Switch to Digital Television Picking up Steam

Alioth writes "The long-anticipated switchover to purely digital TV began last night in Britain. Although digital broadcasts have been available for a while in most parts of the UK, they have been running alongside the old analogue frequencies. Last night, in the small hours, the analogue signal for BBC2 was switched off forever in the town of Whitehaven in Cumbria. Analog signals are expected to have been switched off over the whole of the UK by 2012. Meanwhile in the states Best Buy has stopped selling analog televisions. 'Best Buy is the first consumer-electronics retailer to report an exit from the analog-TV business. More than 60 million U.S. households currently rely on an antennas or analog cable, and cable operators are required to guarantee their customers will receive broadcast channels until February 2012.'"

Comments

errr

[LiquidCoooled]

Why does analog cable have to change?

Its not like it interferes with the broadcast spectrum.

Re:errr

[RoverDaddy]

It doesn't have to change but eventually the cable companies will want to stop supporting obsolete analog TVs by converting the digital data they receive from broadcast stations to analog (it will just be overhead that costs money, like the phone company supporting pulse dialing now that almost everybody is on tone dialing). The FCC is just requiring cable companies to support analog until 2012 so consumers will have more time to upgrade their home equipment.

Re:errr

[Wesley Felter]

It doesn't have to change, but since digital is more efficient cable companies will switch to it.

Re:errr

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable has to change because the cable companies want to cram more and more digital channels, on-demand TV, and other services (phone, internet, etc.) onto one piece of coax. Analog channels take up space, and why would cable companies want to transmit both a digital and analog version of the same thing if they're not required to?

It doesn't directly interfere with the broadcast spectrum, but it's not as if it's a completely unlimited resource.

Re:errr

[taniwha]

because for every analog channel the cable provider removes they can replace it with 3-5 digital ones (or more cable modem bandwidth, or more VOD bandwith or ....) - they also currently have duplication between HD versions of broadcast channels and analog ones

analog channels are a waste of bandwith - look at one on a spectrum analyzer, most of it is empty - and a lot of energy is in the carrier which doesn't actually carry much information - on the other hand a digital QAM is nice and boxy and busy

Re:errr

[Novus]

Why does analog cable have to change?

Its not like it interferes with the broadcast spectrum.

True. However, converting from digital to analogue may require permission from copyright holders, which your cable operator may not be able to get. For example, in Finland, cable operators were threatened with legal action for converting digital-only TV channels to analogue for rebroadcast in cable networks. Just before the terrestrial analogue TV network went off-line on 2007-09-01, leaving only digital transmissions, a lot of people were concerned about their continued ability to receive analogue TV by cable. After some negotiations, cable operators were permitted to convert the channels that were previously (also) transmitted in analogue form into analogue for a few more months (ending 2008-02-29).

Re:errr

[ccs.gott]

I like the way you are going with this. This will hurt poor people. This will help companies like Wal-Marx sell loads of cheap (presumably made in china) Digital sets at the last minute while creating all sorts of unneeded discards of CRTs.

Re:errr

[dadragon]

I love living where I do. You can no longer get pulse tone dialing service from the phone comapany, and my digital cable service is pure digital, no analogue signals coming to my house :)

Re:errr

[cianduffy]

Discarded? Why would they be discarded, you get a set top box (in the DVB world, dunno about ASTC) for about 15 that lets effectively any TV made after 1980 work with a digital signal, and for slightly more, one that'll work with any TV that was capable of getting an analogue signal at all (because it has a modulator). All my TVs here have analogue tuners and are working fine with DVB-T terrestrial.

Re:errr

[BenoitRen]

It has to change because companies want more control over your viewing.

• They want to know what you watch and when you watch it.
• They want to be able to cut off your signal when they feel like it.
• They want to prevent you from recording what you watch.
• They want you to buy new TVs.

I'm tired of everything becoming digital. They're taking away our freedom. And in the case of photo cameras, quality.

A couple weeks ago I wanted to watch a DVD. And I became slightly enraged at how I couldn't skip those damn publisher logo and copyright crap. It's all because of the digital age. With a tape, your VCR just played what was on it, and you go through it at will, no questions asked.

So what if we can get more channels? The current channels already offer so little to watch. More choice isn't necessarily good either. I can't watch multiple channels at the same time in case two or more happen to show something I want to see.

Re:errr

[DigiShaman]

Correct.

And if that wasn't enough, even more bandwidth can be freed up by moving your network to Switched Video technology. Time Warner Cable has already made the transition in Austin, TX for example.

Re:errr

[CohibaVancouver]

and my digital cable service is pure digital, no analogue signals coming to my house :)

So if you want to put a second telly somewhere in the house, you have to get a second digital box? i.e. channels 2-60 (or whatever it is) that are typically analog on most cable systems, are *not* analog in your system?

Re:errr

[SeaFox]

So you like lack of choice as a consumer?

Really, how is it an issue for analog cable signals to be coming in and your phone service to still support pulse dialing even though you're not using them? All this means is you have to buy TV's with digital tuners or rent a converter box for every analog TV you own now and you couldn't try out an antique phone if you ever inherited one.

Re:errr

[SeaFox]

Why does analog cable have to change?

So cable operators can increase revenue from equipment rental.

Re:errr

[david.given]

They want to know what you watch and when you watch it.

Not with DVB-T, they don't. It's a broadcast signal with no return path.

They want to be able to cut off your signal when they feel like it.

...hardly different from analogue.

They want to prevent you from recording what you watch.

DVB-T digital recorders are ubiquitous here. Alternatively, buy a cheapo DVB card for you PC, and you can capture an entire multiplex in real time --- record thirty-odd channels at once. If your hard disc is hard enough.

They want you to buy new TVs.

Or you could just buy one of the incredibly cheap set-top-boxes that plug into your existing analogue TV, for practically no money, that have been advertised here intensively by everyone including the BBC, for years.

A couple weeks ago I wanted to watch a DVD. And I became slightly enraged at how I couldn't skip those damn publisher logo and copyright crap. It's all because of the digital age.

That is correct. However, they only have that control over you because you're buying into the whole idea that they have control over you --- you're a willing participant to make it work. If your DVD player won't skip the unskippable stuff, get another DVD player. Practically all decent (i.e. non-name-brand) players will start playing the movie immediately, bypassing all the menus, if you insert the disk into the drive, start it playing, and then press STOP, STOP, PLAY. It's a similar 'hack' to the ubiquitous macrovision disables and region code bypasses. The people who make the DVD players know their customers, and they know who pays them. Alternatively, just plonk the thing in your PC and do whatever the hell you feel like with the digital stream.

Don't get enraged. Get smart. Digital data gives the content providers lots of control, true. But it also gives you exactly the same amount of control. All you have to do is decide to use it.

Re:errr

[Anonymous Coward]

>analog channels are a waste of bandwith - look at one on a spectrum analyzer, most of it is empty - and a lot of energy is in the carrier which doesn't actually carry much information

4.2mhz of the 5mhz of bandwidth is used for video, hardly a waste of bandwidth.

Re:errr

[solitas]

The cable companies want to stop supporting analog signals now - they can fit eight digital signals in the 6mhz space of one analog channel. They can also fit 7 HD channels in the space of two analog channels. (disclaimer: this info comes from a technerd friend who works for Charter) And, of course, the more channels they can push on you the more they can charge you.

BUT they don't have to stop supporting analog sets - there'll still have to be a box (theirs) between your set and the head-end no matter what, and the box can output analog channels 3/4 or digital channel [whatever] or NTSC-composite or s-video, or SDI, VGA, or whatever to connect to your TV or monitor & speakers.

The digital/analog boxes in the field now will last looong past 2012 and the cables would be idiots to replace them as long as they're functioning. Consider: "we're recalling your box, you can either upgrade your set or cancel your account" - consumer ill-will and corporate suicide in the same sentence.

Re:errr

[Albanach]

My television is perfectly capable of receiving unencrypted digital cable in SD or HD without a set top box. To keep costs down on the low end packages it is possible that they will continue to offer those channels in an unencrypted format so modern TVs can receive the signal without the need for an extra box. If not, then we'll all be buying TVs with cablecard slots again negating the need for a set top box.

Re:errr

[aywwts4]

In my experience it seems like they want to fit 15 HD channels in the space one analog channel.

A friend got an HD TV, and it looked real bad, so the first thing I did was check all their connections to make sure they were really running HD the whole way, The cable company setup their HD receiver to a giant HD plasma display, over one composite cable. after a search for a few more RCAs to switch him over to component he was running HD but the picture looked even worse. All I did was sharpen the suck in 720p.

It had digital artifacts that reminded me of Real Media movies, on a 56k modem, back in 2000. When people blinked or their mouths moved the shape of their face updated, but the texture stayed the same, very unsettling. Every reporter had a fuzz around their head that looked like a swarm of gnats flying around them, if the camera moved the whole picture took a seccond to update, and at times of high motion the scroll on the bottom became gibberish with lines overlapping lines.

Admittedly it was HD, in times of low/no motion it was a real 720p picture. I'm hoping this is just an encoding error on this providers part and not representative of a trend in digital cable.

Re:errr

[bandersnatch]

It doesn't really. Here in Japan (yes Japan.. again) at my (albeit peculiar) home I get, analog by cable, digital by cable, and digital by satellite and with a booster and some work, all on the same coaxial cable with no interference. In Japan the frequencies don't overlap and for the past 2 years almost all tv sets sold handle all three.

I have to say, that the digital quality is really great... for shows originating in Japan where they are shot in 1125i. Shows from the US are shot with really poor equipment and the image quality is for shit. I watched a bit of American football last night and had to change the channel, the quality was so poor. Funny thing though, MLB shown in Japan has excellent image quality.

Re:errr

[knorthern knight]

> 4.2mhz of the 5mhz of bandwidth is used for video, hardly a waste of bandwidth.

An analog channel is assigned 6 (SIX) mhz of bandwidth. If it was any different, your old NTSC tuner couldn't make heads or tails out of the signal. With digital (ATSC over-the-air or QAM over cable), you have the following choices for how to use 6mhz of spectrum bandwidth...

1. 1 NTSC channels, approximately 640x480
2. 6 digital SDTV channels (equivalant resolution to NTSC, approx 640x480)
3. 1 stunning 1920x1080i channel

Why would you choose #1?

Re:errr

[PPH]

Because there won't be any more analog sources to carry. Most of the analog channels our local CATV company carries are the local broadcast stations mandated by 'must carry' regulations.

Presently, the CATV companies have been given the choice of which source they carry, either the analog or the digital copy. Once the analog source goeas away, digital is all you've got left.

Re:errr

[name*censored*]

Digital actually gives you more choice if you're savvy - you can jam that DVD in your computer (something that's possible, but difficult to do with VHS), and most decent DVD playing programs let you open a specific VTS/PGC (ironically, the only people who don't have to see those anti-pirate message films are pirates who are ripping the movie). Similarly, digital TV broadcast is just as easy to get into your computer as analogue (just a different capture card). Given that VHS tapes were starting to come with 10 minutes of ads on the beginning (that's about 1-2 minutes in fast forward mode, as you have to sit there and watch it), I don't think that putting it in your computer takes as much time/effort.

>> They want to know what you watch and when you watch it.

So, like a Nielsen box then?

>> They want you to buy new TVs.

Given that the upgrade cycle for connections (ie, Belling-Lee->RCA->SVideo->Component->HDMI->???) has been going on for a lot longer than digital TV tech, and has converters available (just like digital TV does), I don't think it's fair to blame digital for inciting this upgrade-or-die mentality. The only thing you could say is that the connectors have offered (limited) backwards compatibility, which really isn't feasible with digital TV.

>> And in the case of photo cameras, quality

Just like film-based cameras, quality is all about how much you're willing to spend. A cheapo digital camera is only going to be bad in a DIFFERENT way to a cheapo 35mm. The price difference is only because digital is a much newer tech (compare a high quality CRT to a high quality LCD in price).

>> I can't watch multiple channels at the same time in case two or more happen to show something I want to see

You can watch multiple channels if your TV has PiP - which is available via DVRs and many new DVD players.

>> They want to be able to cut off your signal when they feel like it.

Why is this possible with digital and not analogue?

Probably the only regrettable thing about the switch from VHS to DVD was the loss of ease of recording, but that is starting to come back with DVRs (which are even more convenient than VHS, as they offer things like timeshifting of live TV and some offer a DECENT scheduled recording menu).

Re:errr

[Your Pal Dave]

Furthermore, if they stopped supporting analog signals now, everyone currently watching "cable-ready" TVs would have the opportunity to rent those boxes for the meager sum of $12.95/month/set...

Re:errr

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with digital let me pay a la carte.

I recently moved and was surprised when the cable company said that standard cable is $45 for analog or $40+$5 for digital ($5 for the stupid box). All I would get is the boring 70 channels. No way I said. Instead I upgraded my bandwidth and just watch the shows online . I don't want stupid cable packages, I only want 12 different channels out of your 1,000. Let's make a deal: $1 for each channel per month and I would be happy. For people not making above $50K a year, the $115 all-the-best cable package is just not affordable.

Re:errr

[Anonymous Coward]

At least TV bosses now say 29.2.2008 I wouldn't be too surprised if the date is moved. Was it one fifth of public in all-digital Finland still watching from analog cable? Too much to be let go, methinks

Re:errr

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have to change but eventually the cable companies will want to stop supporting obsolete analog TVs

That would be TVs without the newest nVidia card?

This is TVs we are talking about, they don't (normally) get obsolete two months after you buy them. I recently bought a brand new TV (recently in TV terms being like 6 years ago), and there was almost no digital TVs to be had back then (and if there were any, the prices were way out of range). So, I have a TV that will work just fine for at least another ten years, but is becoming obsolete because some d*ckhead politicians decided that TV producers don't get enough money, and should get a chance to sell TVs to people who already have working TVs.

Re:errr

[N Monkey]

Why does analog cable have to change?

Its not like it interferes with the broadcast spectrum.

IIRC, in the UK the analogue and digital TV are all assigned in the same basic range of frequencies. Currently I guess there are enough free "slots" for Standard Definition, but there is not enough free bandwidth to support HD. Presumably, the sooner the analogue channels are killed off, the sooner terrestrial HD can start.

Also, I think there are power saving benefits moving to digital, at least, it seems that way given the listings of "reception predictors" given here.

Re:errr

[AkumaKuruma]

comcast where I live broadcasts in both digital and analog. any analog cable ready tv will work, but if you have a digi-cable ready tv or a digital box, you get the same channels completely interference free. I noticed this when the cable box was showing the sub 100 channels a whole 2 seconds ahead of cable ready.

Re:errr

[dadragon]

That's correct, my TV is IPTV over DSL, so channels 2-60 can't be analogue.

Re:errr

[Lumpy]

Why? because then Cable Tv companies can force you to use their box that records your demographics. They want to be in control and eliminate that damned pvr of yours.

Write the FCC demanding that the cable companies keep basic cable as unencrypted QAM for the basic lineup. The cable companies desperately want to force you to have converter boxes everywhere.

Yes I know this. I was in the industry and that is what they were dying to do. most places the franchise agreement forbids them to drop the analog lineup. but they can change that.

Re:errr

[Lumpy]

That is the line of BS they tell you, and if they were actually interested in reclaiming bandwidth then the channels in the basic tier would be unencrypted QAM channels so my 32" tv in the bedroom will tun in the basic cable lineup.

They are encrypted in order to force you it use the box that records and controls. THAT is what they want to go all digital for, control. By forcing you to use their boxes, it makes all PVR's but theirs a pita to use. and PVR's eat into their cash. Cable TV makes a crapload of cash on Advertising, overlaying their ad's on a networks ad's. if you have a Mythtv box you steal money from them. a Tivo has 30 second skip, it empowers the customer to steal as well. Their box only fast forewards, makes it a pain for you to skip the commercials in 1/2 a second.

and yes, they think that way, if you skip commercials you are stealing from them. I've been in those meetings and listened to the executives talk about the PVR scourage

Re:errr

[plague3106]

Because the cable companies need to send the same analog signals to everyone, most of whom want digital for its clearer picture and more sound channels? It costs more for cable companies to do that, which they could be spending elsewhere?

If you want analog, get a box that converts digital signals to analog. As for your phone, I'd more likely put it out on display as a piece of art than try to use it.

So yea, either buy a converter for your analog TV, or get a newer digital TV. But don't expect that you have a right to hold up progress for everyone else.

Re:errr

[dadragon]

So you like lack of choice as a consumer?

As a consumer I can change providers if I want. There are at least 3 tv providers in my area and two telephone providers.

Really, how is it an issue for analog cable signals to be coming in and your phone service to still support pulse dialing even though you're not using them?

Well, analog cable signals can't come in on the technology they're using, IPTV. MPEG-4 streams are hard to make analogue. Pulse still works, you just can't get a line that only has pulse dialing. The newer digital switches use a lot of resources to handle pulse dialing, so its use is discouraged.

All this means is you have to buy TV's with digital tuners or rent a converter box for every analog TV you own now and you couldn't try out an antique phone if you ever inherited one.

I'm not aware of any TVs that have a built in IPTV decoder, and all the antique phones of any interest are the crank style anyway. Rotary phones are a dime a dozen, so are pulse to touch tone converters.

And IPTV means that all I need to capture my tv signal is a computer with ethernet and VLC.

Re:errr

[CohibaVancouver]

TV is IPTV over DSL

Alright, so it's not 'cable' by the standard definition, i.e. not "coaxial cable" - It's a data service over a pair of copper wires. I realize it's still a 'cable' coming into your house, but it's not the standard definition of 'Cable.' :)

Does your provider also offer a PVR? i.e. how do you 'watch one show and tape another'?

Re:errr

[dadragon]

I realize it's still a 'cable' coming into your house, but it's not the standard definition of 'Cable.' :)

No, I suppose not, and it's not marketed as suck, either. It's called "Max Entertainment Services". TV and Internet.

Does your provider also offer a PVR? i.e. how do you 'watch one show and tape another'?

There's a PVR. It's about a month old, I was playing with one before they were officially released, they're kind of neat, but I don't have one. If you have HDTV you can only have one PVR, because a HD signal takes about 10mbps to stream reliably, but with standard def you can have 3 or 4.

Re:errr

[Jeruvy]

Actually this is the main reason to switch to digital, since compression methods can be used with digital broadcasts you can broadcast more with less spectrum, hence they can now sell off all that excess spectrum (which they are already doing with other analog systems that are moving to different technologies.).

Re:errr

[taniwha]

my point was not that it wasn't using the bandwidth, just that it was a poor use of that bandwidth - look at a spectrum analyzer, most of the energy is in the carrier (which essentially carrier no information other than placing the other parts of the signal in context) and at any instant most of the spectrum wasn't being used (unless you're broadcasting white noise) - a QAM signal has all it's energy spread across the entire range and can carry a whole lot more information as a result

Re:errr

[tttonyyy]

Yes - what you are describing are encoding artefacts introduced by using a very low bitrate to encode the video (presumably to cram so many HD channels down one old analogue band). Trust me on this one, I work with professional broadcast encoders and see this all the time. Bandwidth costs money, so broadcasters push down what they consider to be acceptable quality all the time.

Re:errr

[solitas]

I suspect the boxes may negotiate for the best signal/compression they can, weighted against the signal they're receiving.

I bought one of these http://www10.epinions.com/content_129202687620 and it tremendously helped both my picture quality and my cable modem.

Re:errr

[aywwts4]

Those are only for cleaning up an analogue picture, They are receiving 100% of the digital picture they send, the problem is the picture they send is digital crap. These problems described cannot be caused by a bad signal (the signal was fine) these are encoding issues stemming from the cable company.

"Digital Quality" can mean HD-DVD or digital can mean a postage stamp sized real media stream.

Re:errr

[solitas]

No, not just for cleaning up the analog picture - if you have a borderline signal level, making your system drop packets that need resending, or making it freeze until the streaming re-syncs, then amplifying the signal level (and keeping a good S/N ratio) _will_ help your digital 'reception'.

Digital TV works over antenna

[fahrvergnugen]

The article is misleading. Digital television is still broadcast over the airwaves, and you won't have to give up your antenna or switch to pay-TV services like cable or satellite in order to receive it. In fact, the best way to receive HD broadcasts from the major networks is likely via an antenna, as cable & satellite providers sacrifice quality by recompressing the video streams.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there encryption or DRM on these signals?

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[yuna49]

I just bought an HDTV about a week ago and experimented with HD reception via an antenna and via direct cable input (from Comcast). My house happens to have an obsolete UHF yagi on the chimney so the quality of reception over the air using the antenna was quite good. When I connected the cable directly to the TV's coaxial connector, I got the same program quality but more digital channels since there were a couple of distant PBS stations that are unavailable via broadcast. I was actually quite surprised how simple it was to add the channels using ATSC; I just connected the cable and told the TV to scan the available bandwidth.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[Luyseyal]

Heh, I think you meant "formerly obsolete UHF yagi".

Cheers,
-l

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[Anonymous Coward]

On the (handful of) subscription channels. But the rest are in the clear.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[dmatos]

Can you make any comments on what happens when the signal quality of the OTA digital broadcasts drops? With analogue broadcasts, the picture goes fuzzy, and when it gets really bad, the audio gets staticky, but the signal can degrade a very long way before a tv show becomes fuzzy. My worry with poor reception is that digital television shows will just drop out for short periods of time, which I find much more distracting. Like if, say, the punchline in a joke gets lost due to atmospheric interference.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[Hjalmar]

For the most part, either you get a digital OTA signal or you don't. If the signal isn't strong enough, the TV won't display the channel, period. On my TV, if I force it to use a weak station, the picture is perfect but occasionally freezes and there are odd digital artifacts. Or the sound will drop out. It's not unlike watching a scratched DVD.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[Ucklak]

It depends. Sometimes the picture freezes and sometimes it drops out.

With TV stations having 24 hour programming now and the analog TV sets are no longer able to be purchased, I wonder how a remake of Poltergeist would tackle these issues?

I will miss the white noise from my TV.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[rickb928]

"cable & satellite providers sacrifice quality by recompressing the video streams:"

The dirty little secret of calbe & satellite. Nasty nasty nasty.

Personally, I loathe the MP4 streams they give us so often. Watching a dark background posterize into a single shade of bleagh on a static scene is unnerving. Not to mention the lack of detail. HD was supposed to be HIGH-def. Much of it is being compressed into something almost as good as SDTV.

Of course, there are some HD channels that give it up in full def. But chances are, you oughta buy a set with a tuner in it. After all, OTA is 'free'. Kinda as in beer.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[Dogtanian]

I will miss the white noise from my TV. You must have an old TV then; the analogue tuners in most TVs built in the past 20 years or so suppress static (both picture and noise) when they can't detect a signal.

I kind of miss it too, but not really; looking back, it was pretty annoying when for whatever reason you tuned to an empty channel and got an earful of static.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[rsmith-mac]

It's important to note that the cable companies actually aren't allowed to recompress the steams from the local stations, per FCC rules; so you should get the same picture quality out of both. They can and do however compress just about everything else. The satellite companies aren't beholden to the same rule, so they generally recompress the locals too.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[netean]

In the UK. Over the air (OTA) HD broadcasts aren't happening, and aren't likely to happen any time soon as there isn't enough room on the broadcast platform at the moment. In the UK. the ONLY way to get HD is through Satellite (SKY) and probably soon via Cable (Virgin Media) (if it isn't already)

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[compwizrd]

I used to be able to listen to Cell phones as a kid back in the early 80's on an ancient 13" b&w tv that still did up to channel 82 or so.. had to be very picky on the manual tuning dial to make out anything.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite true. HD over DVB-T has been trialled in the London region, might still be running.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[fahrvergnugen]

Huh. local HD's over cable looked like shit compared to the antenna broadcasts, for the two days the cable was left turned on when I moved into my house, and I don't think it was just wishful thinking. They might not be allowed to, but their equipment chain was substandard or something. It looked terrible.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[jddj]

What's more, over-the-air digital TV KICKS ASS on the stepped-on crap that trickles down your cable or satellite feed. NBC's 1080i OTA signal is INCREDIBLE.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[heinousjay]

I've had the opposite experience - OTA reception is terrible where I live (too many tall buildings, I guess), but on cable it's crystal clear and beautiful.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe there is no over-the-air high-definition. The only HD is over satellite or cable. OTA looks mostly like shit because they cram multiple tv-channels into one frequency channel ("multiplex"). Cable and satellite have so much more bandwidth that they don't have to do it as excessively.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[Anonymous Coward]

No more HD Terrestial in London. I was on the trial and the test broadcasts stopped around July this year. Basically it was good for the World Cup but there wasn't very much content apart from endless repeats of Planet Earth.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[FireFury03]

In fact, the best way to receive HD broadcasts from the major networks is likely via an antenna, as cable & satellite providers sacrifice quality by recompressing the video streams.

Cable companies may recompress the streams to save bandwidth, but satellite is generally used to distribute the content to the cable head offices and terrestrial transmitters, so you won't usually beat the quality of the DVB-S signal since it's usually the source for all the other distribution methods.

Also, there is a lot more bandwidth available through DVB-S than DVB-T, so the chances are DVB-T streams will get reduced in quality in order to squeeze more channels in.

Re:Digital TV works over antenna

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure which country you are from but in the UK our over-the-air digital service "Freeview" is MPEG-2 compressed. They are even talking of moving to MPEG-4 when HD channels are added (currently satellite and cable are trialling a small number of HD channels). Whatever the method of transmission, they will always try to squeeze as much data into the available bandwidth.

End of the World?

[Rob_Ogilvie]

The FCC says there will be no more Analog after 2012. The Mayan calendar ends in 2012.

Coincidence?

Re:End of the World?

[Anonymous Coward]

AND 20+1+2 = 23!
I can't escape both this number AND this mediocre movie!!!! /Jim Carrey

Re:End of the World?

[tyrantking31]

I believe that for all intents and purposes the Mayan calendar ended about 1697 A.D. Guess they were off by a few centuries.

Re:End of the World?

[Anonymous Coward]

and then dragons will awaken, and people will turn into elves and dwarves...

*cough*shadowrun*cough*

Re:End of the World?

[debianlinux]

I'm probably the only one to tag the story "timewavezero"

Re:End of the World?

[Anonymous Coward]

Near where I live is an office building with their address in large neon numbers - 2323

The problem with digital....

[celardore]

When the signal is poor, it becomes next to unwatchable. Comparable with really bad codecs on the PC. With analog and a poor signal, it may have been grainy but was still watchable to a certain extent. Digital has blocks, pausing, sound artifacts and all sorts of other things that make viewing uncomfortable. If you live in the hilly areas of England, consider getting cable - oh wait, they don't offer that because of the terrain?? Oh well.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Fnagaton]

When the analogue signals are turned off this will allow a power increase for the digital signals which then reduces digital signal reception problems.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you explain artifacts in cable then?

Re:The problem with digital....

[TheThiefMaster]

It's worth noting that older antennas designed for the analogue spectrum often don't pick up the spectrum used for digital broadcasts particularly well, and may need to be replaced. (At least in the UK, I don't know what spectrums other countries use)

A digital signal stays "perfect" for a lot further than an analogue one, but in return a bad digital signal is a lot worse than a bad analogue one.

In other words, if you get a "moderately bad" or above signal, you'll benefit from the change to digital. If you get a really poor analogue signal, a digital receiver might fail to display any image at all. Though if your analogue signal is that bad, you probably already have satellite tv.

Re:The problem with digital....

[arkhan_jg]

Digital signal transmission is currently at 2 to 5% maximum power so that it doesn't cause interference with the analog signal. as the analog transmitters are turned off, they can ramp up the digital transmission power levels to that currently enjoyed by analog transmitters. There will also be much more bandwidth freed up that the analog signals used, allowing more bandwidth (i.e. less compression to start with) for existing channels, and new channels such as broadcasting HD channels in mpeg4 as opposed to the wasteful mpeg2 used for SD broadcasts. The end result will be far more channels, and a far better quality in a given area than analog gave, and even better coverage overall, including areas that can't currently receive digital and only get weak analog signals.

i can't WAIT until analog is fully turned off.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Anonymous Coward]

Though if your analogue signal is that bad, you probably already have satellite tv.

I live in a basement flat (rented from a landlord, not my mother :p), and I receive no worthwhile analog signal. I have a television, but do not receive or record ANY signal. The TV licence inspector visited me, and I showed him my setup. He asked some boilerplate questions, and I have since had it in writing from the TV license authorities that I'm ok.

TV LICENSING BRISTOL BS98 1TL Tel: 0870 243 0229 Fax: 0870 240 1187 E-Mail: tvlcsc@capita.co.uk Our Ref: TVL18xxxxxx8 28/02/2007 Dear Mr Cxxxxxxe Thank you for your reply to my colleagues' letter, which has crossed over in the post. As you have received a visit from our Officer, and you have let us know that you do not use television equipment, I have now annotated our records to show a set is not in use at your address. We have updated our records accordingly. This will protect your address from mailing, for a longer period than would normally be set at an address, as it has been confirmed that a set is not in use. Some unscrupulous people will use this particular action as a form of evasion. I am sure you will appreciate, we have a responsibility to the Licensing Authority and the licence holding public to be certain of the licensing requirements for each address hence the instigation of the new process. I hope the information above clarifies the situation. Yours sincerely Cxxxs Rxxxxxs TV Licensing

Re:The problem with digital....

[Novus]

With analog and a poor signal, it may have been grainy but was still watchable to a certain extent.

In many cases, the error correction on the digital signal (at various levels in the protocol stack) may be sufficient to mask pretty much everything. DVB-T, at least, as far as I can tell, does a lot of trickery to compensate for typical terrestrial TV distortions like multipath effects (which causes ghosting on analogue TV), and, by its digital nature, is resistant (up to a point) against noise. I'm happily receiving essentially perfect digital TV (DVB-T) with a tiny indoor antenna at a place where you could consider yourself lucky (with a decent rooftop antenna) if you could watch a whole show in colour on analogue and seeing double didn't require alcohol. Naturally, YMMV.

Re:The problem with digital....

[TemporalBeing]

When the analogue signals are turned off this will allow a power increase for the digital signals which then reduces digital signal reception problems.

Regardless of how much power you push, there will always be people within the viewing area that will get a degraded signal.

For instance - I currently live within 5 miles of two broadcasting stations. I get neither because of the terrain. Pumping up the signal will not fix that. I also get two other channels - one comes in clear (not sure where it is broadcast from) and the other goes in and out - likely terrain issues too. Pumping up the signal would work somewhat to clear up the channel, but not totally fix the issue.

Additionally you have other things that cause interference that degrade the signal too. And pumping up the signal will not fix those either. And I am not talking about the simple interference of broadcast bleeding - which, btw, is indicative of someone pumping up their signal too. Power lines and numerous other things cause interference and degrade signal.

The GP is correct. Analog was good in that if you got some signal you could possibly watch it, but it may not be the best. (You might have b&w instead of color, or crackly sound, but you can watch it.) With the Digital signals any amount of interference will corrupt the stream and you will lose all the content - it 100% or nothing.

Add to it how much an EMP attack would effect the two - analog would survive, digital would be toast - and there are other repercussions too.

Oh, and don't forget the DRM that MPAA, RIAA, NFL/NBA/NASCAR/etc, et. al wants added to it - so that they can control what you can and cannot record.

Yeah - digital TV is the doom of TV. At this rate, we'll be TV free by the time our grand kids (or great grand kids) come around. TV will a blip in history between the 1930's and 2050's.

Re:The problem with digital....

[goofy183]

In the US this isn't true. The digital broadcasts are just on previously un-used UHF (and in some unfortunate cases VHF) channel allocations. The antenna you've been using for analog will still work for digital.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Wowsers]

We've heard the "we'll boost the signal" excuse before with analogue and DAB (digital radio) transmitters in very large parts of the south of the UK. When the signals get boosted they get complaints that the French are getting their broadcasts interfered with the English dross, so the signal gets turned back down, and the same awful reception continues. Going to digital will not change this.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Cramer]

More power does not necessarily mean better. The reflections will be stronger as well. Multipath issues (ghosting for analog TV) are what causes most problems with ATSC reception.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Stuntmonkey]

...and new channels such as broadcasting HD channels in mpeg4 as opposed to the wasteful mpeg2 used for SD broadcasts.

Unfortunately the only video encoding method employed by the US version of digital television is MPEG-2. Certainly if it were being developed today it would likely permit MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) or VC-1, which are roughly twice as bandwidth-efficient as MPEG-2 in most qualitative viewing tests. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray each mandates both of these standards in their players, in addition to MPEG-2.

So this is one of those cases where the technology is already a bit out of date before it's fully rolled out. Still it's a step forward.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Dogtanian]

What about the forthcoming "Freesat" satellite TV (the BBC service of that name, not the unrelated "Freesat from Sky")? Okay, it might cost you a bit, but I doubt it'll be horrendous, and it'll be a solution.

TV will a blip in history between the 1930's and 2050's. It probably will be, but not for the reason you think probably. YouTube has risen to prominence incredibly fast, and although the quality is poor, it points the way to the future. I'm already used to being able to search for any old dreck I feel like watching (within reason), and despite having lots of Freeview channels to choose from (I remember when it was just BBC1, BBC2 and ITV, and Channel 4 launching was a big deal- yeah, I'm old), I can easily go up and down the channels and find nothing I want to watch.

TV just f****** *annoys* me these days, I just can't be arsed watching it. (YouTube is also better for my short attention span). But anyway... HDD PVRs (Tivo in the US, Sky Plus and the like here) are already here and cheap, hard drive capacities are going way up. Given enough hard drive space and six or so tuners, you could record the whole of Freeview's output for a day, week, month, etc. (Remember that Freeview broadcasts and receives several channels in a single multiplex, so you don't need a tuner for each channel).

So, it's getting to the stage where we can record whatever we want and watch it later; and ironically, the many repeats that fill those channels will become unnecessary because we won't even need to consciously decide to record it the first time it's on. We can just check the archive of recent programmes. And so on.

This is happening today. What will happen in 10 or 20 years time? I think that "watching TV" will still exist as a concept, but the lines between digital downloads, archived TV transmissions, DVDs (or whatever) and actual "live" transmitted TV will become blurred.

I wouldn't even dare to consider where we'll be in the 2050s(!)

Re:The problem with digital....

[martinmarv]

From my (limited) research it seems like there will only be slightly more digital bandwidth available (6 - 8 digital channels per analogue channel, so 30 - 40 new "digital channels' worth" in total). It would be interesting to know how Ofcom plans to use it.
Many of the channels available currently suffer from horrible compression artefacts (try and watch any kind of action film on ITV4 or anything with large areas of gradiented colours). So I would think that a good use of the extra bandwidth would be to redistribute it amongst most of the other channels.
Broadcasting in anything other than the (fairly crap) mpeg2, or broadcasting any kind of HDTV would mean that almost everyone who currently has digital equipment would have to replace or supplement it (including those people who have bought televisions with built in digital receivers).
So far more channels plus far better quality plus better coverage overall just from the digital switchover seems unlikely.

But are you actually commenting on the UK system, since I notice you use "analog" rather than "analogue"?

Re:The problem with digital....

[jskiff]

DirecTV has added something like 40 new HD channels over the past month, and they are all MPEG-4. It doesn't look like they've been recompressing them either; the image quality is fantastic.

Re:The problem with digital....

[compwizrd]

according to tvfool.com, my dad would have to put up a 900 foot TV tower to get more than about 7 stations, and 144 feet would get him an additional 5 or so over the two he gets now.

Re:The problem with digital....

[TheRealFixer]

OTA broadcasts are not likely to go to MPEG4 any time soon. It isn't part of the ATSC spec. Most, if not all, digital tuners can currently only decode MPEG-2. I've heard of some rumblings to try and get it added into ATSC (19 Mbit MPEG-2 is just barely enough to provide good quality 1080i, and many stations are bit-starving their HD feeds in favor of subchannels for extra income), but all the people who have already bought digital tuners would still be out of luck, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of the ramp-up to ATSC.

MPEG4 is starting to be used in satellite and digital cable delivery, but for most local broadcasts they're taking the station's MPEG-2 stream and re-compressing it as MPEG4, which doesn't do much for overall quality, but does free up some bandwidth for more channels. In scenarios where the cable or satellite provider can receive a completely uncompressed feed, MPEG4 can offer superior picture quality, but unfortunately most of what you're seeing right now in MPEG4 is still being re-compressed.

Re:The problem with digital....

[pilgrim23]

I really don't CARE. I watch mainly torrents because the shows I am interested in are never ON: "Go Open" out of S Africa,. DL.TV, Cranky Geeks, Way cool documentaries from Sweden, BBC, and Poland, some fine movies from Hong Kong New Deli and Singapore... World Wide shows. You know...the sort of thing that was PROMISED by televison, and started to happen in the 1950s but was immediately crushed: World wide, information flow... That stuff which was squashed by the needs of commercial interests, propaganda machines, government, and NY executives.
Turning off analog TV (I have a roof top antena) would only stop me from watching the morning weather report. Thankfully, AM radio is still available so. the only looser here is the morning news advertisers...

Re:The problem with digital....

[junk_ball]

In the US this isn't true. The digital broadcasts are just on previously un-used UHF (and in some unfortunate cases VHF) channel allocations. The antenna you've been using for analog will still work for digital. As a broadcaster, this is fortunate. The stations on UHF have got power levels as much as 5000 KW on there digital transmitter. Do you have any idea how much it cost to keep that damn thing cool. And how about the amount of power it takes to make that much RF. I got a VHF channel. I will go from 300 KW analog to 29KW digital and get the same coverage. Its will be easier to keep 29 K cool and use much less power.

Re:The problem with digital....

[ascendant]

They already spend tons of money on power for the broadcast. Why would they want to increase expenditure when the mass amounts of people close to the station already get plenty good reception?

Just because they can increase the signal strength doesn't mean they will.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Simian Road]

I quite often think that another war with the French would be good for us....

Then I remember the rugby and am satisfied.

Re:The problem with digital....

[timthorn]

Multipath is beneficial to DVB-T, because of the COFDM transmission scheme. As long as the time difference is less than the guard interval (which it almost always is) the signal is boosted.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Anonymous Coward]

And where did anyone say ATSC is DVB-T?

Re:The problem with digital....

[MrSteveSD]

I hope the power does go up because at the moment reception with an indoor aerial is next to impossible.

Re:The problem with digital....

[arkhan_jg]

Yes, I'm commenting on the UK - bad habit to use analog spelling! As I understand it, the existing overly-filled muxes, such as those with channel 4 and itv will get spread out a bit more, and have more bandwidth similar to BBC, thus removing the need for the very aggressive MPEG2 compression on those channels.

HD channels will be broadcast in parallel to the existing channels; current plans will initially involve a mini-HD service from the BBC, with a few hours a night broadcast in MPEG2 HD. Additional channels will come on when the entire analog system is turned off after 2012; I'm told each current analog channel can support 3-4 SD digital channels with reasonable compression, or ~2 HD channels in MPEG4-AVC or the like. Additional HD services will probably have to be in an mpeg4 varient over DVB-T - similar to the australian system I believe. This will require a 'freeview 2' service or somesuch, with new equipment needed for the extra HD channels from 2012. There won't be room to broadcast everything in HD using the available TV bandwidth, even with analog completely off, so it'll probably just be a half-dozen HD channels or so for a while, with all the other fluff in SD.

I doubt there will be far more channels, just some extra HD eventually, with extra bandwidth for the important SD ones. The better coverage will come from massively ramping up the power of the HD channels when they don't have to worry about overriding the analog channels.

Re:The problem with digital....

[arkhan_jg]

I should correct myself there having re-read my original comment. I meant 'far more channels' as compared to analog broadcasting. There will be some more digital channels than now, I just meant that 40-50 odd channels is a lot more than people only receiving analog transmission in the Uk atm!

Re:The problem with digital....

[Anonymous Coward]

The end result will be far more channels, and a far better quality in a given area than analog gave,

So will moving to digital coincide with Francis Ford Coppola remaking every episode of Friends or something? Of all the reasons TV sucked, I don't remember ever thinking "picture quality".

i can't WAIT until analog is fully turned off.

Me, too. Especially if they never bother to turn on digital.

I don't watch TV any more, except when I'm standing in line in a store that has a TV on. They'd do better showing top-rated videos off youtube.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Anonymous Coward]

The source that the cable companies get the feed from is digital, usually satellite. If they lose signal, you'll get the digital posterizing effect even though you have analog cable, or even rabbit ears!

Re:The problem with digital....

[Stuntmonkey]

DirecTV has added something like 40 new HD channels over the past month, and they are all MPEG-4. It doesn't look like they've been recompressing them either; the image quality is fantastic.

The MPEG-4 is part of a proprietary channel format for DirectTV, decoded by the DirectTV box rather than your digital TV directly. The tuner in a digital TV can only decode signals that comply with the ATSC standards for digital television, which mandate MPEG-2 as the video format. One of the annoying consequences is that for captive systems with a finite-capacity channel (e.g., a cable or satellite TV operator), the operator has a very legitimate technical reason to require set top boxes for their customers: So they can use better encoding methods than MPEG-2, with greater spectral efficiency. Then again the codecs are evolving so rapidly now, and it takes so long to roll out a new TV standard, that it's probably unrealistic to expect the broadcast TV standards to be anywhere close to state-of-the-art.

Perhaps someday hardware will be fast enough that we can have a video "meta-standard": Each signal is broadcast along with the codec needed to decompress it, written to some (Turing complete) virtual machine specification. The receiver would download and execute the decoding algorithm on the fly. This would allow codecs to continue evolving, while also eliminating the need for all these set top boxes. It would also allow you to have codecs better suited to the content, for example MPEG-2 is pretty bad for cartoons (for the same reason jpeg is bad for block graphics). Of course, it would also raise the possibility of some nefarious signal crashing your TV. Turing-completeness is a two-edged sword.

Re:The problem with digital....

[TemporalBeing]

TV will a blip in history between the 1930's and 2050's.

It probably will be, but not for the reason you think probably. YouTube has risen to prominence incredibly fast, and although the quality is poor, it points the way to the future. I'm already used to being able to search for any old dreck I feel like watching (within reason), and despite having lots of Freeview channels to choose from (I remember when it was just BBC1, BBC2 and ITV, and Channel 4 launching was a big deal- yeah, I'm old), I can easily go up and down the channels and find nothing I want to watch.

True - that is also part of the factor of it too.

Personally, I think within the next 50 years we'll see "TV" shows go from how they are now to how they are typically presented in Sci-Fi movies, etc - where we'll just say "I want to watch this, bring it up", and that will happen. Whether it is because we record everything ourselves as it comes on, or because we hook everything into one big, free show-cosmos-system I don't know. But I certainly think it is going that way.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Binary Ninja]

I'm frustrated that ATSC capable TVs don't include any kind of signal strength or BER indicator. Having someone stand in the doorway and yell out the picture quality doesn't work well. The MPEG2 delay means that by the time you see a channel, you may have swept past the best heading.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight. They can transmit digital now with very few artifacts. Signal takes 5% of the total power.
Fast forward to 2012. Why WOULD they want to reduce these VERY FEW artifacts? Why WOULD they want to raise this signal output power, for something so seldom a problem, from your 5% to say 50%? That is 1,000% of the original transmission power, and probably ten times the electrical cost. Will any company pay more tomorrow for what they can do NOW with just... 5% of a power bill? 100 numerically means about 2,000% of just 5

Re:The problem with digital....

[clickclickdrone]

I hope your right because right now Sky Digital, cable digital and Freeview look terrible compared to a good analogue picture. I've not seen Sky HD yet though - hopefully that's better.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a story about the UK switching off analog. Frankly it can't be helped that yet again the US has chosen a sucky standard just to be different. You can't even use the excuse that you were first: the US is likely to be the last country in the developed world to switch of analogue broadcasts!

Re:The problem with digital....

[leenoble_uk]

On that subject. Our digital signal gets a lot worse in summer when it's raining because, I'm told, of all the wet leaves the aerial is pointing through at the local park.

I've been advised to get a wide band high gain antenna installed, but I'm loathed to do so if in a year or two the signal will be improved to the point where the new aerial will be overkill and I'll actually end up getting too much signal (which apparently is even worse).

Should I upgrade the aerial or put up with it. This summer was, as those in the UK know, particularly bad for TV.

Re:The problem with digital....

[nyekulturniy]

It wasn't a sucky standard to begin with. NTSC was the foundation of PAL transmissions too. The newer color transmissions were compatible with the older black-and-white transmissions, the sound was FM, and it works. We never had the 405 line versus 625 line issue.

Re:The problem with digital....

[FireFury03]

Digital has blocks, pausing, sound artifacts and all sorts of other things that make viewing uncomfortable.

I call BS. The only channels that have problems with macroblocking are the lower-budget channels that you don't get over analogue anyway. All the major channels are allocated a good bandwidth and have a sensible amount of FEC to you won't get macroblocking except in the worst weather (i.e. the sort of weather that happens once every 3 years). The same with pausing - it just doesn't happen unless you have the aforementioned weather conditions. I've also never noticed any sound artifacts, and since the backhaul is almost exclusively digital these days, all these problems would show up over the analogue transmissions anyway.

If you live in the hilly areas of England, consider getting cable - oh wait, they don't offer that because of the terrain?? Oh well.

What's wrong with DVB-S?

Re:The problem with digital....

[Alioth]

An EMP attack would kill off analogue TVs just as badly as it kills a digital one. A small signal transistor is a small signal transistor, whether it's being used in a digital circuit or analogue one. A severe voltage spike will still destroy the gate oxide.

The only analogue TVs that would survive an EMP attack would be ancient valve sets - the really ancient ones, with no transistors at all. How many people still have functioning valve sets?

Re:The problem with digital....

[TemporalBeing]

An EMP attack would kill off analogue TVs just as badly as it kills a digital one. A small signal transistor is a small signal transistor, whether it's being used in a digital circuit or analogue one. A severe voltage spike will still destroy the gate oxide.

It would still be easier to fix the analog TVs and replace their transistors. They also don't necessarily require a circuit to decode the signal - the raw data just has to be phased correctly into the CRT to show it.

Digital TVs would require complete replacement.

The only analogue TVs that would survive an EMP attack would be ancient valve sets - the really ancient ones, with no transistors at all. How many people still have functioning valve sets?

I think my parents 1970 b&w 13" Philips TV would. It still works perfectly fine and has outlasted several newer color TVs as well. They've had 4 or 5 TVs, and got this one from my grandparents after one of those broke back in the 1980's. They've since had at least one more that has died, and have one or two others as well. The only thing that will break the set is the conversion to digital.

Re:The problem with digital....

[Alioth]

It would? An EMP attack is likely to destroy every transistor, regardless of technology. As I said, a small signal transistor is a small signal transistor. Huge EMP currents would totally destroy them all whether they are in an analogue or digital circuit, so they would need complete replacement.

Anecdotes about old TVs don't necessarily shed light on their performance in the proximity of EMP. Unless it's full of valves instead of transistors, it'll be completely destroyed.

If you want to keep your old analogue tv, just use a set top box. I've never had analogue TV signal coming into my house (there was no point three or four years ago in putting up the antenna for an analogue signal, given that it would be getting switched off relatively soon), but my TV is a 14 year old Sony (and it works very nicely). The digibox provides a perfectly usable RGB signal for the tv. The digibox can also provide a UHF TV signal on channel 36.

Given that the only likely attack involving EMP is a nuclear one, I think you'll be worrying about other things if you're close enough to the explosion for your TV to get broken, like fall out, getting food, finding cover before the blast arrives etc.

Re:The problem with digital....

[chaoaretasty]

This, in fact, is why you should be welcoming the digital switchover. Currently the digital signal is being run at low power as the stations have to put out both signals, the digital signal is able to reach a large proportion of the population at watchable quality with a fraction of the power. Once analogue is switched off the digital can be powered up, everyone that had been able to get analogue will then be able to get digital at good quality.

Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great news for Valve!

Sweden just killed the analogue network

[Albert Sandberg]

Sweden just recently (yesterday) pulled the plug on the analogue broadcast and going for full digital. The only drawback is that they have focused on the old mpeg2 standard, not the mpeg4 which is required for hd resolutions (norway apparently went the whole nine and went for mpeg4, good for them).

Although I'm not very interesterd, tv is so overrated anyway, why not focus more on direct, live, content streamable for the net and paid for individually? TV networks is not for all of us.

Re:Sweden just killed the analogue network

[Anonymous Coward]

Finland killed the analog also some time ago. But TV is for grannies anyways. I never got a new telly or an adaptor.

Re:Sweden just killed the analogue network

[riffzifnab]

Once again proving that Norway is superior to those damn imperialistic Sweeds.

Yes I'm part Norwegian, why do you ask? d:

Re:Sweden just killed the analogue network

[eniac42]

why not focus more on direct, live, content streamable for the net and paid for individually? TV networks is not for all of us.

For us in the UK, we pay £3.5 billion (7 billion USD) every year for the BBC - via a compulsory £100/year tax. So we *expect* something decent/interesting/well-constructed for that.. Rather than, say, Utube. Having said that the BBC does make some good progs - but it could be done on much much less than 7 bill - heck for that, we could have a space program..

Analog? Huge waste of bandwidth, only needed to do it that way in the days of valves, switch it off. But, use the digital bandwidth for new HDTV services - dont just sell it off! (Keep analog radio though - small bandwidth). Incidentaly, just to show nothing is new, if I remember right, both Baird & German engineers had experimental 1000-line TV working during the 1940's - the problem was always the bandwidth (or the valve video amps that could work at high frequencies)..

Re:Sweden just killed the analogue network

[mattack2]

North America's ATSC standard uses MPEG2 but still has "hd resolutions". So I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

Re:Sweden just killed the analogue network

[oh2]

The cable networks in Sweden are still analog or a mix of digital and analog and theres no announced time limits on when this will go all digital from the main cable providers.

Re:Sweden just killed the analogue network

[Lazlo Woodbine]

I don't. It's well known fact that surstroemming rots your brain. And lingonberries. BORK BORK BORK

Re:Sweden just killed the analogue network

[Lumpy]

the only drawback is that they have focused on the old mpeg2 standard, not the mpeg4 which is required for hd resolutions
Funny here in the USA I can get 1080i content in a Mpeg2 transport stream over the air. you guys must have picked a really crappy standard.

Mpeg2 is also capable of 1080p and beyond. How in the world did they mess up your HDTV standard there that bad?

Re:Sweden just killed the analogue network

[Albert Sandberg]

I might just got that wrong since I'm not into the tv business, but it was something about the recievers and how we all should be "forced" to change them in the near future if we decided to go HD ourselves or something, might not be that much of a deal.

"are expected to have been switched off"

[arcmay]

Hasn't the future perfect tense been abandoned since it was discovered not to be?

Re:"are expected to have been switched off"

[Mark Hood]

Not yet, but it wioll haven be soon....

Mark

2012 now in the US?

[Red Flayer]

They keep pushing back the date of conversion to all-digital in the US... don't be surprised if 2012 becomes 2014 down the road.

It's funny, I'm holding out on buying a huge-display HDTV until prices drop due to the increased production/sales volume from the forced conversion to digital.

Every time the year gets pushed back, I spend the money on something else instead... and my understanding is that the deadline is partly due to low penetration of digital sets in the US. Seems like a negative feedback mechanism to me... if they made a deadline and stuck to it, maybe people like me would actually buy a new TV set like the electronics companies want.

Another thing, pretty tangential, that occurs to me is that forced conversion to digital TV will probably cause more civic unrest than anything else the US government has done lately. Taxes (as always) and TV reception could be the biggest campaign issues of the 2014 midterm elections...

Re:2012 now in the US?

[suv4x4]

It's funny, I'm holding out on buying a huge-display HDTV until prices drop due to the increased production/sales volume from the forced conversion to digital.

Economics dictate things a bit differently. Forced conversion would increase demand with unchanged supply. This will *raise* the prices, potentially a lot. After the peak, the supply would have caught up and demand will drop. Only then prices will *drop*.

So you're in for waiting for something like 6-7 years for this effect to become reality. I suggest you just buy something now if you need it at all.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[PCM2]

It's funny, I'm holding out on buying a huge-display HDTV until prices drop due to the increased production/sales volume from the forced conversion to digital.

Ah, yes! The old "compact disc" strategy...

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Reality Master 101]

Economics dictate things a bit differently. Forced conversion would increase demand with unchanged supply. This will *raise* the prices, potentially a lot.

Er, if the manufacturers know the switch is coming, why wouldn't they prepare to increase supply? They will. And it's entirely possible (and I can make the case that it's likely*) they will overproduce, driving the costs down.

*Because most manufacturers will be over-exuberant on what percentage of the new market they can capture. There's only so much market to go around, leading to excess inventory.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[clarkkent09]

don't be surprised if 2012 becomes 2014 down the road.

Don't know about you, but I'd be very surprised if that happens

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Red Flayer]

Forced conversion would increase demand with unchanged supply

Since when would supply be unchanged? You're telling me that Toshiba, Samsung, Sony, etc won't be ramping up production and shipment to the US as the deadline approaches? Huh. I'm glad you're not doing any business planning. Every consumer electronics price analyst I've seen comment on TV prices thinks that prices will drop on high-end sets as a result of the rollout, when it happens. Economies of scale apply here. Furthermore, since the number of suppliers of high-end electronics is fairly low, it's likely that a price war would happen, resulting in much lower prices for the savvy buyer.

So you're in for waiting for something like 6-7 years for this effect to become reality. I suggest you just buy something now if you need it at all.

I thought it rather obvious from my post that I don't view a huge-screen HDTV as a necessity. I worry for the future of the US if people DO see it as a necessity.

My point was that by delaying the rollout because of low penetration of digital-ready sets, they are delaying the purchase of a digital-ready set by at least one person (me); this keeps penetration low... etc.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[CoolCash]

But, Digital TV != HDTV. These are two different standards. Digital TV is the same resolution as analog tv, just transmitted in the digital form. There will still be tube tv's on the shelves at Best Buy, just not ones with analog tuners.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Red Flayer]

My 8-track works just fine, thanks.

Now excuse me while I load a program from cassette to my PET2001, I'm waiting for 64-core processors to come down in price when 256-core processors enter the market big-time.

Seriously, though --

Ah, yes! The old "compact disc" strategy...

Not being an early adopter of consumer electronics works great for me. I didn't pay $2000 for a CD player in the mid-80s. I paid $120 for one in 1989. Similarly, I won't pay $2000 for a big HDTV now... I expect to pay more like $600 for one in a few years.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[garcia]

It's funny, I'm holding out on buying a huge-display HDTV until prices drop due to the increased production/sales volume from the forced conversion to digital.

It's funny, I just bought two analog TV sets recently (last three years) and I have absolutely zero intention of switching to HD ever. I think that the HD switch was nothing more than a gigantic fleecing of America. In addition to the fact that the FCC is a bunch of assholes and have proven that they believe that they are the final say of what's appropriate rather than the people, the FCC will now make a metric fuckton of money from the sale of this extra bandwidth and aside from the money set off for those that cannot afford the broadcast converter boxes, the people (the rightful owners of the spectrum) will not see a dime from the billions in sales. I want that money split up evenly among the people in the form of a directly cashable check and not some federal tax rebate or other such horseshit.

Well, because none of that will ever happen I refuse to be a part of the HD craze and based on the longevity of my current 27" Sony TV set (it's now 24 years old), I have a feeling that the other two sets I own will continue putting me in touch with whatever media I want to view for the next 25 to 50 years.

If, for some reason, I am unable to view content with an analog set at that time, I will be happy to switch the fucking thing off completely and go read a book -- much like I do every night already as my wife, neighbors, co-workers and friends let the garbage on the airwaves wash over them.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[scottv67]

>Another thing, pretty tangential, that occurs to me is that forced conversion to digital TV will probably cause more civic unrest than anything else the US government has done lately.

Oil is on its way to $100 a barrel, the US has troops and mercenaries (Blackwater) killing people in a "war" in a foreign country and nearly every day, young men and women from the US are being killed in that "war" and you think that the most important thing on people's minds is freaking analog vs digital TV? It's obvious that the money you've saved by not buying an HDTV has been spent with the local ganja dealer.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Red Flayer]

But, Digital TV != HDTV. These are two different standards. Digital TV is the same resolution as analog tv, just transmitted in the digital form. There will still be tube tv's on the shelves at Best Buy, just not ones with analog tuners.

True. But isn't it likely that many, many people will figure that if they need to buy a new TV anyway, they might as well upgrade to HD?

Though CRTs will still be available, I'm willing to bet that share of HDTVs goes up... way up. Especially since we've already seen LCDs come down in price.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

you have that exactly backwards. prices will go UP, not down, when the conversion is imminent. After all, how long is a procrastinating american going to do without television?

Re:2012 now in the US?

[westlake]

It's funny, I'm holding out on buying a huge-display HDTV until prices drop due to the increased production/sales volume from the forced conversion to digital.

Holding out for what, may I ask?

The 52" 1080i Rear Projection RCA is $700 at your local Walmart.

The 47" 1080p Vizio LCD $1600.

The 1080p 60" Sony SXRD Rear Projection set $2100 at Circuit City.
xvYCC color, 120 Hz refresh. PC and 3 HDMI 1.3 inputs, etc.,etc.

Another thing, pretty tangential, that occurs to me is that forced conversion to digital TV will probably cause more civic unrest than anything else the US government has done lately

Try counting the number of small dish/big dish TVRO antennas in the outer suburbs and rural areas. Well, heck, try counting the number of dishes in the inner city.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[PitaBred]

So, to sum up... "Git off my lawn, you damn kids! And I'm keeping this frisbee!"

BTW, go watch HD next to SD. There really is a difference. I think the DRM is bullshit, but that's a completely different issue. HD is definitely worth it.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Red Flayer]

and you think that the most important thing on people's minds is freaking analog vs digital TV?

No, not the most important. I think it's the thing most likely of those to be on the forefront of their mind.

I may be a cynic, but all those things you mentioned barely affect people's daily lives, barely inconveniences them. Can't watch their TV, though, and they'd be up in arms. Sorry, but that's the sad state of affairs now.

The people demanded Congressional action on the issue of steroids in baseball, let's face facts and realize that the issues voters care about the most are the ones that have to do with their entertainment.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[SeaFox]

Economics dictate things a bit differently. Forced conversion would increase demand with unchanged supply. This will *raise* the prices, potentially a lot. After the peak, the supply would have caught up and demand will drop. Only then prices will *drop*.

Forced conversion will also lead to HD sets no longer being considered a "luxury item". Right now 16:9 sets command a premium because if you can't afford it, there's always plain old 4:3 analog TV still out there. Once it becomes the norm, manufacturers will pretty much have to lower the prices to recapture the market. People can't afford $500 for a TV in "da projects".

Re:2012 now in the US?

[tcc3]

Damn you beat me to it. (get off my lawn)

Re:2012 now in the US?

[pilardi]

It hasn't been pushed back again. The 2009 and 2012 are two independent deadlines. The deadline for turning off analog OTA broadcasts is February 17, 2009. That deadline was set in place by a early 2006 law and has not changed since.

The 2012 date is exclusively for cable, and this is the first date set for cable. The requirement set forth by the FCC is that cable companies are required to send analog television until at least 2012 at which time the FCC will reevaluate.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_television for more information.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[fishbowl]

"Oil is on its way to $100 a barrel, the US has troops and mercenaries (Blackwater) killing people in a "war" in a foreign country and nearly every day, young men and women from the US are being killed in that "war" and you think that the most important thing on people's minds is freaking analog vs digital TV?"

1. We're talking about people who will still buy gasoline even when it is an order of magnitude more expensive.
2. There war is actually a strong driver of television viewership. News and political talk shows are among the *reasons* people are buying new TVs in large numbers.

But people aren't really thinking about "HD versus SD" or formats, so much as the fact that a flat TV is both a status symbol and frees up a few square feet of space in their houses. People bought CD's because they don't scratch like records or turn to spaghetti like tapes. People buy new TVs because they are flat and they have a big picture.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Constantine XVI]

CRT != SDTV
While most of the TVs on the shelves nowadays aren't CRT, that doesn't mean there aren't any HD CRT TVs (Explain how you used resolutions higher than 720x480 on your computer monitor). It's just a concidence that both LCDs and HD is the "new hotness" right now, thus no one really bothers with HD CRT sets.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[scottv67]

> No, not the most important. I think it's the thing most likely of those to be on the forefront of their mind.

Re-read your own post, assmunch. I've included it below:

>Another thing, pretty tangential, that occurs to me is that forced conversion to digital TV will probably cause more civic unrest than anything else the US government has done lately.

You said that the conversion to digital TV will probably cause more civic unrest than anything else. An issue that is bigger than any other issue is the "most important issue". You said it. Are you trying to change your story now?

Re:2012 now in the US?

[garcia]

BTW, go watch HD next to SD. There really is a difference. I think the DRM is bullshit, but that's a completely different issue. HD is definitely worth it.

I've seen the "difference" and in the end, it's still shitty TV just with better resolution. The only thing worth watching on it is football and I'm happy to spend that time at a friend's house anyway to leave my wive free to watch her shitty programs alone while I drink beer and eat chips.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Com2Kid]

To be fair, HD TV sets are good for one thing:
- Serving as giant PC monitors. :)

A good number of them even come with RGB plugs (a few have DVI, and DVI->HDMI adapters are simple + cheap)

Re:2012 now in the US?

[mathwhiz99atucb]

The 2012 date is only one option of two that the cable providers have in complying with the FCC mandate. The other option is for cable companies to "carry the signal only in digital format, provided that all subscribers have the necessary equipment to view the broadcast content." http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276576A1.pdf Translated into English, this means that if cable companies provide every customer with a set-top box (STB) to view digital channels, they can switch over earlier, which is exactly what many cable systems are choosing to do. This "analog migration" or "analog recapture" is currently in progress in the cable system I work for where we are moving analog channels over to digital incrementally and analog-only customers would have to get a STB in order to view these channels.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[jguthrie]

I have watched the exact same content (an American-style football game) on both an NTSC and a HD TV at the same time. I could, indeed, tell a difference in picture quality. On the other hand, I couldn't figure out how the difference in picture quality made any sort of qualitative difference to my viewing experience. I mean, I could tell it was a football game and I could see all the relevant details on both screens.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[PitaBred]

If you're the kind of guy who just watches football, I could see that. But I still find it easier to see the details of the game when watching in HD, you can follow the ball easier and see what happens more clearly. But programs on channels like DiscoveryHD are well worth it, and the show is quite different in SD versus HD.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[WillAffleckUW]

Exactly, the branded "luxury" status allows them to restrict quantity and sell the same basic unit at a markup.

Somewhere in 2009, you will see basic 1080p 42 inch HDTV sets selling for around $300. Basic electronics supply curve in marketing.

How's that $2000 laptop you bought back in 2000 selling for nowadays ... exactly.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Lazlo Woodbine]

I'm with you.

As a proud owned of a $2000 hybrid Laserdisc/DVD player I wow to never be on the cutting edge again.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

People can't afford $500 for a TV in the suburbs, either.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Frozen Void]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

Re:2012 now in the US?

[AmiMoJo]

The only reason we are "steaming ahead" is so that the government can make a packet selling off the spectrum. Spectrum we really need for HD...

"Steaming" isn't really the right word either. Like with decimal money, we are going for a long-term phase in rather than a quick switch over. Most European countries managed to change their entire currency over in a matter of weeks, we should be able to do this in a similar time scale. Even in the one town they have switched over, a lot of people don't have digital STBs on all their TVs. Many, it seems, are waiting to see if the STBs will work, since so far it's fairly hit-and-miss for a lot of people due to poor signals. To make matters worse they have actually only turned off one analogue channel (BBC 2) which means digital signals have not been boosted yet.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Red Flayer]

Boy, your reading comprehension really needs some work.

Most likely to cause civil unrest != most important.

Furthermore, what is most likely to upset people has nothing at all to do with what I consider to be most important.

I did not write what you have chosen to interpret. If you're trying to troll, you could use a little more practice.

If you're not trying to troll, then you're just plain dense, and I pity you.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Stonent1]

Will this be you?

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

All true, but at least I can do something about my TV.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Lumpy]

The other problem is it's impossible to find and buy ATSC set top tuner boxes. The only ones available are over $200.00. it's currently cheaper to buy a recording DVD player with ATSC and use it as your tuner.

They need to make $50.00 RETAIL PRICE ATSC tuner boxes. then they will have rapid adoption.

Re:2012 now in the US?

[Red Flayer]

Yes, yes, I know...

However the point still stands that as people are 'forced' to upgrade, many more will choose HD sets, thus prices will fall.

Just a note, a big reason for the unpopularity of CRT HD sets is the size, from my anecdotal experience. It's just a real pain to deal with a set that is over 32" deep (non-standard cabinet required, etc). Never mind needing to pay for installation or have a couple friends with strong backs help out.

Nothing will change...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

So the old saying "there's nothing good on TV" will always remain true in the future, whether you have an analog or digital TV... there must be some physical law at work behind this... hmmm...

Re:Nothing will change...

[PCM2]

In any process, the total suckiness of the universe remains constant.

Re:Nothing will change...

[PhxBlue]

No physical law per se, just the continued abundance in Hollywood of the element known as stupidium. :)

Re:Nothing will change...

[Citizen of Earth]

"Sheesh! 40,000 channels and only 150 have anything good on."

People Still Watch TV?

[curmudgeon99]

Folks, If you are still watching TV in 2007, wake up. Most of the intelligent people that I know--self included--have quit wasting their lives in front of that machine. It's a waste of your life. They did a study once and found that an asleep person has more brain activity than one watching the boob tube. I quit watching it in 8th grade and my life has been much better for it.

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[Rik Sweeney]

Folks, If you are still watching

Sorry, I'll read the rest later, American Idol is about to start.

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

as opposed to wasting time in front of a computer?

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[Luyseyal]

Folks, if you are still reading Slashdot in 2007, wake up. Most of the intelligent people that I know--self included--have quit wasting their lives in front of that infernal website. It's a waste of your life. They did a study once and found that an asleep person has more brain activity than one reading Slashdot. I quit reading it in 8th grade (last year) and my life has been much better for it.

Get off my lawn,
-l

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[MooseMuffin]

I also stopped watching TV in 8th grade and my life has also vastly improved since making the change. Just a few years after turning off the tube I was allowed to drive, see rated R movies, and even drink alcohol. My parents also stopped telling me what to do and when to go to bed, and I could even go to college! Now I have a good job, car, and live in my own place with my girlfriend. I didn't have any of this back in 8th grade when I watched TV, and it makes me wonder where I would be if I had stopped watching in 1st grade.

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[loudawg]

That's a pretty unfair blanket statement. What do you like to do during this time you saved from not watching TV? Maybe play some games on the computer or Xbox, read Slashdot, walk your dog? Why do you do those things? I assume you do them for entertainment. Why is it wrong for an intelligent person--self included--to derive some of his/her entertainment from TV? That is, after all, what it is there for (from the consumer's perspective, anyway). If you spend all day in front of it and let it interfere with your responsibilities and normal lifestyle, then that's another issue - although, that can happen with any form of entertainment, hobby, obsession, etc. I personally enjoy spending a few hours a week winding down and enjoying my favorite shows in glorious HD on my HD monitor. Somehow, meanwhile, I manage to lead a successful, responsible, and enjoyable life. But hey, maybe I'm in the minority, I don't know.

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you see 30 Rock last week? It was hilarious!

Oh wait. Thats right, you're too good for TV. I'm sure you enjoy being a self rightous asshole as much as I like living my life and enjoying a bit of TV when I'm in the mood.

Is there a new South Park on tonight?

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[geekoid]

Do you realize what kind of pretentious prick you sound like?

"They did a study once and found that an asleep person has more brain activity than one watching the boob tube. "

Cite please..and not out of the normal place I.E. your ass.

"I quit watching it in 8th grade and my life has been much better for it."
Logical fallacy. How do you know your life is better? You didn't have that experience, so you have no reference, Dumb shit.

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[westlake]

Most of the intelligent people that I know--self included--have quit wasting their lives in front of that machine.

Most of the intelligent people I know--self included--found something of merit in series like The Sopranos and Deadwood. Lost. Heroes.

I did not think my time was wasted in watching last week's Monday Night Football match-up with the Bills.

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[Constantine XVI]

In short, TVs are one-way, and computers are two-way. When I'm writing this post, I am likely using far more brain power than I would be watching American Idol.

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Folks, If you are still watching TV in 2007, wake up. Most of the intelligent people that I know--self included--have quit wasting their lives in front of that machine. It's a waste of your life. They did a study once and found that an asleep person has more brain activity than one watching the boob tube. I quit watching it in 8th grade and my life has been much better for it.

God, I hate this fucking Slashdot elitism. "I'm too good to watch TV."

If you don't like what's on the tube, feel free not to watch. But don't pretend that it's because you're more "intelligent" than people who like TV.

Some of us enjoy shows like The Daily Show, South Park, MythBusters, Battlestar Gallactica, Dr. Who, or even Good Eats.

People who say there's nothing good on TV clearly don't watch TV. There is a lot on TV, and while only a fraction of it is worthwhile, there's still plenty of quality programming out there.

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[ampathee]

Jonathon Green, is that you?

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[maxume]

So now you just spend a lot of time stretching right...so you can pat yourself on the back while giving yourself a blowjob?

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[curmudgeon99]

What do I do with my free time? Great question. Well, let's see, I have completed six novels and my most recent one is at an agent right now. I am professionally enaged at a high level in Manhattan and that requires that I study. Have never owned an type of video game. Haven't played any since junior high. I of course have read tons of books (your attention span begins to grow the longer you've been away from TV), and I also taught Java at various universities in the midwest. I also do a lot of oil painting. So--dude--if you quit watching TV and quit wasting your life on video games there really is a lot that you can do.
Think of it this way: at the end of your life are you going to wish you watched more episodes of Gilligan's Island?

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[Stanza]

Yeah, get with the times! You can download all the TV now!

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're so much better than us. I wish I could be as awesome as you.

Re:People Still Watch TV?

[loudawg]

I didn't intend for my post to be any sort of attack on you, and I avoided really using myself as an example of my point because I thought it was unnecessary. But, this is Slashdot, so I should've expected such a response, and I guess I'll bite. To make my point a little clearer, let me tell you a little bit more about myself. I'm a computer science graduate who is a software engineer by day, working on a product that hundreds of thousands of people are using in their home every day, maybe even you (oh, wait, you don't watch TV, so probably not). I also read books, and was actually planning on picking up a new one from Barnes & Noble today or tomorrow. I can't say I've written any, however, so you take the cake there. I have a huge list of activities that I like to do during my spare time. Just to name a few: I'm a licensed pilot, and have been flying since I was 13. I'm currently taking courses at the local community college and am continuing with my flight training to further my aviation career and to make myself a better pilot. I'm also a certified skydiver. I love to get out and play tennis, and when the season is right, I exercise my experience as a snowboarder to shred down the mountains. In the warmer seasons, I'm out on the water a lot wakeboarding, kneeboarding, tubing, you name it. Speaking of water, did I mention that I surf on a regular basis during my lunch breaks? Back at the house, I love being the computer geek that I am, tinkering with different pieces of open-source software, and adding on to my years of experience with Linux. I'm also working on an idea for a fun software project that I can write and contribute back to the open-source community as well.

You know, it's such a nice day out today, I think I might take my R/C gliders out to the slope on the beach and fly them. When I go home tonight (after class), I think that yes, I might continue wasting my life away with a little bit of TV, and hell, why not, I might even fire up my Xbox 360 for a short gaming session. That reminds me, I need to go buy Halo 3. I wish that I didn't get sucked into such a wasteful lifestyle, though. It seems I've accomplished pretty much nothing in my life, and at my old age of 24, I'll never be able to make up for all of that lost time.

All I was trying to say is that what you choose to entertain yourself with is your own personal choice, and because something like TV doesn't carry any entertainment value for you does not mean that the people it does entertain are just losers who are wasting their lives away. Just like anything else, it's all about moderation. If you started to obsess over your oil painting, you would waste your life away doing that as well.

Must fight urge to be pedantic...

[fohat]

More than 60 million U.S. households currently rely on an antennas Head... exploding...

Re:Must fight urge to be pedantic...

[CheeseTroll]

Not bad grammar, just a stutter.

Re:Must fight urge to be pedantic...

[powerlord]

Must have had a poor signal. Maybe he'd benefit from switch to digital?

Re:Must fight urge to be pedantic...

[unitron]

Maybe they meant "can antennas". :-)

In the cold dark of night, with a distant howl...

[digitaldc]

.. in the small hours, the analogue signal for BBC2 was switched off forever in the town of Whitehaven in Cumbria

the intro to "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Signal"

Underwhelmed by digital

[Experiment 626]

I'm one of those people still on analog cable, and don't see any reason to switch in the foreseeable future. The cable company charges more for digital, and paying more money to have the same shows broadcast to me via protocol X instead of Y just doesn't appeal to me. Then there are the complications digital brings to using a DVR. CableCard brings more fees and DRM, or you can record the output from a cable box and have to use an IR blaster and all that.

As someone whose TV is non-HD, digital seems to have all downside and no benefit.

Re:Underwhelmed by digital

[TheRealFixer]

I believe that the FCC requires cable companies to - at the least - provide local affiliates in unencrypted QAM, so if you get a QAM tuner you might still be able to watch the digital feeds.

Re:Underwhelmed by digital

[cecom]

I am in the same boat. I intend to keep my analog cable for as long as I can. I actually used to have Comcast Digital Cable several years ago and it was pretty bad: the quality of the digital channels was _visibly_ worse, there was a delay when flipping through channels, and I had to find place for yet another box and remote. Oh yes, it was two times more expensive too :-)

Hypothetically, I would consider switching only if I already had a HDTV set (say, if my current analog set broke down and HDTV sets were less expensive) and the digital subscription was the same price as analog.

Re:Underwhelmed by digital

[Fastolfe]

And this is one of the reasons we have government: to force the things that the free market will never do on its own. There are very clear benefits to the general public by forcing broadcasters to stop using bandwidth-hungry analog signals and start using bandwidth-efficient digital ones. The fact that you choose to get your local network broadcasts through a cable company instead of over the airwaves, and your cable experience is poor, is largely irrelevant. The issue here is with broadcast signals, not cable. While there may be side-effects of this switch to digital that affect cable companies and the analog content they may carry, these problems (and their solutions) are largely independent of whether broadcast itself is analog or digital.

Yet another 2012 deadline...

[Red Flayer]

From an earlier article today:

Until end of the world according to Mayan Calendar - by unity100 (Score: 5, Funny)

that is. 2012. i wonder if house members know shit that we dont.

Now I'm starting to wonder as well. My question is, do the house members expect the end-of-the-world-by-Mayan-reckoning or the Rapture?

Re:Yet another 2012 deadline...

[Pojut]

My question is, do the house members expect the end-of-the-world-by-Mayan-reckoning or the Rapture?

They expect a man to be entitled to the sweat of his brow.

Isn't he?

slow migration

[pe1chl]

Analog signals are expected to have been switched off over the whole of the UK by 2012.

Why so slowly? Over here (Netherlands), analog signals have all been switched off in a single night last year, with the final decision having been made only a couple of months earlier. It was a simple matter of "what does it cost to keep the old system running, per viewer, and what is the cost for conversion to digital".
The fact that operating a digital TV transmitter wastes less energy might have weighed in too.

Re:slow migration

[jimicus]

I don't claim to be an expert in these things, but isn't most of the Netherlands fairly flat?

I'd imagine your broadcasters probably had rather fewer analogue masts to turn off ;)

Re:slow migration

[feepness]

Why so slowly? Over here (Netherlands), analog signals have all been switched off in a single night last year, with the final decision having been made only a couple of months earlier. Perhaps because you have about .15% of the land area and 3% of the population to cover?

Re:slow migration

[ari_j]

Exactly, and it's mostly about land area. My home county in North Dakota, with a population of around 6,000, has nearly 1/5 the land area of the Netherlands as a whole. Incidentally, it also has no television broadcast towers, with all broadcast television signals coming from two larger cities, 45 and 120 miles from the center of the county. It simply isn't yet cost-effective to cover rural areas with digital television broadcasts. And trust me, I wish it was.

Re:slow migration

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we have more infrastructure to convert/replace. Some of it is old, some if it is undocumented, some of it is in weird places and we've had TV for a very, very long time. As an uneducated guess, for every transmitter in the Netherlands, we probably have 10, 20, 30 of which need replacement/conversion. Not to mention, old cable equipment (repeaters, switches, splitters, amplifiers) which may not be compatible with digital signals needs to be replaced too, hanging from poles, in telco closets, in other weird places.

We have more work to do than you, so it takes longer, that's all.

Re:slow migration

[pe1chl]

Compared to the UK? I don't think so...
We had about 10 major transmitter sites each with 3 analog transmitters that were converted to a single digital multiplex overnight.
Later, more work has been done line converting from horizontal to vertical antenna polarization. But that is not really related to the actual conversion, but to the change to a more dense network with capability for indoor reception.

There is a big gap between doing everything on a single day, and taking 5 years to do it. That is not only explained by scale.
Maybe there is the assumption that people need more time to prepare. Get digital equipment, install it.
But spreading it over a 5 year period certainly will not help. Nobody is going to prepare for something that will happen in 2011 or 2012 in their region. All the preparation will be done in the month before the actual switchover in each area.

Re:slow migration

[pe1chl]

It could be that our network was better maintained, better documented etc. We have had rules and regulations for a long time, that disallow the commercial operation of can-and-string cable networks. So our cable networks probably tend to be at a higher level.
(for example, cable networks don't get their signals by receiving the public broadcasting network so they were unaffected by this switch)

But in general, it can be said that a conversion like this can be done two ways: by endless debating about a transition period and then taking years, or by applying some pressure and be done with it.

Re:slow migration

[random0xff]

In The Netherlands the analog cable signals have not yet been switched off.

Re:slow migration

[igb]

``Compared to the UK? I don't think so... We had about 10 major transmitter sites each with 3 analog transmitters that were converted to a single digital multiplex overnight.'' Look at this list: http://www.wolfbane.com/uktv.htm. 1200 sites. A glance at a map might show you the difference in the ``hills'' as we call them. egrep -i ' ll|dd ' shows 41 sites: you might like to think why.

Re:slow migration

[pe1chl]

That's why I mentioned only major sites. Look at what is having say 50kW-up of EIRP. Of course we had a couple of filler sites too, but fewer than in a hilly country.

But this should not hinder a digital conversion, it should HELP do do it.
In analog TV, you need a single path between your antenna and the site. And you need a unique channel for each of those paths. That is what requires the tedious planning and the many sites.

With digital TV (at least with DVB-T and COFDM as used in Europe) it all is different.
You can just flood the country with small transmitters operating in cities and townships, all on the same channel. Those transmitters will not be interfering with another, but they will help eachother to provide every viewer with a signal.

So what can be done is to first convert all major sites to digital as quickly as possible (due to manpower constraints), and then follow up with the minor sites that you still need, at leisure rate. Will be fewer than with analog, but local terrain situations will likely require filler sites.

In fact we now have two differently structured DVB-T networks operating. There is the broadcasting of public TV from the original locations of the analog network (tweaked a bit), i.e. tall towers and lots of power from relatively few locations. Alongside that there is a commercial (encrypted) network providing commercial stations as a pay-service. They use smaller sites at much lower locations, more like cell towers. It is intended for reception using indoor antennas. It existed before the analog switchoff.
I think the UK is not that different in this respect.

What are the benefits to consumers?

[pembo13]

I am not yet clear on exactly are the benefits supposed to be to consumers? I can see how it will benefit the content providers and cable consumers, esp. giving them more control... but I would assume there is at least some benefit, other than being charged less, to the consumer. Does anyone know?

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[Ramble]

With the analogue over here you only get BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4 and C5. Maybe one local tv station too. With Digital you get about 70 channels plus interactive plus better picture quality. It's all free but you have to get a set top box (which are subsidised by the licence fee we pay).

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[Lt.Loud]

How about channel guides and other metacrap, the choice of HD content, surround (and superior) audio streams, hooking up the converter to a LinuxMCE box and whatnot. Digital tv WILL replace analog. Meh, its a transitional phase anyway, just wait till the hologram stuff kicks in :)

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[phobos13013]

Truly.

We are mandating a shift in technology for the benefit of manufacturers (oh, thank you so much in the name of quality and control) but the result is a lot of people sitting around with useless analog tvs which will be thrown away en masse creating a huge environmental and economic issue. Yes i know you can get antennae to receive over the air HD signal, but I don't have an >$1,000 HD TV remember. I don't plan on buying one either. But the vast majority of consumers will because they are so addicted to the box they HAVE to have it, and hell with all these GREAT deals faked by content-providers such as the fascist-owned Direct TV (go Dish Network, if you have to go satellite) or the gouging and cheating Comcast, how can you say no?

I for one can wait for digital and I hope it never comes. I don't need some government or corporation telling me what technology I can use.

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[zonex]

"As a boy I jumped through Windows, as a man I play with Penguins." But still no girlfriend. Sorry... couldn't resist! :)

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[tomstdenis]

Well strictly speaking digital content requires less bandwidth, which means you could pack more content in the same band. It's also more tolerant to noise which means the picture is either there or not [and more likely to be there than not].

Tom

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[tomstdenis]

What's wrong with attaching a digital receiver to your analogue tv? I mean Analogue TV just means the encoding of the signal. no reason a digital receiver couldn't output as component, svideo, or YBrCr [sp?]. If you bought a tv in the last 10 years that doesn't have component input, you either shop at the salvation army, or got ripped off. Hint: Most video game consoles have component outputs since the N64 days [and earlier]. That's more than 15 years ago.

Right now I have "digital cable" attached via component to my NTSC standard def TV. Works just fine. And it's hardly a fancy tv. I basically bought the first run of a mill 27" TV I saw.

Tom

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[Klaus_1250]

More channels, more features (EPG, automatic installation of channels, DVB Subs, Multiple Audiotracks), better quality, more competition in the market (now people can choose between Satellite, Cable or Terrestrial for Television). The only downside is, at least here in the Netherlands where we made the switch last year, low quality and reception problems. The infrastructure for Terrestrial is still being rolled out, but even in urban areas where there already should be good reception, it is not working flawless. And most channels are streamed in low bitrates, causing visible artifacts.

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[bigstrat2003]

If you bought a tv in the last 10 years that doesn't have component input, you either shop at the salvation army, or got ripped off. Nice over-generalization, there. Get a sufficiently cheap TV, and it won't have component inputs. When I picked up a TV to take to college back in 03 or 04, it came without component input.

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[Dogtanian]

It's all free but you have to get a set top box (which are subsidised by the licence fee we pay). Are you claiming the Freeview boxes are subsidised by the licence fee themselves? I've never heard that before. The service, yes. The boxes, no.

That having been said, a few years back I thought that the government should have considered subsidising the cheapest Freeview boxes if it wasn't possible to buy one for 20 quid or less close to switch-off time. (Though I thought it more likely that prices would have fallen on their own anyway, which they did).

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[Ramble]

I'm not sure if it's actually being subsidised by the licence fee itself but I know the government is subsiding them and so can safely assume it's the licence fee that's going towards it. It's irrelevant really.

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[Dogtanian]

I'm not sure if it's actually being subsidised by the licence fee itself but I know the government is subsiding them Well, this analysis by the BBC on the economics of Tesco's £10 Freeview boxes mentions nothing whatsoever about any subsidy on the box itself. You'd have thought they'd mention that if this was the case.

Can you please let us know where you heard this claim that the government is subsidising the sale price of actual set-top boxes?

and so can safely assume it's the licence fee that's going towards it. Uh, no you can't "safely assume" that. Although the issue is complex, and money from the licence fee is undoubtedly going towards the BBC's new digital-only services, I very much doubt that the complete costs of the Freeview switchover are being met from this source. If nothing else, the BBC would have very publicly bitched if they had to hand over a large proportion of that year's licence fee to meet *all* the Freeview costs.

Even if it was, there are insufficient grounds for "safely assuming" this without evidence.

It's irrelevant really. That's a poor excuse for being hazy on details you presented as fact.

It's a shame that your original post was enough to mislead some people into thinking it was "informative" when it should clearly have been taken with a pinch of salt.

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[Anonymous Coward]

65 channels of those are teleshopping.

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[matfud]

I haven't yet come across a digibox that won't produce composite signals. They cost as little as £18 ($40). SD only in this country though.

The only advantage is that you get many more channels. I get 4 analog channels compared to about 45 digital tv channels. You also get about 30 digital radio channels via your tv.

The disadvantages are that you get drop outs and crashes in low signal areas (mostly for me when motorbikes go past (shitty ignition systems)). Low signal is generally about 50 to 60% signal quality on what ever monitor your box provides.

I live about 500 yards from the transmitter for most of these channels but I live at the bottom of the hill it is situated on and am therefore not in direct line of sight.

matfud

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen a TV for sale in the UK without a SCART connector (used in Europe, does the same thing, you can buy a component->SCART converter for a pound).

E.g. the cheapest TV sold by Tesco (online), £44, has one.

In any case, the Freeview box (digital reciever) could convert to analogue on the same connector the ariel takes anyway.

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[tomstdenis]

Unless you're buying a $50 tv from Walmart, it will have some combination of component, svideo, ybrcr or coax. And for the record, my digital receiver [like probably most others] will output in composite or coax. So unless your TV only comes with UHF antenna hookups, it will be able to use the receiver.

I'm sorry but I just don't see it as a valid excuse. Maybe if all digital receivers only output'ed HDMI or whatever, then maybe sure. But they'd be stupid to kneecap their market without at least component outputs.

All this initiative is about is to stop wasting RF bandwidth with analogue TV signals. It wastes a lot of bandwidth that could be better used with digital broadcasts (which take less RF bandwidth). This isn't about trashing component/coax outputs. In fact, it has nothing to do with over coax analogue either (though I suspect they'll stop around the same time).

Where I live you can buy a digital receiver [standard def] for like $100, or rent one for $4/mo from the provider. If you can afford cable, chances are you can afford a $100 receiver. And with that you get a way better signal [at least compared to normal analogue coax], and on some channels 5.1 surround. Oh the horror.

Tom

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[Anonymous Coward]

"As a boy I jumped through Windows, as a man I play with Penguins." But still no girlfriend. Sorry... couldn't resist! :)

Married to a wife that loves the penguin for the no downtime. Never kept a girlfriend who liked the words "wipe and reinstall".

Re:What are the benefits to consumers?

[pe1chl]

The story was about the UK. In Europe, we did not use component video in the past but almost every TV produced in the last two decades has an RGB input.
RGB is functionally equivalent to component. A Digital receiver usually outputs RGB and composite, which is connected to the TV via a SCART connector that combines composite video, audio and almost always RGB video in a single convenient connection.

The presence of an RGB input is so common because RGB is used for the "Teletext" feature available in almost every TV set, and the video multiplexer used to switch/combine the normal video and teletext signals operates at RGB signals and provides an extra RGB input for external signals.

(component video now appears on newer sets, but more because of compatability with equipment used in the USA than for real need)

I hate TV

[shawn443]

I have an old analog TV and I use rabbit ears. The only reason I turn on the TV is to watch Bears Football on Sunday. In 2012 I will be listening to Bears football the same way I listen to Cubs baseball, AM radio. The commercial spasms during Sunday football remind me of why I hate TV so much. I want to kick Johnny Cougar Mellencamp in the nuts for his "Our Country" truck Jingle. By the way, I still watch good movies. I proudly share them with my millions of friends.

Re:I hate TV

[powerlord]

Have you heard about Digital Radio?

Granted, most radio broadcasters will not go all digital for a very long time, but we're definitely past the Point-of-Entry for the "Digital Age".

Deadline Schmedline

[digitaldc]

Neither, it will happen when both parties agree to actually get something done? ;)

Cable Companies not eating their own Dogfood.

[Zombie Ryushu]

I actually support the NTSC-> ATSC Change over. I just think the Cable companies should not be allowed to do what they are doing, and make Digital Cable all encrypted. Essentially, I'm in favor of the governments telling the Cable Companies, You MUST send your signal in unencrypted ATSC for the non-premium channels for your paying customers. They aren't doing that. What they are doing is just the the oppisite. EVERYTHING is getting encrypted by the cable companies, and we are ALL being forced to go to the Digital Tier. The Cable companies will be switching off NTSC Some time, but an ATSC won't replace it. That makes me so damn angry you have no idea. Its going to get to where if you want any Cable at all, you HAVE to have one of their boxes and pay the Digital cable rates.

Otherwise the Cable Company will tell you to go fuck yourself and put up an Antenna.

Re:Cable Companies not eating their own Dogfood.

[Cramer]

They are legally allowed to encrypted everything but broadcast stations. And generally, that's exactly what they do. It's much easier to controll what channels each customer receives this way. The old analog way of installing signal traps was time consuming, expensive, and ineffective. Now, even if you mooch cable from a neighbor, you won't get anything you wouldn't have anyway.

Re:Cable Companies not eating their own Dogfood.

[lobosrul]

Here here! Right now the Cable Co's are getting their asses handed to them by sat. The reason being is satellite services are all digital (at least the major providers in the US). That means they can send out more channels, and more importantly (to me) more HDTV channels. If cable pushed their digital signals out unencrypted, customers would not need a box for every TV! That would be a major selling point. Furthermore its almost outright criminal that Comcast (at least) charges the same amount for a cable card per month as a box. I'm OTA (antenna) only at the moment and looking into getting a satellite system. Maybe if you dipshits at comcast hadn't decided to 5c encrypt everything over firewire from your cable box you would still be getting your $80/month from me.

Re:Cable Companies not eating their own Dogfood.

[rsmith-mac]

Funny enough, part of the reason for the whole encryption thing is because of the law. The FCC mandates that cable companies offer a basic service (locals & trash channels) so that people can still watch their local networks when they can't receive them OTA at only the cost of providing the service. That means that cable companies have to filter (and now encrypt) the rest of the channels so that the basic customers aren't getting the channels they aren't paying for. If the cable companies could drop basic service and make "expanded basic" the new bottom tier, then they wouldn't need to protect those channels from a lower tier.

That said, they'd probably still encrypt the channels, both to guard against piracy (both of the stolen cable and illegally recording & distributing shows types) and to sell their wares (cable boxes & cable cards).

Re:Cable Companies not eating their own Dogfood.

[scottv67]

I actually support the NTSC-> ATSC Change over. I just think the Cable companies should not be allowed to do what they are doing, and make Digital Cable all encrypted. Essentially, I'm in favor of the governments telling the Cable Companies, You MUST send your signal in unencrypted ATSC for the non-premium channels for your paying customers. They aren't doing that. What they are doing is just the the oppisite. EVERYTHING is getting encrypted by the cable companies, and we are ALL being forced to go to the Digital Tier. The Cable companies will be switching off NTSC Some time, but an ATSC won't replace it. That makes me so damn angry you have no idea. Its going to get to where if you want any Cable at all, you HAVE to have one of their boxes and pay the Digital cable rates.

What cable company are you referring to? I am a Time Warner Cable customer and there are non-encrypted channels carried on the TWC cable. I can plug my TV into the TWC coax in my house (no cable box) and get local TV stations (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) in "analog" format. I can also get some of those stations in SD digital. In addition, I can also view the local stations in HD. All without having a cable box or paying TWC anything extra. I'm not sure where you are getting the "OMG, everything is encrypted!" from. TWC is sending digital content over its infrastructure that can be viewed without a cable box (which means the content is not encrypted).

Yes, the premium channels are encrypted and a person needs a cable box (or a CableCard) to view those channels. But it is "premium content" and the cable provider has to have a way to keep who haven't paid for those channels from viewing them.

Re:Cable Companies not eating their own Dogfood.

[pilardi]

"You MUST send your signal in unencrypted ATSC for the non-premium channels for your paying customers. They aren't doing that."

Not all cable companies. RCN sends all non-premium channels unencrypted over QAM.

Re:Cable Companies not eating their own Dogfood.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable compnies have a mandate from the FCC to allow someone to purchase there own box. But they are doing everything they can to make it hard to do so. You still have to rent a cable card though (to operate the decryption on the box). And it has issues of its own. But cable companies are not the only only companies running rough shod over the consumer.

Re:Cable Companies not eating their own Dogfood.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that, although in the Oklahoma city metro COX has done an excellent job of having the digital counterparts to the OTA broadcasters on ClearQAM. We love you Cox! That's about 15 stations that I've been able to find on their coax. Unfortunately only a few miles away (Stillwater) the cable company (Suddenlink) only offers 4 channels, even though we're in the same OTA market.

That makes sense

[clarkkent09]

Didn't Nostradamus also say the world will end in 2012? Now I get it, what he meant by "world" was actually "analog television". Damn translation problems.

Re:That makes sense

[SeaFox]

Now I get it, what he meant by "world" was actually "analog television".

For the unwashed masses TV is the world. Must be why Nostradamus is featured in Weekly World News and the Sun so often.

Cable cards

[Joe The Dragon]

We need the FCC to force cable card 2.0 to work with any PC, TV, DVR and so on With SDV, on screen guide, PPV, premium channels, on demand and so one. We don't need to pay the cable more just from there boxes that keep having there fees go up and up also force being able to pick the channels that you want to pay for.

Re:Cable cards

[scottv67]

We need the FCC to force cable card 2.0 to work with any PC,

So you can make perfect digital copies of the movies you view on Showtime, HBO and Cinemax and share those movies with your friends? Um, yeah, that's not going to happen any time soon...

Re:Cable cards

[Joe The Dragon]

What about tvio users? People with new tv's with cable card slots? So you must like your crappy comcarp box with rates that are now going even higher for them?
What about people who just want to watch tv on there custom build pc and they don't want the dell carp or the over priced Alienware, Voodoo PC, and others systems?

Re:Cable cards

[scottv67]

> People with new tv's with cable card slots?

My Sony TV has a CableCard slot in back. Unfortunately, Time Warner Cable could not get the CableCard to work reliably in my TV so now I have a Scientific Atlanta 8000HD DVR. TVs are supposed to work with CableCard. There is no way to export a perfect digital copy of the decrypted content you are viewing on your CableCard-capable TV. If you are able to get CableCard working in your TV, I'm happy for you.

> So you must like your crappy comcarp box with rates that are now going even higher for them?

As I mentioned above, I live in Time Warner Cable territory, not Comcast territory. My choices for receiving premium (encrypted) content are CableCard or an HD DVR from Time Warner Cable. I tried CableCard but the TWC techs could not get the card to work reliably. I gave up on the CableCard route and I am now renting an SA 8000HD DVR from TWC. I guess I could have purchased a Tivo (which also uses CableCard) but I have not really researched them thoroughly. The SA 8000HD DVR is working well for me.

What about people who just want to watch tv on there custom build pc and they don't want the dell carp or the over priced Alienware, Voodoo PC, and others systems?

Those people are S.O.L.. As I mentioned in my previous post, CableCard is not available to the unwashed masses because this keeps people from making perfect digital copies of the content they are receiving from their cable provider. No one (Congress, the FCC, whoever) is going to make CableCards available to people like me who build their own MythTV systems because piracy would be rampant.

Re:Cable cards

[kimvette]

No one (Congress, the FCC, whoever) is going to make CableCards available to people like me who build their own MythTV systems because users would engage in the legal act of timeshifting, and skip commercials.

There, I fixed your post for you.

interoperability problems?

[Cajun Hell]

So far, I have avoided digital TV because I just ass/u/me it is plagued by interoperability problems (i.e. DRM) so that you can't just do whatever the hell you need with it, in order to be able to watch it.

Is that still the case (in USA)? Can I timeshift using third-party equipment/software that doesn't have any particular entity's blessing?

Re:interoperability problems?

[Hjalmar]

OTA broadcasts have no DRM. If you have a digital TV tuner in your PC, you can save the stream to a hard disk and do whatever you want with it. EyeTV has a product for the Mac that will save streams, and then reformat for your iPod, AppleTV, or iPhone.

If you want time shifting without having to get cable or satellite, there are a few options: MythTV, Tivo 3 (which works with OTA broadcasts), the Sony DHG-HDD250 or DHG-HDD500 (no longer in production, does the same thing as a Tivo 3), and the LG LST-3410a (ditto).

Re:interoperability problems?

[scottv67]

So far, I have avoided digital TV because I just ass/u/me it is plagued by interoperability problems (i.e. DRM) so that you can't just do whatever the hell you need with it, in order to be able to watch it.

Is that still the case (in USA)? Can I timeshift using third-party equipment/software that doesn't have any particular entity's blessing?

Yes, if you take a look at MythTV, you will find a number of HDTV tuner cards that are supported. With a Myth box, you'd be able to timeshift any local stations (which are not encrypted). The "premium" channels are encrypted and the only way to timeshift that content is with a DVR provided by the cable company or a DVR that uses a CableCard (which is also provided by the cable company).

Could I use my MythTV box to timeshift a Green Bay Packer game that was broadcast on FOX in HD? yes
Could I use my MythTV box to timeshift an episode of the Showtime series "Californication" that was broadcast in HD? no

One of the things I've noticed in reading the posts in this Slashdot article today is that a lot of people seem to have digital televison and HD confused. They are related but they are not synonymous. You have have digital channels which are not HD.

Re:interoperability problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

With a Mac using an EyeTV USB ATSC tuner, and included software from El Gato, one can view all of the digital TV signals fine in HD.
The included software lets one record TV programmes to disk -- and using Toast, one can even burn them to DVDs that will play
in your neighbor's existing DVD player. One can also record a programme at a pre-set time, just like a Tivo, and watch it later
when one wants to.

There is no DRM issue with this setup. And I got all the components at my local Apple Store.
I assume some similar setup exists for Windows.

Bottom line is that I don't have a TV any more. I just use my Mac Mini and 23" HD LCD from Apple.
And I routinely record programmes for viewing later on.

Best Buy is the worst

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to Best Buy to buy a USB cable the other day. The only thing on the shelf were gold plated (ooo, wow, must be fast) cables for ~ $40! Absolutely absurd. They could have had $10, but instead they got $0. Of course they don't want to sell cheap televisions that are good enough for most people when they can sell digital televisions that are twice as expensive.

I'm all for digital television, but the market should switch when it wants to, not because it's forced to.

The problem with analog..

[AJWM]

The signal becomes poor a lot faster with analog than with digital. Yes, a really bad digital signal will give you freeze-ups and mosaics, a really bad analog signal gives you snow, loss of sync, noisy sound, ghosting, tearing...

I plugged a cheap pair of rabbit ears that I had lying around into my new TV -- the digital channels come in consistently better than their analog counterparts (where such analog counterparts even exist - there are more digital channels).

(Mostly I don't watch any broadcast or cable TV - if there's a TV series that interests me I'll wait for it to come out on DVD. Over a typical season, that's four or five hours saved not watching commercials.)

I can get Steam over Digital TV?

[Chris Mattern]

Wow, when did Valve implement that?

Chris Mattern

Re:I can get Steam over Digital TV?

[Cctoide]

Right after they started offering Steam over Automatic Portal (SoAP), a few days ago.

Some people are complaining about the cake, though.

Misleading conflation

[Citizen of Earth]

More than 60 million U.S. households currently rely on an antennas or analog cable

In other news, 100% of all logical propositions are either true or false.

Clear QAM is your friend

[Anonymous Coward]

When I plug my $20 a month bottom of the line cable into my Westy Clear QAM HDTV, I get all of my local channels in digital and HD.

I subsequently deleted all the analog channels from the TV. I don't need those relics.

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[PitaBred]

But you're screwed if you want any premium channels. It won't decode those, which is what CableCard is theoretically for. But it just doesn't work reliably.

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[tcc3]

Unfortunately Media Center doesn't have any QAM support. Thats the part of the switchover that scares me - not being able to use my DVR.

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[scottv67]

But you're screwed if you want any premium channels. It won't decode those, which is what CableCard is theoretically for. But it just doesn't work reliably. For the same monthly fee as a CableCard or maybe a few dollars more, the cable company will be glad to rent you a box that will decrypt all of the premium channels that you want to pay for. The cable box has SVideo outputs, component outputs and probably even an RF out to feed your bargain basement "analog" TV. I don't understand all the FUD around the switch to digital. If the analog Luddites want to stick with their 20" TV that they bought with their first paycheck after college 30 years ago, get a cable box.

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[scottv67]

Unfortunately Media Center doesn't have any QAM support. Thats the part of the switchover that scares me - not being able to use my DVR.

http://www.mythtv.org/
http://www.linuxmce.com/

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[tcc3]

Didn't the guide service that Myth tv uses shut down? Or would I have to program it all by hand, vcr style?

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[SeaFox]

I don't understand all the FUD around the switch to digital. If the analog Luddites want to stick with their 20" TV that they bought with their first paycheck after college 30 years ago, get a cable box.

So we can start paying per TV for our cable? 1985 called, they want their converter rental scheme back. Also, boxes aren't as reliable as television tuners, mostly due to the DRM crap.

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[scottv67]

Didn't the guide service that Myth tv uses shut down? Or would I have to program it all by hand, vcr style?

Yes, Zap2It stopped offering free schedules to MythTV users. Here is the replacement for that service. There is a small fee to use Schedules Direct.

http://www.schedulesdirect.org/

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[scottv67]

Also, boxes aren't as reliable as television tuners, mostly due to the DRM crap.

Link(s) please? Or STFU. Thank you.

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[SeaFox]

Link(s) please? Or STFU. Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mention I'm a cable TV support rep. So I will have to claim this as original research.

Hint: Every time you've gotten the "Your cable set top box is not authorized for use" screen and had to call the cable company to get a signal sent, or had to unplug it, ect. Those are all service issues you would NOT have experienced had you still been on analog basic.

Digital cable is effected by all the same line issues that effect analog cable, PLUS all problems unique to using an external tuner, PLUS all problems possible with a DRM system in place. You don't need to actually count occurrences to see that, logically, digital cable will be less reliable, simply because there are more points of failure.

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[scottv67]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mention I'm a cable TV support rep.

Seriously? Ha ha ha ha! Aren't you supposed to be reading from a script right now? Or asking someone to unplug their TV from the wall for ten seconds and then plug it back in again?

logically, digital cable will be less reliable, simply because there are more points of failure

You lost all credibility with me when you said that you work customer support for a cable company. The only lower life forms are the people who do Road Runner tech support.

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[Tacvek]

Didn't the guide service that Myth tv uses shut down? Or would I have to program it all by hand, vcr style?

Yes, Zap2It stopped offering free schedules to MythTV users. Here is the replacement for that service. There is a small fee to use Schedules Direct.

http://www.schedulesdirect.org/

To give more information: SchedulesDirect has reached their goal of costing only $20/year, and they retroactively extended all memberships payed at higher price to be equivalent to paying that price. It is possible that the price may even drop further in the future, although the $20/year figure was based on most MythTV users switching to their service, which has most likely happened, so future price drops will likely occur slower. They are non-profit, with all of the money collected going to costs of the license to redistribute and things like bandwidth expenses. The system is intended to be a drop in replacement for the Zap2It service, supporting the same hardware, and using the same format as the old service did.

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[SeaFox]

Seriously? Ha ha ha ha! Aren't you supposed to be reading from a script right now?

Actually we don't use scripts in the companies I've worked for (I've worked for three), I would generally avoid them anyway as they sound so wooden and lots of times don't have real solutions to the problems the customers are having. Do you know it's possible for your remote to stop working and have the issue be the converter instead? The part of the box that interprets remote control commands can stop working while the box's front panel buttons continue to function. The solution is to unplug the power to the box for a short while. The remote is fine.

Or asking someone to unplug their TV from the wall for ten seconds and then plug it back in again?

...and I usually wait a full minute for digital boxes to allow capacitors to power down and the head end to fully realize the box is off the network, it's more likely the box will reload from scratch then and solve the issue.

You lost all credibility with me when you said that you work customer support for a cable company. The only lower life forms are the people who do Road Runner tech support.

I also do tech support for internet and digital phone, and I grudgingly do sales and billing support. If tech support people have so little credibility with you, I don't know why you'd adopt cable services that virtually guarantee you'll be calling us more often.

For video, I have people who call because...

• their box has "lost authorization" for no good reason, sometimes only on certain stations.
  
• audio is out of sync with video.
  
• digital cable in its entirely is not working (but analog cable is).
  
• video service is out (all video service).
  
• their cable box remote is not controlling their TV's functions.
  
• general reception issues (static OR microblocking to lump digital and analog here).
  
• can't order Pay-Per-View/use Video-On-Demand
  

Now if we look at this list, these are the seven technical issues I deal with most for video (in no particular order). Three of these issues will effect both analog and digital service. The other four will only effect digital service, though. The audio/video syncing issue will happen most on digital, when it happens on analog it's a station issue (not your cableco). The PPV/VOD can be ignored since it isn't available on analog (analog PPV is leaving if not gone already). None of these issues will effect only analog service, though. This is the basis for my assertion analog cable is more reliable. I can look over the call histories for digital customers and there are customers who call us at least once a month for some service issue. Meanwhile, many of the analog customers go years without calling for a service issue.

Here's the real shocker, people actually believe there is a difference in the customer service between companies. I really work for an outsourcer, and several of the nations larger cable companies have had support provided by us over the years. So when you call your cable company, we're working across the aisle from other companies' reps. Sometimes your cable provider's direct competitors. Also, employees are transferred between these companies quite often, a few work for more than one at the same time (at different hours). If there is difference in the kind of care you receive between providers, its pretty much dependent on how much access those reps are given to the billing/tech systems, and what company's policies are.

Believe me, we generally are on your side when you call for credit on some issue that was small in the grand scheme of your monthly service but large in your viewing habits, but we can't always grant credit because we aren't allowed to.

Re:Clear QAM is your friend

[Anonymous Coward]

The box costs extra money, you need to pay more for yet more boxes for more than one set. The ones I've seen are craptastically slow at changing channels, and have butt-ugly interfaces on them. Finally, I have a DVR, having to send remote codes to the box is ghetto as hell.

Yipee

[Wowsers]

Yipee, 30 more channels of substandard audio / video, and general televisual crap!

At least the death of the BBC tax is getting ever closer, and no longer will you be sent to prison for refusing to pay to 'listen' to the governments propaganda mouth-piece.

As a bonus, if they fuck it up enough, millions of people in the UK will be spared watching the Olympics in 2012, the same year superior analogue tv is supposed to be axed for good.

Re:Yipee

[jonwil]

Actually, the purpose of the UK TV license is to keep the BBC as neutral as humanly possible. Up until recently, the BBC was unanswerable to anyone other than their listeners/viewers and did not have to be good to corporations, governments or political parties since such organizations do not control the funding of the BBC. Of course when the BBC went and exposed the governments lies over the Iraq war (the "falsified" evidence on Iraqi weapons programs) the government started meddling a little bit with the BBC (I cant find exact details with google)

Re:Yipee

[simong]

You're probably thinking of the resignation of Greg Dyke as Director General in 2004 over criticism of the BBC's news reporting process in the Hutton Enquiry. That and the scheduled review of the licence fee in 2005 has made the BBC rather more cautious in its news reporting since.

Re:Yipee

[Anonymous Coward]

Just, don't. Don't bother. He's a nutjob. Most raving anti-BBC idiots are. A paranoid raving nutjob.

They're always either a nutjob or a Rupert Murdock worshipper. I wonder if Wowsers believes that ITV or Sky are more impartial than the BBC?

But..I don't need a new TV

[White Yeti]

I wish (...still wishing...) that someone would sell a cheap converter box for my analog, SD TV. I know there are some nice converters (I like the specs on the Samsung products), but for my viewing habits the converter costs at least as much as a new TV. What about a cheap VCR with a digital tuner and analog outputs? Ha! I crack myself up! I expect the tape-based VCR to expire with analog broadcasts.

Re:But..I don't need a new TV

[simong]

Curry's Digital, the biggest electronics chain in the UK, stopped selling video tape recorders three years ago. For that matter, DVD recorders have a pretty short shelf life until [insert new format here] takes off.

One of the selling points for the digital switch in the UK has been the availability of cheap adaptor boxes (around US$40) for existing TVs. When through-aerial digital broadcasting started in the UK, the provider, On Digital, gave out boxes for free.

Digital TV PC?

[Doc Ruby]

What's the best PC HW to drive my 50" HDMI TV, that costs under $1000 and runs a Linux PVR like MythTV, and works on NYC TimeWarner cable?

And can it seamlessly include a Web browser for fullscreen YouTube (and similar) Internet video, and play video files from my HD as well as my DVD (and Blu-Ray) player?

Re:Digital TV PC?

[scottv67]

What's the best PC HW to drive my 50" HDMI TV, that costs under $1000 and runs a Linux PVR like MythTV, and works on NYC TimeWarner cable?

If you are asking about non-encrypted digital content on your TWC connection, there are a number of HD video cards (like this one http://www.pchdtv.com/) that can be used with a DVR package like MythTV. To feed your HD set, you will need to look at something like a DVI-to-HDMI cable for the best quality connection. I have read MythTV-related articles about VGA-to-component converters but I think using DVI-to-HDMI would be far simpler (and cheaper). You will not be able to build your own PC that can decrypt TWC's premium content. I know that you are pretty technically inclined so you may want to read-up using the firewire output of a TWC HD DVR (like the Scientific Atlanta 8000HD or the 8300HD/HDC family) to capture digital content coming from your cable box/DVR. I have not fully investigated how to use the firewire port on a TWC DVR but I have encountered a number of articles that mention using this method to acquire digital video. There is a law which requires the cable company to provide a working firewire port on DVRs. I hope this helps.

Re:Digital TV PC?

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, that is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. I'm a little skeptical that the PC requirements are only a "Pentium 1.2GHz+/128MB", but that means the PC+card are not only cheap, but fanless, which is good for putting near my TV. Since the card is $129, and Firewire is cheap, the entire box could probably be under $500, including a biggish HD for caching video playback content.

Do you know what they mean by

# Accelerated HDTV support with nVidia video cards.
# Accelerated IDCT and Motion Compensation with GeForce4 Mx cards
# Accelerated Motion Compensation with GeForce4 TI cards

Is it worth paying for a more expensive card to get any/all those features?

Thanks!

BTW, I wonder what will happen with the new FCC requirement that forces TWC to unbundle all set-top boxes. Doesn't that law imply that TWC competitors have to have HD decryption keys? Like me, perhaps?

Oh well..

[BlueStrat]

I won't be buying a digital TV anytime soon, probably not before I'm worm-food, as I'm over 50. My Sanyo 27-inch will probably last until then. If they switch off the analog signal, I guess I'll simply turn to watching the occasional DVD with my DVD player and TV, and any broadcast TV shows/movies/etc I really want to see on my PC from a website like TV-Links.

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/

The nice thing about that is it will probably reduce the time I waste watching TV overall, and save me viewing advertising. I'll also save money by dropping TV service entirely from my cable provider, and simply retain internet access.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Oh well..

[scottv67]

I won't be buying a digital TV anytime soon, probably not before I'm Soylent Green,

There, fixed that for you. :^)

Re:Oh well..

[BlueStrat]

I won't be buying a digital TV anytime soon, probably not before I'm Soylent Green,

There, fixed that for you. :^)

Heh, have you been reading one of my other posts on another thread? :P

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=330873&cid=21014855

Cheers!

Strat

Britain's never had analog broadcasts

[youthoftoday]

We've never had analog TV. It's been analogue since the first transmitters came online.

Re:Britain's never had analog broadcasts

[adnonsense]

Why is there never a mod option "+1 pedant" when you need one ;-)

Re:Britain's never had analog broadcasts

[youthoftoday]

Hm. When it's your own language being mangled it's not pedantry.

You missed a full stop.

Re:Britain's never had analog broadcasts

[xaxa]

Nice username!

(Isn't "hm" usually written "hmmm"?)

Sturgeon's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Sturgeon's Law--90% of everything is crud.

I linked to Wikipedia so that pedants won't have to worry about whether it should actually be Sturgeon's Revelation, second law, or whatever else.

Re:2012: The Year We Watched Television

[Tetsujin]

Seriously, though --

Ah, yes! The old "compact disc" strategy...

Not being an early adopter of consumer electronics works great for me. I didn't pay $2000 for a CD player in the mid-80s. I paid $120 for one in 1989. Similarly, I won't pay $2000 for a big HDTV now... I expect to pay more like $600 for one in a few years. Define "big"...

Our 32 inch set cost... $750 I think? A significant chunk of change to be sure but it seems to be in your ballpark. (I wouldn't have spent anything like that kind of money on a TV set, except that we got a cash gift for our wedding and specific instructions on how to use it...)

Maybe 32 inches isn't big by today's standards, but it's bigger than any TV I've owned before. Armored Core never looked better...

Re:In the cold dark of night, with a distant howl.

[PitaBred]

Snape killed DRMbledore? Where does Voltemort fit into the equation?

Hardware, not content

[Foerstner]

Ah, yes! The old "compact disc" strategy...

Have you checked the price of a CD player lately? They're half the price they were five years ago. Which, in turn, was half the price they were five years before that. And so on.

The prices of consumer electronics do indeed fall as the products become more and more widely adopted. The price of content, on the other hand, rises monotonically. Not because of increases in production or distribution costs, but because the media companies like it that way.

Resurgence of the antenna

[Stuntmonkey]

An interesting aspect of the move to digital TV is that it puts over-the-air (OTA) and cable reception on an equal footing. For the simple reason that, by and large, when you receive a digital signal you receive it at 100% quality due to the use of error correcting codes. Before digital TV I always subscribed to cable because it gave me better picture quality than an antenna, but that has changed. In Sunnyvale California I receive about 40 digital channels with my antenna, including all of the major networks and several channels of PBS. So I have let my cable subscription lapse. Any "premium" content I get from iTunes, or watch commercial-less on DVD.

So I predict we'll see a resurgence of the housetop antenna. They're ugly, but they work brilliantly in combination with the digital format.

Re:Resurgence of the antenna

[simong]

Hmm, that isn't really the case, certainly with digital in the UK. Digital decoders, and that includes satellite and through-antenna, have a lower signal tolerance than analogue. It's been estimated that digital reception through antenna fails at around 24% signal strength, whereas analogue will keep going down to about 12% and never actually fails dead, which is inevitable in a binary system. There are also increased problems with rain, which can severely affect both satellite and through-antenna systems, which is probably unavoidable but not optimal for this wet little island. Also, despite increasing our viewing choice from our five channels, the Freeview through-antenna system is lacking in bandwidth, which has lead to compromises in programming - many channels only broadcast after 7pm as there isn't the space or money for all-day service, and some channels share streams. Compression is also appalling: some channels broadcast films at near-YouTube levels, with blocky artifacts and jerky motion because there isn't the spare capacity. The system was originally promoted as offering more choice and better quality but as usual Great British compromised has ended up with something that is satisfactory but not great.

Incorrect

[Smorkin' Labbit]

Sweden also uses mpeg4 for the HD channel(s); SVT HD which is the main HD channel on the terrestrial digital net is mostly using mpeg4, although now and again they also use mpeg2 for HD. Same for digital cable; some HD channels use mpeg4, some mpeg2.

Non-HD channels all go for mpeg2, though.

people don't understand technology

[pbhj]

If you genuinely don't believe that people will think "it's digital I need a new telly that can do digital" and that the retailers aren't going to just go along with it and make loadsamoney then you've never come across someone who was going to throw out their computer because it had a virus!

Is it nice under your rock?

Re:people don't understand technology

[cianduffy]

I'm speaking from experience, not supposition. Theres been digital terrestrial and set top boxes sold for it for nine years in parts of Europe. If you expect the situation is going to be wildly different in the US, it may be so. Its not here. Most people here realise entirely that they don't need a new TV to "do digital" because of advertising campaigns from Sky (satellite) and UPC (cable) advertising their digital services for about a decade.

If anyones hiding under a rock, its you - ignoring the rest of the world that's gone ahead here.`Set top box adapters are sold en masse, in supermarkets - hell I've even seen them for sale in a petrol station once - over here. You aren't going to get away with convincing people they need a new TV.

Re:people don't understand technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at Sweden and Finland. We have switched to only digital (DVB-T) on terrestrial transmission of TV.
Information has been given so that that people know that they just need a digital box to watch TV after the great turn of of analog transmission. And with digital boxes selling in ordinary stores, it can't go unniticed to any one.
So I know it won't be a problem. And nowdays new TV has digital boxes built in. And that is actually a bigger problem to explain that with that TV set you don't need a extra digital box. :-)

Pity though that most of those boxes sold is to weak to have Java running. Might be better in the future.

Re:people don't understand technology

[falconwolf]

You aren't going to get away with convincing people they need a new TV.

This may be true where you are but here in the States many think they need a digital tv. A few weeks ago I went shopping for a new dvd player, a regular one not Blu-Ray or HD, and I only found a few. Meanwhile some of the people working in some of the stores I went to said I had to get a digital tv and replace my analogue tv. Only one person I talked to said anything about getting a digital converter.

Falcon

Re:people don't understand technology

[sew3521]

If you visit any best buy you will see a 30 second ad ran every 30 min or so that tells you can get a set top box.... A retail store will also make money off set top boxes you have to remember

Re:people don't understand technology

[heinousjay]

The sales staff tried to sell you something? While you were in a store? My god, will the evil never cease?

Re:people don't understand technology

[EvilSS]

The converter box vouchers from the FCC should help with this. I imagine the big retailers will be clamoring for them and offering a ton of inexpensive boxes so they can rake in those vouchers.

Re:people don't understand technology

[plague3106]

Right, and the companies making digital to analog converter boxes won't be yelling just as loud, saying how you can "save" your old TV for pennies on the dollar?

So you stopped watching TV...

[r_jensen11]

...and instead spend your time on slashdot. What an improvement.

Is Best Buy stupid?

[n6kuy]

or is the cheap TV set competition from Wal-Mart just too tough for them?

Re:Is Best Buy stupid?

[EvilSS]

How do you figure that? Oh, wait, are you one of those people who thinks that "digital only" means "HDTV only"? BestBuy has sets at the exact same price points as they always have (cheapest on their site is a 13" 480i for $109). The only difference is that they are no longer carrying TV's that ONLY have analog tuners. No surprise though, as TV's 13" or larger manufactured after 12/31/06 MUST contain a digital tuner. So really, their announcement just means that they have run out of their stock of pre-2007 TV's.

Still too expensive in market cycle

[WillAffleckUW]

A standard 1080p digital HDTV set of 42 inches is still around $950 to $1200 USD on tigerdirect and other similar sites.

When the consumer electronics market cycle drops the cost down to around $300 per set, you will see wide adoption of HDTV.

Classic electronics marketing 101 (and, yes, this is information from a literal marketing course I took as part of a Business Management degree with a core of Sales and Marketing). Sure, you'll still be able to spend $2000 for a fancy set, but it's not until the price point drops below $500 for the baseline standard unit that the curve flattens, and it's at the $300 level that you can expect 50 percent adoption rate.

This should intersect with the curve around February 2009, which is about when the US market will be forced to switch over to HDTV as well.

So, unless you really need to spend as much as a new Mac OS Tiger laptop to be first in line, just wait a bit.

Re:Still too expensive in market cycle

[EvilSS]

Repeat 10 times aloud (very aloud): Digital TV does not mean you have to buy an HDTV.

BestBuy, right now, carries digital standard definition (480i) tube TV's starting at $109.00 for a 13" set. Wal-mart has even cheaper sets. I was in a BB store this week and they have a huge array of SD digital sets available for the same prices you would expect to pay for an analog only set of the same size. Most (if not all) of these sets can also tune analog as well.

Re:Still too expensive in market cycle

[WillAffleckUW]

Digital TV does not mean you have to buy an HDTV.

My argument was specifically about HDTV electronics marketing price curves.

The digital TV supply curve is, as you say, down quite a bit.

And specifically, I chose the 1080p 42" HDTV set due to personal product research - 50" or above is too big (based on my family, brother has a 72" set, sister has a 60" set - both told me that they wish they'd bought the 42" set in retrospect, and after seeing the images, and how it impacts their houses (in Santa Barbara, my brother-in-law is an actor). And what I saw in looking at them in various stores.

Based on quality and game consoles as well - 1080p is the most stable version that will probably become the baseline version around 2010 to 2012.

This is also based on feedback from movie watching friends of mine who are Platinum Lifetime and Lifetime members of Cinema Seattle, most of whom are into geek things.

Thus, based on all this feedback, my prediction is for the market supply pricing curve of the 42" HDTV set. Not a digital TV set capable of displaying 480i resolution on a 42" aspect.

Re:Still too expensive in market cycle

[EvilSS]

Wow. In two posts I think you set a /. record for appeals to authority. Unless I missed an FCC ruling though, I don't think anyone is going to be FORCED to switch to HDTV in 2009:

This should intersect with the curve around February 2009, which is about when the US market will be forced to switch over to HDTV as well.

Nice save attempt, btw. That aside, if you think that 42" 1080p will be the sales leader and/or the driving force behind HDTV adoption in 2009, well, I have to disagree. 32" 720p sets take that spot. The sets are already dipping into the $599 range, with higher end sets falling under $1000. Expect $499 bargain sets by x-mas (I've already seen at least one set this low at CC this year). By the 2009 cutover, these will be the new "27-inch" TVs. Their picture size, especially for 4:3 content, is a good match to the 27" tube TVs. Much better than the 26/27 inch widescreens. 27" CRT's are popular for a reason: big enough for a living room, small enough for a bedroom. Expect the 32" to step up into that roll for HDTVs. I do agree that you will see 720p all but vanish by 2012, replaced by 1080p.

I also agree that 42" is at a "sweet spot" in the size vs cost. Hell, I just bought one today instead of a 61" DLP. That said, I think their prices will remain above $800 well past the 2009 cutover, putting them out of range for lower-income and cost-conscious consumers.

Re:Still too expensive in market cycle

[WillAffleckUW]

It's a prediction. For a set that is marked down after the Christmas rush.

I hope I'm right, because I'm trying to hold out until then.

analogue or digital?

[falconwolf]

I'm tired of everything becoming digital. They're taking away our freedom.

What I mind about the switch is there's no choice, freedom.

And in the case of photo cameras, quality.

I prefer film generally however I still want to get a DSLR, which are approaching the resolution of film. Canon's new EOS 1Ds Mark III has a 21.1 MP full frame sensor. This is close to the pixel count of medium format digital backs from 2 or 3 years ago. I'll love to get this camera, then I could use the sames lenses I already have for my 35mm SLR with this camera without any magnification or cropping.

A couple weeks ago I wanted to watch a DVD. And I became slightly enraged at how I couldn't skip those damn publisher logo and copyright crap.

I don't like not being able to skip all the junk on disks either. Another thing that bothers me even more is that while I never had a VHS tape go bad or get eaten by the VCR, and I have hundreds, I've get a stack of DVD disks that won't play properly. And the oldest ones I have like this wouldn't play in 2 different players.

So what if we can get more channels?

This is 'bout the only thing about the switch to digital I like. I want more choices, even if the only channel I watch is CNN.

Falcon

Re:analogue or digital?

[nmg196]

> I prefer film generally however I still want to get a DSLR, which are approaching the resolution of film

The resolution of a normal 35mm SLR is comparable to that of a 6MP DSLR - which have been out for quite a while now. Even the photos taken on my old Canon 300D are a lot better than those taken on my Canon 300 film camera in terms of both resolution and colour reproduction.

Most professional photographers made the switch to digital years ago.

Unless you want to enlarge your photos to bigger than A1, you do not need any more than 6-8MP.
8 megapixels is enough for 300DPI prints at 11 inches x 8 inches which is WAY bigger than most people usually get their pictures printed at.

What really annoys me is when (presumably for marketing reasons) phone companies put cameras with resolutions greater than about 3 megapixels in phones which have lenses about 3 mm wide and sometimes made out of plastic. This simply does not work - you cannot get a good enough image from a 3mm lens to justify a 4MP+ sensor in the phone. And then they go and JPEG compress the living shit out of the picture and save it as a 200K file when really a 4MP image needs about 2MB to look any good. It's all marketing bullshit and produces pictures no better than the older 2MP cameras.

Re:analogue or digital?

[falconwolf]

The resolution of a normal 35mm SLR is comparable to that of a 6MP DSLR - which have been out for quite a while now.

Try making an 8 1/2" X 11" print out from a 6MP camera, then try to make a 14" printout without using any up rez software. You may be able to do the first with a 6MP camera but the second one will have a lot of artifacts in the print. On the other hand I've made prints from film at 14" without artifacts. I've even made prints on an 8 1/2 by 11 exposing only half of the film frame to the sheet. Fact is is 35 mm film exposures can be used to make bigger prints without artifacts than any 6MP camera.

Falcon

Wait, you're missing something.

[I'm New Around Here]

You state you have your own place with your girlfriend.... No, don't get ahead of me here.

You can't have your own place "with" your girlfriend. It would be more accurate to say that she allows you to have a small presence in the place she lives in. Here's the proof: Who has more closet and dresser space? Who has more items in the bathroom? What color are the sheets and curtains? And how many pillows are on that bed?

Even if you lived there first, and she only moved in last week, you would be losing in at least two of those areas.

Here are more criteria if you are not convinced. What movie did you watch last? How many of your socks or underwear are lying on or around the couch? How often is pizza delivered to your "own palce"? As a married man, I can honestly say I pay the rent, but she runs the place.

Have a nice day. :)

Re:Wait, you're missing something.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude let him go on with his delusion. He may still think he thinks for himself even a year or two into the marriage. Then reality hits and you're like. Oh fuck. =P

Bye-bye TV , it was nice knowing you

[flyingfsck]

When my analogue TV goes dead, I won't bother buying a digital one. I'll just stop watching TV altogether.

Re:Bye-bye TV , it was nice knowing you

[EvilSS]

Feel free to do the same when your computer dies.

Re:Bye-bye TV , it was nice knowing you

[bobsledbob]

He has an analog computer? Cool!

Re:Bye-bye TV , it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife and I were just talking about this tonight. We have sturdy analog TVs that have lasted for years and should keep going for many more years. We use cable so we're fine for now, but after 2012 when the article implies that the cable companies are going to cease feeding analog TVs altogether, we'll have large paperweights.

We don't want to go to digital TVs for a few reasons:

(a) they're too costly;
(b) they're not needed (analog picture quality is good enough for us);
(c) DRM - a deal killer in ANY product.

But if we DID have to buy digital in the future, how can we best avoid any DRM complications? What would be the best connectors to ensure that it has? USB? DVI? S-video? I'm the kind of guy who copies my DVDs so the kids won't scratch them, and while copying strips out the useless parts, and places the new copies in Linux-based media libraries on a hard drive.

I'm clueless about TV connectors. And I have been searching high and low for an on-line "Guide to Buying TVs while Keeping DRM at Bay" and have yet to find anything on point.

Re:Bye-bye TV , it was nice knowing you

[B5_geek]

I hate to sound like " ..a brain-dead AOL'er..." but me too!

After my TV dies I will be buying a projector so that I can watch movies and TV episodes off of my PC.

Re:Bye-bye TV , it was nice knowing you

[B5_geek]

Just get a front-projector with DVI and/or VGA input.

Connect to your PC and love your media once again.

Re:Bye-bye TV , it was nice knowing you

[Rick17JJ]

A rabbit ears antenna on top of my old 13-inch TV lets me now receive 5 channels. I do not have cable and do not wish to pay a monthly fee for satellite. February 17, 2009 is when over-the air analog television broadcasts are scheduled to end here in the U.S. Those 5 analog channels will soon be gone. The new ATSC digital channels are now being broadcast over the air in most major cites. However, where I live up in the mountains of northern Arizona, only one station currently broadcasting the new digital signal (it is split into two channels). I am not sure if I will be able to receive even that, because of the hills between me and that transmitter. So I will soon be going from 5 channels to just 1 or 2 channels or possible none.

I will eventually buy an inexpensive box that converts the new digital signals into the old anlog NTSC signals that my old 13-inch TV can handle. Then I hope to be able to receive the one or two digital channels that I might have a chance to receive here.

I don't watch much TV now and will soon be watching even less when I just have 1 or 2 channels. Perhaps, I will rent DVDs instead and get more of my news from the Internet and late-night talk radio. I might also find myself reading more instead. Yes, I could afford satellite TV, but just dislike the idea of unnecessary monthly fees of any kind and don't want to face the temptation of being able to waste too much time on the huge selection of too many good movies and TV shows.

Re:2012: The Year We Watched Television

[Anonymous Coward]

$750 for a 32" isn't even as cheap as you can find them...Vizio (who's models seem to be consistently cheaper than everyone else's) has a 32" LCD for $599...exactly the price point the GP mentioned. And their larger models aren't that far off. The 42" 720p models are under $1000 with the 1080p models about $200 higher. At the rate their prices are falling, the GP shouldn't have to wait more than a year or so before he can get a 42" 1080p for around $600.

Disclaimer: I don't work for or own stock in Vizio, but I do own one of their 42" plasmas that I bought a little over a year ago and I'm very satisfied with the purchase.

Not until I can buy a decent set-top box...

[Rahga]

One of these days, I'll probably drop $600 on a decent 32-inch widescreen, but right now I've got a 32-inch analog that accepts nothing better than S-Video. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a set-top box that handles aspect ratio problems at the moment... They just don't make them. I returned Samsung's nice tuner just today because of this problem.

It sucks, because I really want to get decent reception, and where I live that's nearly impossible with analog. Ghosting, interference, strange problems just don't go away with analog, but if you do get a digital signal (which seems to be much easier), at least it will be clear.

Re:Not until I can buy a decent set-top box...

[wiredlogic]

You could get a DVD recorder with an ATSC tuner in it if you want digital OTA now. Be aware that if you don't have a good line of sight on the transmitter and a suitable antenna you can have problems with dropouts that are more annoying than analog noise. I have one of the Panasonic models and it is able to handle 4:3 and 16:9 displays. I can't actually recommend you get this brand though, since mine has some serious firmware problems that are a royal pain to deal with (I'm never buying a Panasonic product again).

Let's be precise

[smchris]

More than 60 million U.S. households currently rely on an antennas or analog cable

This HD MythTV builder still relies on antennas. Never had cable in my life.

3-5 I Wish

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the local cable provider would put only 5 channels in a QAM. They put more than 10 in many and the quality sucks.

in austria its already gone

[astifter]

The Austrian National Television has been switching off almost all their analog transmitters in the last couple of months, and the last one will be turned off this year.

Netherlands is the special case of special cases

[igb]

Ah, the ``the Dutch can, so why can't everyone?'' argument at its finest. One of the major problems with TV transmission in the UK and the US is terrain, notably hills and mountains. The UK city I live in has more than two hundred feet of height variation in its canals alone, and we have these things called mountains whose populations still need service. Apart from Norfolk, most of the UK has hills. Most of the Netherlands is/are (oh, those grammar uncertainties) flat. Very flat indeed. Makes TV transmission planning, railway building and cycling a lot easier, unless you live in Vaalserberg .

Digital != HD

[monktus]

There seem to be a few comments, mostly from those in the states talking about this in relation to HDTV. The UK is still fairly far behind with regard to HDTV, however this is about the switch to SD digital terrestrial broadcast, which is much further along in terms of adoption.

AFAIK, HDTV is only available with subscription satellite and cable services at the moment as opposed to Freeview (free digital terrestrial, there are no longer any paid-for terrestrial services). You can also buy a dish and decoder to watch free satellite channels, but again these are digital SD, you have to subscribe AND buy an HD decoder and TV to get HD cable/satellite.

Also, AFAIK analogue cable was switched off some time ago in the UK (we're down to one cable provider and one satellite provider, how's that for competition?!), although I could be wrong.

I love the camouflage around an EU directive ..

[cheros]

AFAIK it's an EU directive of many years ago that everything should go digital.

The only problem was that no government wanted to be the one to tell pensioners to throw away their televisions, so it's been 'phased' in to avoid the political upset..

Re:I love the camouflage around an EU directive ..

[s-meister]

Not so much that everything should go digital, as to ensure that if and when it went digital it should do so with some common standards. EU Directive 95/47/EC http://tinyurl.com/2k9r4j was aimed at ensuring that any digital transmission should be to an agreed standard, rather than some cock-a-mamie exclusive one (hmm, which company might try that one on), and that there should be an "open interface socket" on any TV over 42cm diagonal, so as to ensure compatiblity with plugin decoders of any type required. Nowhere does it insist that analogue should be phased out, that's just a revenue-raising opportunity as SD digital is introduced.

Pensioners do not have to throw away their televisions unless the set in question has no SCART socket, or they can't source a Freeview box with UHF modulator output. They're not easy to find, so maybe we should employ a CRT-Finder General to root out the heretics? You're right about the political upset though.

The resident snob rears his ugly head.

[jotaeleemeese]

There is only one way to watch sports, and that is live. Snobs like you will deride the notion of watching sports, but sports have a cohesive nature that give identity to whole communities (towns, regions, countries), so you ignore them at your own ignorant peril.

TV offers classic movies that you could not see elsewhere (unless you buy DVDs, not a cheaper proposition), popular science, quality dramas and investigative reporting that can't be offered elsewhere.

The smug attitude of somebody not using wisely one of the most important communication mediums we currently have, is indicative of a broad ignorance based in a false sense of intellectual entitlement and superiority made all the worst by pure laziness and lack of planning.

I haven't heard that expression in a LOONG while

[cheros]

"cock-a-mamie" - that's from eons back :-).

Actually, you gave me an idea. I wonder what the EU standards committee is making of OOXML and especially the shenanigans MS used to totally break the global ISO process - given that they have just been given a massive fine for monopoly position abuse..

waltmart sell $258 digital hdtv

[peter303]

I've been watching for good tvs below $1000 for the "2009 rush". Walmart has models where they attach a cheap receiver to standard computer monitors. Models below $600 dont look that great, but they exist in that price range.

From the lame joke dep

[holiggan]

Picking up Steam? How will that affect Episode 3? oh wait...

Analogue TVs?

[jackhererUK]

What do they mean by "Analogue TVs", do they mean CRT tv's or just TVs with analogue tuners or what I don't get it, i am not sure what would clasify as a "Digital TV". 85% of the UK watches digital TV but only a small minority of them do it through TVs that can pick up over the air digital tv without a set top box.