Why are the Feds concerned about Digital TV?

[Ling Ling 22]

Why is it that the government so willing to HELP you upgrade to Digital TV?

Why is this mandated?

Are they interested in your viewing experience, or being able to capture the footprint

of your viewing activities?

[IAMX 3,055]

It's because the Congressionally mandated switch means in January there will be "White Space" (analog spectrum), that will be cleared up and sold at an auction which Google had been involved with. It allows takeover of the analog spectrum used for old TV broadcasts. The 2 motivational reasons is 1) analog signal quality is awful, has too much loss over distance, especially barriers like mountains, and requires too much power, versus the lower power-hungry digital signal which is crisper, and 2) there's lots of money-money-money-money-money to be made by the FCC auctioning off the freed up spectrum.

My hopes are it causes people to ditch cable television altogether. Not likely whatsoever, but hey, can hope..

Edited November 8, 2008 by SRVT

[Ling Ling 22]

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but in light of this along with the upcoming standard for cars.

Cars built from 1996 are required to have OnBoard Diagnostics version 2 (OBD-II) in their car,

to monitor emissions controls. The upcoming version 3 (OBD-III) will be interactive,

to wit it will allow new cars to transmit information about emissions, and the ability for law enforcement

to remotely disable a vehicle.

I realize the benefits of Digital TV, but worry about the already unfair balance of information technology.

Is it just crazy to think that it's possible that someone will monitor, track, and/or evaluate

TV viewing to the higher degree enabled by this new technology?

[IAMX 3,055]

I realize the benefits of Digital TV, but worry about the already unfair balance of information technology.

Is it just crazy to think that it's possible that someone will monitor, track, and/or evaluate

TV viewing to the higher degree enabled by this new technology?

This was a given.

Hence why cable can kiss my ###. It's largely useless anyways.

[Ling Ling 22]

Hence why cable can kiss my ###. It's largely useless anyways.

In grad school, one of my professors spoke of a guy in the '60s who said, "In the future, all things wired will be wireless,

and all things wireless will be wired". People thought he was crazy.

Today we have wired TVs, and wireless phones.

[panamania79 2]

I realize the benefits of Digital TV, but worry about the already unfair balance of information technology.

Is it just crazy to think that it's possible that someone will monitor, track, and/or evaluate

TV viewing to the higher degree enabled by this new technology?

This was a given.

Hence why cable can kiss my ###. It's largely useless anyways.

I realize the benefits of Digital TV, but worry about the already unfair balance of information technology.

Is it just crazy to think that it's possible that someone will monitor, track, and/or evaluate

TV viewing to the higher degree enabled by this new technology?

This was a given.

Hence why cable can kiss my ###. It's largely useless anyways.

It's also a ripoff !

[Laura+Tom 2]

The big switch over has just started in the UK. I prefer digital, better quality and in most cases you just buy a cheap box with no monthly fee.

[dalegg 143]

1) analog signal quality is awful, has too much loss over distance, especially barriers like mountains, and requires too much power, versus the lower power-hungry digital signal which is crisper, and 2) there's lots of money-money-money-money-money to be made by the FCC auctioning off the freed up spectrum.

My hopes are it causes people to ditch cable television altogether. Not likely whatsoever, but hey, can hope..

The first part is not incorrect.

First of all, most digital signals are actually created from Analog Signals that are reencoded and compressed. If you could watch an unmodulated analog signal it would be better than its digital counterpart because it would be free of the digital artifacts caused by the compression- surely you've seen the "blocking" in the back digital signals, especially when there is a lot of content.

In fact, if you can get as little as 0 db to your television set from your roof top antenna and there aren't a lot of buildings for the signal to bounce off before it hits your antenna so you don't have ghosting, the analog signal will be far far better than any digital replica.

Second, digital signals do not have any less loss over distance than analog signals. That is determined by the RF carrier they are modulated on. A digitally modulated signal on channel 2 will have exactly the same loss as an analog signal modulated on channel 2- and it will even have a harder time making its way around barriers such as mountains.

At a signal strength of 0 db, the analog picture will look better from an over the air digital signal. Its true that at -10db the reverse is true, but then when you get down to -20db, it reverses again- because at -20db you lose your digital picture- or at least it will begin "pixelating" so much that it is impossible to enjoy. At -20db your analog signal is grainy, but you aren't missing anything. This right here is what millions of American citizens are going to witness in February, with or without that little convertor box. Mark my word.

The main advantage to digital is purely content. You can get about 12 times as many digital channels in the same frequency spectrum as you can analog channels, or 2 to 3 times as many high definition channels in the same spectrum as a standard definition analog channel.

I doubt the government cares as much about that part though as the last part you said though.. which is true.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I realize the benefits of Digital TV, but worry about the already unfair balance of information technology.

Is it just crazy to think that it's possible that someone will monitor, track, and/or evaluate

TV viewing to the higher degree enabled by this new technology?

How can they monitor it if you are receiving the signal over the air? It's not like a calbe or satellite system. They won't know who is watching what.

[Ling Ling 22]

I realize the benefits of Digital TV, but worry about the already unfair balance of information technology.

Is it just crazy to think that it's possible that someone will monitor, track, and/or evaluate

TV viewing to the higher degree enabled by this new technology?

How can they monitor it if you are receiving the signal over the air? It's not like a calbe or satellite system. They won't know who is watching what.

1. Digital streams are easier to track than analog.

2. When you select a channel, you're sending a request.

I could be wrong...so that's why I'm asking these questions.

[dalegg 143]

I realize the benefits of Digital TV, but worry about the already unfair balance of information technology.

Is it just crazy to think that it's possible that someone will monitor, track, and/or evaluate

TV viewing to the higher degree enabled by this new technology?

How can they monitor it if you are receiving the signal over the air? It's not like a calbe or satellite system. They won't know who is watching what.

1. Digital streams are easier to track than analog.

2. When you select a channel, you're sending a request.

I could be wrong...so that's why I'm asking these questions.

spooky is correct. tracking what you watch has nothing to do with the method it is delivered to you, it has to do with whether there is a return path present for your request to be monitored. If you have a cable box with a return path or a satellite receiver connected to internet or phone, they can tell whether you are watching an analog channel or a digital channel. it doesn't matter.

We are not yet at number 2. We will get there one day, but not yet. The vast majority of signals are still broadcasted. Only on demand type services and in a few select areas what is called "switched broadcast" channels do that, but over the antenna is just simple broadcast and nobody knows what's going on with you if this is how you watch.

[rocks 494]

I realize the benefits of Digital TV, but worry about the already unfair balance of information technology.

Is it just crazy to think that it's possible that someone will monitor, track, and/or evaluate

TV viewing to the higher degree enabled by this new technology?

How can they monitor it if you are receiving the signal over the air? It's not like a calbe or satellite system. They won't know who is watching what.

1. Digital streams are easier to track than analog.

2. When you select a channel, you're sending a request.

I could be wrong...so that's why I'm asking these questions.

i don't think they can tell what you are watching like they can with cable? all the tv and radio stations are broadcast through the air at the same time and it is down to your receiver to decode the one that you choose.

[NickD 203]

I tried one of those 40 buck coupons on a 48 buck RCA HDTV converter. Was told the HDTV signal strength is not up to par yet on local TV stations that are both transmitting HDTV and NTSC. While I can pick up all four local stations on the present analog, could barely pick up one of the four with the converter, the other three were completely blanked out. Using a directional antenna, did rotate it to a point where I knew I would get ghost, my TV didn't know whether to chit or go blind, random pixels all over the place.

Rotating the antenna to the best picture and switching the converter to 16:9 aspect ratio with this RCA, the picture not only shrunk vertically as expected, but horizontally as well using about 2/3rds the width of the screen.

Since TV's are still sold by the diagonal method, if viewing a standard 4:3 ration on a HDTV, the screen size is effectively 20% smaller if you can get the full height so a 51" screen is effectively at 40" screen, so much for paying several hundred bucks more. Not sure what all the stores are pumping in at this time, but everyone on a HDTV looks fat or short, however you want to look at it.

Converter box said it is set up for a smart antenna, didn't lay out 75 bucks for one, but from the reviews I read, they stink. Apparently the FCC killed all the VHF bands and HDTV is going to the UHF band. I always had problems with UHF reception, strictly line of site which was one of the major reasons, UHF never took off like they expected. Wonder what idiot decided to make the switch in the middle of February, if you live up north with a snow and ice covered roof, not the best time to go up there and screw around with an antenna.

Time will tell, but I predict one hell of a mess when the switchover takes place in a couple of months. In theory at least, digital should require lower power as even the lowest modulated signals are 100% modulated where in analog could be less than 1%, but that is theory. In practice your picture may be a little be grainy but still watchable, but switching to UHF and trying to convert serial to parallel data to display a proper picture, trying to get line of sight transmission without ghosts that will really screw these numbers up, won't get a picture at all.

[dalegg 143]

I tried one of those 40 buck coupons on a 48 buck RCA HDTV converter. Was told the HDTV signal strength is not up to par yet on local TV stations that are both transmitting HDTV and NTSC. While I can pick up all four local stations on the present analog, could barely pick up one of the four with the converter, the other three were completely blanked out. Using a directional antenna, did rotate it to a point where I knew I would get ghost, my TV didn't know whether to chit or go blind, random pixels all over the place.

Rotating the antenna to the best picture and switching the converter to 16:9 aspect ratio with this RCA, the picture not only shrunk vertically as expected, but horizontally as well using about 2/3rds the width of the screen.

Since TV's are still sold by the diagonal method, if viewing a standard 4:3 ration on a HDTV, the screen size is effectively 20% smaller if you can get the full height so a 51" screen is effectively at 40" screen, so much for paying several hundred bucks more. Not sure what all the stores are pumping in at this time, but everyone on a HDTV looks fat or short, however you want to look at it.

Converter box said it is set up for a smart antenna, didn't lay out 75 bucks for one, but from the reviews I read, they stink. Apparently the FCC killed all the VHF bands and HDTV is going to the UHF band. I always had problems with UHF reception, strictly line of site which was one of the major reasons, UHF never took off like they expected. Wonder what idiot decided to make the switch in the middle of February, if you live up north with a snow and ice covered roof, not the best time to go up there and screw around with an antenna.

Time will tell, but I predict one hell of a mess when the switchover takes place in a couple of months. In theory at least, digital should require lower power as even the lowest modulated signals are 100% modulated where in analog could be less than 1%, but that is theory. In practice your picture may be a little be grainy but still watchable, but switching to UHF and trying to convert serial to parallel data to display a proper picture, trying to get line of sight transmission without ghosts that will really screw these numbers up, won't get a picture at all.

I heard these little converter boxes had options to "crop" and "zoom" the picture- no?

[NickD 203]

I tried one of those 40 buck coupons on a 48 buck RCA HDTV converter. Was told the HDTV signal strength is not up to par yet on local TV stations that are both transmitting HDTV and NTSC. While I can pick up all four local stations on the present analog, could barely pick up one of the four with the converter, the other three were completely blanked out. Using a directional antenna, did rotate it to a point where I knew I would get ghost, my TV didn't know whether to chit or go blind, random pixels all over the place.

Rotating the antenna to the best picture and switching the converter to 16:9 aspect ratio with this RCA, the picture not only shrunk vertically as expected, but horizontally as well using about 2/3rds the width of the screen.

Since TV's are still sold by the diagonal method, if viewing a standard 4:3 ration on a HDTV, the screen size is effectively 20% smaller if you can get the full height so a 51" screen is effectively at 40" screen, so much for paying several hundred bucks more. Not sure what all the stores are pumping in at this time, but everyone on a HDTV looks fat or short, however you want to look at it.

Converter box said it is set up for a smart antenna, didn't lay out 75 bucks for one, but from the reviews I read, they stink. Apparently the FCC killed all the VHF bands and HDTV is going to the UHF band. I always had problems with UHF reception, strictly line of site which was one of the major reasons, UHF never took off like they expected. Wonder what idiot decided to make the switch in the middle of February, if you live up north with a snow and ice covered roof, not the best time to go up there and screw around with an antenna.

Time will tell, but I predict one hell of a mess when the switchover takes place in a couple of months. In theory at least, digital should require lower power as even the lowest modulated signals are 100% modulated where in analog could be less than 1%, but that is theory. In practice your picture may be a little be grainy but still watchable, but switching to UHF and trying to convert serial to parallel data to display a proper picture, trying to get line of sight transmission without ghosts that will really screw these numbers up, won't get a picture at all.

I heard these little converter boxes had options to "crop" and "zoom" the picture- no?

Only thing I go find in my dippy little town are RCA units, you know, the Most Trusted Name in Electronics, perhaps others do. Maybe some have that crop and zoom feature, the RCA is very basic. I put it back in the box and will play with it later, can still watch VHS, and DVD, and will come here to get the news from AK.