Final Evening of Analog TV?

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:22:17 -0500 Bruce Tomlin wrote:
| In article ,
| wrote:
|
| If they decide that PSIP IDs should always be the RF channel, that is fine
| by me, as long as it applies to _all_ stations. Does that mean that those
| on the Pittsburgh market will see "KDKA 25" instead of "KDKA 2" as they
| are so accustomed to for decades?
|
| The only constant is change. Stations have changed networks in the past,
| and now they're going to change frequencies. If a different number gets
| them depressed, they are in serious need of a reality check. I can't see
| why they could call themselves "KDKA 2" if they don't have a transmitter
| broadcasting on channel 2.

As of right now they do. And their digital signal on 25 IDs as 2.
Enter "2-1" and get their primary digital broadcast, often in HD.


| And what if someone applies for, and gets, a license to broadcast low power
| TV on RF channel 2 in or near Pittsburgh after the transition? Or on channel
| 4 or 11?
|
| Are you talking about tuner confusion or branding confusion? Because if
| they got a LP license for 2, then KDKA shouldn't be transmitting on it,
| and therefore shouldn't be calling themselves KDKA 2.

At present KDKA has both 2 and 25. They will be staying on 25 as their
final transition channel. WHile lo-band VHF supposedly does badly, it
is still plausible that someone by apply for a license on that empty
channel "after" the transition, either in Pittsburgh, or somewhere near
if the allocation gets moved.


| | The numerical PSIP only uses the analog number of the "primary"
| | channel on all subchannels, though the Waco secondary has a 7/24
| | bug overlay with the actual RF channel number of the digital signal!
|
| The same RF channel? Do you receive both?
|
| One of these duals is in San Antonio (KWEX Univision primary, KVDA
| Telemundo secondary, probably the same station owner), and the other is
| in Waco (KXXV ABC and Telemundo secondary plus a KXXV weather
| subchannel), which I can receive in north Austin, depending on the
| weather and time of day.
|
| Hmmm, doing a quick search, it seems that KXXV's Telemundo subchannel is
| in fact an original broadcast, and not a simulcast of an existing analog
| channel! Still, KXXV is analog 25, and their PSIP on digital 26 says
| 25-1, but the Telemundo is branding itself as "26.2" with no call sign,
| and the PSIP says 25-2.
|
| And if you haven't figured it out by now, both Telemundo and Univision
| are currently SD-only.

I didn't know that. I can't get either of those networks here.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

In article . net Bob Miller writes:

Every DTV modulation but DAB and 8-VSB is QAM DAB being QPSK only. The
COFDM part of these QAM modulations is only the multiplexing.

Counter example: DVB-S is QPSK.

Alan

In article Bruce Tomlin writes:
In article ,
wrote:
I could envision hams using ATSC on ham radio frequencies setting the PSIP
to some fun stuff like 73.

That's an amusing thought, but I'm not sure how good an idea it is to
depend on the auto-scan of tens of thousands of TV sets to find your
mis-numbered channel.

Don't worry -- they won't ever find it, since they don't scan the ham bands
to find TV signals.



Okay, it's a bit unlikely that a majority of people will forget to
auto-scan on a new TV, but what if "channel 99" starts as a new station
on digital 38? All the people who already have their TVs scanned will
have to either rescan, or know the dirty secret that the RF signal is on
channel 38 in order to find it.

I'm not sure that the FCC should even allow that kind of nonsense once
the analog channels are shut down.

I don't think they should, but they rarely listen to me.

Alan

In article Del Mibbler [email protected] writes:
(Alan) wrote (in part):

In article Del Mibbler [email protected] writes:
wrote (in part):
I could envision hams using ATSC on ham radio frequencies setting the PSIP
to some fun stuff like 73.

I look forward to hams using ATSC, because that will create a market
for inexpensive ATSC modulators, then a way to put transport streams
or maybe any MPEG2 source on a carrier that can be fed on coax to any
digital TV in the house.

I look forward to consumers getting such hardware, because the amateur
radio market is going to be *way* too small to get such things in a useful
price point.

Only a very small percentage of amateurs currently operate television.

Alan

True enough, but we need an innocuous use for ATSC modulators that
won't make the MPAA go ballistic and seek an injunction against them,
claiming that they will destroy the entertainment business, or at
least demanding that they incorporate a ton of DRM. Ham TV would
serve that purpose.

So, do you think a market of perhaps 1000-2000 units would really get
a product engineered and manufactured at a realistic price?

It will happen if the modulators are mass produced for other purposes
(such as consumer use), then hams will buy and adapt them.

The scale of production the other way around just won't succeed.

Alan

On 19 Jul 2007 02:57:24 GMT, wrote:

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
| On 18 Jul 2007 12:18:28 GMT, wrote:
|
|In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Matthew L. Martin wrote:
||
|| I always check my nonsense before I post it to the interweb.
||
|| Matthew
|
|Actually, I believe you secretly don't check a damned thing. You just
|spout lies and label them with "check your facts" so that people thing
|you are such cool stuff.
|
| Hmmmm . . . Did you actually read what Matthew wrote, or merely skim
| it while hoping to tweeze out some some pale approximation of what you
| wanted it to mean?

When he makes his unfounded personal attacks, I focus on him at that time.

snipitty snip

Not what I asked. I asked, "Did you actually read what Matthew wrote,
or merely skim it while hoping to tweeze out some pale approximation
of what you wanted it to mean?

Here's what he said:

"I always check my nonsense before I post it to the interweb."

Stare at that sentence long and hard for a while, then get back to us.

It's sad because he's actually a smart and resourceful person when his
negative personality traits aren't active.

The doctor gave him a cream to try when his negative personality
traits once again become active. Stay tuned.

In article ,
Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

Here's what he said:

"I always check my nonsense before I post it to the interweb."

Stare at that sentence long and hard for a while

That kink is NOT okay.

--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes
It's too confused to make sense, so let's make nonsense.
-- Chris McG.

Let's recap, shall we? From the top of the references chain to the
bottom:

In article rld.net,
Hart Larry wrote:

[some questions]

In article ,
wrote (edited):

But today, stations can ask for FCC permission to change to all digital
and probably get it (a few have).

In article ,
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote (in full, except the
"check nonsense" bit):

Some stations have already abandoned analog broadcasts.

Another words, he *agreed precisely* with phil-news-nospam's assertion.

In article ,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:

Bull****, of course, but what should we expect from you.

Another words, disagrees with both Phil and Matthew.

In article ,
Bill R wrote:

What is BS about that? It is true; in some cities stations have already
shutoff their analog stations.

Corroborating Phil and Matthew, refuting Elmo.

In article ,
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

Your correspondent believes his opinions to be true facts. Reality does
not matter to him.

Commenting on Elmo's posting.

In article ,
wrote:

Actually, I believe you secretly don't check a damned thing. You just
spout lies and label them with "check your facts" so that people thing
you are such cool stuff.

And here's where it gets dizzying: Phil *turns on his ally Matthew* and
accuses him of spouting "lies", *in a thread in which Matthew and Phil
have so far agreed*.

In article ,
Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

Hmmmm . . . Did you actually read what Matthew wrote, or merely skim
it while hoping to tweeze out some some pale approximation of what you
wanted it to mean?

Requesting clarification.

In article ,
wrote:

When he makes his unfounded personal attacks, I focus on him at that time.

The only thing resembling a personal attack at this point was Matthew's
comment *about Elmo*, who said Matthew *and Phil's* assertion was
"bull****".

If he wants to focus on content, then he needs to learn to do exactly that
and then others like me will do the same. If he thinks something I post
is wrong, he should point at it specifically and make his assertion.

Up to this point the only response from Matthew to Phil was *to agree
with him*.

It
would then also help if he adds what it is he thinks is right. Instead,
it is his M.O. from the very first time I encountered him many months ago
to make the attack personal, be vague about the assertion of error (e.g.
not point to specifics), and make accusations about actions of the poster
he has no way of possibly knowing (I didn't need to see if he implanted
virus in my computer because his statement was entirely wrong, anyway).

Virus? Some paranoia here?

It's a pattern he has. I'm not the only target of it, though he seems to
like it. There was someone else who posted similar to him a while back,
but so far that's been it. I've occaisionally seen people like that in
other groups, but he's probably at or near number one most pervasive for
all newsgroups I've seen in years.

I don't know if he just jumped the gun the first time and decided to keep
doing the same thing for fun, or if he actually believes his own posts.

.... and Phil's!

It's sad because he's actually a smart and resourceful person when his
negative personality traits aren't active.

You see a lot of flame wars on Usenet. Usually they are between people
who disagree about something. This one's refreshingly different.

--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes
It's too confused to make sense, so let's make nonsense.
-- Chris McG.

Alan wrote:
In article . net Bob Miller writes:

Every DTV modulation but DAB and 8-VSB is QAM DAB being QPSK only. The
COFDM part of these QAM modulations is only the multiplexing.

Counter example: DVB-S is QPSK.

Alan

Counter?

DVB-S is satellite not Terrestrial. I was talking only terrestrial.
Satellite has little need for COFDM.

Bob Miller

Doctroid wrote:
Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
Here's what he said:

"I always check my nonsense before I post it to the interweb."

Stare at that sentence long and hard for a while

That kink is NOT okay.

I can't see that there's anything wrong with it.

Dave "nonsense is the right of all sentient beings" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeableBLINK
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

"Bob Miller" wrote

8-VSB was chosen because of three very important political considerations,
money, money and money. Had nothing to do with technical considerations.

And the fourth, the most important consideration:
8VSB was purposely chosen to ruin your creepy mobile-advertising
contraption.

Isn't it excellent!