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."
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 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.
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.
We're doing this in Germany right now. Some areas with high population density have already been switched to entirely digital distribution over the air. There is a difference however: Only a small percentage of viewers was receiving TV programming over the air anyways. Most viewers have cable (mostly analog) or satellite (mostly digital), so they were not affected by the switchover.
DVB-S(atellite) is very popular, so we're used to set top boxes. DVB-T(errestrial) is very similar technology, so the receivers are already in the same price range (starting at about $65).
If you delay this, you'll just be in the same situation some years down the road. Without setting a date and sticking to it, nothing gets done.
Being British, but married to an American, I used to subscribe to the "of course British TV is better" point of view, but I have to say that in recent years, the quality of US programming has got better and better and British programming, has tended to get worse and worse.
Having said that, the sheer amount of advertising on US tv is quite jaw-dropping, and I hate the way they cut straight from the programme to the ad without any "end of part 1" malarky like we still have. US tv news is on the whole worse than the UK's I'd say, although it is good to see truly local TV news unlike the pathertic excuse for it we have in the UK.
[1] although I do think the BBBC has been getting rather better of late [2]
[2] contrast though to the howling wasteland ITV has become
Tinfoil hat nothing, practical reality. TV is the opiate of the masses in this country. Watch, it will be extended. Money means nothing if you have millions disconnected from the indoctrination engine.
I have to agree with the parent, and think it should be moded up. This isn't a tin-foil hat situation, this is political economics, pure and simple.
However, I think about stories a friend of mine tells me of days he worked as an installer for Cox Communications... going into trailer homes which were missing floors to install digital cable. So you take away analogue transmissions; rabbit ears and roof-top antennaes no longer work. That's okay, because the poor will still believe they NEED television, for whatever reason. Be it to escape the ugly reality of class-separation induced poverty or whatever, they won't be able to subside without the daily drama of someone else's life which is better or worse than their's; without the daily cramming of horrible news from around the world; without the daily reminder that their country is the greatest on Earth, so says the President. So on and so forth.
So, they'll spend whatever little money they can scrape together to buy the three main necessities: cigarettes, alcohol, and TV. Food, shelter, transportation -- those all come into the view later on. But by God, it's down-right un-American not to have TV.
That's enough of my un-thought-out rant.
Personally, I'll be fine with no longer being able to use my analogue TV one day in the far future. (2006 affects over-the-air, right? When does analogue cable go the way-side?) I have stayed away from digital cable because I don't want another friggin' box on my entertainment stand, and another piece of equipment complicating my already complex system (select VCR, then put the TV to Input 1, but you can't use the TV volume here unless you actually use it as a tuner, but if you select DVD, you have to...)
But aside from that, which is really a minor issue, I consider getting rid of cable every time the bill comes due. I don't watch any prime-time network shows because I just can't handle the brain-rot. Phuqn "reality" shows just annoy the hell out of me, and I just can't bring myself to follow any of the shows currently running. I enjoy well-written shows which make me think, all across the board of drama to comedy, investigatory society, etc. Well, I have to admit that some of these real-life video shows (read that as unscripted reality, I guess) do provide some entertainment, but I could easily, and happily, live without them.
ComCast used to call me every so often to pitch digital cable. I'd ask why I would want it, and hear "well, it adds two hundred channels!" Great, that's 195 new channels that I won't watch, so why in the hell would I want to pay for service, installation, set-top decoder, etc.?
Perhaps I am robbing myself of some great experiences and entertainment, but it just doesn't seem that way. Blah.