Slashdot Mirror
Jan 2009 Deadline for HDTV Cutoff
stlhawkeye writes "Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2009 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts. Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those without subscription television services will see blank screens unless they buy new units. "
this is the cutoff to convert to DTV not HDTV. how is the public supposed to figure it out if even the nerds can't get it right?
Mike
M.
Quite heavily at TV Snob.com and boy are people confused on even what to buy - if they can convert their existing sets, or if they even want to continue watching TV - just kidding on that front. I think this is a total disaster for TV - there should be more options for people and legacy is legacy - it should still work somehow.
-- Jay Brewer -- http://www.blogpire.com
High Definition TV != Digital TV. You require a digital framework to provide HDTV, but having a digital framework does not imply HDTV. Sets aren't going dark when it comes into effect, but the quality of signal is going to improve greatly.
Canada has had this in effect for a while. The deadline was January, 2005, and as of this writing, all TV channels are available digitally. Except, of course, some of the channels that come from the US. The difference in signal quality is very noticable when watching one of them. Most of the networks are already digital, BTW.
It's still compatible with OTA transmission, as well as analog cable signals. Old TVs can still see it, because the mandate was not to eliminate analog signals, it was to ensure digital availablility. Those of us who have an HDTV, or a digital/satellite receiver have a digital signal, complete with better sound and picture. Those of us on analog still have analog TV.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
Here is a fun fact: Japan has had HDTV since the early 1980s.
Red Bull gave me wings and I flew into the ceiling fan.
Simple, radio spectrum is valuable and limited. Analog TV uses a lot of radio spectrum. One they get rid of Analog there will be a lot of spectrum available for the government to resell to others. Effectivly the FCC is saying that in 2009 all broadcasters will be revoked their license for existing analog spectrum. It will be resold at a much higher price, and used digitally so many more things can use it. Hopefully much of it will be allotted to the public for things like WiFi, but that is yet to be seen.
ATSC allows the FCC to pack the same number of stations in a smaller broadcast band due to ATSC's superior resistance to interference from transmitters on the same or nearby channels. The channel size remains the same (6 MHz), but the minimum space in between transmitters, both in frequency and geographical distance, is being reduced.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
No, they're going to sell it for well below what it's really worth, and those that spearhead the sell-off will reap ENORMOUS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS from big media corps.
It's just one data point but my analog reception is marginal due to distance, geography and being limited to an indoor antenna. I get better reception of the digital signals. It isn't perfect, but it's much more watchable than analog. It eliminates all of the snow and ghosts.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
"My greatest fear is that I have trouble picking up all the major networks right smack in the middle of Silicon Valley with rabbit ears. There are networks where I can only pick them up as a sideband of another TV station because their main tower's ATSC feed doesn't have enough power to reach here. The NTSC feeds reach me for those stations just fine, albeit with some multipath distortion and/or other noise. Basically, ATSC requires an exceptionally clean signal (at least with my tuner hardware) to be able to resolve a signal."
I've found that ATSC goes considerably *farther* than analog TV with the same power. Here's the problem, though: many ATSC stations are at half or less of their licensed power.
KWGN-DT, for example, is at 1/3 power. I have no problem picking them up with rabbit ears, almost 65 miles away.
And those decoders may even be available in stores by then. I keep hearing about them but I've never seen one. It always turns out that I have to buy a $3000.00 75-inch screen with my digital tuner, which is about $2750.00 and 50 inches more than I want.
Forgive me, I said VHF when I should have said UHF. What you need is a UHF antenna, basically.
I already have the hardware. Now, I am being forced to purchase MORE hardware, against my will.
No, you already have the hardware for something that you simple assumed would continue to exist, for free, forever. Well, that particular free ride has ended. You don't need to get a car, but you do need to switch busses, if you want to keep riding for free.
As for "forcing" you to upgrade - I've heard that one over and over, and it hasn't gotten any more true through repetition. No one needs to switch. It simply amazes me that so many people seem to have this sense of entitlement to watch free analogue television. Guess what? You don't. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the goverment will provide, or force private industry to provide, bread and circuses. Can't get a local DTV signal strong enough, or can't afford to upgrade to cable? Read a book. If an emergency happens, you'll still have a radio.
And, if digital TV is so important to freeing up those RF ranges, why can I walk into a Best Buy today and still buy a pure Analog television?
Because as long as people will still buy them, stores will still sell them. Thus, the need for the FCC to step in and say "enough".
If you'd like a good historical precedent for this change, before modern radio, we had something called "sparkgap", a fairly self-descriptive technology - You make a spark across a gap, key it like a telegraph, and voila, you can receive it a good distance away with mindlessly simple equipment. The problem? It drowns out anything nearby across the entire useful RF spectrum.
With DTV, we have a similar problem - Digital takes a tenth of the bandwidth of analog TV, for incredibly higher quality. It takes much more sophisticated decoding equipment, but in the long run, we'll all benefit as a result.
Why is this modded informative. The poster has no clue. Pick a decoder. Terrestrial Receiver/Decoders have been out for at least 4 years.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
A: Yagi antennas are strongly directional. Use the null points in the far-field pattern to reduce the multi-path issue (if this is possible considering the physicalities of the individual situation).
B: Use a smaller yagi...I've seen yagi antennas implemented up to W-band(~100GHz).
and...
C: It was meant to be a joke. I don't expect your average home user to take an antennas course just to figure out how to make an antenna that'll pick up stations they should be able to recieve with set-top bunny-earys. Who in their right mind would put up a VHF yagi-uda antenna in their living room? Not me, my 8-month old son would be using it to pull himself up to stand, and then either bending the antenna elements or de-aiming the thing. No, I'd put it in the attic!
I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
Yes the signals are compressed in a lossy way, but that doesn't mean it isn't higher quality. Would you rather look at a 1MB uncompressed bitmap or a .5MB JPEG. I garuntee the JPEG contains a lot more useful information to the human eye.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?