It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2009 DTV Conversion

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Taken from the link on wikipedia given by dave420 :
Lawsuits
After the open access rules were implemented, Verizon Wireless filed suit against the FCC on September 13, 2007, seeking to have the rules dismissed on the grounds that the open access requirement "violates the U.S. Constitution, violates the Administrative Procedures Act … and is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by the substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law."[5] On October 23, Verizon chose to drop the lawsuit after losing its appeal for a speedy resolution on October 3. However, the CTIA stepped in to challenge the same regulations in a lawsuit filed the same day.[6]

This goes to show you that not only am I thinking that this whole thing is a little fishy, but even Verizon thinks so and tries to sue the FCC, now up to CTIA to see how far they go with it.


(edited to add more info)

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Vandermast]




posted on May, 1 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Vandermast
 


reading through all the posts here something struck me, I just wrote about it on another thread, but I was referring to when and what type of terrorist actvity might happen. Anyway, I was pointing out that a ton of radios have been stolen off school buses. A bunch of buses came up missing too, but tons of bus radios are missing. I will let you figure out where I am going with this thought.....



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 


Well I am guessing that you are getting at the point that school bus radios are are of the CB (citizen's band) type....and that something is going to possibly go down either before or after the changeover so not too many people will be able to listen in on the radio chatter?
The more people thnk about this, the more it looks plausible doesn't it?
I hhad not heard of the schol bus thefts, where were you posting this info?, I would like to read about it.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 


Nevermind where you posted this, I see now.
What I would like to know now is where you saw this news/info about the stolen school buses and radios.
This seems very strange, I hope it does not have anything to do with children....but maybe it will have something to do with the concert that OnTHEDeck has talked about before?
NO idea...just hope it does not have anything to do with terrorism.


apc

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I'm skeptical the conversion will actually happen as scheduled. But it is important to point out that all UHF/VHF television broadcasts will not cease. Only full-power transmissions like those used by the large networks, FOX, CBS, NBC, etc. Smaller local stations can still happily transmit in analog all day long.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


That's certainly a good thing, but I can't help thinking that the end is near for the profitable manufacture of some of the necessary hardware. The folks in the proverbial land of "B.F.E." might still get their weather warnings for a decade or so, but sooner or later they'll have to be on the grid too.


As for the sinister versus innocent debate: Change favors the prepared mind. It's not so much a matter of this either has to be sinister or has to be completely benign.

Something can be happening for a valid reason, accomplished solely through the diligence of committed public servants who are just trying to make our infrastructure better- and still present an opportunity for other groups to achieve nefarious ends of their own.

Having this be a natural evolution of technology doesn't prevent someone from seizing the opportunity to monitor what you've been watching. It doesn't prevent governments or militaries from developing their psy-ops programs to take advantage of exploitable changes in the way people communicate.

Best intentions aside, this is still a milestone in the evolution of a world where communication is becoming easier to monitor and to control, and there are very real tradeoffs being made which some people would be nervous about making.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Vandermast
 


I'm getting DTV now on my indoor antenna with a dual tuner TV.

But it breaks up and most channels stop after one frame.
I hope the power is boosted in 2009.

So I got two DTV converters for my other TVs and hooked it
up from the roof antenna.
None of the channels came in with the converter off the roof antenna.

What gives.
I was hoping a new indoor antenna would help with the dual tuner but
the DTV converter to analog TV looks bad.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I have been noticing this from the very start....ever since I switched from analog tv to "Roadrunner" digital cable and phone...things have been quite glitchy....everything IMO seems to have been better before things were messed with by making everything go digital.
Aside from all the comspiracy theory of this thread...I don't think that digital is all that better than analog....but who am I to be listened to?


(reply to above post)



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
I'm not American, but I've been seeing these ads on American TV for a while and have been wondering also what it's all about and why the government is implicated.

Digital is one of those magical words. I've worked 16 years as a Graphics designer and I'm also a musician, so I know a lot about analog vs digital. Digital is less expensive because it's cheaper and can never come close to analog. For the older people; remember those vinyl records with the rich, warm sound? The CD never came close to accomplishing this (vinyl is still the standard in the industry for sound comparison). MP3's work well only with electronic music, ie, music that is made with machines rather than actual musicians. In the 70's, the industry would never have even attempted to offer such poor quality. Remember those half-inch thick plastic records for small children? MP3 quality is below that. Much below that.

High def tv is below the 35 mm (film) quality. And what you see on your digital tv is generally 256 colours: quite limiting. The most blatant example of this was the opening credits of Star Trek Deep Space 9. You have a space scene with, if memory serves me right, a comet. On digital tv, you see the bands of grey levels while on analog tv, it's all smooth.

Back in the early 80's, Sony and others were working on hi-def analog tv; decades ahead of current digital technology.

The only reason we have digital now is that it's cheaper. Your digital camera might take nice pictures, but compare the colours to the original and it doesn't even come close. At some point, technology will revert back to analog; there won't be a choice.

So either this switch to digital is simply a $$$ decision or there is something sinister behind it.


You do realize the rest of the world is switching too.

Meh. Records are way worse sound quality than CDs. They sound warmer because they're incredibly inaccurate when compared to the original source. They're lossy, -every time you listen to your record, it degrades a little. MP3 is lower quality than CD FLAC audio, but I for one can't even tell the difference between a decent bitrate MP3 and a good bitrate MP3, let alone between a great quality MP3 and lossless audio. And I have good hearing, too, according to tests. Don't remember the hard numbers on that though. CD audio is truer to the source than both vinyl and MP3. Vinyl and MP3 are just good enough to fool the ear.

People prefer vinyl mostly out of nostalgia and placebo. Given the choice, I'd pick MP3 over cd and vinyl, because I for one certainly can't tell the difference, and it's much more convenient.

And you obviously know nothing about digital versus analog. Digital simply means that the image is transmitted as a series of discrete pulses, instead of a continuous waveform. Digital lends itself to far more accuracy, and volume of information moved. The quality of the picture you get out of a digital signal simply depends on how much information you're willing to move. For an acceptable quality of picture and sound, digital takes less bandwidth. TV is already pretty crappy image and sound, so they figure they might as well switch over to digital so they can free up some space in the EM spectrum for everyone else. After all, all your cellphones and DSs and wiis and blue tooth gadgets and whatnot all need parts of the EM spectrum, as do walkie talkies, GPS, and all manner of other things.

And digital TV is (up to) 65,536 color. Not 256. It will, of course depend on how the TV station decides to divide up their bandwidth. They can have multiple simultaneous shows per channel with digital. the quality of each will suffer. At about twice the bandwidth of DVD players, it could either have one show at twice DVD quality, or two at DVD quality, or four at pretty crappy quality. If you don't like what you're getting, it's your broadcaster's fault, not the format. On a non-crappy station, it'll look great.

A nice thing about digital is that it either works, or it doesn't. You'll either get a perfect picture, or, if you're too far from the receiver, you won't get anything at all. You'll never be fiddling around with an old bunny-ears antenna trying to get the picture less fuzzy. You'll either have the picture, or not. Static will be a thing of the past. sucks for people way far away from a transmitter though. The American digital TV system doesn't have as good of an error correcting system as the European standard.

I'd be willing to be five bucks you couldn't tell the difference between a 320 kpbs MP3 and a lossless FLAC file of the kind that's put on CDs or used to create modern records in a double blind trial. Seriously, nobody ever can. People can tell vinyl apart from them, but that's actually because vinyl is noticeably worse quality.

If pirate TV stations are too stupid to "acquire" the equipment to broadcast digital TV, just as they once acquired the equipment to broadcast analog TV, then they don't deserve to be broadcasting in the first place. It's not like they can straight up personally manufacture analog equipment out of transistors and solder. They use equipment that was made by corporations. So when we switch to digital, they'll switch to digital.

The government doesn't wholly subsidize the entire cost of every digital to analog conversion box because it has no obligation to. You should be thankful they're doing even as much as they're doing. If you haven't looked, you'll notice that the constitution doesn't say that you have the right to a modern TV. It is a product, that you pay for if you want. It is a LUXURY ITEM. it is not necessary for life. It's not like the broadcast TV starts costing money, you just need the equipment to get it.

That said, I should probably pick up one of those gizmos - I don't even have the equipment to get analog TV, let alone digital, and if I ever want it, I guess I should buy it while it's still subsidized.


Originally posted by Rumrunner
I heard it was to stop people getting cable for free with just an antenna.


PROTIP: Cable is delivered via cable, not broadcast. That's why they call it cable. You can't get it with analog TV antennas. Digital TV will mostly stop people from getting analog TV for free, and they will have to buy TVs or receiver boxes capable of getting digital signals for free. Or else be stuck with a useless box good only for playing video games and moves from VCR or DVD pl



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Years ago when they wanted to pull off the conversion and were put off for a time much to there consternation, word out was military usage. Can you say 'HAARP'?
Lets see now. 40 dollar dig to analog certificates to roughly 250 million people. Why that's a lot of dinero.
Somebody wants these frequencies badly. Very badly. The conspiratoriast in me says its probably not to pull in the telle tubbies in better either.
Just my usual two flaming cow cookies.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   
One of the major problems I have with this is many people have been sucked into plasma and lcd tvs. While state of the art they are also power vampires. Most use anywhere from 80 to 240 watts an hour. Like leaving your hairdryer on. I'm fine with my 19" crt. Only thing its good for is the news and occasional ball game anyway.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Years ago when they wanted to pull off the conversion and were put off for a time much to there consternation, word out was military usage. Can you say 'HAARP'?
Lets see now. 40 dollar dig to analog certificates to roughly 250 million people. Why that's a lot of dinero.
Somebody wants these frequencies badly. Very badly. The conspiratoriast in me says its probably not to pull in the telle tubbies in better either.
Just my usual two flaming cow cookies.


If you'd read, you'd learn that they auctioned off the frequencies to the highest bidder. It's not some mysterious esoteric thing. It's public knowledge what frequencies analog TV was/is on, and it's a matter of public record who owns the right to use those frequencies after the switch. If they're planning to use those frequencies now for military purposes, THEY COULD JUST AS EASILY HAVE USED THEM WHEN THEY WERE USED FOR ANALOG PURPOSES, BECAUSE THEY'D BE BLASTING IT RIGHT OVER SOMEBODY ELSE'S FREQUENCIES IN EITHER CASE.

And I daresay that some corporation who paid millions of dollars for the exclusive rights to part of the EM spectrum will be a bit peeved when all their products simultaneously stop working because the military is commandeering their frequencies because it feels like it. If the frequency was still being used for analog TV, it's quite likely that nobody would notice. Seinfeld would have more static than usual, or maybe nobody would be able to get channel 12 or something. It wouldn't be newsworthy, unlike it will be if they start using them after the switch. Selling the frequencies off makes it far less likely that the military could get away with illicitly using the frequencies that TV was on.

IE: It' doesn't make a damn lick of difference whether it's analog or digital. the frequencies aren't government domain, other than the FCC's control over who gets to use what, which, I might add applies to the ENTIRE USABLE PART OF THE EM SPECTRUM, and has been that way for decades. They're now owned by whoever bothered to shell out for the rights to those freqencies. It used to be used for TV. Now it's going to be used for gadgetry, like satellite radio or something.

You can ceaselessly and baselessly try and think of ways this could hurt you, or you can go and read the free and publicly available information governing the situation and come up with a reasonable conclusion based on facts. If you can't be bothered to get even the most cursory education on the matters at hand, why are you even here? This isn't paranoia support group online. This is Above Top Secret. We're supposed to be after the truth. And occasionally, the truth is exactly what it seems.

In this case, we're changing television standards to keep up with the rest of the world, and so the FCC can sell a bunch of previously occupied frequencies for doubtless huge sums of money to private investors, at the cost of making millions of Americans change the way they watch television, partly, or sometimes fully at their own expense. There doesn't seem to be much uproar over this at all, though, so apparently most americans are fine with it, or don't even know about it.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
And you believe everything you read as Gospel? What I initially read 8 yrs ago on this subject is mil wanted it.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 


Look, I was willing to read your posts and let you voice your opinion without coming back at you with something not nice to say...but I feel that you are the type of poster that I simply can't stand, you want to come and post your OPINION about things and reply to other's posts in the most condescending of ways like you are the only one who reads and is informed about EVERYTHING. And I gotta say that this is very frustrating. So I am taking a risk by sounding like a child, but until you can reply to posts in a polite way, I am going to ignore you.

Thanks to everyone else who is keeping an open mind and likes to play well with others...I didn't expect this thread to get as far as it has.

Well I for one think this whole conversion thing is going to be an absolute disaster. I don't expect technical problems at all, but the public won't understand it, the government will blow it, and at the last moment some politicians will even try to cancel it. But it's still only TV, right?



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
It's not everyday Vandermast I am protected from unpleasantness.
Thank you.
It's a very worthy discussion. I've hopefully value added a plug here or there on some of them.


apc

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 

Nah a typical hairdryer is 1000-1500watts. By comparison my 65" rear projection uses 250watts and my 26" CRT uses 90. Some of the larger LCDs and plasmas do use quite a hefty chunk of juice though.


reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 

Where are your antennas located? Are they bunny ears or DTV antennas? You'll want the latter for optimal signal and you want to place them as far away from any sources of interference, mainly the TV itself, as possible. Your old roof antenna is also likely inadequate for DTV as it is tuned to VHF/UHF.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
And you believe everything you read as Gospel? What I initially read 8 yrs ago on this subject is mil wanted it.


And you believe everything you read as Gospel?

Just *look it up*. Or better yet, call up and ask the people who bought the frequencies themselves.

EDIT: Of course the military wanted it. Everyone who's anyone wants part of the EM spectrum for their own purposes. But the military wasn't the ones who got it.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by mdiinican]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join