backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 29 comment(s) - last by pbrain.. on Feb 13 at 11:26 PM
The United States Congress has approved a definite date in which TV broadcasters will have to switch from analog to digital

President Bush signed legislation earlier this week that will officially end analog broadcasting on Feb. 17, 2009, which is the date that all U.S. broadcasters must stop transmitting analog television signals.  Viewers who have analog TVs will have to purchase a converter after the transition is complete.  Along with the legislation, $1.5B USD in funding will be offered to provide two $40 USD vouchers for every household to be used to purchase converter boxes.  The bill will free up 60 MHz of spectrum that will be given to the highest bidders of wireless-broadband and cell phone providers. 

The bill passed a very close 216-214 vote by the House of Representatives before the bill reached and was signed by the President.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why so close?
By mindless1 on 2/11/2006 12:27:04 PM , Rating: 1
The bill passed by a very narrow margin. Seems not everyone is on board with this plan, or did they just dislike the particular date?

IMO, it's a mistake to get rid of all the analog broadcasting. The average person in the US does not have HDTV and I doubt they'd be likely to buy a new set if not forced to. IE- analog only sets are still being sold today. If anything they should have first put a stop to importation of analog tv sets and THEN imposed the switchover a few years later. I'm all for more digital services but this reeks of the rich getting what they want opposed to the majority of citizens. We, being here at DailyTech, are naturally more technically inclined when it comes to these things but for every one of us there are a hundred that only know they'll eventually be forced to buy a box or new tv. That's good for technology but not how it's supposed to work in a free society.




RE: Why so close?
By Hacp on 2/11/2006 12:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
Read my previous post to find out why its so close.


RE: Why so close?
By Dybo70 on 2/11/2006 1:57:12 PM , Rating: 3
The reason that not everyone in the House was "on board" with this bill really has nothing to do with the termination of analog TV signals, but rather with the umpteen million different "riders" that were attached to this piece of legislation.

Until we find a way to keep "riders" from being attached to every piece of legislation that passes through Congress, you will see very few truly unanimous votes.


RE: Why so close?
By Pandamonium on 2/11/2006 4:56:53 PM , Rating: 4
digital != hd


RE: Why so close?
By Nobody Else on 2/12/2006 2:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
digital != hd


Digital = non-analog.

Digital can use the bandwidth for HD. Broadcasters may also forgo HD and instead give us several sub-channels of Standard Definition.

2009 does NOT mean that all programming will be in HD.


RE: Why so close?
By Hulk on 2/11/2006 6:10:45 PM , Rating: 5
This is freakin' crazy!!!

First they get rid of the pony express. Now I can be assured that my mail is being delivered on non-polluting horses. I have NO CHOICE for non-polluting mail delivery.

Next they stop broadcasting TV in black and white!!! I love those old b/w movies. Again the big bad government is taking away my ability to choose.

And now, the final freakin' blow to my freedom. They're going to stop analog broadcasts to, get this, free up transmission space for other more modern, efficient communication systems!!!

Unbelievable. And I only have three years to prepare. There is no way I'm going to be mentally prepared to take the $40 from the goverment to buy a converter so that I can use my old TV. This is crazy. I can't do it.



On a serious note, this has taken way too long and I can't believe they are actually going to give vouchers for analog boxes. Since when was TV a "right"?

I'm sure in a year or two a 20" LCD TV with a built in digital tuner will cost $79 at Walmart so I can't see how this is NOT a step forward.


RE: Why so close?
By Xenoterranos on 2/12/2006 7:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
"Since when was TV a "right"?"

That's a daned good point! This sets a precedent for the gov't looking at TV and brodcasts as a public good and a right. Maybe the anti-drm lawyers can use this to their advantage.

Note to self: Invent anti-drm lawyer.


RE: Why so close?
By marvdmartian on 2/13/2006 9:23:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
First they get rid of the pony express. Now I can be assured that my mail is being delivered on non-polluting horses. I have NO CHOICE for non-polluting mail delivery.

So I'm guessing you've never walked behind one of those "non-polluting" horses, eh? ;)


Ha, ha,ha, ha....
By kilkennycat on 2/12/2006 2:52:47 AM , Rating: 3
Wait till granny talks to her congressman, when she finds out that the converter box will also need a brand-new outdoor antenna. If she is lucky enough to get good reception currently on rabbit-ears she will probably need
an outdoor antenna to combat the multipath problems
endemic in the ATSC system. And the broadcast range of
the DTV/HDTV UHF system is nowhere near that of the VHF channels currently occupied by many rural and small-urban TV stations.... So, many off-air viewers are likely to have unacceptable signal levels for DTV viewing without a significant antenna upgrade. The beauracratic bunglers (sorry, I mean Congress) have again been sold a bill of goods by an administration chasing every last penny. It should be highly amusing watching 2009 come and go and good ole' 525-line TV still with us in all areas except those with dense urban populations and no hope of getting a decent off-air signal.




RE: Ha, ha,ha, ha....
By Dejal on 2/12/2006 11:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
Current estimates are that 70 - 80% of households do NOT get TV with antennas. They use cable or sat. The vast majority of people in this country are not going to notice any difference.

As far as having to upgrade to a new antenna. That's debateable. If true, a Channel Master 4228 for around $50 seems to be popular choice for OTA HD signals.

I live in a urban area and for yucks bought a ATI HDTV PCI card. With the dinky little antenna (looks like a 1 ft metal christmas tree) that came with it and pointing it in the right direction (direction shouldn't be a big deal for people using antennas now as either they have a rotor or they are just pointing their current one in the correct direction) I can pick up HD ABC,2 HD NBCs, 1 HD FOX, 1 HD CBS, 1 HD PBS. Also, I can pick up 2 Digtal CBS, 2 Digital NBCs and 4 Digital PBS stations.

The CBS + FOX signals come in a lot better than they ever did with rabbit ears (both stations are over 30 miles away).



















































RE: Ha, ha,ha, ha....
By Octoparrot on 2/12/2006 11:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
Some misinformation in kilkennycat's post needs correction: the frequencies being auctioned for use after analog shutoff are UHF channels 52-69. The extra channels currently being used now for digital transmission will be given back once the analog shut off occurs, and the digital signals will switch over to the original assigned lower channels which are currently being used for the analog signals, many of which are VHF. THe multipath issues are greatly improved in 5th and later generation ATSC tuners which are used in most current sets.

And of course, you can have adjacent ATSC channels which is not really doable with NTSC. So those VHF channels can now broadcast ATSC channels 2,3,4, etc. in the same geographic area after analog shutoff whereas analog set & transmitter design make this impractical. Whereas before the shutoff you can't even have NTSC channels 3 and 4 active at the same time, so you're forced to allocate UHF channels. So you have just proven the great benefits of killing analog as rapidly as possible. Thanks for supporting the digital transition with your post.


GREAT
By tjr508 on 2/11/2006 1:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
This is a necessary step in freeing up some of out radio spectrum which is basically completely full. As many of you know, we can't just keep upping the frequencies as we have atmospheric restrictions. The search for more air space has consumed the lives of many of the world's greatest mathematicians and this should make their work a little easier. Though this is a step in the right direction, others also need to follow. Our sky is cluttered with millions of devices that are literally taking up hundreds of times the space they would actually need with today's technology, keeping many new innovative products from ever reaching the market.

As far as the attached bills, great. While regulating airwaves is something a federal government must do as states, counties, cities, and private citizens could not handle the task, our founding fathers did not start this country to federally provide Medicare and educational loans. Both these programs involve redistribution of wealth and should be left completely to state governments.




RE: GREAT
By AlexWade on 2/11/2006 5:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
The TV station had 9 years to make a transition. THEY FAILED! It is a pity that a law actually had to be made to force the changeover. Make no mistake, if this law wasn't passed, true HDTV wouldn't be a reality until 2020. Look how few HDTV channels there are now considering the original deadline was this year.

The only thing TV stations are good at is putting more ads per hour, require cable to sell us packages of channels and not channels individually, and making useless stations we'll never watch but still have to pay for.


RE: GREAT
By pbrain on 2/11/2006 6:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
Someone mentioned it earlier, but it's a common misconception due to confusing naming schemes, so it's worth repeating.

Digital broadcasts are NOT , by default, high definition.

While I'm at it, I might as well mention that HDTV isn't the same, or even directly related to, high-bandwidth digital content protection (HDCP) either.


I'm confused
By Souka on 2/12/2006 1:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, I'll bite... I"m confused.

So analog TV must die because the "need" to free bandwidth for cell-phone... uhm... ok.

So my Analog TV, using Comcast Analog cable will either HAVE to use a converter or upgrade to a new TV set??? Uhm... Cable isn't transmitted through the air...right?

Now, I do understand the "need" to end analog air-wave transmissions, but how does this even apply to wired transmissions?





RE: I'm confused
By Josh7289 on 2/12/2006 2:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, I do understand the "need" to end analog air-wave transmissions, but how does this even apply to wired transmissions?


It doesn't. That's the thing about this for me, since it doesn't matter at all for me or for 99.9% of the people I know. In fact, out of ALL the people I know, only one uses over-the-air (OTA) signals instead of cable in satellite.

In fact, this whole thing matters even less for those of us on cable or satellite because, since these providers do not have to switch to digital, they can, and I'm sure at least some smaller ones will, actually take the digital or HD signals they get and downrez them into 480i signals to be transmitted over the cable lines to us to save bandwidth and the cost of upgrading to digital. I don't include the satellite providers here since they already have digital channels, but again, I'm sure at least smaller cable companies will do this.


Super Bowl
By timmiser on 2/13/2006 6:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
Anybody else notice how they scheduled this for just a few days AFTER the 2009 Super Bowl?!





RE: Super Bowl
By pbrain on 2/13/2006 11:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
This is on purpose. It also comes several months before March Madness. The date was selected to minimize interference with major televised events.


why this is sinister
By DigitalDivine on 2/12/2006 2:40:13 AM , Rating: 1
the bush administration is planning to sell the frequency ranges to private corporations. so therefore ALOT of once public frequencies will give way to corporations.

o yea... if you have to own frequency, the bidding starts soon and ends at 2009. it's expected to generate billions.




RE: why this is sinister
By dvinnen on 2/12/2006 2:56:03 AM , Rating: 2
Plans for forcing the move to digital first came about during the Cliton administration.

And since when were those frequencies public? You have to pay for them now too.

Now shut up you pinko commy hippy.


THe bill also included...
By Hacp on 2/11/2006 12:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
cuts on mediccare and educational loans.




Three years...
By Josh7289 on 2/11/2006 12:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't originally supposed to have happened by now?

Anyway, I don't give a crap about this, because it only applies to over-the-air broadcast signals, and it has nothing to do with cable or satellite providers.




No issues, sensible move
By psychobriggsy on 2/11/2006 1:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
The 'convertor boxes' (digital terrestrial recievers) should be small and reasonably cheap, especially if tens of millions of households will be buying them.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could get two of them with the two vouchers come 2009.

Over here in the UK we've had digital terrestrial for a few years, with some hiccups that resulted in the current Freeview system. The boxes are available from £29, and most new TVs come with a tuner integrated. Of course we use DVB-T, whereas the US is going to use ATSC, IIRC, just to be different(tm).

It'll suck if you have 10 TVs in the house, but then again, do you really need 10 TVs in the house?

I think the whole issue is silly. It'll change over, people will get receivers an