Slashdot Mirror
Will America's Favorite Technology Go Dark?
Ant wrote to mention that MSNBC is reporting on the upcoming proposed digital television switchover planned for the end of 2006. From the article: "That's the date Congress targeted, a decade ago, for the end of analog television broadcasting and a full cutover to a digital format. If enforced, that means that overnight, somewhere around 70 million television sets now connected to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will suddenly and forever go blank, unless their owners purchase a special converter box. Back when the legislation was written, New Year's Eve 2006 probably looked as safely distant as the dark side of the moon. But now that date is right around the corner and Congress and the FCC are struggling mightily to figure out what to do."
Perhaps they should delay the switchover if they're not ready.
I dont think so. Because they used a lot of very bright lights when filiming shows.
Back in 1996, when the digital television transition was first proposed, media analyst Gary Arlen observed wryly that "it will be easier for Congress to take away Social Security than television sets."
They can take my TV set out of my cold.... oh wait, let me see what ad-free dvd movie to watch first...
Too bad the US doesn't make any of that stuff anymore, or it might help the sucky economy.
Expect congress to push the date back or be swamped with rednecks bitching about their TV.
Like the brave Ithacans who faced down the deadly cyclops, these legislators are facing down the awful realities of trying to legislate technological progress. And like the Ithacans, they are getting their heads dashed against the rocks and eaten.
Well, the government had either lift the regulation or start subsidizing these sets somehow. Oh wait, that comes out of our taxpayer money... For the people by the people my ass if this goes through without some kind of recompense. The market simply isn't ready for it...
But on the bright side, what a way to get your average Joe to take a look at the government and the way it operates than to turn off his idiot tube. Not that this regulation was all bad -- it was to spur on development. Would that they'd do away wth IP patents in the same way.
We'll see. In this case, the revolution may really NOT be televised.
In the US, legislations can be fixed by new legislations. No probs.
...in the UK, this is already happening, region by region - even though the official switchover isn't until 2008 or so. The first switchover was to a small area of Wales (with a smallish population), who decided by public vote (around 95% in favour) to switch off the analogue transmissions completely. I think my area (south west england/south wales) is scheduled next, although not for a year or so. Obviously, it's a lot easier to provide digital signals to the whole of the UK than it is to the entire of the US.
Of course, it's also to the UK (and I guess the US's) government's benefit, since by switching off early they can sell of the frequencies earlier, and get cash sooner.
Australia has similar legislation and we are also getting close to our date (I'm not sure what it was off hand, but it isn't far).
Their solution to the problem was to re-interpret what the rules said, now they are working on the bases that Analog TV must be broadcasted till at least the date in the original legislation. As such, it's now up to the television networks to decide when they want to do it.
We are currently at war in two countries and paddling, not drifting, towards German style fascism.
For God's sake (I use the term literally), quit bitching about your TV. There'll be time enough to save that after we save our lives and our country. I'm 25 years old and male and it seems likely I'll be invading Iran pretty soon, but the media is bought off and Slashdot, the biggest connector of intelligent people on the entire Internet, is less of a source of information than this month's GQ.
Please, please, I am begging you, I....ooh! Shiny!
These TVs aren't exactly obsolete -- they can still function as monitors for game systems, video tapes, DVDs, etc., etc. The question is how expensive these converter boxes will be. I might be willing to shell out the money for one of those, attach it to the oldest functioning TV set I can find, and have a nice retro piece.
First this, now TV's gone, too.
Here in sweeden is simlar situation, but we will proceed with the conversion. Some part of the country is now switching, and I will get switched in late 2006.
Off course "officially" I have no TV...
------- In the end there are no begining
Its TV turnoff week people!
I don't want to read
What do you call a comercial service that cuts off 70 million potential customers ...Progress is good , but if they need to phase it in slowly not have a termination date .Obviously 10 year was far from enough as you still have a good ?(half)ammount of the homes in the US with analog TVs(70 million TV sets is probably about a quater really or a half , who knows , i was thinking average of 3-4 people per house but then each house may have 2 sets or more ?? ). ,preferably alot lower) other-wise several million people going out at once to get TV add-ons may cause a few problems(along with a few boosts in revenue )
They will need to extend the date till the numbers are well under 10 million(at-least
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
The government knows best.
A service like that, released at the right time would be a huge money maker.
University of Washington
Student
you can see it on this map:
- D. htm
http://www.ueberall-tv.de/3content/planD/Ein-in
reddish areas are digital only, green areas will go digital only this year
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
The switching started this very spring here (in France) and millions of converter have already been sold witch the authorities consider a big success. The analog broadcasting will however continue for years. First to ensure that the whole country is covered by digital TV and second to ensure that people by digital converters to their grand-parents lost in remote areas who don't have a clue about what to do.
Personally, I would find it hilarious to see the aftermath of all this.
Just imagine: millions of rednecks and fat bastards on welfare with too many kids marching from over the hillside a la civil-war front-line style, raising rabit ears over their heads, pulling their circa 1970 TV sets in their little red Radio Flyer wagons, screaming some indiscernible southern hick yella-belly gibberish that amounts to "give us tv or give us death", the ground trembling as they aproach, the stench overwhelming even though they are downwind, their tattered and soiled clothes barely covering the numerous warts and rashes, legislators running in horror, asking "why allah, why oh why?!?!"
Yeh, that would be funny.
How do the $$ advertisers feel about losing so many millions of watchers overnight? Aren't they the ones who PAY the $ to make it all happen?
Maybe the FCC should make dial-up illegal.
..Every week is TV Turnoff week for me; I come in and turn off the roommate's TV.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
If the corporations, i.e. Sony, Toshiba, Hitachi, some English names, would get involved in this, promoting the converter boxes, actually mention this date to the majority of the public, Congress might finally get something done right, and on time. I am still waiting for Congress to realize that making everyone update their televison sets really won't do anything to help America progress. Why aren't their bills like this passed for high speed internet where I live? Why are we continually falling behind to the Japanese and European nations? Why doesn't Congress do something about actual problems, rather than enforcing the country to switch to H-Def so they can watch their precious football in pretty vision?
About a year ago I went to price out how much these boxes are, and at the time they were around $300. And that's too much, especially when you consider I watch maybe three shows a week (I got it to watch DVDs on and play my consoles on, mainly).
Plus, this is the only HDTV in the house, so the other TVs will need a converter box to convert the digital signals back into analog for them. And God only knows how much those are going to cost.
And I don't have cable or satellite TV, either. So spending over $100 (Per TV) just to get my local stations is pure bullshit.
Until we know how much these things are going to cost, congress and the FCC would do well to postpone the switch, at least until the devices necessary come down in price to something more affordable for everyone. For all we know, there may not even be any HD to analog converter boxes made yet in preparation for the switch.
Hubble telescope, anyone?
Well, some people might use their TV for the countdown. Would be funny if one Technician switched to early ...
But seriously - German terrestrial television is switching to digital broadcast since 2003. It's done slowly (only a third of the frequencies at a time) and spread over the year.
As a result the transition works good. They only bad thing is that remote areas have fewer digital channels then the big cities.
* Smile. People will wonder what you think. *
The reason that no one really gives a damn about switching over is that most people have cable or satellite, while those of us (including myself, still on rabbit ears) just don't think American television is damn good enough to pay for. The Brits bitch about their TV licences, but at least they get kick-ass television and television news that is second to none. I would gladly pay it. But am I going to buy a converter box to watch American TV? No - I barely even watch the rabbit ears now - my TV is basically a device for watching VHS tapes on. It's a slightly bigger screen to invite friends over to look at (instead of the computer monitor) and to be frank, I don't know if it's worthwhile to lug to my new apartment when my lease is up. And if you want me to subsidize this farce? The only way you will get me to support subsidizing television is if either the companies that put television on the air start putting on some shows worth watching or we move to an "all stations are publically financed and owned by the government" BBC-like model. I plan to solve the problem by living in another country by the time that New Years Even 2006 rolls around, but this has been a clusterf*ck at the FCC. The waste of HDTV bandwidth and the utter mismanagement of this FCC, spending more time looking for nipples than caring about technology. The corporations squatted the spectrum, didn't do anything with it... why hasn't the FCC responded with the only possible course of action and removed their licences!
How many people is worth giving up the enormous amount of radio spectrum that analog TV takes up? Just cut it off and let them replace the old TVs or get cable. Or learn to go without TV.
Here the shut down for the analog transmissions is in july 2011. But you can still buy analog TV sets on the shops ... mmmhhh, wide plasma digital TV. But they are still quite expensive. :(
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
We're in the same situation in Sweden actually. By 2008 we will be all digital. Of course the general public is royally pissed off by having to buy a box for hundreds of dollars for every television in the household.
The problem is that US content providers suddenly realized that digital TV is easy to copy. So they put the brakes on developing for this until they make new digital TVs with a broadcast flag disabling copying (or so they think)
Of course, this screws all the people who already bought new digital TVs. At least, this in my understanding of the problem.
Peace, or Not?
"They can take my TV set out of my cold.... oh wait, let me see what ad-free dvd movie to watch first..."
None. Turn off the TV, and go outside. There's fresh air, and that big lightbulb in the sky.
Keep in mind, the original legislation did state that 85% of the TV viewership must be on digital TV before they will simply turn it off: "Under federal law, analog service will continue until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming." (from http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#needanewtv)
MSNBC is just making news of a moot point. Granted, they mentioned this in the text, too: "That's where the Congressional loophole comes in. Congress can ignore the end-of-2006 cut-off if fewer than 85 percent of households have digital television sets."
I really hate the media.
... the Big Media(tm) companies not love this? (Good old US-of-MPAA yall)!
It takes a technology thats essentially free, that everyone likes, and has nearly limitless content and turns it into some thing expensive, proprietary, and with exceedingly limited content that is tightly controlled. Oh and did I forget to mention hella-expesive? Sounds like an MPAA-RIAA wet dream to me.
Time to stop all of those freeloading bastards from stealing from the studios with their so-called "broadcast tellevision". Everyone knows those broadcasts are used almost completely to fuel internet piracy of first run shows!
Think now...one other thing will go dead at the same time... yes... right on top of the TV... yeah... keep looking... warmer...warmer... SUPRISE! Its your fair use rights under the Betamax ruling!
FULL STEAM AHEAD. Don't delay. Have an analog TV? Get a box. Simple. Everyone with cable or sattelite has a box too, it's not THAT big a hurdle. If people HAVE to get one, they WILL.
This is incredible! The U.S. doesn't have digital terrestrial broadcasting yet? Like, at all? Are you just going to shut down analogue and start broadcasting digital on one day? Australia has had terrestrial digital broadcasts for 5 years now, and while pick up has been slow, analogue tv is due for shut down by 2008. We have a few digital-only channels, and analogue reception in Sydney sucks, so digital is really worth it.
Heck, even the problems the shuttle is having now were outlined more than seven years ago and because it was business as usual, nothing was done till lives were lost!
It's sad that the mighty USA now relies on a country with a "third world" economy to put it's very intelligent sceintists into orbit. (These are economist's words).
Same thing here in Finland. Frankly it's plain stupid to shutdown all analog stations. They should leave one channel that would broadcast news and provide very basic services. It could also be used to inform citizens in case of emergency. Rest of channels can go digital that's fine for me.
"A service like that, released at the right time would be a huge money maker."
It wouldn't. Americans are conditioned to free. Free TV, free radio, free illegal P2P downloads.
The regulations required 2006 AND a large percentage of sets to be digital capable for the switchover to occur. It will be another ten years before that percentage requirment is met.
I was not corralled into what media subscriber I would have to use.
The ultimate joy would be able to pull a HDTV right out of the box, plug in an antenna and get the signal right from the air without a subscription. Now sure HBO and those fancy channels may have their own methods of transmission, but to be able to locally broadcast stations, and public broadcasting systems is a critical priority.
Matter of fact, it's all dark.
They planned this out TEN years ago?
By July 1, 2005 all new TVs 36 inches or larger and half of all TVs 25 inches or larger must be HD.
July 1, 2006 all new TVs 25 inches or larger must be HD.
Broadcast cutoff date of Dec 31 2006.
July 1, 2007 all new TVs 13 inches or larger must be HD.
WTF were they thinking not making all TV's sold be HD BEFORE the cutoff date?
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Maybe not for you, but you're forgetting that many household have more than 2 televisions (we have 6). At $70 each, that's $420.
Even if prices were to drop to, say, $50 each, that's still $300.
I say wait until these devices are less expensive to manufacture first, like when they're closer to $20.
Here in (currently) rainy England, one can buy for not very much money a set top box that provides free access to the most popular channels, with more available on subscription or through regular satellite or cable providers. The price of the boxes has fallen to below £50 and the convenience they bring - such as electronic program guides and reminders, plus the significant improvement in picture and audio quality, makes them worthwhile. Therefore, most people buy them and buy them for their relatives too who may not be able to afford or understand what they have to do. (I'm buying one for my Mum.) This is probably going to happen in the USA, and just as people worried some would be left behind in the digital revolution - yet were not, same with the great digital switchover. Market forces and kindness will save the day.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
We're having the same kind of switchovers in the UK of course. Now that you
can get a "special converter box" for less than $60, and get all the free
to air channels with very little hassle at all, is it really a worry that
the analog signal will fade off overnight, considering how easy and cheap
it is to get the new technology?
They could always delay it by a year, and make it not New Years 2006 but
December 31st 2006, and use the time this year and next to really really
push it. The BBC and partners did wonders in the last two years with
digital uptake - especially considering that in the last two years they
had article after article dissing the switch-off, saying that millions
would be without television and the world would end; the UK date of 2007
doesn't seem a problem around here at all anymore for anyone involved.
What I wonder is; the BBC obviously plugs ad advert for digital TV in
between most programmes it cares to, what entity in the USA would have
to take up this challenge? Does the FCC get free ad space on FOX affiliates?
Neko
Gee, I don't know, maybe, just maybe, THEY'LL CONTINUE RECIEVING CABLE AND SATELLITE BROADCASTS, CONTINUE TO BE USED TO WATCH DVDS AND TAPES, CONTINUE TO BE USED TO PLAY VIDEOGAMES, ETC.
I say this as someone who bought an NTSC TV just a couple years ago, and plans to use it exclusively for the next 10+ years... Most likely via computer, via firewire, from an HDTV cable/satellite box.
Oh, so you were just wasting my time with that first question... Fox News-style.
What seems to be getting completely overlooked is those who will be on cable/satellite, that will be out of luck when their primary service goes out. During any minor disaster around here, the cable goes out, so those without digital TVs better make sure they have plenty of batteries for their radios. Satellite can go out in similar circumstances... Depending on geography, heavy clouds, or smoke from fires might block your signal. Those that don't already pay Dish/DirecTV for local chanels certainly get the short end of the stick...
Ah, I see... We can't delay the change-over, because the same companies that continue to keep HDTV prices artifically high, don't want people to have any alternative but to pay their current prices. I wish I could buy myself a senator.
If I had seen even a SINGLE $300 (small) HDTV set at stores, I wouldn't be complaining. If I saw cheaper conversion boxes, I wouldn't be complaining. Instead we have congress about to give electronics companies a license to print money, and force a great many people to buy a $2,000 big-screen, or stop watching TV. For most people, no TV doesn't mean more Internet, it means less information, period.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Maybe, just maybe when some sets go dark, their owners realise digital tv is not worth it, and stop watching television. Nothing more unproductive than having the tv on. People stop talking, stop reading, stop learning, and just go in absorb-mode.
I'm serious. Do they really have a right to force us to switch even though it's going to create more problems?
"The problem is that US content providers suddenly realized that digital TV is easy to copy. So they put the brakes on developing for this until they make new digital TVs with a broadcast flag disabling copying (or so they think)"
You don't need a broadcast flag to stop copying. Simply start producing content that people would pay them to take off the air.
Now, I understand that one can purchase this new-fangled box to allow those with analogue televisions to watch digital signals, but something strikes me as just bad:
With a country that is facing extremem pollution levels, a river (the Mississippi) that no one will ever swim in again (and live without a third-eye to tell the tale), and newspapers that routinely throw away more than a small forest's worth of paper every issue, such an idea to render millions (if not billions) of television sets obsolete (since, it is unlikely that the poor -- of which there are multitudes in America -- will be able to spare the money out of their already stressed paycheques to afford this, though I would not doubt that many will try) seemes like a gigantic waste.
But the danger of waste does not spawn from the proletariate class; instead, the danger is from the middle and upper classes who will look at their outdated machine and decide to upgrade. Well gee-willickers, now we have millions of televisions heading for the dump.
THis digital cable has _NOT_ been sufficiently introduced to lower the cost for the average Joe, and this very well could be a major disaster for congress since, and I hate to admit it, America opperates on the SPQR policy of Bread and Ciruses. Yes, those 'pleasantly plump' individuals can now eat more of those twinkies according to ABC's 'investigative report', but the "circuses" aspect is just as important.
This is yet another example of corporate America shooting themselves in the foot, in the long run -- both environmentally, and monetarily.
Oh, but "they" are as ready as they can be.
The driving force behind the legislation to abolish analog TV is the big media companies, who want to "plug the analog hole". That's why this is happening simultaneously in most of the industrialized world, despite the fact that no consumers have asked for it anywhere.
Their motive isn't to give you better quality pictures or (God forbid!) more choice. They want to force everybody to switch to digital because only digital technologies support strong DRM restrictions.
They can't retroactively change the court cases from the 70's that declared it legal to record TV shows on video for your own use. But by introducing new technology that makes it impossible to do so, they can make the legal point moot.
And by switching from analog to digial, they move away from the legal area where a reasonable balance has been struck between the interests of consumers and copyright holders, and into DMCA territory, where you're more or less classified as a terrorist if you even try to tamper with the copy protection.
I apologize for being so dystopian.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
Why in the hell would the government mandate this for over-the-air broadcasts? Most ppl who still use antennas do so because they can't afford or don't want to deal with cable, let alone an HDTV or a converter box. I'm quite confused as to why they would want over-the-air signals to go digital before cable.
Also, whatever happened to backwards compatibility? When color TV came along, people could keep using their black and white TVs with no changes, couldn't they?
.. that the US government would draw up a law and worry about its planning and implementation later. Then, when 'later' comes, they panic and rush. Typical of the idiots running this country.
They should just do it. Imagine the weight that will be lost just from 70million people getting up out of their reclining chairs to give the TV a bash.
Then when they realise that there is no more TV they will leave fitter, more active lives. discovering things like fresh air and ambition. This new America populated by fierce go-geters truly will be a force to be reckoned with. They'd likely take over the world. Oh wait...
I know the first page of the article throws around the word obsolete TVs to drum up hype, but the second page does state the truth of the matter, "Many analog television owners won't need a converter: 85 percent of Americans now get all their television from cable or satellite providers, so for the most part the change-over won't affect them."
Not that I believe 15% of Americans use rabbit ears, I certainly don't know anyone who does. If I only knew 100 people, that would mean that 15 of them do. I'm not about to count them all off in my head, but I'm pretty sure I know several hundred people, perhaps even over a thousand.
Anyway, back to your point, anyone with broadband and rabbit ears might be a little mixed up. Even still, with that fat pipe to google they'll be able to find a deal on a converter box I'm sure.
Do you think watching T.V. is a personal right or something? Get off the T.V. and get into a book. Better still go out side, and see how the consumer culture has trashed the country, air, water, forests. After that, go do something to help stop it.
With the bad economy. %15 will not have cable. %40 will not have cell phones, and %25 will not have broadband. %35 will soon live out of their cars.
The quality of the PICTURE isn't so much the issue with TV, it's the quality of the PROGRAMMING.
Give me something worth watching first, then worry about improving the definition.
"Survivor", "Joey", and "American Idol" in 1080i are still crap, they're just crap in high resolution.
Sure, we voted the lawmakers in didn't we?
It's the will of the people or something like that.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
"If we labeled the commercial breaks with "Part 1", etc. even Joe Redneck would figure out how badly the broadcasters are screwing him.
Assuming he could count that high..."
Careful now. Those are future Linux users you're talking about.
I've never heard a non geek complain about picture quality on an average broadcast TV. Unless it's a signal strength problem or a failing TV, consumers don't care. NTSC is good enough.
Look at the number of people who download TV shows. The quality really isn't as good as a broadcast but people love it anyway.
The electronics companies needed a way to revolutionize the industry. The consumer isn't driving this revolution.
Just like IBM's Microchannel and Intel's Rambus fiasco, this "improvement" will probably be rejected by the consumer. Online (streaming and/or downloadable) TV may take a big chunk out of the broadcast TV market.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
no, but when has that ever stopped a government? (The US still has the option to draft people if it wants, incase you've not noticed).
So long as they give everyone a tax break six months before the election they can get away with anything - you elected them to rule of you, to to represent you in a system designed to allow society to rule itself, didn't you know?
I am thoroughly enjoying the competitive advantages this addictive, idiot distracting technology affords me.
Look out - if you're not one of the people with the HD antenna and big-screen TV the Government may come looking for you ;-)
What a great story to start off National TV-Turnoff Week.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
It sounds like a good idea to just do this suddenly. I think a lot of Americans might decide to go outside and get some exercise if suddenly they couldn't watch TV or couldn't afford upgrades. Then again, maybe they'll start a riot, and use their defunct TVs to smash store windows once the mayhem ensues.
That means if the TV sets go dark on new year's eve 2006 the US is expecting a baby boom in autumn 2006.
Suddenly a large segment of the US population would be unable to view TV broadcasts?
no reality shows. no MTV. no Fox Lies^H^H^H^H News.
Sounds like the best damn piece of legislation to come from Congress in a long time!
Here in central Sweden the shutdown of analog tv is sheduled for spring 2006, I'm quite happy as that would free up the 6M ham-radio band for me (requires separate license today because analog tv freqs close to it).
;)
I've been on digital TV for...I don't know.. a bit over 5 years now anyway, 6 months ago I even switched to digital tv over internet and I'm happy as can be as I got 100Mbit when I signed up for it as it would saturate the old 10Mbit connection too much.
Cheers from Borlänge, South-central Sweden.
More digital television means actually less television for the mass market, which in turn means less control of the population, and ultimately more democracy. It might force people to buy a newspaper to learn the news, instead of watching useless mind-altering garbage TV shows for 5 or more hours per day.
I have dozens of devices that can generate a video signal. My old TV is not going to go blank, even if I never watch a DTV signal ever.
Where, exactly, did you get the idea that you have a =right= to watch television? Isn't it more of a priviliege? If the local mall decides that it will no longer supply parking space, do you still have a right to park there or do you just have a right to choose not to shop there?
I would say that the same applies to television. If they stop transmitting in a certain way. Who's to stop them? It should be in their own interest to keep the distribution form that lets them reach the biggest audience.
Granted. In this instance it isn't the media companies that are deciding. But the media companies are "leasing" radio frequencies, thereby giving the state all the "right" in the world to cancel that lease.
Basically, your claim that they're forcing this change on you is really nothing more than you deciding not to utilize their service any more.
Tuesday morning, DirectTV is going to be putting up a new bird, the Spaceway 1.
"After a checkout period, Spaceway 1 will go into service this summer to begin DIRECTV's new program offering for both national and local high-definition channels to its customers across the United States. It will later be joined by three other satellites to fully implement the system by 2007."
"By 2007, the number of high-definition channels will be expanded to over 1,500, and DIRECTV says its next-generation services will be able to reach every U.S. household."
"Spaceway 1 carries a two-meter transmit antenna with full steering ability that can form multiple spot beams to customize programming in different regions of the country. This communications payload has a total bandwidth capacity of about 10 gigabytes per second."
I find this preferable to our government's enforced upgrades, although I can see the arguments for more efficient bandwidth usage.
More info
Hey Big Three,
Just a hint. Improve the prgramming.
How many people will go out and buy a $200 converter to keep watching the reality-TV pap you're putting out now?
Those of us with cable already ignore you, so you probably want to work hard to save the viewers you have left!
Good luck with that,
-Anonymous Viewer
"give us tv or give us death"
Just get Billy Boe Bob Jackson to climb up the pole and yank you a free tap. This is unless you don't already have one from your neighbor Plecenta Washington. CableTV is still going to use VHF for some years after the broadcast switch.
About 20 years ago, the government switched off the old 405 line, VHF B&W only TV service here in the UK (it used those antennas shaped like a big 'H'). But, unlike this time, outside of the specialist press there was no mention of it at all. This was because there was a lot less rush. By the time of the switchoff, it had not been possible to buy a VHF television for perhaps 20 years and it was estimated that there were less than 1000 sets still in use in the entire country.
There is nothing stopping them doing the same thing again. They could mandate that only digital TV's can be sold from now on and then just wait, but they are too gready for the cash from the sale of the frequencies.
I live in an area with poor to mediocre analog television reception, lots of noise and ghosts. There's a very noticeable improvement in picture and sound quality when watching the digital signals from the local television stations. It isn't perfect, they are glitches and dropouts when the signal fades, but it is much more watchable than the analog version. I'm using a cheap indoor UHF antenna.
I upgraded to digital television with a total expenditure of $190, $160 for a STB and $30 for an antenna. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
This is NOT a conversion from analogue TV to HDTV. It is a conversion from analogue TV to digital TV and there is a BIG difference. Does sending a digital signal allow the broadcasting station to send a HDTV broadcast? Yes. Do they HAVE to transmit a HDTV broadcast? NO. The fact is a lot of consumers, how many I do not know, already have the capability to receive a digital transmission. This is done through a variety of methods such as subscribing to a cable or satellite service. Folks with either of those services will likely not notice a change.
Now the folks with an old analogue only TV set that are receiving their signal from rabbit ears are going to notice a change once the analogue signals are shut off. Some may subscribe to satellite or cable I suppose but there will likely be a fair amount that do not wish to and will complain LOUDLY. It will only get louder if the ATSC tuner boxes necessary to get their sets working with the new signal are too expensive. The other option of course will be to buy a set with an ATSC tuner built in but a lot of folks won't like doing that either.
Right now I would say it's quite probable that the switchover will be delayed.
You could be here in South Africa, where people are forced to pay TV licenses (even though the retailers claim they suffer no penalties if they don't comply) to fund complete crap that you can barely recieve anyway. Oh and if you don't like the one station the money goes to? Tough. If you just watch DVDs and play video games and don't have an antenna? Tough. What a crock.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
It's TV, for chrissakes...they're just going to replace each analog channel of pure shit with twenty digital channels of pure shit. I really can't get that worked up about it.
Bearing that in mind, neither do I see any burning need to push the switch from analog to digital. Analog works just fine for the customer, who can always get cable or satellite if they want hundreds more channels of drivel.
Congress might try leaving well enough alone for another decade or so. The only people who're going to be whining about it are broadcast companies. And a few self-centered twits here on Slashdot, of course.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
You make a good point, its not going to mean more HDTV. What I'd like to know is, how do you know if a tv can recieve digital without its specs?
TV announcement: "Your cable TV is experiencing difficulties. Please do not panic. Resist the temptation to read, or talk to loved ones. Do not attempt sexual relations, as years of TV radiation have left your genitals withered, and useless."
Chief Wiggum, checking under the covers: "Well I'll be damned..."
Reply to: #12334681
-
That is totally backwards what you just said. The only difference between a television and a book is how the information is transferred. So instead of watching material on the history channel, should I go pick up a book, perhaps the "Cat in the Hat"? Gee, I wonder which will be more educational.
Reply to: #12334691
-
The problem with the current system is that not everyone gets whom they vote for. Someone can get into the U.S. House of Representatives with less than 50% of the vote. Even if they did get 50+% of the vote, that still leaves the other 49% or so who are unrepresented. I think the only solution is for states with multiple representatives, elect them all at large either with the plurality method or STV, that way someone can say, "I voted for so and so and they got in." Example, states with nine congressional districts. Elect all nine at large with either the plurality method, meaning top nine, or STV, meaning a 10% quota if I'm not mistaken.
Reply to: #12334714
-
Just because the government can legally do something, doesn't make that right. Wasn't it legal to own slaves at one point?
Reply to: #12334795
-
Malls are privately owned if I'm not mistaken. It may be commercial, but the landlord or landlady has the right to do as he or she wishes. If he or she wishes to stupidly remove parking spaces, that is going to cause a huge loss of business.
-
You mentioned the biggest audience. How is losing 70 million viewers considered having the biggest audience?
There are areas that get weak signals due to terrain. There is really no solution for them. Notice in the article it mentioned, "On the other hand, when digital signals are weak, there is often no picture at all.".
There really has to be some sort of solution cause it's going to disenfranchise millions of Americans.
Wasn't the reason to switch over to digital was to conserve radio frequencies? If you take a look at the current United States Frequency Allocations - The Radio Spectrum, you'll notice that there's several really big chunks taken up by tv broadcasting. and with the fact that cable companies are required to provide basic cable tv service for a minimal price (~$8/month), which isn't much imo, they can free up those blocks of frequencies for something more useful/important.
HD Trailers
To quote from BoingBoing:
Among other things, it explains WHY a date was set for a crossover to HDTV. Sure TV works just fine now, so why switch you ask? Actually, it's NOT about trying to sell the public new TVs. It sounds simple, but that's a very narrow view that doesn't see the whole picture and all the politics behind what's going on. The linked article sheds quite a bit of light on that.Maybe they are afraid that if this happens, a lot of Americans will miss out on the TV propaganda. What would happen then?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I can't see corporate America with billions, if not trillions of dollars at their disposal allowing Congress to cut off millions of consumers from their advertisements.
... which states that this has already happened...
As far as I'm concerned, and considering the general quality of recent shows, this has already happened.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
MyBlog
You aren't the only ones to get shafted. Over here the switchover dates are different for each region. The shutoff dates are already fixed since they involve termination of long-term contracts. However, the go live dates of Digital TV are not so fixed.
The region I live in was promised DVB-T for the 18th of April. However the powers that be decided that 1 million people where not worth the hassle of installing digital infrastructure (By the way, Germany is about 15 times as densly popuated as the US). And when did they tell us? Beginnning of April.
So all those people who bought DVB-T Receivers are now royally screwed. Still Analogue TV was shut off with very little noise, like one article in the local paper on Saturday the 16th, complete with a big ad from the cable service.
Satelite dishes are now sold out. We were lucky to get one for my mother-in-law who was freaking out so we had to install it as quickly as possible and she still owes us the money for the dish. Funnily enough it was about 25% more expensive than the identical one we bought for ourselves two years ago.
I think you will get screwed the same way. DVB-T will only be available in very high density population centres. The rest can go buy a dish and find a wall to fix it on. Don't suppose otherwise even if you are bombarded with ads about how good DVB-T will be and that you should buy the box while it's cheap.
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
Like the brave Ithacans who faced down the deadly cyclops, these legislators are facing down the awful realities of trying to legislate technological progress
:-)
Hehe, I had a good giggle, nice image there.
Sadly, a far more accurate metaphor would be more boring and less funny: the blind leading the blind into greater darkness.
The US today is little more than a fundamentalist religious/moralist state, interested not in progress but in protecting vested interests, and with by far the most anti-intellectual population that has appeared since the Renaissance.
The cyclops could be defeated. Unfortunately, lawyers and the culture of litigation that they spearhead are those deadly rocks which tore the Ithacans to shread, and in the ways of metaphor there is no way of defeating immoveable rock.
The army of legal parasites protecting a batallion of backward-facing dinosaurs lead from behind by a bunch of gibbering idiots is devouring all before it. The US is moving back into a new dark age.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
If this is how "freedom" and "democracy" is run, I think I will take the USSR, thank you.
I am attached to my TV. And my TiVo. And cable (or satellite, or IPTV, or whatever they come up with next). It provides me with information and entertainment. TV has been a part of my life since I can remember. I used to wonder what people did before Nickelodeon and MTV.
The three-network powers of yore are about to get a much-needed shot in the arm (or perhaps the butt, if their core cheapo analog viewers decide to upgrade to cable instead of buying a digital converter).
I don't really even know who watches over-the-air broadcast television, other than people who can't/won't/don't pay for cable BUT still love TV enough to own a set.
Essentially what I'm implying is that people who currently don't pay for cable or satellite (a) cannot pay for it, or (b) don't want the advanced features or channels.
Therefore, almost every single benefit of digital broadcasts are almost entirely irrelevant. Receiving an HD picture on a 13 inch analog television won't look any better (and will cost those consumers $50-$100 to buy the converter). Moreover, those who don't want the advanced features or multitude of channels aren't going to suddenly buy a big-screen HDTV to watch broadcast channels in high definition, just because their black-and-white in the kitchen doesn't receive Maury Povich anymore.
While I think it is wise and important to reapportion our available spectrum as new technology becomes available and matures, I doubt the legislative mandate to push analog TV into obsolescence is important or a worthwhile use of our legislative, financial, and technological resources.
(As a side note, isn't broadcast television dying, or just turning into one of the pack, anyway? We are no longer bound to the three-network oligarchy, and I fail to see why we should keep supporting that establishment legislatively).
they were just Odysseus' men, not necessarily Ithacans. he also mustered troops from surrounding islands. apparently.
and they didn't so much face him down, as poke him in the eye with a pointy stick. after he dashed their friends' heads out on the floor.
copyright © 2005 Flamsmsmark the ravings of a melancholly i
that's antiquated?
are you referring to a tv as ten years old as antiquated or just one that takes analogue signals?
In 2002 I was GIVEN a 32" sony tv made back in 1985, a nice BIG sony, the tuner is shot- I use it with video/audio inputs. the tube and sound system still going stronger than any 32" on the market today- but I still don't consider it antiquated... just old...
However, I have, in the last year, paid a visit to folks with a B&W tv.... likely because they couldn't afford better. they were watching it avidly...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
At least in Australia.......
...
The standard was screwed up (I can't recall the details, go for a google, but I'm pretty sure we're low on bandwidth)
Anyhow EVERY instance I've seen of digital (free to air) in Australia is _EXTREMELY_ over-compressed,..
Sure the resolution is "spiffy" but when you're seeing colour "block" screwups (sorry, don't know the term) or very "off white" whites due to compression it just annoys the heck out of you.
Now sure we should all start getting HDTV's (1920x1080i or 1280x720p) and even HD-DVD's but the actual HD-TV I've seen has honestly been really really bad
This is a really great opportunity for 70 million households to improve their quality of life by turning off their televisions for good---or having them cut off for them.
OTOH this is a rather hilarious demonstration of how thoroughly a government can fuck up a free market with its high-minded bullshit.
This is not my sandwich.
2006: It's time to turn of those (head/tv-)sets and use that brain again !
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Turned on my grandparents tv set the other day, and I found that there isnt much going on up in UHF, with the exception of PAX and the HSN. I say, move as many channels to VHF, and move any remaining UHF channels to the bottom of the spectrum, and free up the rest. I know that VHF may be filled in some densely populated areas, but I've never known a place with like 30 or 40 UHF channels.
It's not like a DTT receiver is an expensive item. You can pick one up for like, £30 retail. And to manufacture, they're sub-$20. It's pin money...
(and you can receive DTT signals with a basic hoop antenna, even with a poverty spec receiver with a cheapo Philips digital tuner in it, nothing exotic needed)
+++ BASELINE REALITY FAILURE+++ +++ PLEASE REBOOT UNIVERSE +++
My father-in-law has a set-top box (not sure what model: a £40 one from a supermarket, I think) and the sound is well out of synch with the picture all the time. It's far enough out to be quite disorientating to watch.
Is this a characteristic of digital transmission, or is it characteristic of cheapo hardware?
I thought that you would still get the signal, but it would just be on a lot less of the screen. For instance; like letterbox.
This will be a boondoggle for all the manufacturers like Casio, Sony, and in-car TVs, if they can't receive a signal at all - because they are still selling TVs that can't receive digital and look to be continuing to sell such TVs for some time to come.
If totally true - that sets will go black - this will be a revolt on par with the civil war (I kid not).
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
No, I voted against them. And why should I be under the thumb of some legislator for California or Arkansas, when I can't even vote for them!
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I figure it will take at least 10 years before my cable company gets around to replacing all the component cables boxes floating out there...
Okay people, calm down. We are only talking about Over-The-Air broadcasts here. Which I think some of you have forgotten. From the article, 85% of Americans get their TV from Cable or Satellite. That means only 15% are going to be shit out of luck. To be honest, things should just switch off on Jan 1, 2006 and cut all analog broadcasts. It would be nice to see the government quasi-encouraging technology for a change instead of stifling it.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
or that's what you pay to watch the same commercials that are on broadcast TV. And, it takes 15 minutes just to find a good half hour long show when you have 100 channels.
What a waste of money.
Here in Italy, the switch is sheduled for 31 december 2006.
What's "fun" is that nobody was even considering it until some four years ago. The move was decided in a rush, and the government granted *150 euros* to anyone who buys a decoder. That is, 100% of the price for many brands (incidentally, if you're 16 you can get just slightly more to buy a PC). Why all this generosity?
Well, it happens that, as you may know, italian prime minister Berlusconi also own 3 of the 7 major channels (3 of the remaining ones being state owned). To contrast this monopolist position a law was passed years ago limiting to two the channels a single corp can control. Berlusconi managed to ingore it until 2003, when he ruled that if DT had been adopted by the majority of italians by 2006. The rest is history. What blows me is that it seems most people just don't get that *they* are paying for the decoder they are getting "for free" from the store.
That's why I for one don't welcome our new DVB-T overlords...
Monday Night Football is already moving to cable. Who do you know that doesn't have cable or satellite. Perhaps now this will get the mindless trash (springer, WWE) off my TV. One can hope.
Bullshit. The main reason for doing this is to force 70 million americans to go out and buy some $100+ part to allow them to keep on getting TV.
You're a fucking moron if you think this isn't about money (Gee, who the fuck is lobbying? The people that make the TVs and decoder boxes? SHOCKING!) or believe that this move will save your precious airwaves (which, ignoramus, have pretty much already been allocated (sure, no formal auction thus far, but it doesn't take a genius to see who will be buying what and that the public's only benefit will be a couple billion in revenue), and are thus in the category of "not fucking yours anymore").
Oh, yeah, we get all sorts of goodies like DRM in this forced change.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Imagine how the bottom of the ocea^H^H landfills will look with all those Big Ass (tm) tubes piled on top of all the computers and cell phones. We won't need SETI anymore - just wait for intelligent life to contact *us* asking to turn the radio emissions down.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
that some alien races monitoring our analog television broadcasts from afar will assume the earth has been destroyed when this happens?
they will then likely be inclined to build an intergalatic highway right through this space considering the earth is presumably no longer in the way.
ôó
"digital video broadcasting - terrestrial" (DVB-T) (i.e. broadcast from antenna masts rather than satellite) is well established all over Europe.
http://www.techmind.org/digital/
the over-air modulation scheme DVB-T uses is quite robust and copes with multi-path propagation, fading and other problems. early cheap set top boxes (STB) were prone to interference, but modern ones are pretty good. In Germany they even have receivers on trains and buses, as the system copes with moving receivers.
As I understand it, the replacement for radio, Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) is a similar technology, refined somewhat, to allow car radios to receive the digital stream without the usual drop-outs.
terrestrial digital TV was trialled in USA, but unfortunately the trend in the USA to try and lead the market before the technology is either fully working, reliable or standards based meant that it was not a big success - the modulation scheme meant that a lot of people got a much poorer picture than with the old analogue. whether anyone in USA is brave enough to try again and change to the working standard, DVB-T.
As an aside, it should be noticed that whilst DVB-T and DAB *could* be used to give a few more channels with a higher quality than the older analogue systems, in practise in the UK, far too much digital compression is used in order to squeeze in lots more channels, and thus either the picture quality suffers from mpeg artifacts or on the radio mpeg distortion can be clearly heard; useful links:
http://www.david.robinson.org/commsbill/
Its not like federal marshalls are going to bust down your door and take away your TV. FCC has been regulating the airwaves for decades so how is this different?
Stop selling the analog only TVs!. Then wait until the majority of sets are digital before switching.
Since the end of 2003, most metropolitan areas in Australia had access to the free-to-air channels as both analogue and digital transmission. The free-to-air networks sometimes use this separate transmission pathway for additional programming, most notably the ABC and SBS.
Recently, the primary Cable TV operator, Foxtel (in conjunction with Telstra) has been pushing their digital services, and the added benefits they claim to deliver through the digital signal (i.e. multiple camera angles for sports, selected news coverage, localised weather, movies-on-demand).
In 2008, the Australian Federal Government will be reviewing whether to convert all free-to-air television transmission to 100% digital. Currently the digital transmissions can be received through set top boxes (which then translates for analogue display), which seem to be coming down in price as more companies come into the market, and can be had for around $150 AUD.
InfoSec that matters, when it counts.
Maybe they would post lots of illogical and fallacious posts on Slashdot that even mainstream socialists would be embarassed to say.
If there are rabbit ears on my TV and the screen is black, I guess it's already done? No, I just turned the fucking thing off since TV really has become a waste of time and money. Anything I need to know about can be found on the internet, books (you know the library), and DVDs with quality content.
:) makes it even easier for me to turn off the TV and go DO something.
I cancelled cable 2 years ago. If they want to cut out analog, well I think that's just peachy
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Nik J.
The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
Like what?
Hold a "anti capitalism" protest to protest the WTO, leaving piles of garbage and refuse in your midst?
Protest 'big oil' by taking to the streets, leaving same said trash/refuse, vandalizing innocent property in your path, and shouting all sorts of lame slogans?
The counter-culture crowd has a long way to go before it can legitimately say its doing any good for society.
The Fed should file suit against the makers of the HDTVs for price gouging. The manufacturers have taken full advantage of deadline and kept HDTV prices artificially high knowing that at least some people fearing the deadline or "early adopters" who couldn't live without Friends in high def, would pay out the ass for them.
In addition, that have played the current "low def" TVs at cut rate prices knowing that the window of opportunity to contiue to sell them was slimming. This way, people who just bought a new TV (for around $300) will get nabbed twice by this forced upgrade.
Now that the deadline is approaching, the reality that most people can't afford a $3000 boob tube is weighing heavy on everyone *but* the manufacturers. And the manufacturers know that come the day after the deadline, everyone will be stretching thier credit to the max to rush out and buy them. And when that happens, they will gouge the prices again because "supply cannot keep up with demand", even though if the Fed asked today they would claim to have a "surpluss".
For anyone who might think we are still "paying for the technology", and that's why prices are so high... if you call the TV a "monitor" you can get it in higher definition and better frame & refresh rates for only a fraction of the cost.
damnit.. I have the regular old rabbit ears.. i think its stupid for people to buy Cable TV if they have a computer with a DSL internet connection..
the combination of both my computer, and my rabbit ears, gives me the perfect amount of mindless entertainment.. cable tv merely makes people a bit more stupid thanks to the insane amount of advertisement.. public tv is a very important thing, and its really not that cost effective.. and thanks to "Viewers like us", we have the RIGHT to keep our freakin analog shit just the way it is..
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
How did you end up with excellent karma? That is the worst troll I have ever seen modded up.
Go die.
The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
As much as I am for moving technology forward, this topic really pisses me off. We still cannot get cable / broadband at my house, and now they want to shut off analog broadcasting? Uhm hello? Shouldn't you have a infrastructure that supports digital communication in place before pulling the plug?
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
What is your opinion on the problem of lobbyists?
Our congressional districts are over 600,000 persons per representative. This means a candidate running is most likely going to rely on the campaign contributions from lobbyists. If a candidate fails to support the ideas of a lobbyist, he or she more likely than not won't be receiving any more aid in the future. Am I correct on this?
I bought a box for about AUD$130 in mid January. With 12 inches of wire hanging out the antenna conector it gives a perfect pic. We are perhaps 15 miles from 50kW transmitters. The point for me is, the box cost about the same today as for someone to come out I think 6 or 7 years ago to put an antenna in the roof/attic and cable it to a socket on the wall. I say if you need a new antenna, consider a STB instead.
It's like the Seinfeld band-aid analogy.
This will end up like the US coverting to the metric system. It's clearly the most logical thing to do. There will always be people or groups who resist the change...and as long as they have power to sway the vote, they will!
Forcing the change will cause the price of the set-top coverter boxes to go down.
Just as much a HUMAN RIGHT is it is for the corporations to reap the profits as most of the TV owners in the US are forced to cough up for a set-top box, or quit watching.
Or just as much a HUMAN RIGHT as it is for the FCC to get a windfall as the auction off the current VHF and UHF spectrum, after the changeover.
It's just a mess, that's all. Some might say it's the kind of mess that happens when the government gets involved in what ought to be a market matter.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Emergency information arrives just fine over the radio. People do not require 3-D action storm or mushroom cloud maps under the finger of Busty McBlow, or Ferd Gaybutzki.
IMO, a good radio announcer will always be able to communicate the severity of an emergency much more clearly than some talking head with perfect hair wearing the same expression for Johnny down the well, the zoo's new baby gorilla, and while someone saws off the top of his skull with a chainsaw.
As for govt. subsidy. Since when is it the governments roll to subsidize 'domestic' marketing. If TV viewing by us po-folk is so valuable to the business, let the advertisers buy us new digital TeeVees. I'll just take the $ thankyou and git me a new set of matched fishing rids and seal clubs.
Too late, the media companies already beat you to the punch. They won't be giving back the analog spectrum. Friendly coverage of bush before the election, get to keep billions of dollars in spectrum after the election. Everyon (except the taxpayers) is happy.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/LIS/archive/bar
The law already contains an "out". If less than 85% of homes are able to receive DTV programs, the deadline may be extended.
It's not entirely clear whether Congress meant for this 85% figure to include people who are watching digital programs on analog recievers after having them downconverted by their cable/satellite company. Some argue that it doesn't, in which case the 85% figure will likely never be met.
(even if cable/satellite subscribers are included, subscribership varies wildly from place to place with some cities having as much as 30% off-air viewership.)
Virtually nobody actually believes analog will shut down in 2006.Is it possible that a big reason behind the delay is all the copy protection in the digital signals? Given the volume of TVs that would need digital boxes, I cannot imagine the hardware would cost much at all. However, cable companies have a monopoly on their digital cable signals and therefore outside vendors cannot offer cheap digital boxes.
Maybe congress should delay the force switch over until the fully featured cable card is ready. I believe the first featured-limited card is out now, but I doubt I can get it from my company. Plus, companies haven't started offering a ton of hardware yet....almost sounds like a chicken and the egg problem.
Now sure /. is a pretty myopic forum for these sort of discussions, and many people probably don't know anyone who watches, say, sports... but the HUGE increase in sales of HD sets in the last two years isn't because of a sudden rise in the number of geeks. Its due to a sudden rise in availability of signals, and the fact that anyone with better than 20/200 vision can clearly see and appreciate the difference in the sports and TV shows they watch.
Analog TV will NOT be turned off in 2006! The date of 2006 is completely arbitrary and is also complete nonsense. Analog will ONLY be turned off when 85 percent of households in a given broadcast region have digital receivers. That could be decades from now.
And it will also affect areas of the country differently. I imagine areas in Nebraska will remain analog well into the next decade.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I shudder to say it, but the only thing interesting on television these days is either PBS or the occassional Sci Fi show. And even those are getting fewer and farther between.
My wife and I are moving, and she wants to get satellite. My question is and still remains "why?". What shows are worth paying an extra 35-55 bucks a month for?
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
2006? I guess that's the last day I watch TV, at home. I can't belive they are so stupid, don't they want to fill my mind with useless garbage and make me buy the crap that they advertise.
it's a sig, wtf?
Atta-go-boy!
Well, more like we selected from among representatives of various commercial special interests.
That being said, given I haven't turned on my old Sony TV in over four and a half years I don't think I'll notice this too much.
As the 'content providers' seem to desire copy protection and laws to prevent me from recording a show+ads when *I* want to watch 'em, *I* do not need them.
I've got other FAR MORE important things to do - post to slashdot. Yea, that's it.
I don't have a television, haven't had one for about 9 years, don't miss it, except for Red Green.
I watch TV when I stay in a hotel, stay with family, etc. I never have the desire to get one of my own.
We think that advertisements don't affect us because we don't immediately rush out and buy a Big Mac (Whopper, Coke/Pepsi/Shasta, Bud/Miller/Michelob, Ford/GM/Toyota, whatever) instantly every time we see a commercial. Try doing without TV for a year and see what happens to your purchasing habits. For me, I noticed the biggest difference in less desire to see movies.
I don't think that TV is inherently evil (though it does tend to totally dominate any room it's in, even when off). I do check out DVD's from my local library and watch them on the computer.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
TV ads target people who can actually go out and buy products...why should they care about someone who can't afford the little digital upgrade box to hook up the the analog tv?
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories
Great quote:
That sounds about right...!
Within the next 90 days, start selling a $19.95 device at WalMart that includes a digital antenna and RF converter box. Then start running an informercial which loudly screams "Don't get left behind, if your TV is not digital by 2007, you won't be able to watch American Idol! It's like getting a whole new TV for just $19.95 plus $12.95 shipping and handling! ACT NOW! We take credit cards..." Run this for a couple of months, followed by a bunch of fast-talking 30-second spots that run every 7 minutes on all major channels.
I guarantee you that every Joe Schmoe and their grandma will have one within 18 months, including the 4 ladies on the bus who spent 25 minutes the other day trying to convince their friend to go "AOL for Broadband" on a new SBC DSL connection...
(They also tried to figure out what DSL stood for. They settled on "Digital Satellite Link." I was behind them supressing laughter. I would have politely given them as much tech info as they wanted, but they seemed like the type of people who don't like smart-asses 20-somethings making them feel stupid by actually providing unsolicited factual information.)
Just about all the tv stations now broadcast digital and analog.. cutting off analog is probably a little bit away yet...
But when it came out, the first thing i bought was the vision plus tv card, and an epia, which sits in my home theatre cabnet. Add WebScheduler on top of that and i've not looked back... later. i bought a AU$100 sd set top box as a sideline to it (which i've had for nearly 2 years now)...
When you consider that was AU$100 to turn my analog tv into a digital tv (two years ago), and those prices have definitely dropped since then, i would have thought that 2006/2007 wouldnt be such a horribly short period of time...
Of course, when you compare that against what the epia + digital tv card + extra's cost me (nearly the price of a reasonable tv, back then) it looks bad, but my epia does many many things and consumes small amount of power..
my $0.02 (no import duties to the US due to the free trade agreement, extra for Canadians)
This move is not so much about DRM, heavy-handedness, etc. as most of the claims state, but more about selling the old TV spectrum to cell phone companies for huge profits. The DRM and other issues are icing on the proverbial cake.
I, for one, do not welcome our new HDTV overlords. I've seen HDTV and it doesn't impress this geek. I don't need to be able to see the chin hairs on Hillary Clinton, or the twine in perfect detail when I watch hockey... I just want to flip on the TV, watch a couple shows and be done with it.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Wasn't everyone supposed to get an allowance to upgrade their TV? Though that won't say anything to my monthly cable bill, but if they are wanting to give me money buy a new TV that wouldn't be too bad. Whats a 52 inch HDTV run? I have no reason to upgrade my current Sony Trinitron that I bought in 94. It runs just as good today as it did back then. Can someone assure me that todays latest and greatest HD TV (SONY obviously) will run for over 10 years.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
And this is bad, why? 70 million Americans will be free from the eternal cycle of 5 minutes of Hollywood news, switch to 4 minutes of commercials and back to 5 more minutes of hi-carb, low protein entertainment. Hey, maybe those 70 million with so much more time on their hands will go vote or something, that'd be nice.
This is a classic example of that truism. Most people don't need, don't want, and can't afford new televisions throughout their house, and I would guess are more or less happy with their current analog pictures. The government shouldn't be forcing this down everyones throats. And the idea that the government would pay to subsidize converters for low income households is ludicrous, when there are people within even the US that do not have enough money to eat.
It seems the world will be divided in terrestrial digital TV broadcasting standards. As this map shows, the US and Japan will have different systems then Europe, Australia, and most of Asia. Does anyone know why the US has decided to go with ATSC? What advantages does it have? DVB seems to be fine for digital satellite and cable variants.
IIRC, analog terrestrial TV will be switched off in Europe in 2010. Some regions already are digital only; Munich, for example, will turn off analog service in a few weeks.
It does not have such a big impact in Germany, though, as only about 5-10% of all households still receive TV via antenna, the rest has satellite or cable. DVB settop boxes start at EUR 70, good ones are about EUR 100-120. The number of channels increases: most regions used to have anywhere between 3 and 12 channels; now, with DVB-T, it will be about 20.
"Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-my-own-Grandpa." - Dr Hubert Farnsworth
Would it be feasible for the govt. to hold an auction, and sell these frequencies to the highest bidder, who is then responsible for managing them or "renting" them out to tv stations? I'm sure broadcasters would be against this, probably.
Though, what are broadcasters paying for broadcasting rights now? Is it more or less than fair market value?
The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey
Oh the travesty! Imagine the horrors: families talking with one another, people reading books, or [gasp] exercising. How will America's youth compete in the global economy of tommorrow if they don't get the recommended daily allowance of One Day to Live, When Desperate Housewives Attack, or Oxy-Clean infomercials?
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
The poor won't have to buy HDTV sets. No one will (and why are you assuming everyone but the poor HAVE HDTVs already?)
All that would happen is people have to switch CONVERTOR BOXES. You still get to use your crummy old analog TV.
Get it?
For one thing they will see fewer fnords.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
I dont think they should have to delay anything. I thing for a large percentage of people who use cable to watch television, this wont be a problem, as long as their cable companies provide a cable box with an integrated converter by the time the changeover happens. I think a lot of people arent even gonna know it happened when it does, except the few that DO still use analog antennas ....
The UK is about 2.5 years down the line in the process of a switch over to DTV. Terrestrial DVB boxes are commonly available and very inexpensive; available at about 38 uk pounds (~ 75 Dollars/EUROS) for a commodity stb and 49 uk pounds for a branded one, though they did start out at about 400UK pounds.
As someone who's made the unfortunate switch over to digital satellite TV, I can say I hate it.
In an analog transmission, if the signal gets weak, I get a bit of snow in the overall picture. In a digital transmission a weak signal results in ugly "garbage" data (squares, pixels, weird colors, black spots and sound clicks and drops).
In an analog transmission, the full clear picture is a full clear picture. In a digital transmission, I can see MPEG artifacts everywhere (most noticeable next to sharp edges, like credits and subtitles, and in subtle gradients). It's in NO way a better picture than analog!
Couldn't they leave them on but instead of the usually TV stations you get this one multicolor screen saying that you need to purchase that box thingy? Just a thought. I wouldn't mind buying one.
You have been warned.
If you thought that it was the rich that voted for Bush you weren't paying attention.
Largely the rich voted for Kerry, the suck-up of pseudo-intelligence.
Largely the poor voted for Kerry, because they were gulled by the rich.
Mostly it was the middle class that voted for Bush.
These non-figures are not absolute, just generalalities.
As a related aside: >50% of the votes went for Bush, but >50% of the US mass media is against Bush.
This would imply that more advertising is targeted to people that voted against Bush.
In turn there is the implication that advertising works better on people that didn't vote for Bush, because businesses prefer to invest where there is more expected return.
Thus it is not unreasonable to suppose that the people that voted against Bush are more gullible.
Meshing very well with this argument is the current circumstance: The idea that Bush supporters are more gullible is commonly disseminated in the mass media, including the internet, and non-supporters of Bush so easily believe it.
I suspect to see a Federal subsidy soon on ATSC TVs and tuner boxes.
Why?
Because locking out the poor and the stingy would not be beneficial to anyone in Congress, or to the President. Washington needs to be able to run its election campaigns; remember that the #1 purpose of your congressman is to keep his job.
Excellent timing on the article, since today is the start of TV-TURNOFF WEEK 2005
What would happen then?? The whole American economy would collapse!! How can the economy survive without Big Advertisers telling us what to buy, what movies to watch, and what drugs to take for our aches and pains??
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Servus,
actually in germany there now seems to be an interresting development. Since terrestrial TV-transmission is relatively expensive, compared to satellite transmissions, commercial stations are stopping to transmit terrestrially in some less populated areas at all. When the analog transmitters get turned off, they will only have a choice of about 5-6 public TV channels over the air.
But here nobody really cares. Free to Air satellite is just normal here (unless you live in an apartment building) and you can get more channels that way anyhow. And even on satellite a large share of the users already moved to digital, despite of the fact that the digital signal is worse most of the time.
In the US, digital television would have a lot more potential. Everyone can see the difference, at least in newer productions. With digital TV you can get real colour television, perhaps with HDTV even in a better resolution. (Note that PAL already has 576 lines instead of the 480 lines of NTSC).
Unfortunately the broadcast flag will ruin it all.
Until Wal-Mart can sell $100 Digital TV's, this just isn't going to happen. If not, the converter better be cheap. The money made on beer ads and McDonald's commercials dwarfs the severity of the situation.
"You know me, Marge! I like my TV loud, my beer cold, and my signal analog!"
No Text but I have to put something here for the lame filter.
While passionate discussons of the moral, philosophical, and technolgical aspects of this issue may be interesting, the bottom line is the bottom line. Congress will delay decisions as long as possible so they can reap bribes and donations from affected corporate parties such as the broadcasters, TV manufacturers, wireless ptoviders, etc.
You can bet on it.
Until I can receive some sort of free basic programming like I do off rabbit ears, it will be very unlikely I'll pay some grossly inflated "subscription" fee to watch TV. I haven't had cable TV in 10+ years, and quite frankly haven't missed it. I get my news and info via the web, broadcast radio and the interesting stuff from shortwave. The real reason for this switch is to free up radio spectrum, spectrum that can be used for many other things. Secondly are the broadcast control freaks who have rammed the "broadcast flag" down out throats, it's just as annoying as the unskipable adds on DVDs.
The 2006 deadline will probably be extended for what ever reason. But when the day finally does come, I'll be relatively unaffected by this. They will eventually want to do this with AM and FM broadcast as well, the ruse will be "better fidelity" but will really be a subscription you will have to pay for.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
> If enforced, that means that overnight, somewhere
> around 70 million television sets now connected
> to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will suddenly
> and forever go blank...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I'm from a very small farming community. They don't have cable, they don't have high speed internet, the cows out number the people there.
To get channels besides local stations people have to get satellite. It's not that bad really, I like satellite more than I like cable. But didn't congress pass a law several years ago saying satellite providers couldn't carry local channels and they couldn't provide locals from other markets?
So congress (in effect) is saying that they can't have antenna's to watch local TV, and they can't use satellite to watch local TV, but they don't get cable to be able to watch.
?????
J
Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
I don't give a flying fig about the switchover. I haven't watched TV in 3 and a half years anyway. It's nothing but a bunch of crud "entertainment" and biased news reporting. Anything I really need I can get online in places like /. ... Oh, wait...
Another nice feature is the electronic program guide that isn't cluttered up with ads.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If I remember correctly, HDTV eat up 2 channels of analog spectrum to make it work. Also our local PBS station was complaining about it using twice the power to get the same distance out of their broadcast antenna.
Actually, if you look at the history, most of the content companies lobbied against the digital switchover. They felt that things were just fine as they were. TV is the main competitor of the movies. Anything which improves television is going to cut into their movie market. Only once the switchover was approved and actually started to be implemented did they begin to argue for the broadcast flag. It only got added a year ago, after all commercial stations were already required to have digital broadcasts. The broadcast flag also doesn't plug the "analog hole" because it still allows a low resolution output of the signal. The same composite video out that your current TV provides to your VCR can be used on your new TV even when the broadcast flag is on. You just can't provide high definition video signals to non-5c compliant devices.
The broadcasters were also mostly against it because they, at very least, have to buy new transmission equipment, operate two broadcast antennas for a while, potentially provide more programming, and deal with a host of new technical issues.
Really, only two groups benefit from this: consumers who get better TV (and with digital tuners mandated to be in all TVs over 27 inches soon, the cost of tuners is going to come down sharply) and equipment makers who get to sell everyone a new TV and/or converter box.
Keith Irwin
... 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
... hiss ...
It's got my vote!
This would be a beautiful thing, freeing the masses from their enslavement to the stupid box!
...the manufacturers would wake up and actually make some DTV sets, or even DTV converters. I go looking for them every once in a while. I never see any. I see lots of "digital-*ready*" gear, but that just means there's a high-speed analog input to connect to the box I've never found.
I'd probably own a DTV converter by now, if I could find one in the store, and it didn't cost more than a complete 27" analog receiver. Many of us aren't switching because we *can't*.
overnight, somewhere around 70 million television sets now connected to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will suddenly and forever go blank
And the downside is???
FM Radio didn't make AM go away, why should digital TV make analog go away? The FCC plans to take that spectrum freed up by analog TV for other commercial uses. I think they should set a minimum price for that spectrum that will cover buying a new HDTV for everyone who has to replace their analog TV.
First we had the Homestead Act, then we had the GI Bill, and now we should have the Great Couch Potato Giveaway!
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Trash your TV.
The idea of "forcing" large numbers of people, including low income or rural populations, to purchase expensive converters or new TV's is offensive. It smacks of the same sort of simony involved with the pay-for-weather sites trying to force noaa.gov to stop providing free online weather feeds so that they can force taxpayers to pay for the feeds.
Granted there is nothing on analog broadcasts worth watching, but nations do need simple, broadcast media for government communications, emergency communications and other items which fall within the national interest.
It's about plugging the analog hole
I love it when you post dirty on Slashdot.
Since I need my money for other things (rent, food, car payment, etc..) guess I'll just live without the new TV.
If the feds really want me to have one of these TVs, then they can buy one for me.
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
Mark Cuban just mentioned this a few days ago on his blog. Some good points, especially the fact that America NEEDS to go digital so it can privatise analog and sell it off to raise money!
Here in the SF Bay Area, KCSM-TV gave up its analog transmitter already. Viewers can only watch it now via DTV, cable or satellite. The decision for them was forced by the lease on the site of their analog transmitter (aparently they put their digitial transmitter somewhere else).
I think the only way the transition will be acomplished in a reasonable timeframe would be for the converter boxes to be subsidized. I'm ordinarily not in favor of government subsidies, but this is one time it's probably going to be necessary. Make a tuner box that connects up to an antenna, and has HDMI, firewire, S-video, component and regular analog video and stereo audio outputs and make it cost $50 retail. Remember, anyone with cable or satellite won't need one.
Were people angry with this push?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Over-The-Air TV isn't going away, it's becoming easier. Anyone who gets a decent analog picture should be able to get great digital reception. They'll need a converter box, but the prices are dropping fast.
Most of that 15% will be fine; in fact, they'll have more channels with better picture quality. The only losers are those with portable analog systems where a converter isn't practical. I'm not losing any sleep over the pending demise of my old Sony Watchman.
So THIS is what happens when the government orders things but doesn't say how to fund them! It's all so clear now!
Thank goodness they don't do this with important things, such as education.
$8.95/mo web hosting
By the time "they" shut off analog TV signals, cheap receivers will be available that can receive the digital signal and output to RF, Composite, S-Video, etc. They are already available, but they probably aren't $25 yet.
Actually, I think you can get a used Voom receiver and use that for OTA digital TV... those are going for dirt right now.
I would be 1 of those loud complainers. I have 4 analog TVs in my house and a nice big antenna on the roof. Even assuming that the converter boxes are cheep, it would give the same situation that I refuse to go to now with cable/sat. I do NOT want to have a box, it makes programming the VCRs harder, it means the picture-in-picutre on my TVs don't work well (I need a box for each window and in most cases i wouldn't be able to use the remote for one without the other changing too, and it means having that many more remotes....
If they go ahead as planned I will most likly just no longer watch any TV programming.....
but they stop broadcasting analog and do it in digitial, how will the space aliens watch TV?
I don't subscribe to cable, and don't plan to if analog signals go away. I'm simply unwilling to pay for mindless "news" blather, monotonous millionaire "sports action", pointless "reality" dreck, and grotty "comedy" shows pumped out by coked-up tv producers.
My only reason for having a tv is to watch carefully screened DVDs. If analog signals go away, GOOD RIDDANCE!
Discovery HD
I'm not really running a text-byte for it, I'm just saying I don't watch Sopranos and Law and Order and all the shit that the rest of the spectrum covers.
There's some outstanding things to see on Discovery HD, and the 1280x1080i really makes all the difference. Looking at that link, they've got Egypt (and you can see it without worry of getting your head chopped off), Lewis and Clark, insects, evolution, and the Himalayas. Granted, it's not Louis and Clark with Terri Hatcher in tight leather, but there probably some hot American Indian chicks it in.
If I watch fifteen hours of television per week, at least 14 of those are off Discovery HD...
HDTV is badly needed, now that everybody loves Raymond!
One of the greatest inventions of the 20-th century, with the huge potential for educating the public, has been used for making said public misinformed, bored, lazy and stupid - in other words, the ideal material for ever-expanding government and commercial control.
90% of TV/radio programs are designed as instruments of brain-washing and/or explicit or implicit commercial advertisement. HDTV will definitely make such programs more effective.
As someone who has watched a Digital signal and an analog signal, I can say that Digital quality is WORSE than analog when viewed through a NTSC set. Things may be different under HDTV, but when viewed through "standard" TV sets, the digital signal is inferior.
Consider a scene that is mostly a single color, such as characters under moonlight (mostly blueish) or a submarine action movie where they are about in the murky depths (also mostly blueish scene).
In an analog signal, the light to dark blue is graduated evenly, while the digital signal shows banding and other digital artifacts, because there aren't enough "blue" colors in the digital compression scheme.
I've also watched many episodes of StarGate SG1 under digital where the Audio and Video were out of sync, and it wound up looking like a bad quicktime movie played on an underpowered computer and the characters lips flapped, but the voices were just a fraction of a second out of sync -- it still looked really weird.
Maybe it's just my shitty provider (comcast), but damn, digital is so bad, it makes me want to throw out my TV.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
There IS no 'dark side' of the moon. Seriously - I saw that on a .sig quote, so it must be true. :)
But I've really got to question how people could watch TV in the US. I mean, I've seen good quality off-the-wire NTSC, and compared to PAL it's shit! Forget the lower resolution of NTSC - the colour & phasing problems are enough to put me off it.
I often wonder about PAL 50hz regions, how could you stand getting up and going to the loo and seeing major flicker unless your looking at the TV dead on. Not to speak of 200+V reaking havic on hifi equipment.
In the past, we made up for the limitations of NTSC with really good cameras but this has not been a true statement since the the 80s. We also have a tint control to take care of this color shift which only needs to be adjusted once if at all using cable or if your there and abouts of the same distance from all the broadcast towers. I can't speak of phasing problems as this I never noticed.
As far as the TVs being shit, well... in the past I used an Amiga monitor to watch my TV. A traditional TV was for guests who have never seen anything better.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
TV isn't always about entertainment though. When 9-11 happened the first thing I did on hearing about it was flip the tube on to see the news reports. Yes, radio also broadcasts news but sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
For some, a TV can be a window into the rest of the world. Much as I think television is overwatched, it still does have some redeeming qualities.
If it is not subsidized, many viewers will be unreachable. Not that they would buy the new cars anyway, but what about the purple pil1z and financial-independence pitches they will never see?
"Do you honestly think that reading is inherently better than TV"
Yes yes. A thousand times yes.
Or have I been trolled?
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
But a TV can be of educational value. It's not the technology that's the problem, it's the content. If TV was all news broadcasts, educational shows and perhaps the odd edu-gameshow (I've learned a lot of weird facts from Jeopardy etc) then people could have a choice of not watch and live better, or watch and learn something.
Here's the difference between UK and US TV:
On UK TV, you have all the stuff that's worth watching packed into three or four channels. (BBC2, Channel 4, BBC1... er... that's about it.)
On US TV, you have almost exactly the same amount of TV that's worth watching, but it's spread across about a dozen channels, and you can only get those by subscribing to about a hundred channels.
The answer is ReplayTV or TiVo. You tell it what you want to watch, and it goes away and searches the hundreds of channels and finds the 3 channels' worth of stuff that's worth watching. It also lets you skip the obnoxious ads.
I tried watching US TV without a PVR, and it's just impossible. You have to dedicate an hour or two to reading the centimeters-thick TV guide each week, you have to track where FOX have moved your show to this week, you have to sit through the ads without going into a homicidal rage, and so on. The reward-to-effort ratio is way too low.
This is why Americans who get TiVo liken it to a religious experience, and say "You'll have my TiVo when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers". It turns US TV into something approaching UK TV.
Anyway, as far as the original topic goes... I don't see it as that big of a deal if they just go ahead with the switchover. Nobody who gets cable or satellite will even notice. How many people get their TV via bunny ears anyway?
Rural America doesn't get its TV via bunny ears. My in-laws live in rural America. They all have satellite dishes, because there's no way you'll pick up TV via a set-top antenna out on the prairies. No, the people who will be hit by this are predominantly poor people who live in cities and suburbs, and culture snobs who think they're too good for TV but occasionally sneak a fix (see examples in this discussion). 90% of the problem could probably be fixed by capping the price of basic cable.
Anyone have any actual statistics on how many people receive TV via bunny ears?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
all i have to say is that is alot of trash!
There are people in this country who can't afford to eat three decent meals a day. And congress, who's salaries we pay, is spending real, actual time worrying about how these people are going to watch TV.
Maybe I'm just being naive, but I don't see why congress needs to give a crap about analog TV being around. Let the market decide when it's time to switch over to digital.
All they have to do, is go to any library and get a copy of the constitution. Make a copy of Article 1 Section 8. Make a copy of the 10th Amendment. Make lots of copies of this stuff, and hand them out to everyone in government.
Then realize, "Oh shit, we had no right," and repeal the fucking law, along with thousands of other meddlesome works of evil.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...since the 2004 debates are the only thing besides my dvds i can remember watching on that hunk of glass in over a year. that and my ps2.
then again considering how devoid of any useful content or information the 2004 debates were, i probably won't miss that anyway.
seriously, is this even really an issue? everyone i know who actually cares about anything on TV has cable anyway.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
First I would like to point out that number of 70 million people who get their television from rabbit ears or roof top ant. is a complete fabrication. that means that roughly 1 in every 7 people do not have cable or satelite? The actual number is probably closer to 700,000 than 70,000,000. The research would be pretty easy take all the service providers numbers add them together and then subtract them from 100,000,000 (population divided by 3 to set for families). Just take a drive through a rural area (pick West Virginia or North Dakota) and count the percentage of houses without a dish. You will find that number is less than 30 %. The main point I want to make is that they are approaching this from the wrong angle. They are putting the burden on the consumer. They need to put the burden on the manufacturers and service providers. They need to stick to the date of New Years 2006 for the requirement of the stations to have their HD broadcast up. If they don't take away their liscense. The 2 other steps they need to address are education and the supply chain. They need to set a date about a year from now, lets say June 1 2006 to be the last day for the manufacture or importation of televisions with an analog tuner unless the television also has a digital tuner. That will begin to bleed the supply of analog only sets out of the population. This will slowly deplete the number of people with an analog only set as the life span for televisions isn't that great any more. The second step is education. They need to require that all stations that have an FCC liscense broadcast 2 Public Service announcements explaining the date of the swtich and the reasons for it. One of these announcements would have to be during Prime Time Television. The final step would be setting a realistic date for the end of the analog broadcast. I believe the date of January 1 2011 would be perfect. This would be 5 years from the date of the last analog only broadccast, and would allow for ample time for the bleeding of all the analog only sets. This would address the real issue: People do not understand anything about this law. The average person doesn't understand what digital TV or High Definition TV is. Most people who have digital cable or satelite think they have High Definition service. This plan would make sure that everyone had a better understanding, and would put the burden on the large companies that control the television instead of the individuals. If anyone in the FCC or congress is reading this feel free to have my ideas. I believe ideas and thoughts are free despite what larget corporations would lead you to believe.
If I got the spelling correct form Economics class, where the cheap potato's sales rose when your raised the price of potatoes because people. Because people were so poor they did not then have enough money to spend on more expensive food, they had to back fill that by buying more potatoes. An inverted yeild curve. The same may be true with TV resources, the choice being, get cable and give up going out or to the movies because you cant afford both. But you get more entertainment at home and all those luscious mini drama sales presentations in between things.
"but at least they get kick-ass television"
No, they don't. What you see are the 1% of British shows that are actually worthwhile.
Go to England sometime and watch and prepared to be bored silly. I mean, American TV is bad, but British TV is 10 times as bad. Its basically unwatchable.
"I don't understand why most "HDTV's" are actually HD monitors with no tuners though"
Because the FCC keeps adding things like broadcast flags and other DRM that will affect the tuner. Also, most cable companies have restrictions on watching HBO, Cinemax and other channels that require you to pay for them, so you have to have a cable-company-supplied box anyway.
So the bottom line is that you don't really want a tuner built into your TV unless you let the cable company control your tuner.
Think about it for 5 minutes and it will become clear.
Its common sense. If your TV
My family already has enough problems to worry about with the car payments, credit card payments, and sending me to school...and now this? Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
/. are for, eh?
I guess we'll be going without broadcast TV come Jan. 1, 2007 (or whenever the new regs start). After all, we quit cable when the prices began rising here in our county (now they're at around $40+ for basic cable), so we haven't been watching too much TV anyways. But that's what the Internet and
If your tv goes blank, spend time with your family instead..
Read a book..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But in fact each NTSC channel is being replaces with a block of four ATSC channels and given to the same owner. Those owners typically run the same programming in various resolutions in the same space.
So we aren't getting additional channels in the conversion.
Also, that's assuming they use standard definition. High definition signals take up more room than one subchannel.
I would think the public's status is more important then the content providers.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I read this and thought it had something to do with the Force. New Star Wars edition plasma TVs - in two distinct colors for good & evil. ...or something :P
Missing a signal, the analog TVs won't of course go dark.
The TVs will be the color of sky, tuned to a dead lifestyle.
I already have digital TV! *cough*bittorrent*cough*
In all seriousness, I haven't turned my TV on in several months now that I just download all the TV shows I want to watch.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
They can't even find their remote.
More important to members of congress - these people will neither hear the campaign slogans nor see the televised debates in elections when their screens go dark.
I'd say they care about that more than anything else .
Non, je ne veux pas coucher avec toi ce soir.
Get off your soap box, you aren't as unique as you think you are. Your statements are meaningless, meant only to incite people to rant away at what they don't understand. I refuse to take the bait.
The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
On the other hand, the loss of a market/mind control of 70 million customers/voters/sheep can only lead to the possiblility that these folks might become less dependent on mass market propaganda. And that's what really scares the "Powersd That Be" (tm).
Independent thinkers
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
If HDTV tuners can be had for under $50, it won't matter.
I expect the more expensive ones to remote-control the on/off and volume control of the TV it's controlling.
Just to muddy up the patent process in case anyone is even remotely thinking about it, I'm stating here that this is trivial and I think has already been done. Here are several ways to do it:
1) infrared remote, either by positioning the set-top box in the line of sight of the TV's remote-control sensor or bouncing the signal off the wall
2a) wired, by taping or affixing an IR transmitter in front of the TV remote input and running a wire back to the HDTV tuner
2b) wireless, by taping or affixing an IR trasmitter in front of the TV remote input and communicating with it wirelessly
3) guided IR signal, using low-grade fiber-optics or similar technology, to guide IR to the TV remote control input.
I'm not an electrical or IR engineer, and I concocted these ideas in a matter of minutes. That should more than qualify as "so obvious even an idiot could think of it." I'm sure there are other equially obvious ways of doing it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
One side of the moon isn't always dark. They mean the backside of the moon, the part we can't see from earth. It's dark there right now, but it a couple weeks it will be the light side.
Sorry, just one of my pet peeves.
It's the television manufactures fault. When was that last time you saw a TV that could produce "native" 1920x1080 at an afordable price? Most of them can barely produce HD 16:9 720p. It should bethe TV manufactures first aginst the wall when the revolustion comes. I know this because I just aquired a copy of the Encyclopedia Galactica from 5000 years in the future that states exactly that. Perhapse the FCC thinks if they warap a towel around their head this mess will go away. Well I hate to tell this this is no Bug Blatter Beast from troll and they will have to face the music. If we dont have Full HiDef when we were promised there we may just destroy the earth and bypass insted. The digital watches just are not enough any more.
What "situation"? The point is that it's not really important whether we switch or not. It's just IP protocol.
The problem is it's not just IP protocol. This is about freeing up address space for other things (like networked appliances), which is the entire point in changing over to IPv6 in the first place, and the reason why the change was mandated rather than allowed to "happen organically". ISP were given the extra addresses required for IPv6 with the understanding that they would switch off their IPv4 networks at a certain date.
Maybe not enough has been done to promote the switchover - obviously, there are some people even on Slashdot who don't understand why the switchover is even important. But it is, and it has to happen. I don't know what the solution is, but I wouldn't be averse to simply letting things go and seeing those millions of computers go dark. (I doubt there are nearly that many IPv4-only routers and computers out there anyway).
I'm a little sick of luddites deciding matters of technology policy for the entire country. This would be the equivalent of forcing our phone system to continue to support the telegraph at the expense of voice communications because a few people still used it. At some point, you say enough is enough and force an upgrade for the good of the rest of the world.
Likewise, digital tuners are already mandated on TVs above a certain size.
Picked completely randomly (and quickly), here's a 46" "HD-Ready" DLP Projector from Samsung, selling for about $2600 at BestBuy. No internal ATSC tuner. Oh, but it's compatible with one. Oh yay. Another friggin' box to buy.
If the government is serious about this deadline, they'd better make a few phone calls to Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, etc. and let them know, because they sure as shit aren't going to spend the extra $5 in components to do it themselves.
And while you may enjoy the benefits of cable, I can assure you that several million poorer folks do not have that luxury. If the current administration and their heirs wish to continue appealing to "regular folk," they're going to have to delay this implementation.
Or maybe they can pass a tax cut that'll give us another $50 check to buy a compatible tuner.
It will be like that episode of the Simpsons where all the kids come out side, rub their eyes from the sun they haven't seen, and begin to do all the things kids should be doing.. running, playing, etc...
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
Why is my karma so high?
Um, because a lot of people agree with me, maybe? Take a look at my many fans on my slashdot page.
Yeesh that was pathetic. And WOW. Meta-mods on Slashdot mod you up because they agree with you? What a surprise when you talk about the same crap back and forth and have the same viewpoints as the mods. You must think what you post on Slashdot is quite profound.
Forbes was right on the mark when they described Slashdot as a noisy "echo chamber". It's the same crap spewed day in and day out because of the pervasive groupthink.
Visit http://www.davidsuzuki.org/ to find out what sorts of things you can do. This site is Canadian-oriented on the surface, but applicable none the less. You don't need a protest to make a difference at all. You just need people to open their eyes and see that there is a better way to live.
+ Spiderfood
Acutally yes I expect that any day now. Once there are enough commercial digital radio providers expect them to buy/convince legislaters to ban analog radio. Won't it be great?
btw I'm with you. When I go away on vaction to Berkshire Mass am I asking too much to be able to tune into TV to check the news where no cable access is available?
Forcing a new technology and expense onto the public that will result in nothing but higher prices and less choice isn't a good thing. btw it WILL result in a price increase. When was the last time industry ever did something for the public good that resulted in lower prices and better service?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I have a DBS receiver. Will my analog TV still work?
Ever since I killed mt cable connection, my time spent reading slashdot has greatly increased. Now instead of spending hours each day veging out to mindless brain rot, I spend hours each day participating in insightfull, interesting, and funny conversation.
Nice Marmot
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
Find all the hip and trendy folks and celebrities to endorse the switch. On a white background. With the text "Watch Differently" at the end to summarize the commercials.
And then they can advertise new product with black TV silhouettes dancing and bouncing on a garish single-color background to a random U2 song, with popular reality TV show quotes spliced in for flavor.
Registered Linux User #449434
In 10 years, are we going to care about broadcast spectrum for linear programming? No -- we're going to want all those frequencies for high-bandwidth packet delivery.
As soon as 300 million people can watch an event unfold in real time via multicast, there is no reason to be blindly pumping signal into the air every 50 miles.
I can get a picture on my analog tv using my directional outside antenna that's as good as what I get on directtv, ie crystal clear. This is a completely uneeded technology. I believe it is akin to the folks who shower tivo with praises as though it's a miracle machine, they apparently never encountered a VCR in their life.
I think it is more than that. I think American culture is an evolved culture, evolved through the exercise of power by wealthy nidividuals and corporation. America was created to facilitate the consolidation of power for a number of wealthy people, i.e., the "Founding Fathers".
We as people are a product of genetics AND culture. So culture is part of what each of us is.
Over the last 100 years or so, rich people and corporations have collaborated to use the media to evolve the American culture--and thus evolve the American culture into a culture that suits them--a culture of hard working, hard-consuming people. A profit machine for investors.
TV is crucial factor in maintaining this culture. Qithout TV as a vehicle for disseminating neoliberal, mercantilist beliefs into the culture, the American Profit Machine would start to erode. More Americans would voting for genuine leftist, stop buying so much consumerist stuff, etc. Well, if this analog switchover is not done well, it would not be ALL that big a factor--most people would have the digital TVs. But remember that as in any well managed Big Corporation, profit optimization is the goal.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
We knew the digital switchover was going to occur and many things would switch to HDTV. So we bought a 65" HDTV and made the switch to sat, the cable in this area was laid 25 years ago and is all analog, although by this time next year they claim it will be replaced.
For a while we got all 500 channels including HBO and Showtime in HD and then suddenly one day the HD channels went dead, even the preview HD channel on Dish.
Well turns out they changed their broadcasts in HD that required all 6000 model owners (the first HD sat reiever) to purchase a $100 upgrade to get back HD. We didn't mind because there wasn't any channels broadcasting in HD other than HBO and Showtime which we don't subscribe to.
We bitched and got the new module for our reciever free. After all we spent like $600 for it new, however if we want HD content, we have to pay an extra $10 a month and right now local channel programming in HD are not available on sat. So we are all set-up ready to for HD, but other than Discovery HD, there isn't really all that much to watch that we can get.
So 5 years later we are still wait and see.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Last month my roommate gave it away or sold it on me (RMFH -- now gone).
Come to think of it, I think my sister still has the old Hitachi that my mom bought in the mid '70s.
In any case, when people still have 20 and 30 year old technology, it's working fine, and the alternative isn't even in wide distribution, I think that it's almost obscene to expect the entire consumer universe to just randomly switch over to an incompatible technology.
Part of the reason why Color TV became popular is that they made it compatible with Black and White -- even then, it was about another 30+ years before they stopped making black and white TVs.
Upshot: Mandating such a massive market change seems stupid -- especially in the light of the government and it's corporate masters championing 'market forces' as a cover story for most of their other stupidity.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
The spectrum that is being given back is Uhf channels above 52. ATSC is advanced TV, The bandwidth is still 6 MHz just as it is now. If you want to know what the ATSC over the air picture looks like check our a local real electronics store not a big retailer. The other major point people are missing is the original 1934 communications act included provisions for the only direct cost to the users was the original cost of the receiver. I think we in the US are one of the few broadcast systems not directly supported by tax dollars. (not PBS) we also have pay to view and pay to deliver systems. Cable, direct TV, HBO and pay per view. Yes commercials are sometimes really annoying, but for now they pay the bills for broadcast TV. Fast forward to Analog transmitter being shut off, Fewer eyeballs being counted, fewer dollars for adds, Local stations going dark, no local news or local programming. It's hard to tell what the final outcome will be with so much completion for viewers. Costs to get programming to viewers. Some people thinking that wide fast data pipes are going to replace all broadcast, Terrestrial or Satellite. All I can say for now is stay tuned it's going to be an interesting ride
I'm glad that the MSNBC articles thinks of us poor suckers who only use an antenna as "The real problem is the 15 million or so U.S. households whose only television service comes over the air. For these people, predominately lower-income and disproportionately black and Hispanic, the cut-off will be bad news indeed." Really? I'm white, middle-class and college educated. Why do I not get cable, satellite dish and an expensive new TV to go with it? 99% of all TV programming is SHIT. I have friends and relatives with cable/satellite, and frankly, I'm not impressed. The few shows that I've seen I want to watch (mostly on BBC America) I rent the DVD version. Why spend money to watch commericials? Let it go dark.
Thank you for quoting the least reliable exit polls in the HISTORY of the presidential election. To review, the polls indicated that Kerry won. And to review your quoted figures- I'm certain those numbers will even out when you control for race.
However, you did a lot better than 99% of the knee-jerk liberal posts on this website by pointing out that the legislation was started under Clinton, and that the FCC is the authority on the matter. Bush could overrule them, but this is pretty much a technical spectrum debate. You all whine when Bush intercedes in the 'scientific' stem cell debate, so why whine when the experts do get to decide?
A good question is when spectrum use will get real coverage and debate in Congress. At one time, the Internet was restricted to technical experts, and now Internet-related legislation is common. Someday, we'll obsess over spectrum use in a real way- or obsess over the FCC the way we do Greenspan.
Two words: American Football!
my downloading of TV shows with Bittorrent?
Personally, I hope they DO go ahead with this. I don't have a 'tv' anymore, I have a DLP projector, and even for the year or so before I got said DLP and handed down my old TV to my sister, I didn't have cable. The only thing I really miss is all the old episodes of Law and Order on TNT, like 3-5 episodes a night. Everything else I can download off usenet within 12 hours of it airing. Usually in HDTV 1080i if it's from the big four networks. I was just considering getting an HDTV tuner and antenna to hook up to my DLP...
Why's everyone whining about DRM and all that? If HDTV signals are DRM'd, why does every show in HD end up on usenet within hours, in it's native mpeg-ts format? Am I missing something? Is that only to come AFTER the switch?
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
...oh, wait, it's 2 in the morning. Maybe a couple of night watchmen Barney types trying to stay awake by watching "COPS"...
The only time I _really_ want the TV is during an emergency, usually weather related. It really helps to have the stream of information about school closings, shelter openings and FEMA phone numbers and also the encouragement that my local weather people and public officials can supply. I maintain a roof antenna mostly for this and the occasional Simpson re-run.
Is it to much to ask that the government permit this public channel to remain?
I don't buy the bandwidth argument. For the same quality service digital needs more bandwidth than analog. And the present quality is fine for the emergency needs.
Free Sig!
-- Remarks by the President at Connecticut Republican Committee Luncheon, April 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20 020409-8.html
^^
OMG... I thought the V-Chip was a South Park joke...
:-)
:-)
You americans are crazy, you know that???
Nice example, I hope the economy of scale works out, as I'm not really looking forward to paying $50 extra for a TV which I will not be using to watch broadcasts anyway (I'm experimenting with not having a TV right now, as evidenced by the increased amount of Slashdot posts
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
This sounds like StarWars!
Obi-Wan: I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
(From: Quotes from The Stars Of Star Wars - Interviews From The Cast:
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
I have been reading about this switchover since the early 90's. I remember the FCC stating that all TVs would be Digital by Dec 31, 1999 and all analog turned off. (I guess they hadnt thought about the Y2K issues when they first picked 1999 as the year) As we got closer to 1999, the dates kept getting delayed. Simply to a google search for "FCC High Definition Delay" to see the numerous articles. You will see every year since 1999 listed as the year analog goes away, 2000-2009. Every year we advance is another year HD gets bumped back. I read today that its 2008, yet, in the google search the FCC states that 2009 "is more realistic", 10 years late, and I am betting it will be delayed several more years after that date. "The latest proposal is to have 85 percent of households using digital television by Jan. 1, 2009. The previous deadline was January 2007, but that has been determined to be too early."
Obviously, digital broadcasting hasn't been compelling enough to get a huge number of people to upgrade. The numbers aren't given in the article, but it sounds like, of people getting TV over the air, the large majority prefers analog to digital. Rather than force them to upgrade to a technology that they don't think is worthwhile, why don't we cancel digital broadcasting? It hasn't worked.
And until a "normal" HDTV sells for less than $500, consumers will resist it.
It's all about the money, honey.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
From what I remember, we've already passed the first 2-3 such deadlines that were set. It keeps getting pushed back.
I believe the deadlines all have a clause stating that they are dependent on market penetration of suitable receivers. I forget the exact rule/clause, but it basically says, "If x% of TV owners still have analog-only TVs, the deadline is delayed". I think x was a pretty low number like 15-20%.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I have a location with line of sight to the NY broadcast towers. I get a perfect NTSC signal on all major stations. I also get digital from all outlets except for WNET, which is not capable of getting a digital OTA signal. Some Observations: My Radio Shack roof antenna delivers a way better signal than the cable company for normal broadcast TV. I agree that few have probably seen NTSC at best possible light. There's good NTSC, but not much of it, as delievered. HDTV is a far sight better than NTSC. Those who claim it's not better have not seen real HDTV. Yes, Everyone Loves Raymond in HD still sucks, but it's real pretty, and CSI Miami is shot in such a way as to make you think of the first technicolor films. Most stores are at best feeding the HD sets with a DVD of Finding Nemo, so you won't see the real details-some have the same overamped and bleeding feed the NTSC sets get, so you learn nothing. One station, Channel 50, broadcasts analog, and digital the next channel up. When the analog feed is weak, with dot crawl and fuzzing, the digital feed is perfect. So, for a weak signal, digital wins. Once you get used to HDTV, you can't go back to "blur o vision". The correct colors alone are a huge change. Local news is entertaining, as they tend to switch between HD cameras and SD cameras in the evening news broadcast, so the "location" reporter will be HD, the Studio Standard TV, back to the close up of anchor, in HD, and pull out to weather, in SD. Like having the wrong glasses a few times in sequence. Problems: HDTV is the candy in which the DRM poison is located. Second Problem: anyone who thinks that this is anything but a free extra channel for the broadcasters is totally deluded. Now, each station gets the VHF allocation they always had, and a free UHF channel for the HD feed. As long as a lawyer can file papers in a Court, or petition FCC, or a lobbyist can buy a legislator on Ebay, the networks will keep the old channel and the new one. slashdotters may be early adopter geeks, this writer included, but the penetration of real HD is so low it's not yet measured by Nielsen or others. No one will take "grandma's" TV away, and the media, who normally ignores the poor, will suddenly chamption their rights to watch mind numbing entertainment. 2006, try 2026. As a ham radio operator, I know the normal analog channels are prime radio real estate. The broadcasters will fight tooth and nail to keep the "free" channel, while using the digital one. This will take twenty years to change over.
so sayeth the shill.
Here is the bill everyone is talking about.
Please note -
(1) TV broadcast industry got digital broadband for free.
(2) US Treasury wants to auction off analog bandwidth for $$$
(3) The bill was intended to speed up digital conversion by setting a deadline.
(4) Non-commercial stations (PBS) are not scheduled to return analog bandwidth until 1-1-2007.
(5) The bill only mentions problems with licensees to extend the deadline (it does not mention problems you the people might have with a conversion, even though you the people probably should have a say in this matter).
Here is the bill everyone is talking about.
Please note -
(1) TV broadcast industry got digital broadband for free.
(2) US Treasury wants to auction off analog bandwidth for $$$
(3) The bill was intended to speed up digital conversion by setting a deadline.
(4) Non-commercial stations (PBS) are not scheduled to return analog bandwidth until 1-1-2007.
(5) The bill only mentions problems with licensees to extend the deadline (it does not mention problems you the people might have with a conversion, even though you the people probably should have a say in this matter).
Over-the-air digital TV will give power back to the people. I think over-the-air digital television is amazing. It could put cable and satelite tv companies out of business. The reception is absolutely perfect - and it is free!!!!
Digital over-the-air TV has the potential of letting small independent TV broadcasters back into the air waves. It could losen the grip of the huge media corporations on our lives. I think over-the-air digital television is amazing. I think it could put cable and satelite tv companies out of business. The reception is absolutely perfect - and it is free!!!! Death to Clear Channel... Long live digital TV!
Why stop there, Homer? My militia has a secret plan to beat up all sorts of government officials! That'll teach them to drag their feet on high definition TV!
I, for one, welcome our HDTV overlords. Bow down, for they are bright and shiny!
PIP isn't an issue for a lot of the tvs I have seen since they only have one analog tuner anyway. I actually use my ATSC set top box to watch tv and the built in analog tuner for PIP.
I think most just have not seen real HDTV. It's not the compressed Standard Def you get on dish or Direct TV, with the pixellation in dard scenes. Switching between my excellent NTSC signals to my HD signals, is like comparing a sepia tint early photo to a modern 35 mm photo. Most NTSC is crappy because the providers don't care. Over saturated colors, or dot crawl, are the norm,not the exception. I use dish for my "cable channels" and the quality is often good, but also often pixellated, depending on compression. This is not what I see using the OTA HDTV, which rarely pixellates. Channel 50, NJN, is a great example. When broadcasting in 480i, it has four channels. They usually are more clear than the analog feed, with at the least, stable color. After 8 pm, they go for High Definition on one channel, and drop out two of the four. There are then one HD channel, in 1080i, and two SD channels, in 480i, which are compressed to within an inch of watchability, so the HD channel can have the bandwidth. There is a real problem if this is done wrong, that the stations will give us one crappy 480i feed and sell off the rest. Real, Off the Air HDTV, is like looking out a window. Public TV has some great stuff on HDTV, now if WNET (NY channel 13) would figure out how to get an HDTV signal out, then those who can't get NJN would have PBS in the NY area.
Not all of us are ready to switch, and how much will these boxes cost? We have 6 TVs in our house, you know how much that will cost. The old thing from when the house was first bulit wont work (it hasn't anyways...in years.) I guess I don't need the two antennas in the attic, I'm sure I could turn them into a pirate station. They expect everyone to buy a box to convert if there old, what if you can't? What you gonna do then. I haven't even seen any PSAs which they really need to start fucking airing. I think it's stupid, it's a quick way for the goverment to make some extra cash. I say we give a few more years.
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
So when are they scheduled to stop selling analog TVs, or at least require that digital tuners be included in all new TV?
If 70 million TV's are suddenly made "junk" in 2006, just where do you think most of them will go?
From just a cursory lookaround, I see ATSC converter boxes running over $200 on average. $160 or so if you shop WalMart. However, this is still an unacceptable requirement.
Lets run the wayback machine to the 60s, when color television was slowly creeping into the market. Back then, you didn't need a major expense like a new television (or tuner) to still watch TV if you couldn't afford the upgrade price.
Hell, for some, you could even listen to TV on the radio if that was your thing. If the digital switcheroo goes into effect, that's gone as well.
What is truly criminal, however, is how few ATSC tuners are actually on the market.
Add to that how many of the functions of ATSC tuners would be completely wasted for some (for example, take USDTV.com's service, where you have all of three cities to choose from).
Add to that how many retailers are completely failing to note to their customers that their TVs will be obsolete within 8 months.
Add to that the utter lack of "real" news (eg; print/video media) coverage, or at the least a 30 second spot explaining the process.
I mean seriously, what's WRONG with these people???
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Television is dumb. Every joke has already been told, the news sounds the same every day. If my television no longer pickes up airwaves, I will just hook up a camera outside my house and use the tv as a monitor. I won't miss broadcast television at all.
Let the media moguls destroy the red/blue balance of lie distribution by turning off TV outside the cities.
I can get all the weather reports I need with my dial-up connection to wunderground.
Yes, it would be so wonderful if people across the country, instead of being sold the Iraq war, had no idea the country was planning on going to war...
What a wonderful world it would be, if we dropped all conduits of information.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Not to mention being someone who talks on ICQ far too much...
Go with regular cable, and tell them where they can shove their digital cable when they try to convince you to go that route. They always want to charge $5 extra per-box, per-month.
You probably never bother to program the VCR when you've only got 5 channels, so it's a moot point.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Not that they will actualy care, 'cause most of them are used to and perfectly happy with VHS (or even copy thereof) quality.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Some providers (Rogers in Toronto, Canada, in particular), provide digital versions of the first 70 channels, so if you have a digital box they ignore the analog versions.
Other providers (Shaw) have gone completely digital (by having a massive digital/analog box swap several years back).
-Stu
OK, so I overstated the unreliability of these polls a bit based on their reputation this year. But we all know that most polls have a self-selection problem, and I also understand that we don't need to discuss that this time.
Because I still want to see the numbers when you control for being African-American. They are the most overwhelmingly pro-Democrat group (except perhaps gays, but I don't think exit polls go into that detail) and they are also poorer than average, so that's what I want to see. I think you're probably still right, (especially among the very rich vs. the rest of us) but race is a factor that skews this relationship.
First of all, keep in mind that the FCC is counting on having a bunch of "converter boxes" that will migrate from HDTV to NTSC. Grandma with the old TV will simply have to buy a converter box when the change happens. MPEG-Video to NTSC converters are quite common, and chip sets in the range of about $10 per chip if you know your sources. I would imagine converters going for about $50 each at retail outlets.
I will say, however, that I can get and tweak a weak NTSC signal much better than a weak digital signal. The nice thing about analog signals is that they degrade "gracefully". That is, they get gradually more and more snow until finally you simply can't watch anything from that station. Digital signals are all-or-nothing propositions. Either you get the video frame (or audio frame), or you don't. When something screws up the digital video frame, it either drops out (causing the previous frame to be repeated with most broadcast quality equipment) or you see digital artifacting, which I personally find hideous. I would rather have snow than the artifacting. When a digital signal is poor, it is particularly annoying to be watching, and you also lose information. At least with analog transmissions your mind can filter out the noise to understand what is said.