Rumor about digital tv conversion & a question.

[Vanyel]

Ok, I know that on February 17, 2009, television is going fully digital. I understand that and know that my TV's are fine because we use cable boxes already. But I heard one rumor and have one question so I thought I'd ask them here and see if anyone here can help.

I'll start with the rumor. What a friend of mine told me is that when TV goes digital in 2009, sound levels will be standardized, meaning the guy trying to sell me a new car will not be twice as loud as the show I was watching. It would also mean I wouldn't have to adjust the sound on different stations. Is that true? I couldn't find anything on it through Google or and I tried to navigate www.fcc.gov to no avail.

Now the question. Will my old TV's that are connected to cable but don't use a cable box need a converter? I'm thinking they will, since the newest one is about 5 years old.

So please any help would be welcomed.

 

[Amaris]

Ok, I know that on February 17, 2009, television is going fully digital. I understand that and know that my TV's are fine because we use cable boxes already. But I heard one rumor and have one question so I thought I'd ask them here and see if anyone here can help.

I'll start with the rumor. What a friend of mine told me is that when TV goes digital in 2009, sound levels will be standardized, meaning the guy trying to sell me a new car will not be twice as loud as the show I was watching. It would also mean I wouldn't have to adjust the sound on different stations. Is that true? I couldn't find anything on it through Google or and I tried to navigate www.fcc.gov to no avail.

I have heard nothing about standardizing sound levels. I think that's with each particular station, not with the box itself. For my own, each channel has different sound levels dictated by the broadcast station.

Now the question. Will my old TV's that are connected to cable but don't use a cable box need a converter? I'm thinking they will, since the newest one is about 5 years old.

So please any help would be welcomed.

No. Basic cable will not need a converter box. You only need a converter box if you watch over the air antenna broadcasts.


J.

 

[anti-matter]

^ well thanks for the heads up cause I had the same question about needing a converter box.

As far a consistent sound level goes...man that would be so sweet if that ever happened. The failure of the FCC to regulate this national annoyance is inexcusable.

 

[Garrovick]

Just to add..

I have a 13 inch TV and Rabbit Ears. Last week my coupon came so I bought a 50 dollar converter.

Works pretty good. In fact there is no more "snow" and all channels that were really snowy and unwatchable now have a picture that is crystal clear.

I may buy a larger analog TV when they are all being dumped for Digital and a better converter, but paying 300 to 500 dollars for an HDTV is no longer an option.

 

[RobertVA]

I haven't been seeing many analog only TVs in the stores lately, so if you are waiting for anything other than those tiny portable sets to go on sale you may have already waited too long.

I saw one model that looked like it was intended to be portable for a while ($200 US 7" diagonal LCD - resembled those portable DVD players that have the drive behind the LCD) but haven't even seen that displayed for several weeks.

Any analog to digital transitions on cable systems is a different issue that isn't associated with the OTA cutoff in February of 2009. Many systems will be shifting out of town channels to exclusively digital to better utilize bandwidth. Since mandatory analog carry for local channels will only last a few years and there are provisions for exemptions, local channels might be going exclusively digital on some systems as well.

 

[Hofner]

Ah, the wonders of sound. In regards to the problem of loud commercials, there ARE limits on how loud a broadcast can be. The real problem is compression, heavy compression. What compression does is limit how loud a peak or loudest part of the audio but also is used to raise the volume of quiet parts. Subtle compression is very common in sound engineering.

Normally a TV show or movie uses little compression so the dynamic range of loud and quiet levels is pretty wide, most of the time it won't be at peak levels. Advertisers heavily compress their audio so it's always at peak levels but not exceeding it.

I guess there's no separate guidlines for advertising and content like a TV show. Neither can exceed the peak level. Lowering the peak level won't solve the problem. Evidently trying to regulate compression is not easy. Here's a link to Wiki on sound compression. The "Marketing" section further down explains this problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression

Robert

 

[RevDMV]

As an aside, even with basic cable your cable company has to send the signals for the local HD channels. If you have a newer HD TV it can tune those for free.

 

[Garrovick]

I haven't been seeing many analog only TVs in the stores lately, so if you are waiting for anything other than those tiny portable sets to go on sale you may have already waited too long.

Well, I think that there will be hundreds, if not thousands of Analog TVs of all sizes available for years...

Of course they will be used TVs, lawn sales and flea markets will be gold mines.

 

[Vanyel]

Thanks J. Allen. hofner the wiki article was a good read. Thank you too.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As an aside, even with basic cable your cable company has to send the signals for the local HD channels.

Not exactly...a couple of times over the years, our local network affiliates have gotten into a pissing match with the cable company that services us, and withdrew their HD feeds from the cable network. You could get the SD feeds, just not the HD ones. Fortunately, now we have all of the major networks in HD as well as SD.

 

[RobertVA]

In the US each local broadcaster has the choice of "must carry" for no compensation from the cable company or withholding their programming until the cable company agrees to pay the local broadcaster. Sometimes part of this consideration ends up being some sort of advertising exchange where cable ads appear on the local channel and the broadcaster's programming announcements are inserted into some of the ad breaks of the cable channels. The cable companies get resistant when one of the local broadcasters want cash payments in proportion to the cable company's basic tier subscriber count.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I haven't been seeing many analog only TVs in the stores lately, so if you are waiting for anything other than those tiny portable sets to go on sale you may have already waited too long.

Actually, stores have more analog-only sets for sale than they will admit. Sears, Circuit City, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart have all had hefty fines levied against them for failing to disclose that the televisions they're selling are analog-only.

 

[RobertVA]

But you need to remember a couple of things:

Several thousand units spread over the hundreds of stores in each chain doesn't translate into many units in each store.

Actions like the government fines move slower than glaciers. Those retailers are getting fined for omissions they committed quite some time ago. Even small screen TVs for US distribution that were manufactured since March 2007 had to be equipped with digital tuners if they were equipped with any TV tuner at all. Mid to large size sets have had that requirement for even longer. Retailers and manufacturers don't usually have much 13 month old merchandise on hand or in the warehouse.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The cable companies get resistant when one of the local broadcasters want cash payments in proportion to the cable company's basic tier subscriber count.

I am on the cable companies' side on this. Why should they have to pay the networks for nothing? (The cable company, and anyone else for that matter, can get the HD feed free, over the air, via antenna. So what could the networks possibly have that was of value?)

The networks would - and, in our case, often did - claim that our cable provider charged a fee for HD service (and so they should get a piece of it). This is not true. There is a fee to *rent the digital cable box*, but not for HD service as such. Once one has the cable box, the HD channels are then free. And said cable box is not used *only* for HD service, so you are not paying the fee just to get HD.

 

[RobertVA]

The cable companies get resistant when one of the local broadcasters want cash payments in proportion to the cable company's basic tier subscriber count.

I am on the cable companies' side on this. Why should they have to pay the networks for nothing? (The cable company, and anyone else for that matter, can get the HD feed free, over the air, via antenna. So what could the networks possibly have that was of value?)

The networks would - and, in our case, often did - claim that our cable provider charged a fee for HD service (and so they should get a piece of it). This is not true. There is a fee to *rent the digital cable box*, but not for HD service as such. Once one has the cable box, the HD channels are then free. And said cable box is not used *only* for HD service, so you are not paying the fee just to get HD.

With many homes being equipped with devices like DVD players, console video games and sometimes VCRs (ir DVRs) there would be plenty of customers reluctant to add an antenna and the various cables and switching devices necessary to use it. Its easier to change to a different cable channel than to switch signal sources to. Not everyone likes to press a multiple button sequence going back and forth between local and out of town channels. So local broadcasts on cable(sd or hd) does have value to cable subscribers.

Some cable subscribers have reasons they can't or would prefer not to install an antenna. The reasons might include not having access to a suitable outdoor or even attic installation area, metallic siding or vapor barriers in the wall or not wanting a visible antenna inside their home.

If competing services like satellite or fiber optic offer the local broadcasts that the cable isn't carrying subscribers might defect to the competing service.

Because of these reasons carrying local broadcasts has value to the cable companies (and for some of the reasons satellite and fiber service too). They are making money from carrying them and therefore the local broadcasters are entitled to negotiate with the cable/satellite/fiber company as to what they feel is fair compensation (considering some subscribers might not see the channel otherwise). The broadcasters are allowed to prohibit the cable/satellite/fiber company from carrying their signal(s) if they feel the offer of compensation is inadequate.

And to clarify; its the local affiliates (and unaffiliated local broadcasters) that have these rights and get the payments. The cable/satellite/fiber companies aren't allowed to deal directly with the networks unless that particular network lacks affiliates in the subscriber's area.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

OK, here's the poop, straight from the engineering dept of my local TV station (I happen to work in the engineering dept at my local TV station...)

If you get TV signals over the air using rabbit ears or other antenna type, you'll need a digital set or converter. There are some exceptions to this and I'll get to them later.

If you get your TV signals from a cable provider, then your TV will keep on working. The FCC has made no mandates requiring that cable providers restructure their signals. That being said, many cable providers are beginning to send digital signals along with good old analog on their systems. Some require their cable decoder box, but some do not. Being digital, they'll likely be more clear than their analog signals, but local HD stations are often "squeezed" to save space. Local digital channels almost always look better off the air.

Contact your cable provider and ask them if they will offer (or are currently providing) any signals that can be picked up by a digital set with a "QAM" tuner. If they are, when you decide to buy a new TV make sure that you get a digital set with QAM, as not all digital sets have that feature.

If you're getting signals from satellite providers, you won't need a new TV, but the service providers are offerring HD channels that will look better on new equipment.


Now, the exception. The truth is that not ALL analog transmitters will go dark on that day in 2009. What will go dark are all MAIN trainsmitters for local stations. That being said, many local stations have "translators" which are low power analog transmitters that repeat the main signal. These are often used in rural areas where terrain or other factors limit coverage of the main transmitter. For example if you're getting your local "Channel 6" on channel 42 using an antenna, you're getting a translator signal.

The FCC mandate for analog translators is that they must all be out of service by 2012, but there's no hard cut date within that timeframe. Contact your local station to ask about their plans to move their translators to digital. My station has not even begun to plan migrating our 2 translators to digital, and we're one of the first 100 local stations to broadcast our local news in HD.

Hope this all makes sense. If you have any questions, please ask and I'll answer to the best of my ability.

AG

Oops, silly me, I missed the sound level thing.... bad news there... sound is standardized now in analog land and probably won't get any more level when things go digital. There are so many sources that local affiliates deal with that getting them all is nigh unto impossible. Commercials produced AT the station should be the same sound level as programming, but that's about the only thing that's guaranteed since even digital signals get reprocessed so many times from creation to broadcast.

 

[Johnny Rico]

Just to add..

I have a 13 inch TV and Rabbit Ears. Last week my coupon came so I bought a 50 dollar converter.

That's like spending $8000 for fancy rims for a '78 AMC Gremlin.

Works pretty good. In fact there is no more "snow" and all channels that were really snowy and unwatchable now have a picture that is crystal clear.

That's because it's a digital signal. You get it it or you don't. Which means, no more snow...ever. That's why when you're watching satellite TV and a rain storm blows up, the picture will start to break up and then you totally lose signal. With the analog antennae systems of old, rain would just make the picture more snowy.

I may buy a larger analog TV when they are all being dumped for Digital and a better converter,

No offense, but that's just plain stupid. Why? Because it'd be like buying a Sega Dreamcast when the system is being phased out in favor of the XBox or PS2.

but paying 300 to 500 dollars for an HDTV is no longer an option.

And this statement makes abosutely no sense either. First of all, why? And secondly, $300-500 for an HDTV? Try $500-800 just for a 27"-32".

 

[Garrovick]

Just to add..

I have a 13 inch TV and Rabbit Ears. Last week my coupon came so I bought a 50 dollar converter.

That's like spending $8000 for fancy rims for a '78 AMC Gremlin."

snipped......

I'm sorry, but what was that all about?