Hd Radio: A bad solution to a non-existant problem

[nd2023]

Why was HD radio developed in the first place? Analog radio was doing fine when the idea was developed. Satellite was growing when HD launched, but it didn't affect traditional radio much.

HD radio should have been given its own band and launched after the digital conversion in the newly freed up analog TV white space. Then the HD signals could be heard as far as the analog stations, but with no static.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Why was HD radio developed in the first place? Analog radio was doing fine when the idea was developed. Satellite was growing when HD launched, but it didn't affect traditional radio much.

HD radio should have been given its own band and launched after the digital conversion in the newly freed up analog TV white space. Then the HD signals could be heard as far as the analog stations, but with no static.

You are preaching to the choir ---

HD TV fixed a problem. Radio did not have a problem. HD TV's look much better than NTSC. HD stations only sound good on top of the line audio systems. Better than the vast majority of people own. Its only advantage is HD-2, but the implementation is so poor it takes seconds to lock.

 

[iyiyi]

Why was HD radio developed in the first place? Analog radio was doing fine when the idea was developed. Satellite was growing when HD launched, but it didn't affect traditional radio much.

HD radio should have been given its own band and launched after the digital conversion in the newly freed up analog TV white space. Then the HD signals could be heard as far as the analog stations, but with no static.

You are preaching to the choir ---

HD TV fixed a problem. Radio did not have a problem. HD TV's look much better than NTSC. HD stations only sound good on top of the line audio systems. Better than the vast majority of people own. Its only advantage is HD-2, but the implementation is so poor it takes seconds to lock.

Wrong. HD brought television into the 21st century. Analog TV was a horse and buggy. Snow, ghosting, grainy pictures, interference issues, sloppy channel utilization (you couldn't have a channel 12 and 13 in the same market, for example)...

HD-TV eliminated all of that garbage. Now they are able to run a ch 12 and 13 - not only in the same market but also on the same tower! Each TV station now has opportunity to run a high definition video; plus three or more screens of SD video. People may require an outdoor aerial to optimize reception, but I now receive 24 clean channels that show me the extra expense and goon work was well worth the effort! HD television has given station owners opportunity to exploit their signals profitably.

HD-TV was given the luxury of having an extra channel dedicated to digital - for a good decade - as their analog channels were able to operate normally. In spite of the long lead time afforded TV to work their digital kinks, the analog sunset initiated a large number of "first water" discoveries. Suddenly, many station owners realized that frequency changes, tower placements, large power increases and etcetera were required to make their digital plants viable in the real world.

Radio has no such benefits. HD radio is forced to bootstrap itself to viability. Around extant analog signals. Using compromised power levels. With a bevy of myopic, pedantic boo-birds flinging their rectal discourse with no real understanding of what is going down and why HD is being done in the first place. With no mandatory analog sunset to move things along.

CC just paid $14.5 million to purchase a Class A FM in Boston. An analog station which can't hold a candle to the coverage of CC's HD signals on 94.5 and 107.9. That should give a wise person an idea of the value of those HD's once they get off the ground!

It is always the same people mouthing the same hackneyed "reasons" why digital radio is no good. Learn a new song please!

CBS owns 1010, 1020 and 1030. All very successful 50kw flame throwers. All running IBOC. With a 50kw flame thrower running HD on 1040 for a kicker. All four stations have their IBOCs in each other's channels. Meanwhile, some Poindexter is on here bitching about HD causing interference to a Class A FM station 75 miles away. It is very possible that if some folk would STFU and listen with their ears instead of their mouths, they might learn a few things about professional radio broadcasting.

Therefore, HD radio is not a bad solution to a non-existent problem. HD radio is utilizing modern technology to capitalize on the current maximum potential for 21st century broadcasting.

-

 

[Savage]

No arguments here. And approximately 99.9999999% of the world agrees with us if you look around. Radio industry or civilian, try to find someone who actually thinks HD Radio is acceptable, much less wonderful. (Unless they're one of a few posters here, work for iBiquity or have the surname "Walden.")

 

[diymedia]

It is always the same people mouthing the same hackneyed "reasons" why digital radio is no good. Learn a new song please!

I will "learn a new song" when I actually hear some discussion discernible as "music" regarding this particular subject. In the meantime, I'll finish the book on the sordid state of radio's digital transition.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

With a bevy of myopic, pedantic boo-birds flinging their rectal discourse with no real understanding of what is going down and why HD is being done in the first place...It is always the same people mouthing the same hackneyed "reasons" why digital radio is no good...some Poindexter is on here bitching about HD causing interference to a Class A FM station 75 miles away. It is very possible that if some folk would STFU and listen with their ears instead of their mouths, they might learn a few things about professional radio broadcasting.

Right. No one knows anything about anything except you.

 

[landtuna]

HD TV's look much better than NTSC.*

* - Under ideal conditions only.

 

[landtuna]

Wrong. HD brought television into the 21st century. Analog TV was a horse and buggy. Snow, ghosting, grainy pictures, interference issues, sloppy channel utilization (you couldn't have a channel 12 and 13 in the same market, for example)...

Wrong again. While HDTV may have PQ advantages over analog operating in ideal conditions a great many of us who had excellent analog reception no longer have perfect reception - or any reception at all.

Instead of snow, ghosting, grainy pictures we now get pixelation, drop outs (audio and video), loss of audio/video sync, five-second time lapses between signal lock, or no signal at all. Some advantage! One more - people walking around the room, or even upstairs or in the next room can negatively affect a digital signal. Never saw that one in analog either.

HD-TV eliminated all of that garbage.

Yes. Yes it did.....and gave us a half-dozen new problems and issues which is one reason one of my local FP HDTV VHF stations keeps a backup signal on UHF.

Each TV station now has opportunity to run a high definition video; plus three or more screens of SD video.

I know of no FP station running full HD on its primary signal and multiple SD signals on the subs. There simply isn't enough bandwidth. Most of the subs in my market are very poor quality religious or marketing channels or weather/traffic loops which are hardly visited. A significant waste.

People may require an outdoor aerial to optimize reception, but I now receive 24 clean channels that show me the extra expense and goon work was well worth the effort! HD television has given station owners opportunity to exploit their signals profitably.

You are not in the majority. Complaints about signals failures and coverage are in the multitudes. Compared to analog coverage digital TV is in a word....incompetent.

While several stations here have placed services like RTV and MeTV on their subs the major network affiliates have not. If anything the affiliates are losing money by programming their subs. Other than the several retro TV programmers on subs the only others seem to be godcasters and infomercial peddlers.

The deficits of HDTV seem to far outweigh the single benefit of improved PQ. After all, viewers who are interested in PQ for quality entertainment are probably watching Blu-ray rather than OTA broadcasting anyway.

 

[davideduardo]

CC just paid $14.5 million to purchase a Class A FM in Boston. An analog station which can't hold a candle to the coverage of CC's HD signals on 94.5 and 107.9. That should give a wise person an idea of the value of those HD's once they get off the ground!

Hey!

Go into a store and look for an HD radio. Good luck.

Go into a store and look for a radio... any radio. Good luck.

Very few "radios" are available any more. People don't buy radios... they may, though, buy devices that contain radios. Such as cars and iPhone docks.

There are somewhere around 700 million radios in the US. They are not being replaced by newer radios. Zero opportunity for HD there.

There are around 250 million vehicles in the US. The average age is nearing 11 years. Even if 25% had HD, which they don't, it would take a decade to get to just 10% penetration of the market at current rates.

HD will not, in the current economy and with the current preference for consolidating entertainment options on a smart device (generally a smartphone, but increasingly things like the X Box and tablets), "radio" will be delivered by streams, not by transmitters and antennae.

As I said before, obsessing over HD, a technology which missed its window of opportunity, diverts attention from the real need to distribute content via the delivery methods that the consumer is coming to prefer.

P.S: That Class A in Boston puts a 60 dbu over 2.5 million people, which is likely several hundred times the number of people that have HD radios they actually use.

 

[spunker88]

The problem is that in urban areas FM is running out of available spots for new stations. HD radio allows stations to run extra content digitally on their adjacent channels. The system has proven to be unpopular and is not as reliable as the analog signal. HD Radio was too late to the market as today there is so much content available to stream over the internet and large capacity phones and MP3 players that allow you to keep a whole library of music in your pocket. My solution to FM would be to expand it to TV channels 5 and 6 (76mhz to 88mhz) which are widely unused after the DTV conversion. Many IC chips used in FM radios today can already tune down to 76mhz since this is used for FM in Japan. Another solution would be to use subchannel space of TV stations to broadcast audio only stations.

 

[TheBigA]

HD TV fixed a problem. Radio did not have a problem.

Depends. Radio had a problem, just not the same problem. In the 1990s, music was becoming far more diverse. At least 6 different formats of rock, four different urban formats, three possible country formats. Plus all the various ethnic channels. Most cities don't have enough stations for all the music. And there are a lot of people who can't hear their favorite music on FM radio any more. Satellite was offering 100 different music channels. That was pretty scary to radio owners who only could offer five or six. The ability to triple that number was pretty tempting. Heck, the FCC jumped at the chance with Docket 80-90. But they ran out of space.

The other problem, and it's been pretty obvious since the FCC crippled AM, was the audio quality of AM radio. Sure, it would be better to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but the FCC wasn't going to do that. So this offered a potential solution.

In both cases, no one really knew (or wanted to know) the trade-offs at the time. Now we know. Since then, radio owners have begun moving their AM content to FM, and smaller music genres have moved to more personal devices. I think owners can see that HD as it is now won't really solve the problems they have, and the FCC isn't going to loosen any other rules. So the trend seems to be that AM will continue its downward spiral, and FM will replace it as the medium for news, talk, and information, with a handful of the most popular music formats.

Say what you will about this particular invention. It obviously isn't the solution everyone thought it was. But to say there wasn't a problem is ignoring the dead canary that is most of the AM band.

 

[iyiyi]

Wrong. HD brought television into the 21st century. Analog TV was a horse and buggy. Snow, ghosting, grainy pictures, interference issues, sloppy channel utilization (you couldn't have a channel 12 and 13 in the same market, for example)...

Wrong again. While HDTV may have PQ advantages over analog operating in ideal conditions a great many of us who had excellent analog reception no longer have perfect reception - or any reception at all.

Instead of snow, ghosting, grainy pictures we now get pixelation, drop outs (audio and video), loss of audio/video sync, five-second time lapses between signal lock, or no signal at all. Some advantage! One more - people walking around the room, or even upstairs or in the next room can negatively affect a digital signal. Never saw that one in analog either.

HD-TV eliminated all of that garbage.

Yes. Yes it did.....and gave us a half-dozen new problems and issues which is one reason one of my local FP HDTV VHF stations keeps a backup signal on UHF.

Each TV station now has opportunity to run a high definition video; plus three or more screens of SD video.

I know of no FP station running full HD on its primary signal and multiple SD signals on the subs. There simply isn't enough bandwidth. Most of the subs in my market are very poor quality religious or marketing channels or weather/traffic loops which are hardly visited. A significant waste.

People may require an outdoor aerial to optimize reception, but I now receive 24 clean channels that show me the extra expense and goon work was well worth the effort! HD television has given station owners opportunity to exploit their signals profitably.

You are not in the majority. Complaints about signals failures and coverage are in the multitudes. Compared to analog coverage digital TV is in a word....incompetent.

While several stations here have placed services like RTV and MeTV on their subs the major network affiliates have not. If anything the affiliates are losing money by programming their subs. Other than the several retro TV programmers on subs the only others seem to be godcasters and infomercial peddlers.

The deficits of HDTV seem to far outweigh the single benefit of improved PQ. After all, viewers who are interested in PQ for quality entertainment are probably watching Blu-ray rather than OTA broadcasting anyway.

Here's the deal. I've posted my TV reception results on RabbitEars.info. One is with a real outdoor antenna and the other using rabbit ears in the same location. The particulars are duly posted on that site.

The rabbit ears caused me to waltz around the living room to get a total of 8 stations. The other aerial provides 20 excellent channels plus 2 marginal channels, all with the aerial pointed north. When I turn it 90 degrees to east, I also get 40(58v) and 26(26v) even though 26 is 180 degrees and on the backside of a high gain corner reflector yagi. That doesn't count Hartford and myriad other channels that are often watchable.

You get what you pay for. Get serious and invest in a decent aerial, amp and rotor and then I'll take you seriously. Til then, you are (in my mind) just another clown who is only intent on spewing a bunch of garbage to make a "point".

My advice: If you are two inches, don't strut around like 12 inches. Somebody is guaranteed to call your bluff.

-

 

[TheBigA]

You get what you pay for. Get serious and invest in a decent aerial, amp and rotor and then I'll take you seriously.

One thing to know is that a lot of TV stations have been investing in antenna improvements and other things so more people can watch their DTV signal OTA. A lot of companies have been experimenting with additional programming on their adjacent channels with the long term hope of someday offering the kind of programming options over the air that are currently only available by cable. If the idea of saving the monthly cost of cable sounds appealing, it might be worth the one-time cost of improving your antenna system.

 

[landtuna]

Here's the deal. I've posted my TV reception results on RabbitEars.info. One is with a real outdoor antenna and the other using rabbit ears in the same location. The particulars are duly posted on that site.

The rabbit ears caused me to waltz around the living room to get a total of 8 stations. The other aerial provides 20 excellent channels plus 2 marginal channels, all with the aerial pointed north. When I turn it 90 degrees to east, I also get 40(58v) and 26(26v) even though 26 is 180 degrees and on the backside of a high gain corner reflector yagi. That doesn't count Hartford and myriad other channels that are often watchable.

You get what you pay for. Get serious and invest in a decent aerial, amp and rotor and then I'll take you seriously. Til then, you are (in my mind) just another clown who is only intent on spewing a bunch of garbage to make a "point".

As others on this forum can testify it has been quite an exercise this past two years to finally reach the point that I can now receive most of the local FP and LP TV signals. I began with a large outdoor FM/VHF/UHF. Didn't need a rotor because the antenna farm is located at one site which is about 8 miles line-of-sight from the top of my house. At different times I experienced every event I noted in my earlier post.

I then disconnected my outdoor antenna and installed multiple indoor UHF loop/VHF ears - one per TV. They worked much better than the outdoor although I still have problems with VHF 8 & 10 and UHF 24. I now have two additional "features" and that is loss of picture occasionally during sunrise (the opposite direction from the antenna farm) and more often during sunset when the sun is setting immediately behind the antenna farm. I also lose signal during wind.....just plain old non-dusty wind. Analog never had either problem.

I assume from you are located somewhere in the Tri-State area where distance and mountains are not a concern. I once lived in Mahopac, NY and could get the NYC stations (analog) although they were snowy at times. Talking to friends back there now they have all given up and gone cable as digital signals can't make the long trip. Not only do you not get the one big advantage of digital TV but you get to pay extra for the privilege of getting *any* TV at all.

My advice: If you are two inches, don't strut around like 12 inches. Somebody is guaranteed to call your bluff.

I don't need your advice. My results, and those of hundreds of thousands of others, including the untold numbers of people who are now totally disenfranchised from OTA TV due to distance, have been public virtually since digital went live. It is a substandard system implemented for the purpose of grabbing radio spectrum and its many faults, most of which have still not been resolved, outweigh analog broadcasting by miles. If yours works then good for you but that is not the case for many of us and the use of 50's-era antennas, rotors and amps will not resolve the basic deficiencies.

 

[davideduardo]

You get what you pay for. Get serious and invest in a decent aerial, amp and rotor and then I'll take you seriously. Til then, you are (in my mind) just another clown who is only intent on spewing a bunch of garbage to make a "point".

You forget that a huge percentage of Americans live in condos and apartments where antennas are not allowed.

I used to be able to get good OTA reception in both Glendale and La Quinta, CA, with a Terk indoor TV antenna "bar" that hid behind the monitor. Now, I can not get anything reliably, even in LA where I can see the lights on Mt Wilson from my front bedroom.

I had the OTA antenna as an emergency backup, but even the latest "HDTV" model produces useless results. Fortunately I have cable and lots of video on demand via the Internet options, but OTA is totally useless.

The unfortunate thing is that the people most affected are those in the lower income levels who can't afford or justify cable and who also can not put up outside antennas as they are renters or apartment / condo dwellers.

 

[audioguy]

The unfortunate thing is that the people most affected are those in the lower income levels who can't afford or justify cable and who also can not put up outside antennas as they are renters or apartment / condo dwellers.

David, as usual, you are right on the money. It's the same situation for rural viewers. DTV is simply NOT reliable. I can attest to that, and I using a very decent setup.

 

[Darth_vader]

"HD brought television into the 21st century. Analogue TV was a horse and buggy. Snow, ghosting, grainy pictures, interference issues, sloppy channel utilisation (you couldn't have a channel 12 and 13 in the same market, for example)...

"HD eliminated all of that garbage. Now they are able to run a ch 12 and 13 - not only in the same market but also on the same tower! Each TV station now has the opportunity to run a high definition video; plus three or more streams of SD video. People may require an outdoor aerial to optimise reception, but I now receive 24 clean channels that show me the extra expence and goon work was well worth the effort! HD television has given station owners opportunity to exploit their signals profitably.

"HD was given the luxury of having an extra channel dedicated to digital-for a good decade-as their analogue channels were able to operate normally. In spite of the long lead time afforded TV stations to work out their digital kinks, the Great American NTSC Kill-Off initiated a large number of 'first water' discoveries. Suddenly, many station owners realised frequency changes, tower placements, large power increases, etc. were required to make their digital plans viable in the real world."

It's funny how you attribute the general characteristics of ATSC, and digital television in general, to one (or two, depending on your viewpoint) specific operating mode(s) of the technology......

I'd thought enough time had passed by now that people would have finally gotten the "'HD'-versus-'ATSC'" thing straightened out, but I guess not.

 

[Savage]

Disclaimer, everyone: I apparently fell victim to the new-and-improved RadioDiscussions' chronic weirdness as displayed via various servers. With my "no arguments here" post I was responding to the first TWO posts in this discussion....and NOT iyiyi's verbal spasm. That wasn't displayed at the time I posted; I could only see the first two.

Needless to say I have BIG arguments there.... :

 

[iyiyi]

Here's the deal. I've posted my TV reception results on RabbitEars.info. One is with a real outdoor antenna and the other using rabbit ears in the same location. The particulars are duly posted on that site.

The rabbit ears caused me to waltz around the living room to get a total of 8 stations. The other aerial provides 20 excellent channels plus 2 marginal channels, all with the aerial pointed north. When I turn it 90 degrees to east, I also get 40(58v) and 26(26v) even though 26 is 180 degrees and on the backside of a high gain corner reflector yagi. That doesn't count Hartford and myriad other channels that are often watchable.

You get what you pay for. Get serious and invest in a decent aerial, amp and rotor and then I'll take you seriously. Til then, you are (in my mind) just another clown who is only intent on spewing a bunch of garbage to make a "point".

As others on this forum can testify it has been quite an exercise this past two years to finally reach the point that I can now receive most of the local FP and LP TV signals. I began with a large outdoor FM/VHF/UHF. Didn't need a rotor because the antenna farm is located at one site which is about 8 miles line-of-sight from the top of my house. At different times I experienced every event I noted in my earlier post.

I then disconnected my outdoor antenna and installed multiple indoor UHF loop/VHF ears - one per TV. They worked much better than the outdoor although I still have problems with VHF 8 & 10 and UHF 24. I now have two additional "features" and that is loss of picture occasionally during sunrise (the opposite direction from the antenna farm) and more often during sunset when the sun is setting immediately behind the antenna farm. I also lose signal during wind.....just plain old non-dusty wind. Analog never had either problem.

I assume from you are located somewhere in the Tri-State area where distance and mountains are not a concern. I once lived in Mahopac, NY and could get the NYC stations (analog) although they were snowy at times. Talking to friends back there now they have all given up and gone cable as digital signals can't make the long trip. Not only do you not get the one big advantage of digital TV but you get to pay extra for the privilege of getting *any* TV at all.

My advice: If you are two inches, don't strut around like 12 inches. Somebody is guaranteed to call your bluff.

I don't need your advice. My results, and those of hundreds of thousands of others, including the untold numbers of people who are now totally disenfranchised from OTA TV due to distance, have been public virtually since digital went live. It is a substandard system implemented for the purpose of grabbing radio spectrum and its many faults, most of which have still not been resolved, outweigh analog broadcasting by miles. If yours works then good for you but that is not the case for many of us and the use of 50's-era antennas, rotors and amps will not resolve the basic deficiencies.

From 8/06 through 11/09 we had no cable. Just rabbit ears. I went nuts trying to adjust them. You think you have a watchable picture, sit down and things get worse. To the point of settling for a lousy picture rather than having to get up and fool with it any more.

In '08 we got a couple of CECB boxes from BB. Set it up and went even crazier with the DTV! It seemed that the audio of every punchline or important statement would cut out. The picture would pixellate, go black and do all the things you complain about. The sound cutting out really got to me. I tried watching the DTV picture and listening to analog audio but the audio would be out of synch. Airplanes landing many miles away would take out 30 seconds of programming per whack. Cars driving by would take out the signal. Regardless, once I set up the DTV I never went back to analog because the picture was far superior with digital. I hung a UHF 4 bay panel antenna out the second floor window. Wow! I got solid locals and some clear Boston stations. Went and got an amp. WOW! Got a rotor and installed it on a mast. ZING! Bought a serious UHF aerial. YIKES! Grabbed a high gain amp, replaced the RG 59 coax with RG 6 and you can see the list of stations I now receive. 11/09 we got the FIOS HD tier. Aside from The Weather Channel, IFC and Comedy Central, the vast majority of our TV viewing is OTA. Better picture. Better sound. A slew of out of market signals cable won't supply.

So, I've been there and done that. Using the finest aerial and amp, I never got even one quarter of stations in analog that I now receive in digital.

You tell me that you have 50's era antennas and amps. Do you have a 50's refrigerator? Stove? Automobile? TV set? Radio? Phonograph? Do you use these devices daily? Yet you have no compunction knocking a modern technology without attempting proper utilization first. Do you use rabbit ears to get satellite TV or radio? Load your iPod through RCA jacks?

That is how I addressed my DTV issues which - surprise oh surprise - were the same as yours.

One thing I didn't do is go around spouting stuff about things I didn't understand. I reasoned things out and learned how to understand until I made it work. This is 2012. If you think you can deal with modern technology using old school tools - God bless you!

-

 

[landtuna]

...I never got even one quarter of stations in analog that I now receive in digital.

That's wonderful but you are the exception to the rule. The vast majority of OTA users have fewer DTV options (not counting sub channels) than they had analog. You might want to read the various previous threads dealing with DTV reception and note that a significant number of urban dwellers cannot receive DTV reliably at all. Combine that with rural viewers who are now too far away from the towers and there have been a whole group of people who are now cut off from OTA reception.

Nobody is saying there were not problems in the analog days either, especially for viewers in fringe or mountainous areas. But since DTV they are now totally cut off. No picture at all where it might have been snowy, but watchable, before. In the analog days I was able to receive a watchable picture from TV stations 100 miles to the north and 100 miles to the south of me. Not on DTV.

You tell me that you have 50's era antennas and amps.

No, I did not say that. I said those belong to the 50's.

Yet you have no compunction knocking a modern technology without attempting proper utilization first. Do you use rabbit ears to get satellite TV or radio?

Rabbit ears proved to be the answer to some of my reception problems so, yes, I use them for TV. Until the three remaining VHF TV stations get an improved signal strength or fix their interference issues it appears as if they will continue to suffer. Perhaps it isn't worth their spending more money though. After all, OTA viewers are only 15% of the market now so maybe it's better to just write them off or drive them to cable.

You have a problem criticizing someone who you know nothing about. Back in the early 80's I built my first C-band sat dish and have built two other C & Ku band dishes since. I've been through half a dozen receivers. I've installed both DISH and DirecTV dishes and before all that I was a radio DXer and navy radioman. I've built my own FTA systems. I am not a full-blown engineer but I do know my way around radio and TV better than most civilians. Digital TV however is a whole new box of problems which even the most educated and experienced engineers and scientists have problems with. Before you arrived on scene my issues, and those of others, had been reviewed and discussed by people with much more education and experience than either you and I and together we still could not resolve all the problems of digital TV. That you did so is apparently due to your exceedingly clever experimentation and unique location but your resolutions do not work in every instance. They certainly do not work in my market where a VHF station has to simulcast on a UHF frequency so that it can cover it's market.

One thing I didn't do is go around spouting stuff about things I didn't understand. I reasoned things out and learned how to understand until I made it work. This is 2012. If you think you can deal with modern technology using old school tools - God bless you!

Your original position what that the DTV migration was a significant step forward in broadcast TV. I listed half a dozen major reasons why that was only partially true (or completely untrue). I stand by my opinion and will remind you, once again, that there is a significant body of disagreement with your position. And not every one of us is a clown spouting about things we don't understand or unable to apply simple diagnostics to a given problem.

DTV was technological fakery designed for the purpose of reclaiming radio bandwidth to use for emergency services post 9/11. It's so-called advantages of improved PQ and additional of sub-channels are only true if you can receive a quality signal in the first place and if there is something on the sub-channel you wish to watch. Three of four instances of TVland-like programming or non-stop infomercials is not what I consider valuable additional programming. Your interests may differ.