End of analog TV
Claude Hopper
than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
--
Claude Hopper :)
? ? ¥
Peter Hucker
Depends on your reception. My digital seldom pixelates, and never becomes unwatchable, or silent. My analogue was snowy though, to the point of being irritating.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
Definition of Necrophillia: That Uncontrollable Urge To Crack Open A Cold One.
UCLAN
Please proofread your posts for spelling/grammar errors. It sure would
be more readable. While you're at it, try boosting your digital signal
away from its current reception threshold. *My* digital signals suffer
from none of the problems you describe above. And I sure don't miss the
video noise that *all* analog video has.
Rodney Pont
>Claude Hopper wrote:
>
>> Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>> than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
>> working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
>> boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
>> either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
>> piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
>> some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
>> than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
>
>While you're at it, try boosting your digital signal
>away from its current reception threshold. *My* digital signals suffer
>from none of the problems you describe above. And I sure don't miss the
>video noise that *all* analog video has.
My ex is in an area (in the UK) where the digital uses the same band as
the analogue so her current loft aerial covers it. The digital signal
has a much lower transmission power than the analogue though so she was
getting the squares and sometimes it was completely unusable. She
bought a cheap mains powered aerial amplifier and that's done the job
for her and she now has no problems at all with sound or vision.
--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk
Samuel M. Goldwasser
I'll second and third that! :( :)
Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
to cable or some other wired pay service!
--
sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html
Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.
Joerg
> Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> writes:
>
>> Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>> than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
>> working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
>> boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
>> either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
>> piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
>> some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
>> than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
>
> I'll second and third that! :( :)
>
> Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
> people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
> to cable or some other wired pay service!
>
Same here. Watched a western on a DTV channel last weekend where the
analog signal is no longer available (another DTV station swamps it). An
hour into it the audio cut out, then the usual square blocks appeared,
followed by a frozen Picasso. Great. Just great. I saw half a movie. DTV
doesn't even remotely touch the reliability of analog TV.
I've heard some rumors that DTV stations will increase their power in
February 2009 when analog is gone. Plus I guess there has to be some
channel reshuffling and I wonder how that's all going to play out from
an organizational POV. At least I hope some DTV stations will move to
VHF where the RF path is more reliable. Maybe we can still watch the
evening news then ...
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Ken Wright
I have noticed that my digital tv reception gets really bad (pixelation
and dropped sound) when the wind gets strong. ie: 30 to 40 mph with
higher gusts of 50 to 60. It is not my antenna blowing in the wind since
the antenna is in an attic crawspace.
thanks,
kw
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
CJT
It's not a coincidence that cable operators are big supporters of the
switch.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Joerg
> Does anyone know how wind affects uhf tv propagation?
>
> I have noticed that my digital tv reception gets really bad (pixelation
> and dropped sound) when the wind gets strong. ie: 30 to 40 mph with
> higher gusts of 50 to 60. It is not my antenna blowing in the wind since
> the antenna is in an attic crawspace.
>
The trees around your property and in the path will begin to sway and
clouds move faster. AFAIU the DTV standard our country selected offers
super resolution value but poor multipath tolerance. So when the RF
reflections begin to move about it falls off the digital cliff. IME that
happens quickly, doesn't take too much wind.
We have the very same problem here. A big Fedex freighter lumbers in and
lines up for final approach -> DTV gone for five minutes. Wind picks up,
clouds roll in -> DTV gone, might as well crack out the card game
because then it usually ain't coming back for that night.
My feeling is that field tests were either done hastily or almost not at
all. But the picture quality is truly great. We'll watch "Dancing with
the Stars" again tonight, in 1080 HD that is amazing (if the DTV holds
tonight ...). Just don't move close to the set because the amplitude
granularity is, ahem, totally sub-par. Faces look all the same, as if
they had stockings pulled over them.
Jamie
> Does anyone know how wind affects uhf tv propagation?
>
> I have noticed that my digital tv reception gets really bad (pixelation
> and dropped sound) when the wind gets strong. ie: 30 to 40 mph with
> higher gusts of 50 to 60. It is not my antenna blowing in the wind since
> the antenna is in an attic crawspace.
>
> thanks,
> kw
You most likely have some surrounding tree's or structures that
move in the wind.
The antenna does not have to move to see the effects of wind.
> ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Dave Platt
Joerg <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>I've heard some rumors that DTV stations will increase their power in
>February 2009 when analog is gone.
From reading the FCC documents, I gather that this is true. Many of
the "transitional" DTV channel assignments have been power-limited, in
order to avoid interference with existing analog (or other digital)
transmissions on the same or adjacent channels.
> Plus I guess there has to be some
>channel reshuffling and I wonder how that's all going to play out from
>an organizational POV.
With quite a bit of complexity. There seem to be at least three
approaches to what will happen on The Day:
- Station drops its current analog assignment entirely, and its
"transitional" DTV channel becomes its permanent assignment.
DTV transmitter power may or may not increase.
DTV transmitter may or may not move from its "transitional"
location to a different location.
- Station drops its current analog assignment completely, and its DTV
transmitter moves from the "transitional" channel to a different
frequency (almost always UHF, sometimes VHF I think).
Some stations will be moving their DTV transmissions to a different
physical site, in order to be able to operate at an interference-free
power level which will let them retain most of their viewership.
- Station drops its "transitional" UHF channel assignment, and
switches its current analog equipment over to digital on the same
frequency.
I suspect that the stations doing this will be keeping their
existing VHF transmitter sites, and just changing out the gear.
> At least I hope some DTV stations will move to
>VHF where the RF path is more reliable.
A few will be doing so. This seems to be happening mostly in the
urban areas, where the UHF spectrum is quite full.
There are a fair number of stations which will be operating ATSC in
the VHF high-band (channels 7 through 37).
There are only a very few which will be remaining in the VHF low-band
(channels 2 through 6). I understand that remaining on channel 6 and
switching to ATSC is being very much discouraged by the FCC... there
only seem to be one or two stations doing it.
> Maybe we can still watch the
>evening news then ...
One can hope!
There were some reports posted a few weeks ago of one city's "early
switchover" to ATSC-only. The number of complaints received by the
FCC about loss of signal reception was significant - more than they
had expected, I believe.
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Dave Platt
UHF is largely line-of-site, with reflections thrown in to complicate
matters.
>I have noticed that my digital tv reception gets really bad (pixelation
>and dropped sound) when the wind gets strong. ie: 30 to 40 mph with
>higher gusts of 50 to 60. It is not my antenna blowing in the wind since
>the antenna is in an attic crawspace.
My guess would be that you're seeing the effect of nearby trees
blowing around in the wind. This will cause rapid variations in
multipath cancellation (in effect, moving "echoes" from the moving
leaves) and could be overwhelming the multipath-echo cancellation
logic in the receiver.
If you watch an analog UHF station under these conditions, do you tend
to see "ghost" echoes on the screen which come and go, or move around,
as the wind blows?
Using a highly-directional UHF antenna might reduce the problem -
it'll have a stronger direct signal from the transmitter, and will be
less sensitive to multipath reflections arriving from other angles.
ne...@picaxe.us
Comcraptic digital cable is often pixellated and has sound dropouts.
Usually works for 30-60 days after calling a service tech out, then
goes back to not-enough-signal conditions. If they would install an
amplifier ahead of the splitter that feeds three TVs, the problem
would be resolved. That will probably happen as it did when we had
Charter Cable - after enough service calls to pay for the amp 5 times,
they will install the amp. Look for us to have decent cable service
in July of 2009.
Dave Plowman (News)
> Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
> people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
> to cable or some other wired pay service!
Are you suggesting that the 'everything else' which has gone wireless
works perfectly at all times?
Surely as regards good reception the same parameters apply to digital as
analogue TV - if you're in a strong signal area you might get away with a
set top aerial, if not you won't?
--
*Husbands should come with instructions
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Samuel M. Goldwasser
> >Does anyone know how wind affects uhf tv propagation?
>
> UHF is largely line-of-site, with reflections thrown in to complicate
> matters.
>
> >I have noticed that my digital tv reception gets really bad (pixelation
> >and dropped sound) when the wind gets strong. ie: 30 to 40 mph with
> >higher gusts of 50 to 60. It is not my antenna blowing in the wind since
> >the antenna is in an attic crawspace.
>
> My guess would be that you're seeing the effect of nearby trees
> blowing around in the wind. This will cause rapid variations in
> multipath cancellation (in effect, moving "echoes" from the moving
> leaves) and could be overwhelming the multipath-echo cancellation
> logic in the receiver.
>
> If you watch an analog UHF station under these conditions, do you tend
> to see "ghost" echoes on the screen which come and go, or move around,
> as the wind blows?
>
> Using a highly-directional UHF antenna might reduce the problem -
> it'll have a stronger direct signal from the transmitter, and will be
> less sensitive to multipath reflections arriving from other angles.
That's great if you want to fiddle with an antenna for each channel
or set up a complicated antanna that can be optimized for each
channel.
But a lot of us were very happy with analog TV and all its shortcomings.
To me it is 1000 percent less annoying to see some snow or ghosts
when it's windy or raining or I'm watching a distant channel then to
have the picture freeze or pixelate and the sound to drop out entirely.
And, adjusting an antenna for analog is totally real time.
Move the antanna and its effect is instantaneous. With DTV - at least
what I've seen to far - the only way to really do this is with the
signal strength monitor which might be downa couple of menu levels,
and that's not real time. There is a very significant lag and even
then it doesn't always show what the true situation is.
This is not progress!
--
sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html
Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.
>
Samuel M. Goldwasser
> In article <abbxdg...@seas.upenn.edu>,
> Samuel M. Goldwasser <s...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
> > I'll second and third that! :( :)
>
> > Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
> > people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
> > to cable or some other wired pay service!
>
> Are you suggesting that the 'everything else' which has gone wireless
> works perfectly at all times?
No, but one accepts drop outs as being a great improvement over dragging
a 100 mile long wire along instead of a cell phone. :)
> Surely as regards good reception the same parameters apply to digital as
> analogue TV - if you're in a strong signal area you might get away with a
> set top aerial, if not you won't?
But the effects of poor reception are dramatically and annoying different.
Jim Yanik
news:abbxdg...@seas.upenn.edu:
> Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> writes:
>
>> Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>> than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was
>> either working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is
>> those square boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree
>> the sound is either on or off and it goes off many times making you
>> loose dialog, piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit
>> occurs every day on some channel. I think analog with a little static
>> and snow is better than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over
>> hyped load of crap.
>
> I'll second and third that! :( :)
>
> Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
> people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
> to cable or some other wired pay service!
what irks me is that one local station (WKMG)is advertising a DROP in
transmitted power after the conversion.
So,since that channel is marginal now,it will be gone with a drop in power.
I already use an amplified Gemini VHF/UHF antenna.
Being in an apartment,I can't install a better antenna.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
(PeteCresswell)
>Depends on your reception. My digital seldom pixelates, and never becomes unwatchable, or silent. My analogue was snowy though, to the point of being irritating.
I agree with the OP that digital is a step down from analog.
Maybe it's the closet type A in me, but the pause between
channels with digital makes me crazy.
I'm putting off buying a digital TV as long as I can in hopes of
makers recognizing and addressing it in the same way that digital
camera makers recognized and addresses shutter lag.
Maybe, on a high-end set, there could be a half-dozen tuners -
each dedicated to one of the user's favorite stations. Then,
once all the tuners got a lock on their respective signal,
changing between those stations could be as quick as with analog.
Also, if most of one's shows are talking heads, a little snow
doesn't diminish the content; OTOH, the same marginal signal on
digital means you don't get the show at all.
--
PeteCresswell
Jim Yanik
news:pan.2008.11.18....@inebraska.com:
> Does anyone know how wind affects uhf tv propagation?
>
> I have noticed that my digital tv reception gets really bad
> (pixelation and dropped sound) when the wind gets strong. ie: 30 to 40
> mph with higher gusts of 50 to 60. It is not my antenna blowing in
> the wind since the antenna is in an attic crawspace.
>
> thanks,
> kw
perhaps the wind is affecting the transmitting antenna.
Or disturbing your antenna cable/connections.
Dave Plowman (News)
> when it's windy or raining or I'm watching a distant channel then to
> have the picture freeze or pixelate and the sound to drop out entirely.
Ah. That's something that doesn't happen in the UK - all the channels are
effectively national. Apart from some short local news. And if you really
must have an out of area one for that they are available everywhere on
satellite.
At one time this wasn't the case - I used to have an extra high gain
aerial pointing in an opposite direction to pick up a different ITV region
- they used to show different films late at night. All one now.
--
*Why is it that rain drops but snow falls?
Dave Plowman (News)
Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> what irks me is that one local station (WKMG)is advertising a DROP in
> transmitted power after the conversion. So,since that channel is
> marginal now,it will be gone with a drop in power. I already use an
> amplified Gemini VHF/UHF antenna. Being in an apartment,I can't install
> a better antenna.
No communal aerial systems on US apartment blocks? They're the norm in the
UK.
--
*Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> No communal aerial systems on US apartment blocks? They're the norm in the
> UK.
In the 1960's they were common, and evolved into CATV (community antenna
TV systems). in the 1970's CATV systems evolved into "cable TV" systems,
altough it took later in some places.
Many locations in the US were late in building "cable" systems. They tried
to force the cable companies to bid on contracts with the local government
which included large numbers of free channels, supported by premium channel
fees.
Then the FCC ruled that a local government had no authority over what a
cable company offered or charged. The city where I lived at the time had
given contracts under the old rules where basic cable was under $4 a
month. By the time the system was built the rules changed and it was
close to $20 for a lot less.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
Jim Yanik
news:slrngi5l3...@cable.mendelson.com:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> No communal aerial systems on US apartment blocks? They're the norm
>> in the UK.
I imagine UK doesn't have apartment complexes with dozens of separate
buildings on a single property,with 300-500 units.
>
> In the 1960's they were common, and evolved into CATV (community
> antenna TV systems). in the 1970's CATV systems evolved into "cable
> TV" systems, altough it took later in some places.
>
> Many locations in the US were late in building "cable" systems. They
> tried to force the cable companies to bid on contracts with the local
> government which included large numbers of free channels, supported by
> premium channel fees.
>
> Then the FCC ruled that a local government had no authority over what
> a cable company offered or charged. The city where I lived at the time
> had given contracts under the old rules where basic cable was under $4
> a month. By the time the system was built the rules changed and it was
> close to $20 for a lot less.
>
> Geoff.
>
My complex USED to own their own community antenna system,and then their
own cable system,then sold it to an out-of-town company.Service was
horrible,quality was poor.
Then BrightHouse(Time-Warner Cable)bought it,laid fiber between the
buildings,new outside junction boxes. I guess service is OK now.
IIRC,"basic" cable is around $30-40/month.(too rich for me)
Remnants of the CATV system still exist;the tower and antennas.
All the sat dishes are gone.
Some folks have DirectTV or DishTV,if they have the south view.
Claude Hopper
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>> Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>> than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
>> working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
>> boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
>> either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
>> piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
>> some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
>> than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
>
> Depends on your reception. My digital seldom pixelates, and never becomes unwatchable, or silent. My analogue was snowy though, to the point of being irritating.
>
I'm on CABLE!
Joerg
> dpl...@radagast.org (Dave Platt) writes:
>
>>> Does anyone know how wind affects uhf tv propagation?
>> UHF is largely line-of-site, with reflections thrown in to complicate
>> matters.
>>
>>> I have noticed that my digital tv reception gets really bad (pixelation
>>> and dropped sound) when the wind gets strong. ie: 30 to 40 mph with
>>> higher gusts of 50 to 60. It is not my antenna blowing in the wind since
>>> the antenna is in an attic crawspace.
>> My guess would be that you're seeing the effect of nearby trees
>> blowing around in the wind. This will cause rapid variations in
>> multipath cancellation (in effect, moving "echoes" from the moving
>> leaves) and could be overwhelming the multipath-echo cancellation
>> logic in the receiver.
>>
>> If you watch an analog UHF station under these conditions, do you tend
>> to see "ghost" echoes on the screen which come and go, or move around,
>> as the wind blows?
>>
>> Using a highly-directional UHF antenna might reduce the problem -
>> it'll have a stronger direct signal from the transmitter, and will be
>> less sensitive to multipath reflections arriving from other angles.
>
> That's great if you want to fiddle with an antenna for each channel
> or set up a complicated antanna that can be optimized for each
> channel.
>
Reminds me of a paragraph in the manual of an Italian car. It
recommended to switch (!) between two different spark plug types. One
for autostrada (freeway) driving, the other for city traffic. Seriously.
I could not believe it.
> But a lot of us were very happy with analog TV and all its shortcomings.
>
Amen!
> To me it is 1000 percent less annoying to see some snow or ghosts
> when it's windy or raining or I'm watching a distant channel then to
> have the picture freeze or pixelate and the sound to drop out entirely.
>
Yep. Same here.
> And, adjusting an antenna for analog is totally real time.
> Move the antanna and its effect is instantaneous. With DTV - at least
> what I've seen to far - the only way to really do this is with the
> signal strength monitor which might be downa couple of menu levels,
> and that's not real time. There is a very significant lag and even
> then it doesn't always show what the true situation is.
>
If there even is a field strength display. In the end consumers will
need a spectrum analyzer to do this job properly, or a nearly infinite
amount of patience.
> This is not progress!
My guess is that a whole slew of people will become rather p....d off
come Feb-2009. I would not want to be an operator at the phone bank of a
political representative next spring.
Joerg
> In article <abbxdg...@seas.upenn.edu>,
> Samuel M. Goldwasser <s...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>> I'll second and third that! :( :)
>
>> Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
>> people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
>> to cable or some other wired pay service!
>
> Are you suggesting that the 'everything else' which has gone wireless
> works perfectly at all times?
>
Sometimes progress isn't really progress. DTV is one example, GSM
another. I have an "old technology" CDMA phone. Works everywhere. A
neighbor had CDMA as well and then his provider switched to GSM. Brand
new phones, and I guess another new 2y contract. After that he needed an
antenna on a pole in order to get a signal. Progress. Yeah, right.
> Surely as regards good reception the same parameters apply to digital as
> analogue TV - if you're in a strong signal area you might get away with a
> set top aerial, if not you won't?
>
Nope. In heavy multipath analog works fine while digital falls off the
cliff all the time. Same antenna, same stations, same tower locations.
It's happening out here, almost every night.
Peter Hucker
> Per Peter Hucker:
>> Depends on your reception. My digital seldom pixelates, and never becomes unwatchable, or silent. My analogue was snowy though, to the point of being irritating.
>
> I agree with the OP that digital is a step down from analog.
It depends on the channel. Certainly with Sky digital, some channels have a higher bandwidth than others.
> Maybe it's the closet type A in me, but the pause between
> channels with digital makes me crazy.
>I'm putting off buying a digital TV as long as I can in hopes of
> makers recognizing and addressing it in the same way that digital
> camera makers recognized and addresses shutter lag.
>Maybe, on a high-end set, there could be a half-dozen tuners -
> each dedicated to one of the user's favorite stations. Then,
> once all the tuners got a lock on their respective signal,
> changing between those stations could be as quick as with analog.
I prefer to look in the TV guide and watch what I'm interested in, not flick through endless crap.
> Also, if most of one's shows are talking heads, a little snow
> doesn't diminish the content;
But is extremely annoying. I like the picture to be crystal clear, which is why I'm getting HD.
> OTOH, the same marginal signal on digital means you don't get the show at all.
My Sky box shows the signal strength at only 25%, yet I never get anything more than a couple of pixelated bits for a second or two. Sound remains clear.
President Bush was in South Dakota recently. There was an awkward moment at Mount Rushmore when President Bush said, "Hey, look, it's those guys on the money!"
- Conan Obrien
Peter Hucker
So you should have no reception problems. Change provider immediately.
"One dies in Istanbul suicide attack"
Joerg
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:18:49 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>>>> than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
>>>> working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
>>>> boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
>>>> either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
>>>> piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
>>>> some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
>>>> than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
>>> Depends on your reception. My digital seldom pixelates, and never becomes unwatchable, or silent. My analogue was snowy though, to the point of being irritating.
>>>
>>
>> I'm on CABLE!
>
> So you should have no reception problems. Change provider immediately.
>
Good luck with that one if you don't have a southern view for satellite.
Typically there is exactly one cable provider because they got the deal
with the city once upon a time. They own the infrastructure. And they
know it. So ...
Peter Hucker
> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:18:49 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>>>>> than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
>>>>> working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
>>>>> boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
>>>>> either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
>>>>> piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
>>>>> some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
>>>>> than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
>>>> Depends on your reception. My digital seldom pixelates, and never becomes unwatchable, or silent. My analogue was snowy though, to the point of being irritating.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm on CABLE!
>>
>> So you should have no reception problems. Change provider immediately.
>>
>
> Good luck with that one if you don't have a southern view for satellite.
> Typically there is exactly one cable provider because they got the deal
> with the city once upon a time. They own the infrastructure. And they
> know it. So ...
My house has 3 sides. And the garage has the other one. And you've always got the roof.
Definition of a secretary:
An office fixture that isn't permanent until it's been screwed on the boss's desk.
Peter Hucker
> Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> writes:
>
>> Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>> than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
>> working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
>> boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
>> either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
>> piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
>> some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
>> than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
>
> I'll second and third that! :( :)
>
> Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
> people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
> to cable or some other wired pay service!
Can't you just get a bigger aerial and stop being a cheapskate?
With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.
Peter Hucker
Very odd, as on the SAME aerial, with no adjustment, I get a perfect digital picture on freeview terrestrial. On analogue terrestrial I got irritating snow on quite a few of the channels.
Are part-time bandleaders semi-conductors?
Only if they've had a sex-change. Then they're trans-sisters.
Joerg
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:17 -0000, Joerg <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:18:49 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>>>>>> than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
>>>>>> working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
>>>>>> boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
>>>>>> either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
>>>>>> piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
>>>>>> some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
>>>>>> than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
>>>>> Depends on your reception. My digital seldom pixelates, and never becomes unwatchable, or silent. My analogue was snowy though, to the point of being irritating.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm on CABLE!
>>> So you should have no reception problems. Change provider immediately.
>>>
>> Good luck with that one if you don't have a southern view for satellite.
>> Typically there is exactly one cable provider because they got the deal
>> with the city once upon a time. They own the infrastructure. And they
>> know it. So ...
>
> My house has 3 sides. And the garage has the other one. And you've always got the roof.
>
So do we. But not everybody does, for example people in apartments who
ended up getting one with a balcony to the north.
Also, cost is an issue. Satellite subscriptions can be expensive for
people on a fixed income. For those folks the matter is very simple. If
DTV goes on the fritz all the time then their freedom of televised media
information ends on February 17, 2009.
Joerg
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:29:32 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser <s...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>> Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> writes:
>>
>>> Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>>> than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
>>> working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
>>> boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
>>> either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
>>> piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
>>> some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
>>> than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
>> I'll second and third that! :( :)
>>
>> Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
>> people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
>> to cable or some other wired pay service!
>
> Can't you just get a bigger aerial and stop being a cheapskate?
>
That often only guarantees a reduced number of channels, the others will
now be off the main beam. Unless you get a rotator. Which only works if
there is not more than one TV in use.
Case in point: We've got the biggest honking ChannelMaster antenna there
is. No cheapeskating there. Mast amp, head amp, proper distribution
amps, home-run structure, the best coax there was. Works perfectly fine
on analog. DTV blitzes off every other day some time around 9:00pm,
usually when moisture and faster moving clouds roll in. No matter how
we toss and turn it the selected ATSC standard does not appear to
tolerate a changing multipath situation. And I am under the impression
that this hasn't gotten the necessary amount of a-priori field testing.
Peter Hucker
Sky digital isn't that expensive. What is expensive is the BBC license, especially when you don't watch it!
My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.
Peter Hucker
> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:29:32 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser <s...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Claude Hopper <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>>>> than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
>>>> working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
>>>> boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
>>>> either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
>>>> piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
>>>> some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
>>>> than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
>>> I'll second and third that! :( :)
>>>
>>> Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
>>> people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
>>> to cable or some other wired pay service!
>>
>> Can't you just get a bigger aerial and stop being a cheapskate?
>>
>
> That often only guarantees a reduced number of channels, the others will
> now be off the main beam. Unless you get a rotator. Which only works if
> there is not more than one TV in use.
What about two aerials? One for each set of channels?
> Case in point: We've got the biggest honking ChannelMaster antenna there
> is. No cheapeskating there. Mast amp, head amp, proper distribution
> amps, home-run structure, the best coax there was. Works perfectly fine
> on analog. DTV blitzes off every other day some time around 9:00pm,
> usually when moisture and faster moving clouds roll in. No matter how
> we toss and turn it the selected ATSC standard does not appear to
> tolerate a changing multipath situation. And I am under the impression
> that this hasn't gotten the necessary amount of a-priori field testing.
I'll stick to my dish.
The wife had a birthday and her husband wanted to know what she desired. She said she'd like to have a Jaguar.
He didn't think it was best for her.
But, she begged and begged until he gave in and got her one.
It ate her.
Joerg
Europe is different. You guys get free access to the Astra satellites
but then your governments make you pay a general radio and TV tax. In
Germany the mere possession of a PC is enough to trigger the tax. They
placed the gvt TV on web stream and, voila, created another tax lavy.
In the US there is no free sat access. You must pay one of (very few)
providers and usually they caox you into a long-term contract.
(PeteCresswell)
>Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
>people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
>to cable or some other wired pay service!
There's another alternative: rooftop antenna.
I've got about $300 in mine: purchase price plus paying somebody
to install it - thus maintaining our probable distinction of
being the only people in town without cable or dish.
If I had known how much better even analog would be (it's a
digital-optimized antenna) I would have done it 20 years ago.
--
PeteCresswell
Arfa Daily
"Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uktwx...@fx62.mshome.net...
Then you are indeed one very lucky Hucker ... Far from it being the case
that the powers who be would have you believe, in that the changeover is as
smooth and simple as just gluing your STB or digital telly on the end of
your existing antenna, in many parts of the UK, including where I live, the
joy of your new purchase has been short-lived, after getting it out of the
box and finding that it receives almost nothing. The fading joy then turns
to dismay when you further discover that your fifteen quid Tesco-Sonic box,
is going to need a 150 quid cake cooling rack with 49 rung step ladder in
front of it, jammed up on your roof in place of the neat little 10 ele Yagi
that you had there for your analogue reception ...
All so that you can get the Shopping Channel in glorious pixellated
plastic-view, complete with motion lag and digital artifacts, compounded by
the digital processing in your brand new LCD TV to make it work non-native
to display standard definition transmissions, rather than the nice Blu-Ray
demo piccies you saw in the shop, and which convinced you to part with your
hard-earned ...
Digital ? Bah humbug, I say !
Arfa
Dave Plowman (News)
Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> >> No communal aerial systems on US apartment blocks? They're the norm
> >> in the UK.
> I imagine UK doesn't have apartment complexes with dozens of separate
> buildings on a single property,with 300-500 units.
If they are separate buildings each can have its own aerial?
If apartments all within the same building then yes - there's one quite
close to here:-
http://www.ducanecourt.org.uk/
--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid
stra...@yahoo.com
I'm glad it's working out for you. One minor point. Digital and analog
antennas are identical. The manufacturers simply changed the name on
the box but all the dimensions of the elements are unchanged. I
believe Winegard changed the boom color from blue to natural aluminum
and changed the prefix letters of the model number to 'HD'.
G²
bg
Claude Hopper wrote in message ...
>Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
>than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
>working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
>boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
>either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
>piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
>some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
>than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.
>
>
>Claude Hopper :)
>
>? ? ¥
You should thank your government for addressing a tough issue like digital
or analog tv, rather than wasting time on petty issues such as our borders,
the bail outs, the wars, energy and whatever else that really doesn't
matter. TV is all that matters. Personally, I voted for GWB again in this
last election even though he wasn't running. It's just that since I get
Jerry Fucking Springer in CD quality audio and digital video too, Georgie is
my all time hero. And I'm really greatfull that all of those converter boxes
are made overseas because we have to many jobs and to much money over here.
And our landfills really do need need a fresh supply of NTSC equipment.
Haven't you noticed?
So don't be so narrow, this is for your own good!
bg
Arfa Daily
<stra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a598e211-d143-4708...@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
G²
In the UK at least, that isn't true. We are a (fairly) small island, with a
relatively high population density by area, compared to the USA, so the
analogue transmitter network was carefully designed to ensure that adjacent
service areas were split well apart frequency-wise for the suite of
programmes that they each carried. To take advantage of this clever bit of
planning, and to gain maximum mutual interference immunity from it, original
analogue UHF antennas, were channel grouped, and thus quite narrow-band in
their response, compared to the overall 400 -ish MHz width of UHF bands IV
&V.
However now, at most locations, the individual transmitter sites' digital
multiplexes are spread from one end of the band to the other, so the
antennas sold as 'digital' are broadband types to accommodate this - often
being log periodics about three times the size of the original neat little
single-group Yagis that were all that was needed for analogue reception.
Also, because the system in use here for DTTV, is nothing like as robust in
terms of multipath immunity, as the authorities foisting this changeover on
us, would have us believe, it is often necessary to employ an 'antighost'
antenna of the type with " X " form directors on it, to achieve satisfactory
(ha!) results.
Arfa
William Sommerwerck
station) or serving a small area, are exempt from the requirement to switch
to digital.
Peter Hucker
Where are you lot living with all these problems? I'm in central Scotland and everyone round here who has changed to digital (meaning within a 30 mile radius, not just one street) has had a great picture. A few have had to buy a new aerial, but we knew we might need one. Everyone has got a better picture than on analogue.
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for this change to take effect.
Arfa Daily
Well I'm in central England in the service area of the Sandy Heath main
transmitter. I live on top of a hill at about 330 ft ASL, and within about
25 miles of the primary mast. The analogue signal from this transmitter is
stonking in the extreme. It is a good example of the old 'piece of wet
string' adage. Just about everyone in my village had a neat little 10 ele
Yagi up to receive this transmitter. The low(er) power transmitter at Oxford
some 40 odd miles away, which we all used for the alternate ITV service,
required an 18 ele Yagi for a noise-free picture under all weather
conditions.
Now, as people in the village take up digital, they are having to have
ludicrous great pieces of ironwork jammed up on their roofs, to reliably
receive the Sandy Heath digital multiplexes, and I understand that the
situation is similar in many other parts of the country. There is talk that
when the analogue services finally cease, the digital transmitter powers
will be increased, but for those that have shelled out 150 notes of their
hard-earned now, that's going to be a bit horses and stable doors.
Given the many problems that have been reported with DTTV reception, along
with the lack of bandwidth available, and the problems that is causing with
implementing HD in a format that 'HD Ready' TV sets can use (especially
since Ofcom / the government have reneged on the promise to make more of the
existing UHF bands available for DTTV when all the analogue has ceased), I
really can't see why anyone would choose the terrestrial Freeview option
over the corresponding satellite option (FreeSat). As long as you can get a
view of the Southern sky, you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a
perfect signal with a minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the
very worst thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of
bandwidth available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour
delayed channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for the
broadcasters to provide.
Arfa
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> I
> really can't see why anyone would choose the terrestrial Freeview option
> over the corresponding satellite option (FreeSat). As long as you can get a
> view of the Southern sky, you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a
> perfect signal with a minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the
> very worst thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of
> bandwidth available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour
> delayed channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for the
> broadcasters to provide.
While I never actualy lived in the U.K., does anyone else remember the
"squareial"?
Arfa Daily
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrngia28...@cable.mendelson.com...
> Arfa Daily wrote:
>
>> I
>> really can't see why anyone would choose the terrestrial Freeview option
>> over the corresponding satellite option (FreeSat). As long as you can get
>> a
>> view of the Southern sky, you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a
>> perfect signal with a minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the
>> very worst thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of
>> bandwidth available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour
>> delayed channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for
>> the
>> broadcasters to provide.
>
> While I never actualy lived in the U.K., does anyone else remember the
> "squareial"?
>
> Geoff.
>
Indeed. My next door neighbour still has one bolted on the wall ! Pointing
sadly towards the floor now, I might add ...
It was made by STC down in Paignton, Devon, as I recall. BSkyB never really
took off. It was rapidly killed by the more viewer - friendly Sky TV
services. The Squarial was a neat antenna though. Much more so than the 80
and 60cm offset dishes which became the norm when sat tv really took off
here.
Arfa
Dave Plowman (News)
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:
> While I never actualy lived in the U.K., does anyone else remember the
> "squareial"?
I do indeed. And the D-MAC system they used could be quite superb in its
day. It certainly pointed to the future - punters simply don't care about
technical quality enough to pay a premium for it.
--
*Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: They only made 21.4 million bugs.
Dave Plowman (News)
Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Given the many problems that have been reported with DTTV reception,
> along with the lack of bandwidth available, and the problems that is
> causing with implementing HD in a format that 'HD Ready' TV sets can
> use (especially since Ofcom / the government have reneged on the
> promise to make more of the existing UHF bands available for DTTV when
> all the analogue has ceased), I really can't see why anyone would
> choose the terrestrial Freeview option over the corresponding satellite
> option (FreeSat). As long as you can get a view of the Southern sky,
> you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a perfect signal with a
> minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the very worst
> thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of bandwidth
> available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour delayed
> channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for the
> broadcasters to provide.
Satellite unfortunately seems to suffer from the same too low data rates
that FreeView does. Some actually worse. And of course the hardware is
much more expensive - for many a cheap FreeView box is all that's needed
to convert an analogue set.
I'd say you're in a minority if you have a strong analogue signal but poor
DTTV one - they usually come from the same transmitter. And the power will
be increased after the analogue services are removed - because the band is
so crowded that's not possible at the moment.
--
*Most people have more than the average number of legs*
Arfa Daily
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5001205...@davenoise.co.uk...
As far as I understand it Dave, the digital multiplexes are not broadcast in
tandem with the analogue services using the same transmitter hardware. The
DTTV service is also not necessarily broadcast from antennas on the same
mast as the analogue ones, or indeed, even from the same physical site,
which has led to some transmissions in some areas, being quite an amount
off-beam from where the existing analogue antenna is pointing. Couple this
with the fact that the broadcast frequency of many of the multiplexes will
be outside the designed bandwidth of the (channel grouped) analogue antenna,
and the lower broadcast powers employed, then with a little understanding of
UHF propagation, it's easy to see how DTTV signals received on an existing
antenna that provides a good analogue performance, can be marginal at least.
I don't have a problem with understanding that the existing analogue antenna
may not be suitable for receiving DTTV. What I do find irksome is the way
that the general public is being led to believe that DTTV is superior in
every way to analogue, and that the transition will be painless. In many
cases, this just ain't so. It's all very well saying that when the analogue
service closes, the output powers of the DTTV transmitters can be upped to
the point where the field strength becomes enough for a fundamentally
unsuitable antenna to work ok (possibly), but the only folk that is going to
benefit, are those that have hung on to the bitter end.
As far as data rates go, that is more a matter of economics than technical
restrictions, with the satellite service. If you are going to run a minority
channel like "The Vegetarian Cooking for Eastern Bloc Plumbers Channel",
then you are not going to need it to have a high data rate. There's not
going to be a lot of movement on the screen, and it doesn't matter too much
if the slice of tomato is rendered in a limited range of shades of red, so
you can rent a low data rate transponder quite cheaply. If, however, you are
going to show high quality content of many different genres, then you have
to use a high data rate, with a correspondingly higher rental price tag on
the transponder. On the other hand, on DTTV, the bandwidth is just not there
to allow everyone to have high data rates. With only a few premium-content
channels using a high data rate, the bandwidth availability rapidly starts
to run out. Now that the post - analogue allocation has been even further
restricted as Gordon and co rub their hands at the prospect of the
cell-phone operators queing up to part with cash for chunks of the UHF band,
I can't see how the bandwidth issue can ever be resolved, to improve the
Freeview service beyond what it is now, which is a technically superior
service, trying to operate in a technically inadequate environment.
As to your point about the cost of the hardware, far from the expense of
going satellite being prohibitive when compared with Freeview, they are now
about the same on the surface, and the FreeSat service may actually work out
cheaper in the end. A 'not too bad' Freeview box will cost you around £30 -
£40. Yes, I know that Tesco do some for 15 quid, but they are pretty poor
little things. But then you potentially need to add another £150 to the cost
of the box, to have a digital antenna supplied and erected. On the other
hand, Screwfix sent me an e-mail flyer just yesterday, advertising a
complete kit - dish, LNB, wall bracket, pole, receiver, remote control,
cables etc, for just £49.99. And made (supplied) by Labgear, who are a
respected company in the TV antenna equipment business.
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/80878&cm_mmc=Campaign-_-E08W42-_-B2-_-SatKit?source=aw
Now how can DTTV, with its limited performance and potential for expansion,
even begin to compete with that ?
Arfa
Dave Plowman (News)
Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> As far as I understand it Dave, the digital multiplexes are not
> broadcast in tandem with the analogue services using the same
> transmitter hardware. The DTTV service is also not necessarily
> broadcast from antennas on the same mast as the analogue ones, or
> indeed, even from the same physical site, which has led to some
> transmissions in some areas, being quite an amount off-beam from where
> the existing analogue antenna is pointing. Couple this with the fact
> that the broadcast frequency of many of the multiplexes will be outside
> the designed bandwidth of the (channel grouped) analogue antenna, and
> the lower broadcast powers employed, then with a little understanding of
> UHF propagation, it's easy to see how DTTV signals received on an
> existing antenna that provides a good analogue performance, can be
> marginal at least.
So no different from when the mainstream channels were added to UHF - or
later CH5. All of these changes could necessitate a new aerial.
> I don't have a problem with understanding that the existing analogue
> antenna may not be suitable for receiving DTTV. What I do find irksome
> is the way that the general public is being led to believe that DTTV is
> superior in every way to analogue, and that the transition will be
> painless.
I don't know anyone who believed that. At the very least you'd have to buy
a STB. So not painless. As regards being 'superior' it very much depends
on your priorities. It certainly gives a much wider choice of stations
than is possible with analogue. Actual picture quality can be better in
some ways, worse in others. So in the end it's down to personal choice
whether you prefer it or not. The way some talk you'd think analogue was
always perfect. Rarely was anywhere I visited. Even in this high signal
strength part of London my CH5 is often poor. BBC2 in some weather
conditions.
> In many cases, this just ain't so. It's
> all very well saying that when the analogue service closes, the output
> powers of the DTTV transmitters can be upped to the point where the
> field strength becomes enough for a fundamentally unsuitable antenna to
> work ok (possibly), but the only folk that is going to benefit, are
> those that have hung on to the bitter end.
Well if you've decided to change before you're forced to there must be
something you like about FreeView...
> As far as data rates go, that is more a matter of economics than
> technical restrictions, with the satellite service. If you are going to
> run a minority channel like "The Vegetarian Cooking for Eastern Bloc
> Plumbers Channel", then you are not going to need it to have a high
> data rate.
Err, poor picture quality on a channel you don't watch may not bother you.
But it might those who do watch it. The higher data rates tend to go to
subscription channels.
> There's not going to be a lot of movement on the screen, and
> it doesn't matter too much if the slice of tomato is rendered in a
> limited range of shades of red, so you can rent a low data rate
> transponder quite cheaply. If, however, you are going to show high
> quality content of many different genres, then you have to use a high
> data rate, with a correspondingly higher rental price tag on the
> transponder. On the other hand, on DTTV, the bandwidth is just not there
> to allow everyone to have high data rates. With only a few
> premium-content channels using a high data rate, the bandwidth
> availability rapidly starts to run out. Now that the post - analogue
> allocation has been even further restricted as Gordon and co rub their
> hands at the prospect of the cell-phone operators queing up to part
> with cash for chunks of the UHF band, I can't see how the bandwidth
> issue can ever be resolved, to improve the Freeview service beyond what
> it is now, which is a technically superior service, trying to operate
> in a technically inadequate environment.
I'm not sure there will be phone operators queuing up to buy bandwidth.
The last sell off was a bit of a fiasco.
> As to your point about the cost of the hardware, far from the expense of
> going satellite being prohibitive when compared with Freeview, they are
> now about the same on the surface, and the FreeSat service may actually
> work out cheaper in the end. A 'not too bad' Freeview box will cost you
> around £30 - £40. Yes, I know that Tesco do some for 15 quid, but they
> are pretty poor little things. But then you potentially need to add
> another £150 to the cost of the box, to have a digital antenna supplied
> and erected. On the other hand, Screwfix sent me an e-mail flyer just
> yesterday, advertising a complete kit - dish, LNB, wall bracket, pole,
> receiver, remote control, cables etc, for just £49.99. And made
> (supplied) by Labgear, who are a respected company in the TV antenna
> equipment business.
You're not comparing apples with apples. A decent wideband UHF aerial
doesn't cost anywhere near 150 quid - it's the installation that does. And
a dish can cost more to install.
> http://www.screwfix.com/prods/80878&cm_mmc=Campaign-_-E08W42-_-B2-_-SatKit?source=aw
> Now how can DTTV, with its limited performance and potential for
> expansion, even begin to compete with that ?
I have HD satellite as well as FreeView - but for watching ordinary
channels use FreeView. My hardware for that is more user friendly.
--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop
gghe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Peter Hucker wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:29:32 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser <s...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
"No matter how we toss and turn it the selected ATSC standard does not
appear to
tolerate a changing multipath situation."
I have a similar antenna in my attic. I find that the smallest "twich"
of the motor can change the signal strength from 20-25 (no picture) to
40-45 (picture is fine). This makes no sense to me. But maybe this
is the multipath situation of which you speak.
George
Arfa Daily
> In article <_UcVk.110421$mr4....@newsfe19.ams2>,
> Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> As far as I understand it Dave, the digital multiplexes are not
>> broadcast in tandem with the analogue services using the same
>> transmitter hardware. The DTTV service is also not necessarily
>> broadcast from antennas on the same mast as the analogue ones, or
>> indeed, even from the same physical site, which has led to some
>> transmissions in some areas, being quite an amount off-beam from where
>> the existing analogue antenna is pointing. Couple this with the fact
>> that the broadcast frequency of many of the multiplexes will be outside
>> the designed bandwidth of the (channel grouped) analogue antenna, and
>> the lower broadcast powers employed, then with a little understanding of
>> UHF propagation, it's easy to see how DTTV signals received on an
>> existing antenna that provides a good analogue performance, can be
>> marginal at least.
>
> So no different from when the mainstream channels were added to UHF - or
> later CH5. All of these changes could necessitate a new aerial.
No. No different. But the coming of UHF 625 was not 'sold' to the general
public in the same way as the digital service has been - that is with
marketing hype in a misleading way. With UHF 625, the potential benefits
over VHF 405 were enormous. There was the increase in resolution for a
start. Vastly improved FM sound. No displayed pulse interference due to the
opposite sense vision modulation sytem that was employed. Improved picture
stability from flywheel sync. The much smaller aerial. New channels that
were worth having. And of course, colour, a quantum leap forward, and a real
benefit that was worth having.
>
>> I don't have a problem with understanding that the existing analogue
>> antenna may not be suitable for receiving DTTV. What I do find irksome
>> is the way that the general public is being led to believe that DTTV is
>> superior in every way to analogue, and that the transition will be
>> painless.
>
> I don't know anyone who believed that. At the very least you'd have to buy
> a STB. So not painless. As regards being 'superior' it very much depends
> on your priorities. It certainly gives a much wider choice of stations
> than is possible with analogue. Actual picture quality can be better in
> some ways, worse in others. So in the end it's down to personal choice
> whether you prefer it or not. The way some talk you'd think analogue was
> always perfect. Rarely was anywhere I visited. Even in this high signal
> strength part of London my CH5 is often poor. BBC2 in some weather
> conditions.
I don't know anyone who has an understanding of electronics and propagation
that believed it, but much of ordinary Joe public does, because that's the
way it has been sold. People believe everything that they see on TV, and
when you couple that with slick marketing, as has been the case here, that's
doubly true.
Analogue was certainly never always perfect, but for 363 days of the year,
mine is as close to perfect as I would ever want it to be. I don't have
anything against digital TV transmission per se. I have a Sky system and a
subscription, and again, for 363 days a year, it's as perfect as I would
want it to be. With nothing but open space between me and the transmission
source, with no such thing as multipath and 20 miles of rain or fog or snow
or whatever in the way, it can't really be anything else. CH5 isn't even
worth discussing in this context. It was a misconceived concept technically,
shoehorned in where it just didn't belong. By putting it on a channel that
was internationally accepted as being for VCR outputs, they were guaranteed
to cause interference to previous legitimate users of the frequency, from
day 1. The reason it is so piss poor on analogue, is because of the very low
transmitter powers that had to be run with it, to avoid mutal interference
between abutting transmitter service areas, due to the whole concept
screwing with carefully planned frequency allocations and offsets, that had
worked fine, for years.
>
>> In many cases, this just ain't so. It's
>> all very well saying that when the analogue service closes, the output
>> powers of the DTTV transmitters can be upped to the point where the
>> field strength becomes enough for a fundamentally unsuitable antenna to
>> work ok (possibly), but the only folk that is going to benefit, are
>> those that have hung on to the bitter end.
>
> Well if you've decided to change before you're forced to there must be
> something you like about FreeView...
People are changing because they are being frightened into doing it now by
the marketing hype both on the TV adverts, and at the points of sale barns
such as Comet and so on. People also believe all the nonsense about all the
new channels that they will be able to receive. Trouble is, the free ones
are mostly crap. Be honest. How often do you trawl through the hundreds of
channels on Sky, only to struggle to find something worth watching ? All
these free channels seem like a huge incentive at first look, but are
actually, for the most part, nothing of the sort. Would you propose that
people wait until the day that their analogue service is switched off, to
see if the (proposed) transmitter power increases allow their existing
aerial to function for Freeview ?
>
>> As far as data rates go, that is more a matter of economics than
>> technical restrictions, with the satellite service. If you are going to
>> run a minority channel like "The Vegetarian Cooking for Eastern Bloc
>> Plumbers Channel", then you are not going to need it to have a high
>> data rate.
>
> Err, poor picture quality on a channel you don't watch may not bother you.
> But it might those who do watch it. The higher data rates tend to go to
> subscription channels.
?????? Are you going out of your way to be obtuse, Dave ? You seem to have
completely missed the point of what I was saying. I did use the word "need".
If you have transmissions that are largely static pictures, produced under
studio lighting, for a small audience (implying that you are a small
broadcaster) then the quality of the picture won't suffer from making use of
a low data rate, and as long as your service only appeals to a small number
of viewers, it's not going to attract a lot of investment and revenue from
advertisers. So a low data rate (ie cheaper to rent) transponder will
satisfy the requirements on all fronts for 99% of the time. The point is
that at sat frequencies, the bandwidth is available to allow minority
channels to have whatever data rate they choose to afford. On the
terrestrial UHF bands, the space is simply not available, nor ever could be.
>
>> There's not going to be a lot of movement on the screen, and
>> it doesn't matter too much if the slice of tomato is rendered in a
>> limited range of shades of red, so you can rent a low data rate
>> transponder quite cheaply. If, however, you are going to show high
>> quality content of many different genres, then you have to use a high
>> data rate, with a correspondingly higher rental price tag on the
>> transponder. On the other hand, on DTTV, the bandwidth is just not there
>> to allow everyone to have high data rates. With only a few
>> premium-content channels using a high data rate, the bandwidth
>> availability rapidly starts to run out. Now that the post - analogue
>> allocation has been even further restricted as Gordon and co rub their
>> hands at the prospect of the cell-phone operators queing up to part
>> with cash for chunks of the UHF band, I can't see how the bandwidth
>> issue can ever be resolved, to improve the Freeview service beyond what
>> it is now, which is a technically superior service, trying to operate
>> in a technically inadequate environment.
>
> I'm not sure there will be phone operators queuing up to buy bandwidth.
> The last sell off was a bit of a fiasco.
Well, the government must know something that we don't then, otherwise, they
wouldn't have reneged on the originally agreed plan to make more of the UHF
band available to DTTV after the analogue switch off, for the purposes of
facilitating HD transmissions using the existing compression systems. They
must think that they've got people waiting in the wings to buy that space.
>
>> As to your point about the cost of the hardware, far from the expense of
>> going satellite being prohibitive when compared with Freeview, they are
>> now about the same on the surface, and the FreeSat service may actually
>> work out cheaper in the end. A 'not too bad' Freeview box will cost you
>> around £30 - £40. Yes, I know that Tesco do some for 15 quid, but they
>> are pretty poor little things. But then you potentially need to add
>> another £150 to the cost of the box, to have a digital antenna supplied
>> and erected. On the other hand, Screwfix sent me an e-mail flyer just
>> yesterday, advertising a complete kit - dish, LNB, wall bracket, pole,
>> receiver, remote control, cables etc, for just £49.99. And made
>> (supplied) by Labgear, who are a respected company in the TV antenna
>> equipment business.
>
> You're not comparing apples with apples. A decent wideband UHF aerial
> doesn't cost anywhere near 150 quid - it's the installation that does. And
> a dish can cost more to install.
Of course a wideband aerial doesn't cost 150 quid, but neither does it cost
a tenner. And I did say "supplied *and erected* ". Most of the aerials sold
for this purpose, are either long-boom "X" form Yagis, or log periodics,
neither of which are cheap. Setting aside installation, you would still
struggle to buy an aerial, mounting hardware, cable, and receiver, for the
50 quid that Screwfix are asking for a ready to run FreeSat sytem. On the
installation front, installing a sat dish is actually easier for the average
DIYer than putting up a DTTV aerial, which in most cases, will have to be
positioned on a pole, on a roof, clear of the ridge line. A sat dish can be
mounted in most cases on a wall, or even at ground level, and with a compass
and a bit of patience, is no more difficult to line up, than a Yagi.
>
>> http://www.screwfix.com/prods/80878&cm_mmc=Campaign-_-E08W42-_-B2-_-SatKit?source=aw
>
>> Now how can DTTV, with its limited performance and potential for
>> expansion, even begin to compete with that ?
>
> I have HD satellite as well as FreeView - but for watching ordinary
> channels use FreeView. My hardware for that is more user friendly.
A FreeSat STB is no easier or harder to use than a Freeview one, and the
manufacturers are now catching on to the advantages of a sat based system
over a terrestrial one, and are starting to ship sets which have a FreeSat
receiver built in.
Arfa
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> No. No different. But the coming of UHF 625 was not 'sold' to the general
> public in the same way as the digital service has been - that is with
> marketing hype in a misleading way. With UHF 625, the potential benefits
> over VHF 405 were enormous. There was the increase in resolution for a
> start. Vastly improved FM sound. No displayed pulse interference due to the
> opposite sense vision modulation sytem that was employed. Improved picture
> stability from flywheel sync. The much smaller aerial. New channels that
> were worth having. And of course, colour, a quantum leap forward, and a real
> benefit that was worth having.
However it took them until January 1985 to drop 405 line TV, starting 625 line
TV in 1964. That was IMHO an awfully long "compatability period".
As for the channels being worth having, that's a debate beyond the subject
of this discussion. :-)
It was also not that big a sale, in those days, there was only one channel
and TV sets were so expensive that not every household had one. Since they
were licensed, and licenses were very carefully checked (remember Monty
Python's Cat Detector Van?) TV's were not a commodity item as they are
today.
BTW, do they still throw people in jail for owning unlicensed TV's?
Peter Hucker
> Well I'm in central England in the service area of the Sandy Heath main
> transmitter. I live on top of a hill at about 330 ft ASL, and within about
> 25 miles of the primary mast. The analogue signal from this transmitter is
> stonking in the extreme. It is a good example of the old 'piece of wet
> string' adage. Just about everyone in my village had a neat little 10 ele
> Yagi up to receive this transmitter. The low(er) power transmitter at Oxford
> some 40 odd miles away, which we all used for the alternate ITV service,
> required an 18 ele Yagi for a noise-free picture under all weather
> conditions.
>
> Now, as people in the village take up digital, they are having to have
> ludicrous great pieces of ironwork jammed up on their roofs, to reliably
> receive the Sandy Heath digital multiplexes, and I understand that the
> situation is similar in many other parts of the country. There is talk that
> when the analogue services finally cease, the digital transmitter powers
> will be increased, but for those that have shelled out 150 notes of their
> hard-earned now, that's going to be a bit horses and stable doors.
That doesn't make sense. How on earth can you be getting a poor digital signal? They must have a much lower power on that transmitter than they do up here. Mind you we all have 16 element aerials.
> Given the many problems that have been reported with DTTV reception, along
> with the lack of bandwidth available, and the problems that is causing with
> implementing HD in a format that 'HD Ready' TV sets can use
I've not heard of that. What is the problem? I thought 720p would work on ANY hd tv. And 1080i (and 1080p from Blueray) would be scaled down by the set.
On this point, they should not have called it HD ready. There should be two names - "Full HD", and "Semi HD". "HD ready" makes the uneducated think they are getting the best that they can, especially when the salesman lies. I thought we had laws like false advertising in this day and age?
> (especially
> since Ofcom / the government have reneged on the promise to make more of the
> existing UHF bands available for DTTV when all the analogue has ceased), I
> really can't see why anyone would choose the terrestrial Freeview option
> over the corresponding satellite option (FreeSat). As long as you can get a
> view of the Southern sky, you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a
> perfect signal with a minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the
> very worst thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of
> bandwidth available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour
> delayed channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for the
> broadcasters to provide.
Agreed. Terrestrial TV is pointless.
The priest in a small Irish village loved the cock and ten hens he kept in the hen house behind the church.
But one Saturday night the cock went missing!
The priest knew that cock fights happened in the village so he started to question his parishioners in church the next morning.
During Mass, he asked the congregation, "Has anybody got a cock?"
All the men stood up.
"No, no," he said, "that wasn't what I meant. Has anybody seen a cock?"
All the women stood up.
"No, no," he said, "that wasn't what I meant. Has anybody seen a cock that doesn't belong to them?"
Half the women stood up.
"No, no," he said, "that wasn't what I meant. Has anybody seen MY cock?"
All the nuns, three altar boys, two priests and a goat stood up.
Dave Plowman (News)
Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> People also believe all the nonsense about all the new channels that
> they will be able to receive. Trouble is, the free ones are mostly
> crap. Be honest. How often do you trawl through the hundreds of
> channels on Sky, only to struggle to find something worth watching ?
I don't have Sky and never will. Because of who owns it. I do regularly
use some of the 'minority' FreeView ones - 5US, Dave and ITV3, mainly.
> All these free channels seem like a huge incentive at first look, but
> are actually, for the most part, nothing of the sort. Would you propose
> that people wait until the day that their analogue service is switched
> off, to see if the (proposed) transmitter power increases allow their
> existing aerial to function for Freeview ?
It's up to them. If they are happy with the existing analogue service, why
not?
--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *
Dave Plowman (News)
They never have done. They might for repeated refusal to pay any fine for
not owning a licence where needed - but that's no different from failing
to pay any sort of fine imposed by a court.
--
*I have a degree in liberal arts -- do you want fries with that
Arfa Daily
>>
>> Now, as people in the village take up digital, they are having to have
>> ludicrous great pieces of ironwork jammed up on their roofs, to reliably
>> receive the Sandy Heath digital multiplexes, and I understand that the
>> situation is similar in many other parts of the country. There is talk
>> that
>> when the analogue services finally cease, the digital transmitter powers
>> will be increased, but for those that have shelled out 150 notes of their
>> hard-earned now, that's going to be a bit horses and stable doors.
>
> That doesn't make sense. How on earth can you be getting a poor digital
> signal? They must have a much lower power on that transmitter than they
> do up here. Mind you we all have 16 element aerials.
It makes perfect sense when the Sandy Heath analogue transmitter is one of
the 'main stations' with an ERP of 1MW. I forget what the digital
transmitter output power is, but its only in the kW range. I seem to recall
something like 20kW, expected to rise tenfold to 200kW after analogue switch
off. I could be a bit off there, but it's about right ball park. Doubtless,
the info is on the 'net somewhere, if you want to look it up. Also, the
Sandy Heath mast is very tall, but the entire top is taken up with the UHF
analogue antennas, so presumably, the digital antennas, are some distance
down, even assuming that Sandy is one of the masts where the digital is
co-sited.
>
>> Given the many problems that have been reported with DTTV reception,
>> along
>> with the lack of bandwidth available, and the problems that is causing
>> with
>> implementing HD in a format that 'HD Ready' TV sets can use
>
> I've not heard of that. What is the problem? I thought 720p would work
> on ANY hd tv. And 1080i (and 1080p from Blueray) would be scaled down by
> the set.
>
> On this point, they should not have called it HD ready. There should be
> two names - "Full HD", and "Semi HD". "HD ready" makes the uneducated
> think they are getting the best that they can, especially when the
> salesman lies. I thought we had laws like false advertising in this day
> and age?
It's not about progressive or interlaced scanning or resolution. It's about
the compression and modulation schemes used to get the signals to you. The
original plan was to release additional wedges of the UHF broadcast TV band
to DTTV use, when analogue ceased. This additional space would have allowed
mpeg-2 compression to be used, as is the case with existing digital
services. However, as that space is now not going to be given over, an
alternative in the form of mpeg-4 is going to have to be used. So when the
manufacturers designed-in mpeg-2 decoders in the honest belief that the
future terrestrial HD services would employ this compression scheme, and
then called their sets "HD Ready", they weren't lying or trying to mislead.
Take a look at
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/0,39029474,49296378,00.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/ofcom_freeview_hdtv_dtg/
which might explain it better. It's a complex situation and seems to be
changing almost by the week. Take a look at the links above, especially the
last one, to see how the FreeSat service is superior to Freeview.
Arfa
>
Arfa Daily
towards explaining why the digital signals from Sandy are poor, and why the
CH5 analogue signal is *piss* poor ...
http://www.aerialsandtv.com/sandytransmitter.html
Arfa
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> So when the
> manufacturers designed-in mpeg-2 decoders in the honest belief that the
> future terrestrial HD services would employ this compression scheme, and
> then called their sets "HD Ready", they weren't lying or trying to mislead.
MPEG-2 is a hard and fast standard, having been finalized for DVD players.
MPEG-4 does not enjoy such standardization, there are at least 3 variations.
The most commonly used one is the "divx" standard, which is rarely used.
Most divx content is really produced with one of the free "compatible"
programs, and played with other free compatible programs. The program
which creates the file is set to use the divx identifier, so programs
playing them think they are real divx files which they are not.
Then there are the H.264 files which are still "MPEG-4" but different.
Microsoft has their own MPEG-4 standard, which is not 100% compatible with
the others, but since it is patented by them and requires a license fee,
you can expect that the only thing that will reliably play it will be Windows
Media Player and the X-Box line.
From what I have infered from reading Tele-Satellite Magazine, most if not
all of the satellite receivers use the free decoding engine and not the
licensed one. It works very well at higher bit rates, but H.264 works
better at the lower ones. It's not as much a problem as you would think,
the free decoder programs will decode both.
As for satellite TV, the usual way of doing things has become an implementation
(sometimes off the shelf) of the free decoders and hardware decoding using
one of the open standard card interfaces.
Here, it is unfortunate because less than honest dealers sell receivers
that "do not require you to pay the high cost of pay TV", they include the
decrypting software in the receiver and then download new keys over the
Internet.
The dealers must hate me because I get asked about them on the average of
once a week, and I explain that they are buying a system dependent upon
piracy.
One person I met spent several thousand dollars on such a system, and while
I've never met him, when a mutal friend told me about it, I explained
exactly what was happening and why. I don't know what he did, but from what
my friend said, his friend would probably have not have bought it.
GMAN
country and its people BTW!!!) , but you havent seen mountains till you visit
the Rocky Mountains. We have a severe problem with TV signals and mountain
ranges in the far western United States. I live in Utah and its amazing you
can get anything OTA here.
What makes it at least useable is the fact that most of the regular networks
are on the same mountain peak here in the Salt Lake City area so you dont
really have to use a multideirectional antenna to get the vast majority of
stations. Whereas back east like in Ohio, you have overlapping stations from
at least 4 different states and directions giving them completely different
problems.
Peter Hucker
Your dish reception should be ok though. Satellites were invented a while back, why is anyone still using terrestrial communications?
Women are not served here. You have to bring your own.
(PeteCresswell)
> Satellites were invented a while back, why is anyone still using terrestrial communications?
To save $20+ per month.
--
PeteCresswell
Arfa Daily
Well, you are apparently, as you said that your Freeview signals were ok,
didn't you ?
Arfa
Peter Hucker
> Per Peter Hucker:
>> Satellites were invented a while back, why is anyone still using terrestrial communications?
>
> To save $20+ per month.
They are the same price!!! (Free)
Confuscious say: "Man who run in front of car get tired"
Peter Hucker
>
> "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.uk1em...@fx62.mshome.net...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:30:40 -0000, GMAN <glen...@nospam.xmission.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <op.ukvn1...@fx62.mshome.net>, "Peter Hucker"
>>> <no...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:34:06 -0000, Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Peter Hucker" <no...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.uktwx...@fx62.mshome.net...
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:39:58 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser
>>>>>> <s...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dpl...@radagast.org (Dave Platt) writes:
>>>>>>>
<snip>
I bought a 2nd hand freeview box when I was considering stopping Sky. However when I phoned to cancel (after checking the signal and what channels I could get), they gave me half price, so I stayed.
o
+--___
+--__<
_ _ _ _|_
]-I-I-I-[
\_,_,_,_/
| |
| _ | -_-_-_- |II>
-_-_-_- | / \ | \-.-.-/ I
\_,,_,/ | |_| | | | / \
| ] | |/\| | /___\
[ []| | ,--. /\| | |
|II> | |__| u| | ||| _| |
I |[] ,--. u | | | _- ,-'
/ \ _[ |_ |u |__| |_- |
/___\ | | | _||||_ \ |__
| |_-_-_| |/ - '' - _\
'-, ___ ,----' \ _/]/ '
__| / \ /``-. \ ,'
`--. | ) ___ _.---'| ( /
_||____|( )`-----`````-. \
\ _..-----------......'( /
_) \------..__--...____/_(__
\ ( ```-----------`
_.-)____________ ,--'
`---------....__`----...___/___
\_ ```----------``/
`- __..-'
) /
_.-\______ \ __,-.
`------.._```-----.. /__,./ )
`-.-, '`````--, \ _,-. (
__)____....---'_,` ( _) _/
\-------``````` / \ (
) (-._``\ \ ) /
__\___....'_/ ) _/ \ (
__)------````/ [ ) / \
/ /``` )\ [ /
(PeteCresswell)
>> To save $20+ per month.
>
>They are the same price!!! (Free)
That one went right over my head.
How does one get TV via satellite for free in the USA?
--
PeteCresswell
Arfa Daily
>>>
>>> Your dish reception should be ok though. Satellites were invented a
>>> while
>>> back, why is anyone still using terrestrial communications?
>>>
>>
>> Well, you are apparently, as you said that your Freeview signals were ok,
>> didn't you ?
>
> I bought a 2nd hand freeview box when I was considering stopping Sky.
> However when I phoned to cancel (after checking the signal and what
> channels I could get), they gave me half price, so I stayed.
>
> --
Ah. So no matter how good the Freeview signals that you receive are, and no
matter how good the government sponsored advertising blurb about DTTV is,
you still prefer to shell out for a (reduced price) subscription service, to
Sky. I wonder what that tells us ? Perhaps that you would miss the channels
and superior satellite performance, that you are never going to get from
Freeview DTTV ? At least if you finally do give up on Sky, you will be able
to receive the FreeSat bird on the same dish without even moving it ...
:-)
Arfa
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Ah. So no matter how good the Freeview signals that you receive are, and no
> matter how good the government sponsored advertising blurb about DTTV is,
> you still prefer to shell out for a (reduced price) subscription service, to
> Sky. I wonder what that tells us ? Perhaps that you would miss the channels
> and superior satellite performance, that you are never going to get from
> Freeview DTTV ? At least if you finally do give up on Sky, you will be able
> to receive the FreeSat bird on the same dish without even moving it ...
If he is in the UK, doesn't he already pay for Freeview? Here in Israel
we also have a TV tax, and I pay around 6 quid a month for the privledge
of owning a TV set that can receive Channel 1. That also includes anyone
with cable or DBS TV, but they have not really gone out of their
way to track them down.
So it's not really Freeview, or Freesat, it's just cheaper. :-)
Peter Hucker
Sorry, I was under the impression that if you could get it in rip off UK, you could get it anywhere.
If you subscribe to a satellite service, and don't pay up, do you not still get the free channels? If I stop paying my Sky Digital subscription, I still get the free channels through the dish (the ones I'd get through an aerial either on digital or analog).
"These stretch pants come with a warranty of one year or 500,000 calories... whichever comes first."
Joerg
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:46:50 -0000, (PeteCresswell) <x...@y.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Per Peter Hucker:
>>>> To save $20+ per month.
>>> They are the same price!!! (Free)
>> That one went right over my head.
>>
>> How does one get TV via satellite for free in the USA?
>
> Sorry, I was under the impression that if you could get it in rip off UK, you could get it anywhere.
>
> If you subscribe to a satellite service, and don't pay up, do you not still get the free channels? If I stop paying my Sky Digital subscription, I still get the free channels through the dish (the ones I'd get through an aerial either on digital or analog).
>
Not in the US. If you don't pay sat or cable then your TV blitzes off
unless you have an aerial. There is no such thing like your Astra
satellites here. Although, last time I was in Europe the programming on
there did not exactly impress me.
Peter Hucker
> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:46:50 -0000, (PeteCresswell) <x...@y.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Per Peter Hucker:
>>>>> To save $20+ per month.
>>>> They are the same price!!! (Free)
>>> That one went right over my head.
>>>
>>> How does one get TV via satellite for free in the USA?
>>
>> Sorry, I was under the impression that if you could get it in rip off UK, you could get it anywhere.
>>
>> If you subscribe to a satellite service, and don't pay up, do you not still get the free channels? If I stop paying my Sky Digital subscription, I still get the free channels through the dish (the ones I'd get through an aerial either on digital or analog).
>>
>
> Not in the US. If you don't pay sat or cable then your TV blitzes off
> unless you have an aerial. There is no such thing like your Astra
> satellites here.
I take it you can't get our satellites from that far away? Or anyone else's?
> Although, last time I was in Europe the programming on
> there did not exactly impress me.
I was under the impression (only from word of mouth and what I've seen on American sitcoms/etc) that your TV was as full of junk as ours. You lot invented the term "channel flipping" didn't you?
In the event that all else has failed, and it seems tempting to actually read the instructions, don't panic: Get a bigger hammer!
Joerg
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:05:06 -0000, Joerg <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:46:50 -0000, (PeteCresswell) <x...@y.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Per Peter Hucker:
>>>>>> To save $20+ per month.
>>>>> They are the same price!!! (Free)
>>>> That one went right over my head.
>>>>
>>>> How does one get TV via satellite for free in the USA?
>>> Sorry, I was under the impression that if you could get it in rip off UK, you could get it anywhere.
>>>
>>> If you subscribe to a satellite service, and don't pay up, do you not still get the free channels? If I stop paying my Sky Digital subscription, I still get the free channels through the dish (the ones I'd get through an aerial either on digital or analog).
>>>
>> Not in the US. If you don't pay sat or cable then your TV blitzes off
>> unless you have an aerial. There is no such thing like your Astra
>> satellites here.
>
> I take it you can't get our satellites from that far away? Or anyone else's?
>
Yeah, some remote ones but you need big honking dishes.
>> Although, last time I was in Europe the programming on
>> there did not exactly impress me.
>
> I was under the impression (only from word of mouth and what I've seen on American sitcoms/etc) that your TV was as full of junk as ours. You lot invented the term "channel flipping" didn't you?
>
I never watch sitcoms. The main issue I see is that programming guides
are wrong a lot. Announced movies are replaced by something else
willy-nilly style and even the "new and improved" DTV with its online
menues still shows the old movie while (!) the wrong one is playing.
Pathetic. However, nature channels, PBS and stuff are really great. Also
the evening news which in Germany were just a brief 15 minutes when I
lived there. Here it's 45-60 minutes (minus commercial time).
IMHO one has to avoid centering family life around the TV set. It's not
good to do that, never has been.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> I take it you can't get our satellites from that far away? Or anyone
> else's?
No, from the U.S. the UK satellites are below the eastern horizon. They
also use a "spot beam" and although I can "see" the satelites, there
is no signal here.
I once tried using a program which calculates the dish size you need
to receive a signal and found that even with a 9 meter dish, there was
not enough signal here. Not that I was going to install a 9 meter
dish, but it was worth the cost of putting a number into a
free program. :-)
And BTW, in the U.S. they use a 60Hz signal with a different color
encoding scheme, and most TV's won't display the signal. Digital
encoding is similar, but US digital TV still ends up with 30 frames per
second (actually slightly less due to a rounding error), while the UK
uses 25.
Arfa Daily
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrngil3e...@cable.mendelson.com...
In the UK, we have a 'television licence'. A few years back, it was
re-branded a 'Broadcast Receiving Licence' presumably to make it a catch-all
device for all forms of content reception. The revenue from this license is
used as the primary funding for the BBC. The independant channels finance
themselves from advertising revenue. However, even if you don't watch the
BBC programming, you are still liable for a 'TV Licence' if you use a TV to
watch any kind of live broadcast. Recording and watching later, also counts.
I'm not sure what the strict letter of the law is, regarding watching via
'net streaming and archiving, which is becoming a common form of content
delivery now. For instance, you can watch many of the BBC's offerings via
the web, and listen to their radio programming live or archived. Channel 4
has a free service called "4OD", which does the same.
The licence has undergone a few quiet changes over the years. For instance,
it used to be issued to a household, and children who were away at
university, living in digs, still qualified as being part of the household,
as their primary domicile was still the family home, but that has now been
changed such that the licence is issued to an address, so students have to
have their own licence for their digs, or risk a £1000 fine, as the TV
advert gleefully informs us ...
So, even though the basic analogue service is fundamentally 'free', it is,
as you say, 'taxed' by way of a licence fee, set, administered and levied by
the government, and passed on to part-finance the BBC.
Freeview is the replacement terrestrial digital service for the basic 5
channel analogue service that is being phased out. It uses digital
multiplexes shoe-horned into part of the existing analogue band, and carries
a lot more channels than the analogue service, as well as some radio
content. Some of the additional programming is 'quality' material from the
BBC and ITV services, but much of the rest is low grade crap of the shopping
channel variety.
The current main satellite provider is Sky. They are an independant company
owned by Murdoch, and as well as carrying their own programming and premier
movie and sports channels, they also carry the full raft of terrestrial
programming. This public and independant content, can be viewed without
charge, after an initial small fee for a 'free to air' viewing card.
However, it's not the very easiest of things to organise, and most people
tend to finish up taking some form of subscription package to get at least
Sky One, which is a channel worth having, along with the Discovery and
History suites etc. A 'basic' Sky subscription is not hugely expensive - as
long as you keep it basic. There are something like 30 mix 'n' match options
available, and it's very easy to get carried away with premium channels such
as movies and sports, and then the subscription does start getting out of
hand. By ditching the movies and multi-room options, and by having no sports
channels, I got mine down to around a tenner a month.
The latest over-air programme delivery service to be offered, is FreeSat.
This is operated by the BBC and ITV, I believe, and is basically a 'mirror'
of the terrestrial digital service, but delivered via satellite. The bird
for this service, is in the same constellation as the Astra satellite suite
which carries the Sky content. So an existing Sky dish will work without
repositioning. It is a truly free service like Freeview, but subject to the
same licence requirement. The major difference is that unlike the Freeview
service, which is being crippled by bandwidth and band allocation
restrictions, the FreeSat service has oodles of bandwidth available to it,
so can easily carry many many full bitrate channels with full interactive
services, as well as virtually limitless HD content in the existing and well
proven mpeg-2 format.
Given the obvious advantages of the satellite service over the corresponding
terrestrial one, and the similar hardware and installation costs (ref the
sub-fifty quid ready-to-roll FreeSat system that Screwfix are offering), I
really can't see why anyone upgrading from analogue to digital, would want
to go down the terrestrial route ...
Arfa
Arfa Daily
(PeteCresswell)
>Not in the US. If you don't pay sat or cable then your TV blitzes off
>unless you have an aerial. There is no such thing like your Astra
>satellites here. Although, last time I was in Europe the programming on
>there did not exactly impress me.
Somewhere - a number of years ago - I recall reading about people
who made their own earth-station type dishes and were pulling
signals directly from the comm sats.
Has that little hole been plugged by now?
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
>I was under the impression (only from word of mouth and what I've seen on American sitcoms/etc) that your TV was as full of junk as ours. You lot invented the term "channel flipping" didn't you?
I guess it's a matter of individual preference, but I don't see
much that really grabs me.
Mainly I tape stuff: Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley on weeknites,
Nova whenever it happens, Bill Moyers' Journal, Now, and a few
others.
We flip between Charlie Gibbs and The News Hour during dinner.
When I go down to my daughter's place where they have cable or
when I'm taking care of the neighbor's cat where he has a dish,
sometimes I find interesting stuff - like Comedy Central or
CSPAN... but often it just takes that much more channel surfing
to find out there's nothing interesting on.
--
PeteCresswell
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Somewhere - a number of years ago - I recall reading about people
> who made their own earth-station type dishes and were pulling
> signals directly from the comm sats.
>
> Has that little hole been plugged by now?
At one time C band satellite dishes were quite common. In those days they
were not used for direct boradcast, but "feeds". For example, you could
watch a network feed which would was destined to be picked up by your
local network affilate or cable company, and rebroadcasted.
Around 1985, HBO (US network Home Box Office) purchased MPEG encoding
equipment which included DES (US digital encryption standard) encryption.
They intended it to only be used by their licensees who would redistributed
their programing material.
Another vendor, Select-TV, offered their boxes to home users.
Due to the DES chips, the boxes could not be exported from the U.S., although
some were smuggled into Canada.
Now, except for the US, you are legally permitted to receive any signals
which are "free to the air", meaning they are either analog unecrypted,
(which I'm not even sure ever existed on satellites) or digtally encoded
(but not encrypted).
In the US, the law requires you to pay for signals that can be paid for.
For example, if someone offers a package that includes a signal that is
FTA, you have to pay them (or someone else) for it. There are are few
true FTA signals still out there, such as PBS (tax payer supported TV).
Outside of the US, there are many FTA channels, but most of them are
not worth watching unless you are a native of the country that uplinks them.
The UK is an exception, but due to the spot beam of the satellites, the signals
can not be received outside of the UK (maybe Northwestern France and the
Irish Republic).
Here Israel channels 1 and commerical channels 2 and 10 are available FTA.
Channels 1 and 2 are also available over analog UHF.
There is a DBS service called YES which used NDS (news datacom) encryption,
but is not part of the "Newscorp" empire.
You can also buy an FTA dish, but to an English speaker the programing
is sparse. What bothers me is there is a company that sells a digital
decoder/receiver that instead of using standard decoding cards which are not
sold here, it downloads the decryption keys over the Internet.
In plain English it's pirated. Up until a year or so the importer of the
receivers gave away the codes to sell receivers, now he's figured out he
can charge almost the same price as a basic package from YES (they are
150 NIS, aroun 20 quid), he charges 100 NIS, around 12 quid.
It's presented as a way to get around the high price of pay tv, I wonder
how many people would have bought them if they were told the truth?
Jeff Layman
(snip)
> Given the obvious advantages of the satellite service over the
> corresponding terrestrial one, and the similar hardware and
> installation costs (ref the sub-fifty quid ready-to-roll FreeSat
> system that Screwfix are offering), I really can't see why anyone
> upgrading from analogue to digital, would want to go down the
> terrestrial route ...
> Arfa
No line-of-sight to satellite?
--
Jeff
Arfa Daily
"Jeff Layman" <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gghc2h$o4b$1...@news.albasani.net...
That would be a reason indeed, but it's fairly rare, IME, that a dish can't
be sited somewhere - even at ground level - to get a view of the southern
sky. There are some obvious exceptions to that such as in blocks of flats
and so on, but these are usually fitted with a communal distribution system
in the UK. There are also some areas where dishes on the building are banned
for National Trust 'place of beauty' reasons or whatever, but if that is the
case, it's likely that a bloody great piece of ironwork on the roof will be
frowned upon, as well. Even where dishes are banned from sight, I've seen
some good disguise jobs on the wall that have been painted, or dishes in the
garden on patio mounts. I wouldn't think on balance, that there are any more
'difficult' satellite reception cases, than there are terrestrial.
Arfa
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
msg
<snip>
> In the UK, we have a 'television licence'.<snip>
> The licence has undergone a few quiet changes over the years. For instance,
> it used to be issued to a household, and children who were away at
> university, living in digs, still qualified as being part of the household,
> as their primary domicile was still the family home, but that has now been
> changed such that the licence is issued to an address, so students have to
> have their own licence for their digs, or risk a £1000 fine, as the TV
> advert gleefully informs us ...
To me, the right to receive signals over the public airways without government
intrusion, taxation or monitoring is sacrosanct and one of the most important
constituents of liberty and worthy of a robust defense. Has there never
been a movement in your country to abolish such a draconian provision of
governance?
>
> So, even though the basic analogue service is fundamentally 'free', it is,
> as you say, 'taxed' by way of a licence fee, set, administered and levied by
> the government, and passed on to part-finance the BBC.
To finance the BBC, just levy a tax and make legislators accountable to the
populace, don't deprive people of what we take to be an inalienable right, the
right to information in the public space. Don't deprive the poor, aging, ill,
and disenfranchised of the ability to gather information, and be consoled in
their solitude, by discourse and entertainment over the public airwaves.
Michael
Joerg
[...]
> And BTW, in the U.S. they use a 60Hz signal with a different color
> encoding scheme, and most TV's won't display the signal. Digital
> encoding is similar, but US digital TV still ends up with 30 frames per
> second (actually slightly less due to a rounding error), while the UK
> uses 25.
>
That can be fixed. When I lived in Europe I had modified a 25fps TV set
there to be able to also display 30fps. Most sync separator chips are
"bilingual" so that was easy. A peek at the datasheet, done. Then I
mounted a switch and, voila, I had a dual standard TV. This allowed
watching video tapes bought at US National Parks etc. The VCR was
already multi-standard.
Arfa Daily
"msg" <msg@_cybertheque.org_> wrote in message
news:CbudnZLxj8MM_7HU...@posted.cpinternet...
I don't know of any movement specifically of the purpose of removing the
licence. As far as I know, there has always been a requirement to hold one
type of licence or another, going right back to the inception of the BBC in
its wireless only days. Also, as far as I know, the purpose has always been
to finance at least in part, if not totally, the BBC.
What cracks me up, is that the BBC have, over the years, steadfastly refused
to accept advertising in any shape or form, to generate additional revenue.
However, they also have a huge fully commercial sales business in
'ancillaries' such as DVDs of their programming. This, they are very happy
to self-advertise in the breaks betwen programmes. In my view, given that
they won't accept external advertising, they should be made to pay to have
their own goods advertised on commercial television stations.
In theory, the BBC is apolitical, but it is in truth staffed and run by
government lackeys at the highest levels, which has a profound effect on the
governments ability to interfere in the way it is run. As it is in effect
the 'state' television service, with the best will in the world, there is no
way that it can be truly independant of politics, and as successive
governments swing left and right, we tend to see the good old Beeb doing the
same to stay in favour.
Arfa
Dave Plowman (News)
Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> What cracks me up, is that the BBC have, over the years, steadfastly
> refused to accept advertising in any shape or form, to generate
> additional revenue.
And rightly so. There isn't enough advertising revenue to go round these
days - hence the ITV companies being in real trouble. If the BBC were
allowed to cream off some of this that would likely be the end of them.
And you'd end up with the nonsense of having to pay up front for a service
*and* have those annoying ad breaks.
Considering the number of hours of TV most watch the licence is good value.
To single out it as some form of human rights issue or whatever is
nonsense. Smokers have to pay tax on their cigarettes as do drinkers on
their alcohol. Motorists just to own a car they may use infrequently.
You can certainly argue how that money is spent, though. Personally I
think the BBC should stick with its core business.
--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Arfa Daily
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5004379...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <AJ1Xk.1749$AS....@newsfe25.ams2>,
> Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> What cracks me up, is that the BBC have, over the years, steadfastly
>> refused to accept advertising in any shape or form, to generate
>> additional revenue.
>
> And rightly so. There isn't enough advertising revenue to go round these
> days - hence the ITV companies being in real trouble. If the BBC were
> allowed to cream off some of this that would likely be the end of them.
> And you'd end up with the nonsense of having to pay up front for a service
> *and* have those annoying ad breaks.
You're missing the point I was making, though. I don't have a problem with
them refusing to accept advertising. I have no desire to see adverts for
cornflakes or whatever on the BBC. But by the same token, I don't really
want to see adverts for the collected DVD of Blakes Seven episodes 1 to
1000, either. I just think that it's a bit hypocritical of them to refuse
external advertising, but be quite happy to advertise their own products for
free.
>
> Considering the number of hours of TV most watch the licence is good
> value.
>
> To single out it as some form of human rights issue or whatever is
> nonsense. Smokers have to pay tax on their cigarettes as do drinkers on
> their alcohol. Motorists just to own a car they may use infrequently.
Agreed on both points
>
> You can certainly argue how that money is spent, though. Personally I
> think the BBC should stick with its core business.
And fire Jonathan Ross once and for all ...
Arfa
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> You're missing the point I was making, though. I don't have a problem with
> them refusing to accept advertising. I have no desire to see adverts for
> cornflakes or whatever on the BBC.
It's not as big a problem as you would think. Here we have both
commerical stations and a tax supported one, besides many pay ones. They
show programs uninterrupted from start to finish, and the commerical
stations add commercials, while the pay and tax ones show program trailers
and so on.
BBC prime shows both trailers and shorts in the time.
The US practice of interrupting a program to show a commercial bothers me,
but I have not seen anything like it since I have been here.
> But by the same token, I don't really
> want to see adverts for the collected DVD of Blakes Seven episodes 1 to
> 1000, either. I just think that it's a bit hypocritical of them to refuse
> external advertising, but be quite happy to advertise their own products for
> free.
I don't know, I'd love to see all of the episodes of Blake's Seven, maybe
they can show them on BBC prime. :-) Meanwhile I expect that the number one
seller these days is Doctor Who. I once had a video tape collection of
everything that had been shown on US television, but it was on Beta tapes.
Lacking a working playback device, I gave my broken recorded and the tapes
to someone who may actually use it, but since last we communicated, he had
not.
Peter Hucker
> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:05:06 -0000, Joerg <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:46:50 -0000, (PeteCresswell) <x...@y.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Per Peter Hucker:
>>>>>>> To save $20+ per month.
>>>>>> They are the same price!!! (Free)
>>>>> That one went right over my head.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does one get TV via satellite for free in the USA?
>>>> Sorry, I was under the impression that if you could get it in rip off UK, you could get it anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> If you subscribe to a satellite service, and don't pay up, do you not still get the free channels? If I stop paying my Sky Digital subscription, I still get the free channels through the dish (the ones I'd get through an aerial either on digital or analog).
>>>>
>>> Not in the US. If you don't pay sat or cable then your TV blitzes off
>>> unless you have an aerial. There is no such thing like your Astra
>>> satellites here.
>>
>> I take it you can't get our satellites from that far away? Or anyone else's?
>>
>
> Yeah, some remote ones but you need big honking dishes.
But Americans like big, or is that only Texas?
>>> Although, last time I was in Europe the programming on
>>> there did not exactly impress me.
>>
>> I was under the impression (only from word of mouth and what I've seen on American sitcoms/etc) that your TV was as full of junk as ours. You lot invented the term "channel flipping" didn't you?
>
> I never watch sitcoms. The main issue I see is that programming guides
> are wrong a lot. Announced movies are replaced by something else
> willy-nilly style and even the "new and improved" DTV with its online
> menues still shows the old movie while (!) the wrong one is playing.
That doesn't happen here. The TV guide may be out of date, as I get it weekly and things change (mainly due to bloody football which should be on it's own channel!!) But the digital TV menu is always correct (on Sky Digital). I pick what I want to record the night before, by which time any changes are on the menu so I can see what's really on.
> Pathetic. However, nature channels, PBS and stuff are really great. Also
> the evening news which in Germany were just a brief 15 minutes when I
> lived there. Here it's 45-60 minutes (minus commercial time).
>
> IMHO one has to avoid centering family life around the TV set. It's not
> good to do that, never has been.
That's why I record everything. I watch things when I have the time, not when they're on. And I can skip adverts and pause.
,
/ \
.' '.
/ \
/.-. .-.\
`/ '.' \`
.' '.
/.--. .--.\
`/ '. .' \`
.' ` '.
/.---. .----.\
`/ `. .' \`
.' `.' '.
/,----, ,----,\
`'-.__.;-,____,-;.__.-'
|||||
|||||
`"""`
Peter Hucker
I would have thought modern TVs would display either. Certianly projectors and video recorders accept both.
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Peter Hucker
Which is why I scan through the TV guide before I go to bed and record eveything of interest that's on the folowing day.
If I end up recording something I later find sux, I can always skip it.
To confirm the discontinuation of stopping the startup, click cancel.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> I would have thought modern TVs would display either. Certianly
> projectors and video recorders accept both.
Multisystem TV sets are hard to find. In the US, they are next to impossible.
Here in Israel they used to be quite common and people brought videos
from the US, while the over the air system is PAL. Now since DVD players
have an automatic up/down shift to 25 frame per second with PAL video
encoding option, no one bothers.
HDTV is only available over DBS, and there is no digital TV. If there
was it would be all 25 frames per second, although the video encoding
is YBCr, not PAL or NTSC.
Projectors generaly are multi frequency anyway because of the nature of
PC video, so to include 25 frames per second (50Hz) and 30 frames
per second (60Hz) sync is not much of a problem. The question is if
they accept composite/s video instead of RGB and if there is a decoder
for NTSC or PAL encoding.
PAL encoding is fundimentaly the same as NTSC, except the color signal
is inverted every other line (hence the name phase alternate line).
The big difference is that the color signal was encoded on top of
the video over the air as a 4.43 mHz phase encoded (FM) signal, while
the NTSC was at 3.57 mHz.
This was more to do with the wider bandwidth a 50Hz signal requires
than anything else.
In order to save money multisystem players in the 1980's were set up
with NTSC 4.43 instead of NTSC 3.57. This is due to the fact that the
color signal itself is stripped off of the video on VHS and BETA tape
and was stuck back on at 3.57 mHz for NTSC and PAL. To save money, the
color encoding was all done at 4.43 mHz, so that only one set of modulators
was needed, one to add the color to the video and one to convert the
baseband composite video and audio to an RF (antenna) signal.
They were popular in countries that had no NTSC over the air signals.
In the 1980's I have VCR's and TV sets that would support both NTSC 3.57
and 4.43 and VCR's that supported NTSC (both), PAL and SECAM over
PAL RF encoding. I even at one time had a VCR that did French SECAM.
Peter Hucker
> Peter Hucker wrote:
>
>> I would have thought modern TVs would display either. Certianly
>> projectors and video recorders accept both.
>
> Multisystem TV sets are hard to find. In the US, they are next to impossible.
> Here in Israel they used to be quite common and people brought videos
> from the US, while the over the air system is PAL. Now since DVD players
> have an automatic up/down shift to 25 frame per second with PAL video
> encoding option, no one bothers.
>
> HDTV is only available over DBS, and there is no digital TV. If there
> was it would be all 25 frames per second, although the video encoding
> is YBCr, not PAL or NTSC.
>
> Projectors generaly are multi frequency anyway because of the nature of
> PC video, so to include 25 frames per second (50Hz) and 30 frames
> per second (60Hz) sync is not much of a problem. The question is if
> they accept composite/s video instead of RGB and if there is a decoder
> for NTSC or PAL encoding.
Every one I've used (we have loads at work) has composite, RGB, and svideo inputs. They probably all take NTSC, they certainly specifically say "PAL" on the screen when they sync.
> PAL encoding is fundimentaly the same as NTSC, except the color signal
> is inverted every other line (hence the name phase alternate line).
> The big difference is that the color signal was encoded on top of
> the video over the air as a 4.43 mHz phase encoded (FM) signal, while
> the NTSC was at 3.57 mHz.
>
> This was more to do with the wider bandwidth a 50Hz signal requires
> than anything else.
>
> In order to save money multisystem players in the 1980's were set up
> with NTSC 4.43 instead of NTSC 3.57. This is due to the fact that the
> color signal itself is stripped off of the video on VHS and BETA tape
> and was stuck back on at 3.57 mHz for NTSC and PAL. To save money, the
> color encoding was all done at 4.43 mHz, so that only one set of modulators
> was needed, one to add the color to the video and one to convert the
> baseband composite video and audio to an RF (antenna) signal.
>
> They were popular in countries that had no NTSC over the air signals.
> In the 1980's I have VCR's and TV sets that would support both NTSC 3.57
> and 4.43 and VCR's that supported NTSC (both), PAL and SECAM over
> PAL RF encoding. I even at one time had a VCR that did French SECAM.
It's surprising anything works at all, so complicated!
If a cow laughs, does milk come out of its nose?
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> It's surprising anything works at all, so complicated!
That was the whole idea. The US television standard was set in the 1940's.
It was a 525 line "frame" of video split between 2 "fields" 30 times
a second. Starting at the top middle of the screen, it would trace
down and right and then back again and down and right, so that the
entire screen was covered in 1/60th of a second.
Then it would repeat with the even numbered lines.
The idea was to syncronize it to the lights so there would not be
any noticable flicker. Video was single sideband reduced carrier, while
the audio was that "new fangled" FM.
There were several incompatible color systems, but the one picked by
the "National Television Standards Committe" was one that added color
information over a standard monochrome signal so that it was compatible
with black and white TV sets.
The BBC picked a similar system except running at 25 frames a second to
sync with 50Hz lights. The 20% slower frame rate allowed for 625 lines per
frame. This replaced the older 405 line system that was used before.
The BBC color system was based on the NTSC system, but in order to
compensate for the main flaw of it, the color signal was inverted in phase
every other line.
That's why NTSC TVs have brightness, contrast (from the black and white days),
color (chroma) and color level (saturation) controls while the PAL ones
are missing the color control, the PAL system makes them almost all the
the same, while NTSC ones need a phase adjstment to keep in sync.
Now here's were it gets complicated. :-)
The French did not want their people to watch UK TV, so they used a different
transmission system. The monochome signal stayed the same, but the color
was encoded differently, the channels were spaced differently, and the audio
was AM instead of FM. So if you could receive a French broadcast in the
UK or vice versa, you would only get a black and white picture with no sound.
This eventually became a moot point as the UK switched to UHF only. The
signals no longer had the range to reach France or vice versa, and while
the French still had VHF broadcasts, the UK TV's no longer could tune them in.
Germany did not want their residents watching French TV and vice versa,
so they took a middle of the road path, they used PAL with a different
channel spacing and moved the sound carrier (still FM) within the smaller
channels.
The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries used SECAM encoding but the
same over the air system as Germany.
Japan and Korea used NTSC. China used Soviet SECAM. Israel used German PAL.
So did Jordan and Lebanon. Most of the other Arab countries used SECAM over
PAL over the air encoding. That's how it got the name MESECAM (Middle East
SECAM).
Most of the "Americas" used NTSC, except Brazil used a unique 30 frames
per second PAL.
Just in case you have not gotten completely lost yet, due to a rounding
error it was to 60Hz, or 30 frames per second, it's 30000/1001 or 29.97
frames per second. Does not sound like much, but it's 3 frames off every
100 seconds, or 3.6 seconds off per hour.
So now we come to the digital age, and to be blunt no one really cares.
MPEG encoding which was used by satellites and digital cable was component
video, so it really is not NTSC, PAL or SECAM, but the frame rates
still exist. DVD's use MPEG-2 encoding, which has better compression.
There are several competing similar standards called MPEG-4.
Digital TV sets just take the bit stream and play it directly, modern analog
TV's take the uncompressed component video and play it after digital
to analog conversion. Both automaticly adjust the frame rate.
The problem is what do you do with legacy TV's. In most cases set top
boxes convert it to one standard. DVD players allow for 3 frame rates
and convert as necessary.
DVD's can be had in NTSC (30000/1001 fps), NTSC file (24000/1001),
which are supposed to be 30 fps and 24 fps, and PAL 25 FPS. Films
shot at 24 fps, have been shown at 25 fps on PAL TV's since the 1960's,
maybe earlier.
As you can see, the big difference was that in the 1960's no one
wanted anyone else to watch their TV and vice versa. Now it's the
exact opposite.
Dave Plowman (News)
> which are supposed to be 30 fps and 24 fps, and PAL 25 FPS. Films
> shot at 24 fps, have been shown at 25 fps on PAL TV's since the 1960's,
> maybe earlier.
Whilst this was true once, later telecine machines from sometime in the
'70s onwards with frame stores added a frame once a second to get back to
the correct speed.
That was when the UK companies did their own transfers from features to
tape.
--
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *
(PeteCresswell)
>
>That's why I record everything. I watch things when I have the time, not when they're on. And I can skip adverts and pause.
MythTV?
--
PeteCresswell
Arfa Daily
> Arfa Daily wrote:
>
>
>> You're missing the point I was making, though. I don't have a problem
>> with
>> them refusing to accept advertising. I have no desire to see adverts for
>> cornflakes or whatever on the BBC.
>
> It's not as big a problem as you would think. Here we have both
> commerical stations and a tax supported one, besides many pay ones. They
> show programs uninterrupted from start to finish, and the commerical
> stations add commercials, while the pay and tax ones show program trailers
> and so on.
>
> BBC prime shows both trailers and shorts in the time.
>
> The US practice of interrupting a program to show a commercial bothers me,
> but I have not seen anything like it since I have been here.
The commercial stations in the UK interupt the programmes also. It's not as
bad as in the US, but a 1 hour programme will have probably 4 interuptions
of up to 5 minutes each. Some of the satellite 'prime' stations such as Sky
One have commercial breaks almost as bad as the US, as in the first break
will be just a couple of minutes after the opening credits. Some of the
independant - i.e. non Sky - stations are as bad, if not worse than the US
ones.
Arfa
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Per Peter Hucker:
>>
>>That's why I record everything. I watch things when I have the time, not when they're on. And I can skip adverts and pause.
>
> MythTV?
Bit torrent and Chinese streaming sites. :-)
Dave Plowman (News)
Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The commercial stations in the UK interupt the programmes also. It's not
> as bad as in the US, but a 1 hour programme will have probably 4
> interuptions of up to 5 minutes each. Some of the satellite 'prime'
> stations such as Sky One have commercial breaks almost as bad as the
> US, as in the first break will be just a couple of minutes after the
> opening credits. Some of the independant - i.e. non Sky - stations are
> as bad, if not worse than the US ones.
The amount of advertising is controlled in the UK. And all the mainstream
channels take their breaks at exactly the same time - to try and prevent
channel hopping. Which looks dreadful on progs not made for this system -
they simply crash out of them.
--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *