Digital TV

Page 4 of 4  


Commercial tv transmitters arent just a matter of crystals they are very expensive custom built to frequency, so they dont produce interference on nearby channels ...........
plus every station needs at least a primary plus a secondary backup.
loss of operation for even a hour costs them bbig bucks
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/14/2010 19:23, Mark Lloyd wrote:

That would actually be an unusual situation because transmitters are designed to operate on a specific channel. Plus purchasing new equipment gave them a chance to buy much more reliable and power efficient equipment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Uh, other than the <leases> recently auctioned off, the broadcasters don't <own> the bandwidth to sell it. By definition and case law, the airwaves are public property. Smells like urban legend to me.
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
aemeijers wrote:

it was all about the money the congress critters could get.

By definition and case law, the airwaves are public property.
That your congress critters have been selling off for you for the last 15 years, starting at channel 83. I can't find the cite right now, but the final hdtv goal was all transmitters would be in old ch 14 thru 51 allotment. Which could work well with a lightweight, compact and efficient UHF fan dipole antenna.
The original FCC hdtv reception studies (mid 90's) in several major markets didn't work out as well as expected with lower power transmitters. Either more power, or roof top antennas would be needed. The Baltimore tests were worst, too hilly of a terrain. A neighborhood could have both a too strong of a signal and a too weak signal in the same block. Some places the test equipment worked better with no antenna connected, others, a window screen worked better. Signal reflections were bad. The report is an interesting read and in the fcc.gov archive.
Last numbers were 74% of the DTV stations on UHF (14-51), 24% on high VHF (7-13) and less than 2% on Low VHF(2-6). With the virtual channel system, the actual frequency can be changed as needed to improve coverage and reduce station co-interference. channel 6-1 can always be channel 6-1 but transmit anywhere between about 500MHz to 700MHz.
Smells like urban legend to me.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've heard of proposals to eliminate OTA TV. For me,that would be a major bummer;no cable and 48K dialup net service,and TracFone prepaid cell service. Also,what happens in power outages or natural disasters? At least now,I can use a battery powered TV,generator,or an inverter/battery. Cable and cellphones didn't work after Hurricane Charlie in 2004. The FEDS would auction off the freed bandwidth...more money for them to blow on socialist schemes.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snip]

Maybe you could get something on the internet. However, that connection may be down.
When we had a storm 16 months ago, the electricity was off for 73 hours. The backup batteries on the cable node (I have cable internet) lasted 4 hours. It was another 24 hours before they put a generator on the cable node. I'm glad I don't have (cable company) Phone.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
aemeijers wrote:

I just saw something about fighting it on TV last night. Someone paid for that tv comercial.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony wrote:

The National Association of Broadcasters sponsored it. I couldn't find anything about it on their website, or anything about a bill before Congress to reduce or eliminate OTA TV.
I think broadcasters want political pressure because HDTV may give them a chance to expand. In recent years, most consumers, especially the affluent ones, didn't get their TV OTA because they weren't satisfied with picture quality. HDTV could increase the market and reduce transmission costs. It may become profitable for new stations to come on line, so broadcasters want plenty of bandwidth available.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Humm.
I just dropped Comcast. $180.00 a month for the triple header internet, phone and TV was just a little nuts.
I live 25 miles from Chicago. Went and purchased a Winegard HD7694P VHF UHF TV Antenna
Built a MythTV media center.
Has 3 physical digial HD tuners for a total of 4 tuners(one is dual). With multiplex broadcasts I can record even more(6-8 channels at a time). Some TB hard drives and a subscription to Schedules Direct for $20/yr
Not even looking back. Real Digital HD is NOT what you get from Comcast.
1TB drive divided by approximately 1.6GB per ripped DVD leaves room for about 600 movies. This does not even include the 1TB drive used for everyday recording.
I'm not even using the tuners in the TV's
dvi hdmi
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

Alls i can tell you is that we are on the fringes of the KC metro area broadcast area, and we had marginal analog service of 4 channels at best. Now with a rudimentary antenna hooked to a new digital tv, i have over 18 channels that are perfectly clear.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.