This morning, I got a call from an older lady that I know and she was wanting to know why her TV wouldn't work. She went on to explain that she had some young guy in her trailer park move a TV to her bedroom where there is no cable. I explained to her why she wasn't getting any reception and then she puts the young guy on the phone. He said, "I connected her antenna to this TV and I can't get any reception". So, I had to explain things to him as well. Both of them were totally clueless as to the DTV transition and to the fact that a converter box would be needed if she planned on using that TV for OTA use. I guess some people weren't paying attention to the PSA ad's that ran for the past several years.

When I've told people I watch over-the-air television (pre and post digital transition) I've had a few people express surprise that "antenna TV" was still around, e.g. "I thought they got rid of that when they introduced cable".

-Jim

This is so true! I had one lady watch the PSA loop over and over after they turned off the main analog for a month until it went off. When I went to her house she was wondering how her TV played the same thing over and over.
I don't have cable, why do I need a box?

I just hope the FCC loses on their latest scheme-to take even more spectrum from broadcast TV.
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2009/10/21/daily.4/

If they succeed, broadcast TV could be severly limited and the consumer would be even more dependent on cable/satellite.

The pointy-headed bureacrats at Funny Cookie Company are too smart by half. Last weekend, we had a snowstorm of Biblical proportions here in NE Tennessee. Well, "Biblical" for us, anyway. Power went out, & there was NO news service to tell us whathehell to expect. Before, you could put 6 "D" cells in yr trusty 5" el-cheapo B&W set, & get SOMETHING...But not anymore. Radio service is "Shazbot", too, as virtually all the local stations use canned network feeds, there's practically NO meaningful local service anymore, either. Whatever happened to the notion of radio & TV service being a PUBLIC commodity ?!? Yeah, 95-98% of the time, service is FINE...But the 2% of the time it is down, that's when you really want/need it the most...And it ain't there anymore.

What's worse is if you don't have cable or satellite, you just won't get anything on your TV these days, unless you have translators or low power TV stations in your area, and as Sandy mentioned, radio is all but worthless in emergencies because many if not most stations run automated formats (there is a small 1kW station about five miles from here that used to be a really good local station, but it went to an automated gospel-music format a couple years ago and, needless to say, hasn't been the same since; more to the point, this station, and a small 0.5kW station near where I grew up that also went to automated satellite programming five years ago or so, would be less than worthless in any local emergency, since there probably is no one, except perhaps a couple of engineers, even in attendance at the stations during their broadcast day). We A/VK members know and respect that, but there are still plenty of folks out there (still too many, IMHO) who still have no idea whatsoever why their TVs don't work, even with fancy antennas on rotors, and who will not pay for cable or satellite service.

The post from Zenith26kc20 in which he mentioned that one person was actually watching, over and over again, a public service announcement that analog TV would end on 06.12.09, and continued to watch the thing (presumbably nothing else) until the station finally shut off its analog signal (the so-called "nightlight" service) for good a month later (and then wondered why her TV was getting only that one station) makes me wonder about the effectiveness (or, more accurately, the lack of it) of the advertising campaign every U.S. television station supposedly ran for some time before the digital transition on 06.12. These announcements either did not register with some viewers or they simply did not believe them. Needless to say, these folks had a very rude awakening on the morning of the DTV transition when they turned on their TVs to get, for example, the morning news, only to find snow (or a PSA telling them that analog transmissions of the station ended at 11:59:59 p.m. the night before and to call an 800 number for info on DTV converter boxes and other alternatives) on their TV screens where their local stations had been for decades. I'll bet TV repair shops across the country got a lot of calls that first week after the transition from people who actually thought their TVs were broken (hit by lightning, antenna blown down, etc.) because they couldn't get their stations anymore.

Hell, I live a mile from the transmitters - used to pick up analog without an antenna on some sets - and I put up an exterior aerial hoping it would pull a digital signal through a heavy rain.

There's a special place in hell for bureaucrats.

Remember that these idiots did the "let the marketplace decide" in selecting an AM stereo standard (and all crashed and burned), "broadband over powerline" which would RFI everything in the shortwave bands, and using "white space" empty TV channels for wireless computer links (a "low power" signal is gonna look like a flamethrower if it's next to your TV antenna, and blocks your TV's front end)... ...

This is so true! I had one lady watch the PSA loop over and over after they turned off the main analog for a month until it went off. When I went to her house she was wondering how her TV played the same thing over and over.
I don't have cable, why do I need a box?

This reminds me of a co-worker at my workplace.
I heard her complaining she could not get channel 20 anymore (WMYD, the local MY TV affiliate).

-At this point, let me note that WMYD stopped regular analog programming on the original 17 February transition date, at which time they aired a nightlight video of their own production, featuring the station manager as host.

I told my co worker she needed a converter box, and also asked her: "If you watch channel 20 a lot, didn't you see that video about the digital transition and converter boxes?".

She said: "I stopped watching 20 awhile ago, all they had, all the time, was this fat lady talking!" (ROTFLMREO).

The ultimate case, however, would be my wife. In her case, she heard about the digital transition ad infinitum, not just from the huge number of PSAs, but from her husband. She saw me borrow my brother's laptop so I could apply for my coupons the moment the crystal ball dropped on Times Square, and saw me write reviews for the converter boxes in (another) net forum.

I had set up a box on her set to get some OTA stations that the analog cable she had on her set did not carry (the picture is also a little better than the analog cable, too).

The day after the transition, she asked me what cable channel carried a station she had been using the CECB to watch. I told her to turn on the box. She said: "why would I want to do anything with the box anymore", I turned on the CECB and went to her channel. She told me she was not supposed to be able to use OTA anymore, I explained "you've got the box, this TV is converted!".

She then laughed and said: "Forgive me for this, I didn't realize these damned boxes you've been buying would allow me to use the antenna after June 12th!".

This whole business reminds me of what kids nowadays call it when a major snafu occurs-Epic Fail. We have the "lights" go off fairly frequently 'round here-and for all our vaunted technology, we're as "High 'n' Dry" a lot of times as they were in 1850...Well, maybe not that far back, 'cause usually you can get in yr car & reconnoiter about, but honestly, we were MUCH better off in the antediluvian '60s, '70s, & '80s BEFORE they foisted all this newfangled hi-tech, hi-promo-chromo-domo-gizmo "Digital" crapola on us. "Progress" sometimes ain't all its cracked up to be...At least back then, MOST of the time, the phone still worked if the lights went out...There was a LOCAL bumpkin on the radio, not some silver-tongued devil outta LA, Noo Yawk, Chicogguh...And again, if you had a battery operated TV, you COULD get semi-local info out of the clunky-ass old analog station...As usual, none of this was well-thought out by The Powers That Be...I can only imagine what our precious digital world will be like if/when we have a REAL major disaster, not just a moderately bad snowstorm...And I had Lauriann's cell phone, she called me from some guy in the parking lot where she stayed, we got about 3 apiece in before the damthing started doing its Leroy Jetson imitation-"Eep Opp, Ork, Ahh-Ahh..." which seems to be std operating proceedure w/a Cellfone when you REALLY want to/need to talk on one of the abominable things.

One huge problem with DTV is that many times, clear signals cannot be received on antennas unless you move them around, on top of the TV or even in the room where the set is located. This is a real problem with so-called "portable" digital TV sets. I've seen flyers in my Sunday paper for department stores that have been advertising 7" digital TVs from a Chinese (or Korean) company called Haier. In one such ad, there is a disclaimer: "This TV is portable, but must be stationary to receive the digital signal."

There is, however, one thing I really like about DTV on cable: the picture is much sharper and clearer than analog (even on analog TVs), and there is no snow, ghosting or other interference. Say what you will about the other shortcomings of DTV, but one thing this new technology does give us is better picture quality and better audio, the latter through the use of Dolby noise reduction and 5.1-channel surround sound.

IMHO, once the OTA signal-strength problems (in fringe areas, etc.) are resolved, the entire DTV system will be better than NTSC ever was, except of course for the loss of emergency information on radio (even with the Emergency Alert System) if the DTV stations go off the air or if there is a power outage. Radio stations no longer carry emergency news bulletins, most stations now being automated. This is one major downfall of the DTV transition that I feel must be addressed and corrected immediately; as it is now, if the DTV stations are knocked off the air in an emergency or a natural disaster, there is really no way to get the word out to the public in a timely manner that there is a problem. This could be (and if, Heaven forbid, such a scenario ever plays out, probably will be) disastrous.

BTW, in reference to Sandy's remarks regarding spotty cell-phone coverage: Your area of Tennessee must have dead spots where cellular telephones do not work or, if if they do work at all, the service is so unreliable as to be unusable. I live in a small town in northeastern Ohio, 35 miles east of Cleveland near Lake Erie (as stated in my mini-profile near my name on A/VK's home page) that has excellent cellular coverage (I have AT&T cellular service) throughout my area. I think it's too bad that areas such as yours have such unreliable cell service; cellular telephones are very often used in emergency situations where good coverage of the area involved is imperative. I sincerely hope that you have never had (and never will have) situations in which you or your wife have needed the cell phone in an emergency, only to find there is no signal. Cellular telephones are wonderful devices, but they won't be 100 percent reliable in emergencies until every square mile of this country has access to cell service that doesn't drop out. One of the satellite television services in my area advertises that its system provides 99.9-percent reliable signals to its subscribers; why on earth can't cellular telephone service be like that too? :scratch2:

Even if DTV stations do not go off the air, reception of DTV (and satellite) is so poor in severe weather that getting over the air weather information can be impossible. From what I have read, there are severe reception problems on DTV in the lower VHF range(even in good weather), with several stations requesting (and being allowed to by the FCC) to move to the UHF band. I have also ready that there are antenna size issues with using the lower VHF band for mobile apps.

For the above reasons, I think re-allowing analog NTSC transmissions on the lower VHF bands should be considered. At least reliable weather information via TV could possibly be available again. I do agree that DTV had many advantages, such as HDTV, co-channels, etc. and should be continued. However, as pointed out above, DTV has major (possibly even life threating) dis-advantages also.

As to weather radios-they are fine(except for the loss of visual information) if you are awake and know storms are in your area. I have one and the idiots who designed it did not allow the alarm to be turned off for watches. (The alarm is on for both watches and warnings). I wrote the manufacturer and then indicated that the system is built that way. As mentioned by others, commercial radio is now worthless in emergencies.

I would not say every radio station no longer carries local news and emergency information. Maybe in small markets. In LA the TV stations also monitor KFI, KNX, KABC and KFWB. Power house news/talk stations all on the AM dial. KFI and KNX are50,000 watt blow torches. KFI still beats most of the FM stations in ratings I never thought that would be possible in a digital world. There never will be analog NTSC full power TV in the US again just won't happen. In fact I wonder how long DTV will stay on the air.

Traditional TV is also being challenged by Internet TV - which makes me wonder about the fundamental wisdom of DTV replacing analog transmissions. Spectrum reallocation is essentially a money grab anyways. In the end, we'll see a convergence to IP backbones, large IP pipes connected to 4G wireless service providers offering voice/data services via portable devices. A large screen 1080p TV display (or whatever) will simply be an add-on accessory to plug-in to your mobile communicator/computer.:D

All of these technology advances are great, but let's not forget that there are people in the US who do not now and will never have anything to do with computers, or anything connected with them. Television stations and networks may have to use high technology because it helps their ratings (especially in very large cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, where every station virtually copies what every other station does; this is also happening in smaller TV markets such as Cleveland--all three network stations in this area have news sets that look almost exactly like those at the networks with which the stations are affiliated), but I don't think it is fair to force the public to keep up with technology--in this economy, many if not most people cannot afford to buy new equipment every time the technology changes. I, for example, live on a fixed income and am fortunate to have been able to afford the equipment I have now, all of which is over a decade old. I had to replace my DVD player last year with a $40 Memorex player because the first one (which was, IMHO, built much more solidly than the Memorex) quit after only three years (!); I'm hoping my Memorex unit lasts a bit longer (it's just over a year old and still works very well as I write this). I do not have a Blu-ray player because all my DVDs are standard ones, and I don't have a flat-panel HDTV either so I would not notice most of the improvements Blu-ray discs make over ordinary DVDs.

What's next, I'm afraid--used older analog TVs being declared illegal? It wouldn't surprise me. The government has already set a date by which incandescent light bulbs (except very low-wattage ones, such as appliance bulbs) can no longer be sold in this country, so who is to say that analog televisions, even used ones offered for auction on eBay or Craigslist, will or won't be next? Back in about 2005 or so, TV stations were already making announcements that ordinary TVs would not work after a certain date the following year, because of the impending (or so the FCC had intended) switch to DTV at that time. That deadline came and went and the issue was still being talked about to death until 2009, when a so-called "hard date" for the DTV transition had been set--February 17 of that year. That date was pushed back because of problems with the (now defunct) DTV converter-box program, and the FCC's fears that many people would not be ready for the transition in time. The date was changed to June 12 this year and...yup, you guessed it...there are still many, many people out there who do not know why their televisions don't work anymore or can only get a couple of low-power stations. Many of these people are, like myself, on fixed incomes and cannot afford cable or a new flat-panel TV, and it is almost impossible to get DTV converters in stores anymore (I think the latter was planned so that people would be more or less forced to get cable or a new television, whether they like it or not).

The method most cable operators, including Time Warner in my area near Cleveland, currently use to accomodate viewers who do not want or cannot afford digital cable is to convert the digital signals to NTSC analog on an as-needed basis, but I think that is just a stopgap measure until all the analog sets give up the ghost. The ATSC->NTSC conversions may well be discontinued in a few years; anyone still having analog televisions at that time will be out of luck. As I said above, the FCC eventually may well declare analog TVs, even older ones, obsolete and illegal to own; it wouldn't surprise me if such a scenario plays out in the not-too-distant future. Since all television is now 100 percent digital (translators and low-power stations excepted, for now anyway), any analog set not connected to cable/satellite or to a converter box and antenna will not work, so there is almost no point in having older sets unless you are able to 1, afford cable or 2, hook the old sets to a converter. I think the government wants to stop that in its tracks and force every US citizen to go digital, flat-panel, home theater......whether they like it or not.

What's next, I'm afraid--used older analog TVs being declared illegal? It wouldn't surprise me. The government has already set a date by which incandescent light bulbs (except very low-wattage ones, such as appliance bulbs) can no longer be sold in this country, so who is to say that analog televisions, even used ones offered for auction on eBay or Craigslist, will or won't be next?

This is about the craziest conspiracy I've heard in a long time. Do people actually think that the government is going to ban the use of analog TVs? Really the government, the FCC or whoever isn't going to care about what kind of TV you use. If you choose to use an analog TV, just get a box or a DTV tuner, or whatever. Yea so the coupon program is over, but the converter boxes are still easy to find. Can't afford one? Well I just saw some at the local pawn shop for $20 each. Like it or not, DTV is here. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people who at this point in time don't yet know about the transition. Do they live under a rock? If they actually watch TV enough to warrant even possessing a television, they were subjected to the same annoying DTV PSAs that we all were. If they didn't do anything about them, didn't understand what the ads were about but didn't ask anyone for help, or chose to ignore them, well that's just unfortunate. Yes, there was plenty of time for people to act and prepare themselves for the transition.

The method most cable operators, including Time Warner in my area near Cleveland, currently use to accomodate viewers who do not want or cannot afford digital cable is to convert the digital signals to NTSC analog on an as-needed basis, but I think that is just a stopgap measure until all the analog sets give up the ghost. The ATSC->NTSC conversions may well be discontinued in a few years; anyone still having analog televisions at that time will be out of luck.

Cable operators deal with a limited amount of bandwidth. With many providers, they've began reaching capacity limits, yet want to ad additional services. Therefore it makes sense to remove analog video channels that take up 6MHz of bandwidth each, and replace them with digital services (video and otherwise.) See, using digital technology you can pack more channels into the same space ordinarily occupied by one analog channel. So, that's why you see channels being taken away from "basic cable." This is something that is inevitable so if you're going to subscribe to basic cable, you're just going to have to learn to live with it. To say that you won't be able to use an analog TV with cable is wrong as well, unless you're thinking of years from now into the future. Yes, even if analog basic cable goes away, you'll still be able to plug your analog TV into a cable box.

I think the government wants to stop that in its tracks and force every US citizen to go digital, flat-panel, home theater......whether they like it or not.

Ridiculous!

Well put! The government isn't going ban the ownership, sale or use of analog TVs!
Likewise, feel free to continuing using incandescent light bulbs. It's just the production and sale of new ones that will be phased out. Horde away if you'd like to keep using them. They haven't made vacuum tubes in many years yet most of us on this forum use them everyday :)

<snip>
I do not have a Blu-ray player because all my DVDs are standard ones, and I don't have a flat-panel HDTV either so I would not notice most of the improvements Blu-ray discs make over ordinary DVDs.

If you don't have an HDTV, then Blu-Ray is of no benefit to you.

You should be aware, however, that Blu-Ray should not obsolete your DVD collection. Currently, all Blu-Ray players will play your existing DVDs just fine (in 480p, or course). IIRC, The patent holders will not license Blu-Ray player production unless DVD compatibility is provided.



What's next, I'm afraid--used older analog TVs being declared illegal? It wouldn't surprise me. The government has already set a date by which incandescent light bulbs (except very low-wattage ones, such as appliance bulbs) can no longer be sold in this country, so who is to say that analog televisions, even used ones offered for auction on eBay or Craigslist, will or won't be next?

I doubt this very much.
Incandescents are under attack because they are not efficient producers of light. They produce much more infrared (which cannot help one see anything), than visible light (one may argue that in a cold climate, this is not a total waste, as the heat from the incandescents would mean a little less fuel used by your furnace).
Moderately old CRT TV sets (i.e., solid-state chassis with CRT) are usually MORE efficient than flat panel displays (especially 1080p plasma models).



Back in about 2005 or so, TV stations were already making announcements that ordinary TVs would not work after a certain date the following year, because of the impending (or so the FCC had intended) switch to DTV at that time.


They did not warn that ordinary TVs would not work, they warned that people would have to get cable or satellite if digital tuners continued to be unavailable.


That deadline came and went and the issue was still being talked about to death until 2009, when a so-called "hard date" for the DTV transition had been set--February 17 of that year. That date was pushed back because of problems with the (now defunct) DTV converter-box program, and the FCC's fears that many people would not be ready for the transition in time.

I don't think anybody thought the converter box/coupon program was the problem.

The problem was the abysmal lack of motivation among the people affected to get to a store before their coupons expired.

<snip>
I do not have a Blu-ray player because all my DVDs are standard ones, and I don't have a flat-panel HDTV either so I would not notice most of the improvements Blu-ray discs make over ordinary DVDs.

If you don't have an HDTV, that Blu-Ray is of no benefit to you.

You should be aware, however, that Blu-Ray should not obsolete your DVD collection. Currently, all Blu-Ray players will play your existing DVDs just fine (in 480p, or course). IIRC, The patent holders will not license Blu-Ray player production unless DVD compatibility is provided.



What's next, I'm afraid--used older analog TVs being declared illegal? It wouldn't surprise me. The government has already set a date by which incandescent light bulbs (except very low-wattage ones, such as appliance bulbs) can no longer be sold in this country, so who is to say that analog televisions, even used ones offered for auction on eBay or Craigslist, will or won't be next?

I doubt this very much.
Incandescents are under attack because they are not efficient producers of light. They produce much more infrared (which cannot help one see anything), than visible light (one may argue that in a cold climate, this is not waste, as the heat from the incandescents would mean a little less fuel used by your furnace).
Moderately old CRT TV sets (i.e., solid-state chassis with CRT) are usually MORE efficient than flat panel displays (especially 1080p plasma models).



Back in about 2005 or so, TV stations were already making announcements that ordinary TVs would not work after a certain date the following year, because of the impending (or so the FCC had intended) switch to DTV at that time.


They did not warn that ordinary TVs would not work, they warned that people would have to get cable or satellite if digital tuners continued to be unavailable.


That deadline came and went and the issue was still being talked about to death until 2009, when a so-called "hard date" for the DTV transition had been set--February 17 of that year. That date was pushed back because of problems with the (now defunct) DTV converter-box program, and the FCC's fears that many people would not be ready for the transition in time.

I don't think anybody thought the converter box/coupon program was the problem.

The problem was the abysmal lack of motivation among the people affected to get to a store before their coupons expired.

I do not dis-like DTV. I just want it to be as reliable as the old analog system. It is far from that, especially in poor weather(In fact, it was just windy here yesterday and DTV was cutting out). This is why I think completely banning analog TV broadcasts was(and is) a stupid idea. I understand the bandwidth savings and think that banning analog TV broadcasts from most of the TV spectrum is a good idea. To at least allow severe weather warnings broadcast over the more reliable analog TV system seems like a good idea to me.

I also think the ban on incandescent lamps is also stupid. There are some applications where incandescent is better than the fluorescent. A better idea would have been to tax the incandescent ones so that there prices are higher than fluorescent. This would allow users who really need the incandescent ones to purchase them.

However, I do not believe in any conspiracy that will ban analog TVs. I do believe that Congress has been sold a bill of goods by industries with only their self interest in mind, resulting in the above stupidity. How common is that(HA).

I do not dis-like DTV. I just want it to be as reliable as the old analog system. It is far from that, especially in poor weather(In fact, it was just windy here yesterday and DTV was cutting out). This is why I think completely banning analog TV broadcasts was(and is) a stupid idea.

You probably need a better antenna!!!!!!

You probably need a better antenna!!!!!!

On a windy day, and if the DTV station in question has its broadcast antennas atop a tall tower, that tower may sway in the wind enough to screw up a good percentage of otherwise excellent receiving antennas. If the tower sways a half or more of the wavelength of the DTV station's carrier frequency, ghosts will be constantly changing. And receivers' ghost canceling will be trying to keep up, but never arrive at a good solution for canceling the ghosts, and thus no reception. An answer to this is a very directional antenna aimed at the tower, directional enough to get the ghosts way down.

wa2ise -

I didn't think that ghosting (as we used to know it with analog TV) was a problem with DTV signals (the cable system in my area, Time Warner, is 100 percent digital, has been for a couple years now, and I have yet to see any ghosts whatsoever on any channel I get here), unless you're referring to reflections of DTV signals off walls and such that cause dead spots and other reception problems, when trying to receive DTV signals over the air with an antenna.

I have no experience with OTA DTV reception, having had cable as long as I've lived here, but I do understand that it is much more difficult, even in strong signal areas, to find a spot for an indoor antenna that will result in said antenna bringing in a usable signal on any given channel. This is due, of course, to the all-or-nothing nature of DTV; there are no degrees of reception quality as there used to be with analog--with DTV, either you have a picture or you don't. This is not to say cable systems are immune to occasional signal dropouts or distortion; I've seen it happen on the cable system in my area, and I'm sure it happens with other systems as well.

I think the occasional dropouts, pixelizations, etc. that occur with OTA DTV may be just the nature of digital TV, and we're just going to have to live with it. Cable systems are set up to deliver strong, clear signals to their subscribers 99.9 percent of the time, but let us never forget that OTA DTV signal quality at the set is always at the mercy of weather conditions, as well as the antenna used to receive the desired channels. For example, I live in an area of northeastern Ohio that is some 40 miles southwest of the TV transmitters serving Cleveland. I don't really know what the OTA DTV reception situation is like in this area, as I have never had my TV on an antenna (except for very brief tests after the DTV transition) since moving here ten years ago, but knowing that I am quite a distance from the transmitters I wouldn't count on getting reliable reception from every Cleveland station with an indoor antenna. For example, channel 3 in Cleveland is the NBC affiliate for northeastern Ohio, but its signal apparently does not reach my small town; there is (or was, before the DTV transition) no picture whatsoever on this channel (in analog), either on my set or on a TV at the local supermarket three blocks from my apartment, in both cases using indoor antennas. I have no idea whatsoever whether the DTV signal from this channel (or any other Cleveland television station) would or would not be watchable in my area, as again I have never used an antenna for daily viewing on either of my TVs since I have lived here. There is a bowling alley down the street from me that has, mounted on a chimney, a high-power TV antenna on a rotor (as far as I know at this point, they do not have cable), but I'm not sure how good or bad their DTV reception is. I have never been in the building, so don't know how many televisions they may have. They may and probably do have at least one, if they have an outdoor antenna; if so, it may well be a flat-panel HDTV which, of course, demands a very strong, clear signal to produce any kind of watchable picture. The antenna being on a rotor makes me think that, in the days before DTV, they used to be able to get stations from 100 miles away (in my area, this radius would include Erie, Pennsylvania to the east and Toledo, Ohio to the northwest as well as Cleveland to the southwest), but these days I don't see them getting much other than Cleveland stations; even those may be iffy, even with that high-power antenna.

"All or nothing"- That in a nutshell, says to me, all that's wrong w/this digimess...At least analog had a "limp-home" mode, you might not get a perfect signal, but you could get SOMETHING. W/digital, there's NO "Plan B", its this way or the hiway...And maybe this is silly, but one thing I really enjoyed about 20 yrs ago was taking my trusty JVC CX-500US "All-in-one" 4.5" color set, cassette, AM-FM up on top of "Dump Hill" w/a bunch of my buds, we'd sit up there & watch "Hill Street Blues"...On the station out of Galax, Virginia...Or Winston-Salem, NC...Or Greenville, SC...Instead of on Channel 5 out of Kingsport...DXing TV, hey, it was something to do...

I live on a hill, I have the next to the largest Channel Master antenna built on a 30 ft mast with an amplifier, I've also ran new RG-6 from the antenna to the converterbox a distance of about 55 ft. My problem is the stations I usually received snow free in analog looks great until there is a thunderstorm between me and the stations (by the way these stations are 60-75 miles away) when there is a lightning strike anywhere the picture just breaks up and freezes to the point the station is useless. The channels in question are in the high VHF spectrum channel 8 and 12. We have a local UHF translator that is running 1000 watts digital that just repeats an Illinois station too far away for any meaningful weather report. I have Direct TV and have local channels, I'd hoped to be able to get OTA signals when we experienced rain fade but OTA goes out before satellite. In my experience OTA DTV is not reliable in fringe areas during bad weather.

On a windy day, and if the DTV station in question has its broadcast antennas atop a tall tower, that tower may sway in the wind enough to screw up a good percentage of otherwise excellent receiving antennas. If the tower sways a half or more of the wavelength of the DTV station's carrier frequency, ghosts will be constantly changing. And receivers' ghost canceling will be trying to keep up, but never arrive at a good solution for canceling the ghosts, and thus no reception. An answer to this is a very directional antenna aimed at the tower, directional enough to get the ghosts way down.

Yes, I know about multipath! Most of the newer DTV converters and tuners are way better at multipath rejection than the older ones are. That's why I replied that the poster needs a better antenna. When it all comes down to it, a vast majority of the people who complain about DTV have the wrong antenna for their situation. They're trying to use lousy rabbit ears, or they're trying to receive UHF with a VHF antenna or vice-versa, or the antenna isn't pointed correctly, or they need a preamp or have too much amplification or whatever. It goes on and on.

000

I am very aware that a better antenna would help this particlular TV(It only has rabbit ears). I only live 30 miles from the transmiters. What a want to point out is that we had a simple system that worked well and was reliable in most weather conditions and the politicians threw it all away. In addition we did not throw it all away to free up bandwidth for emergency systems, we threw it away so large phone companies can enrich themselves further at our expense. This is stupid. We did gain some things such as HDTV and co-channels(when DTV works), but is that worth makeing over-the-air TV completly unreliable in severe weather. I think not.

Now the FCC is proposing to take even more spectrum from the TV broadcasters and sell it to companies to enrich themselves even further(at our expense again). This has to stop.

We Americans seem to love to over-complicate things. Another example is the guns we supply our troops with. Ever since the Vietnam era, I have heard of our troops having issues with their firearms that seem to be-re-designed every few years. All the while the people we are fighting are using AK 47s that were designed in 1947 and doing as well or better than our troops. Sometimes things are good enough and the suggested "improvements" are illusions.

I am very aware that a better antenna would help this particlular TV(It only has rabbit ears). I only live 30 miles from the transmiters.

There's your problem!! You certainly need a better antenna. I wouldn't rely on rabbit ears in your situation.

Give me a break. I am only 30 miles(not 70) from the transmitter. Rabbit ears work just fine most of the time. The fact that they do not work when it is windy lets me know that people in rural areas(who are 70+ miles from the transmiter) have hell getting DTV in poor weather, even with a good antenna.

I have friends in rural areas and they complain of not receiving DTV even in just foggy weather. In addition, many stations(including one from the area I grew up in) are requesting and getting(from the FCC) permission to move their transmitted frequencies and to change their transmission power levels. If having a good antenna was the only isssue with DTV, this would not be going on.

I'll have to jump in and say from my experiance, DTV, is sh*tty.
I live in Omaha, less than 15 miles from the transmiters. I do have cable TV, but have always had one TV in the house NOT hooked to cable in case the cable went out.
For the most part, when DTV works, it works well. However..... Omaha just had a blizzard over Christmas, and all the channels were cutting in and out like crazy.
With analog, ALL stations came in well, and NEVER cut out. Hell... my 64 RCA roundie, which is in the basement, would pull in stations without an antenna.
DTV hasn't been that big of an issue to me since I have cable, but I would hate to rely on it 24/7.
I suppose a better antenna would solve some of the issues, but c'mon... All that hassle for a 9" RCA kitchen set. Really??????

I'll say it again - I think it speaks volumes:

I can see the transmitters from my yard - 1 mile away. A good set would pull in an analog color picture without an aerial. Digital breaks up in heavy rain on a set hooked to an outdoor antenna 20 feet in the air.

At least I have strong weather band reception, a great geographical knowledge of the area and even a local radio station that breaks in most of the time. Unfortunately, the majority of America is rural and may not have such assets.

so what happened to all the analog transmission equipment? deep six? sent to mexico? China? I wonder if analog had a similar learning curve or if it was better thought out. One thing is for sure, the folks that figured it out must have been brillant, the fact that a B&W set could work from the 1930's thru last year speaks volumes on how wel thought out it must have been. That and the fact that color was introduced AND remained compatible with B&W sets.

Seems things were built to last, and be repaired when needed, rather than thrown away when broke or made obsolete by some new non compatible formats. I would think that with all the concern about conserving resources I hear all the time, a little more thought could go into making things to last.

No fan here, I get pefect pics/no pics/perfect pic/pixelated pic.... granted I do not have a whiz bang antenna, but never needed one before, I could get all my local stations just fine with a pair of rabbit ears not so now.

no more whining from me... time marches on :)

I'll say it again - I think it speaks volumes:

I can see the transmitters from my yard - 1 mile away. A good set would pull in an analog color picture without an aerial. Digital breaks up in heavy rain on a set hooked to an outdoor antenna 20 feet in the air.

At least I have strong weather band reception, a great geographical knowledge of the area and even a local radio station that breaks in most of the time. Unfortunately, the majority of America is rural and may not have such assets.


An outdoor antenna on a 20-foot tower or mast seems to me like overkill in your area, even with DTV. If you are only a mile from the transmitters, you are almost certainly getting much more signal than you need for good reception. The only thing I can think of that might cause your problem is that there are trees or other obstructions in your yard, between your TV antenna and the transmitters, that may attenuate the signals, especially in the spring and summer when the leaves are on them. Another possible cause of dropouts is when the trees move in the wind. I don't know how much wind you normally get in the New Orleans area, but if you have gusts or sustained winds of 30-40 mph or more, any trees in the area will sway, causing dropouts and other artifacts in your DTV picture. Another thing that can mar your DTV reception (this is probably what you're referring to) is rain itself. Even with DTV signals as strong as those in your area, I'm sure heavy rains can wreak havoc with these signals, whereas with analog TV we never used to have such difficulties--analog TV signals were not, as a rule affected by rain or snow. I had an aunt who lived in a southwestern suburb of Cleveland; she had excellent TV reception (analog in those days, mid-late 1960s), both in black-and-white and in color, even without an antenna. This was hardly remarkable or surprising, however, as the suburb in which she lived was only about two or three miles (if that much) from the transmitters. She probably had every bit as much signal, if not more (!), in her area from the Cleveland television stations as you have in your area near New Orleans.

Have you considered cable or satellite? This may be your only solution to the problem you seem to be having. I seem to remember you stating some time ago in this forum, in no uncertain terms, that you will not pay for cable under any circumstances. However, with the OTA DTV reception problems you seem to have, you may have no choice but to bite the bullet and get the service--even if you only get basic cable (broadcast channels only). Today's cable and satellite systems are over 99 percent reliable, so you will have no problems with dropouts, pixelizations, etc. except for the occasional, rare glitch or system outage. I have Time-Warner basic cable and generally get excellent reception from all Cleveland stations (plus four out-of-town ones), but every once in a great while the picture will freeze or pixelate due to wind, rain, etc. affecting the signals received at the cable headend; however, these problems do not occur often.

000

It's funny to read the varied definitions of progress, especially as I write my first post on a Windows 7™ computer.

I'm not a fan of a lot of the Windows 7™ "gimmicks" like the transparent windows, etc. They do nothing to enhance my computer experience, and re-educating myself on how to do things I've already done (like file-trees) does nothing to enhance my productivity. I suspect that's why my work computer is still XP... No point in learning on company time, so says the IT department, lol. I've already converted as much of it as possible to look like "Windows Classic".

On a few computer forums, the guys who want to be seen as "modern" are slamming the guys who resent Microsoft© changing the OS every few years, rather than making true, intuitive improvements.

It's the same way I feel about digital TV. I think many of you were too hard on Jeffhs. Our government isn't automatically corrupt, it's just that they take the path of least resistance, rather than sticking to principle. Let's not forget that for 20-years, the FCC decreed that any picture-quality improvements (e.g. HDTV) would have to be backwards compatible. Then the lobbyists came (most foreign, representing the same interests that killed American consumer electronics a decade earlier) and suddenly compatibility goes out the window.

Another decade of digital and analog (99-09) at the same time, yet digital just wasn't winning in the marketplace. The equivalent would have been a government decree in 1964 that all broadcasts will be in color, and non-compatible with B&W. Because they didn't, we saw manufacturers forced to make more reliable and less expensive color TVs. Broadcasters felt similar pressure to offer more colorcasts.

But with digital, we were sold a load of post-911 bunk about the need for more "emergency frequencies" and eventually analog ceased to exists. That means manufacturers haven't much motivation to work out the final few bugs, and broadcasters haven't much reason to use side-channels for much more than infomercials (Mark my words, RTN/RTV and "This" will be dead inside of 5-years).

As I have stated before, in a true free-market without a widely-known "drop-dead" date, broadcasters would have been sending both digital and analog signals, but... They would have been motivated (by costs and advertisers) to make the digital side channels very appealing. Perhaps by offering some local content, in-depth news, interactive features, etc. Manufacturers would have offered "dual standard" tuners, (at a cost to them of less than $10) to bridge the gap for at least a decade. This would have created actual demand. Win-Win for the consumer/citizen, much like the way the aforementioned color TV battle played out.

Instead, your congressman/woman got a free trip to China, wined & dined, and a hefty contribution to their campaign in exchange for a "friendly FCC". You get to pay for $80 coupons, via tax dollars. You get an inferior system full of bugs, and side channels full of infomercials.

Saying this doesn't make me a kook in a shed waiting for the FBI raid... it just means I've paid attention to what has gone on during the whole digital ramp up. For me it just means I watch less TV in my freetime, which is just as well considering the content sucks. More time to work on my car and exercise my mind reading on the internet. Win-Win for me. :D

000

000

Well said Chris.
(post #36)

To post #36 I agree with most of that, I just cant figure out why people are sold on complicated gadgets. It just seems like when a cell phone should just ring and be programed in just a few minutes now it takes hours to set up and use, now this is an improvement? Half the junk no one uses because of the extended costs to use the services.Digital TV is ok but I personally dont think it is worth all the fuss. They use framed windows anyways so now you are back at 32" so we zoom in and make it appear Hif DEF but is it really? we just zoomed in closer. Any DTV satellite box can do that to a roundie and Somewhere I just lost the significance of Digital. The only HI Def tv I can even tell the difference is a relatives 60 some odd inch Mitsubishi but for the dollar It does have a very nice picture but no thanks!

Digital, schmigital. I've seen a travelogue on my uncle's sooper-dooper digital HDTV, & yeah, it looked really nice, but big woo. Not backwards compatible, made all the TVs in America obsolete basically overnite, stinks if EVERYTHING ain't perzacly right on the money, And all that whoop-de-doo intractive stuff is just gonna cost more, so's now WE'LL hafta pay for watching THEIR commercials... Said it before, & I'll say it again, the American public REALLY got sold a big green weenie/bill of goods on this one...

Uh Guys.
Do any of you know about this? I was taking pictures of the screen on a ctc 25.
I really did not pay attention to this ad but they where talking about taking away free over the air tv . Does any one know about this and what is the government going to do now???
And by the way, I have cable and you can see the atsc go out in bad weather, Just like over the air. Not as bad but it does go out. Crap I tell ya, Crap
Ed

I can notice the difference between analog and digital even on my 10-year-old RCA XL-100 CTC-185 19" TV, and without a box (I have Time-Warner's lowest-priced tier of cable service, broadcast channels only converted from ATSC to NTSC at the headend; for other programming, such as my favorite '70s shows that they don't even show on TV Land anymore, I have DVDs and VHS tapes). The picture is much sharper and clearer, I swear, than it was with analog, and there is no ghosting, snow or other interference most of the time. Certainly, there are the occasional system outages and glitches, but for the most part the reception is as good as or better than analog ever was.

As to computers and changing operating systems, I am still running Windows 98SE on a ten-year-old IBM Aptiva 595, 600 MHz processor, 128mb RAM. This system still does everything I need a computer to do, no more and no less; at this point I am in no hurry to upgrade, even to open-source Linux Ubuntu or to Windows XP, although I have a system disk with the latter already on it (downloaded it from a P2P site several years ago). I am not really crazy anyway about migrating all my application programs (word processor, Winamp, etc.) to another OS; for one thing, I am presently writing a story, with some 700 pages currently backed up on CD-R (in *.lwp format), using Lotus word-processing software (the word processor that was bundled with my computer when I bought it ten years ago); I don't know if I could find another word processor capable of reading files made on such an ancient one as mine. I do not relish the idea of having to rewrite the entire story from scratch so that a new system could read it. If Linux Ubuntu or Win XP were capable of running Lotus version 9.0 (the version I have), I'd consider upgrading to one or the other (I'd probably opt for Linux Ubuntu since it is open-source software under the General Public License, or GPL), but if not....well, then I'll stick with my Lotus word processor and this ancient IBM Aptiva 595. If the day ever comes when I need Windows 7, Linux, or Ubuntu to use my Winamp media player or even to go online (including email), then I will upgrade, but not one second before. I am not against new technology, but I do believe in the adage "if it (isn't broken), don't fix it." As another poster mentioned earlier in the thread, today's cell phones (for example) probably do take a very long time just to set up before you can make your first call, let alone use the thing on the Internet or anywhere in cyberspace. Even smaller cell phones, such as my LG C-1500 I purchased from Cingular Wireless (now AT&T) about five years ago, have features on them that probably go unused by most people. I have never once used the Internet capability of my C-1500, which has a built-in WAP (Wireless Application Protocol) browser to allow the use of the Internet, have used text messaging only once, about three years ago (in an attempt to stop an unwanted subscription to a ringtone service that was supposed to be free, but for which I kept getting charged $10 a month until I finally called AT&T Wireless and informed them of the problem), and generally have ignored most of the other features of the phone related to online activity. My telephone bill is high enough as it is with home phone, cell phone and DSL charges, without adding data usage charges besides. I almost never use my cell phone anyway, except for emergencies, and I certainly do not need 24/7, anywhere access to the Internet or to my e-mail.

Roundscreen, the ad is talking about the FCC proposal to take even more spectrum away from broadcasters and give it to various wireless services. In other words, make us pay for spectrum that is ad-supported and costs the average person nothing at present. The FCC has already done this with 90% of the spectrum obtained via the DTV transition. I, for one, do not appreciate being forced to make companies such as Verizon rich.

See below:
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/fcc-offers-glimpse-broadband-1221/index.html
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/reallocating-tv-spectrum-wireless-broadband-remains-option-policy-presentation-1217/index.html

I have already let one of my representatives know what I think of this and plan to contact the others.

I can notice the difference between analog and digital even on my 10-year-old RCA XL-100 CTC-185 19" TV,

Then perhaps you needed a better antenna, (or your cable company sucks, like most of them do)? The picture that I received on certain strong channels (ntsc) was as good as anything I get on digital. If I had invested in a better antenna, I'm sure all the channels would have been this clear.

As it was, I was pulling watchable channels from Toledo, Sarnia ON, etc.

While I do use my phone (Blackberry) quite a bit for e-mail, internet and other applications, I'm glad that simple phones are still offered for others.

Roundscreen, the ad is talking about the FCC proposal to take even more spectrum away from broadcasters and give it to various wireless services. In other words, make us pay for spectrum that is ad-supported and costs the average person nothing at present. The FCC has already done this with 90% of the spectrum obtained via the DTV transition. I, for one, do not appreciate being forced to make companies such as Verizon rich.

See below:
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/fcc-offers-glimpse-broadband-1221/index.html
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/reallocating-tv-spectrum-wireless-broadband-remains-option-policy-presentation-1217/index.html

I have already let one of my representatives know what I think of this and plan to contact the others.

Thank you.
I should have known it was all about the money. Not to mention that they lied about it in the first place when they told us the bandwidth was going to be used for police and fire protection.

Another decade of digital and analog (99-09) at the same time, yet digital just wasn't winning in the marketplace. The equivalent would have been a government decree in 1964 that all broadcasts will be in color, and non-compatible with B&W. Because they didn't, we saw manufacturers forced to make more reliable and less expensive color TVs. Broadcasters felt similar pressure to offer more colorcasts.

:D


There was no "marketplace" for digital to win or lose in.

Consumers were systematically denied the choice of digital tuners until (far too late) they were made mandatory.

I'll say it again - I think it speaks volumes:

I can see the transmitters from my yard - 1 mile away. A good set would pull in an analog color picture without an aerial. Digital breaks up in heavy rain on a set hooked to an outdoor antenna 20 feet in the air.

At least I have strong weather band reception, a great geographical knowledge of the area and even a local radio station that breaks in most of the time. Unfortunately, the majority of America is rural and may not have such assets.


By "digital", do you mean terrestrial (OTA) or satellite.

NO amount or rain (alone, ignoring the wind or lightning that often accompanies it) should affect VHF/UHF reception at all (and, in my own experience, it doesn't).

Last time there was a big winter storm in Detroit, I had satellite. Even though the satellite signal was perfect, and all of the nationwide channels were coming in, all of the Detroit stations were replaced by a slide, stating the local stations were not available, and asking viewers not to call anyone about the problem. As this was going on, I was getting the stations perfectly by OTA DTV. (My guess is that whatever uplink dish sent the Detroit stations to the satellite provider got covered with snow [the literal kind])

There was no "marketplace" for digital to win or lose in.

Consumers were systematically denied the choice of digital tuners until (far to late) they were made mandatory.

High-end, HDTV sets were available for many years with ATSC (digital) tuners. Several people on this forum had them years before the required switch. Why would flagship stations in major markets like LA & NY have been broadcasting a ATSC digital signal for nearly a decade if consumers were "systematically denied" digital tuners?

Now if broadcasters and manufacturers did a poor job making the public aware of the "advantages" of digital TV, that would be their fault... But why bother advertising when Uncle Sam is going to force the market for you?

In other words, if I saw Detroit Dance Party & The Rockford Files were available on channel 38.2 back in 2001, I might have said "Hot damn! I need to get down to Highland Appliance and get me a new-fangled digital TeeVee!":banana:

But I didn't. Because although they did exist (The RCA f-38310 is an example) there was nothing to watch on a digital subchannel, and the dual tuners only came in $5000 TVs! What do you suppose the extra cost of a digital tuner was, at the manufacturer level? Less than $10 for a board and some ICs.

You can bet that sometime in 2008, the lobbyists pulled strings to get that mandate going... "Tell those sheep it will prevent another 9/11 if we get rid of analog TV, yeah, they'll be begging you to do it!"

And we did. :drool:

High-end, HDTV sets were available for many years with ATSC (digital) tuners. Several people on this forum had them years before the required switch. Why would flagship stations in major markets like LA & NY have been broadcasting a ATSC digital signal for nearly a decade if consumers were "systematically denied" digital tuners?


Because of an FCC mandate that required broadcasters in major markets to construct and operate DTV facilities early.

They knew that their DTV signals were being watched by no one, but did not want to lose their analog licenses, and with it their network affiliation and cable must-carry status, if they refused to comply.


But I didn't. Because although they did exist (The RCA f-38310 is an example) there was nothing to watch on a digital subchannel, and the dual tuners only came in $5000 TVs! What do you suppose the extra cost of a digital tuner was, at the manufacturer level? Less than $10 for a board and some ICs.

:

Like you said, on very high-end TV sets (likely sold by high-end home theater specialists that did not sell cable or satellite subscriptions).
The big box stores did (and still do) act as agents for subscription TV services, getting a cut for every new customer they sign up. A customer who could have bought a digital tuner with their set had a chance of saying "no thanks" when the salesman pushed a cable or satellite contract.
So the big boxes told the manufacturers "Don't ship us anything with a digital tuner"



You can bet that sometime in 2008, the lobbyists pulled strings to get that mandate going... "Tell those sheep it will prevent another 9/11 if we get rid of analog TV, yeah, they'll be begging you to do it!"

And we did. :drool:

Actually, the tuner mandate (47CFR15.117) was actually passed well before 2008 (2005, IIRC), with the largest sets mandated first, then, any device with a TV tuner, including VCRs and DVD recorders, manufactured 3/1/2007 or later, (TV sets still in inventory could be sold after this date. In the case of VCRs, most complied by eliminating the tuner altogether).

000

I had an ATSC tuner (not coupon compliant) for at least a year prior to the switch over. Using this tuner, I noticed the cutout issue with DTV when severe weather is near. In one case, DTV cut out for a full 10 minutes with analog NTSC continuing to work fine. Of course, the DTV power levels may have been lower at that time ,but I am only 30 miles from the transmitter and was using a better antenna. We have been in a major drought here, so I have not had an opportunity to see DTV operation in severe weather again. However, as mentioned previously, with rabbit ears, 30 miles from the transmitter, it cuts out for small amounts of time(very irritating) when windy. I have seen this several times.

As to Satellite, I know for a fact that this is pretty much useless in severe weather. I was at my mothers house in rural OK when some severe storms, containing hail, passed over. Satellite reception was useless with the picture freezing repeatedly and no sound. I have also seen her satellite cut out for several minutes in just heavy rain. At present, she does not have an antenna good enough for either analog or DTV reception at 70+ miles from the transmitter. Luckily she does have a weather radio and neighbors with a storm celler.

If you don't have an HDTV, then Blu-Ray is of no benefit to you.

You should be aware, however, that Blu-Ray should not obsolete your DVD collection. Currently, all Blu-Ray players will play your existing DVDs just fine (in 480p, or course). IIRC, The patent holders will not license Blu-Ray player production unless DVD compatibility is provided.


I got Blu-Ray player for Christmas, now I have to hook it up to my 1982 Zenith. I know it is hi-def, but as long as I can see the movies in any form, I don't care as long as they are good and entertain me. Heck, I'd use a Blu-Ray on a British 405 line set, if I could, it would not matter as long as the movie is good.

I got Blu-Ray player for Christmas, now I have to hook it up to my 1982 Zenith. I know it is hi-def, but as long as I can see the movies in any form, I don't care as long as they are good and entertain me. Heck, I'd use a Blu-Ray on a British 405 line set, if I could, it would not matter as long as the movie is good.

Good to hear from you again. Haven't seen your posts here in quite a while.

I feel the same way you do about DVDs. These and VHS tapes (most are of TV series and some TV movies that were new and popular 25 years ago or more, although I do have some professionally-recorded movies and two Arizona travelogues) are my primary source of TV programming since the networks (especially NBC since Comcast bought them out and even before then, in the GE years) went downhill; I like shows from the 1970s, the decade in which I grew up, and a lot of these programs just aren't shown on cable anymore, so I downgraded my cable to basic (broadcast channels only) a couple of years ago and now use my VCR and DVD player if I want to watch my favorites (I rarely watch broadcast TV anymore these days except for news and the occasional nature show on PBS).

I had to replace my 3-year-old CyberHome DVD player last year when it just quit reading discs, after working like a champ since 2005. Its replacement is a Memorex full-size DVD that works very well with my RCA CTC-185 XL-100 TV. One good thing about the Memorex player (besides having a vacuum-fluorescent time/track/function display on the front panel, which my CH player did not have--the latter only had an on-screen display for those parameters) is that I can use any universal remote control with it (I'm currently using a 4-function GE universal, made by Jasco Products); the CH player would not work with anything other than its own remote.

I'm glad I'm rid of the CH player for another reason: the company went out of business some time ago, so service and parts will be all but impossible to find, if any of these players are still in active use. That's why I put my CH-DVD300S player out for the trash shortly after purchasing the Memorex; however, the latter has worked like a charm for over a year, despite a problem I read about somewhere on the Web (FixYa.com comes to mind). This problem affects recent Memorex full-size DVD players, and has to do with an underrated capacitor that swells and splits open after anywhere from nine months to one year after initial purchase of the player. Mine has been working very well for over a year, as I said, so maybe I got lucky and got a player with a good cap in it that won't cause me any problems. Time will tell.

The only regret I have regarding my purchase of the Memorex DVD player is that it seems to have been built more flimsily than my CyberHome player. The CH player had a metal shell that fit over the top of a metal chassis with screws holding the whole unit together, whereas the Memorex player seems to have a plastic top and rear panel; the front control panel looks flimsy as well. The whole thing is probably plastic and would crack if one were to sneeze on it. :no:

The remote control that came with my Memorex MVD-2042 DVD is about the cheapest-looking wireless remote transmitter I have ever seen. It is much smaller than my GE universal, the buttons are very small, not well identified or backlit (the legends near the buttons are in tiny type that is darn near impossible to read in poor lighting), and the thing runs on an oddball, dime-size watch battery (CR-2025 three-volt lithium) that may or may not be available at this time. If you should ever purchase a Memorex DVD player, I suggest using a universal remote with it, using the original remote only if or when you need to use functions not supported by the latter. The player itself works great and fits in very well with my TV and VCR, but I wouldn't trust that tiny remote any further than I could throw it. :no:

BTW: You're still using that 1982 Zenith System 3 TV you've had I don't know how long, and it still works well? Good for you! :thmbsp: That speaks volumes for the quality of Zenith televisions before Goldstar got their hooks into the company and lured them away from Chicago 25 years ago or so. I have a 14-year-old Zenith Sentry 2 19" table model that still works as well as when I got it. It is presently in my bedroom and is in line to replace my RCA CTC185 XL100 when the latter eventually goes belly-up, whenever that may be; the CTC185, now ten years old and in daily use, is like the Energizer battery--it keeps going and going and going . . . The Zenith may not see much more than standby duty (or it may just sit there on my dresser gathering dust) for several more years, the way the RCA is going.

Good to hear from you again. Haven't seen your posts here in quite a while.

I feel the same way you do about DVDs. These and VHS tapes (most are of TV series and some TV movies that were new and popular 25 years ago or more, although I do have some professionally-recorded movies and two Arizona travelogues) are my primary source of TV programming since the networks (especially NBC since Comcast bought them out and even before then, in the GE years) went downhill; I like shows from the 1970s, the decade in which I grew up, and a lot of these programs just aren't shown on cable anymore, so I downgraded my cable to basic (broadcast channels only) a couple of years ago and now use my VCR and DVD player if I want to watch my favorites (I rarely watch broadcast TV anymore these days except for news and the occasional nature show on PBS).

I had to replace my 3-year-old CyberHome DVD player last year when it just quit reading discs, after working like a champ since 2005. Its replacement is a Memorex full-size DVD that works very well with my RCA CTC-185 XL-100 TV. One good thing about the Memorex player (besides having a vacuum-fluorescent time/track/function display on the front panel, which my CH player did not have--the latter only had an on-screen display for those parameters) is that I can use any universal remote control with it (I'm currently using a 4-function GE universal, made by Jasco Products); the CH player would not work with anything other than its own remote.

I'm glad I'm rid of the CH player for another reason: the company went out of business some time ago, so service and parts will be all but impossible to find, if any of these players are still in active use. That's why I put my CH-DVD300S player out for the trash shortly after purchasing the Memorex; however, the latter has worked like a charm for over a year, despite a problem I read about somewhere on the Web (FixYa.com comes to mind). This problem affects recent Memorex full-size DVD players, and has to do with an underrated capacitor that swells and splits open after anywhere from nine months to one year after initial purchase of the player. Mine has been working very well for over a year, as I said, so maybe I got lucky and got a player with a good cap in it that won't cause me any problems. Time will tell.

The only regret I have regarding my purchase of the Memorex DVD player is that it seems to have been built more flimsily than my CyberHome player. The CH player had a metal shell that fit over the top of a metal chassis with screws holding the whole unit together, whereas the Memorex player seems to have a plastic top and rear panel; the front control panel looks flimsy as well. The whole thing is probably plastic and would crack if one were to sneeze on it. :no:

The remote control that came with my Memorex MVD-2042 DVD is about the cheapest-looking wireless remote transmitter I have ever seen. It is much smaller than my GE universal, the buttons are very small, not well identified or backlit (the legends near the buttons are in tiny type that is darn near impossible to read in poor lighting), and the thing runs on an oddball, dime-size watch battery (CR-2025 three-volt lithium) that may or may not be available at this time. If you should ever purchase a Memorex DVD player, I suggest using a universal remote with it, using the original remote only if or when you need to use functions not supported by the latter. The player itself works great and fits in very well with my TV and VCR, but I wouldn't trust that tiny remote any further than I could throw it. :no:

BTW: You're still using that 1982 Zenith System 3 TV you've had I don't know how long, and it still works well? Good for you! :thmbsp: That speaks volumes for the quality of Zenith televisions before Goldstar got their hooks into the company and lured them away from Chicago 25 years ago or so. I have a 14-year-old Zenith Sentry 2 19" table model that still works as well as when I got it. It is presently in my bedroom and is in line to replace my RCA CTC185 XL100 when the latter eventually goes belly-up, whenever that may be; the CTC185, now ten years old and in daily use, is like the Energizer battery--it keeps going and going and going . . . The Zenith may not see much more than standby duty (or it may just sit there on my dresser gathering dust) for several more years, the way the RCA is going.

Yeah, I had to replace my 2003 Toshiba VCR/DVD combo that just died, the DVD died last year, the VCR died a few weeks ago. I might try to salvage the VCR, see if it needs new belts or something since it was easier for Mom to program than the new Magnavox DVD/VCR combo I have now. Now I have this Blu-Ray player, I don't know where to put it exactly, tell you the truth, right now, I need one like a hole in my head although when Blu-Ray becomes more mainstream, I have a way to view them. If the Toshiba was still in use, I'd use it as a replacement DVD player. I also have a DVD player I go from my cousin, it was made in 2004.

1982 Zenith, well sometimes the girl shows her age a little, the screen goes red when she acts up, a heating problem I think but she can go several months or more before it happens again.