US Still Dithering Over Analog-Digital TV Conversion

No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please. by garcia · 2004-09-23 04:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-23 04:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

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. by jfengel · 2004-09-23 04:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

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. by Minwee · 2004-09-23 05:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

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. by maddskillz · 2004-09-23 05:29 · Score: 2, Informative

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. by w9wi · 2004-09-23 05:33 · Score: 2, Informative

...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. by jfengel · 2004-09-23 05:38 · Score: 2, Informative

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. by Minwee · 2004-09-23 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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. by Keeper · 2004-09-23 06:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

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. by Inebrius · 2004-09-23 06:15 · Score: 4, Informative

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. by Ironsides · 2004-09-23 06:33 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please. by gillrock · 2004-09-23 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

>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!!!!!

--
"...the shortest distance between two points may be straight line, but it is by no means the most interesting."
Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please. by Minwee · 2004-09-23 07:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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. by multiplexo · 2004-09-23 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Re:No thanks, spend the money elsewhere please. by The+Snowman · 2004-09-23 11:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!

It doesn't much matter... by daveschroeder · 2004-09-23 04:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

...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... by philipdl71 · 2004-09-23 04:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

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... by GTRacer · 2004-09-23 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

--
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Re:It doesn't much matter... by Subgenius · 2004-09-23 04:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

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).

--
Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.

baffling, can anyone explain? by 192939495969798999 · 2004-09-23 04:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

--
stuff |

Re:baffling, can anyone explain? by stratjakt · 2004-09-23 04:28 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:baffling, can anyone explain? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-23 04:41 · Score: 2, Informative

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? by cpeterso · 2004-09-23 08:02 · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

--
cpeterso

digital broadcasts by alatesystems · 2004-09-23 04:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by DHR · 2004-09-23 04:45 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Sigh. by Kufat · 2004-09-23 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. by entrager · 2004-09-23 04:46 · Score: 4, Informative

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. by hackstraw · 2004-09-23 06:12 · Score: 3, Informative

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:Back to State's Rights by csnydermvpsoft · 2004-09-23 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

Here's a thought... by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-23 04:27 · Score: 2

Why worry about it?

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

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Re:Here's a thought... by Control+Group · 2004-09-23 04:29 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...

Mining, flying by missing000 · 2004-09-23 04:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by networkBoy · 2004-09-23 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:Mining, flying by networkBoy · 2004-09-23 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:Mining, flying by I'm+Spartacus! · 2004-09-23 05:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce

Government should not support this by 1000101 · 2004-09-23 04:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

""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 by Control+Group · 2004-09-23 04:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:Government should not support this by stratjakt · 2004-09-23 04:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Government should not support this by Mateito · 2004-09-23 04:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
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?
--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Re:Government should not support this by koreth · 2004-09-23 05:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by El · 2004-09-23 05:46 · Score: 2, Informative

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!

--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Re:Government should not support this by Mateito · 2004-09-23 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Re:Government should not support this by typobox43 · 2004-09-23 06:04 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by Southwick · 2004-09-23 07:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Mateito · 2004-09-23 07:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl

The Real Question by stretch0611 · 2004-09-23 04:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!

Re:Back to State's Rights by networkBoy · 2004-09-23 04:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

If it ain't broke... by decipher_saint · 2004-09-23 04:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

--
crazy dynamite monkey

Re:If it ain't broke... by Control+Group · 2004-09-23 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:If it ain't broke... by Skye16 · 2004-09-23 05:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Easily simplified to one word:

Jackasses.

Digital != black borders by sunderland56 · 2004-09-23 04:32 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by LocalH · 2004-09-23 05:32 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
FC Closer
Re:Digital != black borders by Seekerofknowledge · 2004-09-23 06:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

I'm at a loss here. by phaetonic · 2004-09-23 04:33 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Nice Pun by McComas · 2004-09-23 04:35 · Score: 4, Funny

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 by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · 2004-09-23 04:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Punnery is the lowest humor.

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

;)

--
This is where the serious fun begins.
Re:Nice Pun by McComas · 2004-09-23 04:53 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

It was government's idea! by cascadingstylesheet · 2004-09-23 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

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! by Detritus · 2004-09-23 07:26 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

Why Bother? by Tangurena · 2004-09-23 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by Smitty825 · 2004-09-23 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--

Doh!

Bad idea to rent bandwidth by nurb432 · 2004-09-23 04:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Bad idea to rent bandwidth by mjh · 2004-09-23 05:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

???

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.

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.

Don't knock analog by overshoot · 2004-09-23 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

Digital TV in flyover country by MadHungarian1917 · 2004-09-23 04:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2004-09-23 05:28 · Score: 2, Informative

"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...

Corporate welfare by Tangurena · 2004-09-23 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by DownWithTheMan · 2004-09-23 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...

Make borders educational by FerretFrottage · 2004-09-23 04:57 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

--
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."

The "Economically Disadvantaged" Red Herring by ausoleil · 2004-09-23 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:Back to State's Rights by xenocide2 · 2004-09-23 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
I Browse at +4 Flamebait

Open Source Sysadmin

Re:And hust how by DevNova · 2004-09-23 05:07 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

How about this? by mjh · 2004-09-23 05:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.

Re:Back to State's Rights by w9wi · 2004-09-23 05:11 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Bandwidth == real estate by PhysicsGenius · 2004-09-23 05:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:Bandwidth == real estate by AK+Marc · 2004-09-23 08:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Learn to love Alaska

selling vs leasing by TheSHAD0W · 2004-09-23 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:Back to State's Rights by typobox43 · 2004-09-23 05:22 · Score: 4, Informative

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?

michael is full of shit by LocalH · 2004-09-23 05:26 · Score: 3, Informative

"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.

--
FC Closer

Hold auctions now! by SirLanse · 2004-09-23 05:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!

The problem is between the stds and consumers... by pappy97 · 2004-09-23 05:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:by that logic... by freqres · 2004-09-23 05:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...

--
Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception

2007? by jav1231 · 2004-09-23 06:04 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

I worry that bandwidth rental=closer management by unfortunateson · 2004-09-23 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

... 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.

--
Design for Use, not Construction!

BCS will push up emergency demand for DTV decoders by tepples · 2004-09-23 07:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

what is the friggin holdup? Learn from the German by supernova87a · 2004-09-23 08:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by AllenChristopher · 2004-09-23 08:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

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*

The issues involved by mhollis · 2004-09-23 13:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:

Purchase a completely new transmitter.
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.

--
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.

Slashdot Mirror

US Still Dithering Over Analog-Digital TV Conversion

88 of 353 comments (clear)