R
RobertMoore
Guest
....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
K
KMRichards
Guest
> ....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV
> channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which
> is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
That means the television industry has 1,267 days from today to provide a product that I consider worth watching enough to convert.
I could be perfectly content to just watch my DVD library. At least my discs don't have ratings bugs, pop-up promos, and squeezed credits.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which
> is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
That means the television industry has 1,267 days from today to provide a product that I consider worth watching enough to convert.
I could be perfectly content to just watch my DVD library. At least my discs don't have ratings bugs, pop-up promos, and squeezed credits.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
M
mwebster
Guest
While they are at it, they should give the bandwidth now used for channels five and six to FM radio - and require receiver manufacturers to start making Expanded-FM ready sets now. They should also set improved standards for AM receivers. In 2009, they should start to unclutter the AM band by moving local and marginal regional AM's to FM and start allowing remaining AM's to upgrade their signals. If they are going to shut down VHF, at least do something useful while they are at it.
> ....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV
> channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which
> is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
>
> ....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV
> channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which
> is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
>
R
RobertMoore
Guest
> That means the television industry has 1,267 days from today
> to provide a product that I consider worth watching enough
> to convert.
> I could be perfectly content to just watch my DVD library.
> At least my discs don't have ratings bugs, pop-up promos,
> and squeezed credits.
However two questions come to mind...
1. Is the public ready for DTV and will they be able to afford enough $ to buy a HDTV set or converter, even if they don't have cable?
2. Will the TV stations be ready by then, considering that most of the stations have yet to sign-on their DTV channels?
> to provide a product that I consider worth watching enough
> to convert.
> I could be perfectly content to just watch my DVD library.
> At least my discs don't have ratings bugs, pop-up promos,
> and squeezed credits.
However two questions come to mind...
1. Is the public ready for DTV and will they be able to afford enough $ to buy a HDTV set or converter, even if they don't have cable?
2. Will the TV stations be ready by then, considering that most of the stations have yet to sign-on their DTV channels?
D
doc9464
Guest
> ....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV
> channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which
> is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
>
Any update on when the spectrum will be turned over to first responders..which i hope will make communications better .....this dovetalis with the conversion date.
> channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which
> is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
>
Any update on when the spectrum will be turned over to first responders..which i hope will make communications better .....this dovetalis with the conversion date.
> > ....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV
>
> > channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee,
> which
> > is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
>
> That means the television industry has 1,267 days from today
> to provide a product that I consider worth watching enough
> to convert.
>
> I could be perfectly content to just watch my DVD library.
> At least my discs don't have ratings bugs, pop-up promos,
> and squeezed credits.
Mot to mention the absence of the endless commercial drivel and other clutter.
>
>
> > channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee,
> which
> > is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
>
> That means the television industry has 1,267 days from today
> to provide a product that I consider worth watching enough
> to convert.
>
> I could be perfectly content to just watch my DVD library.
> At least my discs don't have ratings bugs, pop-up promos,
> and squeezed credits.
Mot to mention the absence of the endless commercial drivel and other clutter.
>
M
Mark_Ericson
Guest
> 2. Will the TV stations be ready by then, considering that
> most of the stations have yet to sign-on their DTV channels?
If most of them aren't on, you must have a pretty weird definition of most. Over 1600 of the 1800 TV stations have digitals on IIRC. I believe 99% of homes have access to at least one OTA digital signal at the present time, and most have more than five.
- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>
> most of the stations have yet to sign-on their DTV channels?
If most of them aren't on, you must have a pretty weird definition of most. Over 1600 of the 1800 TV stations have digitals on IIRC. I believe 99% of homes have access to at least one OTA digital signal at the present time, and most have more than five.
- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
I can't see analog TV service being shut down on April 7th, 2009.
That date will still leave many people without TV service.
The closest parallel I see to the conversion from analog to digital TV was Britain's conversion from 405-line black-and-white on VHF to 625-line color TV on UHF.
The first 625-line UHF station in Britain, the BBC-2 transmitter in London (which would broadcast only in black-and-white until 1967) went on the air in early 1964 (BBC-1 and ITV in most regions activated 625-line UHF color transmitters in late 1969). The 405-line VHF monochrome transmitters were not shut down until January, 1985, nearly twenty-one years later.
April 7th, 2009 may be "do-able" as a date for all TV stations to broadcast digital signals, but I doubt that it will be possible to shut down analog TV service that soon. I think an analog shut-down around 2012 or 2013 would be more realistic, perhaps with a Federal law being in-place that would mandate all new TV sets be sold with a tuner that can receive digital signals. Such a law would need to take effect at least three or four years (I'd prefer five years) prior to the analog switch-off.
That date will still leave many people without TV service.
The closest parallel I see to the conversion from analog to digital TV was Britain's conversion from 405-line black-and-white on VHF to 625-line color TV on UHF.
The first 625-line UHF station in Britain, the BBC-2 transmitter in London (which would broadcast only in black-and-white until 1967) went on the air in early 1964 (BBC-1 and ITV in most regions activated 625-line UHF color transmitters in late 1969). The 405-line VHF monochrome transmitters were not shut down until January, 1985, nearly twenty-one years later.
April 7th, 2009 may be "do-able" as a date for all TV stations to broadcast digital signals, but I doubt that it will be possible to shut down analog TV service that soon. I think an analog shut-down around 2012 or 2013 would be more realistic, perhaps with a Federal law being in-place that would mandate all new TV sets be sold with a tuner that can receive digital signals. Such a law would need to take effect at least three or four years (I'd prefer five years) prior to the analog switch-off.
K
KMRichards
Guest
> While they are at it, they should give the bandwidth now
> used for channels five and six to FM radio - and require
> receiver manufacturers to start making Expanded-FM ready
> sets now. They should also set improved standards for AM
> receivers. In 2009, they should start to unclutter the AM
> band by moving local and marginal regional AM's to FM and
> start allowing remaining AM's to upgrade their signals. If
> they are going to shut down VHF, at least do something
> useful while they are at it.
While I agree (and have posted several times on the subject in the past), here is what potentially stands in the way of that:
1. All DTV would need to be placed in a core of channels 7 through 51. Right now, there are still 48 stations whose chosen DTV channel is in 2-6. (Per the FCC release, which I have downloaded in Excel format, so I can sort the data.) Personally, based on what I have heard from various sources, I think those stations are making a mistake; I wonder what percentage of those 48 either plan to request a different allocation before the cut date, or will be trying to get one shortly afterwards. In any event, 21 of those 48 have chosen either channel 5 or 6.
2. We know that the FCC is auctioning off the high end of the UHF band for use in cellular and other services. I can't think of any practical use for the spectrum presently used by channels 2 through 6, but the FCC would likely try to find a "buyer".
I will say this: If the FCC did agree to the idea, I would also expand the present 50-54 MHz amateur band up to 76 MHz by giving them channels 2, 3 and 4 (although that would require international negotiation, since that band is reserved for fixed mobile in other countries).<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> used for channels five and six to FM radio - and require
> receiver manufacturers to start making Expanded-FM ready
> sets now. They should also set improved standards for AM
> receivers. In 2009, they should start to unclutter the AM
> band by moving local and marginal regional AM's to FM and
> start allowing remaining AM's to upgrade their signals. If
> they are going to shut down VHF, at least do something
> useful while they are at it.
While I agree (and have posted several times on the subject in the past), here is what potentially stands in the way of that:
1. All DTV would need to be placed in a core of channels 7 through 51. Right now, there are still 48 stations whose chosen DTV channel is in 2-6. (Per the FCC release, which I have downloaded in Excel format, so I can sort the data.) Personally, based on what I have heard from various sources, I think those stations are making a mistake; I wonder what percentage of those 48 either plan to request a different allocation before the cut date, or will be trying to get one shortly afterwards. In any event, 21 of those 48 have chosen either channel 5 or 6.
2. We know that the FCC is auctioning off the high end of the UHF band for use in cellular and other services. I can't think of any practical use for the spectrum presently used by channels 2 through 6, but the FCC would likely try to find a "buyer".
I will say this: If the FCC did agree to the idea, I would also expand the present 50-54 MHz amateur band up to 76 MHz by giving them channels 2, 3 and 4 (although that would require international negotiation, since that band is reserved for fixed mobile in other countries).<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> I can't see analog TV service being shut down on April 7th,
> 2009.
>
> That date will still leave many people without TV service.
>
> The closest parallel I see to the conversion from analog to
> digital TV was Britain's conversion from 405-line
> black-and-white on VHF to 625-line color TV on UHF.
>
> The first 625-line UHF station in Britain, the BBC-2
> transmitter in London (which would broadcast only in
> black-and-white until 1967) went on the air in early 1964
> (BBC-1 and ITV in most regions activated 625-line UHF color
> transmitters in late 1969). The 405-line VHF monochrome
> transmitters were not shut down until January, 1985, nearly
> twenty-one years later.
>
> April 7th, 2009 may be "do-able" as a date for all TV
> stations to broadcast digital signals, but I doubt that it
> will be possible to shut down analog TV service that soon. I
> think an analog shut-down around 2012 or 2013 would be more
> realistic, perhaps with a Federal law being in-place that
> would mandate all new TV sets be sold with a tuner that can
> receive digital signals. Such a law would need to take
> effect at least three or four years (I'd prefer five years)
> prior to the analog switch-off.
>
It would've been a LOT more fun to do it in 2008 the Presidental election year. I wonder how many politicans will lose their seats over this. I was in Best Buy and people are STILL buying analog sets for $1,000.00. Most people I talk to have NO IDEA this change is coming.
It's gonna be interesting. Considering so much money will be spent just to get "upconverted" signals that may be passed off as High Def, to people who don't know any better.
I don't see it happening. The FCC has said that to supply everone with a free converter would cost more than the auctioning off of additional signals would make. But they will have to give free converters to some people.
And people are getting used to changing formats...
From LPs, to 8-Track, to Cassettes, to CDs and now MP3s.. Just HOW MANY times am I gonna have to buy that damn "Meet the Beatles" albumn.
(Hey I just thought you always here the music industry complain when people down load they get music free, but they NEVER mention how many times I have bought the same albumn in a different format... HMmmmmm.)
)<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
> 2009.
>
> That date will still leave many people without TV service.
>
> The closest parallel I see to the conversion from analog to
> digital TV was Britain's conversion from 405-line
> black-and-white on VHF to 625-line color TV on UHF.
>
> The first 625-line UHF station in Britain, the BBC-2
> transmitter in London (which would broadcast only in
> black-and-white until 1967) went on the air in early 1964
> (BBC-1 and ITV in most regions activated 625-line UHF color
> transmitters in late 1969). The 405-line VHF monochrome
> transmitters were not shut down until January, 1985, nearly
> twenty-one years later.
>
> April 7th, 2009 may be "do-able" as a date for all TV
> stations to broadcast digital signals, but I doubt that it
> will be possible to shut down analog TV service that soon. I
> think an analog shut-down around 2012 or 2013 would be more
> realistic, perhaps with a Federal law being in-place that
> would mandate all new TV sets be sold with a tuner that can
> receive digital signals. Such a law would need to take
> effect at least three or four years (I'd prefer five years)
> prior to the analog switch-off.
>
It would've been a LOT more fun to do it in 2008 the Presidental election year. I wonder how many politicans will lose their seats over this. I was in Best Buy and people are STILL buying analog sets for $1,000.00. Most people I talk to have NO IDEA this change is coming.
It's gonna be interesting. Considering so much money will be spent just to get "upconverted" signals that may be passed off as High Def, to people who don't know any better.
I don't see it happening. The FCC has said that to supply everone with a free converter would cost more than the auctioning off of additional signals would make. But they will have to give free converters to some people.
And people are getting used to changing formats...
From LPs, to 8-Track, to Cassettes, to CDs and now MP3s.. Just HOW MANY times am I gonna have to buy that damn "Meet the Beatles" albumn.
(Hey I just thought you always here the music industry complain when people down load they get music free, but they NEVER mention how many times I have bought the same albumn in a different format... HMmmmmm.)
)<P ID="signature">______________Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
> It would've been a LOT more fun to do it in 2008 the
> Presidental election year. I wonder how many politicans
> will lose their seats over this. I was in Best Buy and
> people are STILL buying analog sets for $1,000.00. Most
> people I talk to have NO IDEA this change is coming.
And those people will still be able to use those analog sets with cable or DTV boxes. The proliferation of analog sets will not be a hindrance to the conversion, especially once we see economies-of-scale kick in on the manufacture of DTV boxes. An ATSC tuner plus downconverter is not some amazing feat of technology. If we can have $30 DVD players, I think we'll see sub-$50 DTV boxes in no time.
Remember that more than 85% of households already subscribe to cable or satellite. They won't notice a thing on the TVs that are hooked up to a subscription service. Of course this is just anecdotal evidence, but I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the DTV switch happened tomorrow, I don't know a single person who would know or care. The concept of OTA TV and "rabbit ears" is totally foreign to my generation.
> I don't see it happening. The FCC has said that to supply
> everone with a free converter would cost more than the
> auctioning off of additional signals would make. But they
> will have to give free converters to some people.
If the converters end up below $50, and I strongly suspect they will, why would the FCC need to step in? It's not as if TV is a necessity anyway. I think a welfare program to help people watch TV is a really bad idea.
Even if the free converter idea were to be put in place, how many people would actually need them?
100%
- 85% of people who have cable or satellite (probably more by 2009)
- ?% of people who will buy a new DTV before 2009
- ?% of people who make enough money to afford the converters themselves
= a very small percentage
> And people are getting used to changing formats...
This is another valid point. How long has it taken DVD players to penetrate the market? Not long, and VHS tapes are becoming impossible to find. Why is it that no one seems to have a problem with buying a DVD player to watch new movies, but there's going to be a revolt if a small percentage of people needs a similarly-priced converter box?
2009 is a good date in my opinion. Let's get this conversion done and stop procrastinating and making excuses. Every year we put this off, broadcasters will be wasting money and spectrum putting out analog signals.
> Presidental election year. I wonder how many politicans
> will lose their seats over this. I was in Best Buy and
> people are STILL buying analog sets for $1,000.00. Most
> people I talk to have NO IDEA this change is coming.
And those people will still be able to use those analog sets with cable or DTV boxes. The proliferation of analog sets will not be a hindrance to the conversion, especially once we see economies-of-scale kick in on the manufacture of DTV boxes. An ATSC tuner plus downconverter is not some amazing feat of technology. If we can have $30 DVD players, I think we'll see sub-$50 DTV boxes in no time.
Remember that more than 85% of households already subscribe to cable or satellite. They won't notice a thing on the TVs that are hooked up to a subscription service. Of course this is just anecdotal evidence, but I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the DTV switch happened tomorrow, I don't know a single person who would know or care. The concept of OTA TV and "rabbit ears" is totally foreign to my generation.
> I don't see it happening. The FCC has said that to supply
> everone with a free converter would cost more than the
> auctioning off of additional signals would make. But they
> will have to give free converters to some people.
If the converters end up below $50, and I strongly suspect they will, why would the FCC need to step in? It's not as if TV is a necessity anyway. I think a welfare program to help people watch TV is a really bad idea.
Even if the free converter idea were to be put in place, how many people would actually need them?
100%
- 85% of people who have cable or satellite (probably more by 2009)
- ?% of people who will buy a new DTV before 2009
- ?% of people who make enough money to afford the converters themselves
= a very small percentage
> And people are getting used to changing formats...
This is another valid point. How long has it taken DVD players to penetrate the market? Not long, and VHS tapes are becoming impossible to find. Why is it that no one seems to have a problem with buying a DVD player to watch new movies, but there's going to be a revolt if a small percentage of people needs a similarly-priced converter box?
2009 is a good date in my opinion. Let's get this conversion done and stop procrastinating and making excuses. Every year we put this off, broadcasters will be wasting money and spectrum putting out analog signals.
> And those people will still be able to use those analog sets
> with cable or DTV boxes. The proliferation of analog sets
> will not be a hindrance to the conversion, especially once
> we see economies-of-scale kick in on the manufacture of DTV
> boxes. An ATSC tuner plus downconverter is not some amazing
> feat of technology. If we can have $30 DVD players, I think
> we'll see sub-$50 DTV boxes in no time.
>
But a LOT of people think DTV = HDTV. And of course we know better. But a LOT of people will feel misled. Why should I pay anything to received a "downconverted signal?" True a downconverted DTV signal is probably better than analog but it SOUNDS worse
> Remember that more than 85% of households already subscribe
> to cable or satellite. They won't notice a thing on the TVs
> that are hooked up to a subscription service. Of course
> this is just anecdotal evidence, but I've said it before and
> I'll say it again: If the DTV switch happened tomorrow, I
> don't know a single person who would know or care. The
> concept of OTA TV and "rabbit ears" is totally foreign to my
> generation.
But TV HOUSEHOLDS and TVs are not the same thing. If ONE TV has cable it's a Cable TV household. Supposing only the living room TV is hooked to cable. But the den, the kitchen and the bedrooms of you and each of the TWO kid's bedrooms have a set. That is a TV household with cable. But only one of the 6 TVs is hooked for cable?
The 85% is very misleading. Here is an gross oversimplification to see the point
Market A has 94% Cable
Market B has 83% Cable
Market C has 78% Cable
(94+83+78)/3 = 85
This averages to 85% even though 2/3 of that is less than 85%. So high markets with cable negate LOW margin markets. This marginalizes certain regions.
Remember the Senate IS NOT proportional. This is why agriculture and farm industries have far more influence than their numbers or production.
> If the converters end up below $50, and I strongly suspect
> they will, why would the FCC need to step in? It's not as
> if TV is a necessity anyway. I think a welfare program to
> help people watch TV is a really bad idea.
The FCC wouldn't step in, but you can bet Congress would. No politician is gonna lose his seat over TV.
>
> Even if the free converter idea were to be put in place, how
> many people would actually need them?
>
> 100%
> - 85% of people who have cable or satellite (probably more
> by 2009)
> - ?% of people who will buy a new DTV before 2009
> - ?% of people who make enough money to afford the
> converters themselves
>
> = a very small percentage
But right now the 85% figure is NOT reflective. It is pushed up by high end markets and it marginalized poor people. Poor people do VOTE. You think gay marriage is hot issue, try taking away people's TVs. Try it it and you will see mad.
> > And people are getting used to changing formats...
>
> This is another valid point. How long has it taken DVD
> players to penetrate the market? Not long, and VHS tapes
> are becoming impossible to find. Why is it that no one
> seems to have a problem with buying a DVD player to watch
> new movies, but there's going to be a revolt if a small
> percentage of people needs a similarly-priced converter box?
>
I live in Chicago and there are still LOTS and LOTS of VCR rentals. Again, just because Yuppies in Lincoln Park and Greenwich Village can afford to toss away $30 on a DVD player doesn't mean people of lesser means can.
> 2009 is a good date in my opinion. Let's get this
> conversion done and stop procrastinating and making excuses.
> Every year we put this off, broadcasters will be wasting
> money and spectrum putting out analog signals.
I don't disagree with what your saying but you also need to look at it from another side. And it doesn't matter if it even makes sense, take away TV from too large people or make them pay for it and the politicians will pay. They won't let that happen.
"And any politican, regardless of party, who takes away my TV, so some moron can yak on a cell phone won't get my vote." That will be the phrase on a lot of peoples lips
Like I said I can't disagree with what you wrote but there is another side. After all everyone wants new roads, new subways, new airports, new schools, till they are taxed for them.
> with cable or DTV boxes. The proliferation of analog sets
> will not be a hindrance to the conversion, especially once
> we see economies-of-scale kick in on the manufacture of DTV
> boxes. An ATSC tuner plus downconverter is not some amazing
> feat of technology. If we can have $30 DVD players, I think
> we'll see sub-$50 DTV boxes in no time.
>
But a LOT of people think DTV = HDTV. And of course we know better. But a LOT of people will feel misled. Why should I pay anything to received a "downconverted signal?" True a downconverted DTV signal is probably better than analog but it SOUNDS worse
> Remember that more than 85% of households already subscribe
> to cable or satellite. They won't notice a thing on the TVs
> that are hooked up to a subscription service. Of course
> this is just anecdotal evidence, but I've said it before and
> I'll say it again: If the DTV switch happened tomorrow, I
> don't know a single person who would know or care. The
> concept of OTA TV and "rabbit ears" is totally foreign to my
> generation.
But TV HOUSEHOLDS and TVs are not the same thing. If ONE TV has cable it's a Cable TV household. Supposing only the living room TV is hooked to cable. But the den, the kitchen and the bedrooms of you and each of the TWO kid's bedrooms have a set. That is a TV household with cable. But only one of the 6 TVs is hooked for cable?
The 85% is very misleading. Here is an gross oversimplification to see the point
Market A has 94% Cable
Market B has 83% Cable
Market C has 78% Cable
(94+83+78)/3 = 85
This averages to 85% even though 2/3 of that is less than 85%. So high markets with cable negate LOW margin markets. This marginalizes certain regions.
Remember the Senate IS NOT proportional. This is why agriculture and farm industries have far more influence than their numbers or production.
> If the converters end up below $50, and I strongly suspect
> they will, why would the FCC need to step in? It's not as
> if TV is a necessity anyway. I think a welfare program to
> help people watch TV is a really bad idea.
The FCC wouldn't step in, but you can bet Congress would. No politician is gonna lose his seat over TV.
>
> Even if the free converter idea were to be put in place, how
> many people would actually need them?
>
> 100%
> - 85% of people who have cable or satellite (probably more
> by 2009)
> - ?% of people who will buy a new DTV before 2009
> - ?% of people who make enough money to afford the
> converters themselves
>
> = a very small percentage
But right now the 85% figure is NOT reflective. It is pushed up by high end markets and it marginalized poor people. Poor people do VOTE. You think gay marriage is hot issue, try taking away people's TVs. Try it it and you will see mad.
> > And people are getting used to changing formats...
>
> This is another valid point. How long has it taken DVD
> players to penetrate the market? Not long, and VHS tapes
> are becoming impossible to find. Why is it that no one
> seems to have a problem with buying a DVD player to watch
> new movies, but there's going to be a revolt if a small
> percentage of people needs a similarly-priced converter box?
>
I live in Chicago and there are still LOTS and LOTS of VCR rentals. Again, just because Yuppies in Lincoln Park and Greenwich Village can afford to toss away $30 on a DVD player doesn't mean people of lesser means can.
> 2009 is a good date in my opinion. Let's get this
> conversion done and stop procrastinating and making excuses.
> Every year we put this off, broadcasters will be wasting
> money and spectrum putting out analog signals.
I don't disagree with what your saying but you also need to look at it from another side. And it doesn't matter if it even makes sense, take away TV from too large people or make them pay for it and the politicians will pay. They won't let that happen.
"And any politican, regardless of party, who takes away my TV, so some moron can yak on a cell phone won't get my vote." That will be the phrase on a lot of peoples lips
Like I said I can't disagree with what you wrote but there is another side. After all everyone wants new roads, new subways, new airports, new schools, till they are taxed for them.
K
KMRichards
Guest
Warning: Off-topic bit humorous remark (I couldn't resist)
> You think gay marriage is hot issue, try
> taking away people's TVs. Try it it and you will see mad.
"Legalize Gay Marriage or We'll Make Your TV Set Obsolete!"<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> You think gay marriage is hot issue, try
> taking away people's TVs. Try it it and you will see mad.
"Legalize Gay Marriage or We'll Make Your TV Set Obsolete!"<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
T
Tom_Desmond
Guest
> Remember that more than 85% of households already subscribe
> to cable or satellite. They won't notice a thing on the TVs
> that are hooked up to a subscription service. Of course
> this is just anecdotal evidence, but I've said it before and
> I'll say it again: If the DTV switch happened tomorrow, I
> don't know a single person who would know or care. The
> concept of OTA TV and "rabbit ears" is totally foreign to my
> generation.
As already noted by Markxxx, this is very market specific. I'm guessing that you don't live where I do (Dallas area), or else you would know plenty of folks who rely on OTA television. Cable penetration here is around 50%, with the remainder split between OTA only and satellite. And some of those satellite subscribers do rely on OTA for at least some of their local programming.
> 100%
> - 85% of people who have cable or satellite (probably more
> by 2009)
Probably not much more by 2009 -- and possible even down slightly. While satellite continues to gain subscribers, cable continues to lose subscribers at roughly the same rate. I believe that the number of subscription TV subscribers has pretty well hit a ceiling.
> - ?% of people who will buy a new DTV before 2009
> - ?% of people who make enough money to afford the
> converters themselves
On the other hand, I do believe that you're on target with these two numbers. If the FCC sticks to its guns and requires all new televisions sold after the end of 2006 to include digital tuners, that will ensure that another 40 million or so digital sets are in the publics' hands by the transition date.
In addition, by that date, it will probably be possible to buy a digital ATSC television set new for under $100. For that price, it won't be HD...but it will work.
> to cable or satellite. They won't notice a thing on the TVs
> that are hooked up to a subscription service. Of course
> this is just anecdotal evidence, but I've said it before and
> I'll say it again: If the DTV switch happened tomorrow, I
> don't know a single person who would know or care. The
> concept of OTA TV and "rabbit ears" is totally foreign to my
> generation.
As already noted by Markxxx, this is very market specific. I'm guessing that you don't live where I do (Dallas area), or else you would know plenty of folks who rely on OTA television. Cable penetration here is around 50%, with the remainder split between OTA only and satellite. And some of those satellite subscribers do rely on OTA for at least some of their local programming.
> 100%
> - 85% of people who have cable or satellite (probably more
> by 2009)
Probably not much more by 2009 -- and possible even down slightly. While satellite continues to gain subscribers, cable continues to lose subscribers at roughly the same rate. I believe that the number of subscription TV subscribers has pretty well hit a ceiling.
> - ?% of people who will buy a new DTV before 2009
> - ?% of people who make enough money to afford the
> converters themselves
On the other hand, I do believe that you're on target with these two numbers. If the FCC sticks to its guns and requires all new televisions sold after the end of 2006 to include digital tuners, that will ensure that another 40 million or so digital sets are in the publics' hands by the transition date.
In addition, by that date, it will probably be possible to buy a digital ATSC television set new for under $100. For that price, it won't be HD...but it will work.
First Responder commercials
> > ....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV
>
> > channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee,
> which
> > is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
> >
>
> Any update on when the spectrum will be turned over to first
> responders..which i hope will make communications better
> .....this dovetalis with the conversion date.
>
Speaking of first responders, has anyone heard the radio commercials the 700 MHz Coalition put out? A man and a woman alternating, telling us how we should call Congress to get this change to DTV done so that it can free up the 700 MHz band for our first responders. He appeals to the logical side; she appeals to the emotional side. You can almost hear the emotion dripping from her voice, and you can almost see the puppy dog eyes and the pouting lips as she reads her copy. Are there also TV commercials for this? - to date, I haven't seen any.
What they don't tell you is that the 700 MHz Coalition is Aloha Partners, of whom the famous Charlie Townsend is president. (Not the Charlie's Angels Charlie Townsend; the one with scores of applications and CP's for UHF LPTV stations across America.) They're in business to provide broadband and wireless services and are the largest owner of 700 MHz spectrum in the nation. I doubt they're nearly as concerned about enhanced communications for first responders as they are for the lucrative opportunity to sell broadband and wireless services. The fact that they're selling such services is fine, but I think they're being dishonest in trying to sell the public on "this is for the first responders" when in fact they're in a position to make a king's ransom off of it. When are they going to pull out the "it's for the children" angle?
Also what they don't tell you is that if you do their bidding and call your congressional representative asking for expedited DTV transition, it's going to cost you. Either for new DTV set(s), or for converter(s) so that you can continue to receive OTA TV signals, it's going to cost you. And as Markxxx accurately pointed out, most people have no clue this is coming.
> > ....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV
>
> > channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee,
> which
> > is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
> >
>
> Any update on when the spectrum will be turned over to first
> responders..which i hope will make communications better
> .....this dovetalis with the conversion date.
>
Speaking of first responders, has anyone heard the radio commercials the 700 MHz Coalition put out? A man and a woman alternating, telling us how we should call Congress to get this change to DTV done so that it can free up the 700 MHz band for our first responders. He appeals to the logical side; she appeals to the emotional side. You can almost hear the emotion dripping from her voice, and you can almost see the puppy dog eyes and the pouting lips as she reads her copy. Are there also TV commercials for this? - to date, I haven't seen any.
What they don't tell you is that the 700 MHz Coalition is Aloha Partners, of whom the famous Charlie Townsend is president. (Not the Charlie's Angels Charlie Townsend; the one with scores of applications and CP's for UHF LPTV stations across America.) They're in business to provide broadband and wireless services and are the largest owner of 700 MHz spectrum in the nation. I doubt they're nearly as concerned about enhanced communications for first responders as they are for the lucrative opportunity to sell broadband and wireless services. The fact that they're selling such services is fine, but I think they're being dishonest in trying to sell the public on "this is for the first responders" when in fact they're in a position to make a king's ransom off of it. When are they going to pull out the "it's for the children" angle?
Also what they don't tell you is that if you do their bidding and call your congressional representative asking for expedited DTV transition, it's going to cost you. Either for new DTV set(s), or for converter(s) so that you can continue to receive OTA TV signals, it's going to cost you. And as Markxxx accurately pointed out, most people have no clue this is coming.
> ....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV
> channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which
> is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
>
Uh, doesn't the bill have to pass the whole Senate, the whole House, and be signed by the POTUS (or have his veto overridden by 2/3 of each house, or sit on his desk for 10 days [Sundays excepted]), to become law?
ixnay
> channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which
> is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
>
Uh, doesn't the bill have to pass the whole Senate, the whole House, and be signed by the POTUS (or have his veto overridden by 2/3 of each house, or sit on his desk for 10 days [Sundays excepted]), to become law?
ixnay
Another use for part of the spectrum....
> While they are at it, they should give the bandwidth now
> used for channels five and six to FM radio - and require
> receiver manufacturers to start making Expanded-FM ready
> sets now.
One possible use, but one I doubt will go anywhere because so many radios won't access the new frequencies "out of the box." Remember it was years after the expanded AM band was in place before you saw stations there.
How about this idea: take a lesson from FM, and after the digital conversion move all COMMERCIAL channels out of the 2-6 range, and have 2-6 set aside for public and non-commercial broadcasters.
Low VHF has too small a range and is too subject to noise for most DTV purposes, especially HDTV, but it would make a nice place to put relatively low power, CA-type, non-commercial DTV stations after the switchover.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Pab Sungenis Project - http://www.lowbudgetradio.com</P>
> While they are at it, they should give the bandwidth now
> used for channels five and six to FM radio - and require
> receiver manufacturers to start making Expanded-FM ready
> sets now.
One possible use, but one I doubt will go anywhere because so many radios won't access the new frequencies "out of the box." Remember it was years after the expanded AM band was in place before you saw stations there.
How about this idea: take a lesson from FM, and after the digital conversion move all COMMERCIAL channels out of the 2-6 range, and have 2-6 set aside for public and non-commercial broadcasters.
Low VHF has too small a range and is too subject to noise for most DTV purposes, especially HDTV, but it would make a nice place to put relatively low power, CA-type, non-commercial DTV stations after the switchover.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Pab Sungenis Project - http://www.lowbudgetradio.com</P>
K
KMRichards
Guest
> > ....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV
>
> > channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee,
> which
> > is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
> >
>
> Uh, doesn't the bill have to pass the whole Senate, the
> whole House, and be signed by the POTUS (or have his veto
> overridden by 2/3 of each house, or sit on his desk for 10
> days [Sundays excepted]), to become law?
I think that's what the poster meant by saying "if it is approved."<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
>
> > channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee,
> which
> > is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
> >
>
> Uh, doesn't the bill have to pass the whole Senate, the
> whole House, and be signed by the POTUS (or have his veto
> overridden by 2/3 of each house, or sit on his desk for 10
> days [Sundays excepted]), to become law?
I think that's what the poster meant by saying "if it is approved."<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> ....That's when ALL analog TV channels must convert to DTV
> channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which
> is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
When I first saw this,I thought that it was the day that Conan O'Brian takes over as the host of The Tonight Show from Jay Leno.
> channels, according to the Senate Commerce Committee, which
> is expected to make that day official if it is approved.
When I first saw this,I thought that it was the day that Conan O'Brian takes over as the host of The Tonight Show from Jay Leno.
- Status