[opendtv] Twenty comments; Re: Re: Obama Asks Congress to Delay DTV Transition
- From: Cliff Benham <flyback1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:47:39 -0500
Barry Wilkins wrote:
Why, exactly, should at the very last minute, a delay be made to
account for all those who must surely have been adequately forewarned
of this momentous change?
Because the Obama administration senses that lots of ordinary people
don't understand what the transition means.
Do you really believe that most citizens who take TV for granted have
paid much attention to all the "forewarnings"?
Do you believe that they will understand when suddenly, on Feb 18th,
they don't get any pictures on the TV that has served them well and
provides all the connection they want or need to the world? Unlike the
people on this list, most of whom have workd in the TV broadcast
industry and are well versed on the transition, most people just expect
the TV channels to be there when they wake up every day, and will be
abruptly surprised when they suddenly can't get the weather.
Those coupons your government generously distributes to the needy are
something rather unique to the USA. I do not believe any other
countries had such a handout to the populace. I paid my NZ $399 for my
STB and I consider it well worth it.
Does your $399 box provide high definition video to your TV set, or just
decimate the digital signal back down to analog PAL?
The [subsidized $20] set top 'coupon' boxes over here provide ONLY
analog NTSC video and stereo analog sound outputs, not even S-Video!
They only allow your old analog TV to keep working, but do not produce
an HD picture.
Your STBs are so cheap in comparison even without the subsidy, I fail
to see what the fuss is about. As I mentioned on one other occasion,
the cost surely must be no more than a good night out at a restaurant
for 2.
$20 might cover dinner at 'Cheeseburger City' but not a "good night out
at a restaurant for 2" which could easily cost $399 plus
tip.
So, if adequate warning has been given and the STBs are dirt cheap
anyway, why not get on with it. A certain proportion will accept it is
their own fault for leaving it too long and go get cable or sky. The
others will no doubt zoom off to the nearest store to get an STB at
any cost.
Perhaps, but some will be calling the TV stations to find out why they
are of fthe air. However the STB is only half the story.
Reception with dubious antennas may be another story...
Oh, yes...
The lowest cost antenna is about $20 for an indoor type, going to over
$100 for an outdoor antenna, downlead and
mast, IF you can install one without angering the owners of the building
you live in or the neighbors. The STB is only
part of the story.
I read several online lists composed of professional, technical [but not
TV broadcast] people, and they have very different ideas about the
transition than those on this list do. On this list we are so close to
the situation we can't see the forest for the trees.
IF you want to read what other people think about how this transition is
being handled in a practical sense and understand their point of view,
I've collected /some/ of their thoughts. If you think what they have
writen doesn't matter because they are on the outside looking in at us
through the screen, you may be surprised in a few more weeks.
Here are some random anonymous quotes [from 20 out of 55 emails] from
these other technical people who have a view of the transition which I
believe is more like that of most people who do not live, eat and
breathe the technical, political and financial aspects of television. I
think their main point is that they don't care about 16:9, 5.1 channel
sound, the latest 10.56 square foot flat screens or turning their
living rooms into theaters.
They mostly want to watch the news, some PBS programs and DVDs, but they
DO NOT WANT this technology to take over their lives by being shoved
down their throats.
Remember, DON'T Shoot the messenger; I'm only reporting what others have
written, and, there were few "positive" comments.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
"Tonight, I hooked the new POS digital box to the old analog set. We
now get 6 televangelist stations with remarkable clarity. Telemundo is
perfect. The shopping channel is now 4. But, of the 6 stations of real
commercial programming, only 3 are somewhat steady. Signal strength
claims to be high, but there is motion blocking that makes Max Headroom
look normal. The audio glitches (mutes) every few minutes during a
critical phrase (never during ad's). Analog was a little fuzzy, but it
always worked. The audio was there even if the picture wasn't. DTV is a
conspiracy to drive us to cable subscription."
__________________________
" Analog was still usable when received in a fringe area, causing a bit
of white noise in both the audio and visual aspects, whereas when DTVs
error correction can no longer keep up so that the signal appears
optimum, it goes to shit in a hurry."
__________________________
"The medium is an improvement as far as I'm concerned; and I suspect
that the availability of HiDef as a production tool has had a positive
effect on the way some programs are produced.
__________________________
"DTV satisfies a demand that did not exist; it had to be fabricated."
__________________________
"Most of my non-technical neighbors areconfused and angry when they
realize they need to buy an antenna that costs as much/more as their
converter box. And that antenna aiming can be far more critical."
__________________________
"Of course there is a need for DTV, The FCC wanted revenue and cell
phone providers wanted the bandwidth! Their motive is revenue not the
public interest."
__________________________
"I'm expected to feel inadequate with my 1997 27" Panasonic that works
perfectly and now lust after a 16 X 9 format flat screen."
__________________________
"...first rule: follow the money. Who benefitted from the forced
spectrum allocation? You can argue that the companies who got the space
benefitted, which they did, but the bottom line here is that the
gubymmint got a multi-billion dollar infusion of cash. Remember that
they did not always sell the space to one entity, in most cases, since
the licensing was regional, they were able to sell the space multiple
times."
__________________________
"It was the US Congress that wanted revenue, not the FCC. Another one to
blame on your elected representatives."
__________________________
"Of course, there is the big deal: more programming, more "channels"
(since a DTV station can have more than one broadcast stream in it's
signal. But they forget that magic power of zero: anything times zero is
still zero. Given the current content (zero), they could have a zillion
channels and it would still be zero."
__________________________
"During the initial debate, their excuse for digital was to "save" the
US television manufacturing business. Guess they were a little too slow!
They claimed that it would be a great export market for US manufacturers."
__________________________
"So help me, if I wanted to buy one of these things, I'd drive to Las
Vegas and buy it there even though it would cost me ten times as much
for fuel to make the trip as the California "fee" cost!!!"
__________________________
"First, we do not have a television. I am not going to miss anything."
__________________________
"Besides the obvious problem of getting consumers to purchase and
install and use digital converters there is the issue of "cliff effect"
-- fuzzy analog signals are blank in digital and different propagation
between analog and digital channels. Instead of a clean break the FCC
allows a digital station to use their old analog channel identifier. So
"Channel 4" in digital might be in the UHF band requiring a different
antenna and may even be transmitting from a different location. In the
Goode Olde Analog Days one got instant gratification when adjusting an
antenna. Try doing that with digital."
__________________________
"Can someone explain to me how Oprah or Jerry Springer will be better in
wide screen?"
__________________________
"The whole "channel 4" is not really "Channel 4" thing really irks me,
too. The FCC has allowed the channel-mapping confusion of the cable
industry to creep into OTA signals."
__________________________
"The digital mafia, Wall Street and Madison Avenue have managed to kill
the record business. Radio and television are just next in line."
__________________________
"I must say ( SERIOUSLY ) how much better the picture is on my 1997 Sony
27" television now that they are FINALLY broadcasting images that at
least equal the intrinsic quality of the television set!!"
__________________________
"What did Ansel Adams do with only 12.8 by 16, or as it was more
commonly known, 8 by 10????? It's a shame that the poor guy was a
complete failure due to lack of short screen TV!!!!! Imagine how much
better his famous picture of the crosses in the cemetery in New Mexico
would be if it didn't have that damn full moon showing up in the top 3.8
units of the picture!!!!"
__________________________
"I still contend that 16 by 9 is one of the uglier aspect ratio image
shapes - and all the great photographers in history must have agreed
with me because nobody used it until the movies decided that they had to
do something that TV wasn't well adapted for doing!!"
Other related posts: