I should oughta have known; "Why is the TV broadcasting standard changing from analog to digital?"

[The Doctor.]

It didn't hit me until tonight; Someone was going to get to use a lot more of the public airwaves by literally eliminating all analog TV broadcasts.

Why is the TV broadcasting standard changing from analog to digital?
Congress passed legislation, beginning in 1996, mandating the change from analog to digital TV broadcasts.

The switch to digital TV promises several benefits:

• Viewers should notice improvements in picture and sound quality, particularly in the case of high-definition (HDTV) broadcasts. (To get the full effect, you’ll need a high-definition set, and the broadcaster and, if applicable, cable or satellite provider must provide a high-definition signal.)

• Digital transmissions make more efficient use of the broadcast spectrum, leaving more of the airwaves available for additional channels or interactive data services.

• When analog TV broadcasts end, broadcasters will return those frequencies to the federal government. Some have been pre-allocated to public-safety uses, including communications systems for police and fire departments. The government is likely to auction off much of the rest to wireless companies and others for commercial uses.

http://dtvfacts.com/56/why-is-the-tv-broadcasting-standard-changing-from-analog-to-digital/

Well, aside from the particularly pointed 'emphases mine', and although I'm glad we're 'reallocating the airwaves' (exactly 84 hours before inauguration) so that they can be used more efficiently, I just can't help but think someone is getting more out of this than we realize.

Some of my friends and clients expressed near panic over having to get a "digital ready" TV. My response;

"But... you already have cable."


I just think it's interesting how I've seen no, well, russet flags over this. I'm sure it's small... but someone is getting something... more control of the airwaves.

Somehow, I don't think they'll really be obsolete on twenty-one January.


I'm sure it's nothing tho...




{oe} dang slashes!

[ben_meyers]

1. I don't know why the change

but I'm still po'd about the switch from 8-track to cassette, I think it was a conspiracy!

[The Doctor.]

7. I am absolutely certain you are correct!

Those 8-tracks sounded great!

And now... someone... somewhere is putting them all to use for utterly nefarious purposes!

[orleans]

8. the beta to vhs was definitely a conspiracy. n/t

[AndyTiedye]

34. I Still Have a Betamax and a Few Hundred Betamax Tapes

[orleans]

42. omg! and the player still works? wow. how are the tapes?

i have an old beta tape or two with family pictures on them. i really should get it transfered.

[AndyTiedye]

59. Had to Get the Betamax Repaired a Couple of Years Ago

[otohara]

81. As Someone Who Worked @ Peaches in the Late 70's

I can tell you we cheered when 8 tracks went bye, bye! Those things were always breaking, customers would bring them back not long after just buying one. Return policies didn't allow us to take back broken tapes - plus, in comparison to cassettes, 8-tracks never really did catch on.

The true conspiracy was when CD's came out and the greedy record companies charged full price on analog titles for years. Making customers who already purchased a title on vinyl at full price, then paid for a blank cassette tape so they could have said LP in their car and then again when CD's came out.

[Solon]

2. One of the reasons is to close the "analog hole" to reduce our fair use rights...

in this country. This combined with the DMCA, which makes it illegal to modify devices to circumvent copy protection, even in legitimate circumstances, allows the media companies absolute control over all content produced or distributed by them, even to the point of forbidding format shifting and other legitimate means of copying.

Analog signals cannot effectively carry encryption algorithms, cruder and mostly ineffective methods were used, now that Analog is being done away with, DRM takes over, and it is much harder(and illegal) to break, even if for perfectly legitimate purposes.

[anigbrowl]

5. It's not that hard to break :-)

I wouldn't worry too much about the DRM angle. If there's a conspiracy, it's mainly one of television engineers. People seem to be skipping over the fact that consumers get a much higher quality viewing experience out of it. Video geeks like me care about such things.

[Solon]

6. Who said anything about conspiracy? Its only a conspiracy when its secret...

None of the media companies have bothered making it a secret, and the threat of legal repercussions is real, the author of DeCSS was sued and prosecuted, even though he didn't break any copyrights himself, and people use his algorithm for legitimate purposes everyday. Another example would be Decrypter, it is a program that decrypted DVDs, company who made it was shut down because it circumvented copyright protection schemes of those DVDs.

Besides that, there are other annoyances that affect regular customers as well, my grandmother was shocked when she found out she couldn't record her favorite shows on DVD, using the recorder she bought, off of digital cable, because of DRM. Something she's done in the past with VCRs is now forbidden with newer digital mediums. In fact, I'm going to go over there and break federal law just so she can actually get the full use out of her DVD recorder.

The fact that I have to do this at all is simply unacceptable, and don't get me started on finicky connections and signals that are weak and don't go through.

[aquart]

18. What about those of us who were fine with more channels, less quality?

I don't have cable. I can get WNJN kinda fuzzy but the sound is perfect. Good enough for Lovejoy and the Britcoms. But digital doesn't allow fuzzy signals. When the cutoff comes, my converter will still give me analog quality on my analog sets, but it won't give me my fuzzy WNJN.

So I lose.

Sponsors are going to wake up the day after and realize they've lost millions of viewers.

[anigbrowl]

27. Same thing that happened people who preferred LPs to CDs

You'll have to adapt at some point. I imagine markets will spring up to satisfy the needs of people who feel they aren't served by digital TV. But most people would like to move on. It'll give you a better argument for fast cheap internet, something the US is lagging behind in.

[aquart]

32. People can still play LPs.

And frequently do.

Can you say the same for those of us with analog TVs?

[anigbrowl]

35. You can still play DVDs and videos, yes.

Fact is that that vinyl these days is mainly the preserve of DJs, and even there it's dying out as most music has gone digital. For that matter, it's harder to find movies on VHS than it used to be because most people have DVD players by now.

[onenote]

73. how many new LPs have you bought lately?

You can play your old ones. Not so easy to get new ones.

[kskiska]

37. You forgot cassette tapes

Vinyl is preferred by some people with all its pops and imperfections. I sort of like the way records used to be produced, choosing the best take in its entirety. The newer stuff is too sterile.

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. Wrong -- people still play and produce LPs.

Of course, you won't find LPs in Wal-Mart if that's what you're looking for. But vinyl fans do not "have to adapt" as you claim. Nor is that what the "free market of choice" is supposed to be about -- unless you mean the oligopoly model of planned obsolescence and targeted buying patterns.

[Occulus]

60. This isn't really about adapting to new technology

Free market idealism (if enough people don't like DRM, it'll go away because nobody will buy it), regarding copyright concerns, has already been proven wrong in music, movies, and PC/console (ESPECIALLY console!) games. Try getting a game for a Playstation or Xbox that can be copied freely even one single time for archival purposes. You need a PC, a DVD burner, and a willingness to both read a lot of 'dark tips' online AND spend a lot of time looking for the right software to do the job, especially if that's something you're not used to doing. Some PC publishers intentionally have no protection for that very reason, such as the ones who did Galactic Civilizations 2, Sins of a Solar Empire, and Oblivion (all three of which were huge hits), but I can't think of any popular movies and only a few record labels who say "go ahead and copy it, we won't try to stop you".

One very famous flop in copy protection was something Sony did. It spent millions of dollars creating a system that placed a bogus audio track- essentially, data- prior to the first audio track on the disc. When one tried to rip it, all you got was a coaster, because of the bogus data track. However, this track physically resides on the outside edge of the disc. Thus, a multimillion dollar DRM copy-denial scheme was defeated by the lowly $.59 felt-tip marker.

Sony is also involved in another very famous flop, and in this one, someone at Sony ought to be held criminally liable. In an effort to combat piracy, Sony placed rootkit software on some of its music CDs, software which, when the CD was played, installed without notifying the user and hid itself so it couldn't be easily found (which are common malware/trojan tactics, by the way). This software caused users' computers to crash, as well as opened gigantic security holes in the systems of anyone who tried to play the CD (even a new, legally purchased, legitimate copy), as other malware could 'piggyback' on the Sony rootkit. They denied it to begin with, but then proved their own guilt by releasing an uninstall application. However, that used an ActiveX control which itself opened up even larger security holes. Sony was subsequently forced to recall several million CDs, its share value at the time suffered, and its reputation thereafter was seriously harmed. The lesson to us consumers, of course, is do not ever under any circumstances buy music that has the Sony BMG logo or name anywhere on it, but innocent, legal owners were still seriously harmed, and many of their cases are still in litigation.

It's just gotten a whole lot worse for those of us who simply want to record off our TVs. Now, they'll be able to give or revoke permission at will, and it's a crime to stop them from letting us use the hardware we spent our ever-devaluing dollars on to the full extent of its capability. The fact these companies can now do this almost certainly means every last one of them will to create the corporate perception at the board meetings that their profits- all of which, when discussing this issue, are in the future, and not yet realized in the first place- are somehow protected.

Boil it down: they're "protecting" their "right" to money they haven't yet earned by forbidding your right to record "Guiding Light". That's what this all means, and if you watch television, following this switch, you'll have no "other option". You won't be able to "wait for it to be on TV" any more. You might only get to watch that movie again, but not save it for later. That's just flat unacceptable.

The only way there can be "other markets" is for huge numbers of the public to go out and get broadcast licenses and organize and state on the air that all programs are recordable and then do it. They would have to attract content, get advertisers, and... oh, wait. That's called a television network. It has a board of directors and shareholders and creditors, who are all telling the company to protect the profits "or else" (think Ford getting sued by his shareholders). In that sense, it may be that any company broadcasting on television could be seen to be legally bound to enact shareholder-positive DRM schemes limiting the viewers' copying, saving, and replaying ability, or be sued.

This, in the name of 'profit protection', capitalism run mad. In that sense, the mandated switch is a bad thing, and it has nothing at all to do with the technology itself. Personally, I'm looking forward to having digital television- but I wonder if, after I get the TV card for my PC, I'll be able or allowed to record episodes of Galactica- which will be one intent behind my purchase.

I watch very little television- my bigscreen is, primarily, my PC monitor- but the TV I do watch, I want to keep for later. I work until midnight; I miss primetime completely. I need to be able to record shows for later, but if I can't get rid of the commercials with an editor and then save it off, or if I can't save it to the hard drive at all (gotta protect TiVO, you know), it seriously diminishes the use I get from the hardware I bought. Again, this issue has nothing at all to do with getting rid of the "old stuff" like 8-tracks or whatnot, and everything to do with revoking use rights from independently purchased equipment and software.

There will be no other television market. This is it, by design.

[anigbrowl]

3. Well, the government does get to hold another auction, but on the other hand HDTV looks better

This has been int he works for years, since the Clinton administration in fact. And if you work with video as I do, once you've used HD you really don't want to go back to standard definition. Here's why:



'Normal TV' is the red rectangle in the lower left.

[DCKit]

12. Yes, it does look better.

But why do so many people buy the big screens, claiming they want the theater experience, then move their furniture to the other end of the room? I know several people who have done this, and the average distance from the couch to the screen is about 15'. What's the point?

Personally, I'm just as happy watching movies in letterbox format on my sixteen year old, 27" analog set. However, that doesn't mean I'm not at the SO's, at every opportunity, watching them in 50", full-screen HD either.

Until I have to replace my TV, the one-time investment in a converter box and HDTV antenna ($80) and a Netflix subscription ($17/mo.) will get me through just fine.

[anigbrowl]

29. I don't know why people do that

We have a fairly big screen that we got in a sale, and the couch is maybe 8 feet away (our house is small). It has the bonus that sometimes I can work on the couch because the image is clear enough for me to work off the computer and browse research documents on the couch instead of an office chair. I don't care about the 'cinema experience' so much, I just like a good quality image.

[Occulus]

82. Funny things can happen, visually, if you're too close to a big screen

The optimal range for viewing is a multiple of the diagonal of the screen. A 50" TV might have an optimal viewing range of 8'-10', for example. Mine's about seven feet away, and that's too close for regular television; the distortion of the picture quality becomes obvious (the TV I have scales the image size overall and stretches on demand for viewing video filmed in a 4:3 aspect ratio- that of a regular TV- to the widescreen 16: 9).

Of course, if you're viewing content filmed in 1080i (or even better, 1080p), the picture is sharp sharp sharp and how close you are becomes a feature instead of a liability. :)

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. So that justifies billion dollars sale of the public airwaves and removal of the public resource

Notion that anything over the airwaves is a public resource will cease to exist.

This is the privatization and firesale of the airwaves.

And a tool to force all americans to pay for television, as the Cable ads make CRYSTAL CLEAR.

"You can still keep your analog box if you want, but Cable consumers will NOT be affected...
get answers and BUY CABLE LIKE A NORMAL AMERICAN!"

When Clinton did this the civil libertarians and good government types were ALL over this
but ordinary dems don't give a shit, witness the laughing responses you get here. Most DUers
are political junkies who refuse to survive without cable or digital pay TV anyway. They will
continue to get their thinking from what they hear on TV just as DU only talks about what is
on TV even to argue with "the propaganda" while they ignore the issues that over the air
broadcasters will no longer have a public obligation to talk about, now that it has been
made a private resource.

When Clinton did this he legislated the destruction of all opposition to a
billion dollar corporate owned media-cracy. Who promptly used it against Dems, btw.
but only to propagandize against the "liberals" and poor folks that Clinton himself hated.
He was perfectly at peace with the idea of a Bush interregnum.

[anigbrowl]

28. The airwaves were already privatized

It's comments like this that make me shake my head. The legal environment is really not changing, it's just a new technological standard. And this has been in the works for years and years. As I said above, the only conspiracy here is one of TV engineers.

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. The airwaves have always been public domain.

It's theorists like your favored politicians that are creating the problem by justifying multi-billion dollar giveaways that were rightly denounced by those on the left who predicted exactly what the big five conglomerates would do with the power Clinton gave them -- destroy the left in ten years. Even Obama is running as essentially a Reagan figure for the new millennium.

[onenote]

74. and they still are. That doesn't change

In terms of broadcasters, they aren't purchasing the spectrum. They are trading the analog spectrum that was licensed to them for different spectrum that they will use to transmit programming in a digital format. The conditions for holding the license -- a term of years, certain (albeit limited) public interest obligations, are basically the same. It is true that broadcasters rarely lose their licenses, but that's been the case forever and to the extent that their public interest obligations have been weakened and their license terms extended, that occurred long before, and independent of, the digital transition.

The spectrum that is being auctioned will be used for wireless services and by first responders. And its use will be subject to conditions -- the licensees will not "own" the spectrum -- what they are purchasing is, in effect, a lease that gives them the right to use the spectrum for certain types of purposes subject to regulation.

[RC]

20. Crappy, mindless programing is crappy, mindless programing no matter what the resolution.

That's the area that needs to be addressed, programing.

[onenote]

75. and how should be addressed? Please don't say the government should do it.

Some of us still believe in the First Amendment.

[AndyTiedye]

4. Fringe Areas Will Lose All Over-the-Air Reception

Buying a digital converter or even a digital TV won't help if the signals are all too weak.
All the digital channels are UHF, which is much shorter-range than VHF, and with digital,
either you get a perfect signal or nothing. If you got a snowy picture before, you get nothing.

[The Doctor.]

9. That would be the reason for the cable?

If it comes through cable, it gets a boost by virtue of the wonderfully conductive environment the cable provides. (unless damaged)

If you're talking strictly analog, then sure... the set won't pick up much at all.

Did I miss something?

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. Uh, not FORCING PEOPLE to buy cable?

[The Doctor.]

40. Oh yeah... there is that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

45. Well, it probably will, because selling off the public trust in the airwaves

Which have been under new deal-era licenses, will enable them to encrypt digital TV in order to make broadcast television subscriber-based. Judging by the cable model, it will consist of five channels of NBC, five channels of CBS, etc. with rotating identical programming around the clock.

[Michigan-Arizona]

14. Digital Cable

I have digital cable & I'm somewhere between 20 & 30 time's of having repair people here trying to make it so I don't have a picture full of broken sound & pixel's. I had cable year's ago & never had this problem. If this is what digital is they can keep it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. The idea some seem to have is that everyone should have cable.

Thus eliminating broadcast altogether by digitizing the channels, eliminating network television
and the public use of the publically owned airwaves idea. The Networks have already eviscerated
their programming to compel folks to purchase cable by eliminating choice on the existing airwaves.

[onenote]

22. well, I work with folks in the cable industry and I've never heard that view expressed

In fact, the cable industry's marketing in the face of the transition has been pretty restrained. If anything, the satellite companies have been more aggressive in promoting the transition as a reason to sign up for their services.

[aquart]

19. Gonna be a big cultural shift.

Especially since it's happening when we can barely afford food or gas. A fancy TV might have been in the budget before, but not now.

This idiotic legislation was signed during prosperity.

Well, they can decide if they want us to watch or they're fine if we don't.

[onenote]

23. why?

what sort of "cultural" shift is going to occur. For most people, the transition will be a non-event because most people subscribe to either cable or satellite. For those who don't, the shift will be that either they'll sign up for cable or satellite, or they'll get the necessary equipment to continue to receive over the air television. There may be some initial problems, and there will be a fair amount of complaining from those who suffer from those problems, but there is no reason to think that most of the "problem" situations can be resolved.

So, again, what is the nature of the "cultural" shift that will occur?

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. "Most people" in this country believe "everyone I know does have cable and the rest SHOULD."

That seems to be the attitude around here. That's how television-oriented Americans have become.

It is a requirement for being considered respectable, like homeownership and car ownership.

Anyone who is not a homeowner and can't afford either (a) cable or (b) a car is considered
eccentric at best, a member of the underclass at worst.

[aquart]

61. That's me. Permanent underclass.

Not worth considering as human.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

86. There are lots of us. Join the club.

I haven't had cable since 1988 and drive a 15 year old car. See my post below about "put up a big antenna on your roof".

If I want to see Olbermann, or Stewart, I'll watch it on Youtube.

[onenote]

69. well, if that is in fact the current state of things, where is the "shift"?

[aquart]

62. Have you checked the broadcast vs cable audiences?

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. Most DUers will go right on watching cable as if nothing had happened. All DU ever talks about

is what's on cable. Want to keep a discussion going on DU, regardless how important the subject? Keep Howard Beale
- er - Olbermann & co. talking about it and DU will continue to talk about it because it's obviously still important.

Otherwise forget it because "I may still care but it's dropped off my TV screen - er - radar screen right now."

[defendandprotect]

56. It should be stopped and we should all be pressuring Congress to stop it !!!

[onenote]

68. uh, no.

[anigbrowl]

30. You know, you can do like the uros and put the antenna in your attic

instead of the rabbit ears type thing.

[AndyTiedye]

33. Got a Great Big One On the Roof. It's Not Enough

I guess it's time to put up a tower.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

85. Put up a great big antenna on your roof.

Analog TV signals and FM are straight line, according to my resident electronics expert.
I got the analog converter boxes.


I haven't had cable since 1988, when my ex-hubby got it ripped out to "punish" me, ha ha. He was the one that came home and sprawled on the couch and watched cop shows full of screeching tires and sirens. I had been working at the courthouse all day, slaving over a hot district court, so I didn't want to watch any lawyer shows or cop shows. I got that on the reality channel called "work".


I drive a 15 year old car too. Wanna make something out of it???

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. Yes, Clinton did this as a multi-billion giveaway to the telecoms he put in power. I thot DUers knew

And it also allows free TV to become pay TV, which American sheeple are so used to anyway -- 500 channels of nothing, pre-paid, no requirement to compete for viewers, no common shared communication, 500 channels of broadcast propaganda and suppression of dissent.

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. This is about commoditization of the airwaves. Broadcasts will be encrypted like cell phone service.

And available on demand, for pay, with no public use obligations or fair use standard, just like cable.

They are essentially selling off the airwaves.

Cable gets a cut because they can force all those consumers with analog TVs to buy cable on the grounds
they'll have to pay for something.

And it's a massive giveaway to force Americans to buy oil-built planned-obsolescent merchandise, in this
case flat screen DTVs made in China, which our economy is built around. We love planned obsolescence and
forcing consumers to do the bidding of major corporations. We are good consumers and dislike choice!

[anigbrowl]

31. Hello! the government has ALWAYS sold broadcast licenses!

The airwaves were already commoditized. What do you think all those adverts are paying for, the electricity to run the transmitter? License fees make up a big part of any tv company's overhead. That's why there was an explosion o small-scale TV when cable became widely available, it democratized TV production because you didn't need to pay huge fees to get your own channel any more. I really think you ought to read up on the TV market and how it works before you go sounding off with arguments like this. No offense, but it sounds just as silly as the arguments against the new lightbulbs being 'forced' on us by RWers who don't like the idea of giving up incandescent bulbs.

[Leopolds Ghost]

48. Oh, I see, so you actually are a big fan of cable and think it is the best form of media out there.

You are wrong. The airwaves are public domain, not private.

It's folks like you who think the big conglomerates are entitled to their broadcast license no matter what they do.

Explosion of small scale TV my ass. You realize there is no public obligation or fairness doctrine in cable. It is
a completely privatized propaganda service. designed to sell you shit that is scheduled to break down. The laws are
in place to force late adopters to comply with your "free market" advertising racket.

[datasuspect]

79. the government has always sold broadcast licenses

but it was highly regulated to ensure that no small handful of companies could acquire too many licenses in multiple geographical areas.

it ensured healthy media competition and free flow of ideas, not monopolization and centralized propaganda dissemination.

[ColbertWatcher]

17. It could be the move toward all-satellite everything...

...which does two things:

1, makes it easier to end local content faster

and

2. prices smaller companies/individuals out of the TV business.

I don't know the laws regulating satellite TV, or satellite radio, or satellite phone service or satellite internets service, but I am certain it is not as well-defined as any of the land-based technologies.

I am also certain that whatever new regulations are dreamed up for satellite stuff will be more industry-friendly, since they will be shepherding it from the ground up.

I think it is ridiculous to think that an improvement in picture and sound is being done for the benefit of the few HUGE telecoms at the of any small and/or local independents.

[onenote]

21. Let's clear up a few things

First, if the transition is occurring 84 hours before inauguration day, they must have moved inauguration day, which still takes place in January, not February. So let's start with the assumption that your grasp of the facts is not complete.

Second, one of the benefits of the transition is to free up spectrum for first responders. One of the lessons of Katrina (and 9/11) is that emergency personnel have a difficult time communicating with each other because of interoperability and spectrum coordination issues.

Third, the commercial spectrum isn't being given away, its being auctioned US Treasury, with the money going into the US Treasury, which could definitely use it. You use the Internet, obviously. Well, the commercial wireless uses to which the spectrum is going to be put will enable all sorts of new Internet-enabled applications. We are moving towards a world in which you don't have to be tethered to your computer to communicate, surf the net, send instructions to devices within your home to activate them, etc etc. Maybe you see technological development as a bad thing. I don't.

As for "forcing" people to move to cable -- well, first of all, there also are two satellite television providers out there, so its not as if you don't have a choice. As for how big a problem it will be to receive the over the air signals that you now get? Hard for anyone to be certain. There may be instances where its a problem. But many stations are not yet broadcasting their digital signals in full power and thus the full coverage area, and what reception will be like with a set of "rabbit ears" (or a rooftop antenna, which many who don't have cable or satellite still use).

The sky isn't falling. Its not a conspiracy. And the benefits, in the long run, probably outweigh the downsides.

[pimpbot]

24. Wow! Finally a response in this thread filled with FACTS!

For those of you with analog only tv's, there is a coupon program here: https://www.dtv2009.gov, where you can apply for a coupon towards buying a digital to analog converter box. Total out of pocket expense will probably be around $5-10. Right now all digital broadcast signals are UHF, but once the transition happens, stations are given the option to either keep their analog frequency, or their digital frequency. Some will keep their analog frequency and end up broadcasting digitally on a VHF frequency. In most cases, you will end up receiving more channels than you currently do because the tuners and elecronics in the box are more advanced. The one downside to a digital broadcast is that there is no inbetween. You either get it or dont. No fuzzy ghosty picture. However I've seen cases where I can only get the analog station with a weak, fuzzy picture, yet the digital version comes in fine.

No, the sky is not falling, and those of us with fancy hdtv's love the FREE HD content we can get from broadcast tv, instead of paying cable or satellite for it.

[The Doctor.]

41. Crazy Eddy from Discount Eddy's? Is that you?

:silly:

[LeftyMom]

66. When my Dad got his HD set, we were surprised to see how many over-the-air channels he gets.

Analog over-the-air reception there is crap, even when he had the ginormous aerial on the roof. He pulls in beautiful picture on more stations with plain rabbit ears than he had ever got before.

He's got cable, because he's a sports nut and a lot of games are cable only, but we checked that out while we were waiting for them to show up and were pleasantly surprised.

I'd compare at my location as well, but I don't have an analog tv lying around.

[The Doctor.]

39. LMAO!

One; "DUH!" I jut blew my timeline.

Two; This is in no way serious. It was just one of those 'cui bono?' moments.

If I had the right smiley... ah, here we go;

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. It's very serious. I am shocked at the number of cable flacks on here praising the telecom bill.

It was the most massive privatization of the airwaves ever, as accounted for in every major left publication in
1997-1998. See, the Internet existed then. So did broadcast TV, which you guys seem so eager to dispense with
in an effort to make everyone a paid consumer of the big telecom giants. Fuck the cable shills. Anyone on DU
who thinks cable has been healthy for the public discourse needs to do a self-check on the origin and fate of
90% of threads on DU.

[The Doctor.]

67. Uhhh... "You Guys"?

Since when did I say I was any kind of fan of this?

Please.

[onenote]

70. The Telcom Bill has many many provisions in it,. DTV is the least of them

If ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy camper.

The DTV transition's origins date back to the formation of the Advanced Television Systems Committee in 1982. The FCC formed its first Advisory Committee on Advanced Television in 1987 and began a series of proceedings to look into the issues surrounding high definition and digital television. The 1996 Telecom Act contained one section dealing with DTV (out of an Act of more than 100 pages) and all it did was provide that "if the FCC determines to issue additional licenses for advanced television services" those licenses should initially be issued to existing broadcast licensees who would be required to turn back in their analog station licenses as a condition for getting a dtv license. Note the word "if" -- it wasn't a mandate.

It was separate legislation, first in 1997 and then in 2005 that ultimately led to the current Feb 17, 2009 deadline for the transition to be completed.

The Telecom Act of 1996 has some bad provisions in it, particularly regarding cross and multiple ownership of broadcast stations (radio and television). It also has some good provisions in it, such as those relating to closed captioning and video description for the hearing and sight disabled communities. It also opened the door for telephone companies to provide video services in competition with cable and satellite and created an environment that was supposed to lead to more competition in voice service -- something that the FCC screwed up in its implementing rules, with more than a little help from the incumbent telephone giants. In general, anyone blindly calling for "repeal" of the 1996 Act, without specifying which provisions they want repealed probably hasn't actually taken the time to read the Act.

As for cable not being healthy for public discourse, maybe you thought the world was perfect when people generally had four choices for television programming: ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS (and not everyone got all four); when network news was 15 minutes long (which it was for NBC and CBS until 1963 and for ABC until 1967). Maybe you preferred a television landscape in which gay men and women, African Americans were basically invisible. In which there was essentially no foreign language progrramming. In which edgier programming like the Sopranos could be found only in a movie theater. Personally, I much prefer having the array of choices I get from cable and/or satellite.

But to each his own.

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. Quit talking down to broadcast viewers. They are the market baseline. Quit trying to penalize them

With proposals that "may or may not affect them."

This plan has shit to do with first responders. Read the left critiques of Clinton's Telecom Act. It was the most massive giveaway in recent history and DUers who have cable and aren't affected are now PRAISING IT!!!

[alfredo]

64. I posted a link about a home made wire hanger antennae.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw

[madokie]

25. Well one thing with digital that I'm not so sure about is during inclement weather

the signal gets lost. Our son has an hdtv and uses an antenna to pick up the stations here that are broadcasting in hdtv, digital and when its pissing and pouring outside all he can do is watch the rain, no teevee to warn him if there is an impending tornado.
We live 22.5 miles from the largest tower that has something like 20 some odd stations using it to broadcast their digital signal from. We also have a wireless setup so as we can use our internet while out in the shop and guess what when its raining the signal goes away for that just like the signal for hdtv does. I think one of the reasons for digital over analog is that there can be so many more channels available. Watching a football game broadcast in hd is something else though :-)

[KharmaTrain]

26. Broadcasters Get Less Channels...You Get More

The digital change-over is long overdue in this country. It's already happening in Europe and I don't think all these countries are all into some major conspiracy to make your old black & white TV passe. It's called progress.

Yep...broadcasters will have to "return" their exsiting frequencies and get a new one...that's part of the transition and has been scheduled for nearly a decade (rules passed under the Clinton administration). Those with cable and satellite should notice no change...all this affects are those who rely on "over-the-air" television and then this change-over will deliver a far superior TV picture than you've had in the past and more channels and each channel can (and most) offer more than one channel of programming to watch. Yes, you're getting more for nothing.

Also, TV broadcasters end up losing channels in this deal. The TV band will be narrowed and many of the old frequencies will be reassigned not just to police and fire (those folks run their two-way radios on those frequencies) but also for other wireless devices. It'll also cut down on interference...both among existing stations and things that could mess up your TV picture.

There's a ton of misinformation about the digital "flash-over"...but it's pretty straight forward...and for their part, this transition has gone very smoothly. Almost every TV station now has a digital signal out there and have invested millions in new equipment...a far better transition than what's happening with radio.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. In other words, there will be less broadcast TV for those of us who do not pay for TV

While the majority laughs and says "we got ours, conform to the majority of the marketplace. We will penalize
minorities in the marketplace."

And we will have to pay for the privilege. And each band will be divided into encrypted bundled packages.

Thanks, cable consumers of DU, for congratulating us on our "stubbornness"! You spend all this time obsessing
over keeping the Internet free, but you talk down to anyone unwilling to pay for television.

Apparently non-cable consumers are now like the owners of LPs, according to this ridiculous thread.

[KharmaTrain]

51. Completely Wrong

With digital you'll get MORE free channels not less. None that you'll have to pay for. For example the local PBS channel offers 4 seperate feeds...including one for Hispanics (so much for your penalizing the minorities).

The only thing you'll "pay" for is a converter box...just like the one many bought 40 years ago to get additional UHF channels. With the rebate coupon this box will cost $20...I'm sure that is such a large amount to pay.

Cable has nothing to do with this change-over...neither does satellite and over-the-air TV will remain FREE. Not sure where you've been coming up with these conspiracies, but you're totally misinformed. But if you need to vent...go right ahead.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. You seem to think it will remain free. The whole idea is to move it to a digital subscriber model

eventually, and allow the big five to own more and more channels as rightly predicted by left critiques of the Telecom Act which you seem to be praising.

[KharmaTrain]

58. It's Called Progress...Kinda The Root Of The Word "Progressive"

I don't seem to think it will remain free, I know it will. The broadcasters don't get more spectrum space...they get less. The TV dial is being shaved down by almost 20 channels. The new channels they offer are "encoded" within the new digital signal that occupies just one federally licensed channel.

I'd suggest you look back on my writings and you'll see I'm EXTREMELY critical of Telcom. I've lived with it, worked with it and known way to many good friends and acquaintances who lost jobs because of it. I've long advocated the long mandated but never done 2002 review of '96 Telcom and a return to ownership limits and promotion of both local and minority ownership. So don't broadbrush me cause you obviously have no clue as to where I stand on that issue.

Television transmission technology has been the same since 1941...imagine using a computer with the same standards of those times. It's a long overdue upgrade of technology and one that the U.S. isn't alone in doing. Are the Canadians also complicit because they're also going through an identical changeover? Or how about the many European countries that use and even more "restrictive" system as those broadcasters require you (and many always have) to get a government license to own a set.

There's plenty of websites that will describe what is happening...not conjuring up some tin foil conspiracy. I'd suggest you do some research on the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television

[dysfunctional press]

65. and you know this, how exactly?

over-the-air television broadcasts will remain free- they are supported by advertising revenue.

[NuttyFluffers]

36. hmm, beyond video games i rarely bother w/ my TV...

probably will abandon it all one day. unfortunately the sports addict of the house must have cable access or there will be blood. but that glass teat can stay off all day and i couldn't possibly care less. outside of C-Span, PBS, and a mere handful of shows (Daily Show, cartoons) TV has no value to me. and since i can already get most of that stuff on DVD or website, there's no real loss for me.

but it does suck for poor people on a budget...

[Recursion]

38. It's a solution in search of a problem

Basically, it was a Congressional giveaway to TV manufacturers. Happens all the time, just rarely so publicly.

[briv1016]

54. There’s always the option of just buying a new [stronger] antenna.

Type in your address here to determine the antenna strength you need to get the channels you want. Antenna strength is designated by color. (It also gives you compass direction of the transmitter for directional antennas.) (From my experience this program makes a very conservative estimate.)

http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/Address.aspx


You can buy a new antenna at Amazon, RadioShack, Best Buy etc. Then you simply need either a digital television or and analog television with a converter box. You can apply for a $40 converter box voucher here.

https://www.dtv2009.gov/

[defendandprotect]

55. A little strange that the Democrats don't discuss this . . .

(exactly 84 hours before inauguration)

I hadn't calculated exactly when that was happening but also something happens in August . . .
right?

So . . . when's Denver?

Comcast . . . I think it was the '04 election . . . changed every cable channel two days

before the election!!! Coincidental?

Comcast more than a year ago took away C-span II because it urgently needed to be broadcast

in High Definition!!!


We should all fight to stop this BS ---

[onenote]

71. wrong. It occurs in February. A month after inauguration

The choice of the date was an interesting compromise. The House and Senate had bills setting different dates. The House wanted January 1, 2009, the Senate wanted April 1. (Basically, the Senate wanted to make sure the transition occurred at a relatively "dead" time in the world of television -- after the college football bowl season, the Super Bowl and NCAA's basketball March Madness. The date selected was a compromise - the approximate mid-point between the two proposals. It gets past the bowl games and the Super Bowl and is far enough ahead of March Madness so that, hopefully, most kinks in the transition will be worked out by then.

[defendandprotect]

91. Something is happening in August . . . they're bothering us about it . . .

aren't they running something on TV about "August" . . . ???

[pokerfan]

76. 84 hours before inauguration?

January 20, 2009: Inauguration Day
February 17, 2009: Analog Switchoff

Have one of these dates changed recently?

[onenote]

84. nope. the op was misstaken

[defendandprotect]

57. If you want to keep your TV . . . you're going to need a BOX and

another remote . .. and you'll have to pay them . . . if I recall correctly?

I'd like to ignore it all but I'll lose C-span I ---

[onenote]

72. if you are getting C-Span you have cable and transition won't impact you

[defendandprotect]

80. Not exactly . . ..

As I understand it --- and would be glad to hear I'm wrong --- we have already lost

C-span 2 because they began running it in high definition more than a year ago!

It was essential that C-span 2 be delivered in high definition obviously!!!

Meanwhile, I also hear that a lot of this is going to happen just BEFORE the 2008

elections??? That should make another steal really easy for them! No one will see it!



HOWEVER, if I want to see C-span 2 now, I have to order a box and a remote --- there is

a monthly cost per TV.

Later . .. the same --- we'll need a box for each TV and another remote ---

though I think you can get some assistance with the costs of this?

I think Bernie Sanders has something on it???

[onenote]

83. different things

Most cable operators have for a number of years been transmitting some of their services in analog and some in digital. The principal advantages of using digital is that more channels can be squeezed into the existing bandwidth without having to engage in an expensive rebuild to get more capacity. Analog video retransmitted by cable occupies 6 MHz; as many as 10 standard definition digital channels can be transmitted using 6 MHz. HD channels take up more space -- typically only 2 HD services can be fit into one 6 MHz channe. So cable operators have been "migrating" services from analog to digital, not because of the broadcast digital transition, but because it is an economic necessity -- direct broadcast satellite is "all digital" and is marketing itself as the "leader" in the provision of high definition. To match their offerings, and still be able to provide higher speeds of internet service, and add voice service, cable operators need to move channels to digital to reclaim bandwidth. That's why CSPAN2 got moved.

Over time, most cable operators will go "all digital" or nearly all digital in order to get the most bang from their bandwidth. But it is only indirectly related to the broadcast digital transition (i.e., cable needs bandwidth to retransmit the HD broadcast signals -- but they need even more bandwidth for the dozens of new HD cable/satellite services. If you only take "one way
cable service -- you don't get video on demand or DVR service or any other interactive service, you already can buy a "plug and play" set -- a television that will receive digital cable signals without a box. Sets with built in "two way" capability should be hitting the market before the end of the year under a deal worked out between the leading cable companies and several major television set manufacturers to set a common set of technical specifications for such sets.

As for the timing of the broadcast digital transition, as has been pointed out upthread, it is scheduled for February 17, 2009 -- after inaugruation day. The box that someone without cable or satellite will need to continue to receive broadcast television over the air currently retails most places for around $60 and you can get a coupon from the government for a $40 rebate (limited to two boxes).

[defendandprotect]

88. You think that's clear . . ..

Oh my gawd . . . HELP!!!

The reasons for it are obviously for corps to make money --- THAT seems quite clear!

The particulars of why are irrelevant --- but obviously UNNECESSARY.

We're paying for "high speed" internet now --- which is often down and slow.

This is a scam on the American public --- at the the least an inconvenience ---

on the other hand they'll sell a lot of new TVs and make a lot of side profits on

new charges per TV.

As I said. . . . we can pay for playing their game with them. A charge per set, plus

the inconvenience of add-ons we don't want.

And, many people will, of course, be buying new TVs --

As for the timing of the broadcast digital transition, as has been pointed out upthread, it is scheduled for February 17, 2009 -- after inaugruation day. The box that someone without cable or satellite will need to continue to receive broadcast television over the air currently retails most places for around $60 and you can get a coupon from the government for a $40 rebate (limited to two boxes).

Evidently, you didn't read where I said we've already lost C-span II a YEAR AGO to the High
Definition move???? So inconveniences and problems are occuring now ---

Additionally, some decisions and actions are coming this August --- 2008.

I'm familiar with the "box" as I said in my post -- who in the hell wants it????

PLUS you will need to work your TV with additional equipment in order to play the latest game.

Not blaiming you -- but you don't seem to get the point . . .

THIS only profits corps --- not the public.

And the Congress haven't stopped them . . . this should be slowed down again ---

and/or overturned.

[onenote]

92. I'll give it one more try.

You seem intent on not getting it. One more time:

As I pointed out, the mandated, Feb 17, 2009 broadcast digital transition is not directly related to the migration of services (including CSPAN2) from analog to digital by many (but not all) cable operators. The latter migration is being done to get more bandwidth to provide more services, including HiDef version of dozens of non-broadcast services such as HBO, TNT, ESPN, etc etc. It also gives the cable companies the ability to increase speeds for high speed internet and to provide more robust voice service. CSPAN itself isn't being transmitted in HiDef. It is a standard definition signal that the opertor transmits digitally so it canb be delivered to the subscriber using less bandwidth than if it was delivered in analog format.

Its not mandatory for cable operators to do this, and not all of them will. Some smaller systems may even remain largely or entirely analog and will downconvert the broadcast digital signal into analog so subscribers can receive it on their old analog sets without any additional equipment.

But most will go digital, not necessarily all at once, but eventually entirely, because doing so is competitively essential for cable companies that compete with all-digital satellite companies and new video competitors that are largely digital, such as FIOS and ATT U-verse.

As for your belief that some decisions and actions will occur in August, I'd be curious to know what it is since I deal with these issues every single day and I've not heard of anything mandated to occur in August in terms of the broadcast digital transition. One market -- Wilmington NC -- will make the transition in early September as test to see what sorts of technical issues are raised, but so far that's it. As for the voluntary migration by some operators of channels to digital format, its possible that some operators will be moving some more channels in August. Each operator has its own schedule. A number of operators have plans to migrate channels by the end of the year. Others have a two year plan. As I indicated, digital is largely being phased in by cable operators -- voluntarily -- a much different situation that the mandated "flash cut" that the broadcast industry faces.

There is no scam. Technologically marches onward. Radio gives way to television. Vinyl gives way to CDs. VCR gives way to DVD and, eventually, if it succeeds in the market, to BlueRay. Record stores give way to iTunes, Rhapsody, and other download services. Snail mail gives way (for many people) to email.

Is it an inconvenience -- yes, for people who get TV over the air, it definitely is. For most people with cable, the broadcast digital transition is a non event. Will the separate migration of services to digital be an inconvenience for some with cable? Maybe. It depends on whether you already receive cable service with a box (if you have satellite, of course, you have to use a box -- always have, probably always will).

Yes people will be buying new tvs. They won't have to, but they will because the new tv will give them the benefits of the new technology. Sort of like buying a dvd player or a cd player or a new faster computer with bells and whistles one didn't have before. Or a new iphone. Technology isn't standing still and frankly, I'm okay with the fact it isn't. I remember having a black and white tv that got four channels.

[Tesha]

78. You'll pay (wait for it) $10 - $20 for the converter box.

Get the $40 government "coupon" (actually, an EBT
card). Go to your nearby store of almost any kind
(big box electronics, Sears, Target, heck, even
Wally World) and buy a box using your coupon and
$10 or $20 out of your pocket.

You'll then get a few more "over-the-air" channels
and probably get them all in much better quality.

(C-SPAN isn't available "over-the-air" anywhere
that I'm aware of, BTW.)

Tesha

[defendandprotect]

89. C-span has been tradiitonal as part of basic caple . .. C-span I . ..

don't you get it -- ??

C-span II was also traditional until Comcast started interferring with it ---

removing the hours a day it played and now removing it from our schedule completely!


What I'm trying to address is this unnecessary game-playing intended to help corps

make more money -- at a great inconvenience for the consumer.

I don't want their stupid boxes --- I don't want two remotes ---

and this may be the point where we say no more TV ---


Hope you catch up with C-span . . . it used to be much better --- now fading, but

occasionally interesting .... like the torture hearings the other day with Addington and Yoo!!

[alfredo]

63. Make your own DTV antennae

All I need to do is run down to Radio Shack to pick up a UHF/VHF converter and I will be ready to make mine.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw

[lonestarnot]

77. I too am suspicious of this bullshit.

But TV is crap anyway.

[defendandprotect]

90. I'm just wondering if its so totally crap now that I'd rather ...

just get rid of cable and get another computer ---

Actually we need split screen computers so we can watch a few things at one time!

I do watch C-span I -- not as much as I used to in monitoring it -- only a bit now.

And I can do that on the internet.

It is a way to keep track of corporate pandering and debasing of the culture ---

hate to miss that!!

[onenote]

94. I'm assuming you have cable high speed internet

and, of course, the quality of the video that you get over the Internet -- the speed of the download and ther esolution, is not just related to what the capabilities of your computer are -- go get the highest end computer you can find, connect it to dialup and get back to us about how your online video experience is. You also need a fast, robust connection. And to give you that, your internet provider -- whether its cable or a telco -- needs bandwidth and the best way to get the bandwidth is --ta da -- to migrate channels to digital which is a more efficient use of bandwidth. Yet, you seem to think that's a bad thing.

[Occam Bandage]

87. Well, yeah. It's more efficient, allowing more expansive and more robust cell phone, wi-fi,

and other information networks. More people can broadcast more things, because TV is hogging less of the spectrum. I can't imagine how expanding access to the radio spectrum can be a bad thing.

[onenote]

93. well, some folks here apparently don't like any technological change

which is ironic since they're posting on the Internet....