Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I see this switch to digita as a big rip off against the American consumer. How do you feel?
Digital dilema
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
Demwit
uscitizen alternate login
If you depend on over the air TV and live in a fringe reception area it is a definate ripoff.
Of course doing away with VHS tapes can also be considered a ripoff.
Much of the profits of our techno industries depends on changing formats and planned quick obsolesence.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
What?
Good Luck
New member
I think it was an idea spawned by the pay TV services (cable, satellite) to scare people into subscribing who would otherwise have stayed with their antenna. I would be willing to bet (though the numbers are not in - and quite likely never will be) that at least 30%, if not over half of those using antennas subscribed to pay services to avoid "loss of service."
I am not one of them.
As far as VHS tapes go, they wear out anyway (as do the players), so converting to DVD is not a huge item of concern for myself.
I am not one of them.
As far as VHS tapes go, they wear out anyway (as do the players), so converting to DVD is not a huge item of concern for myself.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Agreed. Those state-of-the-art TV's that fill up your local PC Richards weren't flying off the shelves....at least in my area and several towns over in suburbia, New York. And cable sales weren't hitting the projected marks either. Now I can speak for the rest of the State, let alone the rest of the country, but I bet that was the case also.
Thing is with digital....if your aerial is off by a milimeter, you lose sound and your picture, period. At least with analog, you could get at least somewhat of a decent picture and such even with bad location reception.
I guess I can use to it, because I'm not going to add another monthly bill with this economy...but it's not the market improvement all around like advertised.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You know, channels that I use to have to dance with the aerial for good reception are a real pain now to get.....and stations that use to be a solid lock I have to "re-scan" more than the recommended times. At least with analog, you could deal with....with digital you lose video and audio on hair trigger.
So now I've paid $40 for the box and $40 for a new, better aerial. That could an unexpected bill for families with more than one TV in the house. I don't see this as an improvement like DVD over VHS....but I'll just have to deal with it.
Good Luck
New member
The way I figure it, for the cost of a month's cable/satellite I can BUY a season of DVDs for almost any series I really have an interest for. Or, I can rent 20 new release DVD movies for the cost of one month pay TV, or 40 old releases - more if one considers you need to add premium channels to get new release movies.Agreed. Those state-of-the-art TV's that fill up your local PC Richards weren't flying off the shelves....at least in my area and several towns over in suburbia, New York. And cable sales weren't hitting the projected marks either. Now I can speak for the rest of the State, let alone the rest of the country, but I bet that was the case also.
Thing is with digital....if your aerial is off by a milimeter, you lose sound and your picture, period. At least with analog, you could get at least somewhat of a decent picture and such even with bad location reception.
I guess I can use to it, because I'm not going to add another monthly bill with this economy...but it's not the market improvement all around like advertised.
Shit, if I watched that much TV I'd look like the Stay Puffed man.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Agreed. Those state-of-the-art TV's that fill up your local PC Richards weren't flying off the shelves....at least in my area and several towns over in suburbia, New York. And cable sales weren't hitting the projected marks either. Now I can speak for the rest of the State, let alone the rest of the country, but I bet that was the case also.
Thing is with digital....if your aerial is off by a milimeter, you lose sound and your picture, period. At least with analog, you could get at least somewhat of a decent picture and such even with bad location reception.
I guess I can use to it, because I'm not going to add another monthly bill with this economy...but it's not the market improvement all around like advertised.
That's not exactly true. My analog channels would often degrade to useless noise for long periods of time. It's true that if you can't get reception in digital it blanks out, but, in my experience, the signal has been usable much more often than analog was. And analog was ALWAYS heavily degraded - digital is cable quality, and in prime time they usually even broadcast in HDTV, which looks beautiful on our screen.
I fully support the digital switchover. Standards have to change with the times. The government has a role in promoting this.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Yeah. The FCC would've had to sacrifice a large portion of a very useful bandwidth range, that otherwise would've been used efficiently, if they wanted to accommodate both digital and analog. Digital was probably only adopted with the assumption that analog would be faded out.
The future. It happens. Get over it.
The future. It happens. Get over it.
Good Luck
New member
And why does emergency services all of a sudden need this extra bandwidth? It's not like there are so many emergency services in a given area they are talking over one another on the emergency bandwidths already reserved. In fact, 90% of the emergency bandwidth already available goes unused even in areas like NYC.
Additionally, the technology that allows a digital video signal to use a compressed bandwidth for the same data transmission rates can be equally applied to emergency service bandwidths. The military is already experimenting with using digital signal compression to zip-squeal field reports, reducing enemy capability to triangulate our forward assets. Applying digital technology to emergency service communications would effectively increase their current (that is, prior to June 12) bandwidth capabilities by a factor of 5 or more. That would mean they could be ignoring 98% of their current bandwidth, rather than just 90%.
So why focus on private bandwidth usage, instead of the bandwidth already set aside for government when application of digital signal technology would give them what they (claim to) want? There is no practical reason.
Emergency services needs is a lame excuse at best. (More like an outright lie designed to be swallowed whole by a gullible public.)
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Ain't it the truth! From what I hear from folks who have cable, they complain that either nothings on worth watching or that movies are being censored! And with these "package" deals, you're stuck with a load of crap as opposed to what you really want.
I'll just have to muddle through, I guess.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Well, that is indeed YOUR experience. I've never experienced degradation to useless noise for all the major stations used on VHF in 45 years. Mind you, it wasn't perfect, but the occasional bad reception was the exception and not the rule. True black outs were the result of mechanical problems at the source of the broadcast. And we NEVER lost audio unless there was a black out at the source.
Since this switch over, I've had to upgrade my plain aerial to an electrically bosted one, and switching channels has become either a fishing expedition or a crap shoot (an 90% INCREASED flaw from analog).
Digital is great when it works, but as it stands now for MANY TV users like me, it sucks...and here's the rub. It wasn't necessary....it was a ploy to raise revenue courtesy of Slick Willy. He was going to sell the analog space to various factions in the military. Although his plan didn't take, it was never taken off the drawing board, and now we're stuck with it. What I don't understand is why would the military (or anyone) be interested in buying an "inferior" bandwith quality? Wouldn't that be a security risk?