Jan 2009 Deadline for HDTV Cutoff

stlhawkeye writes "Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2009 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts. Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those without subscription television services will see blank screens unless they buy new units. "

Not an HDTV cutoff.

[sweeney37]

this is the cutoff to convert to DTV not HDTV. how is the public supposed to figure it out if even the nerds can't get it right?

Mike

In Italy it will be in 2007!

[incuso]

Not sure but maybe in all Europe. Anyway, I think that date will be postponed

M.

Re:Not an HDTV cutoff.

[crow]

Yes, technically it's the elimination of NTSC broadcasts, with only the new digital ATSC broadcasts. However, at least in Boston, most ATSC broadcasts are in 720p or 1080i only, so they are HDTV (even if they're just upsampled SDTV shows). That's probably true in many places.

So the distinction between DTV, ATSC, and HDTV from a broadcasting perspective is really just a nitpick that can be ignored for all practical purposes.

(Of course, from a television perspective, there's a huge distinction between simply displaying ATSC, and displaying HDTV resolutions.)

We've been covering this...

[agentfive]

Quite heavily at TV Snob.com [tvsnob.com] and boy are people confused on even what to buy - if they can convert their existing sets, or if they even want to continue watching TV - just kidding on that front. I think this is a total disaster for TV - there should be more options for people and legacy is legacy - it should still work somehow.

Digital Television != HDTV

[KillerBob]

High Definition TV != Digital TV. You require a digital framework to provide HDTV, but having a digital framework does not imply HDTV. Sets aren't going dark when it comes into effect, but the quality of signal is going to improve greatly.

Canada has had this in effect for a while. The deadline was January, 2005, and as of this writing, all TV channels are available digitally. Except, of course, some of the channels that come from the US. The difference in signal quality is very noticable when watching one of them. Most of the networks are already digital, BTW.

It's still compatible with OTA transmission, as well as analog cable signals. Old TVs can still see it, because the mandate was not to eliminate analog signals, it was to ensure digital availablility. Those of us who have an HDTV, or a digital/satellite receiver have a digital signal, complete with better sound and picture. Those of us on analog still have analog TV.

Re:Not an HDTV cutoff.

[Chosen Reject]

Except that DTV and HDTV are the same size in terms of radio spectrum. HDTV = High Definition Television, which is done digitally. DTV = Digital Television. So HDTV is a subset of DTV. No one is ever going to be forced to broadcast HDTV. They are being told by the FCC to go digital. That is all. There is no cutoff to switch to HDTV. Some stations are even planning on still broadcasting at low resolutions and thus be able to fit in the same spectrum different shows (it's called multi-casting http://www.pbs.org/opb/crashcourse/digital_v_analo g/multicast.html [pbs.org]). What resolution a broadcaster decides to send their signals in is their choice, but they must do it in digital.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

[theJerk242]

Here is a fun fact: Japan has had HDTV since the early 1980s.

Re:Great...

[MindStalker]

Simple, radio spectrum is valuable and limited. Analog TV uses a lot of radio spectrum. One they get rid of Analog there will be a lot of spectrum available for the government to resell to others. Effectivly the FCC is saying that in 2009 all broadcasters will be revoked their license for existing analog spectrum. It will be resold at a much higher price, and used digitally so many more things can use it. Hopefully much of it will be allotted to the public for things like WiFi, but that is yet to be seen.

Re:Absolutely unncessary!

[Detritus]

ATSC allows the FCC to pack the same number of stations in a smaller broadcast band due to ATSC's superior resistance to interference from transmitters on the same or nearby channels. The channel size remains the same (6 MHz), but the minimum space in between transmitters, both in frequency and geographical distance, is being reduced.

Re:Absolutely unncessary!

[dhaines]

Are they going to sell it at ENORMOUS COST to companies...?

No, they're going to sell it for well below what it's really worth, and those that spearhead the sell-off will reap ENORMOUS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS from big media corps.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

[Detritus]

It's just one data point but my analog reception is marginal due to distance, geography and being limited to an indoor antenna. I get better reception of the digital signals. It isn't perfect, but it's much more watchable than analog. It eliminates all of the snow and ghosts.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"My greatest fear is that I have trouble picking up all the major networks right smack in the middle of Silicon Valley with rabbit ears. There are networks where I can only pick them up as a sideband of another TV station because their main tower's ATSC feed doesn't have enough power to reach here. The NTSC feeds reach me for those stations just fine, albeit with some multipath distortion and/or other noise. Basically, ATSC requires an exceptionally clean signal (at least with my tuner hardware) to be able to resolve a signal."

I've found that ATSC goes considerably *farther* than analog TV with the same power. Here's the problem, though: many ATSC stations are at half or less of their licensed power.

KWGN-DT, for example, is at 1/3 power. I have no problem picking them up with rabbit ears, almost 65 miles away.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

[mwood]

And those decoders may even be available in stores by then. I keep hearing about them but I've never seen one. It always turns out that I have to buy a $3000.00 75-inch screen with my digital tuner, which is about $2750.00 and 50 inches more than I want.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

[frinkster]

Forgive me, I said VHF when I should have said UHF. What you need is a UHF antenna, basically.

Re:Not an HDTV cutoff.

[pthisis]

Even for SD, it's worth the switch from NTSC to ATSC. The improvement in the color resolution is visible, and the digital sound is very good

But it really sucks if you're on the fringes of the broadcast. The place I stay over the summer in Maine, during the day we get a pretty snowy picture and some static in the sound in over analog--but you can still keep track of the ball game, catch the news, etc. With digital, we get a frame popping up every 4-5 seconds and no sound.

At night, both come in clear and the digital picture is nicer.

But I'd gladly give up slightly nicer picture at night for watchable during the day (even if snowy).

Re:Great...

[pla]

I already have the hardware. Now, I am being forced to purchase MORE hardware, against my will.

No, you already have the hardware for something that you simple assumed would continue to exist, for free, forever. Well, that particular free ride has ended. You don't need to get a car, but you do need to switch busses, if you want to keep riding for free.

As for "forcing" you to upgrade - I've heard that one over and over, and it hasn't gotten any more true through repetition. No one needs to switch. It simply amazes me that so many people seem to have this sense of entitlement to watch free analogue television. Guess what? You don't. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the goverment will provide, or force private industry to provide, bread and circuses. Can't get a local DTV signal strong enough, or can't afford to upgrade to cable? Read a book. If an emergency happens, you'll still have a radio.



And, if digital TV is so important to freeing up those RF ranges, why can I walk into a Best Buy today and still buy a pure Analog television?

Because as long as people will still buy them, stores will still sell them. Thus, the need for the FCC to step in and say "enough".


If you'd like a good historical precedent for this change, before modern radio, we had something called "sparkgap", a fairly self-descriptive technology - You make a spark across a gap, key it like a telegraph, and voila, you can receive it a good distance away with mindlessly simple equipment. The problem? It drowns out anything nearby across the entire useful RF spectrum.

With DTV, we have a similar problem - Digital takes a tenth of the bandwidth of analog TV, for incredibly higher quality. It takes much more sophisticated decoding equipment, but in the long run, we'll all benefit as a result.

WTF Mods

[ad0gg]

Why is this modded informative. The poster has no clue. Pick a decoder [pricescan.com]. Terrestrial Receiver/Decoders have been out for at least 4 years.

Re:In the year 2000... (and 9)

[microwave_EE]

A: Yagi antennas are strongly directional. Use the null points in the far-field pattern to reduce the multi-path issue (if this is possible considering the physicalities of the individual situation).
B: Use a smaller yagi...I've seen yagi antennas implemented up to W-band(~100GHz).
and...
C: It was meant to be a joke. I don't expect your average home user to take an antennas course just to figure out how to make an antenna that'll pick up stations they should be able to recieve with set-top bunny-earys. Who in their right mind would put up a VHF yagi-uda antenna in their living room? Not me, my 8-month old son would be using it to pull himself up to stand, and then either bending the antenna elements or de-aiming the thing. No, I'd put it in the attic!

Re:Thank you.

[Breakfast Pants]

Yes the signals are compressed in a lossy way, but that doesn't mean it isn't higher quality. Would you rather look at a 1MB uncompressed bitmap or a .5MB JPEG. I garuntee the JPEG contains a lot more useful information to the human eye.