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.
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...
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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
That means if the TV sets go dark on new year's eve 2006 the US is expecting a baby boom in autumn 2006.
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.
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.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."
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.
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.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"