Should we delay the June 12th rollout of DTV?

[Red Squirrel]

Ah I see, so it's only really the rabbit ear frequencies. So they want to get them back to use for something else.

I figured it was getting rid of regular cable and getting everyone to switch to digital cable / satellite.

 

[thescreensavers]

Why the hell should we wait any more. There was already an extension, Lets get on with it. People sleeping will wake up and get the converter box.

And please remember TV is a luxury so uh who cares about the people that cant watch tv because they were to lazy to get a box before and now to lazy to get a box now.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Ah I see, so it's only really the rabbit ear frequencies. So they want to get them back to use for something else.

I figured it was getting rid of regular cable and getting everyone to switch to digital cable / satellite.

Analog uses wide bands of frequencies. The band that holds one analog channel can hold multiple digital channels.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I don't even understand this whole thing. Why not keep it the way it is? People who want DTV can go ahead and pay for it and get it, those who want to stick with regular TV can also do it. Everyone wins. I don't watch much TV so to me it's not the end of the world. Also it's only like 1$ extra to upgrade to digital cable anyway.

I wonder if this even affects Canada though. I've heard of the "switch" but hardly anything. All I heard is something about those who are on regular cable needing to get a converter box or something.

Its all about the money. The telco and wireless carriers have it, and the average person doesn't. There was no need or pressing urge to make the switch to DTV, but the wireless carriers made sure that congress thought there was. They pulled the same crap in 1996 with deregulation and did it again right in front of the public and even got people to buy into the DTV would be better for everyone kool-aid.

You see all the commercials about "just get a converter box, and look we will give you $40 too !". What those commercials don't mention is $$$$ people are going to have to spend on antennas and labor to install them that many people are going to have to pay. And many that will not have tv even then.

Emergencies ? nah, DTV will be great in stormy weather, we can all listen to the radio as nobody has a battery powered tv that can receive the signal and those that do have one will need a inverter, amplified antenna, and ample battery or a running car.

A lot of rural areas have tv via translator towers that are not being upgraded to digital, guess they just do without or pay for satellite or cable. The FCC is looking after us though, so don't worry, America will remain the country where the government makes you pay for what you once got for free.


Just wait and see. DTV will be the biggest blunder the FCC has ever made. And for something that was not even needed.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I don't even understand this whole thing. Why not keep it the way it is? People who want DTV can go ahead and pay for it and get it, those who want to stick with regular TV can also do it. Everyone wins. I don't watch much TV so to me it's not the end of the world. Also it's only like 1$ extra to upgrade to digital cable anyway.

I wonder if this even affects Canada though. I've heard of the "switch" but hardly anything. All I heard is something about those who are on regular cable needing to get a converter box or something.

Its all about the money. The telco and wireless carriers have it, and the average person doesn't. There was no need or pressing urge to make the switch to DTV, but the wireless carriers made sure that congress thought there was. They pulled the same crap in 1996 with deregulation and did it again right in front of the public and even got people to buy into the DTV would be better for everyone kool-aid.

You see all the commercials about "just get a converter box, and look we will give you $40 too !". What those commercials don't mention is $$$$ people are going to have to spend on antennas and labor to install them that many people are going to have to pay. And many that will not have tv even then.

Emergencies ? nah, DTV will be great in stormy weather, we can all listen tot he radio as nobody has a battery powered tv that can receive the signal and those that do have one will need a inverter, amplified antenna, and ample battery or a running car.

A lot of rural areas have tv via translator towers that are not being upgraded to digital, guess they just do without or pay for satellite or cable. The FCC is looking after us though, so don't worry, America will remain the country where the government makes you pay for what you once got for free.

Just relax there. Tame the conspiracy theories and get back to reality. They are not taking away your HAM radio so you can keep broadcasting underneath your tinfoil hat. You can still do that.

http://rightvoices.com/wp-cont...007/10/tinfoil-hat.jpg

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: spidey07


Just relax there. Tame the conspiracy theories and get back to reality. They are not taking away your HAM radio so you can keep broadcasting underneath your tinfoil hat. You can still do that.

http://rightvoices.com/wp-cont...007/10/tinfoil-hat.jpg

The sad thing is people like you just watch the ads and don't bother to check exactly who is affected. You assume since it is good for you, it is good for everyone.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: spidey07


Just relax there. Tame the conspiracy theories and get back to reality. They are not taking away your HAM radio so you can keep broadcasting underneath your tinfoil hat. You can still do that.

http://rightvoices.com/wp-cont...007/10/tinfoil-hat.jpg

The sad thing is people like you just watch the ads and don't bother to check exactly who is affected. You assume since it is good for you, it is good for everyone.

It is good for everyone. It allows the reallocation of a very useful and very limited piece of the wireless spectrum to something of greater use, while at the same time improving the quality of TV for everyone.

Analog television is one of the most wasteful uses for sub-GHz out there. So much of it is empty in wide swathes of the country, elsewhere half of it is empty because of the need to keep channels spaced apart. You can take all of those channels and pack them in half the space just by the virtue of digital signaling.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: spidey07


Just relax there. Tame the conspiracy theories and get back to reality. They are not taking away your HAM radio so you can keep broadcasting underneath your tinfoil hat. You can still do that.

http://rightvoices.com/wp-cont...007/10/tinfoil-hat.jpg

The sad thing is people like you just watch the ads and don't bother to check exactly who is affected. You assume since it is good for you, it is good for everyone.

It is good for everyone. It allows the reallocation of a very useful and very limited piece of the wireless spectrum to something of greater use, while at the same time improving the quality of TV for everyone.

The millions that can't get a signal might disagree. And it is a useful spectrum, which is why the wireless companies want it so bad that they are willing to almost kill to get it.

Analog television is one of the most wasteful uses for sub-GHz out there. So much of it is empty in wide swathes of the country, elsewhere half of it is empty because of the need to keep channels spaced apart. You can take all of those channels and pack them in half the space just by the virtue of digital signaling.

The same digital signal that makes you lose 100% of the picture if you don't get enough signal.


I don't think the rollout should be delayed as it will not solve the problem of not being able to get the signal without paying $$$$ for a lot of people. But I do think that the whole concept was not well thought out. If more people had known what it was going to mean for them I think things would have gone differently. Instead decisions were made with corporations best interest in mind and not the consumer.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: spidey07


Just relax there. Tame the conspiracy theories and get back to reality. They are not taking away your HAM radio so you can keep broadcasting underneath your tinfoil hat. You can still do that.

http://rightvoices.com/wp-cont...007/10/tinfoil-hat.jpg

The sad thing is people like you just watch the ads and don't bother to check exactly who is affected. You assume since it is good for you, it is good for everyone.

It is good for everyone. It allows the reallocation of a very useful and very limited piece of the wireless spectrum to something of greater use, while at the same time improving the quality of TV for everyone.

The millions that can't get a signal might disagree. And it is a useful spectrum, which is why the wireless companies want it so bad that they are willing to almost kill to get it.

Analog television is one of the most wasteful uses for sub-GHz out there. So much of it is empty in wide swathes of the country, elsewhere half of it is empty because of the need to keep channels spaced apart. You can take all of those channels and pack them in half the space just by the virtue of digital signaling.

The same digital signal that makes you lose 100% of the picture if you don't get enough signal.


I don't think the rollout should be delayed as it will not solve the problem of not being able to get the signal without paying $$$$ for a lot of people. But I do think that the whole concept was not well thought out. If more people had known what it was going to mean for them I think things would have gone differently. Instead decisions were made with corporations best interest in mind and not the consumer.

Bear in mind that few people are running their transmitters at 100% pre-switch. Once the switch is made and everyone has settled down, we should have a better idea of coverage.

The projections are that effective coverage (the percent of the population covered by any given channel) should be the same, although obviously there will be some shifting as some people way out in the boonies may lose one channel and get another. You'd never be able to lay down a digital transmission and have it perfectly match the coverage area of the analog transmission. Ultimately there's probably going to be a farmer in South Dakota who's unhappy because of that. Granted, one of the proposals was to use a DVB-like system, which would have allowed for even higher bandwidth at a cost of poor rural signal propagation - so it could have been much worse.

And yeah, it's useful spectrum and that's why it's going to be used for telecommunications. As I said before, it's wasted for television. Usable wireless spectrum is a finite good, so we need to make the best use of it that we can. Providing analog TV is not the best use.

 

[ViRGE]

Damn you FuseTalk.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
We may as well delay it again just to remind everyone that government loves to fustrate people. We will never be ready. Im already at my wits end with the stupid cable company keeping the old aspect ratios in favor of analong TV (basic channels, not HD). I can change the aspect on the remote but like everything else (including every channel having a different volume level) its annoying.

So lets just go ahead and push the date out three more months. We should contact the necessary bodies to encourage them to push the date out again because old people will lose their TVs.

Join my "lets delay dtv again" bandwagon. We only have days to save analog!

You do realize that not all shows, whether being broadcast on an HD channel or not, are natively in widescreen, right? And by changing the aspect ratio on the remote, you're just stretching (distorting) the picture to fill in the space?

This was confusing me also.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: spidey07


Just relax there. Tame the conspiracy theories and get back to reality. They are not taking away your HAM radio so you can keep broadcasting underneath your tinfoil hat. You can still do that.

http://rightvoices.com/wp-cont...007/10/tinfoil-hat.jpg

The sad thing is people like you just watch the ads and don't bother to check exactly who is affected. You assume since it is good for you, it is good for everyone.

It is good for everyone. It allows the reallocation of a very useful and very limited piece of the wireless spectrum to something of greater use, while at the same time improving the quality of TV for everyone.

The millions that can't get a signal might disagree. And it is a useful spectrum, which is why the wireless companies want it so bad that they are willing to almost kill to get it.

Analog television is one of the most wasteful uses for sub-GHz out there. So much of it is empty in wide swathes of the country, elsewhere half of it is empty because of the need to keep channels spaced apart. You can take all of those channels and pack them in half the space just by the virtue of digital signaling.

The same digital signal that makes you lose 100% of the picture if you don't get enough signal.


I don't think the rollout should be delayed as it will not solve the problem of not being able to get the signal without paying $$$$ for a lot of people. But I do think that the whole concept was not well thought out. If more people had known what it was going to mean for them I think things would have gone differently. Instead decisions were made with corporations best interest in mind and not the consumer.

the vast majority of customers are far better off all digital. a minority of customers will be no worse off. a very small minority of customers will be worse off.

so, explain again how it isn't in the best interest of the "consumer"?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Only 6 hours left! Save analog!

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


the vast majority of customers are far better off all digital. a minority of customers will be no worse off. a very small minority of customers will be worse off.

so, explain again how it isn't in the best interest of the "consumer"?

Millions of people is not a small minority.
Tell me what benefits it will give consumers that they didn't have before and for less cost ?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


the vast majority of customers are far better off all digital. a minority of customers will be no worse off. a very small minority of customers will be worse off.

so, explain again how it isn't in the best interest of the "consumer"?

Millions of people is not a small minority.
Tell me what benefits it will give consumers that they didn't have before and for less cost ?

sub channels, that's more. And it's still free.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Attention MORONS:

DTV does not mean DirecTV. It doesn't cost money, nothing is changing. Your local channels are going to look better.
It's been more than THREE YEARS since you could legally purchase anything with only an NTSC tuner inside it.
I haven't watched an analog OTA transmission in 2+ years now, I've been using either DTV or cable/satellite.
You don't need any fancy freaking antennas. Unless you live out in the middle of nowhere, then you already have one because you weren't getting your analog channels very clearly. If you're going from 95% snow to no digital picture, too bad, get cable.
Digital signal IS better. I can't for the life of me pull in the local FOX affiliate because they're on VHF 13 and I live in an apartment complex. Their digital channel (and a lot more digital than analog channels) is UHF, I can get it with the antenna up my butt inside a lead box. A signal that would give you a screen full of snow will give you a clear digital picture, all the way down to 30-35% signal strength. At that point with an OTA NTSC signal, you're watching snow and static, don't complain about losing picture.
The converter boxes, for those of you with old TVs, can be had for free if you're not a complete and total bumbling idiot.
There is no "big bad business" conspiracy to get us all using DTV, morons. Idiots like you are the reason we ran our AMPS networks until 20-fucking-05 when half the world had powered them down. You're also the reason why I don't have my LTE goodness yet. Get with the damn times, technology costs money. Television, cell phones, the Internet, and even the radio, are not some kind of inalienable right, they're a fucking privilege.
/weakrant

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

/weakrant

You are right !
It was an extremely weak rant.

 

[dudeman007]

FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK NO! For crying out loud it was already terrible enough to have it delayed once. It's simply too bad for the people who can't get their shit straightened out. Companies have already lost a TON of money waiting for the procrastinators and technology nubs. The sooner we change over...the sooner people with figure it out for their damn selves.