End of analog TV

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <Xns9B5A5988DDE36jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.85>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@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 *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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 gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

 

[Jim Yanik]

gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in
news:slrngi5l32.5d4.gsm@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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Claude Hopper]

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@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!


--
Claude Hopper

? ? Ľ

 

[Joerg]

Samuel M. Goldwasser wrote:

dplatt@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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article <abbxdggj.fsf@seas.upenn.edu>,
Samuel M. Goldwasser <sam@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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:48:08 -0000, (PeteCresswell) <x@y.Invalid> wrote:

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.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

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]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:18:49 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@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.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

"One dies in Istanbul suicide attack"

 

[Joerg]

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:18:49 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@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 ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:17 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:18:49 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@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.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Definition of a secretary:
An office fixture that isn't permanent until it's been screwed on the boss's desk.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:29:32 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser <sam@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@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?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:39:58 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser <sam@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

dplatt@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.

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!

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.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Are part-time bandleaders semi-conductors?
Only if they've had a sex-change. Then they're trans-sisters.

 

[Joerg]

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:17 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:18:49 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:29:32 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser <sam@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:13:24 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:17 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:18:49 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@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.

Sky digital isn't that expensive. What is expensive is the BBC license, especially when you don't watch it!


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:20:06 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:29:32 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser <sam@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@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.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

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]

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:13:24 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:17 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:18:49 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:36:43 -0000, Claude Hopper <boobooililililil@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.

Sky digital isn't that expensive. What is expensive is the BBC license, especially when you don't watch it!

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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Samuel M. Goldwasser:

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" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.uktwxiuo4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:39:58 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser
sam@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

dplatt@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.

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!

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.

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)]

In article <Xns9B5A7C1AFA1B1jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.85>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@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

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.