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.
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.
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.
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.
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%
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
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