Analog TV Dies 12/31/08 → The end of TV for me!

This is probably a blessing. It means I will no longer be able to watch any TV at all. Living on a boat, the ONLY TV I can receive is "over the air". No cable available (even IF I were willing to pay for it, which I am not). So, the demise of free over-the-air tv will force many to PAY for cable or SAT. I saw nowhere in the article where a "rebate" would be made available for those forced to go to a Sat dish (A nautical one runs about $5K) Looks like a windfall for the cable companies, and another smack in the head for those of us living on a tight budget! Figures.

Bob

As I understand - this doesn't stop over the air, it just changes it from an analog signal to digital. You'll still have to get a box to decode it, but I think that's what the roughly $1 Billion is earmarked to subsidize.

Assuming we all have one TV, why don't they just send me a check for $3.45.

Hmmmm.... I must have mis-interpreted this statement from the OP's link:I fall into catagory A) and took the statement to mean broadcast TV was going to end altogether.

I was wrong right? Only the method of "on air" transmission will change?

It doesn't seem reasonable, since it's bandwidth which is wanting to be saved, and the re-allocation of radio spectrum to other services. If you are going to broadcast a TV picture over radio waves, you will still require the same bandwidth, whether or not the modulation is analog or digital. The same amount of information has to be sent no matter what the underlying carrier modulation method is.

Now it's been many years since I studied information theory in college, but I don't think the physics has changed. Bandwidth is directly proportional to the amount of information you need to carry; and today, you want to send MORE information .... hdtv, stereo, etc...

Bob

I believe your statement:

"Only the method of "on air" transmission will change"

is precisely on target. As for the bandwidth question, I'm not schooled in the details. However, from what I've read, digital "can" take less bandwidth as there is the potential for compression. The savings in space are dependent on the level of compression, but I think even just stacking the digital 0's and 1's (i.e. using an exponent to represent a series of 0's or 1's) can save a lot of space (like loss-less MP3’s – much less space than a CD). I'm sure that there are others here that can explain this more coherently, but that's how I understand it.

You are also right that with the digital signal, broadcasters are sending a lot more data - and where I live (LA area), this is translating to a much better picture/sound experience.

In the end, you'll still have to either obtain a digital tuner of some sort, or purchase a TV with one in order to decode/receive the digital signal. I guess that's what the Govt. is proposing to help subsidize. I don't know what type of TV you use now, but the hi-def TV's are becoming much more mainstream, and affordable (and from what I'm seeing, the hi-def pic is incredible – but the value in that is subjective). If in the end you go that route, just make sure you get a TV that includes the HD tuner as many sold today do not (basically a monitor - sold as "HD Ready")

Best of luck whichever route you go,

Jack

Fortunately this is not true. With digital transmission you can use data compression to reduce the amount of bandwidth needed. By comparison, analog is tremendously inefficient.

You're right: each digital channel will take the same amount of space as an analog channel, which is a 6-Mhz slice of spectrum. However, that same slice of spectrum when broadcast digitally can carry a high definition picture and/or be broken up into multiple subchannels, both of which aren't possible with analog transmittion. So, it doesn't save bandwidth, it just uses it more efficiently.

The real bandwidth savings comes from the fact that there will be fewer channels after the transition. Right now OTA TV is broadcast on channels 2-69. After the transition, channels 51-69 will be auctioned off for other uses or transferred to public safety radio use. The FCC was also considering auctioning off channels 2-13 because the VHF band isn't as well suited to digital broadcast, but I think at this point they're still planning to use them.

Thanks for the clarification. This all makes sense now. Less OTA bandwidth means more spectrum for other services, and the lost capability will be taken up by cable/sat providers. I think the services migrated over to cable from OTA should be offered free to the public, since it has been forever-free.

I have no objection to this as long as the freed-up bandwidth is used to solve the communications issues faced by first-responders; something which has been neglected now for over 4 years since 911, and needs to be fixed.

I would object strongly if the bandwidth were given to other pay services, like cell phones, wireless, or other "non-essential" services, as that would be transferring "public domain real estate" to corporate profit. As long as it is used for the public good as opposed to corporate profit, I would have no problem. But that is highly unlikely in today's corporate-controlled government we live under.

As for me personally, I will have to wait till nautical TVs adapt to whatever finally falls out of all this. Nautical TVs, have special requirements; environmental (salt air resistance), voltage (12VDC), and antennas (small mast-mounted). I am sure that will be a few years in the offing.

Bob

yes correct, over the air broadcasts can still be digital..

But I don't know how well that would work, instead of getting static when there is a bad signal it would probably just skip like crazy or not work at all.

"...$990 million subsidy provision"

wow...that is money so well spent

They will work great. You either get the signal or you don't. The days of snow will be over.

I'm using the DirectTV HD Tivo box that also does OTA (Over The Air) channels. I find that I use the OTA broadcast network channels more often than the satellite feed because the picture is better (the signal isn't compressed for the OTA and is on the satellite). When the signal is weak, the picture tends to freeze up and pixelate (kind of like a DVD with a scratch). If there isn't enough of a signal, it just doesn't work (black screen). When it does work, it is a pretty nice picture (especially on the HD broadcasts).

Depending on your proximity to the source, I would imagine this could be an advantage over analog (less noise in the picture, better sound, and the potential for HD). I'm about 30 miles away and have to use an OTA antenna to pick up anything. With this solution I'm able to pick up more local broadcasts than I even knew were available (LA market) - and I don't really experience any downtime.

No, you'll actually be able to watch the TV.

One example I did was in Lake Charles after Hurricane Rita hit. Cable is still out over a month later in some places. I showed someone what their CBS channel(about 50 miles) away looked like in analog with all the snow and ghosting. Then I showed them what the CBS channel looked like in digital with 5.1 sound! They offered to buy my digital box right then and there. "I can't even get that on cable!"

The channel was in HD too but they only had a SDTV.

The 8VSB modulation method used by DTV is exceptionally immune to impulse noise, like static.

You can get both signals right now over the air if your local TV stations are broadcasting digital and analog signals. Of course you will need the HD tuner and capable TV to get the HD programming.

Buy a HDTV receiver and you can still receive things over the air.