[Electronics-talk] Digital TV Transition

David Andrews dandrews at visi.com
Tue Feb 3 04:25:51 UTC 2009 

Jim, You are right about stations not broadcasting their digital 
signals at the same power level with analog signal, in radio, but not 
TV.  Radio digital signals are immediately adjacent to tthe analog 
signals, but television digital signals are at totally different 
frequencies from the analog stations, so they are already at the 
power they will be at.

If and when analog radio goes away we could see the digital power go 
up, but since there are hundreds of millions of analog radios, it 
will be no time soon.  There are actually a couple proposals from 
radio stations and equipment manufacturers and trade groups to up the 
digital power somewhat, but no decision has been made.  There has 
been some testing, but not enough and some feel to much increase will 
cause interference, so must be done on a station by station 
basis.  Further, one entity that could get hurt, if there is an 
increase are analog radio reading services.  There has been no 
testing of this to date though.

Dave

At 04:26 PM 2/2/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Dave and list,
>
>My brother works in TV repair.  We of course are in rural America (Billings
>MT) and often he goes to surrounding communities where TV may be marginal at
>best.  He often says when he is in one of the small communities where TV has
>a marginal signal and the person has one of the newer digital sets, he
>switches to the digital signal and instead of hearing multipath and seeing
>fuzzy picture on the analog signal, the person gets a perfect digital
>signal.  This seems to happen continually!  I find that interesting!  I too
>understand that digital signals are coming in  or they are not!  There is no
>middle ground!  This is also true with satellite radio or Iboc HD radio.
>The incoming signal needs to be strong enough for the TV, radio etc. to
>properly decode the digital signal. One other thing my brother stated which
>could give hope to people.  most broadcasters aren't devoting the full power
>to their signal presently till they must broadcast a digital signal full
>time and stop their analog broadcasts!
>
>I think too we will find some devices will decode a digital signal better
>than others.  I would guess a digital TV set would do better bringing in a
>digital signal than the converter.  We certainly know that some analog
>radios and TVS work better than others and I think this still will hold true
>today despite the fact that a signal is either there or it isn't!
>
>Our two main stations also have secondary programming on their digital
>signal.  One of our channels is CBS but they broadcast the CW network on
>their secondary channel.  Our other main channel broadcasts a weather
>service on their secondary channel.  As this gets further along, I wouldn't
>be surprised to find two separate programs on a given channel.  Let's assume
>the main channel has a local college football game or high school
>tournament.  The secondary channel could have a football game or basketball
>game from a national network.  I think we will see any number of
>possibilities here. Of course, all of this could be a good thing!  If people
>can't see their TV, they may go back to reading books, audio books no less!
>
>The proof is in the pudding so to speak!  Guess we'll see what happens when
>it happens.
>
>Jim
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
>To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
><electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 10:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Digital TV Transition
>
>
>Actually, one of the dirty little digital TV secrets, that
>broadcasters have known for years, is that reception in highly urban
>areas isn't that great.  There can be dead areas, buildings can block
>the signal etc.  As you say, if the signal strength is to low, you
>get nothing.  On the good side, if you have enough of a signal you
>have a perfect picture etc., anyone who gets a strong enough signal
>for the equipment to lock on to, has the same high quality signal.
>
>Dave
>
>At 12:59 PM 1/31/2009, you wrote:
>
> >Based on the experience I just had attempting to install  a digital
> >TV converter box, don't expect to see radios with built-in DTV
> >tuners any time soon.  I purchased a Digital Stream DTX9950 box at
> >my local Radio Shack to use with my small portable kitchen TV, and
> >needed lots of sighted assistance to set it up.  The online version
> >of the instruction manual was in PDF format that Adobe Reader was
> >unable to translate because of a plethora of graphics,  and
> >therefore was totally inaccessible.  However, once connected to the
> >TV, the box  was unable to provide consistent reception on any of my
> >local VHF channels using a hefty indoor antenna.  I live in
> >Manhattan, not in the boondocks, so proximity to the transmitters
> >atop the Empire State Building is not an issue.  Unlike analog TV
> >channels, which still remain audible even when weak, digital
> >channels drop out completely if the signal is too weak.  So you get
> >no picture or sound at all.  At least with analog TV's, you can
> >still hear the channel even with a weak signal.  Because of this
> >"all or nothing" phenomenon, it will be impossible to produce a
> >usable portable radio with a built-in DTV tuner until the technology
> >drastically improves.  For those of you who do not yet have cable or
> >satellite TV, be forewarned that even if you purchase a DTV
> >converter box or full-fledged digital TV, there is no guarantee that
> >it will work with an indoor antenna. If you live in an apartment
> >building, your landlord may not permit the installation of a rooftop
> >antenna.  Cable and satellite TV is not cheap. Here in New York
> >City, basic cable rates start at about $60 per month.  If you sign
> >up for one of the teaser double- or triple-play packages, you will
> >be hit with a huge rate increase after the first year.  You could
> >wind up spending over $150 per month when the introductory offer
> >period expires.  So as I said previously, the digital TV transition
> >will likely have a very disruptive impact on many disabled and blind
> >consumers.
> >
> >Gerald
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Jacobson"
> ><steve.jacobson at visi.com>
> >To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> ><electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 11:22 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Digital TV Transition
> >
> >
> >>And how will this change by June?  I wish it would, though.  I
> >>wonder if anyone will have a portable digital TV Radio at
> >>some point, or if any of these converters are small, can be
> >>operated from batteries, with audio outputs?  ?
> >>
> >>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:00:31 -0500, Gerald Levy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>And the 70% of blind people who are unemployed is no big deal either.
> >>>After
> >>>all, most of them already have cable TV, talking computers, GPS
> >>>navigation
> >>>gizmos and all manner of assistive technology, so they really don't need
> >>>jobs to support this comfortable life style anyway.
> >>
> >>>Gerald
> >>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
> >>>To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> >>><electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >>>Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 11:51 PM
> >>>Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Digital TV Transition
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Actually, it has been announced for years and I also have no sympathy.
> >>>>Broadcasters have big money involved, tower climbers set up months ago,
> >>>>antenna switches etc.  It can also cost $20,000 in electricity each
> >>>>month
> >>>>to run an analog TV transmitter.  It is also my understanding that one
> >>>>of
> >>>>the phone companies has a multimillion dollar advertising campaign set
> >>>>to
> >>>>launch the day after cutoff to advertise its new services in vacated TV
> >>>>space.  Phone companies and others have paid billions for the spectrum
> >>>>and
> >>>>they should be able to use it when they were told they could.
> >>>>
> >>>>Dave
> >>>>
> >>>>p.s.  eighty-five percent of the country's population gets its TV via
> >>>>cable or satellite.  The 15 percent is not huge, and also second or
> >>>>third
> >>>>TV's in a household.
> >>>>
> >>>>DA
> >>>>
> >>>>At 03:57 AM 1/30/2009, you wrote:
> >>>>>The senate passed the delay; but, the house did not. I wish y'all would
> >>>>>get y'all's facts straight.  As for the proposed delay, I have no
> >>>>>sympathy
> >>>>>for those who want it.  It's been announced for months, and, people
> >>>>>have
> >>>>>had more than ample time to prepair.  IF anyone is not ready now, well,
> >>>>>too bad.  That's what they get for waiting till the last minute.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Sincerely,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The Constantly BAREFOOTED Ray
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Old friend, what are you looking for?  After those many years abroad
> >>>>>you
> >>>>>come With images you tended Under foreign skies Far away from your own
> >>>>>land"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>George Seferis
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Phone or Fax::
> >>>>>
> >>>>>+1 (985) 360-3375
> >>>>>
> >>>>>e-mail:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>rforetjratcomcastdotnet
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Skype Name:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>barefootedray
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Tom Lange wrote:
> >>>>>>Hi,
> >>>>>>Charlie writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Well, good news, they delayed the mandate by four months.
> >>>>>>Really?  I thought I'd heard on the radio the other night that the
> >>>>>>proposed four-month delay wasn't going to happen. I hope the
> >>>>>>transition
> >>>>>>is delayed so that accessibility issues can be addressed and resolved.
> >>>>>>Tom
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>Electronics-talk mailing list
> >>>>>>Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> >>>>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>>>>Electronics-talk:
> >>>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet. 
> org/rforetjr%40comcast.net
> >>>>>
> >>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>Electronics-talk mailing list
> >>>>>Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> >>>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>>>Electronics-talk:
> >>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.o 
> rg/dandrews%40visi.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> >>>>>Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date:
> >>>>>1/30/2009 5:31 PM
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>Electronics-talk mailing list
> >>>>Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> >>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>>Electronics-talk:
> >>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.or 
> g/bwaylimited%40verizon.net
> >>
> >>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>Electronics-talk mailing list
> >>>Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> >>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> >>>for Electronics-talk:
> >>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org 
> /steve.jacobson%40visi.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Electronics-talk mailing list
> >>Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> >>for Electronics-talk:
> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/ 
> bwaylimited%40verizon.net
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Electronics-talk mailing list
> >Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> >for Electronics-talk:
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/d 
> andrews%40visi.com
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date:
> >1/30/2009 5:31 PM
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Electronics-talk mailing list
>Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>Electronics-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/jkaldrich%40qwest.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Electronics-talk mailing list
>Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>for Electronics-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.17/1931 - Release Date: 
>2/2/2009 7:21 PM

More information about the Electronics-Talk mailing list