Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Difference between DTV and Digital TV

Tags:
  • HDTV
  • Digital TV
  • TV
  • Home Theatre
Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 11:17:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I've been reading on www.hdtvpub.com that DTV should not be confused with
Digital TV, but I can't find exactly why. Could someone please clear this up
for me? Thanks.

Bruce

More about : difference dtv digital

Anonymous
August 3, 2004 4:27:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote in message
news:9vednetirtH3A5LcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> I've been reading on www.hdtvpub.com that DTV should not be confused with
> Digital TV, but I can't find exactly why. Could someone please clear this
up
> for me? Thanks.

I don't think there is any confusion.

DTV is sometimes used as a shorthand for DirecTV, the satellite provider.
While it is using a digital stream to send video and audio, it has nothing
to do with the Digital TV standards. It should be obvious from the context.

DTV usually means Digital TV, as defined by the ATSC (Advanced Television
Systems Committee). www.atsc.org is their web. They created the standards
for the 18 different digital television formats:
http://support.gateway.com/s/CsmrEltrncs/DigitalTV/Shar...

If you could quote where it says there is a difference, I could respond to
that specifically.

Brad Houser
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 9:06:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Brad Houser wrote:
>> "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote in message
>> news:9vednetirtH3A5LcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
>>> I've been reading on www.hdtvpub.com that DTV should not be
>>> confused with Digital TV, but I can't find exactly why. Could
>>> someone please clear this up for me? Thanks.
>>
>> I don't think there is any confusion.
>>
>> DTV is sometimes used as a shorthand for DirecTV, the satellite
>> provider. While it is using a digital stream to send video and
>> audio, it has nothing to do with the Digital TV standards. It should
>> be obvious from the context.
>>
>> DTV usually means Digital TV, as defined by the ATSC (Advanced
>> Television Systems Committee). www.atsc.org is their web. They
>> created the standards for the 18 different digital television
>> formats:
>>
http://support.gateway.com/s/CsmrEltrncs/DigitalTV/Shar...
>>
>> If you could quote where it says there is a difference, I could
>> respond to that specifically.
>>
>> Brad Houser

Brad,

I did mis-speak: while HDTVPub.com does use "DTV" to mean Digital TV, the
exact quote is:

"...please remember that digital cable is not DTV..."
(http://www.hdtvpub.com/reception/dtvcablecompany.cfm)

So if my cable company (Adelphia) is offering digital cable reception, that
only refers to the way it is piped in, but the format remains the same? In
other words, on an HDTV set with the proper STB, would digital cable
reception look any different that regular analog? I know it wouldn't be or
look like high def, but would there be any inherent benefit in upgrading my
service to a digital package if I didn't particularly care for the channel
lineup (Adelphia will rent me the STB for $9.95/mo in order to receive local
station in high def, without having to do the entire upgrade to digital
cable)?

My understanding is that digital cable allows the cable company to increase
the bandwidth and broadcast more channels with crisper audio, but that's
about it. Is this correct?

Bruce
Related resources
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 9:22:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote in
news:9vednetirtH3A5LcRVn-pg@giganews.com:

> I've been reading on www.hdtvpub.com that DTV should not be confused
> with Digital TV, but I can't find exactly why. Could someone please
> clear this up for me? Thanks.

Well there's the satellite company called DTV (which broadcasts digital
signals, some of which are picked up from digital sources, others from
analog) and there's digital TV, which is an on-the-air method of
broadcasting TV content that is replacing analog TV signals (NTSC in the
USA and Canada).

Digital television transmissions can squeeze about four channels of
standard definition TV into a single VHF or UHF channel or one high
definition channel. Digital TV also permits full surround-sound 5.1
channel audio to be sent with the pictures. With the right equipment a
whole lot of additional information can be included with the audio and
video. For example, you could watch a movie and choose either the main
audio feed or the director's comments!

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 11:31:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bruiser wrote:
>
> Brad Houser wrote:
> >> "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9vednetirtH3A5LcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> >>> I've been reading on www.hdtvpub.com that DTV should not be
> >>> confused with Digital TV, but I can't find exactly why. Could
> >>> someone please clear this up for me? Thanks.
> >>
> >> I don't think there is any confusion.
> >>
> >> DTV is sometimes used as a shorthand for DirecTV, the satellite
> >> provider. While it is using a digital stream to send video and
> >> audio, it has nothing to do with the Digital TV standards. It should
> >> be obvious from the context.
> >>
> >> DTV usually means Digital TV, as defined by the ATSC (Advanced
> >> Television Systems Committee). www.atsc.org is their web. They
> >> created the standards for the 18 different digital television
> >> formats:
> >>
> http://support.gateway.com/s/CsmrEltrncs/DigitalTV/Shar...
> >>
> >> If you could quote where it says there is a difference, I could
> >> respond to that specifically.
> >>
> >> Brad Houser
>
> Brad,
>
> I did mis-speak: while HDTVPub.com does use "DTV" to mean Digital TV, the
> exact quote is:
>
> "...please remember that digital cable is not DTV..."
> (http://www.hdtvpub.com/reception/dtvcablecompany.cfm)
>
> So if my cable company (Adelphia) is offering digital cable reception, that
> only refers to the way it is piped in, but the format remains the same? In
> other words, on an HDTV set with the proper STB, would digital cable
> reception look any different that regular analog? I know it wouldn't be or
> look like high def, but would there be any inherent benefit in upgrading my
> service to a digital package if I didn't particularly care for the channel
> lineup (Adelphia will rent me the STB for $9.95/mo in order to receive local
> station in high def, without having to do the entire upgrade to digital
> cable)?
>
> My understanding is that digital cable allows the cable company to increase
> the bandwidth and broadcast more channels with crisper audio, but that's
> about it. Is this correct?
>
> Bruce

All Cable TV Programs, be they Analog, Digital, or Hi Def Digital

run thru the same cable but as Groups of channels at Different
Frequencies.

Do not buy the SD Digital Package... This does not guarantee a
Super

Picture ie: SD (Std Def). Purchase the Cable Analog package

plus the Hi Def package to get the best bang for the Cable Buck...

The Cable Hi Def 'QAM' Box may rent for $8/ month...
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 11:31:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dennis Mayer wrote:
>> Bruiser wrote:
>>>
>>> Brad Houser wrote:
>>>>> "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9vednetirtH3A5LcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
>>>>>> I've been reading on www.hdtvpub.com that DTV should not be
>>>>>> confused with Digital TV, but I can't find exactly why. Could
>>>>>> someone please clear this up for me? Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think there is any confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> DTV is sometimes used as a shorthand for DirecTV, the satellite
>>>>> provider. While it is using a digital stream to send video and
>>>>> audio, it has nothing to do with the Digital TV standards. It
>>>>> should
>>>>> be obvious from the context.
>>>>>
>>>>> DTV usually means Digital TV, as defined by the ATSC (Advanced
>>>>> Television Systems Committee). www.atsc.org is their web. They
>>>>> created the standards for the 18 different digital television
>>>>> formats:
>>>>>
>>>
http://support.gateway.com/s/CsmrEltrncs/DigitalTV/Shar...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you could quote where it says there is a difference, I could
>>>>> respond to that specifically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brad Houser
>>>
>>> Brad,
>>>
>>> I did mis-speak: while HDTVPub.com does use "DTV" to mean Digital
>>> TV, the exact quote is:
>>>
>>> "...please remember that digital cable is not DTV..."
>>> (http://www.hdtvpub.com/reception/dtvcablecompany.cfm)
>>>
>>> So if my cable company (Adelphia) is offering digital cable
>>> reception, that only refers to the way it is piped in, but the
>>> format remains the same? In other words, on an HDTV set with the
>>> proper STB, would digital cable reception look any different that
>>> regular analog? I know it wouldn't be or look like high def, but
>>> would there be any inherent benefit in upgrading my service to a
>>> digital package if I didn't particularly care for the channel
>>> lineup (Adelphia will rent me the STB for $9.95/mo in order to
>>> receive local station in high def, without having to do the entire
>>> upgrade to digital cable)?
>>>
>>> My understanding is that digital cable allows the cable company to
>>> increase the bandwidth and broadcast more channels with crisper
>>> audio, but that's about it. Is this correct?
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>
>> All Cable TV Programs, be they Analog, Digital, or Hi Def Digital
>>
>> run thru the same cable but as Groups of channels at Different
>> Frequencies.
>>
>> Do not buy the SD Digital Package... This does not guarantee a
>> Super
>>
>> Picture ie: SD (Std Def). Purchase the Cable Analog package
>>
>> plus the Hi Def package to get the best bang for the Cable
>> Buck...
>>
>> The Cable Hi Def 'QAM' Box may rent for $8/ month...


Thanks, that's what I needed to know (I believe Adelphia's HDTV basic
package is $9.95/mo. on top of the ~$42 I'm spending on the classic cable
package).

So, back to basics: digital cable is pretty much pointless, quality-wise.
Digital TV, however, is the means by which HDTV can be broadcast, although
most stations do not do that exclusively (with the exception of PBS, I
guess), correct? So any station ID'd as, for instance, "Kxxx-DT" will be
broadcasting in 480p, which will be upped to 720p (or 1080i) for HD
content?

Guess you can tell I'm pretty new to all this. ;) 
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 3:29:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:57:38 -0700, "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote:

>Dennis Mayer wrote:
>>> Bruiser wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Brad Houser wrote:
>>>>>> "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:9vednetirtH3A5LcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> I've been reading on www.hdtvpub.com that DTV should not be
>>>>>>> confused with Digital TV, but I can't find exactly why. Could
>>>>>>> someone please clear this up for me? Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think there is any confusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DTV is sometimes used as a shorthand for DirecTV, the satellite
>>>>>> provider. While it is using a digital stream to send video and
>>>>>> audio, it has nothing to do with the Digital TV standards. It
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be obvious from the context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DTV usually means Digital TV, as defined by the ATSC (Advanced
>>>>>> Television Systems Committee). www.atsc.org is their web. They
>>>>>> created the standards for the 18 different digital television
>>>>>> formats:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>http://support.gateway.com/s/CsmrEltrncs/DigitalTV/Shar...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you could quote where it says there is a difference, I could
>>>>>> respond to that specifically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brad Houser
>>>>
>>>> Brad,
>>>>
>>>> I did mis-speak: while HDTVPub.com does use "DTV" to mean Digital
>>>> TV, the exact quote is:
>>>>
>>>> "...please remember that digital cable is not DTV..."
>>>> (http://www.hdtvpub.com/reception/dtvcablecompany.cfm)
>>>>
>>>> So if my cable company (Adelphia) is offering digital cable
>>>> reception, that only refers to the way it is piped in, but the
>>>> format remains the same? In other words, on an HDTV set with the
>>>> proper STB, would digital cable reception look any different that
>>>> regular analog? I know it wouldn't be or look like high def, but
>>>> would there be any inherent benefit in upgrading my service to a
>>>> digital package if I didn't particularly care for the channel
>>>> lineup (Adelphia will rent me the STB for $9.95/mo in order to
>>>> receive local station in high def, without having to do the entire
>>>> upgrade to digital cable)?
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that digital cable allows the cable company to
>>>> increase the bandwidth and broadcast more channels with crisper
>>>> audio, but that's about it. Is this correct?
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> All Cable TV Programs, be they Analog, Digital, or Hi Def Digital
>>>
>>> run thru the same cable but as Groups of channels at Different
>>> Frequencies.
>>>
>>> Do not buy the SD Digital Package... This does not guarantee a
>>> Super
>>>
>>> Picture ie: SD (Std Def). Purchase the Cable Analog package
>>>
>>> plus the Hi Def package to get the best bang for the Cable
>>> Buck...
>>>
>>> The Cable Hi Def 'QAM' Box may rent for $8/ month...
>
>
>Thanks, that's what I needed to know (I believe Adelphia's HDTV basic
>package is $9.95/mo. on top of the ~$42 I'm spending on the classic cable
>package).
>
>So, back to basics: digital cable is pretty much pointless, quality-wise.

Digital cable signals are generally over compressed to the point
that either Direct Tv and Dish sat signals will look better.

Direct Tv and Dish maintain better QC on their digital signals.
For the most part they run all their nationally distributed signals
out of a central uplink location. That significantly reduces the
manpower needed to monitor signals.

Cable maintains hundreds, if not thousands of head ends. Which
would require tens of thousands of QC personal to match the SAT
providers. Since they don't have the desire or the money, they will
make additional compromises in quality.

Another nasty problem for Cable co's is that a significant portion
of their distribution system is tied up sending old style NTSC
signals.

>Digital TV, however, is the means by which HDTV can be broadcast, although
>most stations do not do that exclusively (with the exception of PBS, I
>guess), correct? So any station ID'd as, for instance, "Kxxx-DT" will be
>broadcasting in 480p, which will be upped to 720p (or 1080i) for HD
>content?

As for receiving local digital (H)DTV broadcasts. For the most
part, cable co's can't improve it over what you can get at your house
using a low cost antenna setup. That is one reason why (H)DTV SAT
receiver set tops come with built in (8VSB) OTA tuners.

You put up you own antenna, pickup the local (H)DTV broadcasts for
free, and skip paying the Cable piggy. :-)
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 8:49:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Tim Keating wrote:
<SNIP>

>>> So, back to basics: digital cable is pretty much pointless,
>>> quality-wise.
>>
>> Digital cable signals are generally over compressed to the point
>> that either Direct Tv and Dish sat signals will look better.
>>
>> Direct Tv and Dish maintain better QC on their digital signals.
>> For the most part they run all their nationally distributed signals
>> out of a central uplink location. That significantly reduces the
>> manpower needed to monitor signals.
>>
>> Cable maintains hundreds, if not thousands of head ends. Which
>> would require tens of thousands of QC personal to match the SAT
>> providers. Since they don't have the desire or the money, they will
>> make additional compromises in quality.
>>
>> Another nasty problem for Cable co's is that a significant
>> portion
>> of their distribution system is tied up sending old style NTSC
>> signals.
>>
>>> Digital TV, however, is the means by which HDTV can be broadcast,
>>> although most stations do not do that exclusively (with the
>>> exception of PBS, I guess), correct? So any station ID'd as, for
>>> instance, "Kxxx-DT" will be broadcasting in 480p, which will be
>>> upped to 720p (or 1080i) for HD content?
>>
>> As for receiving local digital (H)DTV broadcasts. For the most
>> part, cable co's can't improve it over what you can get at your house
>> using a low cost antenna setup. That is one reason why (H)DTV SAT
>> receiver set tops come with built in (8VSB) OTA tuners.
>>
>> You put up you own antenna, pickup the local (H)DTV broadcasts for
>> free, and skip paying the Cable piggy. :-)

Thanks for the info, Tim. The nice thing about the cable route is that you
don't have to buy a STB. But the stations offered are so surprising meager,
it almost cancels that out.

I would gladly invest in a STB (even a DirectTV compatible one) if I could
assured that OTA reception would be acceptable. Using a fairly standard
RadioShack indoor aerial for NTSC reception provides very mediocre results,
and I don't know if that would translate to(H)DTV reception or not.

BTW, why is it that satellite systems don't pick up local HD broadcasts? Is
it a technical issue or more of a licensing one?
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 9:15:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote in message
news:l4Odna9vxv_otY3cRVn-iA@giganews.com...
> I did mis-speak: while HDTVPub.com does use "DTV" to mean Digital TV, the
> exact quote is:
>
> "...please remember that digital cable is not DTV..."
> (http://www.hdtvpub.com/reception/dtvcablecompany.cfm)
>
> So if my cable company (Adelphia) is offering digital cable reception,
that
> only refers to the way it is piped in, but the format remains the same?

Pretty much. You still end up with 480i NTSC. The benefit is they get to
squeeze more channels in, and charge you more. The drawback is you need
their box ("cable ready" no longer applies). The channels _MAY_ look better
than analog (if you are on a noisy system or far from the head end) or it
could look worse, especially if they overcompress the picture.

> In
> other words, on an HDTV set with the proper STB, would digital cable
> reception look any different that regular analog?

Most people can not tell the difference.

> I know it wouldn't be or
> look like high def, but would there be any inherent benefit in upgrading
my
> service to a digital package if I didn't particularly care for the channel
> lineup (Adelphia will rent me the STB for $9.95/mo in order to receive
local
> station in high def, without having to do the entire upgrade to digital
> cable)?

If you want HD see if you can only pay for that. If you don't care about the
digital channel lineup, then you won't get the other channels to look any
better, they stay analog. The STB still uses the analog channels, it also
decodes the digital channels.

>
> My understanding is that digital cable allows the cable company to
increase
> the bandwidth and broadcast more channels with crisper audio, but that's
> about it. Is this correct?

You got it.

The "good" news is the cable industry and the FCC have agreed on a new
digital cable standard that will support HDTV and SDTV and allow new TVs to
include a standard digital tuner and "cable card" so you won't need a STB.
(The carda allows them to control access of course.) I say good in quotes,
because it remains to be seen how well this is embraced, as it will most
likely require some transition period where some boxes break and new ones
can't take advantage of the bandwidth until the old boxes are gone. Plus,
like HDTV, buyers aren't going to switch overnight. So we will see if this
actually ends up working as intended. Maybe in 20 years, but who knows?

Brad Houser
>
> Bruce
>
>
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 2:26:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Brad Houser wrote:
>> "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote in message
>> news:l4Odna9vxv_otY3cRVn-iA@giganews.com...
>>> I did mis-speak: while HDTVPub.com does use "DTV" to mean Digital
>>> TV, the exact quote is:
>>>
>>> "...please remember that digital cable is not DTV..."
>>> (http://www.hdtvpub.com/reception/dtvcablecompany.cfm)
>>>
>>> So if my cable company (Adelphia) is offering digital cable
>>> reception, that only refers to the way it is piped in, but the
>>> format remains the same?
>>
>> Pretty much. You still end up with 480i NTSC. The benefit is they
>> get to squeeze more channels in, and charge you more. The drawback
>> is you need their box ("cable ready" no longer applies). The
>> channels _MAY_ look better than analog (if you are on a noisy system
>> or far from the head end) or it could look worse, especially if they
>> overcompress the picture.
>>
>>> In
>>> other words, on an HDTV set with the proper STB, would digital cable
>>> reception look any different that regular analog?
>>
>> Most people can not tell the difference.
>>
>>> I know it wouldn't be or
>>> look like high def, but would there be any inherent benefit in
>>> upgrading my service to a digital package if I didn't particularly
>>> care for the channel lineup (Adelphia will rent me the STB for
>>> $9.95/mo in order to receive local station in high def, without
>>> having to do the entire upgrade to digital cable)?
>>
>> If you want HD see if you can only pay for that. If you don't care
>> about the digital channel lineup, then you won't get the other
>> channels to look any better, they stay analog. The STB still uses
>> the analog channels, it also decodes the digital channels.
>>
>>>
>>> My understanding is that digital cable allows the cable company to
>>> increase the bandwidth and broadcast more channels with crisper
>>> audio, but that's about it. Is this correct?
>>
>> You got it.
>>
>> The "good" news is the cable industry and the FCC have agreed on a
>> new digital cable standard that will support HDTV and SDTV and allow
>> new TVs to include a standard digital tuner and "cable card" so you
>> won't need a STB. (The carda allows them to control access of
>> course.) I say good in quotes, because it remains to be seen how
>> well this is embraced, as it will most likely require some
>> transition period where some boxes break and new ones can't take
>> advantage of the bandwidth until the old boxes are gone. Plus, like
>> HDTV, buyers aren't going to switch overnight. So we will see if
>> this actually ends up working as intended. Maybe in 20 years, but
>> who knows?
>>
>> Brad Houser

Thanks, Brad. As I indicated in my response to Tim, I'll give Adelphia a go
with just the HD lineup (slim pickings here in LA unfortunately), but will
also look into OTA and satellite. I'm limited to an indoor aerial which
might not be good enough, but I'd rather have sports channels than local
stations if I'm forced to choose. We'll see.

Bruce
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 5:22:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:49:44 -0700, "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote:

>Tim Keating wrote:
><SNIP>
>
>>>> So, back to basics: digital cable is pretty much pointless,
>>>> quality-wise.
>>>
>>> Digital cable signals are generally over compressed to the point
>>> that either Direct Tv and Dish sat signals will look better.
>>>
>>> Direct Tv and Dish maintain better QC on their digital signals.
>>> For the most part they run all their nationally distributed signals
>>> out of a central uplink location. That significantly reduces the
>>> manpower needed to monitor signals.
>>>
>>> Cable maintains hundreds, if not thousands of head ends. Which
>>> would require tens of thousands of QC personal to match the SAT
>>> providers. Since they don't have the desire or the money, they will
>>> make additional compromises in quality.
>>>
>>> Another nasty problem for Cable co's is that a significant
>>> portion
>>> of their distribution system is tied up sending old style NTSC
>>> signals.
>>>
>>>> Digital TV, however, is the means by which HDTV can be broadcast,
>>>> although most stations do not do that exclusively (with the
>>>> exception of PBS, I guess), correct? So any station ID'd as, for
>>>> instance, "Kxxx-DT" will be broadcasting in 480p, which will be
>>>> upped to 720p (or 1080i) for HD content?
>>>
>>> As for receiving local digital (H)DTV broadcasts. For the most
>>> part, cable co's can't improve it over what you can get at your house
>>> using a low cost antenna setup. That is one reason why (H)DTV SAT
>>> receiver set tops come with built in (8VSB) OTA tuners.
>>>
>>> You put up you own antenna, pickup the local (H)DTV broadcasts for
>>> free, and skip paying the Cable piggy. :-)
>
>Thanks for the info, Tim. The nice thing about the cable route is that you
>don't have to buy a STB. But the stations offered are so surprising meager,
>it almost cancels that out.
>
>I would gladly invest in a STB (even a DirectTV compatible one) if I could
>assured that OTA reception would be acceptable. Using a fairly standard
>RadioShack indoor aerial for NTSC reception provides very mediocre results,
>and I don't know if that would translate to(H)DTV reception or not.

Indoor aerials and modern construction techniques don't mix well.

Lots of metal in today's buildings.. metal wall studs, stucco
backing, rebar all bonded together, etc..each of which can
significantly reduce one's ability to receive RF signals.

Plug your zip code into www.antennaweb.org to find out what type of
outside antenna you'll need. Note: Don't overdue it and buy too much
antenna.. it can work against you.

I use a dinky Radio shack 15-2160 to pull in (H)DTV stations over 60
miles away. :-)

Modern OTA (H)DTV receivers can pull in digital signals that if they
were broadcast in NTSC (old style),would be considered unwatchable by
most people.

>
>BTW, why is it that satellite systems don't pick up local HD broadcasts? Is
>it a technical issue or more of a licensing one?

1. It would be redundant, since OTA (H)DTV is easy to receive, and
digital perfect. (Reduces the market value for alternative methods. )

2. It would require huge amounts of bandwidth.. (cost)
(At least 8 to 15x more sat transponders, which they don't
have and can't get. )
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 5:22:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Tim Keating wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Indoor aerials and modern construction techniques don't mix well.
>>
>> Lots of metal in today's buildings.. metal wall studs, stucco
>> backing, rebar all bonded together, etc..each of which can
>> significantly reduce one's ability to receive RF signals.
>>
>> Plug your zip code into www.antennaweb.org to find out what type of
>> outside antenna you'll need. Note: Don't overdue it and buy too
>> much antenna.. it can work against you.

I did this earlier and the antenna recommended is a medium directional. I'm
only about 14.5 from the Mt. Wilson towers, but I rent an apt. in a
two-story, 8-unit building (about 60 yrs. old). I'm on the second floor, but
not on the side that faces NE toward the towers. I don't know how thrilled
the landlord would be about installing an outdoor aerial, so I was thinking
more indoor. Naturally the line of sight would be greater with something on
the roof. Maybe if I catch the owner on a good day...
>>
>> I use a dinky Radio shack 15-2160 to pull in (H)DTV stations over 60
>> miles away. :-)
>>
>> Modern OTA (H)DTV receivers can pull in digital signals that if they
>> were broadcast in NTSC (old style),would be considered unwatchable by
>> most people.
>>
>>>
>>> BTW, why is it that satellite systems don't pick up local HD
>>> broadcasts? Is it a technical issue or more of a licensing one?
>>
>> 1. It would be redundant, since OTA (H)DTV is easy to receive, and
>> digital perfect. (Reduces the market value for alternative methods. )
>>
>> 2. It would require huge amounts of bandwidth.. (cost)
>> (At least 8 to 15x more sat transponders, which they don't
>> have and can't get. )

Thanks for the info.

Bruce
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 6:54:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Tim Keating wrote:
>>Thanks for the info, Tim. The nice thing about the cable route is that you
>>don't have to buy a STB. But the stations offered are so surprising meager,
>>it almost cancels that out.
>>
>>I would gladly invest in a STB (even a DirectTV compatible one) if I could
>>assured that OTA reception would be acceptable. Using a fairly standard
>>RadioShack indoor aerial for NTSC reception provides very mediocre results,
>>and I don't know if that would translate to(H)DTV reception or not.
>
>
> Indoor aerials and modern construction techniques don't mix well.
>
> Lots of metal in today's buildings.. metal wall studs, stucco
> backing, rebar all bonded together, etc..each of which can
> significantly reduce one's ability to receive RF signals.
>
> Plug your zip code into www.antennaweb.org to find out what type of
> outside antenna you'll need. Note: Don't overdue it and buy too much
> antenna.. it can work against you.
>
> I use a dinky Radio shack 15-2160 to pull in (H)DTV stations over 60
> miles away. :-)
>
> Modern OTA (H)DTV receivers can pull in digital signals that if they
> were broadcast in NTSC (old style),would be considered unwatchable by
> most people.
>
>
>>BTW, why is it that satellite systems don't pick up local HD broadcasts? Is
>>it a technical issue or more of a licensing one?
>
>
> 1. It would be redundant, since OTA (H)DTV is easy to receive, and
> digital perfect. (Reduces the market value for alternative methods. )

Now true with 5th generation LG/Zenith receiver due 4th quarter.

Alternate methods include satellite and cable. Why should someone pay
cable or satellite for delivery of local OTA channels? Why should local
OTA channels allow cable or satellite, competitive delivery methods, to
deliver desirable content they control?

Cable and satellite exist because of the problems of OTA reception and
the limited programming they could deliver in a given market. BOTH those
limitations are now removed. Cable and satellite have no reason to
exist. Cable has one advantage, high speed Internet and its VoIP
capabilities. However even there they are at risk because their culture
is one of monopoly and other wireless ventures can now ignore local
government monopoly granting powers and compete with cable.

I don't think either cable or satellite have a half life of 7 years in
anything like their present form.

Things change.
>
> 2. It would require huge amounts of bandwidth.. (cost)
> (At least 8 to 15x more sat transponders, which they don't
> have and can't get. )
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 9:19:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote (in part):

>I'm only about 14.5 from the Mt. Wilson towers, but I rent an apt. in a
>two-story, 8-unit building (about 60 yrs. old). I'm on the second floor, but
>not on the side that faces NE toward the towers. I don't know how thrilled
>the landlord would be about installing an outdoor aerial, so I was thinking
>more indoor. Naturally the line of sight would be greater with something on
>the roof. Maybe if I catch the owner on a good day...

I'd think the smart thing for your landlord to do would be to put his
own antenna on the roof, with a distribution amp feeding all the
apartments. Wouldn't cost him much, and he'd avoid having all the
tenants wanting to install their own.

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
August 6, 2004 11:38:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:k2f7h0dun23cujhe4sncqbkfjq6qu3dote@4ax.com:

> "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote (in part):
>
>>I'm only about 14.5 from the Mt. Wilson towers, but I rent an apt. in
>>a two-story, 8-unit building (about 60 yrs. old). I'm on the second
>>floor, but not on the side that faces NE toward the towers. I don't
>>know how thrilled the landlord would be about installing an outdoor
>>aerial, so I was thinking more indoor. Naturally the line of sight
>>would be greater with something on the roof. Maybe if I catch the
>>owner on a good day...
>
> I'd think the smart thing for your landlord to do would be to put his
> own antenna on the roof, with a distribution amp feeding all the
> apartments. Wouldn't cost him much, and he'd avoid having all the
> tenants wanting to install their own.
>
> Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
>

The law says you can put one up not attached to the roof.


our tenants usually attach them to vent pipes
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 11:38:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

me wrote:
>> Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:k2f7h0dun23cujhe4sncqbkfjq6qu3dote@4ax.com:
>>
>>> "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote (in part):
>>>
>>>> I'm only about 14.5 from the Mt. Wilson towers, but I rent an apt.
>>>> in a two-story, 8-unit building (about 60 yrs. old). I'm on the
>>>> second floor, but not on the side that faces NE toward the towers.
>>>> I don't know how thrilled the landlord would be about installing
>>>> an outdoor aerial, so I was thinking more indoor. Naturally the
>>>> line of sight would be greater with something on the roof. Maybe
>>>> if I catch the owner on a good day...
>>>
>>> I'd think the smart thing for your landlord to do would be to put
>>> his own antenna on the roof, with a distribution amp feeding all the
>>> apartments. Wouldn't cost him much, and he'd avoid having all the
>>> tenants wanting to install their own.
>>>
>>> Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
>>>
>>
>> The law says you can put one up not attached to the roof.
>>
>>
>> our tenants usually attach them to vent pipes

Thanks for all of the suggestions. Since the landlord has the first dollar
he's ever made, I think the magic words will be "I'll cover it." I have a
feeling it'll be a go after that. ;) 

Bruce
August 7, 2004 6:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote in
news:3sSdneCvbJf-gIncRVn-vA@giganews.com:

> me wrote:
>>> Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
>>> news:k2f7h0dun23cujhe4sncqbkfjq6qu3dote@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote (in part):
>>>>
>>>>> I'm only about 14.5 from the Mt. Wilson towers, but I rent an apt.
>>>>> in a two-story, 8-unit building (about 60 yrs. old). I'm on the
>>>>> second floor, but not on the side that faces NE toward the towers.
>>>>> I don't know how thrilled the landlord would be about installing
>>>>> an outdoor aerial, so I was thinking more indoor. Naturally the
>>>>> line of sight would be greater with something on the roof. Maybe
>>>>> if I catch the owner on a good day...
>>>>
>>>> I'd think the smart thing for your landlord to do would be to put
>>>> his own antenna on the roof, with a distribution amp feeding all
>>>> the apartments. Wouldn't cost him much, and he'd avoid having all
>>>> the tenants wanting to install their own.
>>>>
>>>> Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The law says you can put one up not attached to the roof.
>>>
>>>
>>> our tenants usually attach them to vent pipes
>
> Thanks for all of the suggestions. Since the landlord has the first
> dollar he's ever made, I think the magic words will be "I'll cover
> it." I have a feeling it'll be a go after that. ;) 
>
> Bruce
>
>
>

The landlord does not have to pay yhe antenna
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:59:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Any small UHF antenna may work. That is if its a UHF station.
For that short of distance a small or mid sized outdoor radio shack
antenna might be in order. Try it in the attic, if it works, fine if
not you can still try to use it outdoors. You may need a matching
transformer at the antenna if you use the RG-6 type coax.

Good Luck,
hdtvfan

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 14:05:49 GMT, me <me@nospamm.com> wrote:

>"Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote in
>news:3sSdneCvbJf-gIncRVn-vA@giganews.com:
>
>> me wrote:
>>>> Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
>>>> news:k2f7h0dun23cujhe4sncqbkfjq6qu3dote@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bruiser" <noth@nks.com> wrote (in part):
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm only about 14.5 from the Mt. Wilson towers, but I rent an apt.
>>>>>> in a two-story, 8-unit building (about 60 yrs. old). I'm on the
>>>>>> second floor, but not on the side that faces NE toward the towers.
>>>>>> I don't know how thrilled the landlord would be about installing
>>>>>> an outdoor aerial, so I was thinking more indoor. Naturally the
>>>>>> line of sight would be greater with something on the roof. Maybe
>>>>>> if I catch the owner on a good day...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd think the smart thing for your landlord to do would be to put
>>>>> his own antenna on the roof, with a distribution amp feeding all
>>>>> the apartments. Wouldn't cost him much, and he'd avoid having all
>>>>> the tenants wanting to install their own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The law says you can put one up not attached to the roof.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> our tenants usually attach them to vent pipes
>>
>> Thanks for all of the suggestions. Since the landlord has the first
>> dollar he's ever made, I think the magic words will be "I'll cover
>> it." I have a feeling it'll be a go after that. ;) 
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>
>The landlord does not have to pay yhe antenna
!