although the cameras provide decent observation angles, they can't provide equivalent of the glass cockpit
True only because they weren't designed to. If you don't need it, you don't spend money on it, and the current UAVs wouldn't benefit from it at all.
There are innumerable cameras out there which provide visual data vastly better than the human eye is able to. And there are other benefits, like the ability to have 50 eyes (on the ground) looking over the visual data, simultaneously.
Similarly, although the communication links are high-speed, there is still latency.
There haven't been any attempts to minimize latency, again, because there is no need for it in their current designs. The transmission delay over a direct air to ground (line-of-sight antenna, routed some miles away to the operating base) link is minuscule, and the current satellite bounce links can be reserved for use only if/when the direct links go out.
As listing all the potential drawbacks, without listing any of the (many) benefits, will always make something sound bad. Include speed, cost, manuverability, size, etc., and you'll find the cheaper, faster, more numerous UAVs flying circles around manned aircraft, despite lag and reduced field of vision.
I don't know, not having done any studies, but I imagine the odds are pretty good.
Most people...
I don't believe that at all. Source?
Also, most of them...
And the study that proves this is named what, exactly?
Also, I don't want to encourage the generation of electronic waste, as once those older TVs are replaced, the coupon STBs would be trash, since the new TV will have a built-in, full-featured ATSC tuner.
So you would like to encourage people to throw away their old TVs RIGHT NOW, rather than throwing away their converter box after their TV goes out, several years from now? Because if they had to pay $100 for a converter, that's what they'd do. Even if it were a full-featured, HiDef receiver, why would anyone keep it around after they get a new TV with a built-in unit?
And as with all the most well meaning but terribly shortsighted pseudo-environmentalists, you're completely ignoring the fact that earning that extra $100 to buy a converter box is going to generate a LOT pollution, of every kind.
That's a bit like asking for a source that the sky is blue, because you've never noticed... Of course, you couldn't be bothered to do the simplest search for yourself.
there was a UPS study on DC power... That concluded that using the european system of 230/400 3 phase AC for distribution splitting out to 230V single phase AC near the point of use was almost as efficiant as a 400V DC system and far cheaper and easier to deploy.
while back, the US government (Clinton Era) decided to sell off the public airwaves to various companies.
The ATSC has existed since 1989... Easily long before Clinton.
The decision to cut off Channels 52-69 wan't made until after DTV broadcasts began. That's why some broadcasters got a temporary digital channel in that range, and are getting screwed by not being able to switch to that new channel/transmitter, if desired.
This is about a problem that the government created of having sold the analog spectrum that is currently being used for analog TV broadcasts to companies that want to use something else.
No. If they wanted to sell off the spectrum, they would have just told a few analog transmitters that they needed to move to a lower channel, and been done with it. Nowhere is the spectrum so packed that 50+ channels need to be used, and the government could have saved themselves millions of dollars, and decades, if they just wanted to sell of some spectrum. After all, they do exactly that, all the time, on a much smaller scale.
The digital switchover has been repeatedly delayed, already, by acts of congress, so they aren't chomping at the bit to shut off your idiot box.
You can't go on using both analog and digital indefinitely, so they need to be switched off at some time. Leaving it open-ended just lets people procrastinate forever, and we get stuck being forced to keep both, and using up MORE THAN TWICE the spectrum... Substantially increased operating costs for ALL broadcasters, etc.
Of course, the economy doesn't look quite the same now as it did when this switchover was originally mandated for 2009, and that's probably the real reason why there is talk of delaying the changeover.
The economy was just fine the LAST TIME they delayed the changover (and for much, much longer).
Also, I really hated the fact that anybody could ask for coupons. I know people who have already invested over $10K in HDTV equipment who asked for them.
Why should someone be penalized?
If they have other TVs that even MIGHT need a digital converter box some time in the future, they SHOULD get the coupons. It's not like they're handing out free money. If they're going through the hassle of requesting them, and paying $10+ for the box, then they probably have some (good) reason for doing it...
When Georgians tried, earlier this year, to use UAVs to monitor their rebel territories from the air, the rebel-supporting Russia quickly blasted the UAV out of the sky with a manned fighter.
That has NOTHING to do with manned vs. unmanned.
If they sent-up slow, defenseless, piloted aircraft, they would have similarly been shot down.
UAVs have, so far, been designed for (unarmed) surveillance (ala. U-2s) and bombers, ala (mini) B-52s. Just because there isn't currently an unmanned fighter doesn't mean they can't defend themselves, or be used for air to air combat.
Those of us not on life support can exist without electricity.
You can exist without electricity only for a short period of time, and even that, only assuming you have stockpiled the spoils of rampant electricity usage before it ceased.
Sewage treatment, water filtration, and distribution for example. Even if you live near a river, you'll quickly find your water supply contaminated with raw sewage.
Food production, processing, and distribution will also cease, and unless you've got SEVERAL acres of land, and easy access to large quantities of water, you'll quickly find yourself developing scurvy.
The world is much too crowded for all of us to survive without power of some sort, and no other forms of power are remotely ready to replace electricity.
You can buy freeze dried food in large cans that will last 30 years or more.
What's the obsession with freeze dried foods? That's just pushing uphill, for no good reason...
Want to stock up for a disaster? Buy a 25lbs (~11kg) bag of rice. There, you've got enough calories to survive for a month and a half, and all for under $15USD. The same applies to pasta, ramen, etc. Items that are naturally "dehydrated" are vastly less expensive than those that need to be actively dehydrated. Freeze drying is only necessary for "luxury" foods... It makes sense when you're sending items into space, but not so much for disaster preparedness, unless you've got more money than you know what to do with...
Ditto for the MREs many people think they need to buy... unless you desperately need the ability to eat on the run, you're just wasting tons of money and getting worse tasting foods.
Of course "luxury" items are fine as "treats," but that should only be a tiny percentage of your stockpile.
I imagine they'll be particularly interested to know what all those generators are generating, if not electricity...
I would point out that just because SOMEBODY is in a situation where they can live without SOMETHING, doesn't mean everyone can do the same... Those with diabetes will have a particularly difficult time learning how to live without insulin, even though others manage just fine.
The modern world can't function without "electricity". What it can do, is build-out distributed power generation, so that those modern systems that keep us alive (almost all of us) will continue to function. It's just a matter that many systems don't seem critical, until a widespread and greatly extended power outage.
It wasn't a "My System is Better Than Your System" boast. I've had conversations with lots of confused people here on/. some even apparently Americans, who have been panning ATSC over the years for being somehow "behind" because other (DVB-T) countries shut off their analog signals quite a bit sooner. Just thought I'd preempt that.
People don't seem to care that much, probably because PAL isn't quite as bad as NTSC.
*sigh* You just proved the my point...
PAL has a 20% higher resolution than NTSC, yes, but it pays for it with a 20% lower frame-rate... It's a flickering mess, frankly. Even if you have a 100Hz TV, you still get much worse motion. And films sped-up by 4% just drives me insane. How is any of that better?
Yes, HDTV is only 5X higher resolution than PAL, rather than the 6X higher versus NTSC, but again, the refresh rate is 20% slower, which looks particularly terrible on sports, if nothing else.
But I digress. Use whatever makes you happy. I certainly love having HD.
Presumably many channels are still broadcast in standard definition though.
I would dare say 80% of ATSC channels are broadcasting their primary signal at 1080i, with no SD version. Many do have SD sub-channels, that show weather info, and other specialty programming, but you'll miss-out on just about all the main channels.
Are there boxes available that do SD ATSC but not HD?
I am not aware of a single one. They may not even be legally able to call themselves digital TV converter boxes of any kind if they can't decode the full set of broadcast content.
That would be good enough for many (most?) televisions that need a converter
It doesn't work that way. Unlike DVB-T, ATSC had no (standard definition) intermediate step. We've gone directly from analog, to HighDef digital. That's why it has taken so long for the analog switch-off...
As another bit of trivia, the US has been going through the process of broadcasting in highdef ATSC digital, before any regular DVB-T broadcasts began (eg. in Europe). The much higher hardware requirements just meant the price was prohibitive, and it took quite a while longer of a transition time before a substantial number of homes had capable equipment installed, and convert boxes dropped below $100USD.
(Similar: the cheap box here won't support encrypted channels, but the better ones will have the required smart card slot etc.)
There is no provision for OTA protected broadcasts in ATSC. That goes directly against the concept of TV spectrum being handed out in exchange for the public service provisions included in broadcast station contracts with the FCC. There's no specific prohibition on it, and they can technically use spare capacity for anything they want if that doesn't impact the main channel, but I certainly haven't even heard of distant future plans to do anything like that.
Of course, it could simply be that there's much, much more money to be made by selling advertising on an unencrypted (FTA) channel than there is in selling subscriptions to a small number of premium channels. Between the cable companies in every city, the phone companies installing fiber optic cables that also provide TV service as well as phone and internet, and the multiple satellite TV services competing with one another, I'd say it's an over-served market without broadcasters getting in on the act.
Don't you think chips like this will enable set top converters for less than $40?
I KNOW that they WONT... for several more years now. A converter box isn't a single chip by a long shot. A $20 decoder chips has no way to power itself, receive the HDTV signal, convert to analog, or output any kind of picture at all. Never mind little things like LABOR, packaging, marketing, shipping, retail markup.
Do you honestly believe that prices will go lower than $40 if the government is giving away that amount of money for each box?
No, of course it won't, and I said as much in my FIRST response. But your assertion that we'd have cheaper boxes now if it weren't for the coupon program, is utterly ridiculous.
The other claim, that we would be getting a vastly superior box for $40 if not for the restrictions on the coupon program, are even more laughable.
My post was meant to illustrate that this commoditization process can now occur naturally since the artificial prop holding up pricing has now been removed.
Sometimes, subsidizes actually LOWER prices, and this is one such example. The coupon program vastly increases the market for converter boxes, guaranteeing large economies of scale, and in this case, they're competing with each other over a $10 price difference, for the larger share of a massive market.
I did, because I have a clue what I'm talking about.
The converter boxes I am talking about do not support HDTV.
Really? So when you try to tune in NBC's digital channel, which is broadcasting only a 1080i HDTV signal, your magical converter box does WHAT?
As a matter of fact, decoding and outputing an HDTV signal made your box ineligible for the coupon redemption program.
Outputting highdef makes a box ineligible. You can't possibly NOT decode the full HDTV signal. That's what it's converting FROM, anyhow.
Your CPU example is poor. A general purpose CPU will always have more overhead than a dedicated ASIC.
"Overhead" is nonsense. And I didn't just mention CPUs, I also included video cards with hardware MPEG-2 decoding.
Here is a zenith for $29.00
No, it's not. First, you can't buy it, so it's a lot of nothing... Secondly, the price on that page doesn't include shipping and handling, which I have no doubt they jack up to high heaven to cover their low list prices... And finally, loss-leaders, and other products being sold at a loss for whatever reason, really don't change what it costs to make the thing. Depending on store sales isn't a viable economic strategy.
You can now buy 22 inch LCD TVs with ATSC/QAM/NTSC tuners built in for $299.
Well, since 22" LCDs go for well-under $200, retail, that would put the tuners at well over $100.
It's not hard to think that stand alone ATSC tuners will go for less than $40 now that the subsidy is gone.
If you're completely ignorant of a topic, it's not hard to think magic pixie dust will fix everything...
We use DVB-T, but the technology is similar (MPEG-2 etc).
No, it sure as hell isn't... DVB-T is just standard definition. Meanwhile, ATSC converter boxes have to decode HDTV signals. A world of difference there.
Much wider channel badwidth, many times the amount of data to do signal processing and error correction on. Not to mention the massive 19Mbps 1920x1080i MPEG-2 video.
The truth of DTV is that it's an excuse to force most of the population to cough up $500-$900 in a short period of time.
If your tin-foil hat isn't on too tight, would you now please explain why the rest of the world, outside of North America, has forced their populace to switch to digital (DVB-T), BUT at the same standard resolution as their analog stations, thus eliminating any potential drive for more expensive TVs?
In other words, if it's only the money driving the switch in the US, why did Europe switch, to a lower-end system without the same potential for money-making?
You did prove one thing, though... It's not just the interface change. Slashdot is becoming more and more like digg all around, including the idiotic ranting and raving morons.
The bad part about digital TV is the method of transmission they used is inferior in some ways to analog TV.
It's vastly superior in many more ways, however...
It requires a very strong signal to get any video at all,
In fact exactly the opposite is true. DTV stations broadcast at substantially lower power than their analog counterparts, and even so, there are ENDLESS examples of those who are completely out of range of analog TV (pure static, no sound), yet are able to grab a large number of HDTV stations with the same equipment.
I count myself among these ranks... Out here in the fringes, (e.g.) CBS' analog signal is absolutely zero. Yet I'm pulling in a very strong digital signal from them, with absolutely zero breakups, EVER. And in Feb, it's going to get BETTER, as many broadcasters switch the DTV stream to their main tower, and many start broadcasting HDTV on VHF.
and it's very suspectible to multipath interference.
Moreso than DVB, yes, but not dramatically, and receivers have improved significantly, are doing much better rejecting interference like multipath and doppler shift.
The same people that tell you that HDTV can't handle multipath, also tell you that you can pickup HDTV in a moving vehicle (and for the same underlying reasons)...
Also, portable TV antennas no longer work (at least, not while you're moving), so you can't stick one in your car or your Sony Watchman.
Thousands of people with laptops and USB HDTV tuners would beg to differ. Again, endless reports of HDTV reception in a moving vehicle, without a problem, all over the web.
Analog TV would degrade gracefully, so that if you didn't get a strong signal you could at least hear it, and see black and white video. Digital TV is all-or-none.
Yes, it's all or nothing, but the answer is usually "ALL".
The fact that analog is often on VHF, whereas temporary HDTV transmitters are essentially ALL on UHF, is a large part of the reason some people are getting a (barely watchable) signal on analog, with nothing on digital. Come February, those people will get a GREAT DTV signal on those same channels, and gradually forget how miserable it was putting up with a barely watchable analog signal.
With a $40 government subsidy, the cost of converter boxes was guaranteed NOT to drop below $40.
While technically true, that statement shows a complete ignorance of the reality.
A short while ago, converter box prices bottomed out at $50, and that was before the Yuan/Dollar exchange rate turned to crap. Now just a few no-name boxes are just barely able to squeeze in at that $40 price point. It is absolutely amazing that any companies are able to make an HDTV converter for $40. Just decoding the MPEG-2 video at 19Mbit/sec takes more horsepower than a 2GHz Intel/AMD CPU can manage. And good luck finding a video card with hardware decoding (eg. XvMC) for under $40.
And that's just decoding. The cheapest PCI HDTV capture card for PCs goes for $50 right now... No coupons for them, so don't bring it up. And how about downscaling to NTSC resolution, and video output? What's the cheapest you can get a device that can do 1080i decoding and output to a TV? D-VCRs, HD-DVDs? Definitely not under $40.
Now that the program money has dried up, maybe we'll actually see $10 or $20 boxes.
DVD players are ancient, low-end tech by comparison, yet they rarely make it to market under the $40 mark. What makes you think an HDTV converter possibly would?
They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to get down to $40... The coupon makes a decent quality ceiling as well. Trust me, you really, really don't want to see an HDTV converter box that costs less than $40.
If you made a box with too many features, then your box was not eligible for the coupon.
The only real limitation on the converter box program is that it can't have high-resolution/digital outputs (they didn't want to subsidize HDTV purchases) and it can't be some multi-function device like a DVR (they didn't want to subsidize Tivos).
If you want either of those, shucks, you have to pay the extra $40 yourself. You don't seriously think that nobody is making HDTV receivers anymore because of the coupon program, do you?
So, while generally cash is a bad place to be, long-term, last year nothing else was any good.
Certificate of Deposit Money Market Accounts Individual Retirement Accounts etc.
As long as you don't have more than the FDIC insured amount in any one bank, it's an EXTREMELY safe investment (even if there are rumors of your bank going under)... Safer than cash under your mattress, in fact. While interest rates weren't high this past year, by any means, (historic lows, really) it was easily better than the ZERO return you get with cash. Over the past year, I've been getting just shy of 4% at several different banks...
Of course, now that the Fed is almost literally giving away free money, I'm sure rates are going to be drastically lower next time I check...
Similarly, not tolerating bad ideas will eventually lead to a fight
You mean, like slavery?
Slavery is not an idea, it is an act.
Thoughts of throwing rocks at people: Okay. Actually throwing rocks at people: Not okay.
Yeah, except for the part where there are some people who consider the very act of you living the way you want to, peacefully, with things like daughters who are allowed to read and write, and marry who they choose... to be sufficient grounds to kill you.
The answer to your question is the exact comment to which you replied: You will never be left to live in peace unless you're willing to do the same to others.
It's tolerance that allows you to raise your daughters to read and write, even back when a majority of people believed that was not acceptable. Just as it's tolerance that allows you to be here, espousing hatred for your fellow man, without consequence. Despite your intolerance, you are being tolerated... That doesn't mean you get to act upon your intolerance. You believe that, without tolerance, those you dislike would be held to account for disagreeing with you... The more likely scenario is the opposite, however. Those that hate tolerance the most, are the ones benefiting from it the most.
Back when they showed us Inherit the Wind in middle school, one of the characters (a journalist, IIRC) had a small piece about how this was about nothing less than the freedom of thought at stake! But he was wrong. The trial itself was never about free thought. No one was under arrest, or fined, for thinking. It was about teaching standards.
No, actually, it was all about tourism dollars.
You should try very hard to avoid using a fraud, perpetrated on an unsuspecting public, as evidence to support your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
True only because they weren't designed to. If you don't need it, you don't spend money on it, and the current UAVs wouldn't benefit from it at all.
There are innumerable cameras out there which provide visual data vastly better than the human eye is able to. And there are other benefits, like the ability to have 50 eyes (on the ground) looking over the visual data, simultaneously.
There haven't been any attempts to minimize latency, again, because there is no need for it in their current designs. The transmission delay over a direct air to ground (line-of-sight antenna, routed some miles away to the operating base) link is minuscule, and the current satellite bounce links can be reserved for use only if/when the direct links go out.
As listing all the potential drawbacks, without listing any of the (many) benefits, will always make something sound bad. Include speed, cost, manuverability, size, etc., and you'll find the cheaper, faster, more numerous UAVs flying circles around manned aircraft, despite lag and reduced field of vision.
I don't know, not having done any studies, but I imagine the odds are pretty good.
I don't believe that at all. Source?
And the study that proves this is named what, exactly?
So you would like to encourage people to throw away their old TVs RIGHT NOW, rather than throwing away their converter box after their TV goes out, several years from now? Because if they had to pay $100 for a converter, that's what they'd do. Even if it were a full-featured, HiDef receiver, why would anyone keep it around after they get a new TV with a built-in unit?
And as with all the most well meaning but terribly shortsighted pseudo-environmentalists, you're completely ignoring the fact that earning that extra $100 to buy a converter box is going to generate a LOT pollution, of every kind.
That's a bit like asking for a source that the sky is blue, because you've never noticed... Of course, you couldn't be bothered to do the simplest search for yourself.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/30/bush-blames/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/200601012_bush_blames_clinton_again/
http://www.davidcogswell.com/Political/BushBlamesClinton.html
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/07/28/bush-administration-blames-bill-clinton-for-deficit/
http://www.truthout.org/article/keith-olbermann-a-textbook-definition-cowardice
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0006/23/se.02.html
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/impeach44.html#Bush_Blames_Clinton_For_N_Korea_Debacle
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-13-attacks-panel_x.htm
And, of course:
http://homepage.mac.com/garyligi/iblog/C1957607809/E20080429161904/index.html
http://www.apcmedia.com/salestools/SADE-5TNRLG_R5_EN.pdf
Really? So you're using 600V batteries now?
How are you planning to go from 12V batteries to 600V?
The ATSC has existed since 1989... Easily long before Clinton.
The decision to cut off Channels 52-69 wan't made until after DTV broadcasts began. That's why some broadcasters got a temporary digital channel in that range, and are getting screwed by not being able to switch to that new channel/transmitter, if desired.
No. If they wanted to sell off the spectrum, they would have just told a few analog transmitters that they needed to move to a lower channel, and been done with it. Nowhere is the spectrum so packed that 50+ channels need to be used, and the government could have saved themselves millions of dollars, and decades, if they just wanted to sell of some spectrum. After all, they do exactly that, all the time, on a much smaller scale.
The digital switchover has been repeatedly delayed, already, by acts of congress, so they aren't chomping at the bit to shut off your idiot box.
You can't go on using both analog and digital indefinitely, so they need to be switched off at some time. Leaving it open-ended just lets people procrastinate forever, and we get stuck being forced to keep both, and using up MORE THAN TWICE the spectrum... Substantially increased operating costs for ALL broadcasters, etc.
The economy was just fine the LAST TIME they delayed the changover (and for much, much longer).
Why should someone be penalized?
If they have other TVs that even MIGHT need a digital converter box some time in the future, they SHOULD get the coupons. It's not like they're handing out free money. If they're going through the hassle of requesting them, and paying $10+ for the box, then they probably have some (good) reason for doing it...
That has NOTHING to do with manned vs. unmanned.
If they sent-up slow, defenseless, piloted aircraft, they would have similarly been shot down.
UAVs have, so far, been designed for (unarmed) surveillance (ala. U-2s) and bombers, ala (mini) B-52s. Just because there isn't currently an unmanned fighter doesn't mean they can't defend themselves, or be used for air to air combat.
You can exist without electricity only for a short period of time, and even that, only assuming you have stockpiled the spoils of rampant electricity usage before it ceased.
Sewage treatment, water filtration, and distribution for example. Even if you live near a river, you'll quickly find your water supply contaminated with raw sewage.
Food production, processing, and distribution will also cease, and unless you've got SEVERAL acres of land, and easy access to large quantities of water, you'll quickly find yourself developing scurvy.
The world is much too crowded for all of us to survive without power of some sort, and no other forms of power are remotely ready to replace electricity.
What's the obsession with freeze dried foods? That's just pushing uphill, for no good reason...
Want to stock up for a disaster? Buy a 25lbs (~11kg) bag of rice. There, you've got enough calories to survive for a month and a half, and all for under $15USD. The same applies to pasta, ramen, etc. Items that are naturally "dehydrated" are vastly less expensive than those that need to be actively dehydrated. Freeze drying is only necessary for "luxury" foods... It makes sense when you're sending items into space, but not so much for disaster preparedness, unless you've got more money than you know what to do with...
Ditto for the MREs many people think they need to buy... unless you desperately need the ability to eat on the run, you're just wasting tons of money and getting worse tasting foods.
Of course "luxury" items are fine as "treats," but that should only be a tiny percentage of your stockpile.
Says who? Bush has been blaming Clinton, non-stop, for the past 8 years...
That will come as quite a shock to the Amish.
I imagine they'll be particularly interested to know what all those generators are generating, if not electricity...
I would point out that just because SOMEBODY is in a situation where they can live without SOMETHING, doesn't mean everyone can do the same... Those with diabetes will have a particularly difficult time learning how to live without insulin, even though others manage just fine.
The modern world can't function without "electricity". What it can do, is build-out distributed power generation, so that those modern systems that keep us alive (almost all of us) will continue to function. It's just a matter that many systems don't seem critical, until a widespread and greatly extended power outage.
It wasn't a "My System is Better Than Your System" boast. I've had conversations with lots of confused people here on /. some even apparently Americans, who have been panning ATSC over the years for being somehow "behind" because other (DVB-T) countries shut off their analog signals quite a bit sooner. Just thought I'd preempt that.
*sigh* You just proved the my point...
PAL has a 20% higher resolution than NTSC, yes, but it pays for it with a 20% lower frame-rate... It's a flickering mess, frankly. Even if you have a 100Hz TV, you still get much worse motion. And films sped-up by 4% just drives me insane. How is any of that better?
Yes, HDTV is only 5X higher resolution than PAL, rather than the 6X higher versus NTSC, but again, the refresh rate is 20% slower, which looks particularly terrible on sports, if nothing else.
But I digress. Use whatever makes you happy. I certainly love having HD.
I would dare say 80% of ATSC channels are broadcasting their primary signal at 1080i, with no SD version. Many do have SD sub-channels, that show weather info, and other specialty programming, but you'll miss-out on just about all the main channels.
I am not aware of a single one. They may not even be legally able to call themselves digital TV converter boxes of any kind if they can't decode the full set of broadcast content.
It doesn't work that way. Unlike DVB-T, ATSC had no (standard definition) intermediate step. We've gone directly from analog, to HighDef digital. That's why it has taken so long for the analog switch-off...
As another bit of trivia, the US has been going through the process of broadcasting in highdef ATSC digital, before any regular DVB-T broadcasts began (eg. in Europe). The much higher hardware requirements just meant the price was prohibitive, and it took quite a while longer of a transition time before a substantial number of homes had capable equipment installed, and convert boxes dropped below $100USD.
There is no provision for OTA protected broadcasts in ATSC. That goes directly against the concept of TV spectrum being handed out in exchange for the public service provisions included in broadcast station contracts with the FCC. There's no specific prohibition on it, and they can technically use spare capacity for anything they want if that doesn't impact the main channel, but I certainly haven't even heard of distant future plans to do anything like that.
Of course, it could simply be that there's much, much more money to be made by selling advertising on an unencrypted (FTA) channel than there is in selling subscriptions to a small number of premium channels. Between the cable companies in every city, the phone companies installing fiber optic cables that also provide TV service as well as phone and internet, and the multiple satellite TV services competing with one another, I'd say it's an over-served market without broadcasters getting in on the act.
I KNOW that they WONT... for several more years now. A converter box isn't a single chip by a long shot. A $20 decoder chips has no way to power itself, receive the HDTV signal, convert to analog, or output any kind of picture at all. Never mind little things like LABOR, packaging, marketing, shipping, retail markup.
No, of course it won't, and I said as much in my FIRST response. But your assertion that we'd have cheaper boxes now if it weren't for the coupon program, is utterly ridiculous.
The other claim, that we would be getting a vastly superior box for $40 if not for the restrictions on the coupon program, are even more laughable.
Sometimes, subsidizes actually LOWER prices, and this is one such example. The coupon program vastly increases the market for converter boxes, guaranteeing large economies of scale, and in this case, they're competing with each other over a $10 price difference, for the larger share of a massive market.
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=ALPHA-400&cat=NBB
Well under $200 (was below $150 not long ago), runs Linux, and different variations of the machine have been available for a couple years.
Completely empty gestures. They weren't getting much business, so they put out press releases and made a big show of absolutely nothing...
I did, because I have a clue what I'm talking about.
Really? So when you try to tune in NBC's digital channel, which is broadcasting only a 1080i HDTV signal, your magical converter box does WHAT?
Outputting highdef makes a box ineligible. You can't possibly NOT decode the full HDTV signal. That's what it's converting FROM, anyhow.
"Overhead" is nonsense. And I didn't just mention CPUs, I also included video cards with hardware MPEG-2 decoding.
No, it's not. First, you can't buy it, so it's a lot of nothing... Secondly, the price on that page doesn't include shipping and handling, which I have no doubt they jack up to high heaven to cover their low list prices... And finally, loss-leaders, and other products being sold at a loss for whatever reason, really don't change what it costs to make the thing. Depending on store sales isn't a viable economic strategy.
Well, since 22" LCDs go for well-under $200, retail, that would put the tuners at well over $100.
If you're completely ignorant of a topic, it's not hard to think magic pixie dust will fix everything...
No, it sure as hell isn't...
DVB-T is just standard definition. Meanwhile, ATSC converter boxes have to decode HDTV signals. A world of difference there.
Much wider channel badwidth, many times the amount of data to do signal processing and error correction on. Not to mention the massive 19Mbps 1920x1080i MPEG-2 video.
If your tin-foil hat isn't on too tight, would you now please explain why the rest of the world, outside of North America, has forced their populace to switch to digital (DVB-T), BUT at the same standard resolution as their analog stations, thus eliminating any potential drive for more expensive TVs?
In other words, if it's only the money driving the switch in the US, why did Europe switch, to a lower-end system without the same potential for money-making?
You did prove one thing, though... It's not just the interface change. Slashdot is becoming more and more like digg all around, including the idiotic ranting and raving morons.
It's vastly superior in many more ways, however...
In fact exactly the opposite is true. DTV stations broadcast at substantially lower power than their analog counterparts, and even so, there are ENDLESS examples of those who are completely out of range of analog TV (pure static, no sound), yet are able to grab a large number of HDTV stations with the same equipment.
I count myself among these ranks... Out here in the fringes, (e.g.) CBS' analog signal is absolutely zero. Yet I'm pulling in a very strong digital signal from them, with absolutely zero breakups, EVER. And in Feb, it's going to get BETTER, as many broadcasters switch the DTV stream to their main tower, and many start broadcasting HDTV on VHF.
Moreso than DVB, yes, but not dramatically, and receivers have improved significantly, are doing much better rejecting interference like multipath and doppler shift.
The same people that tell you that HDTV can't handle multipath, also tell you that you can pickup HDTV in a moving vehicle (and for the same underlying reasons)...
Thousands of people with laptops and USB HDTV tuners would beg to differ. Again, endless reports of HDTV reception in a moving vehicle, without a problem, all over the web.
Yes, it's all or nothing, but the answer is usually "ALL".
The fact that analog is often on VHF, whereas temporary HDTV transmitters are essentially ALL on UHF, is a large part of the reason some people are getting a (barely watchable) signal on analog, with nothing on digital. Come February, those people will get a GREAT DTV signal on those same channels, and gradually forget how miserable it was putting up with a barely watchable analog signal.
While technically true, that statement shows a complete ignorance of the reality.
A short while ago, converter box prices bottomed out at $50, and that was before the Yuan/Dollar exchange rate turned to crap. Now just a few no-name boxes are just barely able to squeeze in at that $40 price point. It is absolutely amazing that any companies are able to make an HDTV converter for $40. Just decoding the MPEG-2 video at 19Mbit/sec takes more horsepower than a 2GHz Intel/AMD CPU can manage. And good luck finding a video card with hardware decoding (eg. XvMC) for under $40.
And that's just decoding. The cheapest PCI HDTV capture card for PCs goes for $50 right now... No coupons for them, so don't bring it up. And how about downscaling to NTSC resolution, and video output? What's the cheapest you can get a device that can do 1080i decoding and output to a TV? D-VCRs, HD-DVDs? Definitely not under $40.
DVD players are ancient, low-end tech by comparison, yet they rarely make it to market under the $40 mark. What makes you think an HDTV converter possibly would?
They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to get down to $40... The coupon makes a decent quality ceiling as well. Trust me, you really, really don't want to see an HDTV converter box that costs less than $40.
The only real limitation on the converter box program is that it can't have high-resolution/digital outputs (they didn't want to subsidize HDTV purchases) and it can't be some multi-function device like a DVR (they didn't want to subsidize Tivos).
If you want either of those, shucks, you have to pay the extra $40 yourself. You don't seriously think that nobody is making HDTV receivers anymore because of the coupon program, do you?
Certificate of Deposit
Money Market Accounts
Individual Retirement Accounts
etc.
As long as you don't have more than the FDIC insured amount in any one bank, it's an EXTREMELY safe investment (even if there are rumors of your bank going under)... Safer than cash under your mattress, in fact. While interest rates weren't high this past year, by any means, (historic lows, really) it was easily better than the ZERO return you get with cash. Over the past year, I've been getting just shy of 4% at several different banks...
Of course, now that the Fed is almost literally giving away free money, I'm sure rates are going to be drastically lower next time I check...
Slavery is not an idea, it is an act.
Thoughts of throwing rocks at people: Okay.
Actually throwing rocks at people: Not okay.
The answer to your question is the exact comment to which you replied: You will never be left to live in peace unless you're willing to do the same to others.
It's tolerance that allows you to raise your daughters to read and write, even back when a majority of people believed that was not acceptable. Just as it's tolerance that allows you to be here, espousing hatred for your fellow man, without consequence. Despite your intolerance, you are being tolerated... That doesn't mean you get to act upon your intolerance. You believe that, without tolerance, those you dislike would be held to account for disagreeing with you... The more likely scenario is the opposite, however. Those that hate tolerance the most, are the ones benefiting from it the most.
No, actually, it was all about tourism dollars.
You should try very hard to avoid using a fraud, perpetrated on an unsuspecting public, as evidence to support your argument.