[macintologist]

This piece of legislation Bush recently signed is clearly socialist. It is the government dictating to media companies that they may not broadcast analog signals after 2009. That is borderline totalitarian and blatantly unconstitutional.

Why do I get the feeling that if Kerry had signed this, you all would be going batshit ****ing crazy?

he United States Congress recently approved a definitive end-date for American television broadcasters to transition from analog to digital television.

The new law, which was signed this week by President George Bush mandates that television broadcasters transition their broadcast operations from the 700 MHz analog band to new digital spectrum by February 17, 2009.

The move will clear the analog spectrum now used by television broadcaster and make it available to support public safety services (police, fire departments, rescue squads, etc.), provide additional broadband wireless access to urban and rural areas and enable new broadcast multimedia services.

The law means that on February 18th, 2009 analog television will no longer be available in the US and Digital Television (DTV) will be the new standard in that country.

On that day in the US, consumers will still be able to use their existing analog television set however they will need a set-top converter box for converting digital signals to analog. To ease the transition, the FCC has said that beginning in 2008, US consumers will be able to obtain up to two coupons worth $40 each toward the purchase of converter boxes for analog TVs receiving over-the-air broadcasts. For cable or satellite subscribers, providers will be informing consumers about how to obtain a converter box.

The Digital Television (DTV) standards being implemented in the U.S. are the same as those being implemented in Canada and are defined and governed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC).

The DTV standards include 18 DTV broadcast formats which fall under one of three categories: High Definition Television (HDTV), Enhanced Definition Television (EDTV) or Standard Definition Television (SDTV).

The HDTV and SDTV standards have been around for over ten years and in the fall of 2000, the U.S. Consumer Electronics Association issued detailed terminology for the various classes of reception and display for digital televisions and introduced the EDTV standards. For more details check out Digital Homes CEA Descriptions for HDTV, EDTV and SDTV in our HDTV Knowledgebase .

What a ****ing joke. This is something the market should be handling, not the ****ING GOVERNMENT

[isao bered]

heh. whatever. i'm not so sure i like my tv analogous anyhow.

maybe there's a lesson in that somewhere. ;-)

be well.

laeth

[The Godfather]

I see how the govm't is after VHF and UHF in the ether, but they shouldn't have any say on any EM field in private coax networks or proprietary satellite links.

[drmcnutt]

Is this the first time you've heard of this? They have been trying to make this move for some time now. In fact I believe the first deadline was originally 2006, but that has been delayed (obviously). It might be delayed again depending, but this isn't the first time this has come up. This is the first time that assistance for low income people has been put into place so further delays may be less likely. Congress wants to auction off analog bandwidth and use it for public service.

[CharlesS]

Well, so much for being able to have the VCR recording one channel while you watch another channel. Having a set-top box ensures that both of them will always have to be seeing the same channel...

[Krypton]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well, so much for being able to have the VCR recording one channel while you watch another channel. Having a set-top box ensures that both of them will always have to be seeing the same channel...

Unless you have a box with dual tuners.

[PurpleGiant]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well, so much for being able to have the VCR recording one channel while you watch another channel. Having a set-top box ensures that both of them will always have to be seeing the same channel...

My TV has a digital tuner built in. I don't have a VCR, but if I were to purchase a digital PVR, it would have its own digital tuner, sometimes two. I'm not sure I see the problem?

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by macintologist

clearly socialist.

Go back to school and learn what socialism is. I find it scary that most americans think that socialism = communism or totalitariasm.

[Railroader]

You clearly have no concept what the FCC does do you Macintologist! The frequency range that analog stations use are better used for communications and emergency purposes.

All of the station owners will actually get more bandwidth from the change from analog to digital.

And this has all been in the planning stages from around the late '70s.

Oh, and WRONG FORUM!!!

Get a clue Macintologist. And I am tired of your post and runs.

[Gamoe]

Bad/sad things about this:

1.) Broadcasters and content providers may have more control over how we, the end viewers, manipulate the content. They could potentially dictate whether we can record a show or not, through such things as broadcast flags which are impossible with current analog standards.

2.) Aliens won't be able to simply tune-in to our shows anymore. They will have to figure out how to interpret and decode the digital signals to keep on watching! Of course, it might take some time to get to them anyway, depending on how far away they are.

[Big Mac]

So this applies not only to analog over the air but analog cable as well? I wasn't aware of that part of the regulation. Edit: After reading through some of the articles and forum discussions on the subject, it seems the decision to maintain analog cable broadcasting will fall to the individual cable providers themselves. I do not think the FCC's mandate applies to anything other than traditional OTA analog. Some cable companies are proposing an elimination of traditional analog cable, while others will choose to continue it and use it as a selling point. I think those companies that discontinue analog cable will come to regret that decision.

[SirCastor]

I could have sworn that this was the intention of the FCC for 2007. I must've missed something.

As for the concept, it really does meant that analog broadcast will be halted. The idea is to eliminate analog broadcast signals.

And for the Aliens, maybe when the signals stop getting sent out so easily, they'll just assume we blew ourselves up and they'll leave us alone

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You clearly have no concept what the FCC does do you Macintologist! The frequency range that analog stations use are better used for communications and emergency purposes.

All of the station owners will actually get more bandwidth from the change from analog to digital.

And this has all been in the planning stages from around the late '70s.

Oh, and WRONG FORUM!!!

Get a clue Macintologist. And I am tired of your post and runs.

Worth repeating, and certain points emphasized.

[Teronzhul]

All of the cable companies will eventually go to an all digital signal. It may take some longer than others, but it will happen. Since they already provide digital cable boxes with analog outputs there is very little incentive for them to NOT go to an all digital signal. If they intend to compete with satellite providers they will need all of their available bandwidth and 70 or so analog channels use a monstrous amount of it.

Cox communications locally is currently in process of phasing out all premium channel analog content. Anyone who wishes to keep HBO/Cinemax etc will have to exchange their current analog set top boxes for digital ones. For the inconvenience they're offering 6 months free digital service, with all the available digital channels except for the spanish package, and free 6 months of digital Starz.

I assume when it comes down to the final transition and getting everyone onto a digital signal, they'll offer a similar deal to the individuals holding on to their analog services. When the customer is faced with a $200 digital tuner purchase, and only recieving OTA broadcasts vs $8 a month added onto their bill and retaining all their cable channels, the decision will be quite easy for most.

This transition is really a good thing. It would happen eventually if we left it in the hands of the consumers and broadcast corporations, but it would likely take decades more to complete, and the headaches would be far greater.

More available spectrum is a good thing.

[wdlove]

I will take a wait and see attitude. It it still 3 years away. A lot could happen. I'm happy with my analog.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by macintologist

What a ****ing joke. This is something the market should be handling, not the ****ING GOVERNMENT

I disagree. A market can be inert under certain situations. It then is appropriate for a government to force it to progress.

Originally Posted by macintologist

This piece of legislation Bush recently signed is clearly socialist. It is the government dictating to media companies that they may not broadcast analog signals after 2009.

If Bush would transfer the broadcast stations into public ownership then it would be socialistic. This is not.

[Mister Elf]

This is progress...and is three years away. Most people will need a new STB anyway after that time, if traditional computer hardware "rules" are followed. It's not really as big of a deal as you make it out to be, Macintologist...what do you have against digital broadcasting? Are you being paid by some almost-broke analog provider that can't afford the switch?

[NYK Ace]

i don't see how this is anything but good

the government will be giving free converter boxes to those who need them and we get better signals as a result (think no more static on OTA channels) AND we get an all digital cable system instead of the half analog / half digital mix most have now. This is just forcing the media industry to come into the 21st century.

this is similar to when apple removed the floppy drive, i dont see many people missing that these days

[Big Mac]

Who says the government will be handing out free digital STBs? At most the current provision grants two $40 vouchers per household, which is not at all the same thing as giving boxes out for free. While the digital mandate will have a number of benefits, it will also has its costs, including but not limited to, the folowing:

*Mandating digital service for all TVs means cable companies will get to charge higher rates to their customers. That includes around $10 more a month extra for those who were not subscribing to digital cable, to a small rental fee per month per TV for the STBs. Extra TVs people use around the house infrequently will now cost them dollars per month, which is good for the cable company but bad for the individual.

*Some people like their analog service and will not be at all pleased when told they have to pay an extra fee per month for digital service, especially when digital will not offer much more content unless they pay even more money for premium services.

*Digital cable does not necessarily provide better picture quality for all customers. If you don't believe me, take a look at what some people are saying in TV forums. (A number of people have had to fall back on analog because their digital picture is so poor.)

*STBs are not necessarily desirable. In addition to the extra fees and inconveniences for those currently getting analog directly from the coax into their TVs, STBs may have performance issues. This digital mandate may also bring with it more DRM, although at this point I have not seen much evidence substantiating that fear.

[alligator]

There is nothing unconstituational at all about this. I think the original poster must have had a bad day when posting.

[meelk]

This has been happening for years now, the date has been moved back a couple times already. What a pathetic thing to whine about. Get a damn down covertor box or a HD set and move along.

[ambush]

You should be worried about The Patriot Act

I like how Kilbey makes an eloquent point of authority using the You don't _____ do you ___username___?

It's really *not* starting to get redundant.

[Kevin]

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

2.) Aliens won't be able to simply tune-in to our shows anymore. They will have to figure out how to interpret and decode the digital signals to keep on watching! Of course, it might take some time to get to them anyway, depending on how far away they are.

The aliens already have switched to digital and are pissed it's taking us so long to do what we planned decades ago.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

So this applies not only to analog over the air but analog cable as well? I wasn't aware of that part of the regulation. Edit: After reading through some of the articles and forum discussions on the subject, it seems the decision to maintain analog cable broadcasting will fall to the individual cable providers themselves. I do not think the FCC's mandate applies to anything other than traditional OTA analog. Some cable companies are proposing an elimination of traditional analog cable, while others will choose to continue it and use it as a selling point. I think those companies that discontinue analog cable will come to regret that decision.

I don't think the FCC regulates cable do they?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ambush

You should be worried about The Patriot Act

I like how Kilbey makes an eloquent point of authority using the You don't _____ do you ___username___?

It's really *not* starting to get redundant.

Again, your obsession with me is unhealthy.

Seek help (are you seeing this pattern as well?).

Why don't you go start another Christian-mocking thread? That, or go do my dishes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by macintologist

This piece of legislation Bush recently signed is clearly socialist...

I can't stand Bush & co., but you have things seriously back-asswards here.

The FCC controls the public airwaves.

The whole concept is socialist, and was created before Bush was even born. How can you blame him for working within the pre-existing framework?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ambush

I like how Kilbey makes an eloquent point of authority using the You don't _____ do you ___username___?

It's really *not* starting to get redundant.

Maybe you should have saved this for an occasion when his point was incorrect.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by subego

Maybe you should have saved this for an occasion when his point was incorrect.

He'd be waiting forever then!

[Rolling Bones]

It's a matter of national security.

All your rights are belong to the politicos.

= your rights have been cancelled.

[analogika]

Where was your outcry when the morse code was officially killed as a formal radio channel by a world-wide regulations committee a few years ago?


Do have even even the slightest glimmer of an idea of why such regulatory authorities exist?


I hope you don't ever use aircraft to get anyplace.

That's socialism, you know.



Oh, and your personal rights have absolutely nothing to do with this, any more than your choice of favorite TV show.

[wdlove]

If the public doesn't buy. Then the broadcast companies will continue to take care of there customers.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by alligator

There is nothing unconstituational at all about this. I think the original poster must have had a bad day when posting.

Please show me the delegated power of the federal government to tell broadcasters to stop using analog signals.

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Please show me the delegated power of the federal government to tell broadcasters to stop using analog signals.

Do the broadcasters have the constitutional right to hog up bandwidth with and outdated modulation technique? The bandwidth could be better used for other public and commercial uses. If there were an unlimited amount of spectrum available I might buy your commie/socialist stance. But there is not.

The main reason the digital transition is not complete now is because the broadcasters have been dragging their feet because it costs them some money. What right do the broadcasters have to stand in the way of progress? The majority of their viewers won't be affected since they already receive their TV by cable or satellite.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58

Do the broadcasters have the constitutional right to hog up bandwidth with and outdated modulation technique? The bandwidth could be better used for other public and commercial uses. If there were an unlimited amount of spectrum available I might buy your commie/socialist stance. But there is not.

The main reason the digital transition is not complete now is because the broadcasters have been dragging their feet because it costs them some money. What right do the broadcasters have to stand in the way of progress? The majority of their viewers won't be affected since they already receive their TV by cable or satellite.

You didn't answer my question. And yes, according to the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, broadcasters do have the right to broadcast

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Please show me the delegated power of the federal government to tell broadcasters to stop using analog signals.

Well I believe the federal government owns the analog spectrum in question, so basically they're just kicking people out of it and then they're going to sell much of it off to private entities.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Please show me the delegated power of the federal government to tell broadcasters to stop using analog signals.

By your logic, what's to stop broadcasters from broadcasting on any frequency they want to?

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by macintologist

You didn't answer my question. And yes, according to the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, broadcasters do have the right to broadcast

You did not answer my question either. The networks rights to broadcast are not being taken away. They are just being forced to use a more efficient method to send their signal. And it has very little impact on them reaching their viewers. Just because its TV does not mean they have some special right to use up a limited resource. What about the "rights" of those who wish to use services on the bandwidth that will be freed up?

[macintologist]

Please show me the delegated power of the federal government to tell broadcasters to stop using analog signals.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Please show me the delegated power of the federal government to tell broadcasters to stop using analog signals.

Pleas show me where it gives them the right to use them in the first place.

[subego]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Please show me the delegated power of the federal government to tell broadcasters to stop using analog signals.

Ahem...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[nerd]

The FCC is probably going to auction off the analog channels. Many stations are on temporary channels until the 2009 deadline which then they'll rechannel to the old analog channel for the digital stations. As of note, I've seen it mentioned that the digital channels provide more bandwidth. Yes you can put more channels on the digital side thanks to MPEG2 but technically digital television uses the same 6mhz wide channel (via 8VSB) as analog.

The FCC already auctioned off part of the 2ghz microwave spectrum that broadcasters use. Nextel won it and now Nextel is paying to replace all the old analog microwave systems with digital ones. Going digital allows them to make the existing channels smaller and bump the base of the channels up in frequency.

Homeland security already has channels 62-65 (maybe more,not 100% positive) for their thing. At the station I work for we have a translator we have to be off of by March 1st because of this.

I think it's great that the government finally came up with a hard deadline. This one looks to be a hard date that probably won't change again. Yes it sucks that you might have to replace your TV or get a converter box but you also get a better picture from it. You also get Dolby Digital sound. TV station can so a secondary channel such as weather. I think this is a bonus for the viewers as long as the station don't get out of hand and take to much bandwidth from the HD stream were you'd start to see artifacts. USDTV also takes advantage of the bandwidth to provide yet another alternative to cable and satellite.

Anyways, that's my take. Viewers aren't the only ones that are doing this transition. Broadcasters have done a lot of the work but there is more to do. Once this deadline hits and there is a larger install base so stations can start charging for HD spots then I think you'll really see the content start to appear. Look at last Superbowl. There were a lot of HD spots.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Pleas show me where it gives them the right to use them in the first place.

The 1st, 9th and 10th amendments.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58

The majority of their viewers won't be affected since they already receive their TV by cable or satellite.

That's not true - some cable providers such as Comcast will be discontinuing their analog cable signal too (as noted in my previous post), which means all their subscribers will need STBs for each of their TVs. This isn't a trivial matter.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by subego

The whole concept is socialist, and was created before Bush was even born. How can you blame him for working within the pre-existing framework?

It's easy! Such things have been going on for about 6 years now.

[screamingFit]

The goverment and its corporations stand to make a great deal of money by moving out of the analog frequency space with little benefit seen to the average consumer. Do you think anyone involved really cares that you get a marginally better picture?

Thankfully, I chose many years ago to not own a TV and plan on continuing that tradition well into the future.

[Kevin]

And if this didn't happen people would complain that the US was still in the stone age, and why isn't it doing something to "Keep up"

We constantly hear people complaining about how the US has less broadband than a lot of other civilized communities.

[screamingFit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And if this didn't happen people would complain that the US was still in the stone age, and why isn't it doing something to "Keep up"

We constantly hear people complaining about how the US has less broadband than a lot of other civilized communities.

Unfortunately, dumping the analog frequencies for television isn't going to get the US out of the stone age.

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

That's not true - some cable providers such as Comcast will be discontinuing their analog cable signal too (as noted in my previous post), which means all their subscribers will need STBs for each of their TVs. This isn't a trivial matter.

Sort of is and sort of isn't true. The cable operators are doing this independently for their own reasons. It has nothing to do with the transition of broadcast television. The cable companies would be doing this even if the over the air TV remained analog. There is nothing that prevents the cable companies from converting the digital over the air signals to an analog signal for distribution over cable. This is what many cable companies will have to do after the analog over the air is shut off since a huge chunk of their customers won't have boxes or sets with digital receivers.

The cable companies want to add more internet, video on demand, etc. With digital cable they can stuff about six regular tv channels in the space used up by one. This frees up a good bit of bandwidth for services they can charge more money for. Also it cuts down on signal theft and lets them rent extra boxes or cable cards to those with more than one TV.

For the broadcast TV networks the digital transition is a nuisance. It does not really add significant new sources of income for the broadcasters. For the cable companies it adds potential new sources of revenue.

[MacNStein]

Blame the Radio Act of 1927, and the formation of the Federal Radio Commission (predecessors of the FCC) by the Coolidge administration. Honestly though, they had no idea what it would grow into, and how broad the scope of the power would become. Primarily, it began as a way to unclutter radio communications, not regulate commercial programming... that was added as part of the FCC charter in 1934 under (surprise, surprise) the FDR administration.