| Truthfully, I've dumped TV and couldn't be happier. I have now dumped TV and am quite happy--if I want to watch shows, I go to Hulu. (Personally, I find the content of most shows pathetic and I got tired of paying a hefty satellite TV bill for sub par content that was repeated over and over and over.) I realize that I'm fortunate enough to have this as an option since I have broadband and many people aren't as lucky.
The FCC waited far too long to test out Digital TV. Their trials have revealed what a fiasco it will be for those few who were fortunate enough to find equipment before their government coupons expired. (My region only got boxes within the past 3 months.) The FCC was shocked that digital signals don't seem to travel as far and many regions that could get an off air analog signal cannot get any digital signal.
Bob Dole was Senate leader when the bill pushing Digital TV was passed. I was working Congressional Hill at the time and remember his floor statement, which wasn't very supportive of the whole concept. His words will ring true--it wasn't consumer demand driving this but industries that want to make more money off them. |
|
ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB Reviews:
 ·Shaw
| said by voipdabbler:Bob Dole was Senate leader when the bill pushing Digital TV was passed. I was working Congressional Hill at the time and remember his floor statement, which wasn't very supportive of the whole concept. His words will ring true--it wasn't consumer demand driving this but industries that want to make more money off them. Wow - industries wanting to make more money from consumers instead of consumer demand fueling change?  So I guess TV is no different than any other industry!
It's just like [insert name of product here]. It was the same for years and years, you knew what it was, you liked it, and you bought it all the time. Then about 15-20 years ago some genius in marketing decided it wasn't [insert trendy adjective here] enough and it's been changed every 9-16 months since then.
I'm all for product improvement, but not change for change's sake. |
|
|
|
Markie
join:2003-07-26
Kalispell, MT | reply to voipdabbler
Your region is my region to if you are where you say you are (Kalispell, MT) and boxes have been widely available for MUCH longer than 3 months. I got mine around least 6 months ago... One Insignia from Best Buy, one Digital Stream from Radio Shack (that I gave away as I got a new TV and didn't need it)
Additionally, only one station in Kalispell is full-power and thus affected by the digital mandate, Ch. 9 KCFW. The others are LPTV/translator stations that can go digital if and when they wish, but are under no obligation to. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to voipdabbler
said by voipdabbler:I have now dumped TV and am quite happy--if I want to watch shows, I go to Hulu. (Personally, I find the content of most shows pathetic and I got tired of paying a hefty satellite TV bill for sub par content that was repeated over and over and over.) I realize that I'm fortunate enough to have this as an option since I have broadband and many people aren't as lucky. The FCC waited far too long to test out Digital TV. Their trials have revealed what a fiasco it will be for those few who were fortunate enough to find equipment before their government coupons expired. (My region only got boxes within the past 3 months.) The FCC was shocked that digital signals don't seem to travel as far and many regions that could get an off air analog signal cannot get any digital signal. Bob Dole was Senate leader when the bill pushing Digital TV was passed. I was working Congressional Hill at the time and remember his floor statement, which wasn't very supportive of the whole concept. His words will ring true--it wasn't consumer demand driving this but industries that want to make more money off them. More ignorance. Please wait until feb 17 to state these claims. The reason some have had trouble is that stations are broadcasting in both analog and digital.
The digital signals are fine. People are whining over nothing.
Bob Dole? he was old back in the 90's. If it were companies you'd think they be smart enough to get the spectrum for free instead of paying $20 billion. |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| said by BF69: The digital signals are fine. People are whining over nothing. It is difficult to precisely compare analog to digital TV coverage area. Analog signal slowly degrades until picture is so snowy person gives up. Digital is perfect until signal drops below critical threshold, the so called digital cliff effect. At that point receiver is unable to display image or sound.
Longley-Rice propagation modeling was used to set antenna and transmitter performance levels so digital coverage area is the same as analog. Modeling appears to be somewhat optimistic. Actual coverage area is turning out to be smaller then analog.
»www.tvantenna.tv/papers/dtv%20co···tion.pdf
The FCC just approved using translators for DTV:
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···id=47174
This may be a more cost effective way to expand coverage area then brute force increases in TX power or antenna redesign.
While some residences will receive more digital then analog channels most will receive the same or fewer. This has been our experience. Even with high quality outdoor antenna we are unable to watch some channels that were acceptable in analog. Full impact will not be known until Feb 2009 when stations adopt final channel assignments and analog turned off.
Reduced coverage area may not be a permanent state of affairs depending on FCC and individual station actions. It is in TV station's interest to cost effectively cover as large an area as possible. Even though OTA is relatively small proportion of total viewing population it is not insignificant. There are rumblings about poor quality HDTV Cable due to transcoding HDTV programs to squeeze in more channels. The recession is making people evaluate spending. We may actually see an increase in OTA use but it is still too early to tell.
/tom |
|
Markie
join:2003-07-26
Kalispell, MT | Tschmidt, honestly it's a non-issue. If you had good analog reception you will have digital reception. The actual coverage area is NOT smaller *if* your standard is to have a good picture (very minimal picture noise, no ghosting/multipath) - in fact, it's larger. Picking up DTV is from my experience MUCH easier than getting a nice clean analog image.
The PROBLEM, is that many people COULDN'T get a good analog image but they still watched what came in. Sadly, as you note, the digital cliff effect gives these people no image. But they weren't getting a good picture anyways and would be better served by fixing their antenna install than by whining about the digital conversion (MOST people in America *can* get good reception, if they'll put in the work for it - city dwellers being a common exception) |
|
jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | reply to voipdabbler
Indeed, I'm in a pickle. I don't watch much TV, but get some reception of several channels via analog + rabbit ears. DTV box gets no channels. So I could purchase an outside antenna system for $500 or so (like the one next door that works with rotor etc, I can't see buying random antennas that we don't know would work...), I could get DirectTV/Dish (cable doesn't run by, and I called today and no plans to extend cable up my road) for $$ a month (new monthly bill/tax over free now) or buy expensive C-BAND for free satallite and pay additions perhaps...
The $40 cupon still cost me $20 for the box, and the box is worthless for me (and how would I know before buying? I got 3 OTA analog channels before the box). Now I'm out $20 and TV, or I get to spend additional hundereds to thousands on a system that used to work. |
|
jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | reply to Markie
You're still basically saying take a system that had worked for everyone involved, and make everyone spend a lot of money to fix it? I really hope we end up with some benefit as opposed to just throwing potentially lots of money down a hole to get to where we were before Feb 17th... |
|
Markie
join:2003-07-26
Kalispell, MT | reply to jp10558
jp, rabbit ears have poor UHF reception. They're VHF antennas. Most digital stations are on UHF though some will go back to VHF after transition.
Get an indoor antenna with good UHF reception, aim it right, and you should be fine.
»www.amazon.com/Philips-PHDTV1-Si···0&sr=8-1
»www.amazon.com/Terk-Amplified-Hi···0&sr=8-2
The first one is best for UHF only, the second one does both. |
|
tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| reply to jp10558
said by jp10558:I really hope we end up with some benefit as opposed to just throwing potentially lots of money down a hole to get to where we were before Feb 17th... To speak to the benefits of Digital.
1) Less power to cover a given area.
2) Ability to transmit higher quality video and audio.
3) Ability to deliver multiple programs in the same spectrum a single analog transmission.
4) Removes Channels 52-69 from TV use. Some of this spectrum will be used for improved emergency response communication and some for new wireless services.
As Markie  posted currently DTV uses second UHF channel FCC made available during simulcast period. When Analog goes away some stations will move back to VHF. Before you invest in new antenna may want to check out TVfool or AntennaWeb. They calculate expected signal level now and post-transition. They will give you an idea how strong various stations are and what channels they are using now and will use after the transition.
/tom |
|
