argh

[joreth]

This isn't really a big deal, certainly not a life changer.  But a commercial just came on to remind me of something that is about to happen that annoys me.

We actually passed a law that says all broadcast television signal has to go digital by 2009.  I'm annoyed because I find the cost of television to be unreasonable.  There are a couple of shows I enjoy watching, but most of TV is crap and in order to watch my handful of somewhat-interesting shows, I am expected to pay a fortune for a range of channels that I won't watch and a thousand shows that I detest.  So I don't.  I have a TV that is hooked up to my DVD player and VCR (yes, I still own one and yes, I still watch movies on it).  I have an antenna that pics up about 8 channels, and I can see 3 or 4 shows that I enjoy.  Mostly, I rent the DVDs, but two of my shows will probably never make it to DVD and are not available online (nor do I receive those stations).

Radio is free because it relies upon its sponsers and their commercial advertising to pay for their service.  I'm fine with that.  If I want to avoid the advertisers, I can pay for satellite or listen to internet radio (which ties me to my computer) or listen to CDs and MP3s which I am legally supposed to pay for.  I understand entertainment is a business and they have to make money somewhere.  If I can get something for free, I'm willing to make some compromise like having commercials.  TV used to be like that too.  But now (or soon), there will be no more free TV, even with commercials.  No, even when you pay for the service, you still get advertisements.  And there is no option not to pay anymore.  That sucks.

Requiring all broadcast signal to go digital means I won't even get my 8 static-ey channels anymore.  If I want to see these shows, I have to buy a new TV (because mine is not capable of receiving digital - it's too old) and then pay for a cable service of some sort.  Or, I can go without.

It's not life-altering, it's not even emotionally upsetting.  It's just annoying. 

Comments

[mosthings1z.livejournal.com]

I am a TV freak, so this will not effect me in the least. Who it will effect are the elderly. They are so freaking set in their ways, TV is supposed to be free. They either refuse cable or simply cannot afford the expense. That is sad.

It is unfortunate people voted for this. Damn lobbyists.

[serolynne.livejournal.com]

It is indeed annoying and will be particularly frustrating to those on fixed incomes. Communication seems to be becoming a more and more expensive commodity - cheap dial-up phones being phased out for expensive cellular services, broadcast TV being handed over to expensive digital means, radio having audiences tempted away by subscription based services.

The only bright side to this is that Google is apparently entering into a bidding war for rights to the analog frequency, and putting stipulations in the bid package that the winner has to keep the frequency somewhat open access.

[joreth]

that would be nice. I live on a low income and I probably always will. Even when I make a lot of money, it's temporary because I'm a freelancer and I cannot count on my salary remaining steady (as much as anyone can "count" on a steady salary, anyway).

One of the signs of a first-world society is leisure time. The richer the society, the more leisure time and entertainment is available. This does not make free entertainment a *right*, I am certainly not clammoring that I have a *right* to free TV. But it is a luxury that I would like to enjoy as being lucky enough to live in a society that can provide it. And it is a luxury that I have been enjoying my whole life and I resent having it removed from me.

I had not yet heard about Google stepping in, but I hope things go well and there will be some sort of open access to entertainment to replace this change.

[toranin.livejournal.com]

Not quite correct. There is broadcast spectrum reserved for digital channels, and those channels will be just as free for those with digital-ready TV's as current channels are for those with analog TV's. And while digital TV's are expensive now, I'm betting the price will drop some once analog TV broadcasts leave the air waves.

[joreth]

Let me put it this way. I bought my TV when I was 13 years old. 17 years ago. Because I can't afford a new one, I have to forgoe many luxuries in the interest of survival. It doesn't matter how much these digital TVs drop in price, they will always be too expensive for me to buy one if I haven't even been able to afford a regular tv in the last 17 years.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

I believe you're also going to be able to buy converters for about $40, and there may be subsidies available for that. I've read that multiple places, even if I can't remember any of them at the moment.