Talk:Digital television in the United States
sDO YOU HAVE TO HAVE HD TO GET ALL THE CHANNEL ORDO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE BOX FOR HDSOME SAID YOU HAVE TO GET THE BOX FOR HD PLEASE LET ME KNOW @JSARGENT@FARMERSTEL.COM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The question above should be addressed here in part, but direct readers to the page about the transition to DTV in the US. I may make the edits myself if I have time :o) On the question of merging with 'HDTV in the United States' - I can see how the confusion might occur or how it might make sense to cross-reference, but the relationship between HDTV and DTV is only incidental/circumstantial: it is already noted in the article that broadcasters are roughly timing their transition to HD broadcasts with the analog shut-off date, but perhaps clarification could be added as to why broadcasters chose not to begin HDTV broadcasts over analog carrier signals to begin with (bandwidth constraints, as clearly stated in the HDTV article) even though this has been feasible since the conception of HDTV. Flagster (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)flagster
Discussion to Merge and Improve article
This article needs to be redacted in many sections. While the editors likely are trying to help, conflating high-definition television (HDTV) with digital television (DTV) is only increasing confusion among consumers. The section that references DTV at the beginning of the HDTV article should be removed, and some sections below incorrectly state that HDTV will be mandatory after the digital transition; therefore, those need considerable updating.
Now it is my opinion after reviewing the digital television articles of other countries that it is only in America we make distinction of High definition television and digital television. It is my belief that editors have erroneously interchanged the terms confusing a broadcast transmission [digital television] with what that transmission can contain [high definition content]. I believe that the article on HDTV will prove my argument.
If I were not relegated to dial-up internet access, I would be leading the way in article improvement such as:
- The addition of a “History” section explaining evolution and adoption of the digital television as a broadcast standard in America. I have one magazine article from US News & World report from April 1998 that discusses digital television and the initial 2006 deadline to transition.
- The addition of a “Rationale” section explaining the benefits of digital transmissions superior television and the theoretical communication technologies of reusing the allotted broadcast spectrum.
- The addition of a “future event” template to a new section “Analog Broadcast shutdown of February 2009’’ or something to that effect discussing the history to eventually end all analog broadcasting by the American government and the preparations the pending deadline
- In generally, I would like to see the technicalities of digital television be left to those definitive articles because most articles are getting repetitive and with the information overload, editors are being spread thin in trying to maintain it all.--Kevin586 (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that combining (or worse, merging) the articles would simply add to the confusion; many consumers visit these pages in the hopes of having questions like the above answered, & are instead met with disputed content & misinformation. digital tv enabled HD, but they are not otherwise inextricably related. there are enough issues- technical, editorial, business & consumer related- surrounding both standards, to justify the continued existence of separate articles. Duncanrmi (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Digital television in the United States. 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/20121009063612/http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=cb3287ea38e90d35336a20d80a2b3339&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168&idno=47 to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=cb3287ea38e90d35336a20d80a2b3339&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199&idno=47
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.