DTV: Not quite "classic" yet, but...

[Stanislav]

It's been about 12 or 13 years since DTV first entered the testing phase, so it's not like "brand-new" technology. And it's about to become the default. I hope, therefore, that I'm not stretching the "Classic TV" moniker of the board too far. Nevertheless, here's my two cents, and I seek your opinions and experiences.....

IMHO, DTV has its advantages and disadvantages:

PLUSES: WAY better video quality (assuming a strong enough signal)-- as good as standard DVD, even when downcoverted to 480i; greater programming choices with sub-channels; built-in EPG (Electronic Program Guide) a nice feature, as is the on-screen signal meter (comes in handy when tinkering with an antenna for best reception).

MINUSES: The "cliff effect" of digital signals that renders them unviewable without a sufficient signal level (bad news for fringe viewers who with analog could at least get a viewable, if snowy, picture); also much more susceptible to break-up from trees, wind, rain, airplanes, etc.; and, of course, the absurd "remapping" of actual RF channels to "virtual" channels, which to me only muddles things. (Hey, when stations moved to a different channel in the past, they didn't keep referring to themselves with their OLD channel, now did they?)

I am set up with a very basic DTV outfit: window-ledge antenna feeding a Digital Stream converter, into a 6 year old basic Durabrand (Wal-Mart) 13" analog set. I have this setup by my bed, on a non-cabled TV that I also use for viewing DVDs at night. Works great. My stations have actually increased, thanks to some semi-locals (particularly the two "fringe" PBS outlets, WDSC and WBCC) relocating their DTV transmitters to the main Orlando-area antenna farm. With WMFE, this gives me three solid PBS choices that rarely program the same thing at the same time. Plus all the major and minor commercial networks, and an indie. The indie runs RTN on a sub-channel, and the CW affiliate just put "thisTV" on their sub-channel (lots of second-tier movies and TV-movies from the 70s, 80s, etc. that are nonetheless interesting -- most I haven't seen in years). Only problems are the two Spanish channels and the ION affiliate. The Univision affiliate is still lo-power, and the Telefutura and ION channels are at different transmitter sites that are not line-of-sight to my window; BUT, both the latter will eventually relocate at the same transmitter site as most of the other locals, so they will eventually be regulars. (And the ION station also carries Rays baseball...)

Oh, yeah...a couple of full-time gospel huxters and another to come. Not my cup o'tea -- sometimes good for an ironic chuckle.

So, how do you all feel about the grand analog-to-digital switchover? What pluses and minuses do you see? What reception problems have you experienced, if any? How do you feel about it all? And I'm curious -- since they have been broadcasting DTV for over a decade now, who on the board were some of the "early adopters," playing with OTA DTV before most people were even aware of it?

 

[landtuna]

PLUSES: WAY better video quality (assuming a strong enough signal)-- as good as standard DVD, even when downcoverted to 480i; greater programming choices with sub-channels; built-in EPG (Electronic Program Guide) a nice feature, as is the on-screen signal meter (comes in handy when tinkering with an antenna for best reception).

Agree with the video quality....with a disclaimer. On my 30-year old RCA 25" console (The TV That Will Not Die) the PQ is remarkable over analog. On the other TV's in my home there is practically no difference.

Disagree with sub-channels, at least for now. Current offerings in the Phoenix area are pretty useless. RTN is about the only non-weather, non-news-loop sub and programming is not interesting (to me). The other subs here vary from music/scenery (PBS) to godcasting which also are of no interest to me. Maybe in the future.....

The EPG is pretty much useless on the three converter boxes I own (all different brands). They are not the robust version guides I've become used to via DirecTV so I don't use them at all. Instead, I use several Internet-resident guides (one for DirecTV and another for the local subs) and I've found them to be much superior to the converter box variety.

MINUSES: The "cliff effect" of digital signals that renders them unviewable without a sufficient signal level (bad news for fringe viewers who with analog could at least get a viewable, if snowy, picture); also much more susceptible to break-up from trees, wind, rain, airplanes, etc.; and, of course, the absurd "remapping" of actual RF channels to "virtual" channels, which to me only muddles things. (Hey, when stations moved to a different channel in the past, they didn't keep referring to themselves with their OLD channel, now did they?)

Since I'm in an urban area with 8-mile line of sight to the towers I don't have the "cliff effect" due to signal attenuation. We do have severe thunderstorms during summer which might knock out the DTV signals though. I'm waiting to see on that. My DirecTV service dies every once in awhile due to rain but it is infrequent here in the desert so not a big issue.

Agree with you on the virtual channel thingy. I raised this issue several months ago and was beat down pretty bad but it would seem much more straight forward (to me) for the stations to identify themselves with their actual RF designations. Yes, I know that would mean rebranding and buying another set of those cute little lapel pins with the channel number for the talking heads.

So, how do you all feel about the grand analog-to-digital switchover? What pluses and minuses do you see? What reception problems have you experienced, if any? How do you feel about it all? And I'm curious -- since they have been broadcasting DTV for over a decade now, who on the board were some of the "early adopters," playing with OTA DTV before most people were even aware of it?

The most 'serious' drawback to me personally is the lack of a timer feature in the converter box(es). I still use several VCR's for time-shifting and none have DTV tuners so I am limited to recording one DTV channel at a time. Inconvenient for me and a disaster for the wifey who, despite my best efforts, does not understand how all the boxes work. I think DTV should come with blood pressure medicine for her. ;D

As the VCR's age out and fail they'll be replaced with DVR's or digital VCR's so this won't always be a problem but it sure is today.

 

[Stanislav]

Disagree with sub-channels, at least for now. Current offerings in the Phoenix area are pretty useless. RTN is about the only non-weather, non-news-loop sub and programming is not interesting (to me). The other subs here vary from music/scenery (PBS) to godcasting which also are of no interest to me. Maybe in the future.....

I think there will be some better subchannels in the future -- there hasn't been a lot of incentive for stations to put a lot of time and money into those yet. I think we'll also see some "shared" arrangements whereby potential programmers/station operators will lease an existing station's subchannel rather than try to get a license (LPTV or whatever) and build it out themselves.

As I said, I like RTN and thisTV. The weather subs are useful for quick checks on approaching storms. WMFE has an "encore" channel where they repeat some of the previous evening's prime-time programming during the day. The three PBSs also have things like a Spanish PBS-like service, a channel of stuff from UCF (my alma mater), the Florida legislature (when in session), etc. Not exactly ratings-busting programming, but some of it is interesting.

Given my economic situation here, cable is really a luxury we shouldn't splurge on. However, my invalid mother has almost no outlet for mental stimulation other than TV, and most of what she likes is on cable, so I don't begrudge the expense. As much of a TV geek as I am, though, I feel that I could live perfectly fine without cable, and that there would be enough on OTA to keep me happy. Sure, I'd miss a few things, but cable rates are so outrageous now. Actually, with our depleted budget and soaring power bills (our electric company just recently raised the rates 25%!!), I'm also trying to keep overall power use to a minimum here, and with my mother's TV on virtually 24/7, I have deliberately kept mine off most of the time in recent weeks, just tuning in once in a blue moon to check news, only leaving it on when there is a specific show I really want to see. (No more idle channel surfing, or TV as half-ignored background distraction.) And you know what? I'm surviving quite nicely, and really don't miss it much at all. Never thought I'd say that -- must be getting old.

 

[Robnoxious]

Going on 15 years living happily without a cable tv bill. The only thing I miss is occasional live sporting events when I'll go over to a friend's house to watch or I'll use a website (which I'll leave nameless) created somewhere in Europe for fans of North American sports that stream live events from here over there and then out over the internet, live. If there is something that runs on cable that I have to see (which is scant handful of shows) I'll catch it on Hulu if it's there or I'll download it from Usenet.

As far as DTV I have a huge advantage living in television market #2 where every network is accounted for on my channel lineup and then some with just a set of bunny ears. The people I feel for are those in the sticks that might have to go to cable to receive anything after analog sunset. I hope the cable companies don't treat them like a sucker and hoodwink then into a ridiculously large cable package tier simply because they may be uninformed of what to request.

 

[LKellerIII]

Going on 15 years living happily without a cable tv bill. The only thing I miss is occasional live sporting events when I'll go over to a friend's house to watch or I'll use a website (which I'll leave nameless) created somewhere in Europe for fans of North American sports that stream live events from here over there and then out over the internet, live. If there is something that runs on cable that I have to see (which is scant handful of shows) I'll catch it on Hulu if it's there or I'll download it from Usenet.

As far as DTV I have a huge advantage living in television market #2 where every network is accounted for on my channel lineup and then some with just a set of bunny ears. The people I feel for are those in the sticks that might have to go to cable to receive anything after analog sunset. I hope the cable companies don't treat them like a sucker and hoodwink then into a ridiculously large cable package tier simply because they may be uninformed of what to request.

Unfortunately, it's not just people "in the sticks" that have over the air reception problems. I live in the heart of San Francisco - but on the wrong (eastern) side of a hill for OTA reception which comes from the Twin Peaks towers to the west. I can only get the local NBC station because their transmitter is on Mt. San Bruno to the south. Other than that, I can only pick up OTA signals from San Jose and Monterey/Salinas way to the south.

Same thing when I was a kid growing up in a northern Los Angeles suburb. We could get San Diego signals, but nothing from LA. No cable, no local TV. At least these days, there is the satellite alternative.

 

[Stanislav]

Unfortunately, it's not just people "in the sticks" that have over the air reception problems. I live in the heart of San Francisco - but on the wrong (eastern) side of a hill for OTA reception which comes from the Twin Peaks towers to the west. I can only get the local NBC station because their transmitter is on Mt. San Bruno to the south. Other than that, I can only pick up OTA signals from San Jose and Monterey/Salinas way to the south.

There is growing interest in the idea of "fill-in" translators/boosters for DTV, even in urban areas (you cite a perfect example of where they could be effectively used) and I think the notion will accelerate once DTV rules the realm. (There's a lengthy application by one Alaskan station that is asking for FIVE close-in lo-power booster stations; they show some pretty convincing engineering evidence why they cannot possibly replicate their analog coverage in the rough terrain of even their immediate market without boosters.) Digital can technically blanket a similar overall coverage area as their dying analog brothers (the circle on the map looks about the same), but it's more of a "swiss cheese" coverage, with more holes.

The question is whether there will be enough people sticking with OTA to make the effort worthwhile, or whether there will ultimately be enough new defections to cable or satellite to ever further marginalize OTA viewers and make them an even easier to dismiss minority.

 

[Robnoxious]

Had everyone shut off analog back in Feb we'd have a lot more knowledge about how coverage patterns would look because then the digital power would have been maxed to the fullest that each station's digital license allows. As it stands most major markets are still in limbo until June when the hard data will start to come in and be worked on if need be.

I don't mind if broadcasters marginalize me because I'm strictly OTA. Unless you are a Nielsen family they all ready don't care. However, if they get to the point where OTA broadcasts get turned off I'll be obtaining my "television" strictly through the internet by legal and mostly illegal means. I can marginalize them just as much as they can me.