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.

 

FCC: 35 Stations To Go Dark June 12

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

FCC: 35 Stations To Go Dark June 12


www.multichannel.com

Agency Says Full-Power Stations Will Cease Operation

The Federal Communications Commission said Wednesday that 35 full-power TV station now broadcasting in analog indicated that they will cease operation entirely on June 12, when all full-power stations must transition to digital.
Of those, 18 are owned by Equity Media, and seven of the 30 stations are affiliates of a major network.

The FCC said it would try to reduce the number that would go dark, saying some would be available on the su
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Well.....

I don't see why they have to force stations to go digital, I mean if they don't want to and the can survive without doing so then what difference to the fcc does it make?

I mean I don't think this is the right time to do this, it costs alot of money to go digital.

I don't see this as a necessity

www.multichannel.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I've heard all kinds of reasons why they are pushing this. Some are way out in the fringe but some make sense. If you have ever been a ham radio enthusiast, to run a single kilowatt transmitter is very expensive. This is supposed to use less band width and make it easier to transmit over longer distance at a lower electric load. I'm not sure what the truth actually is, but that point does make sense if you live out in the midwest and have trouble receiving your local station that might be 400 miles away!
Zindo



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


Well.....

I don't see why they have to force stations to go digital, I mean if they don't want to and the can survive without doing so then what difference to the fcc does it make?

I mean I don't think this is the right time to do this, it costs alot of money to go digital.

I don't see this as a necessity

www.multichannel.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


i think, but don't quote me, that the UHF bandwidths have already been promised and sold to someone else.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
you are correct, they plan on using the analog broadcasting frequencies for something else.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Ya, I've heard that its for Cell phone bands. Also for the new 4-5 G networks that are being set up for the next generation of hand held computers!

Zindo



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Apparently I had an "OFF TOPIC POST"..I'll try to fix it to so that I am complying to the rules of ATS (please let me know if there is something I'm saying that is wrong and I will fix it) I thought my original post was fully about June 12th..and the conversion...and your post ...and I added the fact that I previously had a thread about a recurring dream involving the date 6-12-09 (I don't know how to post the link) ....Long story short, I think you're on to something and agree with what you are saying. What is the importance? Is there something we don't know that could be the true reason for the conversion? *NOTE TO THE MOD....Please don't remove this...if I typed something off base, let me know and I'll fix it...**Back on topic, I'm curious, why force stations to go digital? I have had a recurring dream about this date since 2006 before the mention of any type of conversion...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

When the analog bandwidths are used digitally, it frees up a whole bunch more space. Therefore, they can sell many many more times the frequencies digitally than they could analogly (word?).

The digital bandwidths are narrower and many are 'compressed' into a single analog bandwidth.

Edit: The link is to an explanation of the auctioning of these new bandwidths!

[edit on 3-6-2009 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
you will see 4 letters in the upcomming months or years involved with the switch..RFID..Theres a design that is cheeper for companys in waiting because of the uhf conflict with tv's..This goes from RFID's for tracking of shipments,hospital patien records,to paperless health care..Thats the biggy..I dont see the typical 'oh my god the mark of the beast'' happening anytime soon though..

Remember the government doesnt care if you watch tv or not,so it behoved them to give out millions in voucers for the digi boxes..



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
What I don't understand is all the fuss. It's not as if this change has come all of a sudden out of nowhere. I remember reading about this plan in the early 1990s and I know that in 1996 congress made a law giving tv stations another channel each so they could broadcast both analog and digital channels.

The reason for going digital is simple, Analog wastes spectrum. Digital carries more information and takes less than an eighth of the space that Analog needs.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Ummm actually the switch has very little to do with bandwidth and all that is an excuse.
We have gone totally digital in my town and the day they did it ALL the channels that the cable companies make people pay lot's of money for went offline. The only channels now are a few news channels period.....it is over them getting paid and people no longer being able to pick up a signal with an antenna. MONEY



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I think most of the mainland UK is digital now, I'm all for it - good old fashioned progress! It's paving the way for internet tv, I know a few people that don't have a traditional TV set, they just use the web for their viewing needs. We've also been going through a renaissance in home entertainment, pay-per-view is far more common than it used to be and Virgin Media are offering TV-on-demand packages that allow you watch what you want when you want it (I think Sky are doing this too).

The internet is going to be an absolute revolution to this, I rarely bother with tv, it's cheaper to buy a dvd than a pint most of the time. With todays hectic lifestyles we miss out on a lot of water-cooler talk with colleagues if we're not watching the right tv, sports etc... so it'll enable us some social participation moments or further enslavery to the "tube", opening up new and exciting advertising markets and keeping us as dull, complacent cattle, living vicariously through people on tv.

Alternately it could be a dead exciting revolution in which people actually get off their behinds and reject all the dross, seeking out information and news that is unfettered by cheap advertising, sloganeering and tv networks' own corporate agendas (Murdoch). So maybe local news, can really be local and global at the same time if it warrants it, so video of a 72 year old lady getting tasered can get on the news?

my tuppence



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by xoxo stacie
Ummm actually the switch has very little to do with bandwidth and all that is an excuse.
We have gone totally digital in my town and the day they did it ALL the channels that the cable companies make people pay lot's of money for went offline. The only channels now are a few news channels period.....it is over them getting paid and people no longer being able to pick up a signal with an antenna. MONEY


Sorry but you are incorrect. The cable companies had to pay tons of money and time to get ready for the digital transtion ( I work for them). Analog takes up roughly 7-8 times the amount a digital channel takes up. If you want to have fast wireless 4g networks then they need to sell of the analog spectrum to companies who will buy it for that. In order to make way for more HD channels, faster internet and a better product this must happen.

Those channels you were getting over the air were just broadcast networks anyway so you were probably paying around 13 bucks a month ( a regulated price). For the non broadcast analog channels that people lost like ESPN, you would need to have cable anyway and the package price probably didn't change. In my are they gave out 2 free boxes and added more channels for the same price.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Personally I'm tired of hearing the stations and people complain about going to digital. The networks have had a decade to be ready for the digital conversion. The deadline has been pushed back so many times and the networks act almost like it's a big surprise.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
In a nutshell, its progress, we've been able to transmit digitally for a long time now, it uses less resources and takes up less space in the spectrum. yes, the side benefit is more sellable frequency slots. selling the slots is a bad move in ways. technology keeps progressing as companies keep trying to on eup each other, so once they find a better frequency range, then what? what happens to the old frequencies? no one else can use them because somehow, certain companies now 'own' a part of the EM spectrum.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I don't think it's EVER just about the most efficient use of the resource. Yeah, I think we can all agree that analog is tremendously LESS efficient than digital.

Why do you really think the PTB had no problem dolling out the millions of converters? Becuase they wil make it BACK in fees.

It's all part of the whole big picture. Digital is going to be easier to archive, easier to control, easier to regulate or shut off.

Yeah, they've had a decade to get prepared for it, so there shouldn't be any reason that they aren't ready, but let's be real. TPTB are forcing a digital conversion to make my life better? I find that one really hard to swallow.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


Agreed, but when it all goes wrong, we'll still have personal radios to listen into the underground on, right?

With the potential of the internet, it's totally going to revolutionise "tv" and how we use it - which is a marvellous tool to placate us with. I've heard that the next step, when all the techy obstacles are overcome, is to pump the web down power lines - so you can just plug in to a power outlet and you're connected - aside from electricity the cabling can also carry signals and being thicker than phone lines can carry more information and faster... I heard this from a friend that works in the communications industry, apparently there's some technical issues that are being worked on, but it's coming too.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join