Politics > Politics-USA > The real reason for getting rid of analog TV signals -- not for YOURbenefit
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2007 04:26:52 PM |
| Object: |
The real reason for getting rid of analog TV signals -- not for YOURbenefit |
Most of you are probably aware that the
U.S. government is mandating that TV
broadcasts all be in digital format
beginning February 17, 2009, and
that the current analog format no
longer be used (see www.dtv.gov
for details). Here is a copy of a
letter I emailed to the FCC and will
shortly send to my Congressman
regarding this change:
Forcing TV broadcasters to cease putting out analog
broadcasts is extremely bad for the consumer. Analog
signals are *much* more robust than digital -- that
is, if an analog signal is degraded due to distance
or interference (which happens frequently if, say,
the flight path of a major airport is between the
broadcast transmitter and the receiver), the viewer
at least gets *something* and can still enjoy the
broadcast, while if the same thing happens to a
digital signal, the viewer ends up with nothing at
all, because the TV can't make any sense of the
garbled bitstream. Thus, on balance, from the
viewer's point of view, digital constitutes a huge
REDUCTION IN QUALITY from analog.
It is obvious that the real reason for getting rid of
analog is that the FCC is corrupt; it is being
regulated by the communications industry for the
industry's monetary benefit, instead of doing its
job of regulating the industry for the benefit of
all the individual people of the United States.
(This is what we can expect with Republicans
running things.) Quite evidently the FCC has been
lobbied, or very possibly even bribed, by the cable
and satellite companies that wish to misuse the
government's coercive power in an attempt to force
more viewers into buying their overpriced services.
If the FCC has any honor and decency left at all,
it will permit -- preferably *require* -- the
continuance of analog signals in perpetuity. If
the FCC wishes to require that broadcasters provide
digital signals *in addition*, that's fine; but it
should not screw the American people by getting rid
of analog!
-----------(end of message)----------------
I admit that if this change was mandated by
Congress (as I belatedly noticed is stated on
dtv.gov), then it was Congress (then also
controlled by Republicans) that was corrupt
when it passed that legislation (though that
doesn't prevent the FCC from also being
corrupt; these days, one should expect
that of executive agencies).
-- Jeffrey J. Sargent,
.
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason for getting rid of analog TV signals -- not forYOUR benefit |
16 Nov 2007 08:35:07 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Most of you are probably aware that the
U.S. government is mandating that TV
broadcasts all be in digital format
beginning February 17, 2009, and
that the current analog format no
longer be used (see www.dtv.gov
for details). Here is a copy of a
letter I emailed to the FCC and will
shortly send to my Congressman
regarding this change:
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "Eh, what a maroon!".
Congress and the FCC have been working on this plan for _at_least_
twelve years - and you just now noticed it? Where were you in '95
during the public hearings?
Go look at your own citation, and scroll down to the bottom:
http://www.dtv.gov/inthenews.html
Do try to keep up.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Forcing TV broadcasters to cease putting out analog
broadcasts is extremely bad for the consumer. Analog
signals are *much* more robust than digital -- that
is, if an analog signal is degraded due to distance
or interference (which happens frequently if, say,
the flight path of a major airport is between the
broadcast transmitter and the receiver), the viewer
at least gets *something* and can still enjoy the
broadcast, while if the same thing happens to a
digital signal, the viewer ends up with nothing at
all, because the TV can't make any sense of the
garbled bitstream. Thus, on balance, from the
viewer's point of view, digital constitutes a huge
REDUCTION IN QUALITY from analog.
It is obvious that the real reason for getting rid of
analog is that the FCC is corrupt; it is being
regulated by the communications industry for the
industry's monetary benefit, instead of doing its
job of regulating the industry for the benefit of
all the individual people of the United States.
(This is what we can expect with Republicans
running things.) Quite evidently the FCC has been
lobbied, or very possibly even bribed, by the cable
and satellite companies that wish to misuse the
government's coercive power in an attempt to force
more viewers into buying their overpriced services.
If the FCC has any honor and decency left at all,
it will permit -- preferably *require* -- the
continuance of analog signals in perpetuity. If
the FCC wishes to require that broadcasters provide
digital signals *in addition*, that's fine; but it
should not screw the American people by getting rid
of analog!
-----------(end of message)----------------
I admit that if this change was mandated by
Congress (as I belatedly noticed is stated on
dtv.gov), then it was Congress (then also
controlled by Republicans) that was corrupt
when it passed that legislation (though that
doesn't prevent the FCC from also being
corrupt; these days, one should expect
that of executive agencies).
-- Jeffrey J. Sargent,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Its the Principle!" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason for getting rid of analog TV signals -- not for YOUR benefit |
24 Nov 2007 05:58:10 PM |
|
|
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
jjsargent@go.com wrote:
Most of you are probably aware that the
U.S. government is mandating that TV
broadcasts all be in digital format
beginning February 17, 2009, and
that the current analog format no
longer be used (see www.dtv.gov
for details). Here is a copy of a
letter I emailed to the FCC and will
shortly send to my Congressman
regarding this change:
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "Eh, what a maroon!".
Congress and the FCC have been working on this plan for _at_least_
twelve years - and you just now noticed it? Where were you in '95
during the public hearings?
Go look at your own citation, and scroll down to the bottom:
http://www.dtv.gov/inthenews.html
Do try to keep up.
You're not actually going to try to reason with someone so far behind
he actually posts such a diatribe, are you? I mean, he's pretending
like it's some big US conspiracy, when The Netherlands has already
done, and virtually every other country will have done by the end of
the decade. If anything, the US is a bit behind on the GLOBAL
changeover.
But who am I to judge. I'll let you do it for me. ;)
--
Brandy Alexandre
The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he
never would be found out. -- Thomas Babington Macaulay
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason for getting rid of analog TV signals -- not forYOUR benefit |
24 Nov 2007 05:37:37 PM |
|
|
On Nov 16, 7:35 am, Bama Brian <bamaNOTbr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
jjsarg...@go.com wrote:
Most of you are probably aware that the
U.S. government is mandating that TV
broadcasts all be in digital format
beginning February 17, 2009, and
that the current analog format no
longer be used (seewww.dtv.gov
for details). Here is a copy of a
letter I emailed to the FCC and will
shortly send to my Congressman
regarding this change:
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "Eh, what a maroon!".
Congress and the FCC have been working on this plan for _at_least_
twelve years - and you just now noticed it? Where were you in '95
during the public hearings?
I could make Bugs' comment back to you,
but instead I will quote Sherlock Holmes:
"It is a capital mistake to theorize in
advance of the facts." I am not one of
those who thinks he has to have the
latest and (in this case) not-so-greatest
new technology. Only in the last few
months have I had a chance to experience
digital over-the-air broadcast TV, after
the death of a 15-year-old analog TV
necessitated a replacement. One
would think that the engineers who
devised digital TV would have had more
pride, and wouldn't have put out a
product with such a flimsy signal.
Oh well, I'm getting fed up with TV
anyway; it's gotten to the point where
if I turn on the set or change channels
to find out the status of some game
I'm not interested enough in to watch
all the way through, at least 9 times
out of 10 it's in commercials. The few
drama shows I watch equally have too
many commercials, and the news
broadcasts (especially local) are
becoming more and more vapid --
except maybe PBS's, but they
instead beat issues to death, which
may be necessary for policymakers
but makes for tedious TV.
Books, magazines, and newspapers
may be old-fashioned (and, alas,
necessitate the death of trees), but
they still have some big advantages.
-- Jeffrey J. Sargent
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Joseph Mc Namara" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason for getting rid of analog TV signals -- not for YOUR benefit |
25 Nov 2007 11:24:52 AM |
|
|
<jjsargent@go.com> wrote in message
news:bb622b36-f5ca-41ff-9f35-9ba0efe5b51b@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 7:35 am, Bama Brian <bamaNOTbr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
jjsarg...@go.com wrote:
Congress and the FCC have been working on this plan for _at_least_
twelve years - and you just now noticed it? Where were you in '95
during the public hearings?
One
would think that the engineers who
devised digital TV would have had more
pride, and wouldn't have put out a
product with such a flimsy signal.
Oh well, I'm getting fed up with TV
anyway; it's gotten to the point where
if I turn on the set or change channels
to find out the status of some game
I'm not interested enough in to watch
all the way through, at least 9 times
out of 10 it's in commercials. The few
drama shows I watch equally have too
many commercials, and the news
broadcasts (especially local) are
becoming more and more vapid --
except maybe PBS's, but they
instead beat issues to death, which
may be necessary for policymakers
but makes for tedious TV.
Books, magazines, and newspapers
may be old-fashioned (and, alas,
necessitate the death of trees), but
they still have some big advantages.
Those who still use off-air tend not to be major television watchers in
general. And with the mini-dish satellite systems so common now, almost
anyone who can't get cable, like those in rural areas, can get a dish.
My only problem with the digital off-air system is that the receivers aren't
readily available in stores in Canada; instead it's the satellite or cable
receivers that are sold. I wouldn't want to see free off-air get pushed out.
--
Patrick Joseph McNamara
E-mail:
Webpage: www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Blog: http://writerpatrick.spaces.msn.com
Podcasts: http://podcastping.blogspot.com- poetry and podsafe music
and: http://thesilentpen.blogspot.com - an examination of writer's block
Subscribe to Podcast Ping by E-Mail:
http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=978789
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason for getting rid of analog TV signals -- not for YOUR benefit |
15 Nov 2007 05:26:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:26:52 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Most of you are probably aware that the
U.S. government is mandating that TV
broadcasts all be in digital format
beginning February 17, 2009, and
that the current analog format no
longer be used (see www.dtv.gov
for details). Here is a copy of a
letter I emailed to the FCC and will
shortly send to my Congressman
regarding this change:
Forcing TV broadcasters to cease putting out analog
broadcasts is extremely bad for the consumer. Analog
signals are *much* more robust than digital -- that
is, if an analog signal is degraded due to distance
or interference (which happens frequently if, say,
the flight path of a major airport is between the
broadcast transmitter and the receiver), the viewer
at least gets *something* and can still enjoy the
broadcast, while if the same thing happens to a
digital signal, the viewer ends up with nothing at
all, because the TV can't make any sense of the
garbled bitstream. Thus, on balance, from the
viewer's point of view, digital constitutes a huge
REDUCTION IN QUALITY from analog.
It is obvious that the real reason for getting rid of
analog is that the FCC is corrupt;
The real reason for the switch is so that the freed up frequencies can
be auctioned off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Joseph Mc Namara" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason for getting rid of analog TV signals -- not for YOUR benefit |
16 Nov 2007 07:51:57 AM |
|
|
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:fblpj3pqbnlhkc9ii452mh4ih98fmuqol9@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:26:52 -0800 (PST), wrote:
It is obvious that the real reason for getting rid of
analog is that the FCC is corrupt;
The real reason for the switch is so that the freed up frequencies can
be auctioned off.
It's mostly the cell phone industry that's interested in them. And really
it's only off-air TV that's going to be affected; not really something
people rely upon much of today--and even then there will still be digital
off-air so nothing is really completely disappearing, just changing. The
only problem I've seen is the lack of off-air digital receivers in the
stores (in Canada); they only seem interested in pay services.
--
Patrick Joseph McNamara
E-mail:
Webpage: www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Blog: http://writerpatrick.spaces.msn.com
Podcasts: http://podcastping.blogspot.com- poetry and podsafe music
and: http://thesilentpen.blogspot.com - an examination of writer's block
Subscribe to Podcast Ping by E-Mail:
http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=978789
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: The real reason for getting rid of analog TV signals -- not forYOUR benefit |
16 Nov 2007 08:37:14 AM |
|
|
David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:26:52 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Most of you are probably aware that the
U.S. government is mandating that TV
broadcasts all be in digital format
beginning February 17, 2009, and
that the current analog format no
longer be used (see www.dtv.gov
for details). Here is a copy of a
letter I emailed to the FCC and will
shortly send to my Congressman
regarding this change:
Forcing TV broadcasters to cease putting out analog
broadcasts is extremely bad for the consumer. Analog
signals are *much* more robust than digital -- that
is, if an analog signal is degraded due to distance
or interference (which happens frequently if, say,
the flight path of a major airport is between the
broadcast transmitter and the receiver), the viewer
at least gets *something* and can still enjoy the
broadcast, while if the same thing happens to a
digital signal, the viewer ends up with nothing at
all, because the TV can't make any sense of the
garbled bitstream. Thus, on balance, from the
viewer's point of view, digital constitutes a huge
REDUCTION IN QUALITY from analog.
It is obvious that the real reason for getting rid of
analog is that the FCC is corrupt;
The real reason for the switch is so that the freed up frequencies can
be auctioned off.
Television is an entertainment medium. Even the newscasts are now
nothing but entertainment. So what difference does it make to the
consumer? Damn little, except that the picture will be a LOT better -
and just in time to take advantage of the currently rotten state of
programming.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
