Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
HDTV Reception Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 2 of 2
Topic:
Is UHF antenna enough? Can I ignore VHF?
This thread has 21 replies. Displaying posts 16 through 22.
Post 16 made on Saturday March 20, 2010 at 01:12
Daniel Tonks
Wrangler of Remotes
Joined:
Posts:
October 1998
28,704
Isn't there still the "LP" analog loophole? Where low powered channels are still allowed to be analog?
Post 17 made on Saturday March 20, 2010 at 08:35
wogster
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2009
111
On March 19, 2010 at 13:58, donnyjaguar said...
Its all about maintaining backwards compatibility. We should've had digital TV years before we did but it got bogged down in the politics.

This is true, now should it be that backwards compatability is always the goal?

It often means that you need to use a hack to get it to work, and nothing is ideal.  We effectiveily now get channels from 7 to 51 or 44 channels, when we once had channels from 2 to 79 or 78 descrete channels.   Although there are sub-channels, it's unlikely they will be used very much.  I find it interesting that CBC doesn't move to 5-1 for CBLT and 5-2 for CBLFT.  Would save a transmitter.

Should they instead have looked for another frequency block, the idea being that  tre frequency width of a channel would be dependant on how much is needed, not how much was used in the old analog system.    It would be more painful during the switchover when you effectively need 3 antennas one for VHF, one for analog UHF and one for the new frequency range. I would think the ideal would be 100 channels, with channel numbers running from 100 to 199. 

As I said in another message though, I think this is all temporary, in that 10 years from now, your TV will simply be another network device. 
Post 18 made on Saturday March 20, 2010 at 12:00
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,630
On March 19, 2010 at 00:08, BillFromGI said...
With all respect to Wogster, what is done is done, and decided is decided. His post caused me to research all the various digital broadcast formats, causing my head to literally explode. South America vs North America vs Japan vs Russia/Europe/Australia.. . There are four standards out there, neither of which is perfect in its own right, but they/we choose the way we did and we have to live with it.. .

agree, it looks like he wants things to change just for the sake of changing them.

1) there is no such thing as too much BW, so why go from 6 to 3,who knows what the future will hold what if they start broadcasting in 4k instead of 1080p? and there are sub channels and nothing says the two networks sharing a channel need to be related so if you only need 3MW you can add an other service (here 44.1 is Fox and 44.2 is CW). Plus less compression is always good)
2.

2) he talks about changing the Channel numbers, but there is a reason there are virtual and real channel numbers, the reason being that most people tend to know/remember channel # and not the callsign or letters, Most people don't tend to think CBS (network) even less WCAX (needed to look it up) but 3 (old channel number/ virtual number), it now moved to 22(real channel number) that used to be ABC. So why recreate the new numbers when they are for the most part useless?

now don't get me wrong, if it was possible to have one standadr for the world, then good. But the issue with that is that everyone completely changes or people get annoyed because why should theuy change more then others.
...
Post 19 made on Sunday March 21, 2010 at 00:24
wogster
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2009
111
On March 20, 2010 at 12:00, Anthony said...
agree, it looks like he wants things to change just for the sake of changing them.

1) there is no such thing as too much BW, so why go from 6 to 3,who knows what the future will hold what if they start broadcasting in 4k instead of 1080p? and there are sub channels and nothing says the two networks sharing a channel need to be related so if you only need 3MW you can add an other service (here 44.1 is Fox and 44.2 is CW). Plus less compression is always good)
2.

2) he talks about changing the Channel numbers, but there is a reason there are virtual and real channel numbers, the reason being that most people tend to know/remember channel # and not the callsign or letters, Most people don't tend to think CBS (network) even less WCAX (needed to look it up) but 3 (old channel number/ virtual number), it now moved to 22(real channel number) that used to be ABC. So why recreate the new numbers when they are for the most part useless?

now don't get me wrong, if it was possible to have one standadr for the world, then good. But the issue with that is that everyone completely changes or people get annoyed because why should theuy change more then others.

The virtual channel numbers with multiple parts are going to really confuse the average person.  There is also the fact that there are fewer physical channels.  What this means is that of the 44 channel positions we have, 38 if you did drop VHF, means that long established channels will have their own space, while new channels do not and need to band together to try and get a channel.  Where this falls apart is if you have 44 established channels in a crowded market and new stations want to come on stream, there is no space for them.  Established channels don't need to permit sub channels, so additional channels may not be possible. 

In Toronto there are 2 sets of channels that should really be sub-channels, CBC and Omni.  In the case of CBC we have English Language CBLT and French Langage CBLFT.  In analog they are seperate channels ( 5 and 25) in digital they are 20 that maps to 5-1 and 26 which maps to 25-1.  Omni has Omni 1 and Omni 2, again they are two separate and distinct digital channels.  The Toronto market isn't that crowded, at least not at the moment. 
Post 20 made on Sunday March 21, 2010 at 12:00
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,630
on stream, there is no space for them. Established channels don't need to permit sub channels, so additional channels may not be possible.

1) I don't think sub channels will confuse people, plus for the most part it is new content, right, so people will need to learn it anyways, As new content I have 3.2 is local news/weather, 5.2 is This, 33.3 is create, 33.4 is world, 44.2 isCW , 57.2 is world view and 57.3 is arts show case

2) yes there are fewer physical channels, but the reality is that with analogue you could not have adjacent channels in a market, so the reality is that you could not have 68 (2-69) so I don't think there are many (actually any) markets that had more then 44 analogue channels. If there is any pleas tell me which one.

3) do you really think there will be that much growth in content, now I know that I gave of the extra US content (3, CBS, 5 NBC, 44 FOX and 33/57 PBS) and all but my ABC (22) have added subs and 27 which is LP and still analog (and I have not caught it in years), so the content has double for the US stations I get but how many networks are really out there for the need of many more then 44 stations owners?

4) do you really think there will be real growth in "owners/channels" there is a reason that Sub channels are used, the same owner can add subs and bring in more ad revenue while only increasing his costs by the content cost. Obviously, for example the guy who runs channel 5 needs to pay for This which is added to his cost of NBC but when I watch Stargate (which I do) then the guy that owns 5 gets the ad $, same with shows like supernatural on CW. Obviously the owner will pay for the extra content, but he won't need separate emitters, antenna so it is much cheaper to him then opening a new station.... and 44 real stations could easily become 88 (if they all average 2) which is much more then the 68 that used to be available.



In Toronto there are 2 sets of channels that should really be sub-channels, CBC and Omni. In the case of CBC we have English Language CBLT and French Langage CBLFT. In analog they are seperate channels ( 5 and 25) in digital they are 20 that maps to 5-1 and 26 which maps to 25-1. Omni has Omni 1 and Omni 2, again they are two separate and distinct

I am curious, anyone know the ATSC specs? can the same real channel have different sub channels (i.e. could 20 be 5.1 and 25.1? I am guessing there would be issues that would need regulatory approval because they would want to limit/know virtual channel numbering, but technically is it possible?)

But here is where I tie it into points 3 and 4 (for Canada at least), I think it would be cooler/ better if they went a different route, keep SRC/CBC separate but add to them, doesn't the CBC own RDI, newsworld and Country Canada? add RDI as a sub to SRC, NW or CC to CBC, the same could be done with most networks Global owns HGTV, food ..., CTV owns RDS/TSN..... But why would that happen (unless the CRTC changes the rules) CBC does not get anything for CBC/SRC from cable/sat companies but they do get for RDI, NW and CC because they are speciality channels and not free broadcast channels. You also have an other issue, of how many are in bed together, I contacted my local CTV and TVA to ask when they will start broadcasting in digital/HD and they said not until the deadline, it could be a coincidence that SRC,CBC,V, TQ have all gone digital and these two have not but I guess CTV being partially owned by Bell (who own Expressvue a sat company) and TVA owned by Quebecor (who own Videotron the local cableco) might prefer we use their services then OTA.
...
Post 21 made on Sunday March 21, 2010 at 20:38
wogster
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2009
111
On March 21, 2010 at 12:00, Anthony said...
on stream, there is no space for them. Established channels don't need to permit sub channels, so additional channels may not be possible.

1) I don't think sub channels will confuse people, plus for the most part it is new content, right, so people will need to learn it anyways, As new content I have 3.2 is local news/weather, 5.2 is This, 33.3 is create, 33.4 is world, 44.2 isCW , 57.2 is world view and 57.3 is arts show case

2) yes there are fewer physical channels, but the reality is that with analogue you could not have adjacent channels in a market, so the reality is that you could not have 68 (2-69) so I don't think there are many (actually any) markets that had more then 44 analogue channels. If there is any pleas tell me which one.

3) do you really think there will be that much growth in content, now I know that I gave of the extra US content (3, CBS, 5 NBC, 44 FOX and 33/57 PBS) and all but my ABC (22) have added subs and 27 which is LP and still analog (and I have not caught it in years), so the content has double for the US stations I get but how many networks are really out there for the need of many more then 44 stations owners?

4) do you really think there will be real growth in "owners/channels" there is a reason that Sub channels are used, the same owner can add subs and bring in more ad revenue while only increasing his costs by the content cost. Obviously, for example the guy who runs channel 5 needs to pay for This which is added to his cost of NBC but when I watch Stargate (which I do) then the guy that owns 5 gets the ad $, same with shows like supernatural on CW. Obviously the owner will pay for the extra content, but he won't need separate emitters, antenna so it is much cheaper to him then opening a new station.... and 44 real stations could easily become 88 (if they all average 2) which is much more then the 68 that used to be available.

I am curious, anyone know the ATSC specs? can the same real channel have different sub channels (i.e. could 20 be 5.1 and 25.1? I am guessing there would be issues that would need regulatory approval because they would want to limit/know virtual channel numbering, but technically is it possible?)

But here is where I tie it into points 3 and 4 (for Canada at least), I think it would be cooler/ better if they went a different route, keep SRC/CBC separate but add to them, doesn't the CBC own RDI, newsworld and Country Canada? add RDI as a sub to SRC, NW or CC to CBC, the same could be done with most networks Global owns HGTV, food ..., CTV owns RDS/TSN..... But why would that happen (unless the CRTC changes the rules) CBC does not get anything for CBC/SRC from cable/sat companies but they do get for RDI, NW and CC because they are speciality channels and not free broadcast channels. You also have an other issue, of how many are in bed together, I contacted my local CTV and TVA to ask when they will start broadcasting in digital/HD and they said not until the deadline, it could be a coincidence that SRC,CBC,V, TQ have all gone digital and these two have not but I guess CTV being partially owned by Bell (who own Expressvue a sat company) and TVA owned by Quebecor (who own Videotron the local cableco) might prefer we use their services then OTA.

Converting a station to HD is a three step process, you need to get your control room digital, which can mean replacing a lot of equipment, none of this stuff is available used so it's expensive, and the value of the old analog equipment is next to nothing now.  I don't think you can even buy new analog control room equipment now, probably have not been for several years now. 

You need to work out the ERP needed for the ATSC transmitter, for relatively flat areas this can probably be derived from conversion tables.  South Central Ontario is tricky though, there are a lot of reception holes.  It makes sense to use Toronto as a testbed, because of this.

Third you need the ATSC transmitter itself, once it's programmed for power and channel it's simply a matter of plugging it in and firing it up.  I expect that for a lot of stations they are working on the control room stuff now, will install the transmitter warm everything up on idle, will switch transmitters and run a few tests in the middle of the night when nobody is watching, then switch back before viewers find out when they get up at 6am.    Once they are happy then will turn off the ATSC transmitter and leave it until the deadline, then switch them one last time.   This saves them needing to apply for permits for another channel for testing.

I expect that a lot of sub channels, where they do show up, will be semi-specialty channels, and a few of the existing cable only channels will be looking for an OTA licence.  I would not be surprized to find stations like Newsworld showing up as sub channels on their home networks channel.  Until the end of 2011 it's probably a good idea to channel scan once every couple of weeks to see what shows up.

What will be interesting is when they will start turning off the analog, will it be on deadline day, will some channels switch before that. 
Post 22 made on Tuesday June 19, 2012 at 17:06
anteco
Lurking Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2012
2
+1
Page 2 of 2


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse