Home › Forums › West Seattle Rants & Raves › RANT – New TV format
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 12, 2009 at 2:48 pm #591204
karenParticipantOK. I don’t care how they send out the signal. But I HATE the way the channels change with the new converter box. Click, wait, picture, click, wait, picture. It’s all fine if you know you want to go to a specific channel but I am a channel surfer. It is already making me crazy!! And my husband – a techno geek – just rolls his eyes and says that it’s normal and no one else cares. ARGGH!!
June 12, 2009 at 3:45 pm #669550
MargLMemberNo – I know how you feel! I experienced that when watching my sis-in-law’s TV that has a dish. The delay is disconcerting!
June 12, 2009 at 4:37 pm #669551
YardvarkMemberYup. Digital TV seems horribly slow and doesn’t offer any real advantage to me. I definitely don’t dig it.
Kinda seems like we sold off this great public asset of free analog (is that the right word?) TV without realizing what we were about to loose.
In my mind, TV progress would mean that the channels would load faster and that service would become free of charge.
But the way we’re doing it now is completely the opposite. So strange.
June 12, 2009 at 4:43 pm #669552
lazybeardParticipantHaving not really paid much attention to the transition, did the FCC come out and say that channels would change quicker? I would think that would be a function of the tuner.
One of the purposes of the transition is to free up the old frequencies that can now be re purposed for other uses or go up for auction (which is how the FCC typically sells frequencies to the public).
June 12, 2009 at 4:56 pm #669553
lazybeardParticipantAlso, did you follow the Rant rules and notifying someone with the FCC or the DTV tuner manufacture before posting?
June 12, 2009 at 5:27 pm #669554
karenParticipantNo, I suppose I didn’t follow the rules. I doubt that the FCC or Comcast cares. I did tell the Comcast guy that the delay was horrible but he just looked at me and said that’s how it is.
No, it was never said that it was faster but I really hate that I have no choice in the matter, before I could choose to not have a dish. Now, if I want to watch any TV this is it. (At least according to techno-husband)
And I know there are other things to do. I’ll probably get more use out of my Netflix now!
June 12, 2009 at 5:39 pm #669555
YardvarkMemberDoes anyone know how much the old frequencies are expected to fetch at auction verse the cost of giving out all these converter box coupons and putting on all the ads, classes, and promotions?
Are we even turning a profit on this?
June 12, 2009 at 5:53 pm #669556
lazybeardParticipantAccording to the FAQ provided on DTV.gov (http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html) the first Q&A is the following..
What Is the Public Benefit of the DTV Transition?
The switch to DTV will offer a host of important public benefits, to include:
* Freeing up parts of the broadcast spectrum for public safety communications (police/fire/rescue).
* Allowing some of the spectrum to be auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with more advanced wireless services (such as wireless broadband).
* Allowing stations to offer improved picture and surround sound (enhanced audio).
* Expanding programming choices for viewers. For example, a broadcaster will be able to offer multiple digital programs simultaneously (multicasting).
* Providing interactive video and data services that are not possible with analog technology.
The FCC has been trying to get Nextel (aka finally killing off the Nextel system and having everyone in Sprint) off of their frequencies because in certain areas their frequency bleeds onto emergency response systems.
No one will possibly “profit” from this except for the external tuner manufactures since the benefiting factor is emergency response systems.
Edit: After reading the 2nd bullet item again, sounds like the FCC will profit from at least a portion of it.
June 12, 2009 at 5:57 pm #669557
GenHillOneParticipantLOL, I noticed today that they’re really pushing the emergency information angle now. Feels like they’re just throwing different things against the wall to see what will stick.
June 12, 2009 at 6:48 pm #669558
YardvarkMemberThanks for all the info and research, lazybeard, but I’m still puzzled as to the benefit for me.
Cause to me it just seems like some powerful conservative Congressmen got lobbied by providers (and other fans of government shrinkage) to absent-mindedly sell off this long-held and very valuable public asset, or risk being labeled as someone who didn’t understand the new “system of tubes.”
I just don’t see any advantage to this. And I bet we actually end up loosing money on it due to all the expenses of transition, which would be a curious result for an item that was originally part of a Republican-sponsored “Deficit Reduction Act”.
We’ll see, I guess. The whole point was to turn a profit, so if we can’t turn a profit….I guess I’d deem the thing a failure.
And, most importantly, it takes too long to change the channels!
That said, if anyone has any idea of the numbers out there, please do share. Maybe I’m wrong. Thanks.
June 12, 2009 at 7:20 pm #669559
lazybeardParticipantYardvark,
I don’t understand why you consider not turning a profit on a project deems it unsuccessful. Does this apply to roads projects where new road is created or maintained? This has been a project in-work since at least 2000.
Do you not consider that emergency response personal may benefit from this? I understand that able to use the additional bandwidth they may require to purchase new hardware or upgrade existing components, but the end result is positive.
June 12, 2009 at 7:57 pm #669560
cjboffoliParticipantWasn’t it Google that won the auction for the new spectrum rights? The figure $800 million is bouncing around somewhere in my brain but I may be wrong.
If they are the buyers I’m excited at what Google might do with the spectrum. They might just throw a wrench into the monopoly the telecoms have on wireless broadband by rolling out ad-supported FREE nationwide wi-fi. The situation is all potential at this point.
Man, there are some diehard analog TV fans here on our fair peninsula! I’m surprised I haven’t seen the mantra: “They can take my analog TV remote when they pry it from my cold, dead hand!”
:-)
June 12, 2009 at 8:39 pm #669561
YardvarkMemberLooks like there might actually be a profit:
“The government reaped $19.6 billion last year by selling some of the freed-up frequencies, with AT&T and Verizon Wireless the biggest buyers.”
The projected cost of the converter boxes is now at 3.5 billion. The ads must cost a good penny, but at least it seems like there might be a penny in it.
We’ll see.
June 12, 2009 at 9:09 pm #669562
CMParticipantThe whole thing just kind of rubs me the wrong way anyway, digital or not. Remember when cable first became available? The reasoning behind convincing people to pay for it instead of the free broadcast TV was that you wouldn’t have to watch commercials on cable.
My how things seem to have changed…..
June 12, 2009 at 11:30 pm #669563
HMC RichParticipantMaybe this information can help. The change from Analog to Digital will give the over the air broadcasters more flexibility if they choose to use it. Instead of one channel they can broadcast 3 or 4. Most of them will choose to broadcast one High Definition channel and two or three Standard Definition channels. If you like KCTS you will get 3 to 4 different options to watch their programming.
The reason it takes longer to channel surf the digital channels is probably due to the transmitting and receiving the digital stream. The station encodes (packages) the signal and sends it out in 1’s and 0’s just like computers read information. The receiver decodes (unpackages) the stream and converts it to a viewable Digital picture on your screen. HDTV needs heavy compression to send the signal any distance. Any digital signal will get compressed. It takes the processing equipment more time to unpack the signal so that you can watch it. Sometimes if not done correctly, the audio will be ahead of the video. If the stream is embedded then it should match up.
The digital channels will give you a better picture eventually. Right now people who have HD tv’s can see the resolution difference between HIGH DEF channels and STANDARD DEFINITION channels. The High Definition channels look better because they have more lines of resolution. Your analog tv looks good with 480 lines of resolution. Your HD tv looks bad with 480 lines of resolution. It will look good to great with 720p (for sports) and 1080i for other programming.
HD TV’s aspect ratio works better with film. The sides won’t be cut off or the picture squished to fit the screen.
Basically this change is forcing the television stations to upgrade their pictures that they send out. It has been expensive. Down the road most television stations will have most High Definition content but the older TV shows were shot in a 4×3 aspect ratio and will have borders on the left and right side or they will look like the TNT channel which essentially stretches the picture. For people who do not get an HD compatible (digital) television, they will see either letterbox programming from HD or the picture will be center cut and the picture on each side is cut off to keep the aspect ratio proper.
To be honest the broadcaster has an opportunity to partner with other media and broadcast a variety of different contents. For example, KIRO or KOMO could have their news on 24/7 if they so chose to do so. They could partner with the Seattle Times or radio stations to broadcast. They could even partner somehow with the West Seattle Blog and even post our posts. Granted, computer resolution is better on computer instead of a TV, but the possibilities are endless (if they want to spend the extra money to program them as such).
For now you see weather on one of KING’s alternate channels and you see old syndicated shows on KIRO. If programmed correctly the broadcast channels could give Cable and Satellite a little run for their money locally since they can offer more local programming which the Cable and Satellite provider cannot. Comcast does carry some of the alternate channels but Dish and Directv can only carry the primary channel.
Since I have Directv at the moment and do not utilize an antenna, I cannot tell you how many digital channels there are in total but you will have more to chose from.
Now, I need to see how the DTV transition was started. I don’t remember. I want to see if it was the evil Republicans “fault” as stated above or if it is just another rant by a bitter leftist progressive trying to color the truth. (Just having fun!!!)
What I can say is that the broadcasters were faced with an unfunded mandate and it was expensive for the stations to implement. The consumer did get the opportunity to get converter boxes. In television, digital technological advancements have pared the work force down. Live Sports (my area) is different. We still need “boots on the ground” but even we are going through changes. Just like manufacturing sectors, technology is replacing people but also spawning different jobs with the changes.
As technology increases so will the processing of signals. As of Friday, channel surfing will take longer. If you can afford it, get a DVR or a Tivo and record what you want and watch it whenever you want.
Finally, if you have Comcast, Directv or Dish, you shouldn’t have to worry about the transition. You are already getting digital channels. The box is converting them for you.
June 12, 2009 at 11:50 pm #669564
lazybeardParticipantHMC Rich,
Thank you for the education. What do you do in television if you don’t mind me asking?
June 12, 2009 at 11:59 pm #669565
maplesyrupParticipantI’m sorry but more than 90% of the stuff on TV is crap. Why would you want to surf in it?
June 13, 2009 at 1:08 am #669566
HMC RichParticipantLazybeard. I pretend to be a television engineer at a non-broadcast station. In actuality I am a video production person at a local Regional Sports Network who has worked in a variety of different video positions for the past two decades. Fortunately, mostly in sports. For now I am working in the Engineering department because I am still growing and learning in that position (and they haven’t dismissed me yet). I am not a bench tech. I do not have the background for that. I am more of the little bit of knowledge in a lot of areas (which gets me in trouble too often!) Even when I work a Mariners game I do not “watch” it. Usually something isn’t working quite right or something needs to be improved. I like it.
Maplesyrup is right but it pays the bills.
June 13, 2009 at 1:34 am #669567
lazybeardParticipantI appreciate the work you do. I’m a regular viewer of your employer’s product.
June 13, 2009 at 1:53 am #669568
jamminjMemberGuess many need to find a new way to watch tv.
TIVO/DVR: watch what you want when you want. I don’t even know when my shows are regularly scheduled. turn on my dvr and bam… all my favorite shows there, AND I can FF thru the commercials.
HD: my God, have you watched the Seahawks on a sunday in all its glorious HD!!! simply amazing. I think whoever started the HD push was a sports fan. No better way to watch any tv.
channel surfing: use the guide, no pauses, skip multiple channels at a time, get upcoming shows as well.
I know not everyone can enjoy the new technology, but I for one will be glad when the last SD channels disappear.
Now if we only get rid of ALL the shopping channels!!!
June 13, 2009 at 3:02 am #669569
alki_2008ParticipantJust finished watching Knight Rider on the RTN channel (7.2)…having clearer/more “free” channels to flip through has been fine.
I don’t pay for TV (cable, dish, etc)…so my HD television was under-utilized before the digital channels were broadcast. I had been getting the analog and digital channels before today with just a set of rabbit-ears, and was worried what I’d end up with today (no DTV Converter box)…but I’m still getting all the same digital channels, plus whatever 4.2 is. Yay!
As a note…the channel changing had been ‘slow’ even before the digital transition, because of the HD television. Seems that even without the digital switchover, then the pause would be due to the TV. If that’s what it takes to get HD clarity, then so be it. Is it even worth it to complain about a second of waiting to get free TV? Watching sports on analog is a blur compared to watching it on HD!
HMC Rich – from what I found, it looks like the transition was initiated in 1996/1997…so maybe it’s not a conservative conspiracy after all. ;-)
June 13, 2009 at 4:16 am #669570
miwsParticipantalki_2008, Channel 4.2 is “This” Network.
They show “classic” movies, though I think I’ve seen some from as recently as 2002. I really enjoy having these extra bonus channels on my nearly 10 year old TV, with the rabbit ears and DTV box, not to mention the great picture!
Mike
June 14, 2009 at 6:41 am #669571
DMParticipantWe’re still trying to figure out how to make the converter box work with our existing set up, consistently. We dealt with it late and it’s not THAT big a deal. It’s only TV. We usually only watch channel 9 and DVDs. Now channel 9 comes in sometimes and then brakes up with the converter.
I’m irritated at the moment. Wondering if there really will be any long term benefit to the conversion, also wondering what the back lash will be. I guess time will tell. But at the moment I’m thinking we may be done watching anything on TV.
June 14, 2009 at 3:24 pm #669572
rockhillsMemberI have been thrilled these past few months with the improvement in my (old) TV’s picture quality following the installation of my converter box. I’m also loving RTN–to the point where I barely use my Netflix account any more. After reading this thread I turned on the TV this morning for the first time since Fri AM and did have to re-scan, which means I’ll have to go through and cut out a bunch of those 20-51 channels again. Not a huge deal–with the converter box my (interesting) free channel options almost doubled, for the one-time price of one month of basic cable.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.