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.
#23, Plano (Texas) Yankee
Since most stations are running both now, without understanding a word you said, I would agree.
Which provides more bandwidth for users. There is almost certainly a component to this where they can sell more channels, but the real reason is they were out of bandwidth and had demand from more users. 10 years ago I was not happy about this, but in the time since, most people have been able to transition to new compatible TV's and there are always converter boxes for the old diehards who want to keep their RCA console.:)
I believe they are operating on different carrier freqs, but I may be wrong. No, my point is that if one is going to suggest and entire revamping of infrastructure, then perhaps it might be done less by ad hoc formation. Granted, even though IEEE has been heavily involved.
I’m sure tons of naysayers will scream loudly about tinfoil hats etc.
However, I’ve read too many different sources confirming that cable boxes are two way communications modules . . . with audio going back to the cable center—IIRC—regardless of whether the TV is on, or not.
Certainly security could entail all manner of issues. But I certainly am utterly convinced that the globalists are determined to exceed 1984’s standards by a wide margin wherever they can get away with it.
With MSM public brainwashing so brazenly routine . . . I wouldn’t put anything past them AT ALL.
BINGO!
Even if you transmitted a digital signal along the analog frequency, the cross modulation would distort both signals. In addition, the analog signals inherently take more bandwidth, so you're right back where you started. With digital, the intention has always been to multiplex the signals and maximize the capabilities of each frequency, but multiplexing has its limits over the airwaves, especially at lower frequencies. The denser content, such as HDTV, needs higher frequencies to carry the data, while the lower frequencies can be freed up for simpler data transmission and lower level content, such as cell phones. internet and emergency voice and data communications.
You mistyped, my friend.
Nope. Private industry would not standardize it nation or world wide. Government is best suited to standardize. It is different to set the broadcast technical standards than to regulate the content.
The FCC has always been populated by installed bureaucrats who wouldn’t know a megacycle from a mop. Witness over the decades how we almost ended up with mechanical TV, how they pretty much killed Du Mont, how we could’ve has stereo sound on our TV’s long before the mid ‘80’s, how they botched AM stereo, the IBOC debacle (especially concerning AM), how LPTV took a back seat to a handful of religious broadcasters and their translators (repeaters), et cetera ad nauseum.
And DTV doesn’t look all that great, despite the cheerleaders who can’t see the noise in titles and faces, etc.
No, I’ll take the FCC with a boulder of salt.
My error. I meant low power FM'ers.
The purpose is to reallocate the spectrum for more advertising/propaganda and increase individual coverage of the market by Madison Ave.
Women and minorites most affected. Breaking hard.
Solution is to raise taxes and increase government oversight. Greedy capitalists to blame. Film at 11.
I did not say it was perfect. I am advocating for the position that centralized standards were critical to broadcasting and that the government was the best entity. I do not justify every decision and power move made in the last 85 years.
Thanks for the info.
Kinda like, "you don't standardize unless you federalize", eh? It seems that I recall that the VHS standard shook itself out of the VHS/BetaMax battle without federalization, and a hi-def DVD standard is well on it's privately-owned-Blue-Ray-way as well. Sorry, FRiend, I cannot agree. History proves otherwise: free markets work. The consumer IS smart enough to make his/her own choice.
Of course, federal standardization DID give us a mandated 1.5-gal-per-flush toilet. Insist on selling something other long enough and see if Gov't men with guns don't show up at your door. And let's not forget the federal "standards" that cause 80-year-old caucasian great-grannies to get stripped searched while swarthy-looking middle-eastern men shouting "Allah Akbar! Death to the Great Satan!" get a pass at the airport. Truly, federalization ALWAYS occurs to the benefit of the citizens, comrade! [/industrial-strength sarcasm]
As for "It is different to set the broadcast technical standards than to regulate the content.", I agree. But please Google "camel's nose under the tent".
Cheers!
The feds seems like the best way to define the standards for broadcasting. If you can't get manufacturers to agree on a recorder/player standard, how in God's name would they set up a national or internationsl method of broadcasting TV programs.
Please don't bring up the internet, I address the feasibility of that earlier.
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.