THE REAL REASON CONGRESS IS DEMANDING AMERICA CONVERT TELEVISONS FROM ANALOG TO DIGITAL???

08 March 2008 | Robert Drobot

[purpleraine]

an improvement

[raybbr]

Then why mandate change? If digital is better why not open the digital channels without getting rid of the analog?

I am not against the change. I am sure digital is better.

Why doesn't Congress mandate that everyone use at least DSL and get rid of dial-up?

[GoDuke]

“Obviously, the tin foil lobby is behind this so they can sell lots of tin foil hats

Ya’ll just don’t make the connection, digital signals defeat aluminium foil....go through it like butter right
to the brain stem, say hello to your new alien overlords.”

Well I for one would like to extend a welcome to our new alien overlords. ;)

[Popman]

But what about the tinfoil people use to fix their indoor analog antennae? Is the tinfoil lobby working at cross-purposes?

Well, very true, but it's takes a lot more tinfoil to cover up your windows to stop the over the air digital signal sent to your converter box you got from the government for free.

[Sam's Army]

"...in the insanity of a free trade market ( quicksand ) economy.

As opposed to the sanity of a fully protectionist model.

[TomGuy]

I have standard expanded cable. I have noticed my cable co says things will continue to operate normally (for analog TVs).

They do, however, in the fine print, indicate that the current feeds will continue to work for the next 2 years.

I have a feeling that, in a couple of years, even the cable companies will be mandating that customers switch from analog feeds to digital feeds, and even cable companies will drop analog in the near future.

[Robert Drobot]

A very persuasive point of view. Thank you.

[Beagle8U]

The only way I can get the digital local channels is through the satellite box. They charge an extra $10 a month for what was free.

[purpleraine]

I tried in my younger days to be a full-fledged libertarian, but I kept thinking of things the government does pretty well. Interstate system for one. I can’t conceive of a radio-tv system broadcasting without centralized technical regulations. Maybe the internet will change that.

[DB]

All of that spectrum has been allocated for many years. There was no place to add new digital channels without overlapping what is already there.

The spectrum isn’t free for other uses until the current users are gone.

It is a huge waste of space and progress to leave the spectrum allocated for TV channels that are mostly absent to continue on. At some point you have to make the change. The change is now.

[Robert Drobot]

"I have a feeling that, in a couple of years, even the cable companies will be mandating that customers switch from analog feeds to digital feeds, and even cable companies will drop analog in the near future."

I believe the commentary coming from the Congressional sub-committee minutes I posted above ( ( H.R.___, Regarding the Transition to Digital Television ) say this very thing.

[Robert Drobot]

"As opposed to the sanity of a fully protectionist model."

Tell that to those laid-off home-foreclosure victims of 'free' trade. Nothing is 'free' and the swelling rolls of unemployed skilled and middle management American Citizens can sadly attest to that grim fact.

[1rudeboy]

That’s a new one: my opposition to tariffs resulted in the sub-prime mortgage fiasco. I will ponder it some more.

[SampleMan]

We are told by the government it is in our national interest to live in the insanity of a free trade market ( quicksand ) economy. Why then is the Congress sticking its ugly head into the alleged 'free marketplace' tent; making law to cram a digital signal down the collective throats of Americans, when we didn't ask for this dictatorial intervention???

Its easier to put the subliminal messages in a digital broadcast. This is important because with the advent of bottled water, people weren't getting the doses of fluoride that they were before.

[rawhide]

And, with sub-channels, three times the programming.

Pardon my ignorance, but what are these sub-channels? Are these channels in addition to the main network channel? Is the programming different on these sub-channels? Thanks.

[Sam's Army]

"Tell that to those laid-off home-foreclosure victims of 'free' trade."

Free trade = foreclosure. Got it.

"the swelling rolls of unemployed skilled and middle management American Citizens can sadly attest to that grim fact."

Unemploymernt is DOWN almost half a percent in the last 3 months. Did the MSM not tell you that? I'm shocked!

http://research.stlousifed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

[John W]

Well, I’m not the expert, but, for example in our area of Northeast Indiana we are near Fort Wayne. One of the channels is 33, an NBC affiliate. Their digital signal enables them to broadcast more than one station. So, either through your satellite box or your digital TV you receive, in their case, the regular station on 33-1, My TV on 33-2 and NBC Weather Plus including local cut-ins on 33-3. Some use their subs for a 24-hour radar which is nice.

[HangThemHigh]

"I love conspiracies, they’re lots of fun. But this is just the evolution of the technology. Digital is better. It uses narrower frequencies than analog."

Does narrow frequencies mean more channels? Surely there is some real reason for this beyond boosting WalMart and the Chinese, et al.

Since when does Congress have anything to do with progress?

[Cvengr]

Ever heard of multiplexing?

[Cvengr]

At first I bought the limited resource argument, until I began to think about how signals are presently utilized in communication theory.

I’m open to review the mathematical arguments, but I haven’t yet seen the proof that it isn’t possible to have both analog and digital available. IMHO, it’s simply a matter of convoluting the signals so that an appropriate demodulator/codex is employed to deconvolute the source to reproduce the appropriate source signal.