Is all current television equipment becoming worthless?

In article , snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Rick Brandt) writes: | Brian Attwood wrote: | >

| > 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. | | 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.

Or pay services, e.g.,

formatting link

I'm about 40 miles from Boston and all our local stations are now broadcasting digital. Most of them I can receive most of the time, but WLVI's digital signal is usually unviewable. I've tried several different receivers. (The analog version on 56 was/is always fine.) I had hoped that they were doing some sort of low power test, but this seems to be the production setup. My UHF antenna is 20 feet up on a tower and I'm not sure I can easily raise it. Of course, I'd have a lot more incentive to work on this if I had a converter/receiver that provided good VCR support or a DVR with an ATSC tuner and functionality comparable to the Panasonic DMR that I use. :)

I wonder if there's a market for a multi-channel converter box for people with lots of analog equipment? It could decode 5-10 DTV signals and modulate NTSC versions on a local cable at fixed channels. If converter boxes will really sell for $50 then (a) this should be economically possible and (b) you could even build it with a rack of those $50 boxes and some modulators. Of course, there is still the problem of selecting the aspect ratio conversion. I suppose with two converters per digital station you could make both formats available to all devices...

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Reply to
Dan Lanciani
Loading thread data ...

Christian Fox wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.interbaun.com:

I have 3 perfectly good,working TVs,and they change the system,that IS forcing me to buy something in order to retain what I already have. (the ability to watch TV)

Reply to
Jim Yanik

(following up to my own post)

| I'm about 40 miles from Boston and all our local stations are now | broadcasting digital. Most of them I can receive most of the time, | but WLVI's digital signal is usually unviewable. I've tried several | different receivers. (The analog version on 56 was/is always fine.) | I had hoped that they were doing some sort of low power test, but this | seems to be the production setup. My UHF antenna is 20 feet up on a | tower and I'm not sure I can easily raise it.

Oops, that's 40 feet up...

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Reply to
Dan Lanciani

Sam wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Geez,that is SO stupid;ya think I want to have to move the digital receiver around from room to room each time I want to use a different TV?

Heck,I could just lug the TV/receiver combo from room to room.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

Mark Lloyd wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The news(FWIW) does not come on DVDs.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news1.IPSWITCHS.CMM:

Of course,many sites are not permitted to have towers,or even outside antennas.(small sat-dishes not included,although some sites are not suitable for those at all.)

Reply to
Jim Yanik

Of course you could make your own :-)

Reply to
Mark Lloyd

A closer comparison is would you not buy a car because it won't run without a computer?

Reply to
George E. Cawthon

Recent sales where I live indicate that you have to get upto $700-800 to get a digital tuner. The lower costing TV's say digital ready and in parenthesis indicate that you still need a digital tuner. What else you need I don't know. Same thing with HDTV ready--means that you need something else. $300 - $400 sets may here may have a digital comb filter, they will not pickup digital broadcasts. Those 27" TV's that now sell for $200-$300 will be a lot more expensive in March. I suspect that they will be a good deal more than $50-70 extra. We'll see in March.

Reply to
George E. Cawthon

you just use

And to expand on this. All power flows *from* the people to the government. There is this thing we can do every few years where we can directly hire/fire/retain the people that run the government. Too bad so few people are interested and let the big special interest groups decide everything.

Reply to
George

As I understand it, one channel's bandwidth is capable of transmitting:

- a single HDTV signal (1080p or 1080i) - up to two EDTV signals - up to four "traditional" definition video signals (480i)

I suppose one EDTV with two "traditional" is also possible as well.

I recall reading somewhere that PBS was considering broadcasting four "traditional" low res programs during the daytime and switching to a single HDTV program for the evening.

That is one of the beauties of a digital system: the channel provides a certain amount of bandwidth for data. How a broadcaster uses that bandwidth is up to them (with some restrictions!). If the program content is not HDTV, then the extra bandwidth could be used for other programs, or for some other data transmission.

Reply to
Calvin Henry-Cotnam

Odd how Americans seem to think that democracy is unique to their small corner of the world. Well, perhaps not that odd. Americans have never really cared too much for anything outside of their borders, unless it directly affects something _inside_ their borders.

Also odd is how Americans seem to ignore the true lack of power that "the people" have to sway decisions made by their government.

Reply to
Christian Fox

you just use

This is what they say. There is little or no truth to it. A few facts to consider:

  1. "Herd instinct". People are easily manipulated. It is impossible to reliably determine the facts you need to know to control the government anyway.
  2. "Will of the people" is a fantasy. There are individual wills. No group will, only inaccurate means of determining this fictitious entity.
  3. Most of the time, you (non-government official, at least) don't get to vote on issues. You get to vote for PEOPLE, who may or may not honor any promises made.
  4. A single vote (especially in national elections) has a minuscule effect, an obvious fact a lot of people keep trying (ineffectively) to hide.

It's impossible for individuals to do it anyway.

Reply to
Joe

I still stand by my first statement on this topic. As soon as the Pink Flamingo trailer park retirees hear about this, congress will be deluged with letters and this will getr pushed back ... again,

Reply to
gfretwell

My cable boix allows me to record one show and watch another, or record two and watch direct (only analog channels).

Agreed.

My bet is that they'll be cheaper than that by 2009, and built into everything. Will VCRs even exist in 2009? ;-)

Reply to
Keith

Since this discussion is about US communicaitons policy, yes, it is unique to this "small" corner.

Should there be a reason to care what you're doing if it doesn't affect us? Why do you care so much about what we're doing?

Odd how non-Americans care so much about what we do.

Reply to
Keith

Good point... They might be so rare that most stores will no longer carry VHS tapes and those that do might charge a hefty fee for them.

Beachcomber

Reply to
Beachcomber

not snipped-for-privacy@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@newsgroups.comcast.net:

Then it is essentially multiple receivers in one box,(or a "block converter");I believe any basic DTV receiver box will not be that way.

Maybe they got them as GIFTS.What's it matter HOW they got them? There are quite a number of people who work more than one job just to feed,clothe and house themselves,and people on fixed incomes,retirees.

Yes,but government is not forcing tape makers to stop making tapes,or VCR makers to convert to Hard drive/DVD recorders. They also have not forced cable companies to comply with their OTA standards. The manufacturers decide on their own according to their market research and product demand.

Government assigns freq,power limits,and BW allocation,but should not have any say on what system is used,as long as the users stay with their assigned BW and power limits.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

One of the main reasons they want all that extra bandwith is so more people can have cell phones. Every person talking on a cell phone is using bandwidth. Now imagine how many people are talking all at once! That is a lot of bandwidth required, even with digital cell phones! Now you see why we must convert to digital tv, so every american can have his constitutional right to yak all day long on his/her cell phone. Same with all the kids text messaging while in school instead of studying. And sending picyures over cell phones. And playing online video games over cell phones. As bandwidth is freed up, we will think of more things to do with it.

Now quit moaning and go buy a converter box :-).

Stretch

Reply to
Stretch

Yes, the cable box has two tuners in one box. THere is no reason such things won't exist for HDTV.

Maybe they'll get HDTV tuners from the same place.

Do you think the broadcasters should cram analog TV into their alloted HDTV channel? Do you think broadcasters should be able to broadcast PAL TV? The government owns the airwaves and certainly does have the right to force standards. Whether HDTV is a good idea or not is another issue (no use for it personally).

Reply to
Keith

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.