Slashdot Mirror
Jan 2009 Deadline for HDTV Cutoff
stlhawkeye writes "Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2009 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts. Broadcasters have expressed concerns that those without subscription television services will see blank screens unless they buy new units. "
2009 will be the perfect time to officially throw away your TV
:
I doubt it. I'm sure we'll see this in July of 2008
Broadcasters have recently accepted a deadline of January 2012 for the mandatory end of analog television signal broadcasts.
Add 3, wash, rinse, repeat.
This deserves +10 informative mod. Christ, do these editors do anything anymore? In the last two days there have been numerous mistakes, plain retarded stories, and at least one glaring dupe. Failures.
Sorry, but that is the wrong question. The correct quesions are: Why are we being forced to spend our money on a TV or a set-top box? Why are my tax dollars being spent on subsidizing the purchase of a set-top box?
Is it just me or has the TV-viewing American public gotten totally fucked or what? First we have free TV.. all we needed was a TV and an antenna. This, of course, was supported by advertising. Fair enough.
Next comes cable TV. Sweet! Immunity from foul weather, better content (at least initially) and no commercials! "What's that you say? No commercials? Sorry buddy, I see commercials every damn day on cable TV." Ah yes, friends.. if my recollection is correc, cable TV was supposed to be commercial free as it was a subscription service. But oh how the mighty dollar wins all. We now get 20 minutes of television entertainment for 30 minutes of viewing time (for thsoe wihout a DVR) AND we pay for it!
The boss is calling.. gotta run.
What is your penile percentile?
Here's the problem you're going to run into, although it'll be a small problem by that time. Right now, the *only* people in the US that know about analog broadcasts going away in 2009 (or the fact that that's a new deadline) are the broadcasters and the geeks that read sites like slashdot.
My wife is reasonably well-informed (she reads the news online and browses fark every day), and had no clue what I was talking about when I mentioned it a few weeks ago. My neighbors are clueless, and looked at me like I was crazy when I told them that it was a good thing they had satellite TV, etc.
Here's what I'm guessing: The broadcasters are betting that by 2009, just about everyone will have cheap satellite or cable TV, and (as someone pointed out to me in a previous story on this subject), the people that don't are probably limited enough in purchasing power that it'd be worth the risk to ad revenue to go ahead with it anyway.
You'll hear one or two stories on the news saying "Still using rabbit-ears? Not for long...", then make a small stink about being forced to do it, so people will be mad at the FCC for "springing" it on them, and life goes on as normal.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
the fun part is that NEW analog tv sales STILL outpace HD or even Digital capable Tv sales significantly.
Also digital Tuners that will convert to analog are still INSANELY priced.
when I can get a DTV to ATV tuner for $99.00 then I'll agree that it's a good time to switch.
with DTV's still well over $800.00 and DTV transmitters still 5X the price of the analog gear it is not going to happen.
and everyone forgets about the small town UHF channels. Who is going to buy them a new transmitter when they can barely afford pro-sumer 4 year old camcorders for their news?
Oh and the small college tv channels? what about them?
Who is going to buy them 20 million dollar transmitters?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I dunno. Does WalMart sell Sony TVs? Find who they resell and invest there.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Anymore? I can't remember a time when the Slashdot maintainers ever did much editing. I'm not even sure they're properly called editors.
I read the internet for the articles.
Here's what I'm guessing: The broadcasters are betting that by 2009, just about everyone will have cheap satellite or cable TV, and (as someone pointed out to me in a previous story on this subject), the people that don't are probably limited enough in purchasing power that it'd be worth the risk to ad revenue to go ahead with it anyway.
That's precisely the issue--that a technology architecture and phase-out process was taken that can have, as a net result, excluding those who cannot purchase new equipment because they are on limited incomes or can not afford or cannot receive services such as cable or satellite.
I think we need to remember that that the public airwaves are a public good that has merely been loaned out to broadcasters, and that they need to treat it as more than a vehicle to peddle their wares. They can and should serve a public need--i.e. emergency broadcasting, public television, network television, etc, and transition plans to DTV should have a clear path for making sure that large groups of people aren't systematically blocked out from what is, nowadays, an essential medium.
***Foucault is watching you..***
"We might take a hit in the pocketbook, but isn't it time that our country got with the times?"
No. I have to make ends meet. I don't care about owning the newest and latest technology, I care far more about putting food on the table. Amusing that I'm posting to Slashdot, but I do like to know what is going on -- regardless of whether or not I'm interested in buying anything.
I am not interested in someone spouting off that other countries are better off. You like it? Move there. I'm happy not being force to waste money every time someone decides that a current technology is obsolete and everyone should be forced to upgrade! Waste your own damn money, I have better things to use it for.