So, if Apple uses existing technology to solve a problem you complain that it is boring old news, possibly even derivative. If they develop new technology to solve a problem you complain it is proprietary. How convenient, that way you'll always have something to complain about. And of course, if people are willing to say something good about Apple when it does something good, they are Apple faithful. What a convenient little bubble you have. I understand, the real world is way to complicated for some people. They need their little bubbles.
Oh, and in this case Apple used a part of the Bluetooth Low Energy standard that happens to be relatively unused yet, but is still an open standard. Of course doesn't matter, you just complain about proprietary technology anyway.
So - Apple layers a proprietary protocol over existing technologies and now the Apple faithful talk about the revolution that Apple has now created. Yay Apple, yay proprietary!
So, dumbass, if Apple is sharing this technology/protocol with other manufacturers FOR FREE, how is it then "Proprietary"?
You Haters really have to bend over backward to ascribe some evil motive to literally EVERY FUCKING THING that Apple does.
Good job cochlear implants are wireless. Anyone who had an cochlear ear implant using a headphone jack wouldn't be able to use a patch cable to connect to future Apple iPhones.
Idiot.
Why wouldn't they be able to use the Lightning to 3.5 mm adapter that CAME WITH THEIR PHONE?
Apple earns its billions from hardware sales. You're thinking of a different megacorp that injects advertisements into everything as it's primary revenue source.
Yep exactly. They'll offer this service as a system to benefit public health etc, get it out there, but in the fine print using the technology allows them to play ads. More specifically they're now trying to find ways of bypassing "I don't want to fucking look at this or hear it so I turn it down or look away".
Like they'll let you have volume control etc but disabled muting the video etc while an ad is playing, and you can't even block your ears.
If DirecTV Now can give me 90% of the "cable" channels I want to watch for $35/mo (and I just got an email that they just added REELZ) non-promotional pricing (which is actually $10/mo for me because I am an ATT wireless "unlimited" customer), then why can't Spectrum do the same thing?
Because DirecTV Now is not paying your ISP fees or maintaining the wire to your house. Because DirecTV Now is not paying the local broadcast fees because it does not carry the local broadcast channels (my area can get Fox from a local station -- so there is one broadcast fee, not six or more). Spectrum has a lot of infrastructure to maintain while DirecTV Now uses stuff maintained by others, and to whom you pay for that maintenance.
Seriously. Most of the "HD" channels on a typical CableTV carrier like Spectrum are ACTUALLY VOD Streaming sources (which your cable box/DVR nicely makes LOOK like "channels");
Not on Comcast. I don't know what Spectrum does but I suspect it is no different. Making every channel a streaming VOD means you cannot do a channel scan on any tuner to see what channels are valid, which pretty much eliminates all third party products, including things that use CableCARDs.
Even then, the cable carrier has to maintain the wire to your house; DirecTV Now has nothing.
My local DirecTV Now feed passes two local channels (ABC and Fox). But I Understand your point. Spectrum has 5 local Channels (plus a few of their sub channels) to deal with.
As far as maintenance goes, TFB. Spectrum didn't do the initial build out; that was at LEAST TWO corporate sales ago. Spectrum didn't even do the upgrade to Digital; that was at LEAST ONE corporate sale ago, too. So as I see it, Spectrum has no more overhead than DirecTV Now does. DirecTV Now has servers and other IT infrastructure, bandwidth, network (channel) licensing fees, etc.
I know that those cable channels I spoke of are not what we think of as VOD; but they are in some way presented (or tapped-into) by magic in your carrier-provided cable box/DVR, in a way that is closer to streaming than to classic "frequency division multiplexing" although "tuners" are still part of the system. But they don't actually have a dedicated frequency-band for each and every "channel" your cable box can "tune".
What China did isn't too different than what some American companies did (I forget exactly who). There was a chat bot that listened to the stuff on the internet and quickly turned into a misogynistic foul-mouthed racist. They shut it down after 24 hours because of course we all know that's not what most Americans are like, and certainly not on chat sites on the internet, and especially not right here on Slashdot.
IIRC, that was a Microsoft experiment. (Not a joke).
Are you saying newish cable ready TVs can't decode digital signals? OTA has been digital for a long while now and my six year old Samsung has no probems with it.
This has been the case for years everywhere. I didn't realize there were still places with analog cable as an option.
As for new TVs, no of course they can't decode the signal from the cable company. What the hell does OTA have to do with cable? They are literally opposite things.
Back around 2004, when I first switched my BrightHouse service over to "HD", the tech was having trouble with one of the new cable-boxes. One of the troubleshooting steps he performed was tuning to a particular local channel, which he explained was still analog. That was when I found out that all cable channels were not necessarily distributed the same way.
The second time I got an addendum to the first lesson was when I was looking for a third-party DVR, and found that, without a "secret decoder ring" card that I had to RENT from the Cable Company, none of these DVRs could "tune" a lot of the (can't remember the name of the standard) essentially video-on-demand "channels". Mind you, this was NOT part of the cable company's VOD service; but rather, it seems they just save overall cable bandwidth on lot of the HD channels by actually Streaming them to your cable box.
So, there is actually a lot more black magic going on in that cable "tuner" box/DVR than meets the eye...
Or maybe people need to readjust their broadband expectations and go with wireless (whatever form is available) to satellite, or even DSL if it's available. But nothing will change as long as people keep telling themselves they NEED any particular cable company. Simple as that.
Because of the way my city is wired, DSL is essentially a joke here. Satellite Internet? Yeahrightsure. And the only way for me to "choose" a "particular cable company" in my city is to MOVE. And that would move me from a Spectrum-monopolized area to a... wait for it... COMCAST-monopolized area! Think I'll continue to take my chances with Spectrum!
Actually, when you call to cancel, most customer retention departments will renew those offers.
Speaking of "Retention", does anyone here have a good story to share about what happened when trying not to simply "cut the cord" on Spectrum, but rather to simply go from Cable TV (formerly Brighthouse) + High-Speed Internet (formerly RoadRunner) to simply High-Speed Internet (what Spectrum now calls a Tier 1 Customer)?
I I go to the Spectrum site and put in my Address, it won't give me an online answer for Internet Only (their basic 60 Mbps service would do me just fine); it says "Call your local Spectrum office" (where they can play "retention" games with promotional pricing/bundling, threats of stealing my dog, etc.). So I would just like some "ammo" to lay down the law with on Internet-Only pricing. They can stuff their $160/mo they are sucking down for "Well, nothing on that's worth watching tonight, EITHER!", and their "All Infomercials after midnight".
If DirecTV Now can give me 90% of the "cable" channels I want to watch for $35/mo (and I just got an email that they just added REELZ) non-promotional pricing (which is actually $10/mo for me because I am an ATT wireless "unlimited" customer), then why can't Spectrum do the same thing?
Seriously. Most of the "HD" channels on a typical CableTV carrier like Spectrum are ACTUALLY VOD Streaming sources (which your cable box/DVR nicely makes LOOK like "channels"); so, from Spectrum's POV, why should it cost more than a service like DirecTV Now?
How much CO2 does an average person produce, compared to a dog ?
Notice they conveniently leave out that fact about our predominantly meat-eating population.
And oh, BTW, I don't know about anyone else, but I actually produce significantly more gaseous output when consuming more vegetables, such as broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower, than I ever do eating a hamburger or steak.
So, even as an iPhone user with no dog in this fight, I think this will be a very good thing for their customers, IF it results in Lenovo phones actually getting Updates and Security Patches in a timely manner.
However, now Lenovo has to convince whatever Carriers they are in a devil's bargain with to follow suit, and keep from slathering on THEIR bullshit on top of that pristine Android build, and ruining one of the greatest advantages of Lenovo's sudden outbreak of common sense.
I'm surprised more people here haven't questioned the 500x stat. Seriously, 500x more processing-intensive? If that's even remotely accurate, which I'm positive it's nowhere near that, it simply will just stay H.264 until things get cheaper.
That, and as another commenter said (paraphrasing) "What costs 500x today will cost 1.4x in a year."
Do you have any sense of scale? Do you know how small a LIghtning connector "tongue" is? You can use that to judge the rest of the adapter's size. Or are you counting the short cable as part of it? That's there for convenience. Obviously, the whole thing could have been put in one, rigid body; but that wouldn't be as useful for the user, dumbfuck.
Do you know what 3.5mm looks like? (Hint: Look in your pants).
And oh, BTW, because you are too stupid to figure this out on your own, the 3.5 mm end has to be LONG enough to actually PLUG IN a 3.5 mm PLUG from the headphone/headset. You didn't think of that one, did you? Of course not, dumbass.
If that is so egregiously big, then I just can't fathom how you deal with other, everyday objects, like a pen, a fork, or, God forbid, a pair of over-the-ear headphones!
I actually pity someone with as tenuous a grip on reality as you.
Actually, my question is: why does an OS have to make that choice for people? Is it not possible to provide more than one video codec on mobile devices? I could perhaps see the point of Google choosing NOT to support a format in which you need pay royalties, but why would Apple NOT choose to support a free format in addition?
Because when you are designing an SoC, and want to design-in a video codec subsystem, you generally only have the real-estate/budget to design-in ONE.
I'm sure they support more formats for DECODE, but ENCODE is where the rubber meets the road, and Apple really DOESN'T "need" to support more than one ENCODING format on their PHONE.
And a quick trip to Google allays my fears. Multiple formats are still supported for encode and decode; but the hardware preference is moving toward HEVC/H.265, which everything from the A8-forward for iOS/TVOS, and everything from 6th Gen. Intel-forward supports HEVC encode/decode in hardware.
Indeed. You encode once when the video is created or uploaded. Then you save bandwidth and decompression costs every time the video is downloaded, which may be thousands or even millions of times. I would expect this to put less load on the server hardware, rather than more.
Exactly.
IMHO, this article is scaremongering, or at the very least, written by someone who hasn't thought (or costed) the whole chain through.
Not an indoor antenna, but the RCA 751 is only 3 ft long and works great. It can be mounted on a wall, under the eaves of a house. It even comes with the mount, which is identical to the common sat TV mount.
Hmmm. It's a Yagi; so very directional. Great for range; but I need something a little more omnidirectional...
Can you explain the explanation for those of use who didn't grow up with CDs? (Just kidding, I grew up with an antenna TV that had a sonic clicker for a remote and physical solenoids that you could hear clunking when the channel changed. Actually I had a TV before remotes existed, but the sonic remote holds a dear place in my heart.)
Oh, yeah!
We had both of those things. A rooftop antenna with the "clicker box", AND a Zenith TV with the Ultrasonic, tuning-fork remote.
Make sure your antenna receives UHF in addition to VHF. Lots of older antennas were VHF-only (channels 2-13).
Remember that the digital channel number shown on the screen now doesn't necessarily correlate to the actual radio channel. In our area, digital channel 7 (7.1, 7.2, 7.3) is transmitted at the pre-digital channel 21 frequency band.
An outdoor antenna with an outdoor amplifier is also recommended for fringe or rural areas.
Broadcast TV works pretty well in our rural area. Lots of people have dumped $60-120/month satellite subscriptions.
Speaking of this, most of the indoor "DTV" antennas sold into US markets concentrate on UHF reception almost exclusively. If they get VHF at ALL, it's generally an afterthought.
Unfortunately, where I live, one of the major network affiliates (the CBS one) is still broadcasting on VHF, and the "DTV" antenna I purchased just BARELY picks it up. Flat terrain, no tall buildings or other things between me and the transmitting antenna, and the transmitter is only about 15 miles away.
So, do you (or other Slashdotters) have any suggestions regarding an INDOOR, amplified antenna that gets good reception on what's left of the VHF band, and the other UHF-bands that DTV in the U.S. is using? Bonus points if it passes the FM Radio Broadcast band, too...
"I wonder how many TV show execs have forgotten about over-the-air broadcasting and will be surprised to hear this."
And how surprised they will be if they discover that all those stations stream their program free over the internet. Not need to spend money on rabbit ears.
Shhhh!
Don't remind them; or they'll start making us USians get a "TV License" like the UKians have to...
Slashdot Mirror
So, if Apple uses existing technology to solve a problem you complain that it is boring old news, possibly even derivative. If they develop new technology to solve a problem you complain it is proprietary. How convenient, that way you'll always have something to complain about. And of course, if people are willing to say something good about Apple when it does something good, they are Apple faithful. What a convenient little bubble you have. I understand, the real world is way to complicated for some people. They need their little bubbles.
Oh, and in this case Apple used a part of the Bluetooth Low Energy standard that happens to be relatively unused yet, but is still an open standard. Of course doesn't matter, you just complain about proprietary technology anyway.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
So - Apple layers a proprietary protocol over existing technologies and now the Apple faithful talk about the revolution that Apple has now created. Yay Apple, yay proprietary!
So, dumbass, if Apple is sharing this technology/protocol with other manufacturers FOR FREE, how is it then "Proprietary"?
You Haters really have to bend over backward to ascribe some evil motive to literally EVERY FUCKING THING that Apple does.
Get off it, willya?
Good job cochlear implants are wireless. Anyone who had an cochlear ear implant using a headphone jack wouldn't be able to use a patch cable to connect to future Apple iPhones.
Idiot.
Why wouldn't they be able to use the Lightning to 3.5 mm adapter that CAME WITH THEIR PHONE?
Stupid fucking Haters.
^ found the shill
Found the COWARD.,
I wondered how long it would take someone to come up with some anti-Apple spin to this.
Answer: 9 minutes.
On this site, I'm surprised it wasn't more like 9 milliseconds.
Apple earns its billions from hardware sales. You're thinking of a different megacorp that injects advertisements into everything as it's primary revenue source.
Precisely!
Yep exactly. They'll offer this service as a system to benefit public health etc, get it out there, but in the fine print using the technology allows them to play ads. More specifically they're now trying to find ways of bypassing "I don't want to fucking look at this or hear it so I turn it down or look away".
Like they'll let you have volume control etc but disabled muting the video etc while an ad is playing, and you can't even block your ears.
Bullshit.
Prove it, or STFU.
Another attempt to play catch up to Samsung.
Gee, if this review of the Gear S3 is any indication, I sure Hope not!
https://www.cnet.com/products/...
faggot CEO, faggot "industrial designer", what can you do with cocks in your mouth and buttplugs in your stupid ass.
Sounds like somebody's actually more jealous of the Scrooge McDuck pile of money that Cook and Co. are sitting on...
If DirecTV Now can give me 90% of the "cable" channels I want to watch for $35/mo (and I just got an email that they just added REELZ) non-promotional pricing (which is actually $10/mo for me because I am an ATT wireless "unlimited" customer), then why can't Spectrum do the same thing?
Because DirecTV Now is not paying your ISP fees or maintaining the wire to your house. Because DirecTV Now is not paying the local broadcast fees because it does not carry the local broadcast channels (my area can get Fox from a local station -- so there is one broadcast fee, not six or more). Spectrum has a lot of infrastructure to maintain while DirecTV Now uses stuff maintained by others, and to whom you pay for that maintenance.
Seriously. Most of the "HD" channels on a typical CableTV carrier like Spectrum are ACTUALLY VOD Streaming sources (which your cable box/DVR nicely makes LOOK like "channels");
Not on Comcast. I don't know what Spectrum does but I suspect it is no different. Making every channel a streaming VOD means you cannot do a channel scan on any tuner to see what channels are valid, which pretty much eliminates all third party products, including things that use CableCARDs.
Even then, the cable carrier has to maintain the wire to your house; DirecTV Now has nothing.
My local DirecTV Now feed passes two local channels (ABC and Fox). But I Understand your point. Spectrum has 5 local Channels (plus a few of their sub channels) to deal with.
As far as maintenance goes, TFB. Spectrum didn't do the initial build out; that was at LEAST TWO corporate sales ago. Spectrum didn't even do the upgrade to Digital; that was at LEAST ONE corporate sale ago, too. So as I see it, Spectrum has no more overhead than DirecTV Now does. DirecTV Now has servers and other IT infrastructure, bandwidth, network (channel) licensing fees, etc.
I know that those cable channels I spoke of are not what we think of as VOD; but they are in some way presented (or tapped-into) by magic in your carrier-provided cable box/DVR, in a way that is closer to streaming than to classic "frequency division multiplexing" although "tuners" are still part of the system. But they don't actually have a dedicated frequency-band for each and every "channel" your cable box can "tune".
What China did isn't too different than what some American companies did (I forget exactly who). There was a chat bot that listened to the stuff on the internet and quickly turned into a misogynistic foul-mouthed racist. They shut it down after 24 hours because of course we all know that's not what most Americans are like, and certainly not on chat sites on the internet, and especially not right here on Slashdot.
IIRC, that was a Microsoft experiment. (Not a joke).
Are you saying newish cable ready TVs can't decode digital signals? OTA has been digital for a long while now and my six year old Samsung has no probems with it.
This has been the case for years everywhere. I didn't realize there were still places with analog cable as an option.
As for new TVs, no of course they can't decode the signal from the cable company. What the hell does OTA have to do with cable? They are literally opposite things.
Back around 2004, when I first switched my BrightHouse service over to "HD", the tech was having trouble with one of the new cable-boxes. One of the troubleshooting steps he performed was tuning to a particular local channel, which he explained was still analog. That was when I found out that all cable channels were not necessarily distributed the same way.
The second time I got an addendum to the first lesson was when I was looking for a third-party DVR, and found that, without a "secret decoder ring" card that I had to RENT from the Cable Company, none of these DVRs could "tune" a lot of the (can't remember the name of the standard) essentially video-on-demand "channels". Mind you, this was NOT part of the cable company's VOD service; but rather, it seems they just save overall cable bandwidth on lot of the HD channels by actually Streaming them to your cable box.
So, there is actually a lot more black magic going on in that cable "tuner" box/DVR than meets the eye...
Or maybe people need to readjust their broadband expectations and go with wireless (whatever form is available) to satellite, or even DSL if it's available. But nothing will change as long as people keep telling themselves they NEED any particular cable company. Simple as that.
Because of the way my city is wired, DSL is essentially a joke here. Satellite Internet? Yeahrightsure. And the only way for me to "choose" a "particular cable company" in my city is to MOVE. And that would move me from a Spectrum-monopolized area to a... wait for it... COMCAST-monopolized area! Think I'll continue to take my chances with Spectrum!
Yeah, it's my fault alright... Gimmeabreak!
Actually, when you call to cancel, most customer retention departments will renew those offers.
Speaking of "Retention", does anyone here have a good story to share about what happened when trying not to simply "cut the cord" on Spectrum, but rather to simply go from Cable TV (formerly Brighthouse) + High-Speed Internet (formerly RoadRunner) to simply High-Speed Internet (what Spectrum now calls a Tier 1 Customer)?
I I go to the Spectrum site and put in my Address, it won't give me an online answer for Internet Only (their basic 60 Mbps service would do me just fine); it says "Call your local Spectrum office" (where they can play "retention" games with promotional pricing/bundling, threats of stealing my dog, etc.). So I would just like some "ammo" to lay down the law with on Internet-Only pricing. They can stuff their $160/mo they are sucking down for "Well, nothing on that's worth watching tonight, EITHER!", and their "All Infomercials after midnight".
If DirecTV Now can give me 90% of the "cable" channels I want to watch for $35/mo (and I just got an email that they just added REELZ) non-promotional pricing (which is actually $10/mo for me because I am an ATT wireless "unlimited" customer), then why can't Spectrum do the same thing?
Seriously. Most of the "HD" channels on a typical CableTV carrier like Spectrum are ACTUALLY VOD Streaming sources (which your cable box/DVR nicely makes LOOK like "channels"); so, from Spectrum's POV, why should it cost more than a service like DirecTV Now?
How much CO2 does an average person produce, compared to a dog ?
Notice they conveniently leave out that fact about our predominantly meat-eating population.
And oh, BTW, I don't know about anyone else, but I actually produce significantly more gaseous output when consuming more vegetables, such as broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower, than I ever do eating a hamburger or steak.
So, even as an iPhone user with no dog in this fight, I think this will be a very good thing for their customers, IF it results in Lenovo phones actually getting Updates and Security Patches in a timely manner.
However, now Lenovo has to convince whatever Carriers they are in a devil's bargain with to follow suit, and keep from slathering on THEIR bullshit on top of that pristine Android build, and ruining one of the greatest advantages of Lenovo's sudden outbreak of common sense.
I'm surprised more people here haven't questioned the 500x stat. Seriously, 500x more processing-intensive? If that's even remotely accurate, which I'm positive it's nowhere near that, it simply will just stay H.264 until things get cheaper.
That, and as another commenter said (paraphrasing) "What costs 500x today will cost 1.4x in a year."
As I said: "Scaremongering".
That IS fucking big. Stop making excuses, fanboi.
Relative to WHAT? A FLEA?
Do you have any sense of scale? Do you know how small a LIghtning connector "tongue" is? You can use that to judge the rest of the adapter's size. Or are you counting the short cable as part of it? That's there for convenience. Obviously, the whole thing could have been put in one, rigid body; but that wouldn't be as useful for the user, dumbfuck.
Do you know what 3.5mm looks like? (Hint: Look in your pants).
And oh, BTW, because you are too stupid to figure this out on your own, the 3.5 mm end has to be LONG enough to actually PLUG IN a 3.5 mm PLUG from the headphone/headset. You didn't think of that one, did you? Of course not, dumbass.
If that is so egregiously big, then I just can't fathom how you deal with other, everyday objects, like a pen, a fork, or, God forbid, a pair of over-the-ear headphones!
I actually pity someone with as tenuous a grip on reality as you.
purpose built chips will make your "times X" arguments irrelevant, and they'll support any needed coding system
Precisely.
And if they can do it in a PHONE, they can sure as HELL do it in full-on GPU.
Actually, my question is: why does an OS have to make that choice for people? Is it not possible to provide more than one video codec on mobile devices? I could perhaps see the point of Google choosing NOT to support a format in which you need pay royalties, but why would Apple NOT choose to support a free format in addition?
Because when you are designing an SoC, and want to design-in a video codec subsystem, you generally only have the real-estate/budget to design-in ONE.
I'm sure they support more formats for DECODE, but ENCODE is where the rubber meets the road, and Apple really DOESN'T "need" to support more than one ENCODING format on their PHONE.
And a quick trip to Google allays my fears. Multiple formats are still supported for encode and decode; but the hardware preference is moving toward HEVC/H.265, which everything from the A8-forward for iOS/TVOS, and everything from 6th Gen. Intel-forward supports HEVC encode/decode in hardware.
Indeed. You encode once when the video is created or uploaded. Then you save bandwidth and decompression costs every time the video is downloaded, which may be thousands or even millions of times. I would expect this to put less load on the server hardware, rather than more.
Exactly.
IMHO, this article is scaremongering, or at the very least, written by someone who hasn't thought (or costed) the whole chain through.
Not an indoor antenna, but the RCA 751 is only 3 ft long and works great. It can be mounted on a wall, under the eaves of a house. It even comes with the mount, which is identical to the common sat TV mount.
Hmmm. It's a Yagi; so very directional. Great for range; but I need something a little more omnidirectional...
And more "indoor" ;-)
Can you explain the explanation for those of use who didn't grow up with CDs? (Just kidding, I grew up with an antenna TV that had a sonic clicker for a remote and physical solenoids that you could hear clunking when the channel changed. Actually I had a TV before remotes existed, but the sonic remote holds a dear place in my heart.)
Oh, yeah!
We had both of those things. A rooftop antenna with the "clicker box", AND a Zenith TV with the Ultrasonic, tuning-fork remote.
Good times, good times...
Make sure your antenna receives UHF in addition to VHF. Lots of older antennas were VHF-only (channels 2-13).
Remember that the digital channel number shown on the screen now doesn't necessarily correlate to the actual radio channel. In our area, digital channel 7 (7.1, 7.2, 7.3) is transmitted at the pre-digital channel 21 frequency band.
An outdoor antenna with an outdoor amplifier is also recommended for fringe or rural areas.
Broadcast TV works pretty well in our rural area. Lots of people have dumped $60-120/month satellite subscriptions.
Speaking of this, most of the indoor "DTV" antennas sold into US markets concentrate on UHF reception almost exclusively. If they get VHF at ALL, it's generally an afterthought.
Unfortunately, where I live, one of the major network affiliates (the CBS one) is still broadcasting on VHF, and the "DTV" antenna I purchased just BARELY picks it up. Flat terrain, no tall buildings or other things between me and the transmitting antenna, and the transmitter is only about 15 miles away.
So, do you (or other Slashdotters) have any suggestions regarding an INDOOR, amplified antenna that gets good reception on what's left of the VHF band, and the other UHF-bands that DTV in the U.S. is using? Bonus points if it passes the FM Radio Broadcast band, too...
"I wonder how many TV show execs have forgotten about over-the-air broadcasting and will be surprised to hear this."
And how surprised they will be if they discover that all those stations stream their program free over the internet.
Not need to spend money on rabbit ears.
Shhhh!
Don't remind them; or they'll start making us USians get a "TV License" like the UKians have to...