Digital TV - What a Scam!

[SCCutler]

I bought a small, flat-screen TV for Celia to use at her dressing table in the mornings, figured she could watch the local channels' morning shows like she likes.

No can-do. Digital signals are nothing close to strong enough.

Funny, they said the digital TV would be better... we got great reception analog with a portable. Now, apparently, we're expected to run an antenna cable everywhere we want TV.

Meanwhile, the gummint gets billions to **** away for the spectrum.

 

[bbchien]

Why, you have to buy a directional antenna and a digital amplifier box.....it's "Back to the Future" again..... sigh.

 

[ScottM]

I bought a small, flat-screen TV for Celia to use at her dressing table in the mornings, figured she could watch the local channels' morning shows like she likes.

No can-do. Digital signals are nothing close to strong enough.

Funny, they said the digital TV would be better... we got great reception analog with a portable. Now, apparently, we're expected to run an antenna cable everywhere we want TV.

Meanwhile, the gummint gets billions to **** away for the spectrum.

Depends on what you mean by "Better". It has better resolution, in some areas the coverage is "better" than in other areas. It is also "better" for us to catch up to the rest of the world which is close to deploying version 2 of DTV while we were still using a system developed in the 1940's.

Plus the gov did not really ****away the spectrum. They traded the TV broadcasters for some really great stuff that is now going to be going for wireless telecom to relieve the capacity issues that we have. All in all it is 'better' for all of us.

But I feel for ya. Change is hard.

 

[el con]

Isn't technology great !
Years ago there was smoke signals, then came the telegraph, telephone,radio,tv,internet.
THEN,
radio was free
TV was free
landlines cheap $15 a month
cable tv there were no ads
Now cell phones what? $80-100 a month, digital tv you've got to be 35 miles or closer to the broadcast tower. Cable or satellite more $
Most pay phones are gone, rural areas not enough profit for more cell towers or not enough customers for cable, sat dishes-pictures go fuzzy with bad weather or snow piled on the dish.
Up at 6Y9 (our cabin) we have lost everything except the radio. Poor or almost no reliable cell coverage,no cable.
I'm sure someone is working on making all radio's subscription soon.
How far have we advanced? Poor service, reception,etc. for more money. I don't think this is what Marconi, Edison, and Bell had in mind.
I'm sure soon I'll be getting flight service via smoke signals, at least that will help determine wind direction.

 

[wsuffa]

I bought a small, flat-screen TV for Celia to use at her dressing table in the mornings, figured she could watch the local channels' morning shows like she likes.

No can-do. Digital signals are nothing close to strong enough.

Funny, they said the digital TV would be better... we got great reception analog with a portable. Now, apparently, we're expected to run an antenna cable everywhere we want TV.

Meanwhile, the gummint gets billions to **** away for the spectrum.

Correct. Lower power, less coverage. It was designed for outdoor antenna use. Digital is not anywhere near as robust as analog.

And yes, a major impetus was to raise billions in spectrum auctions.... in part so the cellphone companies will get extra spectrum with which to send video and other 'live' services.

And Scott - "better" is in the eye of the beholder..... the spectrum devoted to public safety arguably is "better" - but commercial use is debatable depending on which side you're on.

 

[Gary]

For what it's worth, this actually worked very well for us when we bought a digital TV, but still didn't have cable/FIOS.

http://www.instructables.com/id/How_to_make_a_fractal_antenna_for_HDTV_DTV_plus_/

Looks chintzy, sensitive to orientation, but ended up pulling in quite a few digital channels. Not all that hard to make, was a fun project for me and the daughter. Worked much better than the old rabbit ears.

Gary

 

[mantakos]

radio was free

It was never "free". Everybody paid for it, whether they listen or not. We have the same model today.

TV was free

All 3 channels of black and white.

landlines cheap $15 a month

Still exists. Still subsidized in rural areas.

cable tv there were no ads

We first got cable in the early 80s. It looked much the same as today, with some premium channels with no ads, and some "basic cable" with ads.

Now cell phones what? $80-100 a month...

The first "cell phone" I remember was the size of a small suit-case. Today, for that $100/month, I have voice, mail, video, internet, etc, in a small device.

...digital tv you've got to be 35 miles or closer to the broadcast tower...

This is a legit complaint, as digital doesn't "degrade" as gracefully as analog did in the presence of a weak signal. We could watch snowy analog TV all day, and get the general gist of what was going on, but digital is all or nothing. When it's "all", you get perfect reproduction, but when it isn't, you get bupkes.

Cable or satellite more $

These were either the same as today, or else didn't exist at all.

How far have we advanced?

Pretty damn far.

I don't think this is what Marconi, Edison, and Bell had in mind.

When Bell dreamed was that some day every town would have a telephone.
-harry

 

[wbarnhill]

Isn't technology great !
Years ago there was smoke signals, then came the telegraph, telephone,radio,tv,internet.
THEN,
radio was free
TV was free
landlines cheap $15 a month
cable tv there were no ads
Now cell phones what? $80-100 a month, digital tv you've got to be 35 miles or closer to the broadcast tower. Cable or satellite more $
Most pay phones are gone, rural areas not enough profit for more cell towers or not enough customers for cable, sat dishes-pictures go fuzzy with bad weather or snow piled on the dish.
Up at 6Y9 (our cabin) we have lost everything except the radio. Poor or almost no reliable cell coverage,no cable.
I'm sure someone is working on making all radio's subscription soon.
How far have we advanced? Poor service, reception,etc. for more money. I don't think this is what Marconi, Edison, and Bell had in mind.
I'm sure soon I'll be getting flight service via smoke signals, at least that will help determine wind direction.

Yep... always seems like the pay services start out with "Hey, all the great stuff you love about X without the advertisements!" Then about a year or two after everyone starts signing on... "We're just going to add in these little 30 second ads, nothing major, you'll rarely see/hear them." Then you start losing 10 minutes of your 30 minute show to advertisements.

And cell phones are ridiculous. I remember the bag phone my parents had, we lived out in the middle of nowhere and we never worried about a dropped call. Now on ATT (More bars in more places? WHAT places?) I can't even drive around my own town without losing signal. And they're still on Edge here.

Anyway... back to digital TV. At least with our local networks, they said that over time they will be increasing power to expand coverage to what it was before the switch. Dunno how well that'll work if it will at all, but I definitely agree the fact that you've gotta go out and buy an external antenna to pick it up feels like a step backwards. Not to mention with digital cutoff, if you live near the edge of the signal, you don't get to halfway enjoy it like you used to.

 

[ScottM]

And Scott - "better" is in the eye of the beholder.....

I agree, which is what I was pointing out to Spike.

 

[wsuffa]

It was never "free". Everybody paid for it, whether they listen or not. We have the same model today.

Paid for through advertising dollars, not direct subscription. Public radio was paid (in part) through taxes.

"Everybody paid for it" is a stretch - those advertising dollars would have gone to print or another media if not for radio. It would be much more correct to say "advertisers paid for it". If you didn't buy any of the products or from merchants advertised, you didn't pay for it even indirectly.

All 3 channels of black and white.

In the sticks? Here we had at least 10-15 channels, granted some were snowy UHF (but well worth it to watch the 3 Stooges after school).

And free compared the UK system where you pay a tax for your TV.

Still exists. Still subsidized in rural areas.

Rare, but correct. The basic lifeline service is cheap. In the old days, however, you paid a fortune for long distance.

We first got cable in the early 80s. It looked much the same as today, with some premium channels with no ads, and some "basic cable" with ads.

The first cable systems simply passed-through local TV channels and didn't have channels of their own. So you had ads. Later, when cable channels started, they didn't have advertising.... but that model changed very quickly when they realized they could. I still remember when ESPN was the home of other-than-mainstream (and bizzare) sports.

The first "cell phone" I remember was the size of a small suit-case. Today, for that $100/month, I have voice, mail, video, internet, etc, in a small device.

I used an IMTS system before cells became commonplace. My first cellphone was a bag phone. And cost $$$ because subsidies really didn't exist.

Once upon a time, Motorola was leading edge compared to others - the StarTac certainly set a new standard at the time. Not any more....

This is a legit complaint, as digital doesn't "degrade" as gracefully as analog did in the presence of a weak signal. We could watch snowy analog TV all day, and get the general gist of what was going on, but digital is all or nothing. When it's "all", you get perfect reproduction, but when it isn't, you get bupkes.

Not even 35 miles in many cases. I was fighting dropouts of Channel 4 in DC last night with a roof antenna - and I'm 15 miles from the tower.

Pretty damn far.

In some ways we've advanced, in others (like customer service) we've abused technology and fallen backward.

When Bell dreamed was that some day every town would have a telephone.

They may not have envisioned "today", but that kind of thinking was prevalent into the 1980's - remember that IBM originally thought there'd be a very small market for the PC - because who would use them outside of a corporate environment (that ivory tower thinking).

 

[gismo]

In the sticks? Here we had at least 10-15 channels, granted some were snowy UHF (but well worth it to watch the 3 Stooges after school).

Where and when was that? When I grew up (or more accurately got older) in Detroit there were four TV stations. Three were American network channels and the fourth was Canadian. Usually when I traveled to other places there were between one and three channels available. This was in the 50's and 60's.

Rare, but correct. The basic lifeline service is cheap. In the old days, however, you paid a fortune for long distance.

I remember when many long distance calls cost over a dollar per minute and that was when you could get four gallons of gas for a buck. I also recall that Michigan Bell came out with an option called "nickel a minute" which gave you a certain number of minutes on long distance at that rate (for a monthly fee of course). I'm not sure but this might have only applied to calls within Michigan. I can also remember talking to friends and/or relatives using that plan and having them cut the call short because they didn't want me to waste my (parent's) money on "expensive long distance". And in those days many phone companies considered anything beyond about 5 miles to be "long distance" or at least "metered" (which meant you had to pay by the minute but they didn't invoice you on a per call basis).

I used an IMTS system before cells became commonplace. My first cellphone was a bag phone. And cost $$$ because subsidies really didn't exist.

I started with IMTS ("Improved" Mobile Telephone Service) on the early 70's. The "improvement" was that you could actually dial calls yourself (if you were in an IMTS service area). I think the rates were something like $50-100/month plus about $1/minute of airtime and IIRC, all subscribers in the Minneapolis Metro area shared a total of 5 channels. Waiting for an open channel for several minutes was a common experience. I'd say we have come a long way from there.

 

[bsdunek]

Speaking of digital TV's, is it just me - especially the sports broadcasts, everybody looks like a Pixar character. We have old analog on cable, and it doesn’t seem to have changed much. My Father in Law has a new flat screen LCD TV, and I really don’t like it.

Maybe I’m getting old.

 

[wsuffa]

Where and when was that? When I grew up (or more accurately got older) in Detroit there were four TV stations. Three were American network channels and the fourth was Canadian. Usually when I traveled to other places there were between one and three channels available. This was in the 50's and 60's.

DC, early-mid 60's. We got DC channels 4, 5, 7, 9, 14, 20, 26, and 54, Baltimore channels 2, 11, 13, and 45, and Richmond Channel 6. No, we were not high up.

I remember when many long distance calls cost over a dollar per minute and that was when you could get four gallons of gas for a buck. I also recall that Michigan Bell came out with an option called "nickel a minute" which gave you a certain number of minutes on long distance at that rate (for a monthly fee of course). I'm not sure but this might have only applied to calls within Michigan. I can also remember talking to friends and/or relatives using that plan and having them cut the call short because they didn't want me to waste my (parent's) money on "expensive long distance". And in those days many phone companies considered anything beyond about 5 miles to be "long distance" or at least "metered" (which meant you had to pay by the minute but they didn't invoice you on a per call basis).

Same here, except DC had an "expanded local" calling area, so you could call anywhere in the area for a flat monthly rate. No 5-cent per minute until much later.

I started with IMTS ("Improved" Mobile Telephone Service) on the early 70's. The "improvement" was that you could actually dial calls yourself (if you were in an IMTS service area). I think the rates were something like $50-100/month plus about $1/minute of airtime and IIRC, all subscribers in the Minneapolis Metro area shared a total of 5 channels. Waiting for an open channel for several minutes was a common experience. I'd say we have come a long way from there.

Yep, that's right....

 

[mantakos]

DC, early-mid 60's. We got DC channels 4, 5, 7, 9, 14, 20, 26, and 54, Baltimore channels 2, 11, 13, and 45, and Richmond Channel 6.

Of course that's 2 channels of ABC, 2 channels of NBC, 3 channels of CBS, etc...
-harry

 

[EdFred]

In the UP as recently as...oh....last year.

5, 6, 12, 13.

Now....a big fat 0. Thank you FCC!

 

[Armageddon Aviator]

I guess it must be hard to provide decent cell phone / digital TV coverage to all areas in a huge country like America...

I now fully grasp the advantages of living in a tiny country like Israel

We have excellent cell phone / Digital TV signal everywhere

Cheers.

 

[wbarnhill]

I guess it must be hard to provide decent cell phone / digital TV coverage to all areas in a huge country like America...

I now fully grasp the advantages of living in a tiny country like Israel

We have excellent cell phone / Digital TV signal everywhere

Cheers.

Great cell phone coverage, great tv coverage, great internet access (I'm assuming), great looking women...

I need to move.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Anyway... back to digital TV. At least with our local networks, they said that over time they will be increasing power to expand coverage to what it was before the switch. Dunno how well that'll work if it will at all, but I definitely agree the fact that you've gotta go out and buy an external antenna to pick it up feels like a step backwards. Not to mention with digital cutoff, if you live near the edge of the signal, you don't get to halfway enjoy it like you used to.

Our local PBS station recently took their transmitter down for a few days to upgrade power to what they hope will be pre-digitial reception coverage. I don't have a TV so I don't know if it worked or not.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Great cell phone coverage, great tv coverage, great internet access (I'm assuming), great looking women...

I need to move.

Sure. If you want your longest cross country flight to be the equivalent of Charleston to Charlotte That is unless you are willing to install radar countermeasures in your tailcone.

 

[Anthony]

Meh, I'll stick with today's technology. My Verizon FiOS is great and the HD is spectacular, especially for sports.

Its not like watching Gene London or Sally Star anymore. (for those Philly people that are old enough)

 

[wsuffa]

Of course that's 2 channels of ABC, 2 channels of NBC, 3 channels of CBS, etc...
-harry

ANd cable is.... the same stuff on multiple channels. If you were out of prime-time, the network affiliates were, in fact, different programs. Even so, 14, 20, and 45 were independents, 26 was PBS, etc.

Still a lot more choices than 3. Then again, everyone back then watched Cronkite.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Why is it that I have hundreds of channels on cable and there still isn't anything worth watching?!

 

[SCCutler]

Point is, while there may be rafts of good things about digital delivery, the changeover has made cable or equivalent, or installation of a roof-top antenna, mandatory, and has rendered the use of portable televisions impractical for a huge proportion of users.

No bueno.

 

[bbchien]

It was not about bueno. It was about the sale of spectrum to huge companies. C'mon Spike, you're smarter than that......sigh....

We're from the same generation in which Vietnam, Granada, Mexico City, Bosnia, Somalia taught us inherent distrust of the gub'mnt.

 

[ScottM]

Point is, while there may be rafts of good things about digital delivery, the changeover has made cable or equivalent, or installation of a roof-top antenna, mandatory, and has rendered the use of portable televisions impractical for a huge proportion of users.

No bueno.

Not for all. As I said before some places have seen improvements to their signal coverage. But for many that is true. The TV manufacturers pushed for this too. But the American people where still not willing to go to digital and wanted a 60 year old technology to remain. This was causing problems for TV manufactures in that they were losing profit margin having to keep costs low for the US market which had a niche technology within a niche. The NA NTSC standard was not very prevalent. PAL was far more widespread as an anolog tech. But most of the rest of the developed world had moved to DTV in the 1990's the US was the last major player. The US government was lobbied to help force the switch. Plus this freed up some valuable mobile sprectrum that is sorely needed in the US for wireless data/voice/public safety applications.

 

[EdFred]

Not for all. As I said before some places have seen improvements to their signal coverage. But for many that is true. The TV manufacturers pushed for this too. But the American people where still not willing to go to digital and wanted a 60 year old technology to remain. This was causing problems for TV manufactures in that they were losing profit margin having to keep costs low for the US market which had a niche technology within a niche. The NA NTSC standard was not very prevalent. PAL was far more widespread as an anolog tech. But most of the rest of the developed world had moved to DTV in the 1990's the US was the last major player. The US government was lobbied to help force the switch. Plus this freed up some valuable mobile sprectrum that is sorely needed in the US for wireless data/voice/public safety applications.

Not needed. It's a convenience.

 

[wsuffa]

Not for all. As I said before some places have seen improvements to their signal coverage. But for many that is true. The TV manufacturers pushed for this too. But the American people where still not willing to go to digital and wanted a 60 year old technology to remain. This was causing problems for TV manufactures in that they were losing profit margin having to keep costs low for the US market which had a niche technology within a niche. The NA NTSC standard was not very prevalent. PAL was far more widespread as an anolog tech. But most of the rest of the developed world had moved to DTV in the 1990's the US was the last major player. The US government was lobbied to help force the switch. Plus this freed up some valuable mobile sprectrum that is sorely needed in the US for wireless data/voice/public safety applications.

Gosh, the all-powerful Government can do no wrong? GMAFB.

The US Government went with the auctions to raise money, plain and simple. The fact that there was demand by other users, the success they had with other auctions (in a number of services) instead of hearings, and the budget deficit added to the decision. It really grated the nerves of Congress and the FCC that spectrum was being resold for a LOT of money and they didn't reap any of the rewards. So instead of caretaker and allocater of spectrum, they became owner. (Auctions were used by other countries before they were used here....)

Not needed. It's a convenience.

Bingo.

With some exceptions, the purchasers of the spectrum are not obligated to use it, nor are they required to use the most efficient techniques.

 

[RJM62]

My DTV-HD antenna consists of three meters of telephone wire (twisted pair) wrapped around a plastic Folger's coffee can, weighted down with rocks, sitting on the telephone table next to my desk. The wire goes into the can through holes near the top and bottom, and each end connects to one lead of the balun.

The reason it's in my office is that I use a Hauppauge USB dongle doohickey to watch HDTV on my PC. Although you can't see it in the picture, the can sits at the intersection of the lines of sight of two windows, where it seems to perform best -- even better than when I put it outside.

Total cost for the antenna: $1.59 for the balun, and $4.00 for the coffee. The rocks were free.

The antenna works great. I get 29 channels and average SNRs in the 24 dB - 27 dB range. Then again, I live in Queens, rght across the East River from Manhattan (where most of the transmitters are), so that helps some.

Nonetheless, my coffee can antenna also performs better than any of the store-bought ones I tried, and way outperforms the old aerial up on the roof.

-Rich

 

[ScottM]

Gosh, the all-powerful Government can do no wrong? GMAFB.

The US Government went with the auctions to raise money, plain and simple. The fact that there was demand by other users, the success they had with other auctions (in a number of services) instead of hearings, and the budget deficit added to the decision. It really grated the nerves of Congress and the FCC that spectrum was being resold for a LOT of money and they didn't reap any of the rewards. So instead of caretaker and allocater of spectrum, they became owner. (Auctions were used by other countries before they were used here....)

.

...And your statement and sarcasm has what to do with what I said?

 

[SCCutler]

My DTV-HD antenna consists of three meters of telephone wire (twisted pair) wrapped around a plastic Folger's coffee can, weighted down with rocks, sitting on the telephone table next to my desk. The wire goes into the can through holes near the top and bottom, and each end connects to one lead of the balun.

The reason it's in my office is that I use a Hauppauge USB dongle doohickey to watch HDTV on my PC. Although you can't see it in the picture, the can sits at the intersection of the lines of sight of two windows, where it seems to perform best -- even better than when I put it outside.

Total cost for the antenna: $1.59 for the balun, and $4.00 for the coffee. The rocks were free.

The antenna works great. I get 29 channels and average SNRs in the 24 dB - 27 dB range. Then again, I live in Queens, rght across the East River from Manhattan (where most of the transmitters are), so that helps some.

Nonetheless, my coffee can antenna also performs better than any of the store-bought ones I tried, and way outperforms the old aerial up on the roof.

-Rich

Rich:

I certainly know better by now than to question you, but how in the devil did you come up with that?

 

[RJM62]

Rich:

I certainly know better by now than to question you, but how in the devil did you come up with that?

None of the antennae I tried did a decent job of picking up the channels at the lower end of the spectrum. While shopping around for a new antenna, I came across one that looked like it was probably just some wire wrapped around a core, which gave me the idea of doing the same, being a cheapskate and all...

I chose 3 meters because channel 2 starts at 54 MHz, which works out to a wavelength of 6 meters; hence a dipole for channel 2 would be 3 meters. So I wrapped 3 meters of wire around the plastic coffee can, connected the balun, and fired it up. It worked.

Yeah, I know it's weird. But it works. The attached screenshot doesn't show the actual picture (the image doesn't come through on a screenshot when using WinTV), but it does show the signal strength meter.

-Rich

 

[ScottM]

Rich:

I certainly know better by now than to question you, but how in the devil did you come up with that?

That is a pretty basic type of antenna and is based on the same type of design that you would see in am radios.

There are a lot of do-it-yourself antenna projects for DTV on the Internet that you can build. That type of antenna is not a gain antenna and probably would not help your situation Spike. You need more of a direction gain (aka Yagi of Log array) type of antenna.

 

[wsuffa]

...And your statement and sarcasm has what to do with what I said?

Lex Felker outlined the basis for auctions when he was at OPP. It was partly conceived as a way to eliminate competitive hearings, appeals, etc. that were pretty commonplace in the broadcast and wireless end of things - and which got more contentious. The Heritage Foundation took a look at it and pushed it as a way to reduce the Federal deficit.

The broadcasters did want digital - they'd been working on it for years. MST, the HDTV labs, etc (I know most of those guys - and did some regulatory support work for MST in the early days), worked on research to set the standards even in the face of some objections. One of the tradeoffs was that the system doesn't work well in a moving environment.

But the move to digital really didn't get the shove to "mandatory" until the administration and congress took a look at how much $$$ they could make by auctioning the spectrum. Reallocation to other services was really a side benefit, especially with SDRs and the ability to use white space. The driving force was money. The Govt was lobbied by both sides on this. The reason that it wasn't delayed further this year was $$$ from auctions.

This wasn't about the US being last to digital, it wasn't about spectrum allocation (though those were side "benefits", depending on which side you're on), it was driven by the almighty dollar, which support pork and entitlements.

 

[Ghery]

That is a pretty basic type of antenna and is based on the same type of design that you would see in am radios.

There are a lot of do-it-yourself antenna projects for DTV on the Internet that you can build. That type of antenna is not a gain antenna and probably would not help your situation Spike. You need more of a direction gain (aka Yagi of Log array) type of antenna.

The log periodic dipole array isn't very directional. What it buys you is lots of bandwidth. It is simply an array of dipole antennas interconnected so you can cover a lot of spectrum with a single antenna. If you want gain, the Yagi is a much better solution, but at the cost of being relatively narrow band.

A fun demonstration of how the active part of a log periodic dipole array changes with frequency is to take a vector network analyzer, set it to display VSWR and scan the frequency range of the antenna. Place your hand on the antenna and move it from one end to the other. The presence of your hand detunes the antenna in the area it is touching and that moves on the display as you move your hand along the antenna.

 

[ScottM]

The log periodic dipole array isn't very directional. What it buys you is lots of bandwidth. It is simply an array of dipole antennas interconnected so you can cover a lot of spectrum with a single antenna.

Yes, I was nto trying to claim that the LPA was as directional as a Yagi but that it had gain over the coil antenna which is nothing really more than a tuned circuit.