Slashdot Mirror
Who Cares if Analog TV Goes Dark?
AVIDJockey writes "Take this with a grain of salt, but earlier this month the Consumer Electronics Association giddily released data showing that of America's 285 million TVs only 12 percent (33.6 million) are used for watching OTA broadcasts. In a further revelation, the CEA's numbers say that approximately 3 million (around 10 percent) aren't used for viewing broadcast television at all. Instead, the electricity gobbled up by these sets is used to play videogames, watch movies on DVD, or view old Jane Fonda exercise tapes."
Only 12? Funny perspective you seem to have..
If a CEO embraced a plan to cull 12% of the company's existing customer base in one fell swoop, the board would having him packing his office into boxes the next day. Bah... consider the source: Home Theater Magazine. This article is just brash, elitest techogeek strutting: "Well, who doesn't have a digital capable TV nowadays anyhow? Luddites!".
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Just how much will I need to spend in order to keep watching TV once they ram this through?
(To Darryl Wilkinson, the author of TFA: At what point in your youth did you decide you wanted to grow up to be a condescending prick?)
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
It's not rocket science.
You have to remember who is in that 12%. Most elderly viewers are the ones less likely to spend money on a new TV Set or that fancy shmancy cable. They are also the most likely to vote.
Consumer Electronics Association giddily released data showing that of America's 285 million TVs only 12 percent (33.6 million) are used for watching OTA broadcasts. In a further revelation, the CEA's numbers say that approximately 3 million (around 10 percent) aren't used
10% of 285 million = 28.5 million
3million = 1% of 285 million
Uses for TV: The DVD player and Netflix, or public library.
Uses for internet: everthing else.
Uses for cable: don't have it, use DSL.
It makes no sense to wait up to watch OTA TV to find out what the weather is. Same for the news: I don't care about Michael Jackson, or the white blond female kidnap victim of the week (tm)
[Ever notice there are few/no non-white, non-cute, non-female kidnap victims on tv? If you think that's because male minorities are not victims of crime, think again!].
I theoretically could use Tivo to timeshift this info, but why bother when everything I want to know about is available online.
Those 12% watching TV over the air are the ones that will be hurt most - they are the folks that (in general) cannot afford cable, and certainly not a new TV.
I've seen OTA digital myself, and it's pretty awesome. I would have never imagined being able to pick up full-resolution HDTV with a set of rabbit-ear antennas.
I suspect that these new broadcasts will lead to a mass exodus (or at least a minor exodus) from the cable and satellite networks as people realize they can get better quality with no monthly fee.
Granted, you won't get as many channels, but there are a lot of people who only really watch the network channels anyway, and switched to cable/satellite because they think the fuzzy analog TV only belongs in trailer parks.
Yes, but there are a great many Americans who do rely on television to stay connected to the world because they can't afford/don't have access to/don't know how to use the internet and for them television becomes less of a luxury than a necessity, and from what I've read this is one of the big concerns regarding the conversion.
Granted the news on television (and even on the radio) tends to be softer than that of a newspaper, but it probably is their strongest connection to the nation/world. Simply because almost all of the middle/upper class won't notice the conversion (and might even benefit from it) doesn't mean it won't have its consequences.
I'm still trying to figure the math on how 33.6 million is 12% and 3 million is 10%. Looks like someone slipped in a zero.
Jason Wohlford
market share != users
We do it all the time, here. How many games are released for Mac and/or Linux? How many websites *still* only work properly in IE?
Hell, at least there are technical issues with those. How many times have you seen an application Windows-only, when it's a simple recompile and a few tweaks to make it run under Linux? I've seen a lot of formerly closed source apps that fit this category quite nicely.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I don't recall where any of the TV broadcasters signed a contract with viewers like you guaranteeing your 20 year old TV would always be able to receive a useable free signal.
It's called "customers". Generally businesses don't want to lose the consumers, and they'll fight the FTC of they are forced to convert before enough customers convert.
Better emegergency service communications systems, which is one of the things that spectrum is going to be used for once it's available.
You've been fooled. Only a very small part of the spectrum will be used for emergency communication systems. It's a straw man argument.
The Big Government is forcing everyone to switch from analog to digital so they can auction off the public spectrum to private companies. It's a way to help pay for the national debt, but the irony is that they're forcing consumers to spend money to receive the same level of service.
The irony here is that they'll be disabling analog TV and eventually analog AM/FM radio. Which is the primary emergency broadcast system for the vast majority of Americans. They're disabling the existing emergency broadcast systems.
Now, the Big Government asking us to ditch all of our old equipment (which works fine), and spend alot of money for pretty much the same level of service.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
What people has to realize is that there is a big chunk of the airwaves that are being wasted by analog TV. The FCC can make a lot of money taking that back and reselling it at auction. By going to digital TV they can cram more channels at the same (or worse quality) over the same frequencies with maybe a couple of high definition channels to keep congress happy but it is all about big business and setting up the field to show that analog is really just a waste of resources and that people don't care if they go out.
Wow, can you imagine, when we had 0% television, we fought ourselves free from Britian, abolished slavery, created a inclusive democracy, and defeated fascism.
Since we got 100% broadcast television, we haven't won any war that's gone on more than 12 months, and our electorate is getting increasingly fuzzy on the theory of evolution.
Am I the only one seeing a relationship here? We should pray for all TV to die. We should wish TV on our enemies.
Yeah, let's screw everyone who can afford a one-time purchase of a TV (analog color TVs are cheap) but can't afford monthly digital cable bills.
This is absolutely eltists trying to widen the tech gap by eliminating the trailing end of the curve. Things are already headed in that direction; let's not try to deliberatly speed it up, okay?
Whore cares if analog tv goes dark? They answered their own question: 33 million households care, asshole!
You're absolutely right, this is a troll. A self-serving corporate-whoring troll.
The enemies of Democracy are
But nobody cares about me because I don't like to spend money.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Well, who doesn't have a digital capable TV nowadays anyhow? Luddites!".
I don't and I'm not a luddite. Then again I mostly watch movies and some CNN. I'd love to have a bnig screen HDTV but I can't afford it and if I could then I'd get more photography equipment, cameras such as Canon's 16 MP EOS 1Ds Mark II, Mamiya's 23 MP Mamiya ZD medium format digiatl camera, and a bunch of lenses for them. Then instead of watching a bunch of movies I'd be spending a lot of tyme out and about taking photos or in my darkroom developing film and making blowups..
FalconShould there be a Law?
Picture quality has gotten better. You just rely too much on bunny ears. At home, we get TV stations from quite a distance. Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, Fort Wayne, Lima, and even sometimes Detroit and Cleveland.
BTW, I still use Over the air TV. Why? All I do is catch some news, maybe watch a little PBS, and the occaisional NBC/CBS/FOX/ABC/UPN or WB show. Why the hell would I pay 30 bucks a month for something I barely watch?
On another hand, you can't just cut people off like this, and expect them to pay for TV. Too many people depend on it for things like tornado warnings, flood warnings, business/school cancellations, chemical spill disasters, or other Emergency Broadcast Incidents. Oh sure, radio will still be around, but who in the hell listens to radio at home that much?
- Market share means the number of macs sold vs. the number of PCs sold in the same timeframe.
- Macs generally have a much longer time between upgrades than PCs (I still have a 4-year-old G4 running strong, with no need to upgrade yet, whereas a PC from 4 years ago can't even run _half_ the spyware that's installed on it
Assuming, for this example, an average lifespan of 5 years for a mac and 3 years for a PC, the installed base of Macs in use would be 1.66 times greater.
Answer to Question 3: Yes, absolutely. The noise floor has risen substantially with the influx of RF devices over the years.
/feels good stating the obvious :)