Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
So in February 2009 those of us with regular TVs are going to have nothing to watch. The FCC has mandated that TV go all digital by then. The sinister reasons for this however, are beyond the scope of this text. I'll go into that if someone wants me to, but that is not the question.
The olman gets the AARP newsletter and therein is an article this month saying that the gov is going to be giving out coupons worth $40 towards the purchase of a converter box which will will feed the signal to your old analog TV.
The same article states that if you have cable, the cable company is mandated to convert the signal for you ostensibly by means of the cable box.This is what makes no sense to me.
First of all I do not believe the FCC has the power to tell a cable company what to do because the signal is not transmitted via air waves. As of February 2009 it will be illegal to transmit the standard NTSC signal, but they are not transmitting it.
My VCR has a modulator. It's a $500 VCR I mean all the bells and whistles. The remote costs more than some cars. But it puts out on channel 4 just like any other VCR. This is an analog, NTSC signal. It's like a mini TV transmitter, but very small power.
If the FCC can mandate that cable go digital it stands to reason that watching a tape on channel 4 is similarly illegal. Just where is this fine line drawn ?
Actually it is not even hooked up, and when it is it is a stereo hifi so I use the composite signal of course, but that is not the point. The point is that I do not believe the FCC has the authority to force them to go all digital when the signal is not transmitted via the airwaves.
As I said, the sinister reasons for the change are not the subject of this post, perhaps I'll start one on that, but suffice it to say that I will not be getting a box. I so rarely watch TV now that it is going to have virtually no impact on me.
But the way the article is written implies that I can get two $40 coupons when the change comes. The article does not say you have to be in the AARP or anything of the sort, I guess everyone gets it, two per household. That means two for me and two for the olman. I will surely sell mine, he will most likely use at least one of his.
I tell you this, if you've seen the best of the best in NTSC TVs, you just about do not need HDTV. My 1988 Sony XBR is so sharp it is unbelievable. You can almost read the PC screen on it, but that is really too much to expect. But any movies and videos I play on it look just fine. All downloaded. Yes the antenna is connected, but it's only used when people are over and say a football game is on, and someone wants to watch it, or at least see the score. Probably won't be long before I can get that online anyway.
To outline the situation, regular TV is 480i. The i means interlaced. They had some IDTVs which had a line doubler and ran in 480p, which means progressive. This was the forerunner of HDTV. You got a smoother appearance of the picture, the raster lines were not as noticable. They looked pretty good.
Now H is a factor. Actually H is defined as 15,734 Hertz, point something or other. H was determined by mathematics and was a constant, because H was chosen because of physical limitations of the NTSC system. On a side note, H was actually changed from 15,750 with the advent of color television. It was lowered to accomodate the color subcarrier. Also the 60 FPS was lowered to 59.94 to maintain the exact same lines of resolution.
Now an HDTV normally runs the line doubler and the horizontal scan rate (which is what H actually means) is 2H. When it gets a 1080i signal it kicks up to 2.14 H. A 1080p signal is not likely to be displayed on any CRT based TV. We are at the limits of semiconductor technology here, they are already pumping out a 1,200 volt pulse to drive the deflection yoke. It is inductive, so if you double the frequency (as an engineer) you have two choices, double the voltage or cut the yoke impedance in half.
This was bad enough, but they got it done. But to get to 1080p the scan rate would be 4.28 H. We simply can't do it. Now this is not a problem for LCDs or DLPs because there is no scan rate. As long as they can handle the extremely wideband input (around 30 Mhz) there is no problem. But I doubt there will ever be a CRT based set that does 1080p.
I think this whole thing is a bunch of shit. I have no problem if you want an HDTV feed and want to spend the money. That is, at this time, your perogative. And I think this is as it should be. However most of the volutary TV watching I do is downstairs after work, Millionaire and Jeopardy. This is a twenty year old 13" Goldstar or something sitting on top of the fridge. I usually don't even look at it.
You think the powers that be figure we need high resolution for a thirteen inch sitting across the room with Alex Trebek on it ? First of all I just don't see that good. Second of all I did say, and I will start a thread about it, their reasons for doing it are much more sinister.
But cable ? I just don't see where they get the authority to fuck with cable. Now they have to make everything hi definition, even if the source isn't, and then are mandated to convert the signal back to what you wanted in the first place ?
OK, I found the deal of the century, got my Mom a 36" hi def Sony XBR. She loves it and the price was right. We walk in there and she is watching an old black and white movie on it. States that she is "rewatching" many things on it. Mike said "Pat, this is a $2,500 TV and you are watching a black and white movie on it ?" She said "Yeah, but look at it".
Thing is, she doesn't have a high def feed. Set was running on the line doubler off of her normal cable box. I must admit it looks pretty damn good. But that is without the hi def signal.
I don't have a problem with them improving TV, but I do have a problem with them shoving it up our ass like this. If you remember the date was changed twice because of public pressure. But they are not going to give up, and the reason why will be in the other thread. Do you think they really care how fucking sharp our TV picture is ? Gimme a break. That is so stupid that I ............................. have no words.
Opinions, comments ? Possibly someone who knows law ? Whatever you got. Call me an asshole if you want, but I still don't see why a cable company in the bumfuct stix somewhere, where they have never even heard of HDTV should have to switch over.
And there are other ramifications. HD requires more signal, and in remote areas where people just barely get two stations (they still exist) are likely to get nothing. Of course some of these old farts will just figure that they "uninvented TV, oh well".
Time for the other thread.
T
|
FCC, question of law and TV - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread