digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

How to survive the switch to Digital TV

cnn.com — Did my TV screen just shrink? That's the question a lot of people will be asking after installing one of the converter boxes that will keep their older TV sets tuned in to over-the-air broadcasts after February 17, when most stations will switch from analog to digital transmission.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • chanop, on 04/24/2008, -16/+67I am Thoroughly satisfied with the amount of diggs for this to make first page
    • TheCosmicFool, on 04/24/2008, -2/+23Thank you for your input, good sir
    • ryan83189, on 04/24/2008, -3/+17I rhetorically question this article making front page with the numbers of diggs and comments it has.
      • Thousand, on 04/24/2008, -1/+11I rebut your rhetoric with a hastily assembled yet doggedly tired and familiar riposte, ineffectively assaulting your level of intelligence, history and activity levels in the web community in question, and/or your public and private sexual preferences whilst simultaneously adding nothing to the conversation at hand AND lowering the already dangerously depleted collective intellectual reserves of the participants in this discussion by a non-negligible quantity. I will then make an open invitation for further attacks similar to my own to be perpetrated against me by the rest of the community, daring any of them to make an attempt at toppling my throne of glowing self-righteousness while, deep inside, desiring nothing more than to be accepted and perhaps, as though in some strange parallel universe far from our own, to be loved.
    • 11oops, on 04/24/2008, -3/+6I thoroughly question why this keeps getting posted in the stories on the front page?
      • funkytaco, on 04/24/2008, -1/+10I vehemently disagree with all this philandering and flouting of the topic at hand! You, sir! I point my fist at you with my thumb in a downward fashion!
      • orangefly, on 04/24/2008, -1/+7your comment was shallow and pedantic....
    • MrESaulved, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2I remind you that Digg is a perfect implementation of the fair and altruistic nature of democracy in principle, "one person, one vote, with equal weight for both"
  • Willravel, on 04/24/2008, -16/+41How to survive the switch: Dish Network and DirecTV.
    • KMartSheriff, on 04/24/2008, -27/+3How to survive the switch: stop being a freeloader.
      • rockefeller2, on 04/24/2008, -2/+22I find the amount of advertising on cable/satellite TV to be unacceptable. If I'm paying for the subscription, I shouldn't be expected to spend 30% of my time being subjected to commercials.
        • Maxion, on 04/24/2008, -1/+7Well, the amount of money the TV company gets from showing a 30-second spot during prime time is so much higher than your subscription. In order to survive without commercials your subscription would have to be many times more expensive.
        • ravage86, on 04/24/2008, -4/+6You're right Maxion. But we're effectively being charged twice for the same service. Either charge us by making us watch advertisements, or charge us the monthly cable fee. Not both.
        • creepydarkwurm, on 04/24/2008, -0/+9You don't pay cable/satellite for the tv shows, you pay them for the delivery of the signal. And the commericals cover the cost of the producing the shows.
          • funkytaco, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4Ford Focus and Coca-Cola advertise heavily on American Idol... I don't see how DirecTV profits from that. I'm pretty sure the person/ai bot above me is right.
          • ravage86, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2The cable company has some advertising rights worked into most of the channels, which is usually when you see local advertisements on a channel like Fox.
        • vulapine, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Get a Tivo/DVR then go do something productive for about the first 20 minutes of an hour show. You won't have the annying commercials, you get to finish watching the show when its over (live) and you will be more productive. Win-Win-Win!
          • rockefeller2, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Tivo, another $10 per month subscription. I do have a TV tuner card I use with an antennae to record some programming OTA. Monthly subscriptions are the new razor blade model. Companies always want to install security systems in my neighborhood, telling me they'll give me $600 worth of equipment as long as I sign up for $40/month monitoring service. It doesn't sound like much, but all of these small monthly payments start to add up after awhile.
          • vulapine, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1rock
            Everyone's situation is different, but (at least here) it's almost impossible to get a setup without a DVR (as the above comment was about satellite). If you are paying, say $10 monthly for cable, the $10 fee is not worth it. If you are a new satellite customer (read "switcher"), you will probably get your equipment free and have some sort of discount.
            If you want a security system, the $40 monthly is an okay deal. Of course if you don't have satellite or cable, I'm not sure why you replied to my comment.
    • drlha, on 04/24/2008, -2/+21Or cable. This only effects people who have TV antennas as their main source of TV. Around my way that gets you NBC and PBS only.
      • TheKorn2, on 04/24/2008, -12/+9You must live in *****... around here OTA (including multicasts) gets 29 stations. Granted, four are beaner-only stations, but they gotta watch TV too.
      • drlha, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1*****? Hardly. I used to live in Santa Barbara, where with an antenna I got ABC and PBS. Is Santa Barbara ***** or one of the most expensive and desirable places to live in America? Basically not getting 29 stations means you don't live in a big city.
        • TheKorn2, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Then you must have been "the help" trying to tune in on a $2 pair of rabbit ears, because your beloved town has FIFTEEN TV stations (*not* including multicasts!) broadcasting to it, seven of which have transmitters WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS! Don't be all mad at the world because YOUR EQUIPMENT SUCKED. The signals were out there -- it was *your* job to go get them.
    • shutter54, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2Who even uses rabbit ears anymore? I havent tried broadcast television in at least 15 years.
      • ravage86, on 04/24/2008, -0/+6You know there's free over the air HDTV now right? It sure beats paying the cable company's $20 fee for local HD channels.
        • shutter54, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0DirecTV only charges $6 for locals, and I dont really care about HD anyway, so its less of a hassle to just pay them.
    • antdude, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Why do we want to pay for those? OTA = free.
  • Aleman360, on 04/24/2008, -17/+13"Did my TV screen just shrink?"

    Wait, are they going to start broadcasting everything in widescreen then? Because a lot of my local HD channels still use 4:3 for the news and such.
    • quill, on 04/24/2008, -2/+22-1, Did not read the article.

      Look for the bit that talks about "Windowboxing".
    • trogdor282, on 04/24/2008, -2/+14Write your local stations and tell them to stop the letterboxing!! TV stations should just broadcast 4:3 in 4:3 and 16:9 in 16:9. DVD's have done that for years, and I've never seen one that was improperly squished/cropped/boxed, on any shape TV.
      • colincornaby, on 04/24/2008, -3/+5I'm not sure you understand the problem. The problem is that the stations DO broadcast 4:3 content in 4:3. The DTV box converts everything to widescreen. Meaning the program comes in as 4:3, is sent to your 4:3 TV in widescreen, meaning you now have 4:3 content in widescreen in 4:3, thus leaving black bars around ALL sides of the content.
        • TheKorn2, on 04/24/2008, -3/+9That comment is mostly incorrect. Many stations are broadcasting 4:3 content with pillars in 16x9. (Some aren't, but many are.) You're probably getting confused because most stations use black pillars. ESPN HD uses NON-BLACK pillars when it's showing 4:3, and my local CBS station has the CBS "eye" logo back there. (Must be great for plasma TVs that can get burn in... great decision, guys!)
        • trogdor282, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Korn and I are right. The problem is that dumb tv stations are sending you a widescreen picture composed of a black vertical bar, then the 4:3 picture, then another black vertical bar. Instead of realizing that DTV's come in two shapes and just SENDING YOU THE DAMN PICTURE and letting your converter box decide where the bars go. Like I said, DVD's (and the non-retarded stations) do it that way.
    • Maxion, on 04/24/2008, -2/+7Ofcourse, 4:3 is just basically 16:9 with the sides cut off anyway.
      • EtherGnat, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Not always, Google "Open Matte". Sometimes the top and bottom are cut off the 4:3 picture to make a 16:9 image depending on how it's filmed. Either way it's important to maintain the vision of the creator.
    • mooninite, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5All major digital broadcasts are 16:9. Most of them are 1080i, FOX is 720p (dumb), and sub-channels (Google it) are typically 4:3 at 480i. Even if the original content isn't 16:9, the station is broadcasting it in 16:9 but sends black bars with it.

      Deal with it. 16:9 is the future. It's way too late to whine about it now.
    • Stevo23, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1FTA: "The solution is to press the "Zoom" button on the remote that comes with the converter box. That will expand the picture so it fills the screen. Everything good now? No. When the next show comes on, it might have been shot in widescreen. The "zoom" mode will still be on, which means only the center of the image will be visible. The left and right sides will fall outside the screen, but you won't know that, unless you start mashing the Zoom button again to cycle through a few options until you get to the letterboxed mode."
      Oh no, horror of horrors! I have to press the 'zoom' button! I know most people are pretty stupid, but come on, is this really an issue?
  • johneyoung, on 04/24/2008, -16/+6I wonder what the percentage is of people who actually have to use the converter boxes - I'm guessing it can't be that high.
    • cr125er, on 04/24/2008, -0/+24According to a local news story here in Seattle, about 100,000 people will need to get a converter box.

      I was blown away by the number until they mentioned most of the people who need it are older people and people in low-income areas, which makes sense. Old people don't want newfangled TV and some people prioritize food and clothing over network television.
    • fkr3, on 04/24/2008, -4/+15Yeah it's probably only everyone who hasn't bought a new tv in the last 4 or 5 years..... only most people I think.
      • trogdor282, on 04/24/2008, -0/+8Crappy little tv's were until recently (if not still) analog only.
      • zp29, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1A lot of stores have been selling new TVs which are still analog up until recently.
    • BlkGuyAtThePrty, on 04/24/2008, -1/+12I'd imagine its about 100x higher then the percentage you're thinking. Far fewer people subscribe to a form of digital TV then use analog TV. Think about it, if you've been watching TV your entire life; for most of it you've been watching analogue. You would have to actively switch to digital TV, something I'd guess most people won't do.

      Analog is the standard, the number of switchers will be huge.
      • johneyoung, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3Wow, I wasn't aware it was that high. I'm not extremely versed on the television technology - I just assumed most subscribers had satellite or digital cable.
      • designerutah, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Most subscribers don't. They don't subscribe. They pick up the freely broadcast analog signal. And this change which is supposed to happen could change timeline due to the number of viewers out there that aren't going to change.
        • po43292, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1They're not gonna change the date. They've had it set for a long time now.
          • ChildeRoland420, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2They've already changed it at least once. It wasn't always in Feb 2009.
        • designerutah, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0And do you know how small of portion of the populace that watches broadcast knows about this? Once the outrage hits, the day might get pushed.
      • EtherGnat, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2"Analog is the standard, the number of switchers will be huge."

        About 85% of people subscribe to cable or satellite and won't be affected at all ( http://www.house.gov/upton/dtv.html ). I think digital penetration is around 30% now, but OTA households are probably less likely than most to have digital ready TVs. My guess is you're probably looking at about 12% of the population that will be affected. People will either need to get the converter boxes, or they could sign up for the ~$13/mo. lifeline cable service providers are required to carry.
      • bradleyland, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Do not confuse the analog signal that your cable provider sends over their local coax fed infrastructure with the analog broadcast variety. They are vastly different. There is no mandate that cable providers must stop sending analog signals over their own infrastructure, just that broadcasters must stop sending it over the airwaves.

        As EtherGnat said, the proportions of this issue are relatively small; around 12%. That's a lot of people, but the spectrum that is being used by by analog television broadcast could be more efficiently used elsewhere. It's time for the vast majority to stop suffering at the hands of those who do not want to upgrade to current technology.
        • ChildeRoland420, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2How exactly are people suffering by having analog TV signals going through the air?
          • FKnight, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Please compare how many things are being transmitted via radio broadcast now compared to *only* ten years ago. The radio spectrum is only so wide and more and more things need space in it such as all of the new wireless data and communications technologies that come out every day. Analog OTA TV is taking up a /huge/ portion of the spectrum that could be used to make our ***** wireless phone system in the US at least meet the standards of the rest of the world, as an example.
    • bspender, on 04/24/2008, -6/+8But our Dept. of Commerce has set aside $1.5 Billion to cover a coupon program for the converter boxes... I'm so glad our gov't loves to piss away our tax money.
      • rockefeller2, on 04/24/2008, -1/+13The money comes from the sale of the spectrum analog TV takes up.
        • bspender, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1Point taken that this isn't $1.5B from tax revenue. Nonetheless, I still think it's a giant waste of money for a horribly managed coupon campaign.
      • hokie47, on 04/24/2008, -0/+11The government made around 20 Billion in the sale of the 700MHz spectrum.
      • TheKorn2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4What are you pissing and moaning about? Here's the government paying for something you you can HOLD IN YOUR HANDS and use, rather than piss it away bombing people you never knew existed. I'd say it's a step in the right direction!
      • orangefly, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1if poor people can't get tv then how will they be appeased enough to not rise up against there oppressors....
        or something....
    • druidskeep, on 04/24/2008, -1/+12i just got 2 boxs - i'm 31 and think cable and dish are WAY over-rated!
      • rockefeller2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3I agree. I just don't find value in it. Even at $30/month.
      • zp29, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Yeah, I used to have cable - seemed like I couldn't find anything better than The Weather Channel most of the time... I'm happy with broadcast TV the way it is, I hope the government doesn't decide to start telling us everything else we have to "upgrade".
      • falstaff, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Same here. Grew up on OTA TV, went to college and had cable for the first time and it was the greatest thing EVER. Over the next 10 years, prices went up, quality content went down, and I've been back to OTA for a few years now. Couldn't be happier.
    • whitezombie420, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3it really depends on how the prices of digital tvs fluxuate between now and then. i know alot of people that refuse to switch to a digital tv, now at least. i know one dude that hacked an old direct tv box into a converter because he doesnt want to switch.
  • itsbob, on 04/24/2008, -12/+2Just do it
  • steveiskfc, on 04/24/2008, -22/+2ummm.... front page?
  • BlkGuyAtThePrty, on 04/24/2008, -0/+26This will mean lots of cash for those of us in the home theater/in home service industry. Quick easy installs that forced-adopters would rather pay for then do themselves.
    • Kumaku, on 04/24/2008, -1/+9That's why I love this country.
    • UberNick, on 04/24/2008, -3/+14Why would they pay and then do it themselves?
      • lucidapathy, on 04/24/2008, -4/+8Reading comprehension for the win!
        • Memnochxx, on 04/24/2008, -0/+9UberNick is right. The op said 'then' instead of 'than'.
    • NJank, on 04/24/2008, -4/+3"Quick easy installs that forced-adopters would rather pay for then do themselves."
      Translated as: Quick easy installs that clueless consumers will buy thinking it's more complicated than it is when the install is pushed along with extended warranty, service plan, etc., etc., by the likes of BestBuy, CC, BuyMore, ...
      • EtherGnat, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1It was a sarcastic reply due to the parent's use of "then" instead of "than".
    • Topher06, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1But I think most people will be getting the el-cheapo cable converter rather then investing in technology they obviously don't want now.
  • gen2ux, on 04/24/2008, -25/+30Does this really need to be on Digg? Seems pretty silly considering the audience.
  • KMartSheriff, on 04/24/2008, -2/+77In other news, grandmas everywhere ***** themselves and still don't know what "digital" is.
    • serif69, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2My grandma doesn't know what it is, but she knows she has it. Keeps complaining about how AMC isn't on her smaller TV upstairs anymore because the "dih-jih-TAL" (syncopated, with an extra hard "t") is downstairs.
    • TheKorn2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Or worse, start looking at their fingers wondering when Matlock is going to come on.
    • EtherGnat, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2They're not completely clueless. My Grandma visited recently and surprised me when she asked me about the switch. I explained it, she asked a few reasonable questions, and then she told me her senior group was having somebody come in to explain it to them.
    • aywwts4, on 04/24/2008, -0/+7Just tell her that digital TV particles are squares instead of circles, so it needs a new filter-majiggy to catch them.
    • Icelightning, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Not all. My grandma's pretty savvy at times with technology. Her sewing machine allows input from her laptop so she can design/stitch advanced embroidery patterns with a specialized program. It's fairly hardcore.
  • tmaiden, on 04/24/2008, -14/+5I'm more interested in "How to survive the switch to pointless posts making front page".
  • thegsa, on 04/24/2008, -4/+8The ones reviewed by them suck donkey balls, the best one so far is the Zenith one.

    http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Zenith-Digital-to-A ...
  • WilliamTM, on 05/13/2008, -12/+2Big deal.
  • PrestonM, on 04/24/2008, -2/+13So here is a question. Disregard over the air transmission for a second. Do you think Comcast will still allow for the analog signal to get basic cable? Or will they take this opportunity to make everyone purchase a digital box?
    • robbiedo, on 04/24/2008, -1/+12To quote Ars Technica (9/17/2007):
      Thanks to the various FCC actions, analog TV owners are guaranteed a few more years of life out their TVs, though the new cable rules only last until 2012. At that point, the FCC will review them again and decide if they need to be renewed.
      • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1It's cool. We'll all be dead by then, anyhow.
    • dezertrat, on 04/24/2008, -0/+10The switch to ATSC does not affect cable, it will stay exactly the same.
      • Mothrog, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Comcast is using the transition as an excuse to go all digital, even though that switch isn't mandatory. How many other companies will follow suit?
    • whitezombie420, on 04/24/2008, -8/+6cable boxes already have converters in them and have been broadcasting digital for a while now. so my guess would be that comcast will change nothing about how they operate.
      • drlha, on 04/24/2008, -1/+18Not everyone that has cable has a cable box.
        • whitezombie420, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1the question is about comcast cable dumbass. did you read the initial post?? NO
    • jejones, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1I don't know about Comcast, but I got a snail mail letter from Mediacom claiming that they were moving to an "all-digital" system. I tried very hard to get a yes or no answer to the question "does that mean that you will stop sending NTSC out over cable, so that everyone will have to either get a converter box or rent a 'digital cable' box from you?" but had no success, though I suspect the answer is "yes", they want to get as many people to rent a digital cable box from them as they can.
  • fieldhockey44, on 04/24/2008, -1/+22I still have to change the aspect all the time on my widescreen HDTV. Until all shows are shot in widescreen, this problem will exist for everyone, regardless of whether they have a converter box or not
    • gen2ux, on 04/24/2008, -1/+8No. Most new LCD/DLP/Plasma TV's can automatically sense which aspect ratio the broadcast is in and adjust accordingly.
    • whitezombie420, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5even then it will exist if you watch something thats syndicated (old). they just need to make tvs better at figuring out the aspect on their own, maybe include that in the signal. my tv makes the switch on its own usually, but some stations i have to switch to 4:3 still.
    • lakuma, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3My TV re-sizes the aspect automatically. I have OTA and it just displays the picture how ever it's broad casted from the local station. Nothing like FREE UNCOMPRESSED HD TV! In fact I notice a small improvement in picture quality moving from Dish Network to OTA.
    • planetexpress, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0I don't see why America can't do this in the same way everyone else does. I've never seen any digital converter box that doesn't automatically do that here in England and we're doing the switchover too (although it's completely turned off in 2012). That even goes for the Woolworths own-brand £15 jobbie that couldn't display the EPG properly...
    • srg13, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Here all our digital TV comes widescreen, and 4:3 content is pillarboxed. Now this is fine, but sometimes a show might come as a 4:3 image that is letterboxed 16:9. So you basically have a little image with a big black border. Thankfully it's manly just some ads that do that now, and not real shows...
  • jackorilla, on 04/24/2008, -1/+34There are still people who pay the phone company to "rent" a wall phone, like your grandma had in her kitchen back in '75.
    • MellerTime, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Really? How much does it cost?

      *calls up AT&T*
    • aaabatteries, on 04/24/2008, -7/+1My family still has one.
      It's sort of necessary--power outages are pretty common here in Upstate NY and communication with the outside world during those times is always nice.
      • sremick, on 04/24/2008, -0/+9You missed the point. He wasn't talking about having a land-line. He was talking about actually paying a special extra fee to rent the physical phone connected to the landline from the phone company itself.
      • Mothrog, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Power from an outlet isn't needed to power a phone. A basic plug in phone runs purely from the telephone line. You don't have to rent anything.
  • wsuvtx, on 04/24/2008, -22/+2I would assume that everyone here has either cable or SAT. Buried for being irrelevant
    • vannoy, on 04/24/2008, -0/+6Well you know what happens when you assume..
    • whitezombie420, on 04/24/2008, -5/+2i have neither because i am a pirate. i also figure that alot of other people on here are the same way. buried.
      • AydenV2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Yes, we are all worthless thieves like yourself. /sarcasm
  • jerrycan, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3I have a question maybe someone here can answer. I have ROGERS basic cable here in Ontario Canada. It is just analog cable (I only need it for news, and Kids Channels like TreeHouse and YTV. Do I have to get a digital cable box anytime soon, or can I continue to use the reciever in my tv(s)?
    • rockefeller2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+7If you want the real answer, you'll have to call ROGERS and ask them if they have any intention of ending analog cable transmission to your house. I doubt they will, because they aren't mandated. And I'm sure if they did, they would have sent you something in the mail.
      • NJank, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2and told you about the increased subscription rate for your new digital service...
    • ahhell, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3Maybe you should call Rogers.
      • jerrycan, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2LOL! You think front line phone support could answer that?
    • prae, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Canadian gov't isnt mandating digital-only until 2011, IIRC?
  • flibblesan, on 04/24/2008, -3/+7Here in the UK, almost all DTV decoders automatically switch the picture between widescreen and 4:3, so on a standard 4:3 you always get the best picture possible. They also connect using SCART. I guess they don't have that in the US.
  • Yellowdog428, on 04/24/2008, -12/+4I always forget that there are people that still dont have cable. Or a lcd. Or HD.

    Yah, WTF... Why is this on the front page?
    • MellerTime, on 04/24/2008, -0/+7Uhh, because there ARE people that still don't have cable. Or an LCD. Or HD. Just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean there aren't people who will find this information useful.
      • zp29, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4Yeah, I still have a 19" TV from 1985 with an old indoor antenna on top of it. Still works fine - anyway, I've got better things to spend my money on than being able to see the 98% crap on TV in a crystal clear picture with stereo sound...
  • matarij, on 04/24/2008, -14/+1Why not just buy a new tv and help out the economy?
    • designerutah, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Mostly because they're on a fixed income? Or that would also include buying a television service?
    • Snakedal337, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Because most TVs are made overseas anyway and would hardly help out our economy?
    • ChildeRoland420, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Because some of us have better things to spend our money on than helping out the Chinese economy.
    • Mothrog, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Because not all of us want to spend $300+ for a damn TV when we have one that works perfectly fine?
  • str3ama, on 04/24/2008, -5/+4I have a question for anyone knowledgeable about this, why exactly are the Cable companies moving towards Digital? I know it has something to do with the Government demanding that they convert to digital before 2010 or something, but what lead to it? It seems to me that the Telco's are getting something out of this - possibly subsidies or something. What alarms me is that this is history in repeating, The Telcos were given all sorts of tax breaks and funding to build a fiber optic Internet network by something like 2007ish and of course they never delivered on that, they took the tax breaks and funding but had no intention of actually building it. So it strikes me odd that they would so readily be willing to pay for the infrastructure and upgrading out of their own pocket for this. Again I'm not informed on this so maybe can add more to it..
    • sanosuke001, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3pretty sure the FCC is mandating the switch. the cable companies have no choice. it was supposed to be last year but the cable companies got it extended. at some point you have to drop old technology and that is what the FCC is doing. First decent ruling they've made in a long time, if you ask me.
    • gen2ux, on 04/24/2008, -0/+6A simple google will supply you with the answer.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television
      • Spire3660, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5The shorter answer is that analog over the air trasnmission takes up far more of the usuable spectrum of radio wavelengths then over the air digital transmission. The Idea for the switch is to reclaim those frequencies by using more efficient digital TV signal. This frees up the old analog spectrum to be used for other wireless services such as long distance, wall penetrating wireless internet. As an aside, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cable companies, the change over is only for OVER THE AIR transmissions between your set and the transmission tower.
      • rockefeller2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1As my dad says: "Are you one of those computer experts?"
    • ISurfTooMuch, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4Cable converting to digital has nothing to do with government rules. The cable companies are doing it because they can squeeze more digital channels into the bandwidth they have, or, in many cases, they can squeeze the same number of channels into less bandwidth. This lets them free up space for HDTV, Internet access, and VoD.
    • stix213, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1This isn't about cable companies, but about UHF/VHF broadcast TV like everyone watched when your grandpa was finishing up high school. That switch is being mandated by the government because broadcast TV uses their frequencies very inefficiently. The technology is replaced by a digital broadcast and the old frequencies are being freed for cell phone/wifi uses.
  • hokie47, on 04/24/2008, -20/+3Move out the the way you old and poor person you. Really I could careless that your wrinkled ass can't watch Price is Right after this year. Either make some money and buy a HDTV with a digital service plan or roll over and die. Honestly, who still gets TV service over the air?

    /being an ass
  • lisaawesome, on 04/24/2008, -3/+9I'm going to need a converter box but I'm not some completely tech clueless old person. I don't watch a lot of tv so my 6 year old 90 dollar p.o.s. works just fine and upgrading to a newer tv would just be a waste of money.
    • surKaz, on 04/24/2008, -5/+2Really?.. get a newer TV... You might need to, soon.
      there are cheap (and good) TVs if you don't feel like spending a bucket of money on TVs.
      • MellerTime, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5What is your definition of "cheap"? Spending $600 on a TV seems to be the norm, given the available selection I've seen... everywhere. I'm sorry, but I don't see myself doing that to watch 2 shows a week...
        • aaabatteries, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1I got my 19" Insignia HDTV for about $200...
          It's 720p, but really doesn't make too much of a difference at that size.
        • lisaawesome, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Even a cheap TV is gonna run a 100+ dollars. After the government refund for the converter boxes I'm looking at spending 10-15 dollars which is a far cry from the cost of any TV. If my p.o.s. TV lasts as long as my parents' then I'm looking at getting at least another 5-6 years out of it for only 10-15 dollars.
          • surKaz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Good idea... Since most people don't really need to get a new TV.. No need to give an arm and a leg..
        • surKaz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Dang $600 is a lot. Any TVs under $100?. Or you know what, just watch all your shows online.. That's what I've started doing..
      • lisaawesome, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3To me the point is my TV works perfectly well and until it breaks I have no legitimate reason to buy a new one. People buy so much crap they don't need creating mountains of waste, and I am not going to contribute to it. I will buy the converter box and after the gov refund have spent 10-15 dollars (nowhere near the cost of a new TV) and will not have thrown away a perfectly good TV. I also use a ***** massive old CRT monitor that weighs about 50 pounds and guess what? It's uglier than sin but it works, and I will continue using it until it dies a horrible death.
        • fuzzybeard, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Maybe, with the cost of energy continuing to skyrocket, you ought to look into a LCD panel monitor? It ought to pay for itself over the long run in energy savings.
    • fuzzybeard, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3I don't recall the details; but I remember seeing somewhere that there's a federally-subsidized program to help out with the cost of buying a converter box.
      • D14BL0, on 04/24/2008, -5/+1The government is going to issue converter boxes for free, assuming that your cable company doesn't.
        • EtherGnat, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5"The government is going to issue converter boxes for free"

          No they're not. They're issuing $40 rebates (up to two per household) for those that purchase them. Apply here: https://www.dtv2009.gov/

          "assuming that your cable company doesn't."

          They won't. The switch to digital doesn't affect cable company subscribers at all, only those that receive their TV over the air with antennas.
          • D14BL0, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Ah, I was misinformed about the cost.

            At any rate, some cable providers ARE providing free boxes (straight digital, no HD or DVR) for free to existing customers. They're really cheap, so it's not any loss to the company.
          • EtherGnat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Yes, cable companies provide digital boxes but it has NOTHING to do with the Digital Converter boxes we're talking about or the required broadcast conversion to digital. It's just cable companies trying to more effectively manage their own bandwidth, and is a completely separate technology making it totally irrelevant to this discussion
        • fuzzybeard, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Isn't that the purpose of most cable/satellite boxes these days anyway?

          /damn glad I have satellite service
          //shouldn't need another TV for at least 5 more years
  • cwoolf34, on 04/24/2008, -6/+1OMG!!! The sky is falling!
  • druidskeep, on 04/24/2008, -3/+8screw cable and dish! crap programming for the price!
  • BossKey, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5I just bought a widescreen TV and while i am enjoying the picture quality of over-the-air digital TV, the aspect ratio problems from program to program are as annoying as the article says. Fullscreen HD is great (of course), and I can deal with 4:3 HD and old 4:3 programs, but I sure do hate widescreen pre-letterboxed to 4:3.

    There are a couple of posts here asking why the stations don't just broadcast everything in widescreen. Well, that only works if all your original source material is in widescreen. Most of TV history is not.

    As for how many people need a converter box, I know quite a few friends and family who get over-the-air programming on older TVs and they're gonna need them. I did read a great tip the other day; if you're going to buy a DVD recorder (since you'll no longer be able to use your old analog VCR to record shows), just get one with a digital tuner in it.
    • Maxion, on 04/24/2008, -1/+0The doubble-letterboxed 4:3 comes from how the tv-channel sends the program. IF they send a 4:3 signal of a letterboxed 16:9 film it will look *****. That's why tv channels who know their ***** send stuff in widescreen, then have peoples tvs automatically zoom out if it's a 4:3 or do nothing if the set is 16:9.
      • BossKey, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1No, I've watched channels where a program was proper 4:3, a commercial was proper 4:3, the next commercial was letterboxed inside 4:3, and the next commercial was proper 4:3.

        I don't see a lot of stations double-letterboxing, but I do see annoyingly letterboxed content being supplied to stations.
    • EtherGnat, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2"since you'll no longer be able to use your old analog VCR to record shows"

      Not completely true. You can run your converter box through your VCR and then to your TV, but the tuner on the VCR would be useless so scheduling shows to record would be difficult or impossible. Unless your converter box had an auto-tune feature you'd have to pre-set the channel on the converter box and then use the timer on your VCR to set up the recording. Considering how many people can't even figure out how to set the clock on their VCR that would likely be to complicated for them.
      • antdude, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1IIRC, I believe Echostar has the scheduler but that is not coming out until June 2008 or so.
  • spyd3rweb, on 04/24/2008, -9/+23Heres my solution, TURN THE TV OFF.
    • RudeTurnip, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5The next generation will not think of TV as a medium or a way of life. They will think in terms of videos from multiple sources (disc, net, etc.) and monitors to watch them on...some of those monitors being in front of couches.
    • PixelMagic, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4And miss American Idol? Pleaaaseee...
      • mfshockey, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Then how can I watch weekend re-runs of Saved By The Bell?
      • RudeTurnip, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Fox is free to provide an RSS feed of the show, complete with commercials.
  • Maxion, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6Erm so the DTB boxes in the US don't support auto-zooming? We've had that in Finland since the 1990's. Tv shows automatically zoom in or out depending on how they are sent. These days wide screen shows are sent wide screen and normal shows are sent with black boxes in the sides, which are "zoomed out" if you use a normal TV set. Oh, Finland became totally Digital TV in February this year.
    • markp88, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4England may not quite be the technological paradise that is Finland, but all our sets automatically adjust. I don't quite understand why American sets seem not to.
    • designerutah, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4And if you read the posts above, you'll see that the article isn't correct about all boxes. Also, please keep in mind that in terms of infrastructure needed to implement a change like this, Finland is the size of 1 mid-size state. We do have 49 others... some larger, some smaller. But many with several times the population of Finland.

      Finland: Population 5.3 million, Area: 131,000 miles*
      U.S.: Population 300 million, Area: 3,800,000 miles*
      *rounded

    • MellerTime, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3I think the real problem is that, since millions of these things are going to be sold, they've gone from quality to mass-produced crap. If you're willing to fork over some extra cash that the government isn't going to reimburse you for, you can still get a quality converter that will take care of 95% of your zooming problems.
    • theatrus, on 04/24/2008, -0/+7Also, a lot of US stations haven't figure out how to set up their new DTV equipment. Their re-encoding of non HD streams simply gets upconverted to 16:9 with side letterboxing. As far as the TV/converter box is concerned, this is 16:9 content. If their equipment was setup to change the stream format as needed, this wouldn't be a problem.
  • jcastillo81, on 04/24/2008, -2/+12I was not aware the switch was life threatening... Thanks for the heads up.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 04/24/2008, -4/+9I didn't know Digg was now trying to draw in the AARP crowd...
  • Brownds, on 04/24/2008, -9/+2Have a TV built after 1905?
    • rockefeller2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2What?
    • Brownds, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0It was a joke sorry if I made your brain hurt. I am aware there weren't any TVs in 1905. My point is a lot of us own higher end TVs along with cable or a satellite connection so this change won’t affect most of us at all.
  • darknite1979, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Time Warner is actually going to be converting the digital signals they get from the broadcasters to analog that way their customers won't need to concern themselves.... at least until 2012
    • funkyp56, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1time warner sucks!
    • D14BL0, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1No they're not. Don't make things up.
    • EtherGnat, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4All cable providers should be continuing to provide analog service for the foreseeable future.
  • p51d007, on 04/24/2008, -2/+6In other news, with so much CRAP on the tv these days, perhaps it would be better if EVERYONE quit watching TV
  • badassninja, on 04/24/2008, -4/+5OH NO!! I might have to push a button when a new show comes on. Jetsons: "Jane I have been working for a FULL HOUR TODAY, my finger is killing me!"
  • Ismation, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4There are many many of us that don't watch TV often enough to warrant a new TV anytime soon, especially since so much content is online. Why pay for cable when you can either get the podcast or stream it hours later?

    I'll get the converter so my spawn can continue watching Elmo though.
    • DryMaltExtract, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1To use a nice huge TV as your monitor to watch the videos you pirate online on your couch in your living room.
    • ri59, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2My thoughts too. Besides who has time to watch much crap on TV anyway? Just what I need, spend 2 grand so I can watch American Idol *in HD*! There are so many other entertainment options that are cheaper.
  • hollywoodphony, on 04/24/2008, -3/+6You think anyone without the money to pay for cable is gonna have 60 bucks to waste on a converter? They'll just stick to their VHS copies of The Jeff Foxworthy Show.
    • RudeTurnip, on 04/24/2008, -6/+2The government is subsidizing the purchase of converter boxes...yeah, I threw up in my mouth a little, too.
      • EtherGnat, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5The subsidies are being paid for by the sale of the analog TV spectrum. The private companies that bought the spectrum got what they wanted, the government made money and freed up spectrum for emergency use, and people that want to continue accessing TV via antenna (the airwaves are a public resource) aren't being required to shell out a lot of money due to a change they had no part in.

        That sounds like a win-win-win situation to me. What crawled up your ass?
        • Stevo23, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1'What crawled up your ass?'
          Ron Paul
        • Atomic1fire, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You can still use a antenna to access channels
          its just a matter of getting the converter box to access those channels
          and yes the 40 dollar rebate means a 60 dollar box will only cost 20 bucks or so instead of buying a new tv with dtv built in...
          newer tvs have dtv and anolog (as far as I know) so you can still use that new tv to watch the old channels
          Plus some newer channels are out for dtv now...
          The channel in my area carrys retro channel on dtv
          (Dtv can use one channel to carry multiple smaller channels like channel 24 having channel 24-1 channel 24-2 channel 24-3 and pretty much as far as that channels bandwidth will allow so you could have a full weather channel provided by the station plus something like retrochannel and then the main channel)
    • Kronos6948, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5That's why there's the $40 coupon. So, basically it only costs $20. And, I don't have cable, nor do I plan to waste my money on it.
  • eavesdrop, on 04/24/2008, -2/+8I think it's very nasty to force people to switch. It's a money scheme no matter how you cut it. ALOT of Americans still watch air tv. In this economy, no one can afford new tv's or "switch boxes" even with government coupons. If you're on the internet, you're one of the lucky to be able to afford a computer + i-net connection. It's sad the government is going along with this forced switch, alot of politicians had to be greased for this to happen. Even if the cost is "cheap" to switch. It's despicable.
    • rossisdead, on 04/24/2008, -1/+8People have had years to make this upgrade, it's not like they just pulled the rug out from under everyone's feet without telling them. The government shouldn't have to support the 700mhz spectrum anymore for a very very limited amount of people that still watch antenna television. You can't move forward and keep everything the same at the sametime.
    • Kronos6948, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3I'm just hoping that the switch is worth it, i.e., the quality is better. I'm tired of playing with my old rabbit ears to get a half decent picture.
      • videographer, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3This is determined by what is called the "cliff effect."

        If you are inside the "cliff," that is, receive >50% of the signal, the picture will be pristine, unlike any you ever saw on any TV before - OTA, cable OR sat delivered. Unfortunately, if you are on the other side of the "cliff," you will get nothing.
      • antdude, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1I had to get a bowtie antenna since my rabbit ears weren't strong enough. :(
    • eavesdrop, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Rossisdeaad? Very limited people watch antenna tv? You must live in a very nice neighborhood, I congratulate you. A forced switch with the stamp of approval from the government reeks of corruption. The government HAS to support the 700mhz spectrum simply because taxpayers paid for many times over, it doesn't cost very much to support it. But I guess those companies want those 700mhz government subside checks redirected to them.
    • knowitman, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1The switch has been in process for several years, and has even been delayed several times.
    • Atomic1fire, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Nasty?
      this is a good thing...
      A. your taxes are not paying for this big businesses are forking over the bill to go to government dtv coupons.
      B.as I allready said, DTV means multiple channels can be carried by just one channel.
      C. Program info can also be carried over dtv so the converter boxes or the tv can tell you what your watching
  • raceit, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2The big problem is this will effect TVs in every waiting room in the United States. Think about that for a second. Instead of watching reruns of the Cosby show you'll have to talk to the people sitting next to you about how the TV no longer works. Should be interesting.
    • stix213, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Because it will be impossible for those TV's to be replaced right?
      • raceit, on 04/24/2008, -1/+0Missed the funny me thinks.

      • EtherGnat, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Most of them probably have cable anyway, and if they don't they'll just buy a converter box for $10 after rebate.
        • ChildeRoland420, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Waiting rooms don't qualify for the coupon, only households do.
          • EtherGnat, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2I had to look that up, but apparently that's true (so +1 for you). I don't see anything that would stop a business from requesting a coupon, but they do use the word "household" and ask for a home address. Even paying the full $50 for a converter box wouldn't be a huge burden for most businesses though.
  • xanadont, on 04/24/2008, -2/+4TV in dumpster. Done.
  • tmarklund, on 04/24/2008, -2/+0I'm just thinking WTF when I read this article.
    Are you completely serious when you say that 4:3 transmissions are transmitted with black bars on the side??
    I have never seen a digital box in Europe in the last 10 years where you cannot change aspect ratio.
    The transmissions are either in 4:3 or 16:9. After that it is up to the set top box to decide how to show it.
    If you have a 4:3 tv, you can choose letterbox or pan-and-scan for 16:9 programs.
    If you have a 16:9 tv, it is transmitted anamorphic with a WSS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen_signaling ) signal so the TV knows if it is 16:9 or not and can change automatically.
  • funkyp56, on 04/24/2008, -2/+6I am so glad this is giving people problems. I can't wait for the switch to make people call me so I can charge them an unreasonable amount to help them get digital!
  • mobbo, on 04/24/2008, -0/+9February 17, 2009: The day Murder She Wrote, Matlock, Diagnosis Murder, Touched By An Angel, and Walker Texas Ranger re-runs end.
  • D14BL0, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5This article is pretty inaccurate and very non-technical. Take anything said here with a grain of salt.
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2This comment has no evidence of said inaccuracies and non-technicality. Take it with a grain of salt.
  • felix21685, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1get a cable box or satellite dish
  • OffPiste, on 04/24/2008, -9/+3***** Demorats screw EVERYTHING up.
    • videographer, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1It wasn't the Democrats. wasn't the Republicans, either.
      it was the Consumer Electronics Industry that pushed this down our throats. Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, a group of US TV manufacturers, led by the powerhouse Zenith, started pushing for an analog hi-def TV system in the US, at least in part to cement US industries dominance in TV.
      Fast forward to today: We are forced to take DTV, and Zenith is owned by LG, a Korean company.
      This whole transition is was a welfare program for Panasonic, Sony, Harris, and a few dozen other TV station equipment manufacturers. What it delivers to the actual viewer is really negligible, and in many cases can take access to over-the-air TV away altogether.
  • koft, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2I have one of those 37" lcd tvs with a digital tuner in it. I canceled the cable service last month to save money and bought a $30 hd antenna. I get 30 channels and most of them are high def. I'm definitely surviving, hell it's saving me 100 dollars a month.
    • CamZak, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2You spent $30 on a HD antenna? I've been able to get flawless over the air HD signal over the air with just a coaxial cable. Though I'd suggest maybe a $15 antenna tops.
  • Winnar72, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1I'm still trying to survive ***** Charter cables "digital" feed and all its choppy *****. Oh how the future for viewer services departments is mighty mighty bleak...
  • stix213, on 04/24/2008, -11/+1I just learned something. There are still some people who watch broadcast TV like it is 1948 still. Wow....

    Are you the same people who still use rotary phones and read the classifieds in the newspaper? How about your music.... tapes still???
  • leerayIG88, on 04/24/2008, -5/+3I got rid my tv..just a waste of space. I rarely watch tv anyways.
  • JitMaster, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1I installed one for my Dad. Piece of cake, and now he gets more channels and the picture looks great on his 27inch TV.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.