79 days left before the end of TV.

[Jon Danniken]

Is it April first already?

Jon

[Nixon.D]

If a nuclear war were to begin, I don't think NYC or Los Angeles would be on the list....unless you meant Louisiana? =====================================================

Why do you think they would not be on the list???

DaddyDave sends . . . . . . . .

[bill allemann]

I think Ron probably meant that he was streaming TV shows through the internet, no antenna. Bill

OK, 2 questions, what do you mean by your PC having a tuner, and what is the signal source if you don't have cable?

[dicko]

You can buy both analog and digital TV tuner cards that plug into a computer's PCI slot, connect via USB, or connect via ethernet that allow you to watch and record over the air TV, and work with a cable box to watch cable TV.

All these boards come with the manufacturer's own application to turn your computer into a TV. Or, if you have the Media Center Edition of XP, Vista Home Premium, or Vista Ultimate, you can use that.

-dickm

[Ron]

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D

Because of Barksdale Air Force Base.

[Nixon.D]

Because of Barksdale Air Force Base. ========================================================= I assume you mean that Barksdale would be of far higher priority above LA and/or NYC??

D.DaddyDave sends . . .

[Nixon.D]

=================================================

You MAY gain a bit in the spectrum. But, I don't think digital video conserves bandwidth over analog. And, I'll be happy to discuss this with anyone that knows anything about modulation methods and spectrum use. Andy???

McDave sends ==========================================

>

[Nixon.D]

Correct. Take out the biggest military threats first. =====================================================

I suppose you are correct. NYC and the SanFran and the L.A. would likely be the last on their list since our enemies have so many friends there.

McDave sends . . . . ==============

[dpb]

That's not true universally, certainly; and many are broadcasting the digital signals at far less power than their main antenna signal strength. Only one of the three network stations in this area is yet actually broadcasting their digital signal full time; the other two have (I understand) done some intermittent broadcasts but afaik from what their web sites sat they're not going full digital until much closer to the actual transition date. What the reason is, they've not disclosedd--I'm presuming simply going to wait and do the switchover once for real and be done w/ it.

What I've yet to be able to learn is what their intentions are wrt to final power on the translators we get their relayed/"local" broadcasts from (the main stations are all ~225 mi removed, they have translators at from 60-75 mi or so that are our sources).

The latter for the low-powered and local and some translators is true as far as "drop-dead" date.

--

[AndyS]

Nixon.D wrote:> You MAY gain a bit in the spectrum. But, I don't think digital video

Andy replies:

A standard 6 Mhz analog channel can transmit 19.4 megabits of encoded video, Dave.

That will support 5 standard definition channels of encoded video where only one channel of analog video was provided.

In my rural area, we have several stations that are sending 3 or more channels where only one existed, and one station that is sending 5. It is captioned on the video decoder, for channel 8, as 8-1 , 8-2 , and 8-3.

High Definition video takes more space, so only one ( I think ) HD station can be sent in the 6 Mhz bandwidth.

Like yourself, I care not for High Definition. I like black and white TV and love the way my car radio sounds, so I'm not likely to be a customer for the "latest and greatest" if cosmetics are the only plus. I don't care about seeing the pimple on the nose of Barbara Streisand....

HOWEVER, I love getting several times the number of channels. I hope they don't all end up sending football games or Three Is Enough re- runs just to fill up the space, tho....

If you want to pursue some details, just google " DTV Bandwidth" and you'll get enough hits to slake your lust for a long time....

Andy in Eureka, Texas

[AndyS]

Andy comments:

Isn't that exactly what the Liberals have been saying all along???? :

. "If they promulgate trash that could

I guess the next deal is to vote on who gets to decide what "detrimental trash" is.

:>))))) Andy in Eureka, Texas

[Nixon.D]

======================================================

I say let DOD decide. Those are the guys who have their lives on the line is such a scenario !!!

McDave sends . . . .

[mm]

Converter boxes will be too much for some people. And I can even see it myself. Some people have postponed buying a new tv, because of the conversion or for other reasons, but the need for a converter box (and thus for two remote controls, or maybe one can control at least some tv functions from teh converter remote control) will push them over the edge, and they'll buy a new tv. They should take the old one to Goodwill Industries, but many won't bother. Heck, I once found a 1500 dollar electric wheel chair next to the dumpster at an apartment building not too far away. Worth 1500 dollars when I found it (maybe

4500 new). Fortunately it didn't get trashed. I took it home and donated to the MD or MS foundation.

People who live in apartments that come with only one jack, or more likely one in the living room and one in the big bedroom, who don't know how to connect splitters, drill holes, or run wires themselves. And either the apartment won't put in another jack or the tenant won't pay what seems like an inflated fee.

They're not going to go to the trouble of advertising smaller tvs, especially those that are more than a couple years old. Even on Craig's list where it is easy. I know my neighbors, based on what they throw away already. Some work long hours, and for almost none of them is 30 dollars is enough to get them to advertise.

I think it's true. That's one reaosn why I want my surgery in early January, so I'll be driving around by the time they're out.

I'll try to post back the middle of February, but I may forget or go out of town around then. (I forget things all the time these days. :( )

[mm]

Of course not. You had already inserted politics, the same basic comment twice in one thread, and there's no reason you shouldn't get some back at you.

You also misuse the word "hypocrisy". It's saying one thing and doing or believing another, in different forums, so that you give a false impression of your views in the first forum. I did everything in one post, no secret from anyone. You may find it inconsistent, but I show the reason it's not in the first paragraph above.

And Joe, if you think I'm wrong, you obviously don't listen to enough NPR. Plus it has almost no commercials, unlike the never ending commercials on AM.

[mm]

We're talking about college stations, right, and stuff like that.

Do the new digital tv's receive analog? I would think not.

Am I right that digital reception will work with lower power signals, because the digital nature of the signal means even a 50% weak signal will come out perfectly, with no static?

But does this mean that people who used to be on the fringe of the signal, maybe 50% strengh, will get less than 50% with the new weaker signal. amd many of these people won't be able to get any reception on these stations at all.

I hope not. Because I like getting DC stations in Baltimore. Right now with my regular amplified antenna broken, and just using a six-foot wire, I can't get DC digital stations.

[dpb]

mm wrote: ...

Well, yes and no...what will happen is that rather than there being a very gradual degradation in picture quality as is currently the situation w/ analog where as the signal gets weaker the picture just becomes snowy, may lose synch occasionally, even fade all the way to essentially b&w reception of color transmission, at some point the digital signal will simply not pick up at all.

So, the picture quality won't have the gradual degradation; it'll be essentially all or nuttin' (ignoring the occasional dropped pixel, etc.).

The problem is, what that level will be for any given receiver is dependent on so many variables it's pretty much impossible to give any general rule on some percentage.

As I noted above, so far the one translator here is so weak w/ their digital signal that even w/ the "extreme fringe" antenna the converter box hasn't been successful. But, they're only broadcasting at about

80kw at the moment whereas the analog signal is several (I forget which station is how much and don't feel like looking it up again at the moment) times the strength.

Again, what I've been unable to determine from the stations' public information on the conversion is what their ultimate power of the digital signals will be and whether they have an concern about covering the same fringe areas they're presently covering w/ the analog signals.

Upthread I posted a link to the FCC web site that does have the current licensed power levels and at least some of the current actual power levels (how I found the 80kW number above). It does also have the analog power level for the same stations so you can see how it compares but you'll probably be in the same quandary as far as information as to their intent after the transition time as I.

[Red Green]

mm wrote in news: [e-mail]:

My ears are just sitting next to the TV at ground level. Window is nearby...in the direction of most broadcasts. If I turn the amplification off I get almost nothing. I hope that means there's hope on your end. It's an econo Phillips MANT510 I got at Wally World. States it works best within 20 miles. Most transmitters are like 40 air miles away according to antennaweb.org. Says it's 50dB amolification.

It's a $299 27" CRT RCA I got at some electronics chain like a year ago. Today, for 300 I could probably get an econo flat thingy.

[hallerb]

stations nationwide generally moved from VHF to UHF which doesnt propagate nearly as well. analog UHF stations were typically million watts, while VHF 100s of thousands.to overcome worse UHF reception.

plus UHF is degraded more by snow, trees with leaves rain etc.

new tvs around here had both analog and digital tuners bfor a few years.

many people espically older folks will lose channels they like or service altogether

[Jim10293]

lol. Now that is a fine play on words.

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ...

That's simply not true -- VHF channels far more generally remained VHF.

You're in a metro area where the band congestion is very high and new channels were, naturally, added in the UHF band since VHF was generally already locally allocated and there were undoubtedly a "veritable plethora" of stations quite early on. That's not the way it is outside metro areas, however, that covers a very large fraction of the geography of the country but a small fraction of the population (and decreasing all the time).

There's only one UHF channel at all here and it's the local upstart of only a couple years existence.

All of the four (count-em, four!) broadcast stations (the three networks plus PBS) are VHF and have been since they went on-air. I'd have to look up those dates, but these translators are relatively recent--we never had a TV set until the mid-60s (I was already out of HS) and living out of town I don't recall just how many of the kids in town had, but it was a pretty rare phenomenon there until about 1960 I'd say from recollections. I recall there was an early cable but times were tough in the 50s and not many of my acquaintances were able (or, more accurately, probably, chose to) afford it. I remember wanting permission to borrow the car to go to town to watch the Patterson heavyweight fight at a classmate's home although can't recall just what year that would have been exactly--Mom wouldn't let me owing to prize fighting being an unapproved activity. :)