Slashdot Mirror


Many Analog TV Watchers Aren't Aware of Upcoming Switchover

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."

20 of 440 comments (clear)

  1. Good time.. by therufus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...to start the family exercising to help beat obesity?

    If TV gets turned off on Americans, maybe it would be a good thing.

    And don't flame me. TV is the major issue with American obesity, particularly in children.

    --
    You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    1. 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.
    2. Re:Good time.. by ghakko · · Score: 5, Interesting
      There's compelling data suggesting otherwise (at least in children):
      • Children tend to snack on nutritionally-unbalanced food when watching television, eat unconsciously and eat enough to skewtheir daily caloric intake.
      • For some reason, children watching television burn fewer calories than they would at just about any other physical activity, including just idly sitting or lying down.
      • Children who were forced to watch less television lost weight.
    3. Re:Good time.. by Eternauta3k · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah, I spend enough calories just moving the scroll wheel in Slashdot

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    4. Re:Good time.. by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know about you but I avoid eating anything fatty when I'm on the PC because I have to touch the mouse and keyboard and when my fingers are covered in fat I'm not willing to do that. Besides that, I'm not able to eat or drink while playing any videogame because I can't afford taking my hands off the controls for that long (even ignoring the dirty finger issue, just moving stuff to my mouth takes time and might make me vulnerable to attacks in the game).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  2. 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?" `":" #");}
  3. If only... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wish we'd done away with interlacing when the HD standards were being written.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:If only... by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reason interlaced stayed is that the FCC didn't have the backbone and the technical expertise to require that the new standard be done correctly. It's as simple as that. The TV people wanted interlaced, because "that's the way they've always done it" and the computer people couldn't convince the FCC otherwise. The computer people wanted progressive, because it simplifies conversion and eliminates the whole bob/weave/foo that gets done to watch an interlaced signal on a progressive (or full panel or asynchronous) system. It also simplifies upconversion.

      Now, the FCC didn't just screw the pooch, once, but twice. They ignored common technical sense and allowed interlaced to stay, but then bowed to pressure to allow multiple formats for ATSC transmission. 18 of them, to be exact. The industry asked for such "flexibility", and then realized when they had to implement it it was an absolute nightmare. If they had decided that the signal for NA HD was to be 1080p/30, we'd all be done now. What? Did I hear you cry that that would have delayed HD adoption? I've got bad news - 1080p30 is common and can be done with consumer hardware _now_, and we still haven't switched over. I refuse to believe that the professional sector couldn't have completed the process 5 years ago. As a bonus, all the 480p/720p/1080i inconsistency would have been avoided, and the set top boxes would only have to negotiate one format instead of 18.

      No, interlaced is here because the FCC didn't have the balls to do the transition right.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  4. Re:It's too early. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the UK you can get set-top boxes that plug into your analogue TV or video recorder and give you a DVB-T tuner. They're about 30 quid in any supermarket. Allowing for the UK being slightly more expensive than the US, and the dollar being so low, that's probably still only about $50.

  5. Re:It's too early. by statemachine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not like people need 14 months to save up for a digital TV. A 'good enough' off-brand 32" TV runs $700 now, and it'll probably be more like $500 later.

    That's two or three months rent in many places -- with the matching lower pay.

  6. The Oddest thing by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I haven't checked lately but I believe they are still selling analog TVs at a lot of places. I know I saw some over the summer. I'm sure the salesmen aren't exactly pointing out the fact the TV will go dark unless you get an expensive converter box in 18 months. They should have been phased out less than 24 months before the switch over and 36 months would have been better. I can see a sudden influx of TVs into the local landfill with a disturbing number fairly new. It may have been well intended but it's hardly eco friendly making a large number of electronics into very large paperweights overnight.

  7. This is a money grab, pure and simple by ahodgkinson · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm not sure how many people remember the wheeling and dealing associated with the first major attempt, in Europe, to sell cable TV. The basic plan was that various media companies attempted to buy up all the Formula One and premier football (i.e. soccer) broadcast rights and then only deliver the programs via cable TV. This was to force people to buy cable TV and set top boxes. In the end it didn't work too well. (Can anyone provide any links to pages that describe this?)

    Now we're having digital TV rammed down our throats. This time with the help of the government. TV and electronic shops are jumping for joy, and of course the cable companies are rubbing their hands in glee. The poor consumer is having to buy lots of new equipment and most likely a more expensive cable subscription too.

    Here in Switzerland the switch over well under way. Terrestrial (air) broadcast of analog signals has stopped, and the cable companies are switching over too. The technique to 'encourage' their customers to switch to digital is to silently remove more and more of the non-major channels from the analog offering, while offering balkanized digital 'packages' that end up a higher monthly cost if you want to duplicate the same selection channels you had before.

    To the yuppies and the technically competent this is probably a relatively small inconvenience. But I wonder about the poor and older generation, who are essentially having a perfectly acceptable analog service taken away from them.

    Compare the introduction of digital TV with that of color TV. Color TV was introduced in the early 60s and you could still use and buy new black and white TVs well into 80s. While I'm not asking for a backwards compatibility, I would appreciate it if a similarly long switch over period would be given.

    --
    ---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
  8. Excuse to sell HDTVs? by mikeboone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I spoke to a couple of my older relatives who were under the impression that everyone had to buy an HDTV because of this switch to digital. I think they were fed this idea by TV salespeople. If that's true, it's dishonest way to sell TVs to people who don't understand the technology.

  9. 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.

  10. Digital TV sucks by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

    At least with an analog tv if you have a crappy antenna you get some snow or other interference and the program is still watchable. With Digital TV you get big pixel blocks and sound cut-out that makes the program completely unbearable to watch. That's progress for ya.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  11. Irony by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Picture quality improves... content degrades.

    Who will be voted off the Island? As long as you keep watching, you are on the Island.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  12. Re:It's too early. by Megane · · Score: 4, Informative

    And it's even better than that, because the digital signal can be used on adjacent channels. With the exception of 6-7 and 13-14, how many analog stations in your area are on adjacent channel numbers? Ever wonder why? Because analog needs channel separation.

    Right now I can tell you that there probably ARE adjacent channels in your area, you just don't know about them because they're in digital, and even if you can receive them, they tell your TV set to show a different channel number.

    So we lose 25% of the channels to the spectrum auction, but can use twice as many of the ones that are left. (That's not exactly true, because 2-6 are apparently not good for digital, so we lose a bit more than 25%.) Digital is also better about geographic distance between transmitters on the same channel.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  13. 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!

  14. What will happen more likely by voss · · Score: 4, Funny

    1) People find out in their newspaper their tv wont work after next year
    2) They get the tv converter box for $50
    3) They continue to watch tv on their 20 year old RCA set with their new fangled box
    4) They tell all their friends about how they are able to get 30 channels of digital tv for free!
    5) Lifeline cable customers cancel their packages because they get a better picture from OTA digital than from 10 channel cable
    6) life goes on

  15. If Only There Were A Way... by ml10422 · · Score: 4, Funny

    If only there were a way to let these people know. Perhaps, they could insert some kind of announcement into the middle of the television programs.