Stephen, To answer your question, all TV sets as of I believe last year 26 inches or larger that are sold in the US had to have an ATSC tuner built into them that would allow them to receive a digital signal. The resolution on most of these TV's is far lower than HD, often topping out at 800x600 pixels instead of the 1280x720 or 1900x1080 that is common for HD. Nevertheless, the picture will still be an improvement over analog.
For users with TV's that don't have one of these TV's, there are two options. They can either go out and buy a Digital TV tuner box for around $100, or they can just use their existing cable or satellite system which for the most part is a digital signal already. The picture quality is even lower than what you would get on one of the lower end TV's (often it's 640x480) resolution, but it still looks better than the snowy analog picture. For those that are still on analog cable, the cable company would either be required to upgrade to digital cable or the user might have to buy their DTV box as mentioned before. Not quite sure how that one wll play out yet as no cable company seems inclined to start moving in that direction. Part of the reason the Federal governemnt wants that spectrum cleared is that the 700Mhz band is incredibly good at transmitting wireless data at fairly high bitrates (many megabits per second), and the wireless carriers are keen to get in on this as a "third wireless pipe" down to the user. An example of the existing applications for it are Qualcomm's Mobile TV service that's currently running on Verizon Wireless Network and soon on AT&T/Cingular. It uses the 700 Mhz spectrum in markets wherer UHF channel 55 is available to provide TV access like ESPN,NBC,CBS,MTV and a few others to handsets at much greater quality than existing streaming services on the mobile handsets. In addition, the FCC is expected to rake in well in excess of USD100 billion dollars on the spectrum auction for that 700Mhz band. So, the point of this rather lengthy and slightly off topic email is that I think the only way government is going to mandate a switch to anything, SI or otherewise, is if the corporation and the governmenet both stand to make insane amounts of money in a relatively short period of time. Converting to SI would accomplish this, but it would be more of a cost savings move instead of "I now can make billions in one day", and the government has never been keen on saving money :). Mike On 6/5/07, Stephen Gallagher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was reading an article on high-definition televisions, and how > the US government has mandated that all TV stations broadcast in HD > only beginning in 2009. This will cost consumers several thousand > dollars each to replace a television set, or at minimum several > hundred dollars each to purchase a converter box. > > This is a costly mandate - yet we do not see a groundswell of > opposition or lobbyists trying to de-rail implementation of this > rule. The cost for the US to complete metrication in short order > is probably less than what it would cost for us to all replace our > televisions next year. So why is it that metrication is portrayed > as a costly endeavor, but making everyone buy new TV sets is not? I > guess it depends on who is paying the bill - consumers or > corporations. If a powerful enough lobby wanted to oppose it, you can be sure that the US public would be hearing and reading about how the government is: <highly exaggerated voice tone> *forcing them to buy new televisions or spend hundreds to keep their old ones working *dictating to the public "Even though we know you don't want this, you have no choice. You will do this because we say so" </highly exaggerated voice tone> There's been hardly a ripple over this change, with a few mentions in the media from time to time. A lot of people still don't even know about it.
-- "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
