HD-TV converter box rip-off ....
A
You know these set top boxes coming out soon so you can get HDTV to come
through your old regular TV? (because analog transmission is ordered by
the govt to stop next February?).
So, I tried to use their website to "apply for" those coupons worth $40.
And, after filling out the form, it bombed me off with an error (after
telling me I had to allow them to set a cookie). I tried several times AND
with two different web browsers.
Next trick: I decided to call their 800 number on the telephone and make a
voice "application" for the coupons. So what happened? Its all robot voice
menus and you never talk to a human being. It asks a lot of question
including what is your home phone number and then that phone number is
looked up by their computer because it then, by robot voice, asks "is
__X__ your address" and punch "1" if correct, then it asks my name and
spell it out, and asks if correct press "1" and then, guess, what ... it
comes back (the robot voice) and says "you are not elligible for a coupon"
and if I want to appeal that I have to send a letter and they give a
confirmation letter.
I have not seen any articles that explain who is or is not elligible for a
coupon.
This, and all the money they spend to check up on "eligibility" with
database accesses sure seems like a big waste, a big betrayal, and a big
doublecross to me.
And, if I fill out the form with pen/pensil and mail it in, what secret
criteria could they come up with to deny or otherwise say I'm not
elligible for the coupon now?
Are they collecting all this data for a database? For what?
Tim May
<arth...@panix.com> wrote:
> You know these set top boxes coming out soon so you can get HDTV to come
> through your old regular TV? (because analog transmission is ordered by
> the govt to stop next February?).
>
> And, if I fill out the form with pen/pensil and mail it in, what secret
> criteria could they come up with to deny or otherwise say I'm not
> elligible for the coupon now?
>
Check any box that is marked "Hispanic" or "African-American."
These giveaways are reserved for the Usual Suspects, the negroes, the
Mexicans, the immigrants, welfare recipients.
Taxpayers subsidize these boxes so that the untermenschen will have
their Oprah, their Mexican wrestling shows, their Air America liberal
t.v.
The irony is that people who stay at home and watch t.v. all day
usually have plasma t.v.s and LCDs that are better than what working
whites can afford.
--Tim May
George Grapman
As Tim May infests yet another group I once again kill file him. Tim
blames all his unhappiness on minorities.
Ralph
instructions and filled out the rebate form. Sent it in with a copy of
the recept and top of box with the barcode (proof of purchase) like it
said. Got a letter back from Microsoft saying I hadn't properly
satisified all the conditions of the rebate without telling me what I
did wrong or sending anything back. Total bullshit. They ripped me off.
beebs
> As Tim May infests yet another group I once again kill
> file him. Tim blames all his unhappiness on minorities.
Why the announcement? Just killfile him. Do you
expect to get a medal?
beebs
anarchist
Anthony Matonak
> I bought this Microsoft keyboard with a rebate. Carefully read the
> instructions and filled out the rebate form. Sent it in with a copy of
> the recept and top of box with the barcode (proof of purchase) like it
> said. Got a letter back from Microsoft saying I hadn't properly
> satisified all the conditions of the rebate without telling me what I
> did wrong or sending anything back. Total bullshit. They ripped me off.
You could try a class action lawsuit with all the other people that
Microsoft has ripped off. It'll take ten years and cost you all the
money you have and when you win, you'll get a coupon for a discount
on the retail price of a Microsoft product. :)
Anthony
--
Sometimes the bad guys win.
Nicholas
>I bought this Microsoft keyboard with a rebate. Carefully read the
>instructions and filled out the rebate form. Sent it in with a copy of
>the recept and top of box with the barcode (proof of purchase) like it
>said. Got a letter back from Microsoft saying I hadn't properly
>satisified all the conditions of the rebate without telling me what I
>did wrong or sending anything back. Total bullshit. They ripped me off.
I've had the same happen to me with *mail-in Rebates* from stores like
Radio Shack and so on. And this has happened to me since years ago.
IOW, if they say for example $700 for computer, minus $200 mail-in
Rebate, final price $500, be wary. Very wary.
Don't bet your life or your money you'll ever see that $200 check in
the mail, because as often as not, I've found these things to be a
SCAM.
Now if you're willing to pay $700 for the computer, go ahead and buy
it. But if you're budgeted for $500, and are depending on the mail-in
Rebate, even if you do everything exactly as they say, you're shooting
craps with dice. This is my anecdote.
Nick
David Moffitt
"beebs" <dbbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8b59fd31-ba70-4e0d...@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
%%%% Crapman is always looking for a metal, he is a Special Olympics
athlete.
"My sight is failing," she said finally. "Even when I was young I could not
have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks
different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be,
Benjamin?"
For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what
was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single
Commandment. It ran:
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
|
George Grapman
> "beebs" <dbbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8b59fd31-ba70-4e0d...@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> | On Feb 19, 8:53 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> |
> | > As Tim May infests yet another group I once again kill
> | > file him. Tim blames all his unhappiness on minorities.
> |
> | Why the announcement? Just killfile him. Do you
> | expect to get a medal?
> |
> | beebs
> | anarchist
>
> %%%% Crapman is always looking for a metal, he is a Special Olympics
> athlete.
And now enters Mofitt. For those unfamiliar with him he regularly
posts fantasies in the political groups. When asked for cite he replies
are limited to:
Links unrelated to his dreams.
The google home page.
Childish misspelling of the names of those who question him.
My favorite example of Moffitt think was a discussion on NYU.
Moffitt claimed it was a collection of small campuses none of which were
in Manhattan.When I posted the NYU web site which showed the main campus
was in Greenwich Village Moffitt said this showed that he was correct.
Jeff
>
>
> You know these set top boxes coming out soon so you can get HDTV to come
> through your old regular TV? (because analog transmission is ordered by
> the govt to stop next February?).
>
> So, I tried to use their website to "apply for" those coupons worth $40.
Call it a blessing in disguise.
Have you seen any of these converter boxes in the stores?
If I were you, I'd wait until late, remember the coupons expire in 3
month. The variety and prices will both be much lower then.
You have until next February, Also, go check out antennaweb.org to see
what kind of antenna you will need.
Jeff
Evelyn C. Leeper
>
> Pretty much says on their website. Basically you have to have no
> access to broadcast TV except conventional analog broadcast (which is
> ending). If you have cable, satellite, other or if you have a TV that
> can get the over the air broadcasts you are ineligible.
So if one has cable, one is obliged to buy/rent a cable box on one's own?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Heretic: someone who disagrees with you about
something neither of you knows anything about.
Seerialmom
Actually you get a rebate based on how many MS products (qualifying)
you purchased during a time frame (too late to apply now)...and the
rebate can be used on MS or non-MS products including software, new
PC's or peripherals. I still need to send in my $78 rebate once I
decide which "receipt" to use; and those receipts can be from a few
years ago up to about 2010 as I recall. Of course this is just the
California rebate/class action lawsuit; not sure about other states
lawsuits/rebates.
Brian Elfert
>Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>> Pretty much says on their website. Basically you have to have no
>> access to broadcast TV except conventional analog broadcast (which is
>> ending). If you have cable, satellite, other or if you have a TV that
>> can get the over the air broadcasts you are ineligible.
>So if one has cable, one is obliged to buy/rent a cable box on one's own?
There should be no change to your cable service. If your cable company
chooses to go to all digital service it has nothing to do with the FCC
mandating broadcasters change to digital.
Cindy Hamilton
> Winston_Smith wrote:
>
> > Pretty much says on their website. Basically you have to have no
> > access to broadcast TV except conventional analog broadcast (which is
> > ending). If you have cable, satellite, other or if you have a TV that
> > can get the over the air broadcasts you are ineligible.
>
> So if one has cable, one is obliged to buy/rent a cable box on one's own?
It would be technically feasible for your cable provide to convert the
digital
signal to analog prior to sending it down the cable to your house.
However,
they will probably see this as an opportunity to extract more money
from
their customers and require the purchase/rental of a converter.
Cindy Hamilton
Cheapo Groovo
fd926e...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, seeri...@yahoo.com says...
> On Feb 19, 11:52 pm, Anthony Matonak
> <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> > Ralph wrote:
> > > I bought this Microsoft keyboard with a rebate. Carefully read the
> > > instructions and filled out the rebate form. Sent it in with a copy of
> > > the recept and top of box with the barcode (proof of purchase) like it
> > > said. Got a letter back from Microsoft saying I hadn't properly
> > > satisified all the conditions of the rebate without telling me what I
> > > did wrong or sending anything back. Total bullshit. They ripped me off.
> >
> > You could try a class action lawsuit with all the other people that
> > Microsoft has ripped off. It'll take ten years and cost you all the
> > money you have and when you win, you'll get a coupon for a discount
> > on the retail price of a Microsoft product. :)
> >
software you need. Also, computer hardware all comes from China - so you
don't need a name brand mouse, keyboard, etc.
The Real Bev
> On Feb 19, 11:52 pm, Anthony Matonak
> <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> Ralph wrote:
>> > I bought this Microsoft keyboard with a rebate. Carefully read the
>> > instructions and filled out the rebate form. Sent it in with a copy of
>> > the recept and top of box with the barcode (proof of purchase) like it
>> > said. Got a letter back from Microsoft saying I hadn't properly
>> > satisified all the conditions of the rebate without telling me what I
>> > did wrong or sending anything back. Total bullshit. They ripped me off.
Did you telephone? Did you email? I wouldn't put it past the
M$hitheads to deny everything and cave in as soon as somebody complains.
Give it a shot.
>> You could try a class action lawsuit with all the other people that
>> Microsoft has ripped off. It'll take ten years and cost you all the
>> money you have and when you win, you'll get a coupon for a discount
>> on the retail price of a Microsoft product. :)
>>
>> Anthony
>> --
>> Sometimes the bad guys win.
Yeah, but you gotta at least put up a good fight.
> Actually you get a rebate based on how many MS products (qualifying)
> you purchased during a time frame (too late to apply now)...and the
> rebate can be used on MS or non-MS products including software, new
> PC's or peripherals. I still need to send in my $78 rebate once I
> decide which "receipt" to use; and those receipts can be from a few
> years ago up to about 2010 as I recall. Of course this is just the
> California rebate/class action lawsuit; not sure about other states
> lawsuits/rebates.
Ultimately I received a real check, which I cashed. I didn't need to
send in no steenkin' receipts, they took my word for it. People may
make fun of California, but at least we didn't bend over and smile.
--
Cheers, Bev
================================================================
I didn't break it! It was doing that before I broke it... er...
The Real Bev
> A wrote:
>>
>> You know these set top boxes coming out soon so you can get HDTV to come
>> through your old regular TV? (because analog transmission is ordered by
>> the govt to stop next February?).
>>
>> So, I tried to use their website to "apply for" those coupons worth $40.
>
> Call it a blessing in disguise.
>
> Have you seen any of these converter boxes in the stores?
Best Buy has its own Insignia brand boxes for either $50 or $60.
> If I were you, I'd wait until late, remember the coupons expire in 3
> month. The variety and prices will both be much lower then.
>
> You have until next February, Also, go check out antennaweb.org to see
> what kind of antenna you will need.
--
Cheers, Bev
======================================================
Guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Brian Elfert
>It would be technically feasible for your cable provide to convert the
>digital
>signal to analog prior to sending it down the cable to your house.
>However,
>they will probably see this as an opportunity to extract more money
>from
>their customers and require the purchase/rental of a converter.
Most cable companies have indicated they will continue to provide service
as they do today which means no new box required.
However, that does not means things will not change in the next year or
shortly after the conversion. Cable companies would like to go 100%
digital which requires a box of some sort, but the boxes they use are
nothing like the digital converters for broadcast TV.
George Grapman
They are required for a period of time (three years,I think) to do
this and then they are on their own.
Your best bet is getting a dish. The only reasons not to get one are
lack of a clear southern view or a rental unit where the owner will not
allow one on common areas like the roof.
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> A wrote:
>>>
>>> You know these set top boxes coming out soon so you can get HDTV to
>>> come through your old regular TV? (because analog transmission is
>>> ordered by the govt to stop next February?).
>>>
>>> So, I tried to use their website to "apply for" those coupons worth $40.
>>
>> Call it a blessing in disguise.
>>
>> Have you seen any of these converter boxes in the stores?
>
> Best Buy has its own Insignia brand boxes for either $50 or $60.
$60.
Kudos to Best Buy to be the first to sell such a device at a
reasonable price.
The last I looked, about a month ago, there were none.
Jeff
root
>
> Kudos to Best Buy to be the first to sell such a device at a
> reasonable price.
>
> The last I looked, about a month ago, there were none.
>
> Jeff
Walmart sells a Magnavox converter for $50.
sarge137
No. Only people who still receive television over the air will need
the converter boxes. The cable and satellite companies are already
delivering digital signals, and your existing set top box is all
you'll need. High def is an entirely different matter, and these
converters don't deliver that anyway. Getting over the air high def
will require a high def television with a compatible tuner, and for
best results a special antenna. From what I read, over the air high
def is better than what's delivered by the cable/dish providers
because it's not compressed. Maybe a techie who reads this group can
explain it.
Regards,
Sarge
Evelyn C. Leeper
> On Feb 20, 10:07 am, "Evelyn C. Leeper" <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty much says on their website. Basically you have to have no
>>> access to broadcast TV except conventional analog broadcast (which is
>>> ending). If you have cable, satellite, other or if you have a TV that
>>> can get the over the air broadcasts you are ineligible.
>> So if one has cable, one is obliged to buy/rent a cable box on one's own?
>>
>> --
>> Evelyn C. Leeper
>> Heretic: someone who disagrees with you about
>> something neither of you knows anything about.
>
> No. Only people who still receive television over the air will need
> the converter boxes. The cable and satellite companies are already
> delivering digital signals, and your existing set top box is all
> you'll need.
What existing set top box? We don't have one.
A
Guys, I've been reading the WSJ for over 20 years. Recently (months? ago)
there was a fairly big article on this. Yes, they ship these coupons down
to places like Puerto Rico for processing and they pay, like, a penny per
thousand coupons, and it is all specifically designed to maximize errors,
loss of coupon, misplacement, or the dogs/rats/cockroaches eats some of
the paper, so you never hear from them again.
Yesterdays WSJ, front page, had a big article on how they are "sic"-ing
lawyers onto guys who not just _do_ shoplifting but are even just
_suspects_ (even after--they even gave an example--the police look at the
video tapes and say "you don't have a case") and the stores can detain you
(no lawyer present, intimidate you, and coerce you to sign things, etc.)
and then the lawyers start sending letter asking for thousands of dollars.
Reverse Robbin-Hooding? Reverse shoplifting (i.e. "shoplift" off the
customer and his/her wallet)?
Coupons still work in the grocery stores where its all processed right in
front of you noses. Mail in stuff? I look the other way now.
A
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:02:28 -0500, A <arth...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> You know these set top boxes coming out soon so you can get HDTV to come
>> through your old regular TV? (because analog transmission is ordered by
>> the govt to stop next February?).
>>
>> So, I tried to use their website to "apply for" those coupons worth $40.
>
>> And, after filling out the form, it bombed me off with an error (after
>> telling me I had to allow them to set a cookie). I tried several times AND
>> with two different web browsers.
>
> It worked fine for me. I haven't gotten the coupons yet but they did
> say it would take a while.
>
>> Next trick: I decided to call their 800 number on the telephone and make a
>> voice "application" for the coupons. So what happened? Its all robot voice
>> menus and you never talk to a human being. It asks a lot of question
>> including what is your home phone number and then that phone number is
>> looked up by their computer because it then, by robot voice, asks "is
>> __X__ your address" and punch "1" if correct, then it asks my name and
>> spell it out, and asks if correct press "1" and then, guess, what ... it
>> comes back (the robot voice) and says "you are not elligible for a coupon"
>> and if I want to appeal that I have to send a letter and they give a
>> confirmation letter.
>>
>> I have not seen any articles that explain who is or is not elligible for a
>> coupon.
>
> Pretty much says on their website. Basically you have to have no
> access to broadcast TV except conventional analog broadcast (which is
> ending). If you have cable, satellite, other or if you have a TV that
> can get the over the air broadcasts you are ineligible.
They definitely did NOT tell me, in the robot voice, WHY I was not
elligible.
>> This, and all the money they spend to check up on "eligibility" with
>> database accesses sure seems like a big waste, a big betrayal, and a big
>> doublecross to me.
>>
>> And, if I fill out the form with pen/pensil and mail it in, what secret
>> criteria could they come up with to deny or otherwise say I'm not
>> elligible for the coupon now?
>>
>> Are they collecting all this data for a database? For what?
>
> Your name and address are pretty much a matter of public record and so
> are most phone numbers. I suppose whether you choose to buy cable is
> your business but cable is regulated so I'm sure the Congress Critters
> required them to anti up the data.
Over the air HDTV is not cable.
A
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Jeff wrote:
> A wrote:
>>
>>
>> You know these set top boxes coming out soon so you can get HDTV to come
>> through your old regular TV? (because analog transmission is ordered by the
>> govt to stop next February?).
>>
>> So, I tried to use their website to "apply for" those coupons worth $40.
>
> Call it a blessing in disguise.
>
> Have you seen any of these converter boxes in the stores?
>
> If I were you, I'd wait until late, remember the coupons expire in 3 month.
> The variety and prices will both be much lower then.
Well, the problem is that somewhere I read where there is a maximum amount
of money available for the boxes. When the money runs out, no more
coupons.
> You have until next February, Also, go check out antennaweb.org to see what
> kind of antenna you will need.
I'll tr to keep that in mind. I heard a rumor by the way that in-line
amplifiers help HDTV reception and are not limited by internal noise
figure; i.e. the guy that told me this said you can add these amplifiers
in series and the picture gets better. It doesn't work that way with
analog. I'll believe it when I see it, but for us, the 3 TV stations are
far away.
sarge137
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess if your cable company is providing "basic" cable in analog
without a set top box, you'll need to get one. Didn't think anyone
was still doing that. Once the analog broadcasts are replaced by
digital there'll be nothing for them to deliver unless they do a "head
end" conversion - which I don't think is likely. I'm pretty sure the
converters being discussed here won't do that for you because they're
designed to convert over the air digital to analog. It's an
interesting question. Maybe another reader can comment.
I changed from cable to a satellite provider last year, so nothing
works at my house without a set top box. Before that, as long as I
had a cable connection in the room, I was able to attach a "cable
ready" TV and tune in whatever programming was available on channels 2
through 99 without a box. Over the several months before I made the
switch my cable company was moving most of those channels to the
digital side (channels above 120 on my system). By the time I changed
about the only thing available on the analog side were my local
network stations, PBS and a few news, weather and shopping channels.
Regards,
Sarge
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"sarge137" <rboot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:772fc956-f358-4d2c...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
i believe this is what broadcast engineer dh told me.
sarge137
> Well, the problem is that somewhere I read where there is a maximum amount
> of money available for the boxes. When the money runs out, no more
> coupons.
That's right. I don't remember the exact figure, but there's enough
money to give coupons to about 75% of the estimated households that
still use antennas for TV reception. When it's gone, the program is
over. The coupons expire, so while the program is active the money
from expired coupons goes back into the fund - but it still ends when
the last of them are issued, even if there are a bunch of unexpired
and unused coupons still out there.
>
> > You have until next February, Also, go check out antennaweb.org to see what
> > kind of antenna you will need.
>
> I'll tr to keep that in mind. I heard a rumor by the way that in-line
> amplifiers help HDTV reception and are not limited by internal noise
> figure; i.e. the guy that told me this said you can add these amplifiers
> in series and the picture gets better. It doesn't work that way with
> analog. I'll believe it when I see it, but for us, the 3 TV stations are
> far away.
I think you're right here too. In fact, I don't think you can amplify
digital signals at all. From what I've read, and I've only just
started studying this, it's all or nothing. If you're in range, right
out to the furthest edge of the transmission, the picture and sound
lock in crystal clear. If you're out of range you're out of luck -
cable or satellite are your only options. There's no "fringe" area
like with analog. And there's no "skipping" of the signals like with
analog. Many years ago I lived in a high rise apartment in
Washington, DC. It had a master antenna mounted on the roof.
Sometimes late at night, or when there were high clouds in just the
right spot I could tune in a couple of the Baltimore stations, even
though I was way outside the normal range. That's going to disappear
with digital also.
Regards,
Sarge
Rod Speed
> A <arthu...@panix.com> wrote
>> Well, the problem is that somewhere I read where there
>> is a maximum amount of money available for the boxes.
>> When the money runs out, no more coupons.
> That's right. I don't remember the exact figure, but there's enough
> money to give coupons to about 75% of the estimated households
> that still use antennas for TV reception. When it's gone, the program
> is over. The coupons expire, so while the program is active the
> money from expired coupons goes back into the fund - but it still
> ends when the last of them are issued, even if there are a bunch
> of unexpired and unused coupons still out there.
>>> You have until next February, Also, go check out antennaweb.org
>>> to see what kind of antenna you will need.
>> I'll tr to keep that in mind. I heard a rumor by the way that in-line
>> amplifiers help HDTV reception and are not limited by internal noise
>> figure; i.e. the guy that told me this said you can add these
>> amplifiers in series and the picture gets better. It doesn't work
>> that way with analog. I'll believe it when I see it, but for us, the
>> 3 TV stations are far away.
> I think you're right here too.
You say the exact opposite in the next sentance and you're wrong below.
> In fact, I don't think you can amplify digital signals at all.
Corse you can.
> From what I've read, and I've only just started studying this, it's all or nothing.
Wrong.
> If you're in range, right out to the furthest edge of the transmission,
> the picture and sound lock in crystal clear. If you're out of range
> you're out of luck - cable or satellite are your only options.
Wrong when the problem is an inadequate antenna.
> There's no "fringe" area like with analog.
What you are utterly mangling is that with digital it either works or it
doesnt. You dont get the equivalent of a very snowy picture. Thats
an entirely separate matter to whether it can be amplified or not.
> And there's no "skipping" of the signals like with analog.
Wrong again. And again, you're confusing ghosts with skip.
> Many years ago I lived in a high rise apartment in Washington, DC.
> It had a master antenna mounted on the roof. Sometimes late at
> night, or when there were high clouds in just the right spot I could
> tune in a couple of the Baltimore stations, even though I was way
> outside the normal range. That's going to disappear with digital also.
Wrong, that effect will still happen.
sarge137
> sarge137 <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok, Rod.
Like I said I just started reading up on this.
Instead of being your usual smart-assed argumentative self, how about
helping me out here. Can you steer me to some information sources to
verify what you say, which is 180 degreees opposite of what I've
read.
Sarge
Rod Speed
>> Corse you can.
>> Wrong.
> Ok, Rod.
> Like I said I just started reading up on this.
> Instead of being your usual smart-assed argumentative self,
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> how about helping me out here. Can you steer me
> to some information sources to verify what you say,
Nope, because I've been doing this stuff for decades now and have
been using digital TV for a few years now, and use an amplifier fine.
> which is 180 degreees opposite of what I've read.
No it isnt. You're just completely mangling what they actually say.
Bet you cant actually cite anything that says that the digital signal cant be amplified,
or that supports any of the other claims you made above, except the all or nothing
line which is certainly true of a particular config of antenna, amplifier etc.
sarge137
>
> - Show quoted text -
Man, you're some piece of work, Rod.
You're right. Off the top of my head, I can't cite where I read that
digital signals can't be amplified; but I know I could find it if I
were inclined to look. This is an informal discussion, not a formal
debate. You challenged my information, which I originally qualified
and freely admit could be wrong. Unlike you, I'm able to admit that.
Common courtesy would dictate that you let me know where I'm
misinformed, not just dismiss me as a dim bulb who doesn't understand
what he reads. In fact, I'm quite a bright guy and have all the
academic and professional credentials to prove it, if it were any of
your business. I've been involved as a hobbyist with consumer
electronics and home entertainment systems since transistors were new
technology. I'm no expert, but know considerably more than the average
person.
On the other hand, you've made nearly 42,000 usenet posts in only two
years. Your claim notwithstanding it seems to me you don't get out of
the house enough to know very much about anything. Given your
attitude that's probably a good thing. If you deal face-to-face with
people with the same manner as you post, your nose will be punched so
many times it'll be just a smear in the middle of your face, and
you'll have to breath through your mouth.
As far as I'm concerned you know nothing about anything. You make
stuff up as you go for whatever perverted pleasure you get get from
the reactions to your posts.
I'm through with you now. Sayonara, asshole.
William Souden
All you need to know about Rod- He is a welfare recipient who suffers
from a personality defect that prohibits him from from admitting errors
and convinces him that he is an expert on everything.
sarge137
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sure you're right!
Every rare once in a while he'll make what seems to be a valid,
logical contribution to a discussion (probably when he's on his
meds). The next time he pops up he's on one of his insulting rants.
Trying to engage him in any kind of meaningful conversation is like
trying to teach a pig to sing; you waste your time and annoy the pig.
Regards,
Sarge
Rod Speed
>>>> Corse you can.
>>>> Wrong.
>>> Ok, Rod.
> Man, you're some piece of work, Rod.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> You're right. Off the top of my head, I can't cite where I read that digital
> signals can't be amplified; but I know I could find it if I were inclined to look.
Bet you cant.
And even if you can find some fool that claims that, I know you can,
because I amplify mine fine. Because I continued to amplify after I
made the change to digital when that showed up and it worked fine
and because I run 4 digital capture cards so need to amplify it so
that the last card in the chain does get enough signal. If I turn the
amplifier off, that last card can fail to acquire the channel.
> This is an informal discussion, not a formal debate.
Odd that you demanded a cite from me, and
try running that line when I did the same to you.
> You challenged my information, which I originally
> qualified and freely admit could be wrong.
But were stupid enough to try and claim that what I said
was 180 degrees off from what you claim to have read.
> Unlike you, I'm able to admit that.
I dont have anything to admit in that regard, since I have understood the
basics for decades now and have actually tried what you claim isnt possible.
> Common courtesy would dictate that you let me know where I'm misinformed,
And that is precisely what I did.
> not just dismiss me as a dim bulb who doesn't understand what he reads.
I only did that when you tried claiming that what I said was 180 degrees away from
what you had read. I dont believe that there is that much gross misinformation out
there about digital, so the only possible explanation is that you didnt understand what
you read and its easy to see what you may well have mangled into what you claimed.
> In fact, I'm quite a bright guy
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim, particularly
if you dont actually cite where you claim to have read those claims you made.
> and have all the academic and professional credentials to prove it,
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> if it were any of your business. I've been involved as a hobbyist with consumer
> electronics and home entertainment systems since transistors were new technology.
But clearly dont understand enough about the basics to realise that that
claim about not being possible to amplify digital cant possibly be true, when
so many of the systems that are used with digital do have amplification.
> I'm no expert,
Thats always been obvious.
> but know considerably more than the average person.
That may be true, but you still utterly mangled the story with digital.
> On the other hand, you've made nearly 42,000 usenet posts in only two years.
Like it or lump it.
And that has absolutely no relevance what so ever to what is being discussed anyway.
> Your claim notwithstanding it seems to me you don't get
> out of the house enough to know very much about anything.
Or I can read and reply quite quickly and have plenty of time of other stuff as well.
I wouldnt have spent more than 30 mins on usenet today, and that isnt at all unusual,
and have been out twice already doing other stuff, and have had a visitor on other stuff too.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp that
there is lots of time spare with 30 mins used in a particular area.
> Given your attitude that's probably a good thing. If you deal face-to-face
> with people with the same manner as you post, your nose will be punched
> so many times it'll be just a smear in the middle of your face, and
> you'll have to breath through your mouth.
Nice theory, how odd that its never ever happened once and the visitor
showed up looking for assistence with a computer problem that I have
clearly helped them with to their satisfaction quite a few times before.
> As far as I'm concerned you know nothing about anything.
Its completely trivial to check what I said about amplifying digital, fuckwit.
> You make stuff up as you go for whatever perverted
> pleasure you get get from the reactions to your posts.
> I'm through with you now.
No you aint.
> Sayonara, asshole.
Rod Speed
> I'm sure you're right!
That fool has been told countless times that I have never ever accepted
even a cent of welfare in my entire life, and that I am rolling in it, and dont
expect to ever qualify for welfare anyway since ours is means tested.
> Every rare once in a while he'll make what seems to be a valid,
> logical contribution to a discussion (probably when he's on his
> meds). The next time he pops up he's on one of his insulting rants.
I just put the boot into fools like you that try to bullshit their way out of their predicament
when their nose has been rubbed in the terminal stupidity of their claims.
> Trying to engage him in any kind of meaningful conversation is like
> trying to teach a pig to sing; you waste your time and annoy the pig.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
So stupid that it cant even manage to work out how to do usenet except using google.
William Souden
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>
saying he can not back up his claim. Stage 2 occurs when a link is
posted that shows he is wrong and he whines "irrelevant" or "bullshit".
You know you have really gotten to him when he replies with the flushing
bot.
William Souden
And you qualify. How could one imagine you are gainfully employed?
When you start a job these things happen:
You are given instructions. Since you know everything you can not
abide by them.
You have questions. see above.
You make mistakes and are called on them. You never admit to error.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Many years ago I lived in a high rise apartment in
> Washington, DC. It had a master antenna mounted on the roof.
> Sometimes late at night, or when there were high clouds in just the
> right spot I could tune in a couple of the Baltimore stations, even
> though I was way outside the normal range. That's going to disappear
> with digital also.
Ummm...So what? Who gives a shit about occasional, late night, snowy
reception?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> You're right. Off the top of my head, I can't cite where I read that
> digital signals can't be amplified;
Google "amplify digital signal"
Janie
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JnJvj.15$JU3.8@trndny04...
>directly to my TV. Maybe I should call my cable company and ask.
sarge137
Not me or anyone I know - just using a little anecdote to point out
how the OTA landscape, as many of us grew up with, will be changing
soon.
Sarge
sarge137
Got it - I know how to use Google. In fact my collegues say that if I
can't find it, it ain't out there.
I didn't find it on the web. I read in a periodical, or a book -
likely one the "for Dummies" series. But, Rod's a wingnut and I'm not
going to any trouble to prove anything to him. He'd either deny it's
there, or find some reason to dismiss it anyway.
Sarge
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > In misc.survivalism sarge137 <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You're right. Off the top of my head, I can't cite where I read that
> > > digital signals can't be amplified;
> >
> > Google "amplify digital signal"
> Got it - I know how to use Google. In fact my collegues say that if I
> can't find it, it ain't out there.
Then how did you miss the hundreds of webpages which indicate that digital
signals are routinely amplified?
> I didn't find it on the web. I read in a periodical, or a book -
> likely one the "for Dummies" series.
Or maybe you just misremembered your forgotten source? We're talking
simple facts here. And in fact, all around you, right now, in any
direction you could point, digital signals are being amplified.
But, Rod's a wingnut and I'm not
> going to any trouble to prove anything to him. He'd either deny it's
> there, or find some reason to dismiss it anyway.
Or maybe you are just simply wrong? This is a matter of fact.
I remember talking with an engineer around 1984 about the move to fiber in
telecom systems. I asked him how long the transmission line could be.
He told me that with periodic amplification, the length was infinite.
This is nothing new. Nor esoteric.
Tim May
<05731ee7-3ec9-477c...@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
sarge137 <rboot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 8:23 am, EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> > In misc.survivalism sarge137 <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You're right. Off the top of my head, I can't cite where I read that
> > > digital signals can't be amplified;
> >
> > Google "amplify digital signal"
> >
> Got it - I know how to use Google. In fact my collegues say that if I
> can't find it, it ain't out there.
>
> I didn't find it on the web. I read in a periodical, or a book -
> likely one the "for Dummies" series. But, Rod's a wingnut and I'm not
> going to any trouble to prove anything to him. He'd either deny it's
> there, or find some reason to dismiss it anyway.
I don't know who you and Rod are, but digital signals can OF COURSE be
amplified. The digital signals transmitted by remote spacecraft are of
course amplified in various sophisticated ways. Even fiber optic lines
often have repeaters, which are essentially "detect, regenerate"
amplifiers of digital (high, low, 1, 0, etc.) signals.
The very LNB/amplifier in a satellite dish is an amplifier/detector of
a "digital signal" (though until the signal is "decided on" in terms of
1s and 0s, it's basically analog, which is why bigger dishes give a
better signal, and are basically "amplifying" the signal via focussing
the raw RF onto an element which further processes it).
As for Google, I found numerous discussions in a few seconds' worth of
searching. I won't even bother to clip-n-paste various URLs here.
As for what you may have read in a "Dummies" book, my speculation is
that you read something along the lines about how when a signal has
already been detected/converted/processed and is a clean digital data
stream, that further "amplificiation" is usually unnecessary. This
issue often comes up in high-end audio, with various snake oil salesmen
trying to sell "digital amplifiers" for what are already signals which
are already clean (meaning, easily distinguishable). (Timing jitter may
or may not be an issue worth considering, but this is not the same as
amplification.)
Error correction is also common in digital transmissions, so even some
incorrectly discriminated bits, or bit flips, can be corrected-way. If
too many errors occur, not so.
I have both HD via a satellite (DirectTV) and OTA (Terk antenna on my
roof). Both signals are _usually_ clean, with no break-up or
"blocking." Sometimes with heavy rain one or both of these feeds may
break-up into chunks, that is, uncorrectable blocks of signal. (There's
probably some common term for this, but I don't follow things that
closely.)
In extreme cases, my receiver or my t.v. (when fed directly from the
Terk roof antenna) will go blank, a design feature. Sometimes the
satellite receiver says "Searching for satellite signal."
A bigger satellite antenna might help (not offered by my vendor, but
physics is physics), a bigger roof antenna might help. An inline
amplifier between the dish or antenna and receiver might help. Because
the signals are "at the edge" of proper detection (that is, without too
many errors), so amplification might help.
A long signal run may need inline amplifiers. As the previous poster
said, use Google. I would check antenna size first.
(And there are some obvious simple experiments to try before spending
money on inline amplifiers.)
--Tim May
Rod Speed
> EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com wrote
>> sarge137 <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> You're right. Off the top of my head, I can't cite
>>> where I read that digital signals can't be amplified;
>> Google "amplify digital signal"
> Got it - I know how to use Google. In fact my
> collegues say that if I can't find it, it ain't out there.
Wota fucking wanker.
Clearly doesnt mean you can comprehend what you find tho.
> I didn't find it on the web. I read in a periodical, or a book -
> likely one the "for Dummies" series. But, Rod's a wingnut and
> I'm not going to any trouble to prove anything to him. He'd either
> deny it's there, or find some reason to dismiss it anyway.
Its no news that some fool gets it wrong in some place like that.
What matters is that anyone with HDTV can prove that an amplifier works
fine and blow that stupid pig ignorant claim completely out of the water.
Too_Many_Tools
> In article
> <05731ee7-3ec9-477c-8500-4fe032058...@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wanna bet that the big problem with the digital changeover will be
with reception problems and not with the actual analog/digital
conversion via converter boxes?
MANY people view analog television using marginal reception of the
signals....
I will wager that we will be seeing broadcasters uping the signal
strengths.
TMT
Rod Speed
> Wanna bet that the big problem with the digital changeover will be
> with reception problems and not with the actual analog/digital
> conversion via converter boxes?
>
> MANY people view analog television using marginal reception of the signals....
And many of those find that digital works fine.
> I will wager that we will be seeing broadcasters uping the signal strengths.
Bet they wont.
William Souden
FCC. In addition, only about 12 percent of households get over the air tv.
sarge137
> In misc.survivalism sarge137 <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 8:23 am, EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> > > In misc.survivalism sarge137 <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You're right. Off the top of my head, I can't cite where I read that
> > > > digital signals can't be amplified;
>
> > > Google "amplify digital signal"
> > Got it - I know how to use Google. In fact my collegues say that if I
> > can't find it, it ain't out there.
>
> Then how did you miss the hundreds of webpages which indicate that digital
> signals are routinely amplified?
Didn't miss any of those pages, because that's not where I originally
read it, therefore not where I'd look for it, if I were so inclined.
>
> > I didn't find it on the web. I read in a periodical, or a book -
> > likely one the "for Dummies" series.
>
> Or maybe you just misremembered your forgotten source? We're talking
> simple facts here. And in fact, all around you, right now, in any
> direction you could point, digital signals are being amplified.
Or maybe I misinterpreted what I read (see Tim May's HELPFUL post, and
HDTV for Dummies, 2nd Edition, Chapter 8). A phenomenon known as a
"simple mistake".
>> But, Rod's a wingnut and I'm not
> > going to any trouble to prove anything to him. He'd either deny it's
> > there, or find some reason to dismiss it anyway.
>
> Or maybe you are just simply wrong? This is a matter of fact.
No! Not possible! I've never ever been wrong about anything in my
entire life, and never will be.
(NOTE: Please read with sarcastic, self-deprecating tone in mind. My
intent is a little subtle and I wouldn't want to ruffle any more
feathers)
sarge137
> In article
> <05731ee7-3ec9-477c-8500-4fe032058...@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're absolutely correct about what I misinterpreted. (HDTV for
Dummies, 2nd Edition, Chapter 8)
Thanks for taking the time to explain things, and not just treat my
post like it was made by some idiot who can't read or understand.
Sarge
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:54:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
>
> <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Wanna bet that the big problem with the digital changeover will be
> >with reception problems and not with the actual analog/digital
> >conversion via converter boxes?
>
> >MANY people view analog television using marginal reception of the
> >signals....
>
> >I will wager that we will be seeing broadcasters uping the signal
> >strengths.
>
> >TMT
>
> loss and distortion up to a point. Above that point, digital wins.
> Below that point you lose everything in one shot. No such thing as a
> kinda viewable but mostly snowy picture. All or nothing.
Agreed...and many people have multiple televisions in locations around
the house working off "rabbit ear" antennas...not a optimal receiving
setup by any means.
I suspect that once the conversion occurs, many people will not
receive television broadcasts.
And the advertisers will not want to loose touch with that customer
base.
Note that the government coupons apply to converter boxes...not new
digital antennas.
TMT
Tim May
<11a1842b-68eb-4f61...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
sarge137 <rboot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're absolutely correct about what I misinterpreted. (HDTV for
> Dummies, 2nd Edition, Chapter 8)
>
> Thanks for taking the time to explain things, and not just treat my
> post like it was made by some idiot who can't read or understand.
>
Your welcome.
Something else that I meant to mention is that the whole term "digital
signal" is sometimes misleading. When digital bit streams are carried
over wires or cables they are ANALOG signals, that is, they are voltage
levels. (Bit streams over fiber optic lines are bunches of photons, but
the principle I'm about to describe still basically applies.)
These voltage levels typically start out as being very "clean," with a
very clear separation between "highs" and "lows."
But with distance through a wire or cable, or when transmitted through
the air as HDTV signals, the separation will lessen by some amount.
This is why "repeaters" (amplifiers) may be used for long signal runs.
(The HD signal will ride on carrier waves, but the point is the same,
that distance affects the amplitudes of the analog levels. Which is why
bigger antennas may be needed for more distant stations. The website
for picking antenna sizes, mentioned here already, has details for
particular zipcodes.)
A digital signal isn't a digital signal until it's been detected as
such....until then, even digital signals are just analog levels, albeit
looking more like pulse trains than like sines and cosines and whatnot.
This is why a large enough satellite dish or HD antenna is needed: to
get the "signal strength" up enough to where the rest of the circuitry
can properly digitize the incoming analog signal.
All of these elements act as amplifiers. (And error correction,
generally of the "fire code" kind, similar to what's been used for
decades with CDs, is used so that the digital signal is corrected back
to the original even if there are a lot of individual bit errors in the
stream.)
I'm not an HDTV engineer, but the physics is pretty straightforward.
--Tim May
Tim May
<not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
> From what I've read, digital is much more tolerant of many forms of
> loss and distortion up to a point. Above that point, digital wins.
> Below that point you lose everything in one shot. No such thing as a
> kinda viewable but mostly snowy picture. All or nothing.
My experience is with two types of HDTV: OTA and via my DirecTV
satellite system. I'll discuss my OTA experience.
I live in the area near the Monterey Bay. I can "see" (literally) the
mountains south of me where I know the main local transmitters are
located. (Fremont Peak) However, it's about 30 miles away. None of the
Bay Area transmitters, even the ones near San Jose, are within a
feasible capture range for me.
Anyone trying to figure out there particular situation with respect to
HDTV should figure out where they are with respect to transmitters,
using a site like www.antennaweb.org, etc.
When local broadcasters first starting "turning on" their HDTV
services, I first tried some old rabbit ears (circa mid-90s, so some
circuitry inside the antenna, not just two extendable elements) to see
what local OTA stations I could get. One station came in to my
HDTV-ready t.v. (a Sharp 27-inch LCD in my bedroom...I didn't try
anything with my 60-inch Sony SXRD LCD until later). The "reception"
was definitely NOT "all or nothing."
Rather, the reception was extremely "blocky," with chunks of the screen
perfectly rendered (as near as I could tell) and chunks that were
missing or scrambled or otherwise obviously not perfectly rendered. As
the antenna was moved around, this amount of blockiness varied.
(I already knew this was not a viable antenna solution, but I wanted to
see what my HDTV-set in my upstairs bedroom would do with the new HD
broadcasts just starting up then.)
Anyone with an existing antenna mast, a familiar Yagi-type array from
the old days, may find that it picks up the HDTV quite well, with no
special Terk-type antenna needed. (However, many of these have fallen
into disrepair, gotten damaged or disconnected. Those going to OTA
after years of cable or satellite may need new rooftop antennas.)
FWIW, friends of mine in a much denser suburban area--the Santa Clara
Valley, California--get dozens of HDTV broadcasts with just plain old
rabbit ears sitting near their sets. A couple of them have added
rooftop antennas to ensure more consistent reception, even during rain.
(My hunch is that a lot of folks will just do this, then will complain
that _some_ of the broadcasts are "bad." The solution will of course
not be that those broadcasters raise their power levels. I expect a
year from now there will be lots of articles in the popular press about
the "problems" people are having and "demands" that the problem be
fixed.)
Back to my situation. I picked a reasonable-sized Terk antenna, for
about $110 at Circuit City. (www.antennaweb.org had recommended sizes
for my area)
This gave better reception (less blockiness) when in my bedroom. Things
got better when I moved it to a room with a better "view" of the
transmitters (fewer internal house materials, a glass window).
Again, not "all or nothing." Rather, _parts_ of each digital frame were
"all" and parts were "nothing." When the error rate was too high,
sometimes the frame just "froze." (This is obviously part of the how my
particular receiver, the t.v. set, was designed to handle very noisy
signals...other designs may do things differently.)
I mounted the Terk on my roof, at the highest point, and directly
facing the mountain I know most of the local transmitters were on (or
on very nearby sites). I'm about 30 miles from these transmitters.
The reception on my 60-inch t.v. and on my upstairs 27-inch t.v. was
excellent, except for occasionally "block noise." This happens during
heavy rainstorms, sometimes at random times.
I get HDTV signals for CBS, Fox, PBS, and NBC. No ABC transmitters in
my area (the Monterey/Santa Cruz/Salinas market). Some of these
transmitters have additional channels associated with them, so I get
the CW and one or two others I haven't bothered remembering.
I also get some HD through my satellite, and will be able to get many
more channels if I call up DirecTV and have them swap out my current
dish for a 5-LNB dish. (I understand they do this for free...I just
haven't bothered to call them.)
What's really interesting is that my digital video recorder (DirecTV,
with a 200 GB disk, good for about 35 hours of HD-quality recording or
about 200 hours of standard-quallity recording) accepts inputs from an
OTA antenna and RECOGNIZES them in the onscreen program guide and can
STORE them just as if they were from the satellite!
So when the Superbowl was broadcast in HD on my Fox station, I was able
to do all the usual pause, back up, freeze, save, etc. things I can
normally do.
This integration of DVRs with OTA broadcasts will make a huge
difference for a lot of people. I expect people to buy DVRs just for
OTA broadcasts, even if they don't have cable or satellite.
In conclusion, HD still has noise problems--always will, for some
users. More so at long ranges and with rain or snow attenuating the
signal. With a proper antenna, these are minor. In urban areas, closer
to the transmitters, probably no noise problems.
--Tim May
Tim May
<tim...@removethis.got.net> wrote:
> In article
> <11a1842b-68eb-4f61...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> sarge137 <rboot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You're absolutely correct about what I misinterpreted. (HDTV for
> > Dummies, 2nd Edition, Chapter 8)
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to explain things, and not just treat my
> > post like it was made by some idiot who can't read or understand.
> >
>
> Your welcome.
Phonetic typo. I meant "You're welcome."
--Tim May
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Tim May" <tim...@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
news:190220082050201780%tim...@removethis.got.net...
The irony is that people who stay at home and watch t.v. all day
usually have plasma t.v.s and LCDs that are better than what working
whites can afford.
--Tim May
Stormin Mormon
What he's missing, is that congress and the local welfare people are giving
out our taxes to worthless people who refuse to work.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:tnOuj.6772$xq2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
As Tim May infests yet another group I once again kill file him. Tim
blames all his unhappiness on minorities.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Nicholas" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:r38or3htf22s8e40t...@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:28:52 -0800, nos...@noway.net (Ralph) wrote:
>I bought this Microsoft keyboard with a rebate. Carefully read the
>instructions and filled out the rebate form. Sent it in with a copy of
>the recept and top of box with the barcode (proof of purchase) like it
>said. Got a letter back from Microsoft saying I hadn't properly
>satisified all the conditions of the rebate without telling me what I
>did wrong or sending anything back. Total bullshit. They ripped me off.
I've had the same happen to me with *mail-in Rebates* from stores like
Radio Shack and so on. And this has happened to me since years ago.
IOW, if they say for example $700 for computer, minus $200 mail-in
Rebate, final price $500, be wary. Very wary.
Don't bet your life or your money you'll ever see that $200 check in
the mail, because as often as not, I've found these things to be a
SCAM.
Now if you're willing to pay $700 for the computer, go ahead and buy
it. But if you're budgeted for $500, and are depending on the mail-in
Rebate, even if you do everything exactly as they say, you're shooting
craps with dice. This is my anecdote.
Nick
Stormin Mormon
usenet poster no longer appears on one screen, in one house, for one person
sitting at one computer.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"beebs" <dbbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8b59fd31-ba70-4e0d...@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 8:53 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> As Tim May infests yet another group I once again kill
> file him. Tim blames all his unhappiness on minorities.
Why the announcement? Just killfile him. Do you
expect to get a medal?
beebs
anarchist
strabo
In large cities about 50% rely on broadcast signals. This is very
important to ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX.
strabo
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:54:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
>
>> Wanna bet that the big problem with the digital changeover will be
>> with reception problems and not with the actual analog/digital
>> conversion via converter boxes?
>>
>> MANY people view analog television using marginal reception of the
>> signals....
>>
>> I will wager that we will be seeing broadcasters uping the signal
>> strengths.
>>
>> TMT
>
> loss and distortion up to a point. Above that point, digital wins.
> Below that point you lose everything in one shot. No such thing as a
> kinda viewable but mostly snowy picture. All or nothing.
>
No, that's not what happens.
As a signal is received the image production circuitry will
interpret this in digital format and fill the screen with whatever
it has available.
A weak or distorted signal will be displayed with dropouts or
missing parts of the picture.
strabo
> Thank you, Congress.
>
Congress didn't do you a favor. Congress wants to
strip away as much frequency as possible and sell
it to private users. Whether or not you will
benefit is questionable.
The analog audio/video bandwidth for low frequency television
for example is large compared to that needed for a digital signal.
Most of this bandwidth surrounding the core frequency will be sold
once the transition is completed.
George Grapman
Jose station with a signal the missed part of San Francisco became the
NBC affiliate here and new reports showed a ninety percent satellited or
cable penetration rare
Seerialmom
> Seerialmom wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 11:52 pm, Anthony Matonak
> > <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Ralph wrote:
> >> > I bought this Microsoft keyboard with a rebate. Carefully read the
> >> > instructions and filled out the rebate form. Sent it in with a copy of
> >> > the recept and top of box with the barcode (proof of purchase) like it
> >> > said. Got a letter back from Microsoft saying I hadn't properly
> >> > satisified all the conditions of the rebate without telling me what I
> >> > did wrong or sending anything back. Total bullshit. They ripped me off.
>
> M$hitheads to deny everything and cave in as soon as somebody complains.
> Give it a shot.
>
> >> You could try a class action lawsuit with all the other people that
> >> Microsoft has ripped off. It'll take ten years and cost you all the
> >> money you have and when you win, you'll get a coupon for a discount
> >> on the retail price of a Microsoft product. :)
>
> >> Anthony
> >> --
> >> Sometimes the bad guys win.
>
> Yeah, but you gotta at least put up a good fight.
>
> > Actually you get a rebate based on how many MS products (qualifying)
> > you purchased during a time frame (too late to apply now)...and the
> > rebate can be used on MS or non-MS products including software, new
> > PC's or peripherals. I still need to send in my $78 rebate once I
> > decide which "receipt" to use; and those receipts can be from a few
> > years ago up to about 2010 as I recall. Of course this is just the
> > California rebate/class action lawsuit; not sure about other states
> > lawsuits/rebates.
>
> Ultimately I received a real check, which I cashed. I didn't need to
> send in no steenkin' receipts, they took my word for it. People may
> make fun of California, but at least we didn't bend over and smile.
>
> --
> Cheers, Bev
> ================================================================
> I didn't break it! It was doing that before I broke it... er...
You did? I'll have to look at that form again; I could have sworn it
said I had to include a proof of purchase to get a rebate check. The
real annoyance of it though is I've built PC's and also upgraded HD's;
those don't count though. But the LCD monitor I bought should. Of
course I can also look through receipts I have for the WinXP upgrade I
bought; that would fit the $78.
Rod Speed
> Stormin Mormon wrote
>> Thank you, Congress.
> Congress didn't do you a favor. Congress wants to strip away as much frequency as possible and sell it to private
> users. Whether or not you will benefit is questionable.
Nope, digital TV leaves analog for dead.
> The analog audio/video bandwidth for low frequency television
> for example is large compared to that needed for a digital signal.
> Most of this bandwidth surrounding the core frequency will be sold once the transition is completed.
Who cares ?
Jeff Liebermann
>In conclusion, HD still has noise problems--always will, for some
>users. More so at long ranges and with rain or snow attenuating the
>signal. With a proper antenna, these are minor. In urban areas, closer
>to the transmitters, probably no noise problems.
>--Tim May
Yep. Even the FCC partially agrees that HDTV broadcasting is going to
be a problem. See report at:
<http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/reports/TR-05-1017-ATSC-reception-testing.doc>
(Sorry. It's MS Word formatted).
It's a bit of a rough read but it basically says that there were very
few test conditions which resulted in error free reception. 8VSB does
rather badly in the presence of multipath, impulse noise, adjacent
channel rejection, and co-channel rejection. The European system
using COFDM is far more tolerating to frequency selective fading (i.e.
multipath), and slightly better for noise rejection. The FCC had
enough political pressure applied in 2001 to run some field tests:
<http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/archives/mstvtestsum.html>
but concluded (my interpretation) that there are not enough
differences in field test results to justify a change in the standard
from 8VSB to COFDM.
They also mentioned something about your use of an indoor antenna:
"The results of the field testing of 8VSB and COFDM indicate that
although some viewers would be able to enjoy indoor reception
with either system, neither system exhibited the level of
reliability that would be required of a practical broadcast
service based solely on service to indoor antennas."
The problem is NOT the lack of signal signal, but rather reflections
off nearby building, hills, mountains, canyons, towers, etc. Lack of
signal is always a problem, but the pixellation error you observed
were probably caused by multipath. They recommend a 30ft pole and
directional antenna for OTA HDTV.
Most consumer ATSC HDTV 8VSB receivers do not have a detailed signal
quality display. It would be easy to do, but the manufacturers have
not seen fit to do this. Instead, you can use some test equipment to
characterize your location, maximize signal strength, minimize
reflections, and get real numbers:
<http://www.sencore.com/newsletter/Nov03/HDTV_files/HDTV.htm>
The Sencore SLM1453 goes for about $900 list. I'm told that some of
the PC based ATSC tuners will display some real signal quality data,
but I have not seen any or can find any definitive examples. At best,
they seem to offer a cell phone style bar graph with some relationship
to signal quality, which is not very useful. My guess(tm) is that if
you plug in this tester into your antenna, and check out the local
digital TV broadcasters, you'll find that you have adequate signal
strength, but that you're also getting quite a few reflections from
the hills in your area.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Joe
> Next trick: I decided to call their 800 number on the telephone and make a
CLIP
What's that 800#?
--
Joe in Northern, NJ - V#8013-R
Currently Riding The "Mother Ship"
http://yunx.com/valk.htm
Ride a motorcycle in or near NJ?
http://tinyurl.com/hmzj
http://tinyurl.com/5apkg
Stormin Mormon
No, I observe that you OBVIOUSLY missed the dripping sarcasm.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:1203925805_3053@isp.n...
A
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Rod Speed wrote:
> sarge137 <rboot...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> sarge137 <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> A <arthu...@panix.com> wrote
>
>>>>> Well, the problem is that somewhere I read where there
>>>>> is a maximum amount of money available for the boxes.
>>>>> When the money runs out, no more coupons.
>
>>>> That's right. I don't remember the exact figure, but there's enough
>>>> money to give coupons to about 75% of the estimated households
>>>> that still use antennas for TV reception. When it's gone, the program
>>>> is over. The coupons expire, so while the program is active the
>>>> money from expired coupons goes back into the fund - but it still
>>>> ends when the last of them are issued, even if there are a bunch
>>>> of unexpired and unused coupons still out there.
>
>>>>>> You have until next February, Also, go check out
>>>>>> antennaweb.org to see what kind of antenna you will need.
>
>>>>> I'll tr to keep that in mind. I heard a rumor by the way that
>>>>> in-line amplifiers help HDTV reception and are not limited by
>>>>> internal noise figure; i.e. the guy that told me this said you can
>>>>> add these amplifiers in series and the picture gets better. It
>>>>> doesn't work that way with analog. I'll believe it when I see it,
>>>>> but for us, the 3 TV stations are far away.
>
>>>> I think you're right here too.
>
>>> You say the exact opposite in the next sentance and you're wrong below.
>
>>>> In fact, I don't think you can amplify digital signals at all.
>
>>> Corse you can.
>
>>>> From what I've read, and I've only just started studying this, it's all or nothing.
>
>>> Wrong.
>
>>>> If you're in range, right out to the furthest edge of the transmission,
>>>> the picture and sound lock in crystal clear. If you're out of range
>>>> you're out of luck - cable or satellite are your only options.
>
>>> Wrong when the problem is an inadequate antenna.
>
>>>> There's no "fringe" area like with analog.
>
>>> What you are utterly mangling is that with digital it either works
>>> or it doesnt. You dont get the equivalent of a very snowy picture.
>>> Thats an entirely separate matter to whether it can be amplified or not.
>
>>>> And there's no "skipping" of the signals like with analog.
>
>>> Wrong again. And again, you're confusing ghosts with skip.
>
>>>> Many years ago I lived in a high rise apartment in Washington, DC.
>>>> It had a master antenna mounted on the roof. Sometimes late at
>>>> night, or when there were high clouds in just the right spot I could
>>>> tune in a couple of the Baltimore stations, even though I was way
>>>> outside the normal range. That's going to disappear with digital also.
>
>>> Wrong, that effect will still happen.
>
>> Ok, Rod.
>
>> Like I said I just started reading up on this.
>
>> Instead of being your usual smart-assed argumentative self,
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> how about helping me out here. Can you steer me
>> to some information sources to verify what you say,
>
> Nope, because I've been doing this stuff for decades now and have
> been using digital TV for a few years now, and use an amplifier fine.
>
>> which is 180 degreees opposite of what I've read.
>
> No it isnt. You're just completely mangling what they actually say.
>
> Bet you cant actually cite anything that says that the digital signal cant be amplified,
If you want _me_ to cite something, say so and I'll look it up. All that I
read dealing with any kind of weak signal detection is that the overall
noise figure of the receiver controls the sensitivity for a given
signal/noise ratio. It is more important to have a low noise figure and
low gain than to have high gain and high noise. The only way to beat this
limit is to do signal processing such as integration or content redundancy
or as in computers something like CRC checks.
> or that supports any of the other claims you made above, except the all or nothing
> line which is certainly true of a particular config of antenna,
> amplifier etc.
I am also a ham radio operator with experience at VHF and UHF and can
verify, experimentally, that the low gain low noise preamp, in fact, will
lift weak sinals out of the noise to the point of detectability when high
noise high gain preamps will not. I am also familiar with signal averaging
as another method of detecting signals below the noise floor and there are
other techniques, too.
The other poster politely asked you for references and more help and you
definitely did not give any sources or references that he asked for.
>
>
Rod Speed
>>>> Corse you can.
>>>> Wrong.
>>> Ok, Rod.
I dont want YOU to cite anything, I know that no reputable source
will ever say that the digital signal cant be amplified because I
amplify mine and know that it isnt even possible to broadcast
digital signals without amplification and that amplification of the
received signal works fine, because I amplify mine and it works fine.
> All that I read dealing with any kind of weak signal detection is that
> the overall noise figure of the receiver controls the sensitivity for
> a given signal/noise ratio. It is more important to have a low noise
> figure and low gain than to have high gain and high noise. The only
> way to beat this limit is to do signal processing such as integration
> or content redundancy or as in computers something like CRC checks.
Different matter entirely.
>> or that supports any of the other claims you made above, except the all or nothing line which is certainly true of a
>> particular config of antenna, amplifier etc.
> I am also a ham radio operator with experience at VHF and UHF
Me too.
> and can verify, experimentally, that the low gain low noise preamp, in fact, will lift weak sinals out of the noise to
> the point of detectability when high noise high gain preamps will not.
Irrelevant to whether digital signals can be amplified. Of course they can.
> I am also familiar with signal averaging as another method of detecting signals below the noise floor and there are
> other techniques, too.
> The other poster politely asked you for references and more help and
> you definitely did not give any sources or references that he asked for.
It isnt even possible for me to provide a reference or a source for that stupid claim he
made that digital signals cant be amplified, because they obviously can be and are routinely.
The Real Bev
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:43:19 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
>>It worked fine for me. I haven't gotten the coupons yet but they did
>>say it would take a while.
>
> They arrived yesterday. Two credit card things. They expire in 90
> days so use it or loose it.
If you get two, make sure they don't use the same remote control if
you're going to use them in the same room.
--
Cheers,
Bev
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"I've seen a look in dogs' eyes, a quickly vanishing look
of amazed contempt, and I am convinced that basically dogs
think humans are nuts." -- John Steinbeck
Tim May
<not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:43:19 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >It worked fine for me. I haven't gotten the coupons yet but they did
> >say it would take a while.
>
> They arrived yesterday. Two credit card things. They expire in 90
> days so use it or loose it.
I got my two coupons two weeks ago. I used one of them on Monday, at a
local Radio Shack. I got the Digital Stream box, which got acceptablel
reviews in some of the online HD sites. (The other common models are
the Zenith, sold at Best Buy, and the Insignia, sold at Circuit City.)
Got it home, plugged it in, connected a table-top antenna to the input,
fed video and audio cables into my non-HDTV, and began the "scan for
channels." Took a couple of minutes, finding 2 channels during the
daytime, about 10 at night.
My rooftop antenna, a Terk, is feeding my satellite receiver. I may
feed it to this particular t.v. I get about 10 channels, day or night,
with the rooftop antenna.
--Tim May
RM v2.0
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:mc4mu3hvue98n3hoh...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:43:19 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
>>It worked fine for me. I haven't gotten the coupons yet but they did
>>say it would take a while.
>
> They arrived yesterday. Two credit card things. They expire in 90
> days so use it or loose it.
wouldnt "loose it" be "using it"? Or did you mean "lose it"?
clams_casino
He obviously intended to say "loosen it".
root
> Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:43:19 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>It worked fine for me. I haven't gotten the coupons yet but they did
>>>say it would take a while.
>>
>> They arrived yesterday. Two credit card things. They expire in 90
>> days so use it or loose it.
>
> If you get two, make sure they don't use the same remote control if
> you're going to use them in the same room.
>
The Insignia (Best Buy) and Zenith (Circuit City and Radio Shack)
use the same remotes. The Magnavox (Wal-Mart) is different.
Dave
> The Insignia (Best Buy) and Zenith (Circuit City and Radio Shack)
> use the same remotes.
That's because they are both Goldstar / LG -Dave