DTV transition "Soft test" on 11-20-08 in Chicago

[CarlV]

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

Carl

[peverett]

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

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

[andy]

Originally Posted by wa2ise

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

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

[NowhereMan 1966]

Originally Posted by Carmine

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ChrisW6ATV]

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

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

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by NowhereMan 1966

The downside is weather issues and rural areas... hopefully we will iron out these problems as time goes on.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that any such problems will be solved.

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

[peverett]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[peverett]

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

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

[Carmine]

Originally Posted by ChrisW6ATV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

[Carmine]

Originally Posted by peverett

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

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

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

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

[peverett]

Carmine-see link below

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-29112065_ITM

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

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

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

Now back to the DTV transition.

[zenith2134]

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

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

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

[peverett]

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

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

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

[Carmine]

Originally Posted by peverett

Carmine-see link below

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-29112065_ITM

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Henry Ford died in 1947

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/sho...67#post2076467


I'll chime in when I have the time.

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

[andy]

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

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

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