Releaselog

Last year with analog TV in US, free coupons

In exactly one year (365 days), the world of television will be blacked out forever for viewers with analog sets in the US. Fortunately, however, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration agency is overseeing the $1.5 billion coupon program to subsidize converter-box costs, estimated to run between $40 and $70. The agency announced Friday that it will begin mailing out $40 coupons this week to consumers to help pay for converter boxes that will save their analog sets from becoming obsolete. The process of switching from analog to digital signal is now taking part in most European countries as well.

More than 9,700 stores, including those operated by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Best Buy Co. Inc., Circuit City Stores Inc., Target Corp. and RadioShack Corp., will be selling the special equipment in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Consumers have 90 days to use the coupons, which resemble plastic gift cards, or they expire. Every household, regardless of whether it needs a box, is eligible to receive two coupons. Initially, $990 million will be used to pay for coupons and cover administrative costs, which are capped at $110 million. An additional $510 million could be allocated, but those coupons are reserved for households that only have over-the-air television. Consumers can apply online at dtv2009.gov.

Source: Neowin 

Comments (102)

Feel free to post your Last year with analog TV in US, free coupons torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, megashares, sendspace, megaupload, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
  1. dublitze
    February 18th, 2008 | 19:23

    wow

  2. Dre
    February 18th, 2008 | 19:25

    Hard to believe people still use rabbit ear connections.

  3. February 18th, 2008 | 19:26

    Complete digital conversion has already happened where I live ^^

  4. smaugthewyrm
    February 18th, 2008 | 19:28

    i wonder what the freed-up air bandwidth will be used for.
    as the government is insisting on a complete end to air based TV transmission, one must believe that an alternate use is planned to begin when television use ends.

    for those who are able, it will be interesting to monitor what kind of data appears when tv signals disappear.

  5. ehime
    February 18th, 2008 | 19:31

    about flippin time….
    and technology marches forward!

  6. TheFilmBuff
    February 18th, 2008 | 19:35

    seriously if you can’t afford an HDTV you should not be watching TV anyways… you should pick up more hours at work or get a second job because you can get a HDTV for a very reasonable price and decent size as well theres no reason to keep the 4:3 aspect ratio around it’s gross and outdated…

  7. Freakaloin
    February 18th, 2008 | 19:44

    lol the govt subsidizing for conversion boxes to make sure the masses continue to be controlled by their televisions. cut the school lunch and welfare programs…pay for ppl to keep their teevee’s…lol…

  8. BigMattyKane
    February 18th, 2008 | 19:46

    My brother actually doesn’t believe me when I tell him this,he thinks it wont happen.I’m the only one of my family with an HDTV and I cant stand watching their TVs now,everything looks so distorted and dull.

  9. Stock up now!
    February 18th, 2008 | 19:49

    You also have to remember that just because all those older TV’s won’t have signals to receive anymore doesn’t mean they’re just big paperweights. They can still be used as secondary units hooked up to VCR’s, DVD players, and game machines. Not to mention the blowout prices at retailers during the next several months. I’ve already seen two local chains clearing out new-in-the-box TV’s (including big screen sets) for about 25% of the normal selling price.

  10. Jonny
    February 18th, 2008 | 19:58

    Love this.

    “Feel free to post your Last year with analog TV in US, free coupons torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, Rapidshare, crack, serial, requirements or whatever-related comments here.”

  11. gavrielle
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:00

    @TheFilmBuff,

    The disabled and the poor elderly cannot “pick up” more hours at work. Many do not have families to help them with purchasing a new TV or even the means to get to a store to buy one and get it home if they can afford the purchase. Do they not have the right to watch television? Or are they so old or sick that you think “Seriously, if you can’t be young and healthy you should not be among the living anyways!”

  12. BigMattyKane
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:03

    LOL@ gavrielle – well said.

  13. ID10T
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:05

    @ 6 TheFilmTool

    Possibly the most r*tarded comment I’ve read for a while. Thanks for being stupid, it made me smile.

    HDTV does kind of rule but not everybody can afford it…. Or find a job at all.

  14. blahdeblah
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:08

    @FilmBuff

    For a film buff you don’t seem to know that much about TV. The conversion is not analogue to HDTV, the conversion is analogue to digital television. So you DO NOT need to have an HDTV to receive signals after the switchover.

  15. hobomobo
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:08

    keep in mind this is just for over the air *free* tv that you get with rabbit ears.

    Many cable companies will continue to put out an analog signal after the cut-off date. Hopefully somebody will crack a digital tuner for MythTV before all the analog signals are gone.

  16. knowledge
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:09

    hdtv has nothng to do with the switchover..most tv’s can receive the digital signal already..your tv doesnt have to be hd to receive it

  17. discojoe
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:09

    I’m confused. My parents have an old TV, but with digital cable. Why won’t they be able to use their old TV if they have digital cable service?

  18. TanOsaurus
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:10

    What a camplete waste of American tax dollars… I suppose the boxes will come from China as well. Just how much more debt to China do we need?

  19. Roflcer of the Lawl
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:11

    MY GRANDPA IS SO PIST OFF AT THIS. IT’S GOING TO BE WW2 ALL OVER AGAIN!

  20. eitanois
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:25

    @20 – discojoe

    Your Parents don’t need then.

  21. nice gov't in usa
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:26

    obviously the american govt does not hate the people like in europe where people must PAY to receive tv – from the government ( i think michael moore’s show had a bit about that, long ago, someone in – am not sure now – in england was put in prison, same cell with a murderer, for not having paid her bills to watch )

  22. eitanois
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:28

    Still 8 years in my country to this happens. =D

    By then the world will no longer exists anyway.

  23. Notn4
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:31

    WTF! u would think that us does this change fisrt but actually we in Finland will have to move from analog to digital already next week or something

  24. name.
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:38

    Finally THE end of crappy dsr rips?

  25. JJLONGDONG
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:43

    Anyone know who is gonna be making the converter boxes? What contracts do they have out?

  26. Nottach
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:43

    The gov’t plans to auction off the newly freed air-waves. The revenue from these auctions will more than cover the price of these boxes.

    “The Federal Communications Commission began the switch many years ago to free up a large chunk of U.S. airwaves, which the government is in the process of auctioning off, a process that will net billions of dollars for public coffers. Making all UHF broadcast spectrum above channel 52 available will allow for powerful new wireless services, and possibly for a new network for public safety officials to use during disasters.”
    -source (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyGXXrrCMCMoD-f9t5TPPFSH0CeQD8URJUTG0)

  27. Jaxter
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:44

    Well im from England, and we’ve had digital boxes here for ages (it allows more channels than standard TV, without a subscription.) They only cost around £20, which is about $40. We’ve known in the UK that analog we’ll soon cease to exist, so have you in the US not had digial at all?

  28. eitanois
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:46

    @28 – name

    Not Really, cable channel will still be the same.

  29. MelC
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:48

    lol at all the mongs confusing HDTV, SDTV, analogue, digital, 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratio’s.

    You can still have a 4:3 digital broadcast, digital is still SD as well as HD.

  30. Nottach
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:55

    @33 – You’re correct. Good point.

    Everyone else, go read an article NOT on RlsLog before giving your two cents. I suggest NY Times, or maybe AP. No offense to RlsLog but I only get my news from respected news outlets, I get my cue to the news from RlsLog. So thanks for that.

  31. extra
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:58

    @nice gov’t in usa

    That is not true. People in Europe are not forced by their governments to pay for television.

  32. Tony
    February 18th, 2008 | 20:59

    @MelC

    What does this word mean in your comment: “mongs”?

  33. Nottach
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:03

    I think it’s short for mongrels.
    * “Mongrel” is a derogatory epithet in Australia. It is generally used to refer to an ill-bred man, a man of poor manners or morals.

  34. Winston
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:13

    @extra

    What are you talking about? Here in merry ole England, we could wind up imprisoned in the Queen’s dungeon if we refuse to pay our TV license fee.

    You don’t understand how heavily we are taxed under her, you people should enjoy the freedom of your commercial TV.

  35. hikaricore
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:20

    hobomobo: my digital tuner works just fine with MythTV, search around a bit there are several good ones.

  36. Steven
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:24

    actually this mandate was supposed to be done in 2007, but was delayed by congress because they wanted to give more time for the switch over.

  37. trE
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:26

    More than half of the posts in here are utter garbage. Many of you don’t know the first thing about what is happening in Feb 2009. If you have Directv or cable, this does not affect you at all. Secondly, rabbit ears are still needed. With HDTV being sent out OTA, there is no end in side for rabbit ears.

  38. bello
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:30

    @27 Notn4: Congrats :)
    In Sweden the transition to digital-TV was made in 5 steps. Starting in 2005 and the last analogue transmitter was turned off in October last year. Can’t say life has been that much better since though.

  39. nice gov't in usa
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:31

    @35

    “That is not true. People in Europe are not forced by their governments to pay for television.”
    Where is freedom then?

    Which country does not force people to pay?
    All the big ones do and most of the small ones as well as far as I know.

  40. Jeremy
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:32

    @trE

    In an attempt to clean up some of the utter garbage in the comments, let us start with yours.

    You meant to use the phrase “no end in sight” but instead, chose to create a phrase that means absolutely nothing, “no end in side”.

    In the future, try to pay attention to what you are typing.

  41. extra
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:35

    @nice gov’t in usa

    I just thought it was an impossible thought that a government could force its people to pay for television, and that you were making a joke.

    Is that true that in Europe, the people are forced by their governments to pay for television? And if so, how much??

  42. prestige
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:36

    now all you need is Dreambox digital tuner, hook it up to a cardserver and view all the pay-per-view channels for free.

    (you can buy dreambox tuners for cable, satellite & terrestial)

  43. pRs
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:45

    ” Complete digital conversion has already happened where I live ^^ ”

    Sweeeeden bäby’

  44. h0
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:48

    When this happens in my country it will be the year 3000 LOL
    :) )

  45. brennen
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:53

    @pRs

    That is easy to do when you only have 10 million people in about 3 million homes to deal with.

    Sweden = Tiny country

  46. pRs
    February 18th, 2008 | 21:54

    @45 .. here in sweden anyone who owns a TV (don’t matter if it’s for your console or dvd or you don’t watch tv) has to pay a fee every three months I believe..around 300-500kr ~50-80$ ..im not sure on the exact price since I don’t pay :P they don’t really check house by house, but if they were to come and check, you simply answer I have no tv, and you don’t let them in if they ask to come in.. hehe they may try to trick you at times too, with a phone call or some sneaky kind of way.

    We get around 14 channels which air pretty much everything.
    The shows don’t appear as fast as the US (since they gotta get translated first, but we get a fair amount of entertainment from the channels. Several movies shown daily.)

    ……….

  47. nice gov't in usa
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:05

    So extra figured it out now. There really was a michael moore show about that (alas I do not remember the year, tv nation might have been the name of the show)

    “check house by house”,

    My Swedish friend got checked. Told me so. He told was drunk and thought was some friend, opened door, let in, had to pay.

    Maybe you live in a house that has such a doorbell you need a key to get in in the frontdoor?

    Apparently in the Uk they got cars with antennas so they can pinpoint where someone is receiving airial tv.

  48. bobb
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:10

    “lol the govt subsidizing for conversion boxes to make sure the masses continue to be controlled by their televisions. cut the school lunch and welfare programs…pay for ppl to keep their teevee’s…lol…”

    Exactly! There Govt can send billions on making sure they have access to TV but could’nt spend a cent to switch to the Metric system.

  49. lipponen
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:12

    Whoa… US is late…

  50. Larry
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:14

    @bobb

    We tried the metric system, but no one in our country liked saying “kilometers per hour” or thinking that 50 degrees was a hot day.

    Although we did like the idea of “2 liter” soda bottles.

  51. Bubba
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:15

    @lipponen

    Whoa…Sweden is small…

  52. FiXXeD
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:28

    WOW the UK Gov wood never subsidise all us the cost of digital set tops…

    But thinking now, the BBC has been told to scrap the TV Licence fee by 2013, subsidising sounds a good way to keep their wallets full and an excuse to continue a licence fee just to save Gov money….

  53. Denny Crane
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:32

    @FiXXeD

    The UK government gives you people free healthcare…here in the US, we are lucky to get a $40 cable box out of our government!

    Of course, we don’t give half of our salary to taxes either, but that is another story.

  54. FiXXeD
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:35

    We all win and lose on the swings and roundabouts…

  55. Denny Crane
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:40

    @FiXXeD

    I don’t know what swings or roundabouts are.

  56. rrpostal
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:55

    Man (random country) really sucks! What a bunch of idiots! They should be more like (random country) because our doorknobs turn to the left and we get underwear allowances and free sutures wednesdays! Oh yeah, they count our TVs also.

    Joking aside, I think people in the US would be more upset about people coming in to our homes and charging us per TV than we are about things like war and famine. We’d revolt. Plus I never throw anything away, I have four monitors and three TVs in a one bed flat.

  57. lanemeyer
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:58

    @ 53 free healthcare? so the national insurance that comes out my paypacket every month goes too?

    we are having analogue switched off here in the uk in 2011 or something..
    basically so the government can make billions of £££

    I only recieve the 5 analogue channels (but channel 5 doesnt work)
    whats the point in paying for stuff that can be downloaded or watched online (sport/films etc)
    The real catch here though is that apart from a £20/$40 digibox to watch “normal” tv theres a 90% chance your existing aerial wont work with the new digibox, so youll pick nothing up.
    a new digital aerial???? only about £100+ & then youll need new aerial points for where every tv is & also extra digibox’s if your teenage kids have tv’s…

    the aerial companies are loving it..and i cant wait till it all kicks in and people stop paying their license fees cos they cant recieve anything.

  58. EJfromSA
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:00

    Look to understand what is going on, Digital (higher bandwidth) is replacing non digital (low bandwidth) broadcast. The older TV’s with just plan old rabbit ears could pickup the lower bandwidth broadcast. Digital on the other hand is in a higher bandwidth and older TV’s do not have the ability to tune into the higher bands. So a digital box is used to tune into those higher bands. All TV’s need an antenna in order to pickup the bandwidths. This bigger the antenna the better.

    AT THE SAME time, companies now have more bandwidth to play with, so they are pushing out more data AKA HD. Older TV’s with the help of the digital box can view the HD, but in a lower resolution (the box adjust the resolution accordingly to 420). The newer TV’s that can handle HD, the box will adjust according to that TV’s abilites. So the box will help the TV deal with the HD signal that it is receiving. HDTV with a HD tuner (AKA the box) will not need the box hence the tuner part. Just plug a HD antenna to it and have the TV scan for any signals and it will find it. Course that is limited to the location and amount of towers in your area. Otherwise you will need to go through your local cable co. to receive more channels than the local free to air broadcast of HD.

    Just my two cents to clear things up.

  59. Denny Crane
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:13

    @EJfromSA

    That certainly didn’t clear things up, that only confused me more. :(

  60. Incredible
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:23

    @EJfromSA

    Just wanted to point out a few problems with your summary.

    First, the idea that current analog TV’s can’t “pickup lower bandwidth broadcast” is wrong. Digital broadcasts will use some of the same frequencies currently in use for analog channels. All digital channels will remain at 6MHz. The current TVs can not convert digital signals to analog, so people need tuners that can convert these signals.

    Second, you don’t understand how to use the acronym “aka” correctly. It stands for “also known as”, and in none of the instances you used it, was it used correctly.

    Third, the lower resolution you indicate as 420 should be 480i.

    Fourth, there is no such thing as an “HD antenna”. An antenna is either capable of receivng a signal, or it is not. Rabbit-ear antennas will receive digital signals.

  61. captainkremmen
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:26

    OK, there’s a lot of confusion here so lets try and explain things in plain English.

    Digital Terrestrial TV (or DTT) is simply a way of transmitting digital TV signals via the airwaves. They are transmitted using UHF (or VHF in some countries/areas)in the same way as current analogue transmissions are. However, DTT signals are highly compressed meaning that many more channels can be transmitted on a single frequency than the single channel currently broadcast via analogue. This single frequency is called a MUX in digital land. The number of channels carried in a single MUX depends on the compression applied and the video standard used. Here in the UK we used MPEG2, similar to that used on DVDs. Some countries use MPEG4 of some description because the compression is better (being a newer standard).

    Normal TVs have no way of understanding the MPEG2 (or4) signals it receives so would not display a picture. To get a picture a converter box is required, this converts the MPEG2 signals into normal video signals via the standard video inputs on your TV. In the UK we generally refer to these as Digital Set Top Boxes (STBs for short). They have been around for a while here now and can be picked up for as little as 10UKP (roughly 19-20 dollars). They connect normally via a SCART cable. A scart cable is a special connecter that can combine s-video, composite video or even a higher quality RGB video signals all carried through the one connector together with audio and some other signals (automatically switch TV to widescreen for example). When you want to watch digital TV you simply select the appropriate video input on your TV. Channel changing is handled by the set top box not your TV.

    DTT in the UK is generally known as Freeview and we have around 35-40 TV channels along with 20 or so radio stations. The channels are still in standard definition, so provided your current TV has the appropriate video connection sockets, a high definition TV is not required to watch digital TV.

    The number of channels you receive depends on how many of these MUXs there are, and how much compression the broadcaster applies to their channels. The more compression used the more likely it is to affect picture quality but the more channels can be squeezed into one MUX. Higher compression can produce artefacts such as picture breaking up into hundreds of small squares (commonly seen in scenes featuring lots of water) . Here in the UK I think the normal standard is 8 channels per MUX (I may be wrong). This gives a decent compromise between the number of channels and picture quality. Some Muxs have higher compression, resulting in more channels but on larger TVs there is definately a visible difference in picture quality. The BBC has less channels per MUX so the picture quality on BBC channels is generally accepted to be higher quality. On those channels that are more highly compressed picture quality can improve as compression standards get better over time.

    Our Freeview boxes cannot handle High Definition as this uses a different compression standard based on MPEG4. As our current boxes do not support MPEG4 we wouldn’t see anything on High Definition frequencies. When High Def is launched via Freeview in the UK we will need to buy new set top boxes to take advantage of the improvements.

    It is likely you have high def in the US via DTT already. The broadcasters at present send out standard definition channels and high definition versions too. Even though your STB will support or receive high def channels they wont be able to be seen if you have an ordinary TV. However, you will still be able to watch the standard definition (normal) channels you will just have more choice that you currently do. So, don’t panic. It does not mean the end of your current TVs. It just means when you eventually can afford that nice shiny new HD TV you can still use the same set top box and watch the new high def channels(unlike us in the UK).

    If you receive your TV via cable or satellite you will not need to buy a digital terrestrial converter box. Your cable or satellite company will have, or more likely already does have, a digital TV package and will rent the required equipment to you as part of your digital TV package if you upgrade. In the US the FCC has the power to set a switch off time for analogue via terrestrial which they have just done. This means you WILL need to buy a DTT converter before the cut off date if you currently DO NOT have cable or satellite and receive your current TV via an arial or antenna. If you do not then, no more TV.

    The downside is that each TV will require their own converter box so it could get expensive if you have lots of TVs. Also, because a converter box can only output one channel at a time, your VCR will require it’s own converter too if you still want to watch one channel while recording another. In the UK and Europe we can buy special converter boxes which have a built in hard disc and two digital tuners. This means we can record one channel to the hard disc and watch a second via our TV in the same way as your old VCR. It is highly likely these will already be available in the US.

    However, the FCC has only set a cut off date for analogue via your antenna, not for satellite or cable. So if you currently get your TV that way, check with your cable or satellite company to see if they plan to turn off their older analogue cable signal and when. If so, you will need to upgrade to their digital TV package by that date.

    So, a summery:

    Digital terrestrial TV does NOT mean you need a new TV.
    You will need to buy a DTT converter box to see the new channels on your current TV.
    You will need a seperate DTT converter box for each TV, and possibly each VCR too.

    The upside is much more choice instead of the low number of channels you currently receive via analogue terrestrial.

    I hope that helps those that dont understand digital.

  62. Jumble Weed
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:33

    @ Lanemeyer

    It’s free at the point of delivery, meaning if you need to see your doc because you have headache, a paper cut or even if you need a heart transplant, they wouldn’t charge you to do it – if you are on the dole and don’t work, you *effectively don’t pay any NI, and your healthcare is free. This is how it should be for a country to call itself civilised/western/christian. Its a good thing. Fact.

    *although a deduction is made from your cheque, but thats just a play on the numbers

  63. Jeremy
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:34

    @captainkremmen

    C’mon, you have to be kidding. How am I gonna read all of that?

    How about a small synopsis?

  64. mrquiteaguy
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:36

    Does anyone find old console games look blocky on LCD Tvs compared to CRT Tvs?.

  65. gavrielle
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:39

    “There Govt can send billions on making sure they have access to TV but could’nt spend a cent to switch to the Metric system.”

    Back in the 70s we did spend billions, we even had government offices in every major city to help with the change. We converted all the road signs to show dual miles and kilometers, every bottle, can and container was also dual labeled. Daily temperatures were given in Celsius and Fahrenheit on the news and in the papers. Even household thermometers and measuring cups were changed. We were told the whole world had gone Metric and we needed to go Metric as well. And the American people said: “So?”

    About 15 years ago I read an article that said after spending billions on this 20 year nation wide effort the offices for Metric Change had been reduced to one man in a cubicle in Washington DC whose job was to be phased out at the end of that year.

  66. Jeremy
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:39

    @Jumble Weed

    Here in the US, we are not forced to pay for government subsidized health care, but we have the choice to pay for any health care we would like to. That is true civilized democracy.

    And we have even taken measure to provide for awnior citizens and those that won’t work, by offering them free medical care through government programs called Medicare and Medicaid.

  67. penelope widmore
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:40

    @mrquiteaguy

    Do you mean like an Atari 2600?

  68. Verde
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:44

    @gavrielle

    Totally agree, why do the Europeans think that everyone needs to follow their system of measurments? We gave it a shot in the US, but no one liked it and most thought the results weren’t worth the effort it was taking to convert.

    Using miles and feet and pounds and ounces and fahrenheit degrees is just fine with the people in the US. The only “kilos” we encounter here are blocks of cocaine.

  69. captainkremmen
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:47

    I should also have pointed out that many converter boxes capable of receiving high definition channels will convert the high def channel into a standard definition one your current TV can handle. The channel will be normal quality this way and not high definition.

    And yes, we in the UK do have to pay a license fee to watch broadcast TV. The money goes to the BBC because the BBC channels here in the UK don’t have adverts (it has to be paid for somehow). It does not matter if you never watch any of the BBC channels, you must still pay the license fee. You pay a single fee, per household, regardless of the number of people living there or how many TVs you have. Those who live in flats (apartments) still have to pay a license fee for each individual flat. You DO NOT have to pay a licensee fee if your single TV is not connected to an arial (antenna) and cannot receive broadcast TV (use it just for watching DVDs or playing games for example) and you don’t own a DTT set top box or subscribe to any cable or satellite package (nor indeed, do own any equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV via any means). You even need a TV license in the UK if you receive live TV channels via your computer, mobile phone or anything else that can receive live broadcast TV.

  70. EJfromSA
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:51

    @Denny Crane

    Ok less technical version. Older TV only tune to channels 01 – 120….Newer HDTV’s with built in HD Tuners can tune to channels 01 – 9999. OK since US Gov wants all the country to go digital, they don’t want us to all have to pay for upgrading our TV’s. Older TV’s do not tune to those higher channels so the resoultion, give them a box that can tune from 01 – 9999. The box is needed for the older TV’s in order for the to go beyond the 120 channel number.

    The box resolves the issue of tuning to the higher channel numbers. So older TV’s that can not tune to the higher channels use the box to get those channels. Newer TV’s (specifically ones that state that it has an HDTuner inside) do not need the box. So if you bought a TV just recently, check to see if that TV has a Built in HDTuner, if it does, no box is needed. if not (HD READY TV’s do not have the box built in) then you need the box.

    Once you resolve the issue of the box, then all you need is the special antenna (HD antenna cost about $20 US) to get the signals. Local companies broadcast from local towers and the antenna will pickup the signal, the box (or built in Box on the HDTV) will decode the signal and you get the broadcast.

    Ok so why is US Gov paying for it… they want to help the people who can not afford the cost of a new TV (with the built in HDTuner) or for the people who just bought a TV in the past 3 to 5 years ago (that is HD ready, no tuner) and do not want to replace it. So they are giving out coupons so that people can buy the box for the older TV’s or Newer TV’s without the HD Tuner Built in, hence it will not cost the consumer anything to convert over. Well actually to get it over the air (aka OTA) you do have to buy the special antenna.

    Lets see if that clears it up

  71. eskimo pie
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:51

    @captainkremmen

    How much is this license fee, and why does the government collect it instead of the BBC just charging subscriptions to their viewers?

  72. smaugthewyrm
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:01

    captainkremmen will have to be taxed for each line in his posts. !!! LOL

  73. EJfromSA
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:01

    @incredible

    Hey, your right, I was just using to give it a name association instead of using the quote on quote. Next time I will be more careful for the people that care about using AKA or ETC… or any other abbreviations, acronyms. Anyway, I was trying to keep it simple for the simple folk.

  74. gavrielle
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:10

    @Verde

    As I recall the justification for this “voluntary” change over touted by politicians was that it would be beneficial to Americans traveling overseas. Especially if you were buying something like a carpet and wondering if it would fit in your standard 9×12 room. Seriously!

    Since the vast majority of Americans think seeing something of our 50 states and the American hemisphere (including Canada and South America) first is more important than visiting Europe (the most popular destination at the time) this kind of reasoning only appealed to a small number of individuals.

    By 1979 the politicians were reading headlines such as the New York Times: Polls indicate increasing public disapproval of the metric system. It wasn’t the government that opposed the change over, it was the people. And it’s awfully hard to argue with 200 million citizens who can’t be bothered to help you figure out how to carpet your living room!

  75. EJfromSA
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:12

    @incredible

    1. People he’s right about the Lower bandwith part too, if you want a tech explanation, basically HD is compression. If you know anything about compression, Mpeg thru MPeg4 are compression formats and the HD is using Mpeg4 to be able to shove a whole lot more data at us. So Older TV’s do not understand that compression, newer TV’s do.
    2. I answer previously.
    3. typo, forgive me I did not mean to upset you when I typed 420 instead of 480. I/P- come on Interlanced vs progressive is how the TV “paints the picture”, it has nothing to do with lines of resoulution.
    4. You are also correct, sorry.

  76. eskimo pie
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:18

    @gavrielle

    I can’t believe that the US government spent billions to attempt to change the system of measurements they use simply to accomodate some worldly shoppers with their floor coverings.

    There must be more to the story.

  77. GFire
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:29

    In Sweden it already has been done.
    Half Bad Digital Signal….and if you are a caper don’t
    expect better quality images…as slightest movement will
    F* up your caps even with filter if you get the same half bad
    Digital signal as we have here.

  78. JollyRoger
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:30

    how are the bums gonna watch tv now?

  79. Jumble Weed
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:33

    @ Jeremy

    Can I ask if you in the US are ‘forced to pay for a government subsidized’ fire brigade? Police force? School system? Take a look around the world at countries that don’t ‘force’ their people to pay for such things and ask yourself how you rate those countries? They are things that are foundamental to a civil society, as is free healthcare for all.

    Generally, we in Britain look to the US to see how you run the things we are failing to run effectively over here. We don’t look the the EU as much for such things. But, even with the failings we have in the NHS, we never, ever look to the US for ideas on how to solve our healthcare needs – such is the staggeringly obvious failing in the us system to those who are prepared to look. No country in the Western world looks to the US for ideas on how to improve their healthcare provisions. France? No. Germany? No. Italy? No. Now ask yourself why that might be? Can so many otherwise intelligent countries have gotten it so wrong…

  80. dan
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:36

    You are right, more then 90% of the posts here ARE garbage as the posters have their heads up their arses and have NO idea what the hell they are talking about!

    1. In England, you pay a tax to the BBC to have a “telly” and even if you dont have one, you STILL pay a tax for it. And that tax is Yearly! So any arsehole that says you in England are not taxed for your TV is a complete and utter moron who would not know where to find his head with both hands-a roadmap and a flashlight in a dark room!

    2. Only two companies have the authority from Homeland Security to make these HD boxes. Do a search and you will easily find them. I did and bought stock in them two years ago and am going to make out like a bandit on that decision as my stock in them has already split three times. For you that do not know what this means, I purchased one share and if it split three times, it is now 9 shares for the cost of 1 share. If I were to sell these I would be able to sell 9 shares and not one share. When I ourchased stock in these companies, I purchased 500 shares in each one. You do the math. And yes these are AMERICAN made as they have to be made in the US.

    3. People who cannot afford a new box because of being low income, will be GIVEN the box. All they have to do is prove they qualify for it. Hence Senior Citizens and the disabled need not worry.

    4. A digtal tuner WILL NOT WORK. If you think for one second that your digital tuner will work on the new signals, you are out of your freaking mind! Just because you have a digital tuner, does NOT mean that your TV is HD compatable. I can show you hundreds of different sets that have digital tuners, but are NOT HD compliant, digital tuners have been out since 1999, HD compliant TV’s are only about 2 years old. Rule of thumb, if your TV is less then 2 years old, you are pretty much safe as it is a 99.9% chance it already is HD compliant. If it is more then 2 years old, then guess who is going to need a box if they dont already have Sat or Cable?

    5. “now all you need is Dreambox digital tuner, hook it up to a cardserver and view all the pay-per-view channels for free.(you can buy dreambox tuners for cable, satellite & terrestial)” And what do you do when they send a signal through to check and see what channels you have, and if you are getting channels and not paying for them, you not only get your box wiped, but you now pay a fine of up to $250,000.00 and go to prison for 5 to 10 years. It has happened with people that work at the local GM plant less then 2 miles from where I live.

    6. Denny Crane
    February 18th, 2008 | 22:32
    @FiXXeD

    The UK government gives you people free healthcare…here in the US, we are lucky to get a $40 cable box out of our government! Of course, we don’t give half of our salary to taxes either, but that is another story.
    ———-
    IDIOT! There is NO such thing as free health care. The people in England get taxed for it and they take it out of the pay just like they take out taxes in your US paystubs. Same thing in Canada. Free health care? I bet you believe in little green men and the Easter Bunny as well.

    7. Incredible
    February 18th, 2008 | 23:23
    @EJfromSA

    Just wanted to point out a few problems with your summary.

    First, the idea that current analog TV’s can’t “pickup lower bandwidth broadcast” is wrong. Digital broadcasts will use some of the same frequencies currently in use for analog channels. All digital channels will remain at 6MHz. The current TVs can not convert digital signals to analog, so people need tuners that can convert these signals.

    Second, you don’t understand how to use the acronym “aka” correctly. It stands for “also known as”, and in none of the instances you used it, was it used correctly.

    Third, the lower resolution you indicate as 420 should be 480i.

    Fourth, there is no such thing as an “HD antenna”. An antenna is either capable of receivng a signal, or it is not. Rabbit-ear antennas will receive digital signals.
    ————
    Know what you are talking about BEFORE you start speaking please. The signals that are HD will NOT be able to be picked up by a regular antenna, that is unless you wish to call the FCC liars. The HD signals are going to be at a higher frequency then most of the antenna’s can receive, mainly in the GHZ range. Well over 98% of the antennas in use today do NOT have the ability to pick up signals anywhere near that. And as for the channel frequencies already in use now? Please tell me just what the hell they are doing this for if they are going to still be using the same signals on the same frequencies that they are going to auction off to the highest bidder. Do you REALLY think for one second that a person buying this frequency is going to allow the US Government to continue to use it? What the hell are you smoking???

    My source for the HD TV info comes directly from the FCC. Since they are the ones that made this decision, I will bow to their statments so please excuse me if the majority of the posts here are nothing but bulls%$t!

  81. gavrielle
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:36

    @eskimo pie

    I’m sure there were. But that was one of the silliest I remember hearing at the time and it stuck with me. Another theory was that it would help businesses more easily sell products overseas. Unfortunately, most American businesses still believe they need to crack the American market coast to coast first before even considering Europe, so that didn’t convince anyone who wasn’t already running a major corporation that did business overseas.

    Ultimately, whatever the reason, the metric system was seen as both an imposition and an annoyance that would have little or no impact in real terms on the average American.

  82. Jumble Weed
    February 19th, 2008 | 00:41

    @gavrielle

    It probably had more to do with exporting goods manufactured in the US to the rest of the world, than to do with the size of carpets – that was probably just a miscalculated attempt to relate the issue to the america public.

    Metric also helps in the understanding of science and engineering – although it has to be said, leaving the public unable to reconise a metre, hasn’t exactly slowed down US scienctists/doctors/professors from realising their potential and learning two (yes, TWO!) different types of measurements

  83. mrquiteaguy
    February 19th, 2008 | 01:00

    &67 penelope widmore
    lol,No,i am talking about the PSX,N64,Saturn and older.
    When i had a CRT tv they looked fine,on my LCD Tv,awful.
    Perhaps HD is too HD for them.
    I think that is the downside of a HD set.

  84. eSKo-
    February 19th, 2008 | 01:15

    I work for a popular cable company that gives service to alot i mean alot of households in the US as a Customer Account Executive thats nothing more than customer service and to me its pretty funny how people are controled by TV, well thats the funny part i mean i get lots of calls and questions about this “switch” they’re all freaking out and stuff pretty much eldery people are freaking out and well the mid-age guys are just calling to inquiry about how is it going to be done and stuff like that to me its a good change from my point of view and switching to digital doesnt mean were gonna have HD signal its just that i as read on some correct comments is that the gov what is trying to do is get the airwave signals out now every signal must come from a fiber line to your pole to the tap of your house and then to your digital boxes its nothing big i mean almost everyone has digital signal already if you have cable systems they dont just realize it anyways i was waiting for this post a long time ago i was informed about this like 6 months ago or maybe even way back cant remember

  85. Fitz
    February 19th, 2008 | 01:34

    @84 eSKo-

    You should kill yourself. Without question asked

  86. captainkremmen
    February 19th, 2008 | 01:50

    @eskimo pie

    Current license is 135 UK pounds per year.

    BBC used to collect it themselves but collection was one of the few areas privatised so it is a private company that collects it on their behalf. Government keeps a fairly close eye on the purse strings though because of the BBCs public service broadcast requirements. Problem is you can be arrested, fined and even jailed for not paying for a license. The company that collects the fee even has the cheek to read you your rights on your doorstep if they catch you without a license, don’t know of any other private company that can do that.

  87. enigma
    February 19th, 2008 | 01:56

    There is a lot of misinformation here. My 2001 HDTV has a digital (ATSC) tuner and I get about 30 channels, over the air, digitally, with rabbit ears. Some are HD, some are SD, but all are digital and crystal clear. (it also has ntsc tuner but I dont watch those channels anymore cuz there’s digital equivilents, go to antennaweb.org to check your area). You dont need a special antenna, all of my channels are UHF and one is VHF. They’re just taking back some of the upper UHF channels, something like channels 50-69 or something… So if you have an analog (NTSC) tuner only, and watch tv over the air, then you’ll need this box, you plug your antenna into it, and then hook it up to your tv. Go read wikipedia or something.

  88. Dan needs anger management
    February 19th, 2008 | 03:31

    @80

    I got something you can bow to. :P

  89. I Hope Your HDTV Shorts Out & Burns Your House Down
    February 19th, 2008 | 03:42

    @#6 TheFilmTard– “seriously if you can’t afford an HDTV you should not be watching TV anyways… you should pick up more hours at work or get a second job…”

    Congratulations, snob. You win the Total A$$ of the Day award. Jerks like you probably also feel that if someone can’t afford groceries, they should just stop eating. Your (lack of) humanity and compassion for those less fortunate than you is underwhelming to say the least.

  90. France=Stuoopid
    February 19th, 2008 | 04:01

    Digital cost to much. It cost more than analog tv which is like 70 bucks now.

  91. dan
    February 19th, 2008 | 04:06

    Dan needs anger management
    February 19th, 2008 | 03:31
    @80

    I got something you can bow to.
    ———————-
    Whats wrong @88? Truth hurt or are you one of the idiots that has spewing false info and are now upset that you got called to the carpet for it?

    Over 98% of the posts here are by little people who are trying to make themselves sound more intelligent then they really are. All it took was a simple search with Google and less then 15 minutes of my time to disprove 98% of the posts here. Sorta makes you wonder why they bothered if they did not know what they were talking about in the first place.

  92. chrismg84
    February 19th, 2008 | 04:13

    oh no does this mean the TV adapter for my Sega Gamegear is obsolete ?

  93. Rekrul
    February 19th, 2008 | 05:08

    Time for the truly simple version;

    1. If you have cable (Comcast, Cablevision, Time/Warner, etc), satellite (DirecTV, etc), or IPTV (AT&T U-Verse, Verizon FIOS, etc), then the switch to digital will have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on you. You will not need a new TV, you will not need a converter box, you will not need a new box from your TV company. There will be NO change to your service.

    2. Digital does not mean HD. Yes, HD is often digital, but that doesn’t mean that digital is always HD. YouTube videos are digital, does that make them HD?

    3. The only people this change will affect are the ones who use an antenna, either roof-mounted or rabbit ears. Antennas pick up the signals, and then the tuner built into the TV or VCR separates or “tunes” the channel you want to watch. They’re changing the signal and it will no longer be compatible with the old tuners. So you get a separate converter box that acts as a tuner, and outputs a signal your old TV can understand.

    Think of it like this; It’s as if they’re changing the voltage of your electrical outlets. You can’t just plug old devices in because they were designed to work with the old system. But if you get an adapter, you can can continue to use your old equipment.

    About the switch to digital; A lot of people think digital signals are better than analog. I’m not one of them. They have the potential to be better, but currently, they’re not.

    Analog is like shades of grey, while digital is like black & white. Under analog, the signal strength determines how good the picture looks. Under digital, it always looks good, as long as the signal can be received. Sounds good, right?

    The problem is that digital has basically no margin for error. With analog, if there is interference with the signal, it degrades the picture. If there is interference in a digital signal, some of the bits are lost and the image freezes, or breaks up into little colored blocks. So with analog, except under extreme conditions, you can continue to watch the picture and hear the audio. With digital, even a little interference can render the picture unwatchable for several seconds at a time.

    Also, since digital signals are sent as heavily compressed mpeg streams, you can often see compression artifacts in the image. This is most noticeable during dark scenes, where some of the background will appear in shades of grey, or appear to “swim”. It can also be seen during fast action scenes, where you will often seen the image become rather blocky as it struggles to keep up with the movement.

    There are ways to avoid these problems, but they all require the use of more bandwidth, something no company is willing to do.

  94. BigMattyKane
    February 19th, 2008 | 06:56

    @ mrquiteaguy it just seems more “blocky” because you can see every pixel clearer in the textures and those games didnt have anti-aliasing so you can see a lot of those rough edges better.

  95. Michael Collins
    February 19th, 2008 | 07:47

    @7 “lol the govt subsidizing for conversion boxes to make sure the masses continue to be controlled by their televisions. cut the school lunch and welfare programs…pay for ppl to keep their teevee’s…lol…”

    agreed!

    And we still need tv because…? Seems like most everything is available online.

  96. dan
    February 19th, 2008 | 11:55

    Rekrul, your post is directly to the point, on all but one issue. Most of the TV antennas out there, unless they were purchased and can pick up high frequencies (I have an antenna from radio shack on my roof that can pick up signals from 10mhz all the way up to 2.5ghz now for the rest of you that means ALL radio-TV-most of the Ham bands-celluar as well as the newer trunk tracking frequencies and even some of the spread spectrum frequencies. Total cost of the antenna was less then $35. when I bought it four years ago) then the old antenna they have just will not be able to pick up the new HD digital broadcasts. Even the FCC says that there is better then a 70-30 chance you will need a new “over the air” antenna You said the old equipment would not work without an adapter…so what makes you think that an old antenna will work without one…if at all? The old antennas are set for the frequencies that will no longer be used.

    @7 and @95, ok guys…show me where welfare and school lunch programs were cut. Even nancy pelosi and harry reed have stated on the House and Senate floors that the programs you mentioned had increases in the budget, just not as large as these two wanted. Sorta like the health insurance for the kids that they were making a major fuss about a few months back. Illegals would have got this (they dont ask your residency in California and California has the largest illegal population in the country) A couple states wanted to make this available for people making as much as $60,000.00 a year even after pelosi and reed said this would not happen thus making them out to be liars. They were offered to increase this to $35,000.00 top scale, and they refused. Same here with your little myth. The budget for these was increased according to the US Budget Office, just not as much as the Democrats wanted, thus giving them the ability to say it was cut. Now I am no math expert, but if I increased a line item by say $2.00 and you wanted $4.00, if you called it a cut then you would be lying as it was increased, just not as much as you wanted it to be.

  97. Beat
    February 19th, 2008 | 13:02

    Somehow I am of opinion that there has to be some safenet.

  98. Pilsu
    February 19th, 2008 | 14:28

    Wonder who pulled the strings to get governments to force people to buy sh*tty boxes just so they could continue watching TV. It’s happening in Europe too so it must have been someone powerful. Shouldn’t be hard to guess what he sells for a living

    Nothing but a perfect signal works proper. F***ing s***

  99. RobbieInc.
    February 19th, 2008 | 21:01

    lol here in belgium has 90% of the population analog tv, and hdtv isn’t even used except for the news and idol

  100. a.bundy
    February 20th, 2008 | 02:07

    #89, you hit the bullseye! LOL!

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Hot info about new scene releases!