically lazy. Which appeals very much to most advertisers and sellers of merchandise, as they love to give customers "rebates" and "limited time offers" where you get something for $ for 3 months and then it goes to $$$ at month 4 and of course you don't have to keep the service, just cancel anytime! Not that most people will cancel, or send in their rebates, but, hey, it is your choice.

Right now, it's difficult and expensive to buy a digital TV tuner -- because the TV makers and manufacturers and dealers have all made it difficult and expensive to buy a digital TV tuner. Why? I have my theories, and they're all pretty cynical.

My personal bottom line: I love digital TV and HDTV!!! Seriously! I think it's overdue and frankly the only reason I think we're getting it is precisely because of the (to beat dead horse here) "social engineering" angle -- broadcasters are cheap-a$$ bast**ds, no offense, they'll switch when it's worth it to them.

So we end up with a Catch-22 thing, where people will buy HDTV sets with tuners when there are enough cheap options and your TV manufacturers will make more cheap options when enough people buy TV sets with tuners ... so somebody has to get the ball rolling!

Mostly I'm a "government stay out of my life!" guy except for some major things that involve the whole country at large, and I think this is one of those whole-country-at-large things: TV is a major part of our life and culture in the US, for better and/or worse. We get "standards" in some things (IEEE 1394, SATA, HDTV) not necessarily because they're the best technological choice but, again, somebody has to say, "All right, we're all gonna use this one thing because nobody can agree but we'll say so anyway 'cause it ain't gonna happen otherwise!"

[edDV]

I don't understand how the switch gives cable or other subscription based services control over what you watch. Sure the switch may push some people to finally break down and get cable, but all this switch does is alter the format and method of recieving over the air broadcasts, which you pay for by watching the ads. Its not like you are entitled to them just because you own a tv.

I meant that in the context of what edDV wrote about how 80% of the viewing audience already has cable so making built-in digital/hdtv tuners mandatory is social engineering. (my emphasis, and I am paraphrasing there).

Right now, I challenge anyone with limited technical understanding to walk into an electronics store and buy a digital TV tuner. I've tried, because I went shopping with a friend who was looking for one -- and let me tell you, it's a pain in the butt. And my big question is -- why is it such a pain in the butt? Because either the TV manufacturers or the stores selling TVs just don't see the "market" for stand-alone tuners. And why not? Exactly for the reason edDV notes -- just hook up to cable TV, it's an easy switch.

I think -- wrongly or rightly -- that most people, are basically lazy. Which appeals very much to most advertisers and sellers of merchandise, as they love to give customers "rebates" and "limited time offers" where you get something for $ for 3 months and then it goes to $$$ at month 4 and of course you don't have to keep the service, just cancel anytime! Not that most people will cancel, or send in their rebates, but, hey, it is your choice.

Right now, it's difficult and expensive to buy a digital TV tuner -- because the TV makers and manufacturers and dealers have all made it difficult and expensive to buy a digital TV tuner. Why? I have my theories, and they're all pretty cynical.

I agree, but the main issue has been the DTV STB tuners have not been ready for prime time until the current version chips. They didn't work well andwere very expensive >$400.

The DTV tuner products will split at least into 3 levels.

1. A very basic SDTV version designed for analog TV sets. It will have RF (ch 3 or 4), composite and S-Video out + audio and may include component analog and AC-3 coax/optical outputs. These will get very cheap (under $50) an probably be sold everywhere.

2. A similar DTV box that also supports progressive EDTV and HDTV (componet analog + HDMI). Walmart has a good one now for $200. Expect prices to dive well below $100.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2598451#long_descr

3. More elaborate boxes with DVR, home networking and other features.

[ozymango]

The DTV tuner products will split at least into 3 levels.

1. A very basic SDTV version designed for analog TV sets ...

2. A similar DTV box that also supports progressive EDTV and HDTV (componet analog + HDMI)...

3. More elaborate boxes with DVR, home networking and other features.

I salivate at all these options and choices, actually. Also wouldn't it be lovely if you (average customer "you") could walk into a TV store and find someone who could actually help you in the way edDV does here?

And yes I know this is more of a "sociological" thing, but again it's just that currently (and I'm sure this will improve in time), the whole digital/hdtv thing is -- to my mind -- about where the Beta/VHS VCR "choice" was way back when, in terms of your average (non-technical) customer being overwhelmed with data without some corresponding "ease-of-use" commentary to go along with it.

I work as a tech support geek for a university and one thing I experience constantly, even in our current technological times, are a huge number of people who are so lost when it comes to computers and TVs and things that it ain't funny. And it's easy to forget that (to a lot of people I've worked with, sadly) when you also have your 18-year-old cyberpunk students who are plugged in 24/7 and they are The Future and there's a 40-year-old adminstrative assistant who is terrified of her computer mouse. Seriously.

Thus, I probably take this much too personally, but I believe it is up to us, the uber-geeks, the weird, the proud, the fully-connected, to help those poor sods who don't know their VHF from their UHF, who plug their speakers into the "input" jacks, and whose VCRs are still flashing 12:00.

[EvilWizardGlick]

Technology is equivalent to the automobile of the fifties. Only a certain few knew what they were doing and took the time to play around with tuning and modification.
Computer geeks are the Fonzies of the 21st century.
Sadly we are at the point where people know so little about science and technology that what they see is magic.
It does not help that their is a definite anti-science bias in the modern world.
A bias coming from both the Christian right and the non-Christian left.
From rich and poor black and white.
Hopefully we will grow out of this ignorance embracing era, before we kill off the whole planet.

[edDV]

My personal bottom line: I love digital TV and HDTV!!! Seriously! I think it's overdue and frankly the only reason I think we're getting it is precisely because of the (to beat dead horse here) "social engineering" angle -- broadcasters are cheap-a$$ bast**ds, no offense, they'll switch when it's worth it to them.

So we end up with a Catch-22 thing, where people will buy HDTV sets with tuners when there are enough cheap options and your TV manufacturers will make more cheap options when enough people buy TV sets with tuners ... so somebody has to get the ball rolling!

Mostly I'm a "government stay out of my life!" guy except for some major things that involve the whole country at large, and I think this is one of those whole-country-at-large things: TV is a major part of our life and culture in the US, for better and/or worse. We get "standards" in some things (IEEE 1394, SATA, HDTV) not necessarily because they're the best technological choice but, again, somebody has to say, "All right, we're all gonna use this one thing because nobody can agree but we'll say so anyway 'cause it ain't gonna happen otherwise!"

I agree the gov't had to get it done but it was in their interest that they did this. They want to consolidate spectrum and sell it off to the highest bidder. They want to do it fast because time is $$$ and there are willing buyers cash in hand.

TV occupied too much spectrum space and the gov't (landlord) had to buy out the broadcasters lease by managing this transition fiasco and giving (excessively in my opinion) free UHF (and upper VHF) space to the existing broadcaster "tenants".

The broadcasters are doing as little as posible rolling this out. Right now there is little local HDTV or even progressive programming.

This years NAB convention in Las Vegas was all about beginning the transition to HDTV local news. In truth nobody has even started and network news is still SD. Broadcasters will wait for HDTV sales to pick up before investing.

In my opionion the HD DVD player intro will break the logjam and stimulate more HDTV sales.

added

The evil pressence in this transition has been Hollywood and their political allies who have tried to insert programming and encryption control (by them of course) into every step of this process. The consumer is not going to like what they have planned for us.

[ozymango]

I agree the gov't had to get it done but it was in their interest that they did this. They want to consolidate spectrum and sell it off to the highest bidder. They want to do it fast because time is $$$ and there are willing buyers cash in hand.

Ah, ed, you're as cynical as I! Well, at least it's getting done ... sigh ... while in some ways I'm excited about the new HDTV/digital shift, I also remember back (though not very clearly anymore) when the first HDTV stuff was going on, and the big debate was what standard of HDTV we were gonna use in the first place.

I can't remember all the details but I got to go to a presentation at San Jose State (I was a student there at the time in the Radio-TV-Film program) where we got to see an 1125-line analog (I think) HDTV sample tape or whatever (various stock footage, can't remember exactly) that was what Japan was working on at the time, and I remember my jaw literally dropped. Yowza!

But I also remember the bandwidth issue and how could this ever work and blah blah blah technobabble, plus this was over ten years ago ... actually I think it was almost twenty years ago ... yikes ... so the technologies we have today weren't even a factor to consider.

Anyway, I totally forgot where I was going with this ... ... probably something along the lines of how the dreams of technology always end up facing off against the pettiness of greedy businesses and beaureaucracies, something like that.

In my opionion the HD DVD player intro will break the logjam and stimulate more HDTV sales.

I'm in with you on this -- and remember, folks, you read it here first!

Seriously, a good story, probably apocryphal but it sure sounds true to me: The reason VHS took off over Beta (which offers a better picture than VHS, all other things equal) was not because, as is sometimes told, that VHS came out with a 2-hour tape before Beta did, thus allowing movies to be rented and sold (usually rented) to customers and you can take it from there ... no, that's sorta close but the real reason why VHS took the early lead is because of -- porn.

See, while a lot of Hollywoood-type companies could afford to make both VHS and Beta tapes (at least for a while), your basic porn film maker, having relativlely low budgets, went with VHS because ... well, don't know the reasons exactly, but they settled on VHS, maybe it was a coin toss, they didn't want to support two formats so they chose one. So most early porn movies were on VHS tape.

And that is what got people renting and buying movies -- they could now watch porn at home! Sales took off, people bought VHS machines, and voila, history. I believe this theory 'cause a good friend of mind has this most amazing collection of porn video tapes from days gone by (no names, please!) and -- they're all VHS. I asked if he had any early Beta porn and he said, "I never saw any porn movies available in Beta, so I went with VHS."

I'm sure there must be some porn out there in Beta format (not that I'm asking for samples!) so I'm not saying this proves my theory, but it certainly is an intriguing idea!

[progrocktv]

And that is what got people renting and buying movies -- they could now watch porn at home! Sales took off, people bought VHS machines, and voila, history. I believe this theory 'cause a good friend of mind has this most amazing collection of porn video tapes from days gone by (no names, please!) and -- they're all VHS. I asked if he had any early Beta porn and he said, "I never saw any porn movies available in Beta, so I went with VHS."

So you're saying all of these 720P/1080i, Blu Ray/HD-DVD format wars will probably be decided by whichever standards the Porn industry goes with?

[pauses to think]

Yea, I can see that

[edDV]

The 1980's 1125 HDTV system (implemented in Japan as Hi-Vision) was essentially wideband analog but required a compressed (MUSE) VTR for recording. Most of the fundamental high def display research came from this project.

Most (err all) of the world opt'd to wait and see. Japan lost big time when this didn't sell to the world. Back then it looked like Japan would take over the entire consumer media segment.

Two things drove the current wave to DTV and HDTV, well 3.

1. MPeg (and other) compression technology made affordable fully digital HDTV possible.

2. The gov't (driven by the telecommunications not broadcast industry) decided it needed to reorganize RF spectrum in favor of telecommunications use. It saw DTV and HDTV as means to the end (some would say cover story). The broadcasting industry was forced and bribed (with spectrum) to go along.

3. Silicon Valley saw an opportunity to jump into this project with an eye toward expanding the PC into a home theater.

10 years later, here we are.

[offline]

And that is what got people renting and buying movies -- they could now watch porn at home!

We were always told that the sheer number of VHS sales in the
United States forced the rest of the world to dump
their beloved (& superior) Beta max systems.

Up to now I thought the average US citizen must have
been a dribbling idiot to have chosen VHS over Beta.

Now that I realize they might have been drooling, not
dribbling, I can fully understand and
indeed agree with their decision

[igalan]

You guys and gals from the US well be glad to know this: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050506-4882.html

[Gurm]

Ok, just for giggles, I did a survey of people that I know who had bought TV's in the past year, to see how many of them owned digital TV's. They all bought their TV's at Best Buy. Every last one of them.

How many bought digital TV's?

One. Just one. It was a nice Samsung DLP. Very nice set... but also big bucks. Everyone else had bought analogue tv's.

I know exactly two people with digital TV's. All of you "everyone has got a digital TV" idiots need to wake up and smell the burning electronics.

[adam]

I don't recall anyone ever saying that "everyone has got a digital TV." Clearly the vast majority of people do not. What we have been saying is that the switch to digital will not effect the vast majority of people, not because they have digital tv's but because they simply receive their television programming from something other than over the air broadcasts.

I think the point you keep failing to realize is that the type of tv you own is not all that important since all you need is a cheap digital tuner, and even that is only required for that 5%-10% of people who haven't already subscribed to cable or satellite or otherwise own a digital tv.

After all these posts you still don't get it.

[Gurm]

*sigh*

No, here's the problem. The digital tuner isn't "cheap".

I agree that cable users aren't affected. But anyone who HONESTLY believes that 75% of the country gets cable... is deluded. There are VAST swaths of the country where rabbit ears reign supreme. Just because you and I don't live in one of those areas doesn't mean they don't exist.

The vast majority of families in the "low income" group have a budget that DOESN'T include $50 a month for cable... or they get BASIC cable with no converter box, which it's true wouldn't be affected by ending analogue BROADCASTS.

But seriously, I was arguing more with the people (including yourself) who say foolish things like "Best Buy only sells digital TV's", which is just ridiculously untrue. Or "most new TV's are digital", or "digital TV's are cheap". Cheap is the $100 special at Wal-Mart that 75% of the country buys. Cheap is $5 for the converter. Cheap isn't a $500 TV or a $100 converter box.

Even after all these posts YOU still don't get just how poor most of the country is.

[ROF]

Even after all these posts YOU still don't get just how poor most of the country is.

Isn't it rather odd that TV is not a requirement to living a healthy life? isn't it also true that television is luxury and a privilege and not a necessity?

Should TV be free? Sure, so should the internet, but that's not how things work. If you want dial up, you have to pay. If you want broadband, you have to pay more. It's a luxury provided to those who can afford it. Those who can't simply do not have access to 24/7 internet broadcasts, plain and simple.

After all these posts in this thread it's quite amazing that people are still discussing the costs of purchasing a device to receive a "privileged" broadcast that only those who have a method of payment can receive.

Great, you've used rabbit ears to receive free TV all these years while the rest of america pays for a line coming into the house or a sat sitting on top of their house. The free ride isn't going to last forever. TV is privilege not a necessity.

[adam]

I think it goes without saying that I trust the FCC's statistics more than yours, Gurm. Despite what you say, the amount of people who only receive their broadcasts via rabbit ears is probably no more than 10% at the most. This has been the case for several years now and I don't know why that would be so suprising. First you said that less than 1% of people even had cable, now you say its more like 25%. Do you have anything more than the opinions of your circle of friends to confirm these numbers? Are you really basing all this attitude on numbers that came straight out of your ass?

What can be said for certain is that the switch will only "turn off the lights" for an extreme minority of television owners. That doesn't make the switch ok, or good, per se but it does mitigate the ill effects of something that has to occur eventually. The question is whether we bite the bullet now or wait for that 10% to decrease even further. I say we've already waited long enough.

As for the price these individuals will have to indure to upgrade to a new tuner, again price is a relative concept. All things considered, I don't consider it expensive by any means, but others may disagree.

[ROF]

As for the price these individuals will have to indure to upgrade to a new tuner, again price is a relative concept. All things considered, I don't consider it expensive by any means, but others may disagree.

Of course it's an expense. You have to pay for content, whether it's a one time fee, or a monthly charge. Television broadcasts aren't free. Some people may have been receiving it for free, but this will come to an abrupt halt with digital. You will need to pay a monthly fee (cable or sat) or buy yourself an OTA Digital receiver and pray that it's not raining.

I should add, don't rabbit ears cost money? That's an expense to watch broadcast televsion, unless your TV Set came with rabbit ears, in which case you have more than analog/digital issues to be working on.

[edDV]

The "free" over air digital broadcasting service is already in place in over 90% of the nation and will be in place anywhere analog channels are turned off.

The only cost is a small tuner box that will get very cheap and maybe a new antenna. In most markets up to 4x additional channels will be available although the DTV station is free to charge subscriptions for subchannels.

DTV stations are also free to do even more channels sent as data streams. Microsoft VC-1, H.264 and other MPeg varients could multiply channels available from a single DTV TS stream up to 10x turning it into a mini cable system.

One company is looking to compete with local cable companies by leasing local ATSC subchannels and selling packages of programming below cable rates. This service is targeted directly at low income households. See Las Vegas test rollout.
http://www.usdtv.com/
http://www.usdtv.com/why_usdtv-reception_maps.php
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/news/N_DivingIntotheSpectrumPool.shtml