The Feb 17, 2009 change from analog to digital has wide effects/impact
 

It seems that about half of American viewers are unaware of the switch to digial signals from analog. But how many are unaware of the impact on
cell phones, On-Star, and home alarm systems?
Several rather interesting story links follow. Well worth the read IMVHO:
Better TV is coming, but are you ready for it?

The digital dilemma: Disappearance of analog signals just a year away

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22401907/?gti=10755

Users left in lurch by network shutdown

Demise of analog affects car communication systems and home alarms

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22362058/

Clock ticking for analog televisions

Converter needed after Feb. 17, 2009 for over-the-air reception

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17590648

I don't doubt that a lot of people aren't aware of this, but if it's so they've just not been paying attention.

The conversion to digital has been put off by the FCC and Congress for years. Literally.

When the decision was made to go ahead, something like seven more years became the target date if I recall correctly.

Nothing new here, just an impending deadline.

DA;
You are in the media; I would be very surprised if you did not know about this.:D

"Still, half of American viewers don’t know the storm is coming, according to a poll conducted last month by the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing. For the 1 in 5 American households that still use rabbit ears or antennas on the roof, “the day of reckoning is coming,” said Barry Umansky, a communications professor at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind. "
"The Federal Communications Commission first ordered the eventual transition in 1996, but Congress didn’t set a deadline until the the 9/11 Commission reported that first-responder systems needed a major upgrade."

And I, for one, did not know about the rest of the devices that this impacts on.

That's true, obviously, but I've even been interviewed for stories by TV stations several years ago.

Why, I don't know since I'm not an engineer.

Anyway, the word has been out for years.

As I said, most haven't been listening.

Would seem that is ALL TOO true my friend.

Then you have the elderly, who don't want to put money into something that they may not be around to appreciate! :rolleyes: I actually have clients who still use rabbit ears!

Remember in the 1970s when we were told the U.S. was converting to the metric system?

^^^LOL. Yes, and I STILL don't know how much is in a liter or the conversion from KPH/MPH... ;)

Great point DA.

Those articles reminded me of the ones written during Y2K. :rolleyes: Analog TV's will not be absolete if you have a box. So people shouldn't feel like they HAVE to replace every TV in their home by next year. I'm still using mine (with my digital box of course) and plan to continue :D Shoot, I don't plan to run out and buy an HD tv until the majority of programming is filmed/shot in HD.:)

But back to the article - even if consumers have been in the dark, companies (those outside of telecommunications) have known for a while and they should have been making the necessary adjustments. I know speaking personally as a cable suit, we have certain things in place so that our customers(including the elderly/lower income) will be minimally impacted. I'm sad to see that other industries and companies have not done so.

Cable and Dish Net works tout that they are set up and "IF" each person is signed up with them they are OK!

But as you said the Old folks will be without a main stay called TV!:mad:

Oh, but the our Federal Govt. is going to give vouchers for those who cannot afford new Uber TVs!:rolleyes:

God, I love the Tech world!:p

OK, since all this got brought up...

Dad33 does not have cable. (It's available, he just doesn't want it.) Will he have to get cable plus a box to watch TV or will one of these boxes alone do the trick?

And NBH - as someone who had to sit through weeks of metric programming in elementary school for 6 years straight, yes. It's good to see how everyone embraced that. We would have never been able to compete in the world economy otherwise. :rolleyes:

He should not have to have cable or a cable box as long as the digital signal from the TV station is strong enough to be received through the air.

The problem is that digital signals act differently than analog ones, and with the power granted some stations, there may be "holes" in a stations coverage.

It'll be kind of hit and miss for a lot of people, I fear.

OK, cool, thanks. A lot of his friends are apparently under the impression that you must have cable or there's no chance of getting anything at all. I guess we'll have to see what happens. As long as he can get the local news and Seinfeld reruns, he'll be happy. :)

Not trying to say that I told you all so but......well.....I told you so....hehe


http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...ad.php?t=89053

I'm pretty sure this actually does NOT have "wide effects/impact" - it seems like any effects will be pretty narrow, and that there are contingency plans in place.

It will be pretty annoying to see the litany of commercials telling people to get a converter oh, about December of 2008, but that's neither here nor there - this really is just a controversy to cause a controversy. It's not fleecing anyone or lining any pockets, most people prefer the 16:9 ratio anyway, and in the end this benefits the consumer quite a bit. I don't get the uproar.