End of analog TV

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

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.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

 

[GMAN]

In article <op.ukvn1sma4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:34:06 -0000, Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"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 !

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.

Yes you have mountains in Scotland (Visited there a while back, love your

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]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:30:40 -0000, GMAN <glenzabr@nospam.xmission.com> wrote:

In article <op.ukvn1sma4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:34:06 -0000, Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"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 !

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.

Yes you have mountains in Scotland (Visited there a while back, love your
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.

Your dish reception should be ok though. Satellites were invented a while back, why is anyone still using terrestrial communications?

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

Women are not served here. You have to bring your own.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Peter Hucker:

Satellites were invented a while back, why is anyone still using terrestrial communications?

To save $20+ per month.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.uk1emcd24buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:30:40 -0000, GMAN <glenzabr@nospam.xmission.com
wrote:

In article <op.ukvn1sma4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, "Peter Hucker"
none@spam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:34:06 -0000, Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com
wrote:


"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 !

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.

Yes you have mountains in Scotland (Visited there a while back, love your
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.

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 ?

Arfa

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:41:33 -0000, (PeteCresswell) <x@y.invalid> wrote:

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)

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

Confuscious say: "Man who run in front of car get tired"

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:32:24 -0000, Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.uk1emcd24buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:30:40 -0000, GMAN <glenzabr@nospam.xmission.com
wrote:

In article <op.ukvn1sma4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, "Peter Hucker"
none@spam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:34:06 -0000, Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com
wrote:


"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:

snip

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 !

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.

Yes you have mountains in Scotland (Visited there a while back, love your
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.

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.

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

o
+--___
+--__<
_ _ _ _|_
]-I-I-I-[
\_,_,_,_/
| |
| _ | -_-_-_- |II>
-_-_-_- | / \ | \-.-.-/ I
\_,,_,/ | |_| | | | / \
| ] | |/\| | /___\
[ []| | ,--. /\| | |
|II> | |__| u| | ||| _| |
I |[] ,--. u | | | _- ,-'
/ \ _[ |_ |u |__| |_- |
/___\ | | | _||||_ \ |__
| |_-_-_| |/ - '' - _\
'-, ___ ,----' \ _/]/ '
__| / \ /``-. \ ,'
`--. | ) ___ _.---'| ( /
_||____|( )`-----`````-. \
\ _..-----------......'( /
_) \------..__--...____/_(__
\ ( ```-----------`
_.-)____________ ,--'
`---------....__`----...___/___
\_ ```----------``/
`- __..-'
) /
_.-\______ \ __,-.
`------.._```-----.. /__,./ )
`-.-, '`````--, \ _,-. (
__)____....---'_,` ( _) _/
\-------``````` / \ (
) (-._``\ \ ) /
__\___....'_/ ) _/ \ (
__)------````/ [ ) / \
/ /``` )\ [ /

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

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?
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Arfa Daily]

<snip>

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]

Arfa Daily wrote:

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.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

 

[Peter Hucker]

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).

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

"These stretch pants come with a warranty of one year or 500,000 calories... whichever comes first."

 

[Joerg]

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. Although, last time I was in Europe the programming on
there did not exactly impress me.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:05:06 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@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?

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?


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

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]

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:05:06 -0000, Joerg <notthisjoergsch@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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Peter Hucker wrote:

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.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrngil3e5.ohh.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:
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.

Geoff.

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 Ł1000 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]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:...

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrngil3e5.ohh.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
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.

Geoff.


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 Ł1000
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

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Joerg:

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)]

Per Peter Hucker:

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]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

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?

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM