View Single Post
  #12  
Old 02-14-2015, 03:45 PM
Electronic M's Avatar
Electronic M Electronic M is offline
M is for Memory
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pewaukee/Delafield Wi
Posts: 15,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by etype2 View Post
Backwards compatible or convertible, so what is the problem. I can make every set I own display an ATSC signal wheather it be a 50's set or the latest and greatest.

"Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not." George Bernard Shaw
I think you missed the point I was trying to make in my post when I said this:
"We all have to face it, as soon as they mandated that broadcast TV be a digital format they made it just as disposable and prone to obsolescence as every other digital device, and since they set the precedence of non-backward compatibility with the adoption of ATSC they can change the format as often as they want however they want as long as they don't piss off enough people to have a riot or a house cleaning called for higher by higher ranking politicians."

My point was that the FCC has changed it's philosophy on consumer broadcast transmissions. Prior to ATSC the FCC never forcibly made a consumer format that was in widespread use obsolete. Sure you could argue that they did make pre-war FM radios and TV's obsolete/in need of modifications to work after WWII, but at the time those formats were owned by a few hundred to a FEW thousand, not millions like NTSC at the time of it's replacement. I also was making the point that digital electronic systems have a much shorter life before becoming obsolete. And the major point was that the FCC set precedence that they can in the future kill any format they dislike EVEN if it has a huge established user base that is not exactly clamoring to have it replaced. Also since they may change broadcast standards at any time we will have to adapt, and as more changes happen it will become more challenging.

As for my problem with non-compatibility versus convertibility....I have dozens of TVs and only 5 converter boxes....I have analog cable, but a good portion of my sets are not convenient to the outlets...Sure I could buy something like 50 converter boxes or run more cable, but the logistics and cost of that are not practical to me, and many of those boxes output poor quality RF signals that cause various issues in sets that did not exist with commercial transmitters. Add to that the fact that many portable sets lack a good connector for a converter box (which you should know given the nature of your collection), and become useless for their original purpose once saddled with a box (try walking 2-5 blocks with a Sony watchman and a converter box and tell me if it is more fun now then it was with just the Sony before ATSC existed). It is even an issue with buying collectable sets....If you find one unexpectedly and there is no converter box or other signal generating device handy (a common thing) how are you going to test it to see if it works (that was rarely an issue in the NTSC era)?
The DTV changeover was and still is inconvenient for those with equipment made before it, and it caused many sets people spent good money on to become worthless, or cost people more money to continue using (at a time when many were struggling financially BTW). The FCC could have mandated a backwards compatible broadcast HDTV format and saved the vast majority of Americans millions to billions in money and hassle, but simply chose not to.

I'm all for technological progress and innovation, but not at the cost of WASTEFULL destruction to current/widespread and historic systems.....Would you tear down Independence Hall, or the statue of liberty to build a space port? Or perhaps rip up the interstate system to force people to switch to flying cars?...

The answer should be HELL NO, but that is what ATSC does IMO.
__________________
Tom C.

Zenith: The quality stays in EVEN after the name falls off!
What I want. --> http://www.videokarma.org/showpost.p...62&postcount=4

Last edited by Electronic M; 02-14-2015 at 03:50 PM.
Reply With Quote