# Well I hate myself for having HD



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

With all this bull**** downrezzing I will just talk to myself here and smack myself for this crappola we all watch with satellite. HDnet movies tonight is god awful and I can't even spit on the screen to wipe it clean and hope for a better picture. Oh, and my wife has already applied the lovely cleaner across it tonight anyways.


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

I always thought HDTV was a con of the TV broadcast industry. In a few years all of our analog TVs will be outdated. The government has given the TV broadcasters billions of dollars of new frequencies for free. Those with the old analog TVs will have to buy adapters (of course not paid for my the TV broadcasters that received the billion dollar frequencies for free). Now we can watch all those commericals and low quality programming in HDTV. I think most people would rather watch an old analog black and white TV show such as I Love Lucy, than watch all those new commericals in HDTV. This is after paying for an adapter to view them. Viewers have always wanted higher quality TV programming, not a higher quality picture.


----------



## FS1 (Jul 22, 2006)

All the conversions and the adapters are for digital broadcasts. Many people are confusing HD with digital broadcats. Having an adapter (which is expected to be pretty cheap) on your tv won't make it HD. It will just be a digital signal instead of analog. Of course, if you're receiving digital cable or satellite, you already have a digital receiver and don't need an adapter at all.

Turns out the sky is NOT falling after all.


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

I am watching HDnet now and it looks great. The only HD channel I have a problem with is TNT, especially their movies. I have zero regrets about jumping into the HD realm. The picture is a thousand times better than SD and alot bigger.

The adapters you fear will prob be about $10 and tax deductible. As far as broadcasters somehow benefiting from this conversion, they are spending butt loads of money in upgrading their equipment to comply with govt regs.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

Plus they will be giving back their analog channels.


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

$10.00 for an adapter that should be free and paid for by the TV brodcasters is a con. Many people now are having to pay more for their health insurance, in come cases having to take pay reductions and paying $3.00 for a gallon of gasoline. Tax deductible, great, most of these people are in the 10% bracket. That saves them 50 cents on their taxes. Meanwhile the CEOs and officers of the TV broadcast companies make multi-millions. Be prepared to watch more commericals in that HDTV format to pay for the "butt loads of money the broadcasters are paying to upgrade their equipment".


----------



## bulldog200024 (Jan 27, 2006)

ehren said:


> With all this bull**** downrezzing I will just talk to myself here and smack myself for this crappola we all watch with satellite. HDnet movies tonight is god awful and I can't even spit on the screen to wipe it clean and hope for a better picture. Oh, and my wife has already applied the lovely cleaner across it tonight anyways.


Why dont you expand on this. HDnet/movies look the best in my opinion of any Dish HD channel (with HDNews a close second). Roy Firestone's show actually looks better than my OTA locals. When compared to what, HDnet looks like "crappola"? HD-DVD? Blu-Ray? What program were you watching that looked so bad?


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

samhevener said:


> I think most people would rather watch an old analog black and white TV show such as I Love Lucy, than watch all those new commericals in HDTV.


Time for your nap Grandpa.


----------



## Zvi (Feb 2, 2006)

Dunno about the rest, but STARZ HD, and some of the VOOM movie channels are compressed to the point that my Oppo 971h updonverting DVD player produces better image that so called HD. 
I've recorded Sin City this week, and even that half BW movie was compressed so bad that I coudl see jaggies almost on every edge. Let alone signall loses for unknown reasons. Other VOOM HD movie channels are rather soft for HD.
War Of The Worlds simply sucked, pixelation and jpeg artifacts were real heavy. 
IMHO it was better few month ago, e.g. Chronicles of Riddick and IRobot are mucho better. I hope with mpeg4 things will get better.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

samhevener said:


> $10.00 for an adapter that should be free and paid for by the TV brodcasters is a con. Many people now are having to pay more for their health insurance, in come cases having to take pay reductions and paying $3.00 for a gallon of gasoline. Tax deductible, great, most of these people are in the 10% bracket. That saves them 50 cents on their taxes. Meanwhile the CEOs and officers of the TV broadcast companies make multi-millions. Be prepared to watch more commericals in that HDTV format to pay for the "butt loads of money the broadcasters are paying to upgrade their equipment".


Cuba is an option. Every thing is "free" there.:lol: 
Grow up, shave, get a hair cut, take a bath, and get a job and move out of your parents house. Nobody owes you anything just because you were born. Your missery is earned, not forced on you.

Oh, by the way 10% of $10.00 is $1.00 or did you not have that in school yet?

Bear!


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Mpeg4 will always look bad because of a high compression rate, I wish dish had stuck with MPEG2 and gotten rid of(well never mind Dish makes money on the shopping and PPV-----):icon_cry:


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

tomcrown1 said:


> Mpeg4 will always look bad because of a high compression rate, I wish dish had stuck with MPEG2 and gotten rid of(well never mind Dish makes money on the shopping and PPV-----):icon_cry:


Not really Tom, compression in any format to an excess looks bad. Then lower the bit rate with poor resolution source meterial and yes. But I think most OTA, I could be wrong, is Mpeg 4. And that ain't all bad. 
Making money? Well yes , its the capitalist sysyem that gives us the freedoms, products, and technoligies that we enjoy *****ing so much about. Even the CHI-COMS [ Communist China ] have figure that out and Russia went out of business because they could not or would not understand that concept..

Bear!


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Actually no OTA is MPEG4 from what I understand. If it was, receivers like the 811, 921 and 942 could not decode the stream. 

As for resolution.. Well there is more to a good quality picture then resolution and encoding. Yeck.. bitrate is not even a measure of what quality your final images will look like. 

From my understanding.. It is a combination of factors and from my experience though resolution is important it would not be on the top of the list in terms of effect on PQ for a large percentage of users.


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

bear paws said:


> Not really Tom, compression in any format to an excess looks bad. Then lower the bit rate with poor resolution source meterial and yes. But I think most OTA, I could be wrong, is Mpeg 4. And that ain't all bad.
> 
> Bear!


ATSC is Mpeg 2


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

samhevener said:


> $10.00 for an adapter that should be free and paid for by the TV brodcasters is a con. Many people now are having to pay more for their health insurance, in come cases having to take pay reductions and paying $3.00 for a gallon of gasoline. Tax deductible, great, most of these people are in the 10% bracket. That saves them 50 cents on their taxes. Meanwhile the CEOs and officers of the TV broadcast companies make multi-millions. Be prepared to watch more commericals in that HDTV format to pay for the "butt loads of money the broadcasters are paying to upgrade their equipment".


Waaahhhh!!

Take one less trip to the doctor for your hangnail. No copay and gas savings will offset the $10 hit your budget is taking for the converter.

Just so you know, the need for a converter (if ever) will be the result of the Govt mandating the change to digital tv, so why should the broadcasters pay?


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

samhevener said:


> I always thought HDTV was a con of the TV broadcast industry. In a few years all of our analog TVs will be outdated. The government has given the TV broadcasters billions of dollars of new frequencies for free. Those with the old analog TVs will have to buy adapters (of course not paid for my the TV broadcasters that received the billion dollar frequencies for free). Now we can watch all those commericals and low quality programming in HDTV. I think most people would rather watch an old analog black and white TV show such as I Love Lucy, than watch all those new commericals in HDTV. This is after paying for an adapter to view them. Viewers have always wanted higher quality TV programming, not a higher quality picture.


Yo brothr! You'll won't need a converter if you have Dish, Directv or cable period. If you have rabbit ears or roof atenna you will need a converter, or start reading. My cousin this won't happen & calls it mornic. She owns a pair of rabbit ears.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

samhevener said:


> The government has given the TV broadcasters billions of dollars of new frequencies for free.


This is utterly false. There are no new frequencies and some of the frequencies that they used to have access to will be going away!

As for your assumptions about not wanting a better picture, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. There are a lot of people out there would would like at least DVD quality picture with even the poorest programming.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tomcrown1 said:


> Mpeg4 will always look bad because of a high compression rate, I wish dish had stuck with MPEG2 and gotten rid of(well never mind Dish makes money on the shopping and PPV-----):icon_cry:


Any form of compression will make things look bad if overdone. MPEG4 is not inherently any worse than MPEG2. It is more efficient and can yield a better image in less bandwidth than MPEG2, so it should be embraced.


----------



## Lyle_JP (Apr 22, 2002)

> Any form of compression will make things look bad if overdone. MPEG4 is not inherently any worse than MPEG2. It is more efficient and can yield a better image in less bandwidth than MPEG2, so it should be embraced.


There is some room for argument here. Both MPEG2 and MPEG4 are lossy compression schemes that seek to reduce file or stream size by throwing away data that they hope you wouldn't notice being gone. And both codecs acheive this in different ways. At low bitrates MPEG4 is much more efficient than MPEG2. But I have read a number of articles that seem to suggest that at higher bitrates the MPEG4 codec, by the nature of the way it is compressed and decompresed, will always throw away detail data that MPEG2 can keep in the signal. It has to do with some of the rounding math used to define the macroblocks.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

Lyle_JP said:


> There is some room for argument here. Both MPEG2 and MPEG4 are lossy compression schemes that seek to reduce file or stream size by throwing away data that they hope you wouldn't notice being gone. And both codecs acheive this in different ways. At low bitrates MPEG4 is much more efficient than MPEG2. But I have read a number of articles that seem to suggest that at higher bitrates the MPEG4 codec, by the nature of the way it is compressed and decompresed, will always throw away detail data that MPEG2 can keep in the signal. It has to do with some of the rounding math used to define the macroblocks.


Folks expect too much from MPEG4. IIRC a MPEG2 HD streams at like ~20 MBps, and with .mp4, they compress it to like ~4MBps...if the providers werent so stingy and gave MP4 an extra MBps a lot of these problems may vanish.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Strange I seem to recall seeing that the MPEG4 streams are about 25% smaller or in other words use only 75% of the bandwidth needed for a MPEG2 stream of the same quality.


----------



## Andy74 (Nov 25, 2005)

Zvi said:


> Dunno about the rest, but STARZ HD, and some of the VOOM movie channels are compressed to the point that my Oppo 971h updonverting DVD player produces better image that so called HD.
> I've recorded Sin City this week, and even that half BW movie was compressed so bad that I coudl see jaggies almost on every edge. Let alone signall loses for unknown reasons. Other VOOM HD movie channels are rather soft for HD.
> War Of The Worlds simply sucked, pixelation and jpeg artifacts were real heavy.
> IMHO it was better few month ago, e.g. Chronicles of Riddick and IRobot are mucho better. I hope with mpeg4 things will get better.


ZVI, I read a lot about this player. My understanding is that OPPO 971h does not upconvert CSS encrypted discs. If that's the case, the best you're getting is 480p. Is this correct? This is the only thing that is stopping me from getting this player.


----------



## Lyle_JP (Apr 22, 2002)

> ZVI, I read a lot about this player. My understanding is that OPPO 971h does not upconvert CSS encrypted discs. If that's the case, the best you're getting is 480p. Is this correct? This is the only thing that is stopping me from getting this player.


That restriction only applies to the player's component outputs. Over HDMI full 1080i is output for all discs.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

No one is forcing you to pay $10 (the most often quoted number is actually $40) for a converter, to get *free* OTA TV.

You are welcome to pay $60+ a month for pay tv if you wish.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lyle_JP said:


> But I have read a number of articles that seem to suggest that at higher bitrates the MPEG4 codec, by the nature of the way it is compressed and decompresed, will always throw away detail data that MPEG2 can keep in the signal.


A whole lot has been written by people who are well meaning but that doesn't make it right. Another issue is that there are many "just like" implementations that claim to be MPEG4 that aren't. Anyone who has ever done battle with Windows Media Player or Quicktime is keenly aware of these issues. In an of itself, MPEG4 doesn't summarily trash anything.

Discussion of what might happen at higher bitrates isn't an issue because it isn't going to happen.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> No one is forcing you to pay $10 (the most often quoted number is actually $40) for a converter, to get *free* OTA TV.


Not yet. The post is about the future ... when the NTSC channels go away. Satellite subs will be fine as their receivers will still output NTSC or other means to TVs and monitors. Cable subs will be fine as companies offer tuner boxes or continue to transmit in NTSC over cable (that will still be permitted).

The "losers" will be those without cable or satellite who just have an OTA set. They will need an OTA tuner. Cable and satellite subs that have extra sets that are not connected to cable or satellite will also need an OTA tuner.

That is where the $$$ box comes in. In 2009 when old sets don't work without a separate tuner of some sort. That is when we will be 'forced' to change.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

You left out the second line of my tongue-in-cheek response. You can always pay a lot more for the "other guys".

Unfortunately, most people won't even pay any attention to this matter....until 2-17-09. And, you can thank the government for the forced changeover. I'm even more concerned about whether the new stb's will be too complicated for some users. Many are barely able to comprehend the current set's menu's now. 

The old black and white, rabbit-ear'ed, clunk-tuner set is history. And, there's not anything simple to take it's place.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

kenglish said:


> ...
> 
> The old black and white, rabbit-ear'ed, clunk-tuner set is history. And, there's not anything simple to take it's place.


You would find a new color, rabbit-eared, Digital Tuner set too technologically complex to operate?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> You left out the second line of my tongue-in-cheek response. You can always pay a lot more for the "other guys".


I was responding to the point about people being 'forced' to buy a converter. Not today, but perhaps tomorrow (2009).


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

SaltiDawg said:


> You would find a new color, rabbit-eared, Digital Tuner set too technologically complex to operate?


He might be intimidated by all the buttons on the remote>

Hey, Salti, I'm not certain I like your new avatar, Its not as I menacing as the other one, you Dawg you.

Bear!


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

bear paws said:


> Hey, Salti, I'm not certain I like your new avatar, Its not as I menacing as the other one, you Dawg you.


Yeah, can't see the Polar Bears very well. (And certainly not the fabled rabid Arctic Foxes.  )

I'll see if I can't find a better one.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

I'm talking about the "shut-in's" and others who use their TV as their only contact with the outside world. We get calls from them every day. Many can't operate the analog sets they now have. 

I think the record was a 3-hour call, trying to switch the audio back from SAP to main channel. Lots of kids try to do something nice by buying their parents a fancy new TV set....then, the older folks get frustrated with all the buttons and options.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

James Long said:


> I was responding to the point about people being 'forced' to buy a converter. Not today, but perhaps tomorrow (2009).


But that implies that OTA television is a right, and as such, the "gubmint" or someone should have an obligation to make sure everyone has access to whatever is needed to receive it.

Personally, I'm on the side of "if you want to watch TV, go buy a set... and/or a converter if you need it."

I know there are shutins all over the country with rabbit ears, and they won't necessarily have $5, $10 or whatever to "upgrade" to a digital converter. I just don't agree that it's good to maintain old technology just for the sake of a few.

There's a growing sentiment in this country, and around the world, that television is one of man's basic rights... as if humans can't survive without it. I don't know where this is coming from.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

oldave said:


> But that implies that OTA television is a right,
> There's a growing sentiment in this country, and around the world, that television is one of man's basic rights... as if humans can't survive without it. I don't know where this is coming from.


From the left, my freind, from the left.

Liberalism-> "The fear that someone somewhere might want to and can take care of and think for themselves."

Bear!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

oldave said:


> But that implies that OTA television is a right, and as such, the "gubmint" or someone should have an obligation to make sure everyone has access to whatever is needed to receive it.


Television is broadcast over public airwaves. I wouldn't say that consumers have a right to view them without cost, but the people we are talking about have paid the price - they have bought their TVs - and now a GOVERNMENT MANDATE will be taking away their ability to view TV without additional cost. It only seems fair that if the government takes away your ability to view TV that they give it back.

Regardless of whether or not the government does assist viewers in obtaining ATSC tuners for the 2009 kill date, the viewers are being forced to choose one of three options 1) buy a converter, 2) subscribe to a service that provides the channels or 3) stop watching. "Status Quo" continuing to watch is not available.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

James Long said:


> ...but the people we are talking about have paid the price - they have bought their TVs - and now a GOVERNMENT MANDATE will be taking away their ability to view TV without additional cost...


This mind set is like buying a car and thinking you can drive it around on public roads with out a license and registration. Now, if you have small children it is generally required that they use a special seat. Who pays for the child seat? Didn't have to have it decades ago, things change. Concerning TV's and analog tuners, didn't the government set aside a billion dollars to help those in need to get an ATSC tuner converter box?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

boylehome said:


> This mind set is like buying a car and thinking you can drive it around on public roads with out a license and registration.


When license and registration were first introduced there were probably complaints. But those who could afford a car at that time could afford the license and registration and could see the value in it.


boylehome said:


> Now, if you have small children it is generally required that they use a special seat. Who pays for the child seat?


If you cannot afford one, there are agencies that will provide one for you.


boylehome said:


> Concerning TV's and analog tuners, didn't the government set aside a billion dollars to help those in need to get an ATSC tuner converter box?


Yes they did. Hopefully they won't have to spend it all.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

James Long said:


> the viewers are being forced to choose one of three options 1) buy a converter, 2) subscribe to a service that provides the channels or 3) stop watching. "Status Quo" continuing to watch is not available.


I would suggest that, with over 2 years' prior notice, and prices speculated at around $10... a couple of pennies a day in a jar would add up to a new converter... including sales tax.

I *will* agree that a large public service campaign over the next 12+ months would be smart, so that folks know this is coming, so they can save up to shell out the $10 or whatever when the switch happens.

But it's not my responsibility to make sure everybody who wants to watch TV can.

Technology marches on. Whether by government mandate or market conditions, things will change.

We were all forced to go to CDs for new music many years ago - was that unfair to people who'd just invested however much money in stereo systems with turntables? Should the government have stepped in and provided free CD players to those who couldn't afford them? Oh, you say not in that case, because the government didn't make the record labels stop selling albums?

Television is entertainment. Period. Sure, it'll suck if someone just spent $100 on an analog-only TV for Christmas in 2008 (good luck finding new TVs that're analog only that late in the game), but them's the breaks. If they'd done even a little research before buying, they'd buy a digital capable set anyway.

So again, how can one rationally argue that the government should be providing converters for "low income" households? If you're going to argue public safety, my side of that is that it would make more sense for government to distribute radios able to receive NOAA broadcasts. At least then, there's a rational basis for arguing that tax money should be spent - and you'll never convince me that "Wheel of Fortune" and "The Local News Brought To You By Billy Bob" are good reasons to spend billions.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

oldave said:


> Technology marches on. Whether by government mandate or market conditions, things will change.
> 
> We were all forced to go to CDs for new music many years ago - was that unfair to people who'd just invested however much money in stereo systems with turntables? Should the government have stepped in and provided free CD players to those who couldn't afford them? Oh, you say not in that case, because the government didn't make the record labels stop selling albums?


Well put. Also the government is going to convert AM/FM frequencies from analog to digital. Not that there is as large an audience to either but it will have some impact.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The government makes lots of allowances usually for these sorts of things...

When seatbelts were mandated, and car manufacturers were required to include them in all models... cars made before that date were exempted... so if you have a car from 1950 that doesn't have seatbelts you are exempted from wearing one while driving it.

Similarly there are deals in my state with the new onboard computer/emissions tests related to inspections... if you own a car prior to the mandated date that does not have the stuff being tested, then some parts of the inspection do not apply to you.

As for TV and digital TV... this is an odd situation. On the one hand TV is a right even though the public airwaves are being used the government doesn't provide free TVs for people and no one has a right to a TV if they cannot afford one today... so one could argue no one has a right to a free digital tuner either...

In fact, one could argue that it would put the onus on the local stations to ensure their local community got receivers so that consumers could still watch them OTA after the digital mandated cutoff happens... then it would be up to the broadcasters to fight with the government on that.

Depends on how you look at it.


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

HDMe said:


> As for TV and digital TV... this is an odd situation. On the one hand TV is a right even though the public airwaves are being used the government doesn't provide free TVs for people and no one has a right to a TV if they cannot afford one today... so one could argue no one has a right to a free digital tuner either...


In which part of the Constitution is there a right to tv? Free OTA is a privilege, much as driving. Nobody complains that every 4 or 5 years they have to renew the driver's license to use there driving privilege.

If you can afford the electricity to power a tv then you can afford a converter. It's $10! If you don't have $10 then you shouldn't be watching tv, you should be getting a job.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

oldave said:


> We were all forced to go to CDs for new music many years ago


Really? I must have missed that government mandate. Are the new music releases I see on album (usually special promotional copies) illegal?

That is the difference between market forces and a forced change in the markets. Market forces decided that CDs were better than albums and singles - no one forced them to go digital. Consumers supported their decision with their purchases of new Hi-Fi gear and the market decided to no longer offer albums except in special release.

Was there a government mandate that forced WalMart to pull all but a few VCR tapes off of their shelves? Can you even find a VCR tape that isn't blank or a kid vid at WalMart? Should the government give us all DVD players? Nope. They didn't mandate the change.

That's the difference. It isn't all 'market forces' that are involved in the change. There is a government mandate behind it.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

The government? Who is this government? Its We The People in a Representative form. We as the government, ergo or representatives, make laws to benefit the greater good of the greater number of people, not the individual good of one person. Unfortunately we have slid into the "nanny" abyss of Commune expectations by trying to micro manipulate every aspect of our existence. This was never meant to be the role of the "Government" and we as a nation of free people have to resist the temptation to run to the Government every time one individual has a problem and pass another law to write another check.

Soon we truly will be a "nation of laws", but only laws. Not a nation of free will, self reliance and determination of our own destiny. But a nation that is corrupt with self patronization instead, unable to do the simplest things for ourselves. 
The USSR comes to mind. There is a country that has it all for natural resources, climate, people and they became so dependent on the central government hand outs, with no incentive to be self reliant, that today they can't boil water with out the "Governments" help. And of course nobody thought they should work because their neighbor would work and support them.:lol:

The conversion is for the greater good of the greator number of people. We The People said so, visa visa our elected repesentatives. It is what it is and its not my responsibility you have entertainment.

Bear!


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

bear paws said:


> Soon we truly will be a "nation of laws", but only laws. Not a nation of free will, self reliance and determination of our own destiny. But a nation that is corrupt with self patronization instead, unable to do the simplest things for ourselves.
> .. :lol:
> 
> Bear!


Bear this sounds like something written forty years ago referencing the future of today! Were you quoting Chet Huntley?:lol:



James Long said:


> ...It isn't all 'market forces' that are involved in the change. There is a government mandate behind it.


James, this confirms Bear's statement.

Just to get back on track. I've viewed HD since 2004. I thought my visions was getting worse but learned that HD is becoming more down resed. In that Government has the mandates and feel the need to be so involved, I hope that there is some positive persuasion to have some mandates or guidelines for minimum standards of HD quality. If something isn't done, the industry prefers quantity over quality, so in the long run if not well and properly defined, we will continue to get HD in lower quality. I know, we really don't want Government involved but it seems past that point.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

boylehome said:


> Bear this sounds like something written forty years ago referencing the future of today! Were you quoting Chet Huntley?:lol:
> 
> I have been trying to sound the warning for over forty years. I started ringing the bell Back in the fifties when I found out what the "Progressive Party" really was and who Henry Wallace really was and where the money really was coming from and I saw the likes of missguided do gooders like LBJ idealized by the likes of the New YorK Times. There has been a fifth column called the "forth estate" in this country since the 30's
> 
> ...


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

boylehome said:


> Just to get back on track. I've viewed HD since 2004. I thought my visions was getting worse but learned that HD is becoming more down resed. In that Government has the mandates and feel the need to be so involved, I hope that there is some positive persuasion to have some mandates or guidelines for minimum standards of HD quality. If something isn't done, the industry prefers quantity over quality, so in the long run if not well and properly defined, we will continue to get HD in lower quality. I know, we really don't want Government involved but it seems past that point.


Nah! Market forces and free enterprise will correct itself. It just may take a while. Like automobiles, early radio, TV, 8 track, VHS, and CD this is all realy still new yet. I know we have got into the microwave mentality that we want it right now damn it and it better be good too. Competition weeds out the cheats, we really don"t need more medalling in a very complex soup.

Bear!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The government isn't mandating HD. The mandate is that stations broadcast their channels in one of 18 formats, have at least one TV subchannel FTA on their signal (the rest can be subscription or other usage) and turn off NTSC programming when told. They are no longer required to even mirror their NTSC programmin on the ATSC carrier - the FCC has decided to leave that to market forces too!

There are ATSC standards to follow ... and the FCC asks that stations follow certain standards including transmitting guide information and the approved channel number. But HD is not required nor is any particular bitrate for any program offered. Those are left to market forces.

BTW: Check into the standards. The "HD Lite" that some complain about *IS* a recognized standard for compressed HD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Market forces decided that CDs were better than albums and singles - no one forced them to go digital. Consumers supported their decision with their purchases of new Hi-Fi gear and the market decided to no longer offer albums except in special release.


Not to go too far off-topic here... but I actually have some insight on this one! I used to shop a lot at Record Bar, back before they were absorbed and bought out and renamed and then eventually went out of business I think... anyway, I knew them back when they carried records!

When CDs first came out... I still bought mostly albums, in large part because they were half or less the cost than new CDs! I bought CDs only for stuff I really wanted to play over and over and over.

Anyway, as I noticed the album section shrinking and the CDs growing in the store, I had a nice chat with a local store manager and he clued me in on what was going on at least within the Record Bar chain.

Basically they had two business models to choose from once CDs came out in order to buy product from the wholesalers:

1. Continue to buy albums, with a slightly lower discount and no returns. IF they ordered too many albums and those went unsold, too bad for Record Bar... Sell 'em or eat 'em.

2. Buy CDs at a slightly higher discount (more profit margin from the higher sale price as well) and unsold merchandise was 100% returnable within a certain window. IF they ordered too many CDs that went unsold, Record Bar could return them for full credit towards their next shipment bill.

So... while there was no official forcing to take CDs over records... the stores were more or less forced to choose before the customers got to speak their mind. Customers would have bought the much cheaper albums for a lot longer... but the store slowly took the choice away by not stocking albums except for certain groups that usually sold well and for special-order regular customers... Everything else, they would order CDs because they had no risk in unsold merchandise.

While I am sure CDs eventually would have won out on their own merits... I believe the transition to CDs came much sooner because of market manipulation. Also... I remember buying albums for $7.99 and CDs for $17.99 and the "promise" that once CDs took over they would become cheaper... but that never really happened. Once albums were effectively killed CDs jumped to $20 or so and have basically stayed there except for the big chains stores like Best Buy that will sell a new release for cheap for a couple of weeks.


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

dpd146 said:


> In which part of the Constitution is there a right to tv? Free OTA is a privilege, much as driving. Nobody complains that every 4 or 5 years they have to renew the driver's license to use there driving privilege.
> 
> If you can afford the electricity to power a tv then you can afford a converter. It's $10! If you don't have $10 then you shouldn't be watching tv, you should be getting a job.


You sound like the guy that told me that if minimum wage employees weren't making enough money, they should hold two jobs. Its always the "haves" that do the complaining. The adapters ( I heard the cost may be in the $40.00 range)are going to be needed for TVs in 2009 or your TV will be useless. Congress passed this law but forgot to tell the TV broadcasting industry to pay for the adapters or keep their analog channels on the air. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for them. The TV broadcast industry are the ones who are making billions from broadcasting their commericals over the public airwaves. The cost of gasoline, health insurance and everyting else is going up. Many seniors and other working people can't afford the buy converters. Maybe in three months we will vote in a congress that will address this problem.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

boylehome said:


> Well put. Also the government is going to convert AM/FM frequencies from analog to digital. Not that there is as large an audience to either but it will have some impact.


You think there are fewer radio receivers then TV tuners?


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

samhevener said:


> You sound like the guy that told me that if minimum wage employees weren't making enough money, they should hold two jobs. Its always the "haves" that do the complaining. The adapters ( I heard the cost may be in the $40.00 range)are going to be needed for TVs in 2009 or your TV will be useless. Congress passed this law but forgot to tell the TV broadcasting industry to pay for the adapters or keep their analog channels on the air. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for them. The TV broadcast industry are the ones who are making billions from broadcasting their commericals over the public airwaves. The cost of gasoline, health insurance and everyting else is going up. Many seniors and other working people can't afford the buy converters. Maybe in three months we will vote in a congress that will address this problem.


Amazing. The government is here to help. They are our friends. This is part of the problem with democracy (or a representative republic if you will). Too many people are discovering they can vote themselves goodies and the parties feel they have to compete to see who can promise the most goodies. If a person can't save up $10 to $40 over a period of 3 years they shouldn't be watching television, if for no other reason the additional electricity it costs each month to watch it (or should the broadcast companies pay that also). :nono:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I imagine there are folks completely in the "gimme gimme" camp that feel the government should provide free TVs to everyone too, I mean how can these people who can't afford the $10-$40 adapter going to be able to afford a TV when their TV breaks?

I really hope the government doesn't go down the "free adapters for everyone" route... as I would really hate to be paying taxes that go towards that when we have homeless and suffering sick people in this country... people whining about their TV really makes me ill sometimes when I think of all the people who have things far worse than worrying about the digital adapter they may need in a few years.


----------



## WI0T (Mar 15, 2006)

Hi,

IMHO, this is basically a property rights issue. I have 3 TVs that work just fine for
what I use them for (news and a few network shows). However beyond the
analog cutoff date this property of mine will no longer function as the result of
a government mandate. In effect, confiscating my property. 

If I recall correctly this is the argument that the ACLU used to get the funds for
converter boxes in the bill that set the hard cutoff dates....one of the few times
I actually agree with the ACLU...

Now it's not that that I can't afford to get a new TV, cable, or a dish system and 
I will before the 2009 cutoff date, so that's not the issue. The issue is a property
rights one. If the government can create a mandate that in effect confiscates your
property, where and when does it stop ? 

Watching TV is not a right, but the ownership of a working piece of property is the
right that was being stepped on by the mandate. Hence the $40 subsidy for
a converter box that was added to the bill...

People's property rights should not be stepped on just because they don't have
the latest stuff...

Regards,

Rod


----------



## diospyros (Nov 14, 2005)

I think everyone is looking at this backwards. This isn't about whether anybody has a right to watch TV. The broadcasters bought licenses from the federal government. The government has an obligation to honor those licenses in good faith. By forcing the license holders to switch to digital bandwidth and obseleting the analog TVs, the government is breaking faith with the license holders (the TV stations). This is a form of "taking." In order to keep good faith, the government should do one of two things: 

1. Buy back the licenses at fair market value. (Ain't gonna happen for a lot of reasons. Billion$ of rea$on$.)

2. Or, provide a method for the analog TVs to receive a digital signal, which is the simplest and likely cheapest tactic and the one which probably will occur.

A lot of people in these forums seem to think the broadcasters are evil, but they have paid huge amounts for their licenses, which become their primary assets. The government must protect those licenses, just like it must protect other paper that it issues, such as greenbacks. (Probably 80%+ of a TV station's value is in its license.) Whatever it costs to buy converters for analog TVs will be offset to some extent by the freeing-up of the analog bandwidth for other purposes.

Free converters for the masses is good liberal politics. Practicing good faith for government issued paper is good conservative politics. Welcome to the republic...


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

Y'know, if the transmitter manufacturers had simply refused to build more analog (NTSC) transmitters/exciters, and television stations were forced to go digital simply based on that, we'd have the same situation, just no hard date for conversion. Are you guys suggesting in that case, you'd have no argument, since it wouldn't be government mandated?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

oldave said:


> Y'know, if the transmitter manufacturers had simply refused to build more analog (NTSC) transmitters/exciters, and television stations were forced to go digital simply based on that, we'd have the same situation, just no hard date for conversion. Are you guys suggesting in that case, you'd have no argument, since it wouldn't be government mandated?


Essentially, yes. I am saying that to those folks... Why some have drawn the line because of the FCC cutover vs as you describe a logical transition to digital that would happen anyway... In fact, as I understand it, the original thought was to allow a transition at each station's pace originally BUT there was a convincing argument that if the FCC didn't force a cutover it may drag out a long time and some stations may never convert if not forced to do so.

The onus really is on the broadcasters and the local stations to ensure local customers can see the digital transmissions after the 2009 cutoff... the government really shouldn't be in the loop here at all. Yes, I know the FCC regulates the frequencies and all... but that doesn't mean the government should be providing TVs to the people!

So... it seems to me the broadcasters should have fought the battle, rather than consumers. If people cannot watch local OTA then the network and local stations lose viewers, and they can't charge as much for advertisements so their revenue goes down... Also, a twist in an FCC rule may come into play... Local stations have a FCC commitment as part of licensing the frequency to provide public service programming... so it could be argued that if customers aren't getting the digital signal then they aren't providing the service. Stranger arguments have been made.

On a related note... The government doesn't provide antennas for people who need outside ones (or even inside ones) to get analog now... nor will they with digital in the future... so how can these people afford an antenna setup but not afford a converter box that is around the same price or less than a decent antenna needed to receive the signals? Maybe the government should be running an install service and providing all necessary equipment?

I just don't see why some are expecting a freebie (not really free since it will come from taxes) from the government for their TV viewing.

When color happened... there was a requirement built-in to the process that said people must be able to use their B&W TVs and not be forced to go color... but apparently no such similar (and how could they) restriction is built-into the digital cutover.

If there is something the ACLU fought for in regards to providing for converters... then ok, I guess it's a done deal already... but personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Anyone who watches TV should be able to afford the cheap converters that will be around when the time comes... since the cost of a TV and electricity and having a home to keep the TV in for watching, will outweigh that small upgrade cost.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

samhevener said:


> .


Sam, you sound like you have some sort of problem with "big business" but not with big government. With the massiveness of some of these industries a "mom & pops " operation could not give us the services and products that we demand. Can you envision 100 Dick & Jane's Oil Companies with 100 employees each erecting Spars off the coast and drilling, transporting, refining, and distributing good quality gasoline? 
Its not any different for the radio/tv industry. Times have changed. You want your big net work shows like Desperate Housewives or the cable distribution net work or the $ BILLION satellite feeds The only way to do this is the ability to write a $ 100 Million check when its needed. You could turn it all over to the "government" but then you would still have 13" black and white round screen TVs like 80% of the TVs in Russia or Cuba with only 20% of the households with TV.

Stop expecting "Us'' {We The People} to solve all your problems.

Congress [The government ] stepped in to try to clean up the chaotic freq. allocations and some misused spectrum. But, and this is the BIG BUT, they did it after "WE" kept saying to them " WE want HDTV, WE want Digital Quality, We want more programing, and WE want more station choices. Well finally after almost 30 yrs { I think this started in "78"] we finally have the final draft, after many changes. and WE are still not happy because .001% of the population has to save their cigarette money for 2 days to be able to afford a freaking $ 10 converter. 
Bend over Martha, here it comes again. "Theres your sign"!

HDme, Yes there are people in that camp, because there are people like Sam above that still live at home and think that the Horn of Plenty is endless and never needs refilling, yet they are experts on your and my life willing to take from the fruits of your labor to make himself feel good. As if HE is doing "SOMETHING" selfless. .Its self aggrandizement.

Bear!


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

HDMe said:


> In fact, as I understand it, the original thought was to allow a transition at each station's pace originally BUT there was a convincing argument that if the FCC didn't force a cutover it may drag out a long time and some stations may never convert if not forced to do so.


This was the original thought, but the compelling argument was the AM Stereo mess. Different standards, receiver manufacturers not required to include *any* AM Stereo, so stations wouldn't spend the $$ to install it, and of those who did, most went C-QUAM, but some went with the Kahn system, and the two were incompatible. The whole thing eventually died quietly.

Obviously, standards had to be established for digital TV or we'd end up with the same thing. And, stations had to be forced to convert, or receiver manufacturers wouldn't have any reason to include digital tuners. Receiver manufacturers had to be forced to include the tuners, or stations would be spending big money for very few viewers. So that's what happened. Otherwise, you'd have folks buying analog TVs, then moving to another city where there was digital only... what a mess *that* all could turn out to be.

The AM Stereo debacle proved that, in broadcasting at least, market forces can't always bring about a solution. In such a case, there has to be a standard, and there has to be an eventual date that old technology is shut off.

One of the reasons that stations *now* are only running their digital signal at low power is that they don't want to pay the power bill for *two* high powered transmitters... this is especially true in smaller markets - look at all the STAs granted to those stations. Many of these stations will not go full-power on their digital transmitter until they can turn off the analog one.

Side note - where are all those old TV transmitters going to end up? Third world countries, or the local landfill?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SaltiDawg said:


> You would find a new color, rabbit-eared, Digital Tuner set too technologically complex to operate?


Certainly for those with NTSC recorders (VCR, DVD-R and DVRs that aren't flashable)! Unless the code set for the DTV tuner is the same as some existing cable/satellite box, automated recording of OTA material gets very complicated.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

oldave said:


> I *will* agree that a large public service campaign over the next 12+ months would be smart, so that folks know this is coming, so they can save up to shell out the $10 or whatever when the switch happens.


The entities that sell televisions, recorders and related paraphernalia would not stand for it. They've got a whole lot of NTSC hardware to get rid of and if they stopped advertising in protest, it would put a hurt on many local broadcasters.

Such is not to say that we should feel sorry for those retailers that get "stuck" with the hardware, but they will be legion and their dollars are valued.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

In fact, with all the congressional delays, we have had over a decade of warning. I signed up with Dish in 1997, and at that time I projected a 5-year life for my 4000 receiver because of the planned switch to digital and HD TV. As it worked out, I got almost 7 years out of that old 4000 before upgrading to an HD DVR.

The digital conversion certainly means that there will be people who lose the ability to watch TV. I know many people who would be incapable of hooking up a converter box, because of either physical, mental or emotional disability. There is a huge population of technophobes who experience everything from mild aversion to blind panic when faced with something as simple as plugging two boxes together. Believe it or not, the local Forces for Decency are running classes to teach people how to activate the V-Chip in their TV set. These are people who have never even LOOKED at the on-screen menu. 

Millions of people are going to be required to wake up and pay attention if they want to keep watching TV. Many of them will not have the ability. Some of those without the ability will have the money to pay someone to wire the adapter in, and will be unwilling to just buy a new set. Every great dislocation offers opportunity for profit. 

Satellite and cable subscribers probably won't notice any change. 

The poor and incapable will have a rough time of it, until digital capable TVs start showing up at GoodWill.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

oldave said:


> Side note - where are all those old TV transmitters going to end up? Third world countries, or the local landfill?


Most TV stations will just send the digital signal to their old transmitter. The frequencies are very similar, and the transmitter doesn't care how the signal is modulated. The old low frequency VHF stations (ch 2-6?) may need both new transmitters and new antennae.

There will be a lot of old analog exciters on the market. Some of them will be stripped for parts, but you will probably be able to pick up some cheap equipment if you want. You might keep an eye out for old studio quality video cams too, but the new digital HD consumer mini-cams are really so much superior...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Larry Caldwell said:


> oldave said:
> 
> 
> > Side note - where are all those old TV transmitters going to end up? Third world countries, or the local landfill?
> ...


Yep. The biggest part of a transmitter is simply an amplifier. It probably won't be used for that station's digital broadcast (as stations need their digital and analog stations on the air at the same time until 2009). But the old transmitters will make nice auxillary transmitters or be sold to the "next generation" of broadcasters who fill in the channels opened up by converting to digital.

Many stations replace their transmitters every decade or so anyways. They don't last forever. New technology comes along that makes them cheaper to run and if a cost benefit decision says it is cheaper to get a new transmitter than maintain an old one the station ends up with a new transmitter.

BTW: If transmitter manufacturers decided not to make NTSC exciters and force the market over to ATSC there would be two forces at their doorstep. #1 would be small companies that could make a buck by continuing NTSC. #2 would be the government anti-trust suit.

This process does need the government involvement as they are the ones who give out the channels for the digital simulcasts. Without the FCC coordination stations would have to do blind cuts to digtal and throw away their analog audiences (as some LP stations have chosen to do) or find vacant frequencies to use for digital. The FCC has done that work for them and kept this an organized process.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

Larry Caldwell said:


> Millions of people are going to be required to wake up and pay attention if they want to keep watching TV. Every great dislocation offers opportunity for profit.
> 
> . The poor and incapable will have a rough time of it, until digital capable TVs start showing up at GoodWill.


Certainly there will be many but I'm not sure why you don't give the poor a little more credit. They may be "poor" and thats a relative term too, but not stupid as some political hacks want you to believe. 
To go along with your dislocation quote I have always believe this "The winner listens for the knock of opportunity. The loser knocks the opportunity


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

James Long said:


> Yep. The biggest part of a transmitter is simply an amplifier. It probably won't be used for that station's digital broadcast (as stations need their digital and analog stations on the air at the same time until 2009). But the old transmitters will make nice auxillary transmitters or be sold to the "next generation" of broadcasters who fill in the channels opened up by converting to digital.


In some cases, it's true that stations will simply switch their digital exciters into the existing transmitters and tune up on the new frequency. However, many can't do that, as their transmitters are ending (or past) end of life or have other problems precluding them from being used beyond the switch.

It's nice to be able to replace transmitters every 10 years or so, but I can tell you I've seen with my own eyes a lot of both TV and radio transmitters that are quite elderly and still in service as the primary (and almost always only) transmitter... recently, the local NBC affiliate was off for 2 days because their 20+ yr old RCA blew a klystron. They won't be using their existing transmitter for digital - even though their analog is on 41 and the digital is on 40.


----------



## s8ist (Aug 21, 2006)

In response to bear:
The objection to mandate HD and/or digital broadcast is not necessarily on behalf of purely left-leaning politics. There are some who wish that the standard be adopted and have it mandated by either corporate or government intervention. Recently buying into the HD market, I can sympathize with my fellow HD subscribers who feel somewhat cheated in that the content is limited. But it is because we are early adopters, despite the technology being around for quite some time, that we bear the unfortunate burden of doing so. The market dictates who are the early adopters and when the concept becomes mainstream, not government nor coporations. Remarkably, there are people who have just made the transition from VHS to DVD. 
DVD adopters faced the limited content burden for a period of time as well as high prices. Eventually, the prices for HD content should be the price of a digital subscription for non-HD subscribers (but probably won't be because they'll figure out a way to jab us still). When it becomes the "standard," there will probably be a superior format on the market. Until then, we'll be picking up the slack on the HD bandwagon.

But if we want to debate the from the "left" side of things:

The poor may not have a "right" to entertainment, but you imply that their condition is solely the inability to make responsible purchase decisions (i.e. instead of buying cigarettes). It is much easier for us to criticize when we are better off. Consider that a family may have as little to live off of as the minimum wage. Two working adults puts them below the governmentally-recognized poverty line. Figure in transportation costs to areas of opportunity, rental or mortgage costs, clothing, medical depending on whether or not they have healthcare (which many don't) and for many it is a miracle they aren't living in a cardboard box. With all of the corporate welfare, subsidies to various lobbying industries, and tax cuts to the highest 1% of wealthy American citizens, I think we can afford to let the poor keep their standard definition TVs.

I'd be more upset about my tax dollars going to the undeserving affluent than to poor people for entertainment purposes. Favoring the rich over the poor is not left or right, it's simply sophistic immorality in the guise of fairness.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

oldave said:


> They won't be using their existing transmitter for digital - even though their analog is on 41 and the digital is on 40.


The bigger issue is that most stations want to be on the air both analog and digital during the change over. That way as people buy new sets over the next two years or so they get the new programming (possibly in HD) without losing any NTSC viewers by moving early.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

James Long said:


> The bigger issue is that most stations want to be on the air both analog and digital during the change over. That way as people buy new sets over the next two years or so they get the new programming (possibly in HD) without losing any NTSC viewers by moving early.


Sure, that'd be ideal. But small market budgets simply won't let that happen.

Granted, some stations are upgrading their digital facilities to the full power specified in their CP, and some have already built out full power facilities, even in smaller markets (in Macon, GA, two went on the air with full CP facilities, one has now ordered the transmitter, transmission line and antenna for their full digital facilities, and two are going to be waiting an indefinite period before upgrading).

But it's hard to justify the capital expense for two full power facilities - one NTSC and one ATSC - with no increase in revenue as a result.

Just like with AM Stereo, it's a chicken/egg situation.

Fortunately for almost everybody, television sets are showing up with digital tuners at reasonable prices - 27 inch color SD set, with NTSC *and* ATSC tuners can be had for around $275 *today* at Wal-Mart, and as time goes by, the smaller sets will also be required to have ATSC tuners.

Next year, all televisions manufactured to be sold in the US will be required to have the ATSC tuner, which means they'll start showing up probably in the 2nd quarter at retail.

So the eyeballs will start to swing from analog to digital sometime late next year... and it could make sense for some operations to switch to lower power operation on the analog side and make the investment in digital...


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

harsh said:


> Certainly for those with NTSC recorders (VCR, DVD-R and DVRs that aren't flashable)! Unless the code set for the DTV tuner is the same as some existing cable/satellite box, automated recording of OTA material gets very complicated.


Oh, new subject. lol


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

s8ist, sigh! 
The objection doesn't appear to be the mandate itself, though there is some decention there too, but rather that the "government" is not "helping" with the conversion, in particular for the less than affluent. And that is a more "left" sided agenda and I object to that solution.
Your second sentence is a oxymoron. The two are not equivalent.

I bought into HD and digital in 98 and like others are waiting for the promise that I remember going back to 1978. I am more than understanding of the slow wheels of progress and I certainly believe market forces will shape it and to the good. I would want neither Gov. or Corp. dictating anything. 
Had this radio spectrum issue not had National security and major economic implications, the conversion might have been done by now. Maybe with some Beta-max VHS wars like HD and Blu now, but the people in their wisdom would have spoken and resolved it.

The implication about the poor is your take, not my intent. Yet your observation may not be as far afield if it wasn't just down right politically incorrect.
I was pointing out that that there are choices and choices have benefits or consequences.

Got to admit you do have the left's talking points down pretty good. But I have been hearing that same old worn out argument since 1964 when LBJ started the WAR on poverty to make his Great Society.
Thing was we already had a Great Society and we as a nation threw 27 TRILLION at his war on poverty and now you tell me there is more poverty still. SIGH!

I have no problem giving someone a helping hand once maybe twice. But my generosity is limited. Your last sentence is without merit other than a throw away rally line. 
When was the last time a poor person gave you employment.

Bear!


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

samhevener said:


> I always thought HDTV was a con of the TV broadcast industry. In a few years all of our analog TVs will be outdated. The government has given the TV broadcasters billions of dollars of new frequencies for free. Those with the old analog TVs will have to buy adapters (of course not paid for my the TV broadcasters that received the billion dollar frequencies for free). Now we can watch all those commericals and low quality programming in HDTV. I think most people would rather watch an old analog black and white TV show such as I Love Lucy, than watch all those new commericals in HDTV. This is after paying for an adapter to view them. Viewers have always wanted higher quality TV programming, not a higher quality picture.


what new frequencies? The Commercial TV spectrum will be reduced.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

samhevener said:


> I always thought HDTV was a con of the TV broadcast industry. In a few years all of our analog TVs will be outdated. The government has given the TV broadcasters billions of dollars of new frequencies for free. Those with the old analog TVs will have to buy adapters (of course not paid for my the TV broadcasters that received the billion dollar frequencies for free). Now we can watch all those commercials and low quality programming in HDTV. I think most people would rather watch an old analog black and white TV show such as I Love Lucy, than watch all those new commercials in HDTV. This is after paying for an adapter to view them. Viewers have always wanted higher quality TV programming, not a higher quality picture.


HDTV is a great thing. HDTV is far from being a, "con" of the TV broadcast industry. The frequencies you are referring to are going digital from analog, not analog to HDTV. HDTV is just one standard of several standards for TV. They include but are not limited to; 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i with aspects from 4:3 to 16:9. The converters you are talking about will take the digital channel and convert it to analog for those sets that do not have an ATSC tuner. I do hope your comments come true about HDTV viewing. Watching I Love Lucky and commercials in HDTV will make it much more worth while. I have seen the quality of the upconverted to digital standard definition analog signals from our local TV stations. They need much improvement and are far from being HDTV quality.

Enjoy your HDTV programming on your old analog TV with the converter.  I agree that viewers want higher quality TV programming and if HDTV is added to the equation , they will want more. I disagree with you that viewers don't want a higher quality picture.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

bear paws said:


> From the left, my freind, from the left.
> 
> Liberalism-> "The fear that someone somewhere might want to and can take care of and think for themselves."
> 
> Bear!


Are you talking about the subsidy that passed through the Republican controlled congress and was signed by Bush?

--------

This isn't the first time the government has obsoleted equipment. The first FM band was around 45Mhz, until they decided they wanted 45 Mhz for Channel 1. There was no subsidy for people to upgrade to the current FM band.

For almost two years almost all TVs will have ATSC tuners in them, that should bring down the cost a lot by 2009. Today you are better off buying a digital tv rather than a box, I think it will be the same in 2009.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lets keep the politics out of the satellite forums. If conservatives and liberals want to bash each other we have a nice Potpourri forum that allows that (within reason).

Please keep your posts related to the (slightly morphed) topic at hand. Thanks.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kb7oeb said:


> This isn't the first time the government has obsoleted equipment. The first FM band was around 45Mhz, until they decided they wanted 45 Mhz for Channel 1. There was no subsidy for people to upgrade to the current FM band.


The number of people harmed was minimal. Back then radio was co-marketed. People selling radios to pick up stations and starting stations so the radios could be sold. It was more of a converter box environment ... except the only subscription fee was (and is) hearing commercials.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> Lets keep the politics out of the satellite forums.Please keep your posts related to the (slightly morphed) topic at hand. Thanks.


Yes James 
Now if we could only keep satellite out of politics.:sure: 

Bear!


----------



## cdub998 (Aug 16, 2006)

WI0T said:


> Hi,
> 
> IMHO, this is basically a property rights issue. I have 3 TVs that work just fine for
> what I use them for (news and a few network shows). However beyond the
> ...


This is off base. Its not like your TV won't work at all. Just not the way you want it too. Confiscating your property is a little overly dramatic. Or are you saying that the signal that comes to your house is your property?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

cdub998 said:


> This is off base. Its not like your TV won't work at all. Just not the way you want it to.


True. At work we refer to outmoded technology as doorstops or boat anchors (although a lot of out of date equipment has actually become a 'rack shelf' for an unmountable piece of equipment).

Yes, the TV will continue to work - as a doorstop or boat anchor. Not the way I'd want it to work but that's ok, isn't it? 

Fortunately getting it to work the way a consumer wants it to (to view standard broadcast signals) will be reasonably cheap.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

James Long said:


> ...
> 
> Yes, the TV will continue to work - as a doorstop or boat anchor. Not the way I'd want it to work but that's ok, isn't it?  ...


James,

That seems a little harsh. That "boat anchor" will continue to work just fine for the millions and millions of Cable and Satellite customers that will continue to receive their SD signal.


----------



## s8ist (Aug 21, 2006)

bear:
1. My second sentence is not an oxymoron. Oxymorons are things like "jumbo shrimp" or "found missing." I was trying to avoid having to rant the issue of collusion between corporate and government interests, but because it relates strongly to technology--something we're all free to discuss in this forum, its perfectly reasonable discussion. 

Just ask yourself who does the gov't rule in favor of on these issues? 
DMCA and Fair Use
Net Neutrality 

James Long:
I have not taken bear's comments personally, as I'm sure he hasn't mine. I promise to be respectful and not make personal attacks. I recognize I probably went a bit far in ranting, but hey we're all adults here and it seems like relevant discussion to the topic. I'll keep it to a minimum.


----------



## cdub998 (Aug 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> True. At work we refer to outmoded technology as doorstops or boat anchors (although a lot of out of date equipment has actually become a 'rack shelf' for an unmountable piece of equipment).
> 
> Yes, the TV will continue to work - as a doorstop or boat anchor. Not the way I'd want it to work but that's ok, isn't it?
> 
> Fortunately getting it to work the way a consumer wants it to (to view standard broadcast signals) will be reasonably cheap.


I wouldn't go that far either. Can you play a dvd on it? Yes.. Can you play a game system on it? Yes. Can you hook PC up to it? Yes. Now while it may not cook your dinner for you it will still do other things. Not a complete waste..


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

s8ist said:


> bear:
> Hey teach, out back by the swings after school!
> 
> Ok,Ok I took a little license with the oxymoron thing. But you got to admit Gov and Corp are quite contrary in signification.
> ...


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

oldave said:


> This was the original thought, but the compelling argument was the AM Stereo mess. Different standards, receiver manufacturers not required to include *any* AM Stereo, so stations wouldn't spend the $$ to install it, and of those who did, most went C-QUAM, but some went with the Kahn system, and the two were incompatible. The whole thing eventually died quietly.
> 
> Obviously, standards had to be established for digital TV or we'd end up with the same thing. And, stations had to be forced to convert, or receiver manufacturers wouldn't have any reason to include digital tuners. Receiver manufacturers had to be forced to include the tuners, or stations would be spending big money for very few viewers. So that's what happened. Otherwise, you'd have folks buying analog TVs, then moving to another city where there was digital only... what a mess *that* all could turn out to be.
> 
> ...


Yup, I never bought an AM stereo radio.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SaltiDawg said:


> That seems a little harsh. That "boat anchor" will continue to work just fine for the millions and millions of Cable and Satellite customers that will continue to receive their SD signal.


Just trying to make a point. People bought their televisions with the expectation of being able to watch television. The day they brought it home they could watch television. Changing to ATSC requires that customer to buy a converter box or subscribe to satellite or cable TV in order to see 'free OTA television'.

BTW: If one looks at all the fees the FCC collects for licensing anything spent on subsidizing a few converter boxes would be a drop in the bucket. The FCC *SELLS* frequencies now to the highest bidder (including FM stations and translators). We're not talking about cutting people's social security checks to give them a receiver box.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

If the Democrats are in control of the House and Senate in 2009 they will probably vote to give all households with income's under 50k a free HD tv so their constituents can watch them on CSpanHD . They can increase taxes on the rich people making over 50K to pay for it. What a great campaign angle.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Just trying to make a point. People bought their televisions with the expectation of being able to watch television. The day they brought it home they could watch television. Changing to ATSC requires that customer to buy a converter box or subscribe to satellite or cable TV in order to see 'free OTA television'.


Many years ago there was an ice storm here... and all but one of the local TV broadcast towers fell down due to ice accumulation on the wires and the tower!

Should the FCC have compensated the viewing public for the time during which we had no TV?

As far as I can tell there is no guarantee that there will be any signals when you buy a TV or a radio. Sure, we expect it and generally there are... but it isn't like the local station or the broadcast networks are selling TVs.

When I buy a modem for the computer, there is no guarantee there will be a FAX machine or a BBS I can dial-up to connect with it... There's no guarantee that I can get dial-up Internet access either.

Since we aren't directly paying for our free OTA signals... I don't see any real responsibility to make sure we get their signal... BUT, as I've said before... the networks & local stations need for us to get their signal... so it behooves them not to convert to digital unless we can receive... but this shouldn't be a government provided thing in my opinion.

I again reiterate that I have a hard time defining a "need" to give someone a free digital converter for their box when we don't have the same need to feed the homeless... For that matter, who is going to provide a homeless man with a TV and then a converter? What is that? You say the homeless aren't entitled to a converter since they are homeless? Well... that makes TV not a "need" doesn't it... makes it a luxury item 

The "you" isn't directed at James, FYI... it is the generic "you" of everyone listening.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> Should the FCC have compensated the viewing public for the time during which we had no TV?


Did the FCC cause the ice storm? Was the storm a government mandate? Probably not.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

James Long said:


> ... Changing to ATSC requires that customer to buy a converter box or subscribe to satellite or cable TV in order to see 'free OTA television'. ...


Again, for the *existing* Cable and Satellite customers the transition will be seamless and no functionality will be lost. Believe it or not, some people even have black and white sets, and don't feel cheated by all that color broadcating.:hurah:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Again (if you like that word), a viewer is free to cancel their cable or satellite and still get whatever OTA channels are available in their area (and other NTSC signals such as video games and equipment). Just what the set was designed to do.

Except in 2009 a government mandate will take away the OTA channels. 

Sounds like lost functionality. Not everyone is a cable/satellite subcriber nor should they required to be.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

richiephx said:


> If the Democrats are in control of the House and Senate in 2009 they will probably vote to give all households with income's under 50k a free HD tv so their constituents can watch them on CSpanHD . They can increase taxes on the rich people making over 50K to pay for it. What a great campaign angle.


This is a great thought! I can see them doing just that but the HDTV will be 10" and it will only work with CSpanHD channel!:lol: I have some thoughts about what would happen if the other party maintains control but I'll keep them to myself to protect my remaining pursuits of happyness from infringement. :blauesaug



James Long said:


> Except in 2009 a government mandate will take away the OTA channels.


Analog OTA that is. Digital will be there wont it?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

boylehome said:


> Analog OTA that is. Digital will be there wont it?


Unavailable to millions of viewers.

IIRC: The threshold is 85%. The FCC can delay analog cutoff if less than 85% of viewers have the capability to view digital. Cable and satellite viewers are likely to be counted as part of that 85%.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

James Long said:


> Unavailable to millions of viewers.
> 
> IIRC: The threshold is 85%. The FCC can delay analog cutoff if less than 85% of viewers have the capability to view digital. Cable and satellite viewers are likely to be counted as part of that 85%.


Well we may see another postponement. It seems reasonable that it would apply only to OTA reception.


----------



## WI0T (Mar 15, 2006)

cdub998 said:


> This is off base. Its not like your TV won't work at all. Just not the way you want it too. Confiscating your property is a little overly dramatic. Or are you saying that the signal that comes to your house is your property?


True the government is not coming to my house and taking my property, but they
are making it not work by the mandate. The net result is the same. The TV was 
legally marketed by the manufacturer and purchased by me to receive St Louis 
over the air locals....not to be a door stop or require some additionally purchased 
service.

The argument was that to make John Q Public "whole" again (i.e. restore the 
functionality the mandate removed), $40.00 vouchers would be issued to
allow the purchase of HDTV converter boxes.

However I read that the NTIA was requesting comment on restricting the
issuance of these vouchers to people who have no other TV service (Cable or
satellite) and means testing for individuals to receive these vouchers. I think
the NAB responded on the first issue, but I didn't hear any comments on the
latter (means testing).

Makes sense to me to restrict the issuing of the vouchers to people w/o any
other service. I'm sure means testing will be applied (to restrict how much $
the government has to shell out). And that touches on a whole different 
discussion!

Rod


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> Did the FCC cause the ice storm? Was the storm a government mandate? Probably not.


I heard Katrina was and it was "his" fault .


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yes, I think President Bush signed the Ice Storm Bill into law shortly after he was sworn into office 

But seriously... no... and I understand the FCC forced cutover is a government mandate... but as another poster pointed out, this would happen eventually anyway if the government didn't force it. TV stations would migrate to digital only and leave consumers behind either without warning OR the process would take several times as long... but it would still eventually happen anyway without the mandate... so I don't think saying the FCC mandate means consumers must get free converters is a fair statement, because many of those same "screwed" consumers would be just as screwed without the mandate in a few years anyway!

And nobody has said anything about my question of asking why the government should provide free converters is being discussed but no one has ever suggested the government should be providing free antennas... and what about people in those areas that cannot get analog today? Should the FCC be funding their cable/satellite bill so they can have TV?

I just don't believe TV is a right... nor should tax dollars be going to give people converters when there are far better things for society that could be done.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

Intresting you mention antenna. 80% of my locals where/are NTSC VHF, with some of the UHF as reduntant network. 
The change over caused me to [all my locals are now UHF ]
get rid of my big yagi and put up a couple bowtys. Do I qualify for assistance or reimburcment for the new ant since I didn't need it for the old VHF reception. before the mandated changover.? 
Just as I thought.

Bear!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I was just raising the point that if the government broke it they should fix it. It is my first preference that TVs just naturally become functional with the new signals. The FCC mandated that as well ... requiring new sets to have ATSC tuners starting with the larger screens and working down to smaller sets. (The sets DO NOT have to display a picture in HD, only be able to tune the 18 ATSC standard modes accepted by the FCC.)

When I first heard of digital TV a few years ago it was right before I bought a TV set. I thought "OK, this is coming" and sought out a digital tuner set. None were available except the (at the time $3000) HD models. So I settled for a set that I knew would be obsolete in a few years. A couple of years later it was time for another new set (for a different room). I did the same search but still could not find a simple digital tuner set for a decent price. So I now have another soon to be obsolete TV. My latest TV is finally a HD set but swooning at the higher prices I bought an $800 set that didn't have an ATSC tuner. Planned obsolesence. At least with HDMI and component inputs this one will be able to display a signal IN HD.

I would have liked it if ALL sets would have had the ATSC tuner built in sooner. "Market Forces" decided that if one bought a large screen TV they either got a SD model with an NTSC tuner, a HD model with an ATSC/NTSC tuner or the occasional HD model with an NTSC tuner that relies on other inputs for HD. The market didn't offer a SD set with an ATSC tuner. I would have had three by now - ready for the coming change - if it had not been for a market that decided not to put ATSC tuners in SD sets.

That's the real rip of. Knowing that the change was coming and yet refusing to put a simple tuner into a set. Deciding instead to intentionally make sets that would need an external tuner our other upgrade within a couple of years. A crime that was supported by the government mandates.

So where our government has failed us by not 'encouraging' (mandating) ATSC tuners on a faster schedule than that which is being followed yet mandating the shut off of analog NTSC broadcasts in just over two years I would not mind seeing some sort of credit for the consumer cost of an upgrade.

At least I can understand why people would ask for such a credit.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

Seeing ATSC sets was the exception for me until the 25 inch or larger mandate kicked in last year, now I see at least a couple at stores like K-Mart. I also noticed they have a lot of 24 inch sets now.

I think they should have auctioned off 2-6 to highest bidder and allowed those channels to be used for analog. They suck for digital and the winning bidder could run it as long as it was profitable.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I intentionally bought an HDTV that did not include a tuner partly to save money, partly because I knew I was going to connect to satellite, and partly because I didn't want to be stuck with a 1st generation tuner that may not be upgradable by the time the cutover happens. It seemed safer to me to keep the tuner separate from the HDTV monitor with all the changes happening in digital TV during that time.

It sounds like other people have made the same decision as I did, for various reasons, to not buy an HDTV with a built-in tuner even when we could have... so why would we be owed something later?

I think the bottom line is... no one sells you a TV with a guarantee that you will be able to receive signals! They guarantee that the TV is capable of receiving signals, and if those are broadcast in your area then cool beans... but I've seen nothing that guarantees me TV programming just for purchasing a TV.

Granted, logic indicates why would I buy a TV if I didn't want to watch it... but maybe I am connecting to cable or satellite or maybe I just want to watch DVDs and videotapes... so again the TV is very useful whether or not it has a tuner and whether or not it has a digital tuner.

I bought a cellphone that does not have a camera... now there are cameraphones... I wonder if the FCC and government will upgrade me for free to a cameraphone?

Ok, maybe that one was a bit of a stretch... but I just don't see owning a TV in the USA as an automatic entitlement to programming.

Now... IF we were in the UK where there is a TV license that you have to pay for each TV... *Then* I would say absolutely the government should guarantee you get signals since they are taxing your TV for the ability to receive them... but we aren't in the UK since that big split back in the 1700s!


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

James Long said:


> ...
> 
> Sounds like lost functionality. Not everyone is a cable/satellite subcriber nor should they required to be.


I only, again, make the point that there are *many, many* millions of Cable and Satellite custommers that will lose no functionality so that your branding their sets as a boat anchor is wrong.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

boylehome said:


> Well we may see another postponement. It seems reasonable that it would apply only to OTA reception.


I live between 11.9 miles and 12.2 miles to the two transmitting towers that carry the four main networks' digital signals for the Nation's Capitol. I am unable to receive a reliable signal using a directional rotor-controlled chimney mounted antenna at my story home. I have the detailed analysis performed by one of the local channels that essentially concludes I am SOL.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

HDme has a point. I too got a 36" panny HD sans tuner in late 98, and later got a Sam STB. Now the way I interpret James' idea is I should have been "taken care of " even though I made that choice.

James. I'm not certain how much "planned obsolescence" is involved as is Technology obsolescence. If you are not moveing forward you are not staying in business. Yes, my 1952 Dumont B&W still works but I don't watch it much anymore. It just does'nt have the appeal it did back in 52.

Continue picking on James; 
Many posts back I described the difference between our form of government and say Cuba's. Some of you saw it as a political rant but what my point was/is that when I see people blaming our government as this demonic, abstract machine that is without supervision they forget that its us.
No I don't agree with every thing we as a country do and I would much rather YOU stay the hell out my affairs and stop spending my labor on your charities but it is what it is. WE have met the GOVERNMENT and its US. The question arises do you want to take care of yourself or do you want me to take care of you. The problem with the latter is that if your taking care of me, do you want to or can you depend on me to take care of You? The very people that want the "Government" to take care of all of us are the ones that get upset when they are not the first ones in line.

Believe me, "market forces" are better than government forces.

Bear!


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

HDMe said:


> II bought a cellphone that does not have a camera... now there are cameraphones... I wonder if the FCC and government will upgrade me for free to a cameraphone?


A better example is my old Nokia cell phone with digital service. I am a Cingular customer, and I just got notice that it is not compatible with Cingular's new digital encoding scheme. They are going to keep offering service until they shut off their analog service in a couple of years. Meanwhile, the are going to charge me an extra $4.75 a month for using the old cell phone. No mention of any deals on new cell phones for long time customers.

Shrug. I gave away my old 32" analog TV when I switched to HD. I donated it to the middle school where my sister teaches, because it was a good size for classroom use, and I am sure the schools will be using the old VHS instructional materials for the next couple decades. Equipment goes obsolete.

The only problem the switchover will cause me is replacing the 12 volt portable TV in my travel trailer. I use it so seldom that I don't want to pay full retail, and I bet the truckers snap up the available digital 12 volt sets for the first couple years after the conversion. Do you think the FCC will send me a 12 volt converter box?


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

Larry, the phone conversion is not GOV. mandated is it? Then according to some, "no foul".

Some "truckers" will opt for the converters. A lot of sets in those sleepers are built-in and they may not find a set to fit the hole. Some of mine where custom one off installs and if the set croaked it was a bi--ch to find one to fit.

Bear!


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I agree with HDMe, TV is not a right, it's a priviledge, the government has no business buying converters for anyone, there's better things that can be done with that money. Let's see the conversion takes place in 2009, they're saying that the converter digital tuner box thingy costs what? $40.00? That's it?! Hmmmm....so people have three years to figure out that they need one and to save up the forty bucks to get one. If you can't save forty bucks in three years to get one then too bad obviously you have much bigger problems to deal with than not being able to watch TV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SaltiDawg said:


> ... your branding their sets as a boat anchor is wrong.


You guys are taking this WAY too seriously.

No, I don't expect the government to give me a cameraphone. I would expect them to give me a DIGITAL phone next year to replace my analog one IF the carrier had not already taken care of that problem. (It is a reverse situation there as the FCC is REQUIRING carriers to support analog phones until 2008 as well as requiring carriers to upgrade phones to digital and 911 GPS.)

I do and don't expect a lot of things. I didn't expect the spanish inquisition for noting that NTSC TVs are losing a primary function due to government mandate. But I suppose some people need a hobby.

Government forces started this conversion to ATSC. The government wants the bandwidth back. They already took away the highest channels to create space for cellphones and other uses. Now they are taking more space away from broadcasters and forcing them to ATSC.

I suspect the conversion will end up with not too many people who have television service today being left without television service. That is good. There are still a couple of years to worry about it - and pick a solution (if needed) to fit the problem.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

tsmacro;
Agreed, However ''their" argument is that if you touched it and now it looks broke, it is your responsibility to fix it. Never mind that its not broke for everybody or it was more broken before you touched it or now its not broke at all or that you didn't touch it ever. Pay Up, you are the government and thus responsible because my rights begin where your priviledge ends. Money? It's not my money, its the government's money.

Bear!


----------



## WI0T (Mar 15, 2006)

James Long said:


> <...snip...>
> 
> Government forces started this conversion to ATSC. The government wants the bandwidth back. They already took away the highest channels to create space for cellphones and other uses. Now they are taking more space away from broadcasters and forcing them to ATSC.
> 
> I suspect the conversion will end up with not too many people who have television service today being left without television service. That is good. There are still a couple of years to worry about it - and pick a solution (if needed) to fit the problem.


Agreed. While today I only have OTA analog, I will be moving to E* or Charter 
Cable (yuck...) depending on the outcome of DVR issue.

IMHO, if the government had mandated ATSC tuners in TVs a few years earlier, 
this would not be problem. I didn't even see tube tvs with ATSC tuners in them 
until April of 2006.

If I could find a HDTV converter box for less that $100.00 that outputs something 
my 27" TV could display (S-Video, composite or RF I guess), I would buy it to get 
a "perfect" analog picture (no ghosting, fading, etc that I get with my OTA setup).

Then I wouldn't have to replace my TV...and the "entertainment center" 
it sits in....


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> You guys are taking this WAY too seriously.
> Government forces started this conversion to ATSC. The government wants the bandwidth back. They already took away the highest channels to create space for cellphones and other uses. Now they are taking more space away from broadcasters and forcing them to ATSC..


James, who is the benifactor of all this "taking and reallocating". Please don"t say BIG BUSINESS. I will have to have you turn back your 401k. If you say its the government, thats US, we win. yea!

Bear!


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

SaltiDawg said:


> I live between 11.9 miles and 12.2 miles,I am SOL.


Geez, whats blocking you, the dome? Your resourcefull, there has got to be a way.

Bear!


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

James Long said:


> Government forces started this conversion to ATSC. The government wants the bandwidth back. They already took away the highest channels to create space for cellphones and other uses. Now they are taking more space away from broadcasters and forcing them to ATSC.


It's a lot more complicated than that, James, and a lot more parties were invoved. Digital encoding is necessary for HDTV. An analog signal carrying that much data would spread all over the spectrum. The bandwidth necessary would be immense.

Many years ago, the broadcasters and the equipment manufacturers got together and told the US government what they needed to take the next step in TV service. ATSC came out of negotiations between many nations, but primarily Japan, Korea, the EU and the USA. The standards were set by international agreement, along with the timetable for conversion. AFAIK, Japan is the only country that met the original timetable, which has put them years ahead of the USA at deploying HDTV.

The broadcasters, the equipment manufacturers, and the governments of many nations all signed off on the digital conversion. I don't know exactly when, but I know I was aware of it when I first subscribed to Dish in March of 1997. At that time, the scheduled cutover date was 2002. I'm thinking the agreement was actually finalized in 1994, because it sticks in my mind that they originally planned an 8 year lead time for the change.

One of the big benefits of the switch to UHF digital broadcasting (other than decent pictures on the UHF band) was that it would free up the VHF television frequencies for other purposes. VHF television is a bandwidth hog with lots of dead space between channels. Recovering that bandwidth for general communication purposes was considered to be a Very Good Thing. I don't think the FCC has started licensing frequencies yet, but there are a lot of users out there literally drooling over the space. For instance, my local fire and police departments share frequencies with wireless computer networks and microwave ovens, but have to use a completely different radio to talk to the next town.

The target is now 2009, because the switchover has been delayed twice. Everyone knew there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth when the analog transmitters go dark. I think the industry has done its homework, and the change will be do-able in 2009. There will be some inevitable shortages, so when the converters become available, buy as many as you think you will need, and buy early.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> I agree with HDMe, TV is not a right, it's a priviledge, the government has no business buying converters for anyone, there's better things that can be done with that money. Let's see the conversion takes place in 2009, they're saying that the converter digital tuner box thingy costs what? $40.00? That's it?! Hmmmm....so people have three years to figure out that they need one and to save up the forty bucks to get one. If you can't save forty bucks in three years to get one then too bad obviously you have much bigger problems to deal with than not being able to watch TV.


But millions upon millions of people who have OTA are clueless about the transition. Therefore the broadcasters should step up to the plate a produce public affairs ads and run them 24/7.Thoughts?


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

ehren said:


> With all this bull**** downrezzing I will just talk to myself here and smack myself for this crappola we all watch with satellite. HDnet movies tonight is god awful and I can't even spit on the screen to wipe it clean and hope for a better picture. Oh, and my wife has already applied the lovely cleaner across it tonight anyways.


I repeat..... SAY WHAT?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Larry Caldwell said:


> One of the big benefits of the switch to UHF digital broadcasting (other than decent pictures on the UHF band) was that it would free up the VHF television frequencies for other purposes. VHF television is a bandwidth hog with lots of dead space between channels. Recovering that bandwidth for general communication purposes was considered to be a Very Good Thing.


Actually, the bulk of the channels being lost are UHF. Channel 52 through 69 will be vacated for two way communications uses.

See *here* for the 2001 announcement. 
See *here* for Auction 31 (upper portion of the 700MHz band).
See *here* for the lower portion of the 700MHz band.
(All links at the FCC.)

There are DT channels assigned throughout the US on VHF channels. 
*Here* is a list (at the FCC) of all the licenses and applications on VHF TV.


Larry Caldwell said:


> ... so when the converters become available, buy as many as you think you will need, and buy early.


I'll probably buy a couple. As long as I have satellite I won't really need them but I don't like the idea of not being able to get TV without a satellite receiver.


Paul Secic said:


> But millions upon millions of people who have OTA are clueless about the transition. Therefore the broadcasters should step up to the plate a produce public affairs ads and run them 24/7.Thoughts?


Not 24/7. Some stations in my area have started to run news stories about this but it is two years away. There are more pressing needs.


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

Before I post my ranting comments at another site, I figured I would start here. In response to ehren and his initial post. One question, how long has Dish been in the,"serious business" of supplying HD to its customers? About as long as it take one of my eye lashes to grow and fall out. In the scope of man emerging from the 4 legged stage, this isn't very long. Dish continues to look for ways to provide all of us with the best picture along with all the other hoopla in HD we want. Sorry guys, but its like antispyware. Someone creates it, everyone jumps on the bandwagon, and soon as the first negative comment is made, everyone bails. HD is still in its infancy for both DBS and cable providers. Don't think so? Check out Time Warners failure rate with their lasers guided lines that feed the signal to your home. As newer releases for their HD receivers come out, YOU WILL SEE IMPROVEMENT. But the downrez factor kills me. I have numerous PBS OTA stations here in Charlotte that do the same thing to cram as much different programming in with the bandwidth alloted by the Feds. Sometimes its good, sometimes its crap. I just love having a radar channel OTA for every frigging station here in Charlotte. So think what you want, technology will improve, release versions for your receivers, will improve, and that my friends, is the bottom line.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

The cell phone change isn't a government thing, cingular just wants to get rid of early TDMA digital phones and get everyone on GSM. Considering the bad press and how tdma customers are long time customers they should have just upgraded them for free.

I'm not sure what the analog rules are but Sprint and T-Mobile have never offered analog service.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> You guys are taking this WAY too seriously.


I'm not really... proof to follow shortly...



James Long said:


> I do and don't expect a lot of things. I didn't expect the spanish inquisition for noting that NTSC TVs are losing a primary function due to government mandate.


Ok, since no one else is saying it... I will...

NO ONE expects the spanish inquisition!


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

I found an article that gives the general history and a little bit about the industry pressures to make the switch

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7593620/


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

James Long said:


> We're not talking about cutting people's social security checks to give them a receiver box.


Regardless, it's not government's place to provide entertainment.

As I said earlier, if you want to argue public safety, hand out free NOAA radio receivers. At least that might safe a life now and then (though my experience is that people don't know the difference between a weather watch and a weather warning - can't count the number of times someone's told me there's a severe thunderstorm warning for the whole state 'til midnight... and I think, man, that's one huge storm).

I simply don't believe that people actually watch television for the school closings (nor do they listen on radio - how many times I've been on the air, reading the list, and the phones light up... get done with the list, answer the phones, the question is always the same: Is my school open today?) or anything else that's actually relevant... and in so many markets, there's no local news or other information anyway.

A lot of the arguments about television and programming and the whole ATSC thing are focused primarily on major markets. Out here in the hinterland, the local news/info argument falls flat...

So let's stop hidnig behind all this public service claptrap and call it what it is - some want to take government funds and use those funds to provide entertainment to people who claim they can't afford to do it themselves. And I submit that this is *not* a valid function of government.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

James Long said:


> You guys are taking this WAY too seriously.


Nah, not really all that seriously...



James Long said:


> I do and don't expect a lot of things. I didn't expect the spanish inquisition for noting that NTSC TVs are losing a primary function due to government mandate. But I suppose some people need a hobby.


Inquisitions get too messy, use up way too much resources and nobody ends up converted anyway... though debates can be interesting.


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2006/couponprogram_nprm_07202006.htm

Here you go cry babies. Send your complaints to the Department of Commerce

Title III authorizes 1.5 billion to be spent on subsidizing the converter boxes.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

oldave said:


> So let's stop hidnig behind all this public service claptrap and call it what it is - some want to take government funds and use those funds to provide entertainment to people who claim they can't afford to do it themselves. And I submit that this is *not* a valid function of government.


I think that is absolutely 100% the crux of things when you boil it down.

Our government is involved in way too much stuff, and wastes way too much money already... This digital converter money would have to come from somewhere, which means it would take away from something else UNLESS there was a tax raised to collect the money! Neither option is good.

Oh, and can't you just see it now... the government gives everyone a free $10 digital receiver... but it only has a COAX connection or maybe composite, whatever minimal output to work with most TVs would be... and then people would line up to complain why they didn't get an HD-capable receiver for free... why it didn't have HDMI and digital 5.1 audio outputs too... and last, but not least, why it didn't come with a free 6' HDMI cable too!

You just know that would be the next bunch of complaints... so why start the train?


----------



## WI0T (Mar 15, 2006)

oldave said:


> Regardless, it's not government's place to provide entertainment.
> 
> As I said earlier, if you want to argue public safety, hand out free NOAA radio receivers. At least that might safe a life now and then (though my experience is that people don't know the difference between a weather watch and a weather warning - can't count the number of times someone's told me there's a severe thunderstorm warning for the whole state 'til midnight... and I think, man, that's one huge storm).
> 
> ...


Well here in St. Louis we always use the TV for School closings, it's the most
reliable way to find out what is going on.

As far as weather related stuff, while my NOAA weather radio will tell me about
warnings/watchings in my county (Yes I know the difference between
watches and warnings, and have the radio programmed with my FIPS code...).
St. Charles County is a large area, and nothing beats a radar map on my 19" TV in 
the bedroom to tell me if the cell is moving towards me or the cell is in northern 
St. Charles County. Rather valuable service at 1:00 AM to know if you need to
wake everyone up and head to the basement.

At least OTA here is quite valuable. Perhaps not everywhere, but here it is.

As far using public funds, I've said before, the government mandate is removing
the intented functionality of my property. Hence it is entirely appropriate that
I am compenstated for it.

Similiarly when road work is done. When MODOT expands the roads, they 
compenstate you for the property damage or the property the take.

While government funds should not be used to provide entertainment, disabling
of people's property does warrent compensation.

I think that almost all of the problem could have been avoided if the government 
had mandated ATSC tuners sooner, so recent TV purchases would still function 
past the mandated cutoff date.

Rod


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I think that is absolutely 100% the crux of things when you boil it down.
> 
> Our government is involved in way too much stuff, and wastes way too much money already... This digital converter money would have to come from somewhere, which means it would take away from something else UNLESS there was a tax raised to collect the money! Neither option is good.
> 
> ...


Congress is justifiably scared to death about interfering with the mob's circus. No matter who thought this up back in the '90s, it will be the people in office in 2009 who get the shaft. People might actually get upset enough to vote! You might notice the switchover is timed AFTER the 2008 general election? What is the actual date? Will people miss their New Years Day football games?

This may be the biggest political hot potato since Lincoln freed the slaves. We may see riots and looting in dozens of American cities. I see a lot of lives out there that would be unbearable without the hypnotizing influence of TV.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

Larry Caldwell said:


> This may be the biggest political hot potato since Lincoln freed the slaves. We may see riots and looting in dozens of American cities. .


By the Tax Payers 



WI0T said:


> > nothing beats a radar map on my 19" TV in
> > the bedroom
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Larry Caldwell said:


> What is the actual date? Will people miss their New Years Day football games?


Feb 3, 2006 2:47 PM

Congress voted last week to set the official date for the analog spectrum handover at Feb. 17, 2009. By then, analog television transmissions in America should be history. The DTV transition will be over, and the ultimate fate of local digital television broadcasting will finally be revealed.

...

Qualifying households will receive up to two $40 coupons to use toward purchase of converter boxes. Estimates are the viewers receiving a subsidy will have to pay about $20 out of pocket toward the cost of a converter box.

The Feb. 17, 2009, shutoff date, a compromise between the House and Senate, was purely political. It was designed to appease viewers, coming after the Super Bowl, one of the year's major TV viewing events, and before the "March Madness" basketball tournaments.

Dropped from the final bill was a provision that would have allowed the cable television industry to downconvert all high-definition digital signals to standard definition for viewing by analog cable customers.

...

Also omitted from the legislation was any mention of two controversial broadcast issues: multichannel must carry and the broadcast flag copy protection system.

Source: Broadcast Engineering​


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

AMEN MY MAN!

I think that almost all of the problem could have been avoided if the government 
had mandated ATSC tuners sooner, so recent TV purchases would still function 
past the mandated cutoff date.

Rod[/QUOTE]


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

The money to pay for the subsidy came from the auctioning of channels 52-69


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

kb7oeb said:


> The money to pay for the subsidy came from the auctioning of channels 52-69


And if the money from the auction was not used for the subsidy were would it go?
You know, the general tax fund is still one pool of money. If you take it out at one end the whole pond still gets shallower and you have to put more in to keep it zero-sum.

You do relize that a "Tax Cut" is considered as an "expenditure" by Congress. Even what they don't have they think is theirs.

Bear!


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

WI0T said:


> As far using public funds, I've said before, the government mandate is removing the intented functionality of my property. Hence it is entirely appropriate that I am compenstated for it.


Can you run that by me again? You've already gone out and bought at least a set-top box (or your cable company is providing the digital sub-channels), and you want the gubmint to compensate you?

How's that again? I missed something somewhere along the way.


----------



## WI0T (Mar 15, 2006)

oldave said:


> Can you run that by me again? You've already gone out and bought at least a set-top box (or your cable company is providing the digital sub-channels), and you want the gubmint to compensate you?
> 
> How's that again? I missed something somewhere along the way.


I do NOT have a digital TV, DBS or cable, only analog OTA.

Here in St. Louis local channels 2, 4 & 5 put a radar map up of the area up
and interrrupt local OTA analog TV when there is a tornado warning in
the area. While this can be quite annoying during primetime, I understand
the value of it (especially when a cell with rotation is heading my way).

As far as school closing, 2, 4, & 5 run a scroll bar across the bottom of the
screen during the early morning shows (except for commercials...Hmmm...),
which since we get a fair amount of ice/sleet is something quite valuable. In
our school district they have a lot of two lane hilly roads the busses have to
navigate, so they will call school off when weather conditions put the busses
at risk.

I use these public services. So when the government mandate for HDTV takes 
affect and those frequencies I use are sold, I don't see a problem with me getting 
compensated (from the proceeds of the sale of those frequencies) for a set-top 
box to restore those public services I use.

Rod


----------



## johnsbin (Nov 14, 2002)

SaltiDawg said:


> I live between 11.9 miles and 12.2 miles to the two transmitting towers that carry the four main networks' digital signals for the Nation's Capitol. I am unable to receive a reliable signal using a directional rotor-controlled chimney mounted antenna at my story home. I have the detailed analysis performed by one of the local channels that essentially concludes I am SOL.


Wow! What is the conclusion on the cause of this problem? I live 25.5/.6/.8 miles from the WashDC towers and I pull in all the networks with an 80 plus with just a Terk indoor antenna.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

WI0T said:


> I do NOT have a digital TV, DBS or cable, only analog OTA.


That's what I missed... apologies for jumping to a conclusion.



WI0T said:


> I use these public services. So when the government mandate for HDTV takes affect and those frequencies I use are sold, I don't see a problem with me getting compensated (from the proceeds of the sale of those frequencies) for a set-top box to restore those public services I use.


And I respectfully submit that you know the change is coming, and it's *my* opinion that you should make sure you have whatever you need before that date, but I don't think the government should provide it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that...

If you go buy a new television (say the one(s) you have break down and cost more to fix than replace), the point will be moot - you'll likely purchase a replacement that has an ATSC tuner (and next year, that's almost a certainty).

I have a couple of sets that need to be replaced, but we're holding out for the integrated ATSC tuners before we do, for this very reason. I'll buy what's needed, and won't be asking anybody to pay for it for me.

This deceased equine has been suitably clobbered, I think, so I'll just agree to respectfully disagree with the opionions opposite mine


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

WI0T said:


> which since we get a fair amount of ice/sleet is something quite valuable. In
> our school district they have a lot of two lane hilly roads the busses have to
> navigate, so they will call school off when weather conditions put the busses
> at risk.
> Rod


Sounds strangely like the place {Berkshire Montains} I grew up in during the 50's. But we didn't have TV. How did we do it?? Oh yes. the radio. And even now they go thru the endless closing lists on radio. But we can't ask some one to listen to their radio for important information. We have to buy them a freaken converter. Good god man, you would have parished in the 50s.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

oldave said:


> That's what I missed... apologies for jumping to a conclusion.
> 
> Dave the fish hook is showing:lol:


----------



## WI0T (Mar 15, 2006)

bear paws said:


> Sounds strangely like the place {Berkshire Montains} I grew up in during the 50's. But we didn't have TV. How did we do it?? Oh yes. the radio. And even now they go thru the endless closing lists on radio. But we can't ask some one to listen to their radio for important information. We have to buy them a freaken converter. Good god man, you would have parished in the 50s.


When I grew up in Nebraska we used to listen to the radio (WJAG AM Norfolk)
because that who broadcast that information. Nowadays it's on the TV. KMOX and 
the other St. Louis radio stations are busy with traffic to read out the hundreds of 
schools that are closed/open late/whatever.

I doubt I would have *perished* in the 50's... I would have done what I did
in the 60's & 70s. Listen to the radio...Adapt...

However, looking for a radar map to determine if that cell with rotation is heading
your way would be a little tough via the radio...

I agree with olDave, we've beaten this horse to death and probably are going to
have to agree to disagree...

Cheers!

Rod


----------



## WI0T (Mar 15, 2006)

oldave said:


> That's what I missed... apologies for jumping to a conclusion.
> 
> And I respectfully submit that you know the change is coming, and it's *my* opinion that you should make sure you have whatever you need before that date, but I don't think the government should provide it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that...
> 
> ...


No apologies needed. I probably wasn't clear in my writings.

Any new/replacement TVs I get will at the ATSC tuners in them so I won't
have to deal with this issue. I only wish the ATSC tuners were mandated several
years ago. Then no one would be in this bind, and it wouldn't cost the 
government any money...

Cheers!

Rod


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

WI0T said:


> ...
> I use these public services. So when the government mandate for HDTV takes
> affect and those frequencies I use are sold, I don't see a problem with me getting
> compensated (from the proceeds of the sale of those frequencies) for a set-top
> box to restore those public services I use.


If you get "compensated" for that, shall Uncle Sam charge *you* for the increased safety that will decend on you due to the Emergency Services communication improvement associated with use of the freed up frequencies?

Why should my Tax money buy you anything. Sheesh.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Because politicians buy your vote with my money.

It doesn't matter what they "give" away as long as they produce.

Whether it is a highway, a dam, a senior citizens center or a "free DTV tuner", politicians have gotta produce (bring home the bacon) pork.

Until we stop asking for pork and demand responsibility, we will get pork.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

Good one Salti. 
The other thing some seem to not understand is that the government is us and it's money is ours. I can't seem to get that across. They act as if this "government" thing was some unlimited money machine giving us never ending aid. Its us and if you bankrupt us you may as well go live with the Ruskies. It will be the same leaky boat. "I got mine'' can only work just so long. "Sheesh"

Bear!


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

WI0T said:


> I only wish the ATSC tuners were mandated several
> years ago. Then no one would be in this bind, and it wouldn't cost the
> government any money...


Now that I'll agree with. If the mandate had been that all analog transmissions stopped by 2009, but all sets had to have ATSC tuners by 2005, it would have been better.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Similiarly when road work is done. When MODOT expands the roads, they
> compenstate you for the property damage or the property the take.


But that's physical property, airwaves aren't physical.

A friend of mine in a small town near Pennsylvania has a radar detector, the county is changing their Sheriffs department over from X band to K band. His detector is older and can only detect various lasers and X, should the county buy him in new radar detector, because the intended functionality of his property was disabled?

Technology needs to progress, being a cable TV fan, analog cable should get cut off completely and so should analog OTA. Screw granny who can't deal with a cable box or digital converter, the bandwidth by eliminating analog all together would be huge.


----------



## WI0T (Mar 15, 2006)

SaltiDawg said:


> If you get "compensated" for that, shall Uncle Sam charge *you* for the increased safety that will decend on you due to the Emergency Services communication improvement associated with use of the freed up frequencies?
> 
> Why should my Tax money by you anything. Sheesh.


Local governement does. It's called property taxes that will be increased to 
purchase the new equipment. :eek2:

It's highly speculative that my safety will increase with these frequencies.:nono2:


----------



## WI0T (Mar 15, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> But that's physical property, airwaves aren't physical.
> 
> A friend of mine in a small town near Pennsylvania has a radar detector, the county is changing their Sheriffs department over from X band to K band. His detector is older and can only detect various lasers and X, should the county buy him in new radar detector, because the intended functionality of his property was disabled?
> 
> Technology needs to progress, being a cable TV fan, analog cable should get cut off completely and so should analog OTA. Screw granny who can't deal with a cable box or digital converter, the bandwidth by eliminating analog all together would be huge.


True airwaves are not physical. My TV is.

Someday we may all be like granny who doesn't get new technology, or can't
afford the latest stuff. I myself hope not, but one never knows. I certainly hope
legislators and regulators show some compassion and understanding.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

I think the government should buy everyone new televisions, just as they bought everyone new cars when they mandated that gasoline be changed over from leaded to unleaded. I very much enjoyed the new car that they bought me back then.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

I guess there is silver lineing in everything.

I'M JUST THANKFULL I DON'T GET ALL THE GOVERNMENT I PAY FOR.

Bear!


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

WI0T said:


> ...
> 
> It's highly speculative that my safety will increase with these frequencies.:nono2:


Apparently "speculative" in *your* eyes. lol Whether the monies and effort will be focussed in the most cost-effective may be subject to debate, but to deny that changes to the communication situation that existed five years ago on 9-11 will not benefit you is burying your head in the sand.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The biggest issue with 9-11 communications is that the system was down. Not sure how moving into 700MHz systems will help ... users will have to build up the infrastructure to the level of an 800MHz cell carrier and not have sites go down during emergencies.


----------



## Mel Brennan (Aug 27, 2006)

bear paws said:


> Cuba is an option. Every thing is "free" there.:lol:
> Grow up, shave, get a hair cut, take a bath, and get a job and move out of your parents house. Nobody owes you anything just because you were born. Your missery is earned, not forced on you.


This is an amazing set of statements; they mae me register for the site such that I could offer a retort.

You...you do know that we - all of us - collectively own the airwaves, right? You don't have any questions or concerns that those airwaves were given away to corporate entities who also are not "owed anything because they were born," or incorporated? That the process by which such giveaways took place are largely unknown and unknowable to the vast majority of citizens the vast mahority of the time, and that you and i as a result now PAY these companies for the ostensible priviledges of their content distrbituion over spectra you and I own, all due to sets of decisions executed by a body that isn't even elected?

I might say that if you DON'T have a problem with that, then Cuba's the place for you.

I didn't take an oath and stand a post so that you or anybody else could look anti-democratic processes in the face and break breath tell the person making such crippled, failed expressions of our national values to "take a bath." You might consider washing in the cleansing agents of free thinking and commitment to democracy. Your thinking as articulated above is the diametric opposite of the thinking that GOT you the damn nation to begin with!

Cuba indeed. Now go ahead and tell us what you know about that nation. 

Or, we could diligently explore the ISSUES brought up by the post above, and not retreat into this space and place of disrespect and utterly foolish ignorance.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

Mel Brennan said:


> This is an amazing set of statements; they mae me register for the site such that I could offer a retort.
> I didn't take an oath and stand a post so that ---------------
> Cuba indeed. Now go ahead and tell us what you know about that nation.  .


"My goodness!'
First off welcome to our tea party. Glade I made your day.

The ''collectively owned air waves" we the people still own and govern thru ower laws.
The "give away" was and still is auctioned to these big mean corporations in some cases at a dear price. And well documented at that If one wanted to know. 
Other than PBS and NPR I know of no company that we pay for their "content distribution" but rather they pay us in the form of continuing licensing and corporate and personal taxes. Incidentally they also provide jobs, some "RATHER" well paid ones in some cases.

I too took a oath at Fort Belvour on the day JFK was assassinated and I proudly ''stood post'' from Fort Mead for the next 18 yrs., with rank The rest of the story I will leave to your superior "intelligence" to fill in.
Thus, among many other countries that a rabbit wouldn't go, Cuba is not a mystery to me, quit the contrary one might say.

Disrespect ?? You may have felt the sting more than the person to whom I originally intended that post, He never refuted it.

It Obvious that you either did not diligently read or understand all my posts here and else were.

Lastly for now, The free articulation of ideas is the corner stone of our nation and if you think censorship is the democratic process then Sir you may want to take look at Cuba also.

Sincerely Bear!


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

James Long said:


> The biggest issue with 9-11 communications is that the system was down. ...


You're simply mistaken. There have been numerous reports and documentories done on this subject. Also, many cities have since run drills which revealed wide spread lack of compatibility between, say, fire, police, rescue, state and local government.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

To be fair here... there is something of a misnomer about how the public airwaves are owned by the public...

Yes, we have a right to receive anything that is transmitted as long as it is not securely encrypted... BUT, try to put up your own high-powered transmitter in your back yard and broadcast your own TV signals on these "public airwaves" and see how long you get away with it.

The freedom only works on the reception end... and is "free" in large part simply because there is no way to prevent people from receiving unencrypted signals any more than it is possible to stop someone from breathing "your" air... so it is "free" rather than free.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SaltiDawg said:


> You're simply mistaken. There have been numerous reports and documentories done on this subject. Also, many cities have since run drills which revealed wide spread lack of compatibility between, say, fire, police, rescue, state and local government.


Much of the incompatabilty is being fixed now before the 700MHz bands are available. (Making one wonder why the bandwidth is needed.) Remeber, not being able to talk between departments is secondary when you can't even talk within your own department.

Incompatability was more of an issue during recovery and cleanup. Having a trunked 700MHz system doesn't help if the repeater tower isn't working. I don't believe anyone could honestly say having the proposed system would have made a difference five years ago in N.Y. or a year ago on N.O. - These new bands require repeater towers which gives EMS useless radios when (not if) a tower goes down or isn't close enough to an emergency to provide coverage.

Keep your direct frequencies. Handset to handset, radio to radio, without the magic of the invisible repeater managing the calls. A repeater that as a key link in the system could cause more problems than it ever solved.

And now, back to the topic - whatever that may be!


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> To be fair here... there is something of a misnomer about how the public airwaves are owned by the public...
> 
> Yes, we have a right to receive anything that is transmitted as long as it is not securely encrypted... BUT, try to put up your own high-powered transmitter in your back yard and broadcast your own TV signals on these "public airwaves" and see how long you get away with it.
> 
> The freedom only works on the reception end... and is "free" in large part simply because there is no way to prevent people from receiving unencrypted signals any more than it is possible to stop someone from breathing "your" air... so it is "free" rather than free.


I did it far years as Radio station K1LYU. {Short wave, TV, and Radar}, [even encrypted] in some cases up to 2000 watts, which some cases is more than commerrcial/"public" stations. My cost for the privalge was [1] American citizenship [not a cost but a honer] {2] $5 registration fee [waived if I showed hardship] and [3] Pass a test to show some expertise [so that I would not infringe on others rights to use the air waves by causeing unnessarry interferance to them] I "got away with it" for 30 years legally. I never communicated with a "legal'' HAM from behind the Iron curtain or Cuba for that fact. I call that "FREE". God bless america!!!

Bear!
.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Different airwaves plus you had a licence.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> Different airwaves plus you had a licence.


James;
You know this. The reason for the licence as I said earlier is to prevent cayous on the bands. and to fill the coffers  
Same "airwaves" just differant frequency. As a matter of fact some of the bands are adjacent to broadcast. like 160 meters and long band comes to mind. as some the "FMs. and micro bands.

There are a lot of one way stations like Radio Free America and W1AW. If you choose to broadcast and some one wants to listen/watch its there for your use.

Bear!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I realize that this thread has morphed through different subjects, but we need to remember that the forum is about, at the root, DBS and in particular E*. Not ham radio. Morphing into a 'conversion to DT' thread isn't a giant leap as there are a lot of issues in that conversion that affect DBS and E* in particular. We probably left the map a while ago when we got into spectrum issues but it has been a vibrant discussion without too many tangents (although the OP has not returned to post in the thread). At least we morphed from a subject that has been beaten to a pulp (low rez HD) to one that has not received a lot of coverage (HD conversion).

(For those interested, the original post can be found *here*.)

While much of this thread probably belongs in Potpourri it is a good discussion - as long as it comes back to the base topics of DBS and consumer television.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

James Long said:


> Much of the incompatabilty is being fixed now before the 700MHz bands are available. (Making one wonder why the bandwidth is needed.) Remeber, not being able to talk between departments is secondary when you can't even talk within your own department.
> 
> Incompatability was more of an issue during recovery and cleanup. Having a trunked 700MHz system doesn't help if the repeater tower isn't working. I don't believe anyone could honestly say having the proposed system would have made a difference five years ago in N.Y. or a year ago on N.O. - These new bands require repeater towers which gives EMS useless radios when (not if) a tower goes down or isn't close enough to an emergency to provide coverage.
> 
> ...


I think the additional bandwidth will be used more for data communication than voice communication. My local county seat would like to set up a WAN for police, public works and fire, but gets too much interference from other applications. The only available frequencies are multiple use.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

James Long said:


> Dropped from the final bill was a provision that would have allowed the cable television industry to downconvert all high-definition digital signals to standard definition for viewing by analog cable customers.
> ...
> 
> Also omitted from the legislation was any mention of two controversial broadcast issues: multichannel must carry and the broadcast flag copy protection system.
> ...


That brings up some interesting issues. Will satellite providers be allowed to continue to downconvert HD signals? If you own a dual tuner Dish DVR, like a 921, 942 or 622, you can watch HD programming on a SD set if you like. There is no need to upgrade your TV to access the programming material, albeit in less than perfect definition. I do video capture of HD programming using the S-Video output, and get a true 720x480 signal for burning to DVD. It's not HD, but it's darned close to commercial DVD quality. My understanding is that the new DRM standards only apply to HD signals, and I will be able to continue burning SD DVDs as long as I like.

If the cable providers are not allowed to downres like Dish, I bet they howl like banshees! I assume that many cable companies will convert programming to analog for distribution over their own wires. Maybe it was deleted because cable companies can do anything they want to do on their own system?

The only time I see cable content is when I travel, and check into a hotel with local cable. In many locations, cable is pretty pathetic. My home satellite system is far superior, even on the old analog set in the bedroom. TV owners aren't the only ones that will have to invest in new equipment! Some of those cable providers obviously haven't upgraded anything since the 1960s.

I also wonder if the digital->analog conversion boxes will downrez. It's a simple step from 480p to 480i. If they won't downrez, owners of the old analog sets will miss a growing percentage of programming content.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe the restriction (noted to be on cable providers - we will have to check to see if it applies to satellite) is the one E* wanted removed. E* wanted to be able to pick up an OTA local in any format and transmit its signal via satellite in SD instead of HD.

I doubt receiver box output is the issue being covered by the rule. I would be very suprised to read that it required all outputs of a box to be in HD. The ATSC defined HDTV Tuner does not require the outputs to be in HD to receive the HDTV Tuner label.

I suspect compression formats are also not part of this. In other words: nothing stopping a cable provider from using a compressed HD format such as 1280x1080i nor a required minimum bitrate.

We will have to find the legistation and read it to be sure on all of these issues (how it applies to satellite, if the receiver output is mandated and whether there are minimum bandwidth and restrictions on compression).


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

Larry Caldwell said:


> I also wonder if the digital->analog conversion boxes will downrez. It's a simple step from 480p to 480i. If they won't downrez, owners of the old analog sets will miss a growing percentage of programming content.


They do today... I don't have an HD set at all, but I do have a set-top box, and watch it on an SD set. Pretty pictures and all, at 480i, via component out or S-video out.


----------

