Digital TV

Posted by: CJK

Digital TV - 09/20/08 06:58 PM

One of our local stations did a 'test' for the citizens....they 'stopped' broadcasting in analog...so that the people could see if their TV was 'digital' ready. When they did it, the audio remained on.

The question I have is.....Did they just stop the video portion? I ask because I was wondering if once they 'stop' analog broadcasting, is it possible to still receive the audio.....or will those radios that have TV bands also be worthless? I don't have any of the radios but was just curious.
Posted by: ChadHahn

Re: Digital TV - 09/20/08 11:27 PM

HDTV broadcasts on a UHF frequency. Chances are that you will be able to pick up over the air broadcasts on the channels new frequency. If you don't know what your local stations new frequencies are you can call the station and ask them.

Sometime in the near future the VHF channels (2-13) will quit broadcasting in their entirety and the channels will revert back to the FCC. What they are going to do with the frequencies then I don't know.

Chad

Posted by: Yuccahead

Re: Digital TV - 09/21/08 12:07 AM

Originally Posted By: ChadHahn
HDTV broadcasts on a UHF frequency. Chances are that you will be able to pick up over the air broadcasts on the channels new frequency. If you don't know what your local stations new frequencies are you can call the station and ask them.

Chad



I think would only be true if your UHF radio also had a digital decoder of some sort.
Posted by: KG2V

Re: Digital TV - 09/21/08 02:38 PM

Trust me, they didn't actually turn off their transmitters - restarting them is "non trivial" - what they did was broadcast raster or blank (depending - the stuff that looks like static is called raster) on the analog transmitter, but kept the audio on
Posted by: clarktx

Re: Digital TV - 09/21/08 04:06 PM

Originally Posted By: ChadHahn
Sometime in the near future the VHF channels (2-13) will quit broadcasting in their entirety and the channels will revert back to the FCC. What they are going to do with the frequencies then I don't know.


The FCC has already auctioned them off. Its for future wireless telecommunications services.

Additional info.
Posted by: comms

Re: Digital TV - 09/21/08 09:46 PM

I am soooooo sick of this information campaign. This may make me unpopular but I don't think the gov't should be subsidizing this turnover. If someone hasn't bought a new tv in the last 10-15 years that is digital ready or have a cable converter, its not the taxpayers responsibility to fund a tv for them.
Posted by: comms

Re: Digital TV - 09/21/08 09:49 PM

I am soooooo sick of this information campaign. This may make me unpopular but I don't think the gov't should be subsidizing this turnover. If someone hasn't bought a new tv in the last 10-15 years that is digital ready or have a cable converter, its not the taxpayers responsibility to fund a tv for them.
Posted by: comms

Re: Digital TV - 09/21/08 09:50 PM

I am soooooo sick of this information campaign. This may make me unpopular but I don't think the gov't should be subsidizing this turnover. If someone hasn't bought a new tv in the last 10-15 years that is digital ready or have a cable converter, its not the taxpayers responsibility to fund a tv for them.
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Digital TV - 09/22/08 12:51 AM



And all the TV and Radio broadcasters should combine their efforts and broadcast a contempory version of the 1938 radio HG Wells classic 'A War of the Worlds' on the day of the digital switch over. laugh



Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Digital TV - 09/22/08 03:26 AM

I'd agree except that digital ready sets weren't available (and advertised as such) until a year or two ago. One of the big chain stores got in trouble late last year or this year for selling non-digital sets after the date that all were supposed to be digital ready.
Posted by: Lizzie

Re: Digital TV - 09/23/08 05:46 PM

Originally Posted By: comms
I am soooooo sick of this information campaign. This may make me unpopular but I don't think the gov't should be subsidizing this turnover. If someone hasn't bought a new tv in the last 10-15 years that is digital ready or have a cable converter, its not the taxpayers responsibility to fund a tv for them.



If you think that is an unpopular opinion, wait until you hear mine. I am soooooo sick of having this changeover to all digital broadcasting shoved down my throat. I cringe at the thought of all the analog televisions becoming obsolete without a STB to convert the signal. I recognize I'm in the minority, as I really don't care about high-quality, surround sound, HDTV, gigantic TVs. I just want a small TV that will work when I turn it on and give me the information I need/want at the time or, occasionally, some entertainment.

For the last year I have tried to investigate what would be the simplest way to accomplish the changeover in our own household. Most of the information I've received, even from our local cable company, has been so ambiguous that I refuse to buy ANYTHING until the answers to my questions become more clear. If that means that we end up without a functioning TV for a while, so be it. We've survived without television in the past and could certainly do so again. Frankly, I've checked out what's available for purchase now, and nothing is compelling enough to get me to part with my hard earned money.

I am especially unhappy about the nonexistence of a simple, reliable portable battery-operated TV to use in case of an extended emergency/power outage. Currently, we have a very small black-and-white analog TV that operates on DD batteries. I pull it out during extended power outages and have NEVER had a set of batteries fail to last the entire length of the power outage. I find that access to information both helpful and (I'll admit) comforting. I've looked at the portable digital TVs, and there is nothing out there that will run on just regular batteries. There are a few that have built-in batteries that must be recharged by plugging into the electrical outlet for a period of time. After recharging, it appears that the TV will broadcast for a little over an hour before needing to be recharged again. Some can be recharged with an additional adapter that you plug into your cigarette lighter, but I don't see myself doing that. So, I can pay 4 or 5 times as much money for a TV that will run for a little over an hour, to replace my current setup that lasts days/weeks and provides valuable information. No thanks. I'm not sure why this is true. Is it impossible to make a digital TV that would run off of regular batteries (i.e., DD batteries)? Does a digital tuner take so much more power that there is no way to replicate what a portable analog TV can do?
Posted by: Yuccahead

Re: Digital TV - 09/23/08 06:09 PM

Welcome and I think you raise some great questions.

I can't tell if you have cable or not but if you do, your old TV should work just fine -- while the power is on.

When the power is out, your battery powered TV may also work if it's hooked up to to cable. But it may not. It will depend on the scope of the outage and your cable set-up. A battery powered radio as a back-up for the TV is certainly worth considering if you don't have one already.

In the event of a extended outage as a work-around -- this may get a bit convoluted -- you could get a converter box and power it using:(1)a small generator, or (2) an inverter hooked up to your car. I'm sure others here will have even better ideas.

For Digital TVs, prices will continue to come down and the variety of offerings will continue to go up so sitting on your hands for a while may bring the solution you are looking for -- though that is hardly a good solution for you.
Posted by: nurit

Re: Digital TV - 09/23/08 06:23 PM

Welcome to the forum, Lizzie.
Posted by: Grouch

Re: Digital TV - 09/23/08 07:46 PM

Welcome to the board, Lizzie.

I'm also lamenting the impending loss of my small, battery powered TV (2-3 inch screen) and have found the current digital options very lacking. I hope the offerings will soon include something simple, affordable and adequate for use during a power outage.
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Digital TV - 09/23/08 08:01 PM

Hi Lizzie,

Quote:
I am especially unhappy about the nonexistence of a simple, reliable portable battery-operated TV to use in case of an extended emergency/power outage. Currently, we have a very small black-and-white analog TV that operates on DD batteries. I pull it out during extended power outages and have NEVER had a set of batteries fail to last the entire length of the power outage. I find that access to information both helpful and (I'll admit) comforting. I've looked at the portable digital TVs, and there is nothing out there that will run on just regular batteries. There are a few that have built-in batteries that must be recharged by plugging into the electrical outlet for a period of time. After recharging, it appears that the TV will broadcast for a little over an hour before needing to be recharged again. Some can be recharged with an additional adapter that you plug into your cigarette lighter, but I don't see myself doing that. So, I can pay 4 or 5 times as much money for a TV that will run for a little over an hour, to replace my current setup that lasts days/weeks and provides valuable information. No thanks. I'm not sure why this is true. Is it impossible to make a digital TV that would run off of regular batteries (i.e., DD batteries)? Does a digital tuner take so much more power that there is no way to replicate what a portable analog TV can do?


For some reason there does appear to be a shortage of portable ATSC capable battery powered portable TV designs available. Looking on Amazon I was only able to find these ones, which seemed to be the business.

http://www.amazon.com/Haier-HLT71-7-Inch...0741&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-First-Batte...9795&sr=8-9

There is also the small problem of the digital TV reception as most of the internal or supplied external whip antennas have a gain problem with the reduced TV signal strength. This should improve though once the full digital switch over takes place. Many of the portable TVs aren't really portable as they still need to be tethered to the main antenna attached to the side of the house.



The European DTV system has a slightly different broadcast format but it is not so different from the ATSC broadcast signal that a wider range of battery powered portable TVs such as the Laura DTV shown above shouldn't become available in the future.

The most cost effective way would be to get vouchers or coupons ($80 worth) from the US goverment to help to pay for an ATSC STB then power both your current portable TV and the ATSC STB from a battery power supply. You should/may then be able to get an ATSC STB which will be powered from a 12V DC power supply. Most STBs shouldn't consume more than a few watts.

https://www.dtv2009.gov/

Having the entire country switch over on the same day is a bit mad though.



Posted by: Lizzie

Re: Digital TV - 09/24/08 03:42 AM

Thanks for the welcome and the comments.

AmFearLiathMor,
I have seen the digital portable TVs, including the ones for which you provided links. The main drawback, for me, is the limited battery life. As mentioned in the previous post, I've been spoiled by the simple analog portable TV I've had for many years. The battery life is easily long enough for a week-long (or longer) power outage, and I can keep up on what's going on without even having to change the batteries. But, if I should have to change the batteries, it's a simple matter of inserting a new set of batteries--no STB, no battery with inverter, etc. needed. Obviously, I'll have to adapt, but I don't have to be happy about it.

I'm still wondering if anyone can explain to me why there are no digital TVs with regular batteries, rather than the built-in lithium ion rechargeable battery. Is it a matter of asthetics, so that the TVs are very small and portable? Or does a digital TV require more power so that this is the best option in terms of function?
Posted by: jshannon

Re: Digital TV - 09/24/08 03:57 AM

I have been digital over the air only (with $7 Walmart antenna) for more than 1.5 years and love it. Of course the reception will occasionally falter, but I won't be buying cable.
Posted by: JCWohlschlag

Re: Digital TV - 09/24/08 04:55 AM

I do not think we will be seeing good options for portable digital TVs until the ATSC (the entity) gets their standards fixed up. It seems when the initial standards for ATSC (the format) were adopted, consideration for portable, mobile devices was very lacking. It turns out that portable, mobile TVs cannot get very reception at all using the regular ATSC format due to the fact that they move around. The future ATSC-M/H (Mobile/Handheld) standard is designed to accommodate these devices.
Posted by: Yuccahead

Re: Digital TV - 09/24/08 02:29 PM

"I'm still wondering if anyone can explain to me why there are no digital TVs with regular batteries, rather than the built-in lithium ion rechargeable battery. Is it a matter of asthetics, so that the TVs are very small and portable? Or does a digital TV require more power so that this is the best option in terms of function?"


Lizze,
I think the answer runs along these lines. Your old portable TV is still kinda big. It has to have room for the old type of TV screen -- a CRT -- which required a fair amount of depth behind the screen. So there was plenty of space for the designers to place a bunch of D cells. Also, when your TV was made, new battery technology like that found in the new portable digital TV's didn't exist at a reasonable cost.

When current TV manufacturers make a portable TV, they have new technology to use. Namely, flat screens and small rechargeable batteries. They have probably done a fair bit of research that tells them that most people would only use a portable TV on batteries for a limited amount of time and that smaller size was more important for their sales. In time, manufacturers will get around to making TVs for the niches that have been left behind in the rush to get DTVs to the biggest parts of the market.

My old portable TV seems to use 1000 mA and requires 9D batteries. I couldn't find the power use for the new TVs but I would guess it is a bit less.
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Digital TV - 09/24/08 06:30 PM

Lizzie,

The digital switchover will be a sad moment for many. Your simple analogue television, which has served you so faithfully for many years, will soon be joining its ancestors in tele heaven. Your tele will be in good company though. I too will soon begrudge the loss of a Casio EV-680 to the so called 'TV digital revolution' in 2010. frown

http://www.thevalvepage.com/tv/Tele.htm

The Sinclair FTV1 - what nostalgia.

http://www.thevalvepage.com/tv/sinclair/ftv1/ftv1.htm

A complete history of the portable television.

http://www.guenthoer.de/index-e.htm




Posted by: jshannon

Re: Digital TV - 09/27/08 12:15 PM

There is portable (small, watched while still) and then there is mobile (smaller, watched while moving as in car).

Noboby has ever really had good reception with even an analog tv while moving down the road in an rv have they? I was not impressed when I saw it in the 90's.

And, nobody has really ever made a true mobile tv?

There will be a demand for both portable and mobile tv when you can get HD picture quality from a cheap antenna, IMO....watch.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Digital TV - 09/29/08 05:29 PM

Originally Posted By: comms
I am soooooo sick of this information campaign. This may make me unpopular but I don't think the gov't should be subsidizing this turnover. If someone hasn't bought a new tv in the last 10-15 years that is digital ready or have a cable converter, its not the taxpayers responsibility to fund a tv for them.
On the other hand, I resent the government making a decision that will cost me money. About a year and a half ago, my wife bought a flat screen TV. Now, through no fault of our own, we'll have to buy additional equipment to run the TV.

Why the conversion to digital? Sure, it's an upgrade, but the real driving force is money. The gov't can make a lot of money auctioning off the parts of the electro-magnetic spectrum formerly used by TV, and the corporations purchasing those portions of the spectrum will make more money still. A decision has been made that will be of monetary benefit to government and business but will cost the average American. The government isn't subsidizing this cutover, you and I are. Unless they pay 100% of the cost of conversion, it is we who are subsidizing them, not the other way around.
Posted by: Yuccahead

Re: Digital TV - 09/29/08 06:23 PM

"About a year and a half ago, my wife bought a flat screen TV. Now, through no fault of our own, we'll have to buy additional equipment to run the TV."

Jim,
As I understand it, if you have cable or satellite TV, you shouldn't need to buy anything else. If you get your signal over the air, you will need a TV with an ATSC tuner or a converter box. If you bought a TV without an ATSC tuner, you saved money versus buying a TV that had one. Now you just have to pay up. You probably saved $100+ back then and now only have to pay $50 or so.

Finally, there was a earlier government deadline that required all 25" or larger TVs being manufactured after July 1, 2006 to have an ATSC tuner. [There were later deadlines for smaller TVs]. Unless you wife bought a close-out 18 months ago, it should have an ATSC tuner.
Posted by: Erik_B

Re: Digital TV - 09/30/08 12:50 AM

i just can't believe .gov could pass a universal declaration like this without We, The People having a say in it. or was this on a ballot somewhere and i just missed it? this country sure has changed. there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with how the TV broadcasting worked before. i really don't need, nor do i want, to get Wolf Blitzer's reports in "better than real-life HD picture quality." in fact, i find the idea rather frightening. *_*

rant deleted on account of it seeming a bit vulgar after I'd cooled down a bit.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Digital TV - 09/30/08 02:01 AM

Originally Posted By: ChadHahn
Sometime in the near future the VHF channels (2-13) will quit broadcasting in their entirety and the channels will revert back to the FCC. What they are going to do with the frequencies then I don't know.

This is incorrect. These VHF channels will still be available to TV if the stations want them (many stations want UHF now, so they have abandoned their old VHF frequencies). Also, many stations are currently broadcasting their digital signals on UHF as a temporary measure, but will be MOVING BACK to their old VHF frequencies at the cut-over date.

One of the purposes of the all-digital broadcast requirement is to free up UHF channels 52 thru 69, not the VHF channels. Low VHF, channels 2-6, are not well suited for digital transmission (due to interference concerns) so you won't find many stations still operating there after the cut-over. But a few will remain. Upper VHF, channels 7-13, will be hosting many digital broadcasts after the cut-over.
Posted by: BobS

Re: Digital TV - 09/30/08 03:13 AM

Originally Posted By: haertig

One of the purposes of the all-digital broadcast requirement is to free up UHF channels 52 thru 69, not the VHF channels.

The purpose of the switchover to digital TV is pure greed on the government’s part.

There is a very limited amount of radio spectrum, the low end is sound and the top end is light waves (sound, radio and light waves are basically the same thing only different frequencies.)

The government rents out space on the radio spectrum to whoever has enough money to buy its use.

Digital signals take up less space then analog signals. This translates to a lot more space to rent out and collect money for its use by the government.

There is no commercial gain for television networks from the push to go digital.
Posted by: Yuccahead

Re: Digital TV - 09/30/08 03:39 AM

Quote:

There is a very limited amount of radio spectrum, the low end is sound and the top end is light waves (sound, radio and light waves are basically the same thing only different frequencies.)


Just to clarify, light and Radio waves are both part of the electromagnetic spectrum. So are microwaves and X-rays. Sound is not.

One end of the spectrum is represented by low frequency radio waves with wavelengths around 10^3 meters. The other end is gamma rays with wavelengths around 10^-12 meters. Visible light wavelengths are between .4 and .7x10^-6 (400 to 700 nanometers).
Posted by: Brangdon

Re: Digital TV - 10/02/08 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: BobS
The purpose of the switchover to digital TV is pure greed on the government’s part.
That's a bit negative. The analogue TV broadcasts are very inefficient in their use of spectrum. As you point out, the radio spectrum is a very limited resource. Digital TV needs less of it to offer the same services. The saving can be used for new services, of which there are potentially many.

In the long run it's the best thing to do. How the transition is managed is another matter; I can't really comment on American policy. Here in the UK it's been brewing for years. (It looks like we messed up the high-definition element, so people who bought digital TVs will have to buy again to get HD.)
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Digital TV - 10/02/08 07:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Yuccahead
"About a year and a half ago, my wife bought a flat screen TV. Now, through no fault of our own, we'll have to buy additional equipment to run the TV."

Jim,
As I understand it, if you have cable or satellite TV, you shouldn't need to buy anything else. If you get your signal over the air, you will need a TV with an ATSC tuner or a converter box. If you bought a TV without an ATSC tuner, you saved money versus buying a TV that had one. Now you just have to pay up. You probably saved $100+ back then and now only have to pay $50 or so.

Finally, there was a earlier government deadline that required all 25" or larger TVs being manufactured after July 1, 2006 to have an ATSC tuner. [There were later deadlines for smaller TVs]. Unless you wife bought a close-out 18 months ago, it should have an ATSC tuner.
Whether I pay for it then or I pay for it now, I'm still paying for it -- while the government and big business make money off of the deal. I'm subsidising them; that's what it boils down to.

Hopefully there is a net benefit to the public in that more services can be offered since more of the spectrum will be available post-conversion, but I'm still subsidizing the conversion. Those benefitting are not paying for the true cost of the benefit that they will receive. In effect, at least in the government's case, it's a new tax. Oops, I meant "revenue enhancement."
Posted by: BobS

Re: Digital TV - 10/02/08 08:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Brangdon
Originally Posted By: BobS
The purpose of the switchover to digital TV is pure greed on the government’s part.
That's a bit negative. The analogue TV broadcasts are very inefficient in their use of spectrum. As you point out, the radio spectrum is a very limited resource. Digital TV needs less of it to offer the same services. The saving can be used for new services, of which there are potentially many.

In the long run it's the best thing to do. How the transition is managed is another matter; I can't really comment on American policy. Here in the UK it's been brewing for years. (It looks like we messed up the high-definition element, so people who bought digital TVs will have to buy again to get HD.)


It’s the truth, in the years to come the government will make billions off rental of something they talked us into believing they own. This is about money, plane and simple.
Posted by: ki7he

Re: Digital TV - 10/03/08 12:19 AM

Originally Posted By: BobS
The purpose of the switchover to digital TV is pure greed on the government’s part.

There is a very limited amount of radio spectrum, the low end is sound and the top end is light waves (sound, radio and light waves are basically the same thing only different frequencies.)

The government rents out space on the radio spectrum to whoever has enough money to buy its use.

Digital signals take up less space then analog signals. This translates to a lot more space to rent out and collect money for its use by the government.

There is no commercial gain for television networks from the push to go digital.


Couldn't disagree with this more. Not everything is a conspiricy. This is being done both to replace a 50 year old, inefficient technology that's way past its time and for the demand from the consumer for a far superior picture quality. This is apparently a bad forum to look for an example of people who do want everything in high-definition but I can assure there are a lot of people who have been demanding it.

As you say, there is a very limited amount of radio spectrum available. This itself justifies the switch to a format that uses a fraction of the spectrum while allowing the station to broadcast multiple channels (did you say "no commercial gain"?). This frees up the spectrum for the growing demand.

The money the government collects by "renting" out the spectrum is just a bonus. Since "the government" is you and I, I'd outraged if they didn't get as much as they can out of it for commercial use.
Posted by: BobS

Re: Digital TV - 10/03/08 12:50 AM

Originally Posted By: ki7he
This is apparently a bad forum to look for an example of people who do want everything in high-definition but I can assure there are a lot of people who have been demanding it.




Then why did the TV stations and the people that make TV’s not come out with this before now instead of being forced by law on everyone by the government?





I have a carpet cleaning business; I’m in a large number of homes and businesses each week (sometimes up to 20 homes & businesses a week) I talk to my customers about all kinds of things, the digital issue being one of them. When the TV issue comes up, the answer to being asking is yea it’s nice to have a clearer picture, but it was not a big concern. (This tells me that the consumer was not driving this change.)


With everything that relates to the government and what it does, to get answers as to why it’s doing it.

Follow the money trail for it’s motivation. Do you know any politician or government agency would turn down an idea that will generate billions? I don’t, it’s a mythical beast.
Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Digital TV - 10/03/08 02:49 AM

Quote:
Then why did the TV stations and the people that make TV’s not come out with this before now instead of being forced by law on everyone by the government?


Because we didn't know they could do it. I hadn't really heard anything about it until they announced the date for the change. The only thing I'd heard was third hand about five years before with no details of what they were proposing or the consumer equipment to support it.

Yes, it was specified by law. The law also specified that >85% of the population had to have access to cable or satellite reception before the date for switchover was set. IIRC even after that they delayed it at least once.

As far as HD goes, I want anything I can get in it.
Posted by: BobS

Re: Digital TV - 10/03/08 03:06 AM

Originally Posted By: UTAlumnus
Quote:
Then why did the TV stations and the people that make TV’s not come out with this before now instead of being forced by law on everyone by the government?


Because we didn't know they could do it. I hadn't really heard anything about it until they announced the date for the change.


This reinforced the government wanted it and not the public. If you don’t know about it, its kind of hard to demand it!
Posted by: sodak

Re: Digital TV - 10/04/08 12:47 AM

This just makes me laugh. The only effect for me will be taking my tv to the curb for the trashman to pick it up. I never -literally- watch it unless I'm watching a dvd. Buh - bye.
Posted by: BobS

Re: Digital TV - 10/04/08 02:05 AM

DVDs will still work with analog TVs. No need to toss the TV.
Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Digital TV - 10/04/08 02:34 PM

Unless you are in the industry, had you heard anything very far ahead about DVD's before they came out? I know this isn't exactly an oranges-oranges comparison because digital was written into law but DVD's didn't require an infrastructure investment.

When I first heard of the switch, there wasn't any hardware out so I didn't really pay it any attention. Once more information and the hardware were both available, I was all for it. It doubled the channels I can receive without cable and the clarity went up significantly on the ones I could receive before.

The switchover and hardware availability could have been handled better. They should have required manufacturers to switch to producing TV's with digital receivers back when this was set up instead of shortly before the switch.

There is a learning curve to it just like there was with broadcast TV. After so many years with cable it took a while to get the antenna set just right.