News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

i heard somewhere that those tall TV antennas that most people had outside their homes a few decades ago can be used to get over the air digital signals and that they will actually work better (pickup more channels with better quality) with digital signals than analog signals.
 
I've cancelled my cable a long time ago, saving $50 a month. I still get CBC, Global on the cable though even though I am not paying for it, and am considering a good indoor UHF attenna to pick up everything coming off the CN tower and (since my condo faces towards Grand Island without nearby obstructions) maybe even Buffalo stations.

There are times I miss having cable, but I can watch most of the shows anyway legally on the internet (some broadcast cable stations, like Comedy, have on-line watching anyway. I'll watch the good series I missed later on.

Go for it. You'll hardly miss it.

I've been cable-free for about 9 months now. I will admit to watching discovery and a few other channels when I go to my parents' place, but otherwise I don't really miss it. I don't even have a good enough antenna for terrestrial stations, so I relying solely on streaming and bittorrent.
 
i heard somewhere that those tall TV antennas that most people had outside their homes a few decades ago can be used to get over the air digital signals and that they will actually work better (pickup more channels with better quality) with digital signals than analog signals.


yes, RF is still RF, it has never changed. The method of modulation has nothing to do with the antenna.
Radio shack used to sell "colour antenna's" in th 70's....just like todays "HDTV" antennas, it's all marketing and means nothing.
 
yes, RF is still RF, it has never changed. The method of modulation has nothing to do with the antenna.
Radio shack used to sell "colour antenna's" in th 70's....just like todays "HDTV" antennas, it's all marketing and means nothing.

no surprise that a person named digi would know a thing or two about the subject. :)
 
Now that I think about it, the method of modulation hasn't changed either...it's still AM!
 
No they haven't. The mandate states that US broadcasters must transmit DTV instead of NTSC. DTV can be SD or HD with many different resolutions and aspect ratios supported.

What your saying is misleading if you mean were going to digital from analog then that is correct but part of NTSC is still being used in the way of 30 frames per second in digital television in north america. The same goes for 25 frames per second for hd PAL systems.
 
Only for another month though as the analogue to DTV transition will be happening on Feb. 17th (unless delayed by Obama).



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010802586.html?hpid=topnews


Obama Urges Delay In Digital TV Switch
Converter Program Out of Funding

By Kim Hart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 9, 2009; D01

The push to postpone the nation's switch to digital television next month got a boost yesterday when a top aide to President-elect Barack Obama sent a letter to key members of Congress urging a delay, saying there is "insufficient support" for the problems consumers will experience during the shut-off of analog signals.

The request comes 41 days before the nation's full-powered television stations are scheduled to permanently shut off the traditional analog signals they have used for more than half a century and switch to all-digital broadcasts. Analog television sets that rely on "rabbit ear" or rooftop antennas to receive broadcasts will not work unless they are upgraded with a converter box. Federal officials said this week that the billion-dollar program to distribute $40 coupons to defray the cost of the boxes has run out of money and that the 1.1 million consumers already on the waiting list might not receive them in time for the Feb. 17 transition.

Projections suggest that the number of consumers on the waiting list to get a coupon could climb to 5 million by early February, increasing by hundreds of thousands every day, the Obama transition team said.

"With coupons unavailable, support and education insufficient, and the most vulnerable Americans exposed, I urge you to consider a change to the legislatively-mandated analog cutoff date," John Podesta, co-chair of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team, wrote in the letter to leaders of the Senate and House commerce committees.

Preparations for the switch to digital television have been rocky. Lawmakers and consumer advocates worry that television watchers -- particularly low-income, rural and elderly Americans who rely most heavily on over-the-air signals -- will lose access to their main source of news, emergency notifications and entertainment.

Television industry analysts at Nielsen Co. estimated that as of December, 6.8 percent of the 114 million U.S. households with televisions were not ready for the transition. Another 10 percent had at least one television set that was not ready. Consumers who have digital television sets, or who subscribe to cable or satellite service, will not lose programming.

The economic downturn has exacerbated the situation, industry analysts say. Many consumers are opting to buy an inexpensive converter box to work with their existing television sets instead of upgrading to new digital televisions. Others are choosing to try free, over-the-air signals as they cut cable and satellite service from their monthly budgets.

Congress is trying to add emergency funds to the coupon program to make sure consumers who need a voucher receive one in time for the transition. A coupon is not needed to purchase a converter box. But with boxes costing $50 to $80, Congress allocated $1.34 billion to provide $40 coupons to help offset the price. A spike in coupon demand in December caused the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an arm of the Commerce Department that runs the program, to hit the funding limit earlier than expected.

The coupons expire after 90 days. Under the rules set by Congress, the NTIA cannot commit more than $1.34 billion at any time for the coupons, so people on the waiting list cannot receive coupons until already-issued vouchers expire. Congress could waive that rule to allow the NTIA to issue new coupons without waiting for unredeemed ones to expire.

Obama's transition team said it supported waiving that rule but that broader action to push back the transition date is also needed. Obama's proposed economic stimulus package will include additional funds to support the digital conversion process, the transition team said.

"Moving the transition date entails significant logistical challenges," said Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet. "However, the prospect of leaving millions of consumers in the dark requires Congress to immediately consider the feasibility of the president-elect's proposal."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, said it was too early to call for a delay and that Congress should instead find a solution to the coupon shortage.

Delaying the transition would further confuse consumers, said Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association. "Moving the date would require starting a massive education effort from scratch," he said.

The National Association of Broadcasters will continue its consumer education plan, in which it has invested more than $1 billion, "to make this transition work," said spokesman Dennis Wharton.

Some networks, including ABC, support the delay. "We certainly think it makes more sense for people to be on their roofs fiddling with their antennas in June rather than February," said Preston Padden, executive vice president of government affairs for Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC.

"I initially thought the digital transition would turn into a TV version of Y2K, but now it's looking more like Hurricane Katrina," said David Waterman, a telecommunications professor at Indiana University. "I think they're underestimating the impact this transition will have on people."
 
A brief piece on Blu-ray hardware/software sales compared to DVD, from this week's Consumer Electronics Show (CES). I believe these are domestic (US/Canada) figures.

The DEG announced that Blu-ray software sales grew from $270 million in 2007 to more than $750 million in 2008. Combined DVD and Blu-ray software sales for 2008 totaled more than $22 billion dollars, down slightly from nearly $24 billion last year. The BDA says there are now some 10.7 million Blu-ray playback devices currently in the market, including both PS3 and standalone units, this after just 2.5 years of format availability. By contrast, just 5.4 million DVD capable devices had shipped by the end of the third year of that format's availability. The Year Three U.S. market penetration of Blu-ray is set to reach about 8%, which is impressive given that the Year Three penetration of DVD was just 4.2%. The DEG reported that some 3 million players were shipped in the 4th quarter of 2008 alone. The lowest player SRP for this past holiday season was $149 for an entry level unit.
 
I don't have an HDTV, and no cable. However, my TV picks up a signal (i think through the VCR, as it is connected to the antenna outlet). I get CTV, TVO, Radio-Canada, Global, OMNI 1 & 2, Citytv, and sometimes CBC. I live at the very edge of Toronto, and (although facing the CN Tower), I was quite surprised that I had signal. Much better than cable, which can cost up to $80. I won't be switching to a HDTV anytime soon, as it is quite expensive, and with that comes the upgrade to Blu-Ray, so yeah. I really see no point in replacing my entire collection, The BRD technollogy is jsut too expensive, and I think the main improvement in quality is really because of the TV, not the format (I mean visible improvement, no I'm not blind, just speculating, as I never actually saw BluRay in action)

On a side note:

Whatever happened to Plasma TVs, I mean everyone buys LCD now, and all the advertising is for LCD, so can we soon consider Plasma to be an obsolete technology. It's really quite sad because I liked plasma TVs, I think they delivered a better picture, with being able to turn on and off each individual pixel, thus making blacks much sharper. And the glare of the LCD screen, terrible. It's so weird, because just 2 years ago plasma was all the rage, and now it's LCD, idk. Feeling nostalgic for something from 2 years ago, gee, creepy!
 
On a side note:

Whatever happened to Plasma TVs, I mean everyone buys LCD now, and all the advertising is for LCD, so can we soon consider Plasma to be an obsolete technology. It's really quite sad because I liked plasma TVs, I think they delivered a better picture, with being able to turn on and off each individual pixel, thus making blacks much sharper. And the glare of the LCD screen, terrible. It's so weird, because just 2 years ago plasma was all the rage, and now it's LCD, idk. Feeling nostalgic for something from 2 years ago, gee, creepy!

I'm partial to plasmas myself, but let's just call it a personal preference for sake of argument. Plasma's are huge energy hogs as compared to their LCD counterparts. I just read that there is a ban being considered in the UK on plasmas and I read something about them in California too. In fairness to LCD's, they have made some good progress with the picture quality in the past couple of years but black levels are still not so great. Top of the line LCD's with good refresh rates and good black levels are considerably more expensive than comparable plasma panels. But that will change soon too.
 
PLasma screens rely on phosphors to produce light...just like a CRT. Phosphors fade.
 
Well, the difference between power consumption in plasmas and LCD really isn't that great. They both use much less electricity than CRTs, which already used less power than a normal hair-dryer or vaccum cleaner. So, that being said, LCD TVs don't exactly slash your power bill in half.
 
Last edited:
Well, the difference between power consumption in plasmas and LCD really isn't that great. They both use much less electricity than CRTs, which already used less power than a normal hair-dryer or vaccum cleaner. So, that being said, LCD TVs don't exactly slash your power bill in half.

Different makes and models of television vary in their use of power, but a 42in plasma television may use some 822 kilowatt hours a year, compared to 350kWh by an LCD flat screen of the same size. A 32in CRT, the biggest available, would use 322kWh.

Source
 
Different makes and models of television vary in their use of power, but a 42in plasma television may use some 822 kilowatt hours a year, compared to 350kWh by an LCD flat screen of the same size. A 32in CRT, the biggest available, would use 322kWh.

Source

OK, my mistake, but they all still use less than other household items that are just as often used. So, it really isn't that important.
 

Back
Top