Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Confusion Reigns As Analog TV Begins Shutdown

Posted by kdawson on from the how-not-to-do-it dept.

As TV stations across the country switch off their analog signals, uncertainty reigns. Some 691 stations will have converted to digital broadcasting by midnight tonight (some interpreted the mandate as going digital by Feb. 17, not during Feb. 17, and shut down yesterday). This represents about a third of TV broadcasters nationwide. No one can say how many of the estimated 5.8 million households unready for the transition are in areas served by the stations that are switching now. The FCC added to the uncertainty by imposing extra conditions, making it unclear until last Friday exactly which stations would be switching at the beginning of the transition period. The article quotes a former analyst at Barclays Capital who said the whole process has been "botched politically."

9 of 434 comments (clear)

  1. Once again... BFD by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why the heck are we getting a story posted on this almost daily? Who cares? I've read the threads, and it's not a big deal. Anyone with half a brain will be fine. Anyone else, well, maybe there are survival of the fittest selection standards still hitting us, on occasion. I don't see that as a bad thing.

    1. Re:Once again... BFD by hurfy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even tho that has nothing to do with reality?

      If they didn't get one yet, they are screwed anyway...well unless the CW was the only* station here that you wanted to receive tomorrow! Can even the half-brains watch that station and only that station all day ?!?

      I am confused as to why they made it more confusing.....

      *Disregarding Ion television which appears to be on a low-power transmitter.

    2. Re:Once again... BFD by Dallas+Caley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, we've got more important things to worry about in this country that weather people can watch their soaps on channel 4. Why are we wasting money on this.

      Here's a wake up call to all those who are watching regular TV and can't afford to get a box. Perhaps they should stop watching so much TV and get a real job

    3. Re:Once again... BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The part he nailed on the head was that it's the networks who care, not the majority of the consumers. If the networks don't have anyone to watch their ads, they won't have anyone to buy ad space.

    4. Re:Once again... BFD by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I agree with the sentiment, the one serious counter-argument I'd give is that you need to ensure that people are able to receive public safety announcements. TV is much better than radio for dealing with severe weather, because being able to see the weather maps and storm tracks gives you a much better idea of what's going on. Going into tornado season in Oklahoma (where I grew up) without TV would make me a little uncomfortable.

      Recall that we (the people) give the broadcasters the right to use the airwaves in exchange for them providing public services: news, weather, and emergency announcements. We decided these things are important, so its important to make sure their accessible.

      But at the same time, this has been coming for a long time, people should have been able to figure it out by now.

  2. Re:My biggest problem with all of this... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. I disagree - the amount per person is too small. It would be like one of those $1.60 checks you get in the mail for some class action settlement you'd rather not have been a member of.

    2 & 3. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. For me, I got only a few fuzzy channels before with severe ghosting and now I have all the major networks, crystal clear with only occasional drop-outs. I almost never turned on broadcast TV before, and now the picture is good enough to watch hockey. I guess this is very much a YMMV situation.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. Re:Why keep pushing back the deadline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because Obama's advisor for the DTV transition works for a company that benefits from the delay. Until that chunk of the spectrum becomes available to the people who paid for it (mainly Verizon & AT&T), his company has less competition.

  4. Re:most are the elderly many alone and without fam by Propaganda13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If people haven't heard what to do then they're not watching enough tv. They've had plenty of test blackouts scheduled with numbers to call if they are not receiving a digital signal.

    My 90 year old grandmother was ready 6 months ago. She watches the least amount of TV of anybody I know. I really don't think it's old people that aren't setup.

  5. the near-sighted geek by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Seriously, we've got more important things to worry about in this country that weather people can watch their soaps on channel 4. Why are we wasting money on this.

    Because it affects our most isolated and vulnerable populations. the elderly, the poor, and the disabled.

    Look around you.

    Find out where these people live.

    How these people live.

    Four hours spent on a rural bus run can be very educational.

    The third-rate nursing homes.

    The group homes and apartments built on barren agricultural lots five miles from the nearest traffic light.

    The tenant houses and run-down trailer parks you never gave a thought to.

    $90 a month as a personal allowance.

    Out of which will come your co-pays for therapy and drugs and blood work.

    Capped at perhaps $300/yr.

    Life-Line phone service at 10 cents a minute.