Grandpa Simpson checks in to the local paper with a rant about the DTV transition.

[bbernardini]

http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2009/06/29/opinion/srv0000005710203.txt

As soon as I read this, I was reminded of "Old Man Yells At Cloud". A sample:

"I can remember having more extensive channel selection availability and better, more reliable reception in the 1950s! It may have been in black and white, but the reception was less subject to interference than our "modern-day" DTV!"

No mention of the onion on his belt (which was the style at the time). As a bonus, you get a rant from one of the resident right-wing nutjobs in the comment section, which contains this gem:

"We're thankful for Fox News as well, no contest there between news channels...there's a good reason why FOX rules and the pathetic MSNBC is at the bottom of the barrel."

[MADem]

1. Well, he's right. I have to get a booster in order to get any channels.

I already have "the box" and have bought "the new antennae" for the roof but still, no joy. I can get one station on every third night. I used to get five stations with a rabbit ears, no issues.

It's a seasonal home, so I don't really sweat it. But still, I can imagine the distress of someone on a fixed income. Getting some bum to come and orient his antennae, then install a booster, why, that will cost him some. In addition to the fact that he got ripped off for his box (likely he didn't get the old gubmint coupon).

As for the Fox cheerleader, if the old geezer could get FOX, he'd have cable and not be sweating over-the-air stuff.

[luvspeas]

2. that is so not true, grampy needs a nap...

I grew up in Chicago with a bunch of stations. I remember many a night putting tinfoil on the rabbit ears trying to get one channel or another to come in. My big brother would pay me to stand at just the right angle and hold the things to get a show to come in.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

3. Spike Feresten's Youtube video

of instructions for old folks on how to switch over to DTV contained this hilarious line: "Will this make Jack Benny come back?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w34nNux4Xw

[Robb]

4. You know, there are too many states nowadays. nt

[leeroysphitz]

5. And the President is a demy-crat!

[regnaD kciN]

6. To respond to just one of Grandpa's points...

Once again, our federal government went about improving our wretched lives — no matter that no one asked — by mandating a change in TV reception.

As usual for right-wingers, blame the federal government and claim they were just monkeying around with our way of life even though "no one asked."

Actually, the truth is somewhat more complicated than that.

Many years ago, the FCC was set to designate a large portion of the broadcast spectrum for public uses (emergency communications and the like). However, television broadcasters set up a hue and cry about how they needed those frequencies for future "high-definition television." At that time, there wasn't really any HDTV on the horizon (a test using analog television techniques had failed badly in Japan), and the broadcasters had no intention of using HDTV; they simply wanted those frequencies available for future use. Anyway, they did a huge song-and-dance about the wonders of this (never to happen, in their opinion) hi-def future, and convinced Congress to block the re-designation of that spectrum. Of course, according to the Law of Unintended Results, it wasn't too long thereafter that a digital technique for really broadcasting HDTV became possible, and the Congressional committee overseeing telecommunications jumped all over it, demanding that broadcasters give detailed plans for implementing the wondrous high-def future they had so rhapsodized over earlier. The broadcasters were trapped: they either had to admit that their previous song-and-dance had been an attempt to mislead Congress for ulterior motives, or figure out how to go high-def for real. Guess which one they chose?