Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Technology

Switch to Digital Television Picking up Steam 327

Posted by Zonk from the now-i-want-a-steam-powered-tv dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Switch to Digital Television Picking up Steam More

Switch to Digital Television Picking up Steam

Comments Filter:

  • errr (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:18PM (#21015619) Homepage Journal
    Why does analog cable have to change?

    Its not like it interferes with the broadcast spectrum.
     

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RoverDaddy ( 869116 )
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by solitas ( 916005 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @07:31PM (#21018981)
        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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by aywwts4 ( 610966 )
          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 72
    • It doesn't have to change, but since digital is more efficient cable companies will switch to it.

    • Re:errr (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:30PM (#21015823)
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:31PM (#21015835) Homepage Journal
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Novus ( 182265 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:34PM (#21015871)

      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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ccs.gott ( 1144593 )
      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.

  • Digital TV works over antenna (Score:5, Informative)

    by fahrvergnugen ( 228539 ) <fahrv@hotmail.cDALIom minus painter> on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:19PM (#21015639) Homepage
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by yuna49 ( 905461 )
      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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luyseyal ( 3154 )

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

        Cheers,
        -l

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dmatos ( 232892 )
        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: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Ucklak ( 755284 )
          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.

          • 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.
            • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rickb928 ( 945187 )
      "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
    • 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.

  • End of the World? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob_Ogilvie ( 872621 ) <rob@axpr.net> on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:20PM (#21015655) Homepage
    The FCC says there will be no more Analog after 2012. The Mayan calendar ends in 2012.

    Coincidence?
    • 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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by tyrantking31 ( 1115607 )
      I believe that for all intents and purposes the Mayan calendar ended about 1697 A.D. Guess they were off by a few centuries.

  • The problem with digital.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by celardore ( 844933 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:24PM (#21015721)
    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.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fnagaton ( 580019 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:28PM (#21015781) Homepage Journal
      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TemporalBeing ( 803363 )

        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 broad

        • 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

        • 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.
    • 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 g

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by 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

      • 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.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by arkhan_jg ( 618674 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:40PM (#21015935)
      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.

      • ...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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jskiff ( 746548 )
          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.
      • 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

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pilgrim23 ( 716938 )
        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, pro

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Novus ( 182265 )

      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 r

    • 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 cabl

  • Sweden just killed the analogue network (Score:4, Informative)

    by Albert Sandberg ( 315235 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:26PM (#21015739) Homepage
    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.

    • Incorrect (Score:2, Informative)

      by Smorkin' Labbit ( 930740 )
      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.

  • 2012 now in the US? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:27PM (#21015759) Journal
    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: (Score:2)

      by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
      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

      • 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 muc

      • 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 num

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by SeaFox ( 739806 )

        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 wil

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      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...

      • 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 fo

        • 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...

      • 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.
    • 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: (Score:2)

      by garcia ( 6573 )
      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 app
      • 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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by scottv67 ( 731709 )
      >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 obvio

      • 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'

    • 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 [walmart.com] is $700 at your local Walmart.

      The 47" 1080p Vizio LCD [walmart.com] $1600.

      The 1080p 60" Sony SXRD Rear Projection [circuitcity.com] 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 digita

  • Nothing will change... (Score:3, Funny)

    by InvisblePinkUnicorn ( 1126837 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:27PM (#21015767)
    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...

  • People Still Watch TV? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by curmudgeon99 ( 1040054 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:29PM (#21015803)
    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? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:58PM (#21016217) Homepage
      Folks, If you are still watching

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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luyseyal ( 3154 )
      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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by MooseMuffin ( 799896 )
      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

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

  • Underwhelmed by digital (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Experiment 626 ( 698257 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:34PM (#21015879)

    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.

    • 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.
  • 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?

  • slow migration (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pe1chl ( 90186 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:40PM (#21015943)
    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: (Score:2)

      by jimicus ( 737525 )
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by feepness ( 543479 )

      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: (Score:2)

        by ari_j ( 90255 )
        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.
  • 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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Ramble ( 940291 )
      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).
    • 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 add
    • 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

  • Cable Companies not eating their own Dogfood. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zombie Ryushu ( 803103 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:45PM (#21016013)
    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.

    • 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 bas

    • 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 th
  • 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.
    • 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...

  • 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?

    • 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 (
  • Wow, when did Valve implement that?

    Chris Mattern

  • Misleading conflation (Score:3, Informative)

    by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @04:09PM (#21016391)

    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.

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

  • 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 netw

Slashdot Top Deals

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Close