By now, we're sure you've heard
just how much the US government is allocating for the
2009 analog shutoff ($1.5 billion), not to mention the boatloads of cash that has been / will be spent on
advertising. A new report, however, is explaining that the impending switchover could be costly to more than just the feds. Cable companies, broadcasters and consumers all have legitimate complaints, and each of the groups will be sharing some of the associated costs. Many argue that broadcasters are actually benefiting from the change, as they essentially garner free spectrum to use for channel expansion. Of course, these very broadcasters assert that it's costing them millions to procure equipment necessary to comply with the mandate, and cable companies are shouting in a similar tone. In the end, the article suggests that all of this may really be "much ado about nothing," and while we can't help but agree (with reservations), we're just hoping that all this unoccupied spectrum will lead to a universal boost in HD programming.
posted Jun 14th 2008 4:25PM
In other words, don't hold your breath for another U.S. broadcast TV transition to Ultra HD (or whatever) for at least 25 years, and probably more like 50.
How do stations say this is costing them money? Aren't all TV stations already mandated to be digital in the US? The shutoff is just about turning off analog transmitters.
I know over 95% of my local stations have been digital for 2 years already and the last stragglers came in a year ago.
Well, it's still costing them money since they have two transmitters running, for the most part. That's why you're starting to (and will see more) stations who decide to pull the analog plug early and save more than a few grand in power bills. And there's still some stations who aren't passing through network HD either. Of our three network affiliates, Fox airs all their network programming in HD, the NBC only airs live network programming in HD, and the CBS has yet to air anything in HD, and the CBS says they 'might' be able to do some HD before February. (ABC here is a .2 digital subchannel from the Fox station)
Well, it's still costing them money since they have two transmitters running, for the most part. That's why you're starting to (and will see more) stations who decide to pull the analog plug early and save more than a few grand in power bills. And there's still some stations who aren't passing through network HD either. Of our three network affiliates, Fox airs all their network programming in HD, the NBC only airs live network programming in HD, and the CBS has yet to air anything in HD, and the CBS says they 'might' be able to do some HD before February. (ABC here is a .2 digital subchannel from the Fox station)
My issue with the whining is that they've already had multiple extensions.
If they couldn't figure it out by now, then it's time to push them out of the freaking nest and they need to learn fast how to fly digital.
nicely vivid metaphor
This will be a useless comment, but that's my TV in that picture. I just wanted to let you guys know.
I fully believe that this transition will be at worst beneficial to the development of new tech, because it'll cause people to realize that technology in and of itself is important to life.