Slashdot Mirror


Most Hackable Coupon-Eligible DTV Converter?

An anonymous reader writes "So I've finally gotten my DTV coupons, now I have to choose a converter before the analog signals go dark. I'd like to get one that is hackable, but haven't had much luck finding information about the internals of the units available. My question is: What chipsets do the different coupon eligible converters use, and which one is the most hackable? It'd be great to be able to send my own MPEG stream and have it displayed, or to grab the raw stream out of the device."

479 comments

  1. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They are just going to extend the deadline again; might as well wait a few more years. Hopefully by then the devices will be even more hackable.

    1. Re:Why bother? by IconBasedIdea · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wouldn't an earlier generation usually be easier to hack than a newer model?

    2. Re:Why bother? by aardwolf64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but then you can only play VHS tapes. :-)

    3. Re:Why bother? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't count on that.

      Yeah, yeah, they're killing the analog broadcast because they need the frequency. Yeah, sure. In Europe, we're "ahead" of the times again, we got our digital boxes, our analog signals were shut down and the frequency ... well, did they find someone already to buy it? I dunno.

      At least part of the reason to switch to the artefact-ridden compression-fest that digital TV is, is simply that it offers more chance to get some kind of DRM into the stream. And for this your chances to a hackable box decrease over time, when they find and patch more and more holes.

      Older, hackable, boxes, i.e. the ones you buy now, might be grandfathered because they don't want this rollout nightmare to happen again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Why bother? by pin0chet · · Score: 5, Informative

      What are you talking about? There are no "holes" to be patched--MPEG2 transport streams are unencrypted. Though I don't doubt that content owners would surely love to impose DRM on broadcast content, it's simply not provided for in the ATSC specifications for MPEG2 over-the-air transport streams.

      The infamous Broadcast Flag--the only element of DRM to have ever loomed over broadcast television--is dead and buried. Besides, none of the DTV converters currently available have any DRM-compliance built in.

      Barring the highly unlikely event that Congress decides to modify the ATSC spec after tens of millions of TVs with DTV tuners are owned by consumers, there is zero chance of DRM becoming an issue with digital television programming.

    5. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      >The infamous Broadcast Flag--the only element of DRM to have ever loomed over broadcast television--is dead and buried. Besides, none of the DTV converters currently available have any DRM-compliance built in.

      You must be using a meaning for 'dead and buried' that I'm not aware of.

      If this were so, then there would be no way to turn it on. And if it were turned on, then nobody would looking at this flag. Neither is true. Otherwise, the Microsoft debacle (is that redundant?) would not have happened.

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9946780-7.html

      And big media are working hard to close the analog hole ASAP. Like their recent application (which was denied) to disable DVR's and analog outputs in exchange for letting people see movies in HD earlier than they have been releasing them to TV now.

      And aren't HD analog outputs going to be turned off in 2010 or 2011?

    6. Re:Why bother? by badasscat · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least part of the reason to switch to the artefact-ridden compression-fest that digital TV is, is simply that it offers more chance to get some kind of DRM into the stream. And for this your chances to a hackable box decrease over time, when they find and patch more and more holes.

      Europe != the United States.

      Listen. The word "switchover" is kind of a misnomer. We're not switching "over", we're just switching "off". We've already got digital signals and have had them for years. That's how people get OTA HDTV. The standards are defined, the signals are being broadcast. All we're talking about doing here is turning *off* the analog broadcast. The digital feed is a known quantity.

      Digital broadcasts in the United States are much, much better than their analog equivalents. You won't be getting HDTV with one of these converter boxes, but you'll be getting the SD sub-channel, which has the advantage over analog of zero static. There is nowhere that anyone who watches analog TV can claim that. Personally, I don't see any compression artifacts at all on OTA digital broadcasts, HD or SD, although obviously the SD channels are lower in resolution than the HD ones. Over the air digital broadcasts, which is what these converter boxes are for, are actually the only way to get a full-bandwidth signal currently. (All of the cable and satellite companies molest the signal in various ways to maximize bandwidth.)

      And there's absolutely no DRM on OTA digital broadcasts. The industry tried to add some by asking the FCC to mandate a "broadcast flag", but that went nowhere. OTA signals are DRM-free - some *may* have the flag in a vain hope that the receiving hardware will respect it, but no currently-produced receiving hardware that I know of does. And I doubt any of the stations bother even inserting the flag anymore.

      Older, hackable, boxes, i.e. the ones you buy now, might be grandfathered because they don't want this rollout nightmare to happen again.

      They're not "rolling out" digital. It's already here. All this program is supposed to do is help people who haven't already upgraded, even though they've had about ten years to do so already.

    7. Re:Why bother? by Toonol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Digital broadcasts in the United States are much, much better than their analog equivalents. You won't be getting HDTV with one of these converter boxes, but you'll be getting the SD sub-channel, which has the advantage over analog of zero static.

      That's because the digital signal simply breaks when static is encountered, as opposed to analog which degrades gracefully. Digital transmission does provide a lovely image, often better than cable, but only when the signal is strong; analog has a far wider reach, which is very important for anybody not in the middle of a city.

    8. Re:Why bother? by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Digital in general gives a nice sexy picture and compression artifacts aren't any worse than static. Pauses, skips, and audio sync issues on the other hand are absolutely unacceptable and they plague digital video (broadcast or otherwise). I'd rather have a constant static level that your mind ignores than pauses, skips, or audio sync issues.

      On the other hand, OTA analogue tv isn't exactly on par with the static on an older vhs tape, its generally unwatchable.

    9. Re:Why bother? by bhtooefr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except static on OTA analog lets the signal still be somewhat watchable.

      Poor reception on OTA digital = no signal at all.

    10. Re:Why bother? by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yea, they may extend the deadline because some idiots didn't get ready for it and might be inconvenienced. And those exact same idiots will not be ready in 3 months, 6 months or 2 years when they eventually get around to doing the analog cut-off.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    11. Re:Why bother? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      And the odds of him finding something "tweakable" with that coupon is pretty much zip, so the whole article is a wash. But if he really wants something to play with that involves his coupon here is what he should do IMHO-

      1. buy converter box with coupon. 2. Now that analog is being phased out you can get analog capture cards REALLY really cheap, $5-15 depending on where you get it from, so 3. Get a really cheap analog capture card and connect it to the output of the converter and then 4. Have fun streaming video, capturing shows, or making a DVR.

      Because from what I've seen of these boxes there really isn't enough guts in them TO hack, they are just primitive D/A converters. But I've been picking up analog capture cards really cheap and my customers are having a lot more fun with those than with anything you can do with those boxes. Those old Brooktree and Philips chipsets used in capture cards have been around for so long there are thousands of freeware and FOSS out there that can interact with it, and pretty much anything over 1GHz can run them just fine(in fact have a customer with a 900MHz Athlon that uses one to listen to radio and watch the news in his SOHO) so I'm sure this guy has SOMETHING with a PCI slot lying around. So if he really wants something to play with cheap a $5-15 capture card wired into the converter will give him more than all the specs in the world on those converter boxes would. Because there just isn't enough guts in them to hack one of those things.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:Why bother? by pin0chet · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're mixing up Blu-Ray DRM with ATSC digital broadcasting. The "analog hole" with respect to unprotected outputs won't ever be disabled by broadcasters because the broadcast flag has been ruled enforceable. The article you link to specifies that MS merely chose to voluntarily comply with the flag, but there is no penalty for circumventing it and nearly every converter out there ignores it.

    13. Re:Why bother? by AJWM · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      analog has a far wider reach,

      This is, of course, bullshit, at least in my experience.

      My HDTV picks up both analog and digital transmissions with the same set of cheap rabbit ears perched on top. The digital signals are far superior, some of the analog channels are unwatchable (unless you enjoy watching triple ghosts with heavy overlay of snow, and sound that sounds like frying bacon).

      I picked up a couple of cheap converter boxes for the analog TV and VCRs. When I went to test them out, not wanting to mess with my existing antenna setup, I just attached a little 2" stub antenna with a coax fitting directly to the box. While it certainly didn't pick up as many channels as the rabbit ears, it picked up all the main network digital channels without a problem. (By way of comparison, the same antenna connected to the analog TV directly didn't pick up squat.)

      Signal reach is highly dependent of course on transmitter strength, and in the middle of the city you should be (on average) closer to the transmitters than out in the middle of the boonies. Because a digital signal can reject the kind of echoing you're going to get with signal reflections off of buildings in a city, you're going to get a better picture with digital.

      (And actually the digital signal doesn't "just break"; at the fringe you'll get periods of good stable image with the occasional blocking or mosaic if something temporarily interferes with the signal. Beyond that, yeah, it's just off -- but there's no "graceful" to the way an analog signal would have degraded by that point.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    14. Re:Why bother? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      That isn't true. ATSC uses multiple layers of error-correcting codes. The channel error rate has to get quite bad before you start seeing uncorrectable errors. If you look at the plot of SNR (signal-to-noise ratio) vs. BER (bit-error rate), you'll see that the curve is steep. That's the "digital cliff" that some people talk about. Small increases in SNR result in large reductions in BER. Analog TV relies on the brute force approach, just like AM broadcast radio, to suppress noise. That doesn't mean that analog is better. In fact, it's the opposite.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    15. Re:Why bother? by v1 · · Score: 1

      That's because the digital signal simply breaks when static is encountered, as opposed to analog which degrades gracefully.

      Not entirely true. Digital type signals in general do tend to terminate 100% when you get interference. But I've got 20 or so digital TV stations "in range" of my house, which is in a bowl in the topography, so most of them are marginal. I frequently get glitching in my signal on some stations, where the video will freeze for a second and then resume, or I get this weird digital artifacting that glitches all over the screen (and sometimes travels around on the screen) and slowly clears itself up over the next couple seconds. Losing the signal 100% is annoying when it happens, but even what I get I'd rather have a little snow drift through the picture instead of the glitching I get.

      That being said, digital signals have the ability to do automatic error correction if the interference isn't too severe. So signals that are below perfect can still be displayed perfectly. Analog TV lacks that option.

      Digital stations are not currently transmitting at maximum power either, and already transmit on a higher frequency. When the power gets cranked up at analog- cutoff-day, the higher frequency combined with the higher power (for digital, bringing it up to par with current analog) will mean that everyone's digital signals will improve, and will be universally superior to their analog counterparts of past.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    16. Re:Why bother? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Informative
      Somebody mod parent informative. When the DVD recorder I bought a few years ago died, I decided it would be more cost-effective to replace it with a new one. I made several trips to electronics stores looking for one that would not just display a "You cannot record that" message when I tried to record some shows.

      At the time, I was recording from Comcast. They make extensive use of the broadcast flag, and ever DVD player I tried out obediently did exactly what it was told and refused to record when asked not to.

      So, yea, the broadcast flag is alive and well, and used pretty much by all the service broadcasters (Comcast, Verizon FIOS, Time Warner, Dish, etc.).

      But for for over-the-air TV, not only is there no broadcast flag, but re-broadcasters of local stations are banned from scrambling them.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    17. Re:Why bother? by BenGL · · Score: 1

      Over the air digital broadcasts, which is what these converter boxes are for, are actually the only way to get a full-bandwidth signal currently.

      [Citation needed]

    18. Re:Why bother? by emeb2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And there's absolutely no DRM on OTA digital broadcasts. The industry tried to add some by asking the FCC to mandate a "broadcast flag", but that went nowhere. OTA signals are DRM-free - some *may* have the flag in a vain hope that the receiving hardware will respect it, but no currently-produced receiving hardware that I know of does. And I doubt any of the stations bother even inserting the flag anymore.

      Is this really true? I've been reading the AVR Forums for the last few months and apparently there are a lot of situations where the Broadcast Flag is being set. You wouldn't think that this is a problem, except that a lot of the DVD recorders on the market today do honor the flag and will only record programs that have it set onto DVD-RAM media (since that's the only media which supports recordable content rights managment). This has caused a lot of DVD recorder owners heartburn when they try to use DVD+/-R/W media and the recorders refuse to write to it when they spot the broadcast flag set.

      In fact one of the most annoying situations is when the main program _doesn't_ have the flag set, but one of the commercials _does_. Then the recorders will bail out partway through the session when they see the flag set on the commercial.

    19. Re:Why bother? by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Though I don't doubt that content owners would surely love to impose DRM on broadcast content, it's simply not provided for in the ATSC specifications for MPEG2 over-the-air transport streams.

      Actually, the ATSC spec does allow any abitrary types of packets to be inserted into the stream. These could be used for DRM authorization, etc. The ATSC spec as adopted by the FCC is a more relevant link, as is the conditional access specification, which specifically deals with this sort of thing.

      But, the FCC requires that the OTA broadcast be unencrypted, so normal MPEG-2 that is receivable by all will be there as long as the FCC controls the station license.

      The upshot of this is that nothing prevents a station from sending a 480i MPEG-2 stream as the unencrypted one, and adding an encrypted MPEG-4 1080/60p stream for paying customers. At this point, only market forces (in particular, network affiliations) will keep this sort of thing from being the standard for OTA TV in the US.

    20. Re:Why bother? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Wait... what?

      You won't be getting HDTV with one of these converter boxes, but you'll be getting the SD sub-channel...

      Well maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound right to me. From what I've seen it's the same channel, but the box just downgrades to SD to output the signal. The digital sub-channel is often used for different content around here. A couple of the stations actually use them for some syndicated shows, but most have 24-hour weather on them.

      I know that the converter box has the same channels listed that I get on my HD tuner.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    21. Re:Why bother? by jaredmauch · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This has been the problem that I've seen. WFUM used to come in just fine for me. Same for WKAR. I'm in a strange location and can pick up most of Lansing, Toledo and Detroit (and also 2 CBC channels, 9&54). The digital transition at WFUM and WKAR have caused those two to disappear for me. (WFUM and WKAR have already turned off analog). The others are still there for now, but I'm waiting to see what will happen. Sometimes WFUM shows up when I re-scan (or enough that it identifies the station but either too weak or too high ber to decode any signal). The most interesting thing for me is I can get 3 different CBS stations just fine. Reminds me I need to find a home for my Series 1 Tivo in a few more weeks.

    22. Re:Why bother? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      You won't be getting HDTV with one of these converter boxes, but you'll be getting the SD sub-channel

      This is incorrect.

      The digital TV specification in the US requires that all receivers be capable of decoding all ATSC-compliant data in the signal. This means that even these cheap coupon-eligible converter boxes which only output 480i have enough horsepower to decode any HD format listed by the ATSC standard as adopted by the FCC.

      They will just down-res the signal to 480i. This is one thing that made the first digital TV receivers in the US a lot more expensive than boxes designed for other countries (like Great Britain, Germany, and Australia). All the digital TV standards for other countries require that broadcasters provide an SD-only stream, and so the lower priced receivers only have to handle SD decoding.

      The advantage to the US system is that every STB can receive and decode every signal, and it's only other features of the box (output formats, connectors, programmability, etc.) that differ.

    23. Re:Why bother? by CyberNigma · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yeah I tend to agree. I live in an apartment where my analog channels weren't perfect but were watchable (and audible), even with static. I get quite a bit of interference on and off and it's rather annoying when a digital signal cuts or has problems and the sound goes out entirely (even if the picture is just blocking)until it picks back up (sometimes the picture as well). It's quite a bit different than getting a bit of static (or even a big burst of static) in the picture and sound on an analog channel where it may be annoying but I don't miss anything (less it goes completely out).

      To me the sound is the most annoying aspect and almost seems like there is less tolerance there. Then again, digital cable isn't much better either, in fact its worse because of the higher compression and more outages I have gotten with it. In the cable arena I preferred analog over digital by far. As far as over the air, the quality of the picture and sound is so much better when it comes in, but there really does seem to be less tolerance for when it doesn't. Video and sound with some static in them is much more followable to me (maybe just me) than blocking video or sound that cuts out entirely.

      Again, I live in fairly old apartments. Another thing to consider is that with the frequencies that analog used, many were more resilient than what digital uses. Basically the VHF channels are probably what most people use to compare analog to digital. Since digital is closer to your UHF channels (which could be non-existent due to interference in some places) the only real comparison is with them. Basically the digital signals will only be as good as the weaker set of the analog signals. Going by that, digital (based on frequencies used as opposed to method used) is probably going to be worse in many cases than people used to watching VHF channels alone.

      In other words, NBC/CBS/ABC, given a user with weak UHF before and similar power output by the stations, is going to be worse than before as far as interference because it's no longer in the VHF spectrum. I consider it worse when I cannot follow the show (sound cutting off or the screen blocking where I cannot see the picture compared to sound with static and a picture with static - since I can follow a scene with quite a bit of static) So saying that over-the-air HDTV is better than over-the-analog (or vice versa) is really just BS since it's apples and oranges (unless you leave out VHF, which was the meat of analog). That's also why DTV antennas are so similar to UHF antennas.

    24. Re:Why bother? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      The greatest number of analog channels I've ever had that have been watchable has been 5-6. Using a digital converter, that number has jumped to about 20 or 30, all with perfect video. I think I can put up with that many perfect channels, rather than 5-6 staticy analog channels, thanks.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    25. Re:Why bother? by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Where I live, we already had one major network (ABC) switch early.. I went out the next day to buy a box, and Walmart was sold out.. Circuit City had 4 left and I got one of those.. When the actual deadline comes, I imagine it will be more of the same, but worse, for those procrastinators like me... In fact to show how bad a procrastinator I am.. I HAD gotten 2 coupons for the house, but when I went to use them they had expired.. So the switchover was on me.

      In reading the reviews, everyone seemed to like the Zenith, which is what I ended up with.. I also bought an antennae from Radio Shack.. everything works pretty well "most of the time".. I do think that during daytime our local stations send a weaker signal, because that's when I get the frozen screens, or lack of sound. Prime time never seems to be a problem, at least not that I have noticed.

      EZTV and torrents have kept me from paying for cable for the last 3 years or so.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    26. Re:Why bother? by techess · · Score: 1

      Geez you must be my neighbor. Hi Neigbor! I concur though stations that were a bit grainy on analog are completely gone on digital. Also Closed Caption doesn't seem to work right on DTV (both direct to the tv or w/ the box). It always runs 15 seconds behind the actual dialog or is to garbled to read.

      --
      Don't anthropomorphize computers. They *hate* that.
    27. Re:Why bother? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      This is, of course, not bullshit, at least in my experience.

      Geez, get a little perspective. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't experience the phenomenon. When reception is good, digital is far superior. When reception is poor, analog is far superior. Ghosting is MUCH preferable to frozen blocks and stuttering audio.

    28. Re:Why bother? by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      I have cable for my phone and internet and told them to throw in the cheapest television package I could get. I have a digital television set and to my surprise I now receive over 100 channels. Most of these channels I am not suppose to receive. Well I also have a analog television set so I bought a converter box thinking that it would receive the same channels the digital television set did but it did not receive any channels at all. So the tuner for the converter must be different that the tuner for the television set. I wonder if a new vcr/dvd's tuner would work the same way as the converter or if I am lucky it would work like the digital television set.

    29. Re:Why bother? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is, of course, bullshit, at least in my experience.

      And it is gospel truth, in my experience.

      I get many analog signals here with just a simple whip antenna.

      I get exactly ONE digital station.

      ... I just attached a little 2" stub antenna with a coax fitting directly to the box. While it certainly didn't pick up as many channels as the rabbit ears, it picked up all the main network digital channels without a problem.

      And I get exactly one station even when using an outdoor broadband amplified antenna.

      ... but there's no "graceful" to the way an analog signal would have degraded by that point.

      A snowy analog signal provides a lot more information and is a lot more viewable than a black screen showing only "no signal" in tiny white letters. I'd call that a lot more graceful.

    30. Re:Why bother? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The infamous Broadcast Flag--the only element of DRM to have ever loomed over broadcast television--is dead and buried. Besides, none of the DTV converters currently available have any DRM-compliance built in.

      Not quite "dead and buried" - turns out that some broadcasters are using it anyway and some tuners are obeying it anyway. In fact, our buddy Microsoft is lead the charge.

      So, while the BF remains voluntary, that doesn't help the poor schmucks who get stuck with a system that has "voluntarily" given away their option to ignore the BF.

    31. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1, Troll

      >>>analog capture cards REALLY really cheap, $5-15 depending on where you get it

      Like where? I did a quick search on google and found nothing. I could certainly use a cheap card to capture S-video off my Super VHS camcorder or DTV box.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    32. Re:Why bother? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not quite "dead and buried" - turns out that some broadcasters are using it anyway and some tuners are obeying it anyway. In fact, our buddy Microsoft is lead[ing] the charge.

      Not just Microsoft. The last time I tried to record a college football game from KLKN-DT, it was flagged "Copy Once". I could get neither VLC nor MPEG Streamclip on my Macintosh to play the resulting recording. I could however play recordings from the same game broadcast on KETV-DT that were marked "Copy Freely". Recording application was AVC Video Cap (which requires recompilation with patches to do delayed timed recording as of 2009, left as an exercise for the reader).

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    33. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Since the airwaves are owned by the People, any attempt to block access would be considered a violation of the People's rights. TV stations better not piss-off the landlords.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    34. Re:Why bother? by compwizrd · · Score: 1

      cable uses QAM, OTA uses ATSC/NTSC

    35. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My "old-fashioned" analog Super VHS laughs at broadcast flags and records DVD-quality video to boot.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    36. Re:Why bother? by tonsofpcs · · Score: 1

      You won't be getting HDTV with one of these converter boxes, but you'll be getting the SD sub-channel, which has the advantage over analog of zero static.

      Actually, you can get the HDTV channel, your box will just downconvert it.

      There is nowhere that anyone who watches analog TV can claim that.

      Actually, the transmitter site is quite a place, and you can get static-free reception quite a ways away from one too.

      Over the air digital broadcasts, which is what these converter boxes are for, are actually the only way to get a full-bandwidth signal currently.

      Define full-bandwidth. MPEG-2 is compressed, OTA or otherwise.

      (All of the cable and satellite companies molest the signal in various ways to maximize bandwidth.)

      They recompress it for their digital service tiers because they cannot easily simply retransmit the inputted MPEG stream. While it is possible, it becomes an issue of signal management and converting to baseband and recompressing is easier than playing with MPEG streams.

      And there's absolutely no DRM on OTA digital broadcasts.

      Most ATSC encoders and Muxers offer a variety of encoding and encryption options. Broadcasters could broadcast signals that are not watchable or listenable by viewers, but they would be blocking almost all viewers (broadcast equipment with the proper keys could still decode it).

      They're not "rolling out" digital. It's already here. All this program is supposed to do is help people who haven't already upgraded, even though they've had about ten years to do so already.

      Not all markets have had digital stations for this long. North America is quite unique in the high number of individual broadcast areas (we call them markets) and the nations of this continent have had logistical nightmares trying to arrange frequencies.

    37. Re:Why bother? by tonsofpcs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, Digital has a wider reach with the same power output which is why most stations have had power greatly reduced from their analog to their digital transmitters. Unfortunately, DTV is very susceptible to multipath (you see this as "ghosting" in analog, with a low-grade digital receiver, you see this as "no signal") and in many places, with the lower power required for interference prevention with neighbors, the coverage becomes reduced.

    38. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>>At the time, I was recording from Comcast.......So, yea, the broadcast flag is alive and well, an

      Comcast is not broadcast you twit. It's narrowcasting via a cable, and has nothing to do with what we're discussing (over the air broadcast).

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    39. Re:Why bother? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      analog has a far wider reach,
      This is, of course, bullshit, at least in my experience.

      But not in my experience.

      We are in a valley with no line of sight to TV transmitters. Out analog TV signal is marginal. Digital TV works most of the time, but depending on the weather it can break up or just go dead. So then we switch back to analog, fuzzy but still watchable.

    40. Re:Why bother? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      While the digital cable ATSC standard is similar to OTA ATSC, it uses a different modulation scheme. OTA ATSC is 8VSB, cable is either 16VSB or 256QAM.

      The converter boxes are for OTA broadcasts only. Digital TVs generally support both standards.

      Don't expect to keep your digital channels for much longer, most cable companies are going for a two-way system where only the channels being watched are actually broadcast on any stretch of cable, in order to make better use of their bandwidth. This is called "switched video", and it's not supported by older digital TVs.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    41. Re:Why bother? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      To add to the anecdotes, I plugged in the converter box I bought today, and I'm missing several digital channels that I get perfectly over analog.

      Oh, and the 4:3 signal output by the converter box has black bars on all four sides for almost every channel on my TV. I'll be conservative and blame the TV, though, since it's fairly ancient (relatively speaking).

    42. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>you'll be getting the SD sub-channel, which has the advantage over analog of zero static. There is nowhere that anyone who watches analog TV can claim that.

      (1) I can. The stations within 20 miles of my house, NBC8, FOX43, CW15, and ION49 all appear without static. In fact, they look *better* than their digital counterparts (which are artifacted).

      (2) I had to spend $200 on a new rooftop antenna since the old settop rabbit ears/loop antenna got next-to-nothing.

      (3) Stations beyond 50 miles admittedly look like crap, but at least they're watchable in analog format. DTV displays nothing. I've lost channels 10,11,12,13,21,27,29,45,48,51. I used to be able to watch Ravens and Orioles games but no more. I lost my PBS station and my ABC station and a few independents that played movies or scifi shows.

      Remind me again about how DTV is "superior" when I've lost more than I had before?

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    43. Re:Why bother? by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Not in my area. I'm less than 2 miles outside the Chattanooga, TN city limits and the digital reception is much much much worse than the analog reception. Yes, when it comes in, it's nice and clear with wonderful sound. Then the 150' trees in my backyard sway in the wind and the signal is interrupted. In a big storm (I live on a mountain ridge) no TV is available.

      For some areas analog is much better. I can't even get DirecTV HD here because of the trees -- only standard res. And no, I'm not cutting down my trees.

      "Cutting back" to save money, coupled with the transition to digital, cost me my TV. At least there's Hulu...

    44. Re:Why bother? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I get KUTV-HD on my converter box, downsampled to SD (and my TV conveniently puts black bars on all four sides, even though the TV is 4:3 and the output signal is 4:3). So... yeah.

    45. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>>>analog has a far wider reach,

      >>This is, of course, bullshit, at least in my experience.

      Please keep your shit to yourself, or dispose of it properly. As I posted in another message in MY experience I've lost a significant number of analog stations that simply can't be received with digital, because they do not have as wide a reach.

      >>>My HDTV picks up both analog and digital transmissions with the same set of cheap rabbit ears perched on top

      Lucky you. My rabbit ears/loop combination gets ~20 analog stations but only 4 digital. The DTV receiver simply doesn';t see anything beyond 30 miles whereas the analog can "see" stations upto 60 miles away. ----- Even with the rooftop upgrade, I'm still not getting as many analog stations as I used to get (~20 analog versus ~10 digital). I've lived in this area almost 40 years and it's annoying to see my favorite stations disappear. I'll miss them. There's less variety now.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    46. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>A snowy analog signal provides a lot more information

      Plus the human brain is analog. Over millions of yeard it has learned to extract images from noise whereas the DTV computer just goes "huh" and gives up. That's why many stations further away than 40 miles are watchable via analog, but on digital display nothing.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    47. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will become very evident in storm ridden areas.

      In the worst weather, analog would at least get the audio through. In the same storms only an extremely strong Digital signal will get through (it either shows or its a blank screen).

      I use to work for a Broadcasting Station (PBS) and our digital Sat feed died in almost every storm. Obviously this was not a problem for other stations because they were probably broadcasting weather locally. We had our backup C band Sat (Analog), but if we were running a record we were screwed.

      I have a feeling the people that do not live in major cities are going to get screwed more than a few times before this problem surfaces.

    48. Re:Why bother? by JustNilt · · Score: 1

      Yea, they may extend the deadline because some idiots didn't get ready for it and might be inconvenienced. And those exact same idiots will not be ready in 3 months, 6 months or 2 years when they eventually get around to doing the analog cut-off.

      Yeah. My take on the proposed delay is that the retailers know there'll be a falloff of sales once the artificial frenzy is over. Sure, the broadcasters are blamed for wanting delays but I seriously doubt it's just them.

      For the record, I'm a non-poor geek with 2 analog TVs. I have my 2 convertors just in case I can ever convince my wife to drop the freaking cable TV.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    49. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>The channel error rate has to get quite bad before you start seeing uncorrectable errors

      False.

      I see them all the time. I see them on long-distance stations with lots of breakups or blocking, which is expected, but I also see them on close stations. I'm seeing blocking right now on a very strong NBC station only 20 miles away. It's not as frequent, perhaps once every 5 minutes, but still annoying because it sounds like the actor hiccuped:

      "Hello my name is Michael Knight and this is my car KITT...... my car KITT like to go out for dinner?"

      or early today: "President Barack Obama signed his first executive..... first executive wearing an attractive siphon dress."

      Definitely annoying.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    50. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>Analog TV lacks that option.

      Not quite true. The human brain does it, and the human brain has millions of years extracting images from noise. It does this far more effectively than does a DTV receiver, which is why my "watchable" analog stations outnumber my digital stations 20-to-10 (approximately).

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    51. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      P.S. You made two mistakes:

      - No DTV stations are increasing power on February 18. At leaat none in the DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, or Harrisburg markets.

      - Being at a higher frequency is a disadvantage because they break-up more easily, and can be blocked by trees or sheds. Lower frequencies pass right through the tree/shed as if it wasn't there.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    52. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>Using a digital converter, that number has jumped to about 20 or 30

      That's an awfully wide range. Is it 20 or 30? No matter. If you are like me, you probably have 7 duplicated weather channels, so effectively you're only getting 10-to-20 useful channels. ;-)

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    53. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Buy a Super VHS VCR which ignores broadcast flags and produces DVD-quality recordings.

      Oh wait. The companies conveniently stopped making S-VHS VCRs. No doubt they planned it that way, so as to close the analog hole.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    54. Re:Why bother? by jlrowe · · Score: 1
      >This is, of course, bullshit, at least in my experience.

      That certainly is NOT BS in my experience.

      If you are getting either analog or digital on rabbit ears, you are NOT 50-60 miles out (or more) like I am. I can get analog just fine, with a much bigger antenna. Not so with digital.

      I do get digtal now, but I had to get a much bigger antenna *and* put amplifiers on it. And if the weather goes bonkers (fog or whatever), it might blip out, and you get nothing. But that doesn't happen too often. HD looks very good otherwise

    55. Re:Why bother? by CyberNigma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, multipath is really significant if you live around high-rise buildings (or even multi-story apartments).

      I would still only compare digital to UHF analog though as opposed to analog in general since VHF analog is a different beast due to the frequencies. VHF is more resistant to those types of problems (not fully, just more), but that is much of the range being freed up and not used by digital.

    56. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Yes it's similar to how you cannot connect an analog television to cable and expect it to work. You have to get a cable-compatible TV.

      Likewise these boxes are only setup to receive over-the-air 8-VSB. The FCC specified 16-VSB for cable which would work with these coupon boxes, but the companies chose to ignore the FCC and use their own standard.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    57. Re:Why bother? by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      In other words, NBC/CBS/ABC, given a user with weak UHF before and similar power output by the stations, is going to be worse than before as far as interference because it's no longer in the VHF spectrum.

      After analog is turned off some stations will move to a new frequency

      This may move you stations into now freed up frequencies and may eliminate some present interference between stations.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    58. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is, of course, bullshit, at least in my experience.

      Calling someone's statement bullshit based on your anecdotal evidence...

      Way to make yourself sound like an ass.

    59. Re:Why bother? by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      Sorry wrong link. Here is the correct link. The table is linked in the page. PDF warning.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    60. Re:Why bother? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. that's why I own several older ATSC capture cards. I can capture the atsc streams and do what I want with them. the way it' supposed to be.

      An atsc capture card is far more useful than any of these converter boxes. All of them on the cupon program are crippled quite a bit.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    61. Re:Why bother? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      mencoder will gladly strip that flag. run it through mencoder with no processing. it by default removed the evil bits.

      I do this all the time with lots of streams I snag from Comcast QAM feeds. windows apps will obey the evil flags, I prefer to violate them.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    62. Re:Why bother? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Historically, OTA TV has been 480i.

      Broadcasting 480i (with actual resolution of 720x480, and better color) that can be received by anyone with a standard OTA TV receiver doesn't sound like "blocking access" to me.

      Disney's MovieBeam already did something like I describe, only the PPV part was carried as a digital signal within the analog OTA transmission. As I said, the only reason MovieBeam doesn't still exist is market forces...there is no technical, legal, or even moral reason a similar system can't exist in the framework of US digital TV. If TV stations find that not showing free HDTV is a better economic solution, then nothing can stop it. But, never fear. It's obvious that since the majority of cheap reality programming is now also shown in HD that there's no returning to SD any time soon.

      The other direction, though, is quite successful...my local ABC station doesn't need anywhere near 19.3Mbps to get good quality 720p, so the sub-channel that shows the Retro Television Network is nice.

      Last, though, based on the number of people who can't tell SD from HD (which astounds me), I don't think that TV stations can do anything to "piss off the landlords" other than completely cancelling American Idol.

    63. Re:Why bother? by berashith · · Score: 1

      I agree, tons of fun to be had this way. Im not sure how the new boxes are going to look, but I have gotten plenty of odd comments from people who see rabbit ear antennae connected to a computer.

    64. Re:Why bother? by lazybeam · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that the case is that the "TV doesn't /remove/ the black bars from the signal". Digital is all 16:9 so the set-top box will letterbox the signal for a 4:3 TV. If the source is 4:3 then the TV station will "vertical letterbox" (pillar) to make it fit into 16:9, so the end effect is letterboxing on all four sides. I've seen ads that started as 16:9, then letterboxed into 4:3 then pillared into 16:9 and sent out and letterboxed again onto my TV! I have a then-top-of-the-line 63cm 100Hz CRT TV that supports 576p so the digital signals do look good, albeit with black bars.

      There might be an option in your digital box to crop the signal to avoid some of these issues, but then you could miss out on the sides of a real 16:9 signal.

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    65. Re:Why bother? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Interesting. There are some channels through the tuner that don't have any black borders at all, though, so I don't know what's going on.

      There are only three options for aspect ratio on the tuner I bought: Auto, 4:3, and 16:9. 16:9 on the four-black-sides channels results in a vertically stretched image with black bars on the left and right. (Not that I'd leave it on 16:9 anyway, it's a 4:3 TV.)

    66. Re:Why bother? by N3Roaster · · Score: 1

      I doubt it's the TV. I have a relatively ancient television (it doesn't do closed captions or parental controls, but it does have color) and am not getting those black bars. It's probably the converter box. You may want to see if you can dig up the instruction book that came with yours and see if there's some setting you can change to get rid of those.

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
    67. Re:Why bother? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here or here or here if you want an older All-In-Wonder with S video. There are plenty of choices right now in the $15-$20 range and most have nice features like remotes and MP4 capture so you can take your time and get the features that interest you. I just checked and I'm afraid the place where I picked up a couple for $5 each has sold out, but the Sabrent and Kworld cards I have placed into customers computers in the past and they are quite happy with them. I myself picked up an "Easy TV FM" for $15 which I watch cable and listen to the radio with.

      they are quite fun to play with and you can add Media Portal if you have XP to make a really cheap media center. Some prefer Xbox Media Center for Windows but I've had better luck with Media Portal. Anyway I hope this helps, and have fun!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    68. Re:Why bother? by virtual_mps · · Score: 1

      No DTV stations are increasing power on February 18. At leaat none in the DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, or Harrisburg markets.

      A number of stations are changing frequency, relocating transmitters, or otherwise making changes which will affect (generally, improve) reception. In DC, a quick glance shows only two of five major stations that aren't changing something.

      Being at a higher frequency is a disadvantage because they break-up more easily, and can be blocked by trees or sheds. Lower frequencies pass right through the tree/shed as if it wasn't there.

      Multiple stations in the DC area are switching from UHF to VHF at digital transition, which should greatly improve reception for a lot of people.

      Overall, I expect that people will have a very different DTV experience in February than they'll have today.

    69. Re:Why bother? by virtual_mps · · Score: 1

      (3) Stations beyond 50 miles admittedly look like crap, but at least they're watchable in analog format. DTV displays nothing. I've lost channels 10,11,12,13,21,27,29,45,48,51. I used to be able to watch Ravens and Orioles games but no more. I lost my PBS station and my ABC station and a few independents that played movies or scifi shows.

      Remind me again about how DTV is "superior" when I've lost more than I had before?

      You're blaming "DTV" for transmission issues. I'm guessing that you live in PA, and the "45" you referred to is WBFF. That's one of the stations that will make major changes for the transition, boosting the signal strength considerably and using a higher tower. I can't get it at the moment either, but it was rock solid for a little while a couple of months ago (I suspect they were doing some testing). A lot of the smaller stations can't afford to broadcast multiple frequencies at full power, and have been sending only a weak signal for now. Unfortunately, "DTV" has been blamed for this and a lot of people have given up, even though the situation will improve for many of them next month (unless the transition is delayed).

    70. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is, of course, bullshit, at least in my experience.

      And it is gospel truth, in my experience.

      I get many analog signals here with just a simple whip antenna.

      I get exactly ONE digital station.

      ... I just attached a little 2" stub antenna with a coax fitting directly to the box. While it certainly didn't pick up as many channels as the rabbit ears, it picked up all the main network digital channels without a problem.

      And I get exactly one station even when using an outdoor broadband amplified antenna.

      ... but there's no "graceful" to the way an analog signal would have degraded by that point.

      A snowy analog signal provides a lot more information and is a lot more viewable than a black screen showing only "no signal" in tiny white letters. I'd call that a lot more graceful.

      Amplified antennas don't work with digital TV boxes

    71. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is, of course, bullshit, at least in my experience.

      And it is gospel truth, in my experience.

      I get many analog signals here with just a simple whip antenna.

      I get exactly ONE digital station.

      It may be that the other digital channels aren't broadcasting at full power yet (or at all). In Hawaii, the changeover occurred on January 15 (to avoid disturbing nesting petrels on Maui). On January 14, I could receive one digital channel. On January 15, I could receive eight.

    72. Re:Why bother? by OolimPhon · · Score: 0, Troll

      Like where? I did a quick search on google and found nothing. I could certainly use a cheap card to capture S-video off my Super VHS camcorder or DTV box.

      Europe.

    73. Re:Why bother? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It is NOT much better. It's much worse.

      the analog transmitters have far longer range. the digital ones do not. (Most stations moved their digital to the UHF band and will not move back to their VHF channel after the change.)

      So we have a UHF channel that hates trees and has very poor ground propagation and people call it "better"

      yay.. can I have non working Cellphone service too? Oh wait, AT&T already gives me that with their "more bars" claim.

      Digital CAN be better, but the hundreds of miles footprint that many TV stations had will be reduce to under 100 miles, under 50 in most situations. Low VHF channels, the ones that could carry 200 miles are gone. we have left the high VHF channels for use, and most stations moved to UHF which means... Urban coverage only... screw you in a neighboring city without any tv stations.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    74. Re:Why bother? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      the biggest problem is quality of ATSC tuner. My old RCA scenium was better than any ATSC card or set top box.. until I got a top of the line panasonic plasma this year. it's pulling in stations I could not get at all with anything else I tried. ATSC PCI cards, LG set top tuner, even the high end stuff I could borrrow would not tune in what that panasonic can.

      I'm betting the tuner in these "converter boxes" are utter crap and will not tune in most anything. This is going to be the huge complaint come march... "I got the converter! I now onyl have 1 station!!!!"

      These converter boxes that sell for under $200.00 are utter crap.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    75. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>the 4:3 signal output by the converter box has black bars on all four sides for almost every channel on my TV.

      It sounds like you have the box set to 16:9 or letterbox mode. Push the Zoom button to make the imaage fill the screen.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    76. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>which will affect (generally, improve) reception

      Unless it's WBAL in Baltimore, which will be even harder to receive after it moves from 56 to 11. WPVI in Philly is moving from UHF to Lo-VHF (67 to 6) which most home antennas can not receive. You shouldn't mislead people with statements like "it will get more power" or "it will improve". The fact is we don't know what will happen until it happens. Some get better, some get worse (I'm losing DTV channels 11 and 6), but most stations will not be changed at all.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    77. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>I'm betting the tuner in these "converter boxes" are utter crap and will not tune in most anything.

      Actually most tests by videophiles show these converter boxes have the best tuners you can buy. This is due to the FCC forcing the boxes to submit to testing - many of them failed the first time, due to the FCC setting very high standards, but the end result is that the coupon-eligible boxes are now the best on the market.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    78. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      And then there's channel 11 in Baltimore which will be going to a *lower* signal that just barely covers the city.

      Also it's not mere transmission. The fact of the matter is this: I can watch an Orioles game, even if it's degraded to black-and-white with fuzzy static. My brain can extract the image and I can still enjoy the game. DTV receivers lack that ability; they'll just show a blank screen. (QED analog travels further than digital.)

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    79. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>Low VHF channels, the ones that could carry 200 miles are gon

      They still exist but the FCC tried to convince station owners to not use Lo-VHF. Anyway the people most likely to be hurt are those who live in the midwest 100-200 miles away from a center city. As you stated digital won't carry that far, so they'll be left with nothing.

      But that's okay. According to our new Democrat masters, the flyover people don't matter anyway. We can safely ignore their complaints when they lose TV come February 18.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    80. Re:Why bother? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The broadcast flag only applies to OVER-THE-AIR ATSC broadcasts.

      Cable systems are an entirely different story. Unlike the ATSC standards where the limit of DRM is the broadcast flag (which IS dead and buried), cable systems DO encrypt their signals and DO use DRM on 95%+ of their content, and most cable boxes force 5C encryption on their Firewire outputs and I'm guessing HDCP encryption on HDMI outputs (although most cable boxes currently available have component and not HDMI - this will probably change soon). About the only exception to the encryption on everything is that cable providers are legally forbidden from encrypting OTA broadcast feeds that they carry on their cable system. Cable (and satellite) DRM has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the ATSC broadcast flag.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    81. Re:Why bother? by dragonjujotu · · Score: 1

      I won't call bullshit either way, but here's my experience living at the edge of a small-medium sized city.

      Before I got a digital, my rabbit ears w/ gain got 3 channels clearly (abc, nbc, cbs; fox was too snowed to enjoy, and wb and pbs were washed out with static). With digital, I have those 4 plus pbs and wb (some is digital channels only).
      Analog channels: 2, 7, 22
      Digital channels: 2 plus digital, 7 plus digital, 16 in digital, 22 plus digital, 26 in digital, 45 in digital.

      --
      Yes, I am obsessed with ellipses.
    82. Re:Why bother? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Rabbit ears suck for UHF, which is where most DTV signals are. Build yourself one of these, it's well worth the minimal effort.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    83. Re:Why bother? by mzs · · Score: 1

      not if the VCR has AGC and it almost certainly does

      If the DTV converter box sees the broadcast flag it will play with the signal coming-out. Most VCRs will get confused by that and you will get a very dark picture recorded at best.

    84. Re:Why bother? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      The converter box is set to 4:3. Zoom is disabled on every channel except SD channels (that is, it gives an error message when I push zoom).

    85. Re:Why bother? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      3. Get a really cheap analog capture card and connect it to the output of the converter and then 4. Have fun streaming video, capturing shows, or making a DVR.

      I don't have the specs in front of me, but when I checked (1-2 months ago) there were/are only three models of converter boxes that could be switched channels absent human intervention. Unless he wants to build a remote emulator, he should find one of those three. That way his DVR could change what channel it records.

      I will post later if I find my notes.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    86. Re:Why bother? by MrRobahtsu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Digital broadcasts in the United States are much, much better than their analog equivalents.

      Except where they're not. Which is a lot of places.

      Personally, I don't see any compression artifacts at all on OTA digital broadcasts, HD or SD

      You need a better television.

    87. Re:Why bother? by mzs · · Score: 1

      There is some confusion in your post.

      The DTV converter boxes do not decode some SD sub channel or what not. They take a channel like 11.1 and convert that to analog.

      On this point I agree with you but I want to clarify. I live 50-60 miles from the towers. Even though I have a huge rooftop antenna, good cable, and a good amp, with the analog OTA I had not the best picture on some channels. With ATSC OTA, it is very good but sometimes the weather can get me to experience some glitches. I am lucky, I am on the fringe. I have to get my TV from two different states. People that lived with more snow with analog in the same fringe area I am in will just get a black screen with digital. I had to spend a lot of money and time replacing my setup to get it to where it is.

      I can very easily see the artifacts in ATSC (and QAM for the six months I had it). I have had my first digital tuner for five years now. They have made great strides, but I still see the effects. Sports was very bad initially, it still has problems, but in the past in football when a long pass or kick was taking place, the ball would disappear and reappear across the screen.

      On Jan 20th WFLD in Chicago enabled the broadcast flag for American Idol. My wife missed the first 30 minutes of the program because of that. The VCR recording was unwatchable. My DTV converter box obviously respects the broadcast flag and plays with the AGC on my VCR in that case.

    88. Re:Why bother? by mzs · · Score: 1

      Amplified antennas most certainly do. I use just this setup. Are you sure you are not putting the amp too far away from the antenna or are using an incorrect balum?

    89. Re:Why bother? by mzs · · Score: 1

      Could you provide a link to some of the AVR forum posts? I think I ran into the broadcast flag this two days ago and want to read up.

    90. Re:Why bother? by horatio · · Score: 1

      >The infamous Broadcast Flag--the only element of DRM to have ever loomed over broadcast television--is dead and buried. Besides, none of the DTV converters currently available have any DRM-compliance built in.

      You must be using a meaning for 'dead and buried' that I'm not aware of.

      As much as I think they're greatest thing since sliced bread, I've dumped both of my TiVos within the last few months because the damn cablecards never worked right with TWC, and TiVo doesn't work properly with what I switched to which was U-verse. (For one, the U-verse DVR puts itself into standby mode after some amount of "inactivity" - so my S2 was mostly recording "press [OK] to watch TV")

      However, the broadcast flag was alive and well as far as I could see. Maybe what I'm thinking of was something different. This was a little red (!) that would come up with probably 80-85% of the programs that wouldn't let me transfer the shows to the PC, or transfer them to another TiVo. The error message specifically said something to the effect of "the content provider has restricted the use of this content." It didn't happen when I first had the S3, but over time, more and more channels/shows started having it appear - both cable and broadcast channels.

      Obviously, TiVo blamed the cable provider, and TWC had absolutely no clue wtf I was talking about - or blamed it on the upstream provider - depending on who you got.

      --
      There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
    91. Re:Why bother? by horatio · · Score: 1

      Several folks below have pointed out that the cable providers can do whatever the hell they want, and that what I saw is probably not the same thing, because I wasn't using an OTA signal. However, IIRC, the restriction still applied in some cases to broadcast channels for shows like House, etc.

      --
      There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
    92. Re:Why bother? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      The broadcast flag only applies to OVER-THE-AIR ATSC broadcasts.

      Says who?

      According to Wikipedia:

      A broadcast flag is a set of status bits (or a "flag") sent in the data stream of a digital television program that indicates whether or not the data stream can be recorded, or if there are any restrictions on recorded content.

      There's nothing distinguishing about ATSC that make the broadcast flag only apply to it, or to only OTA broadcasts. The broadcast flag is an explicit part of the ATSC standard, but that doesn't mean it can't be used in QAM and other broadcasts (because it's plainly happening).

      Unlike the ATSC standards where the limit of DRM is the broadcast flag (which IS dead and buried),

      According to Public Knowledge:

      Is the broadcast flag dead?
      Not by a long shot. Although we won a major victory when we had the FCC's order mandating the broadcast flag overturned, similar ideas keep popping up. The content industry has gone to Congress to ask it to implement a broadcast flag. Broadcast flags have also been proposed for terrestrial radio, and content owners have tried to use a the Copyright Office's skewed royalty-setting proceedings to force webcasters to implement other kinds of DRM.

      Trying to claim that the "broadcast flag" isn't really a broadcast flag when it's not in an ATSC or OTA stream is disingenuous at best, and probably better called "disinformation". It's the same technology used for the same nefarious purpose by the same people that came up with it.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    93. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I live in the chicago land and some channels come in almost unwatchably with their OTA atsc signal.

    94. Re:Why bother? by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      That's because the digital signal simply breaks when static is encountered, as opposed to analog which degrades gracefully. Digital transmission does provide a lovely image, often better than cable, but only when the signal is strong; analog has a far wider reach, which is very important for anybody not in the middle of a city.

      I'm encountering the opposite effect. A few weeks ago, I plugged a $16 set of rabbit ears into my HDTV. The analog channels were all snowy, but the digital equivalents were crystal clear.

      Frankly, the digital broadcast is so good that I canceled cable! The only real drawback is that I sometimes need to rotate my antenna for different channels; but that's what happens with a $16 set of rabbit ears.

    95. Re:Why bother? by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      So, yea, the broadcast flag is alive and well, and used pretty much by all the service broadcasters (Comcast, Verizon FIOS, Time Warner, Dish, etc.).

      I know this is not true for Dish. I have a Dish DVR, and a DVD recorder. I have often recorded programs to DVD, and I have never seen any "you are not allowed to record this" message. Ever.

    96. Re:Why bother? by tim1724 · · Score: 1

      Well I also have a analog television set so I bought a converter box thinking that it would receive the same channels the digital television set did but it did not receive any channels at all.

      The digital converter boxes only have over-the-air ATSC tuners. As far as I know, none of them have QAM tuners for the signals used by most cable TV providers. So a digital converter box does nothing useful when attached to cable. It's only for use with an antenna.

      Although some older digital TVs have only ATSC tuners, many recent TVs include both QAM and ATSC tuners, allowing them to receive digital signals with either a cable connection or an antenna.

      It's a similar situation to the 1980s, when some TVs had only VHF/UHF NTSC tuners, but some TVs were starting to include CATV tuners as well. (Marketing materials usually referred to such units as "cable-ready".)

      --
      -- Tim Buchheim
    97. Re:Why bother? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      So, yea, the broadcast flag is alive and well, and used pretty much by all the service broadcasters (Comcast, Verizon FIOS, Time Warner, Dish, etc.).

      I know this is not true for Dish. I have a Dish DVR, and a DVD recorder. I have often recorded programs to DVD, and I have never seen any "you are not allowed to record this" message. Ever.

      I stand corrected, then. I was thinking a friend with satellite TV service who had a similar experience to mine trying out some late model DVD recorders, but it turns out he is on DirectTV, not Dish.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    98. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Discussing cable in a topic about Over-The-Air television is disingenuous. Yes DRM exists on cable, but it has *nothing* to do with the topic at hand which is broadcast DTV boxes. They do not use DRM, and therefore purchasers of this product need not worry about their DVRs refusing to record tonight's Supernatural episode.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    99. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>I did a quick search on google and found nothing. I could certainly use a cheap card to capture S-video off my Super VHS camcorder or DTV box.
      >>> (Score:2, Troll)

      I never realized that merely asking a question makes a person a "troll". Hmmm.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    100. Re:Why bother? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Good point. Fortunately the coupon boxes do not implement Macrovision, because the whole idea is to let people continue using their old analog sets, not to send them scrambled images.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    101. Re:Why bother? by mzs · · Score: 1

      My coupon DTV converter box does in fact do macrovision. I found this out the hard way on Tuesday. The details are here:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1099913&cid=26554015

    102. Re:Why bother? by virtual_mps · · Score: 1

      And then there's channel 11 in Baltimore which will be going to a *lower* signal that just barely covers the city.

      Where on earth did you get that information? WBAL should be viewable past DC into the NoVA suburbs after the transition. (No way to know for sure just where the reception line will be until next month, but it'll be way past the Balto city limits.)

    103. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on what you mean by "DRM". To the "content companies", one of the major goals is to ensure that high-definition content is unavailable except in a "protected path", or it is downgraded to SD.

      The broadcast DTV boxes do a really good job of that, since the outputs are SD only.

    104. Re:Why bother? by ksheff · · Score: 1

      The infamous Broadcast Flag--the only element of DRM to have ever loomed over broadcast television--is dead and buried. Besides, none of the DTV converters currently available have any DRM-compliance built in.

      FWIW, the converter box that I have will display whether or not that flag has been set for a particular show. Just pull up the program schedule for the channel and most of the shows (except the news) will have a little padlock icon next to it, even with the local PBS station.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    105. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amplified antennas don't work with digital TV boxes

      Yes they do. Hell, most of the 'HDTV ready' antennas available advertise that. I can change the signal gain on the antenna and see a corresponding change on the signal strength meter feature of the tuner.

    106. Re:Why bother? by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Most of the original analog TV content was broadcast in the VHF frequency range instead of the UHF range that is being used by most stations for digital. From what I've read, that cuts down the range considerably and if the current stations are broadcasting in low power for digital, that would make the area covered worse too.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    107. Re:Why bother? by ksheff · · Score: 1

      FWIW, Radio Shack sells an antenna that will rotate with a remote control. It looks a bit like the saucer section of the Enterprise from the ST:NG series, except that it's painted black. :)

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    108. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? In some markets there are more VHFs than UHFs remaining.

    109. Re:Why bother? by conureman · · Score: 1

      IIRC the coupons expire in 90 days and the money goes back in the pot.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  2. Just stop watching TV by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's really nothing on.

    1. Re:Just stop watching TV by WarJolt · · Score: 3, Informative

      BATTLESTAR GALACTICA!!!!

    2. Re:Just stop watching TV by hendrix2k · · Score: 1

      You must be using analog... from the future.

    3. Re:Just stop watching TV by Flentil · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's on cable, not broadcast TV.

    4. Re:Just stop watching TV by mdalal97 · · Score: 1

      that's generally not on broadcast television

    5. Re:Just stop watching TV by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that on the verge of being finished anyway?

    6. Re:Just stop watching TV by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's on TPB. Not everyone has access to US TV, you insensitive clod!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Just stop watching TV by SIR_Taco · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the problem.....

      --
      I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
    8. Re:Just stop watching TV by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but everyone has access to BitTorrent. Whoops, did I just let that slip? Sorry, major networks!

      --
      Your ad here.
    9. Re:Just stop watching TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a special viper and some spare cylons to receive Galactica transmissions OTA.

    10. Re:Just stop watching TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was on a few days ago :) Was fun to watch.

    11. Re:Just stop watching TV by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for them to re-imagine Quark into a new TV series..

    12. Re:Just stop watching TV by richardkelleher · · Score: 1

      Nothing is analog in the future. Even you aren't analog in the future. The future is DIGITAL!

    13. Re:Just stop watching TV by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that there is a show. You maybe get to see it when you're in the US, you may start to like it. Yet you come back home to your country and find out that it's not available. No network is showing it. Maybe you're in luck and you'll see it in a few years, when they got around to ruining it with completely inconsistant and/or ignorant dubbing. Maybe you'll never get to see it.

      What should you do? You can wait, and see just how much they fucked up with the dubbing this time. If you want to see it in English, you're entirely out of luck anyway. And given any chance no network finds it "not appealing to the masses" and won't go through the hassle of dubbing it at all. Or they turn around and produce a horrible knock off (IT Crowd suffered this fate, for about 4 episodes) because hey, the dumb viewer doesn't know the original anyway so he won't notice.

      Any suggestions?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Just stop watching TV by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for them to re-imagine Quark into a new TV series..

      Probably turn Ficus into Mother-in-law's Tongue.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    15. Re:Just stop watching TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which comes over cable or satellite. when you sign up for those you get a box with the subscription.

    16. Re:Just stop watching TV by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Anything worth watching on TV is also on Usenet/PB etc.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    17. Re:Just stop watching TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P2P looms large here. It's how we get Dr. WHO before the Scifi channel gets to cut it up and release it here.

    18. Re:Just stop watching TV by Daswolfen · · Score: 1

      its called Bit Torrent... ... know it, love it.

      It's why I can watch Doctor Who and Torchwood when the come out, rather than waiting for them to air here. If it wasn't for BT, I never would have seen great shows like Merlin, IT Crowd, and ReGenesis.

      --
      Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
    19. Re:Just stop watching TV by gavanm · · Score: 1

      "There are many copies"

    20. Re:Just stop watching TV by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Only if Odo is the co-host. And it's a weekly variety hour format.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    21. Re:Just stop watching TV by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Hey, I think I read about you on The Onion! I'd provide a link to the article, but the meme of providing the article link in response to posts like this got old a while ago.

    22. Re:Just stop watching TV by wootcat · · Score: 1

      Wrong Quark.

      --
      I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
    23. Re:Just stop watching TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BATTLESTAR GALACTICA!!!!

      Bittorrent.

      Your move, sonny.

    24. Re:Just stop watching TV by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Like he said, there's really nothing on.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    25. Re:Just stop watching TV by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I know, and it kinda bugs me.

      I'd play fair vs fair. Gimme the show, maybe a week after premier release in the US (hey, a week is acceptable, heck, a month would be), in English, if you insist with subtitles (but DO NOT DUB IT!). Hey, how about teletext subtitles? Ya know, the ones they have for deaf people. So I could even switch them off. Why there still is no channel around that does that is beyond me. You could make it pay-tv WITH ads and people would watch it!

      There's no market? Ok, then stop prosecuting the handful of people, because it can't be any more than that if there is no market. It really angers me that the only way I could possibly see some of the best shows (IMO, yours may vary) is stepping outside the boundaries of legality.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Just stop watching TV by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      You could theoretically buy it on DVDs from amazon

    27. Re:Just stop watching TV by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      The currently airing episodes are the end of the line,
      but I think it was finished after the first season.

      The first of the last episodes had a total disconnect from scientific accuracy, and inconsistencies with earlier shows.

      I think they are trying to 'reimagine' the glory that was Battlestar 1980.

    28. Re:Just stop watching TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke is that American TV is horrible, so it's not a problem to not have access to it.

    29. Re:Just stop watching TV by FrostDust · · Score: 1

      If you're lucky enough to have the DVDs published in the appropriate region code.

    30. Re:Just stop watching TV by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Informative

      BSG is on Hulu.com. No need for cable or broadcast TV. Just get an HDMI or S-Video cable and connect your PC up to your television.

    31. Re:Just stop watching TV by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Scientific accuracy? It may take place in outer space, but it's a character drama. It's not like it's presented as an educational program. Anyhow, they at least make somewhat of an effort to follow physical rules (momentum, silence in a vacuum, etc)

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    32. Re:Just stop watching TV by McGruber · · Score: 1

      That's on cable, not broadcast TV.

      "Battlestar Galactica" is on RTN, which is on digital channel 2.2 in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

    33. Re:Just stop watching TV by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, no. Amazon accepts the territory protection scheme in place to protect the interests of various publishers, you have to buy from your local Amazon if you want to get a DVD. No DVD delivery, no video on demand, no nothing. Again, I wouldn't be too bothered by that if that didn't mean... yes, you guessed it. Waiting a year or two to get a dubbed version that might (might, it's anything but certain) include the original track.

      Not to mention that the local release is anything but certainly "the same". First, whether you get the original audio is anything but certain. Second, I mentioned it before, the dubbing usually stinks. And then there are other quirks. Take House for example. Season one was released early 2007 (US: Middle 2005), and in 4:3 instead of 16:9 format. In other words, part of the picture was simply cut off. The other seasons came out a year later as well. Season four is expected in August.

      And don't make me start about Anime...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:Just stop watching TV by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      What's this hulu thing...oh right. Only works in the continental US...you'll have to forgive the rest of the world while it tells them to flip off.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    35. Re:Just stop watching TV by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me. Blame the stinkin' lawyers we have! If it was up to me, I'd be fine with giving the rest of the world access to hulu and other online video sites.

    36. Re:Just stop watching TV by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      Torrents and DVD's!

    37. Re:Just stop watching TV by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      If you want to watch something that would occur on TV, go to thepiratebay.com and search for it instead and download it.

      Almost always HD quality, and no ads to boot.

      Why watch real time when you can download it for free with no ads whenever you want?

      --
    38. Re:Just stop watching TV by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Here's your Answer.

      Video > TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.S04E11.Swesub.HDTV.XviD-aAF -Lindoff.avi Today 01:01 DownloadVIP 350 MiB 7 3
      Other > Pictures Battlestar Galactica [1600x1200] HQ Wallpapers Collection Y-day 11:55 DownloadTrusted 2.36 MiB 71 6
      Audio > Audio books Battlestar Galactica MiniSeries Novelization Audio Book 01-18 12:31 DownloadThis torrent has 1 comments. 277.25 MiB 10 6
      Video > TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.S04E11.HDTV.XviD-aAF.[MFD].avi 01-18 12:41 DownloadThis torrent has 1 comments.VIP 346.32 MiB 226 60
      Video > TV shows Ballestar.Galactica.4x11.avi 01-18 10:18 Download 346.32 MiB 0 1
      Video > TV shows Battlestar Galactica.Engsub.S04E11.HDTV.XviD.-aaf -Lindoff.avi 01-18 08:59 DownloadVIP 346 MiB 12 4
      Video > TV shows Battlestar Galactica [4x11] EnglishV+NapisyPL - 01-17 19:50 Download 122.91 MiB 28 5
      Video > TV shows Battlestar Galactica S4.5E01 Sometimes a Great Notion 100MB divx 01-17 16:23 DownloadThis torrent has 3 comments.Trusted 106.9 MiB 46 11
      Video > TV shows Battlestar Galactica: The Top Ten Things You Need To Know divx 01-17 16:02 DownloadTrusted 39.61 MiB 6 0
      Video > Highres - TV shows S04E11 Battlestar Galactica - Sometimes a Great Notion MP4 01-17 11:33 DownloadThis torrent has 1 comments. 1.11 GiB 50 25
      Video > Highres - TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.S04E11.PROPER.720p.HDTV.X264-DIMENSION 01-17 09:55 DownloadThis torrent has 7 comments.VIP 1.15 GiB 89 16
      Video > TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.S04E11.HDTV.XviD-aAF.avi 01-17 08:15 DownloadThis torrent has 1 comments.VIP 346.32 MiB 432 50
      Video > Highres - TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.S04E11.720p.HDTV.x264-CTU 01-17 07:34 DownloadVIP 1.12 GiB 54 8
      Video > TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.S04E11.HDTV.XviD-aAF 01-17 07:34 DownloadThis torrent has 1 comments.VIP 349.68 MiB 77 12
      Other > Comics 0-Day Week of 2009.01.14 01-20 02:02 DownloadThis torrent has 2 comments. 1.95 GiB 60 253
      Video > Highres - TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.S04E11.PROPER.720p.HDTV.X264-DIMENSION.mkv 01-17 12:11 DownloadThis torrent has 6 comments.VIP 1.09 GiB 573 173
      Video > TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.S04E11.HDTV.XviD-aAF.avi 01-17 07:32 DownloadThis torrent has 40 comments.VIP 346.32 MiB 4339 602
      Video > Highres - TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.S04E11.720p.HDTV.x264-CTU.mkv 01-17 06:46 DownloadThis torrent has 20 comments.VIP 1.09 GiB 766 131
      Video > TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.The.Face.of.the.Enemy.webisode.05 12-27 2008 DownloadVIP 25.09 MiB 16 1
      Video > TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.The.Face.of.the.Enemy.webisode.04 12-27 2008 DownloadVIP 20.79 MiB 23 1
      Video > TV shows Battlestar Galactica - Face Of The Enemy 1-10 (Webisodes) 12-28 2008 DownloadThis torrent has 8 comments. 261.06 MiB 111 5
      Video > TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.The.Face.of.the.Enemy.Webisode.03 12-27 2008 DownloadThis torrent has 1 comments.VIP 14.39 MiB 29 4
      Video > Highres - TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.The.Top.10.Things.You.Need.To.Know.720p.HDT 01-12 09:00 DownloadVIP 584.15 MiB 37 2
      Video > TV shows Battlestar Galactica Catch the Frak Up 01-09 14:48 DownloadThis torrent has 6 comments. 375.91 MiB 28 2
      Audio > Music Rockets (Space-Rock/Disco) Essential Works 1976-1982 - 5 Albums 01-09 01:07 DownloadThis torrent has 3 comments. 280.41 MiB 6 1
      Video > TV shows Battlestar.Galactica.Th

      --
    39. Re:Just stop watching TV by stalky14 · · Score: 1

      I've ordered several DVD's from Amazon.co.uk to play in the US on my region-unlocked player. Never had a problem with them selling to me. Hell, sometimes the shipment has been faster than some of my Amazon US purchases.

    40. Re:Just stop watching TV by adolf · · Score: 1

      Pardon me for noticing, but: We're talking about Hulu as an alternative to domestic broadcasts within the Unites States. Unless you live someplace like Windsor, Ontario (in which case you'll easily receive television broadcasts from Detroit, Michigan), you're so far out of context with your mockery that it's not even funny.

      Besides, I don't give a fuck what happens on your side of the pond. Thanks!

    41. Re:Just stop watching TV by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

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

      Plus a friend in the USA, of course.
      Works very well.

    42. Re:Just stop watching TV by westlake · · Score: 1
      There's really nothing on.

      This is always worth a quick and lazy mod up to +5 insightful.

      It doesn't require that you think about what is on the schedule for tonight - or look beyond your own tastes in programming.

    43. Re:Just stop watching TV by QuietEarth · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, no. Amazon accepts the territory protection scheme in place to protect the interests of various publishers, you have to buy from your local Amazon if you want to get a DVD

      Actually no.
      I have ordered stuff from amazon.co.uk, amazon.com, amazon-Australia, and amazon.ca with no issues.
      From Amazon UK I just received Season 1 & 2 of Doctor in the House. Have also ordered other DVDs from them (Space 1999 etc). Speedy delivery to Canada - just over a week - usually no customs duty or tax on the UK stuff. Don't think they watch UK mail as much as mail coming from the US. Had to order The Quiet Earth from Amazon Australia as .ca and .com did not carry the title at the time.

      Note:
      When ordering from these stores you probably will end up with region 2 or region 4 dvds. Region coding is a nuisance but it's easy to circumvent (no DMCA in Canada ... yet).

      --
      Work done by an officer's doppelganger in a parallel universe cannot be claimed as overtime.
    44. Re:Just stop watching TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you have access to Bittorrent so no excuses.

    45. Re:Just stop watching TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bittorrent.

      For UK TV theres uknova. I live in the UK and still use it as the files are smaller than iPlayer and far better quality than I get through the aerial.

    46. Re:Just stop watching TV by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Anyhow, they at least make somewhat of an effort to follow physical rules

      Well, apart from their touching belief that there is "up" and "down" in space.

      In any kind of "real" space warfare Galactica and its cute little space planes would be toast.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    47. Re:Just stop watching TV by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Almost always HD quality, and no ads to boot.

      No, it's almost always SDTV but labeled HDTV.

      Look at http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4655091/Battlestar.Galactica.S04E11.HDTV.XviD-aAF.avi for example.

      40-45 minutes of HDTV in 346.32 MiB - nice compression ratio there buster.

      (It's perfectly sized for my phone however :-)).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    48. Re:Just stop watching TV by crunzh · · Score: 1

      Eh, depends if you live in a sensibel country ;) Only childrens TV are dubbed where I live. Everything is is subtexted.

      --
      Visit http://www.crunzh.com/ for free software. Mac/Lin/Win
    49. Re:Just stop watching TV by michaewlewis · · Score: 0

      I don't have internet at home.... am I missing something, some great hack to get bit torrent via my microwave?

    50. Re:Just stop watching TV by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      that just means its a rip from an HDTV source, not that the file is HD.
      you'll also notice there are avi files labeled DVDRIP, R5, DVDSCR, and other things that an avi file is not.
      its standard scene filenaming.

    51. Re:Just stop watching TV by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      If you don't have access to US TV, I doubt that a DTV coupon from the US government for US over the air transmissions is the right thing for you. :)

    52. Re:Just stop watching TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet you come back home to your country and find out that it's not available.

      Guess what else you won't have back in your home country? Coupon-Eligible DTV Converters! The point about BSG not being on broadcast TV is very important here, because broadcast TV in the USA is the fucking topic! Take your off-topic whines somewhere else, please.

    53. Re:Just stop watching TV by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      And Americans wonder why people think they're ignorant schmucks. You might forget this but around half your shows are made in Canada these days.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    54. Re:Just stop watching TV by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sadly. Those 60gb caps they have up here in Canada mean you really can't download all that much...

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    55. Re:Just stop watching TV by thempstead · · Score: 1

      Sorry but that is rubbish.

      I'm in the UK and have ordered DVDs from Amazon in the US, Canada and Japan as well as the UK with zero problems. Their electronic offering may be locked to a single territory but I've never had issues ordering DVDs

  3. Paradox by aardwolf64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's kind of impossible to get a useful answer to your question on Slashdot... You see, if someone gives you a valid link to something that is actually useful, it gets modded up. It will immediately sell out, and you're back to square one. :-)

    1. Re:Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could say All of them are extreamly hackable excepth the one that is! Then the price will plumit on the hackable one and we can reap our rewards of well thought out plan.

      Same thing we do every night Pinky, "Try to take over the world!"

  4. Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    WHY would you want to waste your time even doing that? What's the point? There are DTV tuners on USB sticks that are likely easier to hack than some single-purpose hardware like these converter boxes!

    1. Re:Um.. WHY? by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny

      There are DTV tuners on USB sticks that are likely easier to hack than some single-purpose hardware like these converter boxes!

      I have one of those DTV tuners on a USB stick. Where do I plug the TV into it? How can you "send your own MPEG stream and have it displayed" with it?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:Um.. WHY? by michrech · · Score: 3, Informative

      The DTV tuners on a USB stick won't be as nearly free as the converter boxes would be my first guess... ;)

      --
      bork bork bork!
    3. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are DTV tuners on USB sticks that are likely easier to hack than some single-purpose hardware like these converter boxes!

      I have one of those DTV tuners on a USB stick. Where do I plug the TV into it? How can you "send your own MPEG stream and have it displayed" with it?

      By plugging it into your computer's USB port and streaming Media Center to your Xbox of course.

    4. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Get a newer video card for your computer, THAT'S how! Even the cheap PNY Nvidia-based card I just bought recently has composite, s-video, and component video outputs on the back. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel!

    5. Re:Um.. WHY? by nog_lorp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cool. Can you give me a link to the source tarball for this "Media Center", and schematics for an Xbox?

    6. Re:Um.. WHY? by vistapwns · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you have the source code and schematics to your TV and included cpu/roms? Or your microwave or washer/dryer? Car?

      --
      "...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
    7. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Since both of these are non-open source products I would have to say no. If you insist on doing it yourself and not taking advantage of millions of dollars already spent on R&D, then invent it yourself.

    8. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, none of the boxes currently available for near $40 will give you HD, they'll only give you SD.

      And, of course, the program is out of money so if you don't have your coupon, you're out of luck.

      And the coupons expire any way.

      Ars Technica's Don't Delay the DTV Transition article makes some very good points about how Congres messed up the DTV converter program though a horrible compromise.

    9. Re:Um.. WHY? by teknosapien · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you have the source code and schematics to your TV and included cpu/roms? Or your microwave or washer/dryer? Car?

      well yea I actually do have these schematics, most manufactures include them in the cabinet of the appliance. So if you would just poke around those mysterious machines you'll find them

      --
      no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
    10. Re:Um.. WHY? by pleappleappleap · · Score: 1

      Getting schematics and ROMs for my TV would actually be pretty easy. My microwave and laundry applicances are simple enough that the devices are self-documenting. I do have schematics and diagnostics/repair information for my car.

    11. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been done, many many times. XBMC can do XBox streaming. It can do UPnP MediaServer "streaming". NFS, SMB, mDNS. It will run on generic computer hardware. There are dozens of other open source projects doing the same thing. Though none of them are particularly polished, this is essentially a solved problem.

    12. Re:Um.. WHY? by badasscat · · Score: 1

      I have one of those DTV tuners on a USB stick. Where do I plug the TV into it? How can you "send your own MPEG stream and have it displayed" with it?

      Apparently you have not heard of a video out cable going from your computer (presumably what you would be using to "send your own MPEG stream") to your TV set?

      There's nothing you can do with a hacked converter box that you couldn't do *better* with a USB DTV tuner and the same computer you'd need anyway. You'll be able to view and watch in HD, and record too. Can't do that with a converter box. And you can watch on either your TV or your computer.

    13. Re:Um.. WHY? by kc8apf · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do have the schematics to my TV, microwave, washer, dryer, and car. I purchased these things called "service manuals." Sadly, they don't include the source code to the firmware.

      --
      kc8apf
    14. Re:Um.. WHY? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "There's nothing you can do with a hacked converter box that you couldn't do *better* with a USB DTV tuner"

      Well for one thing my USB DTV stick takes a looong time for a channel change, someweher around 10 sec. It is the twin han unit. Does anyone have a stick that can change channels quickly?

    15. Re:Um.. WHY? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sigh. After all these years, there are still slashdotters who don't grasp that "hacking" and "convenience" have nothing to do with each other.

    16. Re:Um.. WHY? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      When i see xbox and streaming the 1st thing i think of is XBMC, i thought thats what GGP was talking about, is there another way?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    17. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't feed the trolls, now...

      _AC

    18. Re:Um.. WHY? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      I've got a PCI card with about a 2 second channel change. That's as close to "quickly" as they get, in my experience.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    19. Re:Um.. WHY? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the AC can't, on either of those counts, and I'm sure that was your point. With consumer products, I (personally) consider it to be enough that it *works*. If I want something hackable, I'll run an open-source OS, etc. As far as "Media Center" and "Xbox" go, you could wither connect your computer directly to the television, or set up a Linux HTPC machine to perform the same functions. So, stop being an asshat, you know what the AC meant.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    20. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Free" by what standard? The coupons are PAID FOR by tax dollars, and the program is out of funding! I agree with whoever it was above: If you just want one to screw around with and you don't really NEED it, then USE YOUR OWN MONEY!

    21. Re:Um.. WHY? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Apparently you have not heard of a video out cable going from your computer (presumably what you would be using to "send your own MPEG stream") to your TV set?

      But what if you don't want to hook your computer up to the TV set? It's often a cumbersome arrangement. What if you want the computer to be available for other tasks while you are watching the stream on your TV set?

      There's nothing you can do with a hacked converter box that you couldn't do *better* with a USB DTV tuner and the same computer you'd need anyway

      But hacking can be fun. What's wrong with doing it that way if somebody wants to do it?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    22. Re:Um.. WHY? by Methlin · · Score: 1

      And the reason for that is unlike the STB the tuner cards/sticks aren't just directly pumping the TS stream into media player. They all record to disk and have the media player start playing back from that recording so you can things like pause, rewind, and fast-forward to a few seconds behind what's currently being recorded. If they pumped directly to a decoder you'd have the same 0.5-1s lock->video that a TV/STB has but lose all the functionality that having it on a computer gives you.

    23. Re:Um.. WHY? by syousef · · Score: 1

      WHY would you want to waste your time even doing that? What's the point? There are DTV tuners on USB sticks that are likely easier to hack than some single-purpose hardware like these converter boxes!

      Perhaps because the software that comes with them is so awful. I have a couple of SD set top boxes that I got cheap. Those occassionally freeze when the signal quality is bad and have to be powered down to unfreeze. Reception where I'm at is okay on some channels but awful on others. That is enough to make them unreliable. So a couple of weeks back I went out and bought a HD USB tv tuner - in this case a Gigabyte U8000. I did plenty of research but obviously not enough. The supplied software is awful. Timer recording fails, it crashes often and the UI supplied - PowerCinema makes the fisher price default XP theme look adult. I've tried other software but so far no luck getting something that's stable and reliable. (Most don't even want to tune Aussie channels, and many don't save their data correctly)

      I still don't have something reliable that lets me tape from digital free to air. I'm really over it.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    24. Re:Um.. WHY? by Marillion · · Score: 1

      Because he's really asking "how do I capture the stream to my hard drive." He just doesn't want the prosecuting to use his Ask Slashdot posting in court.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    25. Re:Um.. WHY? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      He was probably only talking to the 99.9999+% of people who would consider this a reasonable solution.

    26. Re:Um.. WHY? by adolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are they even free? Last I saw a pallet of them at Wal-Mart, the boxes had a price tag of $59, which is $19 out of pocket, plus tax.

      Meanwhile, Newegg shows me a 1080i-capable USB dongle which works without ugly hacks for $29, and Ebay shows some for as little as $16 (shipped).

      I'm not an expert in math, but the following seems to be true: If time is money, then $29 is a good deal. And even if time is free, then $16 is certainly less than $19.

    27. Re:Um.. WHY? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      I suspect you're right. My cheapo home cinema setup uses a very cheapo Asus EeePC and a super cheapo USB DTV stick. No pause/rewind/ad skip or whatever enabled; channels change in less than 1s.

    28. Re:Um.. WHY? by tepples · · Score: 1

      you could wither connect your computer directly to the television

      What do you recommend for converting the PC's VGA output to composite so that the SDTV can display it?

    29. Re:Um.. WHY? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Converter boxes are not free, they are $45.00-$59.00. ATSC PCI tuner cards are about $35.00 on ebay, IF you can get the discount coupon you can get them for $19.00 each.

      The ATSC PCI card is far more useful than any converter box is for accessing and using the Mpeg2 streams

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    30. Re:Um.. WHY? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Apparently you have not heard of a video out cable going from your computer (presumably what you would be using to "send your own MPEG stream") to your TV set?

      It appears a lot of people haven't heard of TV outputs on a PC. For instance, I looked at every desktop PC in an Office Depot store, and they all lacked S-video outputs. Not every TV is new or expensive enough to take VGA signals.

    31. Re:Um.. WHY? by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      0.5-1s on a TV, to lock onto a digital (not analog) channel? You must have better luck than I did buying either of mine.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    32. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schematics for my microwave and washer are pasted on the inside of the cover. TV schematics are typically available from mfr for free or nominal charge ($10ish, last time I had to get something like this). Schematics for my car are $100 (electrical system in shop manual)

      Yep, you don't get the source code for the microcontroller.

    33. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TV, yes. Car (94 Ford pickup actually) yes. microwave? Yup, it's in the manual. Washer & drier? Yup, they're on a sticker in the back.

    34. Re:Um.. WHY? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      now that pisses me off. Yes, there was a time when schematics were included with all purchased appliances, from pocket radios to TV to washing machines. Sometimes in the instructions, sometimes in sticker inside back panel. But it was expected that a person should be able to take a device to any competent technician and he would have the information supplied from you to repair it. But now we've restructured our civilization to pander to idiots who would rather throw the TV in the garbage and buy new rather than fix a frayed power cord, much less replace a component.

    35. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do happen to have the schematics for my TV, microwave, washer, dryer, car, dishwasher, stove, furnace and water heater, and they were all free.

      Wow, a dickhead that joined slashdot with a pro-ms nickname that isn't a troll? Oh, nevermind, you are.

      Hah, it looks like vistapwns just got pwned by a linux hacker, bitch.

    36. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, Sam's PhotoFact folders for each TV, and the Honda shop manual for the car.

    37. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, upon inspection some tvs I have seen (made in the last 5-10 years have had the schematics printed on the inside of the plastic back cover, or provided in the manual (and chip numbers aren't hard to google). in addition to this many of my appliances (not the newest but by no means ancient) have schematics either provided or printed somewhere inside. as for cars you can buy 3rd party books for basically all of them at very least

    38. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn Damn Damn!

      Those bastards at GM hang up on me every time I ask them for the source code for my 67 Chevelle.

    39. Re:Um.. WHY? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      But the article is about unnecessary hackary in the first place.

    40. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the schematics to my TV, came in the box with it.

    41. Re:Um.. WHY? by machine321 · · Score: 1

      Yes, no/no, yes, yes/yes, and yes. Appliance schematics (and car schematics) are easy to get.

    42. Re:Um.. WHY? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      http://www.blueunplugged.com/p.aspx?p=121406
      I'll let you google for a US model.

    43. Re:Um.. WHY? by NorQue · · Score: 1

      Well for one thing my USB DTV stick takes a looong time for a channel change, someweher around 10 sec. It is the twin han unit. Does anyone have a stick that can change channels quickly?

      Entirely your sticks fault. Got a cheapass USB DVB-T Stick a while ago (was 15 EUR) and channel changing works within 1-2 seconds in Kaffeine. Noticeable, but not distracting.

    44. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, yes. All older televisions came with schematics and, if you were lucky, a few voltage levels and a CRO waveform or two.

      Oh, wait, you mean they don't now? Damn, you missed out.

    45. Re:Um.. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The source code for some TVs is available from the respective manufacturer. Panasonic TVs run Linux, the GPL and a link to the source is somewhere in an "about" screen in the on screen menu. Sony has GPL source code available as well, for some of their TVs BluRay players and remote controls.
      Does your car run Linux? Or is it a Fiat or BMW running Windows?

    46. Re:Um.. WHY? by tepples · · Score: 1

      http://www.blueunplugged.com/p.aspx?p=121406

      From the linked page: "It will work with laptops and desktops with VGA cards that has TV-Out function capability through the VGA connector." Plenty of VGA cards in deployed PCs do not have this capability.

    47. Re:Um.. WHY? by splatter · · Score: 1

      even though your being an ass this might help someone

      T3ch: http://217.118.215.116/
      latest rar: http://ftp.endpoint.nu/pub/repository/t3ch/XBMC-SVN_2008-12-30_rev16762-T3CH.rar

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
    48. Re:Um.. WHY? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you don't want to use the software supplied with most of the cheap DTV sticks. I use MythTV, but that's Linux-only - if you want something Windows based, you'll probably have to pay for it. (The Microsoft solution isn't too bad, supposedly.)

    49. Re:Um.. WHY? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      That is cool, but does not resolve the issue of not having an XBox. $400 dollars + cost of USB tuner is alot more than $FREE.

    50. Re:Um.. WHY? by splatter · · Score: 1

      I have no experience with the x2 which I am assuming your speaking about for $400. I use an Original xbox which can be be had for about $40 less if you find one at a garage sale, and hacked into a XBMC box in about 20-30 Min.

      YMMV

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  5. Coupons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So I've finally gotten my DTV coupons

    If you're so hard pressed for cash that you had to get a coupon for a converter unit then MPEG streaming should be the least of your concerns.

    I thought that's what the coupons were for, poor disadvantaged people who couldn't otherwise afford them. Not slashdot hackers looking for some free stuff to mess with.

    1. Re:Coupons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      >poor disadvantaged people

      Well, from a relationship standpoint, slashdotters fit the bill.

      And shush, you'll let the po-po know about his scheme.

    2. Re:Coupons? by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, the coupons were to mitigate the ass-pain caused by having to go out and buy one at all. There are still plenty of people who don't have satellite or cable, even though they can afford it, because they only watch the weather in the morning and the news in the evening or some such. To them it's an added expense for no added benefit; hence the ass-pain mitigating coupons.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    3. Re:Coupons? by richardkelleher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There was nothing in the program about it being for poor disadvantaged people. They are for anyone affected by the lack of analog OTA signals. If you were affected, you were eligible. You just assume that anyone who still uses OTA signals rather than cable of satellite is poor and disadvantaged.

    4. Re:Coupons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, this is America, buddy! If I want a shitty, government-subsidized converter box, then I'll damn well get one!

      God forbid the mouth-breathers not have access to free TV anymore. I guess our government takes the same approach to the ignorant masses that the Romans did: keep them fed and entertained and they'll be easy to rule over.

      P.S. - What an age we live in! I can post to /. in the bathroom on a laptop as rivers of rancid diarrhea gush from my anus.

    5. Re:Coupons? by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, the coupons weren't welfare. They were compensation. FCC enforced an expense on the public, made billions of dollars. Part of that is going back to the citizenry that supposedly 'owns' the airways.

    6. Re:Coupons? by rwuest · · Score: 1

      I am neither poor or disadvantaged and I don't have cable or satellite TV. I have in the past, but I find we don't really miss them; even glad to be rid of it in some ways. I ended up without cable when Comcast screwed up moving me a few years ago. I found I get all the digital channels in my area with a rabbit ears antenna. The picture and sound are superb. Do I see myself ever going back to forking out $700+ a year for TV? Not likely. The money I saved on cable more than paid for replacing all my old analog sets with nice new DTVs (we have 3 in the house).

    7. Re:Coupons? by NitroWolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope, the coupons were to mitigate the ass-pain caused by having to go out and buy one at all. There are still plenty of people who don't have satellite or cable, even though they can afford it, because they only watch the weather in the morning and the news in the evening or some such. To them it's an added expense for no added benefit; hence the ass-pain mitigating coupons.

      Yes, there are still plenty of people, all 13 million of them. Of course, we should cater to those 13 million in the face of the other 313 million that DON'T use the analog frequency, which could be put to better use for THOSE people.

      Yes, makes perfect sense - cater to the tiny minority to the detriment of the vast majority.

    8. Re:Coupons? by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      Nope, the coupons were to help the broadcasters keep the congress men from showing up on the OTA news shows as being baby eating communists. Instead, since congress gave the OTA broadcasters the coupons, the OTA news shows will show your congress person as a red blooded American. The only thing it had to do with regular people was insofar as they might show up on election day and vote the way the OTA news had told them to.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    9. Re:Coupons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm one of these non-poor, rabbit-ear using broadcast watching people.

      I might TV up to 3 hrs a week for the occasional Simpsons rerun and breaking news, but that's it.

      The money that I could spend on cable, I'd rather spend on a good internet connection.

    10. Re:Coupons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just assume that anyone who still uses OTA signals rather than cable of satellite is poor and disadvantaged.

      I think the above mentioned is the demographic majority of analog TV owners. Even I own an HDTV and am, by all accounts, considered a late adopter.

    11. Re:Coupons? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      What about people whose TVs are old enough (or cheap enough) that they don't include a built-in digital tuner?

      Just because your TV didn't need one to get digital channels doesn't mean everyone else should have to pay for the upgrade due to a governmental fiat.

      To clarify, I have enough money to buy an HDTV. I'm going to wait until I move to buy one, so I don't have to risk breaking said HDTV during the move. That leaves five months during which, through no fault of my own, I would have no television (since analog broadcasts will have stopped). I'd complain loudly if I had to buy a new TV (or pay for the tuner myself) because of this signal switchover, because I didn't vote for or agree to the switchover. These coupons are probably the easiest fair way to treat the situation.

    12. Re:Coupons? by bile · · Score: 1

      Compensation? Compensation would mean they'd be paying for it from their own funds. The government gets money by taxation. This isn't compensation... it's giving money back to the people with some skimmed off for the bureaucrats.

    13. Re:Coupons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The switch to digital television is making some frequency bands available. They had an auction to sell licenses to start using those frequency bands for something else. That's where the money came from.

  6. HDHomeRun by raw-sewage · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not quite what you asked for, and I don't know if you can use your coupon (I'm guessing not)... but the HDHomeRun allows you two capture MPEG streams. It integrates well with MythTV. It has an open source library. Pretty sweet little device in my opinion.

    1. Re:HDHomeRun by EvanED · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why bother hacking one when you can get an HDHomeRun...

      It does have a $180 USD price tag though...

      Seems to me as if you went a long way towards answering your own question.

    2. Re:HDHomeRun by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the coupon program is that they're not usable for anything close to that cool. The answer to the submitter's question is: none.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    3. Re:HDHomeRun by repetty · · Score: 1

      HDHomeRun

      I have one -- it's great.

      Two tuners; both do either digital broadcast or unencrypted digital cable. Run one tuner one way and one the other.

      It's a network-based device so it can my used by one or two computers on your home network (simultaneously!)

      Very different from a simple USB tuner.

    4. Re:HDHomeRun by TheMCP · · Score: 1

      nifty! Thanks for telling us about that.

    5. Re:HDHomeRun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhat offtopic, but silicondust.com is the first business I've seen selling something via a Trac website. I'd say someone there is at least passingly familiar with hacking things.

      Also, speaking of hacking, their Lineup tool is handy once you get to hacking on that D/A device in a can.

      What's next? Government via sourceforge?

    6. Re:HDHomeRun by adolf · · Score: 1

      But this is Slashdot, and I want an answer to the following question:

      Why would I want an HDHomeRun, when I can throw together a MythTV box out of scrap PC bits that I already have and use cheap Chinese USB dongles as tuners? Sure, I'll have some time invested in it, but, geez, really... If I'm saving ~$150, I can afford (based on my day-job hourly rate) to spend a fair bit of time goofing around with it, and it'll also be its own DVR when its done, AND it'll work with my PS3, and...

      Again: Why?

    7. Re:HDHomeRun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop attributing your hourly wage to the cost of a hobby. Unless you turned down paid overtime to tinker with this, those three hours were not actually worth $150. If it were, then sleeping would cost me $156K/year!

    8. Re:HDHomeRun by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      I did not get a HDHomeRun despite its 2 tuners, precisely because it's networked. Networked only. If it had at least one output that would allow me to connect it directly to a TV (analog or otherwise) I would get one... but if I have to have a computer on to watch TV, it's not worth it for me. And no, price is not an issue.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    9. Re:HDHomeRun by adolf · · Score: 1

      Please stop assuming that I have some sort of warped contractual agreement requiring me to work precisely 40 hours per week. It's just not that way.

      When there's not much going on at work, I can work when I feel like it -- if I feel like it. I've taken plenty of unpaid days off to work on the house, or the car, or a client's computer in my sideline repair business. For me, taking some time off to work with MythTV can indeed be a very practical, profitable, and rewarding exercise.

      Just because your employer exists just to fuck your ass raw, doesn't mean that mine acts that way too.

      Find a better job.

  7. just sad by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    perhaps you should throw out your coupon or give it to someone who can't afford to purchase one and missed getting a coupon. If you're looking to hack something you should use your own money to buy one and not mine.

    Thank you.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    1. Re:just sad by Microlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      use your own money to buy one and not mine.

      It's just as much his money as it is yours. Not that the whole program isn't a boondoggle already.

    2. Re:just sad by mea37 · · Score: 1

      You can look at it as "as much his money as GP's".

      I suppose, then, that we're saying that a tax dollar belongs equally to all U.S. citizens.

      Which means that even if it's as much his as mine, it's still roughly 99.9999997% not his money; less than a penny of the value of the coupon is "his", outside the purpose of the coupon program.

      I agree with GP's sentiment. The program exists for a reason, and geek hobbying isn't the reason. Buy your own toys.

    3. Re:just sad by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're looking to hack something you should use your own money to buy one and not mine.

      If he has an analog-only TV, he is entitled to a coupon. End of story.

      The poor people who didn't act earlier are also entitled to a coupon, but not his coupon. Any problems that the program is having getting coupons distributed are due to government incompetence, not coupon recipients.

      These coupons are paid for from the proceeds that the government made selling the old TV bandwidth. They compensate TV owners for the diminished value of their property resulting from the government action, so the coupon fund is not your money to begin with.

    4. Re:just sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely. The coupons are to prevent people from becoming disconnected from the media. They are not for this, and he is wasting our money. His too.

    5. Re:just sad by gmor · · Score: 1

      If a company makes a hackable device, it's in everyone's interest for that company to be rewarded, so that more companies will make open devices. The question of whether the government is wasting vast sums of money on subsidies is independent. But given that thousands of Slashdotters will be using their subsidies (if they haven't already), let's direct those funds constructively.

      I wish I had known of a geek-friendly device. Just to keep my old TV usable, I bought a random converter box, and now both of them are off for weeks at a time. I would use a more flexible computer-controlled one much more often. If you can kill two birds with one stone, why not?

    6. Re:just sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck are you?
      Whe the fuck are you to judge what he is doing is wrong?
      Who the fuck are you to judge?
      Who the fuck are you?

    7. Re:just sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the crack head on welfare is using his welfare check to buy crack. It's fine because he's eligible for welfare right?

      Ohh, crack's illegal. So he's using it to buy a 47" LCD TV. And of course complaining about not having enough for food.

    8. Re:just sad by Breconides · · Score: 1

      Even if the coupons were "paid for" by the proceeds from the bandwidth sale, that is still money that we could have put towards other things, thereby needing less tax dollars.

      This is just another example of how with government regulation and socialism no one wins. Oh, except for the bureaucracy of course.

    9. Re:just sad by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 1

      Why should it matter to you whether he hacks his coupon-funded box, takes it apart for spare resistors and copper, or uses it to shim up a wobbly table? I mean, it's not like the coupons could be used to cure cancer. The stated intent of the program is watching television, for chrissake.

    10. Re:just sad by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Informative

      And how, again, is attempting to improve the functionality of the equipment somehow invalidating his claim to the money?

      Are all consumers eligible for the coupon program?

      Yes, but supplies are limited. There are 22.25 million coupons available to all U.S. households. Once those coupons have been used, there are an additional 11.25 million coupons available only to households that solely receive their TV broadcasts over-the-air using an antenna. Households with TVs connected to cable, satellite or other pay TV service are not eligible for this second batch of coupons. Consumers can apply for coupons until March 31, 2009, or until the funds are exhausted.

      From the governments website itself.

    11. Re:just sad by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Sorry you are blatently wrong. A bunch of no-name cheap electronics manufacturers just made off with some of your money in a way that they never would have had the opportunity otherwise without your consent in a perfectly legal manner. Sounds pretty win for them.

    12. Re:just sad by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      I didn't get the impression that he currently converts his analog signal into MPEG, so it seems like he's attempting to use the coupon to upgrade his TV, which is not within the scope of compensating TV owners for the diminished value of their property.

    13. Re:just sad by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Yes, everything is money that could have spent elsewhere.

      If only you were in charge.

      Which you aren't.

      Possibly because no one cares what you want to spend the money on and you haven't convinced them to. I'm glad. I paid good money for a TV which would have stopped working after this transition and the fact that the government used part of the proceeds from selling off that spectrum on a program that provided me the money to retrofit my TV to work with the new system is appropriate to me.

      You are just another example that people will find reasons to bitch about anything, except themselves of course.

    14. Re:just sad by nsayer · · Score: 1

      It's not your money or his money, it's Verizon's money. They bought a chunk of the 100 MHz of spectrum being given back from the UHF band, the coupons are coming out of that.

    15. Re:just sad by excesspwr · · Score: 1

      "give it to someone who can't afford to purchase one "

      good idea. I'll put it up for sale on Craigslist

    16. Re:just sad by Cramer · · Score: 1

      And, seriously, how are they going to verify that? Call up every cable company and satellite provider to run every name and address past them?

      I'd bet the vast majority of coupons have been sent to people who don't need them -- they can aford a $40 converter box, and very likely don't need one anyway. The people who really could benefit from it, don't even know about the coupon program.

    17. Re:just sad by nsayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      But the coupons aren't coming out of tax money, they're coming out of the license fees paid by Verizon for the 100 MHz of spectrum being taken away from the UHF TV band.

      You could argue, I suppose, that it all comes from the US treasury and so it offsets taxes, but the linkage is quite strong, since the conversion to digital has enabled the extra spectrum to be leased, which brought in the funds to pay for the coupons to subsidize the converter boxes.

      And yes, the conversion to digital really has enabled the band to be compressed. ATSC is more generous with adjacent channel allocation rules which allows the broadcasters to be packed in together tighter than was the case with analog. In particular, adjacent channels are allowed to be used by broadcasters transmitting from the same site. This is why channels 33, 34, 38, 39, 43, 44 and 45 will all be coming from Sutro tower post-2/17. You weren't allowed to do that with NTSC.

    18. Re:just sad by phulegart · · Score: 1

      If he has an Analog TV, then he is entitled to a coupon.... actually this statement is not true.

      If he has an Analog TV and he has not purchased a replacement TV with a digital tuner (and for a 27" SDTV at Walmart, expect to pay around $200) because of his CHOICE... then he is not entitled to a coupon. People who cannot afford the switch over to digital are who are entitled to these coupons. If you have three plasma TVs all with digital tuners and a few DVRs and some other assorted digital receiving devices, then you are NOT entitled to a coupon for a free Digital Receiver.

      I'm not sure that the OP understands what these coupons are for. This thing is not a DVR. It is not a device that will allow time shifting or anything else. It is simply the same as a radio. It is a Receiver that will pick up the digital TV signal, and output it to a single channel on the TV.

      If this gentleman is expecting to get some kind of processor-type unit (to play AVI files, MPEG streams, etc) hewill be disappointed.

      However, saying that everyone is entitled to one of these coupons, is like saying that everyone is entitled to unemployment, or welfare, or free food... the person who owns three homes and 8 cars is not entitled to welfare... until AFTER they give up everything.

      But if this guy wants to use his coupon to get a device for free so he can hack it and potentially abuse it to where it will break... then no, he is not entitled to a free Digital Receiver. These devices are for who needs them... not for people who want to play around with them and save a few bucks.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    19. Re:just sad by volkris · · Score: 1

      As you said, they bought the chunk of the spectrum. As in, they handed over money.

      Once they hand the money over, man, it's gone. No longer theirs.

    20. Re:just sad by robbadler · · Score: 1

      Entitled? Who do you think you are surrounded by? I want my $0.00000004 cents back, and all the rest of you should to. Entitled to my moneys. Communists.

    21. Re:just sad by CecilPL · · Score: 1

      Only 0.0000003% of the coupon is his money, but 0.0000003% of all the other coupons is also his money. So on average the coupon is entirely his money. Essentially the government took $40 from each of us, and used it to buy a gift certificate only valid for converter boxes in our names.

    22. Re:just sad by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Even if it could have been managed better, the sheer fact that the program can be exploited doesn't mean you should.

      The coupon eligible boxes are all rather unimpressive mainly because of the limitations imposed on them. I wonder what percentage of these boxes will have been picked up because people think "free hardware" before they realize it's just a cheap circuit board and that they have no use for it.

      These boxes are designed to do one thing: Allow old TVs which display a crappy analog signal to display the new digital signal in a crappy way.

    23. Re:just sad by geekboy642 · · Score: 1

      I dunno about you, but one half of my family lives in the absolute middle of nowhere, supported mostly by welfare and odd jobs. Their broadcast channels were literally inundated with "DTV switchover" ads. Anybody who watches any OTA TV at all in the US either knows about DTV or has a severe brain problem.

      Without the coupons, I absolutely guarantee they would not have purchased the $40 box. The program works.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    24. Re:just sad by AJWM · · Score: 1

      If he has an Analog TV, then he is entitled to a coupon.... actually this statement is not true.

      Actually it is true, if said TV is not connected to cable or satellite (ie, is only receiving OTA signals).

      It doesn't matter if you happen to own a digital TV or not, if you own an analog receiver and don't have cable or satellite, you qualify (and that latter restriction only kicked in for part of the coupon distribution). Obviously you don't need a converter for any digital receivers you own.

      This isn't welfare, it's reimbursing analog set owners for what could otherwise be considered a 'taking' of their property by rendering the analog receivers useless (hence valueless).

      --
      -- Alastair
    25. Re:just sad by QuasiEvil · · Score: 1

      I'd say that's an even stronger case for it being equally mine as some poor dude. The spectrum belongs to the public, and the FCC is its unfortunately appointed guardian. That means proceeds from its sale belong to us all. Since I can't think of a more equitable way to distribute the proceeds, I'd suggest equally.

    26. Re:just sad by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      "You are just another example that people will find reasons to bitch about anything, except themselves of course."

      Pot meet kettle. Who would be the complainer if they didn't give these things out.

      I have no real qualms against you using it for the reason it was given. Occasionally it is difficult for a free market to uproot a scarce resource to change it into something else such as what is being forced. This is why we wont likely see ipv6 without something similar.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    27. Re:just sad by Cramer · · Score: 1

      They have been recently. Until a few months ago they were rare around here. And I don't recall them mentioning the coupons. But that's probablly on the web site they point everybody to.

      The problem is that most of the coupons were sent out long before the people who really need them knew about them. And now that people are running around like the sky is falling, there aren't so many coupons to be had.

    28. Re:just sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalists.

    29. Re:just sad by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      The value of the TV is diminished. It doesn't matter WHAT that TV is currently being used for. Even if it is used as a doorstop.

      Unless, of course, you are mandating a certain amount of TV watching...

      Now, in compensation for that, the US government is using some of the proceeds of the bandwidth auction to compensate. Again, if you take the compensation, you are free to do whatever you want with it. Again, use it as a doorstop, alongside the previously mentioned TV.

      Are you telling me I am not allowed to hack that box? It has an MPEG to standard TV converter, and a scaler in it. It must have some digital smarts as well. Sounds fun to me!

      Unless, of course, you are mandating that I am not allowed to destroy my own property...

      Hell, I have three TV sets with analog-only tuners (at over $2000 for the three sets when purchased). But, my jurisdiction is not phasing out analog TV until 2011. (Which bodes well for US viewers along the Canadian border who don't have a converter yet...) But, since Canada hasn't had an auction yet, we don't have a coupon program either. If we DO have a coupon program, I WILL sign up (if I am allowed). It really has nothing to do with how much I have; it is a reduction of the value of my property, which the government can do by fiat. It is only reasonable to be compensated. (and, personally, I would rather have cash).

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    30. Re:just sad by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      These boxes are designed to do one thing: Allow old TVs which display a crappy analog signal to display the new digital signal in a crappy way.

      Actually the digital signals looks better than the old analog signals on my TV, so your statement isn't quite accurate.

    31. Re:just sad by spinkham · · Score: 1

      The government sold access to the airwaves, and is using a small fraction of the money it received in the sale to compensate people for loss value in their own consumer goods.
      I have a non-cable connected analog set, and I applied for my coupon a year ago, and bought the box quite a while ago. Could I have afforded the $50 box I bought without the coupon? Yup. But the converter box program is not income qualified, is self funding based on government sale of radio bands, and I have no qualms whatsoever of getting my coupon.
      All the broadcast stations have been advertising this changeover for a long time now, anyone who waited to the last minute knew they were doing so, and took the risk being well infomed. If they have to wait a couple of weeks to get their TV, it's their own fault.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    32. Re:just sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funds have run out! We are waiting for congress.

      http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/01/digitaltv_coupon_program_runs.php

    33. Re:just sad by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      You missed the most important part:

      They compensate TV owners for the diminished value of their property resulting from the government action

      .

      It's specifically his money. Furthermore, it's money which wouldn't be available to anybody without government regulation!

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    34. Re:just sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how, again, is attempting to improve the functionality of the equipment somehow invalidating his claim to the money?

      Because the coupons have limitations on the functionality of the boxes they can be redeemed for?

      http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1099913&cid=26553845

      The purpose of the coupon is to help people who can't afford the boxes to begin with, not to give everyone $40 off a lobotomized MythBox.

    35. Re:just sad by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1

      But the coupons aren't coming out of tax money, they're coming out of the license fees paid by Verizon for the 100 MHz of spectrum being taken away from the UHF TV band.

      I need you around when I'm trying to convince myself: "Let's see... I made this money on the stocks so it's practically like I WON it. I didn't make it by working at my job. So, of course, I should buy a new LCD with it!" A system has X amount of dollars. You can say some of it came from here and some from there but it doesn't matter. When it comes to our government, it ALL came from US

    36. Re:just sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "better, stronger Obama Nation" you mean prolonged recession / depression, greater unemployment, greater government regulation and intervention, destruction of the dollar, inflation, possible wage and price controls...

      then yes... I agree.

    37. Re:just sad by mea37 · · Score: 1

      That they aren't defining and policing specific guidelines for who can get a coupon, does not change the fact that the program exists for a reason. "I'll ignore the program's purpose because nobody will stop me, and screw the people who this assistance was intended for" is not illegal; but it is immoral.

      Of course, I'm a legally blind individual who doesn't take the various forms of assistance for which I do specifically qualify unless I actually need them, so I doubt you and I have much in common in our debating positions.

    38. Re:just sad by mea37 · · Score: 1

      That would almost be true, if there were enough coupons for everyone to get one. Since there aren't, it's just one more rationalization to do what you want instead of what you know is right.

    39. Re:just sad by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      And if this was welfare you'd have a right to look down your highly tilted nose at me, but it wasn't, despite your attempt to define the program as such.

      There are approximately 33 million coupons that were allocated; by most accounts there are around 15 million households (or 23 million people) that still consume over the air broadcasts. Even given you were limited to a maximium of two coupons that doesn't sound like a welfare program to me, it sounds like exactly what it was billed as. A program to allow those of us who have equipment that will be impacted by this change access to some of the revenue generated by it in order to purchase what was necessary to allow it to continue working.

      Oh and btw, FUCK YOU, you smarmy asshole. Congratulations on being a stiff necked blind guy who attempts to use his disability to assert moral superiorty over anyone who doesn't want to live life as crappy as you obviously do.

    40. Re:just sad by mea37 · · Score: 1

      You should probably go look up the justification for the coupon program. It is in fact targeted at meeting a need, and not merely at passing out toys.

      btw, I do not "use" my vision for any purpose. Your failure to accept information about my relative perspective is slightly more amusing than your attempt to define my motivations.

    41. Re:just sad by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      What is the Converter Box Coupon Program?

      To help consumers with the DTV transition, the Government established the Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Coupon Program. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a part of the Department of Commerce, administers this program. Every U.S. household is eligible to receive up to two coupons, worth $40 each, toward the purchase of eligible digital-to-analog converter boxes. Beginning in January of 2008, the NTIA has begun accepting applications for coupons. The coupons may only be used for eligible converter boxes sold at participating consumer electronics retailers, and the coupons must be used at the time of purchase. (Please note that these coupons will expire 90 days after mailing). Manufacturers estimate that digital-to-analog converter boxes will sell from $40 to $70 each. This is a one-time cost. For more information on the Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Coupon Program, visit www.dtv2009.gov, or call 1-888-388-2009 (voice) or 1-877-530-2634 (TTY).

      Don't see anything in there regarding it being for the 'po folk only', I don't see anything in the submitter's request that invalidates the purpose of the program in relation to them. Maybe you should use try getting some of that assitance you are so proud of refusing to re-evaluate what you actually know and what you've just decided you 'know'.

      Of course, I'm a legally blind individual who doesn't take the various forms of assistance for which I do specifically qualify unless I actually need them, so I doubt you and I have much in common in our debating positions.

      And I don't see anything in there other than an asshole using his blindness to throw a barb.

    42. Re:just sad by mea37 · · Score: 1

      "Don't see anything in there regarding it being for the 'po folk only'"

      Feel free to show me where I said it did. Best of luck with that.

      What I did say is: "the program has a purpose". The purpose is to help with the transition. (See where the material you quoted says that?) If you don't need the help (e.g. you're already set up to handle the transition just fine on your own) but you take the coupon anyway to get a free toy, then you are abusing the program, likely at the expense of someone who does need the help.

      "Maybe you should use try getting some of that assitance you are so proud of refusing to re-evaluate what you actually know and what you've just decided you 'know'."

      So the only reason you can think of that I might reach conclusions different from your, is that my vision is somehow preventing me from reasoning to the "correct" answer? Interesting.

      "And I don't see anything in there other than an asshole using his blindness to throw a barb"

      Your continued attempts to define my motivations remain amusing.

    43. Re:just sad by jabster · · Score: 1

      Any problems that the program is having ... are due to government incompetence...

      And just think! This is the same government that a lot of people want to run health care!

      --
      Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
    44. Re:just sad by nsayer · · Score: 1

      Let's look at it another way:

      What if nothing had been done? We'd still have crappy (I'm talking picture and signal quality here, not making a value judgement about the programming - that'll be the same at 1080i as it was at 480i) analog TV and the extra 100 MHz of spectrum would not be available for advanced wireless services and public safety communications. But in order to shift things around to make room for those new services, we need to squish the TV broadcasters closer together, which means converting them to ATSC, which, by the way, will result in a much better experience for viewers at the cost of backwards compatibility. The work-around for the backwards-compatibility problem is the subsidized converter boxes.

      The net benefit of the whole deal has to be taken into account. Part of the cost of the deal is the subsidized converter boxes. The money for them isn't a tax-funded boondoggle. It is part of the deal to shift 100 MHz of UHF spectrum to a better use, which benefits the public good more than the status quo ante. And that's government doing what government ought to be doing.

    45. Re:just sad by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying that it wouldn't look any better. But the requirements for coupon eligible boxes (only RF or composite video output) clearly place them at the bottom of the bucket.

  8. Republicans? by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is this tagged republicans? Did I miss something?

    1. Re:Republicans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the editors feel everything that dumb that happens as a result of government is the republicans' fault. It was funny at first. Now it's just sad, really.

    2. Re:Republicans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now it's tagged !republicans. If we had metatags, and I had a slashdot account, I would tag the !republicans tag !duh.

    3. Re:Republicans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because EVERYTHING is the republicans fault.

    4. Re:Republicans? by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing. I'm pretty certain that, some days, the editors here at Slashdot are too busy having Obamagasms to realize that you can't blame Bush or the Republicans for every government ill.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    5. Re:Republicans? by richardkelleher · · Score: 1

      Not the good things...

    6. Re:Republicans? by brkello · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice try. Except that the editors didn't tag it that. Slashdot users did.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    7. Re:Republicans? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I've seen several stories - even some completely unrelated to politics - tagged 'republicans' over the last few days. I think maybe someone (or multiple someones) is just bored, and just tags everything.

    8. Re:Republicans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the non stop terrorist TV aj jazeera ad's all over the site.

      Slashdot should stop those fricking terrorisim adverts as well. Yes that channel is terrorist tv. they NEVER denounce or condemn the terrorisim attacks. they glorify them.

    9. Re:Republicans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life is a blur of meat and Republicans.

    10. Re:Republicans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because George Bush did it?

    11. Re:Republicans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know and am guessing here... but since this program was setup under a Republican administration and FCC, it got tagged as such.

      I view it as a waste since the equipment available under the rebate program is not HDTV capable. And I don't think any 'easy' amount of hacking will allow you to use the box in this way.

    12. Re:Republicans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a republican president passed the DTV bill. And everything gets tagged anything on slashdot.

  9. HDHomeRun by TypoNAM · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why bother hacking one when you can get an HDHomeRun that has dual-tuners and it is networked across ethernet! Now it won't directly hook up to any TVs or what not, just computers. MythTV and other favorite software suites works with it just fine. It does have a $180 USD price tag though last I checked of which makes it out of your reach if you're having to get a coupon for a DTV converter box...

    --
    This space is not for rent.
  10. Small amount of help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    nformation on this will most likely be hard if not impossible to find. You are looking for a group of people tech savvy enough to have media streaming from their pc, yet ones that have televisions old enough that they do not have a digital receiver. (Unless, of course, your TV does have a digital receiver, and you are just grabbing coupons, helping the government run out, and therefore delay the switchover... but I digress) While this is the internet, and there is probably a google group dedicated to this, I can't imagine there will ever be a significant percentage of the population that would do this; Either go all the way with a (relatively) new TV, or give up.

    Unless of course you are trying to put linux on one of these.. then by all means, go right ahead.

    1. Re:Small amount of help by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... a Slashdotter tries to get some use out of his analog TV, and you automatically assume he might not also have another TV in the house? How many TVs do you think the typical 'dotter (who is out of mommy's basement and qualifies for his own coupon) has? The coupon program wasn't for people who didn't have a single digital TV set. It's for people who have any analog sets using over-the-air tuners. The two are not the same thing.

    2. Re:Small amount of help by jackspenn · · Score: 1

      You are looking for a group of people tech savvy enough to have media streaming from their pc, yet ones that have televisions old enough that they do not have a digital receiver.

      I have been hacking my old outdated hardware for years. When I got a blazing PII to run Windows NT Workstation in college my older 486 became a test bed for Red Hat Linux. Later when I was literally the first DSL subscriber the Bell Atlantic technicians (they sent four) setup, I used a trash picked Pentium 133 to make a Linux router (before you could buy a home router).

      So I don't think it is unreasonable for /. hackers who may have the latest and greatest HDTVs or Tuner cards to also be interested in hacking DTV boxes going to old TVs or whatnot.

      I am personally interested in hacking a cheap DTV device to make an IP based rebroadcaster that can stream over Internet. Ideally I would spit to friends and have them drop the device on my old college network somewhere so I can watch Philly teams without have to pay insane fees each season.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    3. Re:Small amount of help by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Being savvy enough to set up media streaming from a PC is not the same as actually having a PC capable of media streaming. I'm capable, I just don't actually have the hardware.

  11. Tivax STB-T9 by timeOday · · Score: 5, Informative

    Tivax makes a converter box which is only about $15 with a rebate card and has a serial port on the back. I got two of them with my coupons. You can control the unit through the serial port (turn on, change channel, zoom, etc). You don't get access to the digital signal, what you get is a good quality analog picture at standard resolution, which your analog PVR can record. For me this was what I wanted; the HD stream itself is a deluge of data; you really don't want to capture it at full-res if you'll be watching on an SDTV. (In fact my old PVR box isn't fast enough to replay full HD video streams, it requires considerable CPU). I am using wish scripts to send the serial commands. Perhaps somebody has written code for MythTV to use it by now.

    1. Re:Tivax STB-T9 by Icegryphon · · Score: 0

      interesting. Now I wish I would have gotten one of those instead of my Insignia

    2. Re:Tivax STB-T9 by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Most STBs come with a serial port, but it is refreshing to find one that gives you enough documentation to do something useful with it. I have a DVB-S STB manufactured by Philips, and I'd love to be able to hook the serial port up to my PC so I can control it for recording, and preferably access the EPG so I don't have to screen scrape the provider's javascript infested webpages that change structure regularly to break my xmltv configuration.

    3. Re:Tivax STB-T9 by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Analog at standard resolution. That's fairly nice, isn't it? I mean, there isn't much need for a higher resolution unless one has a big screen in which the pixels would be noticable.

    4. Re:Tivax STB-T9 by unitron · · Score: 1

      Not only is there a serial port, but there is also an RJ45 jack for a "smart antenna" (electrically aimed instead of mechanically), and I would be interested to see if it could be used for sending any other communications and commands in or out of the converter.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  12. Re:Lame. by vtcodger · · Score: 1

    There was a limit of two (2) per household.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  13. Valid info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the chipsets used, you can check the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CECB_units .

    But as to hackability, I seriously doubt that ANY of these unit are sophisticated enough to run a real OS with some hacking potential. If you're a hardware wizard, you might be able to do something, but I don't see the value in spending lots of time trying to hardware hack a box which costs $10-$20 out-of-pocket.

    1. Re:Valid info by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're a hardware wizard, you might be able to do something

      The basic task involved for these boxes requires them to properly and fully decode the broadcast DTV signals, then (to qualify for the coupons) downsample the signal and reencode it as NTSC.

      As a rule of thumb in hardware design, you make it as step-by-step debuggable as possible - Which in this case means planning for a tap after the decoding stage but before the downsampling stage.

      I would fully expect nearly all of these units to require nothing more complex than finding the right place to attach a connector or three to pull the fully-featured DTV signal from it, at a cost less than dedicated units that do just that, and you get to stick Uncle Sam for a portion of the bill.


      Or have we managed to dumb down the public enough that merely soldering a few wires or a connector to existing test points on a PCB has entered the realm of "hardware wizard"ry?

    2. Re:Valid info by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Not only that but the purpose of these units is to create analog output. NONE of them are going to have a "raw stream" to grab.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Valid info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most DTV boxes are single chip systems. If you are lucky you might find a serial or JTAG port, but neither will allow you to stream. Even if there was a debug port on the receiver, the cost of replicating the debug hardware necessary to interface with it (with or without docs - but probably without) would be far greater than that of a PC ATSC capture card.

    4. Re:Valid info by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a rule of thumb in hardware design, you make it as step-by-step debuggable as possible - Which in this case means planning for a tap after the decoding stage but before the downsampling stage.

      I would fully expect nearly all of these units to require nothing more complex than finding the right place to attach a connector or three to pull the fully-featured DTV signal from it, at a cost less than dedicated units that do just that, and you get to stick Uncle Sam for a portion of the bill.

      Unfortunately, no. Most of them are system-on-chip, with the demodulation, decoding, and downsampling all done within a single chip.

      The Channel Master 7000 and the DTVPal (based on a separate demodulator and decoder) have more options for hacking; the Channel Master box in particular was designed to have a digital audio output, which was scotched due to coupon box requirements. A few passive components restore the output, but it's muted; there's a JTAG port if you want to try your hand at firmware hacking.

    5. Re:Valid info by shaitand · · Score: 1

      We've dumbed down the public enough that changing ram qualifies as hardware wizardry.

    6. Re:Valid info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or have we managed to dumb down the public enough that merely soldering a few wires or a
      connector to existing test points on a PCB has entered the realm of "hardware wizard"ry?

      yes, yes we have

    7. Re:Valid info by Eil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Parent is scored +5, and rightly so since it's the only useful comment so far.

      To add, I also wondered the same thing. I bought the Zenith DT-901 (reported to be the highest-quality low-end DTV converter) and it's pretty darn spartan inside. Basically the only chip on the device is a SoC that handles everything, from the digital tuner to the analog output. I think there might have been some unpopulated JTAG headers, but other than that, there was nothing on the board to indicate that it is hackable. Even if it was, I doubt the firmware is anything close to publicly-available.

      In order to get the features you want, you'd probably have to splurge for a beefier tuner. One that can't be bought with the coupon and has features like shuffling off the digital stream over firewire.

    8. Re:Valid info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To add, I also wondered the same thing. I bought the Zenith DT-901 (reported to be the highest-quality low-end DTV converter) and it's pretty darn spartan inside. Basically the only chip on the device is a SoC that handles everything, from the digital tuner to the analog output. I think there might have been some unpopulated JTAG headers, but other than that, there was nothing on the board to indicate that it is hackable. Even if it was, I doubt the firmware is anything close to publicly-available.

      You're right about there not being anything publicly-available. Even the chip specifications are under NDA. But that never stopped anyone;-)
      The Zenith has a 4 pin connector with the serial lines on it. Here is part of the output:

      ARom-bcs

      V1.05.54 Jun 13 2008, 10:37:45 @ /d/SRC/VSS/BOOT_T
      Config Baud Rate : 115200 bps
      System Clock Rate : 175 MHz
      U-Boot Mem offset : Text/Data [00e00000, 00e1874f], BSS [00e18750, 00e3aa7f]

      RAM Configuration:
      Bank #0: 00000000 32 MB
      manufature ID : 0xc2, Device ID: 0xc4
      Flash: 2 MB
      *** Warning - bad CRC, using default environment

      In: serial
      Out: serial
      Err: serial
      Set Flash Memory Structure...
      Set Region for Bootrom from 00:00 0x2c000000 (131072bytes)
      Set Region01 for Appl from 00:02 0x2c020000 (917504bytes)
      cacheID : 1d0d20d2
      write-back, register 7, format C
      cache separated
      D-cache 4kbytes 4-way 8 words (32bytes)
      I-cache 4kbytes 4-way 8 words (32bytes)
      Masks:: Index: c0000000, Int: 000000c0, Seg: 000003e0
      Compare 00e12cb8 2c012cb8
      Boot from address 2c000000
      Boot from flash

      Some more info about the insides here

    9. Re:Valid info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that the non-downsampled signal is available before being sent to some downsampling chip. As far as I know, the chips used usually provide both the full resolution and the downsampled signal at once, so there's no need for additional components. The full res signal might be disabled in software, inaccessible because it is buried under a BGA chip with no traces to the outside or even not bonded to the outside within the chip to sell cheaper chips for the low budget boxes.

    10. Re:Valid info by wmguy · · Score: 1

      Mine is sophisticated enough to crash and display some sort of panic screen on my TV.

    11. Re:Valid info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That rule of thumb won't help, since the chips usually used as decoders in those boxes supply both the downsampled and the full resolution signal. The full res signal may be disabled in software, inacessible because it's buried under a BGA chip with no traces connected or not even bonded to outside of the chip to sell it for use in cheap boxes.

    12. Re:Valid info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or have we managed to dumb down the public enough that merely soldering a few wires or a
      connector to existing test points on a PCB has entered the realm of "hardware wizard"ry?

      Yes

  14. Re:Pffffffft...that's all of our money by grocer · · Score: 1

    The FCC took in 19.6 billion for the 700 mhz spectrum auction selling an asset of the US government...which last I checked is every US citizens.

  15. S-Video with Apex 502 by sillivalley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The little Apex 502 is one of the few coupon eligible converters with S-video out.
    If you have a TV or monitor with S-Video inputs, you'll get a better picture than using RS170 composite video (and much better than CH3/4 RF)

    1. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      First of all RS170 is black and white. You meant RS170A. Secondly, this myth about S-Video being oh so much better than composite is BS. Let me explain the big whopping difference between the two. S-Video sends the chrominance with associated burst on a separate channel from the luminance, which by the way is pretty close to RS170. On RS170A the sum of the luminance and chrominance signals are on one wire. I will admit that since everyone believes that S-Video is better that some engineers may have put more effort into routing this connection but from an analog perspective there really is no difference.

    2. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will still look like shit compared to component or SCART.

    3. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by gnu-sucks · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's right. Unless the S-video source contains some extremely high-quality components and filters, you're better off with composite.

    4. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by Craig+Davison · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not a myth. The myth I see is people spending big $$$ on a quality gold-plated monster composite video cable. Even the cheapest (shielded) S-video cable will produce a better picture. Just look at the setup menu text on any cheap DVD player. Text with fine vertical lines would look blurry and have bleeding colour with composite video, but be crisp with S-video. Hook up your computer to a TV via composite and S-video and tell me which picture is more readable.

      I could see your point if we were talking about VHS. Regular VCRs (not S-VHS) only had composite out because that's as good as the signal on the tape is going to get. But DVD players, computers, and ATSC TV signals will all show improvement with S-video.

      I guess you posted anonymously because you're full of shit.

    5. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by stalky14 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to differ here somewhat. If the S-Video source is a D->A coming from a framebuffer like in a digital satellite receiver or game console, and the destination is an analog display (CRT), then the superiority of s-video over composite is quite apparent. The lack of dot-crawl alone is worth it! However, if we're talking about tuning an OTA or analog (almost unheard of these days) satellite NTSC signal, then there is no difference, because the source is effectively composite already! Also, it makes little difference if you're feeding a digital-sourced s-video or composite signal into a modern flat panel display that is just going to digitize it back into a framebuffer anyway. Chroma/luma separation is trivial for the DSP's used in these displays. Bottom line: s-video IS better for digitally sourced material into CRT displays.

    6. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      The point of S-video is that chrominance-luminance crosstalk could be reduced but not eliminated if both were on the same channel.

    7. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by LocalH · · Score: 1

      This is not true.

      --
      FC Closer
    8. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by mzs · · Score: 1

      All of that is completely false. I think the poster is confused about some things he read about VHS and the doomed SVHS. None of that reflects on characteristics of component or s-video themselves.

    9. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by acohen1 · · Score: 0

      Yes technically RS170A is the sum of the luminance and chrominance and since these are linear signals they sum without any loss of "information". However real world components including the use of separate DACs since this is coming from a digital source and better matched passive components should improve the SnR. I used to have a 36" analog tube and the quality difference for composite vs s-video was quite noticeable.

    10. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I think the poster is confused about some things he read about VHS and the doomed SVHS

      Or perhaps Laserdisc, where the encoded signal is a composite signal, so going through S-Video can hinder on some units.

      OK, maybe that applies to SVHS too, I'm not sure.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The little Apex 502 is one of the few coupon eligible converters with S-video out.

      I just received my Channel Master CM-7000 yesterday from SolidSignal. The Apex reviews are one-star in many places (and I used to like my old Apex DVD player, late 90's) and this was the best one I could find with S-Video.

      I can't review it yet as there's little point in me buying an antenna until the final radiation patterns are established after the go-live date (this business of broadcasting on low-power until the switchover is lunacy, how is anybody supposed to get the optimum antenna or tune their setup?) The box isn't slick looking but it did come with a decent quality RG-6 cable. The rear ports are well-labeled and S-Video is there. I plan to stash it behind my mythbox so I don't really care what it looks like; the case might even be metal, looked rather like a hobbyist's enclosure or pro gear, no fancy decoration.

      Note, I assume SolidSignal is completely crushed, as I ordered it on the 5th, received it on the 20th, and my coupon expired on the 23rd, but few retailers have the ChannelMaster online of off.

      The coupons have run out, I've read, so don't get excited if you haven't ordered one yet, but the stock price isn't really bad for what it is.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:S-Video with Apex 502 by synaptik · · Score: 1

      With composite video, horizontally-oriented black-white-black-white transitions of sufficiently high frequency will be mis-interpretted as color by the sink device's color decode circuitry. By putting the color info on its own separate physical channel, you eliminate this problem.

      There is also a problem with 'chroma-crawl', that I believe (IIRC) is far more pronounced with composite than with S-video.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
  16. Sold by hax0r_this · · Score: 3, Informative

    1. In the US the spectrum is already sold
    2. I highly doubt that we'll be seeing DRM on broadcast television any time soon.

    1. Re:Sold by codemachine · · Score: 1, Informative

      Already exists in the form of the 'Broadcast Flag'. Hasn't been used much though, as the broadcasters know it'd cause backlash. Coupled with the fact it'd be ineffective, it does make it unlikely that the broadcast flag will see a lot of usage.

    2. Re:Sold by theaveng · · Score: 4, Informative

      Use of the broadcast flag or any other kind of DRM has been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, based upon their previous ruling that consumers have a right to use DVRs, VCRs, or similar devices to record & timeshift the programs.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    3. Re:Sold by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Something new, called Selective Output Control has been approved. This seems to be related to the HDCP (presumably HD Content Protection) already used with HDMI devices and displays. As I understand it, it can be used to restrict what quality of signal is available to any given display or other device.

      Of course, remains to be seen how the courts will treat this.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    4. Re:Sold by theaveng · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/selectable-output-control-mpaa-s-new-control-tactic-t354786.html

      -- the idea that a TV show should be able to disable parts of your home theater (for example, if MTV is worried that your Dolby sound outputs might be used to record the audio portion of music videos, they could shut down those outputs and only allow you to hear sound via the speakers in your TV).

      The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for permission to engage in "selective output control" (SOC). If the FCC agrees, the MPAA and the movie studios it represents (Paramount, Sony, Fox, Universal, Disney, and Warner Brothers) would be able to "turn off" any output plug they choose,

      If I am unable to use my expensive surround sound speakers, and I'm stuck with the cheap speakers in my TV, I'm going to be very pissed.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    5. Re:Sold by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      If I am unable to use my expensive surround sound speakers, and I'm stuck with the cheap speakers in my TV, I'm going to be very pissed.

      You'll do the same thing the rest of the people will do when that happens.

      You'll either wait for someone to provide a HDCP "dummy" inline module that "pretends" to obey HDCP - OR - you'll wait until some corporation battered media employee puts it up for download from one of the original digital sources.

      Regardless of it's Blueray or HDCP or whatever the flavor of the day is, DRM will always eventually be cracked.

      It just doesn't work.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    6. Re:Sold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. In the US the spectrum is already sold

      1a. Obama's adviser on the topic has interests in three companies who benefit by delaying the conversion. One of those companies has the only digital data network of its kind -- the competition will use the analog TV frequencies.
      1b. Profit!

    7. Re:Sold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you dissident liberal! just wait for the DMCAv2, where everyone caught thinking or talking about piracy will have their eyes replaced with hdcp compliant devices.

    8. Re:Sold by KeithIrwin · · Score: 1

      The Selective Output Control is specifically only an issue with cable and satellite, not over-the-air. The broadcast flag basically was SOC for over-the-air and that's what was specifically struck down. Most cable and satellite companies have an SOC mechanism in place, but have not been exercising it because the FCC has not given them approval to do so. The ATSC over-the-air television standard does not have an SOC mechanism, and at this point the standard will not be changed to add one.

    9. Re:Sold by RMH101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      HDCP dummies *do* exist. A mate bought one 2 years back after he discovered that HDCP wouldn't let him send HD content to his 12k UKP SIM2 rear projection HD TV, as it was an early model that didn't have HDMI. We suspect they spoof the encryption key of common HDCP devices by other major manufacturers, so it would be difficult for the keys to get blacklisted. Works great, was quite hard to buy...!

    10. Re:Sold by mzs · · Score: 1

      DRM is there in OTA ATSC as the broadcast flag. On Jan 20th on WFLD FOX Chicago I was unable to record American Idol at 7 PM. It seemed to be an accident as I was able to record the next day.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1099913&cid=26554015

    11. Re:Sold by skywire · · Score: 1

      Oh, really? Would you please cite the case? Mind you, I'm asking you to cite the case in which the Court declared use of the broadcast flag or any other kind of DRM to be illegal, not the Betamax case on which the Court supposedly based this later declaration. Or did you just post this as a test of how quickly misinformation can be modded up to 5, Informative?

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    12. Re:Sold by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      Me too. My neighbors LOVE my 800 Watts of Boom!

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    13. Re:Sold by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      2. That's the reason why for my Samsung TV with a digital tuner has a PCMCIA slot at the back. It's rarely used, but there are certain Pay TV providers in Europe which use encrypted DVB-T signals as well as public broadcasters who wish to prevent people who haven't payed the horrendous charge for a TV license from watching their channels.

    14. Re:Sold by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Isn't it essential to feed various receiving devices data that they are capable of using? A low powered, low resolution device might not function at all if it were supplied with extreme HD signals.

  17. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As far as using the output, there are ATSC converter boxes that can interface with the TiVo Series 2. Likewise, they could interface with anything that can accept composite or S-video and output IR signals.

    Blonder Tongue makes ATSC demodulators that can work via Web or RS-232, but I doubt they're coupon-eligible, and like any professional AV equipment, the stuff is heavy, rack-mountable, heats up like a kiln, and will cost a li'l bit.

    Your best bet is probably an ATSC capture device that works with MythTV. I won't begin to name any, since there are plenty out there. :-)

  18. Dish Network by dricci · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out the Dish Network box. I admit, I haven't had a chance to actually try to use one of these, but the video I've seen of them in use looks really similar to their set top box firmware. Could just be some sort of theme though...

    1. Re:Dish Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading the question next time.

    2. Re:Dish Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to go out on a limb and say he works there, or something. And since Slashdot and Thinkgeek share corporate overlords, yada yada

  19. Seconded, kind of... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm the happy owner of an HDHomeRun. It's a fantastic device, and I highly recommend it, but it's not a coupon-eligible converter. Normally, I would say to chuck the coupon aside and get it anyway, but the reason why the HDHomeRun isn't coupon-eligible is its lack of an RF output. You have to get the stream off the network, you can't connect it straight to the tv.

    Now, I have a mythtv box connected to my TV, so that's not an issue for me. If you have a computer serving as a media center I most definitely recommend it, but if you just want the streaming as a bonus, and still want RF output, then it's not for you.

    Again, this is not a criticism of the device. I absolutely love mine, and I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a way to stream unencrypted HD to their computers. Silicon Dust also has excellent forum support to help you set it up if you need it. However, if you want a converter box to hook directly up to your TV, this is not the device for you.

    1. Re:Seconded, kind of... by raw-sewage · · Score: 1

      [...] The reason why the HDHomeRun isn't coupon-eligible is its lack of an RF output

      Sounds like a business opportunity for Silicon Dust. I wonder how hard it would be for them to graft an RF output onto their device? They they could advertise it as being coupon-eligible. If I could get $40 off, I'd go buy another one! Really, if they made the device coupon-eligible, then you'd have a cool device that's exactly what the topic starter wanted!

    2. Re:Seconded, kind of... by xyzzy42 · · Score: 5, Informative
      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CECB#Limitations

      Specifically excluded from coupon eligibility are High-definition video output and DVR functionality, as well as digital cable and satellite set-top boxes. These output features are prohibited: Component video, VGA, RGB, DVI, HDMI, USB video, IEEE-1394/iLink/Firewire video, Ethernet video, and IEEE-802.11/Wifi video outputs.

    3. Re:Seconded, kind of... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Huh. Ethernet video is a prohibited output, which means the very thing the submitter was asking for he's not going to get.

      I guess, "chuck the coupons" is the best advice for him

    4. Re:Seconded, kind of... by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      I wonder how hard it would be for them to graft an RF output onto their device?

      Well, I don't know how much is involved in doing so, but I can say that currently the HDHomeRun does nothing in the realm of decoding the signal. All it does is capture the broadcast stream, filter it down to the necessary subchannels, and then stream the raw MPEG data out over TCP/UDP packets.

    5. Re:Seconded, kind of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CECB#Limitations

      Specifically excluded from coupon eligibility are High-definition video output and DVR functionality, as well as digital cable and satellite set-top boxes. These output features are prohibited: Component video, VGA, RGB, DVI, HDMI, USB video, IEEE-1394/iLink/Firewire video, Ethernet video, and IEEE-802.11/Wifi video outputs.

      Looks like BNC is cool again.

    6. Re:Seconded, kind of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are THE owner? wow... thought there would be more than one.. or do you perhaps own the company and assets thereof, single shareholder type of thing? :)

    7. Re:Seconded, kind of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail. He is THE owner of his device. Turns out the company makes more than one.

    8. Re:Seconded, kind of... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      So? I can hack RGB video output from any number of game consoles. Would it be so hard to hack RGB output onto one of these things? That would be a worthwhile hack.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Seconded, kind of... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      If it allows the output of HD resolution content, you can't use the coupon for it.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  20. Probably hard to find now, but by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

    The Samsung SIR-T165 has a Firewire output that you can use to stream from your TV broadcast to your computer. However, later models have a lot more to offer in terms of stability and menu speed. A lot of these early models are slow and prone to locking up. They also don't receive channels nearly as well as the later models. But, if hacking is what you really want, go for the SIR-T165.

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:Probably hard to find now, but by mzs · · Score: 1

      These were not eligible for the coupon.

    2. Re:Probably hard to find now, but by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Still, the best target for a hackable box would be one from a company that produces a more powerful box, especially if there's very little if anything to distinguish them from the outside other than open holes in the backplate. To reduce cost of production, they might just have parts and not the ports, or the parts may be installable by a technically skilled end-user.

      A case in point was a TV with a remote that had no digit buttons. The traces were on the board inside, it would send the signals if a button would make the connection, and the TV would respond, but the remote just didn't provide the buttons and the holes were covered over. I also discovered an old 2-13 monaural VCR that would respond to the digit buttons of a more modern VCR's remote (button 1 was channel 2, 2 was channel 3, etc., and 0 was channel 11, but nothing would get 12 or 13).

      Many early cable boxes would have had Firewire out if they'd just installed the ports, a couple standard chips to the board, and applied a patch to the firmware, and if it wasn't a felony to open and modify them people would have.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  21. Use the Component Video hole by Ped+Xing · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just make sure you get a converter box with Component Video out (also called YPbPr). Then you can use the Hauppauge HD PVR http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html to capture the hi-def video to a hard drive.

    This is a solution that works for any HD settop box no matter what copy protection it provides, so long as it outputs component video.

    1. Re:Use the Component Video hole by BUL2294 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You obviously don't know what you're talking about. NO converter boxes with component video are coupon-eligible. The only valid outputs are RF coax (ch3/4), composite (RCA yellow jack), and S-Video. A "coupon-eligible converter box" ("CECB") is limited by law to no more than 480i resolution.

      --
      Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
    2. Re:Use the Component Video hole by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you get a converter box with Component Video out (also called YPbPr).

      You can't get a Component Video out in a NTIA eligible box

      It's part of the requirements
      The following outputs are not allowed

      Digital Video Interface (DVI);
        Component video (YPbPr);
        High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI);
        Computer video (VGA);
        USB IEEE-1394 (iLink or Firewire)
        Ethernet (IEEE-802.3)
        Wireless (IEEE0802.11)

      Full requirements are listed here
      http://ezdigitaltv.com/support-files/dtv_manufacturers_converter_box_requirements.pdf

      Converter box comparison chart here
      http://www.ezdigitaltv.com/Additional_Features_Matrix.html

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    3. Re:Use the Component Video hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't know what you're talking about. NO converter boxes with component video are coupon-eligible. The only valid outputs are RF coax (ch3/4), composite (RCA yellow jack), and S-Video. A "coupon-eligible converter box" ("CECB") is limited by law to no more than 480i resolution.

      Um, a quick Google shows that Composite Video *IS* eligible.(ref: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t-1035681.html)

  22. Not sure what you're after... by stalky14 · · Score: 1

    Well, there's this, but I think you'll need a few more coupons! If it's raw stream data you're after, you probably want one of the USB dongle tuners. I think there's a KWorld one out there for around $50. IIRC, their satellite DVB tuner cards were popular with the hacking community.

  23. He probably did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dish Network makes one of the better reviewed analog to digital converters that is eligible for the coupon sales.

  24. Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by nobodyman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No offense, I think hacking a DTV converter is a neat idea, but I think you've unwittingly highlighted a major problem with the DTV coupon program. I think the program was generally intended to ensure that people in fixed/low income situations would be able to receive television signals after the transition. Instead, the majority of coupons have been redeemed by early adopters/geeks who generally do not need a dtv converter in the first place or would have been able to afford one without a coupon. In my experience, most of the people I know that need a converter did not even know about the program -- the only ones who knew about it were fellow techs who haven't had an analog TV in years.

    Now we have people (most notably the Obama administration) stating that the DTV deadline because the coupon program is out of funds and those very people that program was designed for *still* do not have a coupon or a converter.

    So my question is: if this is just some "for the fun of it" lark that you're going on with these DTV converters, don't you feel like it was at least slightly unethical (or at least a violation of the spirit of the program) to get a hand-out from the government?

    1. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you know he isn't low income?

    2. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by eviltangerine · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I disagree -- if the lawmakers had seriously intended this to be only for the poor in the country, wouldn't they have coupled it with Welfare or something to that effect? Or at least had some kind of measure of your income and therefore only people with an income below a certain threshold would get the coupon?

      I think the coupon is the appropriate thing to do for people of all income levels. The government has changed the way that TV is being broadcast which makes older TV's unusable -- shouldn't they also help us transition by making the converter boxes available to all?

    3. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think that's the case. They have been running ads, scripted programming talking about the transition for a over a year now. I don't think more time would help the situation.

      Second, many people do not have cable/satilite tv that could afford them, but choose to spend their money elsewhere.

      Third, the government auctions off our frequency space for our benefit, the new freed up space generated a lot of revenue. The new services might benefit some of us ( wimax, first responders network), but others will simply enrich private companies. So to balance that out, we get a free converter box. Its to make up for the hassle as well. If they government wasn't doing the coupon give away, the boxes would be much more expensive.

      Fourth, in Hindsight, you are correct. How was anyone to know that they didn't allocate enough funds for the coupons? They were for anyone that would be unconvinced during the transition, it was just as easy for those will means to apply for the coupon as for those without. So looking backwards, yes if we had know they would run out of funds that would prevent lower income people from making the transition, then yes it would have been unethical to ask for a coupon.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    4. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by californication · · Score: 2

      It's not a handout, it's reimbursement for the loss of value that my analog television will suffer once transmission is switched to digital.

      How much would it cost all the people who have analog televisions to buy converter boxes themselves? That's the minimum it should cost whomever ends up using the spectrum freed as a result of the analog-to-digital conversion. Of course, it ended up costing Verizon billions, and the government set aside a chunk of that money to pay for converter boxes.

      Why should owners of analog televisions eat any of the cost of the digital-to-analog conversion? They may have been satisfied with their analog television, but they're being forced to spend money to switch regardless.

    5. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      In my experience, most of the people I know that need a converter did not even know about the program...

      They aren't watching TV? It's been splatter all over every channel many times a day, now.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    6. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by xrobertcmx · · Score: 1

      This is an interesting problem, but does anyone have the actual statistics. Most of the older people I know, and those who need them have them already. Those that don't have them don't need them. I even signed my brother up for them, and believe me, he needs the coupon.

    7. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by Peaquod · · Score: 1

      Our government accrued tens of billions of dollars when auctioning off the analog TV spectrum. They set aside a portion of these funds to pay for the coupon program in order to ensure that no cost (or minimal cost) would be incurred for the citizenry, who OWNS the spectrum and all rights associated with it. It is not a welfare program, and no citizen should feel guilty or ashamed for making use of it, regardless of their motivation.

    8. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > if the lawmakers had seriously intended this to be only for the poor in the country, wouldn't they have coupled it with Welfare or something to that effect?

      Quite right.

      > shouldn't they also help us transition by making the converter boxes available to all?

      Who is "they"? The money spent on this is (indirectly) *your* money. Couldn't you have spent it more efficiently yourself?

    9. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free my butt. I applied for the coupon the moment it was offered. From the time I got it until the time it expired, there were NO converters in the local stores. Not Frys, Best Buy, Walmart, Circuit City, Target, Costco. Nobody had the damn boxes.

      So my first coupon expired. Free? No. Gone.

      So I got a second one -and I actually did need two boxes, three actually. That one also expired without any boxes being for sale. Free? Nope.

      It wasn't until Christmas that I started seeing the boxes for sale, which is conveniently after the first rounds of coupons were all expired. Like any good government program, I suspect this one's main goal was to not actually give out money.

    10. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a hand-out from the government. It's fair payment for the licensing of spectrum space that belongs to him as much as anyone else.

    11. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hand out my ass, this guy is likely paying taxes.

    12. Re:Dear Submitter: You got a coupon... for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is unethical that the US government is subsidizing dtv converters at all, given that not a single coupon eligible is made in the US.

      So yeah, hack away. Go China!

  25. No One Knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "republicans" and "democrats" tags appear at random on slashdot. Most complaints are about the "republicans" tag however.

  26. Quality restrictions on subsidized DTV converters by kopo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Some people have been mentioning DTV tuners with Firewire other outputs. Under the law that enabled the coupons, only RF, composite, and possibly S-Video output is allowed on subsidized converters. See #54 here.

  27. stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't like the idea of you trying to tinker with our tax payer funded devices so you can go and accidently break it and waste our tax money. all so you can brag to your buddies that you -can-

  28. Republicans? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

    Ok, seriously slashdot, why does stuff like this keep getting tagged 'republicans' or 'democrats'? It's starting to get really annoying.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  29. Who's to say he's not low-income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why assume that just because someone is interested in hacking a DTV box they are well-off? Last I checked you can get a beige box for pretty cheap these days and a GNU/Linux iso for nothing...

    Whether or not the coupon program is for the needy or not is another issue but in any case, why assume that only grannies and dull-wits should be the ones using the coupons?

  30. It's for TELEVISION, dumbass by Rix · · Score: 2

    Everyone is getting it for the fun of it. No one needs to watch TV.

  31. Netcraft Confirms it: Ask Slashdot is Dying by fm6 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sigh. Not your fault, but yours is the first post I've seen that actually tries to answer the question. To find your post I had to skim past 100 posts that say things like:

    • Stop watching TV
    • Device X is really great (never mind that Device X isn't coupon eligible)
    • Why do you want a hackable device? You can get this functionality off the shelf.

    I swear, Slashdot conversations get more and more solipsistic every day.

    1. Re:Netcraft Confirms it: Ask Slashdot is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, man. I was thinking the same thing.

    2. Re:Netcraft Confirms it: Ask Slashdot is Dying by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Mod up! Sadly, I agree. Thanks to timeOday for the post.

    3. Re:Netcraft Confirms it: Ask Slashdot is Dying by machine321 · · Score: 1

      I swear, Slashdot conversations get more and more solipsistic every day.

      That's like putting solipsistic on a pig.

    4. Re:Netcraft Confirms it: Ask Slashdot is Dying by Icculus · · Score: 1

      I swear, Slashdot conversations get more and more solipsistic every day.

      dude, don't be so alacrity

    5. Re:Netcraft Confirms it: Ask Slashdot is Dying by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I'm really tired of you liberals making fun of Sarah!

    6. Re:Netcraft Confirms it: Ask Slashdot is Dying by fm6 · · Score: 1

      How can I be alacrity, when I seem to be too slow to make any sense of your joke?

    7. Re:Netcraft Confirms it: Ask Slashdot is Dying by Icculus · · Score: 1

      sorry... very obscure. The reference was def 1 from here. Having to explain it makes it not funny, but if it wasn't funny to begin with then nothing is lost.

    8. Re:Netcraft Confirms it: Ask Slashdot is Dying by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You just assumed that I had cable. Reasonable mistake.

  32. GP is right by langelgjm · · Score: 1

    If he has an Analog TV, then he is entitled to a coupon.... actually this statement is not true. If he has an Analog TV and he has not purchased a replacement TV with a digital tuner (and for a 27" SDTV at Walmart, expect to pay around $200) because of his CHOICE... then he is not entitled to a coupon. People who cannot afford the switch over to digital are who are entitled to these coupons.

    I hear a lot of people saying this, but I don't know where they're getting it from. The GP is correct: if he has a TV with only an analog tuner that he is using to get OTA signals, he is entitled to a converter box, regardless of whether he also has another (or eight other) TVs with digital tuners, and subscribes to cable, satellite, etc.

    If you don't believe this, go to the DTV2009.gov website and read what it says. If you tell the script you have a TV with a digital tuner, and you watch OTA television, this is what it says:

    You do not need a TV converter box for this TV set. Your TV has a digital tuner already built in and will likely continue to receive TV programming as usual after the transition on February 17th, 2009. If you have another TV set in your household that does not have a built-in digital tuner, you will need a TV converter box for this TV to continue to receive your programs after February 17th, 2009.

    The correlation everyone is making between poor people and those needing converter boxes isn't necessarily true. My parents live in a rural area, and have two analog-tuner televisions they use to watch OTA signals. Cable is unavailable, and they do not want satellite TV. They aren't exactly "poor", but they are entitled to two boxes (which they applied for and got months ago).

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  33. Not OTA! by antdude · · Score: 1

    BG isn't OTA unless I missed something.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  34. find one that does not honor the broadcast flag by mzs · · Score: 1

    I got a Magnavox from Sears. I have it plugged into a TV/VCR/DVD combo set. My wife watches American Idol on FOX WFLD Chicago. Last night she was going to be home about a half hour after the start of the show so I popped in a tape and hit record. After the show she wanted to watch the beginning so she rewound the tape and pressed play. The picture was B&W with lots of static the audio was fine until the TV screen turned black and text came-up that said to clean the heads, then the tape stopped playing. This was a brand new VHS tape. Just a few days before I recorded a program from WTTW 11 PBS (I tried both 11.1 and 11.2) and the inauguration partly from from NBC and CBS earlier that morning. All of that worked properly. My wife told me about it and I thought something was wrong with the tape, I rewound it, and successfully recorded a portion of Leno.

    Today I am going to try FOX again. If this is the broadcast flag, I am displeased. I thought an agreement had been reached to not use it. Who are people that I should contact about this? Also are there any boxes that ignore the broadcast flag? My brother had no problem recording American Idol from Comcast cable with his Comcast DVR the same night.

    I believe that this is macrovision. I made a comment a while back that I did not think what someone saw was macrovision, but now I am not sure:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1&mode=nocomment&commentsort=3&op=Change&sid=1081977&cid=26344959&pid=26344959

    What I saw was not the color oscillation he/she saw, nor was it like what I have seen with macrovision before, but the audio was perfect so that is very strange if it was something like a cable. My wife said it looked fine when she was watching the second half live. I am going to experiment more tonight.

    1. Re:find one that does not honor the broadcast flag by mzs · · Score: 1

      More details on this:

      My model is a TB100MG9

      I had no problem recording American Idol last night with everything else the same as before. The tape was rewound to the same location as well.

      I have a strong suspicion that WFLD had the broadcast flag on by mistake.

  35. grab the raw stream of copyrighted TV programming? by Punto · · Score: 1

    what are you, some kind of terrorist?

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  36. Doesn't meet the submitter's requirements by name_already_taken · · Score: 1

    Just make sure you get a converter box with Component Video out (also called YPbPr).

    The submitter was looking for a Coupon Eligible Converter Box.

    CECBs are prohibited from having a Component Video output - only RF, Composite Video or S-Video outputs are permitted.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  37. What MPEG stream? by westlake · · Score: 1
    The coupon eligible digital to analog converter box has one purpose only - to keep aging analog TV sets in use for those dependent on an antenna.

    I think the best use the geek can make of these boxes is to give then away to those who need them - the poor, the elderly, the disabled -

    and perhaps donating a little of his time to help install them.

  38. Neuros OSD plus converter by ghostis · · Score: 1

    I use a Neuros OSD and the cheapest DTV converter box I could find. If you can, find a converter that the Neuros OSD universal remote understands.

    -ghostis

    --


    Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
  39. Why you should bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the Cable company also owns the Cable here. AT&T and Verizon own 100% of the market share of the 700mhz band and may intend to use it for new iPhone and blackberries. Recently however, Obama has called for Congress to delay the DTV transition because it "Presents a conflict of Interest to the Wimax Carrier [Insert Company name]" -- MSNBC

    DRM?
    iTunes plans to remove DRM controls.
    Microsoft now has a Unlimited subscription plan.
    RIAA, according to a CNET post named "RIAAs year end turnaround" and it's respective tags, with stop prosecuting small-scale filesharers.

    Always ahead of things? I don't think so. I hear Japan and Europe has shady deals phone companies.

    Digital Artefacting?
    That's because TV isn't a packet switching network. You know how many times I've stepped on a Fiberoptic cable and it's corrupted the streaming feed to the recorder. And then they transmit it wirelessly. SMART.

    You have nothing to fear except the free market controlled by commodities, stocks, and bonds economy that has gotten us to this point in civilization.

  40. ATSC tuner box? by Molochi · · Score: 1

    OK I'll probably be getting a Tivax box for the DVR (it has an HD TV Wonder and an Analog card.)

    Have anyone seen an ATSC tuner box for an "HD Capable" TV though? I've got one of those LCDs with 1080i support and an NTSC tuner. I keep looking for something with DVI or VGA output, but no joy.

    --
    "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    1. Re:ATSC tuner box? by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      RCA apparently made one but from what I can see, it's been discontinued.

      http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=2216232

      And at $388 you can buy a small ATSC 1080i/720p set for less than that.

      Here's a samsung one at Best Buy, in store and HDMI only, though you can get an HDMI to DVI cable.

      http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8102796&type=product&id=1161734592183

    2. Re:ATSC tuner box? by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

      I also read good things about the mentioned Samsung products. If it's not redundant, you might try a DVD recorder with a tuner. Here's a Philips on that same site.

    3. Re:ATSC tuner box? by stalky14 · · Score: 1
    4. Re:ATSC tuner box? by ksheff · · Score: 1
      I got the previous model of this and it seems to work ok (hey, it was only $25+shipping). It has HDMI (I use a converter cable from monoprice to hook to the DVI port on the TV), VGA, component, & composite outputs. Hooking the 501 up to a VGA input resulted in very harsh bright colors though. I don't know if that was corrected in the 502 model or not.

      The best place to ask is here

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    5. Re:ATSC tuner box? by ksheff · · Score: 1

      The problem with the recorders is that most of them downgrade the signal to 480i. Whether they still do that if you're not using the recorder feature, I don't know. They will only record SD resolution video though. Someone on avsforum will probably know.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    6. Re:ATSC tuner box? by Molochi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thst's what I'm looking for. I found another one made by KWorld (meh). Thx, I'll see if my account at avsforums is still good.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  41. Most hackable ? None. by billcopc · · Score: 1

    If you're that concerned about dicking around with your DTV receiver, then why bother at all ? Grab your shows via BitTorrent and do whatever the hell you want with the files. You can build yourself a MythTV box or some random Korean pirate-friendly media center box.

    The longer you play the networks' game, the more restrictive their offerings will become. DTV will be harder to hack, and the next iteration will be even tighter, because these cartels are obsessed with one thing: controlling their market, leading to heightened profits. Having a receiver that lets you do what you, as a hacker, want to do, is directly against their goals.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  42. You can hack any DTV converter. by Akir · · Score: 1

    All you have to do is build RGBHV separator, put a resistor on the green channel, and bam! The picture is yellow! You can imagine that everyone is Asian!

  43. Don't bother by word_virus · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the government program-approved DTV boxes are super bare-bones and not really something worth hacking on. The most featureful one available at this time is made by Scientific Atlantic. I saw a very nice feature comparison of all the available coupon-redeemable boxes on AVSForum not too long ago. Might wanna have a look over there. Secondly, don't count on your coupons actually working. That program's outta money and the last couple of folks I've seen try to redeem their coupons at stores were SOL.

  44. Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The set top boxes contain an 8VSB tuner/decoder with an analog out. It demodulates the desired sub-channel out of the 19.39mbs stream and converts it to analog and spits it out the back-end. There is nothing to gain by 'hacking' this ASIC. You cannot inject another mpeg stream into anything in the box. it will work only for over-the-air- broadcast signal. It will not even work on your cable HD. That uses a different modulation scheme.

  45. Why capture? by Ostracus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With the ever changing landscape. What would be a good worldwide capture card that would work for all standards both terrestrial and satellite that uses the PCIe x1 slot?

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  46. Channel Master CM7000 by Junior+Samples · · Score: 1

    A rep from Channel Master has indicated that they would be releasing firmware enhancements for the CM7000 STB after the coupon program is over. They wouldn't elaborate on what those enhancements would be, but most likely it would be the activation of QAM demodulation mode for cable HD reception. NTSC demodulation is also a possibility, since LPTV stations will continue to use this mode.

    Most of the STB chipsets in use support these modes.

  47. Analog closed captions run behind too by tepples · · Score: 1

    Also Closed Caption doesn't seem to work right on DTV (both direct to the tv or w/ the box). It always runs 15 seconds behind the actual dialog or is to garbled to read.

    There are two modes in closed captioning: scroll mode and double buffer mode. Most shows that use scroll mode are live shows, and live shows' captions run several seconds behind whether you're in digital or analog. Shows with captions prepared in advance tend to use double buffer mode, where the captions just pop onto the screen after each sentence. I get PBS Kids where I live, and every show I've seen on PBS Kids uses double buffer mode.

    1. Re:Analog closed captions run behind too by theaveng · · Score: 1

      I watch Family Guy on WPHL-17. The analog captions are in perfect sync. The digital captions lag 5 seconds behind. I suspect what's happening is that WPHL is running A-to-D conversion on the analog captions and that introduces a large delay.

      Very annoying.

      Another annoyance is when my local stations run school closings, the picture goes from letterbox to 4:3 mode and becomes blurry, since they are still using the old analog equipment.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:Analog closed captions run behind too by techess · · Score: 1

      The only time I've ever had the problem with Analog CC running behind is for live shows. Every once in a while if the weather was bad the CC would be garbled, but it never ran behind and was almost always readable on standard programming.

      I have a hard of hearing person in my household so we've been watching programming with CC on for 10+ years. NBC & FOX seem the worst for running behind, it can get as bad as 15 seconds. PBS, ABC, & CBS tend to be garbled beyond recognition. I switch to analog and the CC works perfectly (at least for a few more weeks). These are all pre-captioned shows and I can still do a side by side comparison.

      --
      Don't anthropomorphize computers. They *hate* that.
    3. Re:Analog closed captions run behind too by theaveng · · Score: 1

      I've never had any problem with my NBC or FOX captions. That suggests your problem is caused by the local station, not the network.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    4. Re:Analog closed captions run behind too by techess · · Score: 1

      That's what I'm guessing too. I know digital is supposed to be all or nothing, but I wonder if the line they put CC in is more likely to get garbled or delayed over long distances. My closest station is probably 40-50 miles away. I'd be really interested if it works correctly for people who live closer to the towers.

      --
      Don't anthropomorphize computers. They *hate* that.
    5. Re:Analog closed captions run behind too by theaveng · · Score: 1

      I just switched to one of my marginal DTV stations. The picture is blocky, the sound corrupted, but the captions are still coming through 99% clear.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  48. Define "watchable" by tepples · · Score: 1

    The greatest number of analog channels I've ever had that have been watchable has been 5-6. Using a digital converter, that number has jumped to about 20 or 30

    That's an awfully wide range. Is it 20 or 30?

    It depends in part on the definition of "watchable". For example, plenty of liberals find FOX News unwatchable, as with conservatives and MSNBC. Likewise, people of atheist faith tend to find Christian ministry channels unwatchable.

    More likely, grandparent may not have been posting from home.

    1. Re:Define "watchable" by theaveng · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take that long to enumerate channels, even if not at home. Let's see. I get 6,8,15,17,33,35,43,49,57,61. That may sound like a lot, but it's only HALF what I got with analog (which also included 10,11,12,13,21.27.29,45,48,65).

      As for FOX News:

      I was stuck in front of a TV on Monday (car repair), and CNN wasted the entire day talking about MLK/Obama. i.e. A Democrat-leaning biased cheerfest. Finally I got fed-up and asked if I could change the channel to FOX News. I didn't expect it would be any better but as it turned-out, FOX was covering actual news stories like the Gaza strip war, the peanut butter recall, the economic fallout, the gasoline shortage in the EU, and so on.

      So on this past Monday, I have to give FOX News credit for actually reporting the news, whereas CNN seriously dropped the ball.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:Define "watchable" by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That's insane, right in the middle of Miami I could only get 5 analog channels on a pair of rabbit ears. And none of those channels actually had decent picture and audio, at least 2 of them had a picture so crappy you probably wouldn't want to watch it.

      I have no idea how many I'd get with a digital antenna... I really don't know anyone who actually watches broadcast tv so I can't check and compare. IMHO most of the hype about this is because people (including cable repairmen) misunderstood and though this applied to analog cable television which tons of people use. Extended basic gives you sci-fi, comedy central, the history channel, national geographic, fox, food network, espn, etc for $30 or less a month (or free in many apartment complexes). With digital getting that same lineup would require packages that will balloon your bill to over $100 and give you essentially the same programming with a couple hundred more channels of filler.

    3. Re:Define "watchable" by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>That's insane, right in the middle of Miami I could only get 5 analog channels

      I live about halfway between three major cities - Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg, and that's why I get between 20 and 25 stations with analog.

      As for digital cable I agree it's a ripoff. We used to get TCM, SciFi, and a few other channels free with analog cable, but then Comcast had the greedy idea to move them to digital. Now you have to pay an extra 60 dollars a year to rent a box to restore channels you had before. Bastards.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    4. Re:Define "watchable" by theaveng · · Score: 1

      P.S.

      It may seem like a lot of hype, but according to Nielsen Ratings the analog cutoff will affect 1/6th of American homes.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  49. SCART? WTF? by adolf · · Score: 1

    It's an American conversation about an American problem. Begone, you limey, or frog, or whatever you are.

    Thanks!

  50. S-video for SDTV monitors? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Just get an HDMI or S-Video cable and connect your PC up to your television.

    SDTVs can take composite or S-video input. But I didn't see a single desktop PC at Office Depot that had S-video output. What do you recommend to connect a PC with VGA or VGA+DVI out to a TV with composite or composite+S-video in?

    1. Re:S-video for SDTV monitors? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      You can pick up a $20 video card (it's fun to have 2 video cards anyway) or you can buy a VGA to S-video converter. I got one for $5 online.

      I figure I'm going to have old SDTVs around for a while, why not be able to watch computer video on them?

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    2. Re:S-video for SDTV monitors? by tepples · · Score: 1

      You can pick up a $20 video card (it's fun to have 2 video cards anyway)

      If it's internal, I've found that the sorts of end users that I deal with aren't willing to learn to open the box to install it, and it won't fit into a notebook computer. Do the video card makers still make AGP video cards (so that people on a pre-2005 PC can upgrade without buying a new PC), and do usable ExpressCard or USB 2.0 video cards even exist?

      or you can buy a VGA to S-video converter. I got one for $5 online.

      I see scan converters for about $69. Where are you getting $5 for 31 kHz RGB to 15 kHz composite, without specific support in your video card to put composite video on one of the VGA pins?

    3. Re:S-video for SDTV monitors? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I was able to find AGP and PCI (!) video cards new last year. I don't have any experience with ExpressCard or USB video. There are a ton of used video devices winding up for sale because people are upgrading to higher resolution.

      As far as scan converters, I found a closeout on a low-res model. I figured it doesn't matter with TV resolution so low anyway. There are always lots on craigslist or ebay or whatever.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    4. Re:S-video for SDTV monitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up Damien.

      If you had a real job, you wouldn't be stuck looking at discount PCs at some shitty strip mall.

      You're an ugly, pathetic drain on society.

    5. Re:S-video for SDTV monitors? by Molochi · · Score: 1

      Something like this costs about $60. http://sewelldirect.com/PC-to-TV-Converter_specs.asp

      Advantage to it is that it down-samples up to a 1280x1024 resolution to 480i. Most standard computer svideo/rca out seems to only support downsampling from 1024x768.

      I've used a VGA to Component(RGB) input adapter that I picked up at my local Microcenter years ago. It has dipswitched (480i/480p/720p/1080i) output and works with many types of monitors, but doesn't rescale the computer's resolution.

      You could also buy a videocard with s-video out for less than $20.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    6. Re:S-video for SDTV monitors? by tepples · · Score: 1

      You could also buy a videocard with s-video out for less than $20.

      And plug it into what slot of my laptop? Even for desktop PCs, how easy is it to make the median end user less afraid to open the case?

    7. Re:S-video for SDTV monitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SDTVs can take composite or S-video input.

      And sometimes SCART and/or component, though you must make sure your source is 480i/576i or lower depending on territory (480p/576p if your definition of SDTV includes anything that is not an HDTV, such as EDTVs).

    8. Re:S-video for SDTV monitors? by Molochi · · Score: 1

      "I didn't see a single desktop PC at Office Depot that had S-video output."

      Hence, a video card could be added. If one is afraid to open the case themself, they can pay someone qualified to do it or use another option. I'm not really interested in getting median end users to install their own upgrades.

      As for your notebook ntsc video out can be added with a USB dongle, however I don't use that method.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  51. if that were the case by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    The Feds have a WHOLE system set up that does means testing.

  52. First by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

    First, thank your neighbor, who paid for your coupon. Good looting.

  53. Zenith DTT900 Teardown Photos by nuxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In case any of you are interested, I took photos of my teardown of the Zenith DTT900, one of the first available DTV converters, available here: http://nuxx.net/gallery/v/acquired_stuff/zenith_dtt900/.

  54. The real question by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

    Does everything have to be hacked?

    1. Re:The real question by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I just want to plug it in and not have it suck. Perhaps that's too much to ask.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:The real question by unitron · · Score: 1

      Does everything have to be hacked?

      Turn in your geek card, fella! :-)

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  55. Wrong on two fronts by tlambert · · Score: 1

    (1) In these booming economic times, I'm sure we'll see plenty of new cell phone companies going into business as a result of the increased spectrum availability (NOT).

    (2) ABC already turned on the broadcast bit "accidently" for a number of shows in the SF Bay area, freventing them from being recorded by DVRs, last August.

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Wrong on two fronts by tiny1877 · · Score: 1

      (

      (2) ABC already turned on the broadcast bit "accidently" for a number of shows in the SF Bay area, freventing them from being recorded by DVRs, last August.

      -- Terry

      Oh no! Now you'll have to watch it ONLINE! THE HORROR!!!!! *eyeroll*

  56. And this is what you get by AMSmith42 · · Score: 1

    when the government tries to force the hand of the free market. They shouldn't be forcing digital broadcast on anyone (especially stations), but they are. So to say that they should be making converter boxes available to everyone is absurd. It is really amazing that anyone expected this program to go even remotely well and then to retort, "The government should have done it this way or that". What everyone needs is not a converter box, but rather for the government to butt the hell out and stick to building our roads and keeping us safe from enemies. We'll do the rest, thanks. /rant

  57. The reason why they're not more hackable by kRutOn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the language of the eligibility requirements for the DTV coupons, it has language that strictly limits the feature set of the DTV tuner boxes. I believe there aren't any hidden features put in by manufacturers for fear of running afoul of the rules and being disqualified from being eligible for the coupons. Of course, risking disqualification from the program means significant revenue impact.

  58. Re:Lame. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    There was a limit of two (2) per household.

    If you can afford to buy/pay the electricity to operate many TV sets, you can afford to buy a box without a coupon.

  59. Only Satellite and Cable? by dohzer · · Score: 1

    I think I'm a little lost. From what I've read trying to understand this topic, it seems that digital TV is only available via Satellite or cable in the US. Is that true? No terrestrial broadcasting?

    1. Re:Only Satellite and Cable? by Flying+Scotsman · · Score: 1

      Digital television is terrestrially broadcasted in the US, currently alongside analog television. Soon, though, the analog broadcasts will cease. The topic here is about the external tuners ("converter boxes") that will allow televisions without digital tuners (most televisions sold in US that were not made in the last decade or so) to display digital broadcast television after the analog broadcasts stop.

      So yes, digital TV is available over-the-air in the US today. And pretty soon, it will be the only TV available over-the-air.

  60. ATSC I thought was better for signal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear that the digital broadcasts give better signal.

    I have never had the chance to play with one and I get analog signal with 18-20 channels. 3-4 of them are some times a tad snowy! does that mean thous 3-4 channels will be not reach able?!

    now if this technology is better the fact that I can even get a some what watchable channel means I get signal, so does that mean i will get a clear channel cause i can get signal or does that mean it will just be a dead cannel to me.. no one is clear on that !!!

    also intrested to know if my analog amp is amping the right frequencies that digital uses or should i have anouther amp for this sort of thing?

    I am thinking of building a myth box to grab the news and crap.. but really is it better for someone like me who can already get alot of channels fairly clear?

  61. Help! Not sure if my new TV needs converter. by KWTm · · Score: 1

    Could a kind-hearted Slashdotter please help clear my confusion about whether I need a converter box? I suspect I'm not the only one with this question.

    We bought a LCD TV half a year ago. By all rights it looks like it should be able to handle digital TV, with HDMI inputs, component inputs and all. Its VGA input even lets it function as a computer monitor for my laptop. I'm sure that the digital *capability* is there.

    But we live in an apartment building with all the units just sharing the usual antenna from which we receive 3 or 4 semi-fuzzy TV stations. It comes in to our home through coax and we are able to hook this up to the RF input on the LCD TV to watch semi-fuzzy shows, just as we did with our old conventional TV before we got the LCD one.

    Once, we saw a news station broadcast a signal saying "If you see the word PASS on your screen, you are receiving the digital signal and you're ready for the transition." We saw the word FAIL appear. I knew that already, anyway, since the picture was semi-fuzzy like a typical analog signal.

    So it looks like a digital signal is already being broadcast. What does it take to get the digital signal? Do I have to hook up the coax to one of the other inputs on the TV? If so, is it just a coax-to-HDMI adapter? (Not sure how that would work.) Or would I have to change the antenna itself to be capable of receiving a digital signal? (In that case, wish me luck --the building management will get around to it after my grandchildren retire.) Or will it actually be fixed with a converter box that takes RF input from coax and output it to some digital form with some compatible connector?

    Thanks for clarifying this. Sorry that this is slightly OT, but I wanted to harness the collective wisdom of the Slashdot community.

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
    1. Re:Help! Not sure if my new TV needs converter. by Quikah · · Score: 1

      Might help if you actually told us WHICH LCD TV you have. If it has an ATSC tuner you are fine, if it doesn't you need a box.

      --
      Q.
  62. Thank you, Yes I'll void my warranty by stonefoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Magnavox tb100mw9. Quick run down, now has voided warranty, power supply contains painted traces, no good. analog tv side is surprisingly well labeled, agc, sub-chan, aud-in, aud-out, agnd, vmute, etc etc. rf is standard sealed unit, well labeled, all pins. digital board is disappointing, unknown chips, strange "firmware load cable", an assumption and really small traces, wizard soldering skill only need apply. Possible to attache 30g wire to every other pin, does have unmarked breakout's though. All and all the analog side is quite hackable, I think I'll add an s-vid and spdif jack to mine. One of our local channels was at least attempting to broadcast music on a sub-channel (is that the new term for it?). Hope this is helpful.

    --
    I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
  63. Re:Lame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you damage my car, you're obliged to pay my repair bill even though I could easily afford it. This program is compensation for making working TV sets useless, not welfare for entertainment.

  64. S-Video can be a significant improvement by tepples · · Score: 1

    I will admit that since everyone believes that S-Video is better that some engineers may have put more effort into routing this connection but from an analog perspective there really is no difference.

    Black-and-white broadcast video has a bandwidth of 4.2 MHz. (Below this is vestigial sideband; above is audio.) In composite video, only the bottom 3.0 MHz is clearly luma, and the rest is overlapped luma and chroma. There are various ways to separate the two, such as passing the signal through a comb filter bank involving band-pass and delay line stages. But this separation does involve blurring the luma to hide dot crawl, and a 1.2 MHz band for chroma muddies color boundaries. In S-Video, on the other hand, the luma can even exceed 4.2 MHz to the full 6.75 MHz of Recommendation 601 (and thus DVD-Video) for both luma and chroma.

  65. Oh, is it the ATSC tuner that makes it work? by KWTm · · Score: 1

    Might help if you actually told us WHICH LCD TV you have. If it has an ATSC tuner you are fine, if it doesn't you need a box.

    Thanks for that info; you have already helped me partially. I guess that's the information I need to go checking around.

    We bought a 37" LCD TV from Vizio. I'm actually not sure which model it was. Their web site shows three such 37" TV's, which all resemble ours but not exactly. It was a bargain price, so the cheapest is the most likely of the three, but I suspect that it is actually a discontinued model. Wish we could locate the instruction manuals, but I am beginning to think that for some reason it never came with any.

    http://www.vizio.com/productCatalog.aspx?id=1506

    If it has ATSC tuning capability, does it necessarily follow that it will be able to do that for the RF coax input? It wouldn't have ATSC for some other input but not the coax connector, right?

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
    1. Re:Oh, is it the ATSC tuner that makes it work? by Quikah · · Score: 1

      The ATSC tuner will use the RF input. When you do a channel scan there should be a "Digital Channels found" entry if it has an ATSC tuner. If it was a model sold in the past couple of years it should have one.

      One thing you might want to check, is the antenna actually hooked up? the output in your apartment could be from an old antenna that blew away years ago and the landlord never bothered to replace because everyone just gets cable anyway. I have lived in a couple of apartments like this.

      If you are relatively close (20-30 or so miles) to the broadcast towers with a clear LoS you should be able to get a good signal with an indoor antenna.

      --
      Q.
  66. Does my antenna get digital signals? by KWTm · · Score: 1

    I checked the back of my TV, and the RF coax is labeled "TV/DTV", so it should be digital ready. Now my question is: how come I'm not receiving any digital signal from my antenna? Is it that any old antenna from decades ago is capable of receiving digital signals? Or do I need to tell building management to get off their duffs and think about upgrading the antenna?

    Thanks.
    (this is my second reply to your response; I posted a first response before I was able to verify that my TV was indeed digital-ready)

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
    1. Re:Does my antenna get digital signals? by Molochi · · Score: 1

      If you run the TV's channel scan and the TV appears to look for, but does not find, digital channels it is possible that the signal is just too weak. I use a $30 motorola signal booster which dramatically increases the number of OTA digital channels I receive. Without it I only get a Fox and a christian channel reliably and a couple of other channels that are unwatchable, with it I get 30 someodd channels (12 primary with subchannels for different programming). Your apartment's shared antenna should be powered and should probably have a signal booster on each floor before each splitter, but given that your analog signal is crap, it probably doesn't. You might be better off with a small powered antenna.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  67. Success! I got 50 more channels with a $10 antenna by KWTm · · Score: 1

    Thank you very much for your info and clarification! Also many thanks to Quikah for making this comment.

    Armed with the knowledge that, yes, digital TV signals really are already present in the air, and yes, an ordinary antenna can receive those signals, and, yes, my TV can receive digital signals, I went to get an ordinary antenna with loop for the UHF band and rabbit ears for the VHF band. I got the cheapest one available. It cost $10 and looked like an ugly piece of garbage sitting atop the sleek LCD TV.

    But when my wife hooked it up, lo! and behold --suddenly instead of 4 analog channels from the crappy building antenna, we got 23 analog channels and 41 digital channels! Channels that we never knew existed suddenly appeared. This included multiple channels of minority language programming that we had originally been thinking of subscribing to. And instead of the crappy signal, these came through crystal-clear. So we saved having to pay for not only the specialty cable channels that we had originally wanted, but also the basic (but worthless) cable package that they force you to get in order to get the additional specialty channels.

    Thank you, Slashdot!

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]