Posted on 01/25/2009 8:17:47 PM PST by BAW
Switch from analog signals deemed too important to leave in private hands, with predictable results.
If you watch TV for more than a few minutes a day, you have probably seen ads and public service announcements about the Feb. 17 changeover from analog to digital television broadcasting. During the other transition, several officials of the incoming Obama administration have suggested pushing back the transition date three months, and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller has submitted a bill to push back the date to June 12.
Why the fumbling and confusion? The short answer is that the government, beginning as far back as 1988, decided that the transition from analog to digital TV, unlike the transition from analog to digital sound recording, which took place during the 1980s (though some audiophiles still swear that analog was better), was too important to be left to the "anarchy" of the marketplace. So the Federal Communications Commission, under legislation passed in 1996, has handled this transition. Not surprisingly, it has been driven more by political than by technological or economic considerations.
The cellular telephone industry has made the transition from analog to digital. Did you read articles about the problems? Were you even aware of it? Probably not, because it was handled in the competitive marketplace with a minimum of fuss and feathers.
The advantages of digital TV broadcasting are essentially twofold. Digital broadcasting permits sharper resolution of the picture using a smaller portion of the broadcast spectrum and more efficient broadcasting of high-definition signals. Conversion will also free up the frequency spectrum to allow for more uses of the increasingly popular hand-held devices like BlackBerries, iPhones and the like.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
And yet they want to handle everyone's health care.
The article didn’t explain in what way the feds were “fumbling” this.
While I’m not necessarily happy with the way the transition was done - we’ve had PLENTY Of advance notice - it’s been in the works for 13 years.
All television sets sold in the past four or five years are equipped to receive digital signals, and cable and satellite systems also use digital technology. But people with older analog sets – who tend to be older or lower-income people – or those who use their old analog TV sets in secondary household locations, will need a converter box. There's a government (i.e., taxpayer-funded) program that provides a $40 coupon to help pay for converter boxes. But John Podesta, co-chairman of President Obama's transition team, says the program has not kept pace with demand, and some 2 million people are now on a waiting list for coupons. Thus the pressure to delay the conversion date.
Given that the conversion date has been delayed several times already, and it costs TV stations to send out both analog and digital signals, which they are doing now, the best bet, despite the fact that there will be a few problems, is probably not to delay the conversion date again.
Obama doesn’t want to stimulate the economy too early (before he can ram his social programs down our collective throats), so he suggested that the switch to new technology be delayed.
This isn't quite true. Digital signals are easily interfered with.. most commonly by multipath. But instead of a ghost or interference on the screen, you get total dropouts with a blank screen with no audio.
I don't see how that statement is correct. It doesn't cost a TV station to send out an analog signal anymore than it costs to send a digital signal.
I have a question. Arent a lot of vcr’s made yrs ago already have a digital tuner and couldnt you use that instead of a converter box?
Actually, the digital transmitter is separate and currently running simultaneously with the analog transmitter. I’ve heard that some stations have deferred maintenance on their analog system, assuming the scheduled transition. Delay will result in additional costs, for both upkeep and power for the analog transmitter in order to maintain simultaneous operation.
but one would think that with all that is going on in the States (not just lately, with the financial crap) but who insisted we jump to digital, why is it necessary to do this at all? And lastly why did it take an act of congress to cram this down our collective throats?
I could go on but...
Ah.. you are correct on that note.
If you can’t accept any other reason to HATE congress - then this is it!
We watched the Gov’t give away free converter boxes, we’ve watched adverts for the last year the change WILL come in February, all TV makers have told us the same - and now idiot congressmen feel it should be extended. WHY? Who isn’t prepared by now?
I swear congress are retards.
The analog and digital signals are on two different transmitters....and they are also installing additional micro transmitters in hard to reach areas.
I have read that a lot of the broadcasters will reduce their analog signals to their license minimum on Feb 17 if the switchover is delayed...to reduce power for those four unplanned months.
It is also quite common to get scatter (pixels scattered out of place) frozen images and image tracing.
No there aren’t. There are no benefits to the stations for this switch.
Will they receive more ad revenue? Nope. Same ads. Same sponsors. IF (and ONLY if) everything went smoothly, they’d have exactly the same number of eyeballs watching their crappy programming, from which they derive the rates for their advertising.
But... here’s the reality: across huge chunks of the US, TV stations operate remote translators/repeaters to relay their signal to remote/rural audiences. These transmitters, by and large, have been given a much larger window of time to convert. Many of them probably won’t ever convert. If they’re given an edict “Convert to DTV... or else!” a lot of these translators will take the “or else” option and go dark.
Meaning fewer eyeballs, which means reduced ad revenue.
There are plenty of people in rural areas who aren’t buying DTV-ready sets, because their transmitters (the aforementioned translators) aren’t digital now, aren’t about to be digital in the future and the majority of any improvement in their situation comes from going to satellite and calling it done. That’s yet more potential revenue for the terrestrial stations lost.
The whole of the DTV conversion was so absurdly ill-planned that it took until the middle of last year for converter boxes with analog pass-through to start appearing. If they really wanted to make this conversion as seamless as possible, they would have had mandated converter boxes have an analog/NTSC pass-through to minimize the hassle for users from the start. But they didn’t. They would have addressed the rural/low-power/non-profit station issue, but they didn’t.
I have TV station next door to my office. They’re ready to switch off analog and immediately switch on digital on February 17. They’re going to be PO’d if they have to wait another 4 months.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.