3 ms·

"There are always risks involved with going over the air or using an antenna to receive a digital picture, mainly because digital airwaves are not as forgiving

"There are always risks involved with going over the air or using an antenna to receive a digital picture, mainly because digital airwaves are not as forgiving as analog airwaves and are always subject to interference," said Darryl Ryan, a spokesman for Time Warner Cable. This kind of stuff makes me think that the people who run the cable companies REALLY ARE like the DirecTV commercials. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SglXWd_fY3E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SglXWd_fY3E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0XXS7eswC0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0XXS7eswC0

ars 17y ago
And for the record there is no such thing as a digital antenna. It's exactly the same antenna for analog and digital.
henrikschroder 17y ago
Yeah, that quote jumped out at me as well. Last summer I helped my dad tune the TV at our summer house, and it's so much easier with a digital receiver since they all can display a nice little diagnostic screen where they show the exact signal strength and quality. Makes it a lot easier to figure out where you should place the antenna and in which direction you should point it. And as long as the signal quality is over a certain threshold, you get a perfect picture. ...as compared to the old analog times when you did the same by trying to decide which picture looked better, and when every tiny drop in signal quality made the picture deteriorate. Yeah, them digital airwaves sure aren't as forgiving.
- joeyo 17y ago
  The problem is if the signal you are receiving is near that threshold. Many people would probably prefer some periodic mild fuzz to artifacts and stuttering video every few minutes.
  - misterbwong 17y ago
    Exactly. My parents live in a borderline neighborhood and they'd take static-y channels over nothing/stuttering any day of the week. I'm going to side with Darryl from Time Warner on this one.
    - whatusername 17y ago
      Another vote for people on the borderline. When the digital signal works - it's great. When it doesn't - it's not there at all. When Analogue works -- I can still kinda see there's a football game going on behind the blizzard.

ars 17y ago

And for the record there is no such thing as a digital antenna. It's exactly the same antenna for analog and digital.

henrikschroder 17y ago

Yeah, that quote jumped out at me as well. Last summer I helped my dad tune the TV at our summer house, and it's so much easier with a digital receiver since they all can display a nice little diagnostic screen where they show the exact signal strength and quality. Makes it a lot easier to figure out where you should place the antenna and in which direction you should point it. And as long as the signal quality is over a certain threshold, you get a perfect picture. ...as compared to the old analog times when you did the same by trying to decide which picture looked better, and when every tiny drop in signal quality made the picture deteriorate. Yeah, them digital airwaves sure aren't as forgiving.

joeyo 17y ago
The problem is if the signal you are receiving is near that threshold. Many people would probably prefer some periodic mild fuzz to artifacts and stuttering video every few minutes.
- misterbwong 17y ago
  Exactly. My parents live in a borderline neighborhood and they'd take static-y channels over nothing/stuttering any day of the week. I'm going to side with Darryl from Time Warner on this one.
  - whatusername 17y ago
    Another vote for people on the borderline. When the digital signal works - it's great. When it doesn't - it's not there at all. When Analogue works -- I can still kinda see there's a football game going on behind the blizzard.