Digital television.

[Twilight Wolf]

We are currently watching the Super Bowl on glorious DTV. (The word "glorious" obviously being used in a sarcastic tone.)

Ugh, it's terrible! It's like watching a broken DVD; the video and audio skip and freeze and the picture gets blocky and pixellated so frequently that it's totally unwatchable. It was working fine a few minutes ago, so why did it turn to crap so quickly? Just think: this is what we'll be watching for the rest of our lives. An unreliable and often unwatchable broadcast standard being the only thing broadcast after the 17th of this month. Isn't that just awesome?

What do you guys think of this DTV "revolution?" I think my thoughts are pretty clear.

[Aguiluz]

I think Digital TV is less reliable than Analog.

Get a weak analog signal and you can still see a picture that is good enough, better than nothing. Get a digital signal in the same equivalent weakness and you'll see pixelations and dropped frames.

[bicostp]

What kind of antenna are you using? (Rabbit ears aren't as good as the ones they advertise for DTV, or even the old bowtie UHF antennas. Those kinds are tuned for the frequency band they broadcast DTV on.) If you're using an antenna, 99% chance that's your problem. We got one of those square plastic RCA antennas and it's fine.

The picture only really breaks up when the signal is marginal or lost.

Comcast (our cable provider) sends all the over the air DTV channels over the analog cable lines, and the picture looks just fine.

[lifeisbetterwithketchup]

I assume you are getting the DTV signal via an OTA antenna? What you described is pretty much what happens when you can "almost" get a signal. With a slightly better antenna/box/amplifier/tuner/what-have-you you will get perfect quality. OTA HD actually looks really good when everything is set up correctly (digital cable still looks like ass but that's a different can of worms). The DTV stations that are broadcasting now will raise the power of their transmitters when analog TV is turned off (in February.... or June.... or next February); at least, that is the story for most of our local channels. This means that problems like yours should be solved with the analog TV turnoff.

I think Digital TV is less reliable than Analog.

Get a weak analog signal and you can still see a picture that is good enough, better than nothing. Get a digital signal in the same equivalent weakness and you'll see pixelations and dropped frames.

I've actually come to experience the opposite. FOX comes in really badly on analog, but comes in crystal clear for us in digital.

[gamecube6]

Yeah, the whole mandatory switch thing isn't very smart. More hassle than reward. My signal's clear but I'm sure other's aren't.

[Twilight Wolf]

We're using a rooftop antenna. Analog broadcasts, for the most part, always looked great. We've got a stong signal according to the converter boxes, too.

One thing to note is that ABC cut off their analog broadcasts early here, and there was absolutely no improvement. The same problems we're having with NBC right now have always been, and are still present, on ABC, as well. The only difference is that we now don't have a backup analog station to watch and thus are forced to suffer through this crap. You can see their broadcasting antenna from the roof of our house, so it most likely isn't a problem on our end.

Another thing I can't stand is that the converter boxes convert signals at different rates, which means we can't have two TV's on at once if they're close to each other because everything's out of sync.

[bicostp]

Rooftop antenna? Ouch.

You'll be better off with an antenna designed for the DTV band (UHF), because they're designed to get that relatively small band of bandwidth really well, instead of doing a "meh" job of covering VHF and UHF. Like I said, we got one of those square antennas and it worked great. It even came with an amplifier/filter, which also makes quite a difference. You might need a more robust UHF antenna than that one, however, depending on how far out in the boonies you are.

(in February.... or June.... or next February)

They're turning it off this month. Congress voted against delaying the switch.

[lifeisbetterwithketchup]

(in February.... or June.... or next February)

They're turning it off this month. Congress voted against delaying the switch.

Yeah, but I read yesterday that the Senate was proposing another bill, with the possibility to do the switch more gradually. Link

[Twilight Wolf]

Rooftop antenna? Ouch.

You'll be better off with an antenna designed for the DTV band (UHF), because they're designed to get that relatively small band of bandwidth really well, instead of doing a "meh" job of covering VHF and UHF. Like I said, we got one of those square antennas and it worked great. It even came with an amplifier/filter, which also makes quite a difference. You might need a more robust UHF antenna than that one, however, depending on how far out in the boonies you are.

We're pretty close to town...

I'll keep that in mind, though, but I doubt my Dad would be happy with having to get a new antenna. He's got too much stuff to do as it is, and they cost money. Cheaper than cable, though...

I feel bad for the people further out whose local broadcast stations aren't going through with the switch at all and are just not going to broadcast anything.

[bicostp]

It's 10 inches square and cost about $30. I suppose if you really wanted to you could put it on your rooftop antenna, but if you're close enough to the transmitter you can put it inside. (Ours is on top of a tall cabinet and we get all the stations from Boston and Providence.) If it works, you won't need that huge lightning magnet on your roof anymore!

Cable is a scam. Comcast charges us $60 a month for a total of 55 channels, a handful of which we watch. On top of that, they keep taking channels away, bumping the price up, and degrading the signal. (We actually get a couple local channels better over analog antenna than over cable. ) Besides, anything worth watching is probably streaming for free on the parent station's website anyway. If I had to choose between Internet access and cable, you bet the intarwebs wins every time.

[Twilight Wolf]

Oh, I thought you were referring to a whole new rooftop setup.

I'll have to let him know either way.

[RockNRoll!]

I hate digital TV with a passion. The only difference is that I have to pay more $ for digital-capable equipment that gets worse reception (and handles bad reception much worse) than analog broadcast, while analog delivers a superior picture with good reception and is at least watchable with not-so-good reception. HD doesn't make it much better because it's usually compressed to hell. We've tried 4 different types of digital antennas and reception is still crap.

[XCVG]

In Canada very few people use OTA. Cable is pretty much essential. You see, Canada is more spread out, and most people will only get CBC. The upshot is that cable is way more affordable. I have digital cable and it's great. Not HD though- we don't even have an HDTV! The changover for us is happening in 2010 I believe, but it doesn't really matter much. If they upgrade cable to all-digital it doesn't matter.

Bottom line- over-the-air is almost foreign to people in the great white north. You see, it's pretty hard to mount an antenna to an igloo.

[Rekarp]

This is why I have cable. Discovery Channel in HD is sweet.

My Grandfather got one of the converter boxes a year or so ago. He said the image was better with the converter box then without it. He is pretty up to date on his tech (unlike that lady in the youtube video lol). He paid $5 for the box after the Government Coupon. In a side by side comparison. Digital looked better to me then straight Analog over air. Maybe down here in Texas we have better broadcast stations?

[Twilight Wolf]

Digital looks really nice when it's working absolutely perfectly, which is next to never. Analog was totally satisfactory to me.