Fact: “Digital Cable” and “Digital Satellite” doesn’t mean DTV.KAKE Blog Listing
Fact: “Digital Cable” and “Digital Satellite” doesn’t mean DTV.
Topic Author: Jay Prater
Posted: 9:48 PM Feb 13, 2008
Replies Posted: 6 comments
Save Email Print
 del.icio.us   Google   Yahoo  digg
Recent Blog Topics
Fact: All analog over-the-air TV broadcasts will NOT end on February 18, 2009.
Myth: I can’t install an outdoor TV antenna for free over-the-air digital television (DTV) because of my homeowners or condo association, rental or lease agreement, etc.
Myth: I only need a UHF antenna, since all digital television (DTV) stations only broadcast on UHF channels.
Fact: To receive free over-the-air digital TV (DTV) signals, there is no such thing as a “HDTV antenna” or “Digital TV antenna”.
It may only be semantics. But it’s NOT a “switch” in February, 2009. It’s a cut-off.
Fact: “Digital Cable” and “Digital Satellite” doesn’t mean DTV.
Post Your Comments
First Name:
Email (optional):
Location:
Enter Comments:  
   characters left
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.

Fact: “Digital Cable” and “Digital Satellite” doesn’t mean DTV.

Before you start yelling “say what?”, please read the entire post.

The phrases “digital cable” and “digital satellite” unfortunately add to the confusion, of the already confusing lexicon, that attempts to differentiate what is the new generation of digital television, and simply analog television that has been converted into a digital format.

There is a difference. First a couple of definitions:

“Old school” analog is called NTSC (National Television Standards Committee)

Digital television is called ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee)

[The compete specs on the different formats of DTV is for, yet another blog.]

What cable and satellite providers originally touted as “digital cable” or “100% digital satellite” are actually analog NTSC signals that they convert and compress into a digital stream. This allows them to squeeze as many channels as possible into the bandwidth (the size of the data “pipe”) they have available.

It is digital, but from an analog NTSC source, not from a digital ATSC source. Confusing, huh?

Permit me to try and provide an overly simplistic comparison.

A movie studio produces a masterpiece of cinema…One for the ages…One that distills life into its essential elements and teaches a great lesson. No personal collection is truly complete without Caddyshack.

OK, the movie is shot and edited on film, of course. But, for television, the studio has the film scanned onto an analog videotape. So, now we have an analog video source to watch on TV. Ignoring the copyright implications, for this hypothetical situation, I decide to play the videotape and record a copy to DVD. I now have a digital video source, right? Well, yes and no. The DVD is indeed digital video, but it’s only a copy from an analog program.

This would be in contrast to the studio scanning the film to DVD. If I then copy the data onto another DVD, then I have a true digital to digital video source.

As digital ATSC sources start replacing analog NTSC feeds, the cable and satellite providers are starting to capture them. But, they are still converting and sometimes highly compressing those digital streams, before they are passed on to you. These are usually promoted, or labeled, as “HD Channels” even if the programming isn’t always in high-definition (yes, another topic…for another blog).

Read Comments
Posted by: ke0gb Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Hey, Jay, you look pretty good in high def. on my DiscoveryHD, channel 278 on DirecTV! heh heh 73... KE0GB, Rick

Posted by: Jay Prater Location: KAKE
A digital TV signal is 6MHz "wide", the same as an analog NTSC signal. The conversion to digital was to provide a better viewing experience and multicasting. There was no consideration for cost savings, since no reductions in transmitted power are planned. The opposite is true, going digital is expensive.

Posted by: Jay Prater Location: KAKE
If you were able to place an analog TV right at the transmitter (ignoring the overload), you would see a perfect NTSC picture. If you placed a standard definition set-top from DirecTV on another TV, you would see the difference. Due to the tight compression, the DirecTV picture has lower picture quality, even though it is a digital transmission of that analog NTSC signal. It isn't semantics, DTV is different.

Posted by: Jay Prater Location: KAKE TV
Sorry, I don't agree. During a live HDTV broadcast the camera converts the image to 1s and 0s, and it remains as 1s and 0s, until it’s displayed on your HDTV. There is a clear difference, it's pure digital. As long as you move the 1s and 0s from A to B, you have a perfect copy. That's not true in the analog world, where a camera creates waveforms that are not perfectly preserved, affecting image quality, while passing through the various analog "pipes" before reaching your TV. One of the nicknames for NTSC is “Never Twice the Same Color”. The weakest link in analog television is from the transmitter to the TV. That’s why satellite and cable companies can usually provide better picture quality than an antenna. With DTV, that weak link is removed. As long as you have enough signal to drive the receiver, the antenna will give you picture and sound that cable or satellite can only hope to equal.

Posted by: ke0gb Location: kansas city
(Continued). I simply look at this as the broadcast industry's means to finally 'catch up' with the rest of the world not only in helping reduce transmission costs by converting to digital, but to expand their capabilities by being allowed to 'multicast' different feeds within the same bandwidth, all at the same time touting something that I, quite frankly, have been waiting for since the 70s (back then, the thinking was analog, but...) that being High Definition TV. Most folks don't realize that NTSC dates back to the 1930s and I, for one, think "it's about time commerical television!" I'm just wondering tho, that since most transmitters transmit upwards of megawatts in effective radiated power to distribute analog, what'll be the difference in savings with digital, and what bandwidths for HDTV are we looking at? (I oughta get back into this career field and 'bone up' on some of the stuff I've been missing out on...) 73 - KE0GB

Posted by: ke0gb Location: kansas city, ks
Jay: I hate to see us get caught up in semantics, but digital tv is just that, the 'medium' by which television is transmitted from the originating station to the receiving station. Whether it's via satellite, cable, etc., really doesn't matter a whole lot to me, but I stick by my previous comments that I was a subscriber to the original digital tv, that being satellite. Your comparison of 'DTV' vs everything else in my opinion, is 'splitting hairs'. The fact is: commerical television IS analog, has alwas been, and will always be...analog, since the human being's persistence of vision cannot allow it to 'decipher' digital (anything for that matter). The means by which we 'label' DTV as something 'new' has always amused me. Granted, DTV is a 'new' way of 'displaying' television with 'digital' or 'digital capable' tuners, is simply a label that the industry has created to delineate the 'old school' vs the 'new school' means of television transmission. See pt. 2.