# HD Starting in Feb



## transplant (Dec 23, 2005)

In February everything will be transmitted in HD. Will satellite companies still be able to charge customers for HD?


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

transplant said:


> In February everything will be transmitted in HD. Will satellite companies still be able to charge customers for HD?


In February everything will be broadcast in digital, not necessarily HD. All HD is digital, but not all digital is HD. It is perfectly within the rights of a station to broadcast a 4x3 480i digital signal.

So yes, satellite companies will be able to charge customers for HD. In fact they can always charge you for anything that they want to. You just don't have to pay for it.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Not everything will be transmitted in HD. The mandate is for terrestrial stations to cease transmitting analog signals and go digital.

HD is merely the lines of resolution, not the type of signal. HD is a digital signal but not all digital signals are HD.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Directv is already broadcasting a digital signal. In the case of local SD channels, they were picking up the analog signal and converting it to digital, but have recently been converting over to picking up the digital signal. If that signal is 4:3 480i, it is passed on in that format to your receiver. If the signal they receive is HD, it is converted to 480i and 4:3 format (most are center cut--cropped at the sides--but apparently some stations are converted to letterbox). The picture quality may be improved over the previous signal, but it definitely isn't HD except for those channels listed as HD.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

i cant believe how many people cant get this right.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

How about a moratorium on 'Feb 2009' posts?


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> How about a moratorium on 'Feb 2009' posts?


What's happening in February? 
Do I need a new TV?


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

In February will some TV guy come to my door to remove all my non HDTVs?!?


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> i cant believe how many people cant get this right.





BattleScott said:


> How about a moratorium on 'Feb 2009' posts?


Not everyone is as technologically informed as you guys... go easy on him and if you don't feel like answering his question just let it go instead of trying to make him feel bad for asking.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

There will be no moratorium at this time. Folks, this is the biggest thing that's ever happened to broadcast TV and we, the experts, need to be positive and focussed on helping our newer or less informed members. 

Please be reasonable and friendly. 

Now, will DIRECTV eliminate the HD access charge? Heck, I don't know. (That's right, I said Heck!) We'll know when we know.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

durl said:


> Not everything will be transmitted in HD. The mandate is for terrestrial stations to cease transmitting analog signals and go digital.
> 
> HD is merely the lines of resolution, not the type of signal. HD is a digital signal but not all digital signals are HD.


I _knew_ as soon as I re-read my initial answer (a couple of hours after posting it) that my use of the the word "everything" was going to get me into trouble.

As I understand it, all full-power terrestrial stations have to cease transmitting analog signals and go to digital. Low power stations and translators don't yet have a scheduled cutover. And Congress is considering a 1 month extension for the full-power stations to allow for emergency broadcast support and broadcast of some sort of static "analog is cutoff" message.

That about right?

Maybe a sticky with a concise, correct explanation that we could point people to would be helpful.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

If there were any information to pass on about HD pricing, I'd stick it. 

In the meantime there are several helpful threads in the Broadcast/HDTV forum.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> If there were any information to pass on about HD pricing, I'd stick it.
> 
> In the meantime there are several helpful threads in the Broadcast/HDTV forum.


I'd say we need one sticky thread with the facts about what the transition to digital means for Directv users... i.e... nothing and here's why....


----------



## Pepster (Oct 29, 2008)

Tubaman-Z said:



> I _knew_ as soon as I re-read my initial answer (a couple of hours after posting it) that my use of the the word "everything" was going to get me into trouble.
> 
> As I understand it, all full-power terrestrial stations have to cease transmitting analog signals and go to digital. Low power stations and translators don't yet have a scheduled cutover. And Congress is considering a 1 month extension for the full-power stations to allow for emergency broadcast support and broadcast of some sort of static "analog is cutoff" message.
> 
> ...


How much power is considered to be full power? I'm having OTA issues getting all stations since I live in an apartment building. I can't use a roof antenna & live on the first floor of the building. I currently use a Phillips rabbit ear amped antenna. Are stations currently sending out digital signals doing that at full power now, or will they be able to increase their power after the cutoff date?


----------



## transplant (Dec 23, 2005)

transplant said:


> In February everything will be transmitted in HD. Will satellite companies still be able to charge customers for HD?


Let rephraze my query:

Suppose I don't have a HD receiver but subscribe to DirectV. In February I get the set top box for a dollar. Now what happens to me in February?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

From the point of view of TV watching - Nothing. Business as usual. DIRECTV is *NOT* discontinuing SD transmissions.

As for the package pricing, I don't know.


----------



## transplant (Dec 23, 2005)

transplant said:


> Let rephraze my query:
> 
> Suppose I don't have a HD receiver but subscribe to DirectV. In February I get the set top box for a dollar. Now what happens to me in February?


I will answer my own question. In February my set top box will enable me to get a digitil signal, but I still will not get it in HD


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

doesnt everything need to be broadcast in HD by 2012? i thought i read that some where.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

As of 2009 everything will need to be digital. I'm not aware of a resolution requirement. 

Transplant, you're right. In February you will continue to get the same Standard Definition (480i) digital signal you had before. There will be no change.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> i cant believe how many people cant get this right.


You should take a shot a teaching adult computer classes. That is really dismaying. I spent a week trying to teach a woman to double click and she never got it and actually came back a couple weeks later to take the same class over because her employer forced her to. I guess it was a choice of losing her job or learning computer basics. I actually asked her if she drove a car and one of the women in the class said she drove with her and she was no more competent with a car than a computer. Scary.

Rich


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'd say, let's try not to be judgmental. We'll al get through this and this time next year we'll be making jokes about it as we did for Y2k.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> As of 2009 everything will need to be digital. I'm not aware of a resolution requirement.
> 
> Transplant, you're right. In February you will continue to get the same Standard Definition (480i) digital signal you had before. There will be no change.


I still can't believe that the new President will not extend the switch over to digital. With all the things he will have to contend with the last thing he needs is a couple of million people who "suddenly" can't receive a signal over their antennas.

I watched a guy and his wife listen to a sales person at BB explain how to hook up a digital box and I could see by the glassy looks they were giving him that they had no idea what he was talking about.

Rich


----------



## MrKlaatu (Mar 8, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> From the point of view of TV watching - Nothing. Business as usual. DIRECTV is *NOT* discontinuing SD transmissions.


I wish they would. My SD TV plays the HD channels from my HR20 over coax with no problem. Getting rid of SD duplicates would free up bandwith fr stuff like AMCHD.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

MrKlaatu, you'll have your wish at some point, I'm sure. However, with something like 16 million SD-only receivers in use right now (possibly more) it will take time for that to work through the system.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

transplant said:


> I will answer my own question. In February my set top box will enable me to get a digitil signal, but I still will not get it in HD


But the point is that if you already have DirecTV, you do not need anything else. The only reason you would need a $1 set top box (assuming you mean the government subsidized ATSC digital television tuner) is if you wish to receive your local TV stations via the over the air broadcast.

As for the digital tuner, it will be capable of receiving both the standard definition and the high definition broadcasts, so your tv set will be the only limiting factor in whether or not you can view the HD broadcasts or not.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I still can't believe that the new President will not extend the switch over to digital. With all the things he will have to contend with the last thing he needs is a couple of million people who "suddenly" can't receive a signal over their antennas.
> 
> I watched a guy and his wife listen to a sales person at BB explain how to hook up a digital box and I could see by the glassy looks they were giving him that they had no idea what he was talking about.
> 
> Rich


That would just extend the problem a few months. Most stations have been broadcasting digital signals for several years already and the PSAs and crawl announcements have been running for quite a while. I doubt that those who haven't figured it out by now will be doing any better if the transition happens in March or April instead of February. One thing which probably should be more heavily emphasized is that people shouldn't wait until the last minute to do something. Because of the different nature of digital signals, it will take more than a converter box for many people to receive the signals successfully (and in some cases the answer will be to switch to cable or satellite).


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

In addition, it would place a lot of stress on broadcasters who plan on saving tons of money each month by turning off their analog towers. 

I recently read a report suggesting that 95% of people are ready in some way or other. That last 5% most likely contains very casual TV watchers who are unlikely to be severely impacted.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> I'd say we need one sticky thread with the facts about what the transition to digital means for Directv users... i.e... nothing and here's why....


What it means to DIRECTV (and DISH Network customers for that matter) is very little. For those with HD receivers equipped with ATSC tuners and a reasonable signal, it means that they'll have access to just about everything. For those who don't, nothing will change unless their provider hasn't made provisions to get the digital signal yet.

Because DIRECTV and DISH Network share a few uplinks, it is somewhat likely that if one has problems, so will the other.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Again, as the transition nears, we'll be making this perfectly clear. In the meantime, this post says pretty much all that needs to be said:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1466358&postcount=2



> *The most important thing you need to know:*
> 
> Satellite and Cable subscribers should be almost completely unaffected by this transition.
> 
> ...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> In addition, it would place a lot of stress on broadcasters who plan on saving tons of money each month by turning off their analog towers.


Aside from the economies of putting multiple channels on a frequency, digital typically requires a whole lot more power than analog as the analog stations are on much lower frequencies. What they save by turning off the analog signal will often be a small fraction of what they are currently burning.


----------



## petergaryr (Nov 22, 2006)

turey22 said:


> doesnt everything need to be broadcast in HD by 2012? i thought i read that some where.


Actually, that's when the Mayan calendar ends and so does the world. However, I'm pretty sure the major news networks will cover it in HD.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> Aside from the economies of putting multiple channels on a frequency, digital typically requires a whole lot more power than analog as the analog stations are on much lower frequencies. What they save by turning off the analog signal will often be a small fraction of what they are currently burning.


I'm not arguing that, I'm saying that right now broadcasters are transmitting both analog and digital, and certainly they will save money when they turn off their analog transmitters.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

This thread ought to be moved...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You make an excellent point, and I am moving this to the general discussion forum, with a request that we get back to the original topic.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

BattleScott said:


> But the point is that if you already have DirecTV, you do not need anything else. The only reason you would need a $1 set top box (assuming you mean the government subsidized ATSC digital television tuner) is if you wish to receive your local TV stations via the over the air broadcast.
> 
> As for the digital tuner, it will be capable of receiving both the standard definition and the high definition broadcasts, so your tv set will be the only limiting factor in whether or not you can view the HD broadcasts or not.


To nitpick your nitpick so to speak the Government subsidized ATSC tuners will only output a standard SD signal and it is part of the requirements for the box to qualify for the coupon use. The boxes have to be very basic and designed only for supporting only old SD tv.


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

dcowboy7 said:


> i cant believe how many people cant get this right.


Much to the enjoyment of sales chumps at best buy etc.


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

Regarding the 30-day transition extension that congress is proposing. A perfect example of how Washington is completely out of touch with reality. Why would a station want to keep their 50 or 100KW analog transmitters and associated support hardware active without revenue? Power costs alone are huge. Tower maintenance during winter months is at it's highest as is the probability of ice/sleet/snow damage.

Much data exists to support the notion that most of America is somewhat ready. Sadly, that 5-10% that isn't prepared will cost the rest of us and the TV stations lots of money as the media and congress focuses on them instead of the success of the majority.

Dave


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Sometimes you can't teach an old dog new tricks...your 5%-ers.  I think of this as akin to the Y2K fandango. It will come and pass without much of a burp from the belly of society. Watch and see...

transplant, you will be ok, no worries and no increase in your price for satellite (of course this means for your current service as it should remain the same).


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

turey22 said:


> doesnt everything need to be broadcast in HD by 2012? i thought i read that some where.


2012 is when the UK goes OTA digital only.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

petergaryr said:


> Actually, that's when the Mayan calendar ends and so does the world. However, I'm pretty sure the major news networks will cover it in HD.


Will they have a HD NUCLEAR missile cam?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Will they have a HD NUCLEAR missile cam?


By then, maybe.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

durl said:


> ...HD is merely the lines of resolution, not the type of signal. HD is a digital signal but not all digital signals are HD.


No wonder folks are confused. Not to be picky, but accuracy counts when trying to minimize confusion, and there are a couple of fuzzy and potentially misleading things about your post that will probably only add to the confusion.

HD refers to formats using either 1080 _scanning _lines or 720 _scanning _lines (most usually 1080p or 720p), which while sort of similar to "lines of resolution", really isn't the same thing. L of R typically refers to how many distinct black lines, either vertically or horizontally, can be "resolved", or distinguished with the naked eye in a prescribed height or width of a white field. 1080p has (usually) 1920 pixels per line, meaning it can resolve 960 vertical lines in the width of the full aspect ratio of 16:9 (if every pixel represented a line, they would all be the same color and thus invisibly indistiguishable from each adjacent "line" so only half the number pixels can resolve visible lines). _That_, is L of R. 1080p also has 1080 visible scanning lines (out of 1088 transmitted) but is limited to about 540 x 0.7 or 378 perceived horizontal lines of resolution due to the Kell factor.

Also, it usually has a 16:9 aspect ratio (not always, I saw _The Wizard of Oz _in HD and it was 4:3).

It does in some ways refer to the "type" of signal, because it must be a digital "type" of signal to be HD. IOW, HD is a subset of digital TV.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I still can't believe that the new President will not extend the switch over to digital. With all the things he will have to contend with the last thing he needs is a couple of million people who "suddenly" can't receive a signal over their antennas.
> 
> I watched a guy and his wife listen to a sales person at BB explain how to hook up a digital box and I could see by the glassy looks they were giving him that they had no idea what he was talking about.
> 
> Rich


Some of the frequencies freed up already have been auctioned off. I hope they don't delay this anymore. People will learn to hook it when they their stuff doesn't work anymore. The commercials have been on about a year. This is the biggest thing to broadcast TV since the transition from Black & White to Color.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

harsh said:


> ...digital typically requires a whole lot more power than analog as the analog stations are on much lower frequencies. What they save by turning off the analog signal will often be a small fraction of what they are currently burning.


Not so. The power savings will typically be very significant. Most new transmitters are solid state, while most older transmitters use Klystron tubes. This in most cases will offset the difference in cost. But you are correct, it takes 100 Kw for 2-6, 360 Kw for 7-13, and 5 Mw for 14-69 to broadcast to equivalent coverage areas, generally speaking. Power savings is one of two big reasons many stations are opting to return to a lower frequency at analog shutoff (the other being better coverage). But a more-efficient solid state xmitter can really save on operating costs over non SS, and most new "digital" xmitters fall into the SS category while most older analog xmitters do not.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> Not everyone is as technologically informed as you guys... go easy on him and if you don't feel like answering his question just let it go instead of trying to make him feel bad for asking.


I agree. People come on these forums to find information.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

kevinwmsn said:


> ...I hope they don't delay this anymore. People will learn to hook it when they their stuff doesn't work anymore. The commercials have been on about a year. This is the biggest thing to broadcast TV since the transition from Black & White to Color.


I agree, but there is indeed a bill floating around congress that might delay it another month or so.

Any way you look at it, it was handled badly from day one. The congress that voted in digital TV, not probably a one of the 535 members, knew the difference between digital and HD, and all probably thought they were mandating HD. Guess what.

They also picked a date smack-dab in the middle of the Feb ratings book, which is paramount to how TV stations set costs and do business, to interrupt how people watch TV. The industry moved the ratings book to March to compensate, but that puts March Madness into it, meaning everyone will discount CBS's ratings (except CBS, of course). They could have done this on June 5th and everybody would have been much happier about it.

The Wilmington test market (who did their analog shutoff in September as a test) proved that there are a lot of pissed-off and disenfranchised folks out there after shutoff, even though the FCC did a hands-on conversion of many of the viewers to make it seem as if things went smoothly. It still didn't. And don't expect the FCC to knock any doors on 2-17-09.

TV stations are getting calls from folks in areas served by translators saying "Hey, I got my new HD set and I'm all ready for February" expecting some magic transition of all SD to HD. They get pretty mad when you tell them that they will probably have to wait 2 years to take advantage of it. The FCC has so far made no provision whatsoever for a timetable for translator sites. All of those folks (and half of those on normal antennae) will probably be driven to DBS. It's either that or have NO HD AT ALL on their brand-new $2500 Sonys. Talk about an industry shooting itself in the foot.

OK, rant mode off (the bastids!)


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

TomCat said:


> The industry moved the ratings book to March to compensate, but that puts March Madness into it, meaning everyone will discount CBS's ratings (except CBS, of course).


why is it called march madness when the champ game & even the final 4 games at times are in april ? are those not madening ?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I still can't believe that the new President will not extend the switch over to digital. With all the things he will have to contend with the last thing he needs is a couple of million people who "suddenly" can't receive a signal over their antennas.
> 
> I watched a guy and his wife listen to a sales person at BB explain how to hook up a digital box and I could see by the glassy looks they were giving him that they had no idea what he was talking about.
> 
> Rich


I can not find one reason why the transition should be extended... Because then everyone would simply keep saying, lets extend it... Its already extended now... the original date was feb 2007....

Enough is enough...

It needs to happen in feb 09 as scheduled, and then those who aren't ready and have been putting things off will be forced to finally stop be lazy and do something... It snot like the government isn't giving everyone money to go buy converters, and has been doing so for a YEAR by feb...


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

petergaryr said:


> Actually, that's when the Mayan calendar ends and so does the world. However, I'm pretty sure the major news networks will cover it in HD.


Ha i know about that and i hope ill be able to see it in my big screen tv.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

TomCat said:


> Not so. The power savings will typically be very significant. Most new transmitters are solid state, while most older transmitters use Klystron tubes. This in most cases will offset the difference in cost. But you are correct, it takes 100 Kw for 2-6, 360 Kw for 7-13, and 5 Mw for 14-69 to broadcast to equivalent coverage areas, generally speaking. Power savings is one of two big reasons many stations are opting to return to a lower frequency at analog shutoff (the other being better coverage).


This, in itself, is going to lead to more problems. Many folks will be impacted when these stations move frequencies after the switch. The bigger issue will be th fact that they may need a new antenna after the switch. Currently, I pick up all of my local digitals OTA using a UHF antenna. Only one channel is movig back to VHF after the change. I'm pretty close to the antenna farm, so I am hopeful that I won't need to swap out my antenna, but there will be others who won't be as fortunate. On top of that, there will be those that had help from their kids to get them setup with the equipment necessary to be ready for the digital switch. Those kids are going to have to go back and re-aim antennas and re-program converter boxes.

I so look forward to the day that this transition is behind us. If for no other reason than to quit hearing so many folks giving out incorrect information, or reading crawls about it every single day.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

TomCat said:


> No wonder folks are confused. Not to be picky, but accuracy counts when trying to minimize confusion, and there are a couple of fuzzy and potentially misleading things about your post that will probably only add to the confusion.
> 
> HD refers to formats using either 1080 _scanning _lines or 720 _scanning _lines (most usually 1080p or 720p), which while sort of similar to "lines of resolution", really isn't the same thing. L of R typically refers to how many distinct black lines, either vertically or horizontally, can be "resolved", or distinguished with the naked eye in a prescribed height or width of a white field. 1080p has (usually) 1920 pixels per line, meaning it can resolve 960 vertical lines in the width of the full aspect ratio of 16:9 (if every pixel represented a line, they would all be the same color and thus invisibly indistiguishable from each adjacent "line" so only half the number pixels can resolve visible lines). _That_, is L of R. 1080p also has 1080 visible scanning lines (out of 1088 transmitted) but is limited to about 540 x 0.7 or 378 perceived horizontal lines of resolution due to the Kell factor.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I made the waters murkier. I was attempting to keep the explanation extremely simple for the OP.


----------



## erosroadie (Jan 9, 2007)

drded said:


> Regarding the 30-day transition extension that congress is proposing. A perfect example of how Washington is completely out of touch with reality. Why would a station want to keep their 50 or 100KW analog transmitters and associated support hardware active without revenue? Power costs alone are huge. Tower maintenance during winter months is at it's highest as is the probability of ice/sleet/snow damage.
> 
> Much data exists to support the notion that most of America is somewhat ready. Sadly, that 5-10% that isn't prepared will cost the rest of us and the TV stations lots of money as the media and congress focuses on them instead of the success of the majority.
> 
> Dave


Not sure about the ~5-10% who are not ready, but there are plenty of folks out there who don't have a clue how this may, or may not, impact them.

A brand new health club near me opened in September with 10 beautiful Samsung 50" LCD TVs in the building. They receive free cable from Comcast for the feed. The problem is that all of these TVs are set to an analog channel when I arrive in the morning (even though Comcast gives them local Chicago channels, and sub channels, in digital). The pictures look horrible. When I asked to borrow the remote to change to a digital station, I get a "deer in the headlights" look until I show them that the morning news shows actually look much better in digital/HD. When they see the difference, their jaws drop. This usually leads into a discussion about the February transition, how it may affect them (home TVs), etc. Based on this random sample, there are more than 5% of the population who don't understand what is changing in 2009, or how it may affect them.

Analogously, if you learned to swim by being pushed off of a pier, then the transition to digital TV in February 2009 will seem just as scary (but perhaps not as potentially life-threatening). I hope the government doesn't put off the inevitable, as it will only make the situation worse...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The difference is that those Comcast customers will still get their SD feeds after the transition. They may be oblivious to the increased quality of HD but they won't lose their programming quite yet. 

This is the case for 90% of the population.


----------



## erosroadie (Jan 9, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The difference is that those Comcast customers will still get their SD feeds after the transition. They may be oblivious to the increased quality of HD but they won't lose their programming quite yet.
> 
> This is the case for 90% of the population.


Stuart, you may be right.

But I wonder what % of the US population currently receives their TV programming through DBS, Cable and OTA. My guess is that this data has been published (in this forum) before. Anybody have a recent link?:shrug:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The number I've heard for cable and satellite penetration is that 90% of US residents have access to cable or satellite TV in their homes or businesses.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The number I've heard for cable and satellite penetration is that 90% of US residents have access to cable or satellite TV in their homes or businesses.


I would think that number is problably accurate, but conservative, since the signal for Directv and Dish reach all of the continental us, and parts of Alaska and Hawaii


----------



## dwrats_56 (Apr 21, 2007)

erosroadie said:


> Stuart, you may be right.
> 
> But I wonder what % of the US population currently receives their TV programming through DBS, Cable and OTA. My guess is that this data has been published (in this forum) before. Anybody have a recent link?:shrug:


Here is a link for Cable and/or ADS by DMA.

http://www.tvb.org/nav/build_frameset.asp?url=/rcentral/index.asp

The range is from 65.9 to 94.9 percent of the television households.

These numbers are from July 2008. The November 2008 data should be available in a week or two.


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

TomCat said:


> Not so. The power savings will typically be very significant. Most new transmitters are solid state, while most older transmitters use Klystron tubes. This in most cases will offset the difference in cost. But you are correct, it takes 100 Kw for 2-6, 360 Kw for 7-13, and 5 Mw for 14-69 to broadcast to equivalent coverage areas, generally speaking. Power savings is one of two big reasons many stations are opting to return to a lower frequency at analog shutoff (the other being better coverage). But a more-efficient solid state xmitter can really save on operating costs over non SS, and most new "digital" xmitters fall into the SS category while most older analog xmitters do not.


The local CBS station's digital signal is on channel 56. They run a megawatt and the CE told me the electricity bill for that transmitter is $10K per month. They will switch to their current analog channel (5) when analog goes dark but they are currently only authorized 35K watts ERP after the changeover.

Shoulda bought Harris stock a few years ago.


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

Jon J said:


> The local CBS station's digital signal is on channel 56. They run a megawatt and the CE told me the electricity bill for that transmitter is $10K per month. They will switch to their current analog channel (5) when analog goes dark but they are currently only authorized 35K watts ERP after the changeover.
> 
> Shoulda bought Harris stock a few years ago.


I thought Chicago CBS digital channel 3 was restricted to a whopping 3.6kw  by the Canadian government, you get a mega-powered station in comparison!


----------



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

SDizzle said:


> In February will some TV guy come to my door to remove all my non HDTVs?!?


You would mean "non-digital TV", not non HDTV's. Any old TV's would still work as long as you get a digital converter box if you don't receive any cable TV service in your area.


----------



## hanmeng (Dec 10, 2008)

I'm one of the small percentage of viewers that still relied on rabbit ears and received only over-the-air broadcasts. Although we realized that all we had to do was to get a box to decode the new signal, we decided to splurge on a new TV anyway, and got a 42" LCD. It works intermittently with rabbit ears--sometimes even nearby signals are disrupted, to say nothing of those farther away.

So, after unsuccessfully trying other indoor antennas and mulling over the cost of installing an outdoor one, we decided to get a dish. Another factor is that one of us would like to see certain international channels, and Direct is the only one that has the ones wanted.

So, we signed up for the cheapest package (currently about $20 monthly for the international programs, plus $10 for the basic package, mostly crap, but includes the local channels we're used to.)

We thought the cost of the new TV and the $30 a month was all we'd have to pay.

My question is, if we _don't_ pay another fee (an additional $10 monthly) for an HD receiver, will we or won't we be able to view 1080i programming? :nono2:


----------



## ntwrkd (Apr 19, 2006)

hanmeng said:


> I'm one of the small percentage of viewers that still relied on rabbit ears and received only over-the-air broadcasts. Although we realized that all we had to do was to get a box to decode the new signal, we decided to splurge on a new TV anyway, and got a 42" LCD. It works intermittently with rabbit ears--sometimes even nearby signals are disrupted, to say nothing of those farther away.
> 
> So, after unsuccessfully trying other indoor antennas and mulling over the cost of installing an outdoor one, we decided to get a dish. Another factor is that one of us would like to see certain international channels, and Direct is the only one that has the ones wanted.
> 
> ...


You will not. You would need an HD receiver, HD access and (depending on what dish they installed) a new dish. There is no way to get HD on the cheap other than over the air.


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

hanmeng said:


> My question is, if we _don't_ pay another fee (an additional $10 monthly) for an HD receiver, will we or won't we be able to view 1080i programming? :nono2:


I believe the answer is no 1080i programming from the dish, but you're free to get all the free OTA 1080i signals you can grab with an antenna.

Digital OTA signals can be good or bad. multipath (ghosting on analog signals) is the greatest problem digital signals face. I have found that moving an antenna an inch in either direction can make a large difference. I happened to get a huge outside antenna and set it up in the attic and now get a rock-solid signal on my locals, but I know that will not always be the case.
They say if your digital locals are and will be UHF, then the "Silver Sensor" is the best digital antenna. You do not need amplification (unloess you have a really long wire), just an antenna design that has the ability to block out everything except the signal you want. Usually that means an antenna that looks like, a good outdoor antenna. (Most antenna's designed to look OK in a living room are poor antennas)


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You'll still be able to view 1080i programming over the air. If you want to view HD provided by DIRECTV you'll have to pay whatever their prices is for that package. The SD packages won't go away immediately.


----------



## hanmeng (Dec 10, 2008)

hanmeng said:


> So, we signed up for the cheapest package (currently about $20 monthly for the international programs, plus $10 for the basic package, mostly crap, but includes the local channels we're used to.)
> 
> We thought the cost of the new TV and the $30 a month was all we'd have to pay.
> 
> My question is, if we _don't_ pay another fee (an additional $10 monthly) for an HD receiver, will we or won't we be able to view 1080i programming? :nono2:


I just checked with Direct; as your replies suggest, I need the receiver. Not only is it another $10 for the HD receiver, but another $5 on top of that because we must subscribe to the "Choice Extra" instead of the original basic "preferred choice" package. I wonder if there are any other hidden fees (do I have to pay to change the channel? ).


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

hanmeng said:


> I just checked with Direct; as your replies suggest, I need the receiver. Not only is it another $10 for the HD receiver, but another $5 on top of that because we must subscribe to the "Choice Extra" instead of the original basic "preferred choice" package. I wonder if there are any other hidden fees (do I have to pay to change the channel? ).


Did you check via the website or phone? Changes to grandfathered packages cannot be done online anymore (it will say you need to change to a newer package), but people are still reporting success over the phone so you may be able to keep your existing package.


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

paulh said:


> I thought Chicago CBS digital channel 3 was restricted to a whopping 3.6kw  by the Canadian government, you get a mega-powered station in comparison!


Interesting, since the Canadian government has absolutely no sayso over US broadcasters.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Jon J said:


> Interesting, since the Canadian government has absolutely no sayso over US broadcasters.


I have no idea about this particular case but TV and radio stations near the border are subject to frequency and power agreements between the US and Canada.


----------



## rkish (May 8, 2008)

This may be a stupid question...but I'll ask it any way.

Can you view an HD channel from an HD receiver on a non-HD TV (CRT, etc.)?

I haven't tried it at home myself, but wondered if anyone has. If it is possible, is there any difference in PQ either better or worse.

You can tell that I have too much time on my hands.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

rkish said:


> This may be a stupid question...but I'll ask it any way.
> 
> Can you view an HD channel from an HD receiver on a non-HD TV (CRT, etc.)?
> 
> ...


yes, yes, yes. the back of the HD RCVr has svideo and composite outputs, and you can put that on a standard tv, It is downconverted by the rcvr of course, but it started life as an HD image. that is probably how life will soon be for Directv, it is how life is for mpeg 4 locals in SD.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Yes you can but it will be standard definition, as bad as any other standard definition program.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Yes you can but it will be standard definition, as bad as any other standard definition program.


I would have to disagree there. I have used the s-video out of the HD dvr to a dvd burner and the resulting image is far superior to any of the SD channels today.


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

BattleScott said:


> I would have to disagree there. I have used the s-video out of the HD dvr to a dvd burner and the resulting image is far superior to any of the SD channels today.


That's what I would think. Standard SD delivery on cable or satellite is about VCR quality. The HD downconvert would be DVD quality. I remembered being stunned when I first watched a DVD on my 26" GE with only RCA jacks..


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

paulh said:


> That's what I would think. Standard SD delivery on cable or satellite is about VCR quality. The HD downconvert would be DVD quality. I remembered being stunned when I first watched a DVD on my 26" GE with only RCA jacks..


This is what's happening to DirecTV's MPEG2 SD channels,when the programmer goes HD,we that have subscribed to MPEG2 SD programming are receiving a better picture.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> This is what's happening to DirecTV's MPEG2 SD channels,when the programmer goes HD,we that have subscribed to MPEG2 SD programming are receiving a better picture.


Unfortunately the downconverted locals aren't that great, thanks to overcompression and bit starving. Connect a HD receiver with OTA tuner to an analog TV and compare an OTA HD local with the Directv SD version (assuming it is one which Directv is now downconverting from HD). You can still tell a difference, although it is much better than in the past. The only ghosting I see is from remote news broadcasts.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I have to second the comment that most HD channels, viewed thru component or S video on an SD TV, look a lot better than SD channels.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Jon J said:


> Interesting, since the Canadian government has absolutely no sayso over US broadcasters.


You're forgetting little things called Treaties. Countries use them for a number of things, including RF frequency allocations and such...


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

IIP said:


> You're forgetting little things called Treaties. Countries use them for a number of things, including RF frequency allocations and such...


Yes. There are international treaties regarding frequency *allocations*, but those treaties can't specifiy who and how frequencies are used.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_management



> The first sentence of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) constitution fully recognises "the sovereign right of each State to regulate its telecommunication".


For example, AM maximum power in the US is 50kw. For years stations just across the border in Mexico consistently ran 500 kw and the US had no control, still doesn't. The FCC *may* take overlapping signals into account when granting power limits, but it's not something covered by treaty.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> We'll al get through this and this time next year we'll be making jokes about it as we did for Y2k.


But why put off 'till tomorrow what we can do today?

Sorry, you left yourself wide open.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

How many SD channels are offered in full SD resolution with no additional compression?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Artwood said:


> How many SD channels are offered in full SD resolution with no additional compression?


None.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

Why doesn't DirecTV make the most popular SD channel of all--whatever that is--and deliver it without compression?

Is ONE non compressed SD channel too much to ask for?


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Artwood said:


> Is ONE non compressed SD channel too much to ask for?


Considering that a single uncompressed SD channels takes up roughly as much bandwidth as 100 compressed SD channels, I'd say yes, it's asking too much.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DarinC said:


> Considering that a single uncompressed SD channels takes up roughly as much bandwidth as 100 compressed SD channels, I'd say yes, it's asking too much.


That information is just plain wrong.

The bandwidth for one HD channel takes about as much as 6 compressed SD channels. One uncompressed SD channel used about the same bandwidth as 2-3 compressed channels (depending on what level of compression/bitrate is used).


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> One uncompressed SD channel used about the same bandwidth as 2-3 compressed channels.


That information is just plain wrong.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DarinC said:


> That information is just plain wrong.


I might recommend reading a couple of threads that directly validate this ratio for you sir....I'll hunt them down for you, and share it in another post. 

The 100 to 1 ratio you stated isn't even in the same galaxy as reality.

But not to worry....I'll search for the posts that have the right information from someone who knows the facts, and share them with you (gladly).


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I might recommend reading a couple of threads that directly validate this ratio for you sir....I'll hunt them down for you, and share it in another post.
> 
> The 100 to 1 ratio you stated isn't even in the same galaxy as reality.
> 
> But not to worry....I'll search for the posts that have the right information from someone who knows the facts, and share them with you (gladly).


Ok, here's one for you. Note the 311Mbps number. SD on DirecTV is generally 3Mbps or less.

EDIT: Here is another listing 30MB/s, which would be 240Mbps.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DarinC said:


> Ok, here's one for you. Note the 311Mbps number. SD on DirecTV is generally 3Mbps or less.


First of all...the information you referenced does not relate to the bandwidth rate nor compression used by DirecTV....and their SD is generally not at the 3Mbps rate.

The actual signal source feed (and how it is transmitted determines the bandwidth requirements to re-broadcast, not some theoretical math formula.

In addition, as there is currently a mix of MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 compression methods being used for their inventory of channels, and the per-channel bitrates even vary, the 311Mpbs reference in that article does not apply whatsoever to this situation.

The 2nd piece you just added deals with DVD encoding rates, not satellite TV transmissiion rates.

So to make those kinds of generalizations is a misrepresentation...and again, the 100 to 1 ratio you stated is totally false.

Not to worry....I'm working to hunt down the engineering expert information regarding DirecTV bandwidth results and practices that will clarify all this...hopefully I'll have it posted here ASAP.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> First of all...the information you referenced does not relate to the bandwidth rate nor compression used by DirecTV....and their SD is generally not at the 3Mbps rate.


It has nothing to do with DirecTV. The question was about uncompressed SD. The quality of the content is irrelevent. Uncompressed video is uncompressed video.



> The 2nd piece you just added deals with DVD encoding rates, not satellite TV transmissiion rates.


Ditto. It doesn't matter if it's on satellite, or whatever. The datarate for uncompressed video is what it is.

Now, if the question is about the bitrate to make it visually equivelent to the source, then yes, the number is extremely less if we allow a compressed codec.

EDIT: If it makes you feel better using references specific to DirecTV, here's one. Plenty of discussion on compression ratios there. It's from 1995, and DirecTV uses MUCH higher compression ratios now than they did back then. But it's still helpful.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ....and their SD is generally not at the 3Mbps rate.


I quoted that previously, but forgot to address it. I said _generally_ their SD channels are around 3Mbps or less. With the exception of a few new locals, the vast majority of their SD are on Ku transponders. Last I knew, those netted around 31-32Mpbs. They are putting somewhere between 12-15 channels per transponder. So the _average_ is probably closer to 2.4Mbps. But different channels obviously get different bitrates. Things like PPV get treated a little better. Maybe the game show network a little worse.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Artwood said:


> Why doesn't DirecTV make the most popular SD channel of all--whatever that is--and deliver it without compression?
> 
> Is ONE non compressed SD channel too much to ask for?





DarinC said:


> It has nothing to do with DirecTV. The question was about uncompressed SD. The quality of the content is irrelevent. Uncompressed video is uncompressed video.


DarinC,

If I'm reading post #82 correctly (quoted above), which got you started on this tangent, it directly references the delivery of ONE non-compressed channel on ... wait for it ... DIRECTV!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The bandwidth for one HD channel takes about as much as 6 compressed SD channels.


What part does a compressed HD channel play in discussing an uncompressed SD channel?


> One uncompressed SD channel used about the same bandwidth as 2-3 compressed channels (depending on what level of compression/bitrate is used).


I suggest you do some experiments with lossless MPEG2 compression on an uncompressed source (if you can find one). I think you'll find that it really is necessary for DIRECTV to compress the channels after down-converting them to disturbingly low resolutions and color depths.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> What part does a compressed HD channel play in discussing an uncompressed SD channel?I suggest you do some experiments with lossless MPEG2 compression on an uncompressed source (if you can find one). I think you'll find that it really is necessary for DIRECTV to compress the channels after down-converting them to disturbingly low resolutions and color depths.


I indicated multiple comparisons for the purpose of demonstrating the various scenarios that come into play with compression/non-compression. For some strange reason, you chose to only extract the reference of the one single portion, which makes this information out of context.

You are correct that DirecTV chooses to use MPEG-4 compression techniques, as they are the latest technology used to provide the leveraging of bandwidth to still provide a digital output that results in a better viewing experience. Dish and some calbe providers use the same technology....as for "disturbingly low"....I totally disagree, and also have seen no evidence of that statement whatsoever. If you want to discuss distrurbing low compression....there's plenty of discussion of that in the Dish forum.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> What part does a compressed HD channel play in discussing an uncompressed SD channel?I suggest you do some experiments with lossless MPEG2 compression on an uncompressed source (if you can find one). I think you'll find that it really is necessary for DIRECTV to compress the channels after down-converting them to disturbingly low resolutions and color depths.


Lossless MPEG-2 is virtually irrelevant to this discussion, as this thread is about HD, *not SD*, and in addition, MPEG-4 is the primary (and soon enough exclusive) technology used. As the poster above indicated...this brief SD discussion set of posts is a tangent out of whack here.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

JLucPicard said:


> DarinC,
> 
> If I'm reading post #82 correctly (quoted above), which got you started on this tangent, it directly references the delivery of ONE non-compressed channel on ... wait for it ... DIRECTV!


Correct. But if one wants to calculate the required bandwidth of uncompressed standard definition video, neither the delivery method, nor the carrier matter. It is reasonably simple math determined by the number of pixels, and the bit depth of those pixels. hdtvfan stated that the info I referenced didn't relate to the bandwidth or compression used by DirecTV. But again, the carrier is irrelevant when talking about the bitrate of uncompressed video. And I'm not sure why he said it didn't relate to the compression used by DirecTV when my statement he refuted was specifically about uncompressed video. 

Granted, I'm sure Artwood isn't _really_ interested in uncompressed video. I'm sure he just wants video that looks as good as the original source. My response to him was a tongue in cheek answer to point out that what he was _technically _asking for was not doable, in presumably the same vein of Harsh's first response. But hdtvfan took the opportunity to take that response and use it as a springboard to contemptuously demonstrate his lack of knowledge in the subject. :grin:


----------



## apferrando (Oct 20, 2008)

turey22 said:


> doesnt everything need to be broadcast in HD by 2012? i thought i read that some where.


Ok, just strike the word HD from your mind -- that's the best information that can be given to anyone during the change. HD has nothing to do with anything, it's but icing on the cake... most broadcasters and channel operators are using the digital bandwidth to offer HD, but it's a digital transition from analog. Not an HD transition from SD. The end result in this MAY be that all channels go HD... but that's not the purpose.

As for 2012... that year is in play for Cable Companies.... cable companies must, at the very least, continue to offer analog local channels to their customers until 2012. To keep providing for the analog users, the cable companies will have two choices, either provide its subscribers with converter boxes or convert the digital SD signal to analog SD and provide it across the lines. The converter box option is potentially very expensive and the analog signal option means the use of more bandwidth...

To quote a website on the subject:

Of course, what the FCC is not mandating is that the cable companies make it painless for subscribers to stick with analog cable: within regulatory limits which vary between regions, cable companies may be able to make it increasingly uncomfortable for subscribers to stick with good old analog cable, including increasing prices, adding fees, changing subscriber agreements, and simply shutting off the signal in cases where the analog channels are present but not explicitly part of a service package.

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-article/14161/fcc-says-cable-to-keep-analog-tv-until-2012


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

It's easy to get bad information about whats happening Feb. 17th.

I consider myself an expert on the digital transition but gave the wrong information to a DirecTV customer just last week.

I was at the home to upgrade their DirecTV service to HD.

Customer ask if she needed to do anything about the digital transition,I took a quick look around saw she had Hughes gold series receivers and spotted edge of the dish near the chimney and told her that with DirecTV HD and SD locals service she had nothing to worry about.

She said she was surprised to hear that after what her husband told her. 

I put a ladder up on the front of the house for best access and walk up and over the peak of the roof to discover an 18 inch round dish mounted to the side of the chimney. "no locals from DirecTV at all and a very large tree blocking LOS to 119 Knoxville SD locals!" Ouch this is going to be a long day!" 

Call ended with customer getting two H21-100 HD boxes four HD Knoxville network feeds ABC,CBS,NBC and Fox and still a big transition issue for 5 SD tvs on an attic antenna come Feb 17th. "Not having PBS HD on DirecTV is a real pain"


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

I find it hard to believe that one uncompressed SD channel would cause a loss of myriad other channels--course there are so many junky channels on anyway I don't think the world would end.

How does FIOS deliver all its SD channels uncompressed?

If the ratios sited were true wouldn't the uncompressed SD channels on FIOS reduce their bandwidth to the point that they couldn't carry hardly anything?

Just some genius tell me why FIOS has the brains to do it but DirecTV doesn't?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Artwood said:


> How does FIOS deliver all its SD channels uncompressed?


Easy: they don't. Did you just skip over DarinC's correct explanations, or did you not understand them?


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

I have always thought that FIOS does not add any additional compression to SD channels than whatever compression is applied from the source providers?

Is that true or a lie?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Artwood said:


> I have always thought that FIOS does not add any additional compression to SD channels than whatever compression is applied from the source providers?
> 
> Is that true or a lie?


Honestly, I don't know. It's probably true, but I can't say for sure. But not adding additional compression is very different from uncompressed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

All digital video is compressed. The issue is whether or not it is _processed_.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

I hear the same old everything is compressed argument all the time.

The real point is is it degraded anymore after it is compressed by the original sources?

Does the picture contain as much content after it is sent by the source?

Ususally the answer is no.

That's the problem.

We get to watch crap quality so we can carry more crap channels.

I'd rather get 100 quality channels than 300 crap ones.


----------



## prospero63 (Aug 31, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Now, will DIRECTV eliminate the HD access charge? Heck, I don't know. (That's right, I said Heck!) We'll know when we know.


That would be a heck of a marketing move IMO. "Look, we understand that today you the consumer expect HD, and we believe in providing it as our basic tier of service. HD isn't something special or something 'more', it's the normal operating method".


----------



## Billsfan69 (Nov 9, 2007)

transplant said:


> Let rephraze my query:
> 
> Suppose I don't have a HD receiver but subscribe to DirectV. In February I get the set top box for a dollar. Now what happens to me in February?


Not a thing. Directv broadcasts are a digital signal, which is what the february transition covers.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> All digital video is compressed. The issue is whether or not it is _processed_.


All video is processed. The issue is whether or not it's compressed by your TV provider after receiving it from the content provider.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Billsfan69 said:


> Not a thing. Directv broadcasts are a digital signal, which is what the february transition covers.


It covers terrestrial digital signals, not extra terrestrial ones like DirecTV. Even if DirecTV were analog, they wouldn't have to switch to digital.


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I still can't believe that the new President will not extend the switch over to digital. With all the things he will have to contend with the last thing he needs is a couple of million people who "suddenly" can't receive a signal over their antennas.
> 
> I watched a guy and his wife listen to a sales person at BB explain how to hook up a digital box and I could see by the glassy looks they were giving him that they had no idea what he was talking about.
> 
> ...


----------



## ebockelman (Aug 16, 2006)

ActiveHDdave said:


> I blame the TV companies for not making digital TVs sooner and stopping sales of just analog TVs. They could have done that years ago but chosed to milk it out.


They've made them for many years now - people just didn't want to pay the prices then.


----------



## Lyle Thorogood (Jun 27, 2004)

Here is a great training tool for those in the digital upgrade process. Everyone should review this before the transition happens.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

I think Feb. 17, 2009 is a bad time for the transition for two reasons:

1. People are dropping cable to save money, but they need to buy a $60 box for each TV.
2. People can't get analog OTA anymore and/or can't the new digital stations, so rather than buy a $2000 TV they subscribe to cable or satellite en masse instead. It's difficult to work in the snow and cold weather, and how do you access the service box and bury the cable when there is 5 feet of snow on the ground?

Moving it to April or May (but not sweeps week) solves the second problem. Moving it to 2010 solves the first.

Also, D* looks like they are _finally _getting the digital feeds for my locals. They are still working on it with less than two months left in a top 80 DMA. That's cutting it close, isn't it? I think some D* customers who have SD LiL will lose their locals on Feb. 17th.

I would change Feb. 17th to an all-day test. Flip the switch back on the 18th and see how many people complained.


----------



## Ashtonian (Jan 31, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> i cant believe how many people cant get this right.


The Cowboys or our loyal readers?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> I think Feb. 17, 2009 is a bad time for the transition for two reasons


I think both of your reasons are flawed, simply because the number of OTA analog-exclusive households is so low. And if someone can't afford $10-$20 for a converter box, they should have other priorities aside from watching TV.

You can find "reasons" why any date is bad, so we might as well just stick with the date we have. There is no compelling argument on why it shouldn't happen on 2/17/09.


----------



## Ashtonian (Jan 31, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Considering that a single uncompressed SD channels takes up roughly as much bandwidth as 100 compressed SD channels, I'd say yes, it's asking too much.


So, Just how compressed is the Chiller Channel 257?
is there a worse channel for PQ ?


----------



## dwrats_56 (Apr 21, 2007)

Lyle Thorogood said:


> Here is a great training tool for those in the digital upgrade process. Everyone should review this before the transition happens.


:goodjob: I am glad I watched that video, it helped me figure out a few things I have been doing wrong. Like bang the device with a spoon, speak into the cable, and use scissors to prepare cables.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

bobcamp1 said:


> I think Feb. 17, 2009 is a bad time for the transition for two reasons:
> 
> 1. People are dropping cable to save money, but they need to buy a $60 box for each TV.
> 2. People can't get analog OTA anymore and/or can't the new digital stations, so rather than buy a $2000 TV they subscribe to cable or satellite en masse instead. It's difficult to work in the snow and cold weather, and how do you access the service box and bury the cable when there is 5 feet of snow on the ground?
> ...


Feb 17 2009 isn't THE date for the transition, it's the _deadline_ for the transition. Most stations have been broadcasting in digital for years. If people didn't want to "work" in the snow and cold weather, then they should have done it last summer. Or the summer before. Or the summer before that. Besides, what "work" are they having to do? The only people this affects is people who previously got their TV via analog OTA. If they did, they already had an antenna, either indoors, or out. No need to even go outside. They only need to add the STB near their TV. What service box are you talking about? What cable has to be buried?

If people are wanting to "switch" from cable to OTA, that is a separate issue. And if I'm not mistaken, there are rebates available to get a basic converter box for free. But even if not, $60 is covered by one month's savings from cable.


Ashtonian said:


> So, Just how compressed is the Chiller Channel 257?
> is there a worse channel for PQ ?


I don't know, I don't watch SD channels.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Feb 17 2009 isn't THE date for the transition, it's the _deadline_ for the transition. Most stations have been broadcasting in digital for years. If people didn't want to "work" in the snow and cold weather, then they should have done it last summer. Or the summer before. Or the summer before that. Besides, what "work" are they having to do? The only people this affects is people who previously got their TV via analog OTA. If they did, they already had an antenna, either indoors, or out. No need to even go outside. They only need to add the STB near their TV. What service box are you talking about? What cable has to be buried?
> 
> If people are wanting to "switch" from cable to OTA, that is a separate issue. And if I'm not mistaken, there are rebates available to get a basic converter box for free. But even if not, $60 is covered by one month's savings from cable.


People are still confused as to what exactly is needed. It's not a matter of thinking about it ahead of time -- it's about not realizing what they needed to do until it was too late. On Feb. 17, there will be people who wondered why all of the network channels suddenly disappeared.

Some people will then sign up for cable or satellite service. If they don't already have it, cables may need to be run or dishes installed on the roof. Or perhaps a new or larger outdoor antenna. Some cables may need to be run underground. Winter is not the best time to be doing any of these things.

Also, the government suggests ordering coupons by Dec. 31. They are almost out anyway. So most people won't get coupons.

Finally, here's a link about Wilmingtons' switch, which occurred in late summer:

http://www.cabletechtalk.com/digital-transition/2008/09/09/dtv-transition-test-in-wilmington/

It's called a success, yet all kinds of things had to fall in place and there were still problems. Wilmington was absolutely bombarded with switch-over reminders, much more so than other cities. And people still waited until it was too late. Firefighters and EMTs went around and helped install the boxes. There was also a flurry of new cable and satellite subscriptions as well as new coupon applications AFTER the switch. They briefly ran out of cable boxes and converter boxes.

I like my idea of a national 24 hour "flicker". That will kick a lot of people in the you-know-where.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> I like my idea of a national 24 hour "flicker".


I don't. It won't accomplish anything aside from delaying the inevitable. Just shut it off and be done.


----------



## Pepster (Oct 29, 2008)

DarinC said:


> Feb 17 2009 isn't THE date for the transition, it's the _deadline_ for the transition. Most stations have been broadcasting in digital for years. If people didn't want to "work" in the snow and cold weather, then they should have done it last summer. Or the summer before. Or the summer before that. Besides, what "work" are they having to do? The only people this affects is people who previously got their TV via analog OTA. If they did, they already had an antenna, either indoors, or out. No need to even go outside. They only need to add the STB near their TV. What service box are you talking about? What cable has to be buried?
> 
> If people are wanting to "switch" from cable to OTA, that is a separate issue. And if I'm not mistaken, there are rebates available to get a basic converter box for free. But even if not, $60 is covered by one month's savings from cable.
> 
> I don't know, I don't watch SD channels.


While in the technical sense, most of the people who access this site may not have to do anything because all of the televisions in their home are connected to either cable or satellite, it still might not be a bad idea to apply the discount coupons for and purchase some converters and store them just in case.

Many are forced to cancel pay for TV services in the midst of an economic crisis & this country isn't in the best of shape. If this happens to you after the transition date, why get caught not being able to discount your purchase when you'd be least able to spend the extra money.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I grabbed a converter and I am glad I did. D* does not offer me my locals. I have a antenna hooked to my HR20-100 but the converter seems to get stronger signals. Either way I was glad I got one just in case.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

joshjr said:


> I grabbed a converter and I am glad I did. D* does not offer me my locals. I have a antenna hooked to my HR20-100 but the converter seems to get stronger signals. Either way I was glad I got one just in case.


Doesn't your TV have a tuner?


----------



## Pepster (Oct 29, 2008)

transplant said:


> I will answer my own question. In February my set top box will enable me to get a digitil signal, but I still will not get it in HD


One additional thing the set top box will allow you to receive provided that there are some being broadcast in your area is see what & possibly even view the sub-stations that many TV stations are sending out. For example, both the ABC & NBC affiliates here have both all weather & all community interest. sub-stations.

What you see in HD depends in the very least on having an HD capable TV and an antenna connected to that set top box capable of picking up HD signals.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

My wife loves Chillers but it is the most blurry SD channel of all the ones we get.

Anyone who does watch Chillers and says that the SD on it isn't that bad isn't telling telling the truth and is probably working for DirecTV.


----------

