Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tman_ndsu08 · Jun 15, 2005, 08:08 pm

http://www.cedmagazine.com/ced/2005/0605/06cc.htm

At least, that seems to be the jist of it according to this opinion article.

I think it's interesting that consumer level video technology, and information technology in general, has changed from analog to digital so quickly when digital is so much easier to copy at the consumer end.

With a government that is walking hand in hand with big corporations looking to decrease "piracy", it seems weird that the push over to digital was made with such haste.

There's no doubt that digital is much more efficient for transmitting large amounts of data at high rates, but it certainly can be done analog. Perhaps it's also easier for the government to keep tabs on us this way with just a simply click of the mouse.

Mr.Vicchio · Jun 15, 2005, 10:00 pm

Good thing too, Analog sucks, time for HD digital baby!

RVonse · Jun 15, 2005, 10:41 pm

According to the article they are only talking about satelite transmission, not over the air (OTA) analog. From what I can see they are trying to blow away C-band satelite apparently so there is more space for other digital formats. Digital is certainly a more up to date technology but the bad news is that there currently are a lot of C-band users (100,000 or more) out there right now and they are picking up free signals. This proposal obsoletes all that equipment over night and I don't think it will be at all air to those users.

Furthermore, since digital is almost always encrypted, CSPAN1 and CSPAN2 will likely go away as free and clear services which they are today. For example, if you have a C-dish you can watch the Senate and House hearings in free and clear analog today. So I believe there would be a very valid argument the general public good will not be served as well with this proposal.

I'd rather use lower technology that is already in place free and clear than not have anything at all. Buts thats just me.

Morgan_Freeman · Jun 16, 2005, 04:57 am

Who the hell cares about those technological/economic arguments?!
Where does the FCC get the power to tell us what we can/can't broadcast?
The FCC is tyrranical, unconstitutional, and in the pocket of corporations!

lsbskins1 · Jun 16, 2005, 08:43 am

My friend who works as an engineer at a DC area station told me essentially the same thing about a week ago. This is my guess, look at the cost of a TV today v. 30 years ago. How much does TV and related (VCR's, Camcorders) equipment cost in relation to real percentage of income now v. then. If you have to replace it all, with "higher" technology equipment, the manufactures (big business) have a built in justification for an increase in that cost. On one hand, having worked for a small electronics company, and knowing the near impossibility of staying above water, I do not mind so much. Despite what some people might think, I do not consider profit to be a dirty word. On the other hand, this will be, if it happens, harder on those of us who are in lower income brackets and a boon for those of us who already have googles and googles of money, and not much more than an annoyance to those in the middle. Just like everything else in the world.

tman_ndsu08 · Jun 16, 2005, 12:08 pm

Quote:

From what I can see they are trying to blow away C-band satelite apparently so there is more space for other digital formats.

But, you see, C band is already transmitted digitally! Didn't you read the part where Motorolla put out the 4DTV set top box so that BUD owners could decode the encrypted digital C band transmissions?

You've missed the overall message of the article: the big cable companies have pressued the FCC into eliminating the option for non cable business to use the C band to receive analog transmissions. A lot of cable systems still use analog receivers because they were so expensive to implement. The cable companies simply want the ability to use this band for themselves, forcing people who use BUD's now to get cable!

**Chris** · Dec 4, 2007, 10:03 am

heh, just call me "necromancer" :)

The cable companies got rid of the analog boxes long ago.

I do not doubt that they will benefit from this decision but the local OTA television stations - they get paid anyway from advertisments. You will see a whole lot of converters (boxes) for over the counter sale in places like Wal Mart. Also mostly every tv made now is at least a SDTV (the new digital standard) and will not be affected by the Feb 17, 2009 switchover. If you currently have a SATbox or cablebox, your old analog tv will still be able to render an image.

Osborn F Enready · Dec 4, 2007, 01:00 pm

F the FCC.

Century 25 · Dec 6, 2007, 07:13 pm

In Japan they had HDTV long before we did.. here, the broadcast lobby bought off the FCC in order to delay the expense of jumping into digital. They've been draggin' their asses waaay to long..!!

**Chris** · Dec 8, 2007, 01:27 pm

Europe (and a lot of other countries not including Japan) enjoyed a higher resolution TV than America from 1963.

Also, HDTV shouldn't be confused with ATSC.

Compugasm · Dec 9, 2007, 04:08 am

Quote:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08

The cable companies simply want the ability to use this band for themselves, forcing people who use BUD's now to get cable!

I think you nailed it. Additionally, cable companies offering digital service like this, will naturally provide telephone and internet access. Somehow, I find it sadly ironic that I have to censor my hatred for the FCC.

Jun 15, 2005, 08:08 pm	#1 (permalink)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	FCC wants to eliminate analog video transmission http://www.cedmagazine.com/ced/2005/0605/06cc.htm At least, that seems to be the jist of it according to this opinion article. I think it's interesting that consumer level video technology, and information technology in general, has changed from analog to digital so quickly when digital is so much easier to copy at the consumer end. With a government that is walking hand in hand with big corporations looking to decrease "piracy", it seems weird that the push over to digital was made with such haste. There's no doubt that digital is much more efficient for transmitting large amounts of data at high rates, but it certainly can be done analog. Perhaps it's also easier for the government to keep tabs on us this way with just a simply click of the mouse.

Jun 15, 2005, 10:00 pm	#2 (permalink)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	Good thing too, Analog sucks, time for HD digital baby! Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Jun 16, 2005, 04:57 am	#4 (permalink)
Morgan_Freeman Illogic Hunter Location: Seattle Posts: 2,414	Who the hell cares about those technological/economic arguments?! Where does the FCC get the power to tell us what we can/can't broadcast? The FCC is tyrranical, unconstitutional, and in the pocket of corporations! "He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." -- Thomas Jefferson http://rationalidealism.wordpress.com/

Jun 16, 2005, 08:43 am	#5 (permalink)
lsbskins1 Volcanic Erupter Location: South-Western Virginia Posts: 3,418	My friend who works as an engineer at a DC area station told me essentially the same thing about a week ago. This is my guess, look at the cost of a TV today v. 30 years ago. How much does TV and related (VCR's, Camcorders) equipment cost in relation to real percentage of income now v. then. If you have to replace it all, with "higher" technology equipment, the manufactures (big business) have a built in justification for an increase in that cost. On one hand, having worked for a small electronics company, and knowing the near impossibility of staying above water, I do not mind so much. Despite what some people might think, I do not consider profit to be a dirty word. On the other hand, this will be, if it happens, harder on those of us who are in lower income brackets and a boon for those of us who already have googles and googles of money, and not much more than an annoyance to those in the middle. Just like everything else in the world. All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard - Tell me, could that be you? John Kay

Dec 4, 2007, 10:03 am	#7 (permalink)
Chris Moderator Location: Nashville Posts: 6,709	heh, just call me "necromancer" :) The cable companies got rid of the analog boxes long ago. I do not doubt that they will benefit from this decision but the local OTA television stations - they get paid anyway from advertisments. You will see a whole lot of converters (boxes) for over the counter sale in places like Wal Mart. Also mostly every tv made now is at least a SDTV (the new digital standard) and will not be affected by the Feb 17, 2009 switchover. If you currently have a SATbox or cablebox, your old analog tv will still be able to render an image. Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. Last edited by Chris; Dec 8, 2007 at 01:29 pm. Reason: change date

Jun 15, 2005, 10:41 pm	#3 (permalink)
RVonse Igneous Magma Posts: 620	According to the article they are only talking about satelite transmission, not over the air (OTA) analog. From what I can see they are trying to blow away C-band satelite apparently so there is more space for other digital formats. Digital is certainly a more up to date technology but the bad news is that there currently are a lot of C-band users (100,000 or more) out there right now and they are picking up free signals. This proposal obsoletes all that equipment over night and I don't think it will be at all air to those users. Furthermore, since digital is almost always encrypted, CSPAN1 and CSPAN2 will likely go away as free and clear services which they are today. For example, if you have a C-dish you can watch the Senate and House hearings in free and clear analog today. So I believe there would be a very valid argument the general public good will not be served as well with this proposal. I'd rather use lower technology that is already in place free and clear than not have anything at all. Buts thats just me.

Dec 4, 2007, 01:00 pm	#8 (permalink)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 14,330	F the FCC. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Dec 6, 2007, 07:13 pm	#9 (permalink)
Century 25 Hot Lava Location: Southwest desert - Valley of the Sun Posts: 1,346	In Japan they had HDTV long before we did.. here, the broadcast lobby bought off the FCC in order to delay the expense of jumping into digital. They've been draggin' their asses waaay to long..!!

Dec 8, 2007, 01:27 pm	#10 (permalink)
Chris Moderator Location: Nashville Posts: 6,709	Europe (and a lot of other countries not including Japan) enjoyed a higher resolution TV than America from 1963. Also, HDTV shouldn't be confused with ATSC. Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.