US Still Dithering Over Analog-Digital TV Conversion

Robin Ingenthron writes "As 2007 gets closer, the legislation to postpone mandatory transition from Analog TV broadcast to Digital is taking shape. Here's an idea - make the broadcasters pay to use the airwaves (they get both analog and digital spectrum for free). For that matter, why permanently auction the bandwidth to cell phone companies, why not rent it to them too? Each postponement keeps the Fed budget in the red, so consumers have a choice -- between analog (black borders on the sides of their digital TVs) and digital (black borders on the top and bottom of their analog TV)."

Comments

Back to State's Rights

[stecoop]

I really don't know why the federal government is selling the rights that the individual States should be doing. Each state should have the right to lease or sell spectrum. That includes keeping your spectrum off other peoples land (interstates) unless there is an agreement between states. At the local level, I would never outright sell a commodity without some kind of royalties in return - think about land property tax we all pay; so why isn't there a property value assets towards the highly valuable spectrum? This would allow the state to boot venders that violate some quality standard and re-sell it to a better vendor if the state (local population) decides to.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[csnydermvpsoft]

That includes keeping your spectrum off other peoples land (interstates) unless there is an agreement between states.

How would that work for long-distance transmissions? For instance, I can get Philadelphia's 1210 AM station in western Michigan, and I've heard of people being able to get it as far away as Iowa. How would that be regulated? Would the station have to get a license for every state they could possibly cover, or would all of those states have to sign agreements?

Re:Back to State's Rights

[networkBoy]

I would tend to think this _does_ belong in the federal domain because radio emissions tend to carry across state (and national) borders, no matter how well you police them (on a good day I can send a 500 mW signal from CA to HI). If it was a state by state thing it would end up costing taxpayers more in the end and may result in those living at state borders not having any reasonable broadcast TV as two states are in a pissing contest as to who gets to host the transmitter (and thus get the tax revenue). By licencing on a federal level those issues are rendered non-issues.
I fully understand your point of view, I just think that in this case the current governing system is fine the way it is. That does not mean I like the selling of spectrum the way the FCC does it, just that I think a bunch of SCC's (State Communication Commissions) is worse than one FCC.
-nB

Re:Back to State's Rights

[strictfoo]

Yep, good idea. All we need now is to put up 100,000 ft walls to make sure those radio waves don't leak into neighboring states.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[poot_rootbeer]

Each state should have the right to lease or sell spectrum.

How would you prevent a broadcaster in New York City from sending their signal into New Jersey and Connecticut?

If states were of uniform size and shape, and broadcasters were situated in the geographic center of each, there might be a case for it. But as it stands now, broadcast signals neither know nor care about state borders.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[stecoop]

Well, actually the would be a good justification for my scenario. Think about it - the FCC sells the band at 1210 AM in both Philadelphia and Michigan to whoever wants to buy it - that may include a local station trampling over the long distance one. Now with the state agreement - the two states would know that there is an agreement for this spectrum since there is a market for it.

But after typing the sentence above, I realized that this could be used as a political censorship tool. Hmm a state could trample on transmissions they deemed undesirable - what would some conservative states say about the Howard Stern show?

Re:Back to State's Rights

[xenocide2]

Last I checked, broadcast signals don't stop at state lines, thus making them subject to interstate commerce. I happen to live in an area where that happens frequently (Kansas City). Signals not stopping, that is. If left to their own devices, I'm sure the two states would find a way to screw everyone over. Fortunately, 80 percent or more of Americans get their TV signals from Cable or Satellite.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[caseydk]

But after typing the sentence above, I realized that this could be used as a political censorship tool. Hmm a state could trample on transmissions they deemed undesirable - what would some conservative states say about the Howard Stern show?

That's where the principle of property rights applies...

If someone starts parking their car in your garage - preventing you from using it, there is legal recourse. Whether the State or a private individual does it, it's the same thing.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[w9wi]

The area over which a radio transmission causes interference is far larger than the area over which it provides useful service. For example, according to the FCC, WSM-FM in Nashville provides service over a radius of 79km around their tower. WSM-FM would interfere with another station on the same frequency within 182km of the tower.

It's far worse on AM. Authorizing a station on 1210AM in Michigan to operate at high power at night [0] would not only interfere with the Philadelphia station in Michigan - it would also cause interference in Pennsylvania.

[0] Actually, there's already a station operating on 1210 in Michigan. However, this station is not allowed to operate at night, when it could interfere with the Philadelphia outlet.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[walt-sjc]

Um, that may work in Texas, but it sure as hell wouldn't work in the north east. Spectrum has to be regulated (assigned) by power / radius like it currently is. Broadcasts very, very frequently cross state lines. This is an area that the feds have to do as it impacts the nation as a whole. In order for phones / services to work in a mobile / nation wide situation, frequencies need to be allocated according to a very specific plan.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[typobox43]

What would this do to markets like Kansas City, where TV and radio stations are heard across four states? Would it not be a challenge to get each of these four state governments to come to a decent agreement about the spectrum in question? If one of the states wouldn't authorize the frequency needed by a station, then how exactly do you expect to keep it out?

Re:Back to State's Rights

[Karl Cocknozzle]

I really don't know why the federal government is selling the rights that the individual States should be doing. Each state should have the right to lease or sell spectrum. That includes keeping your spectrum off other peoples land (interstates) unless there is an agreement between states. At the local level, I would never outright sell a commodity without some kind of royalties in return - think about land property tax we all pay; so why isn't there a property value assets towards the highly valuable spectrum? This would allow the state to boot venders that violate some quality standard and re-sell it to a better vendor if the state (local population) decides to.

This situation is clearly completely ill-suited to "letting the states decide."

For one thing, the laws of physics preclude radio signals from cooperating with arbitrary lines on a map. Even if you could somehow get every station in America to only broadcast inside one state technically, this still creates the huge problem of broadcast "standards" splintering off into 50 different sets of rules. It is already damn hard to get approval to build a new broadcast tower, or to move a broadcast tower site. Many times, the legal compliance issues for such a move run into the tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of dollars before a dime has been spent on the actual construction of facility and equipment purchase. And this is with only one regulating authority.

Now imagine there are 50 different authorities, each "deciding for themselves" which transmitters, antennae, and other broadcasting equipment they will accept for legal station operation, which ones they won't. Plus, each state will have different standards for acceptable interference. This already complicated process for resolution would only get more complicated.

For instance, stations near state borders face the potential of resolving a cross-border interference dispute by working with their state's broadcast reg. body, the other state's, and the other broadcasters attorneys. In a situation like this involving multiple stations in multiple states, the complexity would go up by an order of magnitude. And, of course, if there was a dispute over which state's laws had precedence, everybody would then sue everybody else, creating a further unneccessary burden on the courts.

Letting the states decide for themselves on some things makes perfect sense. HEre, it does not. Broadcasting is clearly an interstate commerce and is most appropriately regulated by the federal government.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[operagost]

IOWA? Wow - I guess that's why they call it The Big Talker!

Re:Back to State's Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you stop the transmissons from entering Canada? There has to be an agreement accross the boarder; therefore, it is like a state level orginzation.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[Znork]

"How would you prevent a broadcaster in New York City from sending their signal into New Jersey and Connecticut?"

The same way one usually prevents signals from crossing national borders?

That is, not at all.

Really, broadcast signals and administrative borders arent a new thing. Wether or not it's a good idea is another thing, but it's not that much of an issue.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is it good to have spectrum regulation at the federal level because transmissions reach across state borders, it's also good so that the car radio you buy in California will work in New Mexico.

Now... for monopolies granted to corporations for parts of the spectrum, it does seem like they should pay for it.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes complete sense for broadcasts that spill over state borders, but what about low-power broadcasts?

Re:Back to State's Rights

[TheGavster]

Indeed, not to mention stations that cross national borders. I receive WCBS 880 out of New York City from just north of DC to the soutern part of Canada.

Re:Back to State's Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Land property tax?
Oh that explains the UK property market
Rich? Can afford land?
Why not tuck into our housing benifit scheme?
Win Win if your RICH
Pay pay if not

Re:Back to State's Rights

[ShortBeard]

The radio waves are the property of the public.
That's right! Every GOD fearing American citizen has a inalienable right to the air waves a part of a Public Trust.

You know, like PBS.

We the People, in order to create a more informative and musical radio, should support our local independant radio stations.

And with devices that can play mp3s and broadcast it (low power) to you car radio

We should set little pirate stations that can barely reach outside... Oh wait,
Wouldn't that be HAM?

No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[garcia]

McCain's measure would require broadcasters to air only digital television signals by 2009 and help consumers who rely on traditional television sets buy devices that would convert digital back into a format that they could watch.

"Consumers who rely on over-the-air television, particularly those of limited economic means, should be assisted," according to the draft obtained by Reuters.

How about we just not mandate that the signals go all digital? I have said it before... The taxpayers are getting fucked TWICE on this deal. We have to pay for the mandate to happen and we have to pay for the fucking digital tuners as well all for something that I really don't care to have anyway. TV isn't that important as it is, especially stuff that comes OTA so why do we need to waste billions of dollars on this technology? Just so I can watch the Vikings lose or the Simpsons have another bad season in digital quality? No thanks... How about you spend that money on regulating the corporations that deliver content over cable and telephone? Personally I am more interested in that digital information.

And because I don't want a digital set/tuner I won't be able to watch TV without it. I am assuming I wouldn't be one of those people that are considered acceptable for help...

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather spend my time dithering over printers.

<boos, thrown objects>

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Analog TV is a waste of bandwidth. If you don't want TV, why not give the frequency to something which many of us care a lot about: Wireless networking.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[skaeight]

I completely agree. It's ridiculous that they're making us buy new tv's. I will not until I absolutely have to.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[jfengel]

There are two reasons for the switch:

1. The new technology makes more efficient use of the bandwidth

2. The bandwidth currently being used by TV signals is particularly valuable set of frequencies. One important potential use of it is for emergency communications, which couldn't be done as well at the higher frequencies to which the TV networks are being moved. (I believe that has to do with the better penetration capability of the lower frequencies, while the relatively immobile TV receiver can use an exertnal antenna. But I'm not certain of this.)

A corollary to #1 and #2 is that the bandwidth can be resold to wireless providers for a lot of money, thus netting a windfall for the US budget and decreasing the deficit.

Oh, BTW: you probably won't actually get the Simpsons in higher quality. The DTV standard allows them to subdivide the signals, so they get to pump you the Vikings losing AND the Redskins losing AND the Red Sox losing at the same quality as you already had.

The upshot: it's not about quality; it's about efficient allocation of bandwidth and the ability of the US consumer to have more options and make some money off the sale of bandwidth. (Not enough, to my tastes: the TV networks make vast sums of money off that bandwidth, because an awful lot of people enjoy what they're producing.)

That may not be sufficient reason for you to outweigh the price of the digital tuners, but there are reasons.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[I'm Spartacus!]

How about we just not mandate that the signals go all digital?

How about we don't? How about we allow the free market to determine what customers want instead of forcing providers to deliver content in the format that the government deems acceptable?

Having said that, I agree with you that this is an absurd abuse of taxpayer funds. It's incredible that Congressmen are now advocating subsidizing T.V. viewing for the "needy". Actually, it's not so surprising. We can't have the public turn away from the most effective propaganda tool ever conceived, can we? How would politicians justify their existance without poisoning the minds of the public?

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Minwee]

The DTV standard allows them to subdivide the signals, so they get to pump you the Vikings losing AND the Redskins losing AND the Red Sox losing at the same quality as you already had.

I see that you're an optimist. In my experience digital TV pictures are actually worse quality than traditional broadcast TV. Because the entire image is MPEG-2 encoded, even a tiny bit of interference can cause the screen to freeze or display brightly coloured artifacts. Because the signal is being squeezed into the absolute minimum possible bandwidth the overall quality comes out as being slightly below what I would expect from a bootleg VCD.

The worst part of digital TV isn't even the picture quality, it's channel surfing. With the current technology you just can't do it. If you try to page through traditional broadcast or cable channels it's easy -- *click* *click* *click* and you see three different channels. With digital TV there is a delay of at least a second after selecting a new channel while the decoder pores over the data stream trying to piece together an image. *click* *click* *click* turns into *click* ... ... ... *click* ... ... ... *click* ... *swear*

While it would be technically possible to overcome these problems by upping the bandwidth allocated to each individual station, the money to be made by packing as many extra channels as possible into the available spectrum will always be too much to ignore. If you expect the same quality as you get today from digital TV, you're going to be disappointed.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[ChrisMaple]

Just how much bandwidth do you think is needed for emergency communications? By itself, the 4 MHz gap between TV channels 4 and 5 is sufficient for 800 unencoded SSB voice channels. Any emergency so severe that it would require more than than 800 channels would justify shutting down a TV broadcaster for the duration of the emergency.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[maddskillz]

I do have digital TV, and I do get the odd intereference, but it is so rare as to actually complain about. It's easy to accept that, for the much higher picture quality.
As for channel surfing, you can't do it the same, but you can usually surf through the guide, and see what's on that way. I find it more efficient, since you don't have to wait and see what show it is. You can even check out the info to see if it's a good episode.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[w9wi]

...which couldn't be done as well at the higher frequencies to which the TV networks are being moved. (I believe that has to do with the better penetration capability of the lower frequencies, while the relatively immobile TV receiver can use an exertnal antenna. But I'm not certain of this.)

Basically, television is being compressed into a smaller chunk of spectrum.

Under the old rules, TV used channels 2-69. When the digital conversion is complete, channels 52-69 will be removed from TV service. Four of those channels will be used for public safety; the rest will be auctioned.

I suppose on average, TV is being moved to *lower* frequencies. However, in many cases individual stations are moving *higher*. This is usually because when a new station is built, it prefers to use the lowest available channel. (oversimplification but reasonable) So, when time came to allocate second channels for digital, the channels that were most likely to be available were higher channels.

After analog is closed, stations will be allowed to move their digital operations to their current analog channels. The Nashville PBS station that currently operates on digital channel 46 will be allowed to move its digital operation to their current analog channel 8.

Higher frequencies penetrate buildings better, while lower ones cover a greater distance for a given amount of transmitter power. Lower frequencies also require larger antennas. (not good for, say, the handheld radio on a police officer's belt!)

Subchannels are a mixed blessing. Programming is VERY expensive to produce. In many cases it may be impossible to raise enough extra revenue by carrying two extra games to cover the cost of the rights to those games.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[jfengel]

I suppose it doesn't surprise me that channel surfing is slow. The point of compression is to make better use of bandwidth at the cost of smarter components. A regular TV only has to lock on to the signal; a DTV has to lock on and decode it. Theoretically that should take only a fraction of a second, but more on that in a moment.

I'm disappointed to hear that over-the-air DTV broadcasts are so full of stalls and artifacts in noisy environments. I don't have one myself, so I can't confirm your experience, but it's common in telecommunications to broadcast redundant bits (with a Hamming code, for example) and smear them out so that a burst event (like a lightning strike) still allows you to reassemble an entire frame.

I can see that effect contributing to slower channel surfing. If a frame is smeared out over one second, it could well take that long for the first frame to appear, no matter how fast your processing is, but subsequent frames still appear every 1/30th of a second after that. That'll definitely slow down an experienced channel surfer.

Durable interference will break that scheme, but the point of granting a monopoly is that you shouldn't get that kind of interference, at least not from man-made sources. Perhaps a better antenna would help. Or perhaps the FCC needs to take a look at who's dumping garbage into the radio spectrum near your house.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[freqres]

Which OTA channel broadcasts 'the guide'?

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[jfengel]

I think that they want another set of emergency broadcast frequencies, perhaps to do a spread-spectrum sort of thing for noisy environments. But most of the bandwith is going to be sold off for cell phones and other wireless devices.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[IronChef]

I see that you're an optimist. In my experience digital TV pictures are actually worse quality than traditional broadcast TV. Because the entire image is MPEG-2 encoded, even a tiny bit of interference can cause the screen to freeze or display brightly coloured artifacts. Because the signal is being squeezed into the absolute minimum possible bandwidth the overall quality comes out as being slightly below what I would expect from a bootleg VCD.

It sucks to be you. When I watch digital HDTV shows (eg CSI) it looks better than a DVD, and I don't have problems with interference.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[radish]

Luckily most digital TV systems have interactive TV guides built in which negate the need to channel surf. Or you just get a Tivo and only watch the good stuff.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Overzeetop]

The "windfall" you speak of will be akin to spitting into the ocean. That is, unless you can figure out a way to auction off spectrum worth 7 Trillion dollars, payable today...in which case you've got a great idea. I just hope I can get over the $1000/mo mobile phone bill it'll take to make that kind of cash outlay feasable.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Minwee]

That's because you're watching HDTV. The DTV standards that I have seen don't require that programs be broadcast at that high quality.

With the same bandwidth as you were using to watch CSI (Roughly 15-20 Mbps) you could instead be seeing seven different reality shows at the same time, all broadcast at lower resolutions with higher compression.

Guess which strategy makes more money for the broadcasters?

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know the technical details, but I've had analog TV/Antenna setups that have a working guide. Just make sure they you've bought a TV that supports it - most don't.

I have no idea how prevalent broadcasting of that kind of information is, but at least in central massachusetts - it works.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[CreatureComfort]

But you are talking HDTV. That is most definately not what this transition is about. It is about requiring over the air analog to change to over the air compressed digital which by definition will be of inferior quality. In a certain amount of bandwidth you can transmit a finite amount of information. When they start digitizing 480 line analog signals, to send the equivalent of 3 channels in the same bandwidth, the quality will suffer.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Keeper]

While it would be technically possible to overcome these problems by upping the bandwidth allocated to each individual station

The other way to do it would be to have a few additional tuners recording the stream from the next and previous channels so you have a stream ready to use when you flip through channels... This would be an optimal way to use the extra tuners used for pip built into the fancy tv's that allow like 2 or 3 pip displays on screen at once.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Inebrius]

My experience is quite different. You first have to realize that not all digital is the same. For instance, the digital from my local cable company is overly compressed. I switched from Dish Network, to cable, back to Dish (1 month later). The picture quality for the cable was pretty bad - the first 100 analog chaneels were very fuzzy. The digital channels were better but not as good as I got off my satellite (near DVD quality). Others in my family have DirecTV which appears to me to not be as clean of a picture (less resolution from compression). Different people will get different results from their local cable co.

The picture quality and sound I get from the HDTV satellite feeds (Dish Network) are excellent. My HDTV tuner can also tune in the digital and analog over the air signals. HDTV OTA signals are the best of all since they are the least compressed and have the highest resolution, way better than DVD.

Be careful when comparing analog to digital. Digital has the capability to be better than analog in both picture quality and sound. The market will decide if we want more channels or fewer higher quality ones.

For more info, check out www.ilovehdtv.com

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Phil Wilkins]

Wow! People still channel surf? I don't think I've done that since TiVo arrived...

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Ironsides]

In my experience digital TV pictures are actually worse quality than traditional broadcast TV. Because the entire image is MPEG-2 encoded, even a tiny bit of interference can cause the screen to freeze or display brightly coloured artifacts.

That is not a tiny ammount of interference. DTV uses almost 50% of its bandwidth for Forward Error Correction (FEC). It takes a lot to take the signal off the air unless you are near the boundaries or reception, which with analog would get you a pretty poor picture anyway. As for the artifacts? That has to do with the encoder, not the signal. Don't even compare this to VCD, I work around these pictures every day and can see how much higher quality they are than regular TVs.

The delay? They new that would happen from the begining. If you know about Iframes, remember that they have to wait till they recieve one till they can actually start showing a picture. A half second delay at most under the current way of broadcasting. And yes, I do mean a half second AT MOST, unless you have a poor quality decoder.

Upping the bandwidth would not change this. Changing the LongGOP of the MPEG structure would, but that would require more bandwidth to keep the same quality. As for quality? They can set it from 19.4Mbps to 0Mbps for the ammount of bandwidth they use for a signal. 19.4 is way above DVD quality so don't diss it. What was probably happening is that they were reducing the ammount of bandwidth dedicated to the subchannel you were watching to another channel. Most stations will only use 4 sub channels at most under the current scheme of things. 4 channels being the most number of Standard Deffinition [720x480I] that you can fit into 19.4Mbps under most circumstances and maintain quality.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[ant_tmwx]

Here in Fort Lauderdale we have digital cable HDTV. Channel surfing is faster than old cable. Quality on regular channels is ok, but its stretched to 16:9 - this is probably more annoying than the vertical bars on the side to keep non-HDTV channels as 4:3, but less frustrating to an old man who paid lots for a 60" Sony LCD to see the empty bars. The quality of the TV picture is lots better too so non-HDTV looks slightly dodgy.

New shows (new Leno, NFL, HBO movies) look better than DVD, since on HDTV they're 1080i & 5.1 surround.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[gillrock]

>Oh, BTW: you probably won't actually get the
>Simpsons in higher quality. The DTV standard allows
>them to subdivide the signals, so they get to pump
>you the Vikings losing AND the Redskins losing AND
>the Red Sox losing at the same quality as you
>already had.

Yes, but there's one really big flaw in this logic...

The Red Sox WILL WIN!!!!!

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Anonymous Coward]

With the same bandwidth as you were using to watch CSI (Roughly 15-20 Mbps) you could instead be seeing seven different reality shows at the same time

Mind explaining how that's a good thing? Personally, I'd rather see one show like CSI than any reality shows.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[ealar dlanvuli]

Uh, astroturf much?

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Detritus]

See http://www.psip.org.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Carnildo]

As for channel surfing, you can't do it the same, but you can usually surf through the guide, and see what's on that way.

Actually, that's a problem. TV guides haven't yet caught up with the concept of multiple subchannels, so if you want to find out what's on for anything other than the main subchannel for that station, usually the easiest way is to turn on the TV.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Carnildo]

That depends. The stations in my area seem to have settled on a standard of one standard-def and one high-def subchannel, which may or may not be showing the same thing.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[maddskillz]

I did mean the guide on the TV...it's definetly they easiest way to do things

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Minwee]

The business of television has nothing at all to do with making you happy. As a television viewer you are not the customer, you are the product and your TV habit is being sold to advertisers.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that what you want to see has any relation to what they want to show you. If a TV network figures out how to sell seven times as much advertising by airing seven different channels, even if they have to sell it at a sixth the normal rate, they will do it.

If expensive, well-written dramas with high production values can be replaced with cheap crap filmed last weekend by two guys with a camcorder, it will happen. Maybe the network will lose viewers, but so what? As long as the loss in advertising income brought on by lower ratings is smaller than the savings in production costs then _putting crap on the air is a good business move_.

It may not seem like a good thing to you, but you have to understand that _they don't care about you_. It's all about money, and money doesn't care about your happiness.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Anonymous Coward]

And because I don't want a digital set/tuner I won't be able to watch TV without it. I am assuming I wouldn't be one of those people that are considered acceptable for help...

I'm not planning on buying a digital tuner either, but I consider not being able to watch television a benefit. I'm convinced that watching tv induces some sort of zombie state in people; you can blow hours of time and not even realize it.

I think the real reason behind subsidizing digital tuners for the poor has to do with control. If the poor aren't in their houses watching television, that means they'll be on the street, talking to each other and becoming more educated and organized. The last thing the current regime wants is an educated and organized public.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[cft_128]

A regular TV only has to lock on to the signal; a DTV has to lock on and decode it. Theoretically that should take only a fraction of a second

Well, it also needs to receive enough of the signal to decode a meaningful picture. Correct me, but I believe it needs a keyframe (or i-frames in MPEG speak), a frame that has a complete image, to start decoding effectively. If only delta frames have been received then a whole frame cannot be constructed. IIRC most compression schemes only send a keyframe every 5 to 10 seconds, so that means you will have on average a 2.5 to 5 second before enough information is available to reconstruct the full stream.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[multiplexo]

No kidding, I especially love this:

McCain's measure would require broadcasters to air only digital television signals by 2009 and help consumers who rely on traditional television sets buy devices that would convert digital back into a format that they could watch.

"Consumers who rely on over-the-air television, particularly those of limited economic means, should be assisted," according to the draft obtained by Reuters.

OK, it seems to me that perhaps those of limited economic means, which is the PC way of saying "poor people" should watch less fucking television and spend more time at the fucking library reading books. And if you drive by the section 8 housing down the road from my house in lovely White Center, Washington (also known as "El Centro de la Blanca") you'll notice quite a few satellite dishes hanging off the sides of the subsidized low-income housing, indicating that they are somehow able to scrape up 30 - 40 bucks a month for satellite TV, which is not, despite what anyone might say to the contrary, a necessity of life.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! People still channel surf? I don't think I've done that since TiVo arrived...

Yes, all those who own TiVos are genetically superiors to us mere mortals. Let us worship them and their super-intelligent product sense.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Carnildo]

When they start digitizing 480 line analog signals, to send the equivalent of 3 channels in the same bandwidth, the quality will suffer.

Then why does 480i digital television look so much better than 480i analog television?

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[jfengel]

Good point. I thought that i-frames occurred more often than that, but yeah, I can see that slowing things down, too.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[cpeterso]

If digital TV really is that more bandwidth efficient and the current TV signal is worth more for non-TV data, then some greedy capitalist will pay for it. Just don't make the taxpayers pay for it without a choice! :(

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[lcsjk]

I don't agree with you. I am the customer. The TV company makes its money from the advertiser, but the advertisor gets his money from me. If I do not watch the program being supported by his money, he loses. However, neither the TV Station nor the advertisor care about the quality I watch as long is I watch (and buy)so you are right about that. They onlycare about money. If you and I only watch shows presented in high quality, the advertising for poor quality stops, the advertising money stops coming, and the station either goes out of business or starts producing better quality. And since I (and you) will only watch programs presented in good to high quality, that makes me be the ultimate customer, both of the TV Station and the Advertisor.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your experience may be true for American TV (I realise that is what the FA was about) but in the UK, the digital picture is much, much worse than the analogue. With fast-moving, small objects (e.g. sportsmen, sportswomen, balls) it's pretty much unwatchable even with a good signal level. It may be more noticable for UK people because our analogue signal looks so much better than the American NTSC equivalent.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[AuMatar]

i-frame occurance isn't part of the spec. In digital cameras, there's usually no p or b frames, only i frames. In computers, you could choose to have it the other way and make only 1 i-frame. I'm not sure if the DTV spec overrides that and specifies 1 i-frame per n seconds.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess watching the Cubs loose will take more bandwidth, though?

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[UranusReallyHertz]

Actually, its more like 40 to 70 trillion when you include the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[The Snowman]

If you and I only watch shows presented in high quality, the advertising for poor quality stops, the advertising money stops coming, and the station either goes out of business or starts producing better quality. And since I (and you) will only watch programs presented in good to high quality, that makes me be the ultimate customer, both of the TV Station and the Advertisor.

Stop making sense. You and I want to watch good shows, most Americans are happy with crap like Fear Factor and Survivor, if the office gossip is any indication.

I love watching Discovery HD Theater, but most people (e.g. my wife) would find most shows on it boring. I hate "reality TV," a misnomer, if I want reality I will get off the couch and go outside. I find most popular shows stupid. Hence, the producers and advertisers do not get my money except for my cable subscription. I do not watch most of the crap on TV nor do I buy most of the products advertised on TV.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Ironsides]

625 lines (including VBI), 50 FPS (fields) is your res and it's still interlaced. It's not that much better than NTSC. Your station must be using a really crapy encoder or low bitrate, but it's not the DTV that is the problem. I have seen fast moving on DTV that look perfect to me on a stress test tape and have seen no artifacts. SD DTV (standard def) looks the same as Analog, and you won't be able to tell the difference. On HD DTV it looks a lot better and not blury on large screens. Or it may be that your station is trying to broadcast too many video streams on for its bandwidth. But i'm also pretty sure that the Eurpean DTV broadcast standard is just as good as the USs. So its probably and idiot station manager you have and not something in the system itself.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that we're talking about standard MPEG-2 video (ISO/IEC 13818-2 / H.264), your decoder does need to receive an I-frame (or a whole lot of P-frames, I suppose, starting from a blank picture). But I-frames are sent much more often than every five to 10 seconds. A couple of I-frames per second is more typical.

However, before it can make sense of an I-frame, a decoder needs to receive what's called a sequence header. This tells it such things as the frame size, the chroma format, and the aspect ratio, without which the I-frame won't make much sense. The interval at which sequence headers are sent is up to the broadcaster, but would be at most once per group of pictures (GOP), which tends to mean every 16-32 frames.

So depending on the choices made by your particular broadcaster (and to some degree on your decoder), that could account for as much as an extra second or so of perceived delay.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[connorbd]

I find HDTV seldom actually lives up to billing, at least from what I've seen in stores. The image tends to be weirdly patchy, and the cameramen (especially in sports events) don't quite seem to know what they're doing, so the shot framing is done in weird ways that don't quite seem appropriate.

Digital can be very good, but when it's compressed it has to be done exactly right.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Anonymous Coward]

For reality, I watch Johnny Bravo. For entertainment, I still find myself stopping on a good John Wayne movie. And you are right. I demand a better product and that leaves me with the same ones you mention. No, if everyone did like you and me, there would be much better programming and less junk. However, even in the middle of the junk, sometimes, not often, but sometimes, there shines a superb few minutes of laughter or excitement.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[CreatureComfort]

Actually in general it doesn't. If you happen to be watching 480i in digital on a high definition television, well... should be obvious. Greater pixel density, smaller pitch and all that.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[freqres]

Cool, thanks for the link. I especially like the top listed reason for using PSIP, cool acronym

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[Kwantus]

So I'm not the only who noticed. Watching the X-Files could drive me up the wall; in low contrast the system would switch to half-framing. The X-Files was shot in the dark and I never knew if they were half-framing for effect or if it was the G$&^%@M satellite link.

Sometimes the translation commands seem to go out of sync, and faces turn to jelly.

And if MPEG does to lineart what JPEG does, get it the fu@k outta my South Park =)

Regardless...Too much of our lives are wasted and our minds crippled and enslaved by that damn box. Forcing digital down our throats is patent fascism, an artificial short-lived prop to trade and GDP to expand a machine which isolates ourselves from each other hypnotised with fake news, indoctrinational history, and "spectator" sports.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[sjames]

I think part of the problem is acclimation. We all grew up with our brains learning not to see analog artifacts. freeze frame an analog TV signal and you'll clearly see them again. That's not degradation from the freeze frame, the signal always looks like that. Your brain learned to interpolate between frames.

People accustomed to PAL are used to a better picture. While the resolution is only somewhat better than in the U.S. PAL has always had better color reproduction than Never Twice the Same Color.

MPEG has it's own (usually less significant) artifacts that require re-learning how to not see them.

That all said, I found DTV to be an immediate improvement over analog. Of course, I live in the VHF shadow of a big lump of granite (Stone Mountain), so my analog signal has always had ghosting problems.

As you point out, the compression parameters selected by the broadcaster will make a big difference as well. There's plenty of incentive for cable operators to squash the hell out of the bandwidth and try to squeeze 6 channels into the space of 4. They've already lost the customers who really cared and were willing to try a dish, so now, they figure the novelty of being digital at all coupled with FUD against satellite will allow them to save a few bucks with excessive compression.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[sjames]

so the shot framing is done in weird ways that don't quite seem appropriate.

It's probably related to the reason 3D movies tend to turn into showcases for the 3D effect with a great deal of things flying at the camera and very little real cinamatorraphy, plot, character development, etc. It's new and they haven't gotten over the novelty of it yet or learned how to use it well.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[sumdumass]

That true only in the sence of if there is a diference in the amount of profits. Like the parent said. If they can save money geting you to watch then it is a goo buisiness idea, if they loose you but gain 3 others because they now have 6 more chanels then they won't care.

One of the problems is you are like me. Sometimes the point is worth making more then the actual problem warrents. Most others don't care enough to make a stand. You or i would change the channel and not watch even though it was the only station that has our favorite program (or try to get it from another market). The majority of people will just blindly except it with a bit of agrivation making your objection get burried. If there was a way to get everyone on board, then it would carry more weight a probably work out as you expect. Most people can't be bothered to stand up for themselve so this will never happen.

Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please.

[sumdumass]

unfortunatly there are alot of goo movies out there that we don't know the names of and descriptions don't do it justice.

Just the other day i happend apon a movie, i don't know the name but i remeber the description read somethign like a crappy remance novel. It turned out to be somewhat of an action movie with a great plot. The action scene i saw when flipping by it is what made me watch it. based on the title and description i never would have gave it the time of day. This is a pretty big reason why the channel guides fall short.

It doesn't much matter...

[daveschroeder]

...with 5C, HDCP, and the Broadcast Flag, the only way we'll end up being allowed to record any digital broadcast legally will be with analog equipment anyway. And maybe that won't even be legal.

Re:It doesn't much matter...

[philipdl71]

One has to wonder if we would be dealing with the broadcast flag and all that other crap if the government would simply let HDTV develop on it's own.

Computer companies have no problem combining forces and devising standards. Why not let the broadcasters do the same?

Re:It doesn't much matter...

[GTRacer]

Ummm, I always figured it WAS the broadcasters asking Congress for federal protection. Since they're the "content" producers, they're the ones with the vested interest. See RIAA vs. anybody with an MP3 player, etc.

GTRacer
- Whatever happened to KISS?

Re:It doesn't much matter...

[Subgenius]

Of course, if you already have any of ATI's current RADEON TV cards, the packed-in software already supports a broadcast flag/'no record for you' feature. I've had the system stop recording ANALOG input content several times (self-produced on old analog 1" equipment, and I ain't talking abour pr0n).

Re:It doesn't much matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

We could beat the government into submission on this issue:

Moe: Oh, you mean like the time Barney beat up George Bush.
Homer: Barney? That was me! [bitter] And I'd do it again...
Charlie: Why stop there, Homer? My militia has a secret plan to beat up all
sorts of government officials! That'll teach them to drag their feet
on high definition TV!
[The goons bust in.]
Johnson: You're under arrest for conspiracy!
[they drag him out.]
Moe: How did they finger Charlie? Somebody must've ratted him out!
Homer: Oh, that's ridiculous, Moe. End transmission.
-- "The Trouble With Trillions"

Re:It doesn't much matter...

[agent0range_]

Solution:

We will expressly forbid the knowledge of how to build and maintain the analog equipment, and make it illegal to own or operate any such equipment.

Punishment will result in fines and death.

You have been flagged as a threat to Copyright. Sleep lightly.

baffling, can anyone explain?

[192939495969798999]

It's baffling to me how the "public airwaves" (read: any frequency band at all) can be permanently "sold" to anything. It should all be rented from the public. The companies should have to pay a rental tax, that gets used to discount individual income taxes. That's paying for something that belongs to the PUBLIC!

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[stratjakt]

They aren't permanently sold, they're licensed. The FCC is taking back VHF and UHF, after all. They couldn't do that if they were "owned" like property.

And they do pay licensing fees, application fees, they pay a huge fee to petition the FCC to increase their broadcast power and range, for instance.

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[Temfate]

Accept for one problem. We raise the costs to the broadcasters, they'll raise the costs to the viewers. Either the cost of cable and sat will go up, or the cost of advertisments will go up and thus the cost of the items we buy. It'll all screw us in the end. At least we'd have rights to force better service though.

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[Anonymous Coward]

The beauty of 'the system'. Its wonderful how to corporate America has turned the radio into the worthless crap that it is. Although it is 'ours' LPFM is the closest thing the average person can get to having a station and even that requires you be a 501.3c, have at least a couple thousand dollars for a certified broadcasting studio, AND have applied in the extremly tiny window provided for us a few years back. And really who applied for this option when it happened? Fucking religious groups all across the country who already have a very tiny portion of the spectrum to their incoherent babbling. Meanwhile, ClearChannel owns the rest. Thanks guys. A serious movement needs to occur to take back our airwaves, topple the power wielded over us by the FCC.

This is also why media conglomerates want to make cable and satellite your primary avenue for enterntainment. Since they own those avenues. Own and control. I will never buy a satellite dish and i will never buy cable. I dont need them and i dont want them. KILL YOUR TV. Next step after this, the internet...

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[Thud457]

Let's not forget broadcast != cable.

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[cryptochrome]

The only problem with renting, is the sort of business maneuvering where the big companies crowd out the little ones by buying up all the spectrum.

The way I figure, if the FCC/stations would just drop the false pretense that airwave broadcasters are serving the public good by carrying "news", this wouldn't be an issue. Hell, at this point I would say to ditch licensing of VHF/UHF spectrum for TV ENTIRELY. It can be put to better use. Cable and Satellite have far better selections, and radio is far more widespread. If they must, they can set aside a narrow band of spectrum for public access and local content.

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[Jtheletter]

The companies should have to pay a rental tax, that gets used to discount individual income taxes.

Which will most likely be taken from the consumer times three in the "Regulatory and other fees" portion of your cell phone bill (e.g. if the bandwidth were used for a pay service, other than broadcast TV). As it is when all carriers were required to provide number portability they "absorbed" the costs of supporting this by adding a small fee to every user's bill. That fee has recovered the costs of their conversion many times over already, however I'm willing to bet you will never see that fee removed.

I agree, the public airwaves should remain public and be rented and not sold, but unfortunately consumers who use pay services on those rented airwaves are just going to end up paying through the nose.

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[WalterDGeranios]

They aren't permanently sold, they're licensed. The FCC is taking back VHF and UHF, after all. They couldn't do that if they were "owned" like property. And they do pay licensing fees, application fees, they pay a huge fee to petition the FCC to increase their broadcast power and range, for instance.

The grandparent still has a point. A continual tax rather than lump-sum fees could encourage a better market (apologies to socialist types to whom the word is anathema) for the allocation of frequencies. It could be easier for indies to buy some space and grow. I would expect television programming to improve.

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[Temfate]

Let me explain myself then. Although broadcast!= cable as you point out, cable and sat have to pay fees to re-transmit the broadcast feeds to all the subscribers. Thus as their costs go up, so do the costs of their services... I just left that step out of my explanation...

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[cpeterso]

The FCC is taking back VHF and UHF, after all.

Now if we could only get Weird Al to take back UHF...

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[AK Marc]

And they do pay licensing fees, application fees, they pay a huge fee to petition the FCC to increase their broadcast power and range, for instance.

Compared to the bandwidth they are given and the cost of bandwidth for, say, cellular, they are given billions in subsidies by the government. The small fees they pay are nothing compared to what they get. Of course, they are also more tightly regulated on content. But for the bandwidth, they are getting a lot for a little.

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[DLR]

Does it occur to you who promote "renting" the airwaves that companies do not eat costs like that? Talk about the consumer getting the old 1 2 punch! They'll pass that cost right along to us, in addition to the taxes we already pay to support the FCC!

No, thanks!

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[Moofie]

So low-power FM is OK only if it's not bid on by fucking religious groups, huh?

Is there, like, some sort of list I can consult of things that also shouldn't be allowed?

I agree that the FCC is selling out to The Man. But, with LPFM, what is wrong with having religious programming, particularly if that's the only stuff that people want to put on the air?

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[Anonymous Coward]

How odd that you argue against privatization in favor of continued public ownership of the spectrum and simultaneously apologize to "socialists" for your purportedly right-wing bent. You're on a slipperly slope there, sport. As penance, I assign you 5 hours of EIB listening.

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[connorbd]

It's probably not the only thing -- check out www.abfreeradio.com for one example of a well-run community affairs station. Also, at least one religious group, Calvary Chapel, has shown a tendency to abuse the LPFM process by trying to build a satellite network of LPFM stations.

Re:baffling, can anyone explain?

[WalterDGeranios]

How odd that you argue against privatization in favor of continued public ownership of the spectrum and simultaneously apologize to "socialists" for your purportedly right-wing bent. You're on a slipperly slope there, sport. As penance, I assign you 5 hours of EIB listening.

Ugh. I'd rather watch 24 hours of Fox News. Anyway -- I'm speaking from a geolibertarian slant. There are no taxes on production, so everyone owns his work. However, taxes on the raw value of limited resources (land, frequencies) are not only permissible, but necessary, to prevent monopolization. Squatters' rights don't apply. This should be attractive to socialists, of course, since everyone gets an equal grab at the means of production (even those born after everything has been claimed). However, it is also an essentially decentralized system, which is probably the most important point in libertarianism. In short, it wasn't meant as an attack from the right. Rather, a criticism from--whatever direction geolibertarianism would be (the enlightened center? (I'm straddling the mountain peak with a slippery slope in all directions! ;) )).

digital broadcasts

[alatesystems]

I can't even get digital broadcasts of some of the major networks in my market because the stupid cable company won't negotiate a contract with all of them. The only major network that I get that is digital is ABC.

I do love my digital techtv though. That is the only digital channel that I watch. I wish fox and comedy central were digital because those are the other two channels that I watch most often.

Chris

Re:digital broadcasts

[idesofmarch]

Why watch TV at all? Just play with your damn free Dell PC all day, you pyramid-scheme-promoting hack.

Re:digital broadcasts

[DHR]

Get a HD decoder card, and put an antenna up then.

Re:digital broadcasts

[Kevin Burtch]

Yeah, too bad TechTV went down the toilet after the buyout.
G4TechTV seems to be all-gamerz - all-the-time. They dumped nearly every show I ever watched on that channel.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gamerz, I love playing UT or bzflag every once in a while, but I'm not the kind of person who lives for it, nor am I the kind of person who wants to watch others play games... that's even less exciting than watching other people play sports (rather than actually playing them).

If the boneheads running the networks had any brains at all, they would have MOVED the gamer-dood shows from TechTV to G4 and added more tech-content to TechTV.
Start with 2 channels, end up with 2 _better_ and more content-focused channels.

I am really hoping the Discovery/TLC guys make a new high-tech channel to fill this void. Something between the old TechTV and the Research Channel would be perfect. Discovery-Geek has a nice ring to it (just kidding).

Re:digital broadcasts

[glsunder]

techtv started going down before the buyout -- at least the screen savers did (when they started doing 15 minutes of case modding type stuff every day, I stopped watching). Now the channel's more of an infomercial for games -- most of the shows aren't even reviews.

I agree, move the game (and cartoons) to G4, put the tech stuff on techtv, heck they could even split the channel -- g4 from 7am to 7pm, techtv from 7pm to 7am and people could timeshift what they want.

Re:digital broadcasts

[Overzeetop]

Actually, once the transition takes place, your cable company will be forced to carry the digital channels. Right now, they get to choose which version to redistribute under the Must Carry rules.

For you, the transition will be quite a help.

Isn't he trying to make it come sooner?

[underpar]

Current law only requires broadcasters to give up their current airwaves by 2007, or when 85 percent of the nation can receive the new digital signals, whichever comes later. Most predict that could take a decade or more.

2009 is better, right?

Sigh.

[Kufat]

First of all, digital TV isn't necessarily HDTV. 480i digital broadcasts are perfectly possible. In addition, HDTV broadcasts don't have to be 16:9, although they frequently are. It's also worth remembering that the analog to digital spectrum change only applies to over the air broadcasts; cable companies can do as they wish, and pretty much all satellite broadcasts have been digital for a while now.

Re:Sigh.

[entrager]

Actually, HDTV is 16:9 by definition. Look at the spec for 720p and 1080i, it's all 16:9. However, some channels actually do broadcast their HDTV signals with black bars on the sides. The signal is still 16:9, but the black bars are part of the signal. The Denver NBC affiliate did this with their news broadcast until not too long ago when they actually got all HD equipment. Now not only is the news all HD and 16:9, their freakin' traffic copter uses HD. They claim to be the only station in the country with a HD camera on their chopper. Wow... I got off on a tangent.

Re:Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm pretty sure in order to truely be called "HDTV" a broadcast must be at least 720i @ 16:9. 480p 4:3 is just DTV--like the satelite signals.

Re:Sigh.

[hackstraw]

Why don't we have a modifyer for "Wrong -2" or something?

The spec in laymans' terms for HDTV can be found here:

http://www.triadtwcable.com/cableserv/images/SAHDT VFAQs.pdf

Re:Sigh.

[Ironsides]

HDTV is defined as having at least twice the number of either Pixels or Lines as SDTV [720x480I] (I forget which). Not by deffinition is it 16:9. I have seen HDTV in 4:3. It still looks great.

Re:Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why you're saying the granparent is wrong....

The little chart on the very front page says it clearly enough: it must be 16:9, and 720p to be called HDTV.

The absolute only reason 4:3 HDTVs exist is so that morons that watch mostly 4:3 DTV programs don't have to bitch about the bars on the top and bottom, or have the image stretched out of proportion.

It'll be entertaining to hear 'em bitch about their multi-thousand dollar investment when EVERYTHING is 16:9... 'Cause they've got black bars on the sides....

Re:Sigh.

[Jeremy Erwin]

Lines of resolution is something that dates from the old analogue days. A NTSC signal consists of 525 discrete scanlines, 480 of which are used to display video, but the number of columns varies with the set (and the video source.) Additionally, it's measured in a square area.

The VGA standard is 640x480 (16 color version). Assuming that the monitor is not crap, 480 lines could be resolved within the squared off area. The extra 160 don't count.

VHS is limited to 240 lines (320x480)
Broadcast TV is 330 lines (440*480)
Laserdisc and SVHS is ~420 lines (560*480)

DVDs store their information digitally, and the standard specifies a 720x480 picture. This is equivalent to 540 lines of resolution. On a computer, the display requires, of course, a 720x480 (4:3ish) or 854*480 (16x9) window to display it all in.

Similarly, a 720p picture requires a 1280*720 display, and 1080i necessitates the use of a 1920*1080 display. Not that you'll get all 1920 pixels across-- many HD cameras are only capable of resolving details for 1400 pixels, or about 800 lines of resolution.

Re:Sigh.

[MrR0p3r]

Why was this marked informative? Not only was the poster wrong about the grandparent being incorrect, but he didn't even read the document he posted himself!

For those that don't bother to click the link, it's a pdf that shows the specs for HDTV and SDTV (standard definition TV). It clearly states that all HDTV formats on a Scientific American box are 16:9 aspect ratio. *shrug* I feel like I slipped into a black hole or something.

Re:Sigh.

[Ironsides]

The extra 45 lines in NTSC are known as the Vertical Blanking Interval or VBI for short. It is used to transmit things such as Closed Captioning and other information. The reason it is there is because TVs at the time couldn't re-aim the tube from the lower right to the top left and so they leave it blank. The 480 lines of active video are how resolution is measured. Lines are still used to measury quality.

As to the VGA standard, 640 is the number of columns. They all get displayed. Don't even know why you brought this up.

VHS is 240 lines because it records at 1/4 full resolution. They couldn't make a consumer priced VCR that would record full res cheaply (pluss tape was more expensive back then). Broadcast TV is not 330 lines (at least here in the US.) it is 480 lines not 330 I have no idea how you are getting 330 from 440x480. Even the number of columns in broadcast is more than 440.

DVDs? 720x480 is not the equivalent of 540 lines. They use rectangular pixels and 2:1 is a compromise between 4:3 and 16:9. 720x480 is equal to 480 lines if progressive and 240 lines if interlaced (which it usually is as that is what most TVs are).

And FYI, HD cameras can resolve the full res of 1080i or 720p. They just aren't available for the consumer market yet. They are only for the broadcast market right now.

Re:Sigh.

[Jeremy Erwin]

The extra 45 lines in NTSC are known as the Vertical Blanking Interval or VBI for short. It is used to transmit things such as Closed Captioning and other information. The reason it is there is because TVs at the time couldn't re-aim the tube from the lower right to the top left and so they leave it blank. The 480 lines of active video are how resolution is measured. Lines are still used to measury quality.


There are two types of lines-- horizontal, and vertical. Horizontal lines (scanlines) are fixed by the ntsc standard-- 525, 480 of which get displayed. Laserdisc, VHS, DVD, broadcast--they all have 480 interlaced scanlines, period.

Vertical resolution is dependent on the resolution of the recieving device, and it must be measured. A technician counts the number of distinct vertical elements using a test pattern such as this one

As to the VGA standard, 640 is the number of columns. They all get displayed. Don't even know why you brought this up.

Video resolution is defined as number of (light+dark) lines resolved horizontally, divided by the image ratio. In this case, the ratio is 4:3. 640/1.33 is 480 lines of resolution, assuming that all 640 columns are resolved-- a fair assumption, given today's displays.

DVDs? 720x480 is not the equivalent of 540 lines. They use rectangular pixels and 2:1 is a compromise between 4:3 and 16:9. 720x480 is equal to 480 lines if progressive and 240 lines if interlaced (which it usually is as that is what most TVs are).

Again, scanlines should not be confused with lines of resolution. If all 720 columns of pixels can be resolved, then the dvd has 720*3/4=540 lines of resolution.

And FYI, HD cameras can resolve the full res of 1080i or 720p. They just aren't available for the consumer market yet. They are only for the broadcast market right now.

Some do, some don't. You would have to use a test pattern, and measure.

Re:Sigh.

[entrager]

Funny how people will mod something up as informative without reading the link that was posted. That document CLEARLY shows that HDTV is always 16:9. Exactly as I said before. THIS guy needs to be modded "Wrong -2".

Obvious compromise

[Bobo_The_Boinger]

The obvious solution is for analog and digital to meet in the middle, have black bars around all sides of both TVs! And then we also have room for the next big advance after digital. :)

Re:Obvious compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

There is another option that is not that far fetched: No borders. Depending on the format of the show, either 4:3 TVs don't show the sides of the image or 16:9 TVs don't show the top and bottom of the picture. Most of the time the interesting bits are in the middle of the picture so they don't get cut off either way. DVD players can do this for 16:9 movies on 4:3 screens: it's called "pan & scan".

Re:Obvious compromise

[entrager]

The funny thing, that actually happens on my 4:3 HDTV. When watching HDTV content, the TV adds black bars on the top and bottom. But some of the stuff that's broadcast in HD has black bars on the sides of 4:3 content (most commercials). So when watching this stuff I actually have a black border all the way around.

Re:Obvious compromise

[Hooded One]

Wow. Pan & Scan is the worst invention ever, and your idea is even worse. At least with P&S they well... pan and scan, to give the "best" part of the image most of the time. Well, they probably get lazy, but they usually don't let something crucial on the side of the screen get left out. But you've outshone them with your brilliance. Why even bother checking what you're cropping? Cut it out anyway!

Re:Obvious compromise

[Overzeetop]

Hmmm, that means we can have persistant banner ads for ALL our television viewing! Four borders can easily support 8 ads ALL THE TIME. And with ad rotation, we'll sell time in the traditional 30 seconds chunks. Thanks...this will be GREAT!

Re:Obvious compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like you need to set your cropping options up on your TV set better. If you get the border all the way around, your doing something wrong.

Re:Obvious compromise

[Fancia]

Pan & scan isn't done automatically, furthermore... it's done with someone deciding what part to cut out. DVDs that are panned-and-scanned are that way on the disc, not automagically by the DVD player.

Here's a thought...

[AKAImBatman]

Why worry about it?

We already use Satellite and land lines for digital broadcasts. Why do we need to convert the regular airwaves?

Re:Here's a thought...

[Control Group]

To free up bandwidth. Analog TV is a bandwidth hog in comparison to digital signals. We could cram a huge number of other services in the spectrum occupied by analog television broadcasts today.

Mining, flying

[missing000]

There are lots of rights that are nationally appropriated. The real questions is why regulate the spectrum at all.

It would be quite simple and lead to greater use if there was simply an arbitration process put in place to prevent infringing use. There is lots of spectrum available and devices are much better at not polluting it today.

The problem with massive deregulation is one of cost however. The FCC (and by proxy the Federal Govt.) makes lots of money from selling access rights.

Re:Mining, flying

[networkBoy]

"The real questions is why regulate the spectrum at all. [. . .] arbitration process put in place to prevent infringing use. [. . . ] The problem with massive deregulation is one of cost however. The FCC (and by proxy the Federal Govt.) makes lots of money from selling access rights."

The problem is not cost (or Fed income). The problem is the deepest pockets would win the spectrum. I personally like the EIB network even if I periodically disagree with them. What scares me is if their parent company (Clear Channel Communications) had their way they'd own even more spectrum. The FCC is (barely) keeping them in check and your idea would effectively give them access to the entire US spectrum.

-nB

Re:Mining, flying

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what, let's do it the libertarian way, keep the fsking government out and hey, if Clear Channel owns the entire spectrum, oh fscking well, remember he who pays the piper gets to pick the song. If clear channel can afford it, why not let them, isn't that capitalism at it's finest?

Re:Mining, flying

[KingAdrock]

I think Adam Smith would have disagreed that Monopolies were capitalism at its finest.

Re:Mining, flying

[networkBoy]

"You know what, let's do it the libertarian way, keep the fsking government out and hey, if Clear Channel owns the entire spectrum, oh fscking well, remember he who pays the piper gets to pick the song. If clear channel can afford it, why not let them, isn't that capitalism at it's finest?"

I hope you get modded up ;).
Yes this is true, but going the libertarian way is opening Pandora's box. The thing is if you are going to do that you need to go all in (IMHO). Most Americans (/. crowd included) don't really want that. The few that do are often seen as more conservative than the Republican Party. If we (U.S.A.) were to go truly into the libertarian way of doing things I think one of two things would happen:
1) All hell would break loose as MegaCorp Inc. takes over the world like some bad 80's SF movie.
or
2) It actually works as the citizenship steps up to the plate and behave like adults (yeah right).

Heinlin got it right with Bread and Circuses. (If you don't understand the reference, go read Take Back Your Government).

-nB

Re:Mining, flying

[I'm Spartacus!]

All hell would break loose as MegaCorp Inc. takes over the world like some bad 80's SF movie.

Garbage. MegaCorps exist because of government intervention. If corporations weren't allowed to hide behind limited liability clauses and taxpayer subsidies, they wouldn't have the power they currently do. If the people who run a corporation were held personally resonsible for fraud or theft they perpetrate, fraud and theft would virtually disappear. Corporations would be very different entities in a truly libertarian world.

Re:Mining, flying

[networkBoy]

"Corporations would be very different entities in a truly libertarian world."

I've gotta say I hope you're right, but I think we would not be as well off as many hope. I also think that it is predominately a mental exercise as for our Body Politic and economy to shift that far would be an amazing thing to see.
I highly doubt it will ever come to pass.
-nB

Re:Mining, flying

[pilgrim23]

the whole 802.11 Wireless space proves that citizens, with no regulations at all (in that Wirelss operates in a unregulated area of spectrum) can and do (did till the money people noticed what was up) operate just fine thank you very much. Seems to me that accomodation without conflict could occur in ANY area of spectrum without problems. Regulation is merely a means of maintaining control... the drug of choice for control freaks.

Re:Mining, flying

[WIAKywbfatw]

You know, that's a rather optimistic view of what would happen without any governmental intervention. For one thing, the absence of regulatory legislation would let businesses do whatever they wanted when they wanted, and that would mean screwing the customer and the environment whenever possible if it meant a cheap buck.

Of course, ever now and then they'd get sued, but when you have that much money you can buy a lot of lawyers, drag things out in court until the end of the Earth, or, if things are looking bad, simply buy people and their silence. Left to their own devices I have no doubt that corporations would err on the side of greed every time. You only have to look at how the music, movie and software industries operate in the US to see that the big guys shaft the little guys every chance they get, time after time after time.

Re:Mining, flying

[nero4wolfe]

There are some devices that would be impractical UNLESS there was some guaranteed consistency in spectrum usage between states. Examples are cell phones, 802.11 wireless access, wireless home phones, radios, televisions, etc. You don't want to replace (or if you're lucky, reconfigure) devices using rf frequencies every time you cross a state line.

And there are many situations where you have to have transmissions cross state lines. Radio/TV stations in a city near the border in one state, that serve citizens of the adjacent state, is just one simple example.

Re:Mining, flying

[Anonymous Coward]

... Thats silly talk to be honest. I dont think limited liabilty clauses have done much for any 'MegaCorps' around today (since they will only have an effect if the company goes into liquidation).

Im not sure about fraud and theft, I think the biggest problem about MegaCorps is that they tend towards monopoly if not regulated. Being ultra successful is no more wrong that winning gold in the Olympic's. However for the common good ultra successful companies need to be regulated. I can't comment about the US, but Article 82 of the EC treaty (Dominant companies cannot abuse dominance) is enforced in Europe....

Re:Mining, flying

[Carnildo]

You know, that's a rather optimistic view of what would happen without any governmental intervention. For one thing, the absence of regulatory legislation would let businesses do whatever they wanted when they wanted, and that would mean screwing the customer and the environment whenever possible if it meant a cheap buck.

Actually, it it might not. Remember the exploding Ford Pinto gas tanks? Under the Libertarian view, upper management in Ford would be going to jail for manslaughter, rather than Ford as a whole paying a small lawsuit payout.

Re:Mining, flying

[WIAKywbfatw]

Ah, but you're assuming that they can't use the law to protect themselves from blame.

Ever heard of liability shields? They're common practice in many hazardous industries and they stop, for example, oil companies having to foot the 9-figure bill when one of their single-hulled VLCCs runs aground and pours thousands and thousands of tons of crude oil onto your shoreline.

If you had any kind of legislation that held management personally responsible for more than a cup of cold coffee then you'd have liability shields for everything.

Want one-word proof that the big guys never pay whilst the little guys suffer? Enron.

Re:Mining, flying

[Jott42]

Actually, the use of 802.11 is heavily regulated. It is license-free, but that is another thing. It only means that you dont need a separate license for each device that you operate. But the devices still has to comply with regulations on frequency use, power levels and spurious emissions. And not all use of 802.11 is without problems, especially when operated close to other networks, like Bluetooth, and devices using the same frequency allocation, such as microwave ovens.

Government should not support this

[1000101]

""Consumers who rely on over-the-air television, particularly those of limited economic means, should be assisted," according to the draft obtained by Reuters."

TV isn't a right. TV is for entertainment and education, both of which you can get elsewhere. The government assisting people with television upgrades is such a huge waste of money. If you can't afford a television upgrade yourself, then you have a few years to start saving.

Re:Government should not support this

[Control Group]

I agree with the principle you're espousing, but it's impractical. If we intend to ever free spectrum by eliminating analog TV signals, something will have to be done to appease those who are content with the current situation. If, suddenly, 15% (a number I'm pulling out of a hat, admittedly) of the population are by law cut off from their television fix, the uproar would be immense enough to kill the whole plan.

I am, in general, against government handouts of any kind. This is one, however, that's in the interests of the public good. Hopefully, the money spent on assisting analog-to-digital upgrades (digital-to-analog downgrades, depending on your POV) could be recouped by selling off the spectrum freed up by shutting off analog TV broadcasts.

Re:Government should not support this

[stratjakt]

TV is also a primary source of information in the event of a natural disaster, or even something as mundane as knowing which schools are closed if it snows.

Though, I agree it isn't a right. And American government isn't supposed to be the type of government that buys you the stuff you can't afford.

A digital tuner with analog out could be produced quite cheaply.

Hell, it's basically a DVD player without all the (relatively expensive) DVD mechanisms, with a slightly fancier decoding engine. If I can get a cheap DVD player for around 50 bucks, I would expect a DTV tuner to cost less than that.

Once a good cheap DTV to Analog chip hits mass production, the market will flood with cheap devices, and people will start to switch on their own. But not until then.

Re:Government should not support this

[theMerovingian]

No kidding, if you can't afford a new TV you should be watching less of it anyway. That would suck to be spending tax money on cruft like that at a time of record deficits.

Re:Government should not support this

[n9uxu8]

Amen. While digital and HD are very nifty innovations, I would prefer that the adoption be left up to the incessant US need to keep up with the Jones'. Why on earth are we allowing politicians to mandate television broadcast methodology?!? Shouldn't they be spending their time trying to figure out how to tax public O2?

Dave

If you need a gmail invite, email me at n9uxu at yahoo dot com

Re:Government should not support this

[mikesmind]

I think our government views TV as a right. Why else would prison inmates get it?

Re:Government should not support this

[Mateito]

TV is for entertainment and education,

No. TV is about control... taking the role traditionally held by the village priest/medicine woman/witchdoctor in providing the "norms" by which a society must live.

Before you pull the tin-foil hat over my ears, think about what would happen without TV:

• People would be forced to think for themselves or find alternative methods of moral guidance. Church congregations of all religions and denominations would increase.
• Consumer spending would decrease with the decreased exposure to advertising.
• People would start talking to each other more. This may mean finally discovering that they don't actually like their spouses anymore, resulting in an increased divorce rate. Or, thinking positively, that couples would take the time to resolve problems.

• Ok, so this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but whether you agree with him or not, why is it that Michael Moore gets condemned for bias, whereas you hardly ever hear a voice raised against Fox?

Re:Government should not support this

[787style]

Consumers with limited economic means have bigger problems than the quality of the TV transmissions. I see this similar to the transition from leaded to unleaded gas. People with limited economic means eventually got around to upgrading to an unleaded car, once they no longer could get leaded gas.

Re:Government should not support this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Consumers who rely on over-the-air television"

What about the large portion of us who livein rural areas where the cable company just doesn't have any wire run?

just because you are some city dwelling metrosexual who thinks the world revolves around Manhattan does not mean the rest of us share your desire to pretend to be hip and cultered by living in an urban setting.

Re:Government should not support this

[prefect42]

What do you think the sub 40 quid digiboxes are in the UK? It's not like everyone's gone out and bought a new tv...

Re:Government should not support this

[stratjakt]

It's a priveledge given them to encourage good behaviour.

They'd rather have all those cons zoned out watching Joe Millionaire than to have them sharpening shivs or "circling the wagons" around the latest pasty white computer hacker who wrote a really neato VBScript worm.

Re:Government should not support this

[Noksagt]

TV isn't a right. TV is for entertainment and education, both of which you can get elsewhere. The government assisting people with television upgrades is such a huge waste of money. If you can't afford a television upgrade yourself, then you have a few years to start saving.

TV is an important media channel that does often have more up-to-date and more easily accessible information. Everyone should be entitled to the use. The government already regulates to some degree CSPAN, public access, PBS, and other channels. They see the value of television & if they are using tax dollars for some of these things, ALL tax payers should have a way to access it.

I think that, rather than buying poor people TVs, money should be allocated to public libraries who could add TV archive & viewing capabilities to the internet PCs they already offer to people.

Re:Government should not support this

[koreth]

People would be forced to think for themselves or find alternative methods of moral guidance. Church congregations of all religions and denominations would increase.

I think I'd rather live in a TV-controlled society than a church-controlled one.

I'm curious how many people who make TV you've actually met. None of the ones I know seem terribly concerned about controlling anyone (well, okay, the directors want to control the actors sometimes.) But maybe I've just met the wrong ones.

Re:Government should not support this

[I'm Spartacus!]

I see this similar to the transition from leaded to unleaded gas.

Right, because analog TV will give your kids brain damage just like lead will.

Oh wait..

Re:Government should not support this

[Anonymous Coward]

TV for "education"? OMG!

Re:Government should not support this

[I'm Spartacus!]

I think I'd rather live in a TV-controlled society than a church-controlled one.

And how exactly is any church going to control the world? If people weren't subject to all the hysteria they see on the news, people would be much more content in their day-to-day lives. I'd much rather live in a society of content, uninformed people than hysterical, uninformed people.

I'm curious how many people who make TV you've actually met. None of the ones I know seem terribly concerned about controlling anyone

We're not talking mind-control, we're talking about conditioning over years and years of seeing the aberrant behaviors of make-believe people. When you see beautiful people on every channel all the time, you begin to want to look like that too. When you see people driving the best cars and having the best things, you want those thing too. When you see people engaging in self-destructive behaviors that have no consequences in T.V. land, you think you can do those things too.

Not to mention that politicians use the mass media to jusitfy their existance. If people aren't aware of all the bad people out there waiting to kill them, how can politicians justify power grabs at the expense of the people's freedom. If people aren't aware of the latest "crisis", how can politicians hope to extract more money from the tax serfs to pay for their pet project?

T.V. is an insidious disease that poisons your mind over time. Just say no!

Re:Government should not support this

[ChrisMaple]

By the time that analog broadcasts are forbidden by law, digital TVs or converters will be so inexpensive that the only people who will be complaining will be those for whom complaining is their favorite sport.

Re:Government should not support this

[El]

TV is also a primary source of information in the event of a natural disaster Right... 'cause everybody's TV still works when the power goes out! I think radio is the primary source of information in the event of a natural disaster, because citizens are much more likely to have battery operated radio than battery operated televisions!

In my opinion, we don't need over-the-air television at all!

Re:Government should not support this

[mikesmind]

I can see your point. I'm not against positive rewards. However, the rewards should have a better outcome than just providing a kind of sedative.

While loosing your freedom might be punishment enough, is it enough of a deterrent to keep the prisoner from becomming a repeat offender? Maybe, by not having TV, they would have time to reflect on what they did wrong and decide to change their ways so they don't end up back in prison agan. There are a lot of better ways to build character than watching what is on TV today.

Re:Government should not support this

[Mateito]

I'm curious how many people who make TV you've actually met.

To whom do you refer?

If you mean the people who make "programs", then I know a few... but they work for Australian government channels (ABC and SBS), and thus are the exception rather than the rule as these are ad-free stations and they aren't under any great pressure from the network for ratings. In general, if they top a 4, they are considered doing well.

If you mean people who make the advertisements, then yes, I'm actually related to one of them. My brother scores music for TV commercials. As far as the Networks are concerned, the Ads are the important thing. Programs just exist to draw people to watch the Ads.

... and Ads are designed to influence audience behaviour: namely "buy this stuff".

That is a rather simplified depiction of the TV industry, but if your friends who "make TV" also must think about "controlling" the audience. They need that the viewing public stay with their program while tolerating 2 or 3 minutes of Ads ever 10 minutes. If not, they don't make money for the network, and they are unlikely to get more work.

Re:Government should not support this

[ericspinder]

If people weren't subject to all the hysteria they see on the news, people would be much more content in their day-to-day lives. I'd much rather live in a society of content, uninformed people than hysterical, uninformed people.

Personally, I think that if more people watched the news, we'd all be a little better off. Part of the reason why some news shows tend to be a little 'over hyped' (if you will) is that they need to pull in viewers, while (at least often) trying to maintain the 'hard news' aspects of the show. Another thing, your post seems to me to be the manifesto of an aspiring Dictator; uninformed people are easier to control.

If people aren't aware of the latest "crisis",

Hiding your head in the dirt will not make your problems go away. While not ever story is important to everyone, most are important to someone. So, you can make the choice about what to watch for yourself, but not for me.

Re:Government should not support this

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but whether you agree with him or not, why is it that Michael Moore gets condemned for bias, whereas you hardly ever hear a voice raised against Fox?

Because Bill O'Reilly has got nothin' on Michael Moore.

Re:Government should not support this

[typobox43]

That 15% number may not be as meaningless as you think. The current law states that the transition will be mandatory by either 2007 or when 85% of TVs are digital, whichever comes last...

Re:Government should not support this

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible to work full-time and not have any money left on non-essentials (not to mention food). To take away such a person's TV would be cruel. It is one of the cheapest forms of popular entertainment you can get.

I hate it when people (read: people with high-paying tech jobs) don't realize how much better they have it than so many others.

Re:Government should not support this

[I'm Spartacus!]

Personally, I think that if more people watched the news, we'd all be a little better off. Part of the reason why some news shows tend to be a little 'over hyped' (if you will) is that they need to pull in viewers, while (at least often) trying to maintain the 'hard news' aspects of the show.

If people choose to remain ignorant, there's not much that can be done to educate them. The "news" has always presented a much darker picture of the world at large than most people encounter in their everyday lives. Take crime for example. If one watches the news, one would assume that murderers rapists, and thieves are running rampant in the streets. The vast majority of people have never been the victims of a violent crime, yet they live in constant fear of it.

Another thing, your post seems to me to be the manifesto of an aspiring Dictator; uninformed people are easier to control.

And that would be different from now in what way? Newsweek recently conducted a poll that shows that 42% of people still believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. How is this representative of an informed people?

Bush is largely a dictator now anyway in that he has shown utter disregard for the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the Freedom of Information Act, and has close ties to private companies who control the voting machines in many important precincts in the upcoming election. The people of this country don't seem to mind too much as long as they can watch Survivor.

Re:Government should not support this

[Anonymous Coward]

15% is a pretty accurate number for those who will be left behind. About 85% of U.S. households have Cable or Satellite, and that number has been pretty stable for the last several years. (DBS growth has come mainly from cable switchers.) That 15% without any kind of pay-TV service is also by far the least likely portion of the population to proactively upgrade to a digital/HD television.

Re:Government should not support this

[telemonster]

Don't forget the battery powered digital to analog converter to go with the battery powered non-HDTV.

Re:Government should not support this

[I_M_Noman]

just because you are some city dwelling metrosexual who thinks the world revolves around Manhattan

You mean it doesn't? Fooled me.

does not mean the rest of us share your desire to pretend to be hip and cultered by living in an urban setting.

At least we know how to spell "cultured." And if that ain't hip, I don't know what is.

Re:Government should not support this

[dknight]

radio???

I dont have one.

Not in my apartment. Not even in my car.

Of course I dont have a TV hooked up either, but I do _HAVE_ a tv, and I could hook it up if I needed to.

So, I guess in the event of a natural disaster, I deserve to die for not owning a radio?

that's weak.

Re:Government should not support this

[vhold]

"And that would be different from now in what way? Newsweek recently conducted a poll that shows that 42% of people still believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. How is this representative of an informed people?"

That sounds like one of those terrible poll questions. What does it mean when you ask whether or not an entire country, as some kind of vague entity is in someway, anyway, involved? It could mean absolutely anything. If the 9/11 attacks were partially motivated by the first US invasion, you could say that it was involved.

My point is, I wouldn't try to prove any points about how informed people are off of such a lousy poll.

If the purpose of the question was to gauge whether or not the Iraqi government actually had something to do with it why don't they ask questions like "Do you think Saddam helped specifically plan or sponsor the 9/11 attacks?" As far as I can tell they want to have muddled results that they can use to mean almost anything they want.

If you are trying to show that the link between Iraq and terrorism justification was invalid, you have a flawed poll because it's limited to only 9/11. You can do next to nothing with this poll. Your usage of it to show that people are not informed I think is flawed. I think the poll is so flawed and vague that most people simply responded with their basic partisan answer without even having to think.

Let me try making a more specific, but biased and loaded, question: "Do you believe that overthrowing Saddam's government will make other countries think twice before supporting terrorism?" The problem with that question as a yes/no poll is that just by answering at all there's a good chance you are implicitly agreeing that Saddam supported terrorism.

Re:Government should not support this

[Southwick]

Does no one own a radio anymore?

It is lauphable to me that the government would actually help people get a TV, aren't there more important social concerns that my tax dollars could go to?

Re:Government should not support this

[WalterDGeranios]

I think I'd rather live in a TV-controlled society than a church-controlled one.

I think America is getting to the point where just about everyone is paranoid about being surrounded by ideologues. Maybe that's because we are. One thing that seems to keep it going is the constant pitting of ideologies against each other.

For instance, Bush vs. Kerry: most voters don't seem to be passionate about the virtues of one of the candidates--they're whipped into hating and fearing the opposite agenda.

A TV-controlled society could be anything--so could a church-controlled one--all depending on the programming or doctrine, respectively. You don't get bonus points for hating churches as an ideological vehicle.

Re:Government should not support this

[Mateito]

Because Bill O'Reilly has got nothin' on Michael Moore.

You seem to be missing half your argument.

Farenheit 9/11 is a propaganda piece. Michael Moore has said that he made it for one reason: To get Bush out of the Whitehouse. Its propaganda, its always been propaganda, and a link stating its propaganda doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.

However, where's the link that shows that Bill O'Reilly is clean?

Point it: Fox (as the most obvious ofender) has a picture to paint, and elects and edits its stories to support its point of view. In general, nobody cares. Michael Moore applies the same techniques to the other side of the argument, and people start accusing him of "spreading propaganda". (To which Moore replies: "Duh!").

Moore may be more extreme in his FUD than Fox, but then he has a 2 hour movie in which to present his side of the story. How many channels does Fox own, and for how many hours a day do they broadcast?

I'm not defending Moore as a "balanced" reporter, but people who accept Fox and blast Moore are missing something fundamental.

Re:Government should not support this

[multiplexo]

TV isn't a right. TV is for entertainment and education

I'll agree with you that TV isn't a right, but TV being educational? Let's face it, "educational television" is as much of an oxymoron as "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp".

Re:Government should not support this

[ericspinder]

Newsweek recently conducted a poll that shows that 42% of people still believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. How is this representative of an informed people?

Sorry, I'm confused here, are you "for" keeping people informed or against it. This post sounds like you wish people were more informed not less.

The vast majority of people have never been the victims of a violent crime, yet they live in constant fear of it.

Really, nice fact, where are your figures. I like to see both the facts on the 'vast majority' and the 'constant fear'. I'll admit that sometimes I am aware of danger, but that doesn't mean that I live in constant fear.

The people of this country don't seem to mind too much as long as they can watch Survivor.

I am a person of this country (the U.S.), and I personally couldn't care less about Survivor. Blanket assumptions and wild unproven accusations are a poor form of communication.

BTW, Personally I am supporting Kerry for President.

Re:Government should not support this

[Abcd1234]

When you see beautiful people on every channel all the time, you begin to want to look like that too. When you see people driving the best cars and having the best things, you want those thing too. When you see people engaging in self-destructive behaviors that have no consequences in T.V. land, you think you can do those things too.

So *that's* my problem! See, recently I've started experiencing this incredible urge to get liposuction, buy an SUV, and become a coke addict. But, now I know, it's the TV's fault! Thanks!

Re:Government should not support this

[Anonymous Coward]

"TV is also a primary source of information in the event of a natural disaster, or even something as mundane as knowing which schools are closed if it snows."

I disagree, radio is a far more accessable medium in any of the above mentioned cases. For example, there are far more battery operated radios out there than TVs. Also, the vast majority of cars (most of which continue to operate even in a power outage :-) have radios, not TVs. The emergency broadcasting system is well established in the world of radio.

If getting information to people in an emergency is why the government wants to provide HDTV to the masses, wouldn't it make more sense to spend our tax money on $5 wind-up transistor radios for everyone?

Re:Government should not support this

[AK Marc]

And how exactly is any church going to control the world?

I think you missed the History chanel's coverage of the Catholic Church.

When you see beautiful people on every channel all the time, you begin to want to look like that too.

Yeah, that's why with all the Calista Flockhearts on TV, we live in a society that is more obese than any other, past or present.

If people aren't aware of the latest "crisis", how can politicians hope to extract more money from the tax serfs to pay for their pet project?

TV is only one form of media. "They" can still control the radio, newspapers, the Internet, or other such communication channels.

Re:Government should not support this

[I'm Spartacus!]

Sorry, I'm confused here, are you "for" keeping people informed or against it. This post sounds like you wish people were more informed not less.

I'm not for either option. My point was that the public is vastly uninformed and nothing will change that. There is no point in wasting effort trying to inform someone who dismisses overwhelming evidence when it contradicts their preconceived notions. Giving everyone a "free" digital convertor so they can watch T.V. and "stay informed" is ludicrous.

Really, nice fact, where are your figures. I like to see both the facts on the 'vast majority' and the 'constant fear'.

Fine, it was an exaggeration, but I'd estimate that at least 98% of the people I know have never been the victim of a violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery), yet ask them if crime is an important issue to them personally and they'll say yes. The images we get from television exert an overwhelming influence upon us that is not indicative of what our actual lives are like.

Re:Government should not support this

[I'm Spartacus!]

That sounds like one of those terrible poll questions. What does it mean when you ask whether or not an entire country, as some kind of vague entity is in someway, anyway, involved? It could mean absolutely anything. If the 9/11 attacks were partially motivated by the first US invasion, you could say that it was involved.

You obviously didn't click through and read the link. The actual question was whether or not the regime of Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. 42% of the respondants said yes while 44% said no. Is this willful ignorance, laziness, cognitive dissonance, or something else? How can this many people still support such an untenable position? This blows the whole "we need to provide free digital converters to the needy so they can stay informed" argument out of the water.

Re:Government should not support this

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but whether you agree with him or not, why is it that Michael Moore gets condemned for bias, whereas you hardly ever hear a voice raised against Fox?

Because he's biased?

Re:Government should not support this

[vhold]

Aaaah shoe! I'm using a text browser and I didn't notice that was even a link. Blorg! Thanks for the heads up.

The only thing I can complain about now is that article doesn't show us the full poll question in it's original form. It manages to quote one part of it which supports your viewpoint but I've seen that kind of thing still manage to be skewed given the greater -actual- context of the poll. There's a good chance that'd be a bit difficult given the information that is at hand, but the obvious opinion of that editorial makes me wonder just a tad.

If it really was obviously specific like that, the only thing I can say is that's a perfect example of how partisan people are. They are beyond critical thinking.

There is one insightful response on that page, to the basic effect of "what we have here is a meta-story from the media about how misinformed people are, who got their information from the media in the first place. What do you expect when mainstream media is too afraid of it's own ratings to stand up to the administration at it's most popular point and just bends over to whatever they're told?"

What amazes me more then anything is that there have been tons of relatively politically justifiable reasons to kick Saddam out over the years, even if it isn't equitable compared to all the other dictators we could kick out for even bigger reasons, and our administration and powers that be fed us the worst, most sloppily founded stuff imaginable.

I guess it just proves that if you ever need to justify something to a large body of average people, go for the most emotionally founded rationales at the expense of logic if you have to and you'll come out ahead in the long run, even if you are proven massively wrong, it won't matter, the people who bought into your illogic are just as invested in defending and justifying it as you are.

Re:Government should not support this

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, let's see...

Large corporations stand to make a lot of money out of the conversion to digital, if the uptake is big enough. So they ask the GOP government for some guarantees before they'll play ball... like, if part of their audience can't afford new sets, perhaps the taxpayers can pitch in and help.

So industry gets a handout, which makes them happy.

The poor get new TV sets, which makes them happy.

And the schmucks in the middle get to pay for it all!

Re:Government should not support this

[Nimey]

TV is also a primary source of information in the event of a natural disaster, or even something as mundane as knowing which schools are closed if it snows.

Um, radio?

Re:Government should not support this

[sjames]

So, I guess in the event of a natural disaster, I deserve to die for not owning a radio?

In the event of a natural disaster, you probably won't have electricity for your TV.

I would think the answer would be to get a radio! I have one that's combined with a flashlight and a hand crank to charge it's batteries. I think it cost me about $15 years ago. When I really need news in the event of a natural disaster, the TV useful only as a good place to put a candle.

The above is true for most people. When you really need it, an AM radio is a lot more likely to be available for the vast majority of people. You should probably get one if you have any concerns about being informed in an emergency. Even battery powered TVs tend to also have a built in radio. The batteries will power the radio a lot longer than the TV. The corner store may be closed at the time.

Nobody deserves to die, but people who foolishly depend on something that plugs in as part of their disaster plan sometimes do.

Who provides converters for the proles?

[charleste]

In the end, tax money will be used to provide or subsidize those who cannot afford a digital converter with one. IMHO this is an issue that should be voted on by the proles, not discussed (read: spending even more of my tax dollars) ad nauseum in congress, et. al.

Re:Who provides converters for the proles?

[alex_ware]

In england their is a thing called freeview it is £50 a box [read $75] if America used it aswell it would only get cheaper and I would be able to build a freeview PVR.

Re:Who provides converters for the proles?

[Anonymous Coward]

The proles would be better off not watching TV.

It might give them enough time to think about stuff, and realize how fucked they are getting.

Re:Who provides converters for the proles?

[SeattleGameboy]

Correction, Your tax dollars have long been spent (this year's deficit: $455 billion). It's more like borrowing even more money from our money lenders (Japan and China).

Choices?

[syntap]

so consumers have a choice -- between analog (black borders on the sides of their digital TVs) and digital (black borders on the top and bottom of their analog TV)

Oh geez, someone who hasn't watched a show in high definition must have written this... watching television in better resolution than DVD is a much different experience than black bar placement.

Re:Choices?

[Amberlock]

Reality TV is just as bad in HDTV as it is in Analog.

The Real Question

[stretch0611]

Who wants to buy a HD-TV if the only thing on the air is "reality" shows? Also, who wants to be force-fed a DRM flag for digital tv?

I currently own a nice 36" tv with decent resolution(even though it is analog). Personally, I have no compelling reason to shell out my hard earned cash on a HD-TV.

Re:The Real Question

[cascadingstylesheet]

I currently own a nice 36" tv with decent resolution(even though it is analog). Personally, I have no compelling reason to shell out my hard earned cash on a HD-TV.

Preach it, brother. Maybe this switch will finally get us out of watching TV altogether (my family watches very little as it is).

Re:The Real Question

[DHR]

Especially since none of the reality shows are actually filmed in HD.

Re:The Real Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...I have HDTV. I enjoy watching HDTV programs. I don't watch (un)reality shows.

And for the record, I'm still waiting for a force-fed DRM flag to affect me in any way.

And hust how

[wiredog]

do you keep the signal

A)Available throughout an entire, non-circular state and

B)completely withing that state?

Re:And hust how

[DevNova]

The shape of the signal area can already be modified to some degree. If you ever notice a group of towers together, sometimes some of those towers are being used to cancel or limit the signal in a particular direction, so it is more or less possible to cover an entire state and only have minimal leakage into neighboring states, although the number of transmitters and towers needed to accomplish this would probably be very costly and reception at the borders might be a nightmare.

If it ain't broke...

[decipher_saint]

First off I'm clueless, so someone 'splain it to me...

Why not let the market decide what it can support instead of forcing an upgrade on everyone?

Re:If it ain't broke...

[Control Group]

Because corporations always (well, with very few exceptions) choose short-term profit over long-term. Freeing up the bandwidth is the sort of thing which will have benefits in terms of being able to do things we haven't been able to do before - but we don't know yet what those things are. Hence, no corporation in its right mind will sacrifice current revenue streams (analog broadcasts) for future potential (digital broadcasts).

Much like the internet itself: without government funding, the internet would never have happened. All the profits that are made off its existence now are based on services that couldn't even be conceived of until the medium to support them existed.

Re:If it ain't broke...

[Megaweapon]

"Why not let the market decide what it can support instead of forcing an upgrade on everyone?"

Two words: Republicans. Democrats.

Re:If it ain't broke...

[mjh]

Because corporations always (well, with very few exceptions) choose short-term profit over long-term.

While that's true, it doesn't only apply to corporations. It applies, as a general rule, to indivduals, too. If you want an example, imagine that I gave offered to sell you two gold coins, one which you'd receive the directions to today, and one you'd recieve directions for in 10 years. By far, the higher selling price would go to the gold coin which could be had today, even though each coin is exactly the same.

But that's not my point. My point is that the market could decide in favor of digital TV if it were included in the process. The way to do that would be to allow the current spectrum holders to reuse/sell/rent the space to someone else. Right now the spectrum holders can *only* make money off of it by broadcasting TV over it because the regulations require that they only do this. This precludes a market because there's a scarcity (frequency spectrum) which no one is allowed to buy or sell.

But if the current spectrum holders were allowed to use it for whatever they thought would make the most money, don't you think Cingular would be talking to the TV stations to get that spectrum? Don't you think the TV stations would try to subsidize the cost of new digital TVs? Don't you think it could be done much more quickly and more effectively if private citizens and not the government were making the decions as to what happened to the space?

I do.

Re:If it ain't broke...

[Skye16]

Easily simplified to one word:

Jackasses.

Re:If it ain't broke...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Much like the internet itself: without government funding, the internet would never have happened.

Shhh. With that kind of talk, people might figure out that Al Gore, who played a large part in getting the Internet that funding in the 1980s, actually did help bring about the internet as we know it.

Digital != black borders

[sunderland56]

between analog (black borders on the sides of their digital TVs) and digital (black borders on the top and bottom of their analog TV)

Digital versus analog is NOT the same as aspect ratio. The two concepts have little, if anything, to do with one another.

If your television screen's aspect ratio matches the aspect ratio of the program being broadcast, you will have no black bars. If the two do not match, you will have black bars, whether or not the broadcast is in an analog or digital form. I've got a Sony 36" HD set at home that has a 4:3 aspect ratio screen - no black bars when watching analog TV (or 4:3 digital broadcasts such as Fox).

Side rant: if you watch NBC digital, you get #(*&^%# annoying GREY bars on the sides. On dimly lit shows, those grey bars are much brighter than anything else in the room - annoying beyond belief.

Re:Digital != black borders

[Anonymous Coward]

Both digital and analog broadcasts can be either 4:3 or 16:9. It has nothing to do with the method of signal delivery. Aspect ratio is a component of resolution, such as 480i and 1080i. You can have a high definition broadcast sent over either analog or digital, and you can have a standard definition broadcast delivered the same ways. if a show is recorded in 4:3 then displayed at 16:9 (or vice versa), that is when you get black bars.

Re:Digital != black borders

[LocalH]

The grey bars are intended to lessen burnin on expensive plasma sets. Plasmas have worse burnin than CRTs, and the neutral grey helps mitigate that.

Not that it's not ass-ugly, that's for sure. But it might be better than turning on your plasma one day and seeing that the picture area outside the middle 4:3 area has the black burnt it.

This should definitely be an option in the receiver, however. Although this won't work with upconverted NTSC, as said upconverters also tend to have the gray/black setting, so you're likely to get a mix of grey and black bars.

Re:Digital != black borders

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone's going to make a lot of money selling "black-bar removal" devices: a pair of plastic bars in the same color and texture as your tv frame that you can stick to the top and bottom of your screen. This will hide the blacked out parts and make you blissfully think that your tv is being used to its full potential.

Re:Digital != black borders

[Seekerofknowledge]

No I think it's the other way around. The black areas on a plasma screen are not being utilized, meaning that the middle 4:3 area is being burnt-out at a faster rate. You would one day turn on your tube to realize that the middle area is dimmer and less colorful than the edges.

I believe the effect of the grey is to help wear out the entire screen at the same rate, so you don't notice it. Very similar to when you run "maintenance mode" on a plasma screen by watching it with inverted colors. You attempt to use up those pixels that were underused before, to even it out.

Re:Digital != black borders

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is, you don't necessarily get borders on any side of the digital or analogue picture if you use shoot-and-protect. By producing part of the picture with nothing happening in it, you can use the "centre-cut" method and keep both digital and analogue viewers happy.

(The networks in Australia use the 14:9 compromise most of the time, except when some of them produce the news without zooming any of the prevalent 4:3 satellite footage ... for lots of pretty diagrams, see this guideline document.)

One of the things you'll realise from the 14:9 compromise, if you come to my lectures, is you sometimes don't even see the black bars anyway -- the fact is, even in plain old 4:3 analogue, you're producing pixels that won't be seen. You have to, because of boring old CRTs, which define the SDTV standard.

(If you've dabbled in XFree86 configuration, you've probably noticed that good old 640x480 is really 848x515 raster lines, give or take, or that 1024x768 is really 1408x823, maybe. The VGA standard defines all the other lines as black).

A 525-line NTSC TV will show you 480 lines (maybe) and 450 lines (approx) at the edges, because of the round corners. So produce all your important action in a 600x450 region in the middle of 640x480. Same thing goes for 625-line PAL: Produce 720x540 in the middle of 768x576. Ish. (Can you guess where the sync pulses, closed-captions/subtitles, and ceefax/teletext go? See the other Slashdot story on ceefax today).

Then, because SDTV Is Evil, you have to account for anamorphic pixels, interlace flicker, brightness flare and adjacent chroma causing analogue dot crawl; and just when you thought you grokked it, widescreen SDTV confusingly uses the same number of pixels! (I haven't even mentioned colour-safe! You can almost ignore that one these days).

Whereas, HDTV Is Your Friend, because all pixels will be square, all pixels will be seen, you can count on progressive mode displays, pixels don't just move because the screen got brighter, and there's no analogue in the loop (using a 1950s colour system bolted on, backwards-compatible, to a 1920s black-and-white system!) HDTV is based on presumptions arising out of LCDs and plasma screens.

Please, as a loyal true geek, support HDTV. (Purely on its technical basis! Huzzah!)

CK.

Re:Digital != black borders

[Captain_Chaos]

Do you have 16:9 analog broadcasts in the States? Here in Europe we have what's called PAL Plus, which is a PAL-compatible, 16:9 aspect ratio analog signal. It's higher quality than a regular PAL broadcast with black borders above and below the picture. The BBC broadcasts a lot of its programs in PAL Plus, including movies, which is very nice since you get to see the movie like it's supposed to be seen, almost like watching a DVD. Other countries are following suit.

The corresponding widescreen PAL Plus TV's are becoming very popular, most new TV's sold in Europe (well, in the Netherlands at least) are widescreen TV's now, I believe.

hdtv, football..hurrry the hell up

[toolshed7]

I wish they would hurry the hell up. After watching the NFL games last year. I cannot imagine watching any sporting event not in HDTV.

Hurry the hell up, I switched to XM because of regular radio bullshit. Analog tv signals is more or less just crap. If you have never seen it, goto a HDTV on sunday and watch a football game. Man, I love sundays..beer, chips, and football. Good stuff.

I'm at a loss here.

[phaetonic]

McCain's reason to help foot the bill to the tune of $1 billion is : "The nation cannot risk the further loss of life due to public safety agencies' first responders' inability to communicate effectively in the event of another terrorist act or national crisis," the draft legislation said.

Currently, my digital cable box gets both analog and digital signals. If I put the HD channel on by accident, I can hear audio but see no video. Therefore, people who can't afford a digital TV in 2009 can keep their analog TV and leave it tuned to the one analog channel for emergencies until they can afford a digital tv.

Re:I'm at a loss here.

[Mariner28]

You might be a bit confused here. "Public safety agencies' first responders' inability to communicate...in the event of...crisis" refers to their ability to communicate with each other - that is, fire departments can communicate with police, national guard, FEMA, etc - using the same radio gear in the same area of spectrum. It is NOT a super kind of Emergency Broadcast System for the public to listen to. Right now, different frequencies are allocated to each agency, and their radio gear cannot communicate with other agencies. What I don't hear (unless I missed it!) is who's gonna pay for all those agencies to buy new radio gear that will USE the VHF spectrum vacated by the TV broadcasters?

Re:I'm at a loss here.

[Ryan C.]

Two things:

One, it's your digital cable box they're talking about having to foot the bill for (though it would be a digital off-the-air box). That's what the 1 billion is for. They want the ability to break in to "Who Wants to Marry my Million Dogs" with the emergency broadcast since that's where folks will be tuned, not the mandated emergency channel.

Two, a "high def" channel can switch to a lower resolution MPEG program stream at any time if it wants to.

Again, digital has nothing to do with HD. You can have HD analog (had it for years in Japan) and you can have standard def. digital (most digital channels still are SD).

-Ryan C.

Re:I'm at a loss here.

[Ophelan]

Bizarre...perhaps he is confused, and is thinking of the interference between the 800Mhz public safety bands and Nextel phones?

Nice Pun

[McComas]

Oh Slashdot. That is terrible. Using the word 'dithering' in a headline about television standards technology. Shame on you. Punnery is the lowest humor.

Re:Nice Pun

[I confirm I'm not a]

Punnery is the lowest humor.

Yeah, right. I think you'll find it's sarcasm.

;)

Re:Nice Pun

[McComas]

Well met. I think you will find that, without the slightest shred of doubt, in every conceivable universe and in every way you can possibly consider, over-blown exaggeration is the lowest form of humor.

Re:Nice Pun

[soulsteal]

What about repetition?
What about repetition?
What about repetition?

Re:Nice Pun

[pclminion]

It's barely a pun. The technical term "dithering" is very closely linked to the traditional meaning.

dictionary.com defines dithering as "To be nervously irresolute in acting or doing." In other words, to flip-flop. This is precisely the case when dithering an image from a large number of colors into a smaller number of colors. Instead of producing an exact pixel color, the algorithm chooses somewhat randomly between alternatives so as to produce an approximate match, at least when viewed from far away. It behaves "irresolutely" (it can't make up it's mind), or, in other words, it "dithers."

I know that somewhere in here lurks a very lame Kerry joke, but I won't be the one to say it.

Re:Nice Pun

[AK Marc]

Uh, it isn't a pun. It would possibly be a double entendre. One the meaning could be taken two ways, one that they are oscillating with their decision, the other that they are being represented in a specific graphic form (more often related to printed media than TV, but I'll give them that).

It was government's idea!

[cascadingstylesheet]

TV isn't a right. TV is for entertainment and education, both of which you can get elsewhere. The government assisting people with television upgrades is such a huge waste of money. If you can't afford a television upgrade yourself, then you have a few years to start saving.

It's the fscking government that's forcing the broadcasters to switch! It wasn't their idea.

So yeah, if it's so much in society's common interest to force this new format, maybe society should pay the bleepin' costs, too.

Re:It was government's idea!

[Detritus]

It's the fscking government that's forcing the broadcasters to switch! It wasn't their idea.

Wrong. It was the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) who got the ball rolling on HDTV. This was their plan to keep Motorola from stealing "their spectrum". They had already lost part of the UHF TV spectrum (Channels 70-83) to the AMPS cellular phone band (800 MHz) and land mobile use.

Black borders?

[LoudMusic]

There's a lot more to it than black borders ... and why does the government get to tax the airwaves? It's not like they created them.

Re:Black borders?

[pivo]

and why does the government get to tax the airwaves?

Because we let them

Re:Black borders?

[Overzeetop]

They didn't create the land either, but the taxes I pay on that land DO fund the local schools and roads.

You don't have to create something to make money off of it. Kind of like SCO.

Why Bother?

[Tangurena]

Digital TV does not solve any problem that we as consumers have. Digital TV does not automagically render TV shows into something worth watching. The only features that appear to be worth pushing this technology, are the ones that only Hollywood wants: to overturn Betamax. I didn't want the V-chip (and despite the promises of that technology, it still did not prevent the Janet Jackson incident). And I don't want this dorky new tech. Is Never Twice the Same Color (NTSC) an ancient technology? Yes, and so are books.

What can digital tv show that analog can't? I'm sure that you can come up with all sorts of trivial features, but it doesn't solve a problem that I have. Therefore there is no reason for me to go out and piss thousands of dollars down the drain on some new boob tube.

I think it is painfully clear that I am not alone in rejecting digital tv: the market isn't buying it. Corporate welfare to prop up the TV manufacturers (by subsidizing them) is a little late and quite misguided. As long as there is a difference in price between a digital tv and an analog one, price will win every time.

Re:Why Bother?

[Smitty825]

I agree that Digital TV doesn't "solve" any problems we as consumers have. However, it does provide a nicer form of entertainment (higher quality picture, progressive scan options (60fps), 5.1 digital sound, etc). IMHO, HDTVs are not catching on because of their high price, not due to consumer demand. (How many people do you know that want a nice plasma tv?)

That being said, this article is about digital transmissions, and that _does_ solve a problem that people have. With the digital transmission, you either get a picture, or you don't. The picture is 100% clear, and the digital transmissions actually travel further than the old analog ones.

Re:Why Bother?

[rusty0101]

Just a minor quible, Digital TV does not solve any problems you as a specific consumer has. It very well may provide solutions that other consumers may be seeing.

When it comes down to it, the arguments you have provided can very easily be described as being valid for Sattelite DBS TV, or even Cable TV. And that's just in the TV realm.

When it comes to 'books', the argument could have been made that the printing press did not provide any solutions to consumers of books that was not already being supported by monks making copies by hand.

One thing that DigitalTV can provide that analog can not is the ability to use the same bandwidth to broadcast as much as 4 times the same volume of content. That is not at a benifit to the producers of content. The observation that broadcasters will self limit this ability to only broadcast the same type of material they currently do, in HD rather than four seprate standard definition feeds, is an observation of a possiblity.

I tend to agree that there is not enough material in DigitalTV to give me an incentive to switch at the moment. I won't make the claim that there never will be enough.

I still buy and read books. I go to movies, and Renisanse Festivals. I buy magazines, and listen to the radio in my car.

-Rusty

Re:Why Bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The picture is 100% clear, and the digital transmissions actually travel further than the old analog ones."

Crap.
You'd be right IF the broadcasters gave each channel enough bandwidth, and if they used a decent encoding scheme, but as digital (in the UK) currently stands the signals are weaker (they get disrupted by storms, for instance), and the picture is only clear when there isn't much motion on the screen - rapidly changing pictures produce blocky artefacts (and screw up the sound!), and the picture regularly, for no reason, freezes or blanks for a second every couple of hours.
The picture _is_ a bit better than analog when not artefacted, but not by much. It certainly doesn't magically add any extra lines of resolution to the TV...

The signal strength issues might be solved after analog gets switched off (though I assume they will again prefer quantity of channels over quality), but the artefacting seems to be here to stay. I'm waiting for HDTV over cable...

Re:Why Bother?

[flatland_skier]

In my experience the artifacting is mostly due to the equipment it's recorded on. The digital broadcast of the Olympics was almost unwatchable due to this. On the other hand news broadcasts and college football all show up fine. YMMV

Re:Why Bother?

[Ironsides]

Actually, if you look at how DTV came about. It came from Broadcasters trying to keep the spectrum the have (and keep from getting interference from adjacent frequencies. They started touting HDTV so they could keep the full 6 Mhz of bandwidth they have without giving any of it up. Besides, since the rest of the 1st world is going to HDTV (Europe, Japan) how long do you think it would be before people in this country started saying "How come we don't have that?"

Re:Why Bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital TV does not solve any problem that we as consumers have.

Where do you live? Middle of a big city? Not everyone does. I used to live in a town where you got 3 channels, all of them fuzzy. A digital signal would not have this problem.

It does solve at least one problem that some "consumers" have.

Is it a widespread problem? Not really, most people have cable/satellite. Those who don't probably have economic reasons, which rules out DTV as well for now.

What can digital tv show that analog can't? I'm sure that you can come up with all sorts of trivial features, but it doesn't solve a problem that I have.

And now we get to the real argument. It's not about "we," it's about "I." Nothing really wrong with that, it's just a much weaker argument.

Bad idea to rent bandwidth

[nurb432]

If you rent bandwidth, then its an easy thing to alternative squelch speech by making the 'rental' fee far to high, unless you are one of the big media giants..

No, not a good idea at all...

Re:Bad idea to rent bandwidth

[mjh]

???

I'm confused by this. In the current system, the cost of advertising is so high, that we have polticians who run for office only on the strength of their campaign coffers. Opening up a scarce resource to market economics will lower the cost of that resource much more effectively than inefficient regulation of that resource, which artificially raises the price.

Maybe it's just me but this seems like a strawman point. The resource is already priced out of reach of the VAST majority of people. The spectrum is already unavailable to the most people as a conduit for free speech. I think it's time to try something else.

Re:Bad idea to rent bandwidth

[BobPaul]

If you rent bandwidth, then its an easy thing to alternative squelch speech by making the 'rental' fee far to high, unless you are one of the big media giants..

Don't they sell the bandwidth now? What if they sold it for exorbinant fees? Seems to me barriers already exist and government already has the ability to raise or lower those barriers. Rent or sell, it's egal.

Don't knock analog

[overshoot]

The only TV I watch is by time-shifting. At least I can time-shift analog. I'm certainly in no hurry to trade in the ability to timeshift for the priveledge of having to pay several times as much for a set whose primary design feature is its ability to keep me from recording broadcast programs.

The old analog set works, and I'm not planning to replace it.

Re:Don't knock analog

[Ahnteis]

Buy one of them fancy converters so that their digital is still analog to you. :)

Digital TV in flyover country

[MadHungarian1917]

For better or worse TV is the primary information channel for most of the population and digital modulation schemes are simply not appropriate in many rural areas. Don't watch much TV anymore but I can receive the analog broadcasts from the nearest major market ~100 miles away with reasonable quality.

I do have a digital tuner and the digital broadcasts don't make the trip. I can pick up 1 station in a 30 mile radius
I do have a Satellite for the family - ie h*ll will freeze over before I give Comcast a single dime but Digital is a great idea for the metro NY/LA markets but it just doesnt cut it for the rest of the country.

BTW the reason NTSC uses its odd phase modulation scheme for color was to ensure backwards compatibility with the existing B&W sets.

This scheme is just a moneygrab by the Gov't because even Big Media doesn't want Digital because there is nothing in it for them either. ie spend millions of dollars to reequip the TV studio to broadcast the same stuff to fewer advertising viewers.

Sounds like a great deal to me Sign us up!

PS - Sorry for the blank posts not enough coffee

Re:Digital TV in flyover country

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"I do have a digital tuner and the digital broadcasts don't make the trip. I can pick up 1 station in a 30 mile radius"

That's because most digital stations in the country are at low power.

KWGN out of Denver is at 1/2 power, and I can recieve their signal on a 1st-generation digital reciever with a $9.95 pair of rabbit ears.

DTV rocks when it's at full power. Compared to analog, it travels further and provides increased quality.

Now if only the other Denver stations would move to a reasonable power level...

Re:Digital TV in flyover country

[TheSync]

Also newer DTV receivers perform MUCH better than old ones. The "Fifth Generation" receivers can use signal multipath to enhance reception, rather than reduce it.

Two words

[qwertyatwork]

Custom pvr

call me crazy

[killua]

While i agree that some issue's need to be forced, economics can usually handle most issues. If it is profitable for television broadcasters to switch to digital, then they would. So why force the issue?

Like healthcare

[MacFury]

And American government isn't supposed to be the type of government that buys you the stuff you can't afford...

Like healthcare? Education, etc? :-)

Re:Like healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad that your right to get me to pay for you going to the emergency room for the sniffles is more important then my right to get good medical care when I'm actually dying. I have government health care. It's barely adequate, and it's done by folks who really do care. I know how bad it can be, because it was horrible in the 80's and 90's. Read up on CHAMPUS, which was replaced by Tricare.

The funny thing is...

[T3kno]

If we ran our households like the Fed runs itself our TV's would be one large seamless black border. Along with our lights, microwaves, computers, et al.

I think you misinterpret

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that the public benefit to the "first responders" is not in the public getting anything in their homes. It is the benefit that the responders will get by being able to use the newly freed spectrum that analog TV used to occupy.

Corporate welfare

[Tangurena]

2 Reasons:

• Subsidise the TV manufacturers. Not that there are any domestic manufacturers left, due to product dumping in the 70s and 80s.
• Screw the public by overturning the Betamax ruling by technical means.

The movie industry wants to make it hard to impossible for you to copy TV shows, impossible to share recordings between different playback units in your own house (the p2p issue is baloney). Last time they tried this was with DivX, where the decryption keys to the discs were tied to your playback unit: no sharing discs between the living room and the bedroom, you pirate, you! And if your player broke, well, you get to buy all the movies in your collection all over again.

Taxes and DRM

[DownWithTheMan]

From my understanding Japan has just recently (this year) made the change to digital TV. What I've read and heard though tells me consumers are not too happy with the DRM restrictions that have been put in place with the broadcast flags. Japan, none to happy with DRM The EFF has also released some docs though on how to make a homebrew digital DVR that doesn't respond to the broadcast flags and can still record the digital streams. EFF.org But so not only would we be taxed for the whole thing twice as has been previously stated, but the content that we would be forced to pay for would be moderated and controlled as well for what we can do with it. Frankly I think the whole U.S. has lost it's mind. What the government may have thought would help to ignite digital innovation, has instead helped to block end users in again and support the white collar executives instead. So remember kids when you go to vote this November, Congress has around a 90% incumbency rate...

Keep your voice down!

[chattycathy]

"Current law only requires broadcasters to give up their current airwaves by 2007, or when 85 percent of the nation can receive the new digital signals, whichever comes later. Most predict that could take a decade or more. "

"McCain's measure would require broadcasters to air only digital television signals by 2009"

shh.. /. never posts an innaccurate story.

Re:Keep your voice down!

[underpar]

legislation to postpone mandatory transition from Analog TV broadcast to Digital is taking shape

Maybe I should have worded it better (clears throat):
Look, idiots, the legislation is supposed to speed up the transition. I know numbers like 2007 and 2009 are very confusing, but if you RTFA you'll understand.

Make borders educational

[FerretFrottage]

Since the US educational system [k-12] is all about memorizing and less about how to think and apply knowledge these days, and with kids watching so much tv, us the border(s) for education. You can put the multiplication tables on one side, state information on the top border, lunch ads on the other side, and critical thinking at the bottom [border].

Better yet, put Canada on the top border, Mexico on the bottom border, and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans on the left and right respectively.

Re:Make borders educational

[Anonymous Coward]

Look bud, we don't want GWB to find out about Canada or Mexico, so don't even try to mention these countries during kids' programs!

The "Economically Disadvantaged" Red Herring

[ausoleil]

I feel so sorry for the poor -- they won't be able to receive TV after the analog signals are no longer on the air. Right. Drive through the poorest part of West Virginia and count the DirecTV dishes. Better be able to count high -- real high.

Even though it is another country, I vividly remember a bus trip through the Yucatan in Mexico. Those people are poor -- their houses were often nothing more than mud and straw, and they had nothing. Nothing, that is, except for the ubiquitous satellite dish.

Most of the country already receives it's television through digital means -- be it cable or sattelite, you almost always end up going through "a TV box" to get your programs. While it is not 85% (yet) it is most. Thus, the market has already spoken for those calling for it to do so.

HDTV is making inroads, and is quickly reaching critical mass. Most all major network programming is in HDTV, and this year, finally Fox has joined the fray. Given a few years, it is reasonable to assume that HDTV will be the defacto standard. In my town (Ralwigh NC) we get 19 HD channels on cable. Four OTA. Again, the market is speaking.

The only ones left out are the Luddites who do not want to replace their gear and want to receive their signal over the air. And since they are in the minority, why are we catering to them? Why not set a date and only mandate that a D->A converter be available for sale?

Having a television is not an entitlement, after all. If everyone else can have their taxes reduced by the government gaining income from spectrum lease, the quicker the better. Then, some of the money we all now send to Washington could be spent in our communities and spur on the economy of those areas.

Re:The "Economically Disadvantaged" Red Herring

[tepples]

Why not set a date and only mandate that a D->A converter be available for sale?

If an HDTV set costs $999, and a D->A converter costs $899, then how will somebody whose job has been moved to India afford it?

Re:The "Economically Disadvantaged" Red Herring

[Anonymous Coward]

OTA is the only way some people can get legally afford to receive broadcasts. All those dishes you're seeing in poor areas? Most of them are illegal.

Your notion on market forces ignores one tiny fact--the market doesn't own the airwaves. Poor people that don't have any reason to stay home on election day probably won't.

Re:The "Economically Disadvantaged" Red Herring

[Ironsides]

DA Converters Cost $200, and only that much because the companies that make them right now don't see a reason to drop the price. Wait until the mandates deadline looms and it will drop cause other companies will start selling DA converters.

Re:The "Economically Disadvantaged" Red Herring

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a television is not an entitlement, after all. If everyone else can have their taxes reduced by the government gaining income from spectrum lease, the quicker the better. Then, some of the money we all now send to Washington could be spent in our communities and spur on the economy of those areas.

*ROTFLMAO* Yeah, that money will make it back to our communities in the same way corporations increase their employees salaries when productivity increases.

Re:The "Economically Disadvantaged" Red Herring

[svallarian]

>I feel so sorry for the poor -- they won't be able >to receive TV after the analog signals are no >longer on the air. Right. Drive through the poorest >part of West Virginia and count the DirecTV dishes. >Better be able to count high -- real high.

You do know that probably 40-50% of those dishes were people pirating direcTV's signal don't you?

Steven V>

Making broadcasters pay amounts to a tax on viewer

[Performer Guy]

Any fees for the spectrum will be passed on to viewers, revenues from alternative licensees are not the only reason for freeing up the valuable high bandwidth spectrum.

As for the black borders, that's an aspect ration issue and anamorphic broadcasts happen in analog today to get 16:9 instead of 4:3, not really the issue here but changing the default aspect ratio is not tied to digital broadcasting.

Re:Bad idea to rent bandwidth ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets unregulate it and get a constant stream
v1agra commercials broadcast from every street corner.

Headline Should Read:

[se2schul]

US Still Dithering Over Analog-Digital TV Conversion AND Imperial-Metric conversion.

Have you tried

[wiredog]

an antenna?

How about this?

[mjh]

Let the current holders of the frequencies, sell/rent them to those who want it. Right now, the current holders can use it only for TV purposes. If they could rent it and take in money for it, how quickly do you think they'd transition the space? How quickly do you think they'd subsidize the cost of your new digital TV in order to get additional rent in from the cell phone providers who desparately want some of that space? Don't think they'd do this? How much do you pay for your cable box? How much did you pay for your DBS receiver? Not a penny. Why because the providers of those services know that the one time cost is worth taking in favor of the long term revenue stream.

Making this change would involve no government intervention, other than changing the current rule. This would incent the current holders to get off the space. What it wouldn't do, is turn into a windfall for the federal government who wants to collect auction dollars. Which is, of course, why no politician will ever suggest it. But it is, IMHO, the most effective way to encourage the transition to digital TV.

While I'd like to take credit for this idea, I can't. Someone WAY smarter than me came up with it:

Perhaps one solution would be for the FCC to hold another auction. In the new auction, current license owners could put their spectrum up for sale, and the spectrum could be bid on by new or existing owners. Once the spectrum has been re-auctioned, it could be used for any purpose, and it could be sold at any time.
- Arnold Kling

Re:How about this?

[Overzeetop]

Oh yeah, that's a good idea (not). If the broadcasters could sell their bandwidth (did they get it for free to begin with, or is the goverment now a wholesaler?) they'd drop television. Why bother, if you can make even more money with less work by reselling to cell providers?

As for TVs, you can bet they aren't going to give you any subsidies unless there's an ATSC only tuner (over the air standard) and ZERO external inputs. OTherwise, they'd be subsidizing cable and satellite interests. You get that fancy cable box for free 'cause you're dropping $80/mo on cable services. For $1000/yr they can afford to "give" you an $80 decoder. Heck, the satellites will give you a DVR, too, cause they're charging almost as much AND they've found out that DVR users are more likely to order pay-per-view events (since you can time shift them). However, you'll notice that DTV isn't currently giving out HDTivos, since they're a bit too expensive to cover.

Re:How about this?

[HadleyRille]

I like that idea, but how about modifying it so it's a limited time offer? You've got until 2009 to "sublet" your bandwidth, at which time your renters switch to paying their fees to the FCC.

If you didn't take advantage of the offer, you lose out on the opportunity to have the renters subsidize the transition. The sooner you get your digital service in place, the more of the transition is paid for by the subleasees.

Bandwidth == real estate

[PhysicsGenius]

The "airwaves" are no more public than land is and we sell that all the time.

Re:Bandwidth == real estate

[WalterDGeranios]

I would argue that they are the same, too. That's why I'd hope to see a Land Value Tax equivalent for the airwaves.

Re:Bandwidth == real estate

[AK Marc]

The "airwaves" are no more public than land is and we sell that all the time.

"Airwaves" are not the same as land. If you buy land next to me and use it, you aren't affecting me. However, if I start broadcasting at 2.4 GHz with a 5000W omni sending out static, then there will be people affected for miles.

They are a shared resource. What you do with the airwaves near you will affect me unless you live in a faraday cage. Since your right to extend your airwaves ends at my nose, you don't have the right to transmit unless I authorize it. Of course, getting permission from every person would be a hassle, so the government set up an organization to manage the shared resource.

selling vs leasing

[TheSHAD0W]

The government would probably get less revenue, IMO, by trying to lease radio spectrum rights rather than selling them, because companies have to make significant investments to infrastructure in order to use them. Why should a complany spend tens or hundreds of millions on cell tower transceivers when they might become useless 5 years down the road? What would a company say to their customers when their cell phones go dark because the government raised their lease payment too high?

Re:selling vs leasing

[anubi]

"Why should a complany spend tens or hundreds of millions on cell tower transceivers when they might become useless 5 years down the road?"

And why should I invest hundreds or even thousands of dollars on nice video display equipment when it can be rendered useless with a revision of transmission formats which may be called on to replace a "cracked" standard?

My TV (RCA XL-100 model CTC-64) still runs fine. Its almost 30 years old. Yet its common for me to discover that anything I have digital won't be compatible with the new stuff in about three years.

I have no intention of going digital until I am assured its safe to invest in something that will last. If you are trying to tell me that I should go digital because thats what they are pushing, you might as well try to sell me on building my house on untreated wood foundations in a termite laden area.

I know how much trouble it is to build things, and once I lay a foundation, I intend it to last. My personal paradigm is to build things to last damn near forever - because the cost of materials is dwarfed by the cost of labor.

The old maxim - "If you don't have enough time to do it right, then you must make enough time to do it over" has always held true for me.

And I haven't seen the government doing near as much for my "rights" as they are doing for those who are using law as an extortionary force to coerce funding from me.

Re:selling vs leasing

[TheSHAD0W]

I think you're reading something into what I said that isn't there. I expressed no opinion on whether converting broadcast to digital was desirable. Frankly, I wouldn't care if broadcast stayed analog; let the satellites and cable providers hawk HDTV.

Re:selling vs leasing

[anubi]

Could well be....

You had breached the subject of investing in something of ephemeral benefit from a broadcasters point of view.

I countered your insight with my point of view as a possible adopter of the new technology, and indicated my fears.

No slight of your insight intended.

Personally, I wish they would let broadcast TV stay the way it is. Low res. Simple. Public. By its very nature, signals are "good enough", but that's all. Let these remain public.

And, like you, I agree - let the satellites and cable providers hawk HDTV, and as far as I am concerned, since they aren't using the "public" airspace, they can do whatever they want with their signal... they can encumber it with as much DRM as Joe Public will pay for. And change the formats every year if they like. It lets the rich generate lots of jobs for equipment constructors and garbagemen, albeit it comes as a terrible expense in manufacturing pollution and landfill capacities.

But, like any business likes, I like alternatives so I can't be shanghaied into accepting whatever one vendor offers.

I still use rabbit ears. For the very limited amount of time I choose to watch TV, its adequate.

- rant on -

As far as I am concerned, cable TV is way, way, way too expensive when you consider how little I watch TV, or even go to the movies as far as that goes. Commercials annoy the dickens out of me. The last time I went to a theater to watch a movie and got shanghaied for 30 minutes of my time to watch ads - on a screen I paid good money to see a movie on - I was so miffed it has left a good sour spot in me for theaters.

By golly, I paid for a movie. Not ads.

Wanna reach me with an ad? Use a trade magazine and educate me on why your product is better and how I can use it. I actually study ads if they are relevant to my interests, but being forced to sit through diaper and hairspray commercials or teasers for movies outside my genres of interest are 100% boring.

-rant off -

I don't have thousands of dollars, Y.I.C.!

[tepples]

What sub-$1000 TV can receive free-to-air HD programming and display it without downsampling it to DVD resolution?

Re:I don't have thousands of dollars, Y.I.C.!

[Overzeetop]

Actually, WalMart is now carrying a 30" (or 32", can't remember) 16:9 direct view CRT HD television with integrated HD tuner for both ATSC and QAM (cable) for just under $800.

I looked and its not on their website, but I saw it in person last weekend at a B&M in the 67th TV market area (we're just 30-40 miles from bumf*ck nowhere)

Still pricey, I can't argue, but they are coming down quite a bit from the $5,500 + $2000 (monitor+decoder) of just 4 years ago.

Re:I don't have thousands of dollars, Y.I.C.!

[syntap]

See, the best kept secret in the industry is projectors. I have a hi-def capable projector, projecting on a 76" screen with a stunning picture, with OTA hi-def signal processed through a satellite receiver with a built-in decoder, all had for $1300. No way I'm paying $800 or a few grand for some dinky (in comparison) set.

Plus I'm pumping the DVD player, PS2, and XBox through it.

Re:I don't have thousands of dollars, Y.I.C.!

[Anonymous Coward]

A projector is great IF you can put it in a room that is easy to make dark, unless you only want to watch stuff at night. Any ambient light screws up the black levels, as it will reflect from your wall/screen and you cannot "project" black onto the screen. Notice how washed out the images on the projectors they demo at the warehouse stores are.

To get a picture quality that is as good as an HDTV projection/DLP/LCD TV, you'll also need an expensive screen or special(also expensive) paint for your wall.

by that logic...

[Moridineas]

By that logic no one should be allowed to buy land, we would just rent it from the governemtn (I hate saying this, but AFAIK, this is how it was done in Soviet Russia). Do you want to rent your land?

Re:by that logic...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do rent your land! We just call it "property taxes" and "eminent domain."

Re:by that logic...

[freqres]

Don't pay your property taxes and see if you really 'own' your property. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Re:by that logic...

[Prior Restraint]

By that logic no one should be allowed to buy land, we would just rent it from the governemtn (I hate saying this, but AFAIK, this is how it was done in Soviet Russia). Do you want to rent your land?

Eminent domain issues aside, you are renting land from the government. The traditional name for this rent is "property tax." Just try not paying it for a while, and we'll see who really owns what.

[Off-topic: This is my one thousandth post. *sigh* I need to get a life.]

Re:by that logic...

[Anonymous Coward]

thats why the only acceptable form of taxation is sales taxes, tarriffs, and excise taxes. In otherwords taxes on the sale or importation/exportation of goods. Because these taxes are paid, then you own the goods, you actually own it.

Property taxes as mentioned mean you don't own your own land or your house, ever. Income taxes are unfair because they are counter productive to saving money (which really is good for the economy). Capital gains taxes say: put your money to use as an investment and we'll penalize you. So the government penalizes you for making more jobs, and improving the economy. It takes away your incentive to save your income and invest it because its just going to get taxed.

Switch to a sales tax or VAT, you pay taxes based on spending your money. If you save your money you don't get taxed, if you invest your money you don't get taxed (at least directly).

Corporations shouldn't even pay taxes, except sales taxes on the purchase of equipment. Goods purchased for resale should be taxed at the end consumer level as a sales tax, and then a VAT should be applied at all the levels of distribution. In otherwords, vendors only pay tax on the increase in value that the previous level added. Distributors would pay tax on the initial cost of the goods though, since the manufacturers value added is in thier labor etc.

Now if you read through that you see something peculiar right at the end: Manufacturers only pay taxes on the purchase of thier equipment, not on the goods they produce. Think about what this does? It means the tax system favors manufacturing, mining, smelting, etc. Things that turn raw materials into a product. A little known fact about economics, only TWO things produce wealth, the conversion of materials into products, and the conversion of thoughts into products and services. This is where wealth comes from.

Don't tax the creation of wealth, tax the transfer of the weath in the form of products. This way taxes extract money for the government from products which are the embodiment of wealth, rather than confiscating money used to create wealth. Taxes should take a portion of the increase, at the point of increase. Stop penalizing the creation of wealth, and tax a portion of the increase in wealth. This means the tax structure always favors the creation of more wealth and in fact encourages it.

As it stands now, its a finly balanced system that basically keeps the amount of wealth consant and coninually shifts wealth around. What new wealth is created is offset by consumables--products and services which have no lasting value beyond thier immediate use. Food for example. Once food is eaten, its literally worth shit.

Buying food converts wealth into money, money is not wealth, money is a means of representing wealth that supposedly exists somewhere. Problem being is that taxes take wealth outright, rather than taking a portion of the increase in the value of something.

Just ponder it for a while. A federal tax system based solely on the importation and exportation of goods. A state tax system which taxes the increase in value of goods or services sold by someone in that state. In otherwords, even if the buyer is from out of state, they pay that states tax rate. I realize that at the business level this is very close to an income tax, however it would tax regardless of operating expenses etc. offsetting profits. This means that businesses will actually have incentive to profit, because the amount of taxes they pay doesn't change if they spend all of thier profits or not.

It all obviously gets passed back to the consumer, but the consumer himself gains from his work which contributes to the increase in wealth. It all balances out.

But the federal should only use tarriffs and excise taxes, maybe gross-receipts taxes on all sales by businesses though at a low level. Then the federal government should only spend on things that have a direct benefit to all states. This means military, transportation (even this isn't necessary

Re:by that logic...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, your land rents you!

Re:by that logic...

[tmalone]

The problem with sales tax of course is that it falls unevenly on the poor. There is no income tax in Washington state, just sales tax, and the poor end up paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy do.
No, income tax is the only thing that makes sense. Income is the benefit you get from a regulated society. Income tax is the price you pay for that regulated society. People who get more benefit, should have to contribute more to the upkeep of society. If society falls, guess who will suffer...it ain't the poor. Just look at the riots in LA after the whole Rodney King thing. It wasn't their businesses they were looting. The business were in large part owned by outsiders.
Anyway, income tax is the way to go, though a healthy tax on luxury items would be nice too. We shouldn't reward excess consumption.

Re:by that logic...

[sjames]

Income tax is actually not such a great thing at all. The tax could easily be made progressive by eliminating it on basics like food, clothing up to some reasonable threshold, and shelter upmto a reasonable threshold. Since poor people don't usually have the ability to buy more than those anyway, they would end up paying no taxes.

Income tax is a nasty mis-mash of rules that mostly boosts income for accountants and producers of antacids and alcohol. Unlike income tax, sales taxes can never create a situation where you have plenty of money on paper but in fact, have no way to pay the tax on that paper income.

Government should tax the behaviours it doesn't want. Apparently it doesn't want people to earn income, but does want them to buy stuff they don't need.

still figuring out best way to rape consumers

[Cryofan]

Hey, it is not about getting the best for the citizens, it is about finding the best way to extract the most money from comsumers, and obtain the highest profits for corporations. Haven't you yet figured out what American is all about.

When the top levels of the government, the corporations, and the media have figured out the best way to disempower the consumer, then progress will be swift. Until then, just keep yer panties on!

Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

For those people in America that need the government to purchase them a digital-to-analog converter, Do this:

Have corporations bid on who gets to make these free "government" version digital-to-analog converters. Then as 'recompensation' for making these devices, the corporation gets to have a device inside the converter that allows them to show more advertising, etc.

Hence if you are too poor to buy a converter or new TV.. The government provides a free converter, at the cost of watching more comercials. (Might be a scroll bar at the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes or so...)

"You are watching digital television, brought to you by Microsoft!"

There.. I just saved the taxpayers billions of dollars.

michael is full of shit

[LocalH]

"digital (black borders on the top and bottom of their analog TV"

That's funny, I monitor a digital terrestrial signal EVERY DAY that completely fills a 4:3 screen.

Digital doesn't mean HD, michael. You should have known that. There is digital SD (standard-def) too.

Re:michael is full of shit

[slim]

Digital doesn't mean HD, michael. You should have known that. There is digital SD (standard-def) too.

Nor does widescreen mean HD. Digital SD TV has been reasonably mainstream for several years in the UK. Some programmes are 16:9, others are 4:3.

I suspect that US digital channels will continue to broadcast repeats of I Love Lucy in glorious 4:3 SD B&W.

Re:michael is full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice website you got there, slick.

Hold auctions now!

[SirLanse]

Auction off the bandwidth now,
then have the cell companies help get people over to digital. The broadcasters do not have to give up the spectrum until 85% of viewers have digital connection. Cell companies want it, let them come up with the solution!

Why even go digital?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a good reason for the consumer to even go digital? I have used both Digital cable service and Satellite from two competing providers. Sure I found the onscreen "guide" cool, but what struck me was that I could see MPEG artifacts everywhere in most programming. (It's evident as "garbage" or "noise" around edges of lines and shapes, much like you see in a JPEG image on the web, and also gradients show "banding" as they seem to have been converted down to 16bit colors). To me, this is a degradation of image quality over analog. So why "upgrade" to lower picture quality?!

Re:Why even go digital?

[LocalH]

Digital is a means for the cable/satellite people to squeeze in more channels. Trouble is, they're too greedy, and they run the bitrate way lower than they should, in order to fit more channels on. Cable is worse for this than DBS because cable has that big chunk of analog cable that takes up quite a bit of bandwidth.

You could probably squeeze two high-quality digital channels in the space of one analog. Unfortunately, you can also fit four or five shitty-quality low-bitrate channels in that same space.

Re:Why even go digital?

[w9wi]

Digital satellite and cable are considerably more compressed than most OTA digital TV.

That said, some people seem far more sensitive to MPEG artifacts than others. (just like some people think MP3s have unlistenable distortion, while others can't tell the difference from the uncompressed source)

Re:Why even go digital?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me about it! I'm thinking more and more that we should have gone the Japanese route and done high resolution *analog* broadcast. One channel, one broadcast, built to a single fixed specification, not the 18 or so ATSC specifications.

Re:Why even go digital?

[Ironsides]

Actually, 4 SD (720x480I) Digital channels into the space of one analog.

Now we got 'em where we want 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

so they get to pump you the Vikings losing AND the Redskins losing

What happens when the Redskins and Vikings play each other? One of them has to win (the probability of a tie, while not zero, is small enough in the NFL). Then their scheme will come crashing down around them.

Down with The Man!

Re:Now we got 'em where we want 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually he was talking about the fans. They lose no matter what since they're not watching a good match of rugby or even soccer. :-P

Oh no... here come the mods... gotta run!

Sports mainly

[Sycraft-fu]

A friend has a 65" HDTV and we watched the Superbowl on it in HD and all I can say is "wow". It was just amazing the quality, almost like looking through a window.

Movies will also be good, once they get remastered for it. If you've a Windows computer of at least 2.4ghz or faster, go to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/cont ent_provider/film/ContentShowcase.aspx and have a look at the HD content. Terminator 2 is particularly impressive.

Video games will also benefit. The X-Box is capable of doing HD on a couple games, and I can gaurentee it'll start to get big with the next gen consoles. I mean how often is it you play a computer game in less than 1024x768, and NTSC TVs are at 720x480 max.

Right now, pickings are thin, it's still an "eairly adopter" technology at this point. However, it's comming and the increase in resolution is nice, and is noticable.

Re:DRM creates a new market

[Anonymous Coward]

Most telling quote in your link:

"To the broadcasters, though, the issue is that since repeated digital copying doesn't reduce image or sound quality they're concerned about a booming black market in Japanese TV cropping up in the rest of Asia."

All that DRM does is create an underground black market for non-DRM stuff.

The problem is between the stds and consumers...

[pappy97]

Here is the deal:

The FCC wants everyone to go digital, which means at least 480i digital. This isn't the problem, as the majority of over the air broadcast networks ARE doing this. I am sure some very small markets still have only analog broadcasts, but even this is dying out.

The problem is multicasting vs. HD. Broadcasters would rather dishout several 480i digital channels (that fit into the bandwidth of one analog channel), while people who are going out to buy HDTV's simply want that channel to be an HD channel (or at least have everything upconverted to an HD resolution).

Here is an example: PBS, as some of you may know, embraces the 1080i HDTV standard. BUT here in KC, the local affiliate just broadcasts in 720p. Why? Because it uses the extra bandwidth for a multicast channel.

Check out avsforum.com for more discussion on this topic. We can't have consumers being pushed into spending thousands on an HDTV, when broadcasters are pushing to have multiple 480i digital broadcasts. There is a conflict.

Question...

[logos22]

How is this currently dealt with in reguards to cross country situations. Surely if you can get that station in Michigan, it would be available in Canada?

Current Is wrong too

[nurb432]

Yes i do belive they sell bandwidth, but i also feel that is wrong..

It may be legal, but its 'wrong'...

Re:Current Is wrong too

[anubi]

Rent, Sell, Whatever.

Its still Public Property.

I don't have a "right" to sell off an Air Force Base. Its not mine to sell. It belongs to the Government, not me.

I have a hard time thinking they have a "right" to sell spectrum like this without a vote of the people.

If a majority of the people say they want to give up their older systems and adopt this new DRM-laden crap, then I have to accept it. But to have someone just force it from me, I feel as if I have been mugged.

By Congress.

Re:Current Is wrong too

[BobPaul]

Rent, Sell, Whatever.

Its still Public Property.

I don't have a "right" to sell off an Air Force Base. Its not mine to sell. It belongs to the Government, not me.

You just answered your own question. It's still Public Property ... It's not mine... It belongs to the Government, not me.

Public property is just that: Public. Who owns it? The governmet! Same is true with the airwaves. Since their public, the only institute that can own it is the goverment, and if they own it, they can sell it.

Perhaps a direct vote is in order, but given few people actually go out to vote for president, something they might have some knowledge in, how are they going to knowledgably regulate RF? That's what the FCCs for. And when they screw up, we...

Write our congressmen and demand they fix it!

MOD PARENT UP!

[theslashdude]

This is the only new idea I've read in this entire thread. The ones who want this part of the spectrum are the only ones who are going to profit from this financially. So why not let them carry the finacial burden for making it happen.

2007?

[jav1231]

I still say until Wal-Mart can sell a digital TV for what Earl can buy a few cases of beer for, digital TV will be sharing the market with analog.

Re:2007?

[ShieldWolf]

What crack are the moderators smoking on this one? How is this INFORMATIVE? What INFORMATION did this post provide? There are different mod types for a reason, next time try INSIGHTFUL or INTERESTING.

Re:2007?

[jav1231]

Easy! I didn't mod myself! ;)

Bah to State's Rights

[postbigbang]

This is what the federal government is for. You're distracting what the problem is-- HDTV is here. The gov wants to sell the recovered spectrum that was given out with poor forethought 50yrs and more ago. Funny thing about spectrum, they don't make it any more.

Re:The problem is between the stds and consumers..

[TheSync]

720p vs. 1080i is a religious issue more than anything else. Some DTV stations multicast 1080i HD with an SD channel as well.

A lot of public television stations are adopting multicast because they feel it is the best way to serve the public. Especially in a time with limited HD production, many are doing up to 4 channel multicasts during the day, including dedicated Kids and Adult Learning channels, and switching to HD-only or 1 HD/1 SD at night.

For a while there was a "simulcast requirement" on DTV that mandated stations without expensive HD encoders or upconverters had to run SD simulcasts or their analog signal. This is going away soon though.

I worry that bandwidth rental=closer management

[unfortunateson]

... and closer management will mean censorship.

It's bad enough that broadcast TV is held to different standards than cable and sat stations, given that more houses have the latter than don't at this point.

But if there's regular payments to the feds for the right to broadcast TV, that's going to give the feds a stronger claim to regulate and censor content.

And who's going to pay for that extra fee? The stations? The networks? Nope, it'll get passed back to the advertisers, causing an inflationary cycle on consumer products. And those advertisers will put an even stronger grip on content, if they're paying for it.

Sure, I don't need to see Dennis Franz' @$$ ever again, but when shows like The Shield and Rescue Me have a free reign (and commercials, hmm...), and the best drama and comedy in the Emmys were on HBO, making the networks pay more will only decrease the quality of programming.

West Virginia state flower

[Overzeetop]

I guess DSS has overtaken the traditional larger dishes. The big ones used to be referred to as the WV state flower, 'cause they were everywhere.

mandatory non lossy compression

[Anonymous Coward]

If the government is really there to help the people, shouldn't they be legislating the amount of compression that's used?

From what I've seen the quality varies so much from provider to provider that I've seen digital signals compressed to the point where it's worse than my analog antenna (not usually as bad as cable though).

With HD. even the smallest amount of compression becomes 10 times more visible. This is better???

For audio we have FLAC and I think Apple makes a non lossy audio compression algorythm too.

For Video we have what? I can't find one. And for sure no broadcasters want one to exist because it will force them to feed a certain bandwidth and limit their ability on cheating the customer with quality once they have their user base.

First, at least make the audio signal non lossy become mandatory, then when the world knows it exists, work will begin on video. Unless someone already knows of one... I'm all ears.

Hell I can't even rent a DVD without seeing crap all over the screen during the entire movie.

Ya, I need to email for my SD pw after this reinstall. hopefully I'll do it before my next post but I really needed to comment on this.

This is not my real sig.

Sports mainly-"forcing" an argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Movies will also be good, once they get remastered for it."

Yes! And once that happens. Slashdotters will be complaining (as usual) about how the MPAA is "forcing" them to buy ("relicense") all new content.

Re:The problem is between the stds and consumers..

[theslashdude]

Unlike the Analog vs. Digital dilema that requires government intervation, SD vs. HD is something that can be left up to the market to decide. If a broadcaster can make more money by dividing their spectrum allocation into 4 SD channels, good for them. I believe that HD provides enough improvemnt that once the majority of consumers get a taste of HD they won't want to watch SD anymore. Of course, the specific content being broadcast makes a huge difference. Anybody who has seen a sporting event in native HD will never want to watch it in SD again. Something like CSPAN on the other hand would be much better off showing four SD channels. Citcoms and dramas are somewhere in the middle, the HD quality doesn't make the show much better. A question I have is when a broadcaster decides to use their spectrum as four SD channels, is that choice somewhat permanent? Or can they for example broadcast 4 SD channels during the day and switch to a single full HD channel for primetime? If the later is easy, I suspect most stations will go that route.

If it ain't broke...Format wars.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why not let the market decide what it can support instead of forcing an upgrade on everyone?"

Gee, you think the DVD format wars would have answered this question?

30 miles?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get 7 HiDef channels. Only one is in a 30 mile radius. And it is moving away soon so it won't be either.

You need to get a better antenna. Digital TV travels much better than analog TV, even though DTV is generally on UHF, which doesn't propagate as well.

and beyond that...

[Anonymous Coward]

ATSC includes both 16:9 and 4:3 content in the standards. I get more digital channels locally in SD 4:3 ATSC than in HD 16:9 ATSC. All my local channels are available over ATSC except one. But of those channels, only 7 or so are 16:9.

Here's the list of formats available on digital TV.

http://www.nettable.com/hdtvfaq.htm

Sorry

[I'm Spartacus!]

I missed the "not" in your post. Looks like we're on exactly the same page here.

Re:The problem is between the stds and consumers..

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Powell doesn't have a backbone and never will. As much as I like to blame him, though, he inhereited the mess from others - he just doesn't have the balls to sort it out.

Allowing the insdutry to pick a winner format was the worst possible thing to do. 1080p120. Single format. Internal formats however you like 'em, but broadcast goes up at 1080p @ 120 frames per second. It's divisible by all three current flavors (0.03 FPS variations notwithstanding) of content 24p/30p/60i in integral quatities. If your TV can't display it, it can downconvert. Yes, that's a 250MHz dot clock. Live with it.

I timeshift digital EVERY DAY

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you are talking about. Start understanding the broadcast flag before you bitch about it. It is only prohibited to move digital signals outside the box, time shifting them is fine. Note also that the FCC gave TiVo permission to move digital signals outside the box as long as it is done securely. See "Tivo-to-go".

It all comes down to one thing....

[gillrock]

This is a very simple solution to solve, IMHO anyway.

It should have been made very clear that TV makers need to stop making analog TV sets some time ago and focus on making DTV sets and converters.

I myself enjoy watching what I watch on television, and would love to see it in digital, however, I can not justify in my mind paying that much moola for a television set that will not outlast my washer and dryer. I have friends that have purchased good quality DTV units and have spent another small fortune in repairs.

Stop worrying about what we have today. Focus on tomorrow and help the manufacurers get there.

Re:The problem is between the stds and consumers..

[Ironsides]

A question I have is when a broadcaster decides to use their spectrum as four SD channels, is that choice somewhat permanent?

They can change it at just about any point in a program. SD and HD can be alternated very quickly and you can go from 1 to many channels just as quickly. It all depends on the program stream. As is, at PBS they routinely broadcast Prime Time in HD (as do most stations) and during non-prime time they broadcast 4 channels simultaneously.

Theory of the 2nd Best

[Skjellifetti]

Yes this is true, but going the libertarian way is opening Pandora's box. The thing is if you are going to do that you need to go all in (IMHO). Most Americans (/. crowd included) don't really want that. The few that do are often seen as more conservative than the Republican Party.

Economics has something called The Theory of the Second Best that shows, among other things, that if you start with a regulated economy and then partially deregulate it, society can actually end up worse off then it was originally with the more fully regulated economy. I suspect that this partially explains why many deregulation initiatives are so hard to accomplish. On the surface the removal of an individual regulation often sounds like a good idea. But when the dereg is put into the context of a complete system, it is often a bad idea.

Re:The problem is between the stds and consumers..

[Jeremy Erwin]

No, the allocation isn't static. The two pbs stations near my home broadcast three or four SDTV streams during the day and and HDTV/SDTV pair at night.

It seems the PBS channels usually use extra channels for a educational channel, a children's channel, and sometimes a public affairs channel.

I'm not sure what the commercial channels do. Some of them add a 24 hour newsfeed. FOX was making angry noises about skipping the hdtv thing and just doing multicasts, (but of what, I'm not sure.) Maybe they sell the extra bandwidth.

Who's Rights

[maxpuppy]

Actually I own the airspace above my real property. This extends all the way thru infinity.

BCS will push up emergency demand for DTV decoders

[tepples]

Wait until the mandates deadline looms and [the price of a DTV set-top box] will drop cause other companies will start selling DA converters.

Either that, or a sharp increase in demand will push the price up sharply. My theory is that when the FCC turns off analog free-to-air TV on January 1, 2007, fans of NCAA tackle football will become annoyed that they can't pick up any Bowl Championship Series games on free-to-air TV. There will be a run on electronics stores, which will have to raise their prices to keep up with the emergency demand for DTV decoders.

An interesting /. survey.

[multiplexo]

How many of you purchased an HDTV capable TV for watching over the air broadcasts? I have a nice Sony 42" LCD RPTV. I'm thinking about getting HD service through DirecTV but only to play around with it. My real reason for upgrading from my older set was that I wanted something that would do a better job displaying DVDs. I have friends with HDTV capable plasma displays who have purchased their sets for the same reason. Given the fact that most of what is aired on TV these days is utter crap I can't see that it would be improved if it suddenly all became high definition utter crap.

Re:An interesting /. survey.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the fact that most of what is aired on TV these days is utter crap I can't see that it would be improved if it suddenly all became high definition utter crap

This would be why I've never paid for TV reception. Well, that's not true - I paid about $45 for an antenna a few years ago so by now that's amortized to around $1.25/month. The minimum digital cable bill in my area is about $35/month with just a few extra channels more than broadcast - none of which I care about. I expect that once there are no more analog signals, I'll only use TV for DVDs and Gran Turismo. Having seen what interference does to digital cable and satellite signals, I couldn't put up with it.

what is the friggin holdup? Learn from the German

[supernova87a]

Take a lesson from the Germans -- they just made everyone switch one day, and did it. No delays, everyone prepares in the last few weeks anyway.

see this article:

German Way to Go Digital: No Dawdling

November 3, 2003

By MARK LANDLER

BERLIN, Oct. 29 - When Sebastian Engel received a letter in the mail last winter warning that he would soon lose his over-the-air analog television service, he reacted like any 26-year-old graduate student with little money and even less interest in the vagaries of TV technology.

Mr. Engel, who lives in a bohemian part of the former East Berlin, ignored the promotional palaver about the brave new world of digital broadcasting, and instead asked his landlord whether he could sign up for cable.

Alas, he was told, his apartment block, with its drab, coal-heated buildings, was not wired for cable. So after procrastinating for several weeks, Mr. Engel finally paid 150 euros ($174) for a set-top box that enabled his aging, portable TV to receive a digital signal. Now, he gets 25 channels and a crystal clear picture, compared with the 6 channels and snowy reception he had before the switchover.

"Sometimes the picture goes off for a couple of seconds, but otherwise it's pretty great," said Mr. Engel, as he channel-surfed through a soccer match, a hip-hop music video and the BBC news.

On Aug. 3, Berlin became the world's first major city to switch from analog to entirely digital television broadcasting. The transition went almost unnoticed in Germany or elsewhere, which is remarkable, given that in the United States, the same process has been bogged down by politics, vested interests and a stubborn fear that scrapping analog television will ignite a revolt among viewers.

The German example could prove instructive to the United States, where digital broadcasting - and the array of multimedia services likely to spring from it - still seems like a distant dream. Six years ago, Congress set the end of 2006 as the date by which most television broadcasts would be digital, but American industry executives predict the switch may not be completed before 2020.

In Germany, officials have taken a much tougher line. "We knew it would work only if we set a hard deadline," said Sascha Bakarinov, the head of the Broadcasting Authority of Berlin and Brandenburg, which oversaw the switchover. "You can take six months or two years or a decade, and people are still only going to react in the last few weeks."

Berlin's hurry-up approach was risky. Mr. Bakarinov worried about a consumer outcry over the cost of the set-top boxes, not to mention tales of aging pensioners deprived of their television. But thanks to an elaborate public relations campaign and government subsidies for people who could not afford the boxes, Berlin kept the complaints to an occasional squawk. In a city accustomed to lavish public services since German reunification, this is no small achievement.

"The German approach is extremely radical," said Ulrich Reimers, a professor at the Technical University in Braunschweig and a chief designer of the digital television standard in Germany. "This is really the one and only place in the world where this has happened."

The switch to digital is under way in other German cities, including Cologne, Hannover and Dsseldorf. By next May, Professor Reimers said, digital signals will reach 23 million of Germany's 82 million people. By 2010, he predicted, "Germany will be analog-free."

It is important to remember, in talking about digital television, that the switchover affects only viewers who receive their TV over the air. Of Germany's 34 million television households, 19 million have cable and 12 million use satellite receivers. Both industries remain predominantly analog.

That leaves 3 million German homes still using rooftop aerials or even more antiquated rabbit-ear antennas. (In the United States, an estimated 10 million of 106 million television househ

Disaster planning

[AllenChristopher]

The hypothetical disaster is a strange thing. It's a lot like the hypothetical terrorist attack.

Exactly what kind of natural disaster appears out of nowhere, complete disrupts all communications, and is dangerous in such a way that you only have ten minutes for your TV or radio to tell you what to do?

A meteorite strike? A major atomic attack? You can see hurricanes coming, earthquakes don't give warning but your TV can't help you much with them, you can see raining that may lead to floods...

I don't know much about tornado response.

Emergency broadcasts are *not* to give you information to which you must respond within ten minutes or else die. They are to keep the populace in order, give the city an awareness of which evacuation routes to take, this kind of thing.

This information will get transmitted to almost anybody who doesn't have a TV by the normal processes... "Gee, there's a blackout. I guess I'll go outside for a bit. Hey, Frank, what's up?"

All that said, if your area is prone to some disaster I haven't thought of, a disaster that will kill you if you haven't heard the broadcast, then you deserve to die for not buying a five dollar radio as much as anyone deserves to die for not buying a one dollar condom. Is that a reasonable definition of deserves? *shrug*

Air is free - so you can't charge for it. Stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

The airwaves are owned by the citizens. If someone were to sell it, it'd have to be a few hundred million Americans.

Not a good idea to let the government start controlling air.

A couple nagging concerns I have

[Anonymous Coward]

So currently, the US has 2 years before the mandated shift (btw, when the 85% threshold is met the other 15% are SOL).

A digital tuner with analog out could be produced quite cheaply.
Please find one currently being sold under $250. That wasn't easy, huh? A cursory search yielded me nothing below that.

Also consider that (assuming they switch at 85%) millions of tvs will become useless without a converter. That seems like a HUGE market. Where's the supply for this expected demand?

It appears that the demand has to kick in to motivate production - and the demand will probably be very sudden.

My suspicion is that it's easier for a sales rep to promote a shiny new tv than an adapter. You know, why even mention a (potentially) cheaper alternative to the customer pissed that their old tv doesn't work?

I like the phase-in implementation for color tv better, where one signal provided both options (one on top of the other). Unfortunately, that strategy is impossible here.

And lastly, if americans prefer the option of replacing the tv - is there a landfill large enough for the overnight waste management nightmare?

One word: Radio.

[MrR0p3r]

Radios are cheaper and can deliver just the same information as a tv, just without all the pretty pictures.

simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Heres a damn simple solution. VoIP to replace the telecos and stream vide over the inet as well. All this requires is getting computers and 100Mbit/s connections in everybodies houses (like Europe and Asia). Time to pick up the pace in America.

a good place to start is this

[jonwil]

Require that all cable TV operators MUST carry (and also all networks MUTS allow them to carry) the digital versions of the Over-The-Air stations (ABC, CBS, NBC etc) if they exist. This should happen right now.

Also, introduce a requirement that all networks must be broadcasting digital for 100% of their coverage areas by, say, mid 2005 (I dont know how much coverage there is already so I cant say if this date is reasonable or not.

And, take away any restrictions on what can be brodacast over the digital channels (other than those that apply to TV generally like the content ratings)

Wonder Bread Wants.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those people are poor -- their houses were often nothing more than mud and straw, and they had nothing. "

A common misconception. If your house isn't wonder bread american, or european then you're poor. If you don't have a lot of material possessions, then your suffering. The houses are made from mud and straw because that's what they have plenty of. What would be the point of bringing in the materials for a modern home? Also you'll find overall that they're happier not pursuing the "american dream".

Re:The problem is between the stds and consumers..

[pappy97]

My point is that we have a conflict between distributors/manufacturers of goods and the distrubutors of related services. Remember that without TV, networks wouldn't exist. Thus you would expect more alliances between the networks and manufacturers.

But the reality is very different. TV manufacturers are pushing more and more HDTV's, while networks (local affiliates) are more for pushing multicasting over HD.

One side has to cave in. Either production of HDTV's needs to slow down or we need see more embracing (yes, much more than what we have today) of HD with networks and affiliates.

Like I said, check out avsforum.com. There are some people who feel cheated when they are pressured to buy an HDTV at Best Buy, take it home, and find there is not as much HDTV as needed to justify the expense on the television.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like sooo easy:
Take the humble light bulb, tungsten burns many watts
How can I convert you to glowworm bulbs? I tax the old ones $4 a pop!
Likewise old TV, I tax them BIG and exempt the new with in a few years *(5ish) 85%+ are new...sooooo easy
PLUS I get to sell the radiobands thus freed!

Man this coke is so fucking powerful, where did Tony get it from?
Relax man its cool I have facial hair but am not gay, see I have V6 monster SUV!
Wow like my hands so so I don't know man so you know?
Cool now lets get this in... yes not gay see?
Kind of like GOD wannaed it dis way eh?
Just relax nudding gonna appen
Hmm thats nice
Like vote republic nice?
yeah bush bush nice

give me the converter

[skudenfaugen]

i think that the cable company should get the shaft this time. they should be the ones who give out a converter to the people who dont have the money or just dont want to buy all new stuff to recieve the signal. STICK IT TO THE MAN

Re:give me the converter

[Anonymous Coward]

What about for those of us not using cable or satellite?

The issues involved

[mhollis]

Thanks to supernova87a we all know exactly how it would be done if the government controlled all television and the laws were not written with the help of lobbyists.

Here is what a station has to do:

1. Purchase a completely new transmitter.
2. 
   Build a new tower if there is no room on the existing tower (likely).
   Purchase a radiating antenna for said tower
   Purchase an NTSC upconverter to use during transition and to use later for news and older programs
   Purchase a completely new plant with VCRs and/or hard disk arrays that will record and play back HD.
   Purchase and pay to wire up that new plant as well as provide links for the old plant to the new system (for upconversion). Find a way to pay for the maintenance of all of the above as well as to send existing maintenance personnel to school to learn the new stuff.
   Find some way to pay for the costs of the electricity to run the new transmitter
   

Please note, I am probably leaving out a whole lot of stuff here

Not to overly take the stations' side on this issue, these are pretty daunting requirements. And for a station outside of the top 100 markets, it may be really close-on to impossible. Again, during this transition, there is a chicken/egg dichotomy where very few viewers will be seeing your digital signal because they won't have purchased HD television sets yet. This means you cannot report to your advertisers that you have more viewers with HD -- you probably have fewer because the Internet, cable and satellite continue to erode your viewer base.

Small wonder the law, once feelers went out via the FCC, was heavily lobbied by all parts of the television industry. I should mention at this point that part of the reason why Congress was attracted to this law was because all television sets were being made overseas and Congress wanted there to be at least one television manufacturer located in the US. It would appear this aim was unsuccessful as multiplexo and others point out when they write here that they have televisions made in Japan or elsewhere.

I would offer the opinion that, since the death of RCA as a television company (which would be when GE swallowed them up) there has not been any possibility of any manufacture of receivers on US soil since then.

So, the laws were seriously written and rewritten by the lobbyists. Stations get the bandwidth with no requirement that they use it to broadcast in high definition. Congress, after "discovering" this fact called television network executives to Washington to enjoin them (really beg them) to broadcast in HD

Cable companies are required under law to carry local stations ("Must Carry") but, perversely, must pay for "retransmission consent," thus giving all networks a free ride on cable systems for their own cable channels (did you know that NBC owns Sci Fi, Bravo, Trio, and others as well as CNBC and part of MSNBC?).

All NYC stations will, undoubtedly, receive an extension of "Use it or Lose it" due to September 11th, 2001, which only affects towers and transmitters.

There are tons of other fun details in the law and in the FCC rulings. I guarantee you, those shows that will be seen in HD first will not be local programming. Look for news to be "upconverted" for a long time.

Great way to tax everything

[Anonymous Coward]

If broadcasters have to "pay" for their spectrum use, they will simply pass on the expense to their customers. And who are their customers? All of us, eventually. A pair of jeans or bottle of soda will cost more because the advertising will cost more. So let's not pretend that the government will somehow come into some free money with this deal. The spectrum belongs to the people. We just use the government to allocate it for the greatest public good. We do the same thing with air traffic, utility right of ways, etc. So as a revenue generation scheme I see it as just another tax.

However, as an efficient allocator of spectrum this scheme has some merit. Those broadcasters who are most efficient, measured by their ability to outbid other broadcasters, will rise to the top while slacker broadcasters wo don't earn as much money (or control expenses as well) with the spectrum are selected out.

But are we sure we want our spectrum allocated to the most ruthlessly efficient? Where would that leave public-spirited, yet fiscally weak broadcasters such as PBS, NPR, CSPAN, and ham radio operators? Will the government have to pay for its spectrum use for military (a huge chunk of bandwidth), air and coastal beacons, GPS, atomic clock, weather, etc.?

Re:Great way to tax everything

[mhollis]

According to the bill the way it is, broadcasters must move their broadcasting service to the higher band (where they are allowed to broadcast in high-definition or may broadcast up to three standard-definition signals). They don't pay for this allocation and still hold the broadcast spectrum "in the public trust." The present location for these stations will be taken back by the government.

When the government recovers the VHF and UHF bandwidth that the stations lose that spectrum will be sold. Stations will be able to broadcast on their higher spectrum allocation without paying anything for it other than their costs of running a broadcast operation.

NPR is a radio service and the stations do not have to move their frequency allocations. CSPAN is a cable service and does not broadcast. I find it very interesting that most PBS stations will have been compliant sooner than their commercial counterparts. They could rightly say, during pledge drives, that their service to their localities would end if their donors did not come up with the cash necessary to comply with the federal regulations.

I would agree with you that stations are increasingly being owned by "the most ruthlessly efficient" in terms of finding ways to pump money out of broadcasting. I would suggest that broadcasters stopped considering the public "need, necessity and convenience" when the FCC decided to get out of the business of regulation during the Reagan administration. But that has been going on for a long time and has little to do with the present changes to high-definition.

And, of course, the government never has to pay for radio spectrum. The government is the allocator, not the payer.

Re:Great way to tax everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the AC parent poster. Someday, I'll sign up for an account.

According to the bill the way it is...

I was responding to the original story submission which suggested, Here's an idea - make the broadcasters pay to use the airwaves. I hear this idea thrown around from time to time - auctioning off the RF spectrum. My comments were directed toward that general idea. I was not commenting on the bill, since I have little idea what's in it. Sorry if that was unclear.

NPR is a radio service and the stations do not have to move their frequency allocations.

Again, I'm responding to the idea of selling the entire RF spectrum as suggested by the original submitter.

CSPAN is a cable service and does not broadcast.

Yes, I know. I figured someone would bring this up. I wonder why CSPAN is running this story: FCC rules could force the C-SPAN networks off your cable system. Learn why, and how you can get help.

I find it very interesting that most PBS stations will have been compliant sooner than their commercial counterparts.

I guess it's because their audience is much richer than the average antenna user. They will be much more able to afford new digital sets.

And, of course, the government never has to pay for radio spectrum. The government is the allocator, not the payer.

But does that make sense in the context of the "sell the spectrum" proposal? The government pays for postage. Is it paying itself when it buys stamps? Government agencies pay the National Archives to store and manage their records. Then is the government paying itself? So how is it different to propose that the Forest Service pay the FCC for spectrum? It's tru that the government is the allocator, but it should be acting as an agent for the public who is the owner of the commodity.

Please understand, I don't necessarily agree with spectrum auctioning because money does not account for all my goals of allocation. If your goal is for the government to take in as much money as possible, then auctions might the fit the goal. But if your goal is the greatest public service, a pure auction will probably not do the trick.

Neither

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is slightly different. The luminance in the image area is expanded from CCIR range to full range. The borders are not. So what you see on the borders is "safe black" (about 6.3% gray), while black on the image is the darkest the TV set can show (often also quite grayish, on flat panels). This is basically a consequence of trying to support 537 different standards at the same time.

Anyway, you won't necessarily get borders when the set and broadcast aspect ratios don't match; many sets have the option to resize or stretch the image to fill the screen.

The "analog / digital => black bars" theory in the original story made me chuckle.