Who Cares if Analog TV Goes Dark?

[lordsmurf]

Cutting off the analog transmissions(OTa or otherwise) in favor of an all digital future is called progress. If you aren't part of this progress, I guess you will be left behind to enjoy your AM radio and teletypes.

These analogies are all non-sense.
And new things are not always progress.

[painkiller]

I believe Lordsmurf to be absolutely correct.

[mbellot]

And new things are not always progress.

One acronymn - DRM.

[NiteLite]

Did you read the article? These people aren't going to have a choice, it's digital or white noise, nothing else. Digital is far superior to analog in all respects

Saying digital is far superior to analog in all respects is your opinion and wrong if you think it applies to everyone.
To say that highly compressed digital audio is superior to high resolution analog audio is just laughable.

And before you behead all poor people with your welfare analogy remember that the wealthy receive over $100 to every $1 poor people receive. It's called corporate welfare and if you think not then the wealthy have fooled you and done their job of spinning their lies. But as you say thats another topic.

To the point of topic...analog will be around into the next decade-as will VCRs- and when not, digital to analog converters will be available and at a very cheap price even if the government has to supplement the costs.
Not to worry.

[shelbyGT]

suggesting someone can live off of minimum wage is almost laughable.

[gadgetguy]

Suggesting anyone can't live without TV is laughable.

[AlecWest]

Suggesting anyone can't live without TV is laughable.

Amen to that. I'm not a regular TV watcher and haven't even turned on my set to watch TV in over 2 days. I probably spend more time watching film rentals than programming. And when I do watch programming, it's usually news, old movies, or informational stuff on CSPAN, Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.

The only channel I wish I had but don't have is the NASA channel ... especially with the "Deep Impact" probe slated to collide with the Tempel 1 comet tomorrow night at 10:52 PM (PST) ... with images being sent back by a "flyby" craft close to the action. Still, they'll be webcasting the action starting at 8:30 PM (PST):

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/

I tested out what the links are pointed to. The WMV file link points to a 480x360 display (not bad). The RM file link is half that size. I'll try to capture the WMV link (via Net Transport) and convert it to MPEG2 to burn to DVD for posterity sake.

[conejo99]

suggesting someone can live off of minimum wage is almost laughable.

I have many acquantentces who live off of the minimum wage (or near minimum with the standard 3 month/ 1 year raises). They generally don't have English skills nor good papers.

[shelbyGT]

Minimum wage itself, if that's what you earn, puts you below the poverty line (i believe).

[handyguy]

"Suggesting anyone can't live without TV is laughable."

The Deaf need it to get their captioned news, Etc....

[gadgetguy]

The Deaf need it to get their captioned news, Etc....

I emphasized the word 'live'. There is nothing in the televised news that the deaf (or anyone else) can't get elsewhere, and there is nothing televised that sustains life. (And there are some that argue that TV causes physical health problems, although I don't personally hold that view.) And my opinion of the 'News' has been previously addressed in another thread.

[lordsmurf]

Yes yes, we don't "need" electricity or running water either. But in the modern world, not having it is a severe disadvantage. The ability to get live news, weather reports, and learning materials alone is super valuable. Entertainment from other shows is a nice bonus, relaxation. You can only "go outside" for so long in the day.

[gadgetguy]

Yes yes, we don't "need" electricity or running water either.

Sorry, this is not a valid analogy. There are many people that do indeed require electricity to live. It keeps their life sustaining equipment operating. Likewise, the lack of running water does present a real and present danger to health. I'm not suggesting that television is not valuable. I'm only arguing that it is possible to live quite well without it.

[lordsmurf]

Sorry, this is not a valid analogy.

Sure it is. We don't "need" electricity, phones, computers, cars, running water, sewer systems, concrete foundations, roads, .... we could go all day with lists of stuff we don't "need" but it sure as hell makes things easier on us.

There are many biology textbooks that would agree with this.

A tv is very much a part of modern day necessities, even the poorest have them (excluding vagrants).

[gadgetguy]

The analogy of electricity and running water, I still hold, is not valid, because it is very possible to live a full and rich life without television. The basis of your argument that TV is a necessity is an opinion that is culturally formed. Television is a one way medium for gathering information, but it is not the only means of doing so. While most of the items you've listed I also consider necessities beyond the biological need, (and I agree the list could go on for days), I would not list television among them. A couple of the most successful people I know do not own a TV. They in fact have stated that they did not become successful until they got rid of their TV. The fact that the poorest in our nation have them does not prove that they are necessities, but rather emphasizes the misdirected priorities that have put them into or keep them in poverty.

[edDV]

If TV is a preceived necessity by some, don't you think those who deem it so will find a way to come up with the $50 for a DTV tuner?

Gov't is not providing free water and electricity. They may subsidize a lifeline rate for the poor. TV just isn't in that category.

[gadgetguy]

If TV is a preceived necessity by some, don't you think those who deem it so will find a way to come up with the $50 for a DTV tuner?

Yes, they will.

Gov't is not providing free water and electricity. They may subsidize a lifeline rate for the poor. TV just isn't in that category.

My argument exactly. Well said. (Apparently better than I did.)

[NiteLite]

Gov't is not providing free water and electricity. They may subsidize a lifeline rate for the poor. TV just isn't in that category.

Once again why is it always the poor? Have we been brainwashed that bad?
YES the Government provides free water other utilities and even free property taxes. But not to the poor rather wealthy corporations.
Many times in poor communities the Gov't will build a shell building, provide free water, sewer, discount rates for electricity, and exclude from all property taxes to the rich guys that claim they will start a business there. Most times these owners are given a 10 yr. freebie contract to which they hire from a dozen people to maybe 50 people all next to minimum wage and then move off-shore at the end of the contract leaving the poor to have to pay higher taxes and utility rates to make up the loss.
I've seen it all my life. A building the size of a super Walmart with a dozen employees and the promise to expand never materializes. Neither does the rate of pay. Nothing more than sweat shops.

And to the necessities part of the discussion...lordsmurf is correct in his direction. In fact there are three necessities to life. The top of the pyramid (as most should remember from school) Food, Clothing, Shelter. Everything else is gravy.
It is insane to ask people to work for wages that only provide these three and then deny them to their free public airways.

[lordsmurf]

Gov't is not providing free water and electricity. They may subsidize a lifeline rate for the poor. TV just isn't in that category.

Once again why is it always the poor? Have we been brainwashed that bad?
YES the Government provides free water other utilities and even free property taxes. But not to the poor rather wealthy corporations.
Many times in poor communities the Gov't will build a shell building, provide free water, sewer, discount rates for electricity, and exclude from all property taxes to the rich guys that claim they will start a business there. Most times these owners are given a 10 yr. freebie contract to which they hire from a dozen people to maybe 50 people all next to minimum wage and then move off-shore at the end of the contract leaving the poor to have to pay higher taxes and utility rates to make up the loss.
I've seen it all my life. A building the size of a super Walmart with a dozen employees and the promise to expand never materializes. Neither does the rate of pay. Nothing more than sweat shops..

I've seen this too. And to make it worse, it has often involved invoking "imminent domain" to throw homeowners off their property. It happens every day and most people are too stupid to understand it or even know about it.

I get the feeling the same could happen here, with tv, because the masses of lemmings don't know any better.

It's sad, it makes me cringe, and my gut churns just thinking about how many people are screwed daily and don't even know it, or comprehend it. And to top it off, some of them support these things because of mindless BS they are fed, and believe. And until people unite with a clear voice to say "bullshit, not anymore" it will continue. The machine at work.

[gadgetguy]

I have lost track of your argument. Nothing in what I've read from NiteLite or Lordsmurf convinces me that TV is a necessity. While I understand the practice of extending "tax free" zones to attempt to attract business and create jobs, I can't make the connection to not being able to watch TV. Likewise, I also cringe at the use of imminent domain to displace anyone from their property, but I still don't see what this has to do with loss of analog broadcasting. If we want to get into a discussion of all the ways that people get screwed by the gov't or corps, (or others) then it becomes a political discussion that doesn't belong here (as I understand the rules).

[lordsmurf]

gadgetguy ... it's not that far apart.

Government/corps are saying "this is better, so you have to do it". It costs them little, and everybody else pays out the ass for it. After the dust has settled, the only thing that is different is the companies are a bit richer, the government has mud on their face, and the people are a bit poorer.

There was no "improvement", merely an exchange in how things were done.

A majority is fooled into thinking the idea of some sniveling minority is "for the better", so they do it like mindless zombies, never once considering the economic backlash, nor the trampling of rights of those on the bottom. They only regain vision with hindsight, and never learn from similar mistakes of the past (even RECENT past).

This applies to this digital tv situation, as well as laws, city-approved re-development, and a lot more. Anytime you have government pushing something that is not a REQUIREMENT, in terms of the THEY are responsible for (roads, schools, etc), this is what happens. TV is fine, leave it the hell alone.

Or at very least, have a more reasonable/responsible change-over, one that lacks the unlevel economics, where companies get false income for a short burst (which has latter Wall Street implications), and people are mugged to upgrade to something they don't necessarily want or even see a need for (if it ain't broke, why fix it?).

.
.

As far as modern necessities go, you can disagree all you want, your mind is made up anyway, no point even talking to you anymore about it. In the modern world, tv, internet, telephone, typing skills, alarm clocks ... these things are all MODERN necessities. You don't have to agree, but most will. This is what separates third-world locations from the modern parts of the planet.

[gadgetguy]

gadgetguy ... it's not that far apart.

Government/corps are saying "this is better, so you have to do it". It costs them little, and everybody else pays out the ass for it. After the dust has settled, the only thing that is different is the companies are a bit richer, the government has mud on their face, and the people are a bit poorer.

There was no "improvement", merely an exchange in how things were done.

While the change in this technology might not give us a better picture, it will allow for more uses of the available airwaves. And there are many uses crying out for that. Some worthwhile, some worthless, but still they cry out.
My argument has been that the loss of analog TV signal can be weathered fairly easily by all, as opposed to the loss of electricity, or sewers, or highways, etc. While it's true that some people will be unable to receive any TV, that will not kill them, and as EdDV pointed out, those who place a priority on TV will find a way to get the necessary equipment to receive it.

[lordsmurf]

those who place a priority on TV will find a way to get the necessary equipment to receive it.

I'm afraid you're missing the point. "CAN THEY" is not they same as "SHOULD THEY HAVE TO". That is the discussion.

Although in some areas, it need be noted that the ability to receive is not working correctly or outright unavailable.

[gadgetguy]

Hey, no fair, you edited while I was responding.

A majority is fooled into thinking the idea of some sniveling minority is "for the better", so they do it like mindless zombies, never once considering the economic backlash, nor the trampling of rights of those on the bottom. They only regain vision with hindsight, and never learn from similar mistakes of the past (even RECENT past).

Actually, it's a smaller minority,(congress), that gets convinced by the sniveling minority (lobbyists), and act like mindless zombies. But in this case, the changeover was not mishandled by the government. The reasons for changing to digital are sound from a bandwidth utilization standpoint, the changeover date was set far enough in advance to allow for smooth and effective changover, and then it was left up to the market to devise the best scheme to make it so.
IMO it would have been unforgivable to have the government dictate what must be manufactured, by whom, and when. I further believe that the government should not fund any part of this because they have no money except what they take from the people, and make no mistake, all taxes are paid by the people, no corporation pays any taxes that they do not charge the consumers for. Use of the airwaves are regulated by the government, whether we agree it should be or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that for now, they have an obligation to make the most efficient use of it, and they made a decision years ago to try to accomplish that.

As far as modern necessities go, you can disagree all you want, your mind is made up anyway, no point even talking to you anymore about it.

My mind is made up because I have not heard anything that convinces me otherwise. I'm not closed to changing my mind if a reasonable argument is presented, but I have not yet heard one.

[disturbed1]

It's just not going to happen.

There are far too many people that can not physically, mentally, nor financially upgrade to all digital TV.

If I look at 100 people I know that are not my peers (technology geeks) more than 50% refuse to get broadband, must buy that DVD/VCR combo because they still rent VHS tapes, go to a pay advance check cashing store to pay off the other pay advance check cashing place. Have no clue what VOD is, the list goes on. If Rent A Center carries the conversion boxes, that will definitely help.

If it is forced upon Americans to drop all analogue channels, it will fold.

I work in tech support, and when someone has a 5 year old cable modem that has failed, they get pissed that they need to upgrade so soon and my company should pay for it IF we want to retain their business. Even though when they signed up for service they bought the modem for $130, and they are only $60 now with a clearly labeled and signed 1 year warranty. I deal with this mentality 80 times a day, 5 days a week.

The average person just doesn't have what it takes.

me: How can I help?
Caller: My internet doesn't work.
me: ..... explain.....
Caller: My screen is black and flashes "No signal"
me:


me: How can I help?
Caller: My cable is broke!!!!
me: You mean your having trouble accessing the internet?
Caller: Yep.
me: ........explain.......
Caller: My little cable box has a yellow standby light on.
me:

I do not have high hopes.

[Gritz]

My mind is made up because I have not heard anything that convinces me otherwise. I'm not closed to changing my mind if a reasonable argument is presented, but I have not yet heard one.

I have to agree. I see a lot of angry accusations ... but I don't see any specific facts. I also think the topic has gotten off track. But that's just my opinion.

[BJ_M]

a cable modem SHOULD last more than 5 years -- like a lot of things , they are made like crap w/ cheap boards and poor power regulation and lacking stable power supplies .. cheap switchs and poor cooling add to the problem of a lot of electronic equipment ..

[disturbed1]

a cable modem SHOULD last more than 5 years -- like a lot of things , they are made like crap w/ cheap boards and poor power regulation and lacking stable power supplies .. cheap switchs and poor cooling add to the problem of a lot of electronic equipment ..

I see an average of 3 years for Motorola's and Linksys', Toshiba's rarely last more than 2 years. In middle America, Toshiba's always fall victim to lightening shorts. All other equipment survives, just the Toshiba's die.

Sad thing is, I have customers that have bought 2 Toshiba's a year for the past 4 years, that's 8 cable modems. When I inform that Motorola's cost the same, and last 2x-3x longer they reply that the Toshiba is fine and they LIKE them. Then I ask if they sent in the modem for warranty service, they say it's too much of a hassle.

No doubt the #1 DTV converter will be sold at Walmart made by Sampoo, Daewoo, or some other cheap Asian electronics manufacturer.

[gadgetguy]

If it is forced upon Americans to drop all analogue channels, it will fold.

What will fold? Digital broadcasting won't, Cable TV won't, Satalite TV won't. When the broadcasters stop broadcasting an analog signal, those that have not yet adapted to the new technology will go out and buy a tuner or they will muddle through life without watching broadcast TV.

[ozymango]

First, major caveat: I'm all for progress and I don't mind (personally) that we're moving to digital TV and HDTV here in the USA. That being said:

Over the air DTV will offer 10-40 channels for "free" so long as you invest $50 or less for a DTV tuner and antenna.

Where do you get such a tuner and antenna? I don't disagree that someday there will be such things available, at said cost (and even cheaper), but it's quite ridiculous that for something as globally pervasive as TV, that the TV broadcasters and manufacturers make it much harder to figure out how to get this message to the "average consumer" than it needs to be.

I mean, today it's easier to figure out a computer than it is to figure out what you'll need to watch TV in the near future. That's just silly.

What I envision for cable is ~10 analog "lifeline channels" for $10/mo. as an alternative for those in the DTV shadow. This will be negociated at the local cable franchise level.

You may envision this. And I know you mean well. But seriously, where do you live? Anywhere in the US? I've read ahead to see that many other people are wondering where you get these numbers -- they don't exist in any actual cable company in the US that I've ever experienced. How do you come up with your figures? I hope you're not basing it on cable company advertising -- these are the same people who give you a $29.95/month "package deal" on every channel for 3 months, then hike it to $79.95 after that.

Also, do you know who "negotiates" this kind of $10/mo. deal? Your local and area governments, that's who, the same people you'd probably like to keep out of the picture (pardon the pun). Cable companies don't provide the most basic service out of the goodness of their hearts -- most of them do this because they are required by various localities to offer some kind of "basic cable" to their subscribers. Given a personal ("marketplace") choice, they wouldn't do it. And most of them (cable companies) scream bloody murder about how much this kind of "government interference" costs them, economically. My heart bleeds for Comcast, as you might guess.

I'm not complaining that they charge whatever they want to charge. But to imply that cable companies are somehow beneficent suppliers of digital media at a reasonable rate to happy consumers, is, in a word, nuts.

If you want to fund pay TV for the poor out of your pocket you are free to do so.

My problem is that I don't want to spend $$$ on my TV viewing so I'm looking around for a digital tuner for my TV right now -- just to watch the same TV shows I'm watching now (over-the-air). Sure, HDTV and digital transmissions are progress, I'm not opposed to them. But you (and others) seem to think that spending $200 for a tuner is a trivial thing. It's not, for some people. When your $50 tuner comes out, that'll be great.
But I'm not counting my chickens until they're hatched.

Again, long term, I'm glad these changes are happening. However, I think you (and others) trivialize too many of the impacts this has had and will have on people, see the monetary impact as minimal, and have a view of the cable industry that bears no resemblence to any cable company service I've ever experienced.

Also something to look up: Check to see who owns which cable companies, and which broadcasting companies. There is a huge financial incentive for many cable companies to make sure that it's much easier for you to hook up to their cable than it is for you to watch an over-the-air broadcast. They don't make money if you're watching "free" TV. So some of the arguments that this is all about "capitalism" and any kind of "free market economy" is just so much BS -- if I don't like my cable company, it's the only cable company in town.