Difference between DTV and Digital TV

Brad Houser wrote:
"Bruiser" wrote in message
...
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

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

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

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. )

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. )

"Bruiser" 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

"Bruiser" 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

Del Mibbler wrote in
:

"Bruiser" 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


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


our tenants usually attach them to vent pipes

Del Mibbler wrote in
:

"Bruiser" 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


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


our tenants usually attach them to vent pipes

me wrote:
Del Mibbler wrote in
:

"Bruiser" 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


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