DTV Funnies
- 5
- Add a Comment
It’s amazing how the selling of things progresses. Anything that is brought about over time, and involves great change for the masses is sold in several steps, with not all of the steps being the same size, or taken at the same pace. There can be some missteps along the way, which can be a cause of much concern and consternation.
Take the transition to digital television in the United States. The selling of this is a lesson in what not to do, but of course, it doesn’t matter, as for many things brought about by the government, the audience is captive, and has no choice in the matter.
A little over a year ago, we began being given a hint of the transition, with notices concerning when the cessation of analog television broadcasting would take place. The first notices began the hype of how digital television would be so much better that no one would ever want to watch analog television again; conversion would be religious in nature, immediate and total.
So started the parade of lies told about the dubious benefits of digital television.
In the beginning, the advertisements stated that all things television would be in digital format after 17 February 2009. Later, someone must have insisted on complete disclosure, as a few of the commercials let it slip that many stations operating at ‘low-power’, would continue to function in the normal manner, still viewable on your grandmother’s 1980’s vintage Sony television. Try as I might, I can find nothing describing the threshold of ‘low-power’ but it does exist. My guess would be that this will include lots of junior college affiliate stations, and those located away from major metropolitan areas.
The next area of departure from truth came when I purchased a DTV converter, and found that many stations that were easily visible to most all viewers’ satisfaction using the analog tuner of my television were, with the change to digital tuning, either full of digital artifacts, including pixellation and audio stutter, or completely unavailable. The problem of the ‘explanation for simpletons’, that digital television either works or it doesn’t, is also so completely deceptive as to defy the Homer Simpson test (Doh!).
Only after digging around does one find that multipath, an industry name for signals reaching the antenna from different directions, some having travelled further and been reflected, causing the minor annoyance of ‘ghosting’ on an analog television receiver, can completely remove the ability to see a digital signal. Also, on an analog signal, it is easy to change the orientation of the antenna to eliminate multipath distortion, as the changes to the picture are almost immediate. On a digitally tuned picture, because of the technique called ’sample and hold’ it is much more difficult to achieve the desired results, because sample and hold techniques make real-time changes impossible. This means that an analog picture, from a UHF station (so that we’re comparing apples to apples, instead of comparing a VHF analog station versus its UHF DTV counterpart, because the more knowledgeable will know that UHF and VHF signal propagation at any point in time is very different) that has just the slightest hint of fuzziness - very watchable, will, without any other changes taking place, for me turn into a barely watchable mess of pixellation and audio gibberish, because, unlike the on-off lightswitch description that some idiots wish to purvey, that just is not the way digital television works.
At various times of the day, a digital signal of questionable strength and quality will come and go cyclically, at a rate that could turn maddening to someone wanting to view an entire show during the early morning to morning atmospheric transformation, or during the same transformation from late afternoon to early evening.
As we unravel the rest of the deception, it also becomes clear that better picture and sound was the least of the concerns of the government. The wresting of the airwaves from the public, to once again sell what should be essentially free was the real reason, as it allowed a small amount of the Bush administration’s accrued debt to be retired. (Anyone who disbelieves this should look at my older musings, as I spoke before of the actual changes being part of a Congressional bill called a Debt Reduction Act)
While it is true that, under the best conditions, DTV is very nice indeed, allowing extra (sub) channels of information, the signal quality is not, as was promised, of less importance, it is of much greater importance, sometimes removing the ability to watch entirely, though quantity of signal is still high.
The [unwashed] public reaction to this should be quite interesting, sometime around the week of February 18-26 2009!
5 Comments
Jeff Atkinson
October 7th, 2008
at 10:00am
I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.
leftystrat
October 9th, 2008
at 8:35pm
Oh great. I really needed this information :)
We have a dish so we’re not too affected.
Another national treasure sold out from under us.
Aren’t the digital antennas directional? That should put the ghosting down for the most part. Sample and Hold is a pretty cool audio effect when used on purpose.
the oracle
October 9th, 2008
at 9:09pm
leftystrat, good to hear from you.
There is nothing that makes a certain antena “digital”. The sole difference for many of the antennas marked ‘digital-ready’ is that they are weighted (more elements devoted to) for the UHF spectrum, as the VHF lower spectrum - channels 2-6 - will be gone, having been usurped by the government, and few stations will be using the upper VHF channels - 7-13. Most stations will be allocated into the area which is currently UHF channels 14-51 - channels 52-69 are also being taken by the government. The upper UHF channels will be what (primarily) the cell phone carriers will be absorbing.
The antennas with front-to-back and high front-to-side ratios will do the best, but are being sold at very high prices, more than the large VHF antennas now - strange, since the total cost of a UHF antenna is lower, due to smaller elements and correspondingly less wind-load, and therefore, smaller booms and supports. S&H takes the signal out of real-time, and makes adjusting for multipath reduction much more dificult.
wm
October 23rd, 2008
at 8:02pm
We, citizens of Ocotillo, California, are about to lose our TV signal due to the DTV changeover. The DTV web site calls us the signal fringe folks-who will lose over the air signals and not be able to receive the replacement digital signal (the digital signal will not carry horizontally to fringe areas as does the over the air signal). Our entire community will be placed in eminent danger if this conversion is allowed to happen.
One third of community was washed away in a flood in the late 60s. (we received no outside aid and the flooded area remains the same ). Our ONLY access to weather and National weather warnings are from CBS and NBC in Yuma Arizona-both of which, offer us a good over the air picture but no digital picture. We are left with Fox,located in El Centro, which we receive via digital signal but they offer NO local news.
The government has left us out before. No one required Communication giants to extend their offerings to rural folks, hence we have NO high speed internet. We have NO Time Warner cable etc. Now this government is telling us on the DTV website that the “majority” will receive better picture and sound with this conversion. Does this justify endangering our lives?
Our only digital reception staion Ch9-Fox of El Centro, Ca., has split the high definition signal 3 ways so that they are no longer high definition but a mess- characterized by large pixels and a glassed-over appearance on a par with a VHS tape running at slow speed. To insult us even further they are broadcasting in a foreign language aimed at a foreign country on 9-3. The FCC in tolerating this behavior is acting irresponsibly as the protector of our air waves!
The DTV propaganda is more govenment lies pushed at the people without a debate or hearing on the issues.
We have already suffered enough! My “digital” tv cost me $1500-which was not digital so I had to buy the conversion box plus the computer conversion kit plus hours spent writing DTV (who does not respond to our e-mails over this issue) plus $125 for antenna and $60 for mast.
As the owners, we feel we have a constitutional right to these air waves, as they belong to we citizens-all of us not just a majority. No citizen left behind should and must be the policy!
the oracle
October 23rd, 2008
at 10:40pm
wm, not quite sure where Ocotillo is, I’m going to have too look that up after I close here - Sorry, for your inconvenience, I certainly feel for you, as it is truly maddening.
The FCC hasn’t been an effective government entity since the early 80’s, as I remember having a neighbor in 1997 who had a bad CB rig, with a linear amplifier designed for 10M amateur operation, and not enough skills to tune it properly.
He would wipe out all channels on the neighborhood televisions, whether hooked up to terrestrial antennas, cable, or satellite antennas - the signal was that powerful and dirty.
After nearly coming to blows with the guy, I called the FCC, whose closest office is in Cerritos (I live in Yucaipa) and was told that the only way that the FCC would interfere is if there was a heart-lung machine being interfered with - otherwise, no help.
This is certainly a far cry from the early 70s, when I was a teenager, and had worried about operating my ham gear outside the law - I personally knew others who had been fined severely for operating at 2M at full power, yet only posessing a Novice class license.
It seems that the government is more and more ineffectual, yet wants to be continuously paid more for less - typical.
Thanks for the comment.