Confusion Reigns As Analog TV Begins Shutdown 434
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."
My TV is still up (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm, my programming source [tvnzb.com] still seems to be up.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So is mine http://eztv.it
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was going for "funny"...
Once again... BFD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see why the deadline had to be pushed back any further. Even if it did, I don't see any reason why the deadline became a "dead-range". It should've been all-or-nothing, and that's what it was intended to be.
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:5, 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.
Re:Once again... BFD (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
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a television monitor/researcher, you insensitive clod!
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Forgetting about the elderly?
the near-sighted geek (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Because anyone who can't work such a box into a tight budget obviously hasn't got a real job, right? Because your baseless judgement of other people's situations relative to your own just flat out reign supreme? Here's a wake up call to you and every last fake Libertarian shitbag who modded you insightful: yes, we know you've managed to obtain jobs just good enough to afford a few luxuries, not struggle vary hard, and yet, between all that exalted 80+ hours a week "real job" time, find time to bitch about the failings of the poor and lazy on Slashdot, and tip us off to the truth: you just robbed another lazy sad sack of a position, and if not for you, one more person could've bought the box already, or even cable, and done what you've done here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Once again... BFD (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.
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:4, Informative)
...but what the hell is an HD antenna?
It is marketing BS, but there are geek issues involved. As you may know, analog TV uses 3 different frequency band ranges: VHF-lo (channels 2-6, which will be reallocated. Good for LONG DISTANCE transmissions at high power (using the atmospheric bounce) but also vulnerable to EMI), VHF-hi (channels 7-13), which will be kept for DTV, and UHF, which its upper band, from channels 52-69, will be removed from DTV reception.
Different antenna designs have different reception efficiency in different bands. Rabbit ears (folding twin dipoles) were only good for VHF, and since there is no more VHF-lo, useless for DTV. The other common cheapo UHF antennas, circle and bowtie, allegedly will work at receiving VHF-hi, but are not terribly efficient. There are designs like Gray-Hoverman, which weren't popular in the analog TV era, because besides not getting VHF-lo well, it wouldn't get the high end of UHF well either. Well, there's no more "UHF-hi" (ch 52-69), so now those type antennas can be used, and are pretty darn efficient in the DTV range.
Then there is the multipath issue. (ghosting) On analog-TV, it was an annoyance. On DTV, it can actually kill reception, because its a form of signal interference (which weakens reception). In places where its an issue, you're better off with those "new-fangled" DTV antennas (e.g. - Philips silver sensor, which looks like a triangular raygun made of metal tongue depressors) which are designed to "suppress multipathing", which then improves DTV reception.
I would imagine the "ideal" DTV antenna would be most efficient for receiving VHF-hi, the truncated UHF, and suppress multipathing. The old rooftop antennas should still work, but you MAY be able to get a new TV antenna that will bring in more dB, because of its design. But there is no industry standardization for the term HDTV antenna, so you won't know if its worthwhile to buy it without a spectrum analyzer. (Or more cheaply, read avsforum.com, and let the engineering geeks tell you what's the best antennas to get.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:5, Funny)
But...but...but they might miss American Idol, The Bachelor or Dancing With The Stars!!!!
You obviously missed the part where he said
Anyone with half a brain will be fine
Re:Once again... BFD (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why the heck are we getting a story posted on this almost daily? Who cares?
WTF? This is like Y2K, except TV is actually important!
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:5, Funny)
Since the wireless link is a simplex link, everyone is stuck receiving the same video signal. A TV viewer is bound by the scheduling and content choices made by a person called a program director who works at the broadcast facility. In order to alleviate this obvious problem, "channels" were introduced. Each channel streams a different video stream. However, due to the expense of the transmitting equipment and the fact that they are all using the same transmission medium (the so called aether), only a handful of channels exist. Until recently, these video streams were transmitted using an analog signal. As such they were plagued with interference, crosstalk, etc.
To combat these obvious defficiencies, many places started streaming the video to the TV over a shared wire. This eliminated most of the interference issues, and allowed for more video stream channels to be sent to the television. Over time, the TVs became more like computers. The monitor was connected to a box which contained a hard drive, allowing video streams to be recorded and played on demand. The signals were transmitted digitally, which allowed for error correction, and it allowed for true internet connectivity and two way communication. Most people still use them only for simple video streaming, however. There are also quite a few people who (probably for quaint religeous reasons), still rely on the analog wireless broadcasts to receive their pre-scheduled, pre-chosen video stream.
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:4, Insightful)
There are also quite a few people who (probably for quaint religeous reasons), still rely on the analog wireless broadcasts to receive their pre-scheduled, pre-chosen video stream.
Everyone I know who watches OTA TV does it by and large for one reason: It's free.
Yes, you have to watch ads, nothing is free, blah blah blah, but the fact remains that once they've bought the set and the antenna they don't have to pay to watch TV. In my jurisdiction, basic cable is nearly $450 per year. Some people just choose to spend that $450 elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ongoing costs for netflix: ~$108 a year.
So far there's nothing I've wanted to watch I can't get OTA, on Hulu, or on Netflix. And I get to watch it when it's convenient for me... Less money, more convenience.. Not bad IMHO.
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:5, Informative)
You dont know anyone who is a videophile, or someone that can actually see.. I watch OTA because it's not destroyed by the satellite or cable company. The PBS hd channels here that are OTA are at least 90% higher resolution and far less blockyness than the re-compressed mess that Comcast passes off as the OTA HD channels. (Yes they compress them, I got the transport stream files to prove it. Comcast and DISH have the crappiest HD signals available. If you want to see your best video OTA is the best choice.
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:5, Funny)
There are also quite a few people who (probably for quaint religeous reasons), still rely on the analog wireless broadcasts to receive their pre-scheduled, pre-chosen video stream.
Analog television signals can convey the subtle nuances of a scene in a way that the average wood-eyed viewer could never notice, but that a trained videophile such as myself can spot like night and day. Also, cathode-ray tubes impart a dynamic character and emphasis to the even-numbered harmonics that impart a "holographic" like quality to the images, while still retaining the overall linearity of sweep azimuth and elevation granted by the intrinsic behavior of electrons given thermal energy by a heated cathode with a low work-function and accelerated inside a synchronized magnetic or electrostatic field. You'd never catch me watching digital TV on some cheap LCD display, buddy! Even an idiot can tell that the greens are heavily excoriated and taste entirely wrong.
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:5, Funny)
I think someone has unplugged the anode while touching a ground...
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, that explains that startrek.tv usenet site.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And then there are those of us who use cable and are unaffected anyway. Yep, our HDTVs will continue to get the crappy low-quality signal until we upgrade to Time Warner's "HD package"! Yay!
Re:Once again... BFD (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone else, well, maybe there are survival of the fittest selection standards still hitting us, on occasion.
Yes! Those people who are too stupid to figure out how to get out TVs to work will instead resort to sexual activity for recreation, and are more likely to be too stupid to use birth control, and eventually...
um... I think I see a problem here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Wrong. EVERYONE without exception will be fine. TV is not a life critical resource. It's not like they are upgrading the electricity and if you don't have the converter box yet then you might freeze to death tonight. This is the boob tube. We're talking about Survivor, Wheel of Fortune, and daytime soap operas.
I'd say that the people most likely to thrive are those that don't bother with the so called "upgrade" and give up TV altogether. I'm one of those households that they are saying is "unpre
The confusion is part of the Stimulus (Score:5, Funny)
This is designed to get people off of their couch and out shopping!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The confusion is part of the Stimulus (Score:5, Funny)
But how will they know what to buy?
A DTV box and/or a new TV, obviously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's easy, whatever Sparky at Best buy tells them to buy.
He's an expert and those $98.00 HDMI cables have such a clearer picture!!! I'm going back to buy a $980.00 power strip to make my greens greener!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, most people don't have money to buy anything....
I do, however. I was at Sam's club the other day, and surprised to see one of the latest Samsung 52" LCD 120hz flatscreen tv's for like $1789 or thereabouts. Wow..that looked nice, and I need a nice tv for my bedroom. I'll hook it to my mythtv box I'm rebuilding.
Hey..speaking of mythtv, I've got a question. I'm currently renting, and wanting to go do the mythtv client server route in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey..speaking of mythtv, I've got a question. I'm currently renting, and wanting to go do the mythtv client server route in the house. I was at this point (renting) hoping to avoid running cat5 all over the place. Can wireless work fast enough now for a myth client server system? For HD content? I've got my server with a HDHomerun pulling QAM off the cable, and ATSC over the air...
I used wireless for awhile on a little frontend box that was away from the master backend and it worked fine for SD content. When I switched out my tuner to HD though I started getting some stuttering and then broke down and just decided to figure out how to run a twisted pair to the box. I was using wireless G at the time... don't know if N would be good enough to eliminate the stuttering, but it's possible it might.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've tried a N router with a 2x2 link, in the 130mbps reported connection speed, and I still got random stutter with 1080p content, but not with 720p. It might have been environmental issues reducing the bandwidth available, but it's not acceptable anyway.
I ran 22 gb lines through my house :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, the MythVideo plugin *does* not stream, so you have to share (via SMB or NFS) the directory between the Front and Back ends... This makes those sort of files play too slowly as well.
Re:The confusion is part of the Stimulus (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, 54Mbps is plenty for a single HD stream. The maximum bit-rate allowed by the blu-ray standard is 40Mbits
Except that you never really do get 54Mbps. You'd be lucky to maintain a constant 10Mbps. 54Mbps wireless is completely unacceptable for HD Content because the player is expecting a semi-constant stream of data which the wireless router typically can't deliver. I'd stick with a hardline.
Re:The confusion is part of the Stimulus (Score:4, Informative)
My biggest problem with all of this... (Score:2, Insightful)
As I have said time and time again, this has been a gigantic clusterfuck of enormous proportions.
1. The American public should have received a check (not a tax credit, not a credit card looking coupon, etc) for the total sale of the spectrum divided by every single citizen of this nation.
2. When the TV was moved to digital, it should have been better than what was offered before. Yes, the quality is better (when you can receive the signal) but most of the time (even with good equipment) the signal doesn't c
Re:My biggest problem with all of this... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Good enough to watch hockey?! Does it come with a gun to the back of your head too?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL. I happen to like hockey :)
I only used it as an example because it is one of the harder things to watch without a good picture.
Re:My biggest problem with all of this... (Score:4, Interesting)
2. Yes, YMMV. I get some channels with amazing reception now, and others are now unwatchable. Overall, I would rather have stayed with analog.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If they couldn't get enough to fully compensate the American people for their trouble, then they sold at a loss
It's not worth sending me a check for $64, only to take it away again on April 15.
I think that they made the right compromise - they more or less compensated people who were impacted by offering box coupons, they freed up additional spectrum for other uses, and they made some dough in the process.
Plus, it's a nice reminder of why you don't want government running everything.
Re:My biggest problem with all of this... (Score:4, Interesting)
How about NO, it costs a hell of a lot of money to print and distribute checks, better they just not charge me as much or give me more back on my rebate check. The cost of the 2008 rebate checks was $84M, personally I'd rather they save that cost and use the money to feed more poor kids or something.
This was all unnecessary anyway. I don't care about opening up spectrum for other services when I am not directly benefiting in any way, shape or form by the change over.
How about if your life gets save because first responders are able to talk to one another, is that good enough for you?
Re:My biggest problem with all of this... (Score:5, Informative)
2. When the TV was moved to digital, it should have been better than what was offered before. Yes, the quality is better (when you can receive the signal) but most of the time (even with good equipment) the signal doesn't come in, you lose channels, and they randomly drop audio and video. At least with the old way, if it came in most of the way, I could still see and hear what was going on.
This is the killer for me. Digital TV does not degrade gracefully. You can't get a low-res substitute if your signal starts going badly. And the use of 8VSB modulation means that stations *theoretically* can cover more distance with less power than COFDM, but it also means moving receivers are out of the question (goodbye Sony Watchman and car TV) and multipath interference (common in cities) can keep receivers from working properly.
In the 50's and 60's, they were able to upgrade to color TV without breaking compatibility with existing black and white sets. Today, they broke compatibility and they've failed to offer enough to justify it.
Re:My biggest problem with all of this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Today, they broke compatibility and they've failed to offer enough to justify it.
I disagree. The UHF spectrum was simply to valuable for society to continue to allow a few analog TV holdouts to continue squatting on some of the most valuable parts of the EM spectrum for free or minimal cost. Part of the reason why wireless services in the United States are so behind Europe, Japan, and even China is because there are lots of legacy squatters occupying prime pieces of EM spectrum real estate for peanut change. The EM spectrum rights should go to whomever is willing to pay the public the most for them, and nowadays that is wireless telecom companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint/Nextel not grandma with her Philco black and white analog TV that she has not upgraded since 1964. if the remaining analog TV users wanted to continue using the UHF spectrum, preventing the rest of us who are willing to pay from getting next gen wireless services, then they should have bid against the telecoms in the auction. Analog TV lost because other uses are worth more to more people, plain and simple.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The 700 megahertz band is valuable because it propagates a longer distance than the gigahertz bands being used by current cellphones & wireless internet standards, requires less power, and uses a relatively small antenna (1-2 inches). Therefore it is MORE valuable than most of the other sections, for the task desired.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the use of 8VSB modulation means that stations *theoretically* can cover more distance with less power than COFDM, but it also means moving receivers are out of the question
ATSC-M/H [wikipedia.org] has been developed to allow existing ATSC (8VSB) stations to also deliver signals to moving receivers (M/H means mobile/handheld). It basically throws a ton of FEC on the low-bitrate M/H signal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in a spot were I'm at least 20 miles from any TV broadcast so nothing really comes in well - lots of the blocking, no sound and many times the "no signal" floating box. Oh, my microwave disrupts the TV signal.
20 miles and you don't get a signal? You either have no concept of distance or you don't actually have an antenna.
Re:I agree. (Score:4, Informative)
You stations may not be broadcasting full power yet. I believe they can go full power after today, or possibly that was delayed with the (optional) analog shutoff delay too.
(I think they may also change frequencies, but that's all automagically handled by the tuner.)
Revolt (Score:5, Funny)
Frankly, I see something like this - the disruption of TV - as one of very few events that could get people off their butts to do something about their government. Spy on their phone calls? Eh... Take away their American Idol? Riot in the streets.
Re:Revolt (Score:5, Interesting)
If you've never read it, go read "The Machine Stops" by E. M. Forster [emforster.de]. It was published 100 years ago and still remains remarkably relevant and prescient. ..bruce..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point. Americans are likely to get extremely angry when [1] they can't watch TV, and [2] the price of gas breaks a psychological barrier, like $2. The problems?
- What percentage of Americans receive their TV over the air?
- Congress is currently experiencing approval ratings rivaling David Duke at the Million Man March, yet over 90% of the current Congress was re-elected. I voted 100% anti-incumbent this fall, and maybe Americans should wake the freak up and stop just voting party lines. Congress is wel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress is currently experiencing approval ratings rivaling David Duke at the Million Man March
I'd just like to point out that Congressional approval polls mean nothing.
Approval ratings taken by random, national samplings will yield nothing but unresearched opinions based on shallow news coverage and your average person's limited understanding even what congress does. I doubt even 50% of the people polled even understand that Congress and Senate are part of the same government branch, let alone have a meaningful, formulated opinion based on actually performance.
Re:Revolt (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it's the House of Representatives [house.gov] and the Senate [senate.gov] that are part of the same government branch, which is collectively referred to as the United States Congress [wikipedia.org].
If you're going to be calling half the people in the country idiots, make sure you're in the other half first ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah... It is time for action (Score:4, Insightful)
After this wonder demonstration of government incompetence I say let us let them manage our Health Care and Health Care records!
At least we know they are demonstrably bad at most of what they do, so we won't have higher than normal expectations.
You'll Thank me Later (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You'll Thank me Later (Score:4, Funny)
Cable Guy Reference... (Score:2)
At the end of Jim Carrey's movie, The Cable Guy; all local TV is knocked out... and people start to find enjoyment by reading books, sitting down to dinner together and doing activities besides TV...
You will NOT die if you don't watch Wheel of Fortune or your favorite soap opera...
Re:Cable Guy Reference... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wapner. 12 minutes to Wapner. Must watch Wapner. People's Court. Eight minutes to Wapner. - We got eight minutes to Wapner.
I managed to survive 10 years without a TV... (Score:2)
...somehow I think our society will survive the demise of analog TV broadcasting. In fact, it might actually be improved thereby.
ObDisc: I currently have satellite TV and a large-screen HD TV. On the other hand, I watch very little TV -- maybe 2-3 shows/week, if that much. Most of the rest of the time, I have one of the 24-hour cable news channels on and the sound off -- sort of a big-screen RSS feed in my living room. ..bruce..
Re: (Score:2)
I currently have satellite TV and a large-screen HD TV. On the other hand, I watch very little TV -- maybe 2-3 shows/week, if that much.
Sounds like a waste of money. You should cancel the satellite and just rent from Amazon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Honey... (Score:4, Funny)
Honey, signal's out. Could ya give the betamax a kick?
Why keep pushing back the deadline (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why keep pushing back the deadline (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.
Across the country? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All is well with my TV in Canada as well.. Hoorah for the commonwealth. :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree here, I live in austria and the switchover was absolutely painless. We also hat a coupon system where everyone got a 70 Euro coupon or so, you could get the cheapest receivers exactly at that price. Benefits, in many areas the reception now is way better and cheap DVB-T sticks are basically now available in every supermarket.
Downside, I have yet to see one, except that the national television station lost a lot of viewers (mostly older people were still watching air only, and those are in a huge deg
Re:Across the country? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, since you're reading the news on an American website, and news of the digital TV switch has been all over American news for years, simple deductive reasoning would lead you to believe the country they're talking about is obviously Uzbekistan.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes of course. Assholes from Uzbekistan! You be right, you friend of gloriful nation of Kazakhstan!
Re:Across the country? (Score:5, Informative)
It's pretty clearly stated in the FAQ [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody said US-only. It's a lot simpler to make up a point than to actually make one, isn't it?
Look at the bright side! (Score:2)
Although I was opposed to this delay let's look at what will occur as a result of PARTIAL digital conversion. Joe Sixpack has been oblivious to the conversion (even now). Partial conversion will mean that a few, but not all, of his favorite channels not be broadcasting in analog. He might now be convinced that it's time to do something. The downside it that he will probably complain to his Congress critters instead of getting a converter box. At least now he will be aware.
so what? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't be the only one who just bought a DLP projector, hooked it up to an old computer, and configured it to boot to Hulu.com. With a bluetooth mouse, that's video on demand and zero need to get over-the-air broadcasts.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can't be the only one who just bought a DLP projector, hooked it up to an old computer, and configured it to boot to Hulu.com.
Considering that when I point my netboot parameters to hulu.com, I dont get any kind of operating system upload and cant find anything that will boot hulu.com... I tried for hours. there is no BOOTP or TFTP servers running at any of the addresses owned by hulu.com.
Yes, you are in fact the only one who has.
You have created an IT miracle and need to be on the face of time magazine
You think you've got it bad â¦. (Score:2, Informative)
Think five months for the transition is causing confusion? Try five years: the UK is in the process of doing exactly that. It started in 2007 and will not finish until 2012. In addition another, incompatible, type of digital TV will start to be rolled out from next year at the same time.
And so begins the war of the two kings (Score:5, Funny)
But also
Confusion. Uncertainty. Who reigns, and who is merely the figurehead, its strings pulled by the other?
Personally, I vote (yeah right, as though we get to vote on this) for Confusion to reign. It evokes images of people running around with their hands up in the air, yelling hysterically. A Reign of Uncertainly merely makes me think of people grimacing, with their eyes darting back and forth.
I watched two of my local ones blink out (Score:5, Interesting)
After that, they put up the old Indian Head test pattern and audio tone for a couple of minutes. At the stroke of midnight, it cut to static. It was just like nightly sign-offs when I was a little kid, and it almost made me misty-eyed.
The one that went out this afternoon showed a bunch of snippets from the past 50 years, then they showed a live coverage of one of their engineers out in the transmitter shack pushing the "OFF" button. The instant cut to static was good for a laugh.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
After that, they put up the old Indian Head test pattern and audio tone for a couple of minutes. At the stroke of midnight, it cut to static.
Everything OK at your place? Chairs not stacking themselves? Little girls not sliding across the kitchen? Kids not getting eaten by trees?
My thoughts are with you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>The station that stopped last night had some fun and went old-school.
I too watched my stations switch-off their analog, but it was anticlimatic. PBS33 in Harrisburg simply turned-off their transmitter during the mid-morning. FOX45 in Baltimore blanked-out for half a minute, and then started playing a 5-minute loop explaining how to buy and hookup a DTV box. CW15 in York displayed a 30-second card that said, "We will now be ending our analog broadcast and transitioning to full digital." I'm
Bender said it best (Score:4, Informative)
Me thinks we will either have either a surge in domestic violence rates or a surge in birth rates as a result of this switchover. When you think about, TV is probably the most effective birth control device known to man... all the countries with high per-capita television ownership also have low birth rates.
Re:Bender said it best (Score:4, Informative)
``TV is probably the most effective birth control device known to man... all the countries with high per-capita television ownership also have low birth rates.''
Yeah. And piracy is the most effective way to combat global warming [wikipedia.org].
Botched? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who with any perceptive acuity and fundamental understanding of economics thought that everyone would pay more to continue to see free television? Especially when the recession train was in sight?
The Congress and FCC? Well, there you go.
The scrolling text on my screen will be over soon (Score:4, Insightful)
Over 12 months of wall-to-wall "PLEASE UPGRADE YOUR TELEVISION BY FEBRUARY 17, 2009!" covering the entire bottom of my screen.
If you haven't seen that by now and made plans you deserve to have your TV dropped on your head.
Wish I were living in Fargo, ND in February (Score:4, Interesting)
According to the spreadsheet that was compiled it looks like most or all their stations said "screw it" and converted en masse. Where I am, only a couple rerun stations went for it.
Last one to leave-- turn out the lights... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some can't wait any longer (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they can improve their lives by learning to meditate as they stare at the snow on the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Six years to prepare, advertisements all over TV; if these old codgers are too "set in their ways," then I suppose a rude awakening is in order.
Of course, there is always the old Victrola (you know, the old Talking Machine,) or RCA set which could still bring hours of enjoyment.
I do agree, however, that it is sad that there are some out there who are disparate from reality and do not have anyone to take care of them. They will get lost in the TV transition, but the world will not end.
Re:most are the elderly many alone and without fam (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree... I'm so tired of the "old people don't know what's going on...." canard. My grandmother has asked me about it and knew it was coming, and she doesn't even OWN a TV.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think there's anyone who believes you need HDTV for digital.
I do think there are a fair number of guys who've told their wives this, to justify the HDTV that they'll be watching the NFL, NBA, MLB on in the coming years.