1/3 of stations ignore DTV delay

[docm]

Link....<br /> <br /> <div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px"><strong>Quote:</strong></div><div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">&nbsp;</div> <strong>Many TV stations to make DTV switch next week</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><font color="DarkRed">Despite a regulator-approved delay to the nationwide digital TV switchover, more than a third of the nation's TV stations plan to begin broadcasting completely in digital next week.</font></strong><br /> <br /> The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday released a list of 681 of the nation's 1,800 or so TV stations that plan to make the switch by February 17. TV stations were required to notify the FCC by Monday if they planned to turn off their analog TV signal on February 17.<br /> <br /> Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a bill that moves the deadline for transitioning TV broadcast from analog to digital from February 17 to June 12. The Senate has also passed a similar bill. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly. However, a compromise provision allows broadcasters to transition to all-digital broadcasts early if they get permission from the FCC.<br /> <br /> Congress approved the delay out of concern that 20 million people, most of whom are poor, elderly, and living in rural parts of the country, were not prepared for the transition after the government ran out of the $40 coupons it was issuing to help defray the cost of the converter boxes necessary to allow older TVs to get digital signals.<br /> <br /> Stations have been preparing to cut off their analog broadcasts for the February 17 deadline for months. Leaving the analog signals on will likely cost them more money as they are required to pay for the additional electricity and facility costs of running multiple transmitters. Most stations have already been airing some programming in digital.<br /> <br /> The major broadcast networks, including ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC/Telemundo, have all agreed that their owned and operated stations would continue to broadcast in analog until the new DTV transition date. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[phaze]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Link.... Quote:&nbsp; Many TV stations to make DTV switch next week Despite a regulator-approved delay to the nationwide digital TV switchover, more than a third of the nation's TV stations plan to begin broadcasting completely in digital next week. The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday released a list of 681 of the nation's 1,800 or so TV stations that plan to make the switch by February 17. TV stations were required to notify the FCC by Monday if they planned to turn off their analog TV signal on February 17. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a bill that moves the deadline for transitioning TV broadcast from analog to digital from February 17 to June 12. The Senate has also passed a similar bill. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly. However, a compromise provision allows broadcasters to transition to all-digital broadcasts early if they get permission from the FCC. Congress approved the delay out of concern that 20 million people, most of whom are poor, elderly, and living in rural parts of the country, were not prepared for the transition after the government ran out of the $40 coupons it was issuing to help defray the cost of the converter boxes necessary to allow older TVs to get digital signals. Stations have been preparing to cut off their analog broadcasts for the February 17 deadline for months. Leaving the analog signals on will likely cost them more money as they are required to pay for the additional electricity and facility costs of running multiple transmitters. Most stations have already been airing some programming in digital. The major broadcast networks, including ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC/Telemundo, have all agreed that their owned and operated stations would continue to broadcast in analog until the new DTV transition date. <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />Seriously... if you haven't heard by now, you don't watch enough TV for it to matter anyway.&nbsp; And... when these TVs "stop working" - the worst that will happen is they stimulate the economy a bit as they buy a new tv or are ripped off by a tv repairman.</p><p>I'm over it.</p>

 

[cosmictraveler]

<p><font size="5">I have satellite so most of the main programs are already on HD TV which I pay extra for and to me there's not a really big difference between the two. Perhaps when they finally get the 1080P working we might tell a difference but with only the 1080I available now along with 780P&nbsp;, I really don't see the big deal over this "new" format. I think that the TV sets make a bigger difference in the way they display the pictures more than the actual programs themselves being shot with HD.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph</p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have satellite so most of the main programs are already on HD TV which I pay extra for and to me there's not a really big difference between the two. Perhaps when they finally get the 1080P working we might tell a difference but with only the 1080I available now along with 780P&nbsp;, I really don't see the big deal over this "new" format. I think that the TV sets make a bigger difference in the way they display the pictures more than the actual programs themselves being shot with HD.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by cosmictraveler</DIV></p><p>Ummm...... It has nothing to do with HD or not HD.. It's about whether TV stations transmit signals digitally or in traditional analog format. Older TV's cannot receive digital (low or hi def) signals and need a converter to receive the digital signal and convert it back to analog to that the TV can display the picture. </p><p>HD is a whole other ball of wax. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[darepairman]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Seriously... if you haven't heard by now, you don't watch enough TV for it to matter anyway.&nbsp; And... when these TVs "stop working" - the worst that will happen is they stimulate the economy a bit as they buy a new tv or are ripped off by a tv repairman.I'm over it. <br />Posted by phaze</DIV><br /><br />Ripped off by a repairman......watch it buddy<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-yell.gif" border="0" alt="Yell" title="Yell" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cosmictraveler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ummm...... It has nothing to do with HD or not HD.. It's about whether TV stations transmit signals digitally or in traditional analog format. Older TV's cannot receive digital (low or hi def) signals and need a converter to receive the digital signal and convert it back to analog to that the TV can display the picture. HD is a whole other ball of wax. <br />Posted by dragon04</DIV><br /><br /><font size="5">In order to get H D they must send the signal in a digital format. That was the big deal with the switch over I thought. That's why I said what I did because I really do not see much of a big difference with the regular digital channels that aren't&nbsp; in H D format as compared to those that are. The analog TV set I have, which still works fine, receives the signal through the converter box and again&nbsp; there's little difference in the QUALITY of the picture compared with the H D picture. The only difference I see is in the TV itself, the way it is made. The colors are a bit brighter but the quality is just about the same. Why pay thousands for a TV set when the analog ones will do exactly the same&nbsp; as the new ones? It really is a marketing ploy to get more money for TV sets that aren't any better in quality just different in appearance and costs! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-frown.gif" border="0" alt="Frown" title="Frown" /></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph</p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In order to get H D they must send the signal in a digital format. That was the big deal with the switch over I thought. That's why I said what I did because I really do not see much of a big difference with the regular digital channels that aren't&nbsp; in H D format as compared to those that are. The analog TV set I have, which still works fine, receives the signal through the converter box and again&nbsp; there's little difference in the QUALITY of the picture compared with the H D picture. The only difference I see is in the TV itself, the way it is made. The colors are a bit brighter but the quality is just about the same. Why pay thousands for a TV set when the analog ones will do exactly the same&nbsp; as the new ones? It really is a marketing ploy to get more money for TV sets that aren't any better in quality just different in appearance and costs! &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by cosmictraveler</DIV></p><p>You are already doing what the conversion will require through your cable supplied converter box. The idea with high definition it is a denser signal, or bigger file, in computer terms, the more pixels the clearer the picture. Your standard television has a fixed number of pixels it scans onto the screen while HD tv's allow for considerable more dots. A 780P tv will show a 1080p picture at the 780p resolution just like your tv will show the same picture at it's maximum resolution, a 1080p tv will show a visually better picture if put next to a 780p set, in theory.</p><p>If you go to a store with multiple tv's on display there is as much difference between brands as there is between types. While the idea of HD is to get you to buy a newer set with a converter you can still watch the same programs. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

As I understand it low power stations in remote areas are not required to make the conversion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I understand it low power stations in remote areas are not required to make the conversion. <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />Which will only further confuse the less technical. You'll need a converter to see the networks, but you have to swith out the converter to see your local LPTV station. I mean I understand it, but I've been in the TV biz for 30 years.</p><p>Does the average Joe Plumbere? I don't think so....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[phaze]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ripped off by a repairman......watch it buddy <br />Posted by darepairman</DIV><br /><br />Not you.&nbsp; </p><p>Some other repairman!&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-embarassed.gif" border="0" alt="Embarassed" title="Embarassed" /></p>