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."

Comments

-1 Troll

[XorNand]

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!".

Re:-1 Troll

[Dukael_Mikakis]

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.

Re:-1 Troll

[bhtooefr]

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.

Re:-1 Troll

[Dukael_Mikakis]

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.

Re:-1 Troll

[nomadic]

You don't know much about Web design do you? CEOs routinely blow off Mac users when they design banking and e-commerce sites.

Mac users don't have any money, they spent it all buying their macs. And any money they get after that gets blown on gourmet coffee and avant-garde theater.

Re:-1 Troll

[indifferent children]

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.

Re:-1 Troll

[drakaan]

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.

Re:-1 Troll

[DaveJay]

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.

workout tapes?

[justforaday]

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...

Elder Viewers

[thegoofy]

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.

from TFA: rather watch TV than eat, have sex

[FerretFrottage]

"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.

Margin of Error

[Alien54]

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.)

That about covers it for me

Re:TV Broadcasters raise your hand...

[rk]

You were warned about the switchover nearly (maybe even more than) a decade ago; you have had plenty of time to prepare

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."

Next Slashdot poll:

[i2878]

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)