Silver Sensor with 811
- Thread starter chunchma
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 43
- Views 6K
South Jersey USED to be the Garden of the state, but no more - the truck farms started growing houses. It sucks. I grew up there and used to be able to grab an ear or corn or a tomato just walking around. It's really hard to eat shingles and window trim - and it doesn't usually taste as good.
I used to live off of Turnpike Exit 2.mboy said:Depends on if your comin' down the Turnpike or Parkway
It isn't the economics, it's the right of the people to use their own air waves. Broadcast TV is granted the right to broadcast over the public air waves by the people. In return, the people have the right to receive these broadcasts without paying a toll. It's only the propaganda of the cable and satellite industries that have convinced people that OTA is low class and down-scale.
Analog signals OTA have left much to be desired since their inception, primarily because of the ghosting issue. Now that OTA DTV has solved that problem and provides viewers the best possible PQ via a free, you would have the program dumped because most folks get decent PQ via cable and satellite and to h_ll with those poor bums who won't pop for pay TV.
Well, I had cable from '79 to "99 and E* since. But, the best PQ I've seen for any of the major networks has been from the DTV signal I receive OTA via an attic antenna and my Dish 811 receiver. It puts E*s rebroadcast of these networks, w/ their over-compressed signal, to shame. Living in the backwoods of DTV, metro-Denver, I still look forward to the day I can drop my E* locals, save $5/month, and get all those channels at better PQ via OTA. Yeah, nobody will make a fast buck off of OTA DTV, but that doesn't mean it isn't a great product!
Sorry, touchy subject w/ me. I'll now yield the soapbox.
No argument about the rights, class appearances and so forth. I'm with ya there.
My argument rests mostly on the technology issues. IMO, OTA is already obsolete - just as analog dial-up internet connections are. Just because it's supposedly 'new' is meaningless. It's not new at all - it's just a repackaging of existing technologies - such as DBS. So, I don't see the point in spending a bunch of money on implementing OTA as a medium when there's better transport methods out there. Just the techie businessman in me.
As for the quality, multi-pathing problems have replaced the annoying ghosts with complete signal failures. Then of course, there's the issue of having to move the antenna every time you change channels (doesn't apply too much in Denver - somewhat does in Colo. Spgs.). I remember moving my antenna when I had a B.U.D.
I respect the touchy subject aspect without issue. MY version of it is that I'm not allowed the freedom of selecting the stations I want to receive. The fascists at KRDO in Colorado Springs have decided that I should no longer be allowed to receive the Denver ABC affiliate.
Many sides to the issues, but the bottom line is that we should ALL be able to receive local TV without aggravation or undue expense.
My argument rests mostly on the technology issues. IMO, OTA is already obsolete - just as analog dial-up internet connections are. Just because it's supposedly 'new' is meaningless. It's not new at all - it's just a repackaging of existing technologies - such as DBS. So, I don't see the point in spending a bunch of money on implementing OTA as a medium when there's better transport methods out there. Just the techie businessman in me.
As for the quality, multi-pathing problems have replaced the annoying ghosts with complete signal failures. Then of course, there's the issue of having to move the antenna every time you change channels (doesn't apply too much in Denver - somewhat does in Colo. Spgs.). I remember moving my antenna when I had a B.U.D.
I respect the touchy subject aspect without issue. MY version of it is that I'm not allowed the freedom of selecting the stations I want to receive. The fascists at KRDO in Colorado Springs have decided that I should no longer be allowed to receive the Denver ABC affiliate.
Many sides to the issues, but the bottom line is that we should ALL be able to receive local TV without aggravation or undue expense.
I don't think that the broadcast network's forced aboption of ATSC standards in place of NTSC standards is "just repackaging of existing technologies". Currently DBS and cable provide us a digitized version of a signal that originates as an NTSC analog signal. ATSC isn't already obsolete, in fact it isn't even fully developed. Many new problems are just emerging as are solutions to some a few years old. Multi-path, for example, was the curse of the early STBs, but new hardware and software have significantly reduced the problem (except maybe not as much so w/ the 811). Give it a couple of more years and multi-path won't even be an issue to new hardware and software.
Actually, the technology that stands the most chance of being overwhelmed by DTV is DBS. When all those DTV and HDTV signals are out there for transmission, DBS won't have the bandwidth and cable will. It remains to be seen if that DBS bandwidth can be created and implemented in a cost effective manner. Probably not w/o substantial rate increases. Oh, old Comcast will just love that. Another opportunity for them to increase profits w/o losing customers. Then they can afford to buy the rest of the cable companies in the country.
Actually, the technology that stands the most chance of being overwhelmed by DTV is DBS. When all those DTV and HDTV signals are out there for transmission, DBS won't have the bandwidth and cable will. It remains to be seen if that DBS bandwidth can be created and implemented in a cost effective manner. Probably not w/o substantial rate increases. Oh, old Comcast will just love that. Another opportunity for them to increase profits w/o losing customers. Then they can afford to buy the rest of the cable companies in the country.
Not all of the uplinks start out as analog. But in any event, I've got nothing against DTV - just the OTA transport level.
I agree that satellite bandwidth is a BIG problem, but one that can be solved. A very high percentage of the LiL bandwidth is actually nothing but duplication. The trick is in figuring out when the content is TRULY local source. I don't see any problem with using high compression on local content - it's not going to really need HD. Yes, there are some exceptions, but I think very few. An auto-switch between the network feed and the local feed might be the answer. The biggest hurdle I see in it is local news and weather bulletins during network content. Should be able to solve that one - and yes, if DBS is going to survive for city dwellers, these things must be addressed. As for those of us that helped start this whole satellite TV thing, I'm afraid that we'll be left out in the cold - AGAIN.
I agree that satellite bandwidth is a BIG problem, but one that can be solved. A very high percentage of the LiL bandwidth is actually nothing but duplication. The trick is in figuring out when the content is TRULY local source. I don't see any problem with using high compression on local content - it's not going to really need HD. Yes, there are some exceptions, but I think very few. An auto-switch between the network feed and the local feed might be the answer. The biggest hurdle I see in it is local news and weather bulletins during network content. Should be able to solve that one - and yes, if DBS is going to survive for city dwellers, these things must be addressed. As for those of us that helped start this whole satellite TV thing, I'm afraid that we'll be left out in the cold - AGAIN.
SimpleSimon said:
I don't know about that. One, it would only apply to the big 4 networks. And that makes up only about 1/3 of the LIL here in DFW.
Even on the big 4, maybe 30-50% is duplicated, but for the most part the scheduling of that duplicated programming is only sychronized in the evening hours during the prime time block. Even then, it is subject to being overriden by local sports, etc.
I think if you opened up your TV guide and really looked at what percentage of the stuff on a local network channel was actually coming from the network that day/week, vs what is syndicated reruns, etc, it is not as high as you may think.
snathanb said:Joe Millionaire, Fear Factor, American Idol, Who wants to marry a millionaire, survivor, The Simple Life and just about everything carried over OTA has me convinced that OTA is low class.
Have you noticed most of the crap is on Fox? I'm sure it's just a coincedence. (You left out The Swan, BTW
Of course, the best comedy and drama is on HBO (Curb Your Enthusiasm and Sopranos), But, there is definitely quality on OTA. In recent years, there's been Frasier, Friends, Seinfeld, Ellen, ER, West Wing, CSI, Star Trek TNG & DN9, Babylon 5, Simpsons, Family Guy. There are others, I'm sure. (Need more coffee.)
Everything you originally mentioned as crap is universally regarded as crap. Everything I mentioned as quality is generally regarded as quality.
There's been plenty of decent stuff on OTA in recent years, in addition to the crap. And, plenty of crap on the cable channels, in addition to the quality.
I'd have to say that most of the stuff on both cable and OTA is crap, or just not interesting. That's why most of our viewing is DVD.
There's been plenty of decent stuff on OTA in recent years, in addition to the crap. And, plenty of crap on the cable channels, in addition to the quality.
I'd have to say that most of the stuff on both cable and OTA is crap, or just not interesting. That's why most of our viewing is DVD.
Yes, you're right of course - but mainly what I'm saying is for the HD (big bandwidth) content to be "centralized". Some of that is daytime, some at night, but almost(?) none of it is local (other than news - and IMO, that jsut don't matta). The locals wouldn't care at all about using a network feed except for commercials and news crawls, right?snathanb said:
And let's take it to the big 7 (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS, UPN, WB). There's effectively 3 timezones (Central uses the Eastern feed). So that's a total of 21 HD network channels - and we can use 61 & 148 for the coasties (if the FCC quits bashing E* - the one-dish solution requirement ruling really sucks).
So, you can see where it can go - 21 HD channels instead of 100's. But it's all never gonna happen.
GaryPen said:
I named the most obvious crap. However, I would rate at least half of the shows you mentioned as joe six pack pleasing crap, as well. Typical stuff served up to pander to least common denominator. Typical lala-land soft-core porn glorifying immorality and/or crime. The only difference between the fox crap and the other stuff is at least Fox is open about it and doesn't try to dress it up into something it isn't.
Popular? Yes? But, so is McDonalds. And it's crap.
GaryPen said:
And so we agree.
SimpleSimon said:And let's take it to the big 7 (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS, UPN, WB). There's effectively 3 timezones (Central uses the Eastern feed). So that's a total of 21 HD network channels - and we can use 61 & 148 for the coasties (if the FCC quits bashing E* - the one-dish solution requirement ruling really sucks).
So, you can see where it can go - 21 HD channels instead of 100's. But it's all never gonna happen.
Why even 3... two would probably be sufficient, that's what people are accustomed. Eastern/Central; Mountain/Pacific. Then we are down to 14, even better!
Yep, it would be nice.
It should be incumbent on the broadcasters to make sure that those in their viewing audience are adequately served. The airwaves are a public trust and broadcasters have been granted the right to use those airwaves. With that right should be a responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to those signals. If a broadcaster is unable or unwilling to provide an adequate signal to a viewer in his defined service area that viewer should be freed to obtain that programming from any provider willing to serve his needs. In other words, not only should waivers be easy to get, broadcasters should be made to pay for a means of alternative distribution (cable, satellite, repeater) if they will not grant one.
Sorry, that's kind of a hot-button issue with me.
Sorry, that's kind of a hot-button issue with me.
