This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Analog Blues

edited January 2008 in News
I'm sure all of us are prepared for the cessation of analog TV signals in 2009, but what about the people who aren't? Are there enough people without cable or satellite service to care about? It's not necessarily a question of wealth, so don't dismiss the question by thinking that everyone who wants cable can get it. Some people in rural areas don't have cable available to them and might not have satellite service available to them either.

What about when you go camping? It's often nice to have one of those little battery powered TVs available when camping to check weather if nothing else - leading to another question: Will we still be able to pick up analog radio? What if you have a vacation cabin that you might use two weeks out of the year. Do they expect you to get cable or satellite service for it? Forget camping, what about if there's an emergency? I'd like to be able to turn on any TV I can find in an emergency and be able to get at least some signal without worrying whether it's hooked to cable.

Finally, are the telecoms going to be better able to monitor your viewing habits, tailor ads to you based on them, and be better able to keep you from recording shows?

Comments

  • I don't think you really understand what's going to happen. There will still be TV broadcast over the air. People will still be able to watch TV when they go camping with a battery powered TV. However, those broadcasts will be digital, not analog. People who are super old fashioned will just need to go buy little boxes.
  • Read a book and listen to the radio (if you need to know about the news). You shouldn't be watching TV while camping... ^_^
  • edited January 2008
    I know about the boxes. However, part of the appeal of the battery operated TV is the portability, and the battery operated TV is really at about the limit of portability. An additional box would greatly hinder the portability and usefulness of the battery operated TV. Will new battery operated TVs not need an additional box? Why should I not feel slighted about having to buy a box or a new TV?

    Depending on their price, the boxes will also not be much of a salve to poorer people. Not all of these people are super old fashioned. Some of them simply can't afford to get a new TV or one of your fancy boxes.
    Read a book and listen to the radio (if you need to know about the news). You shouldn't be watching TV while camping... ^_^
    That was a question in the original post. Will we actually be able to listen to analog radio or will that switch too?

    Maybe you have a book that will give you updated weather information. I don't.
    I don't think you really understand what's going to happen.
    From your source:
    If you still watch television the way TV pioneers did, back in the 1940s—on a standard analog TV with an antenna—well, bad news, video ranger: Your TV is slated to go dark on Feb. 17, 2009 . . .
    That's exactly what I understood would happen.
    . . unless you pony up some cash.
    Right. And how is this good again?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited January 2008
    An additional box would gretaly hinder the portability and usefulness of the battery operated TV. Will new battery operated TVs not need an additional box? Why should I not feel slighted about having to buy a box or a new TV?
    Yes, you will have to buy a new battery operated TV if you do not want to also take the box with you, or if you are unable to power the box (if it requires power). As for feeling bad about that, that's not a problem. People are just used to having TVs last for incredibly long amounts of time. Replacing them once is not a big deal. Computers and cell phones are replaced ludicrously often compared to TVs, and nobody complains about that. It's just a matter of expectation.
    Depending on their price, the boxes will also not be much of a salve to poorer people. Not all of these people are super old fashioned. Some of them simply can't afford to get a new TV or one of your fancy boxes.
    This is why the feds are giving out $40 coupons. Maybe you should actually learn more about this switch from the link I gave before you spread fear based on more false assumptions.

    Analog radio isn't going anywhere, yet. However, there have been many talks about it in congress. It is very possible for analog radio to be replaced by digital radio. The RIAA is really pushing for it because it means they can put DRM on the airwaves.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited January 2008
    . . . This is why the feds are giving out $40 coupons. Maybe you should actually learn more about this switch from the link I gave before you spread fear based on more false assumptions.

    Analog radio isn't going anywhere, yet. However, there have been many talks about it in congress. It is very possible for analog radio to be replaced by digital radio. The RIAA is really pushing for it because it means they can put DRM on the airwaves.
    I've read your link. It doesn't exactly paint a rosy picture. Did you think all of this is "just fine" for the people with analog cable and the people with satellite antennas who have to use analog antennas for local channels? And what about those local channels? The link doesn't paint a very rosy picture for their future.

    The only thing that ameliorates fear from the link you provide is the $40.00 coupon thing - which begs the question: Why do I have to pay for millions of people's $40.00 coupons? Maybe that money would be better spent on food, clothing, shelter, or health care - we shouldn't worry about the government pnying up $40 coupons for potentially millions of people to watch TV, but it's too much to ask for governement to fund some health care? What's wrong with just keeping things as they are? Is the digital signal really that much better?

    DRM on the airwaves? Great. No fear there.
    Computers and cell phones are replaced ludicrously often compared to TVs, and nobody complains about that. It's just a matter of expectation.
    I've replaced computers and phones because of measurable increased utility. I don't see any increased utility here.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Computers and cell phones are replaced ludicrously often compared to TVs, and nobody complains about that. It's just a matter of expectation.
    Yesw, but you don't HAVE to replace your cellphones, nor do you have to get any boxes to be attached to it. Old cellphones work on the network, old televisions do not. Without the box, anyway.
  • Sometimes, when technology is well designed, it is possible to seamlessly improve it without losing backwards compatibility. Other times, it is not possible, or not feasible. Look at Microsoft Windows for example. That is what happens when you try to keep adding new features to stay modern while trying to maintain as much backwards compatibility as possible. It's a mess.

    Analog broadcast television is ancient. The basic technology hasn't change really at all since it was invented. There really is no way to make it any better without replacing it. Also, right now analog television is using such a huge amount of the available spectrum. It's a huge waste. You know that big spectrum auction everyone is talking about? That's UHF they're selling off. Because we are switching to digital TV, the VHF spectrum will be used for the new digital TV, but the UHF will be used so that wireless computing, mobile data, etc. will be able to kick instead of suck ass.

    People with analog cable television will be unaffected by the switch. However, if they buy a new television, they may need to switch to digital cable, or at least get a newer cable box. People with satellite TV and analog antennas for local channels will just need to get a new antenna and a box, until they eventually buy a new TV.

    As for increased utility, having the UHF spectrum free is plenty. However, there is other increased utility as well. For example, if your TV is smart, the digital broadcast TV carries extra meta information you can look at. We're talking about over the air channel guides and such. That and more becomes possible with digital TV. Also, HDTV over the air.

    And why is your government paying for the $40 coupon? Well, I think that bringing people into the modern world is a pretty good way to spend our money. All those other problems you mentioned are not things that are solved by more money. The US spends a greater percentage of its GDP on health care than any other nation in the world. If we fixed the more fundamental problems with our health care system, like poorly managed hospitals, we can make it a lot better while also spending less money on it than we currently do. Same goes for all those other problems you mentioned.

    Any DRM that is possible over the air is already possible on cable and satellite TV. Also, implementing any new DRM would require people to yet again buy new TVs. It's really not a serious concern.

    In summary, old geezers like you would still be using the horse and buggy if we didn't force you to learn to drive a Model T. The only way the US is going to catch up to the rest of the world is if we force everyone to take their medicine. I don't care if it tastes bad. It's good for you, whether you know it or not, so eat it!
  • edited January 2008
    Yes, but you don't HAVE to replace your cellphones, nor do you have to get any boxes to be attached to it. Old cellphones work on the network, old televisions do not. Without the box, anyway.
    Analog cellphones no longer work in many areas. In much of the US, only 2G and 3G phones get service. As 3G and eventually 4G phones take hold, expect one day for 2G phones to also no longer be supported.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Yesw, but you don't HAVE to replace your cellphones, nor do you have to get any boxes to be attached to it. Old cellphones work on the network, old televisions do not. Without the box, anyway.
    Actually, around the same time that analog TV is going dark, so is the analog cell network.
  • Normal radio is not going anywhere. It's just the signals TV operates on.
  • edited January 2008
    In summary, old geezers like you would still be using the horse and buggy if we didn't force you to learn to drive a Model T. The only way the US is going to catch up to the rest of the world is if we force everyone to take their medicine. I don't care if it tastes bad. It's good for you, whether you know it or not, so eat it!
    See, there's the difference. No one forced me to make that switch. I could make that decision at any time I wanted based on my individual cost/benefit analysis.

    Now, the argument about increased availability of bandwidth actually has some merit. I like that a lot better than any argument that "analog TV is just so ancient." Safety razor tech is ancient, but I hear you talking up the safety razors a lot.
    People with analog cable television will be unaffected by the switch.
    Your link says:
    An estimated 60 percent of cable viewers, however, still have analog cable, despite recent gains in digital penetration. Here’s the hitch: When the transition to digital TV broadcasts takes effect in 2009, cable operators will not be authorized to “downconvert” higher-quality digital broadcasts into lower-quality analog form. . . .

    Consumers who remain satisfied with cheaper analog cable packages may increasingly feel pushed toward the digital tier as cable systems move their favorite channels from analog to digital. (Digital cable service may require leasing either a digital cable box or—for “Digital Cable Ready” TVs—a CableCARD. Interactive features, including pay-per-view (PPV), are not available without a cable box.) . . .

    When the nation shifts to digital TV broadcasts, another controversial provision of the digital TV law passed by Congress means cable customers are unlikely to have access to some new programming services offered by local stations. . . .

    If your cable service is not digital, you stand a chance of losing access to some of the local channels you have today, though major stations will probably enjoy continued carriage. Don’t be surprised if your cable company continues to nudge you in the direction of digital service.
    Sounds like an affect to me. But I'm just an old geezer who doesn't really understand what's going to happen.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Sounds like an affect to me. But I'm just an old geezer who doesn't really understand what's going to happen.
    Analog cable will continue to work. The switchover of the broadcast from analog to digital is just one tiny reason this switch from analog to digital cable is happening. It is very expensive for the cable companies to operate separate analog and digital networks. Digital cable is superior to analog cable in every way. If you're already paying for cable, you might as well pay for digital cable. You won't have to change televisions. At worst you will have to have a cable box where you previously did not have one, or you will have to replace your current cable box.

    People with cable will continue to have cable. Digital cable has and will continue to get better and better. Analog cable has and will continue to get worse and worse, until it no longer exists. This is almost entirely independent of the broadcast switchover.
  • Who cares if people get left behind? TV is not a technology that people need in their lives, it is something that improve quality of life. It's something that would be nice to have, but not a requirement to function within society today.
  • I think the benefits of reorganizing the open radio spectrum could outweigh the costs of replacing older televisions. Digital channels theoretically use less bandwidth, so we should end up with more channels and theoretically more competition.

    I'll be very disappointed if the same 5 companies own all the local channels though.
  • Who cares if people get left behind? TV is not a technology that peopleneedin their lives, it is something that improve quality of life. It's something that would be nice to have, but not a requirement to function within society today.
    I think the US government has realized that TV is necessary, hence the $40 coupon, and the fact that they are not selling off both UHF and VHF and killing broadcast television. The TV's are not broken they just need a converter box. Honestly, I think this could be done with something as small as a USB stick that could go between the antenna lead and the TV. I hope that's how it's implemented, a set top box seems wasteful. If you haven't seen an HD signal down converted for a SD TV it's the best picture you can get short of a DVD so you will get a better picture as well. Take a laptop camping, you can get a digital tuner USB stick for $50, and you will have High Def in the camper.

    The analog TV spectrum is a huge waste of bandwidth as has been stated. Broadcast television can be sent at much higher quality with less bandwidth requirements. Plus the old analog TV spectrum can then be sold to a company or set of companies netting the government billions. "The CEA estimates that come Feb. 17, 2009, between 22 million and 28 million analog TVs will need a digital-to-analog converter to continue receiving broadcast TV signals." So if 30 million people got a converter box it would cost the government 1.2 billion, Google has already said it will pay 4.7 billion for that spectrum. Not a bad return on the investment.
  • jccjcc
    edited January 2008
    Whew! I thought maybe Analog the magazine had finally kicked the bucket. :) They're going through some hard times. :/ Crap story submissions, declining audience, etc.

    As for TV, well, maybe the switch will allow me to get more than 1 station in my crappy apartment. :)
    Post edited by jcc on
  • Plus the old analog TV spectrum can then be sold to a company or set of companies netting the government billions.
    Technically, the airwaves belong to the people. The government only leases them out to companies to serve the public good.

    There was actually a story about how a local channel in my area might have privileges revoked because they did not fulfill their charter of catering to the people of New Jersey. This was after they had re-branded the station to 'My 9NY' after losing the UPN franchise agreement. The station itself is co-owned by the same group that owns the local Fox affiliate and broadcasts on a sub-channel of the Fox network in the digital spectrum.
Sign In or Register to comment.