I don't get it...Why is the government so insistent on HDTV?
06-23-03, 01:31 AM
#1
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver freakin' Colorado
Posts: 8,564
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
I don't get it...Why is the government so insistent on HDTV?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/...ieberman_x.htm
I have been reading for the last several years about the government being insistent on HDTV being available as of.....yesterday.
I don't get it. Sure, HDTV looks cool, it bugs out the eyes a bit, and makes Jorge Posada look like he is sitting next to you on the couch. But why is the government dead set on the technology???
Was color this big of a deal? Did FDR attack RCA to make the television?
Why is the government so insistent that I see the NCAA tournament in ultimate clarity?
I have been reading for the last several years about the government being insistent on HDTV being available as of.....yesterday.
I don't get it. Sure, HDTV looks cool, it bugs out the eyes a bit, and makes Jorge Posada look like he is sitting next to you on the couch. But why is the government dead set on the technology???
Was color this big of a deal? Did FDR attack RCA to make the television?
Why is the government so insistent that I see the NCAA tournament in ultimate clarity?
06-23-03, 01:55 AM
#2
DVD Talk Hero - 2023 TOTY Award Winner
I suspect that FCC intervention on behalf of certain technologies is the only way to ensure some semblance of a smooth and timely transition to a technology.
Remember, the FCC theoretically represents your interests in this matter.
Remember, the FCC theoretically represents your interests in this matter.
06-23-03, 02:20 AM
#3
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by JustinS
I suspect that FCC intervention on behalf of certain technologies is the only way to ensure some semblance of a smooth and timely transition to a technology.
Remember, the FCC theoretically represents your interests in this matter.
I suspect that FCC intervention on behalf of certain technologies is the only way to ensure some semblance of a smooth and timely transition to a technology.
Remember, the FCC theoretically represents your interests in this matter.
06-23-03, 02:24 AM
#4
DVD Talk Hero - 2023 TOTY Award Winner
Originally posted by RandyC
Exactly. Otherwise it would never happen. The chicken and egg syndrome. They would not broadcast it because nobody had HDTV sets. Nobody would buy them because they were not broadcasting in HDTV.
Exactly. Otherwise it would never happen. The chicken and egg syndrome. They would not broadcast it because nobody had HDTV sets. Nobody would buy them because they were not broadcasting in HDTV.
06-23-03, 02:31 AM
#5
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
I don't get it. Sure, HDTV looks cool, it bugs out the eyes a bit, and makes Jorge Posada look like he is sitting next to you on the couch. But why is the government dead set on the technology???
Ironically, those of us who were early adopters of HD-ready sets may be out in the cold, due to copy protection reasons.
RD
06-23-03, 02:42 AM
#6
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The amount of products and technology seen at NAB for broadcasting that has yet to come to the market because the date of the big switch has yet to come and keeps on getting bumped.
It will be hell for broadcasters to fully revamp there facilities to fully be able to handle digital
It will be hell for broadcasters to fully revamp there facilities to fully be able to handle digital
06-23-03, 07:28 AM
#7
DVD Talk Hero
I always tell people that if you brought a TV up from the 1940s-50s and plugged it in, it would still work with our existing broadcasts.
It really needs to be updated.
It really needs to be updated.
06-23-03, 07:40 AM
#8
The FCC doesn't really care about the "H" at all, they only care about the "DTV." However, I think they have had the bright idea that the "H" is the carrot that will make their digital tv plan seem desirable and get people to switch over.
They want the VHF frequencies back. They want to push stations to their new digital UHF frequency, and broadcast digitally, so either you get the picture or your don't, smaller buffer distances are required before you can reuse a channel frequency without interference, and on each channel you can broadcast 4 SDTV or 1 HDTV signals. (or less than 4SDTV and some alternate language audio tracks.) This plan will reduce number of channel frequencies (to the UHF) but increase the possible number of tv stations through more stations on same channel w/o interfering.
They want the VHF frequencies back. They want to push stations to their new digital UHF frequency, and broadcast digitally, so either you get the picture or your don't, smaller buffer distances are required before you can reuse a channel frequency without interference, and on each channel you can broadcast 4 SDTV or 1 HDTV signals. (or less than 4SDTV and some alternate language audio tracks.) This plan will reduce number of channel frequencies (to the UHF) but increase the possible number of tv stations through more stations on same channel w/o interfering.
06-24-03, 04:36 PM
#10
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Don't buy into HDTV, it's just another government conspiracy. Tests have shown that subliminal messages travel 2.5-3x better over HDTV signals than regular TV.
06-25-03, 10:11 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take is that it is all politics and lobbying. Take a look at the tax code and the copyright law and tell me that the additions/modifications were not influenced by the Americans' mega-corps. Same thing with television. If HDTV is not pushed to become a standard, how many people would be considering a new TV purchase. I was perfectly content with my 10 year old 32" Sony until I knew that I could watch the Redskins play in HDTV. Peace.
06-26-03, 07:37 PM
#12
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: In a "sweet spot"
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DivxGuy
The existing NTSC system dates back to the late 1930s (color was piggybacked on in 1953); it's long overdue for a replacement.
Ironically, those of us who were early adopters of HD-ready sets may be out in the cold, due to copy protection reasons.
RD
The existing NTSC system dates back to the late 1930s (color was piggybacked on in 1953); it's long overdue for a replacement.
Ironically, those of us who were early adopters of HD-ready sets may be out in the cold, due to copy protection reasons.
RD
When did it become the government that demands a damn thing related to private matters ... which, in "theory" are television broadcasters.
I believe, and simply I must admit, that there are two main reasons why this will be happening.
1) No more local broadcasting will available for free. This is a control and econmic issue.
3) Taxes. The costs associated with the conversion will be staggering, each within a certain range depending on the percentage will be funnelled into the government by both consumer and provider.
I'm not disagreeing with your ideology on the matter. Yes, NTSC is seriously outdated and should be reconsidered. My thoughts on the matter may be way off, but I don't necessarily believe that the government's insistence on the conversion is due to outdated modes of transmission. The only thing they should be doing, and I do have reservations on what I'm about to say, is making sure pornography and violent content should remain out of the public domain .. at least to some degree. Not because I like or dislike either, but the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral or ethical beliefs on anyone, period. Nor should they be in the business of business. This is one more reason why contemporary governments should be reevaluated and judged.
>
06-27-03, 03:08 AM
#13
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: May 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by KWilliamTaylor
That may be true, however why does this process need to be mandated and not supplied by demand??
When did it become the government that demands a damn thing related to private matters ... which, in "theory" are television broadcasters.
I believe, and simply I must admit, that there are two main reasons why this will be happening.
1) No more local broadcasting will available for free. This is a control and econmic issue.
3) Taxes. The costs associated with the conversion will be staggering, each within a certain range depending on the percentage will be funnelled into the government by both consumer and provider.
I'm not disagreeing with your ideology on the matter. Yes, NTSC is seriously outdated and should be reconsidered. My thoughts on the matter may be way off, but I don't necessarily believe that the government's insistence on the conversion is due to outdated modes of transmission. The only thing they should be doing, and I do have reservations on what I'm about to say, is making sure pornography and violent content should remain out of the public domain .. at least to some degree. Not because I like or dislike either, but the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral or ethical beliefs on anyone, period. Nor should they be in the business of business. This is one more reason why contemporary governments should be reevaluated and judged.
>
That may be true, however why does this process need to be mandated and not supplied by demand??
When did it become the government that demands a damn thing related to private matters ... which, in "theory" are television broadcasters.
I believe, and simply I must admit, that there are two main reasons why this will be happening.
1) No more local broadcasting will available for free. This is a control and econmic issue.
3) Taxes. The costs associated with the conversion will be staggering, each within a certain range depending on the percentage will be funnelled into the government by both consumer and provider.
I'm not disagreeing with your ideology on the matter. Yes, NTSC is seriously outdated and should be reconsidered. My thoughts on the matter may be way off, but I don't necessarily believe that the government's insistence on the conversion is due to outdated modes of transmission. The only thing they should be doing, and I do have reservations on what I'm about to say, is making sure pornography and violent content should remain out of the public domain .. at least to some degree. Not because I like or dislike either, but the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral or ethical beliefs on anyone, period. Nor should they be in the business of business. This is one more reason why contemporary governments should be reevaluated and judged.
>
Those who seem to not be thrilled with the move to HDTV are usually those who have never seen HD and are simply buying all the BS the networks/affliates put out!
Your thoughts that locals will become pay services is NOT going to happen! The Congress/FCC has mandated that locals must be transmitted OTA for FREE if they wish to keep their spectrum!
Last edited by Frank S; 06-27-03 at 03:11 AM.
07-01-03, 02:51 PM
#15
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It's ALL about them getting the analog frequencies back as soon as possible, so they can sell them to the highest bidders.
Big $$$$$ is the answer."
Exactly Steve, I was wondering when I would get to the correct answer and you nailed it!
The Governement has a long list of companies wanting the existing TV frequencies. But they cannot sell them until they are "free" from interference. Hence the push to make everyone DTV or HDTV compliant. Once this happens they can start selling the "licences" to operate on that frequency and make more $$$$. That is the answer plain and simple. Nothing more nothing less.
C
Big $$$$$ is the answer."
Exactly Steve, I was wondering when I would get to the correct answer and you nailed it!
The Governement has a long list of companies wanting the existing TV frequencies. But they cannot sell them until they are "free" from interference. Hence the push to make everyone DTV or HDTV compliant. Once this happens they can start selling the "licences" to operate on that frequency and make more $$$$. That is the answer plain and simple. Nothing more nothing less.
C
07-01-03, 11:57 PM
#16
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, one of HDTV's big attraction is sports. If the NCAA, NFL, MLB, and NHL are in HD -- consumer studies suggest that the transition to HD will be faster. How much? I havent a clue. I have read this statement a handful of times recently.
-T
-T
07-02-03, 01:57 AM
#17
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by C_Fletch
[BThe Governement has a long list of companies wanting the existing TV frequencies. But they cannot sell them until they are "free" from interference. Hence the push to make everyone DTV or HDTV compliant. Once this happens they can start selling the "licences" to operate on that frequency and make more $$$$. That is the answer plain and simple. Nothing more nothing less.
C [/B]
[BThe Governement has a long list of companies wanting the existing TV frequencies. But they cannot sell them until they are "free" from interference. Hence the push to make everyone DTV or HDTV compliant. Once this happens they can start selling the "licences" to operate on that frequency and make more $$$$. That is the answer plain and simple. Nothing more nothing less.
C [/B]
07-08-03, 10:16 AM
#19
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sdcrym
Check this link:
http://www.ctvn.org/news/dtv_qa.html
No list of companies per se. You'll have to talk to the Gov't for that one. Good luck.
Check this link:
http://www.ctvn.org/news/dtv_qa.html
No list of companies per se. You'll have to talk to the Gov't for that one. Good luck.
07-08-03, 11:50 AM
#20
Yup, and of those answers, here is the one really driving the show (plus VHF channels 2-13, which aren't mentioned:
The Government Will Gain Substantial Profits.
As more radio frequency spectrum is needed for new emerging and expanding technologies, the government is looking for ways to bring in more funds. Thus, they have decided to compress the radio frequency spectrum allocated for television broadcasting as much as possible and auction off the remainder for other technologies (cell phones, beepers, computers, etc). The government will likely make billions of dollars off the mandated conversion to digital.
They are doing this by forcing all broadcasters to switch to digital broadcasting which allows channels to be located closer to each other. This will free up all the spectrum from UHF channel 52 through channel 69.
The new technologies are hungry for spectrum so they are willing to pay billions of dollars for the right to use the freed up radio frequencies. It is being done in 2 stages. Channel 60 to 69 are in the process of being auctioned off now. Channels 52 to 59 can not be used until TV stations stop using them in 2006 or later. However, the government plans to auction off the spectrum even before the TV stations stop using the frequencies. The winning bidders will have to wait until the TV stations actually stop using the frequencies before they can begin new services
As more radio frequency spectrum is needed for new emerging and expanding technologies, the government is looking for ways to bring in more funds. Thus, they have decided to compress the radio frequency spectrum allocated for television broadcasting as much as possible and auction off the remainder for other technologies (cell phones, beepers, computers, etc). The government will likely make billions of dollars off the mandated conversion to digital.
They are doing this by forcing all broadcasters to switch to digital broadcasting which allows channels to be located closer to each other. This will free up all the spectrum from UHF channel 52 through channel 69.
The new technologies are hungry for spectrum so they are willing to pay billions of dollars for the right to use the freed up radio frequencies. It is being done in 2 stages. Channel 60 to 69 are in the process of being auctioned off now. Channels 52 to 59 can not be used until TV stations stop using them in 2006 or later. However, the government plans to auction off the spectrum even before the TV stations stop using the frequencies. The winning bidders will have to wait until the TV stations actually stop using the frequencies before they can begin new services
