Ask Me Help Desk - Digital TV

Digital TV

Why is it that we all HAD to switch to digital TV? I mean, yeah I got the box hooked up and its coming in good and all, but why make it a law? I mean, I thought this was the land of the free? If it's the land of the free, then why are we being FORCED to have digital coversion thingy? They really should have made it optional, like if we WANT the converter box we could get it, but if we decide to keep the antennae thingy for crappy reception, then it be good enough fer us, now I mean? Does anyone else know what I mean, I mean this being forced on us and crap, I mean, huh?

Simple, the FCC wants to use the frequencies used by analog TV for other purposes. There is also the matter of the cost incurred by the broadcasters to maintain equipment for both. Broadcasters would not have invested in the equipment to go digital if they didn't have the promise of not having to maintain both.

What could be soooo important, that they would have to go out of their way to make everyone switch?

Its called progress

Five digital stations fit into a single analog station.

The picture is better, but those with arials may have to upgrade like me. Antenna system in 40+ years old.
I'm not crazy over the cliff effect where the digital signal just disappears.

The place they tell you to go AntennaWeb is a USELESS website. Only www.tvfool.com, that I know of, has information you can use.

They don't tell you a lot of things that are useful.

For instance, I cannot get channel 17.1 digital which as been moved to 54. When the box scans it doesn't pick up 17. However, if I enter 54 on the remote on a better day, it will select channel 17.1

Channel 12 (50.1) pre has a predicted noise margin of 8.3 which means I'll never get it currently. 12 moves to 12.1 post with a predicted noise margin of 28.5 which is within limits.

I am receiving station with a nm of 23.6, but not 24.6. You antenna also has different gains at various frequencies, so that has to be factored in as well.

Well, progress, sucks. Lol. Progress? Progress is not forcing to be done to do something. So I could FORCE my girl to have sex, and it would be progress? Sorry, but in my opinion, force, is not progress.

Your analogy doesn't hold water. There are many things we can no longer do because of technological progress.

The issue here is that digital TV is better. Clearer, less inteference, etc. But, to get the broadcasters to invest in it, they had to be promised a conversion. BTW, this is not a US thing, it's a worldwide thing.

No, I disagree, because if you give people the option they will gradually switch, why force them all at once?

Finances, as I have explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

The issue here is that digital TV is better. Clearer, less inteference, etc. But, to get the broadcasters to invest in it, they had to be promised a conversion. BTW, this is not a US thing, its a worldwide thing.

Actually, the mandatory conversion it is a US thing at this time. I know of no other country forcing this switch. Canada for example, has not even initiated any action in the regard and has stated that there are no plans on the books to do so. In various countries, there is slow movement towards DTV, but the US is the only country that I know of which is forcing it.

Also note that congress passed the DTV Delay Act which moves the date for conversion to June 12, 2009.

I didn't mean that the mandatory switch was worldwide, but the switch is.

From: ALL-DIGITAL TELEVISION IS COMING (AND SOONER THAN YOU THINK!)

Why Are Broadcast TV Stations Switching to All-Digital?
Congress mandated the conversion to all-digital television broadcasting, also known as the digital television (DTV) transition, because all-digital broadcasting will free up frequencies for public safety communications (such as police, fire, and emergency rescue). Also, digital is a more efficient transmission technology that allows broadcast stations to offer improved picture and sound quality, as well as offer more programming options for consumers through multiple broadcast streams (multicasting). In addition, some of the freed up frequencies will be used for advanced commercial wireless services for consumers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I didn't mean that the mandatory switch was worldwide, but the switch is.

Agreed, but for worldwide conversion, we may be a decade off yet.

I don't understand the reluctance. Digital is better ,you only have to make a switch to a converter box if you use an antenna , and the country is paying a nice chunk of the cost of conversion .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't understand the reluctance. Digital is better ,you only have to make a switch to a converter box if you use an antenna , and the country is paying a nice chunk of the cost of conversion .

Your country is paying the cost of conversion - many others are not. I don't know if there is reluctance in the US, or simply that many people don't fully understand what is needed. In most of the rest of the world, changes to legislation is required, along with private investment initiatives. In those countries, whether that investment makes sense depends upon the installed based of consumers who have digital TV receivers. This may be what you perceive as reluctance.

I was responding to Me ;the person who posted this . I don't know the motive here but I can speculate that the main objection is that the gvt. Isn't picking up the whole tab for the conversion . That Bread and Circus mentality .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't understand the reluctance. Digital is better ,you only have to make a switch to a converter box if you use an antenna , and the country is paying a nice chunk of the cost of conversion .

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Digitial is better. It's a relative term. It's almost necessary on large screen displays to not see the scan lines.

Digital is Better iff and only if your antenna system is "extrememly good". There is no room for error. Signals don't fade. They either suffer from pixelization or you can't get them altogether.

It depends on what the conversion costs. Say I have 8 TV on an antenna. All old ones. Like TV in every room. That's 8*60 or $480 for converter boxes alone.

Let's say the someone else had to upgrade to coax cable for whatever reason. 500' of RG-6 quad shield will set you back too.

Nor suppose you live in a fringe area where an antenna will cost about $199, rotor $100 and a mast mounted amp for $100 not including installation.

And your living on fixed income and mom who are both disabled in this crappy economy.

And the government puts up these stupid websites with these stupid policies.

Here, here get your tickets, Get your tickets. You need to huury, before there aren't any.
WE THE GOVERNMENT PROMISES that there will be converter boxes by x-date.

Were there pass thru-converter boxes by said date: Nope. Did my coupon expire before said date. Yep. Can I request another set: No. Actually with the delay, you can request another two, but the bill doesn't actually spell out how to.

OK, now suppose you had 8 sets and decided to get cable.

None have the QAM tuner for digital cable, so you have to PAY the cable company for a digital box for each set.

With FIOS you need an ethernet connection and a coax connection at each box.

Is this easy, simple, free. I guess not.

I remember the UHF converter boxes. It allowed older TV's to get UHF stations.
Again upgrade ariel, upgrade transmission line which was still twin lead. Coax was relatively unheard of until cable came around.

At this point, our family had still lots of TV's. Only one TV had UHF and there was a VHF and UHF on a rotor with separate downleads.

Another antenna on the roof went to a tube distribution amp to the other sets in the house which were VHF only.

Hey, we had lots of TV's but never really bought any, There is one antique Philco with Channel 1 that mom/dad bought new (unknown state), A RCA color set purchased in 1968, a portable TV so dad could take it to work and about 3 years ago a Toshiba (Non-digital ready). I purchased a Slingbox. Another TV is made from a $1500 VCR (graduation present to me) and an old Amiga video monitor.

I distribute channel 4 throughout the house and can record/play on a central VCR. Now it's DVR's, but we don't have one.

All of the other sets were found or given to us working or not working and FIXED. BTW, what is a remote control? Not all the sets have one. Still separate UHF/VHF dials in places.

Now, tell me a little about plug-n-play?

Maybe on a fixed income you should reconsider that TV in everyroom thingy .

I have this old turntable to play vinyl . Why doesn't the gvt. Provide a coupon for the purchase of an MP3 for me and everyone in my family ?

That a large majority of people already receive their TV signals through cable, satellite or phone service. Those with antenna systems are in a distinct minority. So the effect of this is not widepsread.

Someone told me that it was because the TV signal was needed for the military bases, but I'm not sure if that's the reason. It doesn't seem plausible to me. I don't even watch TV. My parents won't get cable so I have an antena with a super old TV, but I got a converter box. I'm probably the only person in the country with an antena! Lol. If you don't have an old TV, you don't need to worry about it. The switch over was delayed to another month or two. It was supposed to happen this month. Oh well. :)