Who Cares if Analog TV Goes Dark?

[edDV]

I feel ripped off with free to air TV, so I cannot imagine what it must be like for people in the USA where the mandate to provide at least some free community access TV seems to have gone by the wayside.

Community access TV is alive and well here. It all depends on how the local gov't negotiates the cable franchise. Here we have a community access channel, a local government channel, 2 community college channels and a local rentable channel mostly used by real estate interests.

[bugster]

Standalone tuners intended for analog TV sets (RF, composite, S-Video and audio out) are not generally available now but will look like a small cable box and be manufactured in the millions. Expect them to be well under $50 by the time analog is shut off.

I know there are some differnces in the systems in place, but just for info, standalone, OTA Digital TV tuners in the UK currentlt start at around the £35 UKP mark. This is for SDTV, no HDTV available at the mo. So, at least for digital SDTV, I don't see why similiar boxes in the US should cost any more the 50 USD today, never mind in a few years times when the volumes will massivley increase.

Now, HDTV is another situation and leads me to a question regarding US Digital OTA services. Are these all (either currently or in the near future) HDTV or a mix of HD and SD services.

[ROF]

Will somebody flip the switch already? I haven't seen an analog broadcast in my house since the last millenium. I don't know anybody who has an analog signal. The cable company in my area no longer offers analog service. It's digital or nothing. The price of digital is cheaper than what analog used to be too.

Cut it off. Television isn't a right, it's a privilege. Nobody cares for those people who want to use ancient technology to receive a broadcast. Turn on your AM radio and see how many stations are being broadcast to see what I mean.

[Nilfennasion]

Television isn't a right, it's a privilege.

On one hand, I am in full agreement.

On the other, it can be very useful for delivering emergency messages when needed. For example, if alien spaceships were landing all over the world with hostile intent, broadcasting a plan of action to the citizenry will prevent complete anarchy from taking over. For a while.

[dphirschler]

Our Comcast cable is packing 10-13 digital channels per each 6 mHz block. Is there some fancy compression happening or are these channels really 6/13 mHz each? I suppose QAM-256 is packing the data in there pretty good. The best we had when I worked at SA was QAM-64.


Darryl

[mbellot]

Television isn't a right, it's a privilege.

So is driving.

How would you feel if the government mandated that everyone be driving a $500,000 Rolls Royce by Jan 1, 2009 or they can just stay the f!!k off the roads? But we aren't going to stop GM/Ford etc, we'll just put warning stickers on the car that "lets the consumer know about it"...

And staying with the same analogy, seat belts are required in all new cars (have been for decades in fact) but there are still cars out there without them because the government can't force you to retrofit them.

Why should they be allowed to force me to retrofit my TV?

[oldfart13]

Come to my town. The analog transmission station is a couple of blocks from here. The antenna used to be here too but they moved it some years ago to a higher point of land. The CRTC has said that because the stations are the only ones in this area and that cable does not serve the entire city nor extend past it's borders, the owner doesn't need to convert to High Definition. Bang! There goes the Grand Alliance. If the CRTC makes one exception you know there will be others...

I can still get the local stations by putting up a cheap pair of "rabbit ears" antennas. Many people I talk too still have this or outside antennas. No talk of cutting them off from the local stations...

[AlecWest]

Cut it off. Television isn't a right, it's a privilege. Nobody cares for those people who want to use ancient technology to receive a broadcast.

The people using that technology care. Every time a radio or television station renews its license to broadcast, it has to pledge that it's serving the community. If the community is a poor one and can't afford the new technology, stations that upgrade to that technology cease to serve it. In fact, they disenfranchise it.

[edDV]

Now, HDTV is another situation and leads me to a question regarding US Digital OTA services. Are these all (either currently or in the near future) HDTV or a mix of HD and SD services.

The ATSC DTV system we use here allows 5 SDTV or one HDTV + one SDTV per broadcast channel. There is also a provision to transmit data so long as at least one SDTV channel is transmitted as a minimum.

I believe the current USDigital trials use only DTV SDTV subchannels to provide the expanded pay service. The tuner receives the local station's HDTV and SDTV. The pay channels occupy unused SDTV subchannels that are availalble at any given time on the partner broadcast transmitters. Since HDTV broadcasts currently occur for only a few hours per day, unused bandwidth is made available to USDigital.

Here is the current Salt Lake City channel lineup for example.

http://www.usdtv.com/pdf/ChannelGuideSLC.pdf

If you examine this lineup, USDigital needs 12 SDTV subchannels at any given time. It looks like Ch 30 (WB) and Ch 14 (IND) are most likely each providing 4 SDTV subchannels continuously. The other 4 are likely coming from Ch 13, Ch2, Ch 4, Ch 5 or Ch9.

If this concept catches on, the number of "cable" channels could be increased 3-4x by switching USDigital to VC-1 or H.264 compression and transmitting these channels as data streams. The streams would get decoded in the set top box. There would be ample bandwidth for a mix of HD and SD pay channels.

[ROF]

Television isn't a right, it's a privilege.

So is driving.

How would you feel if the government mandated that everyone be driving a $500,000 Rolls Royce by Jan 1, 2009 or they can just stay the f!!k off the roads? But we aren't going to stop GM/Ford etc, we'll just put warning stickers on the car that "lets the consumer know about it"...

And staying with the same analogy, seat belts are required in all new cars (have been for decades in fact) but there are still cars out there without them because the government can't force you to retrofit them.

Why should they be allowed to force me to retrofit my TV?

Such vehicles without seatbelts will fail inspection in most US States. You won't be driving those here. The government also mandates that any vehicle I purchase must have a $600 part installed which reduces emissions. Driving without one can result in a fine, revocation of your license, and possible jail. Driving in most states also mandates that your car have a minimum insurance, and also must be inspected to maintain a certain standard (analog vs. digital), failure to maintain the standard(digital) results in you not being able to drive.

Driving is a privilege . . . a "for pay privilege", so your analogy has further backed up my statement. Thanks.

[ROF]

Cut it off. Television isn't a right, it's a privilege. Nobody cares for those people who want to use ancient technology to receive a broadcast.

The people using that technology care. Every time a radio or television station renews its license to broadcast, it has to pledge that it's serving the community. If the community is a poor one and can't afford the new technology, stations that upgrade to that technology cease to serve it. In fact, they disenfranchise it.

In order to be disenfranchised it must be a right to be able to watch television. It's not a right, it's privilege. To those who are too poor to afford the $30 cable bill, or the $15 minimum broadcast fee (no Cable stations), those people are just SOL. They have failed to maintain a standard of living that allows to enjoy the privilege of watching broadcast television. Technology must move ahead and must not drag behind simply because there are people out there who can't seem to find enough spare change to pay their "entertainment" bills.

[edDV]

...

In order to be disenfranchised it must be a right to be able to watch television. It's not a right, it's privilege. To those who are too poor to afford the $30 cable bill, or the $15 minimum broadcast fee (no Cable stations), those people are just SOL.

...

They will also have the option of buying a ~$25-50 DTV tuner + ant. There is ample opportunity for those concerned to buy and/or install these for your indigent or elderly neighbors. It's a one time cost.

[trossin]

I'm against digital transmission over the air because I live 60 miles from the transmitters in Denver. I sometimes get a beautiful image and sometime a snowy image depending on the station, time of day, time of year (interference changes). Anyway, since it's analog, my brain can filter out the snow and I can still watch and hear the content. When we go to digital, I'll see frozen macro blocks and muted sound as bogus packets arrive or nothing at all.

The one person I know who has tried to pick up the Denver stations which nearly all transmit in HDTV over the air can only pick up one station. This is not progress it is a sell out to the cell phone industry. Keep my TV free!

[edDV]

I'm against digital transmission over the air because I live 60 miles from the transmitters in Denver. I sometimes get a beautiful image and sometime a snowy image depending on the station, time of day, time of year (interference changes). Anyway, since it's analog, my brain can filter out the snow and I can still watch and hear the content. When we go to digital, I'll see frozen macro blocks and muted sound as bogus packets arrive or nothing at all.

60 miles eh? If you are from Boulder you can watch Micheal Moore 24x7. Whatz the problem?

If not,that isn't the the way DTV works you either get a signal or you don't. The fringe is narrow, if you see macroblocks, get a larger antenna. Rabbit ears won't work for analog or digital at 60 miles.

60 miles out you need an antenna, cable or DBS.

see http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx
for details.

The one person I know who has tried to pick up the Denver stations which nearly all transmit in HDTV over the air can only pick up one station. This is not progress it is a sell out to the cell phone industry. Keep my TV free!

It is free. All you need an antenna to get it. Should the gov't pay your taxi fare to Best Buy? Since when is the gov't paying for your entertainment?

The roll of government is to keep one service from interferring with another. Would you pay a tax to subsidize my right to have a cellphone with GPS in my car? I shouldn't have to pay $976 for a car GPS "THAT WORKS !" I prefer you pay. Send billing address.

[AlecWest]

In order to be disenfranchised it must be a right to be able to watch television.

It's not that simple. The purpose of the FCC is to administer the public airwaves ... for all the public, not just the technologically elite. And, digital or HD television is not a right either ... and no one's forcing anyone NOT to upgrade. If enough people jump on that bandwagon, the market will follow without government prodding or "implied" subsidy. If they don't, the market will take care of itself the way it always has in our capitalist system (ie., Voom).

I'm assuming you believe in the free market system like I do. If I find I'm in the minority later on, I'll suck up whatever happens. But for the moment, I'm not in the minority. Until digital broadcasting becomes so universally accepted among the public that digital-to-analog converter boxes are no longer rented or sold, I'll stay where I'm at. And, I suspect a lot of other people will, too.

[edDV]

In order to be disenfranchised it must be a right to be able to watch television.

It's not that simple. The purpose of the FCC is to administer the public airwaves ... for all the public, not just the technologically elite. And, digital or HD television is not a right either ... and no one's forcing anyone NOT to upgrade. If enough people jump on that bandwagon, the market will follow without government prodding or "implied" subsidy. If they don't, the market will take care of itself the way it always has in our capitalist system (ie., Voom).

I'm assuming you believe in the free market system like I do. If I find I'm in the minority later on, I'll suck up whatever happens. But for the moment, I'm not in the minority. Until digital broadcasting becomes so universally accepted among the public that digital-to-analog converter boxes are no longer rented or sold, I'll stay where I'm at. And, I suspect a lot of other people will, too.

The FCC is there to regulate the airwaves, keeping one service from stepping on another and to follow orders from Congress and the President (Bush Sr. and Clinton in this case). The computer revolution of the 80s and 90s put pressure on the use of spectrum with the introduction of cellphone and other wireless technologies .... blah blah. TV was hogging a huge portion of the spectrum, most of it only for empty channels to protect one analog TV channel from the interference of other analog TV channels blah, blah.

The idea was to compress TV channels into a more effeicient use of spectrum in the UHF and upper VHF, freeing the lower VHF for other services that will be paying the gov't. for the use of spectrum thus providing economic benefit through services delivered and helping to pay off a part of the national debt from fees and taxes on profits from operations.

The TV broadcast industry (the most powerful lobby in DC) was forced, convinced and finally bribed with spectrum rights to go along with the plan.

Anyone willing to bid multiple millions to use the VHF spectrum to broadcast analog television to 12 % of the population in the least interesting commercial demographic is free to bid their personal wealth or to preset their business plan to Wall Street investment bankers and/or venture capitalists.

May the best plan win. That is capitalism.

[mbellot]

Television isn't a right, it's a privilege.

So is driving.

How would you feel if the government mandated that everyone be driving a $500,000 Rolls Royce by Jan 1, 2009 or they can just stay the f!!k off the roads? But we aren't going to stop GM/Ford etc, we'll just put warning stickers on the car that "lets the consumer know about it"...

And staying with the same analogy, seat belts are required in all new cars (have been for decades in fact) but there are still cars out there without them because the government can't force you to retrofit them.

Why should they be allowed to force me to retrofit my TV?

Such vehicles without seatbelts will fail inspection in most US States. You won't be driving those here. The government also mandates that any vehicle I purchase must have a $600 part installed which reduces emissions. Driving without one can result in a fine, revocation of your license, and possible jail. Driving in most states also mandates that your car have a minimum insurance, and also must be inspected to maintain a certain standard (analog vs. digital), failure to maintain the standard(digital) results in you not being able to drive.

Driving is a privilege . . . a "for pay privilege", so your analogy has further backed up my statement. Thanks.

Actually most of the states I've lived in have no such safety inspection and cars without seatbelts (while uncommon) are still perfectly legal to drive. Emissions testing is a joke, any car old enough to be a problem usually has such low standards they are virtually certain to pass. Insursance is a different matter, but mandating insurance is a relatively new concept and (at least here) has forced the state government to offer insurance to people who otherwise can't get it.

But in typical fashion you ignored my original point.

Its not that I'm against Digital TV, its the extremely poor job being done to inform people.

The simple fact that an uninformed consumer could go out and purchase a TV for (in my opinion) large sums of cash that would be WORTHLESS for OTA use in as little as 18 months (probably 3.5 years, but still way too short) is a HUGE problem. Worse still, better than 90% of the "sales associates" the consumer would likely deal with HAVE NO IDEA about the switchover. Warning stickers and brochures are a joke.

My current TV is coming up on 10 years old and I have absolutely no intention of replacing it. It works just fine and I invested an insanely large amount of money in it (in my opinion), judging by your tone it was probably pocket change and you would sneer at me for even having a TV thats 10 years old.

If the government wants to force OTA to pure digital then analog TVs should not be sold anymore. Period. Then when digital TVs have been selling exclusively for 5 - 10 years they can try to abandon analog broadcasting.

Doing anything less will most assuredly result in consumer backlash, which will only push the real shut-off date further out.

[edDV]

The simple fact that an uninformed consumer could go out and purchase a TV for (in my opinion) large sums of cash that would be WORTHLESS for OTA use in as little as 18 months (probably 3.5 years, but still way too short) is a HUGE problem. Worse still, better than 90% of the "sales associates" the consumer would likely deal with HAVE NO IDEA about the switchover. Warning stickers and brochures are a joke.

...

I fail to see what makes the analog TV worthless. Only the tuner is affected. True you will need 2 remotes and if picture in picture is your bag, you will need two DTV tuners but the TV itself remains perfectly functional. Assuming a good local signal, the picture will dramatically improve as NTSC and all its artifacts becomes a technology of the past.

Using an analog TV with a DTV tuner is no different than it would be with a cable or DBS set top tuner.

[ROF]

My current TV is coming up on 10 years old and I have absolutely no intention of replacing it. It works just fine and I invested an insanely large amount of money in it (in my opinion), judging by your tone it was probably pocket change and you would sneer at me for even having a TV thats 10 years old.

If the government wants to force OTA to pure digital then analog TVs should not be sold anymore. Period. Then when digital TVs have been selling exclusively for 5 - 10 years they can try to abandon analog broadcasting.

Doing anything less will most assuredly result in consumer backlash, which will only push the real shut-off date further out.

Actually, most of my TV Sets are over 10 years old. I only have 2 televisions that are newer, but all them are digital (either inherently, or via set top box). I think there is something you as an uninformed consumer do not realize. There are these things called set top boxes. You can buy them relatively cheap, or rent them for pennies a day from your cable/satelite company in order to recieve and display(convert) a digital signal on your analog sets. You can even connect these to an old black and white radio tube and the digital revolution will not make your sets obsolete.

Can you connect to the internet via a 9600 baud modem anymore? Why? There are those who can't afford or won't upgrade to 14,400 Baud, so those people aren't able to view this or any other internet transmission. From the way you speak, it sounds like the government should be buying these people new modems in order for them to continue to enjoy the same entertainment they did in the early 90's. It's not going to happen, but I guess you are free to dream of taxpayers paying for your choice of entertainment.

Those who don't want to spend a few bucks to buy a digital set can opt for one of the relatively cheaper options and maintain their same entertainment package. I don't think the government (any government) should be buying TV Sets or set top boxes. I also don't think the goivernment should get in the way of consumers being able to purchase AM Radios. It doesn't mean the transmissions are going to be there, but the government should not tell manufacturers that they have to stop making them. If they did where would I have bought my 8 track player last year? A garage sale. No thanks. Buying an old tape player would not last as long as new. It should be my option as a consumer to buy old or outdated technology.

By your standards, the VCR should be mandated not to be sold anymore, rotary telephones should be illegal, and purchasing 6086 processors should require jail time.

[shelbyGT]

All I can say is this.
For myself, I have no need for over 10 channels of television. When I had expanded cable I found myself watching about 6 channels all the time and skipping over the rest. So why was I paying for something I wasn't using? I got rid of it.

As for 'upgrading' to HD broadcasts only, I can't say I'm all gung-ho about it. Will I switch? Probably eventually, but I'm not going to run out and get a converter box the day the TV switch is made.

I personally find my life is a little bit better without the TV. I find myself getting out more, spending more time with friends and family and getting to do more things with my girlfriend.

So just because TV is a standard for the majority, there are still a good number of us hold outs out there!!!

[ROF]

All I can say is this.
For myself, I have no need for over 10 channels of television. When I had expanded cable I found myself watching about 6 channels all the time and skipping over the rest. So why was I paying for something I wasn't using? I got rid of it.

I can't agree more. We have 3 golf channels. Three of them!! We also have 5 dedicated sports channels, 7 dedicated news channels, 3 food stations, 4 music videos (If you want to call them that) stations, and 3 religious stations. I rarely watch television. I usually have discovery or one of those news stations on in the background and listen to them.

The only reason I keep cable is because of the kids, wife, and ocassionally On-Demand Movies. The rest of the 200+ stations are just wasted noise. The bill for all these stations is outrageous for what we actually watch, especially in the summer months, but it's an entertainment medium the kids enjoy, so I keep it. For me, I could just as easily turn on the radio and read the newspaper.

We could get the minimal basic cable package, but then we'd only have 22 stations, pay $20 month and it would still be digital. The stations we would get would be those which are currently available free OTA, but they'd be digital. Personally, I can't stand fox, NBC, ABC, blah blah. All they play is re-runs of current tv shows that are boring anyways.

Is this what people are complaining about? Losing those stations would really be no loss. You may find that you will have better things to do then watch endless re-runs of "insert new show". Maybe, OMG, get a job and pay $30 a month to join the digital revolution, or at the very least go sit outdoors and enjoy the best Television show ever . . . . Live Nature.

[AlecWest]

Two questions, one related to the topic.

First, have any current manufacturers of analog televisions said something like, "After such-and-such a date, we'll stop making them altogether?" I don't mean some sort of general prediction as to when but an actual target year.

As an experiment, I entered the search phrase "stop making analog" into Google News and got back no hits. Using Google's general search engine, I only got 44 hits ... most of them from forums, not manufacturers or reputable news entities. So, while the FCC is mandating broadcasters to switch from analog to digital in 2006, the only mandate put on set manufacturers is that all TVs be "digital-ready" by 2007.
(source, http://www.tri-vision.ca/news_room/Corporate%20Updates/2004/special%20corporate_update_april2004.htm )

Secondly, I seem to recall a while back that the FCC was thinking about mandating "open" cable offerings ... allowing cable customers to pick and choose specific channels they want and not get channels they don't want. Has there been any movement on this idea? Cable companies could continue to offer "channel groups" and "package deals" ... it's just that consumers wouldn't be bound by them.

I think I would be happy as a clam to only have 10 channels ... if I got to pick them.

[ROF]

I've not heard of either a date which will cut off analog TV. I've also not heard of being able to choose which stations you want and pay whatever fee those stations require. The later sounds good, but I doubt we'll see it.

When it comes to cut off dates, I don't think we'll see one for quite some time. They still make turn tables and am radios, so I don't analog sets are going to be disappearing. Like those other two technology masterpieces, you may find in the not-so-distant future that whatever programming exist may slowly disappear or forever be relegated to obscure places on the planet.

[trossin]

I'm against digital transmission over the air because I live 60 miles from the transmitters in Denver. I sometimes get a beautiful image and sometime a snowy image depending on the station, time of day, time of year (interference changes). Anyway, since it's analog, my brain can filter out the snow and I can still watch and hear the content. When we go to digital, I'll see frozen macro blocks and muted sound as bogus packets arrive or nothing at all.

60 miles eh? If you are from Boulder you can watch Micheal Moore 24x7. Whatz the problem?

I'm not from Boulder which is only 20 miles from Denver. I'm 60 miles from Denver.

If not,that isn't the the way DTV works you either get a signal or you don't. The fringe is narrow, if you see macroblocks, get a larger antenna. Rabbit ears won't work for analog or digital at 60 miles.

60 miles out you need an antenna, cable or DBS.

see http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx
for details.

I said that I would get frozen macro blocks or no signal at all. I have a big ass antenna and amplifier and I've been to this web site before. The point is that I can still watch the analog signal just fine. With digital I get a great image, fozen macro blocks or no image. Only one case is viewable. Like I said before, the person I asked (with a big HDTV antenna) can only get one station. This is not progress.

People really need to learn that digital does not always mean better! The marketing people want you to think that but it is a lie. Just listen to a digital audio amp (Class D) for a few hours and enjoy the ringing in your ears.

The one person I know who has tried to pick up the Denver stations which nearly all transmit in HDTV over the air can only pick up one station. This is not progress it is a sell out to the cell phone industry. Keep my TV free!

It is free. All you need an antenna to get it. Should the gov't pay your taxi fare to Best Buy? Since when is the gov't paying for your entertainment?

The roll of government is to keep one service from interferring with another. Would you pay a tax to subsidize my right to have a cellphone with GPS in my car? I shouldn't have to pay $976 for a car GPS "THAT WORKS !" I prefer you pay. Send billing address.

You are wrong. It is not free as there is no antenna to get all the stations that our city of 100K could get before (at least at a cost of less then $500) plus you have to buy converter boxes.

I can't say I understand your question about the gov paying for a taxi ride (no) but I can comment that my tax dollars go indirectly to the cable and satalite companies as folks on welfare somehow have enough money left over to pay the cable bill and buy lottery tickets (I've seen it first hand many times).

The part about the cell phone is the reason that the government is trying to steal away free TV reception. The cell phone people need more bandwidth so they are stealing from the poor to subsidize the rich. Standard bull shit. Just like they condem peoples houses to build a new Starbucks so they can get more tax dollars. It never ends. I'm just bitching because they are trying to hide it as new and wizzy so we will think that it is good for us.

[ROF]

The part about the cell phone is the reason that the government is trying to steal away free TV reception. The cell phone people need more bandwidth so they are stealing from the poor to subsidize the rich. Standard bull shit. Just like they condem peoples houses to build a new Starbucks so they can get more tax dollars. It never ends. I'm just bitching because they are trying to hide it as new and wizzy so we will think that it is good for us.

So only rich people have cell phones? hmmm . . I see more poor people with cell phones. Drive by the local welfare office to see the amount of people sitting outside chatting away. Compare that with any corporate office building courtyard and I think you'll see that cell phones aren't just for the rich people. Granted, rich people own phones that don't cut off after talking a limited number of minutes, but that's because they have jobs, support the economy, and pay their bills on a regular basis. Wish I could say the same for your typical welfare recipient. Last time I drove by McDonald's there was a help wanted sign, there was also one at the Burger King across the street. A quick walk through the mall revealed several "position available - - inquire within" signs. It's just easier for some to wait in line and get something for free, while the rest of us support the economy and these people who feel the world owes them something for nothing, do nothing at all but live off mine and your paycheck.

I don't want to hear any excuses, there are plenty of jobs, it's just somehow in these peoples twisted minds they think flipping burgers is beneath them. Given the choice of flipping burgers or being a welfare recipient I'd take the job anyday. Of course, I'd also immediately cut people off who are on welfare and have another kid just so they can get more money.

But I think this is another topic.

Cutting off the analog transmissions(OTa or otherwise) in favor of an all digital future is called progress. If you aren't part of this progress, I guess you will be left behind to enjoy your AM radio and teletypes.

[shelbyGT]

All digital isn't necessarily progress, per say, it's just is what it is. It's change, for better or worse. Analog OTA isn't perfect, nor is digital OTA going to be. It's foolish to think otherwise.

But there are a LOT of people out there who don't care if what they are watching is HDTV or not. Many people will only switch over when the cost to do so is about the same as it is to do nothing. (IE, more people have cell phones now that they are about the same or cheaper than your landline phone.)

I, for one, am not going to get an HDTV until I can get a reasonable, name brand of at least 32" for close to the same price as a regular TV of that description is now. When will this happne? Probably about 7-10 years from now. I'm comfortable with that.

[ROF]

But there are a LOT of people out there who don't care if what they are watching is HDTV or not. Many people will only switch over when the cost to do so is about the same as it is to do nothing. (IE, more people have cell phones now that they are about the same or cheaper than your landline phone.)

I, for one, am not going to get an HDTV until I can get a reasonable, name brand of at least 32" for close to the same price as a regular TV of that description is now. When will this happne? Probably about 7-10 years from now. I'm comfortable with that.

Did you read the article? These people aren't going to have a choice, it's digital or white noise, nothing else. Digital is far superior to analog in all respects so it is progress. Thinking otherwise is to say that a 386-66Mhz processor and a Intel 2.0Ghz processor are the same thing. There are light years of difference between the two in terms of capability, speed, and throughput. Analog Vs. Digital is the same. There is a big difference not just in picture quality, but in just about every aspect of the signal itself.

You also do not have to buy an HDTV set in order to avoid this cut off. cable/satelite companies offer digital converter boxes for pennies a day, or you could make a one time payment and own a converter box rather then rent it. The choice is yours, but there is no need to be left in the dark when analog is shut down simply because you don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for a new set. Your analog set will work, it just will need an external box in to accomplish this. Most TV Sets are not sold with rabbit ears or antennas. This is an extra purchase people make. Converter boxes are no different and in some cases they are cheaper then antenna technology.

[edDV]

...I'm 60 miles from Denver.

....I said that I would get frozen macro blocks or no signal at all. I have a big ass antenna and amplifier and I've been to this web site before. The point is that I can still watch the analog signal just fine. With digital I get a great image, fozen macro blocks or no image. Only one case is viewable. Like I said before, the person I asked (with a big HDTV antenna) can only get one station. This is not progress.

OK now we are into problem solving not philosophy. I'm 90-120 miles from the only transmitters that are line of site. Others are closer but a ridge blocks reception in that direction. For me this affects analog as well as digital. So in summary, we are in a similar situation, only mine is worse.

You imply you can get adequate analog reception with an outside antenna. This is a good start. First generation DTV suffers from the following problems that affect mostly reception >40 miles out.

* Many DTV transmitters are currently running at the minimum power required to satisfy the FCC. They are in a chicken and egg mode saying 'I'll power up when there is an installed base of DTV tuners' etc.

* Until the current generation of tuner chips, fringe reception has been poor. There has also been multipath problems in cities and mountains with early DTV tuners. Don't buy old DTV tuners on EBay. They are junk.

* Many TV stations are running DTV from temporary towers and antennas while the real one is in long term construction.

* TV stations can tune the directionality of their transmission antenna to more or less point the power where they want it. If they consider your town low priority, you may be only seeing the backend of their pattern. You should call up the chief engineer at the particular station to ask about issues for reception at your site.

A great place to monitor conditions in your area plus all the local controversies, antenna recommendations, etc. is a local DTV forum. See AVS and Google groups.

Start with this one.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=28456

If you don't care about HDTV, I'd advise you to wait until closer to analog cutoff. By then, tuners will be cheaper and perform better, DTV stations will be at full power and you will have many locals to advise you on which antennas work.

[shelbyGT]

I read the article, I just don't like the fact that I have to buy a tuner just to get the now free channels.

That's the point I was going off of, sorry for not blatantly stating it.

[Gritz]

I gave up on analog years ago because of poor reception problems where I live. In order to receive ALL the local stations (furtherest is 31 miles) I would need the ability to rotate my antenna, and since it's in the attic I had to scratch that idea. Also when the weather was bad, reception was also pretty bad. And I do have a pretty good antenna up there too. Time for a change I thought.

So, I subscribed to DirecTv, minimum package (Total Choice) why they call it "Total" is beyond me. Anyway, they had the few channels I thought were worth watching ... and the price was $29.95 a month. A year later they move the programming around ... wiping out some of my choices, and also raised the price. Since then the price has gone up twice and is now $38.99 a month, and I watch about 4 or 5 channels. They have also sync'd ALL the commercials so when you switch you still have to watch commercials, and they have increased the number of commercials between programming. Sometimes I finish my entire lunch just watching commercials. BS. Time for change again.

I went down to Wal-Mart and picked up a HDTV Digital settop box .... for $198. It picks up both HDTV and DTV and the non HD digital works fine going to my old 31" Quasar TV. Hooked up to my old attic antenna I get great clear pictures, good reception and every local channel (6 stations broadcasting on about 10 channels - PBS has 4). This worked much better than I thought it would. So ... the next idea, my trailer.

We do some RV'ing in our trailer and the TV reception on it's Wineguard Antenna has been apalling and unacceptable. I took it back twice and the reps said nothing was wrong (their shop is about 10-15 miles from ALL the stations and they could get reception on the RF cable only, or even a coat hanger, I think ... so they did nothing. The booster would actually degrade the signal so I wired around it and accepted what came in. Now ... I have some new technology available to me .... the HDDV settop box. OK, so I picked up a little Zenith HDTV antenna (Silver something) from Wal-Mart ($28.95) (actual value about $5), and bolted it to the top of my Wineguard Antenna, and switched the cable over to the Zenith Antenna. I then moved the settop box inside the trailer and connected it to the antenna and the TV, and .... Shazam!! I now get ALL THE LOCAL OTA channels without even cranking up the antenna ... whereas before, I might get 1 or 2 when it was cranked up, if I was lucky. So for me, the digital is working out great, in both places.

Dropping DirecTv for 5 months would pay for the settop box, and I would get local programming, without all the lengthy syncronized commercial crappola ... I think. I haven't watched enough to know. And I guess if I wanted I could resubscribe again in 5 months and start bitching again. I could also spend more time outside, which I should do anyway. So for me .... finding out about DTV was a win/win.