Video Killed the Video Star
Caught this from Erin:
...The other day, I was in Stereo Advantage with Rand. We walked by the plasma TVs, and he asked me, "Are you ready to pay $2000 for a TV?"
I snorted.
"Well, it's the future," he said.
"Then I guess I'm going to have to be behind the times," I said.
He then explained to me that by the end of 2006, I would no longer be able to receive regular TV broadcasts on my analog set.
"It's going to take an act of Congress for you to be able to watch TV on your current set," he said....
She then linked to an article from
Call it the American Resolution. TV sets: Join or die.
It is the country's commitment to digital TV, a transition from analog mandated by the Federal Communications Commission....
By July 1, all TV sets measuring at least 36 inches diagonally must be sold with digital tuners. By Dec. 31 of 2006, the conversion to digital, allegedly, will be complete.
Supposedly, then, broadcasters will no longer air analog signals by Jan. 1, 2007....
Is it time to buy a digital TV, which in its clearest, sharpest version is called High Definition?
If you want true HDTV, or if you're not a cable or satellite customer, the answer may be yes....
What you probably have now, unless you're a chic TV trendsetter, is an analog set — one in which a camera reproduces an image electronically. One in which the intensity of the signal changes; over long distances, it eventually falls apart.
With digital, the TV image being reproduced is encoded, or digitized. You either have a perfect picture, or no picture. Compared to analog, the image is several times sharper....
Once broadcasters begin airing their fare only in digital (more than 1,400 broadcasters now transmit in digital as well as analog), you won't be able to watch TV programs unless you have a digital TV set or some kind of digital reception equipment, including cable or satellite hookups.
For the most part, the change won't dramatically affect the 85 percent of Americans who get all their television from cable or satellite providers, unless they want to receive true high-definition broadcasts.
If you're a Time Warner cable customer, for instance, you wouldn't necessarily have to buy a digital TV set to receive digital broadcasts. All you'd need is a digital converter, for an extra $7.95 a month. If you already subscribe to Time Warner's digital service, you have all you need, says Frances Smith, the company's public affairs director....
The people who will be hit the hardest are those who live in the estimated 15 million households without cable or satellite, those who receive TV service over the air only. Most of these consumers are lower-income, and many are minorities.
A proposal in Congress would allow the U.S. government to help low-income households pay to convert to digital, but only for one set per household.
That idea has a lot of opponents, though....
At any rate, deadlines have changed before. And there are exceptions for communities in which most viewers can't receive digital signals. Under law, the conversion won't be complete until 85 percent of TV households in a market have digital reception equipment....
And there's the money — not for the broadcasters, for whom it will take a while to recover conversion costs. It's money for the federal government, which can make billions of dollars off the analog spectrum.
When the conversion to digital is complete, broadcasters have to give back the analog channels. The government will then auction them off to companies that provide mobile high-speed data services, or for use in emergency communications systems, and more.
Modisett, for one, believes the FCC deadline for total conversion is shaky.
First of all: "Most homes have a set in the den, the bedrooms, the playroom, the bathroom," he says. "You're going to make obsolete all these sets, which will enrage all these viewers."...
So, in answer to Erin's question as to why she (and I) haven't been paying attention to this, it's only an issue that affects the poor, so no one cares.
Waiting for Gil Cedillo's outrage over this racist regulation...
Comments