Slashdot Mirror
Congress Pays You $3 Billion to Keep Watching TV
Felix the Cat writes "After budgets cuts led to the layoff of engineers and scientists at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a US Senate committee has approved a $3 billion dollar subsidy to assist Americans in their difficult transition to digital television in 2009. The old analog television spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The transition date was chosen to not interfere with college football bowl games or basketball playoffs." From the article: "The draft of a House bill would end analog transmissions on Dec. 31, 2008. It does not mention a subsidy for set-top converter boxes. So, lawmakers will likely have to work out differences between the two bills, though Stevens said he did not anticipate a big fight with the House over the deadline or the subsidy."
I have an idea.
How about CONSUMERS pay for new TVs or converters themselves? They don't get cable free. They don't get a free CD palyer when cassettes go out of style.
And if someone MUST baby the consumer, how about the fucking TELEVISION INDUSTRY do the subsidizing, instead? Why in the fucking hell should tax money go toward it? If we're going to spend billions of tax dollars on televisions, let's spend it subsidizing people to NOT own them?
Seriously, we already fucking subsidize breeders and marriage. Now we want to add television watching to that?!
I so fucking give up. You win. Where do I go for the nearest de-education center so I can join the mind-numbed consumer masses?
We pay congress via taxes.
Congress pays us to watch TV.
Congress retains 10% through PAC's, graft etc.
See a problem here?
*grumbles* Like I watch enough TV anyway...
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
Looks like Congress is bribing the public to go along with their policy of locking down media distribution. I wonder how long it's going to take before the only way to listen to the radio will be to pay the RIAA (or fronts) $29.95 a month.
damn tv commies!
"Old man yells at systemd"
Subject says all
--> Your Wisecrack Here
Don't kid yourselves that you will get anything. For every dollar of "subsidity" to get you to switch, the price of these set top converters and anything else subsidized will go up by at least a dollar, likely more! The only ones getting this money will be the Chinese and Japaneese making the things. You the tax payer get what you always get.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Keep spending money you don't have boys while you still can. The party's almost at an end ... the baby boomers will begin to retire in bulk by 2012 and there won't be enough cash to make the payments. Reduce benefits you say?? That's effectively defaulting on a loan, faith will be lost in the dollar and the currency will go to shit. Monetize the debt?? That's hyperinflation, flooding the world with paper no one will want ... the currency goes to shit.
The US empire is on the verge of collapse and we will lucky enough to witness the end. You all should feel lucky, it's not every generation that gets to witness the crash of a major empire.
Since they are eliminating analog TV the analog TV transmitters are going to become available. Time to start my pirate TV station for all those analog TV's that will still be out there. I'll be broadcasting my entire DVD collection.
I know this won't be popular with our crowd, but really it isnt a bad decision. From the article: "The subsidy program would be paid for by money raised from the auction of the analog spectrum the broadcasters are vacating.". So basically, they are making an expected 3 billion for making old TVs not work, so it only seems fair to use the money they took to make old tvs not work to make them work.
I wake up with a massive hangover on 01/01/09 and my teevee gets 123 channels of Home Shopping Network.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
I have a hard time believing that they'll really end analog TV in 2008. There are too many people out there who (a) have low incomes, (b) like TV, and (c) vote. It's just that many of those same people don't know about this because they get their information from the TV news. This is supposedly going to happen smack dab in an election year, too.
Find free books.
Good to hear that someone's looking out for the little guy.
I would have started watching again for half a mil.
Damn feds with your wasteful no-bid contracts! Why don’t ya try haggling once in a while?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Will any of this subsidy affect my $1.99 Lost episodes?
There is truth in humor.
They're just doing their job...
.... Profit!
1. Keep smart people busy looking for jobs
2. Keep stupid people happy with tv
3. Get reelected for two more years
Considering that TV is the predominant campaign commmunications vehicle, it's not surprising that they'll throw money at it to make sure it will remain working properly after a digital transition.
While I must say I really enjoy the editorialization in the summary (not), the submitter has no idea wtf he's talking about in regards to the financing of this project.
The digital TV transition is intended to free up the 700-800 Mhz (appx) spectrum to be auctioned by the FCC for advanced services and for use by public safety organizations. McCain made a big deal of the digital transition after Katrina hit due to the problems with interagency communication.
The $3 billion in subsidy comes from the auction of the spectrum. The people who will eventually pay for it are the users of the spectrum or customers of the companies who purchase the spectrum. Let me be clear, this $3 billion isn't coming from some other agency or program, it is coming from the proceeds of the auction.
So, submitter, if you're going to flame bait about your pet project being cut back at least do it with half a clue.
Things like HDTV and multicasting are nice side effects of the transition, but don't be fooled, this is mostly about money. Congress wants that money in its coffers and had planned for analog turn off at the end of this year when the transition first started ten years ago.
...unfortunately the bowl games that really count are played in January.
A legitimate approach to governance is that you should give people what they want, and nothing else. From that perspective, this is cynical, but appropriate. Give people bread and circuses, and you can say you're doing your job as a politician... but how many politicians hold a valid claim to be doing their job as honorable human beings?
It would be nice if I could just wash my hands of politics, insist that the least governance would be the best, and just vote for those who would leave power in the hands of individuals more and more, in light of the constant incompitence of politicans... but I've also seen the affects of what "small goverment" can do over the past years. I've decided to vote Democrat in the next forseeable elections, because at least they seem to propose to, and have in the past few administrations, use public resources to do more than just celebrate their own personal interests. Perhaps then, at least, the Republicans will learn to compete again in terms of function, not just rhetoric. I'd hate to see this last batch of Republicans rewarded for their actions.
Ryan Fenton
For those interested in a brief history of HDTV, here it is:
Here's how it went:
Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
FCC says "What standards?"
Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."
Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.
Iraq costs $6 BILLION each month.
--
make install -not war
Have the relevant industries even settled on digital television standards yet? The most common reason I hear from most people for wanting HDTV but not buying a capable television is that they're afraid of having it obsoleted when a new or incompatible signal comes out on top.
What measures are in place to ensure the safe environmentally clean disposal of the tens of millions of soon to be useless analog TV's in your country?
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Three billion dollars is only a drop in the bucket to what the campaign contributions will be. Despite anything that can be said about this program, its ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
First, there is the money raised by auctioning RF spectrum licenses.
Second, there is the fact that all will be digital at that time, and someone has to get distribution pork.
Third, MS and others are already lining the politicians pockets to make everything come out on their side.
We (the USA), as a nation (if not a larger audience), have failed miserably to trace where the money will be going. This 'subsidy' of HDTV set top tuners is nothing more than the low hanging fruit on a very large and prolific tree. Currently, the rule of the land is that when this happens, cable companies will not have to share thier pipe to your house with anyone else. This is supposed to foster more competative and wireless services. Fiber, cable, DSL, and broadcast mediums will have to work hard to keep up with new broadband all-IP services. EVERYONE will have to have a new set-top tuner box... This 3 billion is for the people in mobile homes in deepest darkest Arkansas and such places, who will not pay for a new HDTV set to get three local channels and PBS.
What is at stake is a very big pie, and everyone wants one or more of the pieces: Digital movies on demand 24/7, digital music on demand 24/7, IP radio and television, mobile IPTV and radio, VoIP calling with both mobile and fixed, and the list literally goes on for hours.
As soon as there is a huge ubiquitous (I dislike that word) IP network, we can begin offering services like your fridge that keeps the shopping list up to date, emails it to you at the grocery store on your PDA, or automatically enters it to the local grocer and a high school kid shows up with the groceries at your door at 5:15 p.m. That is just one scenario, and there are thousands more.
The real issue is who will be selling you those services? If you have comcast cable, you can bet they will offer them, but so will your wireless carrier, and the WiMax network provider and the WiFi provider, and it will be worse than you can imagine for billing and value for services rendered. Can you imagine a refridgerator that is only compatible with Comcast? or worse, AOL?
What is happening in the news currently is only the tip of the iceburg, and I'm talking about one much larger than sank the Titanic!
I'm sorely hoping that F/OSS has a strong hand of guidance on how such services are offered and how they are compatible. All this DRM @!#$@$% is far more dangerous to your future health than you have yet thought of, because more than music and movies is involved. I am hoping that the F/OSS community has such things in the scope of where their development efforts are going. I know that MS and others already have this on their radar scopes.
--
Every so often in history, it appears that someone from the future has come back to tell us something. Did Linus return to fix the future?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
From the article;
"The subsidy program would be paid for by money raised from the auction of the analog spectrum the broadcasters are vacating."
"The sale of the analog spectrum is expected to raise at least $10 billion. Besides the $3 billion for converter boxes, the Senate bill proposes reserving $1 billion for public safety to buy new radio communications equipment and $250 million for a national alert system. Another $5 billion would be set aside for debt reduction."
Now can we get back to our regular dose of Google/iPod stories?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
"How about CONSUMERS pay for new TVs or converters themselves? They don't get cable free. They don't get a free CD palyer when cassettes go out of style."
And yet on this forum we've heard time and again people complaining about how the RIAA/MPAA is "forcing them" to buy new media every time some new format comes out (like their old stuff suddenly stop working). Or during a "piracy" debate how they are "entitled" to a down;oad because they couldn't take care of their original material.
It always amazes me how eager slashdotters are to criticize using only half the facts, when they themselves accuse others of the same thing.
Uninformed mass-media? How about uninformed slashdot?
...so that 24 hours a day, they can get a head of a guy that keeps saying 'War is Peace. Crush the evil doers. Work is freedom.' Because state propagana is so much more epowerful when it's in digital quality.
Now television stations want congress to make sure people keep watching TV even after their TVs stop working. So congress is going to give away equipment at the public's expense to make sure people can watch the latest political ads on broadcast TV.
Right now anyone can buy a handheld t.v. and watch television that way. Imagine a disaster happens and you're without power. Of course there's the option of using a radio, but what if you wanted to watch your local news? Will these handheld t.v.s being manufactured still work, or will they become obsolete?
Can the government somehow create censorship with this switch? With the way they will send t.v. programming out, is it possible to put certain restrictions (as opposed to options) on programming?
The transition date was chosen to not interfere with college football bowl games [...] Dec. 31, 2008
What planet are they on?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
good, then STFU
Uncle Milty and Jack Benny, spinning in their graves.
What's next, all digital radio?
All your media are belong to us!!!
I'm a broke SOB that's still using the same TV that I've had for 15 years. It's missing the power button, the remote's battery door is held on with electrical tape, and I doubt I will replace it any time soon. Why? Because I have more important things to spend my measly pittance on. Particularly, food, power, transportation, etc. Ya know, things which relate to not dying.
I'm glad the government is concerned that I won't get my daily fix of White House talking points, commercials for boner pills, and HiDef Every Body Love Raymond reruns. Yet, there are other concerns in my life that could probably benefit from 3 billion dollars. In particular - the local trailer park, I mean high school, could use a little love. Four permanent walls and some sort of roof-ish thing would be nice.
Or, at the very least, I hear we suffered a wee bit of storm damage in the gulf coast, and there's also that whole "war" thing.
But, who knows. Ray Romano in HD. Perhaps the digital signal will allow me to understand why that show is funny.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Oh, and in case you haven't realized, people vote with their asses.
The Raven
You and one other person got it. Everyone else is going to pretend this is their own personal blog, and proceed to rant and rave. Sheesh! And people think that blogs are the next journalists. Not bloody likely. And no I don't put all the blame on the editors. It's our responsability to read the articles and make an accurate judgement.
This is necessary to hold the country together. Imagine the economic turmoil that would result if millions upon millions of people were to decide that $50 is too much to pay to continue watching TV and dump their boxes instead? All those souls, no longer absorbing advertisements? The reduction in impulse buying could throw us into another depression!
Second thought is: I don't watch television. (I dispise it). Why should I be happy that my tax dollars are going toward this?
Third thought: Maybe it will keep the stupid people stupid.
Fourth thought: Why do we need more stupid people?
Fifth thought: I can't think anymore on this topic because it is IDIOTIC.
idiots.
"Well then, my goal becomes clear, the broccoli must die." -Stewie
And so, whether it's broadcast, multiplexed on FTTH, or downloaded via some IP link, it's all here. Today. Not tomorrow. Every PBS station (save a few transulators) are there. Local TV stations are there. There as in running an HD freq, often alongside or even adjacent to their NTSC channel.
So, you're right to say that IP-delivered TV is just around the bend. But where you missed it is that Congress really believes they'll be able to auction a lot of frequencies for new applications and raise money. That and they're embarrassed as hell at missing all of the other deadlines they've announced, and that the FCC has announced. Not one stuck. Not one.
But the money as you perceive it really has to do with the auctions. That's where they believe the $$ is. I don't believe them, but I don't believe a lot of things coming out of Washington.
Digital communities are the future. Analog isn't inefficient, rather, one media is better than the 29 now offered for ATSC tuners + multicast variants + NTSC broadcast video + AM, Stereo AM, Digital AM, FM, Stereo FM, Digital FM, XM, Sirius, and so on. It's pretty goofy and duplicates so much for so little benefit. This media promiscuity will go away in a few years. Just sit tight.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Were the MPAA asleep at the wheel? Or just too coked up to notice that the perfect bill to tag a broadcast flag rider on just slipped past them? I mean, if congress is handing out subsidies, doesn't the MPAA deserve one too?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
1. Find out which Companies can make set-top converter boxes.
2. Buy Stock
3. Make government grant, letting lots of people get said set-tops
4. Profit.
Mmmmm... Wish I would've thought of that... oh wait, I'd prolly go to jail if I did it... nevermind.
--Luke
ChristianNerds.com News - If you're one too, it's probably of interest to you.
(Still bitter over the cancellations of Firefly and Futurama)
"Powers. I have them."
and the are usually stupid,fat,ugly, and breed way to much.
the real reason the word fuqtard was invented.damn octoroon inbreds.
"layoff of engineers and scientists at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory" So, firing NASA employees for money, to invest in TV, which in turn will result in even more money? Perfect example of how we're screwing ourselves over for some quick cash.
It's never just a game when you're winning. - George Carlin
$hrug -- and soon they will destroy everything- and then we rebuild!
Sports betting = +1
Civilization = 0
I don't shut up, I grow up, and when I look at you, I throw up.
Analog already has a broadcast flag (no I'm not talking about Macrovision). You'll note it doesn't get used.
Besides if everything Slashdotters tell us about TV quality is true, then you all have nothing to worry about? Right?
Here is a crazy idea. How about when they auction off the analog tv spectrum to the highest bidder, then he/she/corporate entity turn around and continue to offer analog television be broadcast on this spectrum. It would work if the broadcasting stations all decided to defy the FCC. Just imagine how pissed off everyone is going to be when they are "forced" to upgrade to HDTV because big brother says so. Most people out there right now have no idea that they will have to switch by 2009 if they want to continue to watch broadcast tv in the US. (By the way that date has already been pushed back 3 times) Lots of people can't afford the HDTVs that are available today. Even the CRT ones currently cost $700 just for 27" displays. Lots of families own mulitple TVs, and they will all be obsoleted by 2009, good for watching DVDs and video games only. If you can't tell, I'm not a big fan of federally mandated changes in broadcast standards. BTW I know NTSC sucks big time as far as standards, but that's not the point here.
The title of the article? "A Bill Advancing Digital TV" - when this bill actually pushes back digital TV deployment from 2006 to 2009. The bill is pitched as a way of distributing the wealth to be gained from reselling the analog spectrum - with a 3b sop to "consumers" - but what it really does is defer that for at least another 3 years!
Nay, I say! - let analog go dark as has been planned for over 10 years! It's time to let that spectrum be used for other things, past time.
I was pleased to beat slashdot to this story by a few hours on my blog...
When I heard this story, this went through my head:
If I got one of these converter thingies, was I also required to plug it in and turn it on? Couldn't I just get a coupon for something else, instead? I need a new toaster.
I can think of a lot better uses for 40 bucks a taxpayer... like pay for some better hurricane prediction software, and maybe a couple more high-resolution weather satellites.
And, what could 3 billion do for American broadband... which has slipped to less than 14th among the developed nations?
3 Billion... So that 70 million of the perceived population can tune in. Sure. Like all of them want to tune in. Maybe some would just like a nicer fishing hole, a couple music lessons, or a local library? Maybe most?
Jeeze, what could 3 billion do to distribute 100 dollar laptops? Thats... 30 million... 100 dollar... laptops. With a mesh network that size the last mile... and the coffeeshop mile... and the park in the middle of nowhere mile... all come free.
Ah... the tax and spend Republican senate was as usual, spending money it didn't have, on a subsidy for a dying industry, for a president that doesn't know what a veto is.
I miss the days when all we cared about was who was blowing who in the big house.
I wondered if these well meaning misguided senators counted me among the 70 million that would miss broadcast tv if it went dark in 2006. As if I'd care about missing 3 simultaneous 1024x768 episodes of COPS, or reruns of Survivor in surround sound.
Write your senators! Tell them you want to see analog broadcast die on schedule and a million new technologies take its place. Kill Analog TV in 2006! Let it go the way of the horse and buggy!
This is great news actually! Think about how this will come at an ideal time to crush over the air tv and usher in an age of IPTV?
Three years from now there will be an excellent selection of shows for download on the web, broadband connections will be faster and more widespread (hopefully), and more people will own computers. The media giants are thinking this will enable them to lock down shows with DRM and push more control over their content being copied but it will just encourage the online community to take it's own route and completely split from over the air television (Which is mostly crap anyways IMHO).
If you read the linked slashdot story- 300 engineers were laid off.
Sorry, but this irritates the bejeezus out of me when people make a big deal over a bunch of government employees getting fired. Corporations fire 10,000 people over a couple days (to avoid legislation written to protect factory workers from massive firings) and it barely makes a story 10 pages back in the WSJ, but some base closure committee decides an airbase with 15 fighter jets isn't necessary- and it's all over every regional newspaper, the governor and senators leap into action...
Please help metamoderate.
And I am in Japan!
Without pointing fingers at anyone, it is quite obvious that bureaucracy, incompetence, and lack of strong, capable leadership (at ALL levels) were the causes of communications problems in the Katrina aftermath, not technology.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Just because you can post doesn't mean that you should post.
i can see it now .. new years eve .. ball drops
.. 2 .. 1
.. mass panic and everything thinks the world has come to an end .. y2k10 beware! .. i previously worked selling tv's and about 25% of the customers had any idea things would change .. the other 75% simply thought digital tv's were sold because they are "better"
.. the college football games with the most meaning start on new years day .. umm yeah i bet that won't interfere with the college football games
3
tv's across america go out
another good point was made
I'm already waaaay ahead of you, my friend. My idea is better...I got rid of my television outright.
Last year, I sold my NTSC television (36" Sony Trinitron) on eBay for $200 with pedestal. I figure I was out about $1000 over the 6 years I owned it.
Guess what I did next?
Wrong. I didn't replace it. My wife and I have no television. No ads. None of the soundbytes. No cable bill. No TiVo bill. No MythTV Mayhem. No equipment to keep thinking about upgrading. No worries about the broadcast flag. Nobody trying to push my buttons over the screen.
All that and more free space in my living room for the couch.
The funny thing is...we don't really miss TV and that gives us time to pursue other things. We'll catch a glimse of a show or a movie on the tube if we're out with friends or whatnot, but that's about it. Even then, most of the time we just turn the thing off.
We have survived our first year without a television in the house (as of 10/10!) and our lives have become much more enriched as a result.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
I responded to you and all I got was this lousy shirt.
Welcome to America. You must be new here. EVERYTHING Congress (and the executive branch, as well) does is done as favors to big business. That's what pays for their campaigns and they don't forget it.
(Coming soon, the judicial branch too! Hooray cronyism!)
Yes, in case it's not obvious, I'm with the O.P. on this one.
The whole idea of a capitalistic society is that consumers have choice in how they spend their money. I personally don't own a TV set. I have made a choice to not spend my money on a TV set. And yet I have no choice about my taxes and therefore I have no choice but to contribute my share to this $3bil subsidy. This is pretty much a command economy type of maneuver. Way to go Congress! It seems like we won the Cold War abroad and lost it on the home front.
Yeah, they might even rush out and buy a ton of books. Or hold conversations with their family members around the dinner table.
Sign me up, I'm converted.
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
The seemingly random date of April 7, 2009, isn't all that random. Stevens wanted to make sure that any digital switch wouldn't come in the middle of popular programming during the holidays, football bowl games, and the March Madness college basketball playoffs.
This would obviously be timed to be after the elections in the fall of 2008. We don't want to piss off the people before the elections. This will give the senate and house almost two full years for everyone to forget. And they will. People are such sheep.
Can you hear it now? Bu-ha-ha-ha-ha!
"Yeah, they might even rush out and buy a ton of books."
If they could read them.
"Or hold conversations with their family members around the dinner table."
The divorce rate is over 50%. Kids spend more time on video games than with their parents. What is this 'family' you speak of?
Go ask a few people you know if they know their analog TV's will stop working sometime in the next year or two. You'll get a look that makes you expect you just told them to stock up on aluminium foil to make hats.
When this one happens, people are going to get VERY upset, and if it's the government mandating this, you can guess who they're going to get upset at. I think people in the industry in for a big suprise.
Yes, the technology offer lots of advantages, but the current stuff WORKS. WELL. There's a lot of reasons POTS service is still around, although that name is out of favor.
Maybe I'm wrong.. but I don't think so. I expect plain 'ol analog TV to be available for a long, long time. Say you have a couple TVs.. that's a couple converter boxes.. and they're not going to be giving them away free.
..don't panic
BFD. Why should the government subsidize jet research 40 years after the space age? What does that have to do with television? There's no linkage.
I understood everything up to "Felix the Cat"
I apologize folks, but if the headline comes across as an incoherent ramble, what is the motivation to RTFA?
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
Great! When can I expect the check?
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
Amen, brother. When I went to college in 1980 I couldn't afford a TV of my own (I recall them being expensive, $300 in 1980 dollars, and besides since I left a girl back home I had to save all my dough to spend on phone bills). So I just stopped watching it. Haven't since. Not a "statement" or moral choice -- just never found enough time or desire, I suppose.
So that'll be 25 years without watching the tube come September. Only problem is the odd looks when I completely miss TV-culture references. Like Mr. or Dr. Steinfeld and some show about friends ("Friends"?). Means nothing to me. Nor have I seen any "Star Trek" shows since the original, although I do understand that there are about eleventy-two subvarieties of it now, with talking robots and stuff.
I've considered explaining I've just returned from twenty years in the Australian outback, but I can't do the accent.
Well go ahead and present this legally sound interpretation of the fair use provisions. I'm certain no one will be able to poke holes in it. Hopefully more care will go into it, than what went into most slashdotter's responses to the main story (the ones that read it, that is).
The article summary says:
This is simply not the case. If you read the FCC's FAQ on the subject of digital television (which is what this is about, incidentally -- the FCC is mandating digital, but not high-def, which is only part of digital), you will see this:
This means that the new digital channels are being assigned to 6 MHz channels within the existing analog TV spectrum. In other words, they are just shuffling things around within the same spectrum. Analog TV is 6 MHz for one channel, and so is digital. (Digital can have subchannels, but that is part of the protocol, not something the FCC worries about after they've assigned the 6 MHz bandwidth to a TV station.)
So, are they actually taking away any of the analog spectrum? Yes, they are taking part of it away -- a very small part. They are taking away channels 52-69. The FCC's FAQ says this:
Translation: they are going to try to eventually move every channel which is in the 52-69 range down into the 2-51 range. They are leaving 2-51 available for television, and they are trying to reclaim 52-69.
So, is this a good thing? Well, how many TV stations do you know of that are in the 52-69 range right now? There are very few. It's a part of the spectrum that isn't used for TV much right now as it is anyway. So in a way, the FCC is basically taking this opportunity to clean out this little-used part of the spectrum.
If you want to go into a little more detail, check out this Adobe PDF spectrum chart. Look at the 300MHz-3GHz line, and look at the "TV BROADCASTING" section after the one that denotes channels 21-36. You'll see that it goes from 614Mhz to 698MHz, and since all TV channels are 6 MHz bandwidth, that means 84/6 = 14 channels. This means it goes with channels 37-50 (the next 14 channels after 21-36). And then look after that on the chart. You'll see that 698MHz through 806MHz is allocated for "BROADCAST" but also for "FIXED" and "MOBILE" purposes. So apparently it's not 100% dedicated to television right now. So the FCC is right to say that range (channels 50 and higher) is not part of the "core" spectrum.
Anyway, even if you don't agree that we should give up the part of 52-69 that is allocated to television (because apparently not all of it is), it's still important to note that the FCC is not auctioning off ALL of the analog TV spectrum. Actually, there are 68 channels total, and it would seem they are only auctioning off 18 of them, and part of those 18 channels aren't even allocated to TV in certain areas right now, so it's less than 18 channels. So, at worst, they are auctioning off 18/68 = 26.5% of the analog TV spectrum, and they are leaving exactly 50 broadcast television channels available.
Just because YOU want children doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. Think about that the next time you try to re-live your life vicariously through your children, or use your children to bring more attention to yourself, or force life onto a helpless being simply because you felt like it.
Or did you pull another human being into this hateful, diseased, self-destructive world because you've deluded yourself into thinking it's a nice place?
The divorce rate is over 50%. Kids spend more time on video games than with their parents easy way to solve this. DONT GET MARRIED.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Be warned - with this bill going to conference to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions, there's a good chance that someone will try to slip in the Broadcast Flag there.
If they could read them.
You do hopefully mean that they dont want to right? I mean, they teach how to read in schools right? Otherwise you would have to make a learn to read program simular to that you can find in Venezuela and Cuba.
Freedom or George Bush
Didn't I see you on TV around about 1975, when we were all sitting in line to buy gas and watching the bad news from Vietnam, prophesizing The End before 1980?
I'm not really into football, and perhaps they aren't talking about college, but I'm pretty sure that the Rose Bowl in Los Angeles that directly follows the Rose Parade on January 1 is a little close to the cut off day of December 31. If they are trying to avoid stepping on the sporting events, why not do it right after basketball season ends? On the other hand, why even worry about it at all when there is always some sport going on - even if it isn't as big as the NBA and NFL championships?
How many of us voted for third parties? These assholes are the assholes we all elected. Libertarians wouldn't do this. Green party would probably be too busy outlawing internal combustion to bother with this. Constitution party sure as hell wouldn't. Given that the Republicrats are pretty much becoming just one big evil, let's consider dropping the whole lesser of two evils bullshit and vote these fools out. I know, I know, it will never happen... But unless you vote your conscience, you have no right to complain when your stupid mainstream party shills fuck you over for their corporate masters.
The spectrum was originally to be "returned to the public."
Let's keep at least some of that idea alive.
Rather than auctioning off all of the non-public-safety bands, designate some for public software radio use.
Help public speech trump private profit.
"Bread and Circus"
Worked for the Holy Roman empire, and it's working for the Holy American empire too.
Venezuela and Cuba. Great examples. Teach people how to read and then forbid them from reading anything that might make someone question the Marxist utopia.
Shame on Google.
In other news, statistics are up 360%.
Maybe the important question is: what will the 'net look like in 2009? What if downloading movies from the 'net goes legit? What if the production studios start shipping TV episodes out over the 'net? By four years from now people might be more likely to install a big LCD screen, a fast computer with a giant disk drive, and a broadband connection in their living room than a digital TV. I mean, there are already broad swathes of suburbia at least where I live (Southern California) where TV radio signals go for miles without being intercepted by so much as a single antenna, 'cause it all comes in by coax already.
Frankly, if you think about it, the idea of getting signals from one fixed location (the studio) to another (your home) over the air seems silly. That's a job for a wire. Save the airwaves for situations, like mobile communications, where you can't be dragging a wire around.
Nah, it'll be easy - all they have to do is tell everybody that this was mandated and started by the evil Clinton Demo_rats, backed by the lib'rul media cabal, and it would take too many valuable tax dollars for the government to back out of it now. Not to mention that all honest, God-fearing Republicans would shudder at the thought of government telling good honest corporations what to do.
;-))
(Was it even started by the Clinton government? I'm Australian, so I neither know nor care. But do you think that the actual truth of who started the ball rolling would make any difference to the media spin campaign?)
((I'm just laughing because your DTV changeover seems to be even more fscked up than ours
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Christ, and no one has sold the broadcast rights to it yet? What kind of screw-ups are running this war? Have they even lined up sponsors? Auctioned off the stuffed toy and Happy Meal(TM) tie-in rights? I'm so depressed.
"Yeah, they might even rush out and buy a ton of books. Or hold conversations with their family members around the dinner table. Sign me up, I'm converted."
I hear ya, man. I'd love it if I could make everybody conform to my standard of living.
"Derp de derp."
Considering what's on TV, paying me $3 billion dollars isn't enough to get me to watch more televesion.
If you're reading this, stop it.
Propagate is the correct spelling. Think of it as propping a gate open, which lets the cows and horses and other animals spread, ie .... propagate!
Moderators, throw down your weapons. Drop those mouse clicks. Ignore this comment.
Parent poster Sir Slikens, please forgive my intrusion into your world. As Andrew Jackson is reputed to have said, it's a poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
Infuriate left and right
I've considered explaining I've just returned from twenty years in the Australian outback, but I can't do the accent.
Don't. Just say you've come back from a 20 year solitary walkabout in the Australian outback.
Infuriate left and right
Move to Canada. The CRTC will protect you for a while at least, and you'll get analogue TV into the 2010s even.
The FCC won't let you be, and Congress has no direct power in Canada.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I think he was being sarcastic.
But who you should really be criticizing is the government! Their lifestyle is to be paid off by media companies to make sure you see ads and continue to SHOP SHOP SHOP. So they're making sure that you have a boob tube to deliver ads right to your house. The media companies win, and then the politicians get more bribes.
All for forcing their lifestyle on you.
(If they want that so badly, why can't they finance this out of their "contribution" fund? I want my taxes to do something good, not make people dumber. I don't even own a TV to begin with...)
My other car is first.
Chief Wiggum lifts covers of the bed and peers under
Wiggum: Well I'll be damned!
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
You might use google maps to find the nearest suicide booth in your area.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Can't remember the last time I actually watched anything on a TV (directly anyway). Pretty much every show I watch now is downloaded off the internet. I just use Dark Horizons and TV.com to keep track of what shows are currently airing that I want to watch.
:)
Just my two pence worth
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." - HL Mencken
I've seen it in too many comments in this thread, but DTV != HDTV. Personally, I do not watch TV and could give a shit, but I just wanted to clarify. Sorry if you don't understand, but I'm too tired to go into detail.
...but mostly it is.
We've been living with digital TV for 7 years in the UK and the cost of set-top boxes has fallen through the floor. Less than 20 quid will get you a brand new STB from High Street retailers, no hidden charges or subsidies, no subscription required. This gets us 20 or so mainstream channels and another dozen or so shopping channels of one stripe or another. It also gets us a couple of dozen digital radio stations.
Without this $3B hand out I would've been surprised if the cost of an STB in the states would've topped out over $20 or so. What are they gonna do now ? Give them away ?
I don't know what the capabilities of digital transmissions will be like in the states but in the UK it's been a mixed bag. Picture quality *is* sharper, true, but any kind of motion or dark scenes don't look good at all. It all depends on how much bandwidth the network uses which dictates how much compression is used. More compression = worse picture. Field sports (football etc) become almost unwatchable, the screen becomes cluttered with artifacts unless the network has bought a big chunk of bandwidth. BBC sports coverage is good, but you can't watch matches on the ITV network.
Sound quality, for us at least has taken a tumble. Analogue transmissions were usually in Nicam Stereo which was pretty good but we don't have Dolby transmissions here so plain ole stereo, which the digital stations use, sounds pretty flat in comparison.
5
4
3
2
1
*TV turns to static just before the ball dropped*
Who can they auction these channels off to? The analog channels are the same frequencies as the digital channels. If channels are shifted from VHF to UHF in a city, wouldn't the VHF channels be used by another city? It's not like the channel is not going to be used throughout the whole country and it can be auctioned off. Here in Los Angeles there is a brand new low power station on channel 6. I'm surprised that there isn't a problem with the channel 6 from the San Diego area. So if they are auctioned off, does that mean that LPTV will no longer exist? Does it also mean that there will be no new television stations after the switch to digital?
Boy how times have changed! I remember back in the 60's when this magical thing called color tv came into being, and everyone was saying "but I can't afford an expensive color tv". You know what happened? Those that couldn't afford a color tv did without. But, now with this digital crap, they are FORCING everyone to get a new tv, set top converter or do without. Well, considering the udder crap on tv these days, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing if a lot, if not all, the public were to do without tv for a while. You think it's bad here, I understand that in the UK, you have to pay for a "license" to watch TV. Don't let anyone kid you...the old saying "follow the money" is still true. The big "push" to get the analog frequencies off the air is nothing but a different version of eminent domain. If the government forces the tv stations to give up prime real estate on the vhf/uhf bands, they can sell these frenquencies and reap a ton of money. As with everything else, it's always about the money. This time the consumer gets stuck in the middle.
Or become politically aware and active.
Analog TV will be phased out in 2006 here in the Netherlands...
Politicians make such decisions here with only a couple of months leadtime.
Some statistics showed that only about 70.000 families are still watching the analog TV network, it costs some 15 million euro per year to keep it running, government needs 15 million euro for some other purpose, so the network will be switched off next year.
(it is still unclear if this will happen all at once on Jan 1st, and if there will be subsidies to buy digital receiving equipment)
I got something to say:
This is some scary shit. Republicans always hid behind the "small government and uninhibitted trade" arguement, but for at least the past 20 years, it's been total bullshit. Now, we've found a way to do something that's effectively the opposite of communism: tax the people in order to pay the businesses. Yea, $3 billion from the government to the people! That money doesn't come out of thin air, the comes out of our taxes. So this redistribution is in such a way that will guarentee that people continue to buy televisions. So, in the ecconomic scheme, where does all that money end up? In the hands of big businesses like Phillips, Sony, Magnavox, etc. [Public -> Government -> Public (specifically to buy item) -> Phillips/Sony/Magnavox]; or to put it in short form: [Public -> Phillips/Sony/Magnavox] through government redistrobution. IE: money taken from lower, middle, and upper classes, and given to the upper classes, most of which will NOT trickle down. Any fool can see that the effect of this is a widening of the income gap and nothing else. The current income gap is the worst it's ever been in US history. We have a deficit that MY grandchildren (I'm 24) will still have even if we were to start paying it off now. BTW: most TV manufacturers are located in Japan, and probably very soon, China. Great, so lets just create more reasons to send all of our money out of our ecconomy, WOO HOO!
I remember hearing in a world history class about a state that started throwing money at people for luxuries like theatrical events, public executions, and other feel-good services, in order to take the common folks' attention away from the people who were dieing in the streets. Oh yeah, that was the Roman Empire just before its total collapse. The similarity is uncanny: Katrina destroys New Orlands, leaving a thousand dead, and hundreds of thousands homeless; public opinion of the government falls; government throws luxury items at the people to keep them quiet, fat and happy so they wont notice that their neighbors down at the local shelter are starving, and their children are coming home in body bags. This is truly history repeating itself.
Bush made this big speech about how we were going to do "what it takes" to stabilize the victims of Katrina. The question was asked, "where do we get that money from?" Since then we've increased military spending, cut funding to programs benefiting the very poor we're trying to help, expect to lower taxes, and have been unable to come up with any way of doing "what it takes", and now they want to put $3 billion into increasing TV reception! Ted Stevens, my [Alaska's] great senator who is the spokesman for this television bill, is the same guy who just yesterday, in a dramatic, teary-eyed sherade, threatened to quit if congress removed funding for two worthless multi-billion dollar bridges in the transportation bill. I'll tell ya, I live in Alaska, those bridges are a JOKE: one connects a 150 person village to an air strip (noble cause, sure, but the village itself didn't even ask for it or even care!), the other bridge lessons the commute time from Anchorage to an UNINHABITED region across the bay--guess whose friends own all the property in that area, expecting future developement? Go to hell, Ted Stevens!
Meanwhile, Don Young, our lone house representative, when explained that a majority of Alaskans were in favor of giving the bridges back, exclaimed, "They [Alaskans] can all kiss my ear!". This guy's been in for 20+ years, nothing will bring him down. If Young asks his voters to suck his cock, they all just get on their knees; I hate my state.Sorry this got off topic, I'm just incredibly jaded by this and all the events that have lead up to this.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
If they plan to convert to digital, they better make the TV and converter box available soon.
When was the last time a government action gave a fuck about small business? Sure there will be new stations, provided they pay a license fee to some huge corporation.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
>favors to big business.
...unless you're a liberal... and then EVERYTHING is "for the children".
Won't someone please consider the children?!
That region has a history of very repressive regimes, the worst of which are usually supported by the US. In comparison the two countries you mentioned have a good record on human rights. IMO any effort to make a society a bit fairer and in the process stand up to the US isn't going to be easy, but has got to be worth a try.
My question is- apart from the holy thick-heads on TV calling for Chavez to be assassinated, and the oil industry (US government) aggressively representing its interests, are there that many Americans who really believe their country is doing the 'right thing' in situations like this?
There is always this to think about:
A buddy of mine pirates movies from the video store all the time. He has a nice DVD player, a four-head VCR and an old six-head Toshiba VCR. Now, a lot of the time, he can make his recordings just fine, however, some of the movies (IIRC DVD's alot) won't record, due to the flags, etc on the four-head. However, he just changes over to that six-head Toshiba VCR and he's good to go. Either that VCR doesn't bother with any flags, doesn't know about them, or just flat out doesn't care about whether flags are present or not.
I call this a little piece of engineering heaven, but here's the deal. So long as devices like this exist, and so long as places like RadioShack sell devices that convert signals from one format to another (and they're available for almost every conversion to every other conversion, you just have to dig) then you should be able to record from any one format to any other format no problem, and still be able to record things off the air. Flag or no.
Now, two problems do present themselves, but alas, we'll see.
1) Purchasing the equipment now.
2) Purchasing the tapes in the future.
However, to circumvent the tape situation, just consider this. Copy from input to tape, then from tape back to DVD via in-home DVD recorder. Unless you seriously believe that the government will pass legislation forbidding the recording of home movies and the transference of home movies to personal DVD recordings.
If they're not there to see what you're recording, can they know ahead of time that it's not a personal video?
2^3 * 31 * 647
Without delving too deeply into the technology of it all, an analog TV transmission takes up a massive width of spectrum--a digitally compressed television signal takes up a comparatively miniscule width, leaving all the left over space between channels free for the government to auction. Addressing the original topic--the air waves are owned by all of us, collectively. If our government wants to sell some of the spectrum previously allotted for our use, It makes sense to me that some of the profits would come back to us. Of course their motives are purely selfish, but the result is fine by me.
> Congress Pays You $3 Billion to Keep Watching TV
Incorrect. Congress spends $3 billion to help preserve their jobs, just like the other two thousand seven hundred billion this year. See, there's still gonna be hell to pay as suddenly millions of retirees who don't give a rat's ass suddenly find their TVs not working.
And Congress wants to keep their jobs. Bad. Real bad.
So bad they'll gladly spend two seven zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero of [b]your[/b] dollars, trying to please you to get re-elected.
And you know what? [b]It works[/b].
The ol' Soviet Union, a one-party dictatorship, [b]had a greater turnover in their central committee "elections" than did or does the US Congress.[/b]
Or perhaps you'll understand the number better written out in scientific blotation: $2.7 x 10^^12
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
You do know that HDTV is just a subset of Digital TV right? Shows can still be broadcast digitally in standard definition while saving a signficant amout of bandwidth over the analog broadcasting of the same shows.
I don't believe that the government should subsidize the switch over to digital TV. I also don't believe that consumers should pay.
I think the quickest way to create a revolution in America is to cut people off from television and alchohol. Given that, I can see why the government is willing to pay to make sure nobody "leaves the matrix" in the process of converting over to digital television. They do not want people to be free from their opiates, their distractions. If they get free from them they might have time to think and then to get upset over what a crappy job the government is doing.
I think advertisers should pay for the switch to digital tv. Our economy is driven by consumerism and consumerism is inspired, mostly, by television commericals with coporations being the beneficiaries. If someone can't afford a digital TV setup than they can't see corporate America's propaganda and they will buy fewer things they do not need. Coproate America loses money.
Corporate American pays for television shows to be created so people will see their commercials and buy their products.
Why should the consumer either through their tax dollars or their net income pay to have someone else's advertisements to be beemed into their heads?
Let the people who make the profits pay the costs
Yes, they do, sadly. It's because their television tells them to think that, which is an interesting point considering the subject at hand. I have met plenty of Americans who believe, without a doubt, that Castro and Chavez are both evil and out to get them; it's bizarre.
That licence allows you to watch TV without any advertising. I'd pay double the current licence fees to avoid tedious ads. But, then again, don't a lot of people pay a large amount to do that with TiVO (or TiVO-like kit)?
The conversation around the dinner table thing only works until you find out that your son is gay, your daughter a democrat, and your wife cares about black people.
When TV gets turns off, expect a jump in the domestic violence rate.
A.K.A $2.7 x 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10?
Maybe that 3 billion would be better spent teaching basic maths to people like yourself.
Incorrect.
50 channels at first glance. Then you have to throw out channel 37, as it is not allowed to be used for broadcasts. I think the reason has to do with that frequency being the one where hydrogen resonates and therefore it is used for radio astronomy. If I recall correctly, channel 37's spectrum is protected by treaties worldwide.
We're down to 49. Then, channels 2-6 are nearly worthless for digital television. Some stations are trying to say that channel 6 isn't really "all that bad," but it is, it's just like the rest of those 54MHz-88MHz channels. Between the electrical noise, impulse noise, e-skip, f2-skip, and the weak output power that low-VHF digitals have been granted, it's a complete disaster.
Locally, I have my PBS station on digital channel 3, while the rest are on UHFs (17, 18, 20, 30, 32, 34, 36, 41). I'll put it like this, the weakest UHF station, WFXR-DT on 17, broadcasting at a whopping 2,970 watts, is more reliable than channel 3, with 7,250 watts. Compare WFXR to the next weakest signal, WJPR-DT, at 186,300 watts, and you see why I'm making a big deal about WFXR being stronger, since it should technically need much more power to be reliable. Channel 3 is useless more than 90% of the time when I try to watch it, which is sad since I watch a lot of PBS. When the analog shutoff occurs, unless channel 3 gets a $1 million infusion FAST, I'm losing PBS because channel 3 is too annoying and unreliable.
So in the end, the spectrum is really closer to 44 channels. And then in the big cities, as many as three UHF channels may be reserved for "land mobile" between 14 and 21, so cut that down even more (in New York, it's 14 and 15, so 16 also has to be left open, in Philly it's 19 and 20, so 18 and 21 have to be left open also).
- Trip
How does this affect someone like me who hasn't watched an over the air transmission for the past five years? I have DirecTV (standard NTSC analogue video) and I haven't yet heard an announcement from them that they would be phasing out their analogue transmissions. So... will I be able to keep using my standard NTSC set up past Dec. 31, 2008? If not, then maybe I better consider switching to DirecTV HD? What say you?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
You know, I remember the day when I could get a clear picture from my tv. No snow, good sound and no worries. Now it's nearly impossible to watch it because of the jagged cubist style picture quality, the picture freezes as the digital signal buffers or whatever the hell it does, the sound doing the same thing. It is impossible to watch and enjoy a concert on TV now with the annoying sound dropping out but since it's digital it drops out clean! Wow, thank you so very much for that. The picture and sound quality sucks big time especially on those channels pronouncing how modern and up to date they are with their digital signals - good commercials for a crappy product. Oh, and if there is something on tv that I even enjoy a little bit I have to wait for the DVD to come out to actually enjoy it. The bottom third of the screen has the pop up advertisements for the next show, the shows coming in the next month or year and the damn ads move and explode and are just as annoying as hell. Yes indeed, I wish the government would have just stayed with the original date for the 'switch over' so the authors of this crap would be closer to the blowback and outrage that will surely come to them.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Here's an idea:
Look at all the households that can receive a given digital TV station over the air.
When a certain percent of them have either HDTV, cable, or a satellite system that gives them the station for no extra charge exceeds 90%, give the station a year to turn off its analog signal.
After 2008, extend the "must-carry if the station demands it" rule to satellite providers. This will greatly speed up reaching the 90% threshhold in rural areas.
In some parts of the country this will happen fast. In some areas it will be slow. In 2012, go back and look at the remaining stations and see what can be done to get their audiences "over the hump." At some point, start charging annual "rental fees" for the analog spectrum to encourage the stations to turn off the signal.
As far as subsidies for the poor go - and we should subsidize converter boxes for the very poor - fund them with a tax in tv-advertisement revenue and on televisions and the rental fees mentioned above.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Probably, and mostly due to ignorance. Most Americans seem to have no clue what we did to the people of Nicaragua in order to topple the Sandanista party. All they know is that the Sandanistas were socialist, the current government (claims to be) capitalist, and that socialism is evil and repressive and capitalism is the way God intended humans to live. They know nothing of the inhumane tactics we taught the Contras to use. They know nothing about how repressive the banana republic we set up in place of Nicaragua's government is. They know what the TV told them, which wasn't much.
Kind of frightening to me that people will pay too much attention to any TV news source nowadays. It may have been Fox News who won the right to lie for newscasters, but every other major network and TV news outlet filed supporting briefs in that case.
Digital TV doesn't take that much spectrum because of they compress the shit out of digital television. If there is such magical abundance of bandwidth, why can't we get 100Mbit/s transmitions with perfect full HD resolution and great sound (DD is far from great, it's actually crap)? Seriously, this isn't making one bit of sense at all.
Besides, we're getting the same transition over here in Sweden, and it pisses me off that people care more about getting to watch TV than budget cuts in healthcare, the police, the fire brigade, [long list cut]. If people can't afford a basic TV set to watch basic TV (there are TV that is useful, for instance during disasters and to issue weather warnings. Even though radio does it just as well), isn't there something much more seriously wrong?
Because the government is forcing the television broadcasters to give up their portion of the analog spectrum, in favor of the new Digital standard
No, the government isn't "forcing" anybody; the government is simply changing the terms under which it has been providing a highly valuable resource to broadcaster at a discount price. In principle, the government could cancel the agreement entirely and unilaterally.
.. that there's money in TV but not in Space Exploration?????
I missed the part in TFA's where it explained the link between the (soon to be former) NASA engineers and digital television. Could someone fill me in?
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Good for you. heres your fucking cookie.
there are others of us who can lead rich, deep lives with a TV. Its not a mutually exclusive thing.
-everphilski-
Why pay extra money for Playboy channel when you can just download free pr0n from the internet? Heck, you could even download episodes of shows on the internet for free!
Why do you blow $50+/month on cable?
While one certainly is stuck with the dollar value/channel, there must be some nugget of a program that is justifying your $50+/month expenditure.
I don't pay $50+/month for shit. You are the biggest loser.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
>the submitter has no idea wtf he's talking about in regards to the financing of this project
There was nothing wrong with the poster's use of a reference to a federally funded project in the posting as a contrast to spending dollars for a DTV subsidy.
Money made by the auction of the spectrum can be spent any way the federal government wants to spend it. The person who wrote the article is making the point that while we are laying off talented engineers from JPL (who are doing something worthwhile) we are considering spending the money on helping the masses get digital television (which has debatable value).
You may disagree that subsidizing DTV has little value which you can argue for, but take aim on the topic rather than the poster.
Now just assume that the DMCA doesn't go away and, in all liklihood, just gets more restrictive... The idea of a future where no broadcast media can be taped or even viewed without the explicit permission of the broadcaster is not a happy one...
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Yeah, they might even rush out and buy a ton of books. Or hold conversations with their family members around the dinner table.
Books and conversations produce independent thought. I think the politicians know exactly what they are doing -- maintaining status quo. People in their alpha wave zone in front of the TV being shown things like the play by play on the "war on terror", or the next plague of the week that kills 800 people in China or a couple of birds, and of course the required car advertisement that is aired at every commercial break between 6 and 11 PM.
If it were me, I would be willing to pay much more than $3 billion of somebody else's money to keep them quiet.
So how does Congress spend $3 billion for a $2 billion "problem"?
"Congress Pays You $3 Billion to Keep Watching TV"
Congress pays me nothing
It's about time to tell these dinosaurs that the free market should dictate winning technology, not a combination of pork, corporate welfare, and a forced frogmarch to something no one outside of "content providers" and equipment manufacturers really wants.
Last time I looked it was my money they were being so free with.
Perhaps it's time to remind them of that fact.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
IMHO, the best times for not stepping on the most sports-related toes is February, late June, or November. It just depends on who you want to piss off. February is right after the Super Bowl, before March Madness, but during the NBA regular season and NCAA conference tournaments. Late June is after the NBA Finals, but during MLB's season. November is after the World Series, but during the NFL, NBA, and NCAA football regular seasons.
There are only two days in the US where there are no pro sports games being played. The days before and after the MLB All-Star game. So some large corporate entity is going to have to have a dip in coverage, so I guess NCAA Football, the NBA, and the NFL were chosen for this one.
The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
Imagine how much time and space you'll get back when you throw out all those books and get rid of the bookshelves!
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Why? Come on, does the Bush administration even NEED a reason anymore?
i want my subsidy for converting from cassette tape to cd. and from vhs to dvd. that conversion cost me some money...
Why do you blow $50+/month on cable?
Because cable TV comes "free" with high-speed Internet access in some geographic areas perhaps? Moving house just to get DSL is almost never an option.
How large of an antenna can one connect inside an apartment?
My God, Congress wants to pay me to watch digital TV?!?!?! Why don't they find something better to do with the money!!!!
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
This is a stupid idea. Everyone knows that television is keeping the masses busy, so they don't overthrow the government. You think Hitler would have gotten people organized if the game was on? I'm leaving the country in 2009. Once TV's go black, people will start rioting due to boredom.
April 7 is likely to fall on opening day for baseball. Guess congress only really cares about television events that generate massive advertising revenue and not the ones identified as "American as apple pie." Even the president is more likely to show up to throw out the first pitch of the baseball season than to participate in the final 4.
If they want that so badly, why can't they finance this out of their "contribution" fund?
Because corporations will externalize any cost they can. The bill for getting lobbyists to convince Congress to approve a $3,000,000,000 TV subsidy out of the government's (read: the American people's) pockets probably comes out to a lot less than $3,000,000,000.
The physical properties of this portion of the spectrum is the whole point of this transition. While I don't agree with the $3 billion subsidy, I think the redistribution of the spectrum is a good thing. It's a huge logistical undertaking, and if it means raising money by auction and spending some of that money to assuage voters in Nebraska, so be it. That's part of the compromise involved in democracy.
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
Now, in my particular case it won't matter, because Time-Warner Cable will do the converting for me, and I won't have to buy anything. In that case, if the government helps them pay for the equipment to do so, presumably the savings will be passed along to me. But there are a lot of people who don't have cable TV.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I would bet that becoming politically aware is the biggest cause of political apathy.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Thousands of nerds on-line complaining about the irresponsibilities of their government, but who don't actually do anything about it. That's the beauty of being a democracy, learn from your fucking forefathers; go out there and make a change. Do you really think your government has the power to stop millions of pissed-off Americans with guns? Change does not come easy. "For anything worth having one must pay the price; and the price is always work, patience, love, self-sacrifice - no paper currency, no promises to pay, but the gold of real service"
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
I think slashdot should just link to this for every HDTV story and save us all the trouble.Y ah%2C+ya+boneheads+we+told+you+18+was+too+many%2C+ now+you+gotta+live+with+it.%22&btnG=Google+Search
...)m l
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=FCC+says+%22
This guy claims he originally wrote it (as far back as 2002
http://www.pusateri.org/cruft/docs/hdtvhistory.ht
- sigs are for wimps.
That said, I agree with you that it's stupid to spend public money to help people watch TV. Given all the other shit that's happening — war, natural disaster, the rising cost of fuel — this problem just doesn't rate.
Unfortunately, the politicos can't ignore it. All those disgruntled TV viewers make up a big consituency. And when you have a consituency, you get funding. That's why Congress can't balance the budget.
The smart thing to do would be to abandon the mandatory changeover to digital TV. This might mean that HD television will never catch on — but that's not exactly a disaster either.
Except to all the broadcasters who've spent a fortune on HD transmitters. And the entertainment moguls who are hoping to revive lagging sales with HD programming. And the hardware companies who had been hoping to make a lot of money selling HD stuff. And they, alas, are also a big consituency.
The most basic difference for most Kerry voters, I think, was not what would be done but what had been done. It's actually not unreasonable for Kerry to have chosen to stay in Iraq; it's a mess that the US made and which arguable we should try to clean up after ourselves. If we didn't, future deaths resulting from a civil war in Iraq would be blamed on us (not to mention a potential new safe haven for al Qaeda).
But the difference is that Bush HAD gone into a war, under what many prospective Kerry voters considered false pretenses, and for that he deserved to lose his office, even if his policies for the future were exactly identical to Kerry's.
For example, Kerry might have been able to get foreign assistance in Iraq, not because his policies were better than Bush's, but because for many countries the answer would be an automatic "No" to Bush. They'd say Bush had brought it on himself, whereas Kerry would be trying to fix a situation he inherited. That's not a guarantee, but there was no hope of any world support under Bush.
Actually, that's not even the most basic difference. The most basic difference is in the Supreme Court. It was obvious that Bush would appoint at least one new Supreme Court justice, and that he would almost certainly chose an anti-Roe nominee, whereas Kerry would almost certainly chose a pro-Roe nominee. The way it turned out was somewhat more complicated, but at the time both sets of voters may have had abortion (and other things that the Supreme Court weighs in on) at the front of their minds.
There were numerous other policy differences: privatization of social security, concerns over Bush's pro-business style (in particular, the energy policy for which many Democrats feel Bush should be punished), environmental policies.
I'm not trying to debate what should be done in Iraq, or to favor one candidate or the other. I'm just saying that the presence of similarities between the two doesn't mean that there weren't also differences.
But one last bone I'll pick: not all senators are there to sponsor legislation. An awful lot of work goes on in Congress that doesn't get names on bills. The details of the bills are where serious work gets done, not in the overall thrust. A President is as much a negotiator as a policymaker, and being good at those back-room skills getting bills actually passed is at least as important as initiating legislation. John McCain, for example, is more respected for his ability to make the resulting legislation reasonable than for the bills that he himself has sponsored.
Again, I'm not using this to comment on the election itself or take a stand on who you should have voted for. I'm just saying that if you're not seeing any differences, and you're not seeing Kerry's accomplishments, then you need to look more closely.
Seems like ending analogue transmission the day before would interfere with the bowl games to me. You know, I think the end of the year might have just beena convenient date.
You are not entitled to watch a TV program just because you feel like it. The producers of the show, the actors of the show, the tech guys working on the show, and hundreds to thousands of other "little guys" working on the show all do so to make money, which is sort of necessary for them to survive. That money comes in from the TV stations. Who only keep the show around if ratings stay high from people watching it on that station. And those stations only get picked up by the cable company if the stations have many highly rated shows. And cable companies make money off of ads and your subscriptions.
If you don't want to pay all of the people involved, then by downloading the show, you are screwing them _all_ over; the big producers and little guys working on sets or prop management alike. You might "stick it to the man," but you also stick it to Bob the prop grip who barely makes enough to get by as is.
You aren't entitled to watch the show. Your only ethical options are to (a) pay for the cable subscription and watch the show like everyone else, or (b) not watch the show.
The funny thing is that nearly all of that money goes into getting themselves re-elected. Congressmen don't get rich off of it directly; that would be bribery and such thing really are frowned upon. It does manage to make its way to them through back-door channels as they funnel money to their friends, but for most politicans the election is about a chance to get the legislation they want to see passed (on social issues as well as economic ones) and improve their communities, and they need to pander to everybody else to keep getting elected to keep up that chance.
Donations are made to politicians, who spend them on campaign ads. It's still the voters who get taken in by the ads. So to my mind is that it's not so much that we have the best politicians money can buy, but the best ELECTORATE money can buy.
Ultimately, the corporations (and individuals and unions and PACs) are buying access to the mind of the public via TV ads and other campaigning (coordinated by funneling the money through the campaign itself), and the politicians reflect what the voters seem to believe. That the voters somehow manage to believe things that are massively against their own interests I can only chalk up to the genius of campaign managers and advertising executives. Nothing succeeds like success, and the fact that 90%+ of incuments are re-elected testifies that name recognition and the money they get from selling their favors buys continued re-elections indefinitely.
Unpleasant, but I'd rather smarten up the voters they try to change the rules for politicians. Politicians will always find ways around the rules, and as long as the electorate is manipulated by something as crass as a 30-second TV ad they'll keep deriving their abuse of power from the consent of the governed.
See, now here's the thing. When Congress hears about new tv's with better pictures they say "ooo, how much?" If you ask them about subsidies to advance fuel cell technology and build the infrastructure to support such a move you get hand wringing and fear.
I know that HDTV will allow me to see more flags on stage during election seasons. The screen is wider, therefore...more flags per appearance. And I know HOW importatant that is.
Maybe someday, when we have a courageous and attentive public, we will be able to change the disturbing game we have for politics. Personally, I would prefer that the money be spent on developing alternative energy sources like solar and wind and developing our irrigation infrastructure, concentrate on how to convert that energy and water into hydrogen at the filling station, and then figure out how to retrofit all those cars on the road. It could be a glorious, revitalizing, World War II style public works project that could change the face of the world.
Oh wait...I can spend money on saving the world...or onb getting better images of war on HDTV. I wonder how many embedds are already carrying HDTV cameras?
In America cash is king. Easy cash is GOD. In any market economy intelligence is merely a tool to obtain wealth.
Ergo, smart educated people being a distinct minority, we are more valued as consumables, not as consumers.
Why doesn't congress actually pass a law to allow consumers to record things and come to an actual answer on the "Digital Rights" issue?
Because I'm not buying HDtv gear 'till this DRM broadcast flag is a settled issue.
Way to completely miss the point. I wasn't talking about the existence of digital TV, I was talking about knowledge of a government mandated move from analog to digital, especially one that would be happening soon. THat is not well known, no matter how you cut it. Just so we're clear and you don't continue using disingenuos arguing tactic: this is about knowledge of a government mandated move, not knowledge of the existence of digital TV. The two are completely different, despite your moronic insistence otherwise.
Mod this idiot down. He completely ignored my actual argument and instead went for something completely different. And just because you heard a single newspiece about it in 2000 doesn't mean it's widely known. There is news about all kinds of things, but I bet you don't know about most of it, aside from the most widely reported stuff. This isn't one of those widely reported things.
-njyoder
He didn't say "no difference", he said no appreciable difference.
While WordWeb defines appreciable to mean "Enough to be estimated or measured", in common usage it has a meaning closer to its base word appreciate, that is, value.
What I would mean if I were to say what he said is that I don't find any value in the differences between them. Neither one of them have expressed an effective management strategy, and for me that is key.
This "18 Format" stuff is a bit of a red herring.. Those formats are just differences in the MPEG encoding, they pick a few standard resolutions, refresh rates, etc. and document them so that the STBs can test against standard formats.
In the digital domain, this is not a huge problem. Think of how all the media players handle this. They can play video of any resolution, any aspect ratio, refresh rate, etc.
In practice, there are three formats used: 1080i (1920x1080 16:9 60 fields/sec), 720p (1280x720 16:9 60 frames/sec), 480i (aka SDTV, 720x480 4:3 60 fields/sec).
The real issues are: there was no explicit requirement to use the DTV channels for HDTV programming (lack of content and expense in HDTV production/broadcast made this difficult to mandate), and the U.S. was too early in defining standards -- we would be much better off with H.264/AVC as the standard format.
Yes I do have a choice and I do vote. I vote every single time for the only party out there that would NEVER tolerate this kind of thievery: the Libertarian Party. Me and 0.5% of the rest of the voters in this country. As for running for office, I don't have the personality or resources to do it. If I did I would. Where I live now, all the races (even city council) are highly competitive, with all candidates spending $100 per voter and up. I don't have anything like that amount of money.
I've got cable TV in two places, and I wanted it in neither.
My college dorm has cable because they include that in price for housing ("Can I get a discount on my tutition if I don't get TV?")
My parents' house has cable because when we signed up for cable internet, we found out this was the pricing plan:
Internet for houses not getting cable TV: 65$ a month
Internet for houses getting cable tv: 50$ a month
The cheapest cable TV package is 7$ a month... Easy choice, eh?
I respond to your sigs
It was obvious that Bush would appoint at least one new Supreme Court justice, and that he would almost certainly chose an anti-Roe nominee, whereas Kerry would almost certainly chose a pro-Roe nominee.
/ roe.profile/
So that would mean that the judges would be against abortion?
Norma McCorvey aka Roe is a pro-life activist now.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
" Welcome to America. You must be new here. EVERYTHING Congress (and the executive branch, as well) does is done as favors to big business. That's what pays for their campaigns and they don't forget it.
/. urban myth that big business owns the govt.
"
You may want to look at how much labor unions and PACs contribute to election campaigns. Texas law specifically forbid corporate donations, which is why Delay is in trouble. But, go ahead, keep blieving the
Vote for Pedro
No matter how this is handled, people will be caught unaware, and will blow a gasket when their idiot box stops working. The viewing public is stupid. Here is an example. When WCPO in Cincinnati first used their SAP channel to simulcast in Spanish, they were deluged with complaints demanding that channel 9 immediately go back to broadcasting in English. Even in 2005, they did not know what SAP was, and had it turned on. On the evening news the next day they tried to explain what SAP was, but still can't turn it on without idiots going ballistic about their TV "talkin' forin".
How ya like dat?
"I wish fewer people would vote. Imagine what this country would be like if only people who understood the ramifications of their actions voted. I can guarantee that any person with a brain that watched the presidential debates would not have voted for Bush, but he still won. Why? Because people are too fucking stupid to vote."
Those people who voted for Bush knew exactly what they were voting for. Calling them stupid makes you appear stupid for not understanding that these people actually agree with Bush's agenda.
Vote for Pedro
You need a TV for that ;)
Nah, without TV they'd just introduce the masses to Slashdot ;-)
I want my taxes to do something good, not make people dumber. I don't even own a TV to begin with.
You're the guy!
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I figured someone would reply with that link. Not owning a TV is not to say that I don't download TV programs I want to see... I just don't want the ads or a crappy screen to view them on.
My other car is first.
A big hurdle to DTV acceptance is availability.
I've looked for portable TV sets with DTV/HDTV reception. None exist. I've checked with my distributor, I've checked retail (Worst Buy, Circuit City, Sprawl*Mart, Amazon, Yahoo, etc.) and all the portable sets are --- all analog. I want a small television set for my kitchen and one for my living room, and I can find small analog televisions ranging from $10 (yes, $10!) all the way to $700 but none with digital reception capability
Likewise: I've looked for USB TV tuners or integral laptop tuners. Guess what? Unless I go for a DVB (european digital) tuners, which are pointless on this side of the pond, the only choice is - you got it - analog.
If I want a 36" television in my kitchen, or carry a desktop computer with a full PCI slot, there are certainly DTV/HDTV options, but I'm certainly not going to put a 36" television in my kitchen, and I'm not going to carry around a desktop computer with me when I am on the go. And a handheld DTV (as in 1.7" to 3.5" LCD television)? They do not exist.If I want to replace my old, old 1980s Casio LCD television (cracked LCD screen, and they no longer sell replacement displays for that model), I have to replace it with an analog unit which will be useless very soon.
Furthermore: I don't want HDTV. Stargate is just as entertaining at low-resolution NTSC as it would be at 1080i resolution. So I'd be able to see blemishes on Carter's face, or count the hairs on Jackson's head, or see the difference in his 5 o'clock shadow between scenes or even during a scene when there were multiple takes during shooting. Big f'n whoop. It won't be any more entertaining, and it certainly won't make boring drivel like Simple Life or Survivor suck any less.
$.02
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It's everyone's duty to apply for their subsidized box. Fill in "Dirt poor" as your income and see if you can squeak through the system.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
When TV gets turns off, expect a jump in the domestic violence rate.
In that case, why not cut straight to the chase and start supplying marijuana etc. drugs to the people ?
If you are zoned out/passed out on your sofa all day, presto! no domestic violence!
Sheesh!
I suppose if them polecats hadn't spent the last money on a teevee show to fake a moon landing...
(Seriously, I favor all tax schemes and government spending.)
You seem to be under the impression that digital TV is a technology designed to benefit the end-user/viewer.
This is incorrect. Digital TV is designed to benefit broadcasters, not viewers. It does this by allowing them to (a) squeeze more programming into a given slice of spectrum, and (b) use the spectrum for other, non-TV applications that can use over-the-air digital signals (many of which are more lucrative than running sitcoms).
For us poor schlubs on the other end of the broadcast the only attraction of digital is that it allows High Definition programming; and the molasses-like pace with which broadcasters have rolled out HD tells you exactly how much they care about that.
Once you realize that digital TV is a lot more about making life better for NAB members than for you or I, the decisions that surround it will start to make more sense.
Read my blog.
Remember the good old days when the King owned all the land and parceled it out to the Barons, who allowed the peasants to live on it and farm it as long as they handed over a share? Guess what! We're still living in that system. Mining companies get mineral rights for next to nothing, wood products companies get logging rights for next to nothing. The public will end up paying for this, because whatever the spectrum bidders pay at auction they'll recoup in tax breaks, low interest loans and other corporate welfare. The public ALWAYS pays, because it's always been the peasants who do the paying.
In the Hamburg area of Germany we just got told: ....and we still made it, we're still alive.
"On such and such a date, we do digital. If you don't buy a set-top box/converter/digital receiver, tough!"
That helped me to decide to get a digital satelite dish and now I can squander my evening channel zapping..erm..
To be fair, not knowing what SAP is isn't stupid, it's just ignorant. Most people wouldn't have any reason to know what SAP is. Now, if they still don't understand it after having it explained to them, THEN they're stupid.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Any moron who is given 3 years of warning ought to be able to save enough money to afford a set-top converter box if they do not want to buy a new TV. And if they are using cable, like 95% of everybody, they don't need to buy anything. If we have to waste 3 billion dollars why don't we spend it on studies of ways we can get lazy people to stop mooching off of taxpayers, and studies of ways to get Congress to stop spending money on stupid crap.
Starting now, prohibit analog transmissions for 5 minutes each day. The stations get to choose when, presumably at about 3:00 AM. Permit digital broadcasting. (should be on the same damn frequency, avoiding all the allocation problems)
Next month, make it 10 minutes. The month after that, 15 minutes. Then 20 minutes. This amounts to 1 extra hour each year, leading to a ban in 24 years.
Meanwhile, require a warning on all analog-only devices. Tax analog-only devices $1 now, increasing by $1 every 2 weeks. (so, $26 at the end of the first year) After 3 years, start a similar tax on analog+digital devices. So digital devices are tax-free, combined devices are low-tax, and analog-only devices are high-tax.
Everybody will convert to 100% digital long before the deadline.