Where Are All of the HDTV Tuners?

An anonymous reader asks: "Today I read about rabbit ears making a comeback with OTA HTDV. I want to purchase a standalone ATSC HDTV tuner to go with my projector, but I am having a very hard time finding one. The big-box stores seem to only stock one or two models and are frequently sold out. Searching online yields similar results. It would seem that there would be ever increasing demand for these tuners given that many HDTVs were sold without internal tuners in years past, and these tuners will be necessary for all old NTSC TVs after the February, 2009 shutdown of analog broadcasts. Where should I look to buy one of these devices? Of the currently available models, which are the best? Will the standalone HDTV tuner become a ubiquitous item as the 2009 deadline approaches?"

Comments

Samsung

[daveschroeder]

If you can find a Samsung SIR-T165, SIR-T451 or DTB-H260F, pick one up.

I have an SIR-T165 and it works great. Tunes all analog cable, OTA analog and digital, plus OTA HDTV. Supports all formats. No broadcast flag, IEEE-1394/FireWire, DVI, VGA/RGB, S-Video, component, composite. Samsung did a really great job packing in a lot of connectors, formats, and functionality. The SIR-T451 appears to add QAM for digital cable (in the clear, no doubt), and HDCP on the DVI.

This doesn't answer the question about where they've all gone, but Samsung did a good job and hopefully you can pick one of these, or something like it, up somewhere.

Re:Samsung

[winnabago]

I use a Samsung SIR-T160 together with an amplified Terk indoor UHF antenna. It outputs to my HD monitor, and I've never been happier. It's a decent unit for tuning, and even shows program guide info where it's available. In an urban area I get ABC, NBC, CBS, CW, 2 feeds of PBS, FOX, and assorted local digital stations. I didn't even bother hooking up the VHF ears to it, because DTV comes in so well.

The Samsung receivers are available on ebay in abundance, well south of 50 bucks-just be careful that you understand how to set the unit to non-DirecTV OTA mode - it may require a used access card to stick in the back.

Also, in response to another post, some digital stations ARE on lower numbered VHF channels, and when the switchover happens, some currently on uhf will move down to vacated space, so don't assume that it's only UHF in your city, or it will always be.

Re:Samsung

[dave420]

There's no 1080p on those boxes... drats! they look very nice indeed.

it hasn't been restricted yet

[yagu]

Over the air (OTA) HD isn't restricted yet, but I developed an industry paranoia over the last ten years and don't trust that OTA will:

1. continue to be available, and
2. continue to be unrestricted

One may find themselves with an external OTA tuner and on the outside looking in as to what's available for viewing.

It's probably one of the reasons you don't see many rabbit ear and external tuners available at the electronics stores. And if there is any groundswell to "free" access to HDTV by consumers indicated in trends towards antennas and external tuners I'm guessing the industry will take note, and tighten the thumbscrews on how you can access OTA (e.g., some convoluted cable requirement, or antenna to TV DRM).

As much as I hate cable, satellite (actually I hate satellite a little less than cable), etc., I think going the OTA route could be something you kick yourself for later. Hold your nose, bite your lip, and sign up for cable or satellite (I've had good luck and service from Dish...)

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[dyc0n]

Yagu- Although I agree that your best bet for continued service is to pay for a subscription service but there are major pitfals to this. For instance: my parents only option for tv was satellite, however, because local broadcast ( abc, cbs, pbs ) is said to be available OTA in their area, they cannot get that service through the satellite company. Their only choice is OTA. I don't think that we will have any problems getting free HDtv for years to come OTA because the channels that come in are the same ones that we have been getting for free for years- it's not like we can pick up HBO, :-D .

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed parent,
Do not confuse DTV with HDTV. They are not the same. DTV consists of SDTV and HDTV.

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[Orphan264]

It's not about hating cable or satellite. It's just simple math. How much do you spend to get HDTV channels via one of those services? Why should I spend $75 a month to get compressed/pixelated versions of these freely available channels? You still see commercials eaither way. I am approx 40 miles from broadcast towers and yet receive 11 channels (more than 20 if you count subchannels) with an INDOOR antenna! The box cost me the same as two months of cable. Saving approx $900 a year. I know several people who are moving to OTA after seeing what they can get. Yet, as the original post mentions, the only new box available is a samsung H260F... if your local CC or BB can even stock them.

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[beckerist]

Because I would much rather watch South Park than Masterpiece Theater...?

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[Orphan264]

So buy the DVDs! Watch them all you want, and no commercials!

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[CavemanKiwi]

My biggest problem is rugby the only provider for that in the states is direct TV. So I figured I may as well get my HDTV thru them too. If I could find another way to download the rugby that is at least SD quality over the internet cheaply or free. I think would ditch pay tv here in the states all together.

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[Johnny00]

You are completely off-base when it comes to antennas for Digital and HD content. Both Circuit City and Best Buy had at least 20 foot of shelf space set aside for 8 or 9 different models of antennas ALL capable of receiving HD. This was just after Christmas 2006. I paid $30 for a small omnidirectional Terk model and get 12 beautiful HD channels and countless digital sub-channels (I love RawNews from KNBC 4.2!).

Now, why on earth would I kick myself later for shelling out $30 ONCE for OTA HD?

I've seen the HD content available on cable and satelite. There are a few more channels (less than 10), but its not ready yet. By the end of the year, yes, then it will be worth it.

BTW, Direct TV doesn't seem to make the subchannels available. Is cable exposing them?

If the industry does nerf OTA (a bit of a paranoid thought IMHO), I'd still have saved a lot of money by not paying for content while I can.

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[hansamurai]

I think going the OTA route could be something you kick yourself for later. Hold your nose, bite your lip, and sign up for cable or satellite (I've had good luck and service from Dish...)

Wow, you almost sound like shill for the telco's with that comment. Okay, let's see.. a one time $30-100 cost for an over-the-air antenna, or continue paying that much every month until supposedly the day OTA HD won't be free and we can laugh at all those people who now have to sign up for cable/sat because their days of "stealing" OTA HD is over!

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[ender-]

Now, why on earth would I kick myself later for shelling out $30 ONCE for OTA HD?

Because this isn't a discussion about HD antennas. We're talking about HDTV's which don't have built in Digital/HD tuners. These tuners run $200+ new if you can find them, though much cheaper if you buy used off ebay and such.

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[cayenne8]

I would,however, throw one idea at you that has started to become pretty clear to me.

I'd dare say that MOST of John Q. Public has no idea that you can get HDTV free over the air. I've had to correct a number of people I know about this. Most people that are not 'techie' or really into AV systems....all assume that you have to have Satellite or Cable to get a HDTV signal.

I've seen such an 'amazed' look on some people's faces when I finally convice or demonstrate that HD can be viewed over the air over a pair of old rabbit ears....

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[macdaddy357]

OTA is not free. Advertisers pay for it instead of end users. They have to pay for access to us. Subscriptions fees are chump change next to advertising. OTA isn't going anywhere.

Re:it hasn't been restricted yet

[FOOSE]

In my opinion, the reason you don't see many rabbit ear and external tuners available at the electronics stores is because the store probably gets money for each new subscriber they sign up for cable or satellite.

They would rather get you hooked up to a pay service and get a kickback than sell you an antenna.

The 2009 deadline....

[croddy]

What was the first time they told us analog TV was going away "real soon! we promise!!"?

Wasn't it something like 1997?

Seriously, guys, I'll believe this one when I see it. The FCC's digital TV broadcast announcements have become a pathetic parody of the boy who cried wolf.

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[nine-times]

What, do you think it's just not going to happen? It's only a matter of time before SDTVs aren't being built anymore, and then only a matter of time before the gross majority of households are using HDTV.

Clearly the FCC did a poor job at estimating a timetable and expected HDTV prices to drop much faster than they have, but I see no reason to think that SDTV broadcasts aren't going away eventually.

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[Gription]

The FCC had a December 2006 deadline to turn off analog TV transmissions. The fact that 2 years before that most of the TVs being sold were still analog made the lawmakers reconsider pulling the plug. (Apparently pissing off a large percentage of their constituency is scary for a politician!)

I think that 2009 might stick though. TVs are all HD now and when people have seen the quality that comes from a simple HD antenna they will run to switch.

I don't have cable. (Can't stomach the concept of paying for TV that has commercials...) Last night I finished a homemade bowtie antenna (like a DB2) and watched TV for the first time in digital.

OMG. Perfect reception on way to many channels. The Oscars in HD is actually more interesting. I will never use the rabbit ears again.

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[kannibal_klown]

Clearly the FCC did a poor job at estimating a timetable and expected HDTV prices to drop much faster than they have, but I see no reason to think that SDTV broadcasts aren't going away eventually.

There's a difference between digital and high-def. The FCC was requiring that all analog broadcasting go digital by year-x to save alot of frequency space. Said broadcasts would still be in standard definition but would require a digital tuner to plug into your TV instead of just bunny ears or roof-racks if your TV didn't already have a digital tuner built in. They weren't mandating that all signals go HD.

So it's not about HDTVs as much as everyone getting off their behinds to make it happen.

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[bill_mcgonigle]

I see no reason to think that SDTV broadcasts aren't going away eventually

You're right - the problem is the GP poster seems to think 10 years is a long time. I bet 20 years from now you'll need an adapter to downsample HDTV which will be the only feed source still around, but people will still have NTSC sets. Those adapters should cost $12 by then, so not a big deal.

In the meantime a big chunk of the existing wire plant in the US needs to be replaced and the satellite providers need to launch many more birds to even think about phasing out SD, and that doesn't even cover the current cost disparity. I expect that will be done in about 10 years for satellite and 15+ for cable. 30+ probably for rural areas, or until those towns install municipally owned fiber networks, or we get some major breakthrough in wireless technology.

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[croddy]

Yes, I think it's just not going to happen. I think there is a much greater chance that over-the-air broadcast will be made entirely obsolete by network content distribution before the feds ever throw the switch on NTSC. I also think that the claim that SDTVs will simply not be manufactured anymore rests on the faulty assumption that NTSC broadcasts will be turned off.

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[Overzeetop]

DirecTV has already done it, and that's more than half of the sat world to most consumers. Of course, they cannabalized their (mumble mumble) data service to do it. Dish just keeps adding dishes to the lawn to bring in more sats.

It takes less bandwidth for digital cable than OTA, and having two hundred more shopping channels isn't exactly on consumer's must-have-now list.

10 years is a long time. Consumer HD devices have been out for quite some time, it's been the encoding that has kept the whole thing from going anywhere. Most of the problems with the roll out stem from the FCCs total lack of backbone in setting the standard (singular). Instead, we got a "whatever you guy want" spec that is a royal PITA to implement. And don't even think of arguing VSB or QAM. As a consumer, I don't give a shit which has more technical superiority in certain circumstances - I want it to work. The FCC should have mandated a single type of encoding. Period. We all agree that VHS was chosen over Betamax for user-friendliness over quality - but you get enough eggheads and technophiles in a room with the bean counters and you can pretty much just ask the consumer to drop trou and bend over.

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[nine-times]

Yes, I think it's just not going to happen. I think there is a much greater chance that over-the-air broadcast will be made entirely obsolete by network content distribution before the feds ever throw the switch on NTSC.

So it's a race, which will happen more quickly: HDTVs will become ubiquitous -or- the big OTA networks will give up on their business model. Which do you think will happen sooner?

I also think that the claim that SDTVs will simply not be manufactured anymore rests on the faulty assumption that NTSC broadcasts will be turned off.

No, it's based on the assumption that the price of HDTVs will continue downwards to the point where they're comparable (more or less) in price to today's SDTVs, at which time there will be little point in SDTVs anymore. HDTVs can display a SDTV picture, so there's not really much of a downside to HDTV except price, and that price keeps coming down.

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[Phil Karn]

And don't even think of arguing VSB or QAM. As a consumer, I don't give a shit which has more technical superiority in certain circumstances - I want it to work. VSB and QAM don't even compete with each other, so there's no debate. 8-VSB is used over the air while the various flavors of QAM (64-QAM, 128-QAM, 256-QAM) are used over cable. 8-VSB is specifically designed to resist noise, both digital and analog co-channel interference, multipath and selective fading. This robustness comes at the expense of data rate. 8-VSB over the standard US 6 MHz TV channel provides 19.39 Mb/s.

US cable systems also use 6 MHz channels, so 8-VSB would certainly work over cable too. But it would waste cable capacity because the cable channel is so much cleaner than the broadcast channel. 256-QAM, popular on US cable systems, provides about 38 Mb/s per 6 MHz channel, about twice that of 8-VSB in the same bandwidth. This signal is necessarily more 'fragile' than 8-VSB, but it works fine on a well-engineered hybrid fiber/coax system.

Perhaps you meant to compare 8-VSB to DVB/OFDM, the over-the-air scheme used in Europe and other countries? This is where the debate has raged. OFDM, with its built-in multipath resistance, had a definite advantage over 8-VSB in early implementations. But as the receive equalizers in 8-VSB improved, it has become at least the equal of OFDM according to the on-air tests I've seen. Both work.

Many digital TVs sold in the support both ATSC 8-VSB and QAM signals. 8-VSB is obviously needed for over-the-air reception, but you can't necessarily receive digital TV from your cable system even if you have a QAM tuner. My experience with Time Warner Cable is that all of the digital TV channels are encrypted except for the minority taken from local TV broadcast stations. In other words, with just a QAM tuner in your set you can't get anything from cable that you can't get from an antenna. This makes the QAM tuner much less useful than it could be.

Some (but not many) digital TVs have slots for a "CableCard". You rent this from your local cable company, and it decrypts the remaining digital channels for you (or at least the ones to which you have subscribed). Besides not being available yet on most digital TVs, current CableCards are unable to handle two-way services such as video-on-demand and pay-per-view, so it's just not very useful yet. That means you might as well rent a digital tuner box from your cable company and plug it into your TV set with HDMI so that you don't use the TV's QAM tuner at all.

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[nine-times]

That's kind of a technicality that doesn't remove my point-- either you have to buy a new TV, or buy a tuner. Owning an HDTV removes the issue.

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[Overzeetop]

And that's partly my point.

I specifically meant to compare VSB and QAM. Oh, sure, you can double the bandwidth over cable with QAM, but do you have to? Would it not have been better to have a single tuner standard, with a single encoding standard, and a single resolution standard? I'm an audio/video geek, I admit it. But to be honest, after watching a decade of failed product after failed product I'm inclined to believe the Television should be like a Mac - it should just work. It's not optimal, it's not the best you can get, it certainly puts limitations on the delivery content (booo - no 12.1 sound), but it certainly would make life a lot easier. Of course, if I were king, I'd forbid (a) encryption of OTA content regardless of provider, and (b) in house or exclusive contracts for production of decoding hardware by network providers. CableCard would be required to be national, fee-free standard, too.

Did I mention in the original post I wanted a pony?

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[croddy]

No, I don't have to buy a new TV, and I don't have to buy a new tuner. I don't have to buy anything... much like the majority of American TV viewers who aren't upgrading equipment that's perfectly fine, I can just keep using my existing equipment. The folks who are running out to Circuit City to buy a 36" LCD HDTV are in a niche market. There are a whole lot of sets left to displace before mandated obsolescence becomes either economically feasible (for the broadcasters) or politically feasible (for the feds).

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[Craig Davison]

HDTVs can display a SDTV picture, so there's not really much of a downside to HDTV except price, and that price keeps coming down.

All of the HDTVs on sale now seem to have a 16:9 display, even the CRT ones. I don't want an HDTV until the shows I watch are in 16:9 - why put up with a squished picture, or wasting space on black (sometimes grey) bars on the sides?

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[macdaddy357]

SDTV does not mean NTSC. If you had read previous posts, maybe you would understand that. Even at Slashdot, things have to be dumbed down for the masses. Not all digital is HDTV, nor will it ever be. Only analog is eventually going away. Duh!

Re:The 2009 deadline....

[Phil Karn]

Oh, sure, you can double the bandwidth over cable with QAM, but do you have to? You bet.

Would it not have been better to have a single tuner standard, with a single encoding standard, and a single resolution standard? No.

Modems are cheap compared to the channels over which they operate. Nowadays they're mostly software. Using the wrong type of modem can squander much of a channel's capacity. So why not have several, one for each type of channel you use? As long as they're selected automatically, what do you care?

Buy a Mac mini and an Elgato EyeTV Hybrid

[SuperKendall]

At least one compact tuner is the Elgato EyeTV hybrid. Use that with a Mac mini, and you have a great DVR that does OTA HD as well as standard def TV - and all of the video recorded is DRM free, transcode away or burd to DVD or do whatever.

The HD tuner

[Anonymous Coward]

was called Supernova; now it's called mininova.

Re:The HD tuner

[Anonymous Coward]

Minor correction: It was Suprnova, no "e"

Why?

[Zonk (troll)]

Not to be an ass or anything, but what is worth watching OTA? Heroes, Family Guy, and The Simpsons are the only things that come to mind.

Just get satellite or cable. You can get HD or continue to use analog TV with it. Dish Network is a good choice.

Re:Why?

[NewWorldDan]

30% of the population (including me!) doesn't feel the need to pay for TV. I get OTA digital, which kicks ass. Most of the time. Mostly, I just don't watch that much OTA programming. Also, a lot of what seems to be on cable or satalite isn't actually HD. It's digital, but it's only provided in 480. On the other hand, to refer back to the OP question, there is very little demand for digital set top boxes. Most of the early HD adopters either bought a box at the time, or get everything via cable/satellite. Also, when you look at it, the set top box costs $250, while you can get a new 27" or larger TV for that price. In short, screw Flanders.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

Those are the only shows you like on OTA. I like others as well.

Sorry, I have no desire to get satellite or cable. There's no way I'm going to pay money to watch commercials.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention they have the audacity to charge extra for HD.

Re:Why?

[Joe The Dragon]

24, prison brake.

Re:Why?

[Chris Burke]

Not to be an ass or anything, but what is worth watching OTA? Heroes, Family Guy, and The Simpsons are the only things that come to mind.

And those are pretty much the only shows I actually watch, as in make an effort to see. There's a half dozen other shows that are entertaining if the TV happens to be on when they come on. Studio 60, Lost (mostly because of its crazy-ridiculous plot), Numb3rs (though it's getting worse season to season), Supernatural, and uh... that's all I can think of.

And what's wrong with that? With only three shows, I don't waste a lot of time in front of the boob toob (meaning more time for WoW :P), and best of all it is free. If I paid for cable/dish I'd have to justify the expense by having lots of shows to watch, and barring the obvious candidates on Comedy Central and Cartoon Network, I'm just not convinced that those shows are there. So instead I get a moderate amount of quality TV for free. What's the problem?

Oh, right, if I'm going to only have 3 shows I watch then there isn't much sense in buying an HDTV and an HD Tuner. Oh well.

Seriously though, I think the set of people who watch OTA progamming is one of the least likely to spring for an HDTV, which is why I find the whole discussion sort of funny.

Re:Why?

[Joe Snipe]

Next time on prison brake:

Junior Guard: "Oh no!! The prison is out of control! Help!!!"

Senior Guard: "We must stop this prison at once! Call the commisioner!"

(crashing sounds, scraping metal)

Junior Guard: "Theres no time! We can't stop it!!"

(prisoner 4812 enters the room)

Prisoner 4812: "I can stop this prison. Using the brake."

Senior Guard: "You? But, you are a prisoner! Exactly why should I trust you?!?"

Prisoner 4812: "Because I'm the only one who can stop this prison, dammit!"

(more crashing sounds, ground shakes uncontrollably)

Senior Guard: "Make it so."

Will they stop the prison in time? Will prisoner 4812 double cross the senior guard?
Patrick Stewart guest stars in an unforgettable episode of Prison Brake!

Re:Why?

[Sandbags]

Good point... Cable companies offer a "broadcast" connection package usually at $10-15 per month. Almoist every HDTV currently on the market, and those sold for the past few years, have built in tuners. If you cable company lets you use your own, your set. If they restrict you from using your own, many states require them to provide you a tuner for free. Soon federal regulation may require the same if the cable companies piss off the FCC enough. The cost to get a single HD antanea and install it outside your house is worth almost 2 years of HDTV from your cable provider or sattlite service. With HD antaenas I believe you also have to have 1 for each TV set. It's simply not worth it if you have 2 or more TVs... Keep in mind, broadcast TV won't give you good options for DVRs either (no electronic published chanel guide to use). I think Tivo might work, but now you'r paying for the privelidge anyway... If you can't get cable TV, get a sattelite. It's likely if your town isn't big enough to have cable, the local broadcaster can't afford the HD upgrade and will sell out or shut down in 2009 anyway.

Re:Why?

[AJWM]

Yep, haven't seen the need for cable or satellite in about ten years now. Rarely watch any OTA TV either, for that matter. Any TV series worth the time to watch are worth buying the season DVD set a year (or so) after it airs, and over the course of a 20 episode season you'll save yourself five or more hours by not having the commercials.

Re:Why?

[sarahbau]

PBS is one of my favorite channels, as well as one of the first to start broadcasting in digital (and in HD). Also, while I don't watch them, many people watch shows on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, etc.

Re:Why?

[Dr. Manhattan]

Keep in mind, broadcast TV won't give you good options for DVRs either (no electronic published chanel guide to use).

Um, actually, the ATSC standard does specify a format for guide information and such. And I've seen it when I was doing the OTA thing with my tuner (right now I'm back to getting the local HD channels off cable). Some stations were concientious about filling it in, some weren't. But it's there and I expect it to do better. I don't think it goes more than a few hours in advance, though.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I'm at(central TX) PBS, FOX, and CBS are broadcast in HD OTA. For me, and others, this means things like Austin City Limits, NOVA, and other Nature programs (PBS), look immaculate and drool-worthy. On FOX and CBS, most professional sports that are shown come in HD, which makes the games all the more worth watching.

Aside from those, all other commercial HD channels are available through the local Cable, and Satellite provider. As it stands now, I can LIVE with what is currently HD OTA. I don't expect more channels to pop up, but I'm definately glad they're there.

Re:Why?

[friedmud]

Just to name a few things I watch on Cable:

1. Sports: ESPN, ESPN2, FoxSports are all _necessary_ during football season. Vs is necessary for watching cycling...

2. Discovery Channel: Dirty Jobs! Myth Busters! Not too mention all the stuff on Discovery HD.

3. USA: Monk! Psych! 4400!

3. I also tend to watch a lot of stuff on MHD (Love the live concerts!), INHD, and UNHD (Surface! Firefly!)

Sadly, that's about it. But I do watch enough that it isn't too hard to justify the cost. The sports alone justifies the cost for me.

This also not mentioning my cable internet... which is cheaper if you "bundle" with some cable.

Anyway... some people do find value in cable TV... I promise ;-)

Friedmud

Re:Why?

[EvilSS]

My cable company charges about $15 a month for HDTV and the Decoder box, on top of the normal cable fees ($49 and up). That's $360 dollars just for the HD for 2 years, and is limited to one TV. It costs $5 or $10 (forget which) per box per TV for more than one. My OTA HD antenna cost me $70 and my tuner was $100. Now, I did install everything myself (no big deal to install).

I use BeyondTV as my PVR (has plenty of guide data for my analog cable, OTA HD, and OTA analog channels). I could have opted for an HDTV TiVo (has guide data for both OTA and cable) or a number of other HTPC solutions (MCE, Sage, etc) again, all with guide data.

Re:Why?

[Kohath]

Lost, House, NFL Football, American Dad

See other responses for more.

Re:Why?

[russotto]

The cost to get a single HD antanea and install it outside your house is worth almost 2 years of HDTV from your cable provider or sattlite service.

Make that less than two MONTHS. Comcast runs >$50 for standard service (no premium channels). A Channel Master CM4221 is $25, a CM7777 pre-amp about $30, add in a few bucks in shipping, installation hardware and cable and install it myself (as I did) and that's it. There's no need to get separate antennas for multiple TVs (that's why the pre-amp is there; it boosts the signal enough to survive splitting). DVRs are not a problem -- the ATSC broadcast contains program information and Zap2It is currently available for free for MythTV users.

Re:Why?

[tverbeek]

I've got a counter-question: What on cable or satellite is worth shelling out $30-100/month for?

Note: This was a rhetorical question. I don't need you to tell me what I'm missing; I know there are some swell pay-only programs out there. But the bottom line for me is that I already get all the couch-potato-format entertainment I'm interested in (maybe 5-7 hours/week September-thru-May) over the air for free. I'd like to continue getting it two years from now, so I'll definitely be buying one of those inexpensive ATSC-to-NTSC converters the feds keep promising, rather than pissing away a monthly fee for a service I've already decided isn't worth it to me.

Re:Why?

[tverbeek]

I watch Monk on iTunes. Over the course of a year it costs me an average of $2.65/month. Way cheaper than cable, and I have all the episodes available to watch on demand.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, while I don't watch them, many people watch shows on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, etc.

Thank you, Captain Obvious!

Re:Why?

[Lost Engineer]

I can't do the iTunes thing. The DRM bothers me too much, because I'm forced to keep the files on my HD forever, and I can never make a DVD that I can just put in and play. Also it takes some contrivance to get it on my TV, although most of my friends are not bothered by this.

If they would sell burnable shows, I would totally buy them. Until then I'll just have to record them on a DVR.

Re:Why?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Stuff I watch on cable.

South Park
Reno 911
Daily Show
Colbert Report
Stargate SG-1
Stargate Atlantis
Battlestar Galactica
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Mythbusters
Headbangers Ball

Re:Why?

[macdaddy357]

Nothing on OTA? You must not like sports. All the big events are still there.

Re:Why?

[markhb]

One quick OT question for you: do you receive Heroes with full 5.1 sound, or in 2-channel stereo? I'm only getting stereo, and I'm wondering if it's my cable provider, my local affiliate, or NBC that is setting the sound standard. I get 5.1 for plenty of other shows on othe rnetworks.

Do you have a home theater PC?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I really don't know where the set-top HD tuners are. I do agree they need to be made and made affordably. I would hope that they would be made available for $50-$100, I don't see why that can't be done. Given that most or all broadcasters are transmitting digitally, I'd think there would be a market for them to improve picture quality. I don't even bother tuning to analog channels because of the snow, static and other analog issues that aren't present on the digital signal.

I just use an HTPC to record over the air HD. There are a lot of PCI cards that capture ATSC. There is even one that's about the size of a large USB flash drive, two if you count the rebranded version, so you can use it with a notebook computer too. With a good roof-top antenna, I get good video with better pickup of more stations than I can get with an analog tuner with the same antenna.

When I checked, satellite set-top boxes have HD tuners too.

Re:Do you have a home theater PC?

[Technician]

I really don't know where the set-top HD tuners are. I do agree they need to be made and made affordably.

Market forces play a lot here. The manufactures know their market. The tuners are not cheap to make. Consumers are looking for a sub $100 box. A digital tuner is generealy a $75 UHF tuner with a $75-$100 single board processor attached. Not many people are interested in buying one of these tuners to stick on their 10 year old TV set that had the same value when brand new. Because few people buy these stand alone tuners, the cost for marketing and distribution is high on a per unit basis. More people will just go for the extra money on the vast upgrade to a HDTV LCD set instead now that the prices are down and the larger sizes are now required to include the tuner.

The number of early adopters with a HDTV monitor needing a tuner is few. Most are subscribing to HDTV over their cable box or Sat box and won't spend the $160-$300 for an over the air tuner. This is why the number of stand alone tuners are in limited supply. The demand is low. The manufactures have anticipated this and have not wasted money building large inventories to remain sitting unsold.

The NTSC only TV's will simply be retired, or passed along as a monitor for VHS tape, Game Consoles, and other legacy applications. If you are going to spend over $150 for a tuner, it may as well come in the new HDTV.

That is what I did. I waited out the HDTV monitor craze and waited for the sets to arrive with tuners. The advantage to waiting is the price is about 1/3 the price of just a monitor a couple years ago. Instead of over $2500 for a monitor, I spent less than $800 for a TV.

Re:Do you have a home theater PC?

[karnal]

I've got a projector. No built-in HD tuner there...

I'm about ready to lay down some cash on a TV tuner for my home theater box that is hooked up to the projector, though. I would much rather have a stand-alone device to do the HD deal, but I can deal with the PC if it's 2x cheaper....

Re:Do you have a home theater PC?

[BlueBat]

Jeff DeMaagd wrote:

Given that most or all broadcasters are transmitting digitally

In my area of NY State in the USA, none of the broadcasters are sending digitally yet and I have been told that they wont until they are forced to do so. It is very annoying as I would like to drop cable but can't because an analog signal just doesn't come in very well in my area. It does come in enough that I don't qualify for satellite channels. I only have basic cable for the local channels and get everything else from DirecTV. I hope the FCC sticks to the 2009 deadline so that I will be able to drop cable.

Re:Do you have a home theater PC?

[Technician]

I've got a projector. No built-in HD tuner there..

Which is why there is a limited supply of set top boxes.

They are not for the 13 inch tv/vcr combo unit you keep in the kitchen.

Re:Do you have a home theater PC?

[karnal]

Actually at some point in the future they would be required for that 13 inch tv/vcr combo that I keep in my kitchen.

Otherwise it'd just get static.

Re:Do you have a home theater PC?

[Technician]

Actually at some point in the future they would be required for that 13 inch tv/vcr combo that I keep in my kitchen.


At that time, the tech will be entrenched enough so the tuner does not add $200 to the price of a $125 tv set. That is when I will start replacing the smaller sets. If you check the FCC website, they have the deadlines set for what size set requires a tuner.

Deep link is here showing deadlines for 13 inch to 24 inch TV to include a digital tuner.

PDF aleart.. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ FCC-05-190A1.pdf

I should be able to start picking up small sets for the motorhome soon if the price is within reason. There should be a fire sale on small analog flatscreen TV sets soon as the deadline nears.

rabbit ears are useless for HD

[gEvil (beta)]

Rabbit ears are generally useless for picking up HD signals. Rabbit ears pick up VHF signals, while almost all of the HD broadcasts are done in the UHF range. In order to pickup HD signals you'll need to get either a directional UHF antenna (my Silver Surfer works great), a loop UHF antenna, or one of those grid things that you can stick in your attic.

Re:rabbit ears are useless for HD

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I've been using rabbit ears for several months. For some reason, it actually worked better than one outdoor antenna that I bought. I did replace it with an in-attic installation because the CBS affiliate was too far away (IIRC, 40+ miles). The one that didn't work well was an "amplified" antenna. I think amplified antenae are rubbish, I was only willing to try one because that's all a local Radio Shack had that was good for UHF+VHF. I suggest just getting a large passive antenna and put it in the roof.

Re:rabbit ears are useless for HD

[antdude]

I am currently using a DB2 HDTV Antenna (rabbit ear antenna was too weak (had problems with stronger signal strength [never higher than 50%], but this bowtie type fixed it) with my Broadband Technologies' Air2PC-ATSC-PCI in my computer. This antenna (30 miles) should be fine for HDTV sets if I ever get one.

Re:rabbit ears are useless for HD

[winnabago]

The primary use for an amplified antenna is for when you are unable to put the unit next to the tuner. If you have a 100 foot run to the tv, you would probably want to invest in an in-line preamp of some sort to overcome loss in the coax. But, you are correct in that an amplified antenna won't magically bring in distant broadcasters - an appropriate one might, though. Don't knock it because it didn't work for you.

Tv reception is an amazingly complex affair, and it is difficult to judge any antenna by others' reviews. Take a look at http://antennaweb.org/ and AVS forum for more on this subject.

Re:rabbit ears are useless for HD

[Anonymous Coward]

I use rabbit ears and pick up pretty much all the HD broadcasts in the area with no problems. I live in northern Virginia and even pick up a couple Baltimore stations.

Re:rabbit ears are useless for HD

[Bobfrankly1]

Rabbit ears (two pole antenna) are useless for HD. But many Rabbit ears antenna's today do come with the UHF loop (looks like a plate inbetween the two poles). If you live in suburbia, an amplified rabbit ears (provided they come with the uhf loop example) is often enough to pull in HD signal reliably, but if you want to be sure, mount a yagi. - Do not be forgetting what you can not remember.

How many people have an HDTV without Broadband?

[The Phantom Mensch]

I think the lack of ATSC tuners is because most of the market segment that has gone to HDTV is already using cable or satellite service and doesn't need an OTA tuner. Maybe in the next few years that'll change as HDTV or Digital TV in general goes down market but I'm not sure if it'll result in a decent market for ATSC tuners. It might result in a market for cheap ATSC tuners with only a standard definition output.

Re:How many people have an HDTV without Broadband?

[michaeldgale]

I have a HDTV & broadband. But the couple of HD channels available from Charter Cable is just not worth the price. But I kept my VOOM box and used it to watch the Superbowl, PBS and 24. One of these days the Dish HD DVR pkg will convince me to pay even more to watch TV so that I can go back to watching Battlestar Galatica in HD via the Universal channel. Until then, OTA works for me. Too bad a storm messed up my roof antenna and now I use an indoor one.

MichaelG

HD home run (ethernet with 2 tuners)

[TheGratefulNet]

http://www.silicondust.com/

go read up. you need a pc (this isn't an end-user device that connects directly to a tv) but it DOES have atsc and clear-qam. meaning: off the air and also cable unencrypted.

seems to work, too. I love mine. 1 channel of HD takes 15% of a 10/100 ether. gig-e is not even close to needed, here, thankfully. (all the work is in PLAYBACK, not saving to disk, btw).

$180

[davidwr]

For that price by the time OTA analog goes dark you should be able to get a VCR or DVR with an HD tuner built in.

I like the LG 3510A

[glennrrr]

I have a couple LG 3510A's in the house, and recommend them for OTA use, very flexible devices, lots of output ports. Forget the fact they are DVD players; too flakey. Every now and again there are a bunch of refurbished players on eBay. Don't overpay, look for ones marked as having bad DVD playback. As for where the standalone tuner boxes went. They are only useful for people who (a) don' have a HD cable box, and (b) don't have a QAM/ATSC tuner built right in their TV. Also, a growing fraction of people have some sort of media PC with a tuner attached. You'll notice there are plenty of choices there. (I like the networked HDHomeRun).

Re:I like the LG 3510A

[blackmonday]

I have this box, and if this is one of the best options, I'm aghast. I can't even direct tune to channel 2 in HD. (known bug, apparently never fixed). Its a great unit as far as outputs go, but the DVD player won't play burned discs, and the channel tuning is very slow. On the plus side, commercial DVDs look significantly better than the Oppo thru DVI (I have both players), and it remembers where you left off on the DVD, which the Oppo won't do. Ugh, I can't wait to get a mac mini with an el gato tuner.

Re:I like the LG 3510A

[glennrrr]

Well, when you put it that way, it sounds pretty bad.

I had forgotten about the channel 2 issue, I don't watch a lot of PBS here in the Boston area.

What I do like is that: these boxes are pretty sensitive receivers, don't lock up on intermittent signals, I can hook them up to an otherwise worthless VGA monitor and make a cheap TV, I can hook them up to the DVI input of my LCD TV and get very good picture, and they can be gotten cheap on eBay.

And if you get lucky, DVD playback can be extremely good. I have one in my mother-in-law's room driving an old 17" VGA monitor and some old 2.1 speakers, and she can watch TV, video CDs, and DVDs using a "TV" made out of obsolete computer hardware and a 3510A I could have picked up for $80 on eBay. (I actually paid substantially more for it from geeks.com.) And because it is a CRT based monitor, standard definition looks better than it does on the LCD HDTV in the TV Room. And this all comes down to the 3510A having lots of output ports.

Anti-Piracy

[JWW]

Apparently anti-piracy efforts are proving highly effective in beating HD tuner cards to death.

HD-TV is the poster child for the kind of anemic, twisted, worthless marketplace you get when #$@%#$@% content providers get all pissy about protecting their #@$#@$$ content!!

Every Device Must Have One!

[Xesdeeni]

What gets me is that we are 3 days from the March 1, 2007 date when every device with an analog tuner, must have a digital one (see "Digital Receiver Availability and FCC Tuner Requirements"). That means not only all TVs (even 13" and below), but also VCRs, DVD recorders, etc. But where are they?

Xesdeeni

Re:Every Device Must Have One!

[Overzeetop]

Maybe everyone has applied for hardship extensions - hey, it kept all but one of my local stations from having to convert to digital broadcasts for 4-5 years.

Seriously, though, I'd forgotten it was coming up because it had been delayed so long. Of course, we could all be watching HD on either full sets or STBs if the FCC had had the balls to decide on a single ATSC format 20 years ago. Instead, they "let the industry and market forces" decide. Apparently, the industry prefers a clusterfuck, 'cause that's what they got.

There are two possibilities for the lack of digital tuners: (1) there's so much stock that we won't see them for a year and/or (2) every body is switching to providing "monitors" witht he next release, figuring it's still more profitable to produce a small set without any tuner than to have to include a digital tuner. With the market penetration of cable and satellite STBs, they may not be wrong (much to the dismay of the 10-15% of us that still get terrestrial broadcasts over the air).

Re:Every Device Must Have One!

[jbeaupre]

I think it is just TV's for now. VCRs, DVD recorders have until July or something.

Re:Every Device Must Have One!

[gumbi west]

Do you have a good reference for the 10-15% number? I can't find a good one.

Re:Every Device Must Have One!

[Overzeetop]

I pulled it out of my...um...

No. Someone else here quoted 30%. I guessed based solely on my personal experience.

A little googling got me:

Here you go:

27% satellite penetration as of 8/2005 - http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/jdpower _satellite.html
59% cable penetration as of 12/2006 - http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=54

So that's 86% penetration of satellite and cable, leaving 14% either without TV entirely or relying on OTA.

I'd say my ass was pretty accurate today ;-)

Re:Every Device Must Have One!

[Anonymous Coward]

we are 3 days from the March 1, 2007 date when every device with an analog tuner, must have a digital one

Does the legal requirement in the United States apply to just manufactured devices or those being sold? Either way, where are the sales? There have to be tons of analog tuner only TV's sitting in warehouses all over. Don't they want to get rid of them before the law takes effect (or shortly thereafter)? Or does the law have no enforcement provisions.

Re:Every Device Must Have One!

[tepples]

every body is switching to providing "monitors" witht he next release, figuring it's still more profitable to produce a small set without any tuner than to have to include a digital tuner. Then why do these "monitors" larger than about 23" tend not to have a VGA D-sub input?

Re:Every Device Must Have One!

[gumbi west]

thanks a lot for the links! I've never had cable or satellite and I've always thought everyone over estimated how many people have cable and satellite. But looks like I was wrong.

Re:Every Device Must Have One!

[Xesdeeni]

Not according to the FCC's site:

By March 2007, all TVs (and other devices that are designed to receive broadcast television signals) are required to have digital tuners built in. I believe the mandate specifies that if it has an NTSC tuner, it must have an ATSC tuner. Yes, that could exclude "monitors" that include neither, but I've never seen a consumer VCR or DVD recorder without a tuner.

Xesdeeni

HDHomeRun (ethernet with 2 tuners)

[tivojafa]

The silicondust website is currently having issues. Google cache: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:LJZMm-6NRmkJ: www.silicondust.com/wiki/products/hdhomerun+silico ndust.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us 9thtee: http://www.9thtee.com/hdhomerun.htm

Samsung TR451at circuit city

[Anonymous Coward]

I would recomend Over The Air digital to anyone. I was also puzzled by the lack of tuners when I went looking for one about 4 months ago.

There are many more digital channels available in minneapolis than on NTSC (normal) broadcast. I get 7 PBS stations over the air digitally. I get a just for kids Qubo station. I get an all music video with no comercials station. I get 2 weather channels. Plus I get all the local channels in high def, digital perfection and a digital guide. Why would anyone view over the air on NTSC?

I view this on my beutiful Westinghouse 42' LCD at 1080i but I'm pretty sure my tuner would output to an old 480i CRT TV.

The Samsung TR451 works pretty well but I have a few quibbles. The guide takes a while to load the information when I press the guide button. The channels take longer to change than a regular TV.

Re:Samsung TR451at circuit city

[karnal]

The SIR-T451 is no longer available via www.circuitcity.com - in addition, they seem to have dropped all HD receivers...

Shame, really. I was going to try to buy one before the Superbowl (about 2 months before) and the local shops only had like one model EACH to choose from. Would really like to get some "face" time with the unit before I plunk down 250$ for the device... ugh....

In addition, I only have a projector that will do 480p. Doesn't matter to me - would still like to get the OTA goodness like everyone else...

Don't confuse Digital with HD TV

[josecanuc]

The FCC requirement for transmission and TV sales is for DIGITAL TV, which is not necessarily HD, though it can be.

DTV is not required to be HD.

Chances are your local broadcast stations will only be transmitting in HD those prime-time and sports programming. Expect regular morning and afternoon programming to be standard definition with alternate-language or alternate image in the sub-channels (a single DTV "channel" can have 4 SD sub-programs or 1 HD program stream). Some stations are using one sub-channel to show real-time weather RADAR, others do Spanish programming or children's programming.

I would guess that the predicted-cheap-and-ubiquitous set-top-boxes will not support HD since the goal is to get older TVs to still watch this new digital stuff. (Clearly you will not be able to get a higher definition picture on your old tube!)

Re:Don't confuse Digital with HD TV

[Wesley Felter]

I would guess that the predicted-cheap-and-ubiquitous set-top-boxes will not support HD...

They have to decode HD, because what if a particular channel is only broadcast in HD? The box has to decode it. In theory some cheap boxes could have only scaled-down SD composite outputs, but I think by 2009 the box will be one chip and HD component output will be "free".

Re:Don't confuse Digital with HD TV

[josecanuc]

They have to decode HD, because what if a particular channel is only broadcast in HD?

Should have been more clear: Will not output in HD. I am guessing that the cheap tuners would employ a cheap chip that downconverts to the lower resolution of NTSC. Less connectors on the back means less cost.

Re:Don't confuse Digital with HD TV

[anthony_dipierro]

Chances are your local broadcast stations will only be transmitting in HD those prime-time and sports programming.

That's pretty much all I watch broadcast television for anyway. All the rest of the time I'm at work. I've found the majority of the television I watch is in HD.

Either way buying an HDTV with an ATSC tuner has been a great choice, as I don't have cable in the first place. The ATSC signal comes crystal clear, much better than the analog stations. It's worth it just for the 480i shows.

Re:Don't confuse Digital with HD TV

[evilviper]

I would guess that the predicted-cheap-and-ubiquitous set-top-boxes will not support HD since the goal is to get older TVs to still watch this new digital stuff.

The STBs will still have to recieve and decode HD video in realtime... Otherwise they would be cut-off from a large chunk of programming currently, and no doubt much more will be HD by 2009.

Once you've got the chips to decode 1080 in realtime, a video chip that can output DVI in 1080i is barely any more expensive than a chip that only outputs 480i.

Promises of a $20 tuner

[davidwr]

A few years ago, one of the industry promises was a low-cost tuner, I think under $20, for people who couldn't afford a more expensive device. The difference between actual cost and $20 was supposed to be industry-subsidized. I haven't heard a peep about this in awhile though.

By far the vast majority of people who can't afford a $100 tuner already have cable or satellite TV. Many low-income apartments have it built into the rent or available for a nominal price.

The main target audiences for the discount-OTA tuner will be poor retirees and other low-income homeowners, or those living in apartments who do not offer cable-TV subsidies.

Re:VOOM for OTA

[n76lima]

I picked up a Voom TV box from a local installer after they folded, just so I could get HD OTA broadcasts.

Paid a whopping $50 for receiver and another $25 for the VOOM flat panel antenna and mount. Only had to buy a little COAX to go with it, and I was set. Even came with its own remote.

As I understand it, the VOOM box has to have been activated for it to be of any use, so be sure you check on that point before picking one up off Ebay, etc.

--
Karma is overrated!

Also: where are the _downconverters?_

[dpbsmith]

We're perfectly happy with our 100-pound 27" CRT-based television receiver and the quality of the pictures we receive over the air, with one exception: we don't get channel 2, the local PBS affiliate, very well. I'd love to be ready for the HDTV switchover, and, even if it never happens, I'd still love to be able to view a downconverted version of WGBH's HDTV signal, which should be pretty good (since our UHF reception is very good).

Every six months or so I wander into a Best Buy or a Tweeter and ask.

Not only do they not have them, they often don't seem to know what I'm talking about.

Since my understanding is that The Plan, when they pull the plug on VHF/UHF, is for people that can't afford all-new TVs to buy downconverters... and that The Price is supposed to be in the $20 range.. you'd think that _a few_ would be available _now_, for, say, $100?

None available, at any price, through normal retail channels. In my (admittedly limited) personal experience.

Something about this does not make sense...

Something

Re:Also: where are the _downconverters?_

[Jeff DeMaagd]

All the HD tuners I've seen offer downconversion to composite, S-video, 480i Component, 480p component, as well as the HD resolutions. Most of the current digitally broadcast content is 480i/480p, save for prime-time and high profile shows, so usually there's no scaling needed.

Re:Also: where are the _downconverters?_

[gEvil (beta)]

Seriously, it sounds like this guy hasn't considered simply plugging a coax or composite cable from a DTV receiver into his existing TV. It'll work fine.

Re:Also: where are the _downconverters?_

[Dr. Manhattan]

I'd still love to be able to view a downconverted version of WGBH's HDTV signal, which should be pretty good (since our UHF reception is very good).

Not really a call for that yet. For example, I have a Samsung DTB-H260F for my LCD TV, and it works reasonably well (some problems with HDCP... sometimes it works, sometimes not). That can downconvert, but the problem is the menus and such aren't sent out the coaxial/S-video outputs, only the component and HDMI outputs. So you can see the actual program, but you can't see any on-screen displays.

To even set it up on a TV without component inputs, you have to plug the green component signal into the video jack on the TV; then you get a black-and-white signal where the menus are visible. After that, you use the coax or s-video hookups, and just try to remember what channel you're on. (Honest. See here.)

As I said, I have it hooked up to a more recent TV so I don't have to worry about this problem, but as you can see from that thread, people who want ATSC reception on an older TV are close to SOL. Though at our local grocery store, I saw 27-inch SDTVs with built-in ATSC tuners for sale...

Re:Also: where are the _downconverters?_

[Anonymous Coward]

Downconversion isn't really necessary (yet). Remember, HD == Digital, but Digital != HD, and many local stations are simulcasting HD and SD versions of the same programming on their subchannels.
For example, most of my local OTA broadcasters are set up like this:
Ch. 4: Analog
Ch. 4-1: Digital HD
Ch. 4-2: Digital SD

(Or, there's the OTA religion station, which pumps out 12, yes TWELVE, digital SD feeds of various evangelists and church services)

All most people will need to do is get the ATSC tuner to convert digital tuning to an analog output (whether via S-Video, Composite, RF, whatever). I will agree that a built-in downconverter may likely be useful to many people, but it shouldn't be necessary for a while.

Re:Also: where are the _downconverters?_

[daj24]

I have been OTA for about 3 years now. I have a LG w/DVD from Best Buy. Its correct to say that there are often only about 2 or 3 available. The Best Buy personel I talked to was knowledgeable about the HD subject. I am using a $5 pair of rabbit ears. True, only the UHF loop is used in the HD reception but you need the other for non HD channels on VHF. I have had no problems with my DVD unit to date (remember above, three years of use). If I purchased a more expensive UHF (the Silver Surfer is an acknowledged great antenna) I could bring in some of the farther away channels. I think that part of the reason for only a couple of selections is most people are dumber than a box of rocks about HD and are only now just learning. Also newer TVs above a certain size (27 in?) are now required to contain a HD tuner. All will be required to have in in something like '09 or so. Not too many companies want to invest the cash for a short term product.

Re:Also: where are the _downconverters?_

[elrous0]

Don't waste your money. The final switchover is constantly getting delayed, and the FCC is already looking into heavily subsidizing such "downconverters," so that they would basically be available for free by the time the switchover occurs (last I heard, it had been pushed back until 2009 and probably will be pushed back even further before it's over).

For the money you would spend on one now, you could buy an actual HDTV in 2009. And, it won't matter anyway, since the converters will be essentially free by then.

-Eric

Re:Also: where are the _downconverters?_

[Max Littlemore]

Weird that this question about where the downconverters are keeps popping up. I live in Australia and my local supermarket keeps them at the end of the cleaning products aisle. $A60 = ~$US40 something.

Re:Also: where are the _downconverters?_

[snooo53]

So what you are saying is that UHF channels come in fine, but you have some problems with VHF, namely channel 2 your PBS station.

I think your options are
1. Limited basic cable (usally around $10 a month)
2. Get a better VHF antenna (or a roof mounted one) and wait for the govt. to extend the deadline yet again, which they will.
or
3. Ask for a standalone digital tuner box rather than a "downconverter". As many other people in this thread have suggested, your terminology is confusing at best. If they don't have it at the store, just point your "silcon-based internet receiver" to an electronics site and buy one online.

Re:Also: where are the _downconverters?_

[trongey]

...Every six months or so I wander into a Best Buy or a Tweeter and ask. ... they often don't seem to know what I'm talking about...

Were you expecting otherwise?

ask your gov

[way2trivial]

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/dtv/dtvcouponfaq. html
How do I obtain and redeem converter box coupons?

Between January 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009, eligible households can request up to two coupons, each valued at $40. All coupons will be sent to requesting households via the United States Postal Service. Recipients must redeem the coupons within 3 months of issuance, but may not combine their two coupons toward the purchase of a single converter box and may not use them for other products.

Can you provide more details about the converter box coupon program?

The specific rules addressing the coupon program will be made public in early 2007. As you can imagine, there are many program implementation details to consider.

In 2006, NTIA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that sought the public's suggestions on various details of the program's operations, including issues related to these questions. NTIA will provide more detailed program information for the digital-to-analog converter box assistance program on our website, www.ntia.doc.gov.

Cheat Sheet

[fo0bar]

Most of this information has been repeated in the comments here already, but I thought I'd sum up the dates and whatnot:

(From Wikipedia) The FCC has issued the following mandates for devices entering the US:

        * By July 1, 2005 all televisions with screen sizes over 36" must include a built-in ATSC DTV tuner

        * By March 1, 2006 all televisions with screen sizes over 25" must include a built-in ATSC DTV tuner

        * By March 1, 2007 all televisions regardless of screen size, and all interface devices which include a tuner (VCR, DVD player/recorder, DVR) must include a built-in ATSC DTV tuner

That's 3 days from now, AND includes things like TV tuner cards, which explains why companies like Hauppauge just released a "budget" dual NTSC/ATSC line, the HVR-950/1600.

        * A Congressional bill has authorized subsidizing converter boxes that would allow people to receive the new digital broadcasts on their old TVs. The current plan is to make two $40 coupons available from January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 for each household that relies exclusively on over-the-air television reception.

        * In the United States, the switch-off of all analog terrestrial TV broadcasts has been mandated for no later than February 17, 2009. Legislation setting this deadline was signed into law in early 2006. Currently, most U.S. broadcasters are beaming their signals in both analog and digital formats; a few are digital-only.

So, expect to see ATSC tuners become more plentiful in early 2008, once the subsidies start rolling in.

Re:Cheat Sheet

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth pointing out that the "three days from now" deadline doesn't mean that retailers can't sell stuff without digital tuners. It means starting March 1, anything shipped to retailers from manufacturers has to have a digital tuner.

Re:Cheat Sheet

[statusbar]

A subsidy? What ever happened "Let the market decide?", or are we learning to be like the communists now?

--jeffk++

Re:Cheat Sheet

[russotto]

By my reading, TV tuner cards are NOT included in the mandate:

From 47 CFR 15.117:

The reference in this section to TV broadcast receivers also includes devices, such as TV interface devices and set-top devices that are intended to provide audio-video signals to a video monitor, that incorporate the tuner portion of a TV broadcast receiver, and that are equipped with an antenna or antenna terminals that can be used for off-the-air reception of TV broadcast signals...

PCI and USB TV tuner cards generally do not provide audio-video signals to a video monitor and thus are IMO not affected. Systems built around them which do provide signals to a video monitor would be; that is, it'll be illegal to sell an analog-only MythTV box.

Re:Cheat Sheet

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure as hell hope so, since the market has fucked this transition up so badly.

Re:Cheat Sheet

[slim]

A subsidy? What ever happened "Let the market decide?", or are we learning to be like the communists now? There's a clear profit motive to this particular subsidy.

When you turn off analogue broadcasting, you suddenly get a great big frequency band that you can sell. Problem is, when you turn off analogue broadcasting, you are effectively taking something away from people. To mitigate this, you have to subsidise the replacement -- just to avoid being sued. But the resource you're freeing makes it more than worthwhile.

Let's be even more clear about this

[Mariner28]

Let's be even more clear about this.

Analog over-the-air television broadcasting is going away. The OP is confusing SDTV (Standard Definition digital TV) with Analog. SDTV is still digital - it's just at the same resolution as analog NTSC - 480 visible scan lines (525 including non-visible vertical blanking interval).

SDTV is not going away: stand-alone SDTV tuners will allow you to receive digital TV and convert it to analog for display on your old TV, or for recording on you even older VCR.

It's lights-out for analog TV over-the-air broadcasting in 2009. Analog via cable is another matter. As long as the cable companies can squeeze dollars from that turnip, it will continue.

Re:Let's be even more clear about this

[vtcodger]

***It's lights-out for analog TV over-the-air broadcasting in 2009.***

Barring a miracle, the chances that analog TV will be shut down in 2009 are roughly the same as those that George W Bush will be elected mayor of Ramadi, Iraq in a free and fair election. My guess is that the next analog deadline in the on-going debacle that has been digital TV rollout in the US will be 2012. And the real shutdown will be in 2015 or later.

Many congressmen have staff people who are capable of figuring out the consequences of turning off analog TV to millions of voters before they voluntarily switch to DTV. 'Taint likely going to happen until the number of potentially angry voters is reasonably low. Which means not until a lot more DTV stations are on the air, most TV sets are DTV, and probably not until folks can buy a DTV to NTSC converter at their local drug store for $20.

Re:Let's be even more clear about this

[Luyseyal]

Analog via cable is another matter. As long as the cable companies can squeeze dollars from that turnip, it will continue.

And so long as they price the digital at 2 - 3 times the cost of the analog version, that will continue. The shitty part is they've made the analog cable worse, intentionally, to drive sales of digital cable.

I said "fuck em" and went with an inexpensive Dish network package.
-l

Re:Let's be even more clear about this

[Lost Engineer]

'Round here analog cable is the same price as digital, except maybe for the most basic package (meaning channels you could get OTA if you had an antenna but maybe you can't b/c you live behind a tall building or something). Was in Houston too. Thing is, they want you to switch to digital, as in the long run it will save them the bandwidth they use on analog channels now.

The *really* shitty part is that even with a digital decoder, the analog channels are still analog, and you still have all the same crappy signal problems from which cable has always suffered. Some of the true digital channels (mostly Discovery and the like) look almost as good as HD IMO and certainly as good as a DVD. Then again some of them look like crap, but at least there aren't any signal problems.

Re:Let's be even more clear about this

[SoapDish]

SDTV is not going away: stand-alone SDTV tuners will allow you to receive digital TV and convert it to analog for display on your old TV, or for recording on you even older VCR.

Hey! My VCR is newer than my TV.

Re:Let's be even more clear about this

[Luyseyal]

To me, the analog genuinely looks worse than it used to. I can only assume that this is because they don't maintain it properly and want you to go digital. They've also started migrating channels over to digital-only. That would be fine if the pricing weren't so much higher.

-l

Re:Let's be even more clear about this

[Intron]

There are a lot of links in the transmission chain. I'm guessing that now some of those links are digital, so they are now introducing at least one A-D and D-A conversion in your analog signal, which is adding some noise. When you watch stuff like football games that are also broadcast in HDTV, you will see that noise tends to result in rectangular blocks of pixels dropping out, which is a giveaway that it is happening in an encoded compressed digital link.

Re:Let's be even more clear about this

[Anonymous Coward]

You're so far off-base it's risible. TV production/distribution has been pretty much all digital for over a decade now. A/D and D/A don't add noise to the signal - composite analogue signals are just plain awful.

Most people use cable or satellite

[c0d3h4x0r]

I don't know anyone who relies on over-the-air broadcast for their television. Everyone I know with a television has either cable or satellite.

It's cheap enough these days, and far superior, so why would anyone still need to rely on over-the-air anyway?

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[astrokid]

Define "Cheap", my current cable bill is $12/month. It's basic, and only includes local programming (NBC, ABC, FOX, WB and CW), PBS, 2 Spanish channels and some other various channels.

I can't justify signing up for any other services to make my bill (relatively sky rocket). Luckily, my Tv has a built in QAM and ATSC Tuner so i'm able to catch whatever signals are being sent OTA and unencrypted.

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[Chirs]

I have no cable or satellite TV. I get four analog channels over the air, and one of those is in french.

I could get cable/satellite/TV-over-DSL but I choose not to pay the extra money. I'd rather spend it on other things.

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[Anonymous Coward]

Because OTA is free, it's DRM free, the quality is better, you can easily send the signal to every TV in the house without adding boxes, and several other reasons

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[c0d3h4x0r]

Then I have no sympathy for whatever troubles you may endure as a result of changes to the broadcast rules.

In other words, beggars can't be choosers. If you're getting something for nothing, you have no right to complain about the quality of service you get. You don't even have the right to complain when the service goes offline entirely.

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[EvanED]

plenty of people don't care about having 200 channels of shit on the TV to choose from (choose from...choose from...choose from...)

The scary thing is that from what I've seen of satellite, that 200 is an underestimate.

(FWIW, I don't have cable because of the price. Most of the channels I want are in "expanded basic" cable (Discovery for Mythbusters, Spike and G4 for Star Trek, and Comedy Central for Stewart and Colbert), and that's $40 or $50 a month. If the OP considers that "cheap enough", I envy him. 'course, I'm a semi-poor grad student; that'd be a good 15% of my discretionary income. (I also can't really even take advantage of TV/internet bundles, because I get internet access in the rent.)

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[rmcd]

I have an HD OTA myth box. Very happy with it, no plans to get cable or satellite. Yes, there are shows we miss and would in theory like to see, but we don't even have the time to watch what we record OTA (I'm currently 3 episodes behind on 24, for example).

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[Anonymous Coward]

Because not everyone cares about crappy TV.
I for one will never spend money on that mind numbing service, I'll stick with my 10 channels.

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[vtcodger]

***It's cheap enough these days, and far superior, so why would anyone still need to rely on over-the-air anyway?***

• Because it is FREE and they are broke
• Because all they want to watch is a few soaps and CSI
• Because they live in a rural area with a lot of trees or big hills and can't GET cable or satellite.
• Because they have different priorities than you do.

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[tverbeek]

Allow me to introduce myself. I get all my TV programming over the air.

If you consider cable rates "cheap", I have some "cheap" long distance and electrical services I'd like to resell to you.

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the reason you don't know anyone who gets their TV over the air is your lack of empathy for other human beings. Learn to be less of an ass and maybe you'll find people with interests other than TV who are willing to be your friends.

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[unitron]

"Define "Cheap", my current cable bill is $12/month. It's basic, and only includes local programming (NBC, ABC, FOX, WB and CW)..."

I thought that the WB and UPN had been merged into CW this past fall. I know that both disappeared from our cable lineup (with no price reduction and no addition of the new CW affliate). Perhaps you meant the local station which was previously a WB affliate?

Re:Most people use cable or satellite

[Anonymous Coward]

I use digital OTA, my co-worker uses digital OTA (once I converted him), and my friend uses digital OTA. I use iTunes or wait for the DVDs to come out of good shows I want to watch. I watch about 5 shows and 1 sporting event a week, and they are all on the big networks ( + PBS).

Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a reason digital tuners with QAM are hard to find! I (luckily) have a Samsung DTB-H260F(with QAM), and do you know how many channels I can get with only basic ($13/mo.) cable? BEAUCOUP!!! My cable provider is putting almost all the standard cable channels on in a 480i digital format as well, probably preparing for the digital switchover. So...if you have a tuner with QAM, there they are in beautiful living 1's and 0's!

A sizable minority uses OTA

[SlappyBastard]

It's not unusual, however, for peer groups to cluster such as yours, where no one uses a particular technology. This is why some websites have huge concentrations of Mac or Firefox users. Would you judge the larger public's OS choices based on Slashdot? Hardly.

No Joke...Nintendo FTW!

[Maugrim]

The awesomest OTA HDTV tuner I've run across is the RF adapter for the original Nintendo. Accidentally had that plugged in and all the OTA HDTV channels worked, unplugged it and they disappeared! So now it just dangles from the back of my friends TV.

more curious...

[argStyopa]

I'm more curious about the quality.
I have a gianormous HDTV-capable antenna on my house, and we live in a usually-good-occasionally crappy reception area, probably 35 mi from the broadcast antennas. I would very much like to know if I plunk down $300 for an HDTV tuner, am I going to get decent quality, or am I going to get crap (particulary if, as I understand, analog signals that occasionally have a sparkle of static will completely CUT OUT if they are instead being picked up as digital broadcasts...).

Would very much like to hear people's comments on the quality of OTA HDTV, particularly in margin/fringe areas.

Re:more curious...

[ThrobbingGristle]

You don't say if you have an HDTV.

If you do and your reception is "good enough" then it will look awesome.

If you don't have an HDTV, it still might look better than your analag OTA reception but wouldn't IMHO be worth spending
$300 to find out.

How do you determine if your reception will be "good enough"?
Ask your neighbors, or buy a tuner from somewhere with a good return policy so you can take it back if you don't like it.

Re:more curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not an expert, but I believe you are correct. You either get 100% of a digital signal (and 100% of the quality), or you get nothing (blank screen). So if you are at the edge of the broadcast area, a change in the weather could cause you to temporarily lose channels (until the weather improved). I believe a better antenna would help - it sounds like you have a good antenna.

One other point - I don't think the quality of the HD gear (other than the antenna) would make that much difference as to whether or not you can receive the signal. So buy some cheap HD gear, or borrow (rent?) some, and see what you get. Or wait for prices to come down.

Re:more curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital is pretty much a binary thing. It's either on (beautiful) or off (black screen). Occasionally, there are some minor drop-outs in a small area of the picture, but at your distance from the transmitter, I'd think that if you get good analog reception, you're a go for digital.

Re:more curious...

[Stalin]

According to http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/hints.html, that isn't entirely true. The analog signal doesn't necessarily give you any indication as to how well you receive the digital signal.:

Picture quality

The image quality is not affected at all by a low to moderate level of noise in the signal. This is true for both satellite and OTA DTV. Yet some people can't resist wondering "could I improve the image by improving the signal strength?" The answer is NO!

When the signal becomes too weak, you will see "macro-block errors" (parts of the screen that are shifted or obviously wrong), sound dropouts lasting a few seconds, or image freezes lasting a few seconds. All of these errors are crude, unsubtle errors. If these are not present, your image is perfect.

If your image is perfect, there is still one reason you might want to improve the signal: It would make dropouts less likely in bad conditions, such as heavy rain. Rain can affect DBS and UHF reception, but not VHF. In some places, wind can affect UHF.

(If you get sound dropouts but not image dropouts, or visa versa, then the fault is not a reception problem. Usually the station is at fault, but occasionally it is the STB.)

If you would like to figure out what DT signals are available in your area, a good starting point is AntennaWeb. You can enter your street address and it will return a list of OTA signals you should be able to receive (analog and DT).

Re:more curious...

[Heckle78]

I'm not in a fringe area (only 10 miles from broadcast towers), but I have done nothing to improve my reception and have actually done some things that hurt reception for the purpose of aesthetics.

I have an HDTV with butterfly ears (Terk TV5), and the antenna is only about 3.5 ft off the ground hidden behind the TV. Lots of trees in our line of site, and this is on the ground floor of a two story house. I've had good luck with digital compared to analog reception. In fact, digital reception is much, much better for me. Every analog channel comes in with snow, static, blur, you name it. Every corresponding digital channel comes in with perfect clarity, and rarely do they go out.

On the odd occasion when I have lost the HD signal, I've flipped over to the corresponding analog channel to compare, and it was usually so static-filled as to be unwatchable, so it wasn't a loss. Occasionally I have to tweak the antenna for a second, but that's it.

Re:more curious...

[Max Littlemore]

I can't speak for HDTV, but I bought a SD box to improve our reception. We were getting crap because the rooftop antenna is crap so I bought the SD STB for less than replacing the antenna, plugged in a $4 arial and we now get crystal clear pictures.

I guess it depends on a few factors, but we went from snow on some channels and ghosting on others with consistantly inconsistant audio to total clarity. Well worth it.

OTA is the best way to get HD right now

[tommyj1986]

Over the air is the best way for most people to get HD right now, it is extremely less than cable and dish (Obviously) but it also tends to be the closest to a true HD source. I work at this small Radioshack and we sell at least 25 antennas for HD a month. I've sold four in one day, these things are awesome and tons of people are getting them here in Madison WI. My Radioshack is near the UW Madison and we get a lot of professors and UW Hospital staff who have these nice sets that they want to watch PBS in HD. PBS of all stations! I talk to dozens of people everyday who don't have cable or dish, it is super common. By the way, shows I would watch in HD: Lost, Prison Break, House

Re:OTA is the best way to get HD right now

[Stalin]

Don't knock PBS. They have the best content of all OTA broadcast television signals. In a couple weeks I will be moving to a location where OTA television is the only option (aside from satellite). My only problem with this? GPB isn't broadcasting an HD signal yet. I should be able to get PBA, but I prefer GPB's schedule to PBA's. But, since they are both PBS stations, I will still be able to get my News Hour fix; albeit, and hour later than on GPB.

Re:OTA is the best way to get HD right now

[otis wildflower]

On my cable system, Discovery HD is encrypted. PBS is not.

I have yet to care....

(and who knows, with FiOS being installed in my 'hood, I'll be off Commiecast anon!)

Re:OTA is the best way to get HD right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Many cable and satalite companies down convert the big 4 network local stations to conserve bandwidth. I have heard horror stories about Superbowl parties had to settle for 480p. OTA rules.

Because

[Groo Wanderer]

Does BitTorrent over 802.11x count as OTA? :)

              -Charlie

Digital != HDTV

[r_jensen11]

From Elgato Systems' description:

use it to connect a set top box to receive premium channels, digital cable or satellite (in standard definition).

Therefore, doesn't address the author's question.

Re:Digital != HDTV

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

Nice try. I snipped this from a Macworld review - "The Hybrid's tuner can receive both analog cable and free digital ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) signals. ATSC over-the-air broadcasts can be both standard-definition and high-definition."

Find an installer...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if this will be all that helpful, but if you can find an installer for high-end home theater products, they might be able to get you one pretty cheaply. A friend of mine does these kinds of installs and a lot of the high-end TVs don't have integrated HD tuners, so they come with an external one. A lot of his clients go with HD content from either satellite or cable and don't want the tuners that come with the TVs, so he ends up with a bunch of them that just sit in his storage unit. He's gotten to the point where he has more than he'll ever need in reserve, so he now gives the extras away.

Anyways, that's how I got mine, I'm not sure how much that will help everyone else. I might have to point him at this article as an indication that there's actually a market for these kinds of devices and he should think about putting his extras on Craigslist.

Re:Samsung SIR-TS160

[manekineko2]

I too have one of these Samsung units. It's a good tuner. Originally it was a DirecTV receiver with cable NTSC and over the air ATSC and NTSC support for local channels. I got it for something like 20 bucks on eBay and disabled the DirecTV part of it, now it's just a fine ATSC/NTSC/cable tuner box. I'm quite pleased with it. I think one reason they go for so cheap is because this line had a funny quirk where if you leave it unplugged for a while, when you plug it back in, it won't work at first. All you get is a black screen and/or some clicking sounds. After a couple hours though something in the unit gets warmed up again and it works fine. This issue is well-documented online and easily resolved, but a lot of "broken" units show up on eBay this way.

Big-ass loophole?

[MojoStan]

we are 3 days from the March 1, 2007 date when every device with an analog tuner, must have a digital one... That means not only all TVs (even 13" and below), but also VCRs, DVD recorders, etc. But where are they? There appears to be a loophole: devices can meet this requirement by not including an analog OTA tuner (see "March 1: The beginning of the end for analog TV"). For years we've seen digital televisions with no tuners but lots of inputs for external tuners, and these meet the requirements. According to the article, VCRs, DVD recorders, DVRs, et. al. can skirt the digital tuner requirement by tweaking the analog tuner to only accept a cable TV tuner (but not an analog OTA antenna). The TiVo Series2 DT is a current example that meets the requirements.

I'm not sure how cheap device manufacturers will react to the digital tuner requirement, but I think (for now) they'll probably just change that coaxial "barrel" input to one that accepts analog cable only (and not an OTA antenna). Inputs (component, composite, etc) will handle the rest.

If I HAD a DTV receiver...

[dpbsmith]

...why would I even want to keep my analog receiver?

Or do you mean "tuner?"

Re:If I HAD a DTV receiver...

[gEvil (beta)]

I think that's partly why you're encountering issues with the salespeople at stores--a digital television tuner and receiver are the same thing. You're asking them specifically for a "downconverter" when every digital tuner on the market will do the job for you. Stop being so pedantic about things and actually think for a moment.

Re:If I HAD a DTV receiver...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. Do you currently have three seperate and distinct boxes, including a stand-alone analog tuner, video receiver, and monitor?

Re:If I HAD a DTV receiver...

[dpbsmith]

No. I have a television receiver... a VHF/UHF NTSC receiver... otherwise known as a television set. One big box with a big CRT in it.

I'm being told that I could buy a DTV receiver and use it to drive the television receiver.

I'm asking why I'd need my television receiver if I had a DTV receiver.

Re:If I HAD a DTV receiver...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm asking why I'd need my television receiver if I had a DTV receiver.

You wouldn't. This whole thing is really pretty simple, and has been explained to you by several people now. The problem is that you're intentionally being too dense to listen to what they're telling you.

Re:If I HAD a DTV receiver...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I have a television receiver... a VHF/UHF NTSC receiver... otherwise known as a television set. One big box with a big CRT in it.

You do understand that you're the only person in the whole world who uses this definition for a video reciever, right? Next time you go into a store, you might be better off if you don't make up your own definitions for words.

Re:Samsung SIR-TS160

[winnabago]

Yes, I know the error, it was related to a firmware revision that would try and wait for a telephone line connection, I believe. I got mine for about that much and let it sit overnight until it fixed itself. Off topic, though, I have one gripe about the tuner, and that is that it is not possible to add channels that aren't currently being received to the channel list, so if you are not getting an OTA station at the exact moment of autoprogramming or manual tuning, you are unable to have it show in the list. All in all, though, a great bargain for what it is. It decodes to 1080i, too, I think.

Dish Network can help you

[GweeDo]

While this might seem odd, the Dish Network DVR-622 satellite DVR has an OTA tuner in it as well. I have one hooked up to my 32" Toshiba LCD and love it. You get lots of HD from Dish (20+ channels) and your OTA, and it is all managed by one device.

Re:Most people use cable or satellite, ha

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the cable company wanted $10,000 for install I didn't go with them. There are people with cable less than 1/2 mile in all diections of me but my little area doesn't have it.
The Sat providers were really annoying when I went to sign up. I had all the equipment from the previous homeowner but they still wanted $250 for new equipment (that was exactly the same as the equipment I had). They would not let me use the existing equipmentnor the existing cards. So they lost me as a customer.

End result is me staying with OTA along with probably 20 other houses near me.

What do you mean cheap enough?

[ChefInnocent]

What do you mean cheap enough? I live in a small/rural town and the cheapest package the cable company offers is $50 for the first 6 months, then it is $60/mo. I could afford it, but I don't think $60/mo is cheap enough for the limited programs I used to watch on TV. Before giving it up, I was down to 1 half-hour show per week. Most of the country (which is rural) is gouged by the local cable monopolies. As for satillite, that works well enough (starting at $30/mo) if a) they provide service in your area, and b) you have LOS; otherwise, you are out of luck. Don't assume everyone has the same access as you do.

encryption support? FIOS cards?

[amigabill]

With so many cable TV HD (and other SD digital channels) being encrypted, how about tuners that support cablecards? 2nd-gen cablecard with bidi support for more features? I heard about one that will only work with Vista. What about anyone else, for WinXP, Linux, etc? What about FIOS "tuners"? What about Satellite receiver cards with the subscription card slots? (I've heard Europe has Satellite tuner cards, but I'm in USA and haven't seen any here)

I'm sick of Comcast and would like to switch to FIOS which is supposed to be coming soon (They've already completed "phase 1" in my neighborhood, whatever that means), but I'd also like to continue using my MythTV box.

Re:encryption support? FIOS cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

FiOS is actually quite a good service. The "tuner" itself is a little tricky. It is handled directly by the fiber->X where X is either your POTS, CAT5, or Coax. The coax is used to deliver the channels, but the "reporting" and tv-guide information is done over the CAT5 ( your internet link ) by a box that connects to the coax and cat5 inside your house.

I wonder what the box is reporting back over the cat5, it shouldn't be too hard to trap. Regardless your HD tuner should be able to handle it natively, the tv-guide information and what not might be tricker.

Now that I think about it though, we're talking about standard DVR / TV Tuner equipnment on the front end, I bet that the lil'
  box just listens into a specific channel and relays that back over the inet connection.

I bet you don't have to change a thing.

Enjoy,
T.

Re:encryption support? FIOS cards?

[exhilaration]

What you describe is the setup I have but I've read on dsl reports that it's changing - Verizon is eliminating the CAT5 connection and will pipe everything (internet + TV) through coax to the Actiontec router (which is already capable of handling this). This is to reduce installation costs and reuse the existing cable tv wiring in people's homes.

Not Exactly an Answer, but

[carrier lost]

http://pchdtv.com/hd_5500.html

Shouldn't be too difficult to hook a UHF cable up to one of these

One of them does

[SuperKendall]

I am pretty sure that device does receive OTA signals. If not, at least one of the things they make does - I have an EyeTV 500, which receives OTA (no set top box) HD signals. You can, in theory, use any combination of Elgato gear together and it all works with EyeTV which as I said is actually a pretty good DVR (you can do live pausing and rewind while you are recording and so on).

Also, why does this part not say to you it would work:

"Watch analog as well as free over-the-air digital TV on your Mac."

I mean, over the air! That's what we are talking about, right?

Re:One of them does

[MojoStan]

It does receive HDTV OTA. I don't know why Elgato doesn't emphasize this more clearly in their main product info page. Non-HD digital tuners do exist. See Elgato's product comparison between EyeTV 250 and EyeTV Hybrid, section "Hardware Features -> HDTV (antenna only).

This looks like a nice tuner for a Mac mini, since it's so tiny.

On a related note...

[dyslexicbunny]

I'm sort of in the same boat but I'm looking for HD tuner cards for hooking up to cable.

I was looking into building a media PC to replace a roommate's Tivo when he moves out at the end of the summer. Pretty much, we've got HD cable and I'd like to try to integrate the Tivo, DVD player, and media PC into one box.

Since our HD DVR isn't all that large capacity-wise, I was thinking about trying to record HD cable too but I haven't been able find any information on HD tuner cards that aren't OTA. I would love to record HD content from my Comcast box to a pc. Does anyone know if the hardware exists to make this possible?

Re:On a related note...

[Stalin]

I imagine you could use a HD-5500 to do it. It supports unencrypted QAM signals. If you put the box behind your Comcast box, I assume it would get the QAM signals unencrypted (the set-top box should be decrypting the channels based on your subscription level).

Re:On a related note...

[dyslexicbunny]

Would it really work that easily? Our Comcast HD box doesn't really look like it would be able to hook up that way. I don't know enough about HD connections since I don't actually own the HDTV but based on what's on the back of the box vs what goes into the card, there appears to be a significant disparity in connections.

I know we have a boatload of connections for video and then have a separate series of connections for audio. Based on my limited experience with HD, I would imagine that I need to match them up. But I could always imagine that said required connections could be satisfied through a USB or 1394 connection to the PC. I suppose the hardware exists somewhere but I wouldn't know where to look.

Re:On a related note...

[Stalin]

There isn't a special "HD connection". The signal comes across the same coax that analog cable does. I don't have a Comcast set-top box (nor anyone else's) but I imagine it just sits between the wall and the receiving device. The box decodes the encrypted digital signals (and provides access to the higher channels) and sends them on to said receiving device. At least, that is what I assume.

Now, if you have a device that has a CableCARD, that is a different story. If you have a CableCARD device, you shouldn't have to have the intermediate set-top box.

--------------

Of course, I didn't look at the image you linked until after I wrote all that. I see what you mean now. The box seems to only offer component or DVI out. That does make things a bit tricky. I guess you would have to have a CableCARD device if you want to be able to record the HD feed from Comcast. That really sucks. Maybe you're right, though. Maybe the firewire connection would make it possible to export the stream to a PC. But, I doubt it.

I would rather have a box like I was assuming before the break. I wouldn't want that TiVo impersonation box.

retail $200 for STB or just wait for next tv

[daviee]

The issue is if you're looking for these HDTV tuners in retail outlets. They're hard to find, costs $200 (Samsung's new 260F)... and the real deal breaker is that even $500 TV's have these built-in.

Unless you have a very high-end TV that you don't want to replace any time soon and you have specific, free HD channels in your area that you want to tune to, why?

Going used is a different story though, and you'll find a lot of these things on ebay.

Re:retail $200 for STB or just wait for next tv

[tcc3]

I submit that any one who was an early adopter and bought a tunerless HDTV bought a "very high-end TV that you don't want to replace any time soon"

Prices are coming down now, but I certainly wouldnt want to replace my $1200 Sony any time soon. And I didnt jump on the HD bandwagon as early (or as expensively) as some folks.

Unless hes trying to watch on a SD or ED tv, in which case you're exactly right.

$750 solution to a $180 problem?

[MojoStan]

At least one compact tuner is the Elgato EyeTV hybrid. Use that with a Mac mini, and you have a great DVR that does OTA HD as well as standard def TV - and all of the video recorded is DRM free, transcode away or burd to DVD or do whatever. That's quite a recommendation (at least $750) for someone who simply requested "a standalone ATSC HDTV tuner to go with my projector." Someone already recommended a $180 Samsung tuner that might meet the submitter's requirements better than your Mac mini ($600 without DVD burner) plus Elgato tuner ($150) suggestion.

• The Samsung tuner has an HDMI output with HDCP. HDCP will be needed to watch broadcast flagged content in non-degraded HD.
• Includes a QAM tuner for unscrambled digital content from cable (even basic cable).
• More outputs/inputs dedicated for television. Converting hardware and software not needed. No complicated setup process for outputs.
• Lower startup time. Simpler startup process. Simpler EPG.

Sure, it doesn't do as much as a Maci mini, but the submitter only asked for an ATSC HDTV tuner. A device dedicated to this function will probably meet his/her needs better than a general-purpose computer with a DVI output that's primarily meant for computer monitors.

That's not a bad HTPC solution, though, except for the low-capacity notebook hard drive and non-upgradable graphics (for h.264 acceleration and HDCP output). The upcoming Intel Santa Rosa notebook platform (which has been pushed up to May) might solve these limitations (except for the hard drive).

Re:$750 solution to a $180 problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a bad HTPC solution, though, except for the low-capacity notebook hard drive and non-upgradable graphics (for h.264 acceleration and HDCP output).

...and the non-upgradable optical drive (for Blu-ray).

You don't suppose...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the reason $180 (or less) STBs are so scarce is because they'd rather sell $1,000 TVs, do you?

HDTV Tuner Obstacles

[rising_hope]

HDTV Tuners seem to be a pretty loaded topic. Thanks to the move digital, what once was possible now seems impossible (or at least pretty difficult.) (Thank you MPAA/RIAA, and all you paranoid TV production people that think we're evil consumers -- the same ones who pad your back pocket...) There are a plethora of very crappy OTA TV tuner cards for your PC out there. Pinnacle makes one, ATI made one, and there a number of other start ups out there, too, even with Linux support. The "cable card" seemed like a good concept, but never really took off, and is now pretty much DOA. Your best bet is to check with your local cable company FIRST, then (if they support it), get a card that supports unencrypted QAM (for north america) or DVB-T (for Europe), such as the DViCO FusionHDTV (say that 5 times fast... or even once!) I, personally, went another route, which seems to have a bit more flexibility for my needs. It's not perfect (for instance, I can't watch from more than one PC at a time, there's a lag time in changing channels, etc.), but it's a good solution. Check out the Sling Media SlingBox Pro, which will allow you to connect your HDTV signal from your cable provider and broadcast it over the web. The speed is pretty good on a LAN, okay on the web, and even watchable from a Windows Mobile PDA (Palm version in the works.) Best of all, you can use your familiar DVR, delete shows as you watch them, and your living room is already up to date. The only thing I would like better is a digital way to record my shows over the web, so I can archive them on my PC for later. Unfortunately, the current Slingbox does not allow this (though I hear the original did...)

Re:HDTV Tuner Obstacles

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read a single WORD of what the original poster wrote?

I do not like to pay to be advertised to

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that the cost of cable/satellite TV programming is out of my reach, but I really dislike paying for someone to show advertisements to me.

I also dislike being bombarded with repeats and repeats and repeats of the same shows and episodes ad nausium. The local cable company has over 100 channels, all of which appear to have only six hours of "content," which is repeated throughout the day/evening and interspersed with ads, infomercials, and promotions for both other channels' content and forthcoming (in a month or two) "new episodes" of the shows in the existing six hours of content. Comedy Central is one such channel (as an example).

Combine the above with less freetime as the years go by (and the releasing of a complete TV show series on DVD for rental/purchase/borrowing, shown without the anoying commercials) and I feel less and less of a need to pay for cable TV anymore. If I have to watch TV, I pull out the "rabbit-ears" & "bow tie" and don't have to pay for any of it!

Re:I do not like to pay to be advertised to

[Kazoo the Clown]

It's not that the cost of cable/satellite TV programming is out of my reach, but I really dislike paying for someone to show advertisements to me.

MOD PARENT UP!

If they're sending ads down the pipe then I shouldn't have to pay for it. PERIOD. And guess what, I WON'T pay for it. PERIOD.

IMHO, only complete morons pay to have someone fill their eyeballs with SPAM...

Re:I do not like to pay to be advertised to

[tverbeek]

I take it you've never paid for a magazine or newspaper?

It may surprise you that most of the people who do buy those are not only not morons, they're actually literate. :)

Re:I do not like to pay to be advertised to

[Kazoo the Clown]

I take it you've never paid for a magazine or newspaper?

Not any more, and ads are exactly why.

It may surprise you that most of the people who do buy those are not only not morons, they're actually literate. :)

You might be interested to know that there are these things called "books" and "libraries."

Re:I do not like to pay to be advertised to

[tverbeek]

I know about books; I read them all the time. You said that anyone who buys advertiser-supported media is a moron, and I was pointing out that you were mistaken.

I also have a pretty good idea what's going on in the world today, which is damn hard to find out without reading an advertiser-supported periodical. Even NPR has adverts now, and television has become completely incapable of handling news competently.

Linux version

[daenris]

There are Linux compatible HDTV cards availabe at http://www.pchdtv.com/

They're specifically marketed towards Linux users, though it does mention in the FAQ that they have 32bit windows drivers available.

Something you may want to look into and poke around on their forums to see how well they work under Windows, if that's what you're using.

Actual retail locations

[GnuPooh]

Since no one else here seems to actually give results of where to get this stuff, I figured I'd help out here.

I got all this using Froogle, so you could probably to the same:

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=Samsung+DTB-H2 60F
http://www.shop.com/op/~HDTV_Tuner_Box-prod-395058 74-52664117?sourceid=3
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=grandtec+tun-5 000

However, I completely agree, the selection sucks and you have to get mostly odd brands.

I got a http://pchdtv.com/ one and I love it for my computer (highly recommended), however, it's also nice to just have a set-top box.

HD device availability is being hindered by

[Orig_Club_Soda]

...content providers charging an extra price for HD content they are receiving for free. For example to receive HD content, my sole cable supplier says I must spend an extra $60 a month to purchase digital, then HD access. However, I discovered since my tv has a HD tuner with a coaxil input, I can get the same HD content for free. Proving its not a technology barrier but something they just want to charge us for.

And since the content is being held hostage, consumers are not buying HD devices, thus there is little demand. ...I know come Feb 2009 my cable provider is going to jack up my prices and subscription just because they have a monopoly in my area.

This is why antenna are making a come back. Major networks still broadcast over air in large metropolitan areas.

What Will Happen To LPTV?

[batteryman]

Los Angeles has a new channel 6 near Mount Wilson. It is working as an FM station, announcing 87.7 FM. There are so many new stations that are low power in the Los Angeles area, what will happen to them?

I think it would be best if channels 2, 3, & 4 are assigned for LPTV. And channels 5 & 6 to be come the extended FM broadcast band, aimed at localism.

Still works

[SuperKendall]

True he only asked for a tuner, but as long as he's going to go to those lengths why not also go for a DVR solution that leaves him with open media and the freedom to schedule remotley, as well as watch web content on the TV?

I have some counter points to your points:

The Samsung tuner has an HDMI output with HDCP. HDCP will be needed to watch broadcast flagged content in non-degraded HD.

Are you sure you are not thinking of AACS HD disc protections here? I was not aware OTA broadcasts ever included this flag, though there was talk of it at one time. If so, then he should look to buy an older ElGato 500 unit as it does not honor that flag (grandfathered in, why I bought one when I did).

Without the flag, he can simply use a DVI to HDMI converter to hook it to any display. The Mac MINI understands television displays like 1080p just fine.

Includes a QAM tuner for unscrambled digital content from cable (even basic cable).

So does the ElGato solution.

More outputs/inputs dedicated for television. Converting hardware and software not needed. No complicated setup process for outputs.

The Mini has toslink out. The Mini has DVI out. Not very complex at all. It will, as they say, Just Work.

Lower startup time. Simpler startup process. Simpler EPG.

Are you sure the startup time is much lower? I have my mini set to auto login and it's really just a few seconds after I turn it on that it's ready.

Sure, it doesn't do as much as a Maci mini, but the submitter only asked for an ATSC HDTV tuner. A device dedicated to this function will probably meet his/her needs better than a general-purpose computer with a DVI output that's primarily meant for computer monitors.

I would say that is true only until they want to time shift or otherwise record something. I don't really think TV without any ability to record is of any use at all. I know it would drive me nuts.

That's not a bad HTPC solution, though, except for the low-capacity notebook hard drive and non-upgradable graphics (for h.264 acceleration and HDCP output). The upcoming Intel Santa Rosa notebook platform (which has been pushed up to May) might solve these limitations (except for the hard drive).

You can attach any external firewire (or USB, but I prefer firewire) drive for extra storage, or hook the gigabit ethernet up to your LAN for network attached storgae, or use the built in WiFi to talk to network storage attached to the Apple Airport Express. All will be faster than a larger internal notebook drive repalcement.

As for the video card, You don't need HDCP . You don't need a more powerful video card since it already handles 1080p playback form h.264 just fine. In short, it already makes a damn fine HTPC with no need for upgrades.

Free with cable or satelite TV

[cyberspittle]

You get your tuner with your HDTV subscription from your satelite TV or cable provider. If you bought an "HDTV ready" monitor (ie sans tuner) ... it as designed for people using cable or satelite. These are cheaper models than those included with an ATSC tuner. Once the analog transmissions stop, you may want to renew your Blockbuster account. Best wishes looking ... perhaps try Google.

Because it's better

[AmigaBen]

Well, one reason would be because the OTA digital signal is better than the compressed crap sent out by sat or cable.

Better Quality Signal, Less Quality Programming

[Ethercircuit]

I recently moved to downtown Chicago and used OTA HDTV via powered rabbit ears. The signal was much cleaner, clearer, and crisper than the HD cable I have now. The only downside was there was practically NOTHING to watch during the day.

HDTV wth normal TV

[nukem996]

I moved into a dorm last September I was bringing my Dell 2405FPW (HD monitor) and I'm living in Philly which has HDTV broad casted I thought I'd look into an HDTV turner. PCHDTV(http://www.pchdtv.com/) looked good but it only supported over the air HDTV not HBO or the other HBO channel I have at home. Cablecard is the solution to that but I couldn't find one card that supported it. I was about to buy it when I noticed that no HDTV card has support for hardware encoding normal TV, which is what I would be watching a lot of the time as well. I ended up saying "screw it" and haven't watched TV since.

Re:HDTV wth normal TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600 dual (ATSC y analog) tunner card with hardware MPEG-2 encoder Conexant-418

http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_hvr16 00.html

downconverters are cool but...

[snooo53]

Yeah I have to second this comment about terminology. When I read "downconverter", suddenly visions of wireless cable and ham radio started popping into my head. My understanding in the electronics world, "downconverting" generally refers to shifting broadcast frequencies around rather than doing a D-A conversion. No wonder they were confused. Definitely a fun topic, but in the parent's case I think "Digital tuner" is more suitable.

Screw that, where are all the HD Radio tuners?

[rwa2]

I'm much more excited about HD Radio. However, I've only seen big expensive car radios or deck components with HD radio support. Where's the portable hand-held unit? Or at least give me a little USB dongle I can plug into my PC.

Do they work with analog Tivo?

[Maximum Prophet]

On a related note, does anyone know if all the older analog Tivo boxes will be rendered obsolete w.r.t. over the air once all the broadcasters go digital? Will Tivo support using an external converter box, or will I have to upgrade to a HD Tivo? I don't really want to pay another $800 + $200 to transfer the lifetime subscription.

Re:Do they work with analog Tivo?

[The Wicked Priest]

The Series 2 has already been discontinued because it lacks an ATSC tuner. The Series 2 DT is marketed as "cable only". It's designed to control cable set-top boxes... whether it will control ATSC STB's, or whether Tivo will actually refuse to give you a digital OTA lineup for it, I don't know. (They do have the digital OTA lineups for use with the Series 3.)

Its Easy in Aus

[readerr0]

Interesting to see how confusing it is over there in the US. Here is Australia OTA is King, only 20%ish of people have Cable. Buying a Set Top Box is easy here, there at stacks of them of various brands and models in most Electrical Stores, along with LCDs and Plasmas with built-in tuners and HDMI DVD/DivX/XviD players. As with the talk about 8-VSB vs. DVB-T's implementation. Each TS Mux in Aus uses about 23Mbit/s and thats with a 7Mhz wide channel :)

Watchmen

[fongaboo]

What I'm wondering is when does the Watchman make a comeback, now that we have digital over the air? Or even better, where are the cellphones with ATSC tuners in them?

OTA HDTV + DSL

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Over The Air HDTV and DSL. I hate the fact that I cannot choose which cable I can deal with in my area, and the fact that I cannot choose individual programs an reject other. Because there is no competition in the industry there is only packaged programming to choose from. I have no problem with OTA HDTV.

Not totally true

[Mariner28]

Up until very recently, rural cablecos still received local broadcasters signals - get this - over the air using tuned antennas for the best quality analog reception, but it was still analog. They got all their premium channels like Discovery, SciFi, History and subscription channels like HBO/Showtime via digital satellite links, but local channel 3, 6, and 10 were using the same technology your parents used in the 50's and 60's. At least you qualified it by saying "pretty much all"...

yup

[jbeaupre]

Not much later I found I was wrong. But I swear I heard something about July being a deadline too. Can't remember where or when, so I guess I deserve the taste of foot in my mouth.

Re:yup

[Xesdeeni]

You weren't entirely wrong. I believe July was the original date, but the FCC moved it up. No leather-tasting chew toy for you!

Xesdeeni