analog vs digital

[mamadrama]

Apparently, as of February 17, 2009 full-power TV stations will cease broadcasting on their analog channels so that the spectrum they use for analog broadcasting can be reclaimed and used for other important services, such as public saftey (police, fire department, emergency rescue) and advanced wireless services.

The FCC's digital tuner rule specifies that as of March 1, 2007, all new TVs must include digital tuners. This rule prohibits the manufacture, import, or interstate shipment of any device containing an analog tuner, unless it also contains a digital tuner. Despite this prohibition on manufacture and shipment, retailers may continue to sell analog-only devices from existing inventory. As a result, at the point of sale, many consumers may not be aware that this equipment will not be able to receive over-the-air-television signals after February 17, 2009.

To address this issue, the FCC has adopted a rule requiring sellers to display the following text if they are selling TV equipment with only an analog broadcast tuner:

"CONSUMER ALERT" -- This television receiver has only an analog broadcast tuner and will require a converter box after February 17, 2009, to receive over-the-air broadcasts with an antenna because of the Nation's transition to digital broadcasting. Analog-only TVs should continue to work as before with cable and satellite TV services, gaming consoles, VCRs, DVD players, and similar products. For more information, call the Federal Communications Commission at 1-888-225-5322 (TTY: 1-888-835-5322) or visit the Commission's digital television website at: www.DTV.gov. Analog TVs Will Need Additional Equipment to Receive Over-the-air Television When the DTV Transition Ends.

Consumers who rely on antennas (including outside antennas and "rabbit ears") to receive over-the-air broadcast signals on TV sets having only analog tuners will need to obtain separate digital-to-analog set-top converter boxes to watch over-the-air TV. These boxes receive digital signals and convert them into analog format for display on analog TVs. Analog sets connected to such converter boxes will display digital broadcasts, but not necessarily in the full, original digital quality.

Is there more to this, do you think?

 

[mudrabbit]

I've been wondering the same.

The converter boxes that I've priced run between $35 and $70. These are for those who do not have cable or satellite t.v. There's a program that gives you a sizable discount and all you have to do is apply. Limit two coupons per household. They can be acquired here: _https://www.dtv2009.gov/

There will still be some stations that broadcast in analog (as per the guy from MediaCom who fixed the loose wire on my house two weeks ago). Those would be local access channels and the like, but the majority of stations will go digital.

I expressed to MediaCom that when I had digital (satellite) t.v. in Florida, we lost the signal every time there was cloud cover or rain, and expressed my dismay of going to a less reliable format. He assured me that the equipment they had would bypass this little issue. Then yesterday, as I was watching something, the whole picture broke up into little squares (just like it did in Florida) as it started raining. So much for reliability.

 

[GRiM]

Is there more to this, do you think?

In Sweden and Norway we have similar agenda, they are about to shut down the analog-system. Approximately the same date too, 2009.
Could be that there are just not enough of feq-bandwidth for all the channels, but Im sure its something sinister too, but I don't know - I just assume its sinister and might get surprised if its not. :)

 

[mudrabbit]

Analog keeps working even in clouded skies and in rain. Digital is a bit more touchy, and the picture turns to a bunch of mismatched little squares when there's cloud cover or rain. I would imagine that if they wanted to black out a certain broadcast, it would be much easier to do if we were all on digital. I also wonder what the responsibility of the FCC (US Federal Communication Commission) would be over digital broadcasts. Would it be the same?

 

[Telperion]

There definitely is something fishy about this...but those living along the Texas-Mexico border will get a reprieve for about five years. I heard it about this today while listening to Harry Shearer.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0082/t.11340.html

“Brownsville, Texas, is the most heavily dependent on terrestrial transmissions, percentage-wise, of all U.S. TV markets, based on data from Nielsen,” said Craig Brush, president and general manager of PBS station KCOS (Channel 13), in El Paso, Texas. “My own market ranks second to Brownsville, in terms of off-air reliance. The cause of this over-the-air reliance is economic; the incomes are lower here than in the rest of the United States.”

“We estimate that about 50 percent of our audience watch us over the air,” said Peter Hoekzuma, chief engineer of KVEO (Channel 23), the NBC affiliate in Brownsville. “We also estimate that about 60 percent of our residents is either Spanish-speaking or bilingual, so there is quite a viewership for Spanish-language TV here.”

The obvious concern is that Mexican TV stations will scoop Spanish-speaking U.S. viewers after Feb. 17, 2009, especially from U.S. Spanish-language broadcasters such as Univision or Telemundo. In an effort to head off this situation, in December 2007 Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) filed S.2507, the Digital Television Border Fix Act, in Congress. If passed, the legislation will allow the FCC to extend the DTV transition deadlines of U.S. stations within 50 miles of the Mexican border for up to five years, so that U.S. border residents will continue to have access to public safety broadcasts via U.S. analog TV signals.


“This legislation will ensure that Texans living along the border will not lose access to public safety communication messages sent through television stations,” Hutchison said.

Near the end of the article this REALLY caught my eye...

At press time, Jones didn’t know if XETV would maintain simultaneous analog and DTV feeds post-Feb. 17, 2009, or re-use its analog spectrum for other purposes.

ummm...what other "purposes" could the analogue spectrum be used for? And what uses will the analogue spectrum in the US be put to after 2/17/09? I'm sure they're not just going to dump all the analogue equipment in the scrap yard. Does anyone know what type of signal HAARP utilizes? :/

 

[clerck de bonk]

here in Finland it was 'sold' to us (we already have it since a year back)as more reliable and more technically advanced...
I would say it is less reliable and technically more screwed up... and they had years to fix the problems, it wasn't pushed on us overnight you see. The gist of it was "get a box or get on without a TV" and as it turns out some areas cant even get a decent signal... In Finland... the beloved land of Nokia where there is a mast in almost every backyard!

I have wondered why and why us, since we were the only country that had this(at that time) and it isn't better than analogue...

I wonder no more. There certainly is something fishy going on and we where the most perfect guineapigs.

 

[D69]

well , maybe there is something fishy about it all but ...
There should be considered other possibilities :

- analogue systems require less power
- everything in technology that is "fresh" is almost always worse that older (improved by experience) technology.

and against:

- digital technology gives more power to broadcasters
- gives power to trace people , someone who wants to have digital decoder , has to buy a decoding card ,which has number , and number can be traced. Notice: number is your name in this case. Simple as that.

 

[Mikey]

Here in Austria we switched over to digital broadcasting a year ago. Analog TV signals are now being turned off one after the other. Nearly every household bought new digital satellite receivers or digital converters for aerial antennas out of their own pocket. What amazed me was how silently everyone carried out the technical adjustments and took the additional financial expenses.

What's behind the move to digital format? More control and information over who watches what, who pays what, DRM (Digital Rights Management), etc. Of course they say that it's all about high quality. But IMO a step towards total control.

 

[mamadrama]

Does anyone know what type of signal HAARP utilizes?

The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is an investigation project to "understand, simulate and control ionospheric processes that might alter the performance of communication and surveillance systems." Started in 1993, the project is proposed to last for a period of twenty years. The project is jointly funded by the United States Air Force, the Navy, the University of Alaska and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The system was designed and built by Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI) and since 2003, by BAE Systems Inc.

HAARP can transmit between 2.8 and 10 MHz. This frequency range lies above the AM radio broadcast band and well below Citizens' Band frequency allocations. The HAARP is only licensed to transmit in certain segments of this frequency range, however. When the IRI is transmitting, the bandwidth of the transmitted signal is 100 kHz or less. The IRI can transmit continuously (CW) or pulses as short as 100 microseconds (µs

Frequencies(Sorry this didn't copy in same table format as wikipedia. Click here if you want to see it in it's original and easier to read format)
Name Symbol Frequency Wavelength Applications
Extremely low frequency ELF a 3 to 30 Hz k 10,000 km to 100,000 km directly audible when converted to sound, communication with submarines
Super low frequency SLF b 30 to 300 Hz j 1,000 km to 10,000 km directly audible when converted to sound, AC power grids (50 hertz and 60 hertz)
Ultra low frequency ULF c 300 to 3000 Hz i 100 km to 1,000 km directly audible when converted to sound, communication with mines
Very low frequency VLF d 3 to 30 kHz h 10 km to 100 km directly audible when converted to sound (below ca. 18-20 kHz; or "ultrasound" 20-30+ kHz)
Low frequency LF e 30 to 300 kHz g 1 km to 10 km international broadcasting, navigational beacons, lowFER
Medium frequency MF f 300 to 3000 kHz f 10 m to 1 km navigational beacons, AM broadcasting, maritime and aviation communication
High frequency HF g 3 to 30 MHz e 10 m to 100 m shortwave, amateur radio, citizens' band radio
Very high frequency VHF h 30 to 300 MHz d 1 m to 10 m FM broadcasting, broadcast television, aviation, GPR
Ultra high frequency UHF i 300 to 3000 MHz c 10 cm to 100 cm broadcast television, mobile telephones, wireless networking, remote keyless entry for automobiles, microwave ovens, GPR
Super high frequency SHF j 3 to 30 GHz b 1 cm to 10 cm wireless networking, satellite links, microwave links, Satellite television, door openers.
Extremely high frequency EHF k 30 to 300 GHz a 1 mm to 10 mm microwave data links, radio astronomy, remote sensing, advanced weapons systems, advanced security scanning

So it seems that HAARP does utilize this band (or at least close to this band), fwiw.

 

[Tigersoap]

What's behind the move to digital format? More control and information over who watches what, who pays what, DRM (Digital Rights Management), etc. Of course they say that it's all about high quality. But IMO a step towards total control.

Some answers may be found here :

_http://w2.eff.org/IP/DVB/dvb_briefing_paper.php

Enforcing severe home recording and copying limitations. CPCM will allow content providers to apply copy restriction labels to broadcast streams. For example, a program could be marked as "Copy Never." In turn, your DVRs and others devices receiving the signal will have to obey and forbid copying even for home use. A content provider could opt to allow recording but still enforce a multitude of restrictions on copying to other devices.

Imposing controls on where you watch a program. Even if you are given permission to move a program to your laptop or other portable devices, "geography controls" may kick in and stop playback once you leave home or a particular locale. These restrictions may be enforced using tamper-proof GPS receivers built in to your devices. CPCM can also be used to block sending video to yourself over your own home network or the Internet, among other things.

Dictating how you get to share shows with your own family. CPCM can be used to examine, for instance, the frequency with which devices are connected to a personal network and determine whether your sharing is within an "Authorized Domain" Absurdly, DVB spent significant time arguing over what happens to a digital video in case of a divorce!

Breaking compatibility with your devices. You may have already invested in new high definition displays and receivers that rely on component analog connections or unrestricted digital outputs, but CPCM will allow the studios to arbitrarily block these connections. In other words, individual copyright holders can turn your gadgets into oversized paperweights. CPCM- restricted media will also be able to carry blacklists and revoke compatibility with particular devices that don't enforce Hollywood's restrictions sufficiently.

As far as I can say, it is pushed quite strongly in Belgium, there are many different packages with digital recorder included.
What always bothered me with digital TV is the fact that you can't record on tape/cd and keep it somewhere when you want to watch it again (Unless you can and I did not know.)

 

[JonnyRadar]

sounds like more and more reasons to kill your television...

 

[mudrabbit]

What always bothered me with digital TV is the fact that you can't record on tape/cd and keep it somewhere when you want to watch it again (Unless you can and I did not know.)

I wonder how this will work with TIVO? In this country, many companies are up in arms over the ability to record a show because of the ability to skip commercials once it was on tape. This has been a big issue here since VCR's started coming out. Used to be that you could record your show and then fast forward through the commercials. This is what I did in the 80's and 90's because of working so many hours. I would record two shows that got missed because I was at work, then I could fast forward through the commercials. I also learned that in 1989, a one-hour show consisted of roughly 45 minutes of real show, and 15 of advertisements.

When I checked this in 2002, it was down to about 35 minutes of real show, and the rest of the hour was advertisements. Now it seems that there's more commercial time in a one-hour show than real show.

 

[rise]

sounds like more and more reasons to kill your television...

Yea no joke, the only thing I would use a TV for would be movies, but why do that when I can watch them on my computer? hrm... Besides if I was going to watch any movies with friends they are usually into buying a TV for themselves so it isn't like I really need one either way.

When I checked this in 2002, it was down to about 35 minutes of real show, and the rest of the hour was advertisements. Now it seems that there's more commercial time in a one-hour show than real show.

That doesn't surprise me at all and is just another good reason to toss your TV.

 

[noise]

I'd like to share a hypothesis.

Take an old fashion camera image, a photograph. It's not going to be such and such mega pixel's, it is a photo and there seems to be a difference. If I understand mega pixel's (MP) correctly for example a 1 MP image there are 1 million pixels. A camera photograph can be enlarged and enlarged and enlarged and it never begins to pixelate. I "imagine a few purposes."

In a 'digital' video I can use certain pixels to program things into your brain that only your subconscious can pick up. In an analog device it is not possible all it does is interlace lines of images at 30 flashes per second on one line and 30 on the other (a fake 60 frames per second). Back to the digital device to a degree each pixel is being programmed.

With for example Operating systems, Windows Vista will pixelate (start blotching the squares) an image faster than a windows XP based computer. I've experienced this in a apples to apples comparison. People who are more photo knowledgable can attest to some of this.

So in simple terms
A mega pixel based image is completely digital - Like a tube light that flashes compared to a natural light bulb.
An analog image of photograph (old style camera) is a still of an image that can be zoomed in and out of, and yes it will blurr cause the camera does not have everything in complete focus, but it does not pixelate.

It's almost like our natural reality is being coated with an artificial surface, IMO. If I wasn't able to get the expression off as clearly as is needed I'll subscribe here and try to help anyone glean some clarity from this hypothesis. Not as clear a writer as I intend to attain to be.

 

[GRiM]

When I checked this in 2002, it was down to about 35 minutes of real show, and the rest of the hour was advertisements. Now it seems that there's more commercial time in a one-hour show than real show.

Its still 35min, but if you subtract intro and outro there is even less "substance" in a product that didn't have much or any to begin with :P