Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,373 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just got my digital converter box. In our neck of the woods we get one channel -NBC- out of Steubenville. With our analog antenna, we're able to pull it in and if I tweak it I'm able to pull in a few more stations (fuzzy, but watchable) out of Cleveland. It's nice if the internet's down to be able to put it on for news and such and the wife likes to watch shows in the evening.

So after hooking up the box that:

My tax dollars helped subsidize
My personal dollars paid the balance of
Was manufactured by ChangHong Industries (you've heard of them, that nice little All-American shop in Kentucky)
Is non-returnable, non-refundable
Cost more altogether than my TV did
Was forced to purchase by my Government

Guess how many channels I get now...

Oh yeah. The big Goose Egg.

Under "helpful tips" it says: "buy a bigger antenna"

Color me nine shades of furious.

-'bridge
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
That sucks! I'm so hooked on cable and the Net I'm lost when it goes out. Just hope when it does its light out so I can go shoot instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,917 Posts
Damn Stonebridge. I wish there was something I could do to help you dude. Do you have satellite available in your area or is funding an issue?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
The buying of a bigger bigger antenna is about right and if you play it right you can pick up more then a few stations with great reception.

1st go to.... http://www.antennaweb.org
2nd........... Enter a address and it will tell you where to aim your New Antenna (Directional Type)(Found on internet for under $70.00 for a good one) on a compass heading
3rd........... Rescan your box

I picked up several new station which were crystal clear.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,373 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Satellite is a two-fold issue with me. See, I'm a TV junkie. If I get hooked on a few shows, it's easy for me to waste hours and hours per week watching them. Which means I'm not doing anything else. So, I've got the cost of the equipment/monthly fees and the opportunity cost of watching the thing (which I'll do in order to justify owning it). So, I've really avoided upgrading. The problem is, I like to be able to get the news in case anything dire happens. I was still living at my parent's house on 9/11. They've never owned a TV so needless to say it was a little frustrating trying to get information.

Worst case, I'll have to get a bigger antenna. Thanks for the info, Sin.

It just sucks that they did this.

"If it ain't broke, wait 'til your Government gets ahold of it."

-'bridge
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
As much as you want to think... the government really has no control over this. I know: "They" are telling me what to do. Well, they're BEING told what to do by of all people....us. Yep, the reason you're having to switch to Digital TV is the consumer. Not the government. In fact, they're the LAST ones to even barely understand what needs to be done to maintain our digital communications network.

But first off:

You'd be surprised what antennas will work with a digital box. Search the net: Alot of antennas that are built for "other purposes" have been determined to work well with digital tuners. Hell, you can make you OWN for less than $10 in parts:


Alot of the digital TV transition is misunderstood by the general market, and alot of that is by folks not understanding why the transition is REALLY happening. The government really didn't have much of a choice in this one: It's the consumers that pushed for it and you didn't even know it!!

You know that fancy 3G cellphone? Or how about those WiFi networks that everyone needs to be faster and stronger every year? Or how about the wireless data systems folks like Nextel or the Wireless DSL speed modems that everyone is getting now? Those all use radio frequencies, and we're running out. You can only make so much room for wireless communication. BUT, a bunch of researchers realized that the current spectrum of signals reserved for TV UHF and VHF stations are PERFECT for hi-load data networks! We're talking speeds of one GIGABYTE A SECOND wirelessly over a range of not a few hundred yards, but 50 MILES!

And, with the average Joe sixpack wanting everything cheaper, faster, better and NOW, a HUGE lobby group of folks like Nokia, Sony, AT&T, Lenovo, Erricson, and more started pestering the US government to open up more signal space. They suggested a new spectrum for TV networks that could carry more data at a higher resolution than the old fashioned 640x480 and it would free up the UHF and VHF frequencies for highspeed data connections that would make 3G and wireless N look like dial up.

Then the average American gets involved.

Many refuse to upgrade in technology. Also, EVERY TV sold for the past year on has been equipped with a digital receiver. But, there are still Millions who don't understand the transition, and this falls squarely on bad advertising. The state officials in charge don't even understand the technology and they're supposed to get Grandma or the Highschool dropout to get it by their ad campaigns? Then you inject the shysters who look to scam the uneducated by selling them overpriced garbage when all you need to do is understand just how Digital TV works. Many smaller retailers have been busted selling digital TV converter boxes as "required equipment" at a premium....with LCD and Plasma TV's that are already built with them!!!!!

What it comes down to is that the antennae is simply designed to get a different frequency, and there's tons of tech geeks who have found current systems out there that can get it done on the cheap. The video I posted and the website (www.makezine.com) will even give you the specs you need to measure out the proper spacing an antennae needs to recieve the signal free of charge!

If you get more confused, just shoot me a message and I can show you what to look for in a digital TV setup. It's not some elaborate scam for the government to "tell you how to live your life"; It's keeping up with the voracious thirst for data communication the public has... and the government is about as clueless as it gets in this because those in charge are always the slowest when it comes to technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,898 Posts
Im all about upgrading to digital and all....but I think it could have waited a couple more years....that means more tvs with the digital receiver already built in, instead of tons of people having to buy converter boxes and the voucher cards and all that mess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
Im all about upgrading to digital and all....but I think it could have waited a couple more years....that means more tvs with the digital receiver already built in, instead of tons of people having to buy converter boxes and the voucher cards and all that mess.
Obama tried pushing it back further just for those reasons, but after a senate review the standard was kept, and I agree with that judgement.

The problem is that the US already has one of the SLOWEST data networks out of all the industrialized worlds. Soth Korea already has a 1seg TV network, and WiMAX is becoming the standard in Japan and the EU. If the US doesn't act now, we're going to be more backdated in our technology than we already are. Only 25% of all cellphone handsets are sold in the US worldwide because our networks are TOO SLOW for alot of what's coming out. Cellphones in Asia are regularly supporting digital broadcast TV (not downloaded clips like in the US) and VIDEO CALLS. I'm lucky to get a YouTube clip to download on my Blackjack II.

Also, the problem is that in 2 years, those who aren't equipped with TV's with converter boxes STILL won't have a converted TV. Digital tuners have been standard on all LCD and Plasma TV's. I know of some retired folks and some ardent luddites who REFUSE to buy a new TV, sporting CRT antiques from 10 to 15 years old. You can scream till you're blue in the face, and there will be millions who STILL don't get it! Remember when they switched from Leaded to Unleaded fuel in the US? You STILL had drivers for up to TEN YEARS driving cars with "Lead Heads" and insisting the dealers and mechanics were "screwing up repairs" because their auto lacked power on the "new fuel"....10 years later.

We need to upgrade the network, and if we waited a few years, we'd be out of the running in comparison to the rest of the G8. Communications networks are the one thing you cannot let slip, especially in today's world. It impacts education, commerce and defence. It's because of 3G networks that you're seeing the "netbook" laptops that cost $200 to $400 new FINALLY take off! Families that were unable to afford net access now can because you can get broadband wireless access for half what it used to cost for a landline based connection 2 years ago. To keep up with the trend and to maintain the networks for the now-video heavy internet, we need to release more of the radio spectrum. The problem is that the US government didn't understand how monumental a step this was for US infastructure. It was started nearly 2 years ago, and talked about in senate 2 years before that! They saw it coming, but a bad PR campaign totally stifled the transition.

And, in two years the average laptop (not netbook...that's a different beast) has increased in computing power 3 TIMES. You used to be the big geek on the block with TWO processors. Now, they have a laptop coming out with an 8 core CPU cluster. Also, two years ago 35mpg used to be considered "good" gas mileage. Tell that to the 65mpg Prius and 45mpg Yaris. ALOT can happen in 2 years, especially on the internet. Who knows? 3D virtual programming and quantum computing could make 8 core laptops obsolete and a new chip archetecture could make downloading a full HD movie in 3 minutes commonplace.
 

·
You know who I am
Joined
·
9,324 Posts
It may be that seemingly the majority of people wanted this transition, but the gov't is what forced it down our throats. Before this forced transition stations that wanted to broadcast in HD could, and those that didn't want to didn't have to. Good ol' government stepped in and tells everyone that they have to broadcast in HD now.

I don't agree with it, and I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are paying for people to watch TV. Government's job is not to bring TV to people...

That sucks that stonebridge lost his TV channels. My grandparents did the same thing. Now for whatever reason some of the channels pick up 3 times, while others just disappeared. The same advice to buy a new antennae was given to them, they weren't happy about it either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
It may be that seemingly the majority of people wanted this transition, but the gov't is what forced it down our throats. Before this forced transition stations that wanted to broadcast in HD could, and those that didn't want to didn't have to. Good ol' government stepped in and tells everyone that they have to broadcast in HD now.

I don't agree with it, and I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are paying for people to watch TV. Government's job is not to bring TV to people...

That sucks that stonebridge lost his TV channels. My grandparents did the same thing. Now for whatever reason some of the channels pick up 3 times, while others just disappeared. The same advice to buy a new antennae was given to them, they weren't happy about it either.
Actually, there really wasn't much choice considering the corporations want to start using the new bandwith as early as 2nd quarter of 2009. And, as far as tax dollars go: It IS their job to maintain the communications network considering there are MILLIONS in the US who still don't have internet and even more who use Television as their primary news medium. TV is still the quickest method of mass communication in this country, and it makes sense to have it standardized as quick as possible. To me, this project is FAR more worthy of tax money than a majority of other projects. Also, for TV networks to broadcast in BOTH HD and SD, they would have to run two transmitters, and the transmission stations for HD digital content use less power. Running two transmission points would cost the stations and their affiliates more money (and then there is the cost of those repeaters that carry the signal to rural areas).

Granted, the net will hopefully bypass TV as the main news source in a couple of years finally, but the US has always been slow to adapt new technology, even when it's 5 to 10 years old.
 
G

·
[quote/]

Granted, the net will hopefully bypass TV as the main news source in a couple of years finally, but the US has always been slow to adapt new technology, even when it's 5 to 10 years old.
[/quote]

I am with you on that Neo. I look to TV as a place to find one side of any story esp news wise.
And before you counteract: there are alot of other alternatives to "just one place" that projects" a message: usually online you get linkage to that.

So, in essence, I agree with you on that. Online, a person can pick and chose, if they feel so: granted, you have to get interactive (on the internet, how hard is that?) but you still have to...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
Providing television to the masses is not a legitimate function of government. Taking money from some people to give it to others in the form of a converter box voucher is unconstitutional. It's a classic case of the government over-reaching their bounds.
If you can't afford the converter, save up for it. If you can't do that, buy a three dollar radio at Wal-Mart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
[quote/]

Granted, the net will hopefully bypass TV as the main news source in a couple of years finally, but the US has always been slow to adapt new technology, even when it's 5 to 10 years old.
I am with you on that Neo. I look to TV as a place to find one side of any story esp news wise.
And before you counteract: there are alot of other alternatives to "just one place" that projects" a message: usually online you get linkage to that.

So, in essence, I agree with you on that. Online, a person can pick and chose, if they feel so: granted, you have to get interactive (on the internet, how hard is that?) but you still have to...

[/quote]

Oh, I fully agree. You can only get info FROM the TV. You can't scrutinize the data and investigate it like you can on the net. It's a very one-sided idea that I think has outlived it's use. The problem is that there are so many people who do not WANT to. Then again, I can't tell you how many homes I see that still sport Microwaves that are so old they have faux-wood paneling on the side and computers towers that are still beige. I was actually surprised to see a LANDLINE in my girlfriend's parent's house! :blink:

Delaying the national switch is only going to...well...delay it. There will be people who aren't ready for it because they don't want to or they're too lazy to be prepared. If they're not ready by the established deadline, 10:1 odds are that they STILL won't be ready if we pushed it back 6 months or even a year. I'm not going to let the communications infastructure suffer because a minority can't get their act together. My freedom of speech and more avenues to express it are important to me, and wireless networks at speeds planned can get me going alot cheaper and easier when we get those wireless spectrum blocks released for use :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
Providing television to the masses is not a legitimate function of government. Taking money from some people to give it to others in the form of a converter box voucher is unconstitutional. It's a classic case of the government over-reaching their bounds.
If you can't afford the converter, save up for it. If you can't do that, buy a three dollar radio at Wal-Mart.
A city government provides crews to maintain the roads. That's part of our transportation network.

Federal government provides land credits to power companies to install high power transmission lines for electricity. That's part our of national power grid.

Maintaining a standard of television broadcast enables communication over the entire nation nearly instantly. That's part of the communications network.

While there is alot of junk on TV: A national weather service transmission, Emergency Broadcast Message or network update can broadcast info on everything from weather and natural dissaster relief to information during times of war.

To me, this is EXACTLY what the government needs to spend money on. I pay my taxes in order to have the civil network maintained, and communication is in that same vein. Yeah, I get all of my news off the net, but I realize that there are others who cannot, and the REAL key is getting the VHF and UHF frequencies free of TV broadcasts to use them for wireless net access. It's like buying a part of land from a landowner to put a power line on it: You have to give them compensation. If we're asking the entire TV public to switch frequencies, we as a society that has built the TV around every aspect of our lives (until recently) needs to have a smooth transition to maintain that part of the news and communication network.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
TV isn't the only way for people to get EAS transmissions. They're transmitted over AM & FM frequencies also. Sometimes life is hard and you have to cut back. For some, TV would become a luxury, so they would have to cut it out of their lives. It is not a necessity of life. Even if it were, the government has NO RIGHT to provide ANYTHING, be it necessity or luxury, to ANYONE on others' dime. With all due respect, Neo, using your same logic, the government should provide high speed internet to everyone, since it is the better avenue of communication.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
TV isn't the only way for people to get EAS transmissions. They're transmitted over AM & FM frequencies also. Sometimes life is hard and you have to cut back. For some, TV would become a luxury, so they would have to cut it out of their lives. It is not a necessity of life. Even if it were, the government has NO RIGHT to provide ANYTHING, be it necessity or luxury, to ANYONE on others' dime. With all due respect, Neo, using your same logic, the government should provide high speed internet to everyone, since it is the better avenue of communication.
Actually....

that's a topic for another forum :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,261 Posts
TV isn't the only way for people to get EAS transmissions. They're transmitted over AM & FM frequencies also. Sometimes life is hard and you have to cut back. For some, TV would become a luxury, so they would have to cut it out of their lives. It is not a necessity of life. Even if it were, the government has NO RIGHT to provide ANYTHING, be it necessity or luxury, to ANYONE on others' dime. With all due respect, Neo, using your same logic, the government should provide high speed internet to everyone, since it is the better avenue of communication.
Actually....

They should.

But that's a topic for another forum :D
I agree with neo on that, but im somewhat of a socialist 8)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,373 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I guess what burns me is that rural America is what takes the shaft. The argument I have against digital (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that it seems you either get a clear picture or nothing at all. And it seems as though it doesn't take much to disrupt the digital feed. I don't care if the picture is a little snowy, all I want is the *information*. Therefore, my access to information that was provided for free (and I believe the Gov't has a responsibility to ensure the unbiased dissemination of news and information) has been eliminated and I must now pay for an, in my case, inferior product.

-'bridge
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top