| Author |
Message |
Curtis
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 29 Sep 2001
Posts: 14903
Location: Wisconsin
|
 Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:18 am Digital Television Era Begins Soon |
|
Hey everyone how about this news. I just heard on the 10 o'clock news tonight that President Bush has just signed some bill that states within the next three years all television stations must get off the analog signal and transfer to the digital one. That means that anyone with an analog signaled television will either have to purchase a digital television or purchase a digital converter in order to recieve a signal.
So, what do you guys think of this? I myself think it will be better, because it means better picture quality and no crazy adjusting of "rabbit ears" on your televisions.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:26 am |
|
First of all, we have no TVs that have rabit ears, and the one in my room goes back to 1997...Is that analog or what?
Secondly, I am opposed to this. First of all, I don't think the government has any right to muddle into the affairs of an industry such as this, to force an industry to spend all this money to adapt to a new system. It's a rather facist thing, forcing a company to follow such standards.
What what about the people who can't afford new technologies? What about THEM?
This is one of those instances where I have to respectfully--yet wholeheartedly--disagree with the president.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:31 am |
|
^ Been a while since I've said this, RM, but you're right on.  Doing this is totally uncalled for. If a station can afford/wants to go digital, let it. If not, they shouldn't have to. And those of us who barely have the money to get cable, let alone digital converters it's just darn annoying. This is pretty stupid all and all.
|
|
|
Curtis
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 29 Sep 2001
Posts: 14903
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:35 am |
|
True, very true and even though I said I'm alright with this...I also have my opposing matters. For example R_M, the television in my parent's bedroom and my bedroom have "rabbit ears" and it is getting to the point where we can barely afford our cable. Also, we are one of those many whom currently can't afford these new technologies; however, for people like that, don't you think that they may start to make some of these technologies cheaper and easier to buy...like they did when transfering or whatever from A-Track to records or whatever came next?
Last edited by Curtis on Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:38 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:37 am |
|
Well, I'd figure you'd need cable anyways, so this hurts you in two ways, so I would figure you'd be opposed to it fully.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:38 am |
|
Eh...... It all depends, these TV's are alot more comon then you think. As for govermental interfearnce? I will agree that three years is a little soon though
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:41 am |
|
Yes, well, consider this. It's not a resolution that was signed by the President. It was a bill. And bills mean laws.
It's not like it's a goal or something--it's a LAW.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:32 am |
|
Question: I've been finding some other things related to this from '03...Do you recall, Captain, WHAT EXACTLY is going on with this, what the President's/FCC's rationale is, and the website of the station you watched this on? If you recall the latter, could you see if they have an article on it that might shed some more light?
I've been nasty towards our President tonight, and I'm curious as to whether or not that anger was more unfounded than anything--although I doubt that, no matter what, I'll be supportive of it--that is, if it's digital-only that is required. If it's digital and analogue, and only for new TVs, then that might be different...
I doubt that it's different from what you've told us, and what our impressions are, but if you could share more of what you can remember, that would be good.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:21 am |
|
The first analogue signals have already been shut off here. We're the last area to lose it, in 2010. Some places in the UK will no longer have analogue signals by the end of this year. It makes more sense here though, as a quarter of the population can't get the digital channels while the analogue signal is being transmitted.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:58 am |
|
Do a little research.
This decision was made years ago, and it's all part of the huge restructuring of the "airwaves" which has been going on since the mid-80's. As new technologies become available, the RF spectrum is (slowly and with too much political- and business- based interference) being re-allocated to make better use of it.
Physics dictates that certain "bands" of wavelengths are better suited for certain jobs. And we are (slowly) aligning the proper uses with the "bands". Digital TV will give better reception for some, but it will reduce the area a given transmitter will cover. The true future of "broadcast" TV is something close to current cell phone networks.
In the case of digital TV, part of the push is to have more channels in the same space, and more importantly, to allow some channels more "room" in order to give them better quality, while others get the opposite (something you cannot do with existing analog TV). It also opens the possibility of digital control over "copy protection". It's the broadcasters and content owners who want digital TV, and they're getting the government to do their dirty work for them.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:13 pm |
|
Actually, I heard the end of a report last night on Fox News that I infer was about this being signed into law saying that the broadcaster's AREN'T happy with this, so there you go.
This isn't something the government should be forcing upon the people and businesses. Not at all.
Captain, what was the report you saw on?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Curtis
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 29 Sep 2001
Posts: 14903
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:06 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Actually, I heard the end of a report last night on Fox News that I infer was about this being signed into law saying that the broadcaster's AREN'T happy with this, so there you go.
This isn't something the government should be forcing upon the people and businesses. Not at all.
Captain, what was the report you saw on? |
I only remember seeing it on the 10 o'clock broadcast of the channel 5 WFRV news, I am currently looking into and trying to find out more about it as you suggested.
|
|
|
Curtis
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 29 Sep 2001
Posts: 14903
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:02 am |
|
| Quote: | Digital TV Date Pushed to 2009
Senators consider hastening mandatory transition to digital broadcast signal.
Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Friday, October 21, 2005
WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee has taken the first step toward forcing television stations to end analog broadcasts, so the vacated spectrum can be used for new commercial wireless service and for public safety agencies.
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Thursday approved a bill to set April 7, 2009, as the date that all U.S. TV stations must move to digital broadcasts and vacate the upper 700MHz radio frequency spectrum. The committee voted down an amendment, offered by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) to move the digital television (DTV) transition deadline to April 7, 2007.
The full Senate will still need to approve the DTV transition bill. A House committee is expected to take up its own DTV transition bill as early as next week.
Rationale for Dates
McCain and other supporters of a 2007 date argued that an earlier date could save lives in emergencies by getting the powerful spectrum into the hands of public safety agencies more quickly. But committee chairman Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, urged the committee to reject McCain's amendment, saying an earlier date could reduce the amount of money the government expects to raise in commercial auctions for the part of the spectrum not targeted toward emergency responders.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the auctions will bring in $10 billion, and a separate congressional budget resolution has targeted at least $4.8 billion of that money toward the U.S. general treasury. The committee's bill has the auctions beginning in January 2008, but an auction scheduled earlier could result in lower bids, the CBO has said.
Stevens reminded committee members that Senate rules require the committee stick to the budget resolution and set aside at least $4.8 billion for the general fund, but Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) suggested the CBO may have underestimated the amount the auctions will raise.
Kerry noted that some estimates have the spectrum auctions raising $20 billion or more. Saving lives during terrorist attacks or natural disasters should be a higher priority than budget rules, Kerry said.
"It doesn't make sense for me to have budget policy ... take precedence over homeland security," said Kerry, who supported the McCain amendment.
Emergency Spectrum Wanted
Following the September 11, 2001, terrorists attacks on the U.S., the national 9/11 Commission recommended that police, firefighters, and other emergency responders should have additional radio spectrum where multiple emergency response agencies can communicate with each other. In many cases, the multiple emergency response agencies responding to the September 11 attacks couldn't communicate with each other because their radios operated on different spectrum bands.
The upper 700MHz spectrum allows for a stronger signal than many other spectrum bands, with each wireless tower covering about twice as large an area as a tower transmitting in the 1900MHz band, where many cell phones operate, according to backers of a DTV transition. That makes the 700MHz better for long-range data services such as WiMax and for rural broadband services, when part of the upper 700MHz spectrum is auctioned off for commercial uses.
Under current law, broadcasters are required to give up their analog spectrum by the end of 2006, but only in television markets where 85 percent of homes can receive digital signals.
In December 1997, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted to reallocate some frequencies in the 700MHz band to public safety and new commercial uses, in exchange for the digital spectrum TV stations received. Most television markets would never reach the 85 percent digital threshold now in law without a hard DTV deadline, say critics, including McCain.
TV viewers with cable television service will not be affected by the DTV transition, because cable TV service can convert digital signals to work with analog sets. But at least 80 million television sets in the U.S. currently receive analog over-the-air signals, according to a survey released in June by Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America.
Alerting Consumers
The committee bill doesn't include funding for a consumer education program on the DTV transition, and the Senate will have to pass legislation to provide education funding, said Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida). "Most of the consumers have no idea how this transition is going to work," Nelson said. "Most consumers have no idea their TVs will go dark."
The commerce committee's bill sets a hard deadline and allocates $3 billion of the expected $10 billion in auction revenues toward subsidies for television viewers with analog TV sets to buy converter boxes. The committee bill raised the amount going to the general treasury from $4.8 billion to $5 billion, with the rest of the money going to a variety of programs, including nearly $1.3 billion for emergency communications. The committee approved a bill to provide up to $75 million of the auction funds to the government's essential air service program, which funds airline service to rural communities.
After McCain's objections to the 2009 transition deadline, Stevens said he plans to introduce an amendment on the Senate floor that would rush the funding for emergency communications.
Many technology companies have pushed for a DTV hard date. IT companies including IBM, Microsoft, and Intel are members of the High Tech DTV Coalition, which has pushed for Congress to set a deadline.
Motorola said Thursday that a hard date was required to make "much-needed" improvements to the emergency communications infrastructure.
"Americans know well that disasters can strike at any moment," said Bill Anaya, the company's senior director of congressional operations, in a statement. "First responders deserve the best advanced, interoperable communications tools so they can protect our hometowns." |
This is the best article I could find on the subject after coming up with nothing at wfrv.com, and instead "googling" the topic. Perhaps this can shed some more light on it and if not, feel free to post any research any of you have done on the matter in order for all of us to better understand it as R_M stated and suggested.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:07 am |
|
Ah, so it's 2009. Well, that's better, giving more room, but I still don't think it right that we're forcing people and businesses to have to go this route. It should happen naturally, not by force.
Next are they going to make broadband the only allowed kind of internet, illegalizing dialup?
Hypocricy here, such as Bush signing this into law yet saying, in his state of the union speech, that we're "addicted to oil," and yet he doesn't force all car companies to produce hybridgs.
Now, I'm not for that, mind you, but it's soooo intriguing how we can do that and yet not this, when the President said what he said and we actually have an energy crisis and all that...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:58 am |
|
| Quote: | Digital TV Date Pushed to 2009
Emergency Spectrum Wanted
Following the September 11, 2001, terrorists attacks on the U.S., the national 9/11 Commission recommended that police, firefighters, and other emergency responders should have additional radio spectrum where multiple emergency response agencies can communicate with each other. In many cases, the multiple emergency response agencies responding to the September 11 attacks couldn't communicate with each other because their radios operated on different spectrum bands.
The upper 700MHz spectrum allows for a stronger signal than many other spectrum bands, with each wireless tower covering about twice as large an area as a tower transmitting in the 1900MHz band, where many cell phones operate, according to backers of a DTV transition. That makes the 700MHz better for long-range data services such as WiMax and for rural broadband services, when part of the upper 700MHz spectrum is auctioned off for commercial uses.
Under current law, broadcasters are required to give up their analog spectrum by the end of 2006, but only in television markets where 85 percent of homes can receive digital signals.
In December 1997, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted to reallocate some frequencies in the 700MHz band to public safety and new commercial uses, in exchange for the digital spectrum TV stations received. Most television markets would never reach the 85 percent digital threshold now in law without a hard DTV deadline, say critics, including McCain.
Many technology companies have pushed for a DTV hard date. IT companies including IBM, Microsoft, and Intel are members of the High Tech DTV Coalition, which has pushed for Congress to set a deadline.
Motorola said Thursday that a hard date was required to make "much-needed" improvements to the emergency communications infrastructure.
|
Like I said, there is an overall push to better use the existing bandwidth, because there's only so much to go around, and different "bands" do different jobs best.
And it's the businesses who want this, not so much the government.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
