Support NeoGAF

[Lemurnator]

This doesn't seem to be an issues that's being discussed openly (probably because the government doesn't want to hear millions of people bitch about how they'll have to buy new TV's and converters). If you aren't aware, all broadcast television stations are being forced by the United States Government to convert to all digital equipment. As far as I know they've already quietly purchased new digital transmitters and the whole country is supposed to finish this massive undertaking by late 2006. It does NOT look like that's going to happen and people are saying it might not be until late 2009. Anyways, the reason the government is forcing all stations to do this is to eliminate the massive amount of bandwidth taken up on the electromagnetic spectrum.

What will all that bandwidth/air be replaced by? Technology that doesn't exist yet AND a nationwide wi-fi network that makes it's way into your home much the way a TV signal does. It'll always be there which opens the door for a whole new aspect of the government getting involved in censorship on the public intarwebs and licensing people who want web pages etc etc. But anyways...

TV is going to change massively. There are going to be at least 4 channels to each station, a lot more pipes that are going to need to be filled with content so that's one thing to keep in mind.

When will it happen?

 

[MetatronM]

In the Year 2000...

 

[Phoenix]

Well people don't really have to bitch much because they will get everything through their cable or satellite provider as most of the FCC plan requires that these set top boxes phase in these connectivity options for DTV.

 

[Lemurnator]

Well people don't really have to bitch much because they will get everything through their cable or satellite provider as most of the FCC plan requires that these set top boxes phase in these connectivity options for DTV.

People who don't already have cable have plenty bitch about because it's network TV that this is being affected by this.

 

[Phoenix]

People who don't already have cable have plenty bitch about because it's network TV that this is being affected by this.

What percentage of America doesn't have cable, satellite, etc?

 

[Lemurnator]

62% of Americans have cable.

The rest would be very pissed off at having to make this switch. Besides I don't see what your cable company can do for you besides giving you a converter. It's like trying to watch PAL on an NTSC television. You won't be watching real PAL, just like how a lot of people who have HDTV aren't watching true HDTV. In order for it to be true HD it has to be shot in HD or with 35 mm film, all of the equipment the signal gets sent through has to be digital otherwise it's no better than normal broadcast TV. You can't miss any of the steps otherwise you don't got shit.

By 2009 it'll be a decent enough investment to warrent the purchase of a new TV I think.

 

[Lemurnator]

Another question is why doesn't anyone make a big deal about this? It's a pretty big transition.

 

[Phoenix]

Fully eight-in-ten (79%) Americans have either cable or a satellite dish (5% have both). The numbers for cable have remained relatively stable in recent years, while the percentage of those owning a dish has tripled since 1995.

-Pew Research


So basically you already have critical mass. The people who choose not to upgrade won't get worse TV than they do now. It should, in fact, suck less than the normal analog broadcasts. So I actually don't see it as a big deal. No one will HAVE to get a new TV if they have cable or satellite because the FCC is mandating that settop boxes have that functionality in them phased in over the next 5 or so years. People who are actually interested in HD TV will spend the money, but many people really just don't care.

 

[Lemurnator]

-Pew Research


So basically you already have critical mass. The people who choose not to upgrade won't get worse TV than they do now. It should, in fact, suck less than the normal analog broadcasts. So I actually don't see it as a big deal. No one will HAVE to get a new TV if they have cable or satellite because the FCC is mandating that settop boxes have that functionality in them phased in over the next 5 or so years. People who are actually interested in HD TV will spend the money, but many people really just don't care.

I googled it so. /shrug it was out a study of 1000 people and I don't think it included satallite.

21 PERCENT is still a huge fucking number of people, and it's also irrelevant since it doesn't affect cable programming.

 

[Lemurnator]

-Pew Research


So basically you already have critical mass. The people who choose not to upgrade won't get worse TV than they do now. It should, in fact, suck less than the normal analog broadcasts. So I actually don't see it as a big deal. No one will HAVE to get a new TV if they have cable or satellite because the FCC is mandating that settop boxes have that functionality in them phased in over the next 5 or so years. People who are actually interested in HD TV will spend the money, but many people really just don't care.

Wrong, the people who choose not to upgrade won't get TV at all unless they buy some kind of converter since programming won't be broadcast in NTSC but instead digitally.

 

[The Faceless Master]

What percentage of America doesn't have cable, satellite, etc?

i have cable internet but no cable tv... there just isnt that much intresting stuff on tv... saves me $50 a month...

i've been without cable tv for 18 months now and i don't really miss it...

 

[Phoenix]

Wrong, the people who choose not to upgrade won't get TV at all unless they buy some kind of converter since programming won't be broadcast in NTSC but instead digitally.

Wrong, the people who don't have cable and/or satellite won't get TV at all. Its that last 20% that is at risk, not the other 80%.

 

[BlackNMild2k1]

I thought the gov. mandate was pushed back to 2008?

did I hear wrong or am I remembering false truths?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Another question is why doesn't anyone make a big deal about this? It's a pretty big transition.

maybe because its a good idea?

 

[Lemurnator]

Wrong, the people who don't have cable and/or satellite won't get TV at all. Its that last 20% that is at risk, not the other 80%.

I thought that's what I said?

And yeah it's either 2008 or 2009.

It's a good idea, I just hope free wifi doesn't mean censored interwebs.

 

[Phoenix]

I thought that's what I said?

And yeah it's either 2008 or 2009.

It's a good idea, I just hope free wifi doesn't mean censored interwebs.

Nope because these people don't have to 'upgrade'. The people they are paying a monthly rate to will supply them equipment so that they can continue to charge them that monthly rate.

Not sure what this has to wifi though.

 

[Lemurnator]

The extra bandwidth allowed on the electromagnetic spectrum would allow for more room on the airwaves for wireless internet.

As of now the airwaves in many parts of the country are full, and you can't add anymore without having them interfere with eachother. With the amount of space switching to digital creates the FCC can auction off the massive bandwidth to new technologies and services that aren't broadcast TV.

That's why it's mandatory. If the same space were to be made available from FM radio switching over to digital HD radio there would be a mandate for that too but the FCC wouldn't have much to gain so it's not mandatory.

 

[Particle Physicist]

i really doubt we will get free wireless internet though. .. internet providers will petition very hard against it.

 

[empanada]

As far as I know, analog over the air broadcast will end on Jan. 1, 2009 so there's still plenty of time for everyone to get a shiny new DTV.

 

[michael000]

As far as I know, analog over the air broadcast will end on Jan. 1, 2009 so there's still plenty of time for everyone to get a shiny new DTV.

That is a long way off but how long till you can get that shiny new off-brand DTV for sub $100 at a wal-mart or target? Remember the vast majority of people do not own a $800+ tv (this is what i'd consider the starting point of a "decent" tv). The end of analog hasn't become a public issue yet because your average joe has no idea what the hell it is heh. I'd imagine there will be a far larger outcry once joe finds out he's going to either have to get a converter or a nice expensive new tv just to watch regular shows.

 

[Ruzbeh]

No offense Lemurs, but why do you care?

 

[tedtropy]

That is a long way off but how long till you can get that shiny new off-brand DTV for sub $100 at a wal-mart or target? Remember the vast majority of people do not own a $800+ tv (this is what i'd consider the starting point of a "decent" tv). The end of analog hasn't become a public issue yet because your average joe has no idea what the hell it is heh. I'd imagine there will be a far larger outcry once joe finds out he's going to either have to get a converter or a nice expensive new tv just to watch regular shows.

Wal-mart has a 27" 4:3 RCA TV that'll do 480P/1080i for $300 now. Granted, it doesn't have an integrated OTA HD tuner, but in a year or two you can bet similarly priced, similar specs TVs will.

 

[Lemurnator]

No offense Lemurs, but why do you care?

Because there are things besides Hello Kitty, video games, and boys that concern me and that I have interest in.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

i have cable internet but no cable tv... there just isnt that much intresting stuff on tv... saves me $50 a month...

i've been without cable tv for 18 months now and i don't really miss it...

same here

 

[tedtropy]

i have cable internet but no cable tv... there just isnt that much intresting stuff on tv... saves me $50 a month...

i've been without cable tv for 18 months now and i don't really miss it...

If I didn't have a DirecTiVo, I'd probably agree. Whenever I actually manage to just sit down and surf what's currently on, it's almost always crap, but when I have a box actively grabbing the stuff I'd care about, it becomes worth it. Yes, I could theoretically try and track down all the torrents for the shows I enjoy, but that's its own pain in the ass.

 

[AB 101]

I want the switch and I would like it now please.

I have my HDTV.

Everyone else needs to get with the program.

 

[maharg]

-Pew Research


So basically you already have critical mass. The people who choose not to upgrade won't get worse TV than they do now. It should, in fact, suck less than the normal analog broadcasts. So I actually don't see it as a big deal. No one will HAVE to get a new TV if they have cable or satellite because the FCC is mandating that settop boxes have that functionality in them phased in over the next 5 or so years. People who are actually interested in HD TV will spend the money, but many people really just don't care.

You know, I don't know if things in the US are different, but MY cable box IS my TV.

 

[borghe]

Because there are things besides Hello Kitty, video games, and boys that concern me and that I have interest in.

so what exactly is your interest here?

this is as silly as talking about the introduction of UHF. people were terrified when the first UHF stations began broadcasting because they had no way to get them without a separate UHF receiver connected to the TV. Well guess what happened. UHF receivers became insanely cheap and were eventually included into television sets for an eventual null cost increase. Sound familiar?

Take a look at the best buy ad this week and see how many TV's say HD Bult-in. And those numbers are rising (government mandated). And what is interesting about that government mandate is it forces a reduction in cost of manufacturing goods. By June (or is it july) of next year, all TV's 27" and larger are supposed to have HD receivers biult into them. At that point HD receivers should cost virtually nothing to include. Hell, best buy actually has an HD Tuners section on their website where tuners are $229. And this is overpriced best buy for crying out loud.

I don't get what your concern or interest is here.

you are also wrong about the government wanting to use the spectrum. The government wants to AUCTION the spectrum and raise capital from it. all frequencies above channel 59 would be reclaimed by the FCC and then auctioned off for non-television usage. The only thing the government gets from all of this is money, which last time I checked is a good thing, especially considering we don't need more than 58 available frequency bands in any area of the country.

 

[G4life98]

Does anyone know how many more channels this will mean for people without cable or sat tv?

 

[borghe]

depends entirely on how the local stations handle it.

in my area, it means only a few nice bonuses. The PAX channel has PAX and then like 4 extra religious channels.

Our PBS affiliate however runs a 3 hour delay of both of their PBS channels, PBSYou, PBSKids, and a weather radar with multiple (I believe3-4) audio tracks. Then on their second actual channel (one of the ones that gets a 3 hour delay) the FCC has waived simulcasting requirements for them (Because they are already simulcasting on the first station) so they run PBS-HD 24/7.

Our CBS affiliate is also using multi-casting to broadcast digitally our local Telemundo channel (owned by the same company).

just to give you an idea of what can happen.

oh, and our local WB broadcasted the final season of Enterprise on a subchannel in HD (same company owns both UPN and WB) because the UPN station didn't have their HD up and running.

 

[G4life98]

depends entirely on how the local stations handle it.

in my area, it means only a few nice bonuses. The PAX channel has PAX and then like 4 extra religious channels.

Our PBS affiliate however runs a 3 hour delay of both of their PBS channels, PBSYou, PBSKids, and a weather radar with multiple (I believe3-4) audio tracks. Then on their second actual channel (one of the ones that gets a 3 hour delay) the FCC has waived simulcasting requirements for them (Because they are already simulcasting on the first station) so they run PBS-HD 24/7.

Our CBS affiliate is also using multi-casting to broadcast digitally our local Telemundo channel (owned by the same company).

just to give you an idea of what can happen.

oh, and our local WB broadcasted the final season of Enterprise on a subchannel in HD (same company owns both UPN and WB) because the UPN station didn't have their HD up and running.

is there a limit to how many sub-channels can be added?

 

[borghe]

is there a limit to how many sub-channels can be added?

99 is the theoretical and programming limit.

taking into account that we are using MPEG2 and using DirecTV as a milestone (around .28 bits per pixel) you could easily fit 5 SD channels in a standard 6Mhz channel. You could possibly fit up to 6 SD channels in one 6Mhz channel. This is at 480i. 480p (DVD) would drop you down to 3-4 channels keeping the same bits per pixels. With HD you only get one channel. anymore and you take a pretty noticeable hit in quality.

With MPEG4 AVC all of those numbers could probably be doubled, though MPEG4 isn't in the ATSC standard.