Talk:Digital television

message: Proposal to improve a Wikipedia article as required for my NJIT Technical Writing course.
Wikipedia Article Topic:
Digital Television
APA citation for the Wikipedia article:
Digital Television. (2012, April 6). In Wikipedia. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television
Wikipedia Definition:
Digital television (DTV) is the transmission of audio and video by digitally processed and multiplexed signal, in contrast to the totally analog and channel separated signals used by analog TV. Many countries are replacing broadcast analog television with digital television to allow other uses of the television radio spectrum.
Proposal:
I decided to work on this article because Digital television(DTV)is a service that we can appreciate and enjoy today because of the work of many engineers. As I skimmed through the article I notice that the article lacks information and that the definition itself could be more detailed. Digital Television is just one of many topics of high importance in the Telecomunication. As an Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology (ECET) major at NJIT and I believe my contribution will improve this article. I will be expanding the definition of Digital Television and adding information on the four DTV standards worldwide.
Supporting Sources:
Kruger, L. G. (2001). Digital Television: An Overview. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Publishers. 
Ong, C. Y., Song, J., Pan, C., & Li, Y.(2010, May). Technology and Standards of Digital Television Terrestrial Multimedia Broadcasting [Topics in Wireless Communications], Communications Magazine, IEEE , 48(5),119-127
(MGarcia09-NJITWILL (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiser Proposal

message: Can someone include frame rate information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.251.140 (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This table could do with some explanatory preamble. I'd write some, but I'd probably make a hash of it. richi 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That table is missing references: who did the measurements? I think it was purposely inserted in the article in order to build an opinion on something. But I've got no evidence of it. --Cantalamessa 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection parameters

message: What do you really mean by digital terrestrial television? Is is the same thing as FTA digital television? 
From User: DanCBJMS, 17:24 American EST, 13 February 2005
:No - It just means that the transmitting antenna is attached to the Earth (i.e., that it is not extra-terrestrial - as in a satellite).
Also, in the United Kingdom a television broadcast must be available to more than 98% of the viewing population to be classed as terrestrial. For this reason, broadcaster Channel 5 is not classed as terrestrial as only 95% of viewers are able to receive it. --Dazzla 12:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification needed

message: I came across this article that seem to imply that electronics vendors were the reason behind the huge choice of digital TV format. See the quote below "Why 18 digital-TV formats if so few are used? Much of the consumer-electronics industry remains stuck at a kindergarten-playground level of conflict resolution; when the Federal Communications Commission had to pick a standard in the mid-1990s, embracing all 18 formats available was the best it could do." Is this really true? I read somewhere else that it was entertainment suppliers who contributed to the mess. 
:When the two big digital TV systems (ATSC and DVB) were introduced and devised, they were designed so that they can be universal in the sense that there wouldn't be the NTSC/PAL/SECAM mess and no mess with the mains power supply, which is how most of the old analog television systems were governed by (60 Hz (which invariably meant using NTSC, except in a few situations where PAL-M and PAL-N are used, especially in South America) vs. 50 Hz (which invariably meant using either PAL or SECAM)).  The mains power supply in turn dictates frames per second for each TV system, whereas in the movies 24 frames per second is the norm.  If you look at the ATSC system, for instance, some of the formats, yes, aren't that different (SDTV-wise) from NTSC sets (480i and 480p (the so-called EDTV)), but there are also formats for the other TV standards (576i and 576p) and there is even a 1080p standard that film companies can use (because this 1080p standard is 24 frames per second).  I am positively sure that DVB is somewhat the same way.  However, of course you have the bickering that often ensues which also involves politics, and thus most (not all) countries with NTSC systems will most likely use ATSC, while everywhere else will most likely use DVB.  Thus, this makes the other formats (576i and 576p) obsolete.  Whether the film companies will bank on the other ATSC or DVB standards that are designed for their film projectors (that invariably use 24 frames per second) remains to be seen.  -Daniel Blanchette 19:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could we get part of that into the article? I'm especially thinking of NTSC/PAL/SECAM vs. Digital television. I cannot read clearly from the article that the digital television standards would replace them. Mlewan 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that there is sound evidence that the "NSTC/PAL/SECAM" mess was created on purpose to protect national TV industrials. The same
is true for ATSC, it was a format created to protect the US TV industry.  It's a fascinating story.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.108.38 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some question

message: From the article:
"Terrestrial DTV is widely seen as an example of a technology that is being pushed on a public that does not exhibit much demand for it. This is particularly so for high definition (HDTV) broadcast, where HDTV sets are at the moment prohibitively expensive, and very little HDTV content exists apart from movies."
I think the first sentence may hold true for the USA, but it's arguably not true in the UK, where Terrestrial DTV has proved surprisingly popular. One of the reasons is the UK standard (as in most European countries) is not HDTV-based, but SDTV and wide-screen based. Most people have bought cheap plug-in terrestrial DTV 'adapters' costing less than a £100 to get the extra channels available. Also, a TV set with an integrated digital terrestrial TV tuner now only costs an average of around £50 more than an equivalent non-digital TV set.
It's also not true that very little HDTV content exists apart from movies. The Japanese, who've had HDTV longer than anyone else, have squillions of hours of the stuff in all sorts of genres, including music, documentary and sports, and a considerable amount of the BBC's production is now being shot in HDTV - not for the UK market, but for markets like the USA and Japan which increasingly won't purchase TV content from abroad unless it's HDTV format.
:Eh? The DTV system used in North America isn't HDTV-based.  It can carry HD signals, but SDTV ATSC exists and will most likely be the standard until HDTV monitors and tuners become cheaper. --   20:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
::I also bumped into this on Slashdot: http://www.pbs.org/opb/crashcourse/digital_v_analog/multicast.html --   21:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
=== (2.5) analogue switchoff ===
I've attempted to reword the "In general, viewers who are happy with their existing analog TV systems tend not to adopt terrestrial DTV systems (so-called "digital refuseniks")" section a bit. Some of us supposed "refuseniks" are actually existing DVB-S dish users who are refusing to buy a *second* digital settop box for each TV just to receive local programming. 
Alas, the section is still US-centric and could still use some work. --carlb 23:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 2.1 is US-centric 

message: I've attempted to reword the "In general, viewers who are happy with their existing analog TV systems tend not to adopt terrestrial DTV systems (so-called "digital refuseniks")" section a bit. Some of us supposed "refuseniks" are actually existing DVB-S dish users who are refusing to buy a *second* digital settop box for each TV just to receive local programming. 
Alas, the section is still US-centric and could still use some work. --carlb 23:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (2.5) analogue switchoff 

message: Say what OTA means. Over the air?
:OTA, FTA, broadcast TV, terrestrial TV, off-the-air reception, etc. - doesn't matter what you call it.  Basically, broadcast TV is TV that you can pick up with a VHF/UHF antenna (aka "rabbit ears"), not with pay-TV services (aka MMDS, cable, satellite, etc.); thus the service is free (apart from the TV, the antenna, and the antenna tuner (in my house, we only pick up broadcast TV, and our tuner is the VCR)).  The only downside with broadcast TV is that you are limited to whatever you can pick up in your vicinity, which in most cases will be local channels.  In my case I can pick up channels from the Providence and Boston metro areas, since I live in Pawtucket, Rhode Island and Pawtucket is north of Providence yet we can pick up Boston channels (such as WHDH and WGBH) free and clear.  However, what you can pick up on broadcast TV varies from country to country.  In Ireland, for example, only RTE's two channels, TV3, and the Gaelic TV station TG4 can be picked up; in Sydney, Australia, however, ABN-2 (ABC Australia's Sydney station), 2EA (SBS's Sydney staion), ATN-7 (Sydney's Seven Network affiliate station), TCN-9 (the Nine Network's Sydney affiliate station), and TEN-10 (Network Ten's Sydney affiliate station) can be picked up on broadcast TV.  Broadcast TV is being replaced by DTT (digital terrestrial television), which in the US and Canada's case is being replaced by ATSC.  Hope this clears things up a bit. -Daniel Blanchette 19:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTA? 

message: In U.S. only, closed captioning is a subtitle service for hearing impaired people.
Huh? Closed captioning/subtitling is available on most digital TV (and many analogue TV) systems around the world. Is the captioning used in America in someway different to other captioning systems? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed captioning 

message: Apparently someone (specifically, 121a0012 on 3 April 2006) has suggested the above headlined action and directed discussion of this idea to this page.  This does not seem like a good idea to me.  It would seem to me that television systems that use wireless (i.e., not cabled to the consumer) terrestrial (i.e., earth-mounted) transmission (which is my understanding of what digital terrestrial television is about) are a sufficiently large application domain to warrant their own page that is distinct from television over cable, satellite, etc.  —SudoMonas 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a reasonable argument, although not one I find particularly convincing.  Right now most of the content of this article is about digital broadcast systems—there's very little material on digital cable and satellite systems.  121a0012 15:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See my comments above on Clarification.  Basically I agree that the Digital Television article should link to terrestrial, satellite, cable and mobile articles rather than merge them. --Alistair9210 08:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[digital terrestrial television]] page into [[digital television]] page? 

message: "In the United States, all U.S. television broadcasts will be exclusively digital as of February 17, 2009, by order of the Federal Communications Commission." Technically, all analog TV operations in the U.S. must cease as of 11:59:59 pm on February 17, 2009, so all U.S. television broadcasts will be exclusively digital as of February 18, 2009.Terminalwally 14:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the language you pointed out.  Note that 84–99 were never broadcast channels (those would be cable); it was 70–83 that were removed in the 1970s to clear the 800 MHz band for cellular service.  Since the late 1990s the FCC has been creating incentives for broadcasters to clear off channels above 52, chunks of 60–69 were given to public safety.  The analog shutdown will be the deadline for broadcasting above 700 MHz. —RandallJones 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people buy a digital TV receiver now, but not all TV stations in their area are telecasting digital yet, are they able to pick up the analog transmissions on those digital sets? I know that analog sets cannot receive digital signals. I'm just thinking of viewers who may not upgrade if they'll lose non-digital broadcasters until those companies upgrade, and I'm also thinking of people who take a digital set into an analog only area after analog shutdown (2009 in the US, 2011 in Canada) in major centres, or cannot buy an analog set to use in an analog-only community. (Canada will allow analog to continue in remote communities, mainly because of the cost of upgrade and the uneconomic nature of operating in remote communities.) GBC 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to see a TV offered for sale with an ATSC tuner that does not also have an NTSC-M tuner.  121a0012 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA switch-off 

message: This Spanish map which might be useful here. Perhaps it can be translated --Astrokey44 13:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: "Newer televisions are often capable of receiving an HD resolution of 1920 × 1080 in progressive scan (1080p), but broadcasters in most countries currently do not have the bandwidth to transmit these signals over the air."
I'm removing the above statement because two things in it are misleading. 1) Every American digital television is able to receive 1080p (up to 30fps) because it's part of the ATSC standard. It's up to the tuner to convert the signal to suit the display tech. 2) In a digital broadcasting system bandwidth is independent of resolution and frame rate. For example, broadcasting a film in 1080p would actually require less bandwidth for a given image quality than broadcasting it in 1080i.
I'm also removing "In the age of pay-TV" from "In the age of pay-TV, other ways have been devised to receive digital television." because pay-TV can be received terrestrially (in Finland over DVB-T + Conax CAM for example).
Totsugeki 07:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but the 1080p text was making a useful point, but it was obscured. How do you like my edit? ... richi 12:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: Well, article is just saying that digital television was introduced in 1990's. In my opinion it should also have information who invented it and when and there should also be a history section... Tarmo Tanilsoo 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who invented digital television? 

message: Will this affect channels already on the air? WAVY 10 19:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All U.S. channels already have been assigned two channels each.  For example, channel 2 might be assigned "2" for analog and "25" for digital.  On the day when analog broadcasting stops, "2" switches over to digital and "25" disappears completely.  That way Channel 2 is still channel 2 on the dial.  -  Theaveng 19:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where'd you get this information from? I don't see the stations switching back to thier analog VHF channel's for thier digital signal as they can already make thier digital channel appear as thier original channel. You're more likely to see channel "2" stay on channel "25" but appear as channel 2 on your box. 71.114.48.205 (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What RF channel U.S. stations will use after February 17 is determined by a combination of technical requirements and economics.  For some stations, their final post-transition channel will be different from both their transitional digital channel and their historic analog channel.  For example, I was just up in Vermont visiting WCAX-TV over the weekend; they currently have analog on channel 3 and digital on channel 53.  53 is "out of core", so they will not be permitted to keep it, but VHF-low channels are highly undesirable due to the level of natural and man-made interference and the low power limits in that band, so WCAX has been given permission to move to channel 22 when WVNY vacates it.  WVNY, in turn, was assigned transitional digital channel 13, which they will keep, since the VHF-high band does not suffer from the same sort of interference, and VHF stations have dramatically lower power bills.  Elsewhere in that market, WPTZ moves from 5 to 14, WCFE-TV moves from 57 to 38, WFFF-TV moves from 44 to 43, and WETK moves from 33 to 32—all of those stations are keeping their transitional digital channels permanently.  WCWF came on the air too late to receive a transitional digital channel, so it will "flash cut" from analog to digital on channel 40.  121a0012 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Channel Allocation

message: There has been some confusion about the switch-off of the Swedish analogue network, which has caused a small edit war. The SVT2 and TV4 transmitters were shut down on October 15, but most transmitters still carry SVT1 until October 29. This is however something which is often left out by the media, but it is mentioned in this press release from Teracom:
"SVT 1 fortsätter att sända analogt till och med 29 oktober från de större sändarstationerna Karlshamn, Karlskrona/Vämö, Malmö/Jägersro och Helsingborg/Olympia."
This translates as "SVT1 will continue its analogue broadcasts until October 29 from the Karlshamn, Karlskrona/Vämö, Malmö/Jägersro and Helsingborg/Olympia transmitters". Therefore, the final switch-off date of the Swedish analogue broadcasts is October 29, not October 15 which is often incorrectly stated. Väsk 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish switch-off 

message: Why is the USA mentioned at the top, and then again further down the article? Really the USA should take its proper place (at the bottom) in the article and leave the main heading clear and concise.
Bulleted lists are okay when the subject matter is short and to the point, but several items in these bullet lists are definitely not short and to the point, such as for Canada and especially the United States section. I've converted the bullets into proper subheadings, so that paragraph breaks can be used, which makes the article easier to read. (Probably should de-bullet other country lists as well.)
I've majorly expanded on the USA coupon assistence section, and from reading the Federal Register I see it has a bunch of specific limitations and qualifications that should be mentioned which I've also added (no DVI, no HDMI, etc). The two trailing bulleted qualifications also come from the Federal Register but I don't know how to re-refrence a dynamic citation that I've used earlier in an article. (Both bullets should cite the same source.)
The section on converter boxes is also not exclusive to the USA and I've split it off as a "disadvantage" to conversion. It is fairly certain that other countries will go through the same process of using converters for older devices. No country is going to have everyone run out and immediately purchase all-new television equipment.
And I've expanded disadvantages section with headings for each one. It's odd, I see a lot more disadvantages listed than advantages.. heh.
DMahalko (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major reformatting, and I demoted USA from leading the article 

message: I just thought of one possibly major problem with this conversion. Analog TV broadcast audio can be received by a cheap $15 TV-Radio that has TV channels on the tuning bands, and the FM audio played over the radio. Is anything this simple going to be possible when DTV takes hold?
I am under the impression that the audio is now going to be fully interwoven into the digital broadcast stream, and some heavy-duty broadcast reception, decompression, and processing is going to be necessary to just pull out the audio only. A portable DTV-Radio could well end up costing $150 or more just for the basic battery-powered DTV-decoder. DMahalko (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just bought a $50 DTV receiver for my analog set - that is more then is needed for audio.  It says it uses 8 watts of power, so I don't think a battery powered DTV is out of the question.  I tried using a paperclip as the antenna, and most of the stations came in clearly.  However I have read that you can't receive ATSC from a MOVING antenna, (such as a car) so some other form of DTV is planned for mobile devices.  Algr (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio-only DTV radio reception? 

message: I propose to clean up some of the information on this page (principally, analog switch-off) which is duplicated elsewhere.
Please see Talk:Technology_of_television#Proposed_Changes which I am going to implement shortly if no-one speaks up. IanHarvey (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of duplicate material 

message: I believe [Vanessaezekowitz's] recent change to the digital television oversimplified the reception issue a bit too much.  It now reads as if "fringe" reception with analog is always superior, while the previous text at least made it clear that there can be situations where analog signal is unwatchable yet the digital signal comes in clearly. Rcooley (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fair enough, but see above.  If I am sitting there watching a regular, ordinary television set that receives digital/ATSC signals, and I can see it go from perfect to slightly garbled to total garbage to no picture at all, then that means the so-called digital cliff effect is either improperly defined or does not apply here (I did not add that reference, someone else did and I chose to keep it).  The page as it reads now keeps the correct definition of digital cliff according to that term's page, and keeps the fact that some devices are less susceptible to the effect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessaezekowitz (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DTV Fringe Reception 

message: Twice on January 26, 2009 and once on January 27, edits have been made in the article to change the analog shutoff date in the United States from February 17, 2009 to June 12, 2009.  These edits have apparently been based on the US Senate's recent passage of a bill changing the date.  I have reverted the edits twice, citing them as premature because, in the US, a bill passed in the Senate is not yet a law.  It must also be passed by the House of Representatives and signed by the President before it becomes law.  Although the date change may happen eventually, please do not change the date in the article yet. --Thomprod (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe to US DTV but it really has nothing to do with DTV as the article stands. 06:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analog shutoff date change in the US 

message: How about including a table/chart showing the new channel number designations and frequency bands?
--74.243.7.117 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In which countries?  (Speaking for the U.S. only, there are no "new channel number designations and frequency bands", so presumably you are referring to some other country.  Dumping a table of all 1,400 U.S. TV stations and their post-transition channel assignments would be pointless and a violation of WP:NOTDIR.)  121a0012 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Channel allocations- need a table showing frequencies and numbers designation 

message: The new image at the top seems kind of misleading. In my experience, if the analog picture looks that bad, then the digital picture will cut out all the time or may be out of range entirely.--SkiDragon (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A comparison of a good analog image vs. a digital image will not show very much difference. The example is a bit extreme in that normally the digital image would long ago have disappeared entirely due to the cliff effect. The point, however, that was intended, was that analog images just get more and more grainy the weaker they get, but digital images remain exactly the same until they break up and then disappear. Feel free to write whatever caption seems appropriate. 2ndAmendment (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Image was pointless with no caption. Even with caption, would probably be out of place in article intro.  VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I can't work it out, and I know there are a lot of other people who can't either. How do you set up your set-top box, your TV, and your DVD recorder/VCR so that you can tape programs? What connects to what? We're getting all these ads on TV at the moment (in Australia) telling us that the changeover is coming, but they don't provide the information we actually need.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.26.178 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added 3 external links at the bottom of the article to wikiHow articles that discuss how to do these things.  Hope this is helpful. Waveguide2 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Info on how to tape off of a set-top box?

message: This is not quite accurate.  First of all, it was a bill, then it was signed by the President.  He didn't do it by himself.  Secondly, it's not the INTRODUCTION of digital TV, it's the turnoff of analog TV that was pushed back.  Hundreds of stations have been broadcasting in digital as an OPTION since the early 2000's. -Kb0ula (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Barack Obama, and the reference to "as part of an economic stimulus package" out in my edit.  Congress passed the DTV Delay Act.  If it was Obama's idea or part of a stimulus package, please feel free to add this back with citation. -- Skierpage (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Barack Obama delayed the introduction of digital TV" not accurate

message: A digital signal is rendered unwatchable with much less interference than an analog signal. This fact does not belong in the "Advantages to conversion" section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.253.80 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is that an advantage? 

message: What do mean those values ?  [13], [5],[9. 12]...
--Mario CUSENZA (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada [13] | USA [5] | EBU [9, 12] | Japan & Brazil [36, 37] 

message: * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+television+urbanization&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--222.64.212.26 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow....not many infos though....for the topic...... 

message: The article states:
:"...the glass in cathode ray tubes contains an average of 3.62 kilograms (8.0 lb) of lead."
This is sourced to an activist's statement that is not backed-up by an unbiased source. According to the How Stuff Works site, a large CRT contains about 5 lbs of lead. That is not sourced either but I don't think they have an axe to grind. Rsduhamel (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead content. 

message: Hello all,
I think it could be useful to show some data on the usage of digital TV worldwide. This report holds some forecasts, such as how in 2017 the world will have approximately 1.3 billion digital TV households, with the penetration climbing from 48.6% in 2011 to 86.7% by 2017. We could include this information, what do you think? Here is the source: https://www.digitaltvresearch.com/ugc/DTV%20World%20HH%20TOC%20PDF_toc_50.pdf
Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of Digital TV 

message: As a standard used in Digital Television you should know that Broadcast Markup Language has been nominated for deletion by a user who is involved in trying to delete the BeerXML article and is now trawling Wikipedia for other articles to delete because they are losing that debate and feel that if other XML derived standards are deleted it might help them win the argument they are losing. Please challenge its deletion if you feel this is an unnacceptable. Regards Devils In Skirts! (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcast XML Nominated for deletion - please help 

message: ...as implied by pages like 
* http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/dtvmaps/ and 
* http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/images/callsigns/WBPH.gif  
The map is an image, so I can't C&P, so I'm retyping selected information.
The map (the .gif) is for WBPH-TV, analog channel 60, digital channel 9 located in Bethlehem, Pa.
It is apparently a map to show the change in coverage for terrestrial (iiuc (that is, OTA)) reception around the area.  It says that the Digital License is (will have--was this a prediction?) 3.20 kW ERP at 284 m HAAT, while the analog is 2950 kW ERP at 286 m HAAT (I'm guessing that HAAT has something to do with the height of the transmitting antenna).
But:
   * the area bounded by the solid line (showing the area served by the digital transmission) is significantly bigger than the area bounded by the solid line (showing the area served by the analog transmission), and
   * concomittantly, at the bottom of the map, it indicates that the analog signal served (or had a potential audience of) 1,975,850 persons, while the digital signal serves (or was predicted to serve) (a potential audience of) 5,277,028 persons.
   
This seems almost magical.
Can anybody explain all (or, at least, some more) of the factors involved in what makes this change.  I do see the one comment above that there is a difference in the method of power measurement for the analog vs. digital signal (the analog measured as the peak power, the digital measured as the average power), but several other stations that I looked at don't have anything close to a 1000 to 1 ratio between the two.
And, iiuc the 284 vs. 286 m HAAT, it seems like the increase in coverage occurs with a reduction in the height of the transmitting tower.  (But my understanding of the HAAT acronym is strictly a guess.)
That's a general question, but I'd like to add some specific questions whose answers would be helpful or interesting to me:
* Is there some difference in the polarization of the signal between analog and digital that partially accounts for the difference in coverage?  Or the behavior with respect to bouncing off the atmosphere (I wouldn't think so, only because the frequencies are in the same ballpark)?
   
* Does somebody here have a idea of how the actual consumption of electrical power has changed (if at all)?
   
* ???
I've looked at a few similar maps, all for the same general geographic area, and all that I looked at showed a considerable increase in coverage (i.e., potential audience) with the conversion to digital, and a considerable decrease in power (but most are not in the 1000 to 1 ration shown here--others seem to be more like 10 to 1).
It seems to me that there is something here that should be explained in an article on digital television or some related article.
Rhkramer (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain the expanded coverage with decreased power... 

message: There is some serious garbling mish mash in the second sentence at the very start of this article:
 Digital TV is the (multicasting), that can Supports more than one channels in the same bandwidth regarding five times more pixels than conventional television
I can't parse what the heck happened to it so I'll leave it to someone else more qualified - but I just wanted to make people aware.  It's really bad!
Wilsnipeforfood (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is going on in the 2nd sentence of this article??  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Digital television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100809051720/http://www.textually.org:80/picturephoning/archives/cat_dmb.htm to http://www.textually.org/picturephoning/archives/cat_dmb.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520124802/http://premierinc.com/quality-safety/tools-services/safety/topics/computers/downloads/k_3_lead_in_crts.pdf to http://www.premierinc.com/quality-safety/tools-services/safety/topics/computers/downloads/k_3_lead_in_crts.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Digital television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.textually.org/picturephoning/archives/cat_dmb.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817143122/http://www.reportworld.co.kr/cbqna/cb_answer_view.html?no=40590 to http://www.reportworld.co.kr/cbqna/cb_answer_view.html?no=40590
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are some mysterious (to me) references in the table headings in Digital_television#Protection_parameters_for_terrestrial_DTV_broadcasting. This table was added in 2006 and the article had no references at this point so these numbers don't refer to our current reference list. Was this table inappropriately copied from another source? ~Kvng (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Mystery refs in table headings