Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will America's Favorite Technology Go Dark?

Posted by Zonk on from the firefly-might-be-back-on-by-then dept.

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."

6 of 930 comments (clear)

  1. A suggestion maybe by hyu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps they should delay the switchover if they're not ready.

    1. Re:A suggestion maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Analog TV emission is wasteful. Spectrum is a scarce resource (at least the ranges which are well-suited for long distances) and digital transmission makes much better use of it. Spectrum is also a public resource, and some of us don't want to see it being wasted any longer. Your right to use outdated technology collides with my right to put the frequencies to better use.

    2. Re:A suggestion maybe by indifferent+children · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If the government didn't mandate format and frequency standards, your TV stations would step all over each others' signal, and you would need to buy a new TV if you switched cable companies (just like you have to buy a new cell phone when you switch cell companies; just like you have to have a different cable-box for different cable companies, and your TiVo can't decode premium channels without a stupid IR-blaster (until we get the new FCC mandated CableCard equipment)).

      The free market is not the answer to every question.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    3. Re:A suggestion maybe by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What "situation"? The point is that it's not really important whether we switch or not. It's just television.

      The problem is it's not just television. This is about freeing up radio spectrum for other things (like wireless communications), which is the entire point in changing over to digital TV in the first place, and the reason why the change was mandated rather than allowed to "happen organically". TV stations were given the extra spectrum required for DTV OTA broadcasts with the understanding that they would switch off their analog broadcasts at a certain date. There is no good reason I can see for allowing TV stations to hog all that spectrum, duplicating channels, for an unspecified period of time.

      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 "70 million" TV's go dark. (I doubt there are nearly that many analog-only sets receiving OTA broadcasts still in use anyway - are we counting analog sets hooked up to digital cable boxes like mine, as well as analog sets that are just sitting in a closet doing nothing? My guess is yes).

      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.

  2. It's about plugging the analog hole by Christian+Engstrom · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Perhaps they should delay the switchover if they're not ready.

    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
  3. Re:Who really wanted HDTV? by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.