Analog and digital TV channels on cable -- why?

[Jeffhs]

Originally Posted by Kamakiri

The whole ruling and change in broadcast standard over to a mandatory digital signal left a really bad taste in my mouth when it was announced. Other than a blatant attempt by the government to spur electronics sales in a depressed economy, can anyone provide sound reasoning as to why this law took effect in the first place? Has anyone DONE anything with the old TV frequencies? Not that I've heard of.

Apologies in advance if I'm derailing the thread by asking, but I felt that the fundamental question linked up with Jeff's post.

I feel the same way regarding the reasoning (or lack of it) behind the DTV transition. It was almost certainly, as you mentioned, an attempt by the FCC to kickstart sales of new technology, in this case flat-panel TV. I have a feeling, however, that our government is trying its darnedest to align the US with the rest of the world, which for the most part adopted digital TV years ago.

The original NTSC analog video standard served us well for over five decades, and in many ways was superior to DTV. While I agree that DTV can and does produce better pictures (more pixels of resolution versus NTSC's 525-line interlaced standard) -- I like the picture on my own 19" FP much better than what I had grown used to watching on my old CRTs -- the digital broadcast standards have created real problems for viewers, such as reflections and dead spots when trying to view DTV using rabbit ears or even outdoor antennas. DTV's all-or-nothing nature means that you will either see a picture or a blank screen; there is no in-between as there was with NTSC analog. This has forced many people to subscribe to cable, satellite, or AT&T U-Verse (the last is probably available only in the Great Lakes region of the US), and it is no secret that a lot of folks don't like having to pay for the privilege of watching TV programs they previously (read for years or decades) received over the air, with an antenna, and without having to pay anything except the cost of the TV and antenna.

Some folks do receive watchable signals on antennas, but they are in the minority because of DTV's line-of-sight and all-or-nothing nature. It wouldn't surprise me if many folks in the US, and in Canada as well since that country switched to DTV late last year, have given up on watching TV altogether since the transition. Their mindset may well be that if they have to pay to get their TV reception, the heck with it -- they will do without. I personally am not crazy about having to pay for cable, but I have no choice since I live in an apartment building with a strict ruling against outdoor TV antennas. Satellite dishes are allowed (one of my upstairs neighbors has one and there is a dish mounted atop the building), but not antennas. Go figure.

However, DTV is here to stay, so we might as well get used to it -- faults and all. Wishing that analog NTSC will somehow magically return in the US some day is absolutely pointless, because it won't happen -- no thanks to our greedy FCC and government in general. The closest thing we still have to analog NTSC, at least for now, are the analog channels still being carried on cable. I say "at least for now" because analog cable is in the process of being phased out, meaning that eventually, as I have mentioned before, all analog broadcasting, even over cable systems, will disappear. I can see a day coming in the not too distant future when I will rescan my flat-screen TV and the tuner will find only digital channels -- no more analog. The situation may even force me to rent a cable box, although since my TV has an NTSC-ATSC-clear QAM tuner, I would be very surprised if that were the case. Today's flat TVs are designed to receive most if not all OTA (over the air) and cable signals (the digital channel display on my FP has five digits [!] -- are there any cable systems in this country with anywhere near that many channels?), so unless someone wants special features such as movie channels, they will have no need for a cable box ahead of any modern TV.

As well, as time goes on, old analog NTSC TVs will be junked in favor of FPs when the former finally develop serious repair problems. Again, I can see a day coming, and it may not be too terribly far off (in fact, it may have already arrived), when every U. S. home will have at least one flat TV, and no analog sets. As I see it, analog NTSC and b&w TVs are useless nowadays to anyone other than collectors; those folks who still own older TVs will keep them as long as they work, but as soon as they go bad, out they go, to be replaced by FPs. This is really the only recourse anyone has nowadays if they want a new TV, since analog sets are no longer available except on the used market -- and they wind up there, for the most part, because their owners have upgraded to flat panels. The only uses I can see for analog NTSC TVs these days are as video monitors for games, DVD players and VCRs.