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."

It's too early.

[lpangelrob]

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.

Besides, a few "your TV will black out 1/14/09!" commercials have already starting airing. By January 2009, I'm sure the public at large will be as tired of similar commercials as they will be of general presidential election commercials by Election Day '08.

Re:There is always stupid people

[tedrlord]

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.

The Oddest thing

[edwardpickman]

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.

in Finland

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already converted to digital. Many has cut of their TV contract. I never had one, and I woun't get one. Only crap on telly. Many agree and this worries TV companies as they see people abandoning TV.

Now is a good time to get rid of the TV.

m10

Big Govt

[Frankie70]

Why should the Govt be laying down rules about analog & digital broadcasting?
What next - govt mandating that photographic shops should stop developing analog
pictures & accept only customers with a digital camera?

Excuse to sell HDTVs?

[mikeboone]

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.

Re:The Oddest thing

[Da Web Guru]

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 those warning cards on regular DVD players that don't even have a tuner in them...

Re:The Oddest thing

[whoop]

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 by someone driving past. So, not even that junk makes it to a landfill.

Re:Good time..

[ghakko]

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:There is always stupid people

[zakezuke]

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 digital presently. I don't disbelieve there are some, I just don't know of any.

For example, let's say some yokle lives 300 miles from the nearest town and it's costly to lay down a phones for sub 20 people. We don't say tough shit, we all shoulder the burden.

Don't get me wrong, I welcome the change. The analog spectrum was a huge mess for a long while. I welcome mass produced digital tuners and the possibility of cheaper 1080/720 tvs.

Digital TV = Weak Signals = No Portable TVs

[MrSteveSD]

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?

Re:Good time..

[KDR_11k]

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:Excuse to sell HDTVs?

[DarthBart]

When I went to purchase a new TV a few weeks ago, the salesweenie insisted that I needed to get something that did 1080p because "everyone was going to switch to 1080p in 2009".

Nevermind the fact that the price between the TV was getting and the cheapest 1080p capable unit was $800. A nice addition to the commission there.

I didn't even bother with a 1080p capable unit because the sources just aren't there yet.

Re:Same in other countries ?

[WWWWolf]

Wikipedia says that Finland switched off analogue TV on 1 September 2007. I guess everyone there is aware of it.

Were we ever. The switchover to digital was very much promoted over the preceding few years. We certainly didn't have anyone asking "what, we went digital and no one told me?"... =)

Instead we got quite a few irate but informed people who quit paying for the TV licence because the DVB-T reception sucked where they were living. (The remote areas are always a pain to deal with...) The Finnish national broadcasting company, YLE, gets its funding through the licence fees and was stung pretty badly by the whole affair.

That's just par for the course

[Dunkirk]

Step 1) Create legislation to get rid of low-def TV to get funding from the tech industry
Step 2) Face political backlash from the masses when the TV "stops working"
Step 3) Fund yet another huge government handout to make the TV "start working" again
Step 4) Run your next campaign on how you "saved TV"
Step 5) Profit

There are just so many, wonderful things wrong with this situation, I find it hard to begin.

The Constitution of the United States granted precious few responsibilities for the federal government. Can someone name me one non-trivial aspect of our lives that isn't now covered at the federal level? Because I can't think of an example.

The longer I live, the more I become disillusioned with the two-party-is-actually-one-party system we have, so I've changed my position. I'm now voting for the libertarian, the independent, and the unknown, in that order. Call it "wasting my vote" if you'd like, but I'll be here when the rest of you come around.

Re:Good time..

[Attila Dimedici]

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:Not any more

[tyroneking]

Sorry to disagree but I am unable to receive digital TV through my aerial at all. And I'm not alone.
The map at the apparently reputable http://www.wolfbane.com/articles/ukdcmap.htm [wolfbane.com] shows most areas of the country require an amplified extra hi-gain aerial (as of April 2007). The areas that require just a set-top aerial are very small so you're probably just lucky.
The Freeview postcode checker at http://www.freeview.co.uk/ [freeview.co.uk] tells me that I won't receive channels until 2012.
When that happens I will also probably have to upgrade to a wideband aerial (as will most houses in most areas that do not receive their signal from Crystal Palace).
And here's the problem: I never asked for digital, I can say with confidence that most people didn't - but now I have to put up with extra costs and hassle, AND paying a TV licence that funds BBC channels I can't watch until 2012. Hooray! Who asked them to do this? I'd rather pay for more police on the streets, etc, etc. OR how about universal broadband?

Re:Good time..

[Planesdragon]

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.

Re:It's too early.

[Peaquod]

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.

Actually, the subsidy isn't to be funded by tax dollars, it will be funded by the proceeds raised through the auction for the spectrum this will free up. This auction will result in many billion dollars of new revenue for the federal government, and they've set aside part of that revenue to make sure that tax payers DON'T foot the bill for the transition. Seems fair to me.

Re:HD-TV

[hal2814]

I'm one of the 4 people in America that still use rabbit ears for my television. I'm about 30 miles from the nearest tower (CBS) and about 50-60 miles from the next nearest towers (Fox, ABC, and NBC). When I bought my HDTV I was shocked by how many digital feeds I picked up with a rabbit ear antennae with an amp on it. They're very finicky in the weather but no more than the analog feeds. My biggest annoyance is digital audio. It gets really choppy when the analog audio still comes in just fine. Also for some reason ABC (and only ABC out of the 4) will sometimes seem to look fine but the audio and video will be out of synch. Other than that, when the analog feed is bad the digital feed is usually ok. If I had to drop one or the other, I'd probably drop the analog.

They should leave an emergency analog channel

[harlows_monkeys]

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:HD-TV

[solitas]

I'd rather see a snowy picture @30FPS (29.97?) than choppy digital images at a few frames/sec or images that constantly 'shatter' while waiting for a keyframe. Low framerates are not an acceptable tradeoff for clear images - for me.

Question to all: are the digital transmissions still in the same bandspace as their analog counterparts? I'm near the edge of my cable's 'market' and watch several UHF stations that aren't must-carrys on my cable system - and I'm hoping that I'll still be able to use my current antenna/rotor/amplifier with a converter box after the change.