Who Cares if Analog TV Goes Dark?

[gadgetguy]

but it's quite ridiculous that for something as globally pervasive as TV, that the TV broadcasters and manufacturers make it much harder to figure out how to get this message to the "average consumer" than it needs to be.

I couldn't agree more.

Cable companies don't provide the most basic service out of the goodness of their hearts -- most of them do this because they are required by various localities to offer some kind of "basic cable" to their subscribers. Given a personal ("marketplace") choice, they wouldn't do it. And most of them (cable companies) scream bloody murder about how much this kind of "government interference" costs them, economically.

Also, couldn't agree more, (as a fellow Comcast subscriber).

I also agree that spending $200, (or even $50) for a digital tuner is not trivial, especially if you have multiple sets and have to buy one for each.

My position is that the real impact of NOT having a digital tuner, when the analog broadcast is turned off, IS trivial.

[Mr anderson]

I think its wrong that analog is going, because just think of it, they are focring everyone to go digital,yes i think its better but what about the people who 1: cannot afford digital or 2: those people be it old or young who cannot use the digital boxes??? they need to think of everyone not just themselevs, they should have choice!

[digitalmaster]

Is everyone rich on here? A small 30" name brand HDTV television, is about 1000 dollars at the local Best Buy or Circuit City. The state I live in has an extremely high unemployment rate, due to people no longer buying American vehicles. I am wondering if the people on here, that want Analog television banned, are living at home in their parents basements. I make 60,000 a year, most likely will be laid off soon, and taking care of a kid. I cannot afford to spend 1000 on an HDTV at this time.
Only 4 million homes in the U.S. have HDTV and only 10 million in the entire world!!!
http://www.instat.com/press.asp?ID=1284&sku=IN0501899MB

[deadpac]

digitalmaster,

They do have CRT type HDTVs at around $600.00 , Samsung comes to mind; essentially what Sony was back in the '90s Samsung is today. While it may not be as sleek and slim as a plasma or a lcd it is still an hdtv set. And if that is too much then I don't think a $200 - $350 tuner is too much; and that's coming from a broke a$$ college kid that is putting himself through college while living on a modest budget. I bought a Samsung tuner almost two years ago at around 372 and some change and haven't had one complaint since.

I don't know where some people on this board are coming up with this magical $50 digital tuner but I don't think you'll be seeing that until there is a significant penetration by the big ticket items first such as the plasmas and lcd's. Why would companies such as Samsung undercut their big money items with cheap viewing alternatives. If people figured that all it took to save the 2 or more secondary tv sets they have lying around the house then you can bet they'd rather spend $50 to save a tv that was at the time probably the same cost as atleast a current HDTV tuner $300; then why bother with a smaller lcd or plasma when you can just add $50 to the cost of the "then" $300 tv set. Buying a good hdtv tuner right now is almost the same cost as a good analog set. Samsung and the rest know that you will eventually buy a replacement set for that "living room" tv be it either plasma or lcd but they also know you are going to want to have those secondary tv sets to still work so you'll either buy the lower end hdtv sets be it crt or really cheap lcd and for those who really don't feel they need either they'll in essence give you the option of buy "another" tv set in the form a a digital tuner that will be priced at the same level an analog set goes for today. They don't want to give you no stinkin' $50 option.

I bought that Samsung tuner almost two years ago at around $370 US and today the price has "barely" leveled off at around $299 for that same tuner. So yeah give it about 6-8 years an you will have that $50 tuner you so believe in.

[edDV]

digitalmaster,

They do have CRT type HDTVs at around $600.00 , ....


I don't know where some people on this board are coming up with this magical $50 digital tuner

HD ready CRT's have been seen as low as $320 but that has nothing to do with this arguement.

$50 or less is the projected cost of a DTV tuner that will work with existing analog sets for OTA tuning of DTV signals.

For those worried, there is no need to buy anything until the analog shutoff date arrives for your city. For many this will be 5+ years out so why care at all? DTV tuners will be very cheap by then and you will be able to use your analog sets to view DTV channels.

[Mr anderson]

I agree with digitalmaster, digital does cost money, and like him I have just been laid off, and I still gotta find money until i find another job to pay for my digital tv & phone & internet. Now how many people all over the world are in the same boat!

[lordsmurf]

Is everyone rich on here?

Sure sounds that way, doesn't it?

[AlecWest]

Is everyone rich on here?

Sure sounds that way, doesn't it?

I think that diehard videophiles have to be rich to have the latest and the best technology. Problem is, the people who come to VH are not all diehards. Some of us have cobbled together their computer and video equipment from sources chosen for their cheapness just so we can be "in the game" ... while not necessarily being "in the same league" as the purists (and, in some cases, not wanting to be in the same league).

I think some people are fooling themselves into thinking that members of VH are the status-quo of video equipment ownership and use. We're not. We're just the people rich enough or savvy enough to manipulate home video into something the status-quo knows little about. Most of the people I know own TVs, VCRs, and possibly DVD players ... but beyond that, are clueless to many of the things we talk about in this forum day after day. They simply want to watch their TVs as cheaply as possible ... with bells and whistles being either not within their budgets or not within their interests (or both).

A good example is my landlord. When I moved into my current apartment, he had a TV, a VCR, and a computer he felt was adequate to his needs. Computer wise, it was a low-end Pentium I (90mhz, I think, with 32 megs RAM). But guess what ... it was adequate to his needs. All he wanted to do was surf the web and send email. Eventually, though, it started to crap out ... and I helped him cobble together a used low-end PIII (500 mhz, 128 megs RAM). You know what he does with it? Surfs the web and sends email ... just like he did before. I even gave him my old CD burner (when I upgraded to a DVD burner) and told him he could burn his own audio CDs. You know how many he's burned so far? ZERO.

THAT is the status-quo ... the Joe/Suzy Sixpacks out there who can't comprehend what we talk about on VH (and more importantly, don't really want to). Upgrade-fever, be it in computers or TV, is the province of a niche fortunate enough to afford/cobble the technology. Nothing more.

[edDV]

Wealth, equipment owned and nich video knowledge+experience rarely correlate except at extremes.

People that own the expensive plasmas are often video clueless and have them connected and set up incorrectly. Yesterday I helped an elderly wealthy couple hook up their DVD player in progressive mode to their 60" plasma. They had been using NTSC and audio through Y splitters.

Likewise this guy who has no job and lives in a barn has a used broadcast 3CCD camera, state of the art capture cards and fast AMD computer rigged for full gaming and video editing. He has better equipment than I have and probably spent less.

The more you know, the less money you need to spend for good results. If you are short on cash, you just wait for a price you can afford on Craig's list or ebay.

People allocate their available cash in ways they see fit. Some spend it on computers or cars, others on sex, drugs and rock 'n roll.

[Nilfennasion]

I am on a disability pension and was recently diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I keep going back and forth to government agencies for workplace rehabilitation and training. I have already sworn that the next time they tell me I am too sick to work, I intend to pick up the nearest monitor, throw it at the nearest wall, and ask them how many people they know who are too sick to work and can do that. Yet I can still afford a shitty little converter box to receive a DTV signal. Sure, it is SDTV, but I don't care. I can afford it in Australia, of all places.

[gadgetguy]

Being 'Rich' is relative. To me, that $60,000 a year sounds pretty rich since I don't make anywhere near that, but it still makes no difference whether you're rich or not. Regardless of the expense of a digital tuner, for those who deem it important enough, it will be acquired. I used to deliver furniture to all types of people in various economic conditions, and identical electronic equipment could be found in the homes at both ends of the scale. It's all a matter of priorities and desire.

[Nilfennasion]

It is also a matter of how much the individual wants to spend. You can spend $250 or $1600 on a DVD player (these are Australia prices, of course). Both will do the same basic job, but the latter model will do a few related jobs that the other cannot. My particular favourites would be true progressive scan and all-format audio decoding. Sometimes, the $1600 player will produce a much smoother picture to boot. But in the end run, a casual observer will be just as impressed with the $250 player.

[AlecWest]

It's not just a matter of wealth. It's a matter of desire. If I'd gone out and bought my landlord a 64-bit machine with all the bells and whistles, he'd still be using his computer for his original reasons ... to surf the web and send email. Just because someone is rich enough to afford advanced technology doesn't mean they want to buy it.

[Mr anderson]

to Nilfennasion, over here cable TV a month basic is around £30-40, thats without cable modem! now put on top our bills like gaes, rent etc. now you are on "disability pension", now what about those people who are out of work and still have to pay their bills and rent. Should they be forced into paying for their DTV, ( yeah there's free view, but in certain ares you cant pick up any signal?).

[ROF]

I think its wrong that analog is going, because just think of it, they are focring everyone to go digital,yes i think its better but what about the people who 1: cannot afford digital or 2: those people be it old or young who cannot use the digital boxes??? they need to think of everyone not just themselevs, they should have choice!

Let me see if I can answer this one.

1) The people who can't afford it are SOL. Television viewing isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's a privilege to those who purchase television sets and it's a privilege to those who purchase programming. I think you are seriously mistaken and quite flawed in your thinking to believe that affordable television viewing is your right. I suppose professional sporting events should be free or cheap to view live as well, by your method of thinking.

2) If you already use an analog cable box and cannot use a digital cable box, you have some serious issues that a psychiatrist or other professional should be looking into.


By your standard of addressing this issue: I can not fly an airplane. I also can not afford to own one. Airplanes should not be manufactured.

[Mr anderson]

To ROF, I was just saying that what about the people who can not afford it (like old people etc) , yeah ok you buy a TV but that is a one off payment unlike DTV? and as far as you said i think sports should be free, i think sports is ****!

[whitejremiah]

In reguards to the people who say that the analog people should just tough it out and buy the 50 dollar antenna...this is what i gotta say to that, i work at a video store and its hard enough to convince people to buy a 30 dollar dvd player, i REALLY dont think its gonna make those people too happy to have to buy a 50 dollar converter to watch what used to be free.

[gadgetguy]

and its hard enough to convince people to buy a 30 dollar dvd player

But, why is it difficult to convince them? Because they have a working alternative, their VCR. If your store stopped having Video Tapes they would look to other stores and if all of the other stores switched to only DVD, then they would buy the $30 DVD player if they wanted to continue watching new releases. They may not be happy about it, but they'd do it IF IT IS IMPORTANT to them. Regardless of their financial situation.
You have always had to purchase some means of receiving the TV signal. The upsetting part about this whole situation is that the items that we have purchased over the last several years will be rendered inoperable by the loss of the analog signal. As stated in the original post, this will affect approx. 12% of the US receiving over-the-air broadcasts. If the TV manufacturers had started producing units with digital and analog tuners in them as soon as the decision had been made, and stopped producing analog only TVs, this conversion to digital would be a total non-issue, because most of that 12% would probably already own a TV capable of receiving the digital signal.
I don't remember exactly when the decision was made, but it was several years ago with plenty of time to put a workable transition plan into action. The fact that the market failed to implement a successful plan for transition is not a valid reason to change the conversion date, since the need for the bandwidth that will be made available is immediate.

[Mr anderson]

to gadgetguy about what you "If the TV manufacturers had started producing units with digital and analog tuners in them as soon as the decision had been made, and stopped producing analog only TVs, this conversion to digital would be a total non-issue, because most of that 12% would probably already own a TV capable of receiving the digital signal" I very much think you are right, but as normal it is the customers who suffer in the end

[edDV]

[quote="gadgetguy"]

...

As stated in the original post, this will affect approx. 12% of the US receiving over-the-air broadcasts. If the TV manufacturers had started producing units with digital and analog tuners in them as soon as the decision had been made, and stopped producing analog only TVs, this conversion to digital would be a total non-issue, because most of that 12% would probably already own a TV capable of receiving the digital signal.
I don't remember exactly when the decision was made, but it was several years ago with plenty of time to put a workable transition plan into action. The fact that the market failed to implement a successful plan for transition is not a valid reason to change the conversion date, since the need for the bandwidth that will be made available is immediate.

Here is why that wouldn't have worked for 1998-2005

1. DTV tuners started out at > $850 and their performance was lousy. There have been 5-6 generations of chips and only recently are they worth a damn. Warning do not buy old DTV tuners on Ebay.

2. Your plan would have forced all TV set buyers to buy one of these crappy DTV decoders adding $200-850 to the price of a $220 (ave) TV. Some 12% of those buyers would have need for the tuner at some point 7-10 years in the future. By then those who need it would probably opt for a new $50 or less external DTV tuner that would vastly outperform the $850 tuner they were forced to buy 10 years ago.

3. The FCC is now forcing your desired plan for later this year for >27" sets. Although the tuners are performing better, this plan forces the 88% of people who have no current or future need for a DTV tuner to pay an average $100 more for every TV. This is for a need 2-8 years in the future.

It makes perfect sense to me to consider a TV as a modular display system that can be used with any tuning device as selected by the user for his needs be it DTV, cable, DBS or simply a DVD player. I for one resent being forced by the government to buy a DTV tuner which I will never use since a mountain blocks all local stations here. I would rather spend that $100 on features or cable services.

[edDV]

to gadgetguy about what you "If the TV manufacturers had started producing units with digital and analog tuners in them as soon as the decision had been made, and stopped producing analog only TVs, this conversion to digital would be a total non-issue, because most of that 12% would probably already own a TV capable of receiving the digital signal" I very much think you are right, but as normal it is the customers who suffer in the end

Mr. Anderson, would you really have accepted a gov't plan forcing you to to pay >$1000 for 27" analog TV in 1998 when last month it cost $250?

Would you have cared if it would receive digital broadcasts in 6-10 years? It would receive them but you would still be watching on a low end analog TV.

[Mr anderson]

TO edDV, " would you really have accepted a gov't plan forcing you to to pay >$1000 for 27" analog TV in 1998 when last month it cost $250?" No not really but, what i was saying was, it's not right to force everyone into doing something that do not want, why should people have their choice taken away from them?

[edDV]

TO edDV, " would you really have accepted a gov't plan forcing you to to pay >$1000 for 27" analog TV in 1998 when last month it cost $250?" No not really but, what i was saying was, it's not right to force everyone into doing something that do not want, why should people have their choice taken away from them?

That was my point as well concerning the FCC rule to require DTV tuners on TV sets over 27"starting soon. If I need one I'll buy one.

Hollywood is also forcing me to buy an entirely new HDTV if I want to use a HD DVD player since my current set is pre HDCP. I will just boycott HD DVD until my TV wears out. I will also boycott sponsors of any TV program that enacts the Broadcast Record Flag and will actively resist any politician that supports Hollywood on these issues. That includes most California Reps and both Senators. I'm not sure which side Arnold is on, but he may loose my vote as well.

TV politics fun is just beginning.

[Mr anderson]

Certain People just dont care about their voters/customers, Just think they should think about what they will do next.

[gadgetguy]

We're going in circles. The need for the bandwidth is real and immediate. You are only required to get the tuner to recieve over-the-air digital transmissions. If you are receiving cable this does not affect you in any way. If you have satellite, you are only marginally affected. Only those receiving over-the-air analog broadcasts are affected. You can either buy a tuner and receive OTA digital transmissions or don't buy a tuner and watch tapes, DVDs, VCDs, etc.
If the dual tuner TV was the only option available, and it was too expensive, then they wouldn't have sold, forcing the price to come down. As for the improvements in digital TV technology, think 'computers' or any other high-tech item. When they come out the price is high and the technology sucks when compared to later versions. Early adopters always pay that price.
The scenario I outlined was not the only option and may not even be the best option, (considering the whole 10 minutes of thought I put into it), but it would have been a less painful option than the one we are currently in.

[Mr anderson]

Yeah guess that fair!

[QuaiBoy]

IMO, the government should do what is best for the majority of the citizens (and rarely does), but that’s a separate issue. I believe that the "12% use OTA analog" data is irrelevant. A study or survey needs to be done that includes the economic status of this 12% to complete the picture.
I live in Florida, used to live in NY. The FL coasts are becoming urbanized but central FL is largely rural. I take roadtrips all over the east coast. Funny thing is that in urban or rural, the poorest areas (identified by run-down buildings and the like) all seem to have houses/trailers with modern satellite dishes mounted to them. And that doesn't include the number of cable households.

To summarize, I'd really be surprised if the "poor" are the citizens that are devastated by the end of OTA analog. My guess is that it would be the people who can AFFORD to make a stink. You know the kind... people who pull up in a late-model Lexus and bitch about the price of everything.

-Evan-

[Heff]

[quote="edDV"]

...

As stated in the original post, this will affect approx. 12% of the US receiving over-the-air broadcasts. If the TV manufacturers had started producing units with digital and analog tuners in them as soon as the decision had been made, and stopped producing analog only TVs, this conversion to digital would be a total non-issue, because most of that 12% would probably already own a TV capable of receiving the digital signal.
I don't remember exactly when the decision was made, but it was several years ago with plenty of time to put a workable transition plan into action. The fact that the market failed to implement a successful plan for transition is not a valid reason to change the conversion date, since the need for the bandwidth that will be made available is immediate.

Here is why that wouldn't have worked for 1998-2005


1. DTV tuners started out at > $850 and their performance was lousy. There have been 5-6 generations of chips and only recently are they worth a damn. Warning do not buy old DTV tuners on Ebay.

I bought a RCA DTC100 which I believe was a 1st generation DTV tuner for $50 and it's gettting all the locals off a pair of 25 year old rabbit ears. Stations look great. I do live 10 miles from the station tower, but I have no hesitation in recommending this receiver, although I haven't compared a newer one in my TV for quality, but it compares favorably to what I remember seeing at Fry's which had DiSH Discovery channel on.

You can get a Voom OTA DTV tuner for $60 on Ebay. It has to be a rather current version.

[edDV]

[quote="Heff"]

...

As stated in the original post, this will affect approx. 12% of the US receiving over-the-air broadcasts. If the TV manufacturers had started producing units with digital and analog tuners in them as soon as the decision had been made, and stopped producing analog only TVs, this conversion to digital would be a total non-issue, because most of that 12% would probably already own a TV capable of receiving the digital signal.
I don't remember exactly when the decision was made, but it was several years ago with plenty of time to put a workable transition plan into action. The fact that the market failed to implement a successful plan for transition is not a valid reason to change the conversion date, since the need for the bandwidth that will be made available is immediate.

Here is why that wouldn't have worked for 1998-2005

1. DTV tuners started out at > $850 and their performance was lousy. There have been 5-6 generations of chips and only recently are they worth a damn. Warning do not buy old DTV tuners on Ebay.

I bought a RCA DTC100 which I believe was a 1st generation DTV tuner for $50 and it's gettting all the locals off a pair of 25 year old rabbit ears. Stations look great. I do live 10 miles from the station tower, but I have no hesitation in recommending this receiver, although I haven't compared a newer one in my TV for quality, but it compares favorably to what I remember seeing at Fry's which had DiSH Discovery channel on.

You can get a Voom OTA DTV tuner for $60 on Ebay. It has to be a rather current version.

10 miles is close. The problems occured at greater distance and in dense cities where multipath caused tuners to hunt. Older models tend to have frustrating firmware quirks that were never fully worked out. Current chips are better and future versions will be cheaper and better.

First generation tuners were 1998 but not many were sold. The RCA DTC 100 was announced in 2000 with a price of $649.
http://www.audiorevolution.com/equip/rcadtc1000/

For a fairly complete history of boxes, see here
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=179095

[zzyzzx]

More importantly, when will I be able to buy a NTSC DTV PCI card that does hardware MPG2 capture?