Does anyone know if it is true that the present VHF TV band will be
disbanded when HDTV finally takes over? What will then occupy those low
band frequencies? And what will be the new fequency allocations? Also
is there any hope for those of us who would like to keep our existing
NTSC equipment? There was talk of converter boxes being made available.
Will this be the case and will they be reasonably priced? Or are they
perhaps a home brew project that we might be able to build ourselves?
Thanks for any information. Lenny Stein, Barlen Electronics.

I for one am not happy the government is shoving this new television
standard down our throats. There was nothing wrong with our present
television broadcasting system that has worked so well for 60 years. I
don't want to throw away a perfectly working tv set even if it might be
30 or 40 years old and I sure as hell don't want to buy one of those
overpriced 'new-fangled' ones. HDTV who needs it anyway? Does it make
the tv program story any better? No. Does it make the acting better?
No.

Once this 'changeover' becomes effective the major broadcast networks
will literally lose millions of viewers like me who will simply stop
watching tv altogether if our sets no longer work.

In article .com,
wrote:
Does anyone know if it is true that the present VHF TV band will be
disbanded when HDTV finally takes over? What will then occupy those low
band frequencies? And what will be the new fequency allocations?

Hit www.fcc.gov, there's tons of stuff on DTV there. (Check the pages
for the Media Bureau). They'll probably auction off the unused channels,
or allocate some of them to land mobile. But I've heard that it's a
market by market thing that happens when some percentage of households
are digital equipped in each area.

Also
is there any hope for those of us who would like to keep our existing
NTSC equipment? There was talk of converter boxes being made available.

They've been available for several years now. But the ones I've seen
were priced from $500 down to $250. (I haven't looked for about a year).
The big box electronics stores are loath to point them out. (I assume
that's because the subscription satellite TV companies give them a
kickback that the local "free to air" stations can't). Poke around
the corners of the local big box store and see if they have a Samsung
SIR-T351 or something like that. The buzzword for the salesman is
"ATSC Tuner". There are, I think, also dual mode boxes that will do
both terrestrial and satellite. (Welcome to the service economy.
You're not supposed to go out make a one time buy of a simple box,
you're supposed to pay each month, forever...).

Will this be the case and will they be reasonably priced? Or are they
perhaps a home brew project that we might be able to build ourselves?

There's a zillion bytes of RAM, and a whole lot of CPU cycles needed
to unpack the signal. That's the problem now. The ATSC standard is
too much of a resource hog if the equipment has to handle the largest
resolution signal. Which is has to do, even it it scales it down to
NTSC resolution. That's why the satellite or cable digital TV systems
can undercut the prices for their proprietary box. They can send out
a lower res. signal that doesn't need as much memory/CPU and still call
it HDTV.

The whole mess is in the "early adopter" phase, where they're soaking
the guys that have to be "the first one on the block" for as much as
they can for their big screen sets and Media PCs. Real soon now, (now
that everybody has a DVD player), digital TV will be "the next big
thing".

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

In article .com,
says...
Does anyone know if it is true that the present VHF TV band will be
disbanded when HDTV finally takes over? What will then occupy those low
band frequencies? And what will be the new fequency allocations?

If I understand correctly, what happens is that no new licenses will
be issued for NTSC amplitude modulation, and existing licenses will
stop being renewed, so that analog signals will gradually be replaced
by digital signals on the same channels. It is unclear whether the
existing 69 channels will be needed or further reduced, although
there does seem to be a migration to lower frequencies as many
stations are adding digital VHF while keeping their ananlog UHF
signal on the air for an indeterminate transition period.

At one time it was rumoured that the FCC planned to start shutting
down analog once digital reached majority penetration, although it
is not clear to me how they plan to measure that, and it seems that
adoption has not been nearly as quick as they had thought.

is there any hope for those of us who would like to keep our existing
NTSC equipment? There was talk of converter boxes being made available.
Will this be the case and will they be reasonably priced?

Samsung makes some, and probably others, but they are still a bit
pricey, IMO.

Or are they perhaps a home brew project that we might be able to build
ourselves?

Digital requires computing power. It is already possible to add a
HDTV receiver card to a PC and drive an NTSC monitor with a scan
converter. Maybe not very practical just to watch TV, but maybe so
if you already have the computer. It isn't quite like the old days
where you could wire a few parts together and play, most of the new
technologies require someone to write code. Maybe someone will
market a decoder chip with an imbedded Linux or Windows kernel, or
maybe it already exists if I knew where to look.

In article .com,
says...
I for one am not happy the government is shoving this new television
standard down our throats. There was nothing wrong with our present
television broadcasting system that has worked so well for 60 years.

As often happens with new technologies, I fear that it will be used
to make things more profitable rather than higher quality. More
specifically, the digital standard is capable of very high resolution,
but I bet a lot of broadcasters will instead use it for multiple
channels of poor quality.

But there are technical advantages, like much more efficient spectrum
use letting broadcasters replace a roomfull of power-hungry class A
klystrons with an efficient solid state box not much bigger than a
microwave oven that covers the same square miles.

Once this 'changeover' becomes effective the major broadcast networks
will literally lose millions of viewers like me who will simply stop
watching tv altogether if our sets no longer work.

As always, expect prices to come down as the products become mainstream.
There will probably be more new viewers entering the market than old
timers dropping out. Most of us will adapt to the changing conditions,
maybe send flowers to your funeral, and get on with our lives.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:53:40 -0500, Ol' Duffer
wrote:

In article .com,
says...
I for one am not happy the government is shoving this new television
standard down our throats. There was nothing wrong with our present
television broadcasting system that has worked so well for 60 years.

As often happens with new technologies, I fear that it will be used
to make things more profitable rather than higher quality. More
specifically, the digital standard is capable of very high resolution,
but I bet a lot of broadcasters will instead use it for multiple
channels of poor quality.

But there are technical advantages, like much more efficient spectrum
use letting broadcasters replace a roomfull of power-hungry class A
klystrons with an efficient solid state box not much bigger than a
microwave oven that covers the same square miles.

If you say so. We will replace 3 klystrons with a 48 DTV amplifier
modules. They take up as much space as the Klystron transmitter. We
anticipate saving at best 50% on our electric bill. VHF stations that
are forced to UHF will see HUGE electric bill increases to cover the
same area.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:53:39 -0500, Ol' Duffer
wrote:

In article .com,
says...
Does anyone know if it is true that the present VHF TV band will be
disbanded when HDTV finally takes over? What will then occupy those low
band frequencies? And what will be the new fequency allocations?

If I understand correctly, what happens is that no new licenses will
be issued for NTSC amplitude modulation, and existing licenses will
stop being renewed, so that analog signals will gradually be replaced
by digital signals on the same channels. It is unclear whether the
existing 69 channels will be needed or further reduced, although
there does seem to be a migration to lower frequencies as many
stations are adding digital VHF while keeping their ananlog UHF
signal on the air for an indeterminate transition period.

At one time it was rumoured that the FCC planned to start shutting
down analog once digital reached majority penetration, although it
is not clear to me how they plan to measure that, and it seems that
adoption has not been nearly as quick as they had thought.

The analog sunset will be either Jan 1 or sometime in April, 2009.
The current Congress is working on setting this date by law. People
will wake up and have no more TV. Our government hard at rest, but
hey, they are here to help!

"Ol' Duffer" bravely wrote to "All" (22 Nov 05 19:53:40)
--- on the heady topic of " HDTV freq. allocations, converter box
availability info?"

OD From: Ol' Duffer
OD Xref: core-easynews sci.electronics.repair:349386

OD In article .com,
OD says...
I for one am not happy the government is shoving this new television
standard down our throats. There was nothing wrong with our present
television broadcasting system that has worked so well for 60 years.

OD As often happens with new technologies, I fear that it will be used
OD to make things more profitable rather than higher quality. More
OD specifically, the digital standard is capable of very high resolution,
OD but I bet a lot of broadcasters will instead use it for multiple
OD channels of poor quality.

OD But there are technical advantages, like much more efficient spectrum
OD use letting broadcasters replace a roomfull of power-hungry class A
OD klystrons with an efficient solid state box not much bigger than a
OD microwave oven that covers the same square miles.


And there are disadvantages. For example, dx'ing will become near to
impossible. Many of a station's audience lives out in rural areas
without cable. A digital system is all or nothing without anything
inbetween. In a rural setting a little snow in an analog signal isn't
a big problem. However, a picture full of frozen squares or a blue
screen is going to be a bitch to watch. No more tv for those folks.
Satellite doesn't work so great in the fog or rain either.

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... First Church of Binary Science (The Digitarians)

wrote in message
oups.com...
Does anyone know if it is true that the present VHF TV band will be
disbanded when HDTV finally takes over? What will then occupy those low
band frequencies? And what will be the new fequency allocations? Also
is there any hope for those of us who would like to keep our existing
NTSC equipment? There was talk of converter boxes being made available.
Will this be the case and will they be reasonably priced? Or are they
perhaps a home brew project that we might be able to build ourselves?
Thanks for any information. Lenny Stein, Barlen Electronics.


Converters probably aren't going to be priced to the delight of most
consumers.
The major players are far more interested in moving new tech products than
supporting old standards. Which means converters may be offered by smaller
brands most aren't familiar with. Can they keep up with what could be a
high demand for these things? If not, low supply + high demand = high
street prices. Stay tuned...

At any rate, you'll still have many years of future use with your NTSC
TV(s), for as long as you remain content watching video tapes and NTSC
discs -- better build a huge library while you can if you plan to swear off
broadcast.

I hate that the plasma, DLP and LCD techs have so many disadvantages.
Nevertheless, I'll probably break down and purchase some kind of HDTV set.
My Sony WEGA is a little over 5 years old, so if 2009 turns out to be the
transition date, this set will be pushing 10 years (and it's on most of the
time).
It MAY continue to display a decent pix by then, but I'm ready for a bigger,
higher-res screen and I could also use the space which would be saved with a
thin, lightweight screen. The only reason I haven't purchased one yet is
price, price, price. Soon -- certainly by 2009 -- these things will be
priced down to what a 32" WEGA sells for now, which is less than what I paid
for this 27" WEGA 5 years ago.

"Ken Layton" wrote in message
oups.com...
I for one am not happy the government is shoving this new television
standard down our throats. There was nothing wrong with our present
television broadcasting system that has worked so well for 60 years. I
don't want to throw away a perfectly working tv set even if it might be
30 or 40 years old and I sure as hell don't want to buy one of those
overpriced 'new-fangled' ones. HDTV who needs it anyway? Does it make
the tv program story any better? No. Does it make the acting better?
No.


Does color make the program story any better? No. Does color make the
acting better? No. But I'll bet you bought a color tv before they quit
making B&W sets -- assuming from your post that you're in that age bracket.
And I'll bet you were glad to have color.

Once this 'changeover' becomes effective the major broadcast networks
will literally lose millions of viewers like me who will simply stop
watching tv altogether if our sets no longer work.

Haven't they already lost viewers whose primary concerns are the "story" and
the "acting" quality? Much of today's programming is utter garbage.
Reality shows? Puhleeeze.. merely a lazy way to maximize profits, as they
are ultra cheap to produce and yield tons of advertising dollars. Too bad
so many people watch this trash, cuz as long as they do, that's what we're
gonna get more of! When there's an original idea worthy of devoting viewing
time to, the genius programming execs kill it before it has a chance to grow
a following. If it isn't an _instant_ ratings smash, it's history.

Personally, I look forward to watching my favorite movies from yesteryear on
the larger, higher-res screen via the new HD transfers. It's a LOT closer
to film quality than NTSC at least, and since I can't own the original
studio prints...
As you might surmise, I'm less enthusiastic about future tv programming
content, as its quality is likely to decline even more by 2009, despite its
increasing volume.

wrote:
......... There was talk of converter boxes being made available.
Will this be the case and will they be reasonably priced?


They've always been available, and lots of guys bought these instead of
dedicated HDTV generators required for servicing. Although they were
$2000 or so, they were still cheaper than the generators. That said,
the last accessory catalogue I got in had HDTV tuners for less than
$300. I don't know the specs or quality of these.

But remember that since HDTV is basically computer hardware, the
continuing decline of the cost of faster processors and memory will
affect the cost of these converters. Factor in the demand (which
doesn't exist now), and I guarantee that basic HDTV tuner\converters
will cost $50 or less by the time analogue broadcasting ceases.

John

.....I guess I'm going to have to get a couple for my Philco Predictas.

You obviously have not seen this website.
http://pages.cthome.net/fmdx/hdtv.html Admittedly he has a radical antenna
setup mounted way up high, but the digital channels can have pretty well all
the range of the analog ones. Especially considering that many of the
digital broadcasters right now are not operating at full power, and probably
even more so a year or two ago when this website was first put up and many
of these captures were made. Here in Evansville, Indiana, I am able to
receive CBS, NBC, ABC, several PBS's, and Fox in digital using only an RCA
omni-directional "garbage can lid" antenna mounted in my attic. By
contrast, the analog channels are almost unwatchable with the exact same
antenna due to multipath, etc.

Having said all that, I agree with the posts about the broadcasters
eventually going more for quantity than quality. They can keep compressing
the digital signals to where they will get so poor that all the viewer will
be able to make out will be the toll free numbers on the 24 hour a day
infomercials. But for right now, the picture quality is surprisingly good.

Lee Richardson
Mech-Tech
Evansville, Indiana


And there are disadvantages. For example, dx'ing will become near to
impossible. Many of a station's audience lives out in rural areas
without cable. A digital system is all or nothing without anything
inbetween. In a rural setting a little snow in an analog signal isn't
a big problem. However, a picture full of frozen squares or a blue
screen is going to be a bitch to watch. No more tv for those folks.
Satellite doesn't work so great in the fog or rain either.

"Ol' Duffer" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...
There was talk of converter boxes being made available.
Will this be the case and will they be reasonably priced?
Samsung makes some, and probably others, but they are still a bit
pricey, IMO.

They're done to $199 last time I looked at Wal*Mart, and within a couple of
years I imagine they'll be closer to $49, if not less. (Anyone remember the
first DVD players to come out? And how now a cheap DVD player can be had for
$25!? No moving parts in an HDTV converter...)

Or are they perhaps a home brew project that we might be able to build
ourselves?

Most converter boxes are just a couple of large digital ASICs, so it's not
going to be cost effective (at least not for very long) to build your own.
(Just like the DVD players -- it's almost impossible to build one for less
than the cost of buying a new one.)

On the other hand, if you want to experiement with HDTV, the GNURadio project
along with the USRP radio board has software to perform decoding on a PC.
Note that it isn't real-time decoding, though, since it's all being executed
by the CPU.

---Joel Kolstad

"J Kelly" wrote in message
...
People
will wake up and have no more TV.

Only if they haven't actuallyed been watching that TV for the past few years.
:-) As 2009 approaches you can better there's going to be plenty of coverage
of the impending death of NTSC transmissions...

Our government hard at rest, but
hey, they are here to help!

It's not a black and white issue (ha, ha)... the FCC is supposed to be using
the spectrum for 'the public good,' and deciding whether or not 'the public'
benefits or not from killing NTSC in favor of HDTV is far from strictly being
a technical decision. The FCC, almost by definition, can never make a
decision that's going to please all 280 million people in the country. (A
prime example is the significant number of people who don't support the
current regulations on profanity, nudity, etc. on the 'public' TV and radio
frequencies... many of them seem to be the kinds of people who'd just as soon
abolish the FCC all together, even though I suspect they'd be the first people
to start complaining when anarchy took over and whoever owned the strongest
transmitter in a local area controlled the airwaves...)

On the other hand, the FCC does seem to have a much heavier concentration of
lawyers and would-be politicians running it today than in years past when
there were more engineers around, so their motivations may have changed over
the years...

---Joel Kolstad

"-Lee Richardson" wrote in message
...
You obviously have not seen this website.
http://pages.cthome.net/fmdx/hdtv.html Admittedly he has a radical antenna
setup mounted way up high

The 7' dish he uses is certainly 'playing with the big boys,' but he's still
well under the size of some of the most, uhh... ambitious!... amateur radio
operators out there. :-) My only real point here is that, over time, I expect
we'll see people using even bigger antennas just for the sake of TV DXing.

John-Del wrote:
wrote:
........ There was talk of converter boxes being made available.
Will this be the case and will they be reasonably priced?


They've always been available, and lots of guys bought these instead of
dedicated HDTV generators required for servicing. Although they were
$2000 or so, they were still cheaper than the generators. That said,
the last accessory catalogue I got in had HDTV tuners for less than
$300. I don't know the specs or quality of these.

But remember that since HDTV is basically computer hardware, the
continuing decline of the cost of faster processors and memory will
affect the cost of these converters. Factor in the demand (which
doesn't exist now), and I guarantee that basic HDTV tuner\converters
will cost $50 or less by the time analogue broadcasting ceases.

John

....I guess I'm going to have to get a couple for my Philco Predictas.

The converters will eventually bottom out $20. The electronics are on
a par with a DVD player but have no moving parts to assemble. The only
problem is using the old 4.2MHz NTSC display unit.

If you get a chance to see the Rose parade on KTLA (WB) or a football
game in HD, you'll understand.

GG

In article .com,
says...

BigSnip

The converters will eventually bottom out $20. The electronics are on
a par with a DVD player but have no moving parts to assemble. The only
problem is using the old 4.2MHz NTSC display unit.

If you get a chance to see the Rose parade on KTLA (WB) or a football
game in HD, you'll understand.

And for those of us who have not the slightest interest in the
first, and an interest somewhere in the negative numbers for the
second...? ;-)

Heck, I'm still ****ed off that 'Threshold' got canned!

Oh, and Frodo failed. Bush has the ring.

I think I'm going to go rake some leaves...

--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

"-Lee Richardson" wrote in message
...
You obviously have not seen this website.
http://pages.cthome.net/fmdx/hdtv.html Admittedly he has a radical
antenna setup mounted way up high, but the digital channels can have
pretty well all the range of the analog ones. Especially considering
that many of the digital broadcasters right now are not operating at full
power, and probably even more so a year or two ago when this website was
first put up and many of these captures were made. Here in Evansville,
Indiana, I am able to receive CBS, NBC, ABC, several PBS's, and Fox in
digital using only an RCA omni-directional "garbage can lid" antenna
mounted in my attic. By contrast, the analog channels are almost
unwatchable with the exact same antenna due to multipath, etc.

Having said all that, I agree with the posts about the broadcasters
eventually going more for quantity than quality. They can keep
compressing the digital signals to where they will get so poor that all
the viewer will be able to make out will be the toll free numbers on the
24 hour a day infomercials. But for right now, the picture quality is
surprisingly good.

Lee Richardson
Mech-Tech
Evansville, Indiana

Lee -

Thanks for this !!

I lived in Macomb, IL (where those signals were received by Jeff Kadet) from
1950's to late 1970s .. so I know the TV DX challenges very well.
KHQA and WGEM TV (both VHF) in Quincy north of the Gates/Harris TV
transmitter mfg plant were the only 2 grade A contour stations (barely).

Weingard and AntenanCraft (made RadioShack antennas) both HQ in Burlington,
IA ..
http://www.winegard.com/

loved to test their deep fringe TV and FM antennas in Western Illinois
(Forgottonia) and southeast Iowa.

gb