[mythtv-users] US to postpone analog TV death

Brian Wood beww at beww.org
Sat Jan 24 23:08:46 UTC 2009


Paul Bender wrote:
> Brian Wood wrote:
>> greg wrote:
>>> David Brodbeck wrote:
>>>> Doug Lytle wrote:
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/23/digital_tv_delay/
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not too surprised.  Hawaii recently switched and it reportedly did
>>>> *not* go well.
>>> They could delay it for a year and still the same people won't be ready.
>>
>> It's already been delayed more than once.
>>
>> How about we just give it up, and let the market determine if people
>> want it?
> 
> Spectrum has already been sold. Money has already been used to pay for
> converter box coupons. At this point, not switching would cost the
> government billions.
> 
> The television broadcasters got there digital channels on the condition
> that they would give up their analog channels. If the television
> broadcasters want to continue to use the analog channels, then they
> should pay for them.

Just like they are paying now? The license fees for the present channels
are ludicrous.

> 
>> Of course that would upset the wireless companies that are chomping at
>> the bit for more spectrum to screw us with.
>>
>> Maybe if we in the US didn't have to come up with the spectrum for 3
>> competing and incompatible systems this wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> Actually, desire for this spectrum has nothing to do with this. It has a
> lot to do with the difference in prorogation characteristics.

True, at this time.

There was a time when the DX (distance) record for 440Mhz. was about 6
blocks. I recall a photo of a couple of amateurs proudly holding the
equipment that had set that record.

Before that, the government decided what to do about amateur radio
operators: "Give them 200 meters and above, they'll never get out of
their backyards with that". Of course the amateurs were the first to get
transatlantic one-hop links, running at higher frequencies than 200
meters (about 100 meters actually). The government changed its tune fast
when that happened. Inspired engineers can do what everyone knows is
"impossible".

800 or 900 Mhz. does perform in ways that 1,900Mhz. does not, but that
can be an advantage as well as a liability. It is probably more
expensive to get similar performance, with today's technology, on
1.9Ghz., but I do not feel the public should underwrite lower costs for
the already wealthy operators.

There would be plenty of 800 or 900Mhz. spectrum if it didn't have to
support 3 different systems.

beww


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list