qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
3 edits | Once again!
Once again, the USA shoots themselves in the foot!
The HDTV system adopted in this country is so piss poor that I am going to have to either subscribe to DirecTv HD service (at 15 dollars more a month over what I pay now, plus 200 dollars for a new receiver and dish) or put up an outdoor antenna (assuming my landlord will let me) at the cost of a couple hundred dollars just to get the LOCAL CHANNELS from right in the middle of Los Angeles!
But I guess I'm lucky-I at least have OPTIONS to pick the signals up! Many in the boonies will be LOSING their TV!
See, UHF was never designed to go long distances-it's an urban/suburban medium.
I know, I know..it's what we have and we have to live with it...BUT can't we ONCE learn our lesson and do something right??
Or at least get it right the next time?
We didn't learn with color TV..we didn't learn with UHF and now we didn't learn with HDTV.
We didn't learn with AM stereo, and now we haven't learned with digital (HD) radio.
Can we please learn sometime?
Please? |
|
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs: 
| I'm sorry, but what? You do realize that the actual transmission format doesn't make one bit of difference to how the signal propagates from the transmitter to your antenna? Doesn't care whether it's analog, digital, FM, AM, HD, Betamax, or the next best format to come out.
What the signal DOES care about though is what frequency is broadcasted and at what power. The higher the frequency, the more power required and the less the signal can go through certain obstacles (like buildings or trees). The lower the frequency, less power is required and it has a batter time making it through said obstacles.
Now for the unwashed masses here, OTA digital broadcasts use the same general block of frequencies utilized by existing OTA analog broadcasts for AGES.
The difference here is that PRE-transition, these digital broadcasts are utilizing much less power than their analog counterparts. But as of the final transition in february, many of these stations WILL be increasing their transmission power by quite a bit and while it still probably won't be anywhere near the transmission power held by their analog counterparts, it'll be more than enough to get a stable signal lock. Digital tuners don't need nearly as clear of a signal to get a watchable broadcast compared to the signal needed to get a crystal clear analog broadcast.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to qworster
said by qworster  :Once again, the USA shoots themselves in the foot! The HDTV system adopted in this country is so piss poor that I am going to have to either subscribe to DirecTv HD service (at 15 dollars more a month over what I pay now, plus 200 dollars for a new receiver and dish) or put up an outdoor antenna (assuming my landlord will let me) at the cost of a couple hundred dollars just to get the LOCAL CHANNELS from right in the middle of Los Angeles! But I guess I'm lucky-I at least have OPTIONS to pick the signals up! Many in the boonies will be LOSING their TV! See, UHF was never designed to go long distances-it's an urban/suburban medium. I know, I know..it's what we have and we have to live with it...BUT can't we ONCE learn our lesson and do something right?? Or at least get it right the next time? We didn't learn with color TV..we didn't learn with UHF and now we didn't learn with HDTV. We didn't learn with AM stereo, and now we haven't learned with digital (HD) radio. Can we please learn sometime?Please? Um this transition has NOTHING to do with HDTV. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
4 edits | reply to Vchat20
Wrong!
If the FCC had done their modelling and allocating of DTV channels correctly (hint: they didn't!), they would have put all UHF DTV channels in the cities, and then put mostly High Band VHF channels in the suburbs and rural areas. They would have not allowed Low Band DTV channels at all. Why? High band VHF travels MUCH further then UHF, while UHF offers far better building penetration, which is needed in cities.
In other words, exploit the physics of each band for best results.
Low Band VHF is unsuitable for DTV due to 'skip'-and the idiot TV stations who plan to use it will quickly be looking for relief come next summer when their station is essentially 'off air' most every night....
Instead we have a MESS of all three bands mixed, and most of us that can now use rabbit ears in the city will have to either subscribe to cable or put up an outdoor antenna to receive DTV.
The irony is that the FCC originally WANTED to do things this way, but the TV broadcasters lobbied for the piss poor allotment system we have today-and got it!
Finally, don't get me started about us choosing 8-VSB for our DTV system while the rest of the world went with COFDM (which works FAR better in multipath prone areas like cities!).
How much better? The TV stations use it for their ENG live news pickups and studio to transmitter links! THEY don't even use the system we picked themselves.
It's REALLY going to be fun next Feb. in cities like Los Angeles and New York, when most network affiliates move to their VHF channels for DTV only to find that most off air viewers can't see them any more. Why? Most indoor DTV antennas are UHF only, and work like CRAP receiving VHF! |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to qworster
Re: Once again!
said by qworster : The HDTV system adopted in this country is so piss poor that I am going to have to either subscribe to DirecTv HD service (at 15 dollars more a month over what I pay now, plus 200 dollars for a new receiver and dish) or put up an outdoor antenna (assuming my landlord will let me) at the cost of a couple hundred dollars.
The pros and cons of 8-VSB vs COFDM are much subtler trade-off they you make out. said by qworster :UHF was never designed to go long distances-it's an urban/suburban medium. That is nothing about the transition that mandates use of UHF. Post transition stations have the option of migrating to VHF. VHF low is plagued by noise interference so not many stations are moving back. Here in southern NH Both stations and Channel 7 out of Boston are moving back to VHF High. said by qworster :We didn't learn with color TV..we didn't learn with UHF and now we didn't learn with HDTV. What Color TV issue are you referring to? I think it was a engineering marvel making it backward compatible with black and white. Quite an accomplishment with 1950's vacuum tube technology. It is true UHF has much higher path loss then VHF. But there is not enough capacity for TV at lower frequencies. What service would you remove to make space for more TV channels? As BF69 posted this has nothing to do with HDTV. This is a transition from analog to digital broadcast. Digital is much more efficient allowing stations to broadcast multiple programs in same bandwidth that only allows a single analog program. It also takes less energy to cover the same area - reducing energy costs. said by qworster : We didn't learn with AM stereo, and now we haven't learned with digital (HD) radio. I don't listen to AM and have no problems with FM audio quality so have not paid any attention to either. What is the problem and what is the solution? /tom |
|
rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Powell, OH
clubs:
Host:
Linksys
AT&T Midwest
| reply to qworster
said by qworster :See, UHF was never designed to go long distances-it's an urban/suburban medium. I'm not so sure that is as big a problem as you might suggest. But I guess it does depend on the type of antenna that is being used.
When I lived in the far western Chicago suburbs 3 years ago (~37 miles from the station transmitters) I was able to pick up all the digital channels at or very near full strength, aside from CBS Channel 2. But that is another story. CBS is transmitted off the John Hancock building and has many other issues to deal with that cause the signal to continually pixelate. I have a Channel Master antenna that is rated for deep fringe. I have it mounted in my attic and it works beautifully.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
Too bad those that know it all can't do it all.
»www.thewaystation.com/techref/tech.shtml
»blog.thewaystation.com/ |
|
rec9140
Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL
| reply to qworster
said by qworster :
Once again, the USA shoots themselves in the foot!The HDTV system adopted in this country is so piss poor
DVB-T.Europe did this right, for a change.
ATSC is just as screwed up as NTSC has been since the addition of color.
said by qworster :
or put up an outdoor antenna (assuming my landlord will let me)
He doesn't get a say:
»www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
said by qworster :
We didn't learn with AM stereo, and now we haven't learned with digital (HD) radio.
AM Stereo was screwed from the fact that instead of choosing a standard between Motorola (CQAM) and Harris, Maganvox and Kahn..Ok, so the FCC set a standard and atypical the corp slease bring out the lawyers......
By the time the market place and the FCC decide that CQAM (Motorola) should be the standard its too late...
AM Stereo really never had a chance with the public and the standard debacle didn't help. AM has been dead in the mind of the public for years. The fact they never took the AM band out of the radios is probably simply it was cheaper to leave it in.
As for HD aka ibquity well can't say that I really care.....commercial radio is dead.... Sirrus is where its at, although XM could wither up and die as far as I am concerned (so I guess you get my opinion of the merger! Listen up don't screw up those surveys and screw up MY MUSIC!  Sirrus 5,6 & 75 RULE!)
HD/ibquity is just like NTSC..... a huge compromise......Digital with backward compatbilty towards current analog FM.
Just like the transition from analog to digital TV, FM should have been switched to pure digital and dump the analog....yep..... that radio in the old Studebaker would be dead too! (Ok, so its unlikely that the old Studebaker had an FM radio...)
DAB v. HD/ibquity ??? Theres been criticism a plenty for both systems... Honestly I think that the 88-108MHz area is ripe to be turned over to other uses ie public safety and wireless data and transition everyone to Sirrus.
said by qworster :
Can we please learn sometime?Please?
As soon as the geeks, nerds, and engineers are in charge and the corporate slease and sleawyers are slain and put back in their coffins we might have a chance. Till then.... welcome to the corporate greed state.
--
Ban all copyright, trademarks, and IP laws!//Lorem ipsum ei pro stet equidem labores, at enim animal expetenda nec. Ea vix argumentum dissentiunt, usu esse ridens ex. |
|
cornelius785_nli
@verizon.net
| reply to Vchat20
you clearly don't understand communication systems at all. you really should look into multipath, which was brought up by qworster. you also should looking into peak-to-average power ratio, spectral efficiency, and the how to realize a transmitter and receiver, nevermind the land of RF (LNAs, mixers, filters, antennaes) |
|
