FCC static

[technoextreme]

Yes, you're on to me. Apparently they don't emphasize satire at all technical schools.

Daredelvis

Ummmm... It was crappy satire because it hit so close to conspiracy theories that it's just hard to tell.

It's more complex than that. An analog signal falls off gracefully with distance. A digital signal is good, good, good, gone. The "edges" are much sharper. So there will be people left out in the cold, broadcast-wise.

Can you explain why some television stations have actually expanded in range compared to the analog station. In all seriousness the FCC says the range of some stations actually increases.

Finally, this gives the cable industry a way to "get rid" of all of their cheaper offerings.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[GodMark2]

Can you explain why some television stations have actually expanded in range compared to the analog station. In all seriousness the FCC says the range of some stations actually increases.

It's actually quite easy: they use different standards of what is and is not an "acceptable image". The FCC doesn't consider a constantly fuzzy analog image acceptable, but a digital one with infrequent complete interruptions is A-OK. That happens up to about 17dB signal loss. Past 17dB signal-to-noise, analog is still viewable by many people's standards (but not the FCC's), but digital rapidly disappears.

To people used to seeing constant fuzzy images, going from that to a complete lack of image isn't considered a step forward.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

<snipped>

Since television isn't just about entertainment, it matters. Many people actually rely on it for the news and also for emergency broadcasts.

See, I didn't know that. Emergency broadcasts, really? How does that work?

I was raised in a house without TV, so it's only the last 5 years or so that I've even HAD one in my house. I don't rely on it for anything other than NFL football, and being a viewing screen for my dvd player so I can watch movies.

My point is that this DTV switchover is being treated like having tv reception in your home is akin to having running water or electricity. And that it would be a national emergency if some homes were without a signal after the switchover. I think that's a crazy notion.

 

[rwguinn]

See, I didn't know that. Emergency broadcasts, really? How does that work?

I was raised in a house without TV, so it's only the last 5 years or so that I've even HAD one in my house. I don't rely on it for anything other than NFL football, and being a viewing screen for my dvd player so I can watch movies.

My point is that this DTV switchover is being treated like having tv reception in your home is akin to having running water or electricity. And that it would be a national emergency if some homes were without a signal after the switchover. I think that's a crazy notion.

Obviously you don't live in :
Tornado Alley* or anywhere that the weather can become life-threatening in a matter of minutes (or even seconds).
Or downstream from a big dam, or in flood-prone, or fire-prone country.
Or somewhere more than 20 miles from a 4 lane highway...
Or in Places like NYC, where at least once, some nasty people crashed some airliners into some really big buildings...
*(BTW, will Ch 3 on digital show you that a tornado is close like it does on Analog?)

 

[ZirconBlue]

Obviously you don't live in :
Tornado Alley* or anywhere that the weather can become life-threatening in a matter of minutes (or even seconds).
Or downstream from a big dam, or in flood-prone, or fire-prone country.
Or somewhere more than 20 miles from a 4 lane highway...
Or in Places like NYC, where at least once, some nasty people crashed some airliners into some really big buildings...
*(BTW, will Ch 3 on digital show you that a tornado is close like it does on Analog?)

On the other hand, all this emergency information is also broadcast on radio, and a battery-powered radio still works when the power goes out.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

Obviously you don't live in :
Tornado Alley* or anywhere that the weather can become life-threatening in a matter of minutes (or even seconds).
Or downstream from a big dam, or in flood-prone, or fire-prone country.
Or somewhere more than 20 miles from a 4 lane highway...
Or in Places like NYC, where at least once, some nasty people crashed some airliners into some really big buildings...
*(BTW, will Ch 3 on digital show you that a tornado is close like it does on Analog?)

Actually, i DO live in Tornado Alley, and in fact part of my house and carport got flattened by a tornado in April 2008. Would TV have helped? No, it happened at about 4 am when we were all asleep. A big-ass tornado siren outside my bedroom window WOULD have helped, but...

I also live in a flash-flood area and was once stranded by a flash-flood (TV wouldn't have helped there, either).

And, I live out in a very remote part of north Texas, so I'm nowhere near major highways (and I'm not sure why TV would help me in this instance, either).

As for NYC during 9/11, I don't imagine having TV helped any of the poor victims there. As for information dissemination, my niece was going to NYU at the time and was one of the thousands of volunteers who went to help at the site. No TV needed to hand out bottled water and take down names of the missing. in fact, they relied mostly on the walls of posted signs and the Internet (Craigslist, for one), to coordinate and gather info.



I'm not a Luddite, but nothing I've read so far leads me to believe it's a matter of national urgency, requiring governmental intervention, if less than 10% of the US population will have a non-working TV come Feb. 17th. That's my one gripe about this whole thing. There are far more important issues they should be focusing on, not whether Aunt Betty can watch this week's American Idol.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

On the other hand, all this emergency information is also broadcast on radio, and a battery-powered radio still works when the power goes out.

I totally agree. A laptop with one of those cards (don't remember what they're called, they use the cell tower signals, I believe) will also work.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, i DO live in Tornado Alley, and in fact part of my house and carport got flattened by a tornado in April 2008. Would TV have helped? No, it happened at about 4 am when we were all asleep. A big-ass tornado siren outside my bedroom window WOULD have helped, but...

You might think about getting a weather alert radio. I've got one (don't live in tornado alley, but they're not unheard of), and it woke me up successfully last time there was a tornado warning. In fact, it woke me up before the neighborhood tornado sirens even started sounding.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

You might think about getting a weather alert radio. I've got one (don't live in tornado alley, but they're not unheard of), and it woke me up successfully last time there was a tornado warning. In fact, it woke me up before the neighborhood tornado sirens even started sounding.

Not a bad idea. In this area we can also sign up for cell-phone alerts, which I was going to do before tornado season starts again.

Seems like tornadoes are spotted in more and more states every year, huh?

 

[Ziggurat]

Obviously you don't live in :
Tornado Alley* or anywhere that the weather can become life-threatening in a matter of minutes (or even seconds).
Or downstream from a big dam, or in flood-prone, or fire-prone country.

TV isn't a very good delivery device for that stuff. Sure, it's a good idea to do broadcasts of emergency info on TV, but TV's don't turn on by themselves, so if you're not watching, it does no good. As I mentioned above, if you really want to get emergency alert info, get a weather alert radio. They're cheaper than a TV, the alerts will sound even if you're not listening to the radio, and you can program them to respond only to alerts for your area (usually county), which is often much smaller than the TV broadcast area.

 

[rwguinn]

TV isn't a very good delivery device for that stuff. Sure, it's a good idea to do broadcasts of emergency info on TV, but TV's don't turn on by themselves, so if you're not watching, it does no good. As I mentioned above, if you really want to get emergency alert info, get a weather alert radio. They're cheaper than a TV, the alerts will sound even if you're not listening to the radio, and you can program them to respond only to alerts for your area (usually county), which is often much smaller than the TV broadcast area.

True--and I have one.
But right now, I'm in Tulsa, OK, USA. We just had a major ice storm (Okies are not good on ice--hell, they can barely drive on dry pavement...). The "State of Emergency" as decreed by the Governor, is updated on Television. It was specifically stated to "Watch your local television station" for updates on conditions and for when it is safe to return home, venture down side streets, etc.
So a hell of a lot of people get their info from tv, especially in the remote areas. (But many of them are on satellite--Dish, DirectTV, etc, so they are already covered. No problem with the changeover for them)
I'm not objecting to the changeover, just the assinine assumption that it's useless for breaking/important information. No, it didn't do the people in the towers any good on 9/11/01, but the rest of the city and the country was able to find out just what the hell was happening and why they shouldn't/couldn't go certain places, and why some services were not available, such as airline flights, why daddy was stuck in Cleveland, and why you shouldn't go out to the barn, pull out the 172, and fly into town this week...

 

[drkitten]

TV isn't a very good delivery device for that stuff. Sure, it's a good idea to do broadcasts of emergency info on TV, but TV's don't turn on by themselves, so if you're not watching, it does no good. As I mentioned above, if you really want to get emergency alert info, get a weather alert radio.

So people should go out and buy a whole nother piece of equipment instead of simply a cheap converter box to make their TV do what a weather alert radio does?

 

[Nursefoxfire]

So people should go out and buy a whole nother piece of equipment instead of simply a cheap converter box to make their TV do what a weather alert radio does?

a DTV converter box will NOT do what a weather alert radio does.

And most people already have, in their homes, a 'nother piece of equipment that does what TV currently does (and in the future will do). It's called a radio. Good old AM/FM radio stations. They give all the emergency info, weather, traffic, news, lists of closings, alerts, etc...

Don't get me wrong, seeing a visual representation of the tornado warning box as it marches through the area is a VERY good idea. I just want to reiterate (again), that I don't believe this DTV switchover should be delayed via an act of Congress, because MOST of the data the American viewer obtains from TV is NOT in any way, shape or form, 'emergency information'. People rely on a number of different methods to get their information, TV is just one part of that.

 

[Ziggurat]

So people should go out and buy a whole nother piece of equipment instead of simply a cheap converter box to make their TV do what a weather alert radio does?

Making a converter box do what a weather alert radio does would be more expensive, because it would have to do more than a weather alert radio does (ie, control your TV for you) to achieve the same functionality. None of the current converter boxes have that functionality. None are likely to.

And if you want emergency information, yes, you should get a weather alert radio. That statement has nothing to do with the DTV conversion. It was just as true last year as it will be next year. If you live somewhere where the risk of disaster is very low, then you may not care. If you live in tornado alley, it would be a wise investment.

 

[rwguinn]

And it turns out they are not really good tornado detectors, either...
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/hnx/svrwx6.php

unless you have a very old B&W TV--and probably not even then...

 

[shecky]

Ummmm... It was crappy satire because it hit so close to conspiracy theories that it's just hard to tell.

Heh... that's often the best kind of satire. Typical Onion. Perhaps Ziggurat didn't think it was funny because it hit too close to home?

 

[technoextreme]

It's actually quite easy: they use different standards of what is and is not an "acceptable image". The FCC doesn't consider a constantly fuzzy analog image acceptable, but a digital one with infrequent complete interruptions is A-OK. That happens up to about 17dB signal loss. Past 17dB signal-to-noise, analog is still viewable by many people's standards (but not the FCC's), but digital rapidly disappears.

To people used to seeing constant fuzzy images, going from that to a complete lack of image isn't considered a step forward.

Thank you for that information. I appreciate it.

Heh... that's often the best kind of satire. Typical Onion. Perhaps Ziggurat didn't think it was funny because it hit too close to home?

Personally I prefer the whole eat babies type of satire.

 

[Ziggurat]

Heh... that's often the best kind of satire. Typical Onion. Perhaps Ziggurat didn't think it was funny because it hit too close to home?

Uh, no. As I said, it's a satire of editorial cartoons, which are themselves generally satire. Such meta-satire is very hard to do well, regardless of the subject matter. I just don't think the Onion pulled it off successfully. It's too trite, too predictable. Humor should have an element of surprise, and that's basically lacking here for me. But hey, humor is a personal thing... if that cartoon floats your boat, good for you.

Now, their macbook wheel story, THAT I found very funny.