Posted on 03/08/2008 4:59:24 AM PST by Robert Drobot
I've read one argument coming from Congress that holds this change will be a boon for employment and manufacturing. However, inasmuch as things electrical are not manufactured in our country this needed production can only benefit our not-so-good friends in China.
There is a further argument that it is necessary for some yet to be explained national security purpose.
I've come across the minutes of one Congressional staff meeting ( H.R.___, Regarding the Transition to Digital Television in which 'security' is referenced forty-six ( 38 ) times; 'national security' is referenced three ( 3 ) times; and Homeland Security is referenced five (5 ) times.
an improvement
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?
“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. ;)
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.
As opposed to the sanity of a fully protectionist model.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s a new one: my opposition to tariffs resulted in the sub-prime mortgage fiasco. I will ponder it some more.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
Ever heard of multiplexing?
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.
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.