So, where you hit by the end of analog TV?
It is estimated that about 3 million people in the US do not have television today.
We've had digital service for nearly 15 years. When we first moved here we could only get about six analog channels.
I've been using cable TV ever since university, because where I lived, that was essentially the only way to receive television. We received the most basic service.
Where I live now, the local cable company installed fiber-optic system several years ago, and we use TV, internet and phone service through the fiber-optic system. The system went digital in conjunction with the fiber-optic system.
During my first few years of university, I did not have TV. I didn't have time to watch it anyway.
Well it's about to happen in the UK too. End of 2011 all will be digital.
We used to get 8-10 analog channels over our huge VHF/UHF antenna/mast setup. Now we get only 2. One is the CBS affiliate and the other is a PBS station. The drive to all-digital broadcasting is quite detrimental to those of us in rural locations, and seems destined to line the pockets of satellite-TV companies. There aren't enough people in my area to justify the cost of cable, so we'll never have that option.
The NBC affiliate here is so goofy. On every news show this morning, they managed to include their footage of someone pushing the rather unimpressive looking button that turns off their analog transmitter. :rofl: Then they interview some engineer who tells the viewers that we should be impressed with the picture quality and that some game last night was so much better because it was already being broadcast in HD. Perhaps if I watched games, and had an HD TV that might be the case. I don't think my 20+ year old TVs are going to get any better picture no matter what they do to the signal.
I think a few of the smaller local stations had some issues with the switch today. Even over cable, a couple of them weren't broadcasting this morning. All were back on but one the last time I had the TV on a few hours ago, though.
I know a lot of people, myself included, who have cable on a big TV yet also have a small analog set with rabbit ears in the bedroom.
My wife said that she can do without the bedroom set. I give it about three days until she has me going out to get a converter box and a better antennae.
If she wants to learn to speak Spanish the small set is still getting three Hispanic stations loud and clear. They must be broadcasting from Mexico.
Um... I think the switch to the digital is the smartest thing. I think it's dumb Canada is waiting until 2011. Living near the border, I get half analog and half digital.
I still get like 9 channels analog and about 10 digital in my area.
Note: Digital channels are clear 99% for pretty much all channels. Out of the 9 that I have 3 are clear, 3 are ok, and the other 3 are garbage.
I really like the new digital TV. Not only is the picture clearer but I can see whats on without even changing the channel using the DTV guide. The clock on the TV is really nice to along with the signal meter. I should have bought the DTV converter box a long time ago.
My understanding is that that spectrum of channels would be used for something other than satellite tv.
In my opinion this needed to be done eventually. The FCC originally planned for everything to be switched over in 2006, but obviously that didn't happen. Ensuring a modern communications infrastructure is actually one thing the government has succeeded at fairly well from what I can tell
It may have been desirable from some viewpoints, but to people in rural locations, it seems that we have sacrificed a lot of access to information (weather reports, storm warnings, traffic disruptions) that might have been pretty valuable, but often taken for granted. If you are in the path of a cell of severe thunderstorms, and you can't get local weather reports, that's not good.
I'm a little confused... why can't you get this information precisely? Did your local analog station just decide to quit transmitting instead of switching to digital, or did you decide not to get a digital to analog converter?
We have a converter, but guess what? The strength of the digital signal of a lot of the stations is insufficient, and unlike analog, you don't get a slightly degraded picture/sound with a weak signal - you get NO picture/sound. And no, the analog signals are totally gone.
I better buy the converter today or early tomorrow if I want to be able to watch Game 5 of the NBA finals.
Our NBC affiliate is broadcasting the same message as Moonbear's, only in Spanish.
Sounds like it is time for some antenna work.
I know about the edge of cliff effect, but was under the impression thanks to the increased efficiency of digital TV the range could be increased to the original practical range of analog. So I googled around and discovered that most digital channels are broadcasting on UHF (ultra high frequency) whereas analog channels were broadcasting on VHF (very high frequency... original names guys); UHF having the problem of being much more dependent on line of sight for transmission range. Now I'm confused; wouldn't it have made more sense to switch all of the digital frequencies to the VHF range when it got cleared up thanks to all the analog channels switching off?
One "expert" was saying that he expects a bit of a shift away from cable and satellite services, with more people going back to antenna. Many people will see the number of available channels increase significantly - quadruple the number in some cases - with the addition of HD, all for free.
The old analog frequencies will go to other services.
There is no reason for TV to use up spectrum. There are tons of other things that could use those same channels. Use groundwires for TV signals - this isnt the 1950s.
Separate names with a comma.