backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 65 comment(s) - last by 13Gigatons.. on Mar 23 at 6:28 AM
Digital-to-analog converters to retail for $60 USD, $20 USD after government coupon

The United States and Japan are leading the consumer shift to HDTV televisions. Recent studies have shown that the two countries will cause worldwide HDTV penetration to triple, from 48 million households currently to 151 million households by 2011.

The United States is doing its part to push customer to the digital era by discontinuing all analog television broadcasts on February 17, 2009. At that time, those using external antennas or rabbit ears to feed over-the-air (OTA) analog content into their outdated TVs will see nothing but static.

In an effort to help Americans that are still using televisions without digital tuners onboard, the U.S. government is allotting households two $40 coupons which can be used towards the purchase of an digital-to-analog box. The program will start on January 1, 2008 and will end on March 31, 2009.

LG Electronics, one of three companies manufacturing digital-to-analog boxes for analog TVs, says that the converter boxes will retail for roughly $60 USD in stores. When coupled with the government coupon, consumers can expect to cough up a Jackson to bring new life to their analog televisions.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
If....
By GGA1759 on 3/21/2007 1:13:58 PM , Rating: 1
the government is maindating the change to digital, shouldn't they be footing the bill for the full charge of the box that is needed?




RE: If....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/21/2007 1:16:52 PM , Rating: 5
A TV is a luxury item. I'm surprised they're even going this far by offering coupons.


RE: If....
By GGA1759 on 3/21/2007 1:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
Even so, it is a mandate by the government to spend money. The government will make billions off of selling the old analog frequencies. We will never see any of that.


RE: If....
By FITCamaro on 3/21/2007 4:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Of course you won't when you count things like roads to drive on, schools to educate your kids, troops to defend your country, etc as things you can't see.


RE: If....
By mindless1 on 3/22/2007 7:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
Ok so long as we're not taxed for these too.
What it does instead is creates another opportunity for an overbloated government to perpetuate the overspending by continuing to try to find new ways of increasing income instead of ways to decrease spending.

Roads, schools, troops, these are not the things we take issue with, it's the waste. Then again we do take issue with above to the extent our roads, schools, and troops aren't doing as well as they would if there was less fat in the budget.


RE: If....
By timmiser on 3/21/2007 9:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
Where will it go then?


RE: If....
By Enoch2001 on 3/21/2007 1:22:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
A TV is a luxury item. I'm surprised they're even going this far by offering coupons.


Agreed. What surprises me is that people often forget that TV is a luxury item. Then again, what surprises me even more is how many people can't get by without watching it.

Pity.


RE: If....
By RMSistight on 3/21/2007 2:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
Trust me. Within a few years, I won't even need a TV subscription because I can handpick ALL the TV shows I can watch and just stream them onto my computer and watch it on my monitor. Oh and my monitor is a Westinghouse 37 inch. I love it.

But in all seriousness I don't feel I would be subscribing to TV service. I don't watch TV a lot in general and would be more willing to pay per view. I would save a lot of money in the long run just by picking what I want to watch instead of paying a high price for channels.


RE: If....
By BMFPitt on 3/21/2007 2:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is for the free OTA signals. No subscription required.


RE: If....
By RMSistight on 3/21/2007 3:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
Even if it's OTA signals, I wouldn't need the service. That's just me though.


RE: If....
By BMFPitt on 3/21/2007 3:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I just totally misinterpreted your post, but I'm trying to say that there is no "service" that you would be subscribing to.


RE: If....
By MonkeyPaw on 3/21/2007 6:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an over-the-air HDTV watcher, and it is totally free and quite reliable with a small indoor directional antenna. I live on a hill about 3-5 miles from all the broadcast towers, though. The picture is freaking awesome, especially for my main TV interest--sports.

On a side note, even my Dad is already thinking about getting an HDTV. He's never used a computer, and doesn't watch that much TV, either. However, after seeing my HDTV in action, he is actually quite interested. I never thought he'd be one to take on new(ish) technology!


RE: If....
By timmiser on 3/21/2007 9:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm about 15 miles from the broadcast towers in hilly Seattle and I have a small roof HD antenna and get the channels with no problem. 100% free and 100% HD! And yes it is true, the quality of over the air HDTV is just plain perfect video and perfect sound.


RE: If....
By 13Gigatons on 3/23/2007 6:28:20 AM , Rating: 3
You won't be watching TV any more then because analog signals will cease to exist.


RE: If....
By TheGee on 3/21/2007 2:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
In the UK the switch off of analog is slated to 2010 I think. And we've had terrestial digital TV since around 1999. Most UK homes have already got a set top box an. to dig. converter which are as cheap as about $35 dollars.
The problem is in areas that don't have coverage (like the cell phone network) some areas a satellite dish will be the only way (but there are free satellite channels as well). Our government wouldn't offer any help and still charges us $300 per household to have a TV!! The bloody cheek!! But on the other hand it funds the BBC which is bloody good. What a conundrum!


RE: If....
By alifbaa on 3/21/2007 3:20:04 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, and having seen the BBC, I'd have to say you guys have a pretty good thing going over there. I don't get your brand of entertainment TV, but you can't find real news like BBC world over here. You could watch all four 24 hour news channels all day and never once see even passing mention of Africa or South America during the typical day, but you'd be an expert on Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears!

$300/set/year is pretty steep though. That's pretty close to the cost of a basic cable subscription in the US that would include about 50 channels vs. your half dozen or so.


RE: If....
By Spivonious on 3/21/2007 3:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
I love the classics like Are you Being Served?, Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Keeping Up Appearances, and anything with Rowan Atkinson. Of course, I also like Black Books and Doctor Who too for the newer shows.


RE: If....
By glennpratt on 3/22/2007 1:25:48 AM , Rating: 2
Try PBS + NPR. But your right, the 24 hour news channels suck! It amazes me that no one thinks they could make money off reporting real news. Most people I know just watch things like the history channel because the commercial news is so noxious.


RE: If....
By Hare on 3/21/2007 3:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
We are months away from completely stopping analog transmissions. (Here in Finland).


RE: If....
By timmiser on 3/21/2007 9:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hey I was in Helsinki in 1988 and the TV stations went off the air during the weekday except for Euro versions of MTV and CNN which just repeated themselves. Do they still do that today?


RE: If....
By Hare on 3/22/2007 10:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about?

Channels are on 24/7.