I heard this on the news and it was also in today's tribune. Apparently the FCC will "visit" chicago on 11-20 and shut off all the analog transmitters for 30-60 seconds. A message will appear in the snow indicating that OTA users should call a number for further DTV information.


So from what I gather, this is like a "pretest" to see how the public will react. A good way to get the message out I guess. As a person against change, I do not look forward to the day everything analog shuts down. I hate digital TV. Whenever I watch DTV with the converter, I get alot of intermittent audio drop out, even with a very strong signal. I hate it. Im so tired of hearing about digital this and digital that and digitally remasterd and better than ever etc etc. Its a shame my natural sense of hearing is analog only......... IMO, digital has its practical purposes, but its not for everything.

Story here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/chi-tue-digital-conversionaug19,0,4081006.story

The FCC is "visiting" several cities they have identified as "at risk" based on surveys- too many people don't know about the transition. They're coming here too. I suspect there will be a "soft test" in Denver too.

I heard this on the news and it was also in today's tribune. Apparently the FCC will "visit" chicago on 11-20 and shut off all the analog transmitters for 30-60 seconds. A message will appear in the snow indicating that OTA users should call a number for further DTV information.


So from what I gather, this is like a "pretest" to see how the public will react. A good way to get the message out I guess. As a person against change, I do not look forward to the day everything analog shuts down. I hate digital TV. Whenever I watch DTV with the converter, I get alot of intermittent audio drop out, even with a very strong signal. I hate it. Im so tired of hearing about digital this and digital that and digitally remasterd and better than ever etc etc. Its a shame my sense of hearing is analog only......... Im working on a transverse wave to digital sound converter, so i can hear better than anyone else. IMO, digital has its practical purposes, but its not for everything.

Story here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/chi-tue-digital-conversionaug19,0,4081006.story

Digital might be OK if the picture remained clear. It is very hard for me to receive PBS's digital signal while their analog signal comes in fairly well. I don't know if it's technical problems or something else; but, sometimes the NBC and CBS stations will go dark (as in no signal) on digital and be fine on analog.

BTW Doug, were you able to get your "problem" DTV box fixed? I remember you starting a thread a while back concerning your box failing.

I am not against change that actually works for the better(i. e. fuel injection for automobiles), but am against change that is just driven by greed(as I believe this one is). I believe the average person who depends on broadcast TV will be worse off with DTV, especially in poor weather.

I am not against change that actually works for the better(i. e. fuel injection for automobiles), but am against change that is just driven by greed(as I believe this one is). I believe the average person who depends on broadcast TV will be worse off with DTV, especially in poor weather.

I agree with you completely.

As for the converter, it actually works fine now. It hasn't acted up at all. Then again, I dont use it too much. I wonder if there is a thermal cut out in this unit? I need to open it up again and take a look. Perhaps an intermittent cap. I am stunned with the amount of lytics in these and the extreme heat being genererated. The extreme heat will only lead to early failure of the lytics if used constantly.

I have several DTV converters. The best of the coupon applicable ones has been the one sold by Radio Shack. With the same type antenna(amplified rabbit ears) it runs rings around the RCA model sold at Wal-Mart. On top of that, the RCA model tends to crap out, with re-starting needed.

I also have some DTV receivers from a defunct CATV company. These require an external component video to NTSC converter, but seem to be the highest quality ones that I have. They are larger than the common ones and do not seem to get hot at all. The reception on these also seems to be better.

I have also have a couple DTV converters made by RJtech and sold by Newegg.com. These work ok, but also get very hot.

The problem i have with the digital changeover is that the left hand didn't know what the right was doing. i signed up for the converter coupons and received 2 of them but i couldn't find a retailer that had them in stock, i searched for the 90 day period and no one had them, now my coupons have expired and now i am S. O. L,
it sounds like digital is going to be a grand fiasco, I hope they have enough complaints for the FCC to allow a 2 band standard, HDTV and SDTV like AM and fM, Logan

I don't mind that DTV exists, but I don't want the analog standard to disappear.

I can go out in the garage right now and with a pair of rabbit ears, I can pick up all local channels, and even some distant ones. DTV makes picking up distant channels damn near impossible.

Tonight, it was raining and I decided to run an experiment on DTV reception here. The local stations (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CW) were all coming in with signal levels in the 60's and 70's. Normally, these come in the 80's and low 90's. The PBS transmitter is about 35 miles away and is doing good if it moves the meter into the 50's and there is often major signal drop out. Tonight, there was just a blank screen with virtually no signal strength. I tuned the TV to PBS's analog channel 14 and it came in very clear. I can receive analog channel 34, (CW) which is about 75 miles away, with a bow-tie antenna during most times of the day and night. The picture is not the best; but, it's watchable. I often run an update scan with the DTV converter just to see if any distant digital stations are detected. So far, none have been detected.

I am unaware of any plans to turn off analog early in my area. All the channels are constantly running DTV PSA's and CBS is running crawlers across the bottom of the screen concerning the DTV transition.

I'm going to miss analog DX'ing and knob-turning when DTV fully takes over. Maybe something will happen at the last minute and we'll get another extension.

Maybe something will happen at the last minute and we'll get another extension.

It's not looking like it. They seem pretty set on next Feb.

I will not miss analog TV at all when it goes away in February. Nothing about it, zilch, zip. Nada. Digital is so much more stable and smooth, with more channels, has higher quality (not even to mention HDTV which makes SD analog really look like garbage by comparison). And, all this is on the same antennas I have used for analog TV, though I use a smaller antenna now for my all-digital reception. I started watching digital TV in 2000 and have not watched anything analog (except to test my antique TV sets) in probably six years.

But... This forum is so full of people who whine and moan and groan about digital TV and nit-pick and concentrate on its relatively few drawbacks. Maybe I am in the wrong place.

Sounds like it.

now my coupons have expired
Can't you have a friend or relative apply for coupons and give you the cards when they arrive?

Phil Nelson

SD analog blows dtv away. For this simple reason: It is not compressed. Thats just my opinion.

I don't watch TV over the air, so I have no base for opinion on it. I do, however, work in the television business, as in, I make TV commercials. And all I know is having two standards of broadcast is an expensive pain in the butt on my end. Just this morning I had to watch the same 2 seconds of a commercial over and over because there was some sort of anomaly caused by down-conversion to standard definition from HD in the master tape of a commercial we'd done.

If you are watching HD on an SD set, then yes it probably looks not so great, but don't throw the rest of us to the hounds because we want to see the full (or mostly full) potential of the film that was actually shot. Especially those of us who spend hours and hours of our lives trying to create something and have it look as best we can.

But I only make some of the stuff that is broadcast..I actually don't watch a lot of TV myself, and don't see the harm in having two formats for a bit longer. But it really is a PITA on my end, just a logistical mess. For what it's worth, the HD broadcast on my cable is vastly superior SD on the same channels (I get both).

I just don't get judging a technology when you don't have the proper means to actually see what it's capable of. I don't judge the capability of LP on a BSR changer....no I'm not calling SD sets BSR changers, they're excellent at analogue signal reception, but they don't have the ability to extract what digital TV is all about. The converter box is simply trying make something do what it wasn't designed for. I would think that those converter boxes you unfortunaley are having to buy are down-converting the HD signal to SD...of course that's going to look terrible. it looks terrible when we do it here at work on very very expensive electronics. But digital looks stunning on my TV. Standard looks like I'm looking at the film we shot through gauze.

Update...I just spent an hour at a place that creates the masters for TV broadcast commercials, because we were stuck as to what was happening when we were converting our HD masters to SD on their conversion equipment. If we were having issues there, I can only imagine how bad it must look with a set-top conversion box. What a mess.

SD analog blows dtv away. For this simple reason: It is not compressed.

Odds are that analog signal was delivered to the analog transmitter site as a DTV signal, decoded and downconverted to 525i analog, and fed into the analog modulator and transmitter.

In my experience I have gotten so much better reception with digital (converted to analog and watched on CRT TV's). I used to get so much ghosting and weak signal issues with analog, when the antenna blew down 5 years ago or so I never replaced it and went with satellite....I now am enjoying over the air TV thanks to digital.

The picture quality of an HD signal downconverted to analog on a set-top box is amazing to me...looks even better than a DVD. To me the signal quality really brings out the best especially in old TV's.

I think in some areas stations may be waiting to go to higher power on digital which may bring better digital reception.

I think that to label people who favor a free-market solution as "nit-pickers" is pretty shallow. ATSC and NTSC have been broadcasting side-by-side for years now. When free NTSC is no longer worth the extra work of conversion from digital, or the electricity to run the transmitter (vs. advertising revenue), broadcasters will shut-off the power. That simple.

What we now have is a cluster-F courtesy of corporate lobbyists who purchased the required votes to force the FCC into setting a date. Imagine if politicians were this openly owned by corporate interests in 1950? We'd all have motorized spinning discs on our 10" color TVs! I suppose they know that circa 2008, we're all too addicted to "digital quality" to give a damn about things like a free-market.

Having experienced the same thunderstorm digital shutdown, while NTSC continued without any failure, this digital broadcast system is obviously not ready for prime-time. (LOL, I kill me :D)

The problem that I have seen is not the picture quality. In good reception conditions, it has been my experience that digital is better than analog, even on a standard definition set.

The issue that I have seen is when non-ideal reception conditions occur, such as thunderstorms, etc. From what I have seen analog delivers a usable signal(I do not claim perfect) far after DTV has completely crapped out. This may not be important to Chris(who lives in CA where these are rare), but is very important to anyone east of the Rockies depending on broadcast TV for weather info, especially people in tornado alley. It is my belief that this is more than a signal strength issue-it is a basic weakness of DTV. This is the reason I believe completely scrapping NTSC analog TV is a big mistake.

As far as the picture quality, try watching a standard def picture on a TV capable of true HDTV-it looks horrible and out of focus.

As far as the converter boxes, these seem to vary greatly in quality, with the RCA sold by Wal-Mart being the worst I have expericenced.

As far as the picture quality, try watching a standard def picture on a TV capable of true HDTV-it looks horrible and out of focus.



I'll back that up, having spent some real time watching a HDTV recently. Whatever the reason for this, I don't know, but I imagine it's why you have some many people popping up to say "once you've watched HD, you'll never go back."

I pretty confident that if you compared the TV this HD set replaced side-by-side with a non-HD signal, the older set would be much better. On the HD Channels, the picture was better than NTSC, but "awe-inspiring"? Naw... Lots of shimmer effect in highlights.

The ONLY place where the HD signal blew away what I've seen of a ultra quality NTSC picture was during a live car auction shown on some cable channel. Very sharp, colors look right, great detail.

So I will concede it is possible for HD to beat NTSC, but the conditions are rare and hardly worth the bother of a new set IMHO. I suspect others would have felt the same way, thus the mandate.

Can't you have a friend or relative apply for coupons and give you the cards when they arrive?

Phil Nelson
Probably, but that is not the point. they had figures on how many converters they needed, but the manufacturers didn't make enough, it is like they didn't care. They are probably making more money off of new TV's and don't won't to waste the effort to worry about a government program. Well i won't worry about watching US tv. I have the high speed internet and i have veoh and youtube and i find more interesting stuff coming out of the UK than America can produce. Logan

I just don't get judging a technology when you don't have the proper means to actually see what it's capable of. I don't judge the capability of LP on a BSR changer....no I'm not calling SD sets BSR changers, they're excellent at analog signal reception, but they don't have the ability to extract what digital TV is all about. The converter box is simply trying make something do what it wasn't designed for. I would think that those converter boxes you unfortunately are having to buy are down-converting the HD signal to SD...of course that's going to look terrible. it looks terrible when we do it here at work on very very expensive electronics. But digital looks stunning on my TV. Standard looks like I'm looking at the film we shot through gauze.
Thank you for some very good points from an industry insider.

As far as the picture quality, try watching a standard def picture on a TV capable of true HDTV-it looks horrible and out of focus.
Read the quote above for a couple of reasons.

Also, there are some HDTV displays that can show a pretty good SD picture. The main reason that SD looks "horrible and out of focus" on an HDTV display is because SD/analog NTSC IS "horrible and out of focus" by comparison with good high-definition video. Most of the problems are the basic limitations of the analog/NTSC signal itself. This can be obviously seen by comparing such a signal on an HD display, to a DVD on the same display. DVDs are basically the same resolution as standard analog NTSC, but not subject to all the problems of composite OTA analog TV signals.

I truly doubt you would actually see better detail or color quality on an analog TV than with the same signal on a good quality, well-adjusted HD display.

I think part of the problem of NTSC on a HDTV is that a lot of HDTVs do a poor job of scaling NTSC to the TV's native resolution. They tend to overprocess it which gives it a smeared flat look.

lot of HDTVs do a poor job of scaling NTSC to the TV's native resolution. They tend to overprocess it which gives it a smeared flat look.

Back in the early days of TV cameras, it was found that they could set the focus of the image on the pickup device (various camera tubes then) a little too sharp, so that the resolution of the image would violate Nyquest sampling theory. A fancy way to say that the scan lines, in the vertical direction, act as a digital sampling system. Like a scan line being like a pixel in the vertical direction. Okay, if you aim the camera at a set of venetian blinds on a window, and the focus is too sharp, you get "alias" effects in the vertical direction. Those look here like wide area dark and bright bands, which don't exist out in the real world at that window.

However, it was found that you can slightly exceed this Nyquist focus limit by about 10%, which will make the image as seen on a TV set look sharper, with only a little bit of aliasing. This is called "Kell Factor".

A few years ago I suggested that this Kell factor could be made use of in downconverting HD to SD resolution, and the place I worked for at the time filed a patent application. But the place hit hard economic times, and I don't think they followed up on the patenting process...

Downconverter boxes should use Kell Factor.

Hi to All,

WA2ISE, you wouldn't have been working for Faroudja Labs perhaps?

They were known for extracting pretty incredible pictures from standard composite signals (PAL & NTSC) for use with TV projectors (line doublers and quadruplers).

I personally saw a demo at the IBC Broadcast show in Brighton (UK) where a 1"C VTR used a Faroudja box as an Encode/Decode processor. The color bars upon playback looked like rock-stable, gorgeous component video and yet standard NTSC was the input.

BTW, Yves Faroudja was a French engineer. When he saw no future for his ideas in France, he emigrated to America. Also made quite a bit of money in the heydays of the company (1980s).

Best Regards

jhalphen

I think, with minimal compression and good color matching, HDTV does indeed surpass NTSC. If the signal is strong enough, reception should be fine, storm or no storm. My main beef is with weak channels. On analog, you can at the very least hear them, or get a watchable picture. HD is all or nothing, and that's really its only significant drawback.

The compression artifacts are the fault of the broadcastors, not the format itself. DVD uses the same format, and when transferred from a high quality film source, the picture is excellant.

Nowadays, all analog stations are broadcasting downsampled DTV converted to analog. On an analog set, you wouldn't be able to spot the difference unless too much compression was used.

In a nutshell, the idea is sound, but the way it's being executed is flawed.

Hi to All,

WA2ISE, you wouldn't have been working for Faroudja Labs perhaps?



jhalphen

Not for him, but I did work quite similar (chroma luma separation, adaptive line and frame comb filters, interlace to prog scan conversion and such) at the old RCA Smirnoff Lab in the 80's. And more of this at MicroLinear, a fabless analog semiconductor house. And have invented 13 patents in this field, assigned to the companies, but I still get bragging rights. :D :banana: :yes: Looks good on resumes. :banana: Link to a list of my patents ->http://pw2.netcom.com/~wa2ise/radios/patents.htm

In areas like Chicago there are tens of thousands of analog TVs used in spare bedrooms, basements, apartments, nursing homes, kitchens that use rabbit ears and may have average video reception but excellent reception of sound. Many of these TVs are used in the background, meaning the viewer may be working in the kitchen and listening to the TV show and occasionally glancing at the picture. I expect many of these, on the conversion date will not be prepared with converter boxes and if they do try to install a converter box, they will have trouble with bad digital video reception and very poor audio reception because digital requires proper and special antenna installation.

I expect the press will report on this problem after the conversion date, but if this group will have enough clout to change anything, I expect not.

Snade

I just got done hooking up one of my coupon boxes and running it a couple hours. Man, is it great! :thmbsp:
The zero loss in whatever compressed signal more than compensates for signal loss from "analog". Better than cable, as good as satellite on a good day. I get 25 great channels, some I had no idea existed, and a few that stink as one would expect, about 31 total.
Not all the stations are broadcasting digital yet so there would be more to come I am thinking.
I will be happy to cancel my basic cable now. I will not miss it as the only real thing to watch is ESPN and it is has gone so far downhill. They have totally ruined the MNF broadcast by having the social crap instead of just calling the game. It's on the radio anyway and they do not fluff it up with such nonsense.
And if the cheapie box burns up although this did not get warm after 2 hours, I will buy a real nice one to replace it. Should have done this as soon as I got my coupons instead of putting it off until the last second. I could have saved some real money canceling a couple months ago and bought more music instead. :D
Oh yeah, our awesome jazz station runs a feed over the digital too. :smoke:

Carl

HDTV had better have a higher quality picture than NTSC analog(at least in good broadcast conditions), otherwise what is the point of changing(other than corporate greed).

The problem is the "all or nothing". Nothing just does not cut it when a tornado is coming your way.

Link to a list of my patents ->http://pw2.netcom.com/~wa2ise/radios/patents.htm

You invented the active ghost cancellation system? I saw a demo of it once and I was very impressed. I was disappointed that it didn't find its way into more products. Even on cable it would have helped on a lot of channels. At one time I though about trying to buy an evaluation board for one of the ICs that used it so I could build my own ghost canceling device to add between a tuner and monitor.

I think that to label people who favor a free-market solution as "nit-pickers" is pretty shallow. ATSC and NTSC have been broadcasting side-by-side for years now. When free NTSC is no longer worth the extra work of conversion from digital, or the electricity to run the transmitter (vs. advertising revenue), broadcasters will shut-off the power. That simple.

What we now have is a cluster-F courtesy of corporate lobbyists who purchased the required votes to force the FCC into setting a date. Imagine if politicians were this openly owned by corporate interests in 1950? We'd all have motorized spinning discs on our 10" color TVs! I suppose they know that circa 2008, we're all too addicted to "digital quality" to give a damn about things like a free-market.

Having experienced the same thunderstorm digital shutdown, while NTSC continued without any failure, this digital broadcast system is obviously not ready for prime-time. (LOL, I kill me :D)

I pretty much agree with you. I think DTV is superior in some ways such as piggybacking more than one channel on the same transmitter, if I get too poor for cable, which could happen, at least I have more choices. The downside is weather issues and rural areas, I think for the latter, you might need translator stations.

The true way this could have been down is to allocate X channels for HDTV and Y channels for NTSC, let the marketplace decide, that way, if a total switch to HDTV is done as the market dictates, we will have more time to address the rural and weather issues.

Well, it is a done deal it seems, hopefully we will iron out these problems as time goes on.

The trouble with "market-based" solutions is that most people are far too short-sighted to ever choose what is good in the long term, and many things (like digital TV) require mass adoption to get their costs down to compete with and eventually surpass the old standards. In other cases, it is not just cost reduction that drives changes and government mandates. Without laws, would we have mandatory air bags, seat belts, or numerous other safety features in all of our cars? Most likely not; relatively few people go shopping based on those features, or fuel mileage (until recently), etc. The same was true for UHF tuners on TV sets; they were an extra-cost option (and therefore rare) until required by law, thus making UHF TV stations more viable, bringing many more on the air, and opening a far wider choice of programming to people who otherwise (and formerly) would not have chosen the "extra cost" UHF tuner.

If we "let the market decide", then all over-the-air TV will go away since 85% of the U.S. public has satellite or cable TV, and the remaining people are assumed to be lower income than those who pay for their TV reception. Digital TV, and its increased channel capacity (which means more ad sales), is going to help keep OTA TV available as an option, not hinder it, but most people will not choose it unless "they have to right now". Just look at all the nay-sayers on this forum alone, and we are more technically inclined and adept than the average public.

The downside is weather issues and rural areas... hopefully we will iron out these problems as time goes on.
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that any such problems will be solved.

Several years ago, when the first round of changes was announced that TVs were going to be required to have digital tuners in them, I knew plenty of people who whined and moaned about that, too. They all complained that "TV sets are going to be so much more expensive". I made a "free" bet with at least a half dozen friends and family members, where they had nothing to lose and I had nothing to gain... At the time, analog-only 13" color TV sets sold for about US$100 each with a remote control. I told every one of them that I would pay the entire cost over $100 for a 13" digital-tuner TV, one year after they were government-mandated. I never had to pay a dime to anyone. In fact, the day those TV sets were required to have a digital tuner, I had already "won" the bet; digital-tuner 13" sets were available for less than US$100 already.

I agree somewhat with Chris about government mandates at least where safety is involved. Ford tried to sell lap seat belts as an option in the 1950s and failed(The were also some pressured to stop by General Motors).

However, in this case, I believe completly going to DTV will IMPAIR public safety. As mentioned previously, it has been my experience that DTV becomes completly unusable far before NTSC analog does during bad weather. How safe is that?

As far as everybody winning by going digital-My mother in rural Oklahoma had fine cell phone service when the phones were analog. Even now, several years after the switchover to digital, her service is still not reliable. People will lose service because of this changeover

As far as broadcast going away. BS. Millions of people(like myself-who has cable) have TVs in bedrooms, in their garage, etc that are not on cable or satellite. This alone would keep broadcast going.

From what I have seen so far, letting the market decide about radio-either Satellite, HD, AM or FM, seems to be working fine. People who want satellite buy it, people who want latest gadget(from reviews I have read, it is not any better than FM) get HD radios, etc. Others keep what they have.

I have nothing against broadcasting DTV. What am against is completely throwing away a reliable system that has been proven over many decades without proving the replacement first.

One more comment-Chris insists that DTV is "Better". I am not at all convinced of this. From what I have seen it is better in some areas(no snow, HDTV capability, etc.) but worse in others(bad weather operation).

As far as the 2nd channels broadcast-we presently have a 24 hour weather channel and and "TV land" channel as 2nd channels here. I am not sure how much ad revenue this will bring in? Two of the big four here, Fox and NBC do not even broadcast a 2nd channel on DTV with no promises that they ever will.

The trouble with "market-based" solutions is that most people are far too short-sighted to ever choose what is good in the long term,

Respectfully because I respect most of your postings, and do not wish this to come off as a flame-war, I have to say that this statement comes off as incredibly arrogant. Market-based solutions may take longer than what you would prefer, but ultimately produce the only fair result. There is a place for government mandates (general welfare/safety issues) but this is neither.

and many things (like digital TV) require mass adoption to get their costs down to compete with and eventually surpass the old standards.

I think you are conveniently ignoring the most obvious comparison to the current digital/analog changeover, color-to-B&W. By mandating compatibility, the FCC ensured that color TV broadcasts/receivers would continue to improve in terms of both reliability and cost by forcing them compete with B&W broadcasts/receivers. Had they ruled the existing B&W system "end" at some date, there would have been very little motivation for manufacturers to make the color TV improvements that came between 1954-1964.

There also would have been the enormous taxpayer cost of about $500+ for each "coupon" to purchase a color TV. (Although I'm sure RCA would have loved the idea of the government using taxpayer money to buy everybody a new TV set.)

In other cases, it is not just cost reduction that drives changes and government mandates. Without laws, would we have mandatory air bags, seat belts, or numerous other safety features in all of our cars? Most likely not; relatively few people go shopping based on those features, or fuel mileage (until recently), etc.

First of all, government doesn't "invent" anything. Therefore they cannot mandate anything that hasn't already been developed by private industry. I can tell you with all certainty that we WOULD in fact have air-bags in cars, circa 2008 without government mandate. Brief history lesson:

Air-bags were first conceived long before seat-belts became commonplace in vehicles. I believe the original automotive patent dates to 1948, but the limited deployment technology of the time prevented serious research until the late 60s. By this time, they were seen as a replacement for the cumbersome seatbelts which most people did not use, not supplemental restraints (SRS) as they are today. This was entirely market-based, giving customers a passive, non-intrusive way to avoid eating the windshield in a crash.

Had the government stepped in, let's say in 1960, and made seat-belt usage the law-of-the-land as it is today, what motivation would have existed for further air-bag research? Certainly it wouldn't have been a priority, because whether you drove a $6000 Buick or a $2000 Chevy, you'd still have to wear an uncomfortable belt per government edict. Without a mandate, there is still motivation to research a comfortable, passive restraint system. Here is an airbag in the aforementioned Buick... Only market forces caused this to appear within its 70s green-velour interior...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/Chromacolor2/794px-000_1351-1-1.jpg


As I mentioned earlier, there is a place for government mandates. Staying within the realm of automotive for a moment (since there are few welfare/safety issues regarding a television standards) an example of a justified mandate would be emissions standards. The difference being that automotive emissions effect the entire population, unlike seatbelts/airbags which effect individual safety. Even in this example, the government didn't invent squat... Most all innovation in this area, including technology still used today all over the world, came from GM/Chrysler and Ford (more/less in that order BTW). The necessity for government mandate (action) comes because emission equipment of that era reduced drivability and increased costs. No single manufacturer could afford the resulting loss in sales, so it had to be mandated uniformly. Smaller anti-smog innovations, such as the PCV system did occur throughout the 60s without mandate.


If we "let the market decide", then all over-the-air TV will go away since 85% of the U.S. public has satellite or cable TV, and the remaining people are assumed to be lower income than those who pay for their TV reception.

The 85% number doesn't include secondary sets. The low-income argument doesn't wash either, if only because every rental tenant who has ever helped pay the mortgage for a home I own has always had cable and a larger TV then I own. (OK just kidding here, I know that's anecdotal.) But is it better to market to 50 millionaires or 500,000 people who make $50K a year? Most marketers would say the latter.

But really if this end-of-OTA argument really held up, why haven't they already gone away? That 85% number has probably been constant for at least 15-years. There is nothing preventing an OTA station from making a deal with a cable provider and shutting down their transmitter. At that point, they cease to be FCC regulated and don't have to pay for transmitter costs. Somebody else can buy the license.

Obviously there is a reason to broadcast over the air, but no reason beyond government fiat (via lobbyist corruption) to shutdown analog.

Ford tried to sell lap seat belts as an option in the 1950s and failed(The were also some pressured to stop by General Motors).


That statement is patently untrue, and I challenge you to provide any evidence to back it up, or even explain their motivation to do so. It is sadly one of those urban myths that people feel the need to invent when they feel the need to disparage a large organization.

GM controlled +/- 50% of the market when Ford offered seatbelts, along with padded dashboards and steering wheels as a $55 option package which found few takers. I doubt GM would have cared any more about Ford's seatbelt option than their automatic-emptying ashtray. (Yes, there was such a thing)

By the late 50s all manufacturers were offering seat belts as options, but they were ordered so infrequently that most were sold through accessory catalogs and installed by dealers. By the mid-60s, they became popular enough for factories to begin installing them. They became mandated safety equipment in 1968.

Carmine-see link below

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29112065_ITM

I have seen the same claim about GM in several other articles. I have also seem many articles about GM buying and then killing the streetcar systems of many cities in the 1930s. It is my opinion that GM is no more guilty nor innocent than any other large corporation of unethical behavior.

At present it is my opionion that GM and Ford management are guilty of stupidity in continuining to push gas guzzlers(killing their hybrid and other economical(electric car, for example) vehicle projects) and are getting what they deserve. Doing this not hurt their workers and the general economy, it also hurts the US by keeping us more dependant on foreign oil.

Toyota, rightly so, is reaping the rewards of continuing to develop their hybrid which is selling quite well now(However, Toyota is not perfect, the large pickup truck they developed is not selling that well-another gas guzzler).

Now back to the DTV transition.

Classic cars are great...but not practical for most anymore. Sadly, the Japanese are outdoing the American auto makers and I hear that the US makers days are numbered. I have a 64 Impala and its a great car. However, my main ride is a 2002 Nissan Maxima, and man I love it.

Fuel's only going to go up in price, so we better arise to the occasion.

Back to the DTV transition, I'm sure they'll work the kinks out and it will be a success. I hope so at least, since a nation of angry tv viewers will cause quite a stir!

US car makers could have (and possibly still can) make the change. Our present main cars are Fords. One, a 17 year old Ford Escort(178k M) has always gotten 30 MPG or so. The other, a 2006 Ford Ranger, gets 20 or so. My previous Ford Ranger went 300k miles and always got 20 or so MPG.

The problem has been in the US makers priorities(this is where the management stupidity comes in). It has been frustating to me to take my Ford Ranger to the dealership for an oil change(priced less than $20) and see 50+ F150s/F250s on the lot and only 5-7 Rangers. Also seeing many Ford ads touting the large trucks and not a single mention of the Ranger.

As to the DTV transistion, lets hope that somehow Washington has the sense to repeal the law if things do not work out. This has happened before, but not very often. A lot of corporate toes will need to be stepped on. There has been a glimmer of hope as a bill just passed the US senate allowing analog NTSC transmission for four more years near the Mexican border. Depending on what happens after Feb 9, possibly this will be expanded.

Carmine-see link below

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29112065_ITM



You've got to be kidding me right? You're sampling from a paper called "Antitrust policy and the oligopoly problem". You think somebody might have had an agenda? Go through that piece and see how many times the following words/phrases are used:

according to a former Ford executive
apparently
a former Ford engineer
a representative of one of the big three automakers
Senator Nelson was told by an automotive official
the other oligopolists privately conveyed their outrage

There isn't one name or source given in that long-winded article for any of the charges cited... And I can't click on any of the footnotes.


As long ago as the 1920s, for example, DuPont scientists developed a method for producing glass which, when broken, would crumble into rounded bits of rubble, rather than razor-sharp splinters. An obvious application of this new "safety" glass, DuPont officials concluded, would be in the production of automotive windshields better able to protect occupants in accidents. A high-level effort was launched by DuPont to persuade General Motors to incorporate this new safety glass in its automobiles. In the end, however, GM declined to adopt DuPont's safety glass.

Your author shows his lack of knowledge in the first paragraph of his urban myths by claiming GM declined to use tempered glass in windshields... Good move, considering safety glass came into use immediately after being invented in 1927.

In the 1950s, for example, Ford abandoned an initially promising program offering safety options in its cars, including padded dashboards and seatbelts, in important part for fear of triggering a retaliatory response from General Motors. "At the time," according to a former Ford executive, "promoting safety in cars was a revolutionary act in Detroit--so much so that some of the top guys at GM apparently called Henry Ford and told him to stop it.

1) Henry Ford died in 1947

2) The Ford "Lifeguard" safety package was a poor seller in 1955/56, hardly anything GM would feel the need to respond to; not initially promising to anyone. Seatbelt options never went away, they just dropped the sales promotion as unsuccessful.

3) What an imaginary, wonderful world it must be where one big shot calls another big shot and says "stop it" Do you have any idea of what it takes to cancel a program and marketing, production contracts, or more so to concoct any of these conspiracy theories? I feel like I'm the guy trying to convince people the the US landed on the moon!

There is all kinds of other non-sense in this poorly written article you've cited, and honestly, I'd love to take it apart line-by-line, but I'd rather not de-rail the DTV thread. Pick it up on the Wheels and Water board if you like, because there are so many more 5th-grade level inaccuracies it's laughable...

Even more so I'd like to debate you because you've gone on to further state "GM killed it's hybrid car" Which one? The Saturn VUE SUV? Mailbu? Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade?

You've now taken this to another level, yet end with "Back to the DTV" conversation. Here, I've even started a thread for you before this trash further clutters the DTV debate...

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2076467#post2076467


I'll chime in when I have the time.

In the meantime, here I am championing the free market by taking apart an article written to "prove" a monopoly exists in the US auto market! You're arguing in favor of a corrupt and artificial "deadline" imposed at the will of electronics manufacturers! Do you even see the irony?

At least the FCC picked a standard unlike with AM stereo. I'm all for the free market, but with things like radio and TV, there really needs to be one common standard. Imagine how much simpler it would be if there was only one type of cell phone.

I wish they had mandeated ATSC tuners in TVs much sooner. There are a LOT of relatively new TVs (including many HDTVs) without ATSC tuners.

A compatible HDTV system like HD radio would have been nice.

HI:

Phil Nelson: You asked if the coupons could be diverted to another location. I teid that for my mother and it would not take the diverted address (mine) on the website because I had already ordered two coupons for my address, and that is how they track who has and who has not received the coupons.

I agree with the other member who said he right hand doesn't know the left hand. My 85 YO MIL who lives in Reno was able to call and get a live person on the line. All I ever got was automated menus. She got a promise to fix the bad delivery of the coupons from her prior attemts to order via snail mail. We decided to buy her an adapter at the local Circ City. I bought the Zenith, had zero trouble with it, and using an amplified Phillips rabbit ear "DTV ready" antenna my MIL already had, the picture just pops on her 2005 Sanyo 21" flat screen tube TV!!! We watched the Olympics for a while, and I had to tighten the rods on the antenna, but after that it was rock stable. She had a little trouble with learning the remote, but I as able to "convert" the remote to powering and controlling her TV for the most part. I ran the volume control on her TV to Max using that set's original remote control, then used the Zenith conveter remote as a sort of "sub-volume" control. She called us later to say all is well after we left. She lives in an apartment, near her city, and now gets twice the channels she got before, with all the sub channels offering different programming.

Also, I was able to hit the "Zoom" button, and give her full screen instead of letterbox, making the viewing experience the same as what she had except for the remote, and having to learn the new subchannels she now has.

That's enough for an 85 YOto handle, even one as sharp as she is.

The trouble with "market-based" solutions is that most people are far too short-sighted to ever choose what is good in the long term

Respectfully because I respect most of your postings, and do not wish this to come off as a flame-war, I have to say that this statement comes off as incredibly arrogant.
I should have said that some advances are doomed to fail if left to market forces; the UHF tuner example is what I had in mind, for example. I am as guilty as the next person of looking for the cheapest price on most things I buy, but the long-term result of that is more Wal-Marts and other big-box stores with employees who have terrible customer-service skills, and who thinks that is an advance? (That is not an example with any connection to government regulations, though, I admit.)

Perhaps the digital TV mandate seems like an unreasonable government intrusion, but in fact just about every little detail of any over-the-air radiated signal, whether for public entertainment or any other use, is heavily regulated in the USA and every other country that I know. Much of this is to protect users from interference, but plenty of regulations are in place simply to improve efficiency, and many laws and standards have changed over the years as more-efficient methods of transmission, manufacturing, or other advances have become available. Digital TV is more efficient than analog, therefore it is ultimately better overall even if some users will have problems they did not have with analog.

I hope that I am wrong, but I am not sure that MOST people who depend on broadcast TV for their severe weather warnings will not be worse off. This is based on my experience with DTV in Texas, where thunderstorms are common. From the above experience, I think this is a step backwards in safety.

If the Bill that has passed the senate (allowing NTSC transmission near the Mexican border for four more years) passes the house and is signed, we may finally get a good comparison of analog vs digital under many different weather conditions. For this reason alone, I think it is a good bill and have let my representatives know this.

As to the greater efficency(at what could be a fairly large cost)-who benefits from this? So far I have a local weather station and an oldie station and a sometime PBS extra? Do you think these people buying this spectrum are going to give us anything that is "Free(paid for by someone else-advertizers)" like broadcast TV? I bet not.

Well, I wouldn't expect anyone buying spectrum to then give away what they put on it. They are, however, "giving us" (the U.S. taxpayers) the money they pay for the spectrum.

RF spectrum sales and band re-allocation are an entirely different issue from the change to digital TV. Digital TV need have nothing to do with making money from spectrum sales, but if we can have more TV channel choices (which we do/will) and make money from sales of now-available frequencies (and there is a "market-based" plan if I ever saw one), then I see that as a good thing.

I am sure not impressed with my "New Channels" to date. I would much rather to be able to receive my existing channels reliably, without the pixelization and sound crapping out(as I was experiencing earlier this evening-even in todays good weather-same channel came in fine on analog tonight and on DTV two days ago).

Just heard this announcement when watching Seattle's PBS channel 9. Cutting the power bill, I suppose. And maybe to encourage people to get converter boxes...

What Seattle is doing is probably for the best. It will give some people a taste of how well broadcast DTV works when the winter storms (with high winds) hit.

As to converters, I have tried several and most seem to work well when conditions for reception are good. The exception has been the RCA from Wal-Mart. This converter seems to be designed to encourage purchase of a Wal-Mart DTV, not allow you to keep your analog set. It's reception is poor compared to the others I have and I have had to cycle the power after it crashed(This has happened at least twice)
.

The trouble with "market-based" solutions is that most people are far too short-sighted to ever choose what is good in the long term, and many things (like digital TV) require mass adoption to get their costs down to compete with and eventually surpass the old standards. In other cases, it is not just cost reduction that drives changes and government mandates. Without laws, would we have mandatory air bags, seat belts, or numerous other safety features in all of our cars? Most likely not; relatively few people go shopping based on those features, or fuel mileage (until recently), etc. The same was true for UHF tuners on TV sets; they were an extra-cost option (and therefore rare) until required by law, thus making UHF TV stations more viable, bringing many more on the air, and opening a far wider choice of programming to people who otherwise (and formerly) would not have chosen the "extra cost" UHF tuner.

If we "let the market decide", then all over-the-air TV will go away since 85% of the U.S. public has satellite or cable TV, and the remaining people are assumed to be lower income than those who pay for their TV reception. Digital TV, and its increased channel capacity (which means more ad sales), is going to help keep OTA TV available as an option, not hinder it, but most people will not choose it unless "they have to right now". Just look at all the nay-sayers on this forum alone, and we are more technically inclined and adept than the average public.

Yeah, I guess you do have good points, I mean there is a good side to DTV. If I'm ever too poor for cable, at least I have more choices than before with over the air TV. I could always watch one of the local PBS subchannels that always broadcasts Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania history by a local named Rick Sebak or go to RTN with all the old shows from the 1950's to the 1980's. I might be looking at that now being unemployed righ now and having to cut back. Myself, I think standard def is OK, it doesn't matter as long as the program is good, but that is my take. Back in the day, I liked how you have some choices on over the air TV, at least during the afternoons, the Pittsburgh station ran cartoons, so did Steubenville, Ohio, but Youngstown ran movies in the afternoon. When movies like "Planet of the Apes," "Matt Helm," or "A Man Like Flint" came on, we were in hog heaven. Today, it's all Dr. Phil, Oprah and so on, so bland, so homoginized. If we get an ION affiliate, it would be perfect, but at least I have PBS and RTN.

I might be delving into politics a little but there are too many who believe the free market is the end all, yes, it is a tool, an excellent one, but I guess it should not be applied to everything.

I never thought of it that way, maybe DTV will energize over the air TV, I mean when we watch RTN, it is over the air, not on cable.

I hear you on TV choices. When I was a kid, I couldn't wait to get home from school so I could watch He-Man and Scooby Doo. I also remember older shows like Gunsmoke, Little House, Dukes of Hazzard, Incredible Hulk, etc. playing on the local channels in the afternoon. That all changed when Oprah came on the seen. Now, all that comes on are courtroom reality shows and talk shows. I can only take so much of Judge Judy style shows and I don't care "who your baby's daddy" is! I can't believe that the American public can sit down and watch that same crap day after day. If someone locally would carry RTN or a similar network over DTV, I'd be one happy camper. Of course, that will probably never happen. Meridian, MS is the last place to get anything!

I will not miss analog TV at all when it goes away in February. Nothing about it, zilch, zip. Nada. Digital is so much more stable and smooth, with more channels, has higher quality (not even to mention HDTV which makes SD analog really look like garbage by comparison). And, all this is on the same antennas I have used for analog TV, though I use a smaller antenna now for my all-digital reception. I started watching digital TV in 2000 and have not watched anything analog (except to test my antique TV sets) in probably six years.

But... This forum is so full of people who whine and moan and groan about digital TV and nit-pick and concentrate on its relatively few drawbacks. Maybe I am in the wrong place.

Don't worry Chris, there are at least two of us that don't fear the transition
but actually look forward to it.

I must admit however that, since the cutoff date here in Canada is
still (barely) over three years away (August 31, 2011), i have yet to
see an ATSC signal being decoded.

One thing that keeps getting mentioned in this forum is causing me to
wonder: the worry about TV signals being harder to receive in a weather
emergency. It seems to me that radio, not TV, is the medium of choice
for weather emergencies, especially when you happen to be stuck in
your car. So instead of worrying about TV reception, get a good quality
AM-FM-WB radio, possibly with a crank generator, and get used to
radio stations in your area.

Good night to all.

I live near kansas city and tonight one of our local stations did a "DTV home test"

There was a big production where one of the anchors was in the control booth and explained to listeners that "the change is coming soon." She told everyone that she would be pushing a certain button, and that if reception was dropped, that you would be needing to buy a converter box or a TV with a digital tuner.
When she pushed the button, our picture remained clear,as we have a digital TV.
Just for kicks, we tuned in to the analog channel of the same station just to see what would appear to those without one.

Well, I guess you could say that "broadcasting" ended, except for the message accross the screen that said, "your TV signal will no longer be available after February 2009, call 1800 blah blah blah for your coupon.

Picture a screen full of static, with perfectly clear, advertisement-style wording in the middle of the picture.

Seems pretty weird to me....

Erin:scratch2:

I hear you on TV choices. When I was a kid, I couldn't wait to get home from school so I could watch He-Man and Scooby Doo. I also remember older shows like Gunsmoke, Little House, Dukes of Hazzard, Incredible Hulk, etc. playing on the local channels in the afternoon. That all changed when Oprah came on the seen. Now, all that comes on are courtroom reality shows and talk shows. I can only take so much of Judge Judy style shows and I don't care "who your baby's daddy" is! I can't believe that the American public can sit down and watch that same crap day after day. If someone locally would carry RTN or a similar network over DTV, I'd be one happy camper. Of course, that will probably never happen. Meridian, MS is the last place to get anything!

Yeah, tell me about it, those were the good days. At least with RTN, we have some of that back.

Don't worry Chris, there are at least two of us that don't fear the transition
but actually look forward to it.

I must admit however that, since the cutoff date here in Canada is
still (barely) over three years away (August 31, 2011), i have yet to
see an ATSC signal being decoded.

One thing that keeps getting mentioned in this forum is causing me to
wonder: the worry about TV signals being harder to receive in a weather
emergency. It seems to me that radio, not TV, is the medium of choice
for weather emergencies, especially when you happen to be stuck in
your car. So instead of worrying about TV reception, get a good quality
AM-FM-WB radio, possibly with a crank generator, and get used to
radio stations in your area.

Good night to all.

I guess count me in. At least here in the U.S., the government did address the problem with DTV boxes so we can enjoy our old stuff for many years to come. I'm watching the DNC convention on my old B&W as we speak. Come to think of it, pulling in our local NBC affiliate was like pulling teeth because no matter what, the picture was ghosty. So bad I watched NBC out of Steubenville, Ohio. Our ABC is tough to get, sometimes not able at all, so far, DTV does the job on those much better. It's a done deal anyways. Plus in bad weather, two of our station broadcast weather and radar and if those are not around, at least we still have AM/FM radio plus hams like me have VHF radios.

I live near kansas city and tonight one of our local stations did a "DTV home test"

There was a big production where one of the anchors was in the control booth and explained to listeners that "the change is coming soon." She told everyone that she would be pushing a certain button, and that if reception was dropped, that you would be needing to buy a converter box or a TV with a digital tuner.
When she pushed the button, our picture remained clear,as we have a digital TV.
Just for kicks, we tuned in to the analog channel of the same station just to see what would appear to those without one.

Well, I guess you could say that "broadcasting" ended, except for the message accross the screen that said, "your TV signal will no longer be available after February 2009, call 1800 blah blah blah for your coupon.

Picture a screen full of static, with perfectly clear, advertisement-style wording in the middle of the picture.

Seems pretty weird to me....

Erin:scratch2:
Eeesh......That IS wierd.

As to the comment about radio being the medium of choice in severe weather, I completely disagree. Here, when severe weather is around the local TV stations broadcast detailed radar images of where the storms are and where they are projected to be over the next hour or so. Radio cannot come close to this. The only way I would depend on radio is if I was stuck in a car or I had no way to power a TV. Even the so-called weather radios are not very good. We have one and if you allow the alarm to sound, it sounds for either a warning or a watch(should only sound for warnings, but you cannot turn the watch alarm off), like crying wolf in a crowded theater.

As a preview to how I think DTV will do in bad weather, I was at my mothers house in rural OK this last summer. Bad weather was coming in the middle of the night. She has satellite, so I turned on the TV to see where it was. Of course it kept on freezing up and crapping out. I finally was able to see that it had passed us, but if a tornado had been coming, I would have been blown away. She does not have a good outside antenna at present, so viewing analog TV was not an option.

Yet another preview (using actual DTV) occured here in the spring of this year. I was watching DTV in my workshop to see how well it works here. A line of thrunderstorms was approaching from the west. Guess what, I lost DTV completely with a frozen/screen, no sound for several(probably 10 or so) minutes. I turned on a TV receiving analog to see where the storms were-worked just fine the entire time.

Unfortunately, despite all of the TV stations and extra digital channels here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we do not have Retro TV. It sounds like a good channel, kind of like TV Land (is or was; I have not had pay satellite TV for nearly three years) but for free?

We do not get thunderstorms here, so I do not know how my digital reception might be affected, but I do have a question: It seems that the people most at risk in severe weather (I am thinking of tornadoes in particular) are those most likely to be in rural/outlying/spread-out areas, who therefore probably also need large and/or tall TV antenna installations if they do not have cable TV (unless they have satellite TV, the limitations of which are a whole other, unrelated, subject). Those tall antennas in spread-out areas are also the most likely to attract lightning strikes, I am sure. If I remember from my days living in the Midwest, wasn't it safest to always disconnect any outdoor antenna cables from your equipment during storms to protect it? How are people then trying to watch TV under such conditions? (Are they tuning in weak, snowy pictures on rabbit-ear-type antennas?) To keep watching a TV connected to a large outdoor antenna during an electrical storm, with a lightning-arrestor system or not, seems very dangerous (to the viewer(s) as well as to any connected equipment).

All my life, until about 5 years ago, I lived with outdoor antennas that were never unhooked in a storm. Never had a problem, but I know folks who did. Luck of the draw. Where I lived there were usually some tall trees nearby so that might have helped. There is something to be said for a very snowy but watchable picture. Here in my office I keep a 40 year old 12" bw set with just a UHF loop on the back. The reception isn't great, but when something big is happening (9-11 being the best example) it is more than good enough. I've reserved a converter box for here-I'm curious to see if anything will come in.
(analog tv has an impossibly low entrance fee. This old Philco-Ford cost me $2 back in the mid-90s.)

Regarding radio during storms: it can be a little iffy. The local stations have either no local news department at all, or just a minimal one. The only one nearby that makes an effort bascially just reads local AP reports (sounds like they are reading the headlines from the daily paper) and they run the same news all day without updates. Many times I have tuned in because of severe weather or a bad wreck on the highway or whatever, and instead of live, on-the-spot reporting of the impending catastrophe, they are playing Brittany Spears. Big help that's doing! The Baltimore/Washington stations are a lot better but are so far away that they wouldn't report something for this area unless it was a nuclear explosion. Meanwhile, the better of the 2 local TV stations does an outstanding job of covering breaking news and weather.

I lived in a rural area of Oklahoma until I went to college 30+years ago. Even then and at that long distance from the transmitter(70 miles) weather information was useful and receivable via an outside antenna. As bgadow indicates, we never disconnected the antenna. I only know of one instance where lightning struck a persons outside antenna(caused the tuner tubes to explode-but no fire). Of course all people have storm cellars there and get in them when extremely near. For some reason basements are not common there(or here in Texas).

Like bgadow, I find commercial radio to be useless in severe weather. The weather radio is a good concept(although I do not think it could ever replace TV) if it has been executed correctly. The problem is(at least with mine) that it alarms for both watches and warnings. You cannot change that-I asked the manufacturer. If you want to go to sleep during a watch(nothing in the area yet) you turn the alarm to silent and then you may sleep through an actual warning. You cannot seperate the two.

My mother still lives in rural Oklahoma area. She did have an outside antenna, but she has large trees near her house and the antenna and tree limbs collided during some windy days. We need to get her another one.

The area my mother lives in is on top of an old oil field and I do know of a few times lighting struck the oil storage tanks, but that is another story.

In SE Wi they are going to do the "soft test" on Fox 6 Sept. 15 at 5:15. I am really dreading this analog shutdown:thumbsdn:. I plan to record the test and when they finally kill off the wonders of analog so I can show my kids what tv used to be like and for old times sake:tears:

The soft test here in Pittsburgh is November 17th, 2008 at 6:25 PM

Well, the test is today in my area, It starts at 5:10 not 15. We'll see what it's all about, it's gonna look weird seeing channels I watched all my life go to static..... sad.

I am not sure when the DTV soft test will be here in northeastern Ohio, or if it has already been conducted and I missed it.

DTV on cable may be more reliable than DTV over an antenna (OTA), but reception can still run into trouble on cable in bad weather. Case in point: I was watching a football game yesterday evening during very windy weather (my lights went out several times earlier in the day). Several times, the picture simply froze on the screen for a very short period of time (less than a minute) and I saw some pixelization as well. I no longer have a digital cable box (returned it to the cable company last Saturday when I downgraded to expanded basic, channels 2 through 99), but the entire cable system (I have Time Warner cable service) has been converted to 100-percent digital (every subscriber gets digital signals regardless of whether he or she has digital cable), so I'm probably getting a converted (at the cable system headend) ATSC signal on my 19" RCA CTC185. One thing has me puzzled, though. I was watching the football game I mentioned above (Browns/Steelers) yesterday with a friend of mine who lives in a Cleveland suburb, and I was amazed that he could tell me what was going to be shown about two seconds before the same picture appeared on my set; that is, the picture appeared on his TV first (when he told me what was on), then showed on mine an instant later. We both have the same cable company (Time Warner). How on earth was or is it possible for the same picture to be delayed by only a second or two between TV sets in two different areas? I live in an area of Lake County, Ohio, some 35 miles east of Cleveland; my friend lives in a Cleveland suburb which is only about eight miles east of downtown.

I'm baffled. What on earth could cause a short delay as I just described on two TVs in areas 30+ miles apart, on the same cable system? :scratch2: My friend has a 25" RCA Guide Plus+ TV; my CTC185, as I mentioned, is basically the same set (without Guide Plus+) but with a 19" CRT.

It all depends on how many steps the signal has been through. Every time the signal is converted between digital and analog, it adds a second or two. Satellites also add a few seconds of delay.

I was listening to CSPAN radio tonight and they had an FCC commissioner discussing the Wilmington test. The only problem he talked about had to do with people not buying boxes yet, and a major shortage in local stores. Also issues with people who bought the box but hadn't hooked it up yet, or couldn't figure out how to hook it up. He didn't mention any reception issues. The reporter brought up the fact that some stations may not renew their agreements with cable companies after the switchover, and that in some cases the super bowl would only be available over the air.

I have noticed some improvement in digital reception in recent weeks, but then it could just be sunspots or whatever. I turned the tv on late Saturday night and analog was hot, with some stations I hadn't seen in awhile. I should have hooked up the converter box but I was getting tired. Tomorrow night I'm going to do another experiment. A group I belong to wants to watch a tv show in our temporary headquarters-no tv hookups. I'm going to carry a GE 'AB', my best rabbit ears, and a convertor box. I know that I can get an analog signal there but it likely won't be good enough for anyone but me. But if I can get a strong digital signal I will really be impressed. Then I'll drag in a big set for the event.

As Andy indicates stages of conversion add delay. If I have an analog and DTV converter set to the local NBC station here, the DTV version is at least 1second later than the analog.

In addtion, I have seen two DTV converters delay the signal differently. The delay is fairly small, causing an echo effect in the sound from the TVs attached to them.

I will not miss analog TV at all when it goes away in February. Nothing about it, zilch, zip. Nada. Digital is so much more stable and smooth, with more channels, has higher quality (not even to mention HDTV which makes SD analog really look like garbage by comparison). And, all this is on the same antennas I have used for analog TV, though I use a smaller antenna now for my all-digital reception. I started watching digital TV in 2000 and have not watched anything analog (except to test my antique TV sets) in probably six years.

But... This forum is so full of people who whine and moan and groan about digital TV and nit-pick and concentrate on its relatively few drawbacks. Maybe I am in the wrong place.

I am looking forward to the DTV transition, even though I do not yet have an HD flat-panel TV. The cable system serving my area is Time Warner, which has converted all its systems to 100-percent digital. Even though I no longer have digital cable (returned the box to TW last Saturday and downgraded to expanded basic, channels 2 through 99), I must still be getting remodulated signals (from digital to analog) on the service as I can still get every channel on TW's expanded-basic tier, with no problems. The only difficulty I've had so far (not counting when my area's cable service was first converted to digital earlier this year, when I noticed severe freezeups and pixelization on several occasions, the most notable of which, for me anyway, was when I was watching NBC news one evening very shortly after the conversion of our area's system had been completed) was during a football game last Sunday, during very windy weather here in northeastern Ohio. The picture froze on the screen for a very brief period (only a second or two--the only reason I noticed it was I was concentrating on the game so intensely) and also slight pixelization. Other than that, however, the picture was solid, steady, just what I expect from cable. In fact, since Time Warner converted its northern Ohio/northwestern Pennsylvania systems to full digital, I swear the picture on every channel (including all eight local broadcast channels) is sharper and clearer than it was when the service was all analog. Believe me, the difference can be noticed on an analog set.

BTW, you mentioned in a previous post that you do not have thunderstorms in your area of California. I find that difficult to believe. I would think that, as warm and downright hot as it can be in most parts of your state, you would get storms off and on all summer long. Hmmm. :scratch2:

Jeff, I agree that a digital signal converted to analog locally can look very good. This past weekend, I finally hooked up one of the $20 (after coupon) "Zenith" ATSC tuners with its Channel 3 output to my RCA CTC-16 color console, and the picture is fantastic, within the limitations of a CRT-based display. Great colors with no noise, and no ghosts of course. The other stunning result I got is that the box tuned in every local digital channel, with a set of 1960's rabbit ears! I only had maybe two channels where I had to rotate the antenna base perhaps 45 degrees to make the signal solid. I live about halfway between San Francisco and San Jose, across S.F. Bay so I am perhaps 25-30 miles from the stations in either city, but they all came in. The coolest part is that I don't even know for sure if the antenna is even intended for UHF reception (location of all but one of my digital channels). The antenna has only one 300-ohm ribbon cable and all the ones I knew for sure were made for VHF and UHF have had two separate cables.

Regarding thunderstorms... Some parts of California, like the mountainous east half of the state, get dry lightning storms that often cause bad forest fires; there were some bad ones in early summer. The coast parts of the state, at least the middle and southern parts, only get lightning along with rain, occasionally (maybe once or twice per year in any given area), in the winter. Most of California gets essentially no rain at all between April and October. Once the rainy season begins, though, sometimes it seems we get rain every day for a month, though.

As I have in-laws in California, I have been there several times. CA(and some other parts of the west) are probably the most ideal places for DTV reception. The only wind out there is the Santa Anna in the fall. In addition, the largest danger from California "winter storms" is mudslides(unless you are in the Sierras). This is not at all representative of weather east of the rockies.

East of the rockies, you have thunderstorms that bring down airliners(Dallas, mid 1980s), spawn tornados that damage high rise buildings beyond repair(Fort Worth) and you have hurricanes that that actually cause damage-not just let surfers have a good time. In addition to the storms, some areas have consistantly high winds(compare a wind energy map of Texas vs CA sometime). These are the conditions that give DTV hell. I have seen it crap out several times here when only mildly turbulant weather was occuring-analog continuing on, snowy, but useable.

I am not saying that California does not have its dangers(earthquakes and fires come to mind)-but with the execption of the Santa Anna wind, these either have no affect on DTV reception or having TV reception makes no difference in the outcome(earthquakes).

East of the rockies... you have hurricanes that that actually cause damage-not just let surfers have a good time.
:rolleyes: :nono:

I too live in S.E. Wisconsin and dread the changeover. My cell phones had to be changed from analog to digital about a year ago and the reception got worse not better. I have more drop outs and a hard time hearing the caller...same company just different service. If the TV change is going to be like the cell phone service it won't be a better thing in my opinion. By the way, the Zenith DTT901 box is easy to set up and use and I would recommend it. The Magnavox that Walmart sells isn't even close and doesn't tune in as well or have a better remote.

I agree that a digital signal converted to analog locally can look very good.

Ooops! I spoke too soon when I said all of Time Warner's channels were being broadcast in digital. I spoke over the phone with a TW customer service representative yesterday who told me that the broadcast channels were still being carried in the analog NTSC format, and will be until the digital transition is complete in February. (The image freezing and pixelization I referred to in my last post were being caused, most likely, by loose connections on cables which were being whipped around during our very windy weather last weekend.) However, the pictures still look much sharper and clearer on this cable system than they were before it was converted to digital, even if some or even most channels are still analog, so I am expecting nothing short of razor-sharp pictures after the transition. I think TW, and probably many if not most or all other cable systems in this country, are more than ready for the day when analog TV ends for good in the U.S.

As far as people "dreading" the digital transition are concerned, I don't believe it is worth getting upset over as it will happen on 02.19.2009, like it or not. I personally do not see why anyone should dread this change anyway, as we will still be able to use our old antique (and more modern, of course) analog TVs after the transition if they are on cable or satellite, or used with an ATSC converter if one still desires to use an antenna after the digital switch. The only differences will be that the pictures will not fill the screens of our 4:3 TVs, and that the channel selection will be done at the cable box or ATSC OTA (over the air) converter, with the television's own tuner set to channel 3 or 4 (whichever is not used by a local television station) and left there. We will no longer be able to change channels at the TV itself, but the use of a digital cable box or ATSC OTA converter box will allow us to have remote control on our treasured old sets, even if they are currently non-remote models. Most ATSC converters and cable boxes have remotes which control volume and mute as well as up/down channel selection, not to mention favorite channel memory and other features which will vary by manufacturer, so with an ATSC box or digital cable your old TV can be better than it ever was in the "old days" of NTSC analog.

As to the reception problems some of you have reported with ATSC OTA converters, I would say wait a while. Many of the digital subchannels of existing analog TV stations are not yet transmitting at full power, have antenna issues or both, which will limit transmission range. As an example, I live in an area of northeastern Ohio where analog TV reception on an antenna is fair at best, with one channel (WKYC-TV, NBC channel 3) not reaching here at all. This area is 610 feet above sea level and 35+ miles southwest of all Cleveland TV transmitters. (The city of Cleveland itself is only 660 feet ASL.) Given this situation, I don't hold out much hope for folks in my town who still use antennas; that is, their analog reception isn't all that great, and digital reception may well be worse or even non-existent on some channels. As it is, the best analog OTA signal in this area is on the CBS affiliate in Cleveland, WOIO-TV, channel 19 (the station comes in well here even on rabbit ears), so its digital subchannel should look fairly good as well even using simple antennas. However, the digital signals of the other seven channels (5, 8, 23, 25, 43, 55, 61) could be iffy or downright unwatchable, unless a very high-power antenna is used. Since cable and satellite offer much better reception, more channels, and no conversion worries, however (all digital-to-analog conversions will be done at the cable headend, and satellite is digital already), I would think anyone whose TVs are connected to these services will have absolutely nothing to "dread" or be concerned with when analog goes dark, as the transition will be completely transparent and seamless to viewers.

I dread it because where I am the reception is TERRIBLE! if a drop of rain falls the signal goes away! The other day, some effin birds landed on the antenna and it dropped the signal, this crap sucks! I hate to depend on a GARBAGE chineese made box that disgraces the name Zenith to watch the best American televisions ever made. In my opinion, these boxes aren't worth wiping my *ss with. I have a GIANT rooftop antenna with a rotator. I can pick up stations from MI and IN on analog but I cant get Chicago for sh*t on digital. I also like to use ultrasonic remote sets, not much fun unless you can change the channel to something other than 3! That is my rant for the day.

I dread it because where I am the reception is TERRIBLE! if a drop of rain falls the signal goes away! The other day, some effin birds landed on the antenna and it dropped the signal, this crap sucks! I hate to depend on a GARBAGE chineese made box that disgraces the name Zenith to watch the best American televisions ever made. In my opinion, these boxes aren't worth wiping my *ss with. I have a GIANT rooftop antenna with a rotator. I can pick up stations from MI and IN on analog but I cant get Chicago for sh*t on digital. I also like to use ultrasonic remote sets, not much fun unless you can change the channel to something other than 3! That is my rant for the day.


Interesting. How far are you from Chicago? I watch WGN-TV's midday news on cable and see/hear Kenosha mentioned every once in a while (mostly during the weather forecast), so you must not be too terribly far from the Windy City's television transmitters. As I mentioned in my post, however, the reason you cannot receive the digital subchannels of Chicago's analog stations may be and probably is due to the fact that the digital stations may not yet be transmitting at full power, and even if they were, they probably would be in the 100kW+ ERP (effective radiated power--actual transmitter power in watts multiplied by antenna gain in decibels) range. You can receive analog stations from Michigan and Indiana because their VHF stations likely run hundreds of kilowatts ERP, giving them wide coverage areas; most of the UHF stations may be and probably are running ERP outputs in the megawatt range as well, with comparable coverage. The maximum ERP for U.S. analog UHF television stations is five megawatts or five million watts; most stations run at least two megawatts, but some, such as Cleveland's MyTV affiliate, WUAB on channel 43 (analog), are operating at the limit, for maximum coverage.

I don't know how reliable or unreliable, good or bad, any of the OTA ATSC converter boxes are, beyond what I've read about them here in AK and elsewhere on the Web, as I don't have one (both televisions in my apartment are on cable). Like it or not, however, Chinese/Japanese/Korean-made OTA converters (and darn nearly everything else) are the rule, not the exception in this day and age of outsourcing.

Some of these converters are made and perform better than others. I hate to say this, but it may well be that the Zenith box you have is indeed a dud and not worth much. Why do you say your box is "garbage"? Reliability issues? Not receiving all the channels you had hoped it would (even with your deep-fringe antenna on a rotor), or receiving them with lower quality than you expected? :scratch2:

Again, as I mentioned in my post, if you are having trouble getting decent (or any) digital reception from Chicago or any other city in your area, forget the antenna and get cable or satellite. If you don't want to pay high rates for expanded basic cable that gets CNN, ESPN, etc. there is a level of service on most cable systems that gives subscribers only their area's local channels, a local access channel and possibly a local weather channel as well. The service is known by different names in different areas of the country; I don't know what the service is called on the cable system in your area, but here in northeastern Ohio, Time Warner Cable calls its bare-bones cable service "Lifeline Basic". This level of cable service costs something on the order of $12 a month in most areas, although I know
someone who only pays roughly $5 a month for her cable service, which is the Lifeline Basic service I just mentioned.

I'm sorry to hear about your problems with birds on your antenna spoiling your digital TV reception. As to the problems you mention with rain attenuating or downright eliminating the digital signal....well, that's a problem I guess we'll just have to live with until or unless the stations increase their signal output power.

I seriously doubt that DTV stations will ever be as powerful as today's VHF and UHF stations, but I think, in time, the digital stations will have signals powerful enough to cover their entire primary reception area, eliminating aggravating dropouts or other artifacts in the received picture. Digital TV is a very new technology with more than a few bugs to be worked out, one of which is reception range. DTV stations may never run anywhere near a megawatt (one million watts) of power or more, but eventually they will have signals that cover their intended area with city-grade reception.

I think the ten years it's been around has been more than enough to work the bugs out. I might be a little more accepting of it if the do in fact boost the power but only time will tell. I think they should keep things the way they are and give people the choice of analog or digital, the transmitters are already in use so why get rid of them. The stupid FCC made it law that they have to switch, I have yet to hear a good enough reason to shut it down, everyone says something different. All I hear are lame excuses to shove this up our *sses.

I am looking forward to it! Cable will be a thing of the past as networks start broadcasting from cell towers, one less bill(I hope)! Goverment working on free internet, sweet! I may be able to afford gas in a few years. All my TV's are 91 and newer so I did not need any boxes, let's do it now! Well, maybe a few weeks, I still wanna buy a rotator for my 15' beast and raise it 10'. I get dc, baltimore and some penn stations right now. Less than 5 months for local to fall in line.
Thx for all the reading material, enjoyed it.

Nothing is going to be free even the internet somebody has to pay the bill. I hate the thought of the goverment controling the internet or worse providing the service.

The one thing I was worried about after the NTSC shutdown is "blind" reception of TV signals when arriving in a new location, as when camping in my motorhome. This worry has now gone away. A few days ago, I was at my neighbor's house checking out his digital TV reception because he could not get some channels. His house is a single-story, with a bunch of three-story townhouses maybe 50 feet away between him and the direction of all the San Francisco TV stations. He has one of the tuners I have recommended here on AK (a Hughes HTL-HD), and it has a key on the remote control to bring up a signal strength meter. All I had to do was display the meter and move his rabbit-ear antenna around a bit, and when the signal went from 10% to above 60% on the scale, the channel came in fine. We did the same thing for another channel. One channel was VHF, the other UHF, so I found good positions for both. I don't know if my "Zenith" tuner has a similar meter, but if it does I figure all I will need for "blind" tuning is a list of channels from Antennaweb. The key is, the meter never went to zero on a channel with a digital signal. Manually selecting the actual channel (not the PSIP "pretend" number that matches the old NTSC channel) is the first step.

I am not against change that actually works for the better(i. e. fuel injection for automobiles), but am against change that is just driven by greed(as I believe this one is). I believe the average person who depends on broadcast TV will be worse off with DTV, especially in poor weather.

The DTV transition is not something that was proposed (and eventually enacted) entirely out of greed. This country's communications frequencies are badly overloaded and often unusable in dire emergency situations, as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina showed us. The freeing of 700 MHz of spectrum space will allow the FCC to reassign these frequencies to public safety and other services, so that communications problems such as I just mentioned will not happen again.

Whether or not the average TV viewer will be worse off with DTV than with analog, that's the way things will be starting next February (except for low-power and translator stations). There will always be radio for dissemination of emergency information, which I think is a better medium for such than television ever was. How many people, after all, are going to be able to see emergency warnings from the Emergency Alert System and/or local stations, weather radar maps, etc. on TV when they are forced from their homes by a tornado, hurricane or other natural disaster? This is also why Conelrad (the predecessor of the Emergency Broadcast System of the '50s-'80s and today's Emergency Alert System) never broadcast emergency alerts over TV, and does not do so even to this day (except for very short screen crawls from the EAS)--after all, again, no one should be thinking about watching television, even for emergency warnings or information, in the middle of a disaster. The first and foremost thing on anyone's mind in an emergency must be to get out of harm's way as soon as possible. In the 1950s, people in bomb shelters heard emergency information over battery-operated portable radios, not televisions, as the TV stations (what few there were back then) were probably all off the air. Today's EAS is no different. The EAS broadcasts over all stations in the affected area (no more fiddling with trying to find 640 or 1240 on a radio which may be out of alignment or does not have CD markings on the tuning dial), so anyone with a radio tuned to any of his/her area's local stations will get the emergency info they need to hear. No one is going to be trying to get a signal on DTV in the midst of an emergency; their homes, including the TV antenna (if they even have one) will be either severely damaged or destroyed anyway, so what is the use? Again, an emergency is definitely no time to be fiddling around with a DTV box, trying to get a signal that may or may not be there.

[QUOTE=zane;2129638]I am looking forward to it! Cable will be a thing of the past as networks start broadcasting from cell towers.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Where did you hear that?

The TV networks do not broadcast directly to the public (unless you can get their direct feeds via satellite; however, I think many or even most of those feeds are protected, by passwords or other means, from unauthorized reception), but through affiliate stations across the country. Not everyone has satellite service; in fact, most people in my small town still have cable. There are, however, a few folks here who do have satellite TVROs (television receive only) dishes, either on the roofs of their homes or, in one case, on a short pole in the front yard, probably not more than three or four feet above the ground.

I do not think cable will disappear any time soon, though I won't stick my neck out and say it will never do so--advances in technology may well spell the end of cable eventually, so your predictions may have some merit. Satellite is nowhere near universal (yet) as a means of receiving TV programming (there are exceptions, however, such as small towns in sparsely populated states not served by cable, and too far from standard television stations for decent reception), and there will always be areas where reception of signals from these satellites (or installation of a dish) is difficult or downright impossible, so I think there will be a market for cable television in America's cities and small towns for years to come.

The DTV transition is not something that was proposed (and eventually enacted) entirely out of greed. This country's communications frequencies are badly overloaded and often unusable in dire emergency situations, as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina showed us. The freeing of 700 MHz of spectrum space will allow the FCC to reassign these frequencies to public safety and other services, so that communications problems such as I just mentioned will not happen again.

Not to sound like an a-hole but they use "9/11" for an excuse to take away everything. I'm tired of hearing about "terrorists". They use it to scare us and take freedoms. The only real terrorist I see is George W Bush. Sorry to get political.

Watch it now, zenithfan, thems fightin' words!

I did my little digital test the other night up at our headquarters building. It's an old place with a metal roof. With my rabbit ears (well, the loop part of it) I could get the strongest of our local stations, but...I had to hold it upside down in mid-air about 3' from the TV while standing on one foot and singing "Macarena"...or something like that! And even then, it kept locking up. So, on to the next step. I'm going to try mounting a small reflector UHF antenna (about the size of a phone book) up on the flat roof and see if that will work.

Yeah, I suppose you're right Bryan. Just to clarify, my problem isn't with our country, just the people running it. Now, back to the original topic, politics can get ugly. My reception is getting a little better, It seems it is different when the box is in different locations, although I'm still hooked to the same rooftop antenna. I find this interesting. I think when I hook up in the different locations in the house it changes the length of wire causing me to lose a few Db. That can make a big difference. I noticed the garage is the best and also closest to the antenna which is on top of the garage. I also noticed the reception, like analog is much better at night. I will make with it the best I can but no one nothing can change where I stand on the death of analog. It is my favorite, I don't mind the snow when it has it. I think that is much better than dropping out altogether. I watched it all my life without minding it. I will post a pic here of the picture quality I can get at my house on analog from Chicago when I get home.
Mark

Cable/Satellite a thing of the past? I do not think so. So far I have gotten only one new non-weather station from DTV. Cable/Satellite will still be doing quite well.

As to using radio for emergencies-have you had your head in the sand? Show me a commercial radio station that broadcasts warnings for local emergencies such as tornados. I am sure that if we had a national emergency, it would be different, but for local weather emergencies, TV is what is used now.

I even have a weather radio. The way it is set up makes even it pretty much useless. The alarm fires for both watches(which you do not need) and warnings(which you do need). You either have an alarm when you do not need one, or if you turn it off, you do not have one when you need one.

This is an example of what a lot of the analog channels look like with the rooftop Winegard antenna. Tv is a 1978 13" RCA XL-100 CTC 87 tuned to Fox 32 WFLD Chicago.
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii90/zenithfan1/100_2781.jpg

Yeah, I suppose you're right Bryan. Just to clarify, my problem isn't with our country, just the people running it. Now, back to the original topic, politics can get ugly. My reception is getting a little better, It seems it is different when the box is in different locations, although I'm still hooked to the same rooftop antenna. I find this interesting. I think when I hook up in the different locations in the house it changes the length of wire causing me to lose a few Db. That can make a big difference. I noticed the garage is the best and also closest to the antenna which is on top of the garage. I also noticed the reception, like analog is much better at night. I will make with it the best I can but no one nothing can change where I stand on the death of analog. It is my favorite, I don't mind the snow when it has it. I think that is much better than dropping out altogether. I watched it all my life without minding it. I will post a pic here of the picture quality I can get at my house on analog from Chicago when I get home.
Mark

I've experienced that too where I get signals better at night. Sometimes I can receive Youngstown, OH and Altoona/Johnstown, PA on my DTT-900 box using a set of 1959 Rembrandt rabbit ears and a Commodore 1702 monitor as a TV.

High school kids are doing some neat stuff, can't imagine the college level.
What I am hearing is the cell phone will be your personal connection.
Dock it in your car for tv, watch espn or nick for the kids. Dock it at home for tv-internet there etc. Of course the goverment will know where you are always as a side effect. Sounds like it will happen fast once it gets rolling. More people that get the channels, the more they make, follow the $$$$$$$ signs they will.
The cable company will probaly adapt and survive, you are right.

I've experienced that too where I get signals better at night. Sometimes I can receive Youngstown, OH and Altoona/Johnstown, PA on my DTT-900 box using a set of 1959 Rembrandt rabbit ears and a Commodore 1702 monitor as a TV.

I have been using Commodore monitors to watch tv for years. They work great except they sometimes hate macrovision!:thumbsdn: I don't blame them.:D

So, did any one see the soft test?? I watched from an ant tv and dish, didnt see any test was I the only one who missed it?????

It looks like the soft test did not go as well as expected.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/26858298/

Tell me again why this change is being made?

The link is not working for me.

I just clicked on it and it works for me. It is copyrighted, so I do not want to just copy it.

The headline is "Complaints pour in after digital TV test" on MSNBC.

Interesting, still not working for me. Stupid MacBook....

Good lord this is hillarious!!!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/36608/talkshow-with-spike-feresten-cable-psa

I'm going to miss analog DX'ing and knob-turning when DTV fully takes over.

I'll second that. Some of my earliest childhood memories is how for a stretch of time we could get a TV station from Baltimore most mornings before our local signed on. (we lived on the North Shore of L.I. so that was a pretty good feat).

I haven't done any TVDX in many years but the thought of never being able to do it again leaves me sad. :tears:

Good lord this is hillarious!!!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/36608/talkshow-with-spike-feresten-cable-psa

Would be happy to watch it, but it's unavailable outside the U.S.A.
Makes you wonder why this is called World Wide Web...

OK, our local ABC affiliate did a 5 minute DTV soft test during the first part of the 10 o'clock news tonight. It was pretty much just a 5 minute message over the analog channel stating what was going to happen at 11:59 PM on 2/17 and if you were seeing this message, your set needed to be upgraded. They added that if you were seeing this message and you were using a cable or sat. provider; then, you needed to contact your provider and ask them when they plan to carry digital signals. Then, they gave some phone numbers to call if you needed help. I wonder how many calls they will receive due to the test.

I need to dig up 3 VCR's so I can record the bitter end for the 3 main stations.

I hope they do one of these "soft tests" when Chicago is living up to its name as the "windy city". I would like to see how many calls are received then.

I'll second that. Some of my earliest childhood memories is how for a stretch of time we could get a TV station from Baltimore most mornings before our local signed on. (we lived on the North Shore of L.I. so that was a pretty good feat).

I haven't done any TVDX in many years but the thought of never being able to do it again leaves me sad. :tears:

TV DXing will still be possible after the transition. It will only be a bit different than it is now; that is, you will see a picture only when the stations are strong enough to be watchable (not necessarily city grade).

What "local" TV station were you getting on Long Island? That area normally gets its TV and FM reception from New York City, unless your area had its own local TV station, as I think at least one city in that area has. I looked on TVRadioWorld.com and found that there is at least one TV station on the air on Long Island, on channel 55. I don't know if it's still there or whether its analog signal has gone off the air in favor of digital.

Cleveland had its DTV "soft test" a couple of weeks ago; I don't remember offhand what station ran it. I didn't see any kind of signal interruption since I have cable, nor did I see any messages to the effect that analog TV will end on 02.17.09. I guess the system was set up so that if you have cable, satellite or AT&T U-Verse, you would not see this message as these systems are prepared for the transition.

BTW, from the "here we go again department": The DTV transition will likely be pushed back yet again. First it was 2006, now it is February 17 this year, and who knows how far it will be pushed back the next time? I wish the powers-that-be in charge of DTV would make up their minds and stick to a firm date for the transition. I read a blog on Broadcasting and Cable.com recently, in which it was mentioned that some full-power analog TV stations have already discontinued analog broadcasts and are fully digital; further, the article stated that many if not most OTA TV stations have a firm commitment to end analog broadcasting on 02.17 even if the transition date is changed, meaning that they have already hired contractors to dismantle their analog antenna facilities and are also having their digital antenna systems optimized for full-power operation; this will almost certainly improve DTV reception in all parts of a television station's coverage area. The same article mentioned that an FCC official is against the date change because it will result in consumer confusion and other problems, so I just don't know whether they will eventually see the light and leave the transition to occur on 02.17 or if the date will be pushed back, resulting, as I said, in confusion and who knows what other problems. The National Association of Broadcasters, moreover, has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on public service announcements which state the DTV transition date as 02.17.09; these PSAs are still running on local TV stations. If the date is changed, these announcements will of course immediately be rendered incorrect, which will add to viewers' ire.

Sheeeeeeeeeeesh.

I, for one am glad they may delay the switch. They actually should do the switch as the UK is doing, in waves, not all at once. In this way, the lessons could be learned from the early switchers that could be applied to later switches. Another lesson from the UK switch-offer people who cannot receive DTV even with new TVs/Antennas, basic satellite TV-paid for by Verizon and other companies who benefit from the spectrum sale.

In addition, I think that the TV stations in Tornado Alley that dismantle their analog transmitters(instead of just turning them off) may be making a big mistake. If my experience with DTV in poor weather is any guide, they may want to turn them back on come April, May, June.

Good lord this is hillarious!!!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/36608/talkshow-with-spike-feresten-cable-psa


I'm very sorry, but I don't see the humor. What is shown in that Youtube video is actually what happens when some older people try to connect DTV converters to their TV sets. They usually wind up having a younger, more technology-savvy family member install the box for them.

Another thing that bothers me about that video is the title: "Sorry, old people--no TV for you in 2009". I beg to differ. Older people, just like the rest of us, will have television after 02.17.09, or whenever the transition will be; as I said above, if they have problems with or cannot understand the hookup instructions, they can always have someone else install the converter on their TV. I think many people will take this route anyway, as there are a great many folks out there of all ages who do not know a thing about TV beyond how to turn the set on and off, change the channel and adjust the volume. I know at least one person who is like that; most of us here on AK, as well, probably know people who don't know or care what goes on inside their sets or how anything is connected to them, as long as they can get the shows they want to watch. That is why today's TVs (at least the analog CRT sets of the '80s-'90s were like this; flat-panel HDTVs require professional calibration and setup, not to mention at least two people to lift and move the heavier sets) will work right out of the box, with a minimum amount of fussing with cables. With these sets all one need do is put the set on a stand, connect the antenna or cable, plug it in, turn it on and enjoy the programs.

I am not against change that actually works for the better(i. e. fuel injection for automobiles), but am against change that is just driven by greed(as I believe this one is). I believe the average person who depends on broadcast TV will be worse off with DTV, especially in poor weather. Digital in nature was not meant to be sent over the air. It's too sensitive of a medium to send the signal flawlessly. I think of Digital over the air broadcast similar to satellite service. Over the air DTV is just satellite service sent over broadcast towers on land instead of an orbiting satellite in space.

Digital in nature was not meant to be sent over the air. It's too sensitive of a medium to send the signal flawlessly.
...


This statement should be either withdrawn or sustained by serious
references. Don't turn a personal frustration into a smear campaign
against engineers and scientist that have been working decades to
tremendously improve your standard of living! Regards.

DTV isn't improving our standard of living, especially if you happen to live in a fringe area.

DTV is all about money, really.

My statement did not refer to DTV in particular, but to digital technology in general.
If anyone can prove to me that the most efficient approach to send a given
amount of data across a radio channel with noise and interference is an analog
modulation, be my guest.

Note: Morse code IS digital in some way, and all old fashioned hams will tell
you that it punches through the noise better than anything else...

I suspect that NASA uses digital to transmit data from Mars, etc to earth. However, in their case, you can use a very slow data rate and re-transmit as many times as you need(as well as use as many error correction bits as you want).

Modern cellphones are digital(hence the drop outs and such). But, just as with DTV, some people lost service in the conversion. My mother was one, she lives in rural area in Oklahoma and has not had decent cell phone service since analog cell phone service was discontinued.

Digital transmission is used for satellite TV, hence the weather issues with it. DTV is like satellite with ground proximity transmission issues added. (DTV could probably be as reliable as analog if the same amount of spectrum was used to transmit it. This "saved" spectrum is not really free-the un-reliablity of DTV(in poor weather, etc). is the cost.

Hawaii just converted today-we will see how they do.

I suspect that NASA uses digital to transmit data from Mars, etc to earth. However, in their case, you can use a very slow data rate and re-transmit as many times as you need(as well as use as many error correction bits as you want).

Modern cellphones are digital(hence the drop outs and such). But, just as with DTV, some people lost service in the conversion. My mother was one, she lives in rural area in Oklahoma and has not had decent cell phone service since analog cell phone service was discontinued.

Digital transmission is used for satellite TV, hence the weather issues with it. DTV is like satellite with ground proximity transmission issues added. (DTV could probably be as reliable as analog if the same amount of spectrum was used to transmit it. This "saved" spectrum is not really free-the un-reliablity of DTV(in poor weather, etc). is the cost.

Hawaii just converted today-we will see how they do. Yeah, Durring a major thunderstorm over the summer I was using DTV and had to switch back to analog because DTV was dropping out like crazy. When DTV works properly I think the picture quality is amazing for free over the air access.

My statement did not refer to DTV in particular, but to digital technology in general.
If anyone can prove to me that the most efficient approach to send a given
amount of data across a radio channel with noise and interference is an analog
modulation, be my guest.

Note: Morse code IS digital in some way, and all old fashioned hams will tell
you that it punches through the noise better than anything else...

Analog broadcasts are not as efficent as digital ones, but they're more reliable.

You can still hear and watch a DX broadcast even with a lot of static, with digital broadcasts, you get it perfect or you get nothing.

They also claim that DTV uses less energy than analog TV, but i think that the millions of converter boxes needed to watch DTV largely offset any such benefit

Here is a link to an article about the Hawaii conversion:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/TV_theater/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212901060&subSection=News

Especially note the paragraph staring with "Unfortunately"

As expected, people are losing their ability to get "over the air" TV because of the switch. The article also mentions issues in Maine.

Analog broadcasts are not as efficent as digital ones, but they're more reliable.

You can still hear and watch a DX broadcast even with a lot of static, with digital broadcasts, you get it perfect or you get nothing.

They also claim that DTV uses less energy than analog TV, but i think that the millions of converter boxes needed to watch DTV largely offset any such benefit

When we had to evacuate from Hurricane Gustav last August, the only constant info I could get out in the Mississippi countryside were TV audio (and sporadic video) on my 9" Philco-Ford. Daytime radio broadcasts from Baton Rouge & New Orleans were hit & miss at best.

As far as the energy argument, come on, modern CRT TVs don't use that much - remember the ads for solid state TV in the 70's saying they used less energy than a 100w light bulb? I would have to make a guess, based solely from the heat I've felt generated from the newer flat TV sets, that they are using a lot more energy than a common CRT TV in use today.

I just finished watching a 30 minute locally produced program aired by the local ABC affiliate concerning the DTV transition. The subject was brought up concerning a possible push back of the analog cutoff date. They said that they intend to turn off analog on 2/17 @11:59 PM unless there is a federal mandate that won't allow them to do so. They added that some stations may have no choice but to cut off analog on 2/17 due to technical and monetary reasons and a date change may confuse people who have had 2/17/09 beat into them for a year or two now. Also, they advised everyone to perform a channel scan on 2/18 because they would be moving their current UHF digital channel back to VHF and that other stations would be doing this as well.

Having some stations go DTV on 2/17 while others remain analog(in the same market)for a few more months may actually be a good thing. It would allow a large scale side by side comparison of the two technologys under many reception conditions.

I supposed the FCC should have done things like this already, but from my experience to date, it does not look like it.