Digital TV by 2009?
 

I responded to the author of this article. I did not like her calling our analog televisions "old-fashioned". I would hope that we all can fill her inbox with hate mail. :D I can't wait till the first television virus hits the network. :naughty: Some lawmakers are proposing a free converter box to everybody that requests one. :scratch2:

polaraman

My reply to the analog TV hater!!!


Marilyn,

I for one will NEVER own a digital television. I am a TV collector and love my vintage television sets. I will never give them up. I was sort of offended by your "last granny" hurdle comment. Many of us who own the "old fashioned" analog televisions really enjoy them. Many younger folks do not even know or realize what a marvel TV was. I would suppose that you are fairly young to make comments like that. If you were older you would appreciate the "old fashioned" technology. It is amazing that folks do not demand more for their money. It is real insulting to even look at those sterile plastic televisions. Do you really think they are worth thousands of dollars? I often wonder when the environmentalists are going to stand up and demand that they be made of recyclable materials. WHY? The newer sets are made to be used and tossed. Ever pay to get a new set repaired? The repair will cost more that the set is to buy. One concern that many have not addressed with the new Digital television. I can't wait till somebody comes up with a damaging virus for them. That is going to be real interesting. I am going to send your article to my fellow TV collectors. I would suppose that you may hear from a few more of us.

polaraman

The main thing I don't like about digital TV is that in a fringe area you'll be totally cut off from broadcast TV. It's all or nothing. If you get a snowy picture now you probably won't see anything in digital. I also wonder when there will be a portable battery operated digital TV. It seems like a ginat step backwards that the only digital TVs are expensive, large and heavy.

Yeah, the condescending stuff bugs me too.

I only hope they standardize on something that will down-convert cleanly for our older sets. One of the biggest problems I see today is finding a source (other than dvd) of sufficient quality to make a good picture. Cable isnt that good. Antenna here is worse. Digital cable has motion artifacts in it. Mini-dishes also do.

I might even like digital tv if the converter box will provide a clean high-quality NTSC source. It might be better than what is available now.

As for the set-top box, having to use one won't bother me too much. I have been using various converter boxes for years (most recently a vcr). I don't think my silvertone has been off channel 3 in the last 20 years. :lmao:

Granny John

I'm one of the 21 million households that only get free tv. I don't consider myself poor, nor my parents elderly. I simply feel that there's nothing on television worth paying for. My life is busy enough so that I don't have time to waste sitting and vegetating in front of a television set, drooling and slackjawed. "Lookit the purty movin' pitchers!"

A better picture isn't going to make me want to rush out to buy a new and very expensive TV set, or even to subscribe to cable. I've repeatedly checked the TV listings for programs that might seem worth my time. Newton Minow was right 40 years ago in saying that television is a vast wasteland... he just didn't know how much worse it was going to get.

If there's such an almighty rush to move to digital television, then GET THE ANALOG SETS OFF THE SALESFLOORS NOW!!

Tom

I have a lot to say about that but I will stick to ONE point that has lost ground in the recent past, the supreme court upholding eminent domain comdemnation of private property for PRIVATE use when there will be an increase in the tax recipts for that property..
The loss of use of our "free" tv's is a "taking" which is a legal concept which can be traced back to the 4th amendment, the seizure part.
Old example: near an air force base the fighter planes were scaring the farmers chickens and they stopped laying eggs... He sued and won under that principle.

Congress is "taking" the public airwaves, and they know it.. as they are trying to appease the public by providing the "poor" with ONE converter...
If they get away with that instead of one converter for ANY working set for free... welll.......

Imagine changing the fuel available for our cars, so that if we don't get a converter, the cars we have won't work... but after we get the converter they will work "better"... they couldn't get away with that.....
...

BUT They have a precident.... they took channels 70 through 83 in the uhf band years ago and gave it to the cellular phone bands....
They enacted the electronic communications privacy act which then made it a crime to listen in on them (800 mhz) although it was VERY easy.
Later they banned the manufacturing of any scanner that could receive the specific parts of that band which were cellular (which is why scanners have several "holes" in their published specs.

Not everyone wants to (or can) pay the cable or satellite company to supply the available programming...

When I moved I "dropped" cable ( I had it if for many years) and invested in a roof antenna 12 years ago.

I HATED the way the cable companies jerked me around, like i was a captive "audience" (consumer?). Just as bad as the phone companies were and sbc is now.....

The biggest advertiser on the local tv station is itself, running ads promoting it's digital twin, where to buy sets or convertors, etc. I could live with a convertor I guess, but you would need one per set, right? I would then need to shell out for at least 3 (living room, bedroom, & a shared unit for the tv room). Of course, I am in no hurry to see NTSC die. I feel it should be allowed to go on open-ended. When the market will no longer support tv stations broadcasting analog they will just shut off that transmitter.

I cut off the cable a couple years back with no regrets. Though I have this room full of televisions I hardly watch anything. My wife has the tv on for most of the evening but I just find it annoying. More & more when I watch one of the old sets its just to watch a tape. (I need to pick up a second DVD player for the tv room)

This fall something will happen that might force us into a decision. The aforementioned tv station simulcasts in digital but also has a second station which is digital only. They have been promoting it nonstop (its a UPN affiliate) & recently they mentioned that 2 of my dear wife's favorite shows-Wheel of Fortune & Jeopardy-are moving from the crosstown competitor to this digital only station. Guess I'll find out how much she wants to watch those shows. Might have to buy the set-top box. Or I could invest in a good roof antenna so I can pick up the Baltimore/Washington stations.

I will own an HDTV someday-when I can get one for under $100. I have never paid over $100 for any tv in my life and that seems like a worthy goal to stick to!

Truth be told, I have not watched antenna TV for more than 6 months...Wheel of Fortune, Oprah Winfrey Show, the news, and Jeopardy were about the only shows I would watch. I got Direct TV because I really do like to watch TV and I do not mind paying something to receive programming I actually want to watch.

I remember when TV stations actually used to broadcast shows I would watch...Macgyver, star trek TNG, Falcon Crest, Kate and Allie, Scarecrow and Mrs. King, and others (don't comment about my taste in TV shows!, but these were shows I enjoyed and most of them I can still watch on Direct TV)
Now there is just a lot of reality junk shows...or on the comedy shows, they are just so crude.

It honestly doesn't matter a whole lot to me what happens to the format of broadcast TV...as there is hardly anything I want to watch on it. I'll still watch my collection of old TV's and just continue to use the satellite to feed them the programming.

I refuse to pay money to watch television (I'm funny that way). We got cable Internet access last summer, but I skipped the cable TV part.

The notion of "broadcasting" that was so revolutionary in the 1930's has changed dramatically.

One thing I can say is that those converter boxes DO work very well. They function just like a cable box, or satellite receiver except they get the signal from a regular antenna.

If you're in an area with a strong signal the picture will look much better, even on an NTSC TV. It looks better than a DVD assuming the TV station isn't screwing up the signal before broadcasting it. There's absolutely no ghosting, snow, or color smear which is almost unavoidable on NTSC unless you're lucky.

It could improve the selection of tv programs because they can broadcast something like 4 or 6 NTSC resolution channels over one carrier instead of one HD signal. I'm pretty sure they will do this most of the time so they can get 4 or 6 times as many ads on the air and only switch to HD for prime time.

I won't get too excited until there's a way to time shift using a tape, or disc (not a PVR). They really don't want you to be able to record and save programs. There's a lot of technology to prevent unauthorized recording which may lead to people moving away from broadcast TV completely. I can see myself dumping cable, satellite and broadcast and just downloading the things I want to watch. You can already do this and it looks better than cable most of the time.

I couldn't really read the article, but from y'all's replies, I already think I don't like this woman very well... Thing is, digital TV was 5 years away 20 years ago, it was 5 years away 10 years ago, & methinks it's still 5 years away....-Sandy G,

I doubt the FCC will kill analog in 2009. Digital TV's got little inertia now (most are sold as fancy DVD monitors), and the broadcasters aren't going to just lket the feds take away their viewship - especially given that their most important viewers are the ones WITHOUT cable.

And, not having cable's not a sign of being poor - my parents don't have cable still, and I'd hardly call them poor...

I had the same qualms myself for people in fringe areas, with digitial, you either GET THE SIGNAL OR YOU DON'T, there is no inbetween. At least with regular analogue TV, you can still get a watchible picture with some snow. Count my in on the question of portable battery powered HDTV's, I was wondering the same thing a I was playing with my Casio TV-30 B&W "pocket TV" from 1987. I do have a 1966 (give or take) Sony portable 9 or 10 inch B&W TV, I guess to make it battery powered and portable, I'll need an HDTV converter box and use a voltage inverter.

Call me weird, but I think my 1982 Zenith has a good picture rivalling many HDTV's, then again, my eyes are shot, terminally nearsighted (-6.25 and -7.00 diopters) along with astigmatism. ;)

Portable Digital TV
 

I have an HDTV set with a built-in tuner. It is the only way I would buy one. It is a 27" Samsung table model and the color on the digital channels is unbelievable and when HD is on, it's even better. I still don't want NTSC analog to go away. Although HD is technically better quality, I still think analog is good enough. I don't plan to put HD sets throughout the house so the other TVs will have to get converter boxes.

My biggest gripe about this whole thing is that the lack of backward compatibility is going to render my portables useless. Converter boxes are fine for table sets but I collect small, battery powered TVs and I have a couple of handhelds that I use regularly. There will be no point in keeping them when analog stops. I have an inquiry in to Casio as to when they plan to offer a handheld TV with a digital tuner. If they reply, I'll post their answer here. I would hope Sony would make one but they seem to have left the miniature TV business.

I think there will be digital portables. In fact I thought I saw on Ebay recently an Audiovox handheld LCD set with an ATSC tuner but I have not been able to find it again.

You may be able to use a mini TV transmitter kit to feed a signal to analog portables..just feed the transmitter with video from a digital convertor

Here is one I found:

http://store.yahoo.com/electronic-ki...idtrankit.html

This will not really help for outdoor use but will enable the sets to be functional in locations inside the house.

Digital Portable TV
 

That TV transmitter is a neat idea. I may look into something like that when the time comes. I received a reply from Casio regarding digital portable TV. Here is what they said:


As of right now we do not have information on when or if that will be out. I'm sure we will have units that will be capable but right now we don’t know when. Please keep posted on our website we will post a press release when available.

Thank You,
Lisa Bayliss
Casio CSR

For those of us who use a portable TV as much or more than the big set in the living room, It seems like there will be digital portables available. I guess I'll just break down an buy a new set when the analog service is ended.

I think the big problem with portable DTVs is the power needed. It's probably going to be a while before we can receive and decode ATSC on 4 AAs. Has anyone ever tried running an ATSC set top box in a moving car? Is it even possible to receive it unless you're standing still?

I like the way the UK is handling digital TV. They have added digital channels to the analog carrier, but still have the analog signal. All you do is plug a digital box into you existing antenna and you can get more channels for free plus digital copies of the analog channels and a program guide. They will eventually turn off the analog signal, but by then everyone will be able to receive digital.

They can do this because the TV network reallly is a network that coveres the entire county. Everyone can recieve the same 5 broadcast channels clearly.

Good thoughts. I know there have been stories where the Feds who used the digital mode on their walkie-talkies complained the battery life was short so they used the analogue mode for comms unless the digital encryption is really needed. Everything uses power and to use a computer to decode and decompress the HDTV signal will take its share of power along with the RF circuits to receive the signal in the first place. Mobile reception of HDTV, would be interesting to try, maybe in an urban/suburban area, it would work but if you're out in the sticks, I think it would be tough.

FDNY and Motorola are tangled in a few lawsuits over digital walkie talkies. Apparently, the things don't work very well (or even work...), though my dad (retired FDNY) pointed out to me that the old radios didn't work very well either...

HDTV IS a better picture than analog/std NTSC, but is it REALLY worth all the hate & discontent it's gonna cause? Virtually EVERY TV set in the country is gonna be obsolete overnight-I don't care how much they advertise it, that's gonna cause mass confusion on a huge scale-and it's been proven people would give up easily-available food & water before they'd give up TV. As usual, people in government have not thought this one out very well. But we all know the gummint could f!ck up a 2 car funeral....<grin>-Sandy G.

I don't know what are the plans for changing tv norm in the U.S.. We have already digital tv on air since one year. But on satellite tv we have both, the analog programs and the digital programs. Only 10 percent of the people watch tv by air antenna, and they have to buy the set top box.
A great problem we have with the landwide distribution of the digital broadcasting. Many parts of the country can't receive tv on air because digital tv doesn't reach so far, the transmitting power was underestimated. Does you government switch off totally analog NTSC or can you get analog tv still via satellite?

That's the problem I see as well. The US Government ought to be thankful my maternal grandmother passed away in 1997 at 85, otherwise whe would put up a fuss and stink about not getting her stories on her 1962 RCA B&W portable. My father is still around and he thinks it is all a conspiracy to just make money for the movers and shakers behind it.

I do agree that people would give up food before TV, heck in the 1930's, they did or would do the same for radio. I dunno of HDTV is worth all of that, to me, I'd rather have a Chevy that hardly breaks down and does what I need it to do than a Rolls Royce that is in the shop every other Tuesday. Then again, a lot of TV programming, well, frankly sucks, you need to go to places like cable/satellite to find anything decent.

Maybe a better solution would have been to accolate a certain number of UHF channels for HDTV or go by satellite/cable while leaving the VHF spectrum and part of the UHF spectrum to analogue TV. I do remember stories that the old CBS color TV system was to be broadcast on UHF only and leaving NTSC on VHF.

I think we could be going down the same path that killed AM stereo to where you had a trainwreck of various systems instead of just one system, I do see a trainwreck here. The only people I know that have an HDTV is my neighbors and he bought that after winning the lottery for $20K plus. Well, I guess i'll just keep my 1982 Zenith going and if need be, use a convertor box. I wish i did have my father's 1979 Zenith, almost a carbom copy of mine for spare parts though. ;)

I think I heard that somewhere. I know there was talk for a while about Pittsburgh Police going to 800 Mc, although it would still have been analogue, but the deal fell through and they are still using their old 453 Mc system they had since the 1960's. I know New York had a lot of commo problems and when the Twin Towers fell on 9-11, it made them a lot worse.

Got that right. How many analog tv sets are in use in the US? 200, 300 million?
Imagine what that will do to landfills. Imagine the lead leaching into the soil. Bet the geniuses didn't think of that.
Tom

This sucks for serious vintage TV collectors, or even someone with just one cool old TV they like to play with - I'm not in that situation but I really sympathize with you guys. Even with a free converter box, it kinda ruins it to have to stick some cheep plastic box on your set. I suppose you could hide it, though. And would they be usable with some of the older sets out there?

The government will likely be very successful at pulling the plug on standard def. After all, aren't they the ones that got rid of all our English measurements in favor of metric by the year 2000? :rolleyes:

Why not allow standard def. amateur broadcasts? Now, that would be cool! Probably wouldn't be too common, but it would be kind of fun to see what pops up out there.

I do agree that forcing everyone to go to digital HDTV and such is a problem.

Thing is, I hardly watch any cable TV or whatever at all, except on Sundays in the evening. The rest of the time, my daily watcher set is used for playing DVDs or video gaming or playing back my mini-DV tapes, etc. I've also been buying a lot of the TV shows I enjoy on DVD anyhow. I have about 100+ Beta and 150+ VHS tapes I am restoring to DVD with my computer of TV shows. Another thing is, up until the mid 1990s, I could probably watch 6-7 hours of TV a day. Now I watch maybe, if I am lucky, 2 hours a week of broadcast TV.

I do in the next few years want to upgrade to a bigger TV with HDTV and such. Mainly for the upcoming HD-DVD and/or Blue Ray format, and for gaming and such. But I won't just go out and buy one just like that. It may be several years before I do that.

As for my 20+ collection of TVs ranging from 1960-1982, I actually don't even have it set up to receive any over the air signals as is now. I have 3 8-output distribution amps hooked to a DVD-VHS combo unit which also acts as an RF output for my other equipment I own. While that may not be as fun as tuning in over the air signals and such, there really is nothing on broadcast TV I watch. As for portables, I do have a cheap TV transmitter that broadcasts on channel 5, but not that good. I plan to build one of my own design, but that won't be for a while. Another advantage with my setup is it saves wear on the tuners. Just leave them all on channel 3.

So even if this does happen, I will still be using my old TVs. Nothing will stop me :)

They got 'em already, John!
"Amateur television (ATV) is used on four UHF channels just below 14, especially for repeater output and direct communications. ATV repeater inputs may also be on other channels not near the broadcast bands." (from http://www.answers.com/topic/north-a...on-frequencies )
So that means you can find present-day ATV broadcasting between 447MHz and 471MHz :) This corresponds to the CABLE channels 62 through 66, approximately, NOT the over-the-air channel numbers. Any cable-ready TV or VCR will be able to get these channels. (from http://www.jneuhaus.com/fccindex/cablech.html )
If you have an outdoor antenna or rabbit ears, just switch the TV or VCR from over-the-air reception to cable reception and try to see what you can get... if anything. Transmitters are from what I recall about 100W max. Usually this will be near larger cities.

Tom

HDTV is only a marketing tool to get everyone to switch to ATSC. The real driving force is money. What we will see is not only the end of NTSC broadcasting, but the end to free tv broadcasting. Maybe not at first, not until sufficent market saturation. Since networks can put multiple Standard def programs on one digital channel, How long do you think it will take them to start charging you to receive the signal. That is what digital cable does now with addressable decoders. You may not only need a set top box, but an addressable set top box. The technology is already there. Remember the networks were not to happy with the cable superstation networks, after Ted Turner was charging for what they were giving away. It's all in the money.

Our government never learns from its mistakes. They approved FM, then after Sarnoff complained, they moved the FM band where it is today, but didn't require manufacturers to make recievers. Look at UHF. After the freeze, stations got placed on UHF, but nobody could recieve it. HDTV will not be any different. I think the majority of TV viewers will be out on the cold when the switch takes place. Thank goodness for DVD players. If the networks had to depend on me for revenue, they would join Enron in bankruptcy court.

I couldn't make out the scanned article at the beginning of this thread, but based on what other posters have said, that reporter is a total dweeb. Our recapped tube sets are not obsolete. They will still work, unlike this cheap foreign slave labor shit that passes as a TV reciever today.

End of rant.

This rant was brought to you today by Lite Beer.

really needed???
 

Big companies are always changing formats. Nothing new since RCA and CBS fought it out to see which color standard would prevail in early 1950's. I hope no one has spent big money on a tv in last 5 years. Any system not compaiple with NTSC in some way would obviously cause mass discontent as everybody needs to buy tv. RCA was smart enough to make sytem compatible w/ B/W TV sets. Not to mention all those VCRs with tuners that also work same standards.

I still think HDTV is kinda an answer to a question nobody asked. Do we REALLY wanna see how many shaving nicks John Madden has today ? It would be kewl, I guess, to see if Janet Jackson really has a girlie moustache when she has her next "Wardrobe Malfunction". And another thing-there ain't gonna be much to watch on HDTV for several years until Hollywood & the networks get a library built up. OK, NTSC does have it's limitations-but I think it's pretty darn good & throwing the baby out w/the bathwater is a crummy idea. -Sandy G.

Actually, HDTV content isn't a problem. The majority of TV shows made in the last few decades were filmed on 35mm film (the same stuff hollywood uses). The resolution is there, it's just a matter of converting the original film to HD video. This is something the TV studios are already doing in order to preserve it. Some stuff like the Cosby show was video taped, but things like Star Trek, The Brady Bunch and ER are on film. In many cases, the editing was done on tape and will have to be redone, but it will be done. Pretty much all recent prime time TV shows are already in HD. I'm looking forward to seeing just how crappy the set and props on the original Startrek are!

I agree that NTSC can look fantastic. I'm using an old Sony computer video projector for TV. A good DVD palyed in progressive scan looks excellent. It's hard to tell the difference between true HD and a good DVD.

The idea of telling TV stations when they must stop analog broadcasting is just a bad, very bad idea. When color came around in 1955 and has served us well for fifty years one of the rules was that existing black & white TVs must accept and show the picture and sound without set top boxes. The system had to be backward compatible. I firmly believe that any new digital HDTV system should follow the same rules. That way the millions of battery portable sets and all the TVs in the home execpt maybe one in the family room will not become scrap.
Sincerely,
Richard Dalkranian.

OvenMaster: I knew ATV existed in some form, but I assumed they would be forced to go HD as well (and therefore, the vast majority of them would just be forced to shut down due to the cost).

Or is this not the case? Are they still going to be allowed on those cable frequencies? And for people with REALLY old TVs, I suppose they'd still be SOL without a converter.

I think digital TV might just kill broadcast TV in the US. If you have to have a box, it might as well be a satellite box, or cable box. I think a lot of people would rather get a free cable, or satellite box and free installation of the dish than have to buy a digital TV box for ever TV and install an antenna on the roof. I'm sure the networks will stay around on cable, satellite and the internet, but how few people need to be using their broadcast signals before they decide to turn it off?

First off, I was amazed how you guys sounded like a bunch of Luddites! You are supposed to be INTO technology, so embrace it. Open your eyes and look at this incredible stuff. Once you see it, you can't go back to crappy 1940's technology.

I understand there are collectors out there. An interesting obsession. You can't hold back the main stream, though. You may need to make RF out of an old VCR or DVD player.

Really guys, you owe it to yourself to check out what video looks like on a good set. 1920x1080. That's a lot of pixels. I bought a Sony super fine dot pitch 36" TUBE (I like tubes) set. Those little pixels are hugging each other very nicely. Find one of these and look at it (make sure it says "super fine dot pitch").

The content is there too. The bigger movie channels, INHD 1 and 2, Discovery, the major networks. The cable box is OK. You can even rip this stuff to your PC with the right setup, and play it back through a DVI or HDMI cable. HD-DVD formats are forthcoming in the next year.

There is a good chance analog broadcast will die when it was supposed to in May 2006 because congress wants to sell off the bandwidth. The cable world will hardly notice.

Schoolboy, I love new tech when it's true progress. This is just change for change's sake, in order to accomodate government demand for spectrum space. Change does not automatically equal progress.

I've read books on how HDTV was conceived. The ONLY reason we're getting it is because broadcasters did not want their precious spectrum auctioned off; they're very possessive. They've had this license to print money since 1946. Then Uncle Sam comes along and says they want it. The NAB meetings came up with HDTV solely to hoard their spectrum, to placate the government. The subsequent hardware and software development was like a Keystone Kops film, riddled with bungles and compromises and mistakes.

Yeah, the programming is out there... if you like lame "comedies", sports, copy-protected movies, and news broadcasts where you can see the newscaster's nose hairs and cardboard sets. The programming is there, yes... LOUSY programming! As David Letterman once said, "Most TV is trash. But that's a good thing. If TV were actually good, we'd waste even more time watching it!"

John, I have read nothing about ATV going hi-def. I should do more research on this. But don't get me started on the future of amateur radio... if there is indeed a future for rich, retired guys yakking about their rigs and antennas.

Tom

We go from 153,600 pixels technology from the 1940's to either 921,600 or 1,036,800 depending on the HD format. How is that not progress? Are we supposed to keep the old format forever?

The content is not bad (granted, some is horrible). As paying customers we really don't care about copy protection, do we. We are not thieves, and we can't just make up our own terms for the use of someone elses' intellectual property.

Seek out one of these super fine DP sets and look at it. They aren't really very expensive and you can chuck that old low resolution set.

schoolboy: Vintage electronics is indeed an odd hobby as far as attempting to categorize it. It is nearly an oxymoron. (Yes, in some cases, it is an "obsession" as you called it. But not all of us are that extreme. Well...OK, maybe the vast majority!) In some ways, it is more closely linked with the antique world than it is with technology, and certainly has nothing to do with "progress", except that many of us question whether any has been truly made in these areas.

Having said that, I have to say that I like the move to HD, regardless of how it went down. I just want to make room for both, so those cool old 1950's sets can still function, as well as the cool new plasmas and LCDs, even though they're expensive and they degrade faster. (You can have those rear projection things though. Horrible off-axis viewing and the lighting is uneven if you have to get close.) Yes, I guess that problem is solved with a converter box. But who wants to either shell out the extra $ or accept government money just to do something as sick and wrong as placing a 21st century BPB device on a 1957 television? Talk about a clashing view!

I goofed. I said this:
What I should have said was:
Sorry for the confusion.

Also:
The day I am forced to pay to watch television is the day I yank the antenna wires out, pull the plug from the wall, and toss the set on the trash heap.

Tom