Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Many Analog TV Watchers Aren't Aware of Upcoming Switchover

Posted by Zonk on from the it's-coming dept.

A recent poll of TV watchers shows that many Americans aren't aware the end times are coming for analog broadcast signals. "The survey found that the group most affected by the analog cutoff -- those with no cable or satellite service -- are most in the dark about what will happen to their sets: Only one-third of them had heard that their TVs are set to stop receiving programs. Of course, there are solutions. Congress is subsidizing the purchase of digital television receivers. And the cable TV industry is hoping that this will spur the last holdouts to buy pay TV."

4 of 440 comments (clear)

  1. This is the most hyped non-problem... by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As soon as TV stations themselves begin to worry about whether they will lose watchers, they will simply run commercials explaining to people how they can get *free* converter boxes from the government. TV is the one of the most effective communication mechanisms ever devised, after all. Problem solved.

    --
    main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  2. Re:Good time.. by drsquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And don't flame me. TV is the major issue with American obesity, particularly in children.
    I'm pretty sure that eating too much is the major issue with American obesity. You get just as fat sitting at the computer as you do in front of the TV.

    You can exercise all you want, but if you eat a 14" pizza for dinner washed down with ten pints of beer, and have a full fry up every breakfast, combined with KFC for lunch, you'll be obese.
  3. Re:It's too early. by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And I just want to point out that if Congress has to subsidize receivers to force this change along, it's probably not a good idea in the first place.

    That's because you think it is for the benefit of television viewers, or even broadcasters. It is not. They simply want the spectrum that these broadcasts are currently going out on back, with their relatively long wavelengths, for things like cellular service or long-range (municipal?) wireless networks.

    With the way both of these services are growing, I happen to think it's a good idea for a relatively small cost.

  4. I had the opposite impression by PigBoyOhBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't watch TV, but I just won a cheapo 19" WalMart TV (worth $120) in an office drawing and was startled to realize it supported both analog and digital service. I bought a pair of rabbit ears and set out to see how it would work in my apartment in rural Massachusetts (over 50 miles from Boston). To my utter amazement, I received many digital broadcasts almost perfectly while the analog channels were plagued by snow and interference that made them unbearable. Furthermore, the picture quality was stunning. Even though the set is "SDTV", the difference in quality between analog and digital was huge. All these years I've been fed propaganda telling me that over the air HDTV would require fancy antennas, but it turns out to be a BIG LIE. Between Netflix and broadcast HDTV, why would anyone want cable or satellite TV unless they are literally in the middle of nowhere?

    Of course, there's STILL nothing worth watching. Bah! Humbug!