Talk:Comparison of CECB units/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Digital Closed Captions 1.1 Is it important enough to add another column? 1.2 more info 1.3 Will all boxes with Digital CC behave the same?

Digital Closed Captions

The availability of digital closed captions is very important and should be considered for its own column (but I didn't know how to set up a separate topic here). Not all CECBs are providing this capability, despite previous indications from NTIA that they were all supposed to do so. They're all passing through analog closed caption data to the analog television (which may or may not have the ability to decode that data), but this is completely separate from decoding advanced closed captions within the converter box itself. For more information about why digital closed captions are a very important feature to many people, and which boxes are providing digital closed captions, see my first posting at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=997022 . Dmulvany (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved your comment to it's own section here since you indicated you had wanted to do it, hope that's okay. Digital CC in its own column would seem to be a good piece of data if not all boxes have it and should. Two things: 1. How does one determine if a box does digital CC short of purchasing it, and 2. Shouldn't those boxes get reported to the NTIA? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this separate section. 1. If the CECB is described as having advanced closed captions, digital closed captions, or having EIA-708 captions, then it's a pretty safe bet the CECB provides digital closed captions (DCCs). The boxes that are merely described as having "closed captioning," however, don't provide enough specificity. I don't describe those boxes as having DCCs unless I've been able to confirm their existence by looking at the user manual or unless the manufacturer has emailed me to say there would be DCCs (which occurred with MaxMedia). There *is* the possibility that the manufacturer may change its mind and withdraw those features, but that could also happen for the other features listed on this chart. 2. I'm not familiar with the reporting requirements for NTIA; could you clarify your question? I don't know if there is anything available from NTIA to help people find CECBs with certain types of features. Dmulvany (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant notifying whoever is doing oversight on the boxes at the NTIA that at least one box isn't meeting the requirements in full. Maybe they could lean on the manufacturer to implement the missing parts. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NTIA had earlier published a document for manufacturers that indicated all CECBs needed to decode digital captions; however, the FCC had actually exempted converter boxes from this requirement. The current NTIA requirements now references the FCC order and can be seen at #42 at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon/manufacturerFAQ.html . Thus only some CECBs will provide decoding of captions within the converter box (which can end up providing captions for old TVs that never had built-in captioning).Dmulvany (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what good does passing analog CC do on a digital stream? Does "converter boxes are required only to encode the EIA-608 captions onto line 21 of the analog video output" mean the box would change digital CC to analog for output? That FAQ reads like Lawyerese. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CECBs don't downconvert digital captions to analog captions. Analog captions have to be transmitted along with digital captions so that both analog and digital TVs can decode captions, so both types of captions are required by the FCC for digital channels. My understanding is that digital TVs only decode the EIA-708 captions over digital channels, and since analog TVs can't decode EIA-708 captions, they still need the EIA-608 captions to decode any captioning. Unfortunately, some TV stations aren't broadcasting both types of captions, resulting in missing captions on one or the other type of TV. The CECBs with the capability of decoding both digital and analog captions (like the Insignia CECB) actually can help the user get captions whatever way the TV station is transmitting them, so they're a way of ensuring captions for the user no matter what happens. For many reasons, including the ability to understand breaking news if one's pay TV service is out (since deaf and severely hard of hearing people can't understand radio communication), the presence of digital closed captions can be a very important feature for people who must have captioning to understand what's being said.Dmulvany (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm not understanding here. The digital channel can have like 5 subchannels in the space one analog channel took. How are analog captions supposed to be transmitted for 5 channels in the space of one? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously separate captions have to be transmitted for each different broadcast program, and both EIA-708 and EIA-608 captions are required for each program. If you want to understand more about how this is done, look at http://www.evertz.com/resources/eia_608_708_cc.pdf . In the meantime, I'm not sure how to go about adding the information about digital closed captions to the grid. All current information about the CECBs that are on record as providing digital closed captions are at this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=997022 . I've also discussed how I obtained the information about DCCs for the CECBs at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13330488#post13330488 .Dmulvany (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Dmulvany read that. It is my understanding that all digital tuners are required to decode EIA-708 captions and then encode them into EIA-608 captions for analog output. --Tobey (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tobey, the document at the following URL states that digital tuners in televisions will only decode digital captions, and analog TVs will need analog captions, and that TV stations therefore must broadcast both types of captions: http://ncam.wgbh.org/dtv/toolkit/general/ncamdtvcapbrief.pdf . It refers to FCC requirements. I've asked the director, Larry Goldberg, if the facts in that document were still applicable, and he said 95% of the document was still accurate but the basic information was still correct. He plans to update that document with more current information, such as contact information. My understanding is that digital tuners do not have the capability of downconverting EIA-708 captions to EIA-608 captions. If you have more current or more accurate information that contradicts what that document says, please let us know your source. Please also look at this document cited earlier: http://www.evertz.com/resources/eia_608_708_cc.pdf Dmulvany (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Correcting some errors: You can not send analog signals, because the 6 megahertz channel is already occupied by the digital signal. There's no room for analog captions. Instead the information that is sent is ALL digital. The digital signal is then processed and *analog captions generated on the fly* by the tuner box. That is how this function works. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Theaveng, there needs to be a distinction between EIA-608 captions, which are often referred to as analog captions, and the fact that they can be sent in a variety of ways, including digitally. I've already provided references above showing that the FCC requires that both types of captions must be sent over digital channels, and the above-referenced Evertz document shows the mechanics of how this is done. If you read the above documents carefully, you will understand you are incorrect in thinking that analog captions are generated out of EIA-708 captions by tuners. Again, if you still believe you are correct despite these documents, you need to provide substantiating documentation.Dmulvany (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Dmulvany (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, add "includes digital captions" under the Features column for your readers to review. And as for your references, you need to re-read them. Analog captions are only required so long as the analog signal is present. After February 2009, the analog signals will be turned-off, and so too will be the analog captions. After that point, all signals will be digital only. ----- So the way this works is that: (1) A digital stream is received from over the air. (2) The digital stream is processed by the digital tuner and separated into its component parts (video, sound, program data, text captions, et cetera). (3) The text captions are converted from digital-to-analog, and generated on-the-fly by the tuning box to be output as NTSC-compatible Line 21 captioning. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Theavang, you still haven't provided substantiation for your beliefs. Where have you read that EIA-708 captions are converted by digital tuners to EIA-608 captions? And if you can't find any such documentation, how do you expect analog TVs to decode EIA-608 captions if EIA-608 captions are no longer broadcast? Don't just tell us your opinion, which I think is incorrect; show us the documentation from a valid source which supports your beliefs. The above referenced document from the National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) states: "There are two major issues engineers and managers need to be aware of concerning delivery of caption data in DTV broadcasts: 1.) You Need To Provide Both EIA-608 (NTSC) and EIA-708B (DTVCC) Caption Data." Analog TVs won't be able to continue decoding captions from converter boxes if EIA-608 captions don't continue to be transmitted after the digital transition next year. (And actually, since many TV stations may be confused about the need to continue providing EIA-608 captions, that's another reason why converter boxes that do decode digital captions could be extremely important to people who must have captions to understand what's being said.)Dmulvany (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My substantiation is the *linked article you provided*. It clearly shows that the analog captions are not analog, but in bitstream format. That bitstream is then processed by the Codec computer and EIA-608 analog captions generated on the fly (along with video and sound) in an analog format. That's how it works. ----- Also please note that at no time did I say 708 captions were converted to 608. You inferred that, but I never said it. The 708 and 608 captions are sent separately as digital "packets" inside the bitstream. There is no analog there. ---- Theaveng (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it important enough to add another column?

I want to point-out that it is your OPINION that digital captions are important. YOU care, but I do not (I'm perfectly satisfied with the old-style analog). Furthermore, the inclusion of captions is largely irrelevant to the 99% of Americans who don't use them. ----- Therefore rather than create a separate column, I would list the extra information under the "features" column as "Digital CC provided". ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Theaveng, please provide supporting documentation for your claim that 99% of Americans don't use captions. I believe this claim to be highly incorrect. Consider that many non-native speakers of English regularly use captioning in addition to people with hearing loss and people with normal hearing who choose to use captions for any number of purposes. I've already explained numerous advantages of digital closed captions at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=997022 ; these advantages are going to be important to many, many people, even if they're not important to you specifically. A separate column for closed captioning decoding could indicate whether the CECB decodes both EIA-708 and EIA-608 captions or only decodes EIA-708 captions, and whether there is a CC button on the remote. All CECBs have to pass through the EIA-608 captions to the analog TV (so it's not necessary to include the presence of a required feature), but not all may decode the EIA-608 captions even though they may decode the EIA-708 captions.Dmulvany (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually since it's your idea to add a new column, the burden of proof is upon yourself to show that "digital captions" deserves its own column. (In my humble opinion it does not.) Do you have research to show what percentage of Americans use captioning? ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Theaveng, you're the one who said 99% of Americans don't use captioning. Please back up your claim with evidence, or admit you don't have proof for that claim. The other columns did not require proof of usefulness for a certain percentage of Americans; are you going to demand that they all require the same level of proof of usefulness? Is the column showing demodulation information more important to most users than digital closed caption information? Why are you so opposed to digital closed captioning having its own column compared to the other features that have their own column? Rather, there is clearly so much confusion and misinformation about how CECBs handle closed captioning that there's even more of a need for there to be a separate column about digital closed captioning as opposed to burying this information in a catch-all column.Dmulvany (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies on the person who suggested the idea of a new "digital CC" column. i.e. To show that it is relevant to a large portion of the readers who come here. ---- Theaveng (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the patience to read this whole thread, but FWIW I (an ordinary American who is not hearing-impaired) am definitely interested in whether these boxes provide support for features enabled by digital captioning (as opposed to just converting digital CC to the old analog standard). It takes up virtually no real estate on the screen, so let's have it. It's ridiculous to keep arguing about this. More information is better than less. If we need to save real estate in order to justify it, we could remove all the stupid "Unknown" labels that someone added. They add nothing of value and actually make the table harder to read than if we simply had (say) a hyphen in the unknown cells, with a footnote at the bottom saying "hyphen means unknown". I encourage anyone else reading this to put in their 2 cents. Djiann (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Theaveng but I think you're right, it's not important. If the boxes pass analog directly (magically) or if they convert a digital CC stream to analog and pass that it's the same thing in the end and not worthy of note whatsoever since it's required. If however the box has it's own digital CC handling with positions/colors/fonts and the whole mess then it's worth noting. I agree with Theaveng about where though, it's not something so important it deserves it's own column. Placement in "Other features" is adequate.

Also I'm the one who added the "unknown" entries. It doesn't appreciably expand the table any further than any of the column headers do. It also has an advantage in coloring, differentiating the unknowns from the knowns. The "unknown" text itself is self-explanatory. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A column for Digital closed captions is very important. A statistic that has been around for a long time is 10% of the US population has a significant hearing loss. Plus I have heard about 18 million households use an antenna to receive TV. That means there are potentially 1.8 million people who view TV with an antenna, and would need a converter box (or a new DTV) and use captions. Secondly, it is not possible for a converter box to transform digital closed captions into an analog closed captions. That is because digital captions have a greatly enlarged character set and more features. That is why stations have to transmit both kinds of captions. However, lots of channels transmit no captions at all, even thought they are supposed to, and I suspect that many channels will not transmit both kinds. Therefore, if the converter box can decode digital captions and cause them to be displayed, then more people will have access to captions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvickery (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide any corroboration to those claims of 10% US pop hearing loss and that it would be technically unfeasible to reencode digital CC to analog? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources, Social Security, and other sources which do have the estimates at 10 Pct or More and as the Baby boomer generation ages the Pct of the population which has ANY type of hearing loss, the 10 pct or more covers ANY Loss will just increase in the next years. It is vital that such have access to all captioning and given there is upwards of 30 million in the USA, based on new census data putting USA at 300M/ 10 pct =30M Putting in here the Comparision of these converter boxes as some "sub group" as if not important does such a disservice. Converter box comparision should have all needed feature information in one place in my view so Please do have a column that deals with this very important feature that is extremly important to upwards of 30 million americans. --Danfla (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I use captions and support the addition of a column to the table. Captionuserinaz (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it should be listed as an "other feature" rather than giving it its own column.71.120.244.132 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think it should be listed as an "other feature" 70.253.41.103 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

more info

There are now at least 15 CECBs with digital closed captioning features, and there will be more on the way once user manuals become available online. (A current list is at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=997022, with links to supporting documentation.) Considering that ten percent or more of the population has hearing loss (http://www.betterhearing.org), more than 32 million people are non-native speakers of English (and benefit from captioning), young children learn to read better when they see captioning, captions are frequently turned on in noisy places like bars and airports, hearing people use them for a variety of purposes, and schools, colleges and universities will need to buy converter boxes with flexible caption options, there are many people who would benefit from realizing that only some CECBs provide digital closed captioning. Huge numbers of people, including parents of young children, will benefit from knowing which CECBs will provide this feature. Putting information about digital closed captions in a separate column would help combat the massive confusion that the public has about digital closed captioning in CECBs, many of which don't publicly specify exactly what type of captioning they're providing. (Even the NTIA itself was confused and initially told manufacturers that all CECBs would have to decode EIA-708 captions at #17 of the document at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon/DTVmanufacturers.pdf ; this was later corrected in the current guidelines; see #42 at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon/manufacturerFAQ.html.) It would be a great service to the general public to provide this information as clearly as possible in view of the very unfortunate confusion that was and is still being caused by NTIA's own mistake.

If someone else could insert a column called Digital Closed Captioning, I might be able to figure out how to update it, but I find the current HTML far too difficult to understand and work with. There's currently enough space on the page to insert this column, and it would be much more useful to many people than the current Demodulation column is. (Not saying we need to get rid of it, but that particular column is not at all useful for me and the average non-technical person; different columns are needed for different folks.)Dmulvany (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is enough space on 'your' screen. Not everyone has a widescreen monitor. I'm still pretty strongly against having a distinct column for digital CC, I doubt enough boxes will have their own CC facilities to make it worth it. It just seems more like an "other" than a core function.

About half the boxes with known features appear to have digital closed captioning capabilities, so that's enough to make it worth while. There are already at least 18 that probably have this feature (with 15 having been described as having them).Dmulvany (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The columns for the MPEG decoder and demodulation take up a great deal of much space and are not at all useful information for the average reader. Who is the intended audience for this grid? This comparison should be geared towards the average user of Wikipedia, not just highly technical folks. Perhaps the left side of the grid should describe all the features of the CECBs, and the right side could contain technical information that aren't important to most people but would be of interest to technical folks. The grid could also be narrowed more by using two rows in the headers, not just one.Dmulvany (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW the "children learn from captions" has been debunked. Studies show that children learn faster when they are learning from a real, live person. Using a TV can actually slow the learning process, not help it. ----- BTW thanks for the statistic. Too bad the statistic comes from a study funded by *hearing aid sales companies* that desire to sell as many product as possible. I don't buy into biased studies. ---- Theaveng (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Theaveng, stop making unsubstantiated statements like the first one. You're undermining your own credibility by making so many extreme statements without ever substantiating them at all in this entire discussion.Dmulvany (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If a digital CC column does wind up getting added it will require our little CECB page include a good explanation of what that is.

Lots of the present information should already be explained. Most people aren't going to understand what MPEG2 decoder and demodulation chips are. (Even if they do, that highly technical information is not going to be of much value to most people.) Digital closed captioning will be much easier to describe; they allow the user to adjust the size of the captioning, the background of the captions, and other features of the captions, whereas there is no choice how to configure analog captions.) Footnotes can be used, I presume.Dmulvany (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of those header columns should be briefly explained, including what the feature is, it's box implementation, and their usefulness/importance to the average user. 70.253.41.103 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also: Bars and airports are not eligible households for the CECB program, and that's not HTML you're looking at: Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Wiki_markup --97.114.21.39 (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with analog TVs can buy the CECBs; it's not relevant whether they qualify to get a coupon. Lots of businesses and organizations will want to prolong the lives of their analog TVs. Thanks for the references explaining how to edit the Wikipedia pages.Dmulvany (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Most businesses just use cable television, and don't need a box. Also that was a good point about the width of the screen. MY screen is already overflowing, where I have to scroll the table left-and-right to see the whole thing. IMHO we should be deleting columns, not adding new ones. (I propose merging the brand, model, and manufacturer columns.) ---- Theaveng (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've merged manufacturer and model we can't sort by model. Why even bother with a table at all? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The percentage of people in the US that have hearing loss has been estimated at 10% for a long time. I do not know where it originated, but the National Institutes on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/hearing.asp indicates 28 million people have hearing loss. That may be an outdated figure, and the number may be closer to 31 million. From that, one can compute the percentage.

In my original post I said it was not possible for a CECB to transform digital captions into analog captions. I shouldn't have said "impossible". I should have said the boxes do not currently have the capability, and I do not think the capability is planned. It would take lots more work inside the box to handle the transformation. Rvickery (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And do you have verification of that last claim? If you know anything about the electronics that go in to an ATSC tuner then it should be no problem for you to locate something definitive that states extra effort to the point of becoming prohibitive is required to get analog caption output. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This question above is an unproductive make-work question. Dmulvany (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This reply above does not address the question put forth. If you can't provide verification please just admit it, don't play games. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I want to see a separate column that indicates the CECB decodes digital captions. To save space, the columns MPEG decoder, Demodulator, and Tuner could all be in the same column. In a lot of cases those three functions will be on a single chip anyway. If they are not on a single chip, and if it is really important for the average consumer to know, then the chip identifier could be listed on three separate lines of the same column. I doubt that information is useful. An engineer has other resources he or she can turn to to select chips to use. I hope to clear up some misunderstandings on captions: NTSC broadcast stations include analog captions on line 21 of the vertical blanking interval. Analog cable channels also do that. ATSC does not have a vertical blanking interval, so both digital captions and analog captions will be carried in the MPEG data. The CECB finds the bit streams and creates a NTSC signal on its RF output, or composite output, or S-video output and inserts the analog caption data onto line 21. The attached TV then decodes the captions. If the CECB finds digital captions in the bit stream, and if it has the capability, it decodes the captions, forms a graphic of the data and superimposes the graphics onto the video image. It does not put the caption data on line 21 of the VBI. It can't because that field may already have data for analog captions. Even if it did put the digital caption data on line 21 of the VBI, the attached TV may not know what to do with the expanded character set. That is why the column is important to consumers. We want to know which boxes can display digital captions with all the fancy features - such as font size, color, font style, background selection. Rvickery (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. So the ATSC stream might have an embedded analog caption in it already - even though you stated that's impossible - therefore the box can't insert analog CC am I reading that right? As for character set issues that shouldn't be a problem for the box to deal with prior to sending CC out, complaining that the TV can't handle expanded character sets isn't useful information as the box should know that already and compensate. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Continued discussions about the inability of CECBs to downconvert EIA-708 captions to EIA-608 captions don't seem relevant here. The fact is that neither the NTIA nor the FCC ever demanded this capability and current ATSC tuners aren't required to do that (if you disagree, it has to be up to you to prove the FCC requires tuners to provide this capability). For the time being, CECB boxes that can decode digital closed captions can help ensure that consumers who must have access to closed captioning will be able to receive either EIA-608 or EIA-708 captions even if the TV station is only broadcasting one type of caption instead of both types of captions. (That is a problem I've witnessed myself with four different stations in the DC area.) For example, I've discovered that sometimes I get better captions and reception if I used the digital captions from the CECB than if I use my Sharp HDTV or the EIA-608 captions from the CECB (especially for the 11 o'clock showings of "Law and Order" from the local myNetworkTV affiliate). Last night, I recorded part of that show but ended up not being able to watch it because the EIA-608 captions didn't come through coherently, and I had made the mistake of turning off the CECB's digital captions. So that's another reasons why CECBs with digital closed captions could be invaluable for providing either types of captions, especially during a transition to all digital TV that could be very, very rocky and result in multiple problems with the transmission of both types of captions from the TV stations. If some or many station engineers mistakenly think they don't have to broadcast EIA-608 captions any longer after February 17, 2009, and only broadcast EIA-708 captions, then only the CECBs with digital captions will provide access to captions for people with analog TVs. That's still another reason why it's important to spotlight the CECBs that do decode digital captions---they can help ensure access to vitally important emergency news after the transition occurs in 2009. Unfortunately, there's no systematic way for deaf and hard of hearing people to find out about these CECBs Dmulvany (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems out that the Analog/EIA608 captions did not record properly. A VCR or DVR is supposed to record all 525 lines in the frame, including line 21 which holds the captions. Did you have "image stabilization" turned on? Sometimes that strips out analog captions. Turn it off and try again. ----- As for FCC requirements, EIA608 is required to be send with the digital bitstream. Digital/EIA708 captions are optional. ---- Theaveng (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

97.114.21.39 said that I said it is not possible to embed analog captions in the ATSC bit stream. I did not say that. In fact I said that is the way it works. What I said was CECBs do not have the capability to convert a 708 caption to a 608 caption. My reference is an ATSC caption FAQ: http://www.atsc.org/faq/faq_closed.html It states there is no standard way to make the conversion. Theaveng states that digital captions are optional. This rather old FCC News Release says they are required: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/News_Releases/2000/nrmm0031.html Rvickery (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Theaveng, once again, you're not providing substantiation for outlandish statements such as "Digital/EIA-708 captions are optional." Think about it---why would digital closed caption decoding capability be required in all digital TVs if no digital closed captions are required for new programs? You've been asked repeatedly to provide documentation to back up your statements and you haven't done so but you keep demanding more and more from other people even when they do back up their statements. You're not being reasonable.Dmulvany (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is now a definite majority of five registered users who DO want a separate column for digital closed captions and there is only one registered user and one unregistered participant objecting to a separate column.

Why don't you take a peek at my subtable addition objectively and tell me a whole column is required after that. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nameless one, you haven't addressed the significant problem of the NTIA's past erroneous guidance about digital closed captioning. That mistake from the NTIA has led many, many people to believe that all converter boxes will decode digital closed captions. A separate column will make it much more apparent to the public that only some CECBs will decode digital closed captions, which is a very important message to send out. There are also going to be 19 or more CECBs with digital closed captioning, so that's a significant number of CECBs, but there are some boxes like the EchoStar TR-40 that haven't been described as decoding digital closed captions. A feature that is used on many boxes is better used in a column. So those are two very significant reasons alone for having a separate column for digital closed captions, plus the majority has spoken in favor of the separate column.Dmulvany (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree it fits among "other features. While a semi-important feature, it's not necessary nor useful for most people. 70.253.41.103 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Will all boxes with Digital CC behave the same?

Can we know for certain that all the CECBs that are capable of digital CC will also let the user change font, size, colors etc? One box might allow size but not font or color, another might allow font and background color but nothing else etc. Is there any kind of regulation forcing the manufacturers to implement it with everything? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)