For every question, there's an answer -- and you'll find it here!


Printer-friendly copy
Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #1023
View in linear mode

Subject: "Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV." Previous topic | Next topic
johnrsellersTue Oct-08-02 09:55 AM
Charter member
754 posts
Click to send email to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV."


  

          

Since the FCC is starting to push digital TV, I'm wondering how this will affect those of us that already have digital cable or satellite TV.

Any thoughts?

Quotes of the Day

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV.
Oct 09th 2002
1
RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV.
Oct 09th 2002
2
RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV.
Oct 09th 2002
3
      RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV.
Oct 09th 2002
4
      RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV.
Oct 09th 2002
5
      RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV.
Oct 10th 2002
6
           RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV.
May 22nd 2003
7

ShellyWed Oct-09-02 05:14 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#1. "RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV."
In response to johnrsellers (Reply # 0)


  

          

If you have an analog TV the image you receive is analog, not digital. Digital images from satellite or cable are converted to analog by a receiver or set top converter before you can use them.

The true HDTV ready sets can interface directly with a digital transmission and will not suffer the loss in picture detail caused by digital to analog conversion. they will also receive broadcasts on a completely different set of channel frequencies, and all signal processing is in the digital domain.

When analog broadcasting is phased out in the next several years, you will need to either purchase new digital receivers or buy a set top converter to have your old sets receive the programs.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

doctormidnightWed Oct-09-02 06:11 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#2. "RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV."
In response to johnrsellers (Reply # 0)


  

          

I used to have digital cable at my house, I found it to be quite annoying and not even close to worth the price. Took forever to change channels, constant outages and equipment problems, and I thought that the picture quality was actually worse than standard cable.

Satellite TV offers a pretty good mix of decent picture quality (although prone to distortion during adverse weather conditions) and the number of channels.

If my TV set died right this second and I could afford to replace it, I would probably get a small standard TV, and wait until about 2004/2005 and buy a nice HDTV.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
81 NewbeeWed Oct-09-02 09:34 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#3. "RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV."
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 2)


  

          

I can't understand why the goverment is pushing HDTV.When color took over from B&W ,It was competetion and demand that killed the market for black and white sets AND the transmission was compatable.If enough people want HDTV the market will take care of sales and stations will convert to HDTV signals.Let the free market set the pace not the bureaucrats with our tax money!I have seen it and it has a great picture but I resent the tax and spend guys edicting it.
I remember the attempt of the same guys edicting our going to metric.I hope they have the same success with this ..
The road to hell is paved with good intentions... }>

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
doctormidnightWed Oct-09-02 09:58 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#4. "RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV."
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 3)


  

          

The government 0wnz the analog frequencies, so they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want with it. Part of the reason for going to HDTV is that the goverment would like to use the ananlog frequencies for other uses (beaming advertising straight into my anus, as an example). What were you saying about good intentions?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
Carl DWed Oct-09-02 10:03 AM
Member since Oct 03rd 2002
1241 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#5. "RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV."
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 3)


          

I've been wondering for some time why there's a big push to go digital, here in Australia we've had "standard" digital TV for nearly 2 years and from what I've seen so far not too many people are interested or probably even aware of the situation.

I think the average person doesn't really care what the picture quality is like as long as they can see their favorite shows and just looking around and seeing all the ancient dilapidated TV antennas (antennae?) on top of people's houses this would seem to be the case.

Also, despite all the advertising hype, standard digital TV doesn't look much different to the analog TV we've been watching for years, of course we in Australia have the PAL analog color system which is in many ways superior to the NTSC system used by the United States and other countries.

HDTV is far superior but the cost is prohibitive for the majority of people at this stage.

Of course the more cynical amongst us could be forgiven for thinking the push to go digital has more to do with the large amounts of money to be made by governments selling off the area of the frequency spectrum currently used by the analog stations - I've heard a figure of 29 billion pounds for the UK alone!

Carl

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
ShellyThu Oct-10-02 04:44 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#6. "RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV."
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 3)


  

          

"I can't understand why the government is pushing HDTV.When color took over from B&W ,It was competition and demand that killed the market for black and white sets AND the transmission was compatible."

Well, I'm afraid you got that backassward! A little history...

When color tv came on the scene, The FCC determined from among several competing proposals what the transmission system would be in the United States and the rest of the world went along with it. The system selected was essentially the system developed by RCA, with some minor changes suggested by other companies. This resulted in a single standard that everyone had to use. NBC, owned by RCA at that time began color broadcasts almost immediately, while CBS, who had proposed a different system, refused for years to broadcast in color. NBC lost a huge amount of money because with CBS holding out, NBC could not charge advertisers a premium for airing commercials in color.

When it came to HDTV the FCC refused to take any position and allowed the television industry to decide what the system design would be. This resulted in a ten year delay in any standards being set, and in the end the "free market" set no standards at all. the essentially said let everyone do what they want to. As a result we have a system that allows both progressive scan, and interlaced scan. Uses both square pixels, like a computer monitor, and round pixels like our present TV system, allows broadcasts in HDTV, standard definition TV, and a hybrid of the two called Enhanced Definition TV (EDTV), and both 1 and 4:3 aspect ratios.

Why all the confusion? Because the broadcasters don't want to broadcast HDTV, the can instead broadcast several standard definition channels in the bigger channel widths needed for one HDTV channel, and make more money. THe cable industry also does not wish to carry HDTV because they would not be able to fit hundreds of HDTV channels in the bandwidth they have available as they do with standard size channels. Less channels = less cable revenue.

The computer industry insisted upon progressive scan and square pixels so that HDTV receivers could be used to show computer generated images in native resolutions.

The movie industry insisted on 1 aspect ratio so that movies could be shown in a format close to the original film ratio.

As a result of all this free market lunacy, the TV manufacturers had to design and manufacture receivers that could automatically accommodate and switch as needed among all these different standards such as 480p, 720p, and 1080i. This made the sets more expensive to produce and sell. In the end, HDTV which would have been mass produced and marketed back in 1995, is still not here.

Oh yes, the reason for the new TV frequency spectrum (the new channels) is because television had to be moved to an unused region in the spectrum that had enough room to accommodate the greater channel widths required for HDTV broadcasts, otherwise there would have only been enough room for about ten channels in the old frequency band used by current TV broadcasting.

So all of our problems with HDTV were caused not by what government did, but by what it failed to do. Failed because it lacked the guts to make decisions. The FCC has been completely passive.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
81 NewbeeThu May-22-03 01:51 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#7. "RE: Digital TV vs. Digital Cable and Satellite TV."
In response to Shelly (Reply # 6)


  

          

Thanks for the lesson Shelly.Sounds like the VHS vs BETA.I'm always suspect when the guys in Washington DC put forth an agenda.I still bet they will screw things up.When they edict something you can expect the worse.Those same companies that you mention own those guys.I guess that the one who contributes the most $$ will set the standard for the rest.I wish someone like you would run for office.It would be better if someone who understood the problem could help edict the answer.
The road to hell is STILL paved with good intentions }>

81 Newbee

Attachment #1, (gif file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #1023 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.27
Copyright 1997-2003 DCScripts.com
Home
Links
About PCQandA
Link To Us
Support PCQandA
Privacy Policy
In Memoriam
Acceptable Use Policy

Have a question or problem regarding this forum? Check here for the answer.