dslreports logo
Cable Industry Addresses Analog/Digital Confusion
Will put a halt to bumping analog channels to digital tiers...

The transition from analog to digital TV next February has confused a lot of people, particularly those who can't tell the difference between analog, digital, HDTV and walnuts. Others confuse the cable industry's shifting of analog channels to digital tiers (which is done to free up network bandwidth) with the February national plan to shift to digital broadcasts. The latter largely impacts over-the-air customers who still use rabbit ears.

For months, both consumer groups and the FCC have accused the cable industry of taking advantage of the resulting confusion in order to upsell customers on more expensive tiers of service. Potentially fearing a suit, the National Cable And Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has sent a letter to Congress saying they'll put a temporary freeze on placing analog channels on digital tiers, for now:
quote:
NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow notes that the overlap between cable’s digital migration and the broadcasters’ DTV transition scheduled to occur on February 17, 2009, inescapably adds a layer of complexity and the potential for consumer confusion. In order to address this issue, cable operators represented on the NCTA Board of Directors are introducing a "quiet period" from December 31, 2008 to March 1, 2009, during which most channel migration from analog to digital broadcast basic or expanded basic would stop.
Of course were the cable industry intentionally confusing customers (and many customers have complained about misleading sales pitches from both carriers and TV shops), they have probably already netted quite a windfall from upgraded users. About 13.4 million television households in the U.S. receive their programming over the air only, roughly twelve percent of all homes with TVs.
view:
topics flat nest 
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

Why is cable being bashed for this but verizon not?

This is what I hate verizon wants the cable industry to follow the same rules as them for phones but doesnt want to follow the same rules as cable for video.

Didnt fios get rid of all their analog channels? Why is it that verizon isnt getting flak for the same thing?
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Why is cable being bashed for this but verizon not?

Well 3 comments here:

1) I hate Digital TV. I get reception just fine on rabbit ears but the damn digital shit leaves me with a spanish station and some ones that come in half assed and drop. Rabbit ears allows for some static. With digital, you either get it or you dont. If you dont you get a distorted picture or a blank screen. Blah.

2) It's called educate yourself as a consumer. Never rely on the salesman to tell you the truth. He is there to make money, and take your money. He is not there to be your best friend. Second, ALWAYS GET WHAT HE SAYS IN WRITING. If he is unwilling to put it on paper, then he most likely isn't telling the truth. If being told stuff over the phone, tell the person you wish to record this conversation. You want to be able to know what you are ordering and share these details with friends and family. As long as you tell them you are recording (as they do to you), you are fine. Then, if the rep LIES, you got an audio of what took place. Your job as a consumer is to PROTECT YOURSELF.

3) This whole crap is a racket and money maker. Seems this digital transition is benefiting industry vs the consumer. 13 million consumers HAVE TO BUY a digital box. 13 x 60 (tax) = 780 Million dollars consumers ARE FORCED to spend in the middle of a bloody fucking recession. If you figure the out of cost (not tax payer 40 dollar card) thats still 260 million dollars. Fucking government.
Expand your moderator at work
waiting4fios
join:2005-04-08
Howell, NJ

waiting4fios to majortom1029

Member

to majortom1029
1st - Verizon was 100% digital to begin with. They simulcast channels 2-49 in digital and analog. All they did was shut off their analog feed. Also in that block of channels from 2-49 there were only about 12-35 local channels most of which are available OTA. The channels cable is taking away usually are not available for free OTA.
There is a big difference between starting out 100% digital vs starting out 100% analog and trying to go 100% digital.

2nd - Verizon notified their customers they were going all digital and would require a set top box, and offered free digital adapters so customers could continue receiving their programming at no additional charge. Cable companies are forcing an upgrade that requires the customer pay more when renting the cable box. As a bonus, previously Verizon customers could only get channels 2-49 without a box, when Verizon went all digital and supplied FREE digital adapters, the customer not only got 2-49 but all the other channels they subscribed to as well without having to pay for the additional box.

3rd- Part of the reason Verizon went all digital was not just to free up bandwidth (they already had plenty especially when they incorporated GPON into the network vs BPON). As part as an exemption from the FCC for requiring carrier security features not be integrated with their set-top boxes Verizon had to go all digital (note other cable companies applied for this exemption as well).

Thus when you compare Verizon's migration to cable's the bottomline is Verizon charged the customer nothing extra to get what they already had, thus why Verizon is not being "bashed". If the cable company gave away free digital adapters or cable boxes when they move their channels, I doubt anyone would be complaining. But when you charge me more money to get what I already had, then its a price increase.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Why is cable being bashed for this but verizon not?

said by waiting4fios:

If the cable company gave away free digital adapters or cable boxes when they move their channels, I doubt anyone would be complaining. But when you charge me more money to get what I already had, then its a price increase.
Actually, they are giving away free adapters in many areas and not increasing the costs of basic pkgs at all where they switched off analog and went all digital. But they don't give 3, 4, or 5 to a household. You get 1 free.
Maggs
Premium Member
join:2002-11-29
Jackson Heights, NY

Maggs

Premium Member

Re: Why is cable being bashed for this but verizon not?

RCN gave the 1st standard converter free, but reserves the right to charge for it later. Isn't that really a price increase set for the future. They charge $2.95 for the first box per month.

$2.95 * 12 = $35.40 a year to rent the box
$0.17kwh * 5W * 30 days = $2.25 per month to power the box = $27

So $35.40 + $27 = $62.40 a year

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

1 edit

Robert to waiting4fios

Premium Member

to waiting4fios
said by waiting4fios: If the cable company gave away free digital adapters or cable boxes when they move their channels, I doubt anyone would be complaining. But when you charge me more money to get what I already had, then its a price increase.
That's the thing, you aren't getting the same service, at least not with Comcast. With digital, you get access to Video on Demand (free movies, plus paid movies), 46+ music channels, plus you access to another 10-15 digital channels that you otherwise were not getting.

So it's jut as cut and dry as it appears - there are advantages of using the digital boxes vs analog service.
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

2 edits

JPL to waiting4fios

Premium Member

to waiting4fios
Verizon was not 'allowed' to do this.... They were required to. This has been covered before, and I know someone's gonna balk at this, but it makes it no less true. On 7/1/07 a new FCC regulation went into effect requiring all cable boxes to use separable security (take a cable card). Smaller cable companies were granted a temporary waiver, if they requested it. Verizon made the request, and received the temporary waiver. As a condition of that waiver, however, Verizon (and all other cable outfits) was required to eliminate all analogs, including locals, by 2/17/09. Why that was a condition of the waiver I have no idea, but it was.

Edit - reread what you wrote... I misread what you wrote, initially. Looks like we said the same thing . One correction - the whole GPON/BPON thing has nothing whatsoever to do with this expansion (most of their customers are BPON and yet still have all the same channels). Verizon currently runs QAM for linear TV feeds. Those 40 analog slots suck up ALOT of bandwidth. Getting rid of them gave Verizon enough room to add 80, yes 80, HD channels. They HAD to get rid of those analogs to free up enough space for their latest channel expansion. In addition to that analog elimination, they expanded out their broadcast frequency up the full ~870MHz, giving them alot more room. But make no mistake, if those 40 analogs were still in place, they wouldn't have nearly the room that the currently do.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Why is cable being bashed for this but verizon not?

Hate to tell you but cable companies are not moving their local OTA channels to digital. They're still going to offer analog tv.
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

JPL

Premium Member

Re: Why is cable being bashed for this but verizon not?

said by hottboiinnc4:

Hate to tell you but cable companies are not moving their local OTA channels to digital. They're still going to offer analog tv.
I didn't say all cable companies were getting rid of local analogs. I said Verizon did.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

1 recommendation

fifty nine to waiting4fios

Member

to waiting4fios
I think what Verizon was allowed to do was unfair.

Conventional cable companies CANNOT go all digital. They have to keep the locals in analog by FCC rules. The FCC has mandated that they support analog TVs until 2012.

They also have to carry local channels in analog by FCC mandate. That means by law!

Verizon has NO such mandate.

Meanwhile Cable is losing subscribers to all digital FiOS by the truckload on a daily basis. They're not playing by the same rules.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

1 edit

Lazlow

Member

Re: Why is cable being bashed for this but verizon not?

Eat Me

All the cable companies could have done exactly what Verizon did (and many of the smaller companies did just that). Then they too would have been REQUIRED to remove all analog channels by Feb. Instead, they choose not to go that route. I would imagine that they did this to get all the customers that get lost in the digital change over. To some extent this tactic appears to be working. However this has left them with a bandwidth crunch and I would be willing to bet that the day they can get rid of the analogs (2012) (by the route they choose) they will.

»www.multichannel.com/article/CA6456714.html

"The blanket waiver for video providers that are either all-digital now or pledge to be by Feb. 17, 2009, lists more than 120 companies, including Verizon Communications. The group also includes some cable companies, including Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico."

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to majortom1029

Premium Member

to majortom1029
said by majortom1029:

This is what I hate verizon wants the cable industry to follow the same rules as them for phones but doesnt want to follow the same rules as cable for video.

Didnt fios get rid of all their analog channels? Why is it that verizon isnt getting flak for the same thing?
Probably because VZ throws more cash at the politicians.

Bootes
Premium Member
join:2005-01-28
New York, NY

Bootes to majortom1029

Premium Member

to majortom1029
Many others have already responded to this, but I just wanted to add another thing. I've seen ads by some cable companies where they're obviously trying to trick people into switching to them because of the digital transition. I haven't seen Verizon do this.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

1 recommendation

POB

Premium Member

Nothing really confusing about it

Forcing everyone to buy/rent digital cable boxes and/or (for the lesser informed) buy an HD TV has succeeded in spades for the industry. Consumer gets screwed once again. No news there or any big shock. Standard Operating Procedure. Digital only airwaves ensures that grandma living in bumblefuck, nowhere won't be able to watch her TV anymore with the rabbit ears and tinfoil. You must pay for everything industry says you should.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

said by POB:

Forcing everyone to buy/rent digital cable boxes and/or (for the lesser informed) buy an HD TV has succeeded in spades for the industry. Consumer gets screwed once again. No news there or any big shock. Standard Operating Procedure. Digital only airwaves ensures that grandma living in bumblefuck, nowhere won't be able to watch her TV anymore with the rabbit ears and tinfoil. You must pay for everything industry says you should.
Boy you sure are confused. First of all grandma could get a coupon for a digital converter box so at most she'd pay $15. secondly if grandmas kids and grandkids really loved her they'd all chip in a brand new TV that comes with a built in tuner.

I bet if you were around back when color TV came out you'd be bitching that in order to view color TV you had to actually purchase a TV that could display color.

Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium Member
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA

2 edits

Hangmn

Premium Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

said by 88615298:
said by POB:

Forcing everyone to buy/rent digital cable boxes and/or (for the lesser informed) buy an HD TV has succeeded in spades for the industry. Consumer gets screwed once again. No news there or any big shock. Standard Operating Procedure. Digital only airwaves ensures that grandma living in bumblefuck, nowhere won't be able to watch her TV anymore with the rabbit ears and tinfoil. You must pay for everything industry says you should.
Boy you sure are confused. First of all grandma could get a coupon for a digital converter box so at most she'd pay $15. secondly if grandmas kids and grandkids really loved her they'd all chip in a brand new TV that comes with a built in tuner.

I bet if you were around back when color TV came out you'd be bitching that in order to view color TV you had to actually purchase a TV that could display color.
And you are such a shill..Cable TV USED to have no commercials..the freedom of PAID for TV...now we not only PAY for it we are ASSAULTED with advertising..to the extent that ADVERTISERS think DVR is a circumvention of their advertising..NOW we have NO choice,,WE HAVE to use consumer electronics to get TV no more as the TV ships..He is EXACTLY right....

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

1 edit

Metatron2008

Premium Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

Your paying for a box for old tvs, and the new digital tuners come free with new tvs.

If I wanted I could watch digital OTA free since my 40" came with a free digital tuner.

Your not paying for the tv the service, you paying for new technology, so that policeman and firefighters can do their job.
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

said by Metatron2008:

Your not paying for the tv the service, you paying for new technology, so that policeman and firefighters can do their job.
LMAO. So come Feb. 2009, First Responders will using all the old analog channels television broadcasts no longer use? That's a new one on me.
mr weather
Premium Member
join:2002-02-27
Mississauga, ON

mr weather

Premium Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

That's partially correct. Don't forget channels 60-69 are being returned to the government. The frequency range being freed up will be used partially for communication systems for public safety/first responders.
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

said by mr weather:

[...] Don't forget channels 60-69 are being returned to the government. The frequency range being freed up will be used partially for communication systems for public safety/first responders.
Actually, what emergency personnel will attain in analog whitespace in any given city will be negligible. Provided the WSC gets its way, the lion's share will be going to wifi according to the below referenced excerpt. So the whole argument that analog whitespace is all about the firefighters and PD is basically a red herring.

From ARS
Until their demise in February 2009, analog TV broadcasts will continue to use its allocated spectrum between 54MHz and 698MHz, which covers channels 2 through 51 (television is getting kicked out of the space above 700MHz). After the transition, that range will be used for digital television. But not all of that spectrum is used in any given city. The White Space Coalition hopes to take advantage of that by using the "white spaces" between channels for wireless broadband. In the case of Denver, that would mean channels 10 and 11, which fall between the NBC and PBS affiliates or, better yet, the yawning chasm between channels 20 and 31.

DaveDude
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey

DaveDude to Metatron2008

Member

to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:

Your paying for a box for old tvs, and the new digital tuners come free with new tvs.

If I wanted I could watch digital OTA free since my 40" came with a free digital tuner.

Your not paying for the tv the service, you paying for new technology, so that policeman and firefighters can do their job.
Those non-cablecard tuners are going to be worthless if comcast has its way. Basicly everything will be encrypted, and digital. So you will still need a digital converter from them. Gotta love the cable industry, consumer is always last.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow to Hangmn

Member

to Hangmn
When was cable ever without commercials? I know even in the early 70's cable had commercials. Of the 11 OTA digital channels(only had 8 pre digital) I get only one that requires more than rabbit ears(it require more than rabbit ears for analog). That one remaining station will also be cranking up the power (by 4X?) come Feb.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to Hangmn

Member

to Hangmn
said by Hangmn:

said by 88615298:
said by POB:

Forcing everyone to buy/rent digital cable boxes and/or (for the lesser informed) buy an HD TV has succeeded in spades for the industry. Consumer gets screwed once again. No news there or any big shock. Standard Operating Procedure. Digital only airwaves ensures that grandma living in bumblefuck, nowhere won't be able to watch her TV anymore with the rabbit ears and tinfoil. You must pay for everything industry says you should.
Boy you sure are confused. First of all grandma could get a coupon for a digital converter box so at most she'd pay $15. secondly if grandmas kids and grandkids really loved her they'd all chip in a brand new TV that comes with a built in tuner.

I bet if you were around back when color TV came out you'd be bitching that in order to view color TV you had to actually purchase a TV that could display color.
And you are such a shill..Cable TV USED to have no commercials..the freedom of PAID for TV...now we not only PAY for it we are ASSAULTED with advertising..to the extent that ADVERTISERS think DVR is a circumvention of their advertising..NOW we have NO choice,,WE HAVE to use consumer electronics to get TV no more as the TV ships..He is EXACTLY right....
If I'm a shill where my check? Any the notion that cable never had comericals is a joke. How old are you? Probably under 30. Is this something older people told you supposedly about the good old days? I'm 40 and I remember outside of HBO, Showtime etc. cable channels ALWAYS had commercials just like regular TV.

You can still TV for free over the air by the way just like the old days. And by the way you've ALWAYS needed to use "consumer electronics" to get TV even back 60 years ago. How else would one get the TV signal?

voipguy
join:2006-05-31
Forest Hills, NY

voipguy

Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

said by 88615298:

I'm 40 and I remember outside of HBO, Showtime etc. cable channels ALWAYS had commercials just like regular TV.
I'm a few years older and remember that per-subscriber-fee cable networks had no commercials, while "free" ones had commercials. Some of the commercial-free networks in the late 1970s and 1980s were:
Nickelodeon
CBS Cable (Gone today)
The Entertainment Channel
Cable Health Network
Daytime (Daytime and Cable Health Network became Lifetime)
ARTS (ARTS and TEC became A&E)
Bravo
Disney Channel (a premium network, not basic at that time)
Now, all of them have per-subscriber-fees AND commercials!
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

voipguy

When all those channels you listed did not have commercials they were just like Showtime or HBO (you paid extra for them). After they added commercials they were moved to the basic tiers (at least in all the places I lived, a lot of areas). Before I gave up cable here(Charter) most of those channels were available without a box either on analog or clear Qam. I think part of the reason the FCC is looking into this is the cable companies moving some of those (previously free) channels over to encrypted QAM(needlessly requiring a box). After I saw how much better OTA digital looked and how much cable was(for how little I actually watched it) it, I dropped it. Yes, I do miss scifi, A&E, Discovery, History, Food network, and a few others, but it was only probably for 2-3 shows per channel and now I can pick up most of those programs online free (minus HSI cost).

Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium Member
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA

1 edit

Hangmn to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

If I'm a shill where my check? Any the notion that cable never had comericals is a joke. How old are you? Probably under 30. Is this something older people told you supposedly about the good old days? I'm 40 and I remember outside of HBO, Showtime etc. cable channels ALWAYS had commercials just like regular TV.

You can still TV for free over the air by the way just like the old days. And by the way you've ALWAYS needed to use "consumer electronics" to get TV even back 60 years ago. How else would one get the TV signal?
I am WELL over 30 and I PERSONALLY remember cable TV with NO Commercials ...yeah read what viop said..puppy

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

Alright old timer, go take your medicine and quit insulting people.

And this ain't an insult back, because that's all your doing.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to Hangmn

Member

to Hangmn
said by Hangmn:

said by 88615298:

If I'm a shill where my check? Any the notion that cable never had comericals is a joke. How old are you? Probably under 30. Is this something older people told you supposedly about the good old days? I'm 40 and I remember outside of HBO, Showtime etc. cable channels ALWAYS had commercials just like regular TV.

You can still TV for free over the air by the way just like the old days. And by the way you've ALWAYS needed to use "consumer electronics" to get TV even back 60 years ago. How else would one get the TV signal?
I am WELL over 30 and I PERSONALLY remember cable TV with NO Commercials ...yeah read what viop said..puppy
No you don't. Anyways who cares. fact is you can still get OTA TV for free. As long as you insist otherwise you're not worth talking too.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

I bet if you were around back when color TV came out you'd be bitching that in order to view color TV you had to actually purchase a TV that could display color.
I bet if you had a nickel for every time you imagined your comments passed for witty retort you'd be a millionaire.
ElJay
join:2004-03-17
Portland, ME
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite
Ubiquiti Unifi UAP-AC-LITE

1 edit

ElJay to POB

Member

to POB
Going backwards to boxes again is such a painful step back. I know the cable companies want the box revenue, but a cable box is a piece of 1980s technology that should have no place in a modern TV setup. I can't believe that people are willingly accepting them.

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

Backwards? HDTV needs enough power to view.

You want new tvs to come equipped with small computers??

You know how quickly they'd die?
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: Nothing really confusing about it

I think he meant that there is no reason to go back to using boxes. We fought long and hard to get rid of them the first time. Why cannot the cable companies broadcast the same channels in clear qam just like they did for analog? Most of the channels that they pull from analog are being moved to encrypted qam rather than clear qam and there is no good reason for this other than greed.

It will not be long before you will be seeing things like the EEE box 204(note I said 204 not 202) being integrated into TVs. As there are of the embedded design I would expect them to last about as long as the TV.

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua

Premium Member

When analog cable goes away...

I like analog cable because I don't need a box to get any of the channels that I'm paying for - my DVRs work well this way.

As soon as I am required to get a box, it's bye to cable.

••••••••••

anony1
@comcast.net

anony1

Anon

Blah blah blah

The government is forcing OTA viewers to digital to make more efficient use of the airwave spectrum. Both the government and wireless companies are both profiting from this move.

Why can't the cable companies make more efficient use of their cable network spectrum?

Seems like yet another double standard to me.

•••••••

woody7
Premium Member
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

woody7

Premium Member

hmmmm....

My mother inlaw lives out in the "boonies" in Louisiana, can't get cable too far away, doesn't have a clear unobstructed view (likes her trees)and the weather can be not conducive to satellite, and is frugal besides, gets 6 channels broadcast over the air, went and got her converter box, is ready to go! She did this all on her own, and on top is a young 86. Why is this so hard? Peace

•••

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

The bandwidth of analog hdtv...

Would clog the airwaves and make it impossible for police and fire fighters to do their job.

All those complaining that you gotta pay for a $20 box... Shutup and think of what could've been.

•••••••••••

SixSpeed
join:2001-12-24
USA

SixSpeed

Member

Cable to blame.

"Others confuse the cable industry's shifting of analog channels to digital tiers (which is done to free up network bandwidth) with the February national plan to shift to digital broadcasts."

NO!! It's because scumbag cable companies are using the HDTV transition as an excuse to try and deflect blame for moving analog channels to digital, which requires a pricey cable box rental.

•••••
Chaldo
join:2008-03-18
West Bloomfield, MI

Chaldo

Member

Comcast took advantage

Since the feb 17 thing came out, Comcast moved so many channels in my area from analog to digital its not even funny. I told them you don't need to take it now, rep says yes we do its required.
pabster
join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA

pabster

Member

Confusion? Yeah, but that was intended.

Makes for good business.

"'Tis a shame ma'am, but we just have to put all those good old analog cable channels on digital and you just have to rent a few set-top receivers from us if you want to keep watching your TV!"

Reality is that cable has been using this as an upsell tactic for the last year-odd. Are some folks truly confused...Yeah, but the cable companies aren't helping the situation.

Titus
Mr Gradenko
join:2004-06-26

Titus

Member

Whenever the Cable industry

opens their mouth, satellite service looks more attractive.

And that's f'n scary, because they both suck mustangs through 300 feet of crimped surgical tubing.
--

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium Member
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

fireflier

Premium Member

Very concise!

"particularly those who can't tell the difference between analog, digital, HDTV and walnuts"

That's hilarious, and also sadly so true. . .
45612019 (banned)
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY

1 edit

45612019 (banned)

Member

All I have to say is

Digital over-the-air TV is awesome. Better picture quality than analog cable. A dozen free high definition channels - varying from 720p to 1080i.

I can pick up around 50 channels free over the air now. Back in the old analog days I was lucky to get a dozen. The best thing about it is that the picture quality is on par with satellite or digital cable.

The audio is better than DVD.

Over the air channels actually have a program guide now thanks to digital.

Forcing broadcasters to switch to digital is one of the best things the government has done. All these people whining over having to spend $20 on a converter box so they can have a vastly improved television experience on their TV from the stone age are morons.

Youyouyuouuuuuu
@comcast.net

Youyouyuouuuuuu

Anon

Analog to Digital

You know, my boss who is 70 asked me the other day what this was all about because he was so confused. This is what I did.....

I went to the white board and drew an arc and told him.... This is the earth, or our side of it. And I drew a little tower on the earth. Then about 6 inches away I drew a little house with an antenna sticking up and explained... Back in 1950 someone started broadcasting TV signals which were analog because that's all they had... So for about 50 years or so, TV signals have been being broadcast in this fashion and EVERY TV is designed to receive those frequencies although they have changed a bit over the years.
And I explained VFH and UHF briefly. Oh and radiating out from the antenna I also drew little arcs to indicate a wave. Then I erased all the little arcs and replaced them with a little square wave and told him..... Starting in February ALL TV signals that have been analog for 50 years will now be digital but your TV will not receive the new digital signals from an antenna so you will have to get a converter....... to receive the new digital signals and change them into the old analog signals. Most likely I told him just like a VCR you would put your TV on channel 3 and change channels on the converter box with a remote control.. YOU MEAN I HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER REMOTE CONTROL? he asked... And I told him yes but it would most likely be a universal type control that he can make work with the TV so he could turn it on and off and adjust the volume. WELL WHAT IF I HAD CABLE? he asked... Then, I told him.... you won't need to do a thing because your cable company already delivers your TV signal to your house by cable instead of by antenna. OH! He said.... I think I'll just stick to the radio. And then I told him... Oh by the way there's this thing called satellite radio and....... and he just looked at me so I stopped....

jazzlady
join:2005-08-04
Tannersville, PA

jazzlady

Member

When tv costs as much as electric- they can stick it

Not everyone is lucky enough to live where OTA signals are available. I live in the mountains of Pennsylvania- and we get absolutely NO signals over the air. Even radio stations are tough to tune in here. Satellite? Forget it, unless I want to put up a 500 foot tall antenna.

I have analog sets. I don't want HDTV, or VOD, or any of that. I just want to keep what I have now. Out of the 70 odd channels I now get- I only watch about 12 of them.

My basic analog cable just went up to $54 a month. I have 4 TV's. I don't need any set top boxes to watch TV with analog.

Basic digital will be an additional $16 a month on top of the normal basic cable. I will now need a set top box for each TV. The cost for set top boxes is now $6 a month each. Plus I have to rent some kind of bypass device so I can use my vcr to record one channel while I watch another.

So my basic cable, which is all I really want- goes from $54 a month to around $100. Just to stay the same.

Getting new TV's won't help, as my cable company is scrambling the signal, forcing customers to rent a set top box from them.

Screw them. If they start dicking around and moving the good stations like SciFi and History to digital only, they can stick their cable and I'll either watch tv online, or download my shows from the newsgroups.

$100 a month to be awash in annoying commercials? No thanks. It isn't worth it anymore. There is no regulation of the cable companies and the consumers get screwed, as usual.

•••••••••
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

dont trust a salesman

Point of story is, never trust someone who is wanting to sell you something. They are not a teacher or a book. Do independent research. I doubt most DSLR members are BB employees.