Google is is the first company in a very long time who has attracted a team capable of taking a chunk of this from MSFT.
Interesting comment, since Microsoft is in the business of "Selling" software, whereas Google is in the business of "selling" web-advertising. If you haven't noticed, those are two very different businesses.
Where MS is concerned is that it's software monopoly is stagnating a bit and it wants some of the web-related business that Google has.
How could you justify keeping analog signals around, and for how long? You seem to be implying that they should be kept around forever (what if I never want to buy a new TV?), which seems to defeat the purpose of progress.
True, it sounds like I am saying that. But, what I am really saying is that there are millions of people in the United States that can't even afford the lousy $50 that it will take to purchase an analog-to-digital converter (remember, there are millions of people that can barely afford to make it to the next paycheck). And, there are tens of millions of TVs that will require that converter.
What I am really saying is that government is dictating the change to us. And, to "help out", they are giving additional tax breaks to help pay for the $50 converters. I don't think the taxpayer cost is worth the conversion effort. Maybe if the FCC simply forced Best Buy to stop selling Analog TV's, then, over the course of a decade or so, the switch would occur naturally. If the FCC had forced the Analog TV issue four years ago, then the 2009 conversion would be less costly today.
But, that is clearly not the case. There is a clear justification for the digital switch.
And what is that justification? To allow the FCC to open up the bidding for the spectrum? If some of that money went to pay for the $50 converter tax break I discussed above, it would make some sense. Otherwise, there is no point that I have heard that makes sense.
What is the purpose of the Windows analogy?
Yeah, that was a bit obtuse. I was wasting work time with my postings yesterday, and I was in a bit of a hurry. I should have waited until last night. The point of the Windows Analogy is that Microsoft is a private company. They own their software. They can force users to upgrade whenever they feel the need to increase profits. The FCC is NOT a private company. You and I "Own" the radio spectrum. But, in this case, the FCC is acting like a private company and forcing us to make a change. -- Random Signature #1 Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey -- Random Signature #2 Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
Now, in order to re-use those wavelengths for other, unclear purposes, I have to pay a second time, if I want to continue to use something that I have already paid for.
Must....remember.....to....preview.....first.
What I meant to say, is the feds want to re-sell those wavelenghts (probably to the highest bidder). So, they are removing something that I have already paid for from those old wavelengths. If I want to continue to receive the same service, then I have to pay more.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the goverment will provide, or force private industry to provide, bread and circuses.
The last time I checked, the airwaves were a public good that the government is regulating to prevent individual companies from jamming their competitors signals.
Whether it says it in the constitution or not, the fact is, the airwaves are already "owned" by the public. That is why the FCC has ruled that certain wavelenghts are to be used by certain technologies. I have a right to receive and use whatever I want to use. I have already paid for the technology. Now, in order to re-use those wavelengths for other, unclear purposes, I have to pay a second time, if I want to continue to use something that I have already paid for.
That is almost like the way Microsoft (a private company) drops support for Windows 98 and forces it's clients to upgrade to Windows XP.
Gee... For a $50 converter (est), you get crystal clear digital TV (better picture than most cable or satellite providers give), and you whine about it.
I whine about anyone that tells me I have to pay for something that used to be free. Just like all of slashdot complains when yet another web-site starts charging money for their formerly free service.
If you want to view broadcast TV (which is completely free), you need to have the hardware appropriate to the infrastructure.
I already have the hardware. Now, I am being forced to purchase MORE hardware, against my will.
we have a finite amount of useful space in the RF spectrum.
No kidding. And, I hear statements about reusing the frequencies once Analog goes away, but, I still don't see any compelling argument why Analog absolutely has to go away.
And, if digital TV is so important to freeing up those RF ranges, why can I walk into a Best Buy today and still buy a pure Analog television?
Thats why I never understood why cable companies charge more for digital cable. It cost them less, and if they wanted to they could even offer a digital version of the limited channel selection on analog.
Does this help clear the issue up for you?
monopoly Pronunciation Key (m-np-l)
n. pl. monopolies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3.A company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
4.Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
Sorry, but that is the wrong question. The correct quesions are: Why are we being forced to spend our money on a TV or a set-top box? Why are my tax dollars being spent on subsidizing the purchase of a set-top box?
[retarded/. truncated at my 'less than' sign]
People do all sorts of dumb things when they're [less than] 18. You know, if it wasn't for those HTML rules, the internet would be so cool....
I hate to be pedantic, but it should be "Froaderick Fronkensteen".
Igor: Dr. Frankenstein...
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: "Fronkensteen."
Igor: You're putting me on.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: No, it's pronounced "Fronkensteen."
Igor: Do you also say "Froaderick"?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: No..."Frederick."
Igor: Well, why isn't it "Froaderick Fronkensteen"?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: It isn't; it's "Frederick Fronensteen."
Igor: I see.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: You must be Igor.
[He pronounces it ee-gor]
Igor: No, it's pronounced "eye-gor."
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: But they told me it was "ee-gor."
Igor: Well, they were wrong then, weren't they?
Still, this is ubercreepy. Even the electrical shock at the end bit... sounds like 50s sci-fi. What's next? "The shock required is quite intense, so facilities doing this work will need to affix a lightning rod to their roof and wait for a storm..."?
I can hear it now:
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Igor, would you mind telling me whose brain I did put in?
Igor: And you won't be angry?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: I will NOT be angry.
Igor: Abby someone.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby someone. Abby who?
Igor: Abby Normal.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby Normal?
Igor: I'm almost sure that was the name.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Are you saying that I put an abnormal brain into a seven and a half foot long, fifty-four inch wide GORILLA? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME?
Well, they are competing today. And, not just for outsorcing deals. They are competing for the golden nugget of "business transformation" (whatever that means).
And, no, I don't expect the Indian companies to wait for that day. I do expect the same thing to happen to the Indian economy that happened to Japan, though. Japan used to have very low labor costs, relative to the US (maybe 30 to 40 years ago). Since that time, the currency rate and the Japanes standard of Living have combined to increase the cost of manufacturing in Japan, relative to the other Asian countries. While manufacturing still occurs in Japan, most expansion has occured in S. Korea, Vietnam, China and other Asian Tigers.
At some point, the Indian exchange rate, along with the standard of living, will have a negative impact on their cost of doing business. And, the Indian economy will eventually run into the same issue that the US and Japan are seeing (outsourcing, slower growth, etc.)
Japan didn't respond very well to the changing market and their economy has been in recesion for almost a decade. It appears that, at least on the surface, the Indian companies are trying to gain ground where they can. They better keep trying, because there are always competitors that are trying to crush them....
(rolls eyes) Exactly what American stuff will foreigners buy?
God, I've been listening to this argument since the 1970's, when "stagflation" was leading the U.S. to the path of ruin. At that time, Japan was a true economic miracle and everyone was complaining about all of "our" jobs going to Japan.
Since the 1970's, our economy has straightened out and Japan's has gone into the crapper. Are we booming today when compared to 1999? No. But, we aren't in 1977, by any stretch. By the way, Manufacturing today isn't nearly the economic generator here in the US that it used to be thirty or forty years ago, guess what, in thost years, our standard of living has skyrocketed.
At worst, the phase above will have been going on for a few years, consumers worldwide will realize they needn't pay extra for the overhead of American executives, and will instead buy from the local companies, who can buy from the same (local) suppliers that actually make the stuff.
That is one interesting point. Completely unrealistic, but interesting. I want to find out what you read that made you come up with this theory. BTW, before you respond, you should realize that most manufacturing isn't condensed into one country. It is not unusual for a final assembled product to have parts made on three or four different continents. How will the "local" suppliers build the object when they have to buy the parts from another hemisphere?
That's just the free market at work. If the price of labor is cheaper there, then that is where labor will be purchased. It's just as simple as that.
Agreed. And, at some point in the future, the cost of doing IT in India will become expensive relative to doing IT in China or Kenya, then the same thing will happen to India that is happening here in the US.
Of course, since India has a population of over 1 billion, I wouldn't hold my breath, waiting for that day....
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting comment, since Microsoft is in the business of "Selling" software, whereas Google is in the business of "selling" web-advertising. If you haven't noticed, those are two very different businesses.
Where MS is concerned is that it's software monopoly is stagnating a bit and it wants some of the web-related business that Google has.
True, it sounds like I am saying that. But, what I am really saying is that there are millions of people in the United States that can't even afford the lousy $50 that it will take to purchase an analog-to-digital converter (remember, there are millions of people that can barely afford to make it to the next paycheck). And, there are tens of millions of TVs that will require that converter.
What I am really saying is that government is dictating the change to us. And, to "help out", they are giving additional tax breaks to help pay for the $50 converters. I don't think the taxpayer cost is worth the conversion effort. Maybe if the FCC simply forced Best Buy to stop selling Analog TV's, then, over the course of a decade or so, the switch would occur naturally. If the FCC had forced the Analog TV issue four years ago, then the 2009 conversion would be less costly today.
But, that is clearly not the case. There is a clear justification for the digital switch.And what is that justification? To allow the FCC to open up the bidding for the spectrum? If some of that money went to pay for the $50 converter tax break I discussed above, it would make some sense. Otherwise, there is no point that I have heard that makes sense.
What is the purpose of the Windows analogy?Yeah, that was a bit obtuse. I was wasting work time with my postings yesterday, and I was in a bit of a hurry. I should have waited until last night. The point of the Windows Analogy is that Microsoft is a private company. They own their software. They can force users to upgrade whenever they feel the need to increase profits. The FCC is NOT a private company. You and I "Own" the radio spectrum. But, in this case, the FCC is acting like a private company and forcing us to make a change.
--
Random Signature #1
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
--
Random Signature #2
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
Must....remember.....to....preview.....first.
What I meant to say, is the feds want to re-sell those wavelenghts (probably to the highest bidder). So, they are removing something that I have already paid for from those old wavelengths. If I want to continue to receive the same service, then I have to pay more.
The last time I checked, the airwaves were a public good that the government is regulating to prevent individual companies from jamming their competitors signals.
Whether it says it in the constitution or not, the fact is, the airwaves are already "owned" by the public. That is why the FCC has ruled that certain wavelenghts are to be used by certain technologies. I have a right to receive and use whatever I want to use. I have already paid for the technology. Now, in order to re-use those wavelengths for other, unclear purposes, I have to pay a second time, if I want to continue to use something that I have already paid for.
That is almost like the way Microsoft (a private company) drops support for Windows 98 and forces it's clients to upgrade to Windows XP.
They can come up with a date in about the length of time that it takes the computer to recalculate the flight path. :)
I whine about anyone that tells me I have to pay for something that used to be free. Just like all of slashdot complains when yet another web-site starts charging money for their formerly free service.
I already have the hardware. Now, I am being forced to purchase MORE hardware, against my will.
we have a finite amount of useful space in the RF spectrum.No kidding. And, I hear statements about reusing the frequencies once Analog goes away, but, I still don't see any compelling argument why Analog absolutely has to go away.
And, if digital TV is so important to freeing up those RF ranges, why can I walk into a Best Buy today and still buy a pure Analog television?
Does this help clear the issue up for you?
monopoly Pronunciation Key (m-np-l) n. pl. monopolies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman). 2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party. 3.A company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. 4.Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.Sorry, but that is the wrong question. The correct quesions are: Why are we being forced to spend our money on a TV or a set-top box? Why are my tax dollars being spent on subsidizing the purchase of a set-top box?
Millions of people now HAVE to buy new TVs. Is it time to invest in Sony?
[retarded /. truncated at my 'less than' sign]
People do all sorts of dumb things when they're [less than] 18.
You know, if it wasn't for those HTML rules, the internet would be so cool....
I was getting worried. It was already past noon local time and I hadn't seen a /. submission on Google.
And, if things go right, you'll be showing her your "Oh" face, right?
Bah, I could find an overseas resource to do the same thing for $12.
Bah! I would say that the Sun is the most unique body in this solar system.
I hate to be pedantic, but it should be "Froaderick Fronkensteen".
Igor: Dr. Frankenstein...
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: "Fronkensteen."
Igor: You're putting me on.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: No, it's pronounced "Fronkensteen."
Igor: Do you also say "Froaderick"?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: No..."Frederick."
Igor: Well, why isn't it "Froaderick Fronkensteen"?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: It isn't; it's "Frederick Fronensteen."
Igor: I see.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: You must be Igor. [He pronounces it ee-gor]
Igor: No, it's pronounced "eye-gor."
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: But they told me it was "ee-gor."
Igor: Well, they were wrong then, weren't they?
Well, I think Tom Cruise could still get them into Scientology....
Here are the Google search results on Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research. It looks legitimate: http://www.neurosurgery.pitt.edu/research/safar.ht ml
I can hear it now:
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Igor, would you mind telling me whose brain I did put in?
Igor: And you won't be angry?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: I will NOT be angry.
Igor: Abby someone.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby someone. Abby who?
Igor: Abby Normal.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby Normal?
Igor: I'm almost sure that was the name.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Are you saying that I put an abnormal brain into a seven and a half foot long, fifty-four inch wide GORILLA? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME?
George Romero?
Well, they are competing today. And, not just for outsorcing deals. They are competing for the golden nugget of "business transformation" (whatever that means).
And, no, I don't expect the Indian companies to wait for that day. I do expect the same thing to happen to the Indian economy that happened to Japan, though. Japan used to have very low labor costs, relative to the US (maybe 30 to 40 years ago). Since that time, the currency rate and the Japanes standard of Living have combined to increase the cost of manufacturing in Japan, relative to the other Asian countries. While manufacturing still occurs in Japan, most expansion has occured in S. Korea, Vietnam, China and other Asian Tigers.
At some point, the Indian exchange rate, along with the standard of living, will have a negative impact on their cost of doing business. And, the Indian economy will eventually run into the same issue that the US and Japan are seeing (outsourcing, slower growth, etc.)
Japan didn't respond very well to the changing market and their economy has been in recesion for almost a decade. It appears that, at least on the surface, the Indian companies are trying to gain ground where they can. They better keep trying, because there are always competitors that are trying to crush them....
God, I've been listening to this argument since the 1970's, when "stagflation" was leading the U.S. to the path of ruin. At that time, Japan was a true economic miracle and everyone was complaining about all of "our" jobs going to Japan.
Since the 1970's, our economy has straightened out and Japan's has gone into the crapper. Are we booming today when compared to 1999? No. But, we aren't in 1977, by any stretch. By the way, Manufacturing today isn't nearly the economic generator here in the US that it used to be thirty or forty years ago, guess what, in thost years, our standard of living has skyrocketed.
At worst, the phase above will have been going on for a few years, consumers worldwide will realize they needn't pay extra for the overhead of American executives, and will instead buy from the local companies, who can buy from the same (local) suppliers that actually make the stuff.That is one interesting point. Completely unrealistic, but interesting. I want to find out what you read that made you come up with this theory. BTW, before you respond, you should realize that most manufacturing isn't condensed into one country. It is not unusual for a final assembled product to have parts made on three or four different continents. How will the "local" suppliers build the object when they have to buy the parts from another hemisphere?
Agreed. And, at some point in the future, the cost of doing IT in India will become expensive relative to doing IT in China or Kenya, then the same thing will happen to India that is happening here in the US.
Of course, since India has a population of over 1 billion, I wouldn't hold my breath, waiting for that day....
While I don't agree with all of the what coupland says above, I certainly don't think it is Flamebait. It is a valid point.
Linking to the Onion may not be 'news', but it is better than Slashdot's daily Google update.