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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
(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?)
I'm very sure the article is satire. From the end:
In related news, the Cable & Satellite Higher Subscription Fee Association released figures claiming that 72 percent of subscribers felt they were paying too little for their monthly programming. 18 percent said they'd gladly pay twice as much if the level of customer service could be lowered. Surprisingly, a full six percent indicated that they'd rather watch TV from cable or satellite than eat or have sex. (The margin of error for the survey is +/- 100 percent.)
He also uses phrases such as "CEA giddily released" and "in a further revelation." These aren't the words of a writer who agrees with the CEA.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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