Many Analog TV Watchers Aren't Aware of Upcoming Switchover

A recent poll of TV watchers shows that many Americans aren't aware the end times are coming for analog broadcast signals. "The survey found that the group most affected by the analog cutoff -- those with no cable or satellite service -- are most in the dark about what will happen to their sets: Only one-third of them had heard that their TVs are set to stop receiving programs. Of course, there are solutions. Congress is subsidizing the purchase of digital television receivers. And the cable TV industry is hoping that this will spur the last holdouts to buy pay TV."

Good time..

[therufus (677843)]

...to start the family exercising to help beat obesity?

If TV gets turned off on Americans, maybe it would be a good thing.

And don't flame me. TV is the major issue with American obesity, particularly in children.

Re:Good time..

[giorgiofr (887762)]

I disagree. Quite on the contrary, I believe lazy people are attracted to TV, not the other way around. In other words, TV is the consequence, not the cause. I might be wrong, as I have no hard data on this.

Re:Good time..

[bhima (46039)]

I'm not seeing it as one there not the other. I think it's both. Lazy are attracted to TV and the consequence is that they become even more lazy and ensnared in the TV culture / habit.

Re:Good time..

[ghakko (261165)]

There's compelling data suggesting otherwise (at least in children):

• Children tend to snack on [aappublications.org] nutritionally-unbalanced food when watching television, eat unconsciously [nih.gov] and eat enough to skew [ajcn.org]their daily caloric intake.
• For some reason, children watching television burn fewer calories [aappublications.org] than they would at just about any other physical activity, including just idly sitting or lying down.
• Children who were forced to watch less television lost weight [www2.sfu.ca].

Re:Good time..

[LordSnooty (853791)]

IF TV is a major cause of obesity, then the Internet, computing and videogaming must be contributors too. Perhaps "sedentary lifestyle" would be a better description?

Re:Good time..

[Eternauta3k (680157)]

Nah, I spend enough calories just moving the scroll wheel in Slashdot

Re:Good time..

[Attila Dimedici (1036002)]

IF TV is a major cause of obesity, then the Internet, computing and videogaming must be contributors too. Perhaps "sedentary lifestyle" would be a better description?

Actually, not necessarily, as someone points out there are studies indicating that during tv watching behaviors which increase the chances of obesity go up and calories burned go down, even compared to just sitting there doing nothing. My guess as to the cause of the last is that unlike videogames, surfing the internet, or other computer activity, watching tv encourages one to suspend all mental activity.

Re:Good time..

[drsquare (530038)]

And don't flame me. TV is the major issue with American obesity, particularly in children.

I'm pretty sure that eating too much is the major issue with American obesity. You get just as fat sitting at the computer as you do in front of the TV.

You can exercise all you want, but if you eat a 14" pizza for dinner washed down with ten pints of beer, and have a full fry up every breakfast, combined with KFC for lunch, you'll be obese.

Re:Good time..

[KDR_11k (778916)]

I don't know about you but I avoid eating anything fatty when I'm on the PC because I have to touch the mouse and keyboard and when my fingers are covered in fat I'm not willing to do that. Besides that, I'm not able to eat or drink while playing any videogame because I can't afford taking my hands off the controls for that long (even ignoring the dirty finger issue, just moving stuff to my mouth takes time and might make me vulnerable to attacks in the game).

Re:Good time..

[Planesdragon (210349)]

A diet consisting of the poisons you've listed would make somebody fat even if they only ate 1400 calories of it a day.

No.

1400 calories of fried food will not make someone fat. For most Americans, only 1400 calories of anything will cause them to lose more than a pound a day.

What those "poisons" will do, if eaten exclusively, is to mess up someone's blood chemistry. On a long enough time scale, they'll get their weight way down -- and then have a heart attack from the cholesterol that's choking their heart.

The "multi-billion dollar" diet industry exists because it sells gimicks, that help someone eat few enough calories that they lose weight.

This is the most hyped non-problem...

[Spy Hunter (317220)]

As soon as TV stations themselves begin to worry about whether they will lose watchers, they will simply run commercials explaining to people how they can get *free* converter boxes from the government. TV is the one of the most effective communication mechanisms ever devised, after all. Problem solved.

Re:

[peragrin (659227)]

That's just it. I haven't heard a single word about this any place other than online. not even the local newspaper have had a story on it.

The people who will be most affected by it, are those who don't use computers, cause they are magical machines, and hard to use.

'*free* converter boxes..."

[msauve (701917)]

really?

I thought basic economics and government courses were requisites in public schools these days.

Of course, TANSTAAFL. The national government will be taking tax dollars from people, taking an administrative cut, then turning around and giving it back to pay exclusively for converter boxes. The net effect is the US national government is screwing with free markets and funding (mostly overseas) consumer electronics companies.

Re:This is the most hyped non-problem...

[Average (648)]

The converters are nearly impossible to find (I have an older one) because of the federal government. They are implementing a $40 "coupon program" for them, starting in January. The market research decided that very few people were going to spend $60 a piece on a converter box, particularly while analog NTSC was still around. But, they would pay $20, particularly if they thought they were pulling one over on the government. Now, the manufacturers might have been able to sell them at $20 or $30, but wouldn't you rather make $60 or $70? So, they've been holding off on the production. There are hundreds of thousands of them being made in China right now and loaded onto cargo ships to be on your Wal-Mart shelf by February.

If only...

[jcr (53032)]

I wish we'd done away with interlacing when the HD standards were being written.

-jcr

Re:If only...

[Overzeetop (214511)]

The reason interlaced stayed is that the FCC didn't have the backbone and the technical expertise to require that the new standard be done correctly. It's as simple as that. The TV people wanted interlaced, because "that's the way they've always done it" and the computer people couldn't convince the FCC otherwise. The computer people wanted progressive, because it simplifies conversion and eliminates the whole bob/weave/foo that gets done to watch an interlaced signal on a progressive (or full panel or asynchronous) system. It also simplifies upconversion.

Now, the FCC didn't just screw the pooch, once, but twice. They ignored common technical sense and allowed interlaced to stay, but then bowed to pressure to allow multiple formats for ATSC transmission. 18 of them, to be exact. The industry asked for such "flexibility", and then realized when they had to implement it it was an absolute nightmare. If they had decided that the signal for NA HD was to be 1080p/30, we'd all be done now. What? Did I hear you cry that that would have delayed HD adoption? I've got bad news - 1080p30 is common and can be done with consumer hardware _now_, and we still haven't switched over. I refuse to believe that the professional sector couldn't have completed the process 5 years ago. As a bonus, all the 480p/720p/1080i inconsistency would have been avoided, and the set top boxes would only have to negotiate one format instead of 18.

No, interlaced is here because the FCC didn't have the balls to do the transition right.

The Oddest thing

[edwardpickman (965122)]

I haven't checked lately but I believe they are still selling analog TVs at a lot of places. I know I saw some over the summer. I'm sure the salesmen aren't exactly pointing out the fact the TV will go dark unless you get an expensive converter box in 18 months. They should have been phased out less than 24 months before the switch over and 36 months would have been better. I can see a sudden influx of TVs into the local landfill with a disturbing number fairly new. It may have been well intended but it's hardly eco friendly making a large number of electronics into very large paperweights overnight.

Re:

[Da Web Guru (215458)]

Most stores that sell electronics are still selling analog TVs. Most of them have the little cards in front of the TVs warning people about the switchover. Unfortunately, there are still some stores without the warning cards, and even the stores that have the cards only put out a very small sign with very small print. The warnings are easily overlooked by someone not looking for them (but then again, if you are looking for the cards then you already know about the changeover).

Oddly enough, I've even seen th

Re:

[whoop (194)]

Perhaps you are not aware, but televisions can be used to view things besides OTA signals. Many households (even ones that cannot afford/want cable) have DVD players, VCRs, video game systems, etc. If people buy a new television, the old ones are far more likely to get relegated to such duties well before being tossed into the landfill.

Hell, the last few times I tried to put some electronic devices (broken dvd player, monitor that would not power on, etc) on the street for garbage pickup, it was snatched

Re:

[Ricin (236107)]

16:9 and HD are not really related. Our (LCD) TV is SD but it switches to 16:9 whenever a real 16:9 signal is detected (it's just an extra voltage ramp-up somewhere), for letterbox you can select the best fit from several zoom-like functions (and 14:9 as well as good ol 4:3). The incoming signal is just (analog) cable.

What's tauted as "HD-ready" often means just that I think, that it can do 16:9.

This is a money grab, pure and simple

[ahodgkinson (662233)]

I'm not sure how many people remember the wheeling and dealing associated with the first major attempt, in Europe, to sell cable TV. The basic plan was that various media companies attempted to buy up all the Formula One and premier football (i.e. soccer) broadcast rights and then only deliver the programs via cable TV. This was to force people to buy cable TV and set top boxes. In the end it didn't work too well. (Can anyone provide any links to pages that describe this?)

Now we're having digital TV rammed down our throats. This time with the help of the government. TV and electronic shops are jumping for joy, and of course the cable companies are rubbing their hands in glee. The poor consumer is having to buy lots of new equipment and most likely a more expensive cable subscription too.

Here in Switzerland the switch over well under way. Terrestrial (air) broadcast of analog signals has stopped, and the cable companies are switching over too. The technique to 'encourage' their customers to switch to digital is to silently remove more and more of the non-major channels from the analog offering, while offering balkanized digital 'packages' that end up a higher monthly cost if you want to duplicate the same selection channels you had before.

To the yuppies and the technically competent this is probably a relatively small inconvenience. But I wonder about the poor and older generation, who are essentially having a perfectly acceptable analog service taken away from them.

Compare the introduction of digital TV with that of color TV. Color TV was introduced in the early 60s and you could still use and buy new black and white TVs well into 80s. While I'm not asking for a backwards compatibility, I would appreciate it if a similarly long switch over period would be given.

Excuse to sell HDTVs?

[mikeboone (163222)]

I spoke to a couple of my older relatives who were under the impression that everyone had to buy an HDTV because of this switch to digital. I think they were fed this idea by TV salespeople. If that's true, it's dishonest way to sell TVs to people who don't understand the technology.

Digital TV sucks

[QuantumG (50515)]

At least with an analog tv if you have a crappy antenna you get some snow or other interference and the program is still watchable. With Digital TV you get big pixel blocks and sound cut-out that makes the program completely unbearable to watch. That's progress for ya.

I had the opposite impression

[PigBoyOhBoy (749359)]

I don't watch TV, but I just won a cheapo 19" WalMart TV (worth $120) in an office drawing and was startled to realize it supported both analog and digital service. I bought a pair of rabbit ears and set out to see how it would work in my apartment in rural Massachusetts (over 50 miles from Boston). To my utter amazement, I received many digital broadcasts almost perfectly while the analog channels were plagued by snow and interference that made them unbearable. Furthermore, the picture quality was stunning. Even though the set is "SDTV", the difference in quality between analog and digital was huge. All these years I've been fed propaganda telling me that over the air HDTV would require fancy antennas, but it turns out to be a BIG LIE. Between Netflix and broadcast HDTV, why would anyone want cable or satellite TV unless they are literally in the middle of nowhere?

Of course, there's STILL nothing worth watching. Bah! Humbug!

Irony

[Dystopian Rebel (714995)]

Picture quality improves... content degrades.

Who will be voted off the Island? As long as you keep watching, you are on the Island.

Digital TV = Weak Signals = No Portable TVs

[MrSteveSD (801820)]

I'd don't know about the US, but here in the UK the digital signals are very weak. It's virtually impossible to get good reception with an indoor aerial and I have tried lots of different types. So is this going to be the end of portable televisions?

Oh, you mean Television?

[Prototerm (762512)]

Wasn't that something they had back in the late Twentieth Century? You know, before Bit Torrent and the Internet?

What will happen more likely

[voss (52565)]

1) People find out in their newspaper their tv wont work after next year
2) They get the tv converter box for $50
3) They continue to watch tv on their 20 year old RCA set with their new fangled box
4) They tell all their friends about how they are able to get 30 channels of digital tv for free!
5) Lifeline cable customers cancel their packages because they get a better picture from OTA digital than from 10 channel cable
6) life goes on

If Only There Were A Way...

[ml10422 (448562)]

If only there were a way to let these people know. Perhaps, they could insert some kind of announcement into the middle of the television programs.

They should leave an emergency analog channel

[harlows_monkeys (106428)]

Many people have small, battery-powered analog TVs as part of their emergency gear. I bet a lot of people will forget about those. Maybe one station in each area should be subsidized to keep analog broadcast equipment functional, for use in emergencies.

Re:There is always stupid people

[tedrlord (95173)]

There are people that can't afford cable TV still. Are they the type of person to keep up on tech news? I think it's unlikely. And it is a problem because there are still a significant amount of people that watch broadcast TV. It's probably the only way the local channels are staying in business at this point. I have a feeling this forced switchover is going to be the death of a lot of broadcast stations.

Re:

[Prod_Deity (686460)]

I can honestly do without tv. I get most of my news & entertainment online. The only way I will "switch over" is if cable companies drop their increased pay for HD channels. And to what someone else said about a tv for $700, some people have bills to pay & a family to feed. We can't drop that kind of cash at one time. Maybe with an income tax return, but we'll see when the time comes.

Re:

[Simon (S2) (600188)]

There are people that can't afford cable TV still.

A dish with 2 LNBs is about 60 bucks.
To the mods: my comment was absolutely not meant as flamebait: there are enough alternatives if you still HAVE to watch TV. Tech has to go on, and analog TV (IMHO) just has to die.

Re:There is always stupid people

[mr_matticus (928346)]

The government doesn't care if you buy a digital TV.

They want the spectrum, and frankly carrying dead weight for some dinosaur broadcast stations is a waste of time. If they don't have a strategy for switching to digital broadcasting, then away they go. Too bad, so sad, welcome to the business world.

Viewership declines because the content sucks compared to other sources (movies, cable, Internet, etc.). That's the long and the short of it. People who can't afford cable aren't going to have any measurable impact on that.

Re:

[zakezuke (229119)]

They want the spectrum, and frankly carrying dead weight for some dinosaur broadcast stations is a waste of time. If they don't have a strategy for switching to digital broadcasting, then away they go. Too bad, so sad, welcome to the business world.

But this ISN'T the business world, this is the government world. If the FCC is going to shake up the spectrum, and making a huge bundle auctioning off a huge practically unused segment, then they should have a program to help indy stations switch to digital. Given every person gets $40 to get the damned box, I would hope there is some kickback to help out the indy stations, which odds are is going to be a PBS affiliate.

Though I do challenge the grandparent to give us a station which isn't broadcasting in

Re:HD-TV

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

Money, or so some think.
What would be exquisitely funny is if they threw the whole upgrade party, and everyone just went on the internet instead.

Re:HD-TV

[Eravnrekaree (467752)]

Probably what will happen, instead of snowing and ghosting, it wont come in at all. The digital signals may be far less tolerant of interference, especially with all that encryption. An analog signal, if you pick up distant signals you can at least get something, with dtv you probably wont get anything. The only thing you might get is strong local stations just around the block. Am i wrong? Someone correct me if so.

Re:HD-TV

[smchris (464899)]

My MythTV box with an internal antenna is about 40 miles from the transmitters and there can be issues. I'm not that far from a flight path and planes can cause a streak of pixel loss. Maybe you haven't seen Comcast's "Dump the Dish" campaign. We also have a woods nearby and heavy wind and precipitation have had me dialing back to the "SD" channel on rare occasion to avoid breakup -- presumably from scatter. A _really_ cool and weird drop out is when a heavy storm is causing the sat link at the station to break up _too_ and my box is already having trouble getting a lock.

Just saying. On balance, it's fantastic compared to analog rabbit ears. Just not perfect. And since we've never had cable and don't want it, we're happy and hope broadcast never goes away.

Re:It's too early.

[Gordonjcp (186804)]

In the UK you can get set-top boxes that plug into your analogue TV or video recorder and give you a DVB-T tuner. They're about 30 quid in any supermarket. Allowing for the UK being slightly more expensive than the US, and the dollar being so low, that's probably still only about $50.

Re:It's too early.

[KokorHekkus (986906)]

More confirmation from here in Sweden which only has digital TV transmissions now. A basic set-top box with analog out costs less than $50... without any subsidies.

Re:It's too early. BUT ...

[carndearg (696084)]

"in the UK a lot of houses need upgraded aerials to receive digital TV and digital radio - is the cost of fitting these going to be met by the government / tax payers?"

Sort of, but not quite. The government and broadcasters aren't going to pay to upgrade anyone's home antenna but they are going to increase the power of the digital transmissions when the analogue ones have been turned off, so the problem will just go away.
The fear was that digital transmitters might have caused interference to the existing analogue service so they were all made low power, but with analogue gone that's no longer an issue.

Re:It's too early.

[statemachine (840641)]

It's not like people need 14 months to save up for a digital TV. A 'good enough' off-brand 32" TV runs $700 now, and it'll probably be more like $500 later.

That's two or three months rent in many places -- with the matching lower pay.

Re:It's too early.

[tedrlord (95173)]

The type of person that can spend $500 on a television set and doesn't have cable/satellite is probably not a big TV watcher.

And I just want to point out that if Congress has to subsidize receivers to force this change along, it's probably not a good idea in the first place. And let me also point out that F*@& Congress for spending tax money on paying for unnecessary digital upgrades. Next they'll be buying everyone blue ray and HD-DVD players to fund the HD war. It's frustratingly ridiculous.

Re:It's too early.

[Dhalka226 (559740)]

And I just want to point out that if Congress has to subsidize receivers to force this change along, it's probably not a good idea in the first place.

That's because you think it is for the benefit of television viewers, or even broadcasters. It is not. They simply want the spectrum that these broadcasts are currently going out on back, with their relatively long wavelengths, for things like cellular service or long-range (municipal?) wireless networks.

With the way both of these services are growing, I happen to think it's a good idea for a relatively small cost.

Re:It's too early.

[Megane (129182)]

And it's even better than that, because the digital signal can be used on adjacent channels. With the exception of 6-7 and 13-14, how many analog stations in your area are on adjacent channel numbers? Ever wonder why? Because analog needs channel separation.

Right now I can tell you that there probably ARE adjacent channels in your area, you just don't know about them because they're in digital, and even if you can receive them, they tell your TV set to show a different channel number.

So we lose 25% of the channels to the spectrum auction, but can use twice as many of the ones that are left. (That's not exactly true, because 2-6 are apparently not good for digital, so we lose a bit more than 25%.) Digital is also better about geographic distance between transmitters on the same channel.

Re:

[NorQue (1000887)]

Erm, you misunderstood. You don't need a "digital" TV as in LCD or Plasma. Any old CRT will do. You'll just need a receiver that's capable of receiving digital television, since the analog one that's built into most old TVs won't work anymore. These are available in any store that sells electronics for a few bucks. Here's [amazon.com] a cheap one from Amazon.

Re:

[Jeremy Erwin (2054)]

Good one. That's DVB-T. It won't work here. We use ATSC in the US.

Oh blow it out your ass

[mr_matticus (928346)]

It totally sucks that the government regulates things! Air traffic control? Psh. Waste of money. A road system that ensures transcontinental travel is always possible? Where did they get THAT power? Long distance electric transmission lines? Let the flooded cities do without power! They can just rebuild their shit--without power!

Christ.

You act like designating sections of the spectrum for certain uses, which is in EVERYONE'S benefit, is some arbitrary intrusion into your bedroom. Digital cameras don'

Re:

[KC9AIC (858812)]

The difference is that analog and digital photographs can coexist in the same world rather easily. The main reason that the government is pushing the switch to digital TV is spectrum conservation. Since DTV uses less radio spectrum than analog, we can have the same number of channels taking up less space, which allows for the big 700 MHz spectrum auction that we've been hearing about (and that Google is interested in).

Re:

[Chris Mattern (191822)]

This may be a stupid question. But I have direct TV, do I already have a digital reciever?

It doesn't matter what you have, because this isn't affecting any kind of pay TV. This only affects the old-fashioned terrestrial channels you can get for free by putting up a set of rabbit ears.

Chris Mattern