Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Analog Blues
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?
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
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. 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. From your source: That's exactly what I understood would happen. Right. And how is this good again?
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.
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. I've replaced computers and phones because of measurable increased utility. I don't see any increased utility here.
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!
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. Your link says: Sounds like an affect to me. But I'm just an old geezer who doesn't really understand what's going to happen.
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.
I'll be very disappointed if the same 5 companies own all the local channels though.
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.
As for TV, well, maybe the switch will allow me to get more than 1 station in my crappy apartment.
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.