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 At that time, those using external antennas or rabbit ears to feed over-the-air (OTA) analog content into their outdated TVs will see nothing but static.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.


RE: If....
By feraltoad on 3/21/2007 5:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Also consider they would be paying you with your own money; their money is our money. The government likes to forget that, I don't think we should.


RE: If....
By otispunkmeyer on 3/22/2007 4:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
your right

plus 20 bux isnt exactly expensive...if you cant afford that then really you have other more serious issues to attend rather than watching the TV

in the UK the phase out is gonna last until 2010/12 i think (typical gov spinning it out for as long as possible to give all them useless civil servants something to do)

but at the moment i have not heard of any type of subsidisng of the digi boxes, nor specific "launch partner" brands.

here there are tons of digi boxes on offer though. most new tv's have them (DVB - digital video broadcast), alot of people subscribe to sky or virgin media for their internet, phone, mobile and TV and you can pick up a half decent digi box for £30-£40 anyway.

pretty much everyone i know, poor students included, already use some form of digital television


RE: If....
By BMFPitt on 3/21/2007 1:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Should the government buy you a new car when they tighten up emissions standards?

Be happy with your 67% discount.


RE: If....
By GGA1759 on 3/21/2007 1:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
I have a choice to buy a new vehicle. I do not have a choice with the changing of the signal.


RE: If....
By BMFPitt on 3/21/2007 1:23:49 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know what state you're in, but in mine when your car is spewing smoke you can't drive it. The government mandates that you spend money to repair or replace it. My analogy stands.


RE: If....
By GGA1759 on 3/21/2007 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 1
When your car spews smoke, you get it fixed. You do not have to buy a new one. So no, your analogy does not stand.

There is nothing wrong with the current signal. Is the picture 5 times better? Sure is, it's great and I love it.
But the fact remains that this is the government wanting billions for the old analog signal. The consumer now has to buy a new TV or a converter box. Why? All because the government wants billions. Either way you look at it the consumer pays out money. What does the consumer get in return? A nicer picture? Hardly. There is still very little content out there.


RE: If....
By stromgald on 3/21/2007 2:35:48 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't that the point of the converter? The converter is like fixing your car or installing a new catalytic converter to help it meet emissions standards. You pay for those fixes or the government will take your car, and you'll have to buy a new one.

The government isn't forcing you to buy a new TV because they're upgrading the signal/picture quality. You can get the converter and 'patch' it.

The analogy stands.


RE: If....
By bentonsv on 3/21/2007 3:26:25 PM , Rating: 3
If the analogy stands, how do you explain that a '57 Chevy is still legal to drive on our highways. As I understand it, in the U.S., emissions standards apply only to new cars built after the change and existing automobiles are grandfathered in. That's why cars built before a certain model year don't have to go through the emissions testing during an annual inspection. I can't imagine that the government would ever require someone to upgrade their '57 Chevy with a new engine and exhaust system each time the emissions requirements change. The government assumes that at some point, those old cars will be removed from service and replaced with newer models.

In this case the government is requiring additional cost in order for some existing perfectly good equipment to continue in use. However, I think we can all agree a $60 D-to-A converter doesn't quite compare to an engine/exhaust replacement. ;-)

Analogy fails.


RE: If....
By FITCamaro on 3/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: If....
By FITCamaro on 3/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: If....
By sprockkets on 3/22/2007 12:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
A 57' model year ANYTHING pollutes the air by just sitting there and spewing out raw gasoline, let alone while it is running. Go by any classic car and smell what I mean.


RE: If....
By theapparition on 3/22/2007 9:38:57 AM , Rating: 2
A 57 chevy also ran on leaded gasoline. The government mandated the removal of lead. Very high compression ratio engines required modifications to run unleaded. The government didn't pay for this. Driving a car is a privilage and luxury, so is watching TV, and so is browsing the internet.


RE: If....
By bentonsv on 3/22/2007 11:22:22 AM , Rating: 3
Ok... apparently everyone missed the point of my post. The post I was originally responding to made the claim that when emissions standards change, you either fix your car to meet them or the government takes your car. This is not the case as a vehicle is subject only to the emissions requirements that existed at the time of its manufacture. You can still drive it as long as you like with no modifications and no repercussions from the government based on the new requirements, in North Carolina at least. Perhaps my choice of the '57 Chevy as an example was poor because of the eventual leaded gasoline phase out which DID result in either modifying the engine or use of a fuel additive.

In the case of this required D-to-A converter, its basically a government imposed fee to continue using a piece of equipment that would otherwise still be able to carry out its intended function. Do I think its a big deal? No. I see it more like the price of progress, though there could be other implications that the average viewing public hasn't considered but that the big wigs who pushed for this surely have.

I still say that the original analogy fails, but if you instead compare it to the phase out of leaded gasoline, that's a different story.


RE: If....
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2007 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
You have a choice. You can either a) watch static, or b) buy a converter. Up to you.

Seriously, the things people complain about. Personally, I don't like my tax dollars going to subsidize the cost of these boxes. If people want to watch TV, let them spend their own money.


RE: If....
By Mitch101 on 3/21/2007 2:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
Poltergeists will be happy about this.


RE: If....
By MrBungle123 on 3/21/2007 2:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
i couldn't possibly agree more


RE: If....
By FITCamaro on 3/21/2007 2:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
You have a choice whether or not to watch TV. I love it how poor people expect the government to pony up the cash any time it wants to make progress by phasing out antiquated systems.

But fine, lets give them their digital to analog box for free. In return, I don't want my taxes to go to things like their welfare checks, public schools I have never and will never use, Social Security I'll never see, Medicare I'll never use, etc. And I want them to have to pay the same amount as me for the higher property tax I get charged for not driving a piece of crap. Don't like that huh? Then take your $40 voucher and quit complaining.


RE: If....
By goz314 on 3/21/2007 7:56:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I love it how poor people expect the government to pony up the cash any time it wants to make progress


Well, seeing as how poor people were not decrying the switch over from analog to DTV in the first place I don't see that comment having any merit. Congress is responsible for offering the digital converter program and the associated household discount for purchasing them, not poor people. Poor people don't have a voice in policy making -they really don't. You might argue that there are certain political parties or social groups that perform that function, but that notion is largely a fallacy. This program was not set up to be a social service handout so un-inclined individuals can continue to live off the dole of society.

Most poor people couldn't care less about being able to watch television or about having some of the other nice-to-have things that the rest of us may enjoy. They are more focused on simply making ends meet from day-to-day. I would say that people should walk a mile in their shoes before making judgments about their motivations.

Speaking of society, I love it when rich people complain that the government is taking away all of their money when it is that same government that makes it possible for them to live in a free, capitalistic country that affords them the opportunities to actually make an income and become wealthy in the first place. So save any complaints you may be alluding to about income redistribution and class warfare for an actual socialist/communist government - not that of the United States. Sure there are some BS government programs that are wasteful. And there are a whole slew of others that not everyone agrees with, but this one is pretty innocuous. FYI, Congress has appropriated $990 million to support the converter box program. Consequently, that's the same amount that is being spent to support current military operations in Iraq every week.


RE: If....
By FITCamaro on 3/21/2007 8:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
I grew up basically poor and am far from rich now. And if you don't think the less fortunate have a say in government you're naive. There are far more less fortunate people in the US than middle class or wealthy. So who's votes count the most. The less fortunate's. Granted the middle class (which I'm a part of) pays the majority of the bills in this country.


RE: If....
By timmiser on 3/21/2007 9:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
What does basically poor mean?


RE: If....
By frobizzle on 3/21/2007 11:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are far more less fortunate people in the US than middle class or wealthy. So who's votes count the most. The less fortunate's.


Oh puh-leaze! Who's being naive now? Voters have so little influence on what laws are being passed. It is the Lobbys that dictate the direction of what laws are made (or aren't made.) As Will Rogers so profoundly said more than 70 years ago, "We have the best government money can buy!"


RE: If....
By doctor sam adams on 3/21/2007 1:28:46 PM , Rating: 3
The government should definitely be paying out some of the billions (trillions) that disappear into the government black hole. In fact, if they just picked random products and offered coupons for them, eventually everyone would get a discount on something.


RE: If....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: If....
By Spivonious on 3/21/2007 3:34:58 PM , Rating: 3
That argument doesn't hold up in the U.S., at least outside of major cities, because public transportation here stinks. A car, or access to one, is required for daily life. And I may be wrong, but aren't "collector" licenseplate cars exempt from these regulations?

Back to TV:
The government is essentially charging for over-the-air TV. What once was free is now $60. Why can't we have a mix of signals? People who can afford the HDTV will watch digital, people who can't watch analog. Personally, I've watched HD signals, and yes they look nice. Are they worth getting the HD TV? Maybe in a few years when a good HDTV is under $500.

All this is is more federal control over my life. This is something I could do without. The federal government exists to make sure the states play nice and for foreign policy. I'm totally against slavery, but I would be on the South's side in the Civil War.


RE: If....
By BMFPitt on 3/21/2007 3:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
How about we define "collector" cars as one of the many classes of TVs that don't need a converter.

Broadcast spectrum is (effectively) finite. Analog TV is a highly inefficient use of it, and used by less and less people besides that. There are a ton of services that I would rather see us using that piece of the spectrum for, and a redundant TV signal isn't one of them.


RE: If....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/21/2007 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 1
Actually the argument does hold up very well in any part of the USA. You forget, like a TV, a car is a luxury item. You can always: walk, run, bike, get a ride from someone else, taxi, skateboard, roller blade, fly, train, bus, skip, bound, flee, or how ever you wish to travel to reach your destination.
Now, you are correct that public transportation does suck maggot nuts in the rural and not so rural areas in the USA, but that does not change anything about the argument about having the choice not to drive your older or newer car, because there are other options, even if they are not covenant to you and to your liking. Just like we have the option to watch TV or not watch TV, we still can: listen to the radio, goto a movie, see a play, be in a play, or pick up a hobby.


RE: If....
By Spivonious on 3/22/2007 2:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I'll just be like the many Amish around here and use horse-and-buggies.

Let's say I live 15-minutes of driving from my work. That's about 2-3 miles.

Let's walk 3 miles. Average walking speed about 4mph. Sure, I'll walk down a busy road for an hour instead of driving it for 15 minutes.

A taxi is a car. Getting a ride from someone else involves them having a car.

There are no buses, trains, or planes that go from my house to my work.

I'm not saying that TV is a necessity for life; I'm just pointing out that it's always been free in the U.S. and now it's going to require extra equipment.


RE: If....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/22/2007 5:30:06 PM , Rating: 1
Well it would be healthy for you, except maybe getting hit by a car...and if you live the Amish life you would not have to worry about the TV any more...Not allowed :)
Changes not always convient...I agree. However, they are only talking about a one time cost of $60.00, which the Government plans to give you two coupons for $40.00. This is not monthly or yearly. Think of it this way, you are just buying a new antenna for your TV.


RE: If....
By Kefner on 3/21/2007 1:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
The government shouldn't have to foot the entire bill. You have almost 2 years till the switch. If you can't save up 20 bucks in that time, to receive free TV, then get your news/entertainment from the radio. In the case of someone in extreme poverty, who absolutely can not afford the extra 20, the electronics industry/TV networks should foot the remainder of the bill, the government is already footing more than half of the total bill


RE: If....
By walk2k on 3/21/2007 2:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind cable TV customers will get their box for free.


RE: If....
By Kefner on 3/21/2007 4:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Where is this free? I have to rent my box!!!!


RE: If....
By Oregonian2 on 3/21/2007 1:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
Would set a bad example. The government almost never pays for that which it mandates. That's one of the sources of 'sneak-tax' where one is taxed without it showing. All of the demands made of auto makers for gas economy or for pollution control aren't paid by the government -- it's paid by the consumer when buying the autos. Demands on factories for their pollution control or safety controls aren't paid by the government. Those are the easy examples, but it's massively everywhere. Probably most all laws passed end up costing someone something somewhere that's not paid by the government. I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad, but that it happens all the time so this is nothing different. Financing for the coupons may be from the extra bandwidth the government can sell when the analog broadcasts stop. :-)


RE: If....
By Hotdogah on 3/21/2007 4:01:37 PM , Rating: 5
The coupons are comming because the goverment made about 10 times the amount of the cost in auctioning the bandwith off to private holders. Because of this they are in a way refunding part of the cprofit back to us as they made money.


RE: If....
By Hotdogah on 3/21/2007 4:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
Correction *profit

And just as a side note, this law does not apply towards cable. It’s impossible for them to switch and it’s not required. DTV and Dish are already all digital. The reason it does not apply to these others is because they don’t broadcast OTA using the old analogue channels and has nothing to do with HD.


RE: If....
By Oregonian2 on 3/21/2007 8:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
Cable also is a private network, not a public one like the airwaves are.


analog-to-digital?
By Kefner on 3/21/2007 1:13:22 PM , Rating: 3
Shouldn't that be digital-to-analog box?




RE: analog-to-digital?
By HaZaRd2K6 on 3/21/2007 1:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
Nice to see I'm not the only one ;-)


boradcasting
By SonicIce on 3/21/2007 4:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of burden does this put on the broadcasting companies? I mean aren't they all set up for analog as it is? They will all need to purchase some very expensive new equipment too.




RE: boradcasting
By therealnickdanger on 3/21/2007 4:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if you have noticed, but all current analog broadcasts are already accompanied by digital broadcasts. I recently bought my parents a cheap ($190) 27" CRT SDTV and now all their local stations come in with DVD-like sharpness and Dolby Digital. Very nice step up from analog broadcasts.


Hang on a minute...
By HaZaRd2K6 on 3/21/2007 1:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't that make them digital to analogue converters? They'll be taking the incoming digital signal and displaying it on an analogue screen, thus digital-analogue. Or am I just a misguided mind here?




analog-to-digital
By BMFPitt on 3/21/2007 1:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think that should be the other way around.




Sure about heading?
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/21/2007 1:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
When I read this as a direct press release, I was under the assumption that the devices would be $60 before the gov't rebate. Made by LG, right?




By osalcido on 3/21/2007 3:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
My grandparents are fine with the few analog channels available..... as long as this digital converter gives them all the channels they're used to... I see no reason to complain.

Maybe the signal will be even clearer in digital




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki