Digital TV switch over where you are

[NineToTheSky]

Following on from this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=500428):

Here in the UK, we are in the middle of switching from analogue to digital TV. We have to either buy a new digital TV or a digital set top box. When the switch over is complete, the analogue signals will be switched off.

What is the situation in your country?

[racer72]

February 17 will be the end of all analog TV signals in the US. We have been getting the PSA's for almost a year now.

[Discordia]

Same thing here, by 2010 IIRC. Highly likely to get pushed back though.

ETA: In South Africa that is.

[Harmonious Discord]

Some low powered stations will remain broadcasting analog, but they'll reach almost nobody, and be stuff like local religious broadcasters. February is the end of analog broadcast as far as most people are concerned.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Here's a worldwide list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_switchover). Go Luxembourg!

[Harmonious Discord]

I bet those aliens watching the old shows on another planet are going to be pissed at having to build a converter box with having just figured out what that analog signal was and built an analog set.:mad: Their message to us won't work when it arrives either.:smack:

[kunilou]

And to top it off, the government program to help pay for digital converter boxes has run out of money. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/06/ST2009010600089.html)

[Martini Enfield]

They keep shifting the date here because staggeringly few people are interested in buying a $50-$100 Digital Set Top Box that will enable them to... watch the same TV they can watch now.

It's supposed to be 2012ish last I heard; they basically have to wait until enough people start to replace their old, worn out CRT TVs with LCD TVs that have inbuilt Digital Tuners in them.

The switch-over will happen eventually, though. The Government needs the money from flogging off the newly-available bandwidth that the abandonment of the analogue frequencies will free up.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Some low powered stations will remain broadcasting analog, but they'll reach almost nobody, and be stuff like local religious broadcasters. February is the end of analog broadcast as far as most people are concerned.

Not so much. A good number of smaller and/or rural communities receive television broadcasts via translator (http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#faq22).

[Amblydoper]

I bet those aliens watching the old shows on another planet are going to be pissed at having to build a converter box with having just figured out what that analog signal was and built an analog set.:mad: Their message to us won't work when it arrives either.:smack:
Give us the McNeal!

[Harmonious Discord]

Not so much. A good number of smaller and/or rural communities receive television broadcasts via translator (http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#faq22).

That still doesn't conflict with what I said and I meant all remaining sources in the United States. Most people will not receive analog broadcasts any longer.

[Oswald Bastable]

They keep shifting the date here because staggeringly few people are interested in buying a $50-$100 Digital Set Top Box that will enable them to... watch the same TV they can watch now.

That's a very poor showing. In the UK at least you get a lot more free to air digital channels than you get free to air analogue channels (whether they're worth watching or not is another matter entirely, of course). Plus you can buy crappy budget set-top boxes for about a tenner here (which is about 20AUD I believe).

On the plus side you have better weather (so don't really need to be stuck inside watching the telly).

OB

[Martini Enfield]

That's a very poor showing. In the UK at least you get a lot more free to air digital channels than you get free to air analogue channels (whether they're worth watching or not is another matter entirely, of course). Plus you can buy crappy budget set-top boxes for about a tenner here (which is about 20AUD I believe).

There are a couple of extra channels, but they're of the "News in Latvian or Different Views of the Same Show" variety, with the exception of ABC 2, which is still largely timeshifts or repeats of stuff from ABC 1.

In short, nothing worth spending $50 on for most people.

[Gfactor]

Moved from General Questions to In My Humble Opinion.

Gfactor
General Questions Moderator

[elmwood]

February 17 will be the end of all analog TV signals in the US. We have been getting the PSA's for almost a year now.

The PSAs are quite frequent and very simple to understand, but polls show that many are still confused about the transition, and about 10% of television viewers aren't even aware analog will be switched off in about a month. How they're ignorant of that, I don't know; the PSAs have been commonplace for the past year and a half, and non-stop for the past six months.

[clayton_e]

The PSAs generally piss me off. I don't have cable anymore (I did for about 4 months this past year, but then I realized that all told I probably watched maybe 12 hours worth of programming in that time) but it got to me that those PSAs would be on constantly even on channels that were cable only. Cable users do not need any sort of converter box. And from someone I know who got one, he says its tough to adjust to get the stations you'd want. Great picture, yes, but that's only when you can get it.

I've heard complaints that for this area, so close to the border, people won't be able to see the Canadian stations they want to watch. The response to it was that newer converter boxes have an analog bypass option.

Whole thing looks like a dumb mess to me anyway. Not all that many people still have the rabbit ears. Yes, I know a few will pop in here and say "I do!" but as a norm.. is there some data out there that says what percentage of TV viewers use regular antenna?

[Munch]

And from someone I know who got one, he says its tough to adjust to get the stations you'd want. Great picture, yes, but that's only when you can get it.

I'd like to know what the percentage of antenna-only users there are as well.

But regards to the above quote, it's hard to tell until 2/17, because many stations, while having been broadcasting digital since 2005, don't have their signal fully powered up. Once they switch off the analog, many areas should be seeing a boost to their digital reception area.

[3acresandatruck]

Yes, I know a few will pop in here and say "I do!" I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. (http://s302.photobucket.com/albums/nn106/3aaat/file004/oldandbusted.jpg) :)

[MsWhatsit]

Well, we're still using a rabbit-ears antenna and I'm pissed off about this whole thing. We got our voucher for a converter box, which didn't even cover the full cost of the box, and brought the thing home only to find that it won't pick up a couple of stations. At all. I mean, no signal at all, not even a choppy one. I contacted the stations in question and they both sort of shrugged and said that buildings and other obstacles can impair the digital signal. This doesn't really make sense to me, as both channels come in perfectly clearly, with no ghosting or static, via our current analog signal.

So what this means for us is that we're going to contact the damn cable company to ask if there's some kind of low-cost broadcast-station-only package we can buy. I'm not interested in getting cable. I don't want cable. I am perfectly happy with just the stations we get over the air, except that's not an option anymore. This is very annoying to me.

[3acresandatruck]

MsWhatsit, I think the key is to concentrate on getting UHF signals. I just switched over and here's how I've got my new TV rigged up. I'm not using the old rabbit ears to pick up the digital broadcasts. I had an old bowtie-style clip-on UHF antenna with a piece of twin-lead. I hooked the twin-lead connector to a couple of adapters to mate it to a piece of coax that is attached to the TV (in your case, you'd attach it to the converter box). I have a push-pin holding the bowtie antenna up near the ceiling. I'm about 40-50 miles out from the transmitters in a wooded hilly area and I'm getting all the digital stations in St. Louis with my juryrigged setup, including full-HD on the stations that are transmitting it.

The main thing in my setup is the old inside UHF TV antenna. All the other rigamarole is just the junk that gets the antenna connected to the TV.

[HeyHomie]

Well, we're still using a rabbit-ears antenna and I'm pissed off about this whole thing. We got our voucher for a converter box, which didn't even cover the full cost of the box, and brought the thing home only to find that it won't pick up a couple of stations. At all.

Similar problem where I work: I work in a nursing home that steadfastly refuses to provide the residents with cable TV, and most of our residents don't have the money to go buy new TVs, so we applied for converter box coupons for them. I've rigged up a couple, and basically our residents have gone from getting one station well and four poorly, to getting one station well, and nothing else at all.

Is this situation likely to change after the 2/17 switchover?

[Engineer Dude]

I've heard complaints that for this area, so close to the border, people won't be able to see the Canadian stations they want to watch. The response to it was that newer converter boxes have an analog bypass option.

You mean some of the converter boxes don't output analog stations? :eek:

I wasn't aware of this. Right now, I have a Philips DVDR3576H DVD recorder with a 160 GB hard drive, and a JVC DR-MV100B DVD and VCR recorder combo. The units have both a digital and an analog tuner, so you can get both. The tuners in both of these are stronger than the digital tuner in my Toshiba 47HL167 LCD TV. In other words, the TV will say "low broadcast signal" and just be a blue screen, while the DVD recorders will pick up the station (using the same antenna).

So yeah, I can't recommend using a DVD recorder with a digital tuner for free, over-the-air TV enough. It costs more money-up-front than a converter box, but it's only a one-time cost. The downside is that all DVD recorders (as opposed to the expensive, $180 high-definition terrestrial tuners) currently downconvert the digital stations that are in HD to standard definition.

[kunilou]

You mean some of the converter boxes don't output analog stations? :eek:

That is correct, including the two that I bought using my $40 vouchers.

Since the only low power stations I could ever get are either religious or home shopping, this doesn't distress me, but I'm sure there are people who rely on translators or enjoy that type of programming.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

And to top it off, the government program to help pay for digital converter boxes has run out of money. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/06/ST2009010600089.html)And it's been mostly a scam, anyway.

People were encouraged to apply for these coupons early, then found out that there were hardly any of the converter boxes available to buy in electronics stores. And then the coupons had a short expiration date, and have expired. And you can't get a new coupon if your old ones expired. (Why they ever had an expiration date in the first place has never been explained.) And then the limit of 2 coupons per address, even though most houses have more than 2 TVs.

The last figures I saw, only 43% of these coupons have actually been used. So well over half of them were not used. Hell, even mail-in rebate coupons pay off better than this FCC scam!

[Unsquare Dance]

We just upgraded to an HDTV, so we didn't need a converter box, but we had to get a digital antenna. There's zero reception in this apartment building without it. We've already made the switch, though, so that's good.

My parents have it rougher. They have a TV in every room because my dad is obsessed with TV. But he also can't let go of old electronics, so all but three are CRT televisions. They got their two coupons, used them, and then used mine to get another box, and still don't have enough converter boxes for every TV in the house. My mom is trying to convince my dad to part with some televisions, since they have them in rooms that are empty 99% of the time.

I'm a little pissed at our local CBS outfit, KFVS. They are broadcasting a DTV signal, but refuse to recognize complaints that it's a really crappy output, even though a lot of people I know are having problems. Even my parents, who pick up more stations than I do and live close to one of their towers, can't get it. I hope they intend to boost the signal strength when they switch in February. It's the only CBS carrier that can be picked up in this part of Southern Illinois.

So far, the best DTV channels I've seen in our area are all WSIU, which is PBS. Their HD channel is gorgeous and rarely ever craps out. Even the regular SD channel is fantastic.

[flodnak]

The switchover is complete here in southeast Norway, with no analogue signals available; in some areas both digital and analogue signals are still being broadcast, but the analogue broadcasts will be switched off throughout the country by the end of the year. We have cable so the change didn't affect us at all, but I know there were complaints that those who still use a traditional antenna (as opposed to cable, satellite, and broadband subscribers) were disproportionately elderly viewers, and that it was difficult to figure out what was information about the switchover and what was advertising for new products connected with it.

[Bridget Burke]

And to top it off, the government program to help pay for digital converter boxes has run out of money. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/06/ST2009010600089.html)

As I discovered when I finally ordered my coupons yesterday. The site said I'd go on a waiting list!

I've got cable, but only for the main TV. Haven't paid Comcast for a line into the kitchen. No great problem for now.

However, I'm thinking ahead to hurricane season. Like everybody else in Houston, I lost power when Ike blew in. Mine was restored by 6PM of the very next day. My cable was out for almost a week, but at least I had broadcast TV.

[Martini Enfield]

The switchover is complete here in southeast Norway, with no analogue signals available; in some areas both digital and analogue signals are still being broadcast, but the analogue broadcasts will be switched off throughout the country by the end of the year. We have cable so the change didn't affect us at all, but I know there were complaints that those who still use a traditional antenna (as opposed to cable, satellite, and broadband subscribers) were disproportionately elderly viewers, and that it was difficult to figure out what was information about the switchover and what was advertising for new products connected with it.

You don't need a special antenna to get digital TV though- the one on the roof of your house should work just fine. The difference is that instead of having an analogue tuner in your TV, you've got a Digital Tuner there. Or the antenna lead runs from your wall into the Digital Set Top Box and from there into your telly.

The bigger issue I noticed here when I was working in the electronics retail industry was people with really old TVs that either didn't have RCA sockets in them, or only had one set (being used by the DVD player or the PlayStation) and had to run their Digital STBs via an RF lead. It was just one step too complicated for most people.

[Sublight]

According to this government site (http://www.soumu.go.jp/joho_tsusin/whatsnew/digital-broad/when_en.html), digital broadcasts in Japan started back around 2003, and analog broadcasts will end on July 24, 2011.

Our family room TV is digital, but my MIL has an ancient TV in her bedroom that won't be usable after 2011 (if it even survives that long). I may get her a lightweight LCD TV for her birthday this year.

[Chicken Fingers]

I don't know what to think about the digital conversion. It seems it's going to screw over the poorest, most isolated people who use over-the-air television the most.

We've always used rabbit ears, and once we got digital converter boxes, we received about 30 crystal-clear channels/subchannels, so it was a big improvement for us. This was in an urban area, on top of a hill.

Then we recently moved less than 20 miles to a suburb, into a very low-lying house, and we get nothing but two little nearby fringe-programming stations. Now we have to pony up almost $30 a month if we want to watch ONLY the (formerly) free, over-the-air local stations. It irks my tightwad soul.

About the digital converter boxes---the first Zenith digital converter box we got didn't get analog signals, but we bought another this summer, and the current generation does get analog signals.

[Engineer Dude]

That is correct, including the two that I bought using my $40 vouchers.

Since the only low power stations I could ever get are either religious or home shopping, this doesn't distress me, but I'm sure there are people who rely on translators or enjoy that type of programming.

It'd probably be cheaper to just buy another, updated box with analog bypass, but here's what I would do:

1) Run the coax cable that's attached to the antenna into the input of a cable splitter (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882021065).
2) Run a short coax cable from one of the outputs of the splitter into the "RF input" of the TV, and use the TV's tuner to tune analog stations.
3) Run another short coax cable from another one of the outputs of the splitter to the input of the converter box.
4) Run RCA cables (red, white, and yellow) from the output of the converter box to the A/V input of the TV.

If your TV only has an RF/antenna input and no A/V inputs, you'd have to use an RF modulator (http://www.amazon.com/Recoton-DVD-647-DVD647-RF-Modulator/dp/B00005T3FO) to rejoin the two (one analog, one digital streams).

[Engineer Dude]

Drat, passed the window for editing. I was gonna say, if you have a VCR with an A/V input, you could use that as the RF modulator.

[clayton_e]

Hell, even mail-in rebate coupons pay off better than this FCC scam!

You do realize that, unlike mail-in rebates, you're not paying anything to be reimbursed? This "scam" is merely a badly planned government program to fund the conversion for people so they don't have to pay for it all themselves. The government doesn't make the things and has to coordinate to make sure there's enough out there for everybody. If this gets messed up.. I just don't care. There's bigger things to worry about.


I say screw it, I don't care if the old ladies get to watch Judge Judy come February. Let people pay for it themselves and spend the money on inner city schools.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

You do realize that, unlike mail-in rebates, you're not paying anything to be reimbursed? Funny, I thought it was my tax money funding this.

I say screw it, I don't care if the old ladies get to watch Judge Judy come February. Let people pay for it themselves and spend the money on inner city schools.I can agree with this. Besides schools, we have lots of infrastructure that needs repair, like the bridge over the Mississippi River about 2 miles north of me that fell down last year.

[whitetho]

Obama team urges delay in digital TV transition (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hlGcM0ZxYV5dDtZR_9xfCPZnkFaAD95J76O81): "President-elect Barack Obama is urging Congress to postpone the Feb. 17 switch from analog to digital television broadcasting, arguing that too many Americans who rely on analog TV sets to pick up over-the-air channels won't be ready."

[Harmonious Discord]

I think they should kill the analog programing for a day, so the idiots that haven't figured it out yet get the message. All stations should broadcast you really are stupid aren't you? We will broadcast starting tomorrow for one more week and if your still can't figure out you need a new converter, we're sure you'll enjoy watching a blank screen.

[ScatteredFrog]

Here's what I want to know...

The reason the switchover is mandatory is so they can free up bandwidth for emergency communications et al.

And digital is "so much better."

Then why don't they use the better band for emergency communications, where you WANT the best quality possible??

[Tom Tildrum]

Here's what I want to know...

The reason the switchover is mandatory is so they can free up bandwidth for emergency communications et al.

And digital is "so much better."

Then why don't they use the better band for emergency communications, where you WANT the best quality possible??

It's the same band. Going to digital allows the TV signals to take up a much smaller portion of it.

Whether or not the digital TV broadcast is better is a separate issue, often depending on the TV station's broadcast equipment, and the layout of the locality.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Here's what I want to know...

The reason the switchover is mandatory is so they can free up bandwidth for emergency communications et al.Bullshit. That's the excuse.

The real reason is so that broadcast media can make more money, by having more bandwidth available to send more TV signals, so they can compete with cable TV & satellite providers.

You can be sure that most of this freed-up bandwidth is auctioned off to broadcast media corporations, rather than used for "emergency communications".

[Tom Tildrum]

Bullshit. That's the excuse.

The real reason is so that broadcast media can make more money, by having more bandwidth available to send more TV signals, so they can compete with cable TV & satellite providers.

You can be sure that most of this freed-up bandwidth is auctioned off to broadcast media corporations, rather than used for "emergency communications".

Well, this could be viewed as "paying money to the Government to offer more TV to everyone." I understand the problem that the switchover poses for some people, but it's not as if there's no upside at all.

[clairobscur]

Following on from this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=500428):

Here in the UK, we are in the middle of switching from analogue to digital TV. We have to either buy a new digital TV or a digital set top box. When the switch over is complete, the analogue signals will be switched off.

What is the situation in your country?


Same thing here. Except that I've no clue if and when analog signal will be discontinued. I assume I'll hear of that in time. I didn't bother buying a box, even though it's required for two or three recent channels. I probably can live without them.

[clairobscur]

I know we're in IMHO, but, by the way, why exactly are we all switching to digital TV?

[Magiver]

There are a couple of extra channels, but they're of the "News in Latvian or Different Views of the Same Show" variety, with the exception of ABC 2, which is still largely timeshifts or repeats of stuff from ABC 1.

In short, nothing worth spending $50 on for most people. I went from 6 to 14 channels switching over and I expect that to increase over time. The reception is much better. I'm thinking of putting up an antenna to pick up more signals.

[Magiver]

I know we're in IMHO, but, by the way, why exactly are we all switching to digital TV? It narrows the broadcast bandwidth used for television which frees up space for other uses. And it's also a function of moving forward with technology.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Then we recently moved less than 20 miles to a suburb, into a very low-lying house, and we get nothing but two little nearby fringe-programming stations. Now we have to pony up almost $30 a month if we want to watch ONLY the (formerly) free, over-the-air local stations. It irks my tightwad soul.
Do you mean $30 a month for cable or satellite? If so, I would suggest getting a better antenna. You'll only have to pay for it once and there is probably an antenna out there that would bring in pretty much any station (unless you have extreme terrain issues) for a one-time cost of less than $200 (or about 7 months of $30 per).

Then there is the dirty little secret that the cable and satellite companies don't want you to know: while digital broadcast TV is only compressed a little bit, cable and satellite have their signals squashed flatter than a pancake in a black hole. They do that so they can squeeze more crappy channels into your satellite or cable pipeline (and squeeze more bucks out of content providers) but at the expense of picture quality. Broadcast DTV looks a lot better than cable/satellite service, however some viewers won't notice the difference. After all-- some folks here on the SDMB have declared they can't even see the difference between standard def and HDTV.

Maybe they should compare cable HDTV with broadcast HDTV. They might see the difference then. Hell, digital broadcast standard definition sometimes looks better than cable/satellite HDTV! I would advise people to stop worrying so much about flat-screen vs. CRT etc., etc... and start worrying more about the crappy signal they are getting from greedy cable/satellite companies.

[Sunspace]

Then there is the dirty little secret that the cable and satellite companies don't want you to know...This is why my next TV purchase will be a digital/analogue tuner box (http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3584092&CatId=1427)* that plugs into my Mac via USB. I'll need to get an amplified antenna too.



*Unfortunately, that particular unit now seems to be unavailable--they have an identical unit, except that it's black and Windows-only. :(

[Martini Enfield]

I went from 6 to 14 channels switching over and I expect that to increase over time. The reception is much better. I'm thinking of putting up an antenna to pick up more signals.

I was referring to the situation in Australia (ABC= Australian Broadcasting Corporation), where there are only a couple of extra channels and they don't have any worthwhile "Unique" content on them for the most part.

The picture is better quality though. I'm glad we upgraded, but for most people they just don't see the point, and I can understand why.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

It narrows the broadcast bandwidth used for television which frees up space for other uses. And it's also a function of moving forward with technology.
Horseshit. TV channels have 6MHz of spectrum now, they will have 6MHz of spectrum after the transition. The bandwidth "increase" lets them broadcast more programming and sell more advertisements.

Do not even get me started on the "public safety" block, which is currently being envisioned as a system run by a public/private for-profit partnership, subsidized by an approximate $50/month access charge per subscriber unit (that means every hand held radio, mobile radio) in addition to an activation charge dependent upon the final cost of building out the infrastructure.

I also question anyone (news media especially) who thinks the 700MHz "public safety" spectrum is some wunderkind technological breakthrough that will in any way provide better coverage or service than the current lowband/UHF/VHF systems. As frequency goes up, signal propagation goes down-- waves do not travel as far as they do compared with lower-frequency signals. Thus, more infrastructure is required to cover the same given area, multiplying equipment costs as well as maintenance costs. Performance will be quite comparable to existing 800MHz systems, which is not surprising considering the blocks are less than 100MHz apart.

That still doesn't conflict with what I said and I meant all remaining sources in the United States. Most people will not receive analog broadcasts any longer.
It does conflict, and here's why.

First, your post implied the only low-power stations would be religious broadcasts, this is incorrect, many translators carry the major broadcast networks. Second, most translators will continue transmitting analog, and the portion of the smaller and medium-sized markets receiving only translator broadcasts is significant.

Translators serve more than "next to nobody." Basically any market with less than 50,000 residents will be served by a translator.

[mecaenas]

For those who only have access to poor indoor antennas, you can always make your own. Since I rent a unit in a building that doesn't have any outdoor antennas, and only has cable TV which I don't subscribe to, I was screwed. I had to make do with a store-bought digital antenna which, as it turns out, was crap because it could only pickup 2 stations.

I discovered this helpful video on Youtube with instructions for building your own indoor antenna (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw). I'm by no means a handyman, and it was pretty easy to make in about 45 minutes. Voila! A sturdy antenna to stash behind my TV cabinet that picks up ALL of the digital stations where I live.

[mecaenas]

Oh right, I forgot to mention that in Australia digital TV broadcasts started at the beginning of 2001 and the shutdown of analogue starts in 2010 (regional areas) and will complete in 2013 (cities).

[Engineer Dude]

For those who only have access to poor indoor antennas, you can always make your own. Since I rent a unit in a building that doesn't have any outdoor antennas, and only has cable TV which I don't subscribe to, I was screwed. I had to make do with a store-bought digital antenna which, as it turns out, was crap because it could only pickup 2 stations.

I discovered this helpful video on Youtube with instructions for building your own indoor antenna (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw). I'm by no means a handyman, and it was pretty easy to make in about 45 minutes. Voila! A sturdy antenna to stash behind my TV cabinet that picks up ALL of the digital stations where I live.

I spent today building two - one for a relative and one for myself and - holy crap - it's light years better than the Philips and the RCA antenna I've used.

[Tamex]

We had an almost-heated discussion at work the other day about whether or not you needed an antenna with the new digital TV's. Some woman was insisting that hers worked without one. Turns out that she actually has a rooftop antenna and didn't notice that her husband had to hook that up to the new TV when he set it up. There are people who are really, really confused out there about this. Very glad I'm no longer a telephone operator--I thought I got weird calls from confused old people before!

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

And then there's the whole canard about "digital" or "HDTV" antennae. It is important for people to know that when it comes to receiving broadcast signals your antenna doesn't care one whit if the signals are digital or analog. Any old antenna will work with either type of signal so don't get ripped off by that schmuck at Radio Shack (or wherever) trying to sell you on the more expensive, but equally good/bad "digital" antenna.

There are many things to consider when purchasing a broadcast TV antenna, but digital/analog (antenna-wise) doesn't come into it.

Well... you MAY need to to buy a stronger antenna--perhaps with a pre-amp-- to faithfully receive DTV signals that your old TV set/antenna could pick up ok when the signal was analog. But that just means you need the proper number of elements, mount it at the proper height, etc. It DOESN'T mean you need a "digital" antenna. The term is meant only to make more money by taking advantage of people's uncertainties about the DTV switchover.

[Martini Enfield]

And then there's the whole canard about "digital" or "HDTV" antennae. It is important for people to know that when it comes to receiving broadcast signals your antenna doesn't care one whit if the signals are digital or analog. Any old antenna will work with either type of signal so don't get ripped off by that schmuck at Radio Shack (or wherever) trying to sell you on the more expensive, but equally good/bad "digital" antenna.

There are many things to consider when purchasing a broadcast TV antenna, but digital/analog (antenna-wise) doesn't come into it.

Well... you MAY need to to buy a stronger antenna--perhaps with a pre-amp-- to faithfully receive DTV signals that your old TV set/antenna could pick up ok when the signal was analog. But that just means you need the proper number of elements, mount it at the proper height, etc. It DOESN'T mean you need a "digital" antenna. The term is meant only to make more money by taking advantage of people's uncertainties about the DTV switchover.

This is absolutely true and well worth remembering.

I can think of several customers I had who were adamant that they needed a "Digital" antenna despite me (working in an electronics store!) trying to tell them that wasn't the case and their rooftop antenna would be fine, or at worse, they might need a signal booster. In the end it wasn't worth arguing with them. It's amazing the power that "(Someone)'s Brother/Cousin/Mate who is Really Good With Computers/Cars/Electronics" has with the Average Customer, even when they (the "Really good with (thing) friend) is patently wrong and the person who does know what they're talking about has explained it in a friendly, easy to understand manner. But no, Gazza's Really Good With Electronics and he says we need the "Digital Antenna" so here's $100 and stop trying to confuse us with the facts!

It's easier not to argue with them after a while.