Last year I was looking at TV. No way was I going to spend big bucks on digital because I could get a nice 36" for about $400 loaded with features. So, there I was, standing in the store in front of my chosen 36" and a 34" HDTV for $1300. Side by side, it kept looking back and forth. $400 versus a whole bunch of money. Yeas, the picture was nice, but wow, the cost was just too much. I kept looking, comparing, thinking about he big price difference. Suddenly, I knew that six month later I'd be wishing I bought the HDTV. I did and have not regretted it.
I bought a 34",(16:9 ratio) the largest I could get with a CRT. I did not care for the quality of the projection screens as much, plasma was way too high. Sucker weighs 185 pounds, but that is another story getting it on the stand and later the oak stand I built (see my web page under woodworking)
As for signal, we have a problem with one station at time. The cable company received the signal over the air from a local broadcast station. As someone mentioned, the picture freezes at times. It may last half a second, it may last 10 seconds. Then it will not happen again for days. Cable company says it is due to the way they receive that signal compared to the others on satellite.
By any chance was it raining when your picture froze up? Cable companies get even the local stations off the satellite these days and most of the satellites are KU Band and subject to attenuation from thunderstorms.
Not every downpour will kill the signal either... just those severe ones where its continuous rain clouds upwards of 50-60,000 ft. It doesn't matter where your house is... just the location of the cable co. head end.
The old C-Band satellite dishes seldom had this problem, but then you had a big ugly dish to put someplace and a satellite that didn't need so much power to beam down a signal. KU Band means big powerful satellites beaming signals to tiny sat. dishes. The weather related interference still leaves PBS and the major TV networks scratching their heads sometimes, but it is part of the physics and their is no easy solution to drops outs during bad weather.
If the cable co. gets the digital signal directly off the air from the originating station, it's possible that you can get freeze-ups from non-weather sources (radar from planes and land sources, military aircraft, certain cell phones, microwave links).
The earth is intensely radio-emmisive due to the activities of mankind in the 21st Centruy.
Sounds like bafflegab to me. Fifty percent of nothing is still nothing. Oh... that must be the "assuming all else is well" part. Like plenty of signal and no multipath.
I'm within 5 miles of local channel 13, but it's an obstructed path with severe multipath. I can guarantee you that the reflected signals are within the -4 dB threshold that chokes 8VSB.
All other local stations are further away and are also obstructed paths with multipath despite them being at 8800' ASL. Fat chance there will be translators. The chief engineer at one station is a friend of mine and I asked him why they didn't have a translator serving my area. He said they had been trying, without sucess, for a decade to get a license.
Oops, sorry for that last blank reply.... (hit the wrong key)
OK, after reading your post this has me concerned. I live in a rural area. I get 3 VHF (sometimes 4) stations and 3 UHF stations. (not including the infomercial only channel) They all come from one of 3 cities. The cities are distanced as follows. 55miles 70 miles 90 miles (and that 4th is 115 miles) The first two are the only ones that are fairly decent. That is 2 VHF and 2 UHF (one is PBS). Will I be able to get ANY reception with a converter on HDTV? Right now I have to go outside and rotate the antenna to get both directions (I know, I should have a rotor). but my vice grips on the mast works too.
Next concern. Will I have to buy a new antenna? It's easy for some of you to say you will spend $30 or $70 for a converter, or spend $1500 for a new tv, but some of us are on a fixed income. And I dont believe it will stop with the purchase of a converter. First off, there will be needed a converter for EACH tv and VCR. In my case that would be TIMES FIVE 3 tvs 2 vcrs. So we are now up to $150 to $350. I have a feeling I'll need a new antenna, so add another $100 or more. We're not JUST talking $30 here, and dont let that fool you. I dont doubt that the new antenna will require other components too, maybe new coax, and the list goes on.
Final concern. I have a small portable black and white tv that runs off 3 power sources. Batteries, 12 volt car lighter, or AC with a black outlet box. I mostly own this set for when I go camping, or want something to watch when I take breathers when I travel. You tell me how will I use a converter on that set? Will they offer battery operated converters? Will they include a built in rabbit ear antenna like these portable tv sets have?
It's not just spending $30 and living happily ever after....
By the way, do they offer these small portable battery and 12 volt TV sets with HDTV?
We dont have that now.... I dont know if they use the same transmitter for both the analog signal and the hdtv, or if they are broadcasting both separately, but right now both exist and I dont see why tv stations would change to anything else. Why cant they "encode" a analog signal right in with the hdtv signal? Has anyone looked into that? Rather than the govt. forcing everyone to buy converters, and spending tax money t do it, why not just make the tv stations re-do their transmitters to handle both signals combined. I'm sure it would cost the govt. less to assist them than make every tv owner buy converters. I'm sure the technology exists or could be developed.
Its like someone else said about the change from B&W tv to color. They made them backward compatible. This should occur now.
I bought a tv around 1980. It still works, but the old click tuner was getting flakey. Last year I bought a new 20" tv for $90 and I love the picture. I expected this set to also last 25 years, and figured that set would outlast me, since I am old. I am one of those people on a fixed income and spending $30 is asking alot. But like I said in another post, I am sure it will be MUCH more. FIVE converters, New antenna, etc.... More like $500 in the end, just to be able to use the sets I now have. I can not fanthom spending $1000 or more for a lousy tv set. To me, tv is for watching the news, and something to keep the house lively when I am on the computer or doing other stuff. Most of the programming is crap, but I still like having that box turned on. I have no interest in satellite tv at the prices they charge, and cable is not an option where I live. Right now, I have all the bills I can handle with the basics, such as utilities, mortgage, and insurance. This internet is my only luxury and because I live in a rural area I am paying DSL prices for dialup, but thats all there is.
I should also mention that I have a relative that is disabled and much older than myself. She will NOT be able to watch tv at all. I know that for fact. She can not operate a vcr, she wont be able to deal with a converter. She is alone enough as it is, and is depressed. This will only add to get lonliness and depression. All she can do is turn the tv on and off, and change channels and volume. The last time she hit the wrong buttom on her remote, she was without tv for 6 weeks till she finally asked me about it. She was embarassed and thought she broke the tv. I went there and found she had lost the presets on the channels. They are set automatically, but she could never do it.
Once again, this is not just a cut and dry matter of paying $30 and plugging in a few wires.
Why cant they use other frequencies. There are millions of them in use, and on my police scanner, there are large segments not being used for anything???
I heard on the news that during Katrina they were lacking frequencies for communication which caused many of the problems. Personally, I say thats HOGWASH. The govt just uses that as an excuse for themsleves doing a poor job during that crisis. There are many frequencies on the police band that do nothing. Yet, there are a few channels that are overloaded. There is one locally that has police, sheriff, fire, ambulance, and even some private businesses all on the same channel. Someone is really not allocating them properly.
I completely agree. During a storm, I wont use the internet weather (If I do have power). I have lost several modems from lightning. If I turn on the radio, they just keep playing their lousy music and commercials, so I haev to wait till the even hour interval when they give the news and weather reports. By then, a tornado has carried my house 300 feet away. Even the weather radios are always pretty useless. They seems to update every 10 to 20 minutes ONLY, and several times during severe storms they are giving weather reports for next week or whatever. They have heard from me about this too...
About the only thing that works is my tv set, and like I said earlier, I have a battery operated one. Besides tv being the most reliable, I can also see the weather maps and oftentimes those tell much more than paragraphs of words.
All of the US TV stations have been allocated UHF frequencies for digital TV. (The VHF stations will continue to broadcast on VHF frequencies CH 2-13 until 2009, but most have already constructed their digital UHF plant and are either conducting tests, or full blown HDTV broadcasts (for the major network stations). The digital site may not necessarily be physically located where the existing analog transmitter site is currently broadcasting from. (Although in most cases, it is the same).
Remember, that in the USA, all HDTV will be digital, but not all digital TV will be HDTV. (Japan had an analog HDTV system called MUSE!) so it is possible.
In order to get information (Channel, location, power levels) for your specific locality, it might be best to contact the Director of Engineering for the stations you are interested in. Also check the station's website.
The impact of the big changeover will probably be hardest on rural residents because typically, rural residents require the most expensive and elaborate TV antennas and rotators. In other words, it won't be much differerent than it is now except for the converter issue. It may be more economical to switchover to a satellite system with local channels. It depends on your specific locality.
I can't imagine that people would be forced to pay $1500 for a new tv.
The TV sales industry would dry up overnight. I wouldn't pay that for any tv.
Most likely, you will need a new antenna since digital tv uses the UHF spectrum. If you have an existing outdoor UHF antenna, you might not need to change. Both indoor and outdoor digital TV antennas are quiet commonplace now. Check eBay for examples.
One simple way of looking at it. Today you view both VHF and UHF stations. Well ... basically all of the VHF stations are going away and will become digital UHF stations. The existing analog UHF stations will remain UHF stations, but convert to digital broadcasting.
Don't forget, most people feed their tv from the output of a VCR. The existing RF signal from antenna, cable, or satellite goes to the RF input of the VCR. Thus, you may need just one converter, not two for the TV-VCR combination. I'm assuming the converter will be some sort of broadband version, but I could be wrong. (I haven't seen them yet, have you?). Otherwise you will have to select the channel you want on the converter and it would put out NTSC Video/analog stereo audio OR modulated on CH3 or CH4. It will probably be similar to a set top cable box.
Good question. I don't know.
The converters should be small and all solid state. Some may even work on 12VDC. If your portable tv has an external antenna input, you should be able to connect it. You would then supply an RF antenna connection to the input of the converter. It sounds like it could possibly be an awkward mess of cables for a little TV.
2009 is three years into the future and it's difficult to predict what technological developments, let alone what new products will be out there.
You want confusion... Some TV stations identify themselves with their existing VHF allocation. (example FOX 12, Newschannel 8, etc.) These will mean nothing when all broadcasting is digital.
In the meantime, I'd like to see them bring back channel one.
Just a nitpick, the govt is mandating a change to digital (DTV) broadcast not HDTV broadcast. All HDTV is DTV but not all DTV is HDTV. Some broadcasters may choose to broadcast in HDTV, but others may choose to broadcast in standard definition and offer multiple channels or use the "extra" bandwidth in other ways.
No, the systems are completely different. Digital TV requires brand new high power transmitters, new processing equipment, a new antenna, new microwave or fiber links. In many cases, the broadcaster is faced with a fully-loaded tower for the old system and must construct a new one. Add an upgraded 100 KW emergency generator because both systems are "on" at the same time. The cost of this can be millions of dollars for "each" station. Don't even mention the electric bill.
When this was first proposed, the broadcasters howled. No one wanted to invest millions of dollars in a system that could not be watched (no member of the public had a digital tv) and would not directly add to revenue.
Now it is a competition between broadcasters, cable guys, and satellite providers as to who can offer the best picture. The broadcasters are smart and realize the benefits of an upgraded technology. When the switchover occurs in 2009, for many viewers it will be seemless, as they will already be watching on a digital TV.
Yes, it would be great if you could change the laws of physics.... Maybe those Maxwell equations don't really exist.... :>
Seriously, though...
The history of NTSC TV consists of cramming the maximum amount of analog information in a limited 6 Mhz bandwidth. They cut most of the video carrier to a vestige of it's former self (Hence, vestigial sideband). The engineers searched long and hard for a spot to add the aural (audio) carrier so as not to interfere with the video.
Then they wanted to add color and make it backwards compatible. Most said it "couldn't be done" but some of the best minds said that if you set a phase modulated signal at 3.58 Mhz and put it in there with the video, it just might work. They crammed the chroma signal in there and it did work. They added a color "burst" signal to keep it in synch.
In the 1980's, they wanted to add stereo audio and something called VITS and VIR Test signals, so those were added. Data signals from who-knows-where fill up the vertical interval.
The end result is that the NTSC bandwidth is truly maxed out and there is simply no place to add a high definition digital signal and keep it compatible with existing TV.
Digital signal processing and compression is, on the other hand, of tremendous value to broadcasters.
Back in the early 90's, a typical satellite had 24 video transponders with a capability of one 6 Mhz video signal for each transponder.
In one day, , they put digitally compressed signals on each of these transponders and gained 4 or 5 fully compatible video signal channels for each transponder. This "Quadrupled" the satellite capacity overnight. Do you think you have too many home shopping channels on your cable TV?
The government realizes that for some people, it is going to be a bitter pill to make this changeover. Otherwise, they would not be speaking of subsidies.
The benefit of this pain will be a much better system for all, however... IMO.
Interesting. I have Charter cable which is in the process of going 100% digital after previously having some digital channels only in the extended basic package.
Our digital channels are constantly screwing up. Either pixelating, cutting out audio, or going completely blank. They have been out here several times replacing the box twice and "tweaking" whatever out on the pole. Usually the problem is not removed at all or is only fixed for a couple of weeks before it is back.
I find it hard to believe that we are receiving "less than 50%" of the signal. The technicians that have been out have told us that the digital receivers are very sensitive to signal strength. Too little (or too much) signal outside of a fairly narrow range causes problems. They apparently find it difficult to get the strength of the signal so that it works for both the people close to the nearest splitter and those that are further from the splitter.
We have a switch box that allows us to bypass the cable box and instead pump the analog signal from the cable directly to the TV. When one of the digital channels is messing up we often have to do this to be able to watch a program.
I'm not protesting the changeover, but I have no doubt that MANY people who can get decent analog reception now will be screwed when that signal is turned off.
Which is what they will do the majority of the time. We will end up with mostly standard quality digital and 50 more channels all showing infomercials.
Beta was better quality. VHS was cheaper and offered recordings of up to 6 hours (at degraded quality).
The original Windows was a copy of the superior Macintosh Operating System, specifically, the graphical user interface (mouse - pull down menus). The problem was that Macs were expensive and (at the time) had less than 20% of the world's computer market share compared to the "PC compatibles" even though the Macintosh worked a lot better.
The cheaper system prevailed. "
It's true that both of these things were cheaper and that's why they prevailed. But the other and more important lesson from this is that open systems prevail. Betamax was created by Sony and they refused to license it to anyone else. VHS was licensed and available from multiple companies. That was what drove the cost down.
The same thing happened with the Mac. Apple kept the Mac hardware and software propriatary, while the Windows/Intel platform was available from many manufacturers, driving the cost down.
It's also interesting that some people use the Betamax/VHS example of how well the marketplace works as opposed to the way the FCC is handling the digital broadcast transition. How do they think the people who spent $500 on Betamax units felt when they essentially lost much of their usefullness due to the marketplace. Do you think they all said I wound up with an expensive product that I can't find new titles for, but the free market did it, not the govt, so it's OK?
Don;t get me wrong. I'm a big proponent of free enterprise. But when you have a limited bandwith resource that has to be shared for the benefit of all, some traderoffs have to be made. You can't make everyone happy. This $40-$70 cost for a digital tuner to continue to use your existing TV for those relying on OTA, is small potatoes compared to lots of other govt mandates. Take air bags for example. One could argue, and some did, that it should be marketplace driven. But the govt shoved that down everyone's throat and the cost impact was a hell of a lot more than $40.
I hear you. The needs of our senior citizens are important considerations. I'm getting up there in years myself and I wonder about such things myself. Fortunately, as a group, old people still vote and the politicians still listen sometimes.
As I said in a previous post... I think anyone living in a rural area that is currently trying to pull in tv signals form 50-80 miles with a huge antenna and a rotator may pay a premium price to switch over to digital tv.
I think there are many hidden costs when you live in a rural area regardless of age. You pay more for less Internet service, higher gas prices for longer trips, and probably you have less access to acceptable medical services.
As a group, I really don't think that senior citizens are going to be faced with expenses for $1000 to continue to watch free tv. There would be riots in the nursing homes if this were the case.
I'm certain that there will be inexpensive solutions. Just like if today, if you want an inexpensive computer, you can find a used one for $100 or so. It may not be fast or run the latest operating system, but you still will be able to connect to the Internet and do what you need to do. I really think that by 2009, the whole thing may be a non-issue.
We dont have that now.... I dont know if they use the same transmitter for both the analog signal and the hdtv, or if they are broadcasting both separately, but right now both exist and I dont see why tv stations would change to anything else. Why cant they "encode" a analog signal right in with the hdtv signal? Has anyone looked into that? Rather than the govt. forcing everyone to buy converters, and spending tax money t do it, why not just make the tv stations re-do their transmitters to handle both signals combined. I'm sure it would cost the govt. less to assist them than make every tv owner buy converters. I'm sure the technology exists or could be developed. "
All this was hashed out and decided years ago. The broadcast industry has been involved every step of the way. The issue is that there is a finite frequency spectrum. And that spectrum is valuable because new technologies and industries that didn't even exist 25 years ago are now actively using it. Everything from cell phones to satellites.
They can't broadcast HDTV, digital TV and anaog TV all in the same frequency space. They could keep two transmitters going and continue to use the analog system the way it is. However the govt wants to resell the analog freqs and expects to get $10Bil for it. Whether it's worth the $10Bil in revenue that would be lost if they don't do this, because of the impact to a small percentage of the population, is the only real debate.
Well... most of the time you don't need HDTV. It does make the movies look good though and for those with the equipment... You will get a full theatre experience.
The Tonight Show and the Late Show are currently being broadcast in HDTV. A viewer could get used to this. After you had your first broadband experience, did you want to go back to your old dial-up modem?
Your local news could be broadcast in HDTV if your station is willing to pop for the equipment.
You could experience police chases, live fires and floods in HDTV with 5 channel stereo sound.
If you are just watching old movies, HDTV probably won't enhance your experience.
Just as today's children say "Yuck, a black & white movie... I can't stand to watch that".
The children of the future are going to be saying "Yuck, a low-definition broadcast... I can't stand to watch that."
Maybe. If it can be done reasonably economically, yes, but at some point, you have to make a technological jump that just does not allow for that. Look at other aspects of our consumer lives. Would you not buy a new car because the snow tires from your '68 Volkswagen won't fit it? Would you not buy a new computer because your 300 baud modem is not compatible? Would you not buy a good single malt Scotch because you usually drink cheap beer?
Why should millions of people have to drive cars that use the same tires as your '68 Volkswagen because you are not, or cannot make the change?
HomeOwnersHub website 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.