Monday, 07 January 2008, 19:20:23 EDT
Categories:
I say good riddance to the year 2007. I know I didn't post much in 2007. There wasn't much for me to write about. I've been way too busy with school and business to come up with anything interesting. I've decided that, at least for the time being, I will write my opinions on current topics that I feel are important. To start, I will continue on with the digital television transition.
We are now 407 days away from the analog television switch off. It is now possible to apply for a DTV converter box coupon. I haven't taken the time to look in stores yet, but the eligible converter boxes should be appearing in them soon. For a box to eligible, it must only convert a digital signal to an analog signal. It can't do anything fancy like record programs, or something else. I imagine the boxes will retail for around $100. With the coupon, that means it will cost about $60 to get up-to-date without buying a new television. However, you will only be able to get two coupons per household.
I really think the switch to digital is a good thing. I've had some discussion with people who disagree. Their main argument is that it will confuse a lot of people. Also, that people who have come to rely on the evening news will be denied that resource unless they spend more money. I agree with the first point. The switch over has not been well advertised. Something needs to be done about that, and soon. As for the second part, well, television is a privilege, not a right. There are many ways to get the news without a television. I also believe that most of the people who rely so much on the evening news have a newspaper subscription.
I have encountered people who are against the transition simply because it will cost them money. My opinion is that change requires some sort of investment. No one is getting a free ride in this. Not the people broadcasting the content, nor the people watching it. Those of us watching it have a minimal cost compared to those who do the broadcasting. On top of that, what you get for your investment is so very worth it. As I write this, I'm watching a symphony on GPB in high definition with 5.1 ... (view rest)
Wednesday, 19 September 2007, 23:17:50 EDT
Categories:
So why digital? Why "force" people to convert to something they might not care, or even know, about? The simple answer is that it will free up resources for other uses. The truth of the matter is that the analog cutoff probably wouldn't be happening if it September 11, 2001 had never occurred. Television stations are alloted 6MHz in which to broadcast their signal. That isn't a lot of room to work with when sending analog data. By contrast, Japan uses 20MHz per channel. The additional bandwidth allows them to send high definition pictures without compression. But that also means they have less bandwidth for other services. So if a clearer, larger, picture is desired, either more bandwidth is needed or something has to be done to make the 6MHz work. Enter digital television (DTV). With those same 6MHz, a digital signal can be broadcast that contains way more information than the traditional analog signal. Robert Cringley wrote a good article about the whole mess. It gets a little technical, but it is still easy to follow.
A concern about how the freed frequencies would be sold was brought up in the comments of my last DTV post. In response to that, I present this Ars Technica article. It includes a very clear diagram of what is being offered for sale, and how the frequencies are to be used.
As I've been thinking about how to write this post (and it hasn't come out the way I wanted it to), something occurred to me. Once the analog cutoff is complete, some really cool services can be made available. Think about cellular phones. Their range really sucks. For cellular phones to work, reception towers have to be placed quite frequently over the landscape. Now think about television. How many television towers do you see on a daily basis? I'm willing to bet that you see far fewer of those than you do cellular towers. The frequencies being used by television work well at much greater distances than the ones cellular providers are currently using. I assume that ... (view rest)
Sunday, 29 July 2007, 20:21:45 EDT
Categories:
Since 1941, broadcast television signals in the United States have been the same. If the law holds, this should change come February 18, 2009. When that date arrives, all analog television signals are supposed to stop broadcasting. If you don't have an ATSC tuner, and rely on Over-the-Air (OTA) signals for television, you will not be receiving any television.
Of course, that is only if the law doesn't change — again. Analog broadcasts should already be off the air, but the date has been pushed back at least twice. Now the AARP is getting involved. According to this story the AARP has testified before Congress that the changeover will cause mass confusion, and upset many people in the largest voting voting population in the country. I agree with the testimony, but I don't think the date should be changed.
Something has to give. In January of this year I purchased a television with an ATSC tuner. The digital signal alone amazing, and the High Definition (HD) content is even better. Unlike analog television, the picture is crystal clear. If you are receiving a strong enough signal, you get perfectly clear video and audio. I'll elaborate more on reception and signal strength in a later post.
I think the AARP should try to educate their members instead of fighting to keep the status quo in place. I understand very well how complicated new technology can be for the elderly. But I also know how much it can improve their quality of life. As t ... (view rest)