Will America's Favorite Technology Go Dark? 930
Ant wrote to mention that MSNBC is reporting on the upcoming proposed digital television switchover planned for the end of 2006. From the article: "That's the date Congress targeted, a decade ago, for the end of analog television broadcasting and a full cutover to a digital format. If enforced, that means that overnight, somewhere around 70 million television sets now connected to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will suddenly and forever go blank, unless their owners purchase a special converter box. Back when the legislation was written, New Year's Eve 2006 probably looked as safely distant as the dark side of the moon. But now that date is right around the corner and Congress and the FCC are struggling mightily to figure out what to do."
Subsidize? (Score:5, Interesting)
But on the bright side, what a way to get your average Joe to take a look at the government and the way it operates than to turn off his idiot tube. Not that this regulation was all bad -- it was to spur on development. Would that they'd do away wth IP patents in the same way.
We'll see. In this case, the revolution may really NOT be televised.
Already happening over here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, it's also to the UK (and I guess the US's) government's benefit, since by switching off early they can sell of the frequencies earlier, and get cash sooner.
TV sets (Score:5, Interesting)
heres a good one (Score:2, Interesting)
They will need to extend the date till the numbers are well under 10 million(at-least
Re:Already happening over here... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm wondering what is going to happen to the area of the radio spectrum previously used by analogue television when it is finally switched off - there must be a decent amount of bandwidth there, and I seriously doubt it'll be allowed to fester.
Higher bitrates for DVB (the current blocking artefacts on BBC1 etc. are ridiculous)? More digital TV channels? A big sell-off for (my hypothetical) 4G mobile phones, making £zillions for the government and near-bankrupting the over-zealous mobile phone companies again?
Still, a form of DVB which doesn't suffer from massive corruption when a lawnmower's running would be nice - it'll be annoying not having the analogue stuff as a fallback...
The reason no one is switching over (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
DVB-S(atellite) is very popular, so we're used to set top boxes. DVB-T(errestrial) is very similar technology, so the receivers are already in the same price range (starting at about $65).
If you delay this, you'll just be in the same situation some years down the road. Without setting a date and sticking to it, nothing gets done.
Re:The reason no one is switching over (Score:5, Interesting)
Having said that, the sheer amount of advertising on US tv is quite jaw-dropping, and I hate the way they cut straight from the programme to the ad without any "end of part 1" malarky like we still have. US tv news is on the whole worse than the UK's I'd say, although it is good to see truly local TV news unlike the pathertic excuse for it we have in the UK.
[1] although I do think the BBBC has been getting rather better of late [2]
[2] contrast though to the howling wasteland ITV has become
Re:Do they really have a right to force this on us (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. I think you were trying to be funny but unfortunately you were modded insightful so I feel compelled to respond if not to you then to the moderators who thought your comment was insightful.
I've recently been re-reading E. T. Jaynes' wonderful book, Probability Theory : The Logic of Science [albany.edu] which gives a mathematically rigorous treatment of plausible reasoning using, among other things, Bayes Theorem.
One of the things he makes perfectly clear is that new relevant evidence will always affect the decisions of a rational/perfect reasoner unless that evidence is totally redundant with respect to evidence that was already known.
The book was published posthumously in tree form but there are still .pdf and .ps available on the web. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone were to read this book. Unfortunately it has a lot of math in it that makes it un-readable for people without a technical background. But certainly anyone who uses probability theory or statistics really owes it to themselves to read this book.
Who really wanted HDTV? (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at the number of people who download TV shows. The quality really isn't as good as a broadcast but people love it anyway.
The electronics companies needed a way to revolutionize the industry. The consumer isn't driving this revolution.
Just like IBM's Microchannel and Intel's Rambus fiasco, this "improvement" will probably be rejected by the consumer. Online (streaming and/or downloadable) TV may take a big chunk out of the broadcast TV market.
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
You're absolutely right. The rights of the rich always supercede those of the poor.
Re:The reason no one is switching over (Score:3, Interesting)
Local television news isn't. I don't know what it is, but at the Journalism school, the students and professors I've seen treat it with exactly the same consideration as we do the National Enquirer.
I don't know what makes you say that the quality of television programming has gotten better. What do you typically watch in a day?
Essentially, it's gonna be a good thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
DirectTV going HDTV (Score:3, Interesting)
"After a checkout period, Spaceway 1 will go into service this summer to begin DIRECTV's new program offering for both national and local high-definition channels to its customers across the United States. It will later be joined by three other satellites to fully implement the system by 2007."
"By 2007, the number of high-definition channels will be expanded to over 1,500, and DIRECTV says its next-generation services will be able to reach every U.S. household."
"Spaceway 1 carries a two-meter transmit antenna with full steering ability that can form multiple spot beams to customize programming in different regions of the country. This communications payload has a total bandwidth capacity of about 10 gigabytes per second."
I find this preferable to our government's enforced upgrades, although I can see the arguments for more efficient bandwidth usage.
More info [spaceflightnow.com]
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who really wanted HDTV? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because a non-geek simply doesn't know any better, or know there is another option.
Look at the number of people who download TV shows. The quality really isn't as good as a broadcast but people love it anyway.
VCD for example isn't anywhere close to broadcast, but looks a hell of a lot better than VHS SLP mode and if burnt to CD cost less than VHS tape.
Those HDTV rips... even those 350meg ones look better on my PC monitor than the TV broadcast on my TV. Those 700meg TV rips are at the point where they are so close to broadcast quality I couldn't care less. Now those direct copies off PVRs, direct digital to mpeg-2 look exactly like the broadcast as they are 1:1 with the broadcast. From what i'e seen these are pretty limited to the newsgroups.
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
And thank you for pointing that book out to me.
Situation in Germany (Score:2, Interesting)
The region I live in was promised DVB-T for the 18th of April. However the powers that be decided that 1 million people where not worth the hassle of installing digital infrastructure (By the way, Germany is about 15 times as densly popuated as the US). And when did they tell us? Beginnning of April.
So all those people who bought DVB-T Receivers are now royally screwed. Still Analogue TV was shut off with very little noise, like one article in the local paper on Saturday the 16th, complete with a big ad from the cable service.
Satelite dishes are now sold out. We were lucky to get one for my mother-in-law who was freaking out so we had to install it as quickly as possible and she still owes us the money for the dish. Funnily enough it was about 25% more expensive than the identical one we bought for ourselves two years ago.
I think you will get screwed the same way. DVB-T will only be available in very high density population centres. The rest can go buy a dish and find a wall to fix it on. Don't suppose otherwise even if you are bombarded with ads about how good DVB-T will be and that you should buy the box while it's cheap.
The Broadcast Networks are Dying: Let them Die (Score:2, Interesting)
The three-network powers of yore are about to get a much-needed shot in the arm (or perhaps the butt, if their core cheapo analog viewers decide to upgrade to cable instead of buying a digital converter).
I don't really even know who watches over-the-air broadcast television, other than people who can't/won't/don't pay for cable BUT still love TV enough to own a set.
Essentially what I'm implying is that people who currently don't pay for cable or satellite (a) cannot pay for it, or (b) don't want the advanced features or channels.
Therefore, almost every single benefit of digital broadcasts are almost entirely irrelevant. Receiving an HD picture on a 13 inch analog television won't look any better (and will cost those consumers $50-$100 to buy the converter). Moreover, those who don't want the advanced features or multitude of channels aren't going to suddenly buy a big-screen HDTV to watch broadcast channels in high definition, just because their black-and-white in the kitchen doesn't receive Maury Povich anymore.
While I think it is wise and important to reapportion our available spectrum as new technology becomes available and matures, I doubt the legislative mandate to push analog TV into obsolescence is important or a worthwhile use of our legislative, financial, and technological resources.
(As a side note, isn't broadcast television dying, or just turning into one of the pack, anyway? We are no longer bound to the three-network oligarchy, and I fail to see why we should keep supporting that establishment legislatively).
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
What "situation"? The point is that it's not really important whether we switch or not. It's just television. I say, let the change happen organically. Sure, it might take a little longer but the last thing I need is the government mandating which TV I can buy.
Re:The reason no one is switching over (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Subsidize? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure the prices will come down some but this $50-$100 cost better be close to $50 before I'll buy.
We ditched cable last year because we were in and out of town so much planning for our wedding. We've not hooked it back up yet. We keep talking about it but never actually do it. I kind of like not shelling out $80 a month on shit I hardly watch.
I remember when I called to cancel, the cable company asked me while I was cancelling. The tried every trick in the book. I finally told them "The day you provide a package where I can get local channels and pick a few of the others like Discovery, BBC and TLC is the day I'll reactivate my service. Disconnect me please."
The woman gave in at that point.
The only time my wife uses the rabbit ears now is to watch Law and Order. The only other use the TV gets is DVDs and game consoles.
Italy... sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
What's "fun" is that nobody was even considering it until some four years ago. The move was decided in a rush, and the government granted *150 euros* to anyone who buys a decoder. That is, 100% of the price for many brands (incidentally, if you're 16 you can get just slightly more to buy a PC). Why all this generosity?
Well, it happens that, as you may know, italian prime minister Berlusconi also own 3 of the 7 major channels (3 of the remaining ones being state owned). To contrast this monopolist position a law was passed years ago limiting to two the channels a single corp can control. Berlusconi managed to ingore it until 2003, when he ruled that if DT had been adopted by the majority of italians by 2006. The rest is history. What blows me is that it seems most people just don't get that *they* are paying for the decoder they are getting "for free" from the store.
That's why I for one don't welcome our new DVB-T overlords...
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I think about stories a friend of mine tells me of days he worked as an installer for Cox Communications... going into trailer homes which were missing floors to install digital cable. So you take away analogue transmissions; rabbit ears and roof-top antennaes no longer work. That's okay, because the poor will still believe they NEED television, for whatever reason. Be it to escape the ugly reality of class-separation induced poverty or whatever, they won't be able to subside without the daily drama of someone else's life which is better or worse than their's; without the daily cramming of horrible news from around the world; without the daily reminder that their country is the greatest on Earth, so says the President. So on and so forth.
So, they'll spend whatever little money they can scrape together to buy the three main necessities: cigarettes, alcohol, and TV. Food, shelter, transportation -- those all come into the view later on. But by God, it's down-right un-American not to have TV.
That's enough of my un-thought-out rant.
Personally, I'll be fine with no longer being able to use my analogue TV one day in the far future. (2006 affects over-the-air, right? When does analogue cable go the way-side?) I have stayed away from digital cable because I don't want another friggin' box on my entertainment stand, and another piece of equipment complicating my already complex system (select VCR, then put the TV to Input 1, but you can't use the TV volume here unless you actually use it as a tuner, but if you select DVD, you have to...)
But aside from that, which is really a minor issue, I consider getting rid of cable every time the bill comes due. I don't watch any prime-time network shows because I just can't handle the brain-rot. Phuqn "reality" shows just annoy the hell out of me, and I just can't bring myself to follow any of the shows currently running. I enjoy well-written shows which make me think, all across the board of drama to comedy, investigatory society, etc. Well, I have to admit that some of these real-life video shows (read that as unscripted reality, I guess) do provide some entertainment, but I could easily, and happily, live without them.
ComCast used to call me every so often to pitch digital cable. I'd ask why I would want it, and hear "well, it adds two hundred channels!" Great, that's 195 new channels that I won't watch, so why in the hell would I want to pay for service, installation, set-top decoder, etc.?
Perhaps I am robbing myself of some great experiences and entertainment, but it just doesn't seem that way. Blah.
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:1, Interesting)
The first message of this thread argued in favor of changing the deadline. I argued against pushing the deadline back. You're changing the topic by arguing against a mandated switchover. I see your point, but I don't agree with it. The people grant companies permission to use parts of the radio spectrum exclusively. The people, represented by their government, have decided to adapt the rules to the technological advancement.
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Subject (Score:5, Interesting)
Rich people did. HDTV companies did. But they're a small minority compared to the poorer masses.
But do you really think the poorer masses went more for Bush? Actually, forget the speculation, let's look at the exit polls [cnn.com]. 36% of people with income under $15,000 voted for Bush. 42% from $15-30,000. Even the majority of people making $30-50,000 voted for Kerry. Bush won because of the people making $50,000 and up. Surely most of these people have cable television.
Lets face it, no politician wants a voting public that won't be able to see their TV commercials.
If that cuts out a group of people who overwhelmingly tend to vote for your opponent and not you, and it cuts out the TV commercials from both parties, then I don't see why not.
Besides, in the end, those who really care about TV will just buy a converter. And I seriously doubt the blame will get put on Bush anyway. The FCC is who makes the decision, not Bush, and the mandate was put in place by Clinton, not Bush.
There is a way out. (Score:5, Interesting)
I watch TV when I stay in a hotel, stay with family, etc. I never have the desire to get one of my own.
We think that advertisements don't affect us because we don't immediately rush out and buy a Big Mac (Whopper, Coke/Pepsi/Shasta, Bud/Miller/Michelob, Ford/GM/Toyota, whatever) instantly every time we see a commercial. Try doing without TV for a year and see what happens to your purchasing habits. For me, I noticed the biggest difference in less desire to see movies.
I don't think that TV is inherently evil (though it does tend to totally dominate any room it's in, even when off). I do check out DVD's from my local library and watch them on the computer.
Article on DTV legislation in National Review... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories
Great quote:
That sounds about right...!
Re:It's NOT about selling new TVs... (Score:2, Interesting)
This spectrum was hardly free, and it's very much not true that stations aren't doing anything with the second channels.
The station I work for had to:
Not cheap. And we lucked out by drawing RF channel 10, meaning we could run 42 kilowatts of power as opposed to our competitors who need 1000 kilowatts to achieve the same coverage. I don't want to know about their electric utility bills!
This is an expense imposed on these stations. Even if your business plan doesn't have room for high-definition. Even if your business plan depends on multicasting. (multiple programs over the same transmitter -- the FCC has decided cable is not required to carry the additional programs, making multicasting economically impractical.)
The stations' other alternative: do nothing with their second channel, and know that at some future point, they will be forced to surrender their license and go out of business. (At least one station [www.klln.fm] already has.(scroll down to "1993+"))
IMHO there is no shortage of available public-safety spectrum. The two-way radio manufacturers know that each time a new chunk of public-safety spectrum is opened, they'll sell thousands if not millions of new radios. The old 150MHz and 460MHz bands are being abandoned in droves - but are perfectly suited for public-safety work. (the old 40MHz band has been so fully abandoned that the FCC feels safe in allowing special temporary use for a FM broadcast station commemorating Armstrong's original FM experiments in New York City...)
Just because we can doesn't mean we should (Score:4, Interesting)
Pefect Timing! (Score:3, Interesting)
Developments in germany (Score:2, Interesting)
actually in germany there now seems to be an interresting development. Since terrestrial TV-transmission is relatively expensive, compared to satellite transmissions, commercial stations are stopping to transmit terrestrially in some less populated areas at all. When the analog transmitters get turned off, they will only have a choice of about 5-6 public TV channels over the air.
But here nobody really cares. Free to Air satellite is just normal here (unless you live in an apartment building) and you can get more channels that way anyhow. And even on satellite a large share of the users already moved to digital, despite of the fact that the digital signal is worse most of the time.
In the US, digital television would have a lot more potential. Everyone can see the difference, at least in newer productions. With digital TV you can get real colour television, perhaps with HDTV even in a better resolution. (Note that PAL already has 576 lines instead of the 480 lines of NTSC).
Unfortunately the broadcast flag will ruin it all.
What about rural areas? (Score:3, Interesting)
To get channels besides local stations people have to get satellite. It's not that bad really, I like satellite more than I like cable. But didn't congress pass a law several years ago saying satellite providers couldn't carry local channels and they couldn't provide locals from other markets?
So congress (in effect) is saying that they can't have antenna's to watch local TV, and they can't use satellite to watch local TV, but they don't get cable to be able to watch.
?????
J
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
That should apply to everybody, not just the poor. This is a good chance for a lot of people to learn to live without that damn box.
I'm certain some means will be found to prevent an interruption of TV service, particularly for poor people.
If the poor were permitted to sit, read, notice reality, calmly think about things that affect their lives, then where would we be? In a damn pickle! The success of our government relies on a system of checks and balances: the free market purchase of government influence and corresponding market access to media so that the proper education of the people can be achieved. You know - Michael Jackson 24/7 to a quarter billion pairs of eyeballs who need to know © important things that affect their daily lives.
No, given the stakes, you can expect Bread & Circus to be continued despite the impending analog TV doom scheduled for 2006.
Re:The reason no one is switching over (Score:3, Interesting)
American Idol is a case in point, all those Coke logos on the glasses of the judging panel are fuzzed out, but any reflections on the table top are perfectly visible...
I can see a time coming when image manipulation technology is so good, that they can slot a product logo in seamlessly into any footage... so you could see some jarring anachronisms like a coke glass being used in A Tale of Two Cities...
DISCOVERY HD THEATRE (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not really running a text-byte for it, I'm just saying I don't watch Sopranos and Law and Order and all the shit that the rest of the spectrum covers.
There's some outstanding things to see on Discovery HD, and the 1280x1080i really makes all the difference. Looking at that link, they've got Egypt (and you can see it without worry of getting your head chopped off), Lewis and Clark, insects, evolution, and the Himalayas. Granted, it's not Louis and Clark with Terri Hatcher in tight leather, but there probably some hot American Indian chicks it in.
If I watch fifteen hours of television per week, at least 14 of those are off Discovery HD...
Quality of Digital is worse than NTSC (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider a scene that is mostly a single color, such as characters under moonlight (mostly blueish) or a submarine action movie where they are about in the murky depths (also mostly blueish scene).
In an analog signal, the light to dark blue is graduated evenly, while the digital signal shows banding and other digital artifacts, because there aren't enough "blue" colors in the digital compression scheme.
I've also watched many episodes of StarGate SG1 under digital where the Audio and Video were out of sync, and it wound up looking like a bad quicktime movie played on an underpowered computer and the characters lips flapped, but the voices were just a fraction of a second out of sync -- it still looked really weird.
Maybe it's just my shitty provider (comcast), but damn, digital is so bad, it makes me want to throw out my TV.
Re:In UK we manage thanks to 'FreeView' box... (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in outer London.
I can't get freeview because we have these things called "hills" in this part of town. I can't get channel 5 for that matter.
If they put in another transmitter, I wouldn't be confident in setting up the video to record while I'm watching another channel, first time anyway. How well do all those pieces of equipment integrate?
Its a private road so I can't get cable. I don't see why I should pay a monthly tithe on top of the license fee anyway.
The residents association/landlord/council/neighbours would complain if I put up a satellite dish since that's so working class. And a monthly tithe to Murdock is even less appealing.
Hmm, back to reading magazines then!
UK vs US TV (Score:3, Interesting)
On UK TV, you have all the stuff that's worth watching packed into three or four channels. (BBC2, Channel 4, BBC1... er... that's about it.)
On US TV, you have almost exactly the same amount of TV that's worth watching, but it's spread across about a dozen channels, and you can only get those by subscribing to about a hundred channels.
The answer is ReplayTV or TiVo. You tell it what you want to watch, and it goes away and searches the hundreds of channels and finds the 3 channels' worth of stuff that's worth watching. It also lets you skip the obnoxious ads.
I tried watching US TV without a PVR, and it's just impossible. You have to dedicate an hour or two to reading the centimeters-thick TV guide each week, you have to track where FOX have moved your show to this week, you have to sit through the ads without going into a homicidal rage, and so on. The reward-to-effort ratio is way too low.
This is why Americans who get TiVo liken it to a religious experience, and say "You'll have my TiVo when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers". It turns US TV into something approaching UK TV.
Anyway, as far as the original topic goes... I don't see it as that big of a deal if they just go ahead with the switchover. Nobody who gets cable or satellite will even notice. How many people get their TV via bunny ears anyway?
Rural America doesn't get its TV via bunny ears. My in-laws live in rural America. They all have satellite dishes, because there's no way you'll pick up TV via a set-top antenna out on the prairies. No, the people who will be hit by this are predominantly poor people who live in cities and suburbs, and culture snobs who think they're too good for TV but occasionally sneak a fix (see examples in this discussion). 90% of the problem could probably be fixed by capping the price of basic cable.
Anyone have any actual statistics on how many people receive TV via bunny ears?
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
Digital TV signals have a definite range. Once you hit a certain distance out, you go from perfect signal to nothing. This means that New York and Philadelphia can use the same channels without worrying about them bleeding into each other over Jersey.
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:1, Interesting)
This is also about the broadcasters having more control on who is watching what. Once everything is digital it will be _much_ easier to charge per program and the like. They don't say that now, but that's the way it is going to be.
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
Whoa. I lived in Maine during the first Gulf War and had to rely on a grainy PBS signal for info. Cable was not an option and Sat TV would have a meant mini-deforrestation of my property. The arrogance of the parent comment underlies the technological isolation of rural America.
What's next-- the forced elimination of analog radio?
Re:A suggestion maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
Holy crapthrashing christ, not every slashdot story is an invitation for condescending political commentary."
Ah, but it is... why does the FCC/govt they want the analog signals to go dark? Because the FCC wants to reclaim some of that frequency spectrum to resell/re-allocate which has been very lucrative for the FCC. That seems like a pretty political reason for me.
Furthermore, the content providers are dying to close analog loopholes and drag everyone kicking and screaming to closed propietary "protected"/DRM'd/encyrcpted digital connections e.g. HDMI/HDCP
*shrug* when there's big money involved, I think it's safe to say there's some political motivation, and it's not a purely technical issue.
Besides (DTV) might be superior as far as PQ/clarity but it doesn't seem to range as far the analog signals. Pull up antennaweb [antennaweb.org] and compare the number of digital broadcast signals you'll be able to get OTA vs old school broadcasts... (assuming you live in an area that most of the broadcast places are currently broadcasting both).
With that said, by all means cut over to digital only, but not before the cable companies are mandated to have bi-directional CableCARDS available with an open spec rolled out.
*Shrug*
e.
A case example for broadcasting anarchy (Score:4, Interesting)