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."
Somebody help me out here. I thought standard television was going away, not analog! There's a difference at least from the information I'm able to find. It's possible for HD to be broadcast analog, and it's possible for standard television resolution to be broadcast digital.
So, I'm not entirely sure what this article is trying to say (but, I'm not an expert in tv formats and broadcast formats).
The most telling information (in my opinion) from the article:
Neither of those stats imply that noone is watching old standard television with their old sets.
Hopefully it will not be too expensive. You'll need an over the air digital tuner with a built-in DAC. Currently I think these run about forty dollars, but there have been talks about the government footing the bill for a mass production to make them extremely cheap for this change over.
As one of the people that has three TVs that are still hooked up to a Over The Air Antenna, in fact we get more local/broadcast stations from the antenna then the dish, because we get a number of Sacramento stations on top of our local San Jose/SF stations from the antenna, not to mention that we only have one DTivo/Sattelite reciever in the house, the rooftop antenna still gets quite a bit of use.
Before you kill off analog broadcast TV, industry must do the following:
1) provide a dirt-cheap converter box so over-the-air digital signals can be used with older TVs and VCRs. Dirt-cheap being under $20 - with remote control. $20 is the "poor elderly woman" price - depriving Granny of her TV is political dynamite.
2) provide converters that are suitable for "embedded" TVs like those in older RVs and vans
3) provide converters that are suitable for hand-held TVs.
#2 and #3 will be a lot more than $20. Also more expensive will be ones that broadcast all channels at once, so they can work seamlessly with today's analog VCRs.
#2 and #3 may also be workable by making equipment that broadcasts a low-power signal over the air, one that reaches several tens of feet.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
... in that subsidised housing area, over the air television is common. Extremely common. More common than cable theft.
Really, these aren't the people you want to take television away from. I'm talking about the impoverished senior citizens as well as the young thug types who have nothing better to do. Two groups you don't want to pull the plug on, for totally different reasons.
I agree. First, 12% means that a lot of sets will be effected, but the additional problem in in who will be effected.
By now most Americans won't even notice because they receive their television through cable or satellite, but the people who would be effected (still receive analog television) are more likely to be lower class and the overhead of upgrading (however small it might seem) might actually mean a great deal to these people/families.
The point is, those who still rely on analog are probably already somewhat disenfranchised because of their likely economic class that this conversion (however "progressive") might serve to disenfranchise them further.
[quote]Sort of like satellite, but at least with digital cable you still get a picture when it rains.[/quote]
I've been on Satellite for more than 5 years. In the last year, I've lost signal due to inclement weather once, and that wasn't such a big deal, because I lost Hydro 5 minutes thereafter. By the time Hydro came back, the Satellite was back.
The technology has really improved a lot in recent years. While agree that sometimes the channel takes a little longer to change than cable did, the picture is so much cleaner, and the sound so much crisper that I'm willing to put up with it. In the days where so many TV channels are broadcasting in HDTV, and just about every program I watch is filmed in HDTV with at least 5.1 sound, it's worth having a satellite dish. Even on my backup TV, an old 21" Samsung, the picture and sound is way better on Satellite than it ever was on cable.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
It's from a videophile magazine who no doubt consider that anyone not watching their local news in HD on a 60-inch flat-panel is a neo-Luddite.
My 70-plus mother on the NJ shore finally broke down and went to cable only about three years back; her local reception was fine, she just wanted the extra channels.
For my part, seeing Sturgeon's Law implemented so exquisitely in the choices available to me on television, has delayed my shelling out for HD equipment.
I live in a poor reception area so there's not much over the air broadcasting that I can receive. But then, I'm too cheap to pay the "Robber Baron" Cable Company for what is essentually free if you have broadcast reception.
I get most of my broadcast programming from C Band Satellite Wild Feeds (Most of the Syndicated programming is here) that is supplemented with Internet Downloads. I enjoyed a wonderful season of Dr. Who 2005 and I'm looking forward to the summer season of both Stargates and Battlestar Galactica.
Yeah, there's a real myopia among the "industry leaders" and tech geeks who are salivating over this, ignoring the fact that those who most use broadcast TV are doing so because they can't afford the alternatives, and also can't convert.
It's not ignorance. It's just a difference of opinion, and while I can sort of understand both sides, I'm more inclined to agree with the "industry leaders" and tech geeks on this.
First, the people who "cannot afford" to upgrade apparently could afford a TV at some point or they wouldn't have one to begin with. So these are people who are either a) not really all that poor (I mean they may be lower class, but let's be realistic - a TV is not a necessity, it's a luxury) or b) their situation has worsened over the years to the point where they can no longer afford to buy a TV or even a cheap set-top digital converter box (and these are available for under $100).
I would think that the vast majority of that 12% actually just doesn't want to subscribe to cable, even though they can afford it (like the guy I replied to below, who just called paying for cable "stupid"). I would think the second-largest subset of that 12% would fall in my column a) above. I would think the number of people in column b) would be an almost insignificant percentage of the total. Generally, if you have a TV, it means you can afford a TV (or at least an STB), or you can afford the monthly basic cable charge, which is usually only around $7-$8 depending on where you live.
So, the question is do you hold up the rest of the public for those few percent of people? The FCC decided a long time ago that the answer is no - in fact, their rules say once 85% DTV penetration is reached, the analog broadcasts in any given area get switched off. I agree with them on this - this is not the same kind of situation like the eminent domain court decision a few days ago, this is not about some private company coming in and taking something away from you that's required to live (shelter); I mean I don't always side with the government on issues like this.
But in this case, TV is a luxury, and if somebody cannot afford that luxury, well, that sucks, but it's not going to be the end of the world for them, whereas it might be for somebody who doesn't have access to enhanced emergency services because that spectrum wasn't available. Once you're down in the 10% and below range, I really don't see the point in keeping that spectrum tied up to subsidize television-watching for the poor. I mean that is not something I want my government wasting its resources on (and spectrum is a resource, and a limited one). Health care for the poor? Sure. Education? Of course. Television? Umm.. no. That's something where you get a better job and you work for your money and you buy one. Not to sound conservative or anything, but that's what I did with limited familial resources and no political connections, so if I can do it, anyone can.
There should maybe be some sort of emergency response box handed out to people (like, for example, the equivalent of a cheap transistor radio) as a one-time replacement for the emergency broadcasts people might miss without access to their analog TV signals, but that's about all I can see justifying. Beyond that, let's free up this spectrum for better uses.
Right, only rich people should be able to watch TV. Those poor people need to get off their butts and breathe some fresh air, maybe get a better job.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
When I was younger, and OTA was what we had, picture quality was affected by passing planes and poor television signal locking.
Now, years later, OTA is barely watchable in the same house (line of sight to Sears Tower, Chicago). The picture shakes, wobbles, and sometimes cuts out entirely for no apparent reason.
Questions: 1) Have the TVs changed so that they're less tolerant of OTA signals? 2) Have TV broadcasters dropped signal strength because "it's just being watched on cable anyway"? or 3) Has the signal noise floor risen over the years with a proliferation of cell phones, garage door openers, and keyless remotes?
Or lastly: has our tolerance for poor signal dropped over the years, where we expect nothing but razor sharp pictures from our TVs?
All I know is that I've had to get cable and satellite over the years when all I've really wanted were the local channels. However, I was able to convince DISH Network to let me keep the local channels for $5/month and drop all of the rest. Which is what I wanted all along.
Analog TV is not going dark. Each station gets a new, free UHF channel for Digital broadcast. They keep the VHF allocation. Congress sez "give us back channel 2, etc. Broadcasters fight tooth and nail to keep grandma plugged in. As long as a policitian can be bought, or a lobbyist or lawyer on K street can raise a pen, the networks will keep the VHF allocations. They MAY give them back when Broadcast Flags and total Digital Right Management are in the majority of equipment. Not before. As someone with HDTV from an antenna, the Nature shows on PBS, or CSI:Miami, will take your breath away. HDTV is still somewhat experimental here in NYC, tho, as often the Digital station is down, remapping channels, or otherwise changing. Also, for OTA viewers, the UHF channels don't travel as well in wet weather or if the trees have leaves. I get perfect signals in the winter, but not as much when my trees fill in. This is the same bunch that runs the RIAA and MPAA-does any single /. person think they'll be forced to give up a channel ? No, they will give them up when THEY are ready, no matter what other pressing needs there are for RF spectrum.
Bumper Sticker: Work Harder! Millions On Welfare Are Depending On You!
One simple reason is budget. My wife and I are choosing to pay our bills instead of incure more bills/debt. We pay extra for our mortgage, for our school loans and have the needed two months of savings for an emergency fund.
I find the only reasons I watch TV are Simpsons and sports. Football and some baseball along w/ Nascar are covered by the network. I don't need 30 different sports games and 90% the big game that i want to watch is in fact on one of the networks that I get.
There is nothing wrong w/ anyone watching television. Moderation is the key and being !cable helps to encourage it.
I can't believe this will happen w/ the networks crying about how no one watches them anyways, they would want to loose the 12%.
Cable modem + cable tv will run $80+, money I can spend eating out or doing other activities.
Besides how did they come up w/ this magical 12%
I'm in Canada. The main reason I have cable (analog, btw) is because the signal quality from my local OTA analog stations is dismal. I live in the suburbs of a metropolitan area (approx 1 million people), yet several of the stations are snowy, ghosty messes. Several of my friends have confirmed similar results in other areas of the city. We're significantly behind the USA in the roll-out of digital OTA. I can't wait. I'm hopeful that digital error correction will give me decent off-air signals that allow me to ditch my basic cable and spend the extra $280/year on important things. Like RAM. Or single malt scotch.
That's a stark contrast to what I've witnessed in this area. There is one duopoly that owns both ABC and UPN affiliates. The UPN affiliate is acquired primarily from the DTV signal (in fact, the analog broadcast is actually just a digital receiver tuned to the right channel), including by all but one cable system (which acquires both NTSC channels via fiber). Also, the way I understand it, some cablecos are actually taking the ABC station's HD signal OTA (upconverted to 720p), cropping it back to 4:3, and downconverting it back to 480i. Apparently, ABC requires all programs to keep important graphical elements in the middle 4:3 area. As well, from what I understand, 99% of all local HD signals broadcast on cable (and probably DBS too) are directly sourced from the OTA signal. It's probably more widespread than you realise, albeit maybe not so in your area.
"cannot sell airtime on"? Why not? 99% of all digital transmitters are simulcasting with analog broadcasts, which means that the airtime is ALREADY sold. In fact, depending on the numbers in this area, one could potentially charge more for such simulcasted airtime, although that probably isn't feasible in many areas due to lack of DTV adoption in the home.
FC Closer
I do plenty useful with my time. And when I'm finished, I want to relax, kick off my shoes, turn on the tube, and watch 24/Star Trek/whatever dumb action/sci-fi show I'm in the mood for.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
> 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.
"The Emergency Broadcast System" was a joke. Its replacement "Emergency Action System" is a joke too.
For several years, I worked at an AM radio station that was the designated EBS station in that market. It also happened to be about 15 miles from a nuclear power plant. If that thing blew up, do you think I'm going to sit there and provide emergency information to the masses while taking massive doses of radiation for seven bucks an hour?
Anyone in the Bay Area trying to get emergency information from EBS back in 1989 when the big quake hit was also shown what a joke it was. The designated EBS station at the time had all their people at the baseball game. The only people at the station were the board-ops. So, what few stations were actually still on the air started rebroadcasting the EBS station and the EBS station wasn't saying squat to help anyone. It was pathetic.
Here's the fallacy of your views on TV. You (and I) are NOT the customer. We are the product. The television networks (from the "big 3" networks on down) produce a show. That show entices you and I to view TV, for which the networks are compensated by the advertisers . In essence, the networks deliver our viewing to the REAL customers, who are the companies advertising products on TV.
You can't have a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.
So let's review. 1) All broadcasters must broadcast in digital. 2) All current analog broadcasting spectrum be sold off to those who are willing to pay the fair market value. 3) Nothing says that the purchased spectrum from the freed up spectrum cannot be used for analog television broadcasts. If you would like, then go for that 12%.
As a note, I do not have an HDTV and don't see myself getting one soon. The price must come down significantly for me to consider it worth more than just doing everything on my computer.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Back then, the big broadcasters didn't care. But, I'd bet they care now that VHF is in play, unless the laws regarding cable access have changed.
Luke, help me take this mask off
OTOH, TV has very little redeeming value
I disagree. There is plenty of complete horsecrap on TV, of course, but there is also a lot of good quality programming, like Frontline. Good movies, too.
Owning a TV doesn't mean you're a slave to it, but not owning a TV (or not being able to pick up OTA broadcasts) guarantees you are not a slave to it.
That's a lot like the thinking behind prohibition. I prefer to keep as many options for as many people as possible. The fact that people can screw themselves up by being irresponsible with their freedoms (not just rights - also having choices available) doesn't justify taking away those choices.
How so? The fact of the matter is there is little downside to not having a TV. It's not a right, it's not a requirement to fit in to society, it's not a requirement for local or national news. I just can't get too upset about a certain percentage of the population not being able to use their TV sets.
Because it's someone with the means to utilize a resource telling someone who doesn't have the means "I know what's best for you anyway." It's got nothing to do with rights or needs. It has to do with the fact that people in poverty have very high stress and very few pleasures in their lives. Maybe those of us who can make these choices shouldn't be so quick to rationalize decisions that take those choices away from others. Not because we owe it to them, or their lives will be a shambles without it. Just because it's basic decency.
I understand there are economic reasons for making these decisions, and I don't expect everything to be done with the plight of the poor guiding the decision. I just take exception to blithely saying, "Oh well, it's best for them anyway." That's patronizing. I'm not arguing against shutting off OTA per se, just objecting to this particular justification.
TV is more than simply entertainment. Sure 99.99% of it is pure stupidity but every now and again a major crisis will occur and everyone will tune into their local NBC or whatever so they can remain informed on the progress of whatever event.
Be it the hurricane that's moving into your beach-side town or the crazy riots down the road... sometimes TV is a very good way of keeping up on things. Seems like a bad idea to leave the poor in the dark.
-Derick
I used to live in New Brunswick, NJ, and what happened around us is already a lot of poor people got screwed out of TV after 9/11. Since the towers fell, analog TV really doesn't work too well in NJ, anyway. Not sure how the signal is in other areas, but around here it's practically impossible to use.