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.
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!
Hubble telescope, anyone?
I'm sorry, but are you advocating that a government subsidise a technological swith concerning /a television technology/? Come on! Of all the things a government should spebd money on, /this is not it!/
A government should spend money on education or the environment...not on the quality of your tv picture!
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Every network affiliate around here has an HD broadcast also. I think it's been a requirement for a while now.
I don't understand why most "HDTV's" are actually HD monitors with no tuners though. That pisses me off.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
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
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...
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
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.
In TFA it's said one reason there is a push to turn off analog broadcasting on schedule is that it will open up the frequencies for other uses. The FCC would auction these off for billions. Elsewhere it states the converter box would cost about $50-100. Spend a small part of the profit from selling the frequencies to subsidise converters for the poor. Same as compensatng people living on land taken over by the governemtn for some project. Still a net profit for everyone.
This isn't about picture quality. It's about phasing out spectrum-hogging analog signals in favor of digital signals so the FCC can reclaim most of the spectrum currently used for analog TV. The increase in picture quality is just a sugar coating to help everyone else go along with it.
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.
No more distraction for the masses through television? Which results in the masses becoming interested in politics. This is definitely not in the politician's interest, I therefore don't think they will be shutting down the television service for all those people
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
And on top of that, the FCC has said they want to include CABLE homes in that number. I don't see why; cable homes will get the digital signal REGARDLESS of what happens--most of THEM have a fiber connection to the station that brings them the signal. The 80% of people who watch cable probably won't even know until one day that one TV in the house that isn't wired for it stops working. I had always assumed that the 85% number meant 85% of, you know, those who might actually NOTICE the shutoff. You know, the people who DON'T have cable. But then I remembered this is Washington, DC. If I were logic, I suppose I would avoid Washington like the plague as well.
Which government do you mean by the government. It can't be the US government. The government has no constitional authority to have any role whatsoever in education, the environment, or television. All you're saying is that you don't like the government's blatantly unconstitional and illegal interference in television standards, but you'd like the government to engage in blatantly unconstitional and illegal power grabs for your pet issues education and "the environment." You have no more legitimacy or authority than the very people you're railing against!
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
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."
Well, which is it? Is the population actively anti-intellectual or is it really the legal parasites and their masters? To claim that the population is anti-intellectual I think gives them too much credit. As long as there's some chick with big cans on the tube or a reality show to watch I think the population cares not.
I'd go with the legal parasites.
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!
Hmmm - 'able to' probably does not equal 'has a digital box'. Rather it simply means that the digital signal can be received at a suitable signal strength at 85% of locations in the area. If you fall into the last 15% then you'll be buggered, digi boxed or not!
RikF
In Soviet Russia you own your cat
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.)
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!
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!"
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
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.
Ever since I severed my link to the idiot box, I've noticed the changes, as you said, induced by lack of corporate advertising. I have stopped listening to the radio in my car (I only carry CDs) and my TV picks up a couple channels, but has been stuck on PBS and public access for almost 6 months (Tampa has a pretty decent public access scene, asside from the palm-reading, tarot card strangeness). It is really refreshing to not be bombarded by advertising.
I did just watch The Patriot on TBS the other night and was reminded, quite quickly, just how annoying commercial "breaks" are while watching a movie. One can only assume that constant TV/Radio/etc advertising has a more profound affect on the mind than just getting people to buy stuff. Imagine the psychological issues.
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.
"Do you honestly think that reading is inherently better than TV"
Yes yes. A thousand times yes.
Or have I been trolled?
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.
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 ----
Dude, I wouldn't trust exit polls that much, they showed that Kerry won the election.
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.
Fortunately Diebold was there in Ohio to prevent that horrid thing from happening.
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.
If 70 million TV's are suddenly made "junk" in 2006, just where do you think most of them will go?