Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Who Cares if Analog TV Goes Dark?

Posted by timothy on from the world-may-not-immediately-end dept.

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."

11 of 827 comments (clear)

  1. -1 Troll by XorNand · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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"
    1. Re:-1 Troll by bhtooefr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm in an interesting situation. I've got cable Internet access, but no cable TV - can't afford it, and don't see the need for it.

      I can pick up NBC, ABC (sorta), CBS, and PBS (kinda) with my antenna. Between NBC and CBS, I've got enough to watch (yes, I watch the lame shows.)

      However, when analog broadcast goes dark, I'm simply not going to HAVE a TV. I've got cable Internet - if I want to watch a certain show, I can run BitTorrent.

    2. Re:-1 Troll by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True. But what about those who can't afford a computer or the internet (or don't know how to use them effectively) who still watch a 20 year old set and for whom upgrading will be a significant expense?

      You and I probably have very reasonable alternatives to analog TV (I have cable, you can BitTorrent), but I'm sure that many of these 30 mn sets still on analog don't.

    3. Re:-1 Troll by indifferent+children · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Advertisers already know the income breakdown of their audiences. Nielsen doesn't just give a 'share' number to the advertisers; a lot of demographic data goes with it (race, income, gender, education-level, etc). So no, this won't give the advertisers better data. It will just lock them out of advertising to the poor.

      Don't neglect the bread-and-circuses value of TV for the poor. Right now, they watch 5+ hours of cheap, mindless entertainment every night. If you take that away, what are they going to do with those 5 hours? They might just wake up and realize how much they are being crapped on by our economic and legal systems. They might decide that there is a small group of people at the top who are responsible.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    4. Re:-1 Troll by DaveJay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What about senior citizens on a limited budget, with limited mobility? For those people who have few entertainment options open to them, television is often their only companion.

      Just something to think about.

    5. Re:-1 Troll by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why are the poor entitled to everything?

      They aren't, but we should give at least a little consideration to the idea that it would be nice to let them keep what they already have.

      That said, if a digital receiver with analog output for the equivalent of VHF and UHF broadcasting is reasonably cheap, say $50-$100, I don't think it's a horrible problem. You simply need a little black box connected to your DuMont so you can watch Hee-Haw reruns after 2007 or whenever the switch gets thrown.

      Personally, I'm betting this switch-over will be so complicated and expensive that analog TV will last until we have IPv6 in place on most or all of the Internet.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  2. Elder Viewers by thegoofy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:As one of those 12%, I care. by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:TV Broadcasters raise your hand... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. The sky is falling by ArmorFiend · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:-1 Fucking the poor by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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