Talk:Digital television transition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Could also include...[edit]

A reason for the switching off of analog signals, despite the fact some people do not and can not use digital at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.44.232 (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason? At least in the US, the desire of Congress to get their hands on a pile of cold, hard cash by auctioning the 84MHz of radio spectrum space now occupied by fourteen of the eighteen soon-to-be-defunct high-UHF TV channels is all the reason that is necessary. Follow the money. --99.245.244.176 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Who gets the spectrum? Over price cellular network operators for their higher bandwidth 4G services, which has a shitter range than their analog/2&3G services. Bottom line analog will never be beaten for coverage and range, which was far better for broadcasting and telephony services. helmboy 22:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Germany completed analogue switch-off on 2 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.43.93.1 (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

At least in the states, this actually has some controversy. It couldn't be that it is without controversy elsewhere - would love for some information on that, might be more fair and balanced. 165.134.194.139 (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It has only avoided the same controversy in Canada and México because those countries have barely begun broadcasting anything in ATSC. Analogue full-power TV will still be around until 2011 and 2021 in those respective nations. If anything, the constant bombardment of messages from US TV stations telling viewers that they'll lose their TV in 2009 and should panic immediately is more confusing than informative; the FCC requires these ads run multiple times daily on every station, even digital channels. And yes, there are certain groups who will be more adversely affected than others - in the US, this would include viewers in mountainous regions (DTV performs quite badly under multipath interference conditions) or fringe areas where the new and underpowered UHF DTV stations are often unreceivable and the half-century old low-VHF network affiliates remain watchable in glorious snowy analogue. That New York (tall buildings) and Denver (mountains) are two of the three most severe sets of problem markets for DTV is not coincidental (the third was the area (NoLa, Gulfport...) hit by Hurricane Katrina, as UHF requires very tall transmission towers to get line-of-sight conditions and those can be the first to go in any large-scale natural disaster). The insanely-low power limits on VHF DTV in the US don't help matters - they are five times more restrictive than the power levels for analogue stations which were on those channels before the US government started breaking things. --99.245.244.176 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands[edit]

I don't understand the statement for the Netherlands, who have completed the digital switchover - "The switch-off was helped greatly by the fact that about 90% of the households have cable that continues to use analog distribution." How does 90% having analogue help a digital switchover? And if it continues to use analogue distribution then there hasn't been a switchover as such. Is it a typo (continues/continued) or am I missing something? Anthropomancer (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This switchover is for broadcast television received over-the-air. If no one is watching, because they've abandoned their antennae and gone to cable or other sources, then no one will notice if the OTA signal no longer works. --99.245.244.176 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. The broadcast transition does not affect closed circuit distribution systems. The cable subscribers may continue using their old tuners for as long as their cable company chooses to continue providing analogue signals. (I rephrased the paragraph to be a little clearer.)
überRegenbogen (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Digital captions beyond the Roman alphabet[edit]

Digital TVs -- at least in the USA -- only support captioning in the Roman alphabet. In the list of countries that are planning a digital switchover, I notice that early adapters use the Roman alphabet, while countries using other writing systems will be going digital later. Will they offer closed capations, and if so what kind of technology will underly it? Will TV sets eventually have Unicode capability? LADave (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Taiwan had the US-style ATSC system and there were standards on atsc.org to address this issue. The other major systems are European (DVB-T) or Japanese (IDSB?) and should be reasonably character set aware? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why this is discussed here, but Japan, Taiwan and South Korea all use the US EIA-608 system which uses a Norpak extension for switching to decoder embedded char sets as well as Chinese and Korean char sets. DTV in the US is mandated to use EIA-708 which is just transcoded from EIA-608. All 25 frame countries use the Teletext system, which wasn't designed for captioning and needs to insert repeated lines to emulate the same rollup style that EIA-608 uses for live captions. Also the basic English Teletext char set only supports simple ASCII chars with a few vulgar fractions. Since EIA-608 already supported non-Roman char sets, one even wonders what was the point of drafting EIA-708, especially since it's not backward compatible with analog composite video signals. helmboy 21:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

move proposal[edit]

Wouldn't this be better named "digital television switchover"?--Rtphokie (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

merge proposal[edit]

I see there is already a proposal to merge digital switchover and DTV transition. I have started a vote at Talk:DTV transition#Merger proposal. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed moving DTV transitionDTV transition in the United States (or DTV transition in North America) so that digital switchoverDTV transition could be done as a page move. Otherwise, a merger attempt would fill this main international transition page with huge amounts of US-centric content currently at the DTV transition title. See Wikipedia:Requested moves and Talk:DTV transition. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, see Talk:DTV transition#Merger proposal.--Father Goose (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the criticism?[edit]

Well? 207.224.55.49 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and an explanation[edit]

Why is this total switchover needed for? We've had both systems for years and nobody has complained? --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the radio spectrum is a limited resource, and switching television signals to digital format frees up some spectrum for other uses. -- Denelson83 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Many people (myself included) believe the switchover is for government control. The American government never does anything unless it can profit from something it does somehow. The DTV boxes will allow the government to spy on you, even when the TV's off. It's similar to how the government tracks people via cell phones. In other words, it's a brainwashing scam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talkcontribs) 19:20, 19 August 2008
Denelson, could you please add some information about that to the article? SuperSmashBros, if you could find some consensus and proof of your conspiracy theories (Proof of conspiracy theory: oxymoron?) I would definitely support the inclusion of a section about that (or it could be added to List of conspiracy theories if it's not already there). There's definitely a lot more government surveillance going on, but it might not be that extreme, silly.
P.S. SuperSmash, don't forget to sign!--IdLoveOne (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No, "proof of theory'" is not an oxymoron. If you're suggesting that conspiracies to not exist, you probably subscribe to that rather sensationalised usage of the word "conspiracy", that is all too common on certain radio talk shows, that feature callers of conspicuous mental ineptitude. ;) (Mind you, it doesn't mean that there is none of it going on; and some nefarious conspiracies are a matter of history.) [But i'm off-topic.]
überRegenbogen (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added some information in the United States deployment section. I hope it is appropriate. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Improved quality"?[edit]

"The motivation behind the switch is the improved quality of digital broadcasts over analogue ones, adding digital subchannels, the freeing-up of valuable radio spectrum space for other services, and to bring in large amounts of money at spectrum auctions."

Most of these are valid points. But the first is a matter of opinion, and hotly debated. Most digital broadcasts merely offer a different suite of defects (such as colour banding, and pixelation). (The paragraph is also worded rather poorly.)
überRegenbogen (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i merged the paragraph with the (hitherto redundant) Purpose of the transition section, and cleaned up the language somewhat.
überRegenbogen (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The quality of digital is actually horrible. It constantly loses the signal, which never happened with analog. I can no longer even watch Fox 11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.49.233 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

IPTV helps Digital Television Transition[edit]

In areas where TV Reception is low then many can not switch to freeview in the UK, a new service TVCatchup.com has risen for such a thing this currently provides 18 free on-line digital channels live on-line for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.115.195 (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Who instigated the analog to digital transition?[edit]

I am surprised to learn that this is a global phenomenon. I had assumed that this was a U.S.-only move spurred by Congress in an effort to move to HDTV, which Japan has already had in analog form for quite a while. Why does this article make absolutely no mention of where the DTV transition movement originated? Was it some electronics industry group that pushed this, or someone else? --JHP (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

request[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hello there,

I wondered if you would mind adding a link to

www.ricability-digitaltv.org.uk

This is a site that tests digital tv products and is funded by BERR (Government Department)to provide reports on digital systems in advance of the Digital Switchover.

I work for a web agency who have developed the site and we are looking at ways to increase awareness of the site amongst UK residents

Many thanks

X mark.svg Not done - sorry, but Wikipedia is not a directory of external links, nor is it a vehicle for promotion. ~ mazca t|c 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

dtv switchoff in the united states[edit]

the date for the analog switchoff in the us is june 12,2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.18.200 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Criticism Section?[edit]

There's been plenty of criticism and controversy over the DTV transition, and multiple conspiracy theories about the transition (many if not all of which I believe), yet there's no mention of criticism or controversy in the article. --SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "Free-to-air"?[edit]

This is talking about those TV available by antenna. Free-to-air also means those "over-the-air" broadcast, but some people can confuse. Kjinho213 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DTV comment[edit]

DTV is shit compared to analog transmissions. DTV fails completely if the signal degrades at all, whereas you could still watch a degraded analog signal. DTV is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by cable and satellite companies. When people using only analog reception switch to the federally-mandated DTV method, they will pratically be forced to subscribe to cable or satellite because of the impossibility of watching a program through without complete interuption for several minutes several times. Why doesn't the article mention any of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.146.25 (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Jumping the gun?[edit]

I've noticed someone's edited the page a few hours early, claiming the United States is already DTV switched. Seems to me we should wait until the actual switch occurs, to make sure that nothing throws a spanner in the works. DTXBrian (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

June 13[edit]

It is now June 13, someone please change the U.S. nation's color from yellow to red on the global map. Jonghyunchung (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is now the 14th and the US is still yellow Michael Kirschner (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What Happened, the Map was Red for the US some time ago and now it's back to being yellow. 03:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeloliv8 (talkcontribs)

Request For Comment[edit]

Whoever thinks they make up the rules and changed the color of the US from Red back to Yellow you don't make up the rules. This is a request for comment (someone post the rfc tag) to move for a discussion (thats what we do here instead of doing things by ourselves) about the map color. ( I deleted the original rfc because for some reason it wasn't picking up can someone we issue the tag?)Michael Kirschner (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Germany[edit]

The switchoff is NOT yet completed. On the contrary...most TV is still analog here. Prospective year for a full switch off is 2012.

80.152.220.54 (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is wrong. The transition to terrestrial digital (DVB-T) has been completed in Nov. 2008, except one main transmitter which was shut down in 2009. There are no terrestrial analogue transmitters in Germany today. Your 2012 date probably refers to the announcement to shut down analogue satellite and cable broadcasts of the public broadcasters. But this page is only about terrestrial. Anorak2 (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Estonia[edit]

Can someone change to map to reflect Estonia's transistion to digital TV? Analog was shut off today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.247.187 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Iceland status on digital TV[edit]

Here is the information on digital Tv in Iceland. Stöð 2 and related channels have now moved to digital and stopped broadcasting in analogue, same goes for Skjár einn that has stopped broadcasting in analogue last year. The only remaining broadcaster in analouge is Rúv, but Rúv is also breakfasted digital within Stöð 2 digital broadcast. There are information on Iceland here. Currently it is unknown when Rúv moves to digital Tv signal only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfr (talkcontribs) 05:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

More about Estonia[edit]

Quote from 2nd paragraph: "... At the other extreme, a whole country can be converted from analogue to digital television, which most recently occurred in Estonia in July 2010."

This argument leaves a quite false impression of Estonia's transition to digital transmission. Commercial digital broadcast started in Estonia on 15. December 2006 with 2 muxes, third mux was added about a year later. Old analog networks remained fully operational until 1st of July 2010 (only exeption was island Ruhnu, where small analog transmitter was switched off in 2008). Since 2008, all 3 channels, viewable through the analog network, was also available in FTA digital network. It makes 2,5 years of simulcast transmission.

Thanks for attention. 82.131.31.196 (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

India????[edit]

Is India really going digital? There are poor country so can someone give a RELIABLE (there are lots of indian websites that are way to nationalistic) source cos it would be pretty pathetic if they did since they have like most of the worlds poor so digital tv is probably not even thought of in most of that country --Gargabookofayr (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa!!! You need to read a bit about world economics and some books on "How to construct coherent sentences in English". Shovon (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Slovenia DTV Transition[edit]

Out of interest, I did a quick Google and found an article saying that the DTV transition in Slovenia has been delayed to the first half of 2011. http://www.dvb.org/about_dvb/dvb_worldwide/slovenia/

I think that Slovenia should be moved back to "transition in progress." (Apple & TWC Fan talk) 09:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel should be marked in red[edit]

I believe Israel has now completed their digital switchover. Please could someone mark Israel in red on the digital transition map? Thanks. --82.12.90.123 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

From Portal:Current events/2011 July 24 ... Japan update[edit]

    • Japan is supposed to be colored orange! Digital-based tv is still broadcasted on analog televisions (hence the name Dejiana) and will not shut off until march 31 2015. J4lambert (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

List of countries better as a table, or cut into more sections?[edit]

The list of countries is dominated by the "Transitions to be completed in 2010s" section (and to a lesser extent the "Transitions completed" section), and is a bit hard to get key info from.

Would it perhaps be better to either divide into more lists ("Transitions completed in the 2000s", "Transitions completed in 2010-2015", "Transitions to be completed before 2015", "Transitions to be completed between 2015 and 2019", and "Transitions to be completed in 2020 or after" would be my suggestions)?

The other would be to simply convert it into a list with the columns "Country", "Continent", "First DTV broadcast", "Full DTV availability", "Analog signal switchoff", and a general description. This might be preferable, as it scales (the current list is nowhere near covering the whole world), and doesn't require moving stuff around from one list to another.

I would be happy to implement one of these two suggestions, if people are in agreement.

JZ (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the suggestion, but it would take ages to do either and keeping it the way it is by searching through the decades then by country is considerably easier to do, even if your way is cleaner. The original way to search was to find by whether completed or to be completed and then determine whether it was done in 2011, but the 2011 section was too small so I merged it. Anyways, even if I criticised your idea, I appreciate your thought! EpicWikipedian (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Update: I've gone ahead and cleaned up the article. Check it out for yourself; I hope you'll like what I've done. EpicWikipedian (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
While I like what you've done, I still think it's very hard to find essential data here. I first came to the page trying to answer a specific question, namely "which Latin American countries have already switched, or will switch within the next few years" (this is a question relevant to my work). That was basically impossible to find out without checking each country manually, and it still is.
Why do you think it would "take ages" to make this into a table? It seems to me it wouldn't be that much work (and I'm volunteering to do it), and after it's done, it'd be vastly more convenient to maintain...JZ (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright then, we have an agreement. You can make a table as an extra information source, but please do not replace the existing paragraphs. The reason why I think it'll take ages is because you'll have to look through each country to make sure you know everything and possibly an external source as well. After that, you then have to format the table correctly so that it doesn't glitch up. I'll start the table for you in a few moments and then you can build on it. EpicWikipedian (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Update: Started up a table format, at the time of writing it has five countries. Check it out and see if you can improve on it. EpicWikipedian (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Could a definition be established for the started-switchover column of the at-a-glance table? For the countries for which I know the detailed history, the usage of this column is quite inconsistent. If this column is intended to show the date on which the first analog TV transmitter was turned off as part of the current transition to digital TV, then the date is wrong for the USA, the UK and for Australia. The USA date should be 8 September 2008, the date of switch off in Wilmington, North Carolina. The UK date should be 30 March 2005, the date that most analog transmitters were turned off in Ferryside in Wales. The Australian date should be 10 June 2010, the date that all analog transmitters were turned off in Underbool, Victoria. If the intent is to only include "major" communities, then some definition should be provided, such as minimum population or minimum percentage of national population. Even if Ferryside and Underbool are deemed too "minor", surely Hawaii is not and the USA date should at least reflect that state's transition on 15 January 2009. Hawthornesque (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Laos[edit]

The transition in Laos is a rumor, why do you keep putting it back?--27.55.163.63 (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Because of the simple inability to give a reliable source on why the country isn't switching. Even if its unreferenced, the vast majority of countries are switching, so therefore until a reliable source is provided it should do the obvious. EpicWikipedian (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It's impossible to be started within 2010s and finish in 2030s, 20 years is too long for small countries like Laos. Even Russia, the biggest country takes 7 years, or USA, the big country with lots of TV channels takes 10 years. I guess Lao TV will be switch in 2030s and finish in 2042. And there are no DVB-T channels in Laos yet.--180.214.211.91 (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of how strange this fact looks, we're going to have to be dealing with it, because I can't understand how it was there for months almost unchanged with numerous revisions by numerous people to other parts of the article and then suddenly its a problem. Even the official DVB website states that Laos is going to complete the switchover. So that's why I need a reliable source. EpicWikipedian (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
DVB-T website said it is switching, but this is posted to all ASEAN countries, but there is no more information after, but Thailand has two more posts about TV5 test. I went to Laos this year and there is only one TV channel, and I searched for signals for long time and only this analog TV, and some Thai channels and a Vietnamese TV channel VTV3. Using new indoors antenna. I used this in Thailand and I got 2 DVB-T channels (a duplicate of channel 5, and another channel), and in Vietnam I got a DVB-T channel. I can't remember that DVB-T channel name. PS.Southern Vietnam, there is no DVB-T channel launched, and northern Vietnam is not switching in 2020. But it is not switching. For Laos, i haven't heard the rumor but I read that the DVB-T announcement was a rumor from a Lao or Vietnamese newspaper.--180.214.209.75 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Why would you go as far as paying thousands of pounds to rent a house in Laos just to find out the truth when all you need to do is look on the official DVB website? Because Laos would be barred from digital television if they did not sign up to DVB. But thank you for telling me about how many analogue and digital channels there are in that country because regardless of how big a fact is, it helps. By the way, the thing you said about Southern Vietnam is wrong; it already states that there is no DVB-T channel in Southern Vietnam. And about Northern Vietnam, yes maybe you're right and I'll change that if there's enough reliable sources. Thank you for listening. EpicWikipedian (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I won't paying thousands of pounds to rent a house in Laos.
I don't think Zimbabwe will switch... in 2013?? This is more ridiculous than in Laos or India. It's the third world country.
I don't think North Korea can be colored in blue anymore, it's hard to know future of this country now.--27.55.1.52 (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

The image claims that N.Korea does not intend to transition. Is there a source for this claim?--Anuclanus (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

India goes mostly digital[edit]

Transition completed for full power stations in India. 4 Metros back in 2012. And 38 cities by tonight. Please rectify the image. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Update about Cuba...[edit]

http://www.laprensasa.com/309_america-in-english/2068511_cuba-to-begin-tests-for-digital-tv.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.166.27.92 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

BRAZIL[edit]

Hey everyone, I have found reliable local sources stating the switchover in Brazil will be completed by 2016, and not 2018 as this article says. Can I change it on the article, or someone has another source saying it's 2018? Here's the link: http://info.abril.com.br/noticias/mercado/apos-4-anos-tv-digital-chega-a-46-do-brasil-15042011-32.shl Thanks, Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The source for the current 2018 date is http://olhardigital.uol.com.br/negocios/digital_news/noticias/tv-analogica-sobrevivera-ate-2018-no-brasil , which is dated as April 2013. Your source is dated (I think - I don't speak Portuguese) April 2011. As far as I can tell (as it says in the article) originally the switch off was planned for 2016 but was pushed back to 2018 earlier this year. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn(talk) 15:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Alphathon, thanks a lot for your response :) Yeah, this article says it'll be in 2018 indeed, and Olhar Digital is a reliable source in Brazil. I tried to dig in a bit more and I found this, in the Government's website, saying it's 2016... It doesn't have a date though, what do you think we should put? The link: http://www.mc.gov.br/acoes-e-programas/tv-digital Cheers and happy friday! Zalunardo8 (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Previous switchovers[edit]

Perhaps there could be a note on/link to previous TV switchovers - eg the UK from 405 to 625 lines. (There was a report 'a few years back' of one of the last 405 line transmitters having been closed for maintenance for several months, and nobody complained - so it was decommissioned permanently.) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Effect on Ultra High Frequencies[edit]

What is the transition's effect on UHF signals? I believe digital TV uses less UHF signals, but does it still use some UHF signals?--Wyn.junior (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

By UHF signals, I assume you mean the channel allocations. The allocations would only be used less when broadcasters share a single transport like in the UK and New Zealand where national broadcasters use shared transmission sites. In North America there are more allocations being used since every station has it's own transmission site, which also increased when the lower analog VHF allocations weren't viable for digital modulation. When and if the US adopts Ultra HD, the extra channels that stations offer would have to go to make way for the larger encoded frames and there would also be a change in modulation which will create yet another switch over period. helmboy 21:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Let please type in as simple terms as possible. How much UHF was used before and how much is being used now by free television stations?--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how much more allocations on UHF in the US are being used per market. But most of the network affiliates for NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and the CW as well as a number of PBS stations were all on analog VHF. UHF during analog days was barely used for broadcast TV. Australia still use high band VHF for DTV in major metro locations for the Nine, Seven, Ten and ABC owned stations. Europe and New Zealand have stopped using VHF and sold off UHF allocations above 700 MHz to overpriced 4G cellular providers. helmboy 01:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Is UHF/VHF being used in the US right now for free TV? Thanks--Wyn.junior (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Some rural analog transmitters are still on VHF. Everything digital that was on low band VHF has been shifted to UHF. The remote controller channel number remains the same as the VHF allocated analog channel number, but the actual transmission is on a UHF allocated digital channel. ie, WCBS is on UHF 33, but still uses the same channel 2 for channel surfing. WABC is still on VHF 7. helmboy 03:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Why did they shift from VHF to UHF? Thanks--Wyn.junior (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Low band VHF is is too noisy for digital modulation. ie, on a analog TV signal on VHF 2 can have a more degraded picture than say VHF 7 helmboy 04:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This is because UHF is generally speaking a much stronger signal, right? Because is can travel a much further distance, right? --Wyn.junior (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Last post - Higher frequencies have a shorter wavelength which is good for avoid interference and bad in terms of distance traveled. Now is there a question about this article? helmboy 05:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about UHF[edit]

The UHF article says this: "698–806 MHz: Was auctioned in March 2008; bidders got full use after the transition to digital TV was completed on June 12, 2009 (formerly UHF TV channels 52–69)"

If this is true, then how could it have been transferred from VHF to UHF? Thanks--Wyn.junior (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This is still not related (off-topic) to editing the article. And most countries as stated already, have sold off the higher end of the UHF band V spectrum to overpriced 4G cellular providers. The US, Canada and Australia are the only ones that still use the upper VHF band as well as UHF band IV and the lower UHF band V for DTV. Most other countries have drop VHF completely and just use the UHF band IV and the lower UHF band V. helmboy 22:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
End of off-topic thread. helmboy 22:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If youre info is true, then why isn't it listed on any of the wiki articles? This is important info.--Wyn.junior (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
See: Spectrum auction, Band III, Band IV, Band V and Wavelength. I would expand the articles, but lack the citation links needed. helmboy 08:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting. I created a template for the bands' articles. Is TV only used within those bands?--Wyn.junior (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
There are only six with Band II really only for FM radio and Band VI is only for line of sight transmissions requiring a parabolic reflector to concentrate the waves. Also band VI is more commonly referred to by the IEEE designation Ku and there are no set frequency channels as satellite operators let their customers define the slot bandwidth on the transponder they are leasing. helmboy 00:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
So all free tv stations are packed into those four bands? They aren't found anywhere else?--Wyn.junior (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
No, they are only in bands III, IV and the bottom of band V. Band VI is only for pay tv providers like Direct and dish tv. helmboy 03:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
PS, North America has more channel slots available due to each only being 6 MHz. Europe and New Zealand have less as they use 8 MHz. Australia is in between as they use 7 MHz. helmboy 03:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
So there are empty channel slots? At some point in the future, the radio waves are going to become filled totally.--Wyn.junior (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It depends on the number of stations and translators in a local market. In the UK and New Zealand it depends on the transmission operator's channel and coverage planning. helmboy 21:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Wi-Fi is a much shorter range, then again a lot less power is put into the signal output. Would Wi-Fi be capable of long range signal if the same output was provided?--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Modulation schemes such as IEEE 802.11 are designed for bi-directional data packets modulated on frequencies in the GHz range with a much greater bandwidth. Broadcast is unidirectional only. The greater bandwidth of WiFi also makes it only practical over short distances. NASA's bi-directional data packets to the ISS and Mars are done on low bandwidth with long receive and transmit delays. helmboy 23:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
You're correct that it depends on the local market. These radio signal aren't global signals. Rural areas may never fill with radio signals.--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Why are these bands free? Who owns these bands? The government?--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
All terrestrial EMF usage is managed by a national government organization such as the FCC with providers having to pay yearly licensing costs. helmboy 23:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "providers"? Who is paying the fees?--Wyn.junior (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The providers on the signal ie, the owner of the transmitting station. The end. helmboy 03:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead lacking[edit]

The lead needs to include the benefits of transitioning to digital.--Wyn.junior (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)