US Digital TV deadline likely to be pushed to 2009

[kirpen]

WASHINGTON - Congress is zeroing in on early 2009 as the time for the country to make the switch to digital television broadcasts, a move that will give viewers sharper pictures and better sound.

A Senate bill would set a firm deadline of April 2009, according to a draft proposal obtained Friday by The Associated Press. The draft of a House bill would end analog transmissions on Dec. 31, 2008.

In addition to working out a compromise on the date, lawmakers must decide whether to keep a Senate provision calling for the federal government to pay for converter boxes that would allow people who don’t have or can’t afford a digital TV, or cable or satellite, to continue to receive over-the-air local stations.
Read the rest here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9697337/[/url]

As this is an international forum - if news is country specific add a US, UK, AUS, CAN etc. to the subject title.

Thanks

Offline

[paulw]

WASHINGTON - Congress is zeroing in on early 2009 as the time for the country to make the switch to digital television broadcasts, a move that will give viewers sharper pictures and better sound.]

Will it really give sharper pictures or will the networks just compress the channel down to the point where you can see MPEG artifacts as I see on some of my satalite channels?? As so with pure digital they can put some nasty "Do not record" flags down as well.

I can just see the next gem from the MPAA and congress. All VCRs must be replaced by digital recorders by 2010

[SilverBlade]

Electronic companies have already stopped production on VCR's.

But what could be the rea$on that not a$ many people have digital TV'$ yet..there mu$t be a logical rea$on for it :P :P

[mikesbytes]

Electronic companies have already stopped production on VCR's.

Plenty of VCR's for sale in Australia

[ebenton]

But how will this affect the poor?? How will they ever afford a new TV? I think this requires a new gummint program to buy digital TVs for all people making less than $50K per year. After all, owning a working TV is a *right*, not a choice of how to spend your money.

[BJ_M]

Electronic companies have already stopped production on VCR's.

But what could be the rea$on that not a$ many people have digital TV'$ yet..there mu$t be a logical rea$on for it :P :P

LOTS of vcrs still being built ....

[Wile_E]

yes, JVC is one company still making VCR's. If they ever come out with a replacement for the SVHS HR-S9911u, and it was better in all respects, I would buy it. There is still a need for quality VCR's for archival purposes.

[whitejremiah]

actually, VERY few companies still make VCR's......JVC happens to be one of the few that still does...as far as archival purposes.........well, that depends on the person, myself, i only use my VCR to take stuff FROM a vhs source and transfer it to DVD, as far as recording tv shows, thats what a DVR is made for, and as far as home movies, if you have one that still runs on VHS tapes or any variation thereof, you really oughtta consider upgrading, not saying that they wont still work in the future, but at least around my area, finding a VCR isnt exactly cheap (they wanted 70 bux for one, and only 25 for a low end dvd player) nor is it really the best idea (face it, the format is dying a rather steady death...commercially speaking anyhow) The only places i could actually buy a new VHS tape around here, is at target and wal mart...heck, around here, you cant even RENT a vhs tape anymore.

[RabidDog]

quote "hey wanted 70 bux for one, and only 25 for a low end dvd player" yeah but the recorder will record programs... I am looking at buying a cheap VCR with sat control as an alternative to a sky+ subscription (16 bux just to rent a PVR) fox off!

[BJ_M]

actually, VERY few companies still make VCR's......JVC happens to be one of the few that still does...as far as archival purposes.........well, that depends on the person, myself, i only use my VCR to take stuff FROM a vhs source and transfer it to DVD, as far as recording tv shows, thats what a DVR is made for, and as far as home movies, if you have one that still runs on VHS tapes or any variation thereof, you really oughtta consider upgrading, not saying that they wont still work in the future, but at least around my area, finding a VCR isnt exactly cheap (they wanted 70 bux for one, and only 25 for a low end dvd player) nor is it really the best idea (face it, the format is dying a rather steady death...commercially speaking anyhow) The only places i could actually buy a new VHS tape around here, is at target and wal mart...heck, around here, you cant even RENT a vhs tape anymore.

i dont know where you get your numbers -- but though production is way down , there are still millions and millions of vcrs still being built .... a lot are combo dvd vcr also ... but there are millions of people still using tape plus libraries and corp users .... plus a crap load of porno is still sold on tape along with learning tapes (some of the largest markets)

[mikesbytes]

In Aus, there are very few recorders with digital tuners. So if you buy a DVD recorder, it probably has an analog recorder in it. Doesn't exactly encourage you to stop buying VCR's.

Most TV's sold have analog tuners. Its going to be a long time before an Aus govt. is going to have the courage to kill analog transmission.

And in the mean time, the existing commerical TV stations love it, as keeping analog ties up spectrum that could be used by new competitors.

I've seen an estimate based on the rate of increase of digital sales, that 2037 would be the year to kill off analog.

Perhaps the best solution would be to ban the sale of devices that don't have digital tuners.

[ROF]

But how will this affect the poor?? How will they ever afford a new TV? I think this requires a new gummint program to buy digital TVs for all people making less than $50K per year. After all, owning a working TV is a *right*, not a choice of how to spend your money.

That's false. Television broadcast reception is a privilege not a right. the government nor any other organization is responsible to provide you with a television or the means to receive the broadcasts of television affiliates. It's a privilege to those who can afford it.

[GullyFoyle]

But how will this affect the poor?? How will they ever afford a new TV? I think this requires a new gummint program to buy digital TVs for all people making less than $50K per year. After all, owning a working TV is a *right*, not a choice of how to spend your money.

Dude ever see Max Headroom? Every street, parking lot, or junk pile had a tv running 24/7/365.
The bigger question is how this works. The bandwidth has already been sold. They need the income from that to balance the budget ( I know that was a big joke).
As far as owning a tv how do you expect government propaganda to reach the masses without one?

[GullyFoyle]

But how will this affect the poor?? How will they ever afford a new TV? I think this requires a new gummint program to buy digital TVs for all people making less than $50K per year. After all, owning a working TV is a *right*, not a choice of how to spend your money.

That's false. Television broadcast reception is a privilege not a right. the government nor any other organization is responsible to provide you with a television or the means to receive the broadcasts of television affiliates. It's a privilege to those who can afford it.

But the airwaves belong to the people.
So in theory they should be paying us to broadcast.
One of the biggest scams ever, much like a private organization controlling government money.

[ROF]

But the airwaves belong to the people.

Tell that to the FCC. I have to pay for my HAM license. The airwaves should be free. HAHAHAHA! Who told you that? Did you even read the news article linked and how much the analog airwaves are worth? I own a license to broadcast. I do not own my own frequencies.

[GullyFoyle]

But the airwaves belong to the people.

Tell that to the FCC. I have to pay for my HAM license. The airwaves should be free. HAHAHAHA! Who told you that? Did you even read the news article linked and how much the analog airwaves are worth? I own a license to broadcast. I do not own my own frequencies.

It started off as a sarcastic line. Now it just pisses me off.
They are our airwaves, someone should pay OUR government for them.
OUR government has decided that IMMENENT DOMAIN trumps ownership for land.
What is the point in living in the US if all you are expected to be is a money conduit to the rich?

[handyguy]

Hey, they are making HDTV VCRs......they record hdtv so we need those.

People with no hdtv can use a box to convert.

[edDV]

But how will this affect the poor?? How will they ever afford a new TV? I think this requires a new gummint program to buy digital TVs for all people making less than $50K per year. After all, owning a working TV is a *right*, not a choice of how to spend your money.

A new TV isn't needed, just a new tuner + possibly a new antenna for over the air DTV reception. Before the analog cutoff becomes reality, DTV tuners intended to work with analog TV sets (e.g. Ch3-4, composite, S-Video outputs) will be available for well under $50. Those on cable or dbs will need nothing new.

First to be shut off will be lower VHF (Ch 2-6) in the larger cities.

[ROF]

It started off as a sarcastic line. Now it just pisses me off.
They are our airwaves, someone should pay OUR government for them.
OUR government has decided that IMMENENT DOMAIN trumps ownership for land.
What is the point in living in the US if all you are expected to be is a money conduit to the rich?

To extend the sarcasm: Welcome to capitalism.

But seriously what does land ownership and airwave broadcasts have in common. neither are equated. They are two entirely different concepts. Can you show me anywhere that it states that broadcast airwaves are owned by anyone who wishes to broadcast into any frequency they wish? Someone will be paying our government for them. Read the article. Airwaves cost money. Broadcasters purchase airwaves and in turn they sell the information broadcast on those airwaves to people who are willing to pay for it. Can you just wake up in the morning twist your nose and instantly receive your favorite AM radio station? last time I checked a consumer purchased product was required to receive those broadcast airwaves. This is no different or the only difference is that a different consumer purchased receiver (Digital) is required.

[GullyFoyle]

It started off as a sarcastic line. Now it just pisses me off.
They are our airwaves, someone should pay OUR government for them.
OUR government has decided that IMMENENT DOMAIN trumps ownership for land.
What is the point in living in the US if all you are expected to be is a money conduit to the rich?

To extend the sarcasm: Welcome to capitalism.

But seriously what does land ownership and airwave broadcasts have in common. neither are equated. They are two entirely different concepts. Can you show me anywhere that it states that broadcast airwaves are owned by anyone who wishes to broadcast into any frequency they wish? Someone will be paying our government for them. Read the article. Airwaves cost money. Broadcasters purchase airwaves and in turn they sell the information broadcast on those airwaves to people who are willing to pay for it. Can you just wake up in the morning twist your nose and instantly receive your favorite AM radio station? last time I checked a consumer purchased product was required to receive those broadcast airwaves. This is no different or the only difference is that a different consumer purchased receiver (Digital) is required.

Actually they do. Both are owned by the people. Government is NOT a seperate entity from the people.
Government spends the peoples money and does the peoples business.
At least that is the way it is supposed to be.

http://chris.shumway.tripod.com/2004_08_01_mediaocracy_archive.html

Keep in mind that the broadcast airwaves are public property and that the broadcasters get to use them for free in exchange for a promise to serve the "public interest, necessity and convenience." Had they any respect for citizens and the concept of democracy, the broadcasters would provide free airtime to political candidates.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040830&s=chester

Some readers may recall the notorious giveaway of new public airwaves to broadcasters by Congress in 1996. It was worth $70 billion then. Under the policy sought by Disney and others, cable systems would have to show all these new channels. That would likely bring broadcasters tremendous new revenues, all because of government largesse.

[mikesbytes]

Hey, they are making HDTV VCRs......they record hdtv so we need those.

People with no hdtv can use a box to convert.

HDTV VCR's ? Got an example

[ROF]

JVC HDTV VCR

[smearbrick1]

If there was not government regulation of frequency, you wouldn't be able to listen to anything. Everybody and their redneck cousin would be out the with a HAM radio or something trying broadcast a radio show over the same frequency as their neighbor. On the other hand, I don't believe the FCC should be charging for licenses to transmit over the air. That's almost like charging a breathing tax.

[lordsmurf]

That's almost like charging a breathing tax.

I think that bill was just introduced.

[ROF]

Yes. It's called the clean air act which reminds me that I need a cigarette.

[handyguy]

HDTV vcr:
JVC HMD-H5U D-VHS HDTV VCR