NTSC shut down in 2009

[dr.ido]

Both SD and HD digital set top boxes are easy enough to find around here, though we use DVB-T rather than ATSC. None that I have seen have an have an RF output.

There are some features that only work on certain set top boxes, and some boxes seem to be more prone to glitches than others even with good signal strength. So much for a standard, but I suppose we are stuck with it unfortunately.

A while back I found a rack of gear from a hotel that was used to distribute satellite TV to all the rooms. Receivers, modulators, and distribution amps for 6 channels all in a convenient package. Replace the satellite receivers with digital set top boxes and you're ready to go. Hide it away somewhere and maybe you can forget about digital TV, at least until you start seeing blocks, or a box freezes and has to be rebooted.

[Jeffhs]

Originally Posted by trinescope

Supposedly regular outdoor antennas will work fine; rabbit ears really don't; I'm stuck with rabbit ears due to being in an apartment, and the signals will just cut out at times and it's really annoying. Remember, the NTSC phaseout was supposed to have happened already, but the date keeps getting changed.

Why not get basic cable? I live in an apartment building as well and have the same problem with rabbit ears and standard analog NTSC signals; the UHF OTA reception is good for the most part, but VHF goes all over the map, with channel 3 (Cleveland's NBC affiliate) not reaching here at all. Everyone in the building (and most everyone in the village in which I live), however, has either cable or satellite rather than antennas, so we don't have any problems to speak of with standard NTSC; the transition to digital in 2009 should be seamless as well. I know I'm not concerned about it. My cable company (Time Warner) has assured me that when the time comes to switch entirely to digital, the cable system will be ready to go. I am presently using a digital cable box ahead of my 7-year-old RCA 19" analog TV, and get every Cleveland station even better than I could ever hope for with an antenna.

I am not planning on getting a flat-panel HD television any time soon until or unless two things happen: one, the sets drop in price to a point where the average person can afford them, and two, the sets will have to be one heck of a lot more reliable than they are now. Today's FP HDTVs are built, like everything else these days, to be throwaways after the manufacturer's warranty expires. When the video driver ICs go bad, for example, the entire panel must be replaced, since the chips are molded into the cable that connects the panel to the main chassis. Moreover, the panels themselves are not built to last more than two or three years; in fact, LCDs lose much of their brightness within five years, plasmas have heat-related issues, and DLP sets are prone to mechanical failures.

Even though HDTV has been around in this country awhile, the faults I just mentioned may keep flat-panel sets out of most American living rooms for some time. The pictures produced by FP sets are not that great either, if I am to believe some of the comments I've read here about them. (The consensus seems to be that CRTs still produce better pictures--blacker blacks, richer colors, etc.--than today's FPs.) I know it will be quite a while, if ever, before I replace my RCA CRT set with a FP--the flat-panel technology just has too many bugs in it right now.

You are correct in your observation that NTSC was supposed to have been shut down by now; the first FCC deadline for this was 2006, IIRC. Whether the deadline will be pushed back yet again remains to be seen.

There are, however, rules now in effect which state that all TVs with screens 32 inches and up must have ATSC tuners; next year another rule takes effect which states that all televisions 13 inches and larger must be equipped with ATSC tuners as well.

Whether or not this is a hint that all-digital TV is just around the corner, however, remains to be seen--as I said, the FCC may push back the deadline yet again (and again, and again...). I remember reading something somewhere very recently that said, in effect, digital HDTV is not all it is cracked up to be and may die out in a short time. Look at quadraphonic (four-channel) stereo sound in the '70s; it was dead by the early '80s. AM stereo radio is also pretty much dead as well after only a few years. High-definition (HD) FM? I believe that's headed down a dark road to oblivion as well. How many HD FM stereo systems and/or radios are there in the stores or in consumers' hands at this moment? I haven't seen any HD radio receivers yet. My best guess is HD FM will be as dead as AM stereo and quad sound in a very short time. The only advantage I can see with HD FM is that it gives those FM stations that use it a subchannel to broadcast another format on; I honestly do not believe, however, that it improves the sound all that much. An FM station in Cleveland claims to be broadcasting in HD but I'm darned if I can tell the difference between it and standard stereo FM, listening to the station on my 7-year-old Aiwa bookshelf stereo or any other FM radio I currently own.

High-definition TV is, IMHO, a fad that hasn't really caught on with the public, at least here in the Midwest. I know only one person (my barber) who actually has a HDTV flat-panel set; everyone else I know around here still uses the old reliable CRT TVs. The flat-panel sets are still far too expensive for most people to afford at this point, which is why RCA, and eventually other offshore TV manufacturers, have come out with a line of standard-definition TVs (SDTV). These are sets with a digital ATSC tuner already built in; the sets themselves are designed to receive digital HD signals and display them in the analog 4:3 aspect ratio TV viewers are accustomed to after well over five decades. These SDTVs are supposed to ease people into the transition from analog to digital, but my best guess is that most people will continue to use their analog CRT sets as long as they work. If you have cable, the conversion from digital to analog will be taken care of behind the scenes at the cable headend or in the cable box, if you use one. Satellite signals are digital by nature, so no conversion is needed with them at all; it is all done inside the satellite receiver. Again, my best guess right now is that most folks will run their current analog CRTs until they die, then they may replace them with FP sets. I say "may" because until HD flat panels drop to reasonable prices (well under $1,000 for a 23" or larger set) and until the sets are made to last more than a year or two, these high-tech TVs aren't going to sell well--in fact, I don't think they are exactly flying off store shelves even now.

There are several alternatives to traditional TV, mostly Internet based (except DVDs, of course), so many people who cannot afford HDTV may turn to the Internet for their TV eventually. In fact, I believe that some day the Internet may revolutionize television yet again (if it hasn't already made inroads to that effect), replacing high-definition digital OTA and cable. I have a lifetime membership to TV.org (www.tv.org), a site specializing in downloadable episodes of current and past TV series, and I use it quite a bit after rediscovering it last night. In fact, about the only time I watch regular TV anymore is for news and sports; between TV.org, network netcasts (NBC and ABC world news, et al.) and DVDs (I also have a subscription to Netflix), I find all the TV I like without having to watch the stuff that passes for entertainment on cable. The so-called "500-channel universe" is just a catch phrase from digital cable's early days, as no city (that I am aware of) has anywhere near 500 channels on their cable systems, even if you count digital stations--in fact, the cable operator in my area (Time Warner) only offers 200 channels on their digital service, if you get their best and most expensive package (counting movie channels--TW has three HBOs, three Showtime channels, at least three Cinemax, and on and on), and far less on the two tiers of analog service. Another fine example of media hype gone hog wild.

[botrytis]

Well, the reason why they are pushing this is they want to use different bands for OTA HD broadcasting and the current bands are slated to be used for Fire and Police Depts. since there bands are absolutely filled, currently.

It is going to happen, it is just which standard and when.

Dave

[Duffinator]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

Why not get basic cable? I live in an apartment building as well and have the same problem with rabbit ears and standard analog NTSC signals; the UHF OTA reception is good for the most part, but VHF goes all over the map, with channel 3 (Cleveland's NBC affiliate) not reaching here at all. Everyone in the building (and most everyone in the village in which I live), however, has either cable or satellite rather than antennas, so we don't have any problems to speak of with standard NTSC; the transition to digital in 2009 should be seamless as well. I know I'm not concerned about it. My cable company (Time Warner) has assured me that when the time comes to switch entirely to digital, the cable system will be ready to go. I am presently using a digital cable box ahead of my 7-year-old RCA 19" analog TV, and get every Cleveland station even better than I could ever hope for with an antenna.

I am not planning on getting a flat-panel HD television any time soon until or unless two things happen: one, the sets drop in price to a point where the average person can afford them, and two, the sets will have to be one heck of a lot more reliable than they are now. Today's FP HDTVs are built, like everything else these days, to be throwaways after the manufacturer's warranty expires. When the video driver ICs go bad, for example, the entire panel must be replaced, since the chips are molded into the cable that connects the panel to the main chassis. Moreover, the panels themselves are not built to last more than two or three years; in fact, LCDs lose much of their brightness within five years, plasmas have heat-related issues, and DLP sets are prone to mechanical failures.

Even though HDTV has been around in this country awhile, the faults I just mentioned may keep flat-panel sets out of most American living rooms for some time. The pictures produced by FP sets are not that great either, if I am to believe some of the comments I've read here about them. (The consensus seems to be that CRTs still produce better pictures--blacker blacks, richer colors, etc.--than today's FPs.) I know it will be quite a while, if ever, before I replace my RCA CRT set with a FP--the flat-panel technology just has too many bugs in it right now.

You are correct in your observation that NTSC was supposed to have been shut down by now; the first FCC deadline for this was 2006, IIRC. Whether the deadline will be pushed back yet again remains to be seen.

There are, however, rules now in effect which state that all TVs with screens 32 inches and up must have ATSC tuners; next year another rule takes effect which states that all televisions 13 inches and larger must be equipped with ATSC tuners as well.

Whether or not this is a hint that all-digital TV is just around the corner, however, remains to be seen--as I said, the FCC may push back the deadline yet again (and again, and again...). I remember reading something somewhere very recently that said, in effect, digital HDTV is not all it is cracked up to be and may die out in a short time. Look at quadraphonic (four-channel) stereo sound in the '70s; it was dead by the early '80s. AM stereo radio is also pretty much dead as well after only a few years. High-definition (HD) FM? I believe that's headed down a dark road to oblivion as well. How many HD FM stereo systems and/or radios are there in the stores or in consumers' hands at this moment? I haven't seen any HD radio receivers yet. My best guess is HD FM will be as dead as AM stereo and quad sound in a very short time. The only advantage I can see with HD FM is that it gives those FM stations that use it a subchannel to broadcast another format on; I honestly do not believe, however, that it improves the sound all that much. An FM station in Cleveland claims to be broadcasting in HD but I'm darned if I can tell the difference between it and standard stereo FM, listening to the station on my 7-year-old Aiwa bookshelf stereo or any other FM radio I currently own.

High-definition TV is, IMHO, a fad that hasn't really caught on with the public, at least here in the Midwest. I know only one person (my barber) who actually has a HDTV flat-panel set; everyone else I know around here still uses the old reliable CRT TVs. The flat-panel sets are still far too expensive for most people to afford at this point, which is why RCA, and eventually other offshore TV manufacturers, have come out with a line of standard-definition TVs (SDTV). These are sets with a digital ATSC tuner already built in; the sets themselves are designed to receive digital HD signals and display them in the analog 4:3 aspect ratio TV viewers are accustomed to after well over five decades. These SDTVs are supposed to ease people into the transition from analog to digital, but my best guess is that most people will continue to use their analog CRT sets as long as they work. If you have cable, the conversion from digital to analog will be taken care of behind the scenes at the cable headend or in the cable box, if you use one. Satellite signals are digital by nature, so no conversion is needed with them at all; it is all done inside the satellite receiver. Again, my best guess right now is that most folks will run their current analog CRTs until they die, then they may replace them with FP sets. I say "may" because until HD flat panels drop to reasonable prices (well under $1,000 for a 23" or larger set) and until the sets are made to last more than a year or two, these high-tech TVs aren't going to sell well--in fact, I don't think they are exactly flying off store shelves even now.

There are several alternatives to traditional TV, mostly Internet based (except DVDs, of course), so many people who cannot afford HDTV may turn to the Internet for their TV eventually. In fact, I believe that some day the Internet may revolutionize television yet again (if it hasn't already made inroads to that effect), replacing high-definition digital OTA and cable. I have a lifetime membership to TV.org (www.tv.org), a site specializing in downloadable episodes of current and past TV series, and I use it quite a bit after rediscovering it last night. In fact, about the only time I watch regular TV anymore is for news and sports; between TV.org, network netcasts (NBC and ABC world news, et al.) and DVDs (I also have a subscription to Netflix), I find all the TV I like without having to watch the stuff that passes for entertainment on cable. The so-called "500-channel universe" is just a catch phrase from digital cable's early days, as no city (that I am aware of) has anywhere near 500 channels on their cable systems, even if you count digital stations--in fact, the cable operator in my area (Time Warner) only offers 200 channels on their digital service, if you get their best and most expensive package (counting movie channels--TW has three HBOs, three Showtime channels, at least three Cinemax, and on and on), and far less on the two tiers of analog service. Another fine example of media hype gone hog wild.

I've owned an HDTV for six years now and I can't wait until all broadcast are in widescreen HD. I've been disappointed that the NTSC shut down has been postponed as many times as it has. The technology has been available for many years to convert an ATSC signal to display on a NTSC display.

You make it sound like you live in a cave. Here in California most of the people I know have had at least one HDTV for a couple of years now and many have two like I do. But that's a generalization just like you made. You can hardly find a non HD capable tv in the stores anymore.

As for this NEW flat panel technology, both plasma and LCD displays have been around for three decades or more. Where I work we've had LCD monitors in use for at least seven years with no more issues than their CRT brothers. Now we have had problems with plasma TV's but the LCD's seem to hold up much better. As good as CRT? Probably not but not much worse either. The problem is if you want to watch something larger than a 4x3 35" you need to move away from a CRT. I for one really enjoying watching a DVD movie on my 56" HDTV with full Dolby Digital surround sound. And there's nothing like watching Star Wars on my friends 110" HD projector setup. It's just not quite the same on a 35" non HD set. I also haven't seen a CRT HDTV that's capable of displaying a 1080P picture that's available to the general public. Technology marches on and I've enjoyed marching along with it. Hail Hail ATSC widescreen HD!

[andy]

In defense of flat panel TVs, they are actually pretty affordable now. My family paid about $800 for a typical 27" TV in the 80's when I was a kid. Accounting for inflation, that same money will buy a 42" plasma or LCD TV. It's only the fact that CRT TVs are being sold at slave labor rates that make flat panels look expensive. NTSC CRT TVs are so cheap that they aren't even worth repairing.

[avguytx]

Being an electronics rep, I am in agreement that I'm ready for them to shut off the analog signal. It's been talked about for WAAAAYYYYY too long. I mean, until OTA HD signal, there hadn't been any "real" major difference in video reproduction since TV was invented. When color came out, is was basically B&W with color laced into it. There's only so many lines of resolution that those old sets can reproduce. Why would anyone want to watch TV in any other way than what new video can reproduce? It doesn't mean you have to buy a plasma, LCD, etc. You can do it with a rear projo or HD tube, etc TV if need be. I have satellite but don't subscribe to any of the HD channels. I just use my HD capable receiver's built in ATSC tuner and watch all the local channels that Dallas/Ft Worth has. I ALWAYS watch the locals in OTA signal rather than satellites local feed. I don't mean to start anything with anyone but I guess after having been in this business for 30 years, TV's are something that never appealed to me for collectibility and it amazes me that someone would want to watch the old funky rounded tubes and have no remote, etc. (I was the remote control when I was a kid!...lol) Now audio on the other hand, that's another story. It's fun to look at, friends think it's cool, sound quality can vary with each piece, etc. But like I always say...to each their own. Oh well. I'm just ready for all the BS about NTSC to be over with. Just my $.02. No more, no less....only opinion of one person.

[Bill R]

It would be fine with me if they just dump the whole digital HD thing altogether. There really isn't any programming on that I would want to watch in HD anyway, and 16:9 ratio is just plain wrong for TV (well ok if you have a wall size screen and projector setup it isn't bad for a movie).

Bill R

[Charlie]

Doug:

You could use programmabe UHF modulators... set the outputs to whatever channel you want. We use them on the ship for the "cable system" we built. They work pretty good.

Here's some on this page... it looks like some of them can have at least 3 inputs, and also output on 3 channels at once. That's kinda neat.

http://www.futurehomesystems.com/v100.shtml

[Randy Bassham]

I have a few questions re receiving HD or digital signals. I live in a far fringe rural area where the stations are all over 70 miles away other than a local UHF translator station. With a big enough antenna and an antenna mounted pre-amp I can get a fairly snow free signal on VHF channels but the UHF stations from the same locations are really not watchable. Since it's my understanding that digital signals are carried in the UHF band is this going to be the end of terrestrial broadcasting to fringe areas.

We have had Directv since '95 since cable is never coming out here, not enough houses per mile. I keep my antenna up even though I've got the local channels in the satellite programming, because during severe weather rain fade gets the satellite but I can still get storm reports via OTA.

I use my restored early B&W sets to watch old movies....Nothing better than Casablanca on a 1950's set. Takes me back to when I was a kid watching our 17 inch Emerson in the 50's.

[andy]

Originally Posted by Randy Bassham

I have a few questions re receiving HD or digital signals. I live in a far fringe rural area where the stations are all over 70 miles away other than a local UHF translator station. With a big enough antenna and an antenna mounted pre-amp I can get a fairly snow free signal on VHF channels but the UHF stations from the same locations are really not watchable. Since it's my understanding that digital signals are carried in the UHF band is this going to be the end of terrestrial broadcasting to fringe areas.

I dount you'll even know there's a singal there with digital. If you're curious, you could buy a set to box to test it with (assuming your local stations are doing digital yet). If it doesn't work, you can take the box back. If it works, you might like what you see and want to keep the box. There are some digital channels on VHF.

[wa2ise]

Originally Posted by Randy Bassham

I live in a far fringe rural area where the stations are all over 70 miles away other than a local UHF translator station. With a big enough antenna and an antenna mounted pre-amp I can get a fairly snow free signal on VHF channels but the UHF stations from the same locations are really not watchable. Since it's my understanding that digital signals are carried in the UHF band is this going to be the end of terrestrial broadcasting to fringe areas.

I wonder if there will be translators that will accept a digital TV channel input and decode it and transmit it as NTSC on another channel. I've heard of some independent UHF stations going digital only, and supplying the various CATV systems digital decoder boxes so the 80% of the viewers (who are cable subscribers) see this TV channel as an NTSC channel, as if nothing hapened to the old analog transmitter. The station saves on the transmitter electric bill, which is substantial on UHF.

[NowhereMan 1966]

Originally Posted by Duffinator

I've owned an HDTV for six years now and I can't wait until all broadcast are in widescreen HD. I've been disappointed that the NTSC shut down has been postponed as many times as it has. The technology has been available for many years to convert an ATSC signal to display on a NTSC display.

You make it sound like you live in a cave. Here in California most of the people I know have had at least one HDTV for a couple of years now and many have two like I do. But that's a generalization just like you made. You can hardly find a non HD capable tv in the stores anymore.

As for this NEW flat panel technology, both plasma and LCD displays have been around for three decades or more. Where I work we've had LCD monitors in use for at least seven years with no more issues than their CRT brothers. Now we have had problems with plasma TV's but the LCD's seem to hold up much better. As good as CRT? Probably not but not much worse either. The problem is if you want to watch something larger than a 4x3 35" you need to move away from a CRT. I for one really enjoying watching a DVD movie on my 56" HDTV with full Dolby Digital surround sound. And there's nothing like watching Star Wars on my friends 110" HD projector setup. It's just not quite the same on a 35" non HD set. I also haven't seen a CRT HDTV that's capable of displaying a 1080P picture that's available to the general public. Technology marches on and I've enjoyed marching along with it. Hail Hail ATSC widescreen HD!

I think California is a lot different that Pittsburgh, PA. Except for medical technology, the joke here is that "Pittsburgh is still stuck in the 1950's and if the world was coming to an end, come here, you'll get an extra 50 years to live." I only know, if lucky, one or two people with HDTV, the rest still have analogue sets. Myself, I still use a 1982 (it turns 24 this month) Zenith System 3 that I've been watching since high school (we bought it in 1983) and there are times, it has a picture on it to rival some HDTV's. So far, we plan to use it past 2009. I'm not like my grandmother (*), although I know many people here in Pittsburgh who are, where she watched her 1962 RCA B&W (with no UHF tuner) and still used a rotary phone until she passed on in 1997. She'd still be doing that if she was alive now. If she lasted until 2009 and the date was not pushed back, she would be screaming bloody murder. I'd guess I'd better find her a convertor box PDQ before she advocates the overthrow of the FCC, the US Government or something.

That's not quite true, sometimes the 1982 Zenith, there are a few times the "old girl" acts up, I'm looking for parts, but it is somewhat rare and shutting her down for a half a week to a week for a little rest, she goes on for months after that, we have a 1998 19 inch color Zenith as a backup. Use to be in my room, but now I called back my 1966 Sony B&W 9 inch TV where my Playstation is hooked to it.

Chuck

DE KA3WRW

[bgadow]

Our local Fox station is digital only; it's on all the cable channels, in analog of course. When they first went on the air (as a UPN affiliate) they had a big contest giving away set-top boxes.

I guess I would need 3 such boxes when the deal goes down. One for the living room set, one for the bedroom, and then one to float amongst the sets in the TV room. Sounds expensive! I know all about digital reception problems thanks to the fact that 2 of the 3 local stations have problems with their microwave (I guess?) feeds now. The PBS station is terrible; on a stormy night they can be unwatchable for hours. Sounds like someone is falling down on the job in engineering. There have been some times where the weather was really bad & both WCPB & WMDT were unwatchable due to the digital problem while WBOC was crystal clear. That's all thanks to something between station & transmitter or in the sattelite run I guess, since I am just watching them on a plain old analog tv set with an attic antenna.

[Carmine]

Originally Posted by avguytx

Being an electronics rep, I am in agreement that I'm ready for them to shut off the analog signal. It's been talked about for WAAAAYYYYY too long. I mean, until OTA HD signal, there hadn't been any "real" major difference in video reproduction since TV was invented. When color came out, is was basically B&W with color laced into it. There's only so many lines of resolution that those old sets can reproduce. Why would anyone want to watch TV in any other way than what new video can reproduce?.... .... I don't mean to start anything with anyone but I guess after having been in this business for 30 years, TV's are something that never appealed to me for collectibility and it amazes me that someone would want to watch the old funky rounded tubes and have no remote, etc. (I was the remote control when I was a kid!...lol) Now audio on the other hand, that's another story. It's fun to look at, friends think it's cool, sound quality can vary with each piece, etc. But like I always say...to each their own. Oh well. I'm just ready for all the BS about NTSC to be over with. Just my $.02. No more, no less....only opinion of one person.

As I said in another thread:

I read this debate on antiqueradio.com, and it seemed to always come down to one side accusing the other of living in the past. However, the arguement can be made that the new system is backwards-compatable, so long as you have a digital/analog conversion box.

I am willing to accept that, grudgingly, so that the mouth-breathing masses can see the stitching on a football, or the latest layer of Micheal Jackson's plastic surgery.

My first complaint is with the government becoming involved with what should be a private sector decision. Right now, broadcasters are running digital and analog transmissions. As long as they can make $$ doing both, they will. When the cost of electricity for running the analog tower outweighs the loss of ad revenue generated by people watching on analog sets is reached, they can decide for themselves when to shut down the old tower, not by an artificial mandate of 2009.

My second complaint is with the all/nothing nature of a digital signal, and what a PIA this is going to be anytime you don't want to watch TV (or eventually listen to the radio) from a hardwired (usually pay) connection.

Just yesterday, I was helping a friend clean her basement and we dug-up an old 19" Zenith Chromacolor set fom under the stairs (I hate to even say that for fear of yet another chromacolor testimonial!) I plugged it in, pulled up the rabbit-ears and damned if I wasn't watching the Simpsons while we cleaned the basement, albiet with a little snow. In the all digital senario, no cable, no usable signal in a basement.

...And yes, the friend has cable. Not everybody sits down to watch TV in their "media room" like it's some kinda big event. Could you imagine how successful radio WOULDN'T have been if you had to connect it to a cable to work?

If we can so easily dismiss the .03% of the population that gets signals OTA, why the hell do we need the FCC? Some guy running a pirate TV station on channel 69 isn't going to affect my digital cable reception of Anna Nicole Smith's latest scandal.

IF the HDTV/digital system is so great, people will demand it in time. If you involve the government, you eliminate competition, so there will be no motivation for someone to build a $200 HDTV. It's only electronics companies who have lobbied for an incompatable digital system. Last I heard, this was "supposed" to be a capitalist nation.

There is no reason the two can't co-exist (as they do now). Spare me the post-911 paranoia about "needed" frequencies, cops won't even go to a uniform "10" system with their radio calls, which results in loads of confusion in a disaster.

Your car has air-conditioning because more & more people paid extra for it in the 50s, 60s & 70s. It's not like it went away because people in the Alaska don't have a need for it.

Oh yeah... the 16:9 ratio is retarded too! 90% of framed shots are of 2-3 people, not the Chinese army running down a mountain! Now the camera man has to pull way back to frame the shot, and you get LESS detail of the action! Widescreen was a gimmick designed to COMBAT television, not be adopted by it!

[avguytx]

They've been filming movies in widescreen for quite a few years in oddball aspect ratios that are wider that 16:9 (1.85:1 ratio). I think the first one (well known) was "Ben Hur" which is filmed in 2:35:1. I still have black bars on my widescreen TV but that's fine. I'd rather see the whole movie and not some ugly PAN SCAN conversion. Movie studios and theaters have been filming in multiple aspect ratios for years and can vary screen width based on how the movie was shot. At least with HD, there's a guideline as to the width they film in and not varying aspect ratios of TV's. I only have HD in one room in the house but all the other rooms are old school TV (4:3 ratio) which is fine for typical satellite or cable programming.

I think one thing a lot of people are misled on or don't understand is the fact that the transition will only affect the people that are watching TV via an antenna ONLY. For people with pay TV service (cable or satellite, etc), it doesn't matter. You have a box anyway and it takes car of it. IF you are watching TV with only an OTA antenna, then yes, you'll be the one that can't watch TV when they "flip" the proverbial switch. There will be adapter boxes...they pretty much have to do that. TV's won't be obsolete overnite. Whatever the reason the government needs the signal for is their deal.

I'm just happy to have the ability to watch BETTER TV pictures than the same old 4:3 crap that's been out since the dawn of time. It's time to have something better. Times change.