11th June 2010, 12:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 11th June 2010, 12:57 AM by Dark Jaguar.)
Actually there's one easy solution to that. I'm guessing you're talking mainly about car radios, since that's usually the only radio anyone actually has these days. Well, old ones all have cassette slots, and new ones all have "line in" ports. A simple adapter solution would work with that. Instead of replacing the whole radio, just buy the new reciever, stick it in the tape slot or line-in port, and play away. It'd be just like any other adapter. More expensive stereos with the hi-fi speakers and all that would be similarly aided by such an adapter. Cheap radios with nothing but a tuner and a speaker could be replaced without missing much anyway. Not all of them could be replaced, but not every TV can be upgraded with a digital tuner either (my Game Gear TV adapter, for example :D).
It's definitely a worthy concern to have. These sorts of transitions are hard to go through. I think the way the FCC handled the TV transition was pretty good. They gave plenty of warning to people ahead of time and provided a lot of tax subsidized tuners to those who couldn't easily afford to upgrade. There were some hangups, but all in all it came and went without much of a hiccup. The radio transition would ideally go the same way. I also agree that the standard should be based on the digital TV standard. That way digital TV tuners can pick up radio stations, and later TVs would be able to differentiate which one is which through software. It'd also mean digital radios could tune into TV stations (most of the time, listening to the news is enough to get the idea of what's going on).
Other than that, we've got other wireless standards, from the Wireless A-N standards to the cell phone 1G-4G standards. There's also things such as Bluetooth and the myriad assortment of remote controls. First thing I'd combine there is simply making all future remote controls just use Bluetooth. Other than that, each one has a clearly set up "goal" in mind that makes me want to keep them seperated. Wireless N is meant for medium range, households for example. Bluetooth is aimed at short range, like video game controllers and headsets. 4G is aimed at long range, namely cell phones. Their goals are different but there will be overlaps, so it's good to keep each one in it's own spectrum so there's little interference, and along the same lines it keeps short range things from "reaching" too far in the wrong spectrum and interfering with other short range devices (I don't need everyone in the city's Wii remotes syncing with my Wii simultaneously). The same goes for the digital broadcasting standard, and beyond that, the GPS standard and other satellite standards.
I'll certainly agree that whatever's in the same "domain" should all share the same standard. Different satellite broadcasting services should all use one agreed upon standard instead of the hodge-podge they have now.
Ya know, people criticize the FCC for it's censorship policies, and there's some good reason for such complaints, but by and large the FCC is one of the best government organizations of it's function in the world. So far they've kept their hands out of internet censorship completely, and they've been working very hard to get some form of net neutrality regulations passed to keep the internet simply "the internet" no matter what service provider one uses. The need to allocate bandwidth to providers is very clear when the alternative is us users suffering through one company after another literally trying to drown out everyone else until it's all just pointless noise. There's also something to be said for that little regulation on the bottom of all our electronic devices, that it can't interfere with the operation of other devices (the "and must accept interference" never made much sense to me though). I still gotta wonder how a Game Boy can jam up an airplane's instrumentation if it's complying with that FCC regulation though...
It's definitely a worthy concern to have. These sorts of transitions are hard to go through. I think the way the FCC handled the TV transition was pretty good. They gave plenty of warning to people ahead of time and provided a lot of tax subsidized tuners to those who couldn't easily afford to upgrade. There were some hangups, but all in all it came and went without much of a hiccup. The radio transition would ideally go the same way. I also agree that the standard should be based on the digital TV standard. That way digital TV tuners can pick up radio stations, and later TVs would be able to differentiate which one is which through software. It'd also mean digital radios could tune into TV stations (most of the time, listening to the news is enough to get the idea of what's going on).
Other than that, we've got other wireless standards, from the Wireless A-N standards to the cell phone 1G-4G standards. There's also things such as Bluetooth and the myriad assortment of remote controls. First thing I'd combine there is simply making all future remote controls just use Bluetooth. Other than that, each one has a clearly set up "goal" in mind that makes me want to keep them seperated. Wireless N is meant for medium range, households for example. Bluetooth is aimed at short range, like video game controllers and headsets. 4G is aimed at long range, namely cell phones. Their goals are different but there will be overlaps, so it's good to keep each one in it's own spectrum so there's little interference, and along the same lines it keeps short range things from "reaching" too far in the wrong spectrum and interfering with other short range devices (I don't need everyone in the city's Wii remotes syncing with my Wii simultaneously). The same goes for the digital broadcasting standard, and beyond that, the GPS standard and other satellite standards.
I'll certainly agree that whatever's in the same "domain" should all share the same standard. Different satellite broadcasting services should all use one agreed upon standard instead of the hodge-podge they have now.
Ya know, people criticize the FCC for it's censorship policies, and there's some good reason for such complaints, but by and large the FCC is one of the best government organizations of it's function in the world. So far they've kept their hands out of internet censorship completely, and they've been working very hard to get some form of net neutrality regulations passed to keep the internet simply "the internet" no matter what service provider one uses. The need to allocate bandwidth to providers is very clear when the alternative is us users suffering through one company after another literally trying to drown out everyone else until it's all just pointless noise. There's also something to be said for that little regulation on the bottom of all our electronic devices, that it can't interfere with the operation of other devices (the "and must accept interference" never made much sense to me though). I still gotta wonder how a Game Boy can jam up an airplane's instrumentation if it's complying with that FCC regulation though...
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)