I guess some people still don't get it that analog TV is gone

[matt_s78mn]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

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.

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

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.

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

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!

[bandersen]

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

[Robert Grant]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

<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.

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

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).

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

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.

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

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.

[Robert Grant]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

<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.

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

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).

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

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.

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

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.

[peverett]

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).

[matt_s78mn]

Originally Posted by peverett

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!!!!!!

[wa2ise]

Originally Posted by matt_s78mn

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.

[Jeffhs]

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.

[Sandy G]

"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...

[Randy Bassham]

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.

[matt_s78mn]

Originally Posted by wa2ise

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.

[andy]

000

[peverett]

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.

[matt_s78mn]

Originally Posted by peverett

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.

[peverett]

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.