Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

PBS Goes Digital 119

Posted by CmdrTaco from the can-I-get-a-digital-tote-bag? dept.
FzZzT writes "This ditty from Wired tells about PBS's move next April, with help from Intel, to digital-only broadcasting. It also tells more about Digital TV, which can now only be seen with a PC and a tuner card. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PBS Goes Digital More

PBS Goes Digital

Comments Filter:


  • Actually according to a TV program the other night it's more like 1 million. Your point is...??

  • Have you looked at PBS lately? (Score:3)

    by Gleef ( 86 ) on Thursday June 17, 1999 @10:04AM (#1845560) Homepage
    Rombu wrote:

    PBS is an anachronism these days, since you can get the same types of programming over a number of widely available channels (Discovery, A&E, etc..) PBS was created to broadcast these types of programs and other things that "commercial" networks wouldn't touch. With the advent of cable and satellite we have seen that there is very little that commercial interests won't broadcast. This seems like a last desparate gasp of a dying system to try to draw attention to itself.

    First off, PBS [pbs.org] uses almost none of your tax dollars. Their federal and state funding has been cut so many times it's not funny. The total line in their financial report [pbs.org] for grants is about $41 million of a $448 million budget. That's less than 10% of their expenses, and less than a single tank costs these days.

    For that money, they not only support great programming (such as Sesame Street and Nova), but they also spearhead development projects that you never see directly, such as this digital television program, the TeacherSource [pbs.org] program, which offers video content for our schools. They also have an impressive Adult Literacy and GED program called LiteracyLink [pbs.org]. They have a neat program [pbs.org] to support distance learning colleges. They also offer, in conjunction with the MIT Business College The Business Channel [pbstbc.com], which many prominent companies subscribe to.

    This digital television system is not a waste of tax dollars, nor is it a last desperate gasp of a dying network. It is another step forward for an organization that has long been at the core of our country's education infrastructure.
  • First of all, that's the Declaration of Independence you're (mis)quoting. Learn some history.

    Secondly, Free Quality Television Programming is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Nobody is claiming that it is. Either are national parks, interstate highways, or schools, but nobody is suggesting abolishing those. It's merely a good idea that receives less than $10/year of your money.
  • Digital enhanced intelicast (teletext) stuff is old shit)

    And we still don't get teletext here in the U.S. Bah.
  • Digital Red Green: Find out what those controls on Harold's keyboard *really* do. Also get .MPG videos of outtakes from "Adventures with Bill".
  • Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

    Isn't a "ditty" a song?

    Anyway, I want to hear less about HDTV broadcasts and more about HDTV sets available for purchase CHEAP.
    --
    "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
  • Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

    At least not much. Most Public Broadcasting funding these days (~60% IIRC) comes from "corporate sponsors", i.e. advertisers.

    Johnson (?) created the program but didn't fully fund it. Reagan cut the funding way back in the mid 80's.

    --
    "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
  • First of all, the PBS/CPB tax bite to you is a few pennies a month; you're now an official nominee for CyberScrooge 1999 if you're going to whine about this (see chart [cpb.org], which shows that public broadcasting in the US is cash-starved beyond all reason).

    Secondly, it isn't the government's job to entertain people, nor is that public broadcasting's job. Plenty of dollars flow through commercial broadcasting, and commercial broadcasting sucks to the Nth degree as a result (chasing after the lowest common denominator of everything); public broadcasting (in the US) was designed to provide a telecommunications infrastructure to public education, and to provide programming (news, documentaries, essays, science, culture, etc) that wasn't -- and isn't -- being provided by the commercial entities.

    But irate politicians, almost from the beginning, angered by the news coverage, have, over and over again, cut funding, or made public broadcasters beg for money from its viewers or from corporations, making US public broadcasting mediocre at best. Public radio and TV is now about Lawrence Welk reruns, wimpy classical music playlists, and de-clawed information programming; public broadcasting in its current, messed-up state can be (and is) emulated by cable entities and commercial radio stations, yes, but with better funding, PBS/CPB/NPR could put its commercial-space emulators to shame.

    In a country where "culture" means mass-produced corporate crap, and "news" means mass-produced corporate infotrivia, and "education" means mass-produced crappy consumers, it might behoove Americans to divert some War Department chump change into a mucho beefed-up PBS.

    Not that it matters to you, of course; you'd rather keep public broadcasting's $1 for yourself. Don't spend it all in one place.

    --

  • If enough people can't get together to pay for quality television, then we don't deserve to have it available.

    The reason why cash-starved public broadcasting sucks is because they have to resort to begathons (which is itself a sign that you Philistines have won). These stations are almost as commercial as the commercial media to which they were supposed to be an alternative. I don't think you bothered to read my previous post in its entirety.

    If enough people can't get together to pay for cruise missiles, then maybe we don't deserve to have them available either. Let's pass the hat and see who'll pitch in.

    --

  • I don't know of any other channel that shows British comedies.

    --
    Timur Tabi
    Remove "nospam_" from email address
  • >2) Digital Red Dwarf: After being frozen in space
    >for three million years, David Lister wakes up to
    >find that Holly's Intel chip has corrupted,
    >leaving it with an IQ of 60.

    That's okay, they can just overclock Holly and fix everything back up! They actually did that in an episode, funny. Increased intelligence, decreased lifespan.

  • With the advances in DLP technology, by the middle of next year you should be able to buy a sub-$2000 video projector that will handle HDTV and NTSC. I've seen demos of 1280 x 1024 DLP machines, and TI is supposed to start selling a 1600 x 1200 chip in about three months. Slap a lens, a light source, and a decoder on that, and you have a 2000 lumen HDTV projector smaller than a lunch box...

    For current comparison, I saw an LCD-based projector from Toshiba (the TLP 650) at InfoComm last week... pushing a 1080 line HDTV signal onto a 20' wide screen at about 1000 lumens. $9995, and it was about as big as a large laptop.

    For home use, if you're sticking to 1080 HDTV, there are some LCD projectors out there right now that run for $5000 or less. You'd just need a decoder.

  • Europe's had what... 4+ Digital channels for about a year now? Digital Set top boxes being given away with your breakfast cereals left right and center.
    As soon as they start giving cash away, I'll take one.
    America is sooooo backwards. :)
  • "...it might behoove Americans to divert some War Department chump change into a mucho beefed-up PBS."

    It certainly might behoove us. However, I'll be *damned* if I'll let my government take my money to do things it has no right doing without getting a little pissed off. If enough people can't get together to pay for quality television, then we don't deserve to have it available.

    For what it's worth, I do my part to help PBS rely less on my tax dollar.

  • This looks like an excellent broadcast medium for arts and sciences in our homes; however, I am worried that if Intel is the only one sponsoring this technology, it may become forgotten. Hopefully, there will be multiple vendors that have significant capital and interest to push this method of media into the market. PBS has provided many wonderful programs througout the decades and this technology could provide a great evolutionary step in education. I just hope there are some dedicated people who will back this and ensure its diversity in the market.
  • I haven't watched television in a long time, but I do remember Nova. It would be great watching the space program in its full digital glory right from the satellites cameras and obtain a more personalized view of space and physics. This could be possible with high bandwidth PBS television!
  • I disagree with PBS being a waste of tax dollars. I don not receive cable television and am unable to watch Discovery, A&E, etc. PBS is public and free and I can watch it from a rooftop arial.

    I used to subscribe to cable for $60 a month with all the channels. After one month, all I was seeing was the same repeats of violence and mayhem. PBS is more independent from ratings and more donation driven. The quality seems to survive.
  • And don't forget the constitutional part about public forests and parks, paved roads, space technology, and consumer protection to name a few. The government is a big business and looks out after our interests, good and bad. PBS just seems like a good byproduct of government pork in my opinion. Bad pork might include the NSA and other nonsense.
  • The market handles ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and FOX. I have never seen so much shooting, decapitation, mutilation, and disregard for other's civil rights, all from the market you suggest. These are not only on late night shows, but also on Saturday morning cartoons. I don't have anything against freedom of the press and speech, but its just when its *all* crap that I get pissed off. PBS seems to raise the standard of broadcast television and I feel it currently deserves support.

    Granted, the government is big brother, and is always trying to justify its ever increasing payrolls to tax our paychecks. 50% of what I make is pretty steep and I see much of it that can be cut. For me, it seems like PBS is doing good maintaining a community focus and is a good value for what I pay.

    But that's just my opinion. Taxes are high and it would be a good idea to just cut the crap. I feel I could do a better job at spending that 50% than the government does, but the IRS would disagree with me in a most unpleasant way.
  • If you have so much against government funding of public interests such as PBS, what do you think about having no government? Surely, you are not suggesting an anarchy. PBS is one of the many services that our government provides in the interest of our society. PBS makes us a better community and seems to be within the purpose of which our government was founded. Should we return to random settlements and villages that lack funded community services? There is a price to pay for services like PBS and it is quite low in my opinion.

  • Hauppauge is coming out with a new HDTV tuner for the PC, with an expected list price of $500. Adding the card to your existing PC(and maybe a bigger monitor) is a lot less than the current sets.

    This makes one wonder, if Hauppauge can come out with an HDTV tuner card for only $500, then why are the HDTV tuner's for the current sets going for $1500??? (yep - the tuner is sold seperately on a lot of the current HDTV sets)

    Hopefully the OS/2 drivers for Hauppauge's WinTV card can be updated to support the new tuner :-)

  • TI's DLP page [ti.com] has a lot of info. We've got a DLP(Digital Light Processing) projector at work and I am very impressed with the image it produces. Much cleaner than an LCD projector.

  • PBS does not deserve sponsorship. It should be tried, shot and buried. Can I back up these statements?

    one word: Teletubbies!

  • "Widely available channels" for those willing to pay the ever-rising cost for cable. On the other hand, if all you have are the broadcast networks PBS is a real asset. As for the "last desparate gasp" crap, PBS has been a leader in bringing new technologies to the market for years. This is just another example.
  • concoured -> conquered

    (I knew I should have hit preview first!)

  • I.E.: "A Little Ditty....'bout Jack and Diane"

    ;)

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Actually, the Intel Chip miscalculated, because her IQ was actually 59.91465146847654368473654. But hey, Close enough Right?

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • No, you do not have Digital TV. If you had you would not require a decoder box. You would simply plug the arial coax cable directly into the TV and that would be that. You require a decoder box because there must be something that converts the incoming digital signal (an MPEG-2 transport stream) into an analogue format suitable for your TV.

    The UK managed to be the first country to begin transmitting a TERRESTRIAL digital signal. Meaning you can pick up the signal using a decoder box and a standard arial. Everyone has been transmitting digital satellite signals for years.

    Digital TV in the US means that not only is the signal digital, but so is the TV. The TV becomes one large computer monitor and is able to process the digital MPEG-2 signal itself. Note: these sets are expensive as they are all HD (High Definition). SD (Standard Definition) digital TV sets are also possible and should be a lot cheaper, however they will look like standard TV sets (abiet with a much higher picture quality) and not the widescreen 16x9 HD format.

    As far as the Interactive TV component is concerned, the UK uses a terrible monstrosity called MHEG. I nearly went mad after spending over six months writing an interactive Stock application in it.

  • I followed the " Read more about Digital TV [wired.com]" link and the subsequent link to the article " A Frim Grip on Digital TV [wired.com]". It discusses a Gore Commission and it's recommendations that the Federal Government regulate what is shown on the air.

    The best quote is near the end: "Although the Media Institute knew Gore's handpicked panel members might be inclined to endorse regulation, it found the final report particularly disappointing. The institute hoped the commission would look at the original basis for government regulation -- spectrum scarcity -- and decide it doesn't apply to digital TV."

    An interesting side note, if I understood it correctly, Gore does not recommend allowing free air time for political candidates. I can't decide if this hurts or helps him.

    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
  • Hmmm... With everything going Digital, I'm glad I haven't bothered to buy a new TV set yet.

    i think i'll stick with my little 13" set until the prices drop on the HDTV buggers...
  • Discovery and A&E do not show anything suitable for my children (3 years and 10 months respectively). While the content of childrens programming on other networks can be good, the content of the adverts is totally unacceptable.

    You tell 'em! :)

    My house doesn't have cable because it's too expensive to pay for when all i can get is junk. i have two boys, ages 2 years and 4 months. the two year old loves Sesame Street, Zoom, Arthur, and a few others that are shown during the day.

    I'll take PBS over cable any day of the week. i can't wait to get an HDTV... then (based on what i've read about it) i won't have to worry about crappy reception...

  • "Ken Starr's four year investigation of Clinton cost about as much money as a year of PBS. Can you actually tell me with a straight face that it did more good for the US than PBS does?"

    Yes, I guess we should just admit that we have no concept of legality and any elected official can commit purjury openly, in otherwords, become a criminal, and face no punishment for it. Why even spend money to make an APPEARANCE that elected officials aren't above the law? We all know that they are perfectly above the law because they are the ones that hold the power of coercion and they can buy whoever they need to, or get them killed as a last resort (Mary Mahoney).

    The government is only good for breaking your legs and then giving you crutches and saying how
    you "needed" them to come along and help you.

  • It was wasted because the senators refused to do what was right even though they were handed all of the evidence on a silver platter..they decided to keep a federal criminal in office. Purjury is purjury.

    This is kind of like you complaining that the money spent investigating a serial killer was wasted and never should have been spent because the jury wimped out and didn't convict him or her.
  • It's a stupid and brainless cliche..black helicopters would attract much more attention then it would be worth.

    No...if they were to "come for me" (and I'm sure they've got better things to do right now), it would look like just another routine break in or just another mugging, done by people that look (and act) like routine criminals. Except I'd be dead..and if they were in a real hurry, they'd forget to rob me of anything.

    What, you think that political enemies that have powerful ammunition against the current leadership DON'T get murdered?
  • The total line in their financial report for grants is about $41 million of a $448 million budget. That's less than 10% of their expenses, and less than a single tank costs these days.
    - Gleef

    Hear hear. I used to work for an organization which employed less than 20 people as part of a federally funded project. Our budget was approximately $12 million over the first three years of our operation. And do you know what my co-worker (who had been in the procurement field all her life) called it? "Budget dust."

    For the purpose of comparison: if Gleef's numbers are correct (had some difficulty finding the relelvant info in the financial report), Ken Starr's four year investigation of Clinton cost about as much money [cnn.com] as a year of PBS. Can you actually tell me with a straight face that it did more good for the US than PBS does?

  • We all know that they are perfectly above the law because they are the ones that hold the power of coercion and they can buy whoever they need to, or get them killed as a last resort (Mary Mahoney).


    Whatever. Let me know when the black helicopters come for you.

  • [AOL mode]Me too.

    But for a different reason. The article says stuff about people with PC tuners already being able to somehow look at extra data being broadcast with TV programs. The last thing I want to do is watch a PBS program only to find out that the "extra data" is in a proprietary format, requires Windoze, x86 hardware, etc. I get really suspicious when I see companies like Intel working with content providers.

    If MS-NBC wants to do that, it's their business. But I hope PBS stays off-limits for embrace-and-extend attacks.

    Getting more tech companies in on it would be good, and could help prevent proprietary poison from seeping in.

  • I just wish that once you give them money you could turn off the appeals and go back to the programming (maybe with multicasting ;-).

    LOL! Shareware reminders for PBS!

    Beep!

    You have not sent in your registration for Red Dwarf. Don't you feel guilty? Please send $20 to PBS and we'll send you a 1024-bit key that disables this popup for 3 months. We now return to the regularly scheduled program.

  • Speaking as a Brit. I think you will find that the majority of UK residents are happy to pay for the exceptional quality of the BBC and the luxury of not having you favorite progs. screwed up with commercials.
  • I have to agree. If I see one more UFO special or "Cars of Tomorrow"-type show on Discovery or TLC I think my head is going to explode! I like a lot of the stuff they have, but even there a lot of it caters to the lowest common denominator. There's plenty of stuff that PBS shows that they would never show.
  • Perhaps he was referring to Starr, not ABC. He was forced to pay for it.
  • Nope.

    What was your point?
  • One minor details that you pretty much glossed over (you don't happen to work for Sky do you?).

    Sky Digital requires a satelite dish, On Digital does not, all you need is a TV aerial. What that means to Joe Public is that if you do not own your property (which I don't, like one helluvalot of people in London, I rent) you almost certainly will not be able to put up a dish to get Sky Digital.

    Hence, people who rent will probably go for On Digital. Like I have.
  • Yes, Discovery, Learning Channel, A&E etc have a lot of good stuff, and we usually watch those in preference to PBS or (ugh) network TV in the evenings (with exceptions).

    But for little kids, PBS rules. Sesame Street and stuff like Shelly T. Turtle kept our daughter (and now our boys) educated and entertained without constant commercial interruptions for the latest Mattel marvel or sugar frosted glucose cereal. Now she routinely watches Bill Nye the Science Guy and Magic Schoolbus.
    Around here the local PBS stations also routinely broadcast more targeted educational stuff in the wee hours of the morning for teachers to tape and use in their classes.

    Yeah, the libertarian in me says that shouldn't be paid for by unwilling taxpayers, but the concerned parent says "cool". And I do fork over some bucks come pledge season.

    If PBS were to go subscription-only (via cable and satellite) I'd pay for it, but I like the idea that it's available to those that don't have access (for physcial or financial reasons) to cable or satellite - at least the educational kids programming.
  • If you're not already doing this... tape those shows!

    We've got hours and hours worth of Sesame St, Bill Nye, Shelly T Turtle, Arthur, Magic Schoolbus, and yes, even some Barney. Our daughter (4-1/2) grew up on that stuff (plus Disney videos and a lot of being read to). Kids love to watch the same videos over and over (and over, and over...) again -- they pick up new things each time, and also gives them a feeling of mastery that they can "predict" what's going to happen next. (It's the same with favorite books.) We also found that, with my daugher anyway, they go through phases. For a few weeks all she watch was Arthur. Then just Magic Schoolbus. And so on. Then she'll rediscover something she hadn't watched in a long time.

    My boys (twins, 8 months) aren't quite into any of that stuff yet. We have a couple of 'baby videos' -- music and shapes/toys/etc which help us keep our sanity at times. We do limit how much the kids watch TV, and we hardly watch it ourselves, but it has its uses.
  • You can get that sweet Sony HDTV for _only_ $8000.

    *cough*
  • http://www.apple.com/quicktime/showcase/education/ wgbh/index.html
  • Maybe I am not understanding but what will become of my old television? Will PBS be taken away from me so that I have to make a several THOUSAND dollar investment just to watch something that is supposed to be FREE.

    This is the same principle why such things as hotmail are just plain stupid. If I purtchess an account (email) from an isp why would I need something like that. I get more options. I get to control what I recieve. I can filter as I choose. and as well as having control as to how email is read.

    If this is the case I will just invest the money for the FREE pbs access and just pay for a top of the line computer to access the net 24/7/365 and do things that way.
  • so I assume that this will not cause me to spend more of my money and I can instead spend it on what I want?
  • Not typically most of our cost of living expences are far less than that of Europe. Most of what occurs in Europe occurs maybe before America because most people have some more money to spend on experimental products. What I think is that it is just the speed in which people find out about something and think that it's a good idea to change. Not all ideas are so good remember DIVX?
  • PBS is an anachronism these days, since you can get the same types of programming over a number of widely available channels (Discovery, A&E, etc..) PBS was created to broadcast these types of programs and other things that "commercial" networks wouldn't touch. With the advent of cable and satellite we have seen that there is very little that commercial interests won't broadcast. This seems like a last desparate gasp of a dying system to try to draw attention to itself.
  • I guess I missed that part of the Constitution that promised everyone Life, Liberty, and Free Quality Television Programming.
  • Well actually we would be better off to let the market handle all of those other things you mentioned too....

    I think I'd rather have my tax dollars go to the NSA, than all that edutainment multicultural valueless crap they show on PBS to brainwash little kids.

    You can even make a case for some of the things you mentioned in your message, but only in the US would we suggest it is the governments job to sure that people are entertained.
  • Ever hear of BBC America?
  • First off, PBS uses almost none of your tax dollars. Their federal and state funding has been cut so many times it's not funny. The total line in their financial report for grants is about $41 million of a $448 million budget. That's less than 10% of their expenses, and less than a single tank costs these days.

    If they 'only' use $41 million of my tax dollars, they shouldn't have that big of a problem making up that amount if their funding got cut, right? They could change their name to GM presents PBS or something, right?

  • It's all a question of what you like to watch

    No it is not. Its a question of whether people should have to support something against their will. If PBS is so damn great they should have people beating down their door to give them money, rather than having to use my money and begging for more every two weeks.
  • Well I would explain the diffence between a private corporation like (ABC, NBC, FOX, etc..) where you didn't pay a damn dime for that coverage you didn't like and PBS where your tax dollars are helping to pay for the programming and broadcasting, but I don't think you would understand the difference.
  • Discovery and A&E do not show anything suitable for my children (3 years and 10 months respectively

    Jeezus! What kind of programming is appropriate for a 10 month old anyway? Damn, isn't that a little young to be using the TV as a babysitter?
  • ...with on digital you don't have to

    -plug the box into your phone line so it can phone up Sky and tell them what you watch.

    -give any money to Murdoch
  • What about those who cannot afford cable?

    To make a more important point...

    Yeas, PBS was originally created to bring "those types" of programs to the masses, but it has evolved to much more. PBS stations provide daytime educational programs, and locally produced programs that would never happen at a commercial TV station.

    All in all, PBS and the local PBS station provide a nessicary resource to the public.

    Besides, only SOME of PBS's money comes from the government. A good deal comes from private industry and viewer donations.

    -- A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."

  • Oh, good, we can start a new word misuse.

    It's not TV, if it's Digital it's Ditty.

  • My tax dollars go to PBS too. At least you get a vote to decide how they get spent.

    #include "taxation_without_representation_rant.h"

    Discovery and A&E do not show anything suitable for my children (3 years and 10 months respectively). While the content of childrens programming on other networks can be good, the content of the adverts is totally unacceptable. Like the ad last year that had Santa on the rocket powered sleigh and the red battle armor. Almost ruined my 3 year old's Christmas. We fired a babysitter because we caught her watching WB while the kids were in the room.


    That's why I donate additional money to PBS. I just wish that once you give them money you could turn off the appeals and go back to the programming (maybe with multicasting ;-).
  • I didn't want to watch your president's sex life being talked about for weeks on end. I could have turned off the TV. But no-one gave me the choice of whether or not I wanted to pay for it.
  • Teletubbies "for children who are already thinking but only just starting to speak". She also appears to enjoy Barney.

    I know she appears to enjoy it because I am in the room when she watches (or my wife is). Then we turn the TV off and play similar games, or dance similar dances. It reinforces the learning experience.

  • I wouldn't read Lord of the Rings to either of them yet. When they get old enough to appreciate it, I will. Currently we read a lot of Thomas the Tank Engine (the Rev. Awdry originals, not the Britt Alcroft crap) and Arthur.

    Just because the TV is on does not make it a babysitter. Children can learn from TV, a particular point of PBS. On Monday we had a child development person from KTCA (Twin Cities PBS station) to our house to talk to our daycare provider, some of her other parents, my sister-in-law and other friends about how to use TV as an education aid. No doubt this is a flagrant misuse of Rombuu's money, but if it reduces "TV babysitting" I think it's worthwhile.
  • I'm betting my children's emotional and intellectual wellbeing on it. Do you know of higher stakes?

    Children are supposed to giggle. I would hate to live in your world, where there are no more discoveries no more misteries [sic]. I still discover stuff every day, and there are many mysteries (like the 2.3 Linux kernel).

    Small children do not learn on a 101/201/301 schedule. They are constantly relearning everything they know. they need a balance of challenge, guidance and passive learning, as well as giggling and running around in circles until they fall over.
  • A learning experience involves taking a 12 guage to the TV

    And the precise lesson here would be what? That if you don't like something it's OK to destroy it? That violence solves problems? The nasty dinosaur won't get you so long as you have a gun handy?

    Speaking as the possessor of an extremely good education, it's overrated. Being able to solve problems is not as important as being able to identify which problems are important in the first place. If you cannot realize that my family, where the children watch 75% less television that the national average and 100% less commercial television, is not the problem, then maybe you are too educated.
  • Quite correct.

    I believe tax money funds CSPAN as well, which was wall-to-wall impeachment at the time.
  • If they 'only' use $41 million of my tax dollars,

    Whoah, man. How much tax do you pay a year?

    PBS has had to go for corporate sponsorship already. Masterpiece Theater is now known, at least when they say it at PBS, "Mobil Masterpiece Theater", and not cause it's some form of travelling road show.

    I'd rather my tax money (quite less than $41M) go towards PBS than paying the salary of some windbag Senator I can hardly stand.

  • "It also tells more about Digital TV, which can now only be seen with a PC and a tuner card."

    You lot can only watch Digital TV on a computer? That seems very odd; normally Britain lags a little behind the US, technology-wise. Here in the UK, there are plenty of Digital TV decoders and IDTVs in the shops, and the broadcasters are all jumping on the bandwagon and launching digital channels as fast as they can.

  • It was a totally inaccurate statement.

    Actually, I think it was ambiguous. I've just been reading through the Wired articles, and it seems what FzZzT meant was the new datacasts would only be receivable on a PC. I thought an absence of DTVs in the US was a bit weird when I posted.

  • PBS is an anachronism these days, since you can get the same types of programming over a number of widely available channels (Discovery, A&E, etc..)

    This is false. The Discovery Channel in particular is prone to pseudoscience programming -- lots of credulous specials on ghosts, etc. It is Nova and Bill Nye who bring us James Randi and other voices of reason, for the most part.

    When a network is constrained to chasing dollars from philistines, it's likelier to produce a thin simulacrum of educational TV than it is to educate anyone.

    --

  • they say 'it is possible because digital signal
    takes less bandwidth than the anolog'. This is BS.
    Digital signal takes *more* bandwidth the
    analog. Substantially more. But then we can do
    some fancy things like MPEG-2 compression, and
    that's how we can keep the bandwidth requirements
    for digital video within the reasonable bounds.
  • face recognition. So guess what good luck with your HD/ID/Non-analog-TV's.

    Oh by the way digital editing is so much easier than analog. Have fun.
  • effluvium. Ever see Dark City prime time when people are home? How about Brazil? And oh what was that, only Showtime has the balls to show Lolita?

    C'mon. Really, go drown in Dawson's Creek or dehydrate crying over 7th Heaven.

  • You are under arrest for failure to read JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings to your child, negligent TV babysitting known to be a danger to children, and pretty much everyday ordinary moron behaviour. Let's go now. It's over.

  • Barney causes children to simply waste their brains giggling. A learning experience involves taking a 12 guage to the TV taking your child to a library and challenging it actively. Passive learning is impossible at this stage. Once the child has grown after continous support challenge and guidance passive learning will happen because the child already has a decent foundation. At that point there will be no more discoveries no more misteries simply the power to act, or not act, and self-respect and confidence. Happy giggling and passive training do not result in an education.

    Children need to play and try different solution to puzzles not be indoctrinnated by some Purple moron.

    How much do you want to bet on this?
  • House call?

    All right, may be you're light years ahead of most parents. However I'm warning you as a guy who's shit scared of ever bringing a child into the world and for the child's sake I'm more scared of this than contracting some venereal disease.

    Myself I have a few things I definitely owe to my parents. They waited till their mid 30's before they had kids. Biggest favor they ever did us.
    Thanks to them I was programming computers when I was 8. They didn't give me a computer late in my teens so I could just do my homework. They had better foresight than that. I'm involved in international projects on the net thanks to them. I was never sent to summer camp, never to sunday school. They gave me everything.

    Most parents can't get past the hype and give their kids a solid outlook.

  • OK...Fair enough

    I know the first thing people in this world need to do is learn to laugh. I was mentioning the fact that from my view of the show, it looked like a diversion to keep kids busy not an involved educational program.

    IANAP, but I can tell you Barney is no comparison to Sesame Street. At least if they watch that they won't end up like some people I know will swear to you if you ask for directions that you cannot get there from here.

    But even Sesame Street aside, they need to be in the loop with the world (without necessarily imitating) as soon as possible. Of course without scaring them to death. This is earth in 1999 not Eden or some other paradise.

    I'll concede that I'm somewhat paranoid when I hear officials talk of calculators for third graders. That's like the worst one of all the techno-future-got-to-keep-up babble. So maybe I lost it when I read B-a-r-n-e-y.






  • I'm not afraid of Barney, it's what he does that scares me when we talk about where kids are going. I myself have given up TV. I only watch socially.

    As for identifying which problems are important, that's precisely what I'm getting at. I really don't give a crap that Ben Stein knows what root turpentine is extracted from. Actually, I do care. It scares me that anyone would waste their time on such trivia.

    I have a stinking feeling that this world is going of the deep end, and that the answer is right under our noses. If only more parents got together and started www.edu.org and perhaps created a public fund from which to pay teachers. The fact is that besides the gyms and libraries buildings are obsolete.

    One note on commercial TV, I do have to agree with the sentiment that Buffy does represent high school, though I rarely watch since it's stuck in reruns. (Granted I wish to see a return to text adventures that have the depth and interactivity of novels.)
  • Watched BBC 5 recently, I dont think even Digital TV can improve the quality of that channel. ;)

    Seriously though, the structure and size of our public television systems are so different that they can't even be compared. You can buy digital TVs here too but only a few markets have digital TV yet.

  • 3) Digital Fawlty Towers: I can't think of anything. Suggestions are welcome. The show rocks, though.

    Basil Fawlty goes ballistic as hordes of geeks & nerds invades the hotel for a Linux convention ...
    - - -

  • 6) Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy: A platetwide cluster of Linux PCs solve the question of Life, The Universe and Everything in, say, 20 minutes.
    - - -
  • I do not understand the point of a 'free' programming service going to a format which makes it inaccessible for an immense amount of people. This is akin to requiring you fly to D.C. to apply for welfare. if you had the cash, why would you bother?

  • Europe's had what... 4+ Digital channels for about a year now?

    Well, Sky has over 200 channels (off of one satellite, Astra 2), and that is just England, Ireland and that place just to the north, um, Scotland.

    Germany must have around the same amount of programming available on Astra 1 (where the Sky analogue broadcasts are). France, Italy and Spain are getting into DTV as well, and must have several hundred channels between them.

    The only problem is that the companies give you the equipment, in return for subscription. Sky do say that they will be updating the whole system in 2 years to a much higher spec. Probably the same system with built in HD, PSX2 and more...

    There are 8 satellites at the Astra 1 position, each providing 16 analogue channels (3-7 digital channels), giving a possible 900+ channels from one little satellite dish! Astra 2 only has 1 or 2 satellites in orbit, and provides 200+ channels already, a lot of them high quality.

    I might be a little wrong with the details, but I think they are correct.

  • Re:Don't you have IDTVs over there yet? (Score:3)

    by hattig ( 47930 ) on Thursday June 17, 1999 @06:52PM (#1845645) Journal
    The digital television content in Britain is split into 2 factions: Satellite Digital TV, from Sky, and Terrestrial Digital TV, from On Digital.

    Sky offers 200 channels. On Digital offers 30. Sky has 50 radio channels (10 free, 40 extra subscription, damn it that the heavy metal station os one of the extra 40), no commercials, no presenters. On Digital has none. Sky has 600,000 subscribers to their Digital service. On Digital has 100,000. The top subscription costs the same... I wonder who will win?

    Sky is launching their interactive services very soon. This means e-mail, games, shopping, internet etc are supported by the system, if you subscribe. The satellite decoders themselves are pretty nifty, including flash ROMS so the OS and programs can be updated via satellite. I managed to crash the OS once by accident, so this capability is important.

    Both systems provide good program guides. It seems that the UK, and Europe, are way ahead of the US in terms of television now! The Sky systems works perfectly, near video on demand capability for selected films, films shown at the same time as video release if you pay £2.99 to watch it. Have to wait to see what the interactive gudgems are like though, they are done by a company called Open.

    The systems are free (nice competition for once), cost £30 per month max, with a possible one-off installation fee.

  • Most people don't know this, but PBS broadcasts data in their signal. The technology is similar to Intel's Intercast. Anyone with a TV capture card that supports VBI can retrieve this -- And it's as fast as all get out. I use it to grab video clips from Fox News.

    Unfortualtely, it's in affiliation with a commercial company (WaveTop).
  • I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. More money on what? Could you explain?
  • Wrong! you can buy decoder boxes for your TV you NEVER needed a PC for it. And most new TVs, wide-screen or not can do widescreen for DVD.
  • BBC America is a joint venture between the "real" BBC and The Discovery Channel. It's offered on at least DISH Network and DirecTV. I don't know if/how many cable providers have it. They've shown just about every British comedy that I've seen on PBS and then some...except Red Dwarf. I have all 7 seasons of Red Dwarf on tape already, but I'd still like to see it over the dish.

    The only thing about BBC America is that it has commercials...not too big of a price to pay for tons of Britcoms, but it's still a weird feeling.
  • I guess Schoolhouse Rock confused you at some point, all those dancing scrolls look pretty much the same. But some of them are different. The one that includes the "Life, Liberty, and Private Property^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h The Pursuit of Happiness" is essentialy the press release of the revolution, and has no legal weight. Except when those evil liberal Supreme Court justices get into original intent arguments.

    But, as for me, I have a bit more trouble with the corruption and local monopoly stuff that go with cable (go to the library and read the microfiche of the news stories surrounding your town's cable negotiations) than I do with the Feds allocating chump change to PBS.


    Fear my wrath, please, fear my wrath?
    Homer
  • Just had to defend the CBC a little...

    "Virtually indistinguishable from American networks"?

    Maybe in the year or so where I haven't tuned in very much it's gotten a lot worse, but I doubt it.

    1. It's free.
    2. They show Canadian news (better canadian news than american)
    3. Canadian content (This hour has 22 minutes, small time movies, hockey games, etc.)
    4. Most of the 8 minutes advertisement time is used up informing us what else is shown on CBC.


    ok... so it shows the Simpsons and various other american shows, but it is very, very different than an american network.
  • Screw that! PBS shows Monty Python... No other station has quality humor like that.


    I will give up my Python when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!


    Tell a man that there are 400 Billion stars and he'll believe you
  • I find it ironic the PBS cries poverty ALL the time, and then has the nerve to ask for donations. If you pay taxes in the US, you 'donate' to PBS. This doesnt include that tickle-me-elmo that you bought for your little bro/sis/kids etc. whose profits went to PBS. Thats why they have all the TOP-of-the-Line technology. Just ask almost anyone who has worked in both studio environments. (there are exceptions of course).

    It could be worse, you could live in England and pay their tv tax. Ask any brit about that one.

    BU
  • I'm sorry, but that attitude is what's going to kill all the good PBS does. PBS still provides programming that is absolutely not available anywhere else. Some people still do not have cable (myself included) and PBS is the only place to find that type of content.
    While Discovery and others on cable have good programming they still lack the cultural elements that make PBS great. I doubt we will ever see anything like "Turandot Live at the Forbidden City" on Discovery or even A&E.

    I say that we need to stop spending billions of dollars on non-functional missle intercept systems and spend more on public broadcasting.

    my $.02 of course.
  • 1) Digital Sesame Street: Come play with Oscar in his Recycle Bin. Watch hilarity ensue when Elmo fubars the Linux kernel!

    2) Digital Red Dwarf: After being frozen in space for three million years, David Lister wakes up to find that Holly's Intel chip has corrupted, leaving it with an IQ of 60.

    3) Digital Fawlty Towers: I can't think of anything. Suggestions are welcome. The show rocks, though.

    4) Digital Mr. Rogers: "It's a beautiful day in the Network Neighborhood..."

    5) Digital Inspector Poirot: Watch the Inspector sniff out security holes in his Windows NT server.
  • "I have all 7 seasons of Red Dwarf on tape already"

    Make that 8, BTW: series VIII has just finished on the "real" BBC.
  • This is great! A public broadcasting corporation which has enough guts to spend telethon money on technology to bring it to the forefront of TV broadcasting. As a Canadian, I've watched our own CBC, the public broadcasting system, commercialize to the point where it's virtually indistinguishable from American networks.

    The "Stop wasting my tax dollar" point of view from Americans ticks me off. You don't realize what a gem you have. PBS has intelligent programming, teriffic movie features (Dickens' "Great Expectations" for example), and should be supported more. Do you really think that eight minutes out of every half-hour you watch TV should be devoted to ads?

    Flame away, docu-drama fans.

  • Fair point, I admit I embellished a bit, I don't hate the CBC that much. The RCAF, This Hour has 22 minutes (note the source of my 8-minute ads comment), "Hahkey", and Peter Mansbridge are the shining pillars of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

    The only point I'd like to keep is this: The CBC has been going more and more in the direction of commercial stations. The advertisement quantity is nearly as large, and has been criticised in The Globe and Mail on numerous occasions.

    PBS, though it has to resort to those damned telethons, has few advertisements besides "This program brought to you by...", and is altogether more sound, no?

    Once again, good points.

  • Thank Goodness someone's paying attention! There's a BIG difference between HDTV and Digital signals. Think of it kind of like squares and rectangles....HDTV is a square (and a rectangle), while digital signals are rectangles (but NOT necessarily squares)!

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close