[Neil Jones]

There is a similar problem to solve before 19th January 2038 - the "epochalypse" - when computers which calculate time in 16-bits will appear to rewind back to December 1901.

This is also why on Sky+HD at least, when you see an expiry date on content of 2038, it means it can't go any further, though the content will be be available after that time, in theory. Which suggests that platform will pretty be extinct by 2038 as I think is based on some flavour of Linux, which based on the age of that platform was always going to be susceptible to that problem.

I suspect Sky Q may be affected as well, though since the long term trend of Sky is get away from satellite dishes and further towards the likes of Sky Stream, the whole issue may solve itself in due course.

[i.h]

It's to do with the UNIX epoch (which began on the 1st of Jan 1970), is recorded as the number of seconds since that date, and the date in 2038 is when it fills up a 32 bit integer and would overflow

Hopefully not quite the same panic as Y2K as many affected systems have already been upgraded to use a 64 bit integer

In a TV context there have been similar issues with some conditional access systems, eg one of the systems used for US cable TV uses a different date reference and a smaller integer and this is about to roll over. I gather the vendors have found fixes and workarounds however.

www.lightreading.com 

Just a moment...
Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
  Source: www.lightreading.com

[Stooky Bill]

For the case of the Millennium Bug, it was just the fear of computerised systems around the world malfunctioning when the first two digits of the year changed from 19 to 20, and it turned out to be a damp squib anyway!

It was only a damp squib because a lot of work took place beforehand to ensure any potential problems didn't happen. It was a real problem 

There were a few isolated occuramces of computers getting confused with the change of century in the lead up to 2000, however they were mostly things like 104 year olds getting letters about starting school. I don't think there were many occurances were they got confused and shut down

[Spencer]

It was only a damp squib because a lot of work took place beforehand to ensure any potential problems didn't happen.

Not least by Richard Madeley.

[Roger Darthwell]

Apologies for bumping this thread back up, but given that this is the place for all kinds of ''silly questions'' about media, I have one. I have a question about an aspect of American television that I always found weird and that is preemption of network programming. I have heard that network affiliates in the United States sometimes preempt network programming, so my questions are: What are the reasons for an affiliate to preempt programming? How much network programming is an affiliate allowed to preempt? What happens to the preempted programming, does it go to another station or it's being broadcasted later? And finally this practice of network preemption is done only in the United States or also in other countries like Canada or Australia? I hope I don't disturb you by asking these questions

[Neil Jones]

I must be missing something because I don't quite "get" the concept of pre-empting something, doesn't that just reduce the net audience reach on the network broadcast if something's aired out of sync on some affiliate somewhere?

I know America runs on at least four time zones and there is a concept of timeshifting stuff live in the east of the country so it goes out at the same time on the west coast (for example and for the most part, the obvious exception being live sport), but that's not the same as pre-empting, surely?

[Steve in Pudsey]

I think the analogy is BBC Scotland dropping the One Show to extend Reporting Scotland to cover some issue at Holyrood.

[Nobby]

Yes, this was notable during the 2012 Olympics when BBC News Channel was showing highlights of the opening ceremony until midnight and then could only show stills. 

I worked for a non-rights holder at the time and the rules were such that it wasn't worth us showing any clips at all. We had to wait until  every rights holder had shown it, which because of timezones meant by the time that had happened it was almost 24 hours later and it was old news. 

As a non-rights holder, what would be the incentive to comply with these rules? I know the government passed some laws around the Olympics so maybe in that case they were not only rules but laws.

On a more general note though, what's to stop a channel, say GB News, showing some football highlights recorded from Sky Sports without waiting for Match of the Day to be broadcast?

[Brekkie]

It's usually football overruns or the President deciding he wants to make a speech that will see content "pre-empted". Nowadays I think the networks are a bit more flexible and will run a few minutes late but in the past it was not unusual at all for shows to just join a network show that was already in progress - so you might miss the first 10-20 minutes and then join the show. Otherwise shows might be bumped to overnight, which would often be 01:37 or 02:07, one the network late chat shows were completed. Digital sub-channels tend not to be used in the US as they're usually leased out to third parties, but in Canada now if a show can't air on the main network it will likely air on a digital off-shoot.

[Steve in Pudsey]

As a non-rights holder, what would be the incentive to comply with these rules? I know the government passed some laws around the Olympics so maybe in that case they were not only rules but laws.

On a more general note though, what's to stop a channel, say GB News, showing some football highlights recorded from Sky Sports without waiting for Match of the Day to be broadcast?

Not getting sued by the rights issuer, I would have thought. It's copyright infringement at a minimum.