Well I'm finally giving in and getting paid-for tv after the Digital TV FAILURE

[fredcantu]

Are you saying that eventually NBC, ABC, CBS and the likes could go to cable/ dish only?

Unless they start making money in the next few years, then yes. I believe all the broadcast networks, NBC especially, are losing money as standalone operations.

It would be cable, satellite, and online. Those subscriber fees will be just too hard to resist.

The broadcasters are already getting subscriber fees via their "retransmission agreements" with local cable and satellite, and their networks-- especially Fox-- have agreements in place to get their share of the local station's re-trans dollars.

 

[kenglish]

The broadcasters (affiliates) are also, in some cases, sharing those re-trans fees with their networks, and they are already paying the networks for programming. Retransmission fees couldn't even come close to covering the costs of running a station, anyway. So, the costs to the consumer would be much higher if the stations were only available via Pay-TV.

 

[joesixpack]

I appreciate all the advice that's been given on this thread, but the fact is, DTV is simply too much of a hassle for regular folks to deal with. Before, all you had to do was buy your TV (which usually came with rabbit ears), and then just plug in the TV to the wall and the antenna to your TV and you were ready to go. You might get a fuzzy picture now and then, but most of the time it was perfectly watchable.

Now, with the DTV "improvement", you are forced to get a converter box and a digital antenna, that may or may not work. If/when it doesn't work, you have to go out and buy an outdoor antenna, and even THEN it might not work all the time. If you don't have the antenna in the absolute perfect spot, your reception will be horrible. Even then, if the wind blows on it, you can completely lose the signal.

So the convenience of being able to just sit down and watch TV is gone, since you may have to constantly be getting up and adjusting and readjusting your antenna, not to mention the time spent on the internet researching the correct positions to put your antenna, or even if you have the correct antenna to begin with. This is not an improvement over analog, no matter how clear the picture is or how great the sound is.

I'm willing to pay for the convenience of cable TV. I get more channels, perfect picture and sound, and I never have to get up and adjust anything.

 

[flashback]

^ that hits the nail on the head.not everyone understands the details of the antenas required like some of you do.good tv viewing should not need to require extensive reserch to decide what antenna to get, exactly how to set it up , ect.


the clearest picture in the world is not an advantage if you can`t tune it in ,if it pixiates or it goes in and out.

 

[JHBrandt]

Now, with the DTV "improvement", you are forced to get a converter box and a digital antenna, that may or may not work.

I apologize if I'm rehashing, but I think this point is very, very important: Despite what all the antenna boxes say, there is no such thing as a "digital" antenna! There are VHF antennas, UHF antennas, VHF/UHF antennas, and even VHF-Lo antennas, VHF-Hi antennas, and VHF-Hi/UHF antennas, but there is no difference between an "analog" antenna and a "digital" one. This BS was thought up by some marketer, and then all the other antenna manufacturers had to follow suit because if their competitor was selling "digital" antennas, they had to claim they were selling them too.

If you don't have the antenna in the absolute perfect spot, your reception will be horrible. Even then, if the wind blows on it, you can completely lose the signal.

This is often true of indoor and small, low-gain outdoor antennas, because of multipath interference. In the analog era, multipath showed up as "ghosts" on the screen; they were distracting and distorted the color, but the picture was still watchable. But in the digital era, multipath has to be removed by the receiver or converter box. They do a good job but can still be foiled by anything that causes the (now invisible) ghosts to move around, such as wind.

Larger, higher-gain antennas usually eliminate these problems and the need to keep getting up and re-adjusting the antenna, because they reject most of the signal coming from directions they aren't pointed at. But I agree: it's a major hassle to go from a rabbit ears/loop combo on top of the set to a ClearStream 4 in the attic, a splitter, and what feels like miles of coaxial cable, just to get a reliable signal on, say, two TVs. It can feel almost like you're building your own cable company!

I'm willing to pay for the convenience of cable TV. I get more channels, perfect picture and sound, and I never have to get up and adjust anything.

That's perfectly reasonable and there's nothing wrong with going that route. I have satellite TV myself (and I let the satellite guy futz with the dish antenna and cabling so I didn't have to), even though I get my local stations over-the-air instead of via the dish. (BTW, nowadays you can't do that anymore. If you buy satellite, you pay for the local stations whether you want them or not. But that's another rant.)

 

[KeithE4]

I appreciate all the advice that's been given on this thread, but the fact is,DTV is simply too much of a hassle for regular folks to deal with. Before, all you had to do was buy your TV (which usually came with rabbit ears), and then just plug in the TV to the wall and the antenna to your TV and you were ready to go. You might get a fuzzy picture now and then, but most of the time it was perfectly watchable.

In some cases, yes, but not in all. If you lived in an area that could receive stations from multiple markets, or in an area where not all the stations were in the same general location, then you had to futz with a rotator and hope that it didn't mess up the station your wife was watching.

In the early days of TV, getting a decent picture involved many of the same issues that we have with digital TV today, especially on UHF. Snow and ghosts were the bane of TV watchers back in the days of low-powered transmitters and clunky, insensitive tuners - especially the UHF radio dials before the mid '70s. Today, it's pixellation and disappearing signals.

Both digital and analog signals require good tuners and good antennas. A $40 converter box and a $10 pair of rabbit ears ain't gonna cut it in most cases. Plus, actual knowledge of how to work with this new system is necessary. If people aren't willing to engage their brain cells and/or get their fat rear end off the couch and do some actual semi-physical labor to make it work, I don't have much sympathy for them.

Now, with the DTV "improvement",you are forced to get a converter box and a digital antenna, that may or may not work. If/when it doesn't work, you have to go out and buy an outdoor antenna, and even THEN it might not work all the time. If you don't have the antenna in the absolute perfect spot, your reception will be horrible. Even then, if the wind blows on it, you can completely lose the signal.

So the convenience of being able to just sit down and watch TV is gone, since you may have to constantly be getting up and adjusting and readjusting your antenna, not to mention the time spent on the internet researching the correct positions to put your antenna, or even if you have the correct antenna to begin with. This is not an improvement over analog, no matter how clear the picture is or how great the sound is.

You had to do that with analog TV as well in many cases. If you're not willing to put forth the effort or are unwilling to pay a professional to put forth that effort, then that's your problem.

It is, by definition, an improvement over analog. But it does take some doing, knowledge, and flat-out work in some cases, to get that improved picture. Is the system buggy and was it poorly tested? Absolutely. Its faults are well-documented.

But so was the old 525-line analog system for its first 35 or so years of existence. Anyone who remembers radio-dial brain-dead UHF tuners, VHF tuners that would get "scratchy" after a year or two of use, horizontal hold controls, weak and dying tubes, low-gain two-bay VHF antennas fed by cheap 300 ohm twin lead that got very lossy in the rain, and color control adjustments for each station will attest to that. Most of those bugs weren't fixed until the mid-'70s - on a system that was first authorized in 1941, added UHF in 1952, and color in 1954!

I'm willing to pay for the convenience of cable TV. I get more channels, perfect picture and sound, and I never have to get up and adjust anything.

That's your choice. The $70 I paid for my antenna is a lot cheaper than close to $100 a month for 200 channels, probably 190 of which I'll never watch. I shut my cable off a year and a half ago and, outside of ESPN, Fox Sports Net, and CNN, I don't miss it one bit. Some people will always need cable or satellite due to their circumstances, but poor over-the-air signals was why cable TV was invented in the first place.

 

[landtuna]

What I've tried to say in this thread, and I think others have as well, is not that DTV is not an improvement over analog but that, due to several well known issues which were not addressed before the conversion, the implementation was done too soon and without enough testing and adjusting.

9/10ths of the outstanding issues with DTV could have been solved with nothing more than total UHF relocation of VHF stations and/or sufficient power to provide a stable signal. I fail to understand why these simple steps still haven't been completed.

For instance, as a stop-gap measure, my local Fox station (RF10) simulcasts a less than perfect signal on the sub-channel of a co-owned UHF. Maybe they don't have the financial resources to address the RF10 problems (their facilities here are known as the Termite Terrace if that tells a story) or maybe the 15% of viewers on OTA are not enough to justify spending any money.

The implementation of DTV could have been a lot more seamless than it was. That the initial issues are still causing problems is inconceivable.

 

[KeithE4]

What I've tried to say in this thread, and I think others have as well, is not that DTV is not an improvement over analog but that, due to several well known issues which were not addressed before the conversion, the implementation was done too soon and without enough testing and adjusting.

I agree there. I don't want to say it was rushed since it's been around for years, but it was rushed. Testing was inadequate. And with the high-power analog signals still around until 2 years ago, things like tuner overload, intermod, and other receiver/antenna issues could have been solved.

9/10ths of the outstanding issues with DTV could have been solved with nothing more than total UHF relocation of VHF stations and/or sufficient power to provide a stable signal. I fail to understand why these simple steps still haven't been completed.

Politically, that can't happen, and won't. With pressure to take even more UHF channels for the interwebs, I think you'll find even more DTV stations returning to VHF. Hopefully, it'll only be 7-13, since 2-6 have too many static and ionosphere issues.

For instance, as a stop-gap measure, my local Fox station (RF10) simulcasts a less than perfect signal on the sub-channel of a co-owned UHF. Maybe they don't have the financial resources to address the RF10 problems (their facilities here are known as the Termite Terrace if that tells a story) or maybe the 15% of viewers on OTA are not enough to justify spending any money.

KSAZ-TV has had all kinds of engineering problems going back at least 15 years. Being a Fox O&O, I don't think money is an issue. IIRC, Fox doesn't allow subchannels other than for rebroadcasting sister stations (like WNYW/WWOR in NYC and KSAZ/KUTP in Phoenix) to combat reception problems.

The implementation of DTV could have been a lot more seamless than it was. That the initial issues are still causing problems is inconceivable.

Yes it could have been, but like NTSC, it's going to take years to iron out all the bugs. I don't know about your unique situation with respect to being right in line with South Mountain's eastern end, though. Maybe the new Mayor of Phoenix will make a deal with the Amalgamated Mountain-Movers Union and get that big rock relocated. ;D

 

[flashback]

i will say the basic thing i have been saying all along.

you should not have to do a flippin lot of research and trial and error to find the right kind of antenna and way to position it when you get it to watch over the air tv.you should not have to spend a lot of flippin money to get the hardware to see the stations you could have gotten before DTV.

DTV IS A FALURE.

 

[cd637299]

Like Keith, I don't want any more RF ch 2-6 DTV stations, but that's mainly because I'm a DXer, and I love it getting foreign TV signals during E-skip season. And, the paltry few US TV stations that *do* use 2-6 make it quite the challenge. I have caught 9 of these US ones so far, including an LD (WKOB 2 NYC) from Florida. How many more new ones, it won't be easy!

As to more DT stations going back to VHF, this could set off some folk, especially as many of these "DTV" antennas (yes I know, no real such thing) were made with VHF as an afterthought, as about 80-85% (?) of our stations use UHF now. Very likely, a new antenna will be needed. I, a DXer, am happy that I have an all-channel antenna + amp!....Antenna makers will have to "splain" to Joe & Mary Q. Public "what happened" if this swarming to VHF takes place.

cd

 

[landtuna]

I don't know about your unique situation with respect to being right in line with South Mountain's eastern end, though. Maybe the new Mayor of Phoenix will make a deal with the Amalgamated Mountain-Movers Union and get that big rock relocated. ;D

There is a neighbor's big pine tree just to the very edge of line-of-sight. I don't think it would interfere with my big outdoor whopper antenna but just today he said he had to cut it down before it falls on my house. With current real estate prices dropping like my grandmother's blood pressure that might be a benefit - but I couldn't talk him out of it. It will be interesting to see what difference, if any, it makes.

That same big honkin' outdoor antenna served me well when I lived 30 miles north of the towers. I just tossed it in the attic and got everything (good old analog!) - and the attic was lined with foil-backed insulation to boot!

BTW, I have noticed since modifying my rabbit ear dipoles to 14" I have had a much better picture. Not totally good but a lot closer than before.

 

[Megapsycle]

I appreciate all the advice that's been given on this thread, but the fact is, DTV is simply too much of a hassle for regular folks to deal with.
Now, with the DTV "improvement", you are forced to get a converter box and a digital antenna..

In the analog days, the multipath signal distortion and ghosting was so bad here on UHF I couldn't watch any UHF stations. I have old screen pictures of this when I was concerned that digital on UHF would not work at all. HOWEVER I get over 70 channels now, all the full powers are 100% stable, occasionally I see some pixilation on the lower powered stations when an airplane flies over, but then again I used to see digital artifacts on analog broadcast because the stations were using digital satellite network distribution. I am about 35 miles from the transmitters at Cedar Hill. Works great for me! I like my DTV!

By the way there's no such thing as a "digital antenna". It's all RF at that point.

 

[fredcantu]

For me the only real downside of DTV was the loss of in-motion TV. I used to listen to the overnight news on the TV in my conversion van on the way to my early AM shift. DTV made that impossible. I tried a converter box and got a perfect signal... as long as the van was stopped. The picture would disappear with any motion.

BTW-- I came up with a workaround where I can Slingbox my home TV to my smart phone.

 

[cd637299]

I will add that I have a relative who badly wants an "audio of TV sound" radio, like was out there pre-2009. He wanted to hear shows while in his vehicle. Impossible now.....the few battery-operated DTVs really chew up the batteries.

I live in Florida where hurricanes are always probable this time of year. If, God forbid, we get hit, we are stuck with radio only---not necessarily bad, but we sure don't need to hear a "TV station/radio station simulcast" where the meteorologist says, "And, as you see here----" Hopefully they will be trained in the tact department....

All that said, I'm okay with the change, like I said previously, for reasons I said previously...!

cd

 

[JHBrandt]

For me the only real downside of DTV was the loss of in-motion TV. I used to listen to the overnight news on the TV in my conversion van on the way to my early AM shift. DTV made that impossible. I tried a converter box and got a perfect signal... as long as the van was stopped. The picture would disappear with any motion.

BTW-- I came up with a workaround where I can Slingbox my home TV to my smart phone.

I sometimes wish they had left the analog FM audio carrier in place. Even though the reduced bandwidth would've dropped the bit rate about 10%, it would've maintained compatibility with all the FM radios that had TV bands.

 

[TexasTom]

i will say the basic thing i have been saying all along.

you should not have to do a flippin lot of research and trial and error to find the right kind of antenna and way to position it when you get it to watch over the air tv.you should not have to spend a lot of flippin money to get the hardware to see the stations you could have gotten before DTV.

DTV IS A FALURE.

No, it's not. While it doesn't work for everyone, it does work for many, many people.

For myself, the transition to digital was very easy, as I had a rooftop antenna already in place that I'd been using for analog reception. The first time I bought a digital tuner, I simply hooked it up to that existing antenna, and everything came in great, with no readjustments required.

The sad irony is that had digital TV been introduced 30 years ago, it would have been a smashing success. Back then, most houses had outside antenna installations that could have been used as is. And where upgrades were needed (such as replacing a VHF-only antenna with an all-channel model), viewers either had the ability to do the installatin themselves or were able to easily find an installer in the Yellow Pages.

Unfortunately, in the intervening years, the support and knowledge for doing outdoor antenna installations has largely been lost, and is now being (painfully) relearned by those who want to receive digital TV OTA.

 

[flashback]

^well analog worked for a much greater percentage of people.when over the air analog tv was used a lot more i never saw anyone who lived in the city who had problems getting the local channels.

compared to analog in those days it is a falure.

 

[ropertex]

I have installed quite a few antennas starting back when I was TEN years old It's not as dramatic as it once was.

1. Install antenna on roof.

2. Tune TV to weakest channel

3. Rotate antenna while a friend watches the TV and yells BETTER or WORSE.

4. Lock down antenna mast


But with DTV, I have never failed to put a proper antenna on a roof or in an attic, (Usually a Channel Master
4 or 8 bay UHF -- which works fine on 7-13), aim it in the general proper compass direction, and get all the
full power stations in the market first time/every time, 24/7.

 

[fredcantu]

The sad irony is that had digital TV been introduced 30 years ago, it would have been a smashing success.

30 Years ago we had $900 video cassette recorders, analog cell phones the size of a lunch box and the first Atari video game consoles. The technology for digital video compression was still in its infancy. Digital satellite TV as we know it today didn't get going until the 1990s.

 

[kenglish]

I have a friend who has his satellite dish in his garage. Needless to say, he can't get a decent signal, and now calls DBS a "failure".

I have another friend who lives in the basement of her parents' house. Her TV is wired to the back of her mother's TV set, using lamp cord. She has concluded that Cable TV is "a failure".
;D