Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on November 19, 2005, 08:04:40 PM
-
Question.
Does this mean that everyone will now HAVE to pay for cable TV in order to get local channals?
Not that it matters to me as I have cable.
But I still come across folks who refuse to pay for TV or simply refuse to get cable and still use antenna.
When they want to watch something else. they rent or buy a DVD.
House passes digital TV bill with Dec. 2008 deadline
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House on Friday backed a plan to require television broadcasters to switch to all-digital transmissions by Dec. 31, 2008, three months earlier than they would have to under provisions of a Senate bill.
House lawmakers also voted to set aside $830 million to help millions of Americans with older, analog TV sets pay for converter boxes so they'll continue to get service in the digital era.
The Senate measure calls for a switch to all-digital by April 7, 2009 — after the March Madness college basketball playoffs. The converter box subsidy is significantly larger — $3 billion.
Differences in both bills will have to be worked out by House and Senate negotiators.
Digital television promises sharper pictures and better sound than analog TV.
But about 21 million households rely on free, over-the-air TV, so they'll need the converter box to keep receiving their television service after the switch to all-digital. Cable and satellite customers would not be affected.
Democratic lawmakers have complained that the House subsidy for converter boxes would only pay for about 10 million households, half the number of homes that would need them. Consumer groups say the $830 million would cover only about a quarter of homes.
"The funding level provided is woefully inadequate to ensure that consumers aren't forced to reach into their wallets to facilitate the government's mandated transition to digital television," said Jeannine Kenney of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports.
House Republicans have said they don't expect wealthier Americans to request coupons for the boxes, and they expect the $830 million would cover those homes that really need help.
The move to all-digital will free valuable radio spectrum, some of which will be allocated to improve radio communications among fire and police departments and other first responders. The rest of the spectrum would be auctioned by the government for an estimated $10 billion, though private estimates put that number higher.
The converter boxes would be paid for with some of the spectrum money raised at auction. The boxes are expected to cost about $50 to $60. The bills in both chambers call for the government to pay about $40, with the consumer picking up the rest of the cost
-
Is it about time to have warning signs on television just like on cigarettes and alcohol?
Warning, watching television will below your intelligence; read a book instead.
-
The original FCC reg required TV stations to broadcast simultaneously in digital and analog. This was to assist in the obvious transitional period. This one is just taking it to the next step to where broadcasters no longer have to provide an analog signal after 2009, 4 years from now. It is telling consumers to get ready, where the old reg was telling broadcasters to get ready. Recorded music has made the jump to digital (CD, MP3, ect); radio is making the switch (Sirius, XM), which just like TV, will someday not be an option. My advice is to, within the next 4 years, get a digital TV. Most of us, if haven't already, will by then anyhow. Almost all over-the-air TV stations today (if they are complying with current FCC regs) broadcast both in analog and digital. This legislation frees them, rightly so, from coddling to antiquated technology.
To answer your question:
1. "The Man" is always trying to figure out new ways to get us to pay for things we used to get for free.
2. As long as the networks continue to broadcast over the air commercial TV will be free.
The article you quoted is slightly misleading.
-
sooner analog is dead the better - it is a waste of space today
you can have at least 8 digital channels, most cram more, in the 6mhz an anolog now takes
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Question.
Does this mean that everyone will now HAVE to pay for cable TV in order to get local channals?
Not that it matters to me as I have cable.
But I still come across folks who refuse to pay for TV or simply refuse to get cable and still use antenna.
When they want to watch something else. they rent or buy a DVD.
I believe that the converter boxes are for the over the air signals, they would convert the digital signal to analog.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
The original FCC reg required TV stations to broadcast simultaneously in digital and analog. This was to assist in the obvious transitional period. This one is just taking it to the next step to where broadcasters no longer have to provide an analog signal after 2009, 4 years from now.
At least the digital disease has taken a longer time over there.
Over here it is nothing but a big mess with all the rush our government has had with it.
I don't think they've come up with a single stantard yet and there already should be some kind of clue whats its going to be.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
At least the digital disease has taken a longer time over there.
Over here it is nothing but a big mess with all the rush our government has had with it.
I don't think they've come up with a single stantard yet and there already should be some kind of clue whats its going to be.
Question of ignorance – Why is there such a Holy Grail search for crisper image, what is wrong with current TV?
-
Originally posted by Russian
Question of ignorance – Why is there such a Holy Grail search for crisper image, what is wrong with current TV?
I'm about as ignorant as you with the issue .
As far as I know, it is also about the services that a digital TV can offer.
Although I would've found it more sensible to spend government money on the internet than on something we already have (a small envy of the swedes policy).
-
Originally posted by Russian
Question of ignorance – Why is there such a Holy Grail search for crisper image, what is wrong with current TV?
It's more than a question of a better picture. It's about saving bandwidth and energy. It's also about progress moving foreward. The reason our government is doing this is to avoid the mess that digital TV is in europe. There will be a standard in the US (already is) and the rest of the world (as usual) will follow us. This will be a neat and comfortable transition. Although I don't think the gov needs to subsidize it. Within the next 4 years most of us will be replacing our TVs anyways. Haven't you all wondered why the price of analog TVs has gotten rediculously cheap? It's because they will soon be useless.
-
I love DirecTV, "Digital Cable" sucks as it still runs through "jumpers".
Karaya
-
I recenly switched from direct tv to charter digital and you're right; digital cable sucks. Most of it isn't even digital. All the basic channels are analog, just the premiums are digital. Plus their menus are horrible. The thing is, between the cable, charter pipeline, and vonage, I can't beat the price. As soon as my 6 month incentive runs out, I'm going to basic analog cable. Their internet on the other hand, is freaky fast.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
It's more than a question of a better picture. It's about saving bandwidth and energy. It's also about progress moving foreward. The reason our government is doing this is to avoid the mess that digital TV is in europe. There will be a standard in the US (already is) and the rest of the world (as usual) will follow us. This will be a neat and comfortable transition. Although I don't think the gov needs to subsidize it. Within the next 4 years most of us will be replacing our TVs anyways. Haven't you all wondered why the price of analog TVs has gotten rediculously cheap? It's because they will soon be useless.
Could you elaborate on ‘saving bandwidth and energy’?
My ideology TV = pure evil medium of mindless entertainment makes me skeptical of the reasons why government must insert itself into public’s business in order to enhance evilness of television.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
I recenly switched from direct tv to charter digital and you're right; digital cable sucks. Most of it isn't even digital. All the basic channels are analog, just the premiums are digital. Plus their menus are horrible. The thing is, between the cable, charter pipeline, and vonage, I can't beat the price. As soon as my 6 month incentive runs out, I'm going to basic analog cable. Their internet on the other hand, is freaky fast.
I agree, with mysefl being into HT I sacrifice the Cable Porn Pipe with DSL. Digital Cable is just another way for Cable Companies to bleed more money before this deadline is pushed back yet again. Why? So they can bleed more money and raise rates.
Been with DirecTV fro 6 years, rates have never gone up a penny.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Russian
Question of ignorance – Why is there such a Holy Grail search for crisper image, what is wrong with current TV?
Go to a High End Home Theater Store and watch the picture from either a Loewe Aconda 38" or a Pioneer Elite Plasma. You'll know why, anything else, is 3rd best.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Go to a High End Home Theater Store and watch the picture from either a Loewe Aconda 38" or a Pioneer Elite Plasma. You'll know why, anything else, is 3rd best.
Karaya
You missed my discourse of evil medium of stupidity. It wasn’t about prettier picture…
-
He only wants it in case there is footage of you pistol whipping oprah on TV
-
I would like to read the wording of the bill. It sounds like they are eliminating a requirement for broadcasters to transmit analog signals as well as digital signals. Eliminating a regulation is a good thing I think. The articles I've scanned imply that they are adding a regulation requiring all digital broadcasts. Will stations be able to broadcast in analog if they choose to?
Subsidizing boxes to transform non-digital ready TV's is complete and utter crap.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I would like to read the wording of the bill. It sounds like they are eliminating a requirement for broadcasters to transmit analog signals as well as digital signals. Eliminating a regulation is a good thing I think. The articles I've scanned imply that they are adding a regulation requiring all digital broadcasts. Will stations be able to broadcast in analog if they choose to?
Subsidizing boxes to transform non-digital ready TV's is complete and utter crap.
The reg to require digital broadcast has been in effect for some time. I believe it required all broadcasters to come on board by 2004 (I could be wrong). The new reg just states that they no longer will be required to broadcast in analog after 2009. This is just a government regulated transition period.
I agree with you on the box thingy. With the price of plasmas and HDTVs dropping, most of us will have replaced our TVs by then anyways.
My advice is to not be lulled into buying one of those dirt cheap analog sets; It will be worthless in 4 years (without the government subsidized convertion box).
-
Well at least they waited for March Madness to be over:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Skilless
agree with you on the box thingy. With the price of plasmas and HDTVs dropping, most of us will have replaced our TVs by then anyways.
My advice is to not be lulled into buying one of those dirt cheap analog sets; It will be worthless in 4 years (without the government subsidized convertion box).
Yes, that's the idea of the box, your analog set will NOT be worthless in the future. We are going all digital in 2007, and 95% of the tv-sets sold here still have an analog tuner or no tuner at all. There's just no point, with an external box it's easier to upgrade without buying a whole set. There are going to be lots of new digital services introduced in the future, and if I buy a digital set now it won't support all the services in the future.
When it was annouced here that the broadcasts are going all digital in 2007, there was a huge outcry. Eventually people realized that it's a good thing, and that there's nothing wrong with external boxes. My grandmother for example is very comfortable and happy with her current $100 box. The number of channels tripled, and the box is very easy to use.
The fact that the tuners are currently built in to the sets is also one of the reason why you are still stuck with 60's tech.
I agree that the subsidizing is stupid. The boxes aren't expensive, and well worth their natural cost.
-
written by MrRiplEy:
The dawn of digital television was filled with promises. The consumers were to get better tv, richer in colors and abundant in variety at no cost.
The reality was different. As many naysayers already envisioned the beginning of the transmissions posed more problems than benefits. The early adopters soon found out that the expensive receivers they purchased were in fact buggy and needed replacing way before even half of the population had bought theirs. Despite the promises the prices of the digital receivers never went down. Instead they became packed with more functionality, such as harddrives for recording.
Many questioned the viability of the promises on improved content. We were promised more channels, better programs and a higher image quality to top it off. The reality proved a lot different: Same general channels with _degraded_ image quality due to lossy compression used on the channels. Those who had a flawless analog image quality were disappointed. Those living in rural areas found often some improvement image wise. As suspected the content provided did not improve one bit. Granted there are now more channels. We got one 24h music channel which serves mainly as an advertisement for the ever so loved recording industry. We got informational channels which provide an interesting documentary about ONCE A WEEK. We got the first national adult tv-channel which uses a loophole in legislation in order to transmit an hour of hardcore porn 4 days a week for free.
But most importantly now that the transmission costs lowered and the new digital technology advanced we got paid channels. Paid channels with little to none interest in them. Sports. F1 Grand Prix. Anyone wanting those could aswell buy satellite for 10x the content. But that's not all folks..
A plague of modern tv was introduced: MOBILE GAMING. Anyone ever seen one? It goes like this: Every day, several hours per day, tv-channels run mobile games and chat on screen. People can send SMS messages in order to chat or play the retarded games for (and this is the best part) $0.7 - $1 a message. That's right, imagine playing a puzzle game with 20 other players and paying $1 per move. Sounds impossible right?
Wrong. The games are filled with idiots either wanting to see their name on the tv-screen or simply underage children paying on their parents account. Yep, most 10-year old kids in Finland have their own cellular phones paid by parents these days.
Conclusion:
Digital television was lobbyed to the legislators by the media companies. Much as the recent copyright law it directly violates the benefits of the consumer and plays directly to the pocket of the media industry. To the consumers the digital tv brought only _mandatory_ cost as everyone is now forced to purchase either a new tv-set or at least a digital receiver. Well, or stop watching tv completely. At the same time the media content did not improve and the amount of mobile tv games skyrocketed. The media industry 1 consumer 0.
Post script:
With the inclusion of the new digital rights law, it is suspected by the same naysayers that DRM will soon be introduced to normal tv. Already in the US legislation is being pushed to both limit viewing of any digital broadcast under a certain timeperiod and include the same limitation to analog devices.
That's right, if the MPAA/RIAA a-holes get their way through (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/analog-hole.ars//url) soon every digital and analog device sold in the united states will have a mandatory DRM functionality which for example deletes any tv-show taped on a vcr if a time limit set by content holder is exceeded. The same legislation aims to end most of TIVO functionality, especially deleting adverts. Some shows will also be set with 'limited view' flag meaning you can only delay viewing the recording up to 40 minutes. Permanent storing will be denied.
-
I don't see it that negatively, but it's a fine summary never the less. Digital technology in itself isn't the cause for the crappy content. I'm sure a lot of people who believed the hype were dissapointed. Just another example of typical lobbying.
-
"My advice is to, within the next 4 years, get a digital TV. "
Why would I need to buy a new TV? My TV is more than 20 years old and it works just fine with digital cable and various digital satellite networks. If converters will be available so I can pick up air broadcasts too, then why fork out several thousand dollars for one that'll do the same things that my current TV does?
I'd happily buy a new TV if all the new ones weren't ugly overpriced plastic things. I don't like the all-plastic "hospital room" look that is modern interior fashion.
The REAL reason the businesses want to switch to all-digital networks has nothing to do with the number of channels they can provide and everything to do with it becomming easier for them to monitor everything you watch, record, etc.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"My advice is to, within the next 4 years, get a digital TV. "
Why would I need to buy a new TV? My TV is more than 20 years old and it works just fine with digital cable and various digital satellite networks. If converters will be available so I can pick up air broadcasts too, then why fork out several thousand dollars for one that'll do the same things that my current TV does?
I'd happily buy a new TV if all the new ones weren't ugly overpriced plastic things. I don't like the all-plastic "hospital room" look that is modern interior fashion.
The REAL reason the businesses want to switch to all-digital networks has nothing to do with the number of channels they can provide and everything to do with it becomming easier for them to monitor everything you watch, record, etc.
J_A_B
DING DING DING DING
We have a winner. Broadcasters want to reign in control of their content. That way they can make more money off of it. I'm not saying this is bad or good but when TIVO caves in to the major networks demands to control what their customers can record and play back it really angers me.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
I'd happily buy a new TV if all the new ones weren't ugly overpriced plastic things. I don't like the all-plastic "hospital room" look that is modern interior fashion.
J_A_B
LOL, yes gett a wood cabinet TV with quality hand soldered electronic compoments, none of that PCB stuff from smarty upstart Oriental companies like Sony!
:noid
(http://www.roseville.ca.us/images/EU/old%20tv.jpg)
Sexey!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL, yes gett a wood cabinet TV with quality hand soldered electronic compoments, none of that PCB stuff from smarty upstart Oriental companies like Sony!
:noid
(http://www.roseville.ca.us/images/EU/old%20tv.jpg)
Sexey!
Don't forget about the vacume tubes.....Those make all the difference.
-
Once again, our Congress is meddling in things that are really none of their business.
-
"LOL, yes gett a wood cabinet TV with quality hand soldered electronic compoments, none of that PCB stuff from smarty upstart Oriental companies like Sony!"
I'll take a picture of my TV sometime if I can get my hands on a digital camera. I'm sure any reasonable person would agree that it's utterly superior to anything being built today.
But then, some people just have no taste and actually like inferior junk.
If there's an argument against old TV's like mine, it's the fact that they weigh 300 pounds. I'd love to see one of these new 3-inch thick plasma TV's with quality bodywork.
J_A_B
-
Superior in which way JAB? Be as specific as you are arrogant in telling us how your TV is better:
Wood cabinet?
Metal dials?
Picture quality?
Sound quality?
Picture resolution?
HDTV display?
Screen size?
-
Wood cabinet? yes. This makes it both good-looking AND durbale against kids having a temper tantrum.
Metal dials? No, this isn't the 1950's. It has no dials at all. It doesn't have legs, either.
Picture quality? I'm satisfied
Sound quality? Wood framework = good for speaker mounting. Not even you can argue with that, at least.
Picture resolution? Heck if I know...I watch TV like twice a week.
HDTV display? Too old for that.
Screen size? RCA 25 inch
Unlike all-plastic abominations, it actually matches the rest of my furniture.
If you think my TV is bad, you should see my stereo entertainment center--it's from the 1950's and is fully enclosed in a wood cabinet, they make NOTHING like it these days.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
If you think my TV is bad, you should see my stereo entertainment center--it's from the 1950's and is fully enclosed in a wood cabinet, they make NOTHING like it these days.
J_A_B
and I bet the things amplifier has vacume tubes in it! Can't beat those sometimes.
-
you have to forgive JAB - he also thinks his 8-track Saturday Night Fever tape is the best sound around :)
-
pretty much all I watch is DVD movies and such. Will a HDTV make them any better?
lazs
-
"you have to forgive JAB - he also thinks his 8-track Saturday Night Fever tape is the best sound around"
I wouldn't be caught dead listening to disco. A guy has to have some standards. I've never actually seen an 8-track tape player.....as far as I'm concerned, those things are some sort of myth.
I do, however, have several dozen fairly old records, probably pre-war. Some of the songs have names like "Washboard Blues". I kid you not.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and I bet the things amplifier has vacume tubes in it! Can't beat those sometimes.
Not only that but you could repair the damn things yourself.
I remember going with my father to "Radio Shack" or "Two Guys" with a bag full of tubes and testing them then replacing them.
and they lasted longer.
Back in the mid 60's (65-66) My Parents bought a new Zeinith TV that I took with me when I moved out and eventually turned over to my room mate when I got married back in 1983.
He had it for another 4 years. And it still worked when he finally trashed it.
Sure ya had to use a pair of pliers to grab the little metal post to change the channal because the dial had broken off. but it still worked fine.
I have yet to have another TV that has lasted me more then 5 years LOL
-
Originally posted by lazs2
pretty much all I watch is DVD movies and such. Will a HDTV make them any better?
lazs
I think the short answer is "Yes".
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#2.9
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Not only that but you could repair the damn things yourself.
I remember going with my father to "Radio Shack" or "Two Guys" with a bag full of tubes and testing them then replacing them.
and they lasted longer.
Back in the mid 60's (65-66) My Parents bought a new Zeinith TV that I took with me when I moved out and eventually turned over to my room mate when I got married back in 1983.
He had it for another 4 years. And it still worked when he finally trashed it.
Sure ya had to use a pair of pliers to grab the little metal post to change the channal because the dial had broken off. but it still worked fine.
I have yet to have another TV that has lasted me more then 5 years LOL
It was the same thing with my parents Kenwood cabinate stereo. They bought it in 1965. Sure enough the speakers (wich were made out of paper back then) wore out long ago but the unit works perfect except for the volume dial. The pot behind it crackls a bit. When you start this sucker up you can hear the tubes warming up and actually see them glow. The sound quality is amazing.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
pretty much all I watch is DVD movies and such. Will a HDTV make them any better?
lazs
yes, if you watch them on a progressive scan dvd player in widescreen format
toss in a great surround sound and you'll never go to the movies again
-
Movies? Who goes there anyway. That's like so 50's.
-
I guess what I am trying to say is that I allready have a 62" mitsubishi and home theatre. It Does not have HDTV. I just wanted to know if I would get a better picture on my DVD's that I watch if I went to a HDTV.
lazs
-
Anyone else own a handheld LCD TV? I assume these are useless when the analog signal goes away?
-
Yes.