yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| disgusting
On the face of it, this is disgusting. I understand the desire for efficiency in communications, but they have to know this technology is out of reach for most consumers. Of course I want one! I don't need the FCC to tell me how great it is. I, and most others, simply can not afford the technology.
--
Statistical correlation need not imply causation.
Technical Nirvana |
|
MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
| Poop on the wall
quote:
however once broadcasters go all digital, the government stands to make an estimated $70 billion by selling off the old analog frequencies used by existing formats.
Good! USE THAT TO ROLL OUT FTTP IN MAJOR CITIES!! 
--
HyperJoe 2004 |
|
Logan 5
Wondering what happens next..
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
The WasteLAN
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
|  Can someone please explain
2 things to me please to help me understand this topic better:
1) What exactly could someone do with my old channel 78 other than broadcast a TV signal.
2) How can all the empty channel frequencies really be worth 70 Billion?
Thank You |
|
BuckarooB
Beware Lectroids from PlanetX
Premium
join:2001-10-27
Cloverdale, VA
clubs:
·Ntelos
| cell phones, pagers, you name it... open up those previously off limit frequencies to business and it can be used a variety of things, many of which we probably not thought of yet.
--
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!!" |
|
antiphishing
Phishing Scam Terminator
Premium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA
| HDTV format
Out with the old technology and in with the United States government pork barrel spending. 
Maybe the money would be better spent keeping high tech jobs in the United States by stimulating growth in the manufacture sector. You know all the new HD televisions will be manufactured in the far east and Japan which will further erode the US economy by moving technology and jobs overseas.
--
Dslreports.com Forum No-Spin zone starts here.
»www.antihotmail.com
spammers_are_scumbags@antihotmail.com |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| reply to Logan 5
Re: Can someone please explain
I could deliver you six megabits of wireless broadband thirty miles from my tower.
The answer to number one is the answer to number two.
The FCC is positioning itself to open up a BUNCH of spectrum which is currently unused, and to place some of it into the ISM bands.
Just as it cost a whopping lot of money for an ARLAN 655 wireless card, when they were a new technology, and now the equivalent can be had for $25.00. Ditto HDTV, it is about economies of scale. Larger markets create economies of scale and you wind up being able to buy nicer stuff at lower prices.
--
JERW134 says, "There are NO holes in the new IE!" |
|
zno
join:2002-01-08
Atlanta, GA
| reply to yock
Re: disgusting
cables and satellites will continue to work the same way whether you have an HDTV or not.
only people suffer(financially) from this will be sole OTA users. they still don't have to buy a new TV. they'll just need a DTV STB. by 2006, i'm sure it'll be very affordable. hopefully under $100.
--
got anti-virus and firewall? |
|
lupinia
Premium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA
| reply to yock
I heartily agree. I get digital cable TV, but a lot of people near me can't even get analog cable, and the majority of them can't afford an HD-ready TV (if they could, they'd probably have satellite). In an age where some areas can't even get POTS phone service (I took many tech support calls over CB radio from people who had no landline phone), I fail to see the wisdom in pushing a technology that requires equipment costing as much as some people's cars, while phasing out the system that many people use as their only method of getting TV reception. |
|
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
1 edit |  It sounds like some are saying regardless of the
It sounds like some are saying people regardless of the New TVs cost, Are saying don't bother selling the spectrum as We don't want to go digital and so far the Analog spectrum is something that the FCC wants to auction off to the Highest bidders for as much as It can get and that may be plenty.
--
Crunching for Team STARFIRE all the way... |
|
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs:
| reply to Logan 5
Re: Can someone please explain
said by Logan 5  :
2 things to me please to help me understand this topic better:
1) What exactly could someone do with my old channel 78 other than broadcast a TV signal.
Let's see...a data link? police coordination? more cell/PCS phone channels? anything and everything radio signals are used for today? It's simply a redesignation of what those frequencies are allowed to be used for in this country.
said by Logan 5 :
2) How can all the empty channel frequencies really be worth 70 Billion?
It all depends on how much spectrum is reclaimed, what the new purpose(s) of the spectrum is (how much spectrum per new channel is required), and how much is charged per reallocated channel--including if that spectrum is auctioned to the highest bidder.
As to all of this, I would agree that for a large proportion of the US public (probably quite a bit more than the majority), owning HDTV gear at today's prices is just not worth it. several hundred dollars for a receiver? ack. If I part $150 for a TV, it's a lot. Let's not even make my blood boil by talking about ceding my fair use rights with that broadcast flags crap. That's also not to mention deciding whether to get an HDTV tuner card or replacing both my NTSC/VHS VCRs...but then again, those sorts of devices may be rendered useless or close to it by broadcast flags.
Golly...and they wonder why I don't want to upgrade, and why I don't want my taxpayer dollars wasted trying to get me to do it.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules. Blog is here
Jeopardy! replies REALLY suck! |
|
skelet0r
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Florence, AL | reply to antiphishing
Re: HDTV format
Yeah screw those commie bastids. j/k |
|
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
| Gimme a break!
Yeah, the Digital TV is supposed to be better, but the couple times I've had to check it out, I haven't seen much difference. But that's beside the point, A)I don't watch much TV and B)the Digital TV sets are outrageously expensive.
So, because of A, why should I be forced to shell out a lot of $$$ for something which I won't use that much? |
|
zno
join:2002-01-08
Atlanta, GA
| no one is forced to buy a new tv.
they can use whatever they have already. they can still watch cable, satellite, vhs, or dvd with their analog televisions. it's just that analog OTA will be gone in 2006.
--
got anti-virus and firewall? |
|
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | Oh, well, by 2006 I'll have to replace the one I have anyway |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | reply to BuckarooB
Re: Can someone please explain
or, wireless broadband!
-- Rob |
|
travanx
join:2002-01-15
Glendale, CA
| reply to yock
Re: disgusting
have any of you actually watched a sports game on an HDTV? I recently got a 48" RPTV for my bedroom. And I just got the 6 channel HD package on Dish. Its very amazing. Now only if I could get the local OTA channels. But the mountain is in the way of the where I need to aim too. You really need to see an HDTV in action at someone's house, not bestbuy or something like that. I think once they force manufacturers to really switch over to only HDTV's, the costs will come down a lot.
Supposedly Intel's new chip for the new DLP tv's is supposed to make a $10,000 set drop to $3000. So imagine what that can do to the more common person priced sets. And this is supposed to happen soon. |
|
lupinia
Premium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA | Sports suck, I avoid that stuff whenever possible  |
|
jazzy112
join:2003-12-05
Fargo, ND
| reply to richk_1957
Re: Gimme a break!
Sam's Club has a 32" Phillips HDTV for $600.00 which is $100 less than I paid for my 27" Sony SDTV in 1997.
The tech is affordable, you just have to realize that the products are not disposable like today's standard def TV's.
I'll take a quality set for 6-900 that's going to last 10 or more years over a POS Wal Mart $99 special that you throw away in 2 years.
Now some of you would say you've had your $99 set for more than two years, well I am sure if I sat down in front of that same TV I would throw it in the garbage..... i am a very picky person when it comes to video and audio quality. |
|
niplet
join:2003-10-04
Antioch, TN
| reply to richk_1957
What do you consider expensive?
i have seen HDTV's starting @27" for around $299 in Nashville, that my friend is not expensive, considering just two years ago a Sony Wega was selling for over $500 for a 27".
--
xbox live gamer tag niplet; please down load bandwidth controller and enable traffic shaping. »www.bandwidthcontroller.com |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to antiphishing
Re: HDTV format
Well, is that better than the alternative, which is to not progress at all? So there's no new technology for people to spend their money on in the first place? Some sets may be made in japan, but a lot of US labor still goes into the production of HDTV programming, sale and installation of HDTV equipment, cables to hook it up, etc, etc.
I've understood for a long time that a lot of the posters that frequent this place could care less about television in general. It still never ceases to amaze me how negative people are here about new technologies, on a site that's dedicated towards an emerging new technology. "Outrageously expensive?" The price of bigscreen HDTV sets has fallen below the price of similar standard def TVs at the time HDTV made its consumer debut near the end of 1998. A good quality stnadard def 50" bigscreen was around $2000 back then. A quick glance at BestBuy.com shows that I can get a 50" HDTV capable set for $1199 today.
As far as DTV awareness goes, I think the FCC is trying to accelerate the timetable in which they can begin to profit on the sale of spectrum. They're trying to make money rather than lose it due to the deadlines that are highly likely to slip. That, and they want people watching OTA TVs to understand what's goign on when that signal does, eventually, go dark.
That said, I tend to agree that this campaign is a waste of money. I think the various manufacturers of HDTVs are much better poised to sell new televisions, and cable and satellite operators will work to sell the services to interested people. "Awareness" is too little too late. I think most people interested already know about it. The price of the technology continues to fall nicely. The FCC has already done the key things they need to do in order to get adoption going, particularly the requirements they have put onto cable operators. The major networks have the content for it out there now. Most major sporting events, and non-reality primetime TV shows are all in high definition now.
If they wanted to meet their deadlines, they needed to get cable operators on board with HDTV a long time ago. I've had a HDTV capable set since december of 1998, and I'm in the Los Angeles DMA. It's only this past year that I've finally been able to watch the network HD programming on it. I don't think it will be very long before the cable companies simply give out HD capable set top boxes, since they work on both standard def and high def TVs. For example, the 6208 DVR that Comcast offers, does both HD and SD. They don't even offer a model that's standard def only in those markets.
-- Rob
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
