#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'm not following you either on your second point, that the telephone companies are trying to "kill" broadcast television. The phone companies' business is telephone and, nowadays, Internet service, not television, unless you are referring to AT&T which now offers U-Verse television service or Verizon with its FiOS system, both of which hard-wire the user's TV into the wall and do not use satellites or copper coaxial cables. However, I don't see how these services can or will do away with broadcast TV. The FCC made a huge mistake just under a year ago when they ended NTSC broadcast television in favor of all digital; their reasoning was that they were going to auction off the old analog TV channels for use by public service (police, fire, etc.) and cellular telephone services, claiming the airwaves were too jammed after communications failures during at least one major disaster (Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana five years ago). There are still far too many people who still get their TV reception over the air, with a TV antenna, so the FCC would be making another huge error in judgment if they decided to do away with OTA TV--after all, many people feel that they do not want to pay through the nose for cable or satellite.
__________________
Jeff, WB8NHV Collecting, restoring and enjoying vintage Zenith radios since 2002 Zenith. Gone, but not forgotten. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Yeah, we have one cable company that serves this area and it seems like they raise the rates every 1 to 1.5 years. In the early '80's, the cable bill was something on the order of $17/mo. There were not as many channels back then; but, the quality of programming was better. There was more than enough there to entertain our family.
Fast forward to today and the bill is $56/mo with 60something channels on the analog package. Our cable company has also moved 5 or 6 analog channels to a higher priced digital package over the last two years. Needless to say, the bill didn't decrease any. Now, the quality of programming is so lousy that it's hard to find anything, even with 60+ channels. It would likely be the same way if we had 300+ channels. My Brother-in-law dropped cable when the DTV transition took place and I informed him that he could now receive 10 or 11 channels out of the air. He thinks that it's a waste of money to pay for 60 channels of nothing when you can get 10 channels of nothing for free. I'd probably do the same thing if it wasn't for the high speed internet. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I have analog cable, not digital. The cable company also sells phone and internet service via the same cable. I suspect these and other signals are interfering with the local channel signals, causing interference patterns, etc. The signals are watchable, but have interference.
With DTV, if it is working, there is no interference. As to the killing of broadcast TV: see this website: http://broadcastengineering.com/news...217/index.html The phone companies are trying to take more spectrum away from Broadcast TV. It will only get worse unless people protest. I agree with you about the huge mistake. In fact, from what I have read about using VHF channels 2-6 for DTV or mobile apps, these should be re-allocated back to analog TV. I know of two stations that were allowed to move from these bands to UHF bands as the DTV reception was so bad. I have also read that the antennas for mobile apps are to large in this area of the spectrum. The other mistake the FCC made was selling the spectrum. It would be better for the US taxpayer if they rented the spectrum for certain periods of time(just like the phone companies do to their customers). |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Today, all of Louisiana's police and fire departments are on a trunked relay system. Most of the channels in the new trunked system are in bands already allocated for 2-way communications. They have also retained their old channels as emergency backup. In short, any disaster or civil emergency will "clog" the airwaves. The implication that the extra bands would alleviate such situations is bunk. That's like sandbagging your house now because it may flood next March, or moving everything to the basement because you may get hit by a tornado one day. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
---
Last edited by andy; 12-07-2021 at 01:35 PM. |
Audiokarma |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Wow, that Sylvania is exactly the same as my set, except mine is a console with the swivel base. Wish my set was in as good a condition as that (and working).
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/96588 jr Last edited by jr_tech; 05-17-2010 at 03:05 PM. Reason: fix typo |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Thank you for these excellent photos!
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
I agree with peverett and rely only on over the air tv. One of the religeous channels carries arirang tv from South Korea. Its a very nice channel kinda like a Korean travel brouchour 24 hours a day. I have found that the area cable people do not carry it. So I guess there are some, or many things cable does not have. While our reception is more troublesome that analog was, the picture is quite good 70% of the time. and If i had spent as much on antenna and several boosters/preamps before digital, I would have got crystal clear analog reception.
__________________
Yes you can call me "Squirrel boy" |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Relatives of mine had that exact same model way back. It was the set that gave me my first biggest doseage of radiation from marveling at the inside with the back off. I was way too young to be exposed but my parents were busy working and everybody else thought I'd learn something. Thiers had black tapered round legs that I suspect were about 8" long.
I wish I could buy that set if it comes up for sale sometime. |
Audiokarma |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|