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"
Roughly 12% of television owners?
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Instead, the electricity gobbled up by these sets is used to play videogames, watch movies on DVD, or view old Jane Fonda exercise tapes.
Surely this must be code for something else...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
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
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.
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
"Surprisingly, a full six percent indicated that they'd rather watch TV from cable or satellite than eat or have sex."
These were the 6 percent that just found out that Firefly was going to air on SciFi in its intended order.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
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.
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.
That about covers it for me
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
But the warning was in the basement, in the bottom of the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet, in an un-used lavatory with a placard stating "Beware of Leopard."
This article is talking about blowing off 12% of a customer base. Apple, by most accounts, only counts for 3% of all PC users
I don't respond to AC's.
[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
Slashdot Poll:
Most common use of your TV:
1.) No TV - just a HDTV tuner in my PC (geek answer)
2.) DVD viewing (Dad's answer)
3.) PBS viewing (Mom's answer)
4.) Porn viewing (Slashdot answer)
5.) Stand for my other TV (redneck answer)
6.) Football viewing (no-neck answer)
legal. fun. profitable. pick two.
How many people own computers in their homes? About 79%.
Now, how many own TVs? Greater than 99%.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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?
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
It's not a TV anymore. It's just a monitor.
My new Samsung 50" DLP device is great. I have a mac mini plugged into the DVI port and a DirecTiVo into the HDMI port. And nothing whatsoever connected up to the RF port. The tuner is analog only, so I have no use for it. The part that kind of sucks is that although they have a setup menu that allows you to exclude any ports from the input selection rotation, there is one port that cannot be excluded.
Which one? Take a guess.
So whenever I flip from the mac to the TiVo, it's two clicks instead of one, with a blue screen inbetween.
So I say to any TV manufacturers listening: Do not center any part of the UI around the tuner. It is optional. If I could have paid the same price for a monitor only, I would have done so happily.
You're welcome.
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
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?
Original quote:
... probably gone"
:)
"I eventually had to go down to the cellar -"
"That's the display department"
"With a torch -"
"The lights had
"so had the stairs -"
"but you found it didn't you?"
"Oh yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'. Ever thought of going into advertising?"
Scarily, that was all from memory. And it was the first thing that came to my mind when reading the above, too
</hitchhiker geek>
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
- 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.
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.