i hate digital tv

[vchimpanzee]

This is ironic. I was watching something else during "Don't Forget the Lyrics", and the channel wasn't doing well on DTV, so I taped it with TiVo. I didn't stop the VHS taping, and it's a good thing I didn't. On cable, it was like a bad day on DTV, and the station even went completely off a couple of times. The DTV station was doing perfectly at the time, I found out later. Even though it was really bad when "The Simpsons" was taped.

The DTV station is closer, but cable should do a better job. I've had minor problems with that station, but nothing like this.

 

[Dtv]

Something your cable company doesn't want you to know: Do what I did. Pay for internet through your cable provider. Buy a splitter, connect one coax cable to your modem, the other to your TV. You'll get the basic channels (very basic). When I upgraded recently to an HDTV, I also received the digital sub-channels, plus a few more random ones like The Weather Channel and History (in SD).

One problem.

To combat the above (As well as for other reasons), most cable companies put the HD locals on Digital TV (Usually around Channel 650). Therefore by doing the above, you will only get the SD versions of the locals and a select (VERY select) mix of Public Access, Government & regular cable channels (I think TBS is the only one you can get with a very basic subscription now).

So Trip's best bet would likely be to get satellite TV service instead IMO.

Cheers

I do have my HD locals with the above setup. I talked with an engineer friend of mine, I don't think this (HD on QAM tuner) is going away anytime soon.

Comcast has been negating that with a dta boxes, wich I hate. Gonna get that bow-tie antenna out>

 

[WPPCProductions]

I still say this digital deal is still not ready for primetime.its not antiquated yet.ideas were out awhile ago they should of iron the bugs out with more beta testing before they throwing it into the publics face.
anyway I was watching WNET last saturday .the show I was watching was episode of Keeping up Appearences went out the window with the video droped out to black and the sound was fine.also i've notice the upper Comcast digital channels are having problems with alot of pixelized video and blurry video and crappy sound too.This reminds my of 1998 when I was watching video webstreams with Realvideo player.

 

[sandiegoinexile]

I still say this digital deal is still not ready for primetime.its not antiquated yet.ideas were out awhile ago they should of iron the bugs out with more beta testing before they throwing it into the publics face.

I can sympathize as my locals are 35-45 miles away and will do the abrupt pixilation and crash with no notice. However, it would be impossible to "beta" test DTV as there are so many variations, from signal strength to signal direction to terrain to household equipment. Short of sending government scientist to every household/address in America, there was no way to guarantee that everyone would be happy.

I would support a bit of government mandates on signal strength. I'm not technically savvy enough to understand the logistics, but it seems that many stations went cut-rate with their signal equipment/production. One station in my rural area can't seem to load proper time on their "feed". Then again, they don't even bother to feed programming data. Every half-hour is just "SD Programming #234" (counting sequentially upward each half hour). And nothing is worse than the podunk locals who only feed HD during network broadcasts. 16 hours a day, it's black-bar-ville, with scrunched up screens.

 

[WPPCProductions]

I still say this digital deal is still not ready for primetime.its not antiquated yet.ideas were out awhile ago they should of iron the bugs out with more beta testing before they throwing it into the publics face.

I can sympathize as my locals are 35-45 miles away and will do the abrupt pixilation and crash with no notice. However, it would be impossible to "beta" test DTV as there are so many variations, from signal strength to signal direction to terrain to household equipment. Short of sending government scientist to every household/address in America, there was no way to guarantee that everyone would be happy.

I would support a bit of government mandates on signal strength. I'm not technically savvy enough to understand the logistics, but it seems that many stations went cut-rate with their signal equipment/production. One station in my rural area can't seem to load proper time on their "feed". Then again, they don't even bother to feed programming data. Every half-hour is just "SD Programming #234" (counting sequentially upward each half hour). And nothing is worse than the podunk locals who only feed HD during network broadcasts. 16 hours a day, it's black-bar-ville, with scrunched up screens.

I agree.now we are fighting in 3 wars .they dont have time to worry about the problems that the americans are having with their DTV sets.

 

[flashback]

i sti;ll say if bugs were not worked out of DTV it should not have beenn goverment mandated.when color tv came in the old kind of tv (black and white ) still picked up the channels and the signals didn`t pixilate and not come in at all because of color sets causing the problems.

 

[bpatrick]

Remember that the FCC approved the RCA color system over
CBS's because, with RCA, there was still a clear picture in color
or black-and-white; RCA used electronic technology, whereas CBS
used a spinning disc that made color unreceivable on black-and-white
sets. Had the CBS system been adopted, every black-and-white
set then in use would have been rendered obsolete (not a
major catastrophe given this was the late '40s or early '50s, but how many
set owners who had just purchased sets were going to spring for a new one?).

It seems that somehow somebody could have come up with a way to
do the same thing with digital/analog that RCA did with color/b&w;
we wouldn't have lost every channel without springing for a converter box,
or have to go to cable or satellite to receive anything. Maybe somebody
who's more familiar with technology than I am can show me where I'm wrong,
but I lost some stations that aren't carried on either cable or satellite in my area,
one of which (WBTW) I'd like to have since we go to Myrtle Beach periodically and
I like to check their long-range weather forecast. Guess I just have to go to their
website.

 

[w9wi]

I would support a bit of government mandates on signal strength. I'm not technically savvy enough to understand the logistics, but it seems that many stations went cut-rate with their signal equipment/production. One station in my rural area can't seem to load proper time on their "feed". Then again, they don't even bother to feed programming data. Every half-hour is just "SD Programming #234" (counting sequentially upward each half hour). And nothing is worse than the podunk locals who only feed HD during network broadcasts. 16 hours a day, it's black-bar-ville, with scrunched up screens.

- The vast majority of stations are operating at the maximum power permitted by regulations. (there are exceptions)
- I would suggest the largest reasons for DTV reception problems are:
1. Disinformation from antenna vendors. Selling antennas that don't receive all channels, and/or that are woefully inadequate for use at the viewer's location. (and sometimes, telling the viewer the perfectly good analog antenna they already have -- which is more than adequate for reliable digital reception -- *must* be replaced by a "digital" antenna -- which often *doesn't* work for digital...

2. Interference. Too many stations too close together, clobbering each other.

3. Noise. Part 15 ostensibly requires owners & makers of electrical devices (including electrical utilities) to eliminate noise that interferes with licensed services. These regulations go nearly entirely unenforced.

4. Low power. Most stations are operating at the maximum power permitted, but often this power is considerably lower than enough to replicate analog coverage. Largely, this is required by point 2 above.

Regarding HD during network programming only, do not underestimate the cost of going HD. Into the mid-six-figures for the hardware to carry syndicated programming (Oprah/Rachel Ray/Jeopardy/etc.) in HD. Mid-to-upper six figures to originate the studio segments of the local news in HD. Add another low-to-mid six to report from the field in HD. Roughly works out to $2.5million +/-, and that doesn't count what the stations have recently spent to install their digital transmitters.

In most smaller markets, especially with the recent recession, it's pretty hard to make the numbers work.

 

[w9wi]

It seems that somehow somebody could have come up with a way to
do the same thing with digital/analog that RCA did with color/b&w;
we wouldn't have lost every channel without springing for a converter box,
or have to go to cable or satellite to receive anything. Maybe somebody
who's more familiar with technology than I am can show me where I'm wrong,

RCA did develop a compatible system, "Advanced Compatible Television System" or something like that.

It involved transmitting the existing analog signal and on a different channel, a digital enhancement signal.

Problem is, it would have required every station to occupy two channels indefinitely.

 

[vibe]

It's amazing that the "new" technology doesn't carry the signals as far as the "old" technology.
Too many variables, too many compaints..

 

[landtuna]

It's amazing that the "new" technology doesn't carry the signals as far as the "old" technology.
Too many variables, too many compaints..

And the signals it does carry are not nearly as robust as the old technology.

Not a huge surprise when you have politicians masquerading as engineers.

 

[flashback]

It's amazing that the "new" technology doesn't carry the signals as far as the "old" technology.
Too many variables, too many compaints..

proof that change is not always good.

 

[Markxxx]

I wish CBS would build it's translator for WBBM. I am amazed by the number of stations having to build translators for digital stations where none were needed for analog.

What is this? Is the power limitations for digital? I think I read something like 1 million watts for digital is the same as 5 million for analog.

What IS clear is they need to really get their stuff together and work out on the allocations and power levels. Kind of like back in the 50s when the VHF were spaced too close and they had to move a bunch of channels to avoid the interference.

 

[dave73]

I wish CBS would build it's translator for WBBM. I am amazed by the number of stations having to build translators for digital stations where none were needed for analog.

What is this? Is the power limitations for digital? I think I read something like 1 million watts for digital is the same as 5 million for analog.

What IS clear is they need to really get their stuff together and work out on the allocations and power levels. Kind of like back in the 50s when the VHF were spaced too close and they had to move a bunch of channels to avoid the interference.

WBBM-TV would need to find another UHF channel for a translator, as their request for 26 went nowhere. If they were lucky enough, they would find a UHF channel that could be used for full power service, which would then make the immediate Chicago area an all UHF market for full power stations. WOCK-CD is the only Class A digital station on the VHF, & WWTO is the only full power VHF station that's too far from Chicago to be picked up in most of the market. Now sure if they got their power increase or not. If WWME-CA decided to go digital exclusively on channel 39, channel 23 could possibly be used for full power service (providing it won't interfere with WSBT South Bend Indiana & WVCY Milwaukee Wisconsin, both on channel 22)

As for power output, 1000kw digital is supposed to be equivalent to 5000kw analog. It seems to hold true, as most of the testing was done on UHF. Another message board mentioned that WBBM-TV try to seek a power increase. A reply to that mentioned that they'd have to go directional in order to protect a Fort Wayne, IN station (WINM), since they're also on 12. I don't remember the maximum power for VHF stations, but I thought VHF-Lo was 50kw & 80kw for VHF-Hi.

 

[tripinva]

Power limits are on a sliding scale. The absolute power limit in Zone I (where Chicago is located) is 305m 10 kW on low-VHF (2-6) and 305m 30 kW on high-VHF (7-13). Given WBBM's height, the power limit for them would actually be 5.9 kW, though they could increase power more using FCC rule 47CFR73.622(f)(5), which allows stations to expand in coverage to match the "largest station in the market," which in Chicago is WPWR.

I'd be curious to see if WBBM faces larger interference problems with KIIN than WINM. I dug up their original channel 12 application and KIIN was noted as receiving 0.45% interference to WINM's 0.38% or so (I don't remember the exact number). Since that application was filed, KIIN increased power from 17 kW to 57 kW, while WINM has remained the same; KIIN increasing power likely served to decrease the amount of interference WBBM causes KIIN. In KIIN's application, WBBM was actually the limiting factor in how far they could increase power, with WBBM set to receive 0.499% interference from KIIN.

- Trip