I presently have Time Warner Cable, but not for much longer. The reason is the cable company will be requiring everyone to use a cable box in about four months, and I don't want a box on my television under any circumstances. Why are they doing this, and what will stop me from using my TV the way I always have--with the cable connected directly to the set? I am very disgusted with Time Warner because of this, and also because I was told by a TW customer service representative that I will not be able to use an antenna anymore, either--eventually.

I don't follow any of this, especially the monkey business about eventually not being able to use a television aerial to get my area's local TV stations. Whether I use an aerial on my television or not to receive TV signals is not the cable company's decision to make, although I was told, again by a Time Warner representative, that antennas will not work after a certain date, which the person did not specify. If this is true (that TV antennas will not work after a certain date), then will I be forced to have cable, with a box (!) from now on?

Good grief. The customer representative also told me that every other cable TV provider in the United States is now fully digital, and Time Warner Cable is the last cable company to switch. I all but blew up when I heard this, as--I'll say it again--I DO NOT WANT A CABLE BOX ON MY TELEVISION! (Please forgive me for using all capital letters, but I am very upset over this, and I will not take it anymore; the news that I won't be able to use an antenna after a date the cable company hasn't yet specified makes me just that much more angry as well.)

I am about an inch away from having my cable service disconnected because of these ridiculous polices Time Warner has adopted, no doubt because they are in the process of merging with Comcast--which has already required that all subscribers must use a cable box to receive anything. What are people who cannot afford cable supposed to do when this actually happens with TW?

I don't know what else I can do at this stage, except set up my computer to get TV reception over the Internet. I have ordered a Roku streaming video box and, once it arrives here, I intend to use it along side of (and eventually instead of) my cable. The day TW Cable requires everyone to use a cable box will be the day I cancel the cable and watch TV exclusively via streaming video. As I said, I am mad as a wet hen over this ridiculous requirement that everyone must eventually use a cable box, and the cable company's statement that antennas will eventually cease to work as well. The cable company says this will be, if it is not already, an FCC rule. Is this true, or just an unsubtantiated rumor that's being spread solely to make people like myself angry? :scratch2: I like my television, as I do not get out much and cannot read well anymore due to an accident I was in about ten years ago (I get my news from TV for that reason; I also must note that the only human voices I hear all day long and all night long most days come from the TV shows I watch.)

The cable company can tell me I need a cable box (or eventually will), but good grief, whether or not I use an antenna to get my TV reception is not their decision to make--in other words, it is none of their business. Where did this idea that antennas will not work anymore ever get started, for crying out loud? :scratch2: The cable company representative did not answer my question regarding that issue anywhere near clearly enough to satisfy me.

Sheeeeeeeesh!

It's true, you have been living in the dark ages. So you want to be completely independent, I get it. I'm sure you must know this, you can get free local over the air television signals using your own antenna and then connecting via the dreaded digital converter box. The antenna is yours the converter box is yours, no subscription charges.

The streaming is a good idea. You can get CNN and other apps for free with excellent HD quality. You just won't be able to get everything out there. Apple TV is excellent and integrates well with all my devices. My native Milwaukee station WTMJ has an app for free and they broadcast the news live everyday by streaming on the Internet. I simply use Air Play from my tablet and boom, I have a full screen beautiful HD 70 inch image. It looks just as good as if I were in Milwaukee watching it over the air instead of being in Arizona. Chicagos WGN has the same thing as well as other cities. You can find a bunch of other free apps and websites that bundle various TV stations from across the world and then use Air Play to watch on your big screen.

I have been an uninterrupted Direct TV subscriber for 20 years and I'm excited because they are now broadcasting in 4K. Only about 20 movies in 4K now, but they plan on expanding to hundreds this year.

Jeff, how is this rant of yours any different than your last one on exactly the same thing?

http://www.videokarma.org/showthread.php?t=263565

You're also bringing up the same points that were responded to in the first thread.

We don't need two identical threads running here for this.

Get over it. Times have changed, and the cable companies (along with the FCC permission to do so) are merely reflecting these changes.

.

I agree with Jim.

The 'you won't be able to get TV with an antenna' argument is flat out crap. There is no legislation on that pending that I know of, and after hearing that I'd not believe another word the TWC rep said...

They can make the box necessary by simply sending all their channels in encoded QAM. It is that easy...though they could be nice and send the lower channels in clear QAM (which some newer sets can tune), but then they would not make money off the boxes, and their signal could be stolen ('oh the humanity' :sarcasm: ).

However there is a good chance that in the next 1-3 decades ATSC DTV will disappear or change. If 4K HD becomes a big enough thing there will have to be changes that may cause ATSC to be replaced by a more 4K compatible format. If OTA viewership drops and the cell companies, and other entities 'lobby' hard enough to get the chance to buy the TV spectrum from the FCC then OTA may have the spectrum sold out from under it.

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.

"Cause what they do in Washington...They just takes care of number 1, and number 1 ain't you. You ain't even number 2."---Frank Zappa

and since they set the precedence of non-backward compatibility with the adoption of ATSC

ATSC was made backward compatible by use of the digital converter box. In fact, every family in the U.S. was allowed to get two coupons for two free converters boxes until the 1.34 billion funding ran out.

ATSC was made backward compatible by use of the digital converter box. In fact, every family in the U.S. was allowed to get two coupons for two free converters boxes until the 1.34 billion funding ran out.

If you have to add external equipment to, or modify existing equipment in order to intelligibly receive a new version of a signal (or format), then that signal (or format) is NOT BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE!...It is backwards CONVERTIBLE.

As an example of true backwards compatibility; when they added stereo sound to FM radio in the early 60's all the old mono FM radios could still tune and play the FM stereo stations stations in mono without any modifications or added external equipment.

As an example of backwards convertibility; when Cassettes started to outsell 8-track tapes you could buy an 8-track cartridge that had no tape in it, but rather a small cassette tape mechanism that stole mechanical energy from the 8-track decks' capstan and electrical energy from the tape foil sensor in the 8-track deck (to read the cassette head, amplify it, and feed that to another head that contacted the 8-track player's head and induced the signal into it).....That cartridge (an example of one is the Kraco KCA-8) effectively converted an 8-track player to a cassette player, but without it you could not just jam a Cassette tape into an 8-track player and expect it to play.

I know full well that I can, and some times do, use a DTV converter box to adapt ATSC to play on an NTSC set, but unless the laws of physics change to allow ATSC to be intelligibly tuned on an NTSC set made in lets say 1975 A.D. without a converter box through nothing but the internal antenna then ATSC it not truely backward COMPATIBLE with NTSC.

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.

For 4K, it is a compression issue to work with existing technowledgy. The standards are still being worked out. I agree, most likely in the decades to come there will be a change in television. Not only 4K, but 8K, 16K and beyond. That's progress.

"Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not." George Bernard Shaw

"Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not." George Bernard ShawAnd Jeff wants to live in the past and have things his way, and ONLY his way.

.

Well down here I have Cox Cable, and in one of my houses I have basic cable and I can get quite a number of stations direct over the cable connection to my older NTSC TV, and I have had no indication that this "basic" service is going away. Modern ATSC broadcasts over-the-air can be received from regular TV antennas, but you need an ATSC compatible TV to view them, or a converter box.

And Jeff wants to live in the past and have things his way, and ONLY his way.

.



No, sir, I am not "living in the past" as you put it. I have had a flat screen HDTV since late 2011 and just bought a Roku streaming video box (I am presently waiting for the latter to arrive here in the mail). I do not adjust to change easily, but eventually (sometimes years after the stuff comes on the market), I do get the new technology and use it. Would I have gotten a flat-panel TV and a Roku streaming video box if I were still living in the NTSC television era? I also have a computer, albeit a technologically old one (about late-'90s-early 21st century vintage) and a broadband Internet connection, with a 20-inch flat-panel monitor. If I were truly living in the past, I wouldn't be posting here on VK, among other things.

I don't like the idea that the cable company here (Time Warner) is going to be forcing everyone to use cable boxes very soon (like every other cable provider in this country), but I realize that is the way it is, and there is nothing I can do about it. That is why I bought the Roku streaming box--so that when it gets to the point where I am forced to use a cable box I can just ignore the cable from that point on.

I apologize for bringing up this very subject in another thread later on in this forum, but I must have forgotten about this one. If VK's moderators feel, as you seem to, that two threads on the same subject are not needed, they can delete the other thread at their discretion.

deleted

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.

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.

I agree with you that the fun factor of owning a Watchman type television or any micro TV was demisnished by ATSC, but not obsoleted. MOBILETV was going to solve this (one could watch a digital television signal in a high speed vehicle) but was stalled, eluding to the politics you talk about. Still, there are work arounds such as the digital converter box or building a low power home transmitter station with modulators. In your case, building such a station may be beneficial to you. Right now on VK, there is an active thread on building a station to feed multiple sets.

I have found that there is always an adaptor available or by improvising, (I have boxes full of adapters from collecting almost 60 years) that I can get virtually any television to display an ATSC signal on an old analogue set, no matter the antenna inputs. Even PAL sets can display ATSC by use of a ATSC/NTSC to PAL adaptor or vise versa.

Is it more complicated? Yes, but now we are working with the old and the new, two formats and we adapt and make it work. I welcomed the advance of HD (over the inconvenience to analogue sets) and now 4K and beyond if I'm still living :-) In my view, I don't see a problem.

Still, there are work arounds such as the digital converter box or building a low power home transmitter station with modulators. In your case, building such a station may be beneficial to you. Right now on VK, there is an active thread on building a station to feed multiple sets.
Is it more complicated? Yes, but now we are working with the old and the new, two formats and we adapt and make it work. I welcomed the advance of HD (over the inconvenience to analogue sets) and now 4K and beyond if I'm still living :-) In my view, I don't see a problem.

From another thread, it appears that he is already pretty well set up with modulators:


I have three modulators each with a different antenna that I made out of lamp cord cut to the frequency of the desired channel (Shango66 has a great how to video about this on youtube), each one from inside on the second floor can be received at least to the edges of the lawn, and the best one one can be received about a block in each direction.

I try and limit the range to less than that and use channels that I can't find any DTV carriers on so I don't tick anyone off.

I think that most of us in the hobby will adapt one way or another, and the general public is likely reasonably happy with modern high definition widescreen hang on the wall TV sets that have been predicted in the 50s (with development of early flat CRT prototypes) and have too long in coming. I don't see a problem either.
jr

Only one modulator is currently usable....The oldest one is dead, and one of the new ones never wanted to work without hum entering the video...Then it started putting out harmonics that interfered with the good one (2 channels away), and also started putting out UHF harmonics (it is set to CH9)....And all but the older rig were not significantly cheaper than a bunch of converter boxes, albeit they are more convenient.

It is all a big pain in the but.

Well down here I have Cox Cable, and in one of my houses I have basic cable and I can get quite a number of stations direct over the cable connection to my older NTSC TV, and I have had no indication that this "basic" service is going away. Modern ATSC broadcasts over-the-air can be received from regular TV antennas, but you need an ATSC compatible TV to view them, or a converter box.

Ditto,

Cox is still putting QAM and analog stations out for direct connection, but not for much longer. As they drop channels from some packages, they add the basic analog channels to the digital-only lineup to keep the same number of stations in the package. Word is they will someday only have the "lighthouse" station on the analog side, along with their user-hookup channel.

With my setup, I use an attic antenna for local viewing - PBS is awesome OTA, with no compression or artifact garbage. My only problem is my antenna is looking right into a two story building, so I get dropouts on one station.

Cheers,

Ditto,

Cox is still putting QAM and analog stations out for direct connection, but not for much longer. As they drop channels from some packages, they add the basic analog channels to the digital-only lineup to keep the same number of stations in the package. Word is they will someday only have the "lighthouse" station on the analog side, along with their user-hookup channel.

With my setup, I use an attic antenna for local viewing - PBS is awesome OTA, with no compression or artifact garbage. My only problem is my antenna is looking right into a two story building, so I get dropouts on one station.

Cheers,

TW cable is furnishing a converter box for a buck a month. It's a little larger than a pack of cigarettes. Naturally, it comes with a remote, but the only outputs are an HDMI and a RF, channel 3 or 4 output.
The HD picture is OK, using the RF out, but not as good as the OTA converter using the component jacks.

TW cable is furnishing a converter box for a buck a month. It's a little larger than a pack of cigarettes. Naturally, it comes with a remote, but the only outputs are an HDMI and a RF, channel 3 or 4 output.
The HD picture is OK, using the RF out, but not as good as the OTA converter using the component jacks.

Are they cutting analog service in your area? I have not heard any talk of the analog service ending here, but they may just not be talking about it if they are.

Are they cutting analog service in your area? I have not heard any talk of the analog service ending here, but they may just not be talking about it if they are.

I has been that way, for a year or so. My brother still lives in Milwaukee county and his service is about the same. There is still several channels, that are still analogue and I can tune them on cable ready TV's, as well as VCR's.
When you scan the cable channels, on the ones that require the converter, they come up as a blank screen, such as the weather channel. :scratch2:

I presently have Time Warner Cable, but not for much longer.
Regardless of the reason (there are many good ones), THAT is the best decision you can make when a lousy decision is made by a lousy company in a really lousy industry. CANCEL your pay TV! :)

The Roku streaming video player arrived here earlier this week; it was very simple to install (just an HDMI cable and the included AC power adapter, plus a simple online activation procedure), and I was watching programs within ten minutes (literally) of removing the player from its shipping box.

It has an application that will allow me to see Time Warner Cable TV programming via streaming video, although I don't know if that app will continue to work once the cable company goes all-digital in about four months or so. Even when they do, I am not concerned about it anymore, as my Roku box will receive many free TV channels, quite a few of which are stations I watch semi-regularly. I tried to activate the National Geographic Channel (Roku refers to it as NatGeoTV) and, while I was able to activate the channel with no problems on my computer, I kept getting a message on my TV screen that I am not authorized to view their content at this time.

I puzzled over this for awhile (why I was able to activate the channel on the computer but I could not watch it on my TV), then it dawned on me--I do not get NGC on my present level of cable service (Standard TV), so it follows I would not have access to this channel on my Roku player either. (This is the case with several other cable channels as well.)

No problem. I like to watch nature shows, and the PBS affiliate in Cleveland, plus one other PBS station about 60 miles from here, has plenty of those; one titled simply "Nature", and several others the titles of which escape me as I write this. PBS also shows National Geographic specials every now and then, so I can see these programs as well, on average about once a month or so.

I will not cancel my cable service just yet, as Roku does not stream local TV channels and some cable networks. I will keep the cable for now, as it is part of a bundle of services from Time Warner Cable (cable television, home phone and Internet); downgrading or canceling any of those services before my contract with TW expires will almost certainly result in a hefty early termination fee, which I cannot afford since I live on a fixed income.

All in all, I am very pleased with the Roku streaming video player. Between cable, the Roku box, and my own sizable collection of DVDs and VHS videos, I am getting more TV programming than ever before, certainly much, much more than we were getting (three major networks plus PBS, then known as National Educational TV or NET, and three independents) when I was growing up in a Cleveland suburb in the '70s.

Update: Roku does in fact stream local TV in my area, through the use of what they call the TWC TV app, so I can now watch all the Cleveland stations plus cable through my Roku player. TWC has also very recently changed their requirements such that folks with only Starter TV (local channels only) can use a Roku to get local TV, whereas until this change went into effect, the local channels were only available to subscribers via Roku with Standard TV service or higher. This makes me very happy since I now have the option to eventually (if my cable bill goes too high) downgrade to Starter TV, without losing the local TV channels. These, and their subchannels (MeTV, Antenna TV, COZI, the PBS subchannels, etc.), are more important to me than most of the cable stations, so if worse comes to worst I can downgrade to Starter TV (what I call bare bones basic) without missing anything. I still have the cable connected to my VCR, for use when the Roku streams freeze or outright go black (these outages do occur from time to time, but thankfully not very often).

All in all, I am now very satisfied with the Roku box and the TWC app, and happier yet that the latter will work with Starter TV, which is Time Warner's lowest level of cable service.

I know I all but swore up and down in another post that I did not want a cable box on my TV under any circumstances, but that was before I realized how much better television is with the Roku player. I don't use a lot of the channels (aside from the TWC TV app) on the home screen, but I do occasionally watch Crackle, a channel devoted to old TV series from the '40s through the seventies (I say the forties since Crackle runs a lot of the old black and white Three Stooges episodes, many of which date back to that decade and even the late '30s).

I sometimes wonder if the Roku player and other video-over-IP players will eventually sound a death knell for cable TV. As it is now, to get local TV with the Roku player, one must at least have Starter TV on his or her cable account (the cable does not have to be physically connected to the television); however, I wonder if, eventually, this requirement will be dropped entirely. I recently read in the TV Technology newsletter (which I receive in my email daily) that video over IP is the future of television, so it may not be long before broadcast TV as we know it today will be a relic of a bygone era. The day may and probably will come when every TV in America will have either a cable box or a Roku player connected to it; given the popularity of Roku and other streaming video players (Google TV, et al.), that day may not be too far off. Most of what used to be the VHF and UHF television spectrum in the US, after all, has been auctioned off to other services such as cellular, et al., and the remaining TV broadcast spectrum presently used by DTV stations may well be next.

The only concern I have regarding the eventual change from OTA to wired cable TV is that the latter will mean the end of truly portable TV, at least as it used to be when all TV was over the air. It may well work out this way, but since most TV stations and networks, including cable, now stream their programs over the Internet, the new age of portable TV will almost certainly be (and in fact already is) watching television on a tablet, laptop or smartphone. I already have a shortcut on my tablet's home screen to the NBC Nightly News stream, and use it when I, for whatever reason, cannot see the news at its usual broadcast time (6:30 p.m. Eastern), and I realize I can watch many other network and cable programs on my tablet or even my desktop computer as well.

The cable companies are justifiably concerned over so-called "cord cutting", but this is something that will gain rather than lose popularity as time goes on. This also shows how much television has evolved since the experimental broadcasts by RCA and NBC in the late 1930s. If the pioneers of TV were alive today to see the sweeping changes that have occurred in the medium since then, I am sure they would be amazed, if not outright floored and/or flabbergasted.

I got rid of cable tv in 1998, really dont miss it. Not a Tv watcher, except maybe Dr. Who. I just watch occasional VHS, DVD, and laserdiscs i pick up in Thrift stores.

But it seems like a lot of people just get programming over the internet, you can find almost anything if you know where to look. Some of it not exactly legal, but its out there. One you get enough bandwith for internet, no need for anything else.
for portable use, most people just use a smartphone or tablet, and if not near a WIFI signal, use thier data plan on the phone.