Digital Terrestrial

I hate it, two out of three times I have problems

I could give you at least 3 or 4 demonstrations of why digital terrestrial television has been merely an economic maneuver for the benefit of a very few people, without naming names, but I want to limit myself to justifying why digital terrestrial technology is an enormous useless hoax, in addition to being as old as the Old Testament, and completely unused by practically all the states in the world that have instead opted for digital solutions via cable or satellite, those technologies that I call "stable digitals."

Radio signals are transmitted via a carrier wave. To this carrier, when there was still an analog signal, the television broadcaster would add the transmission frequencies. The televisions would then exercise a subcarrier and add it to the incoming signal. The result of this sum was nothing other than the television frequencies. Many of you will surely remember the first televisions where channels had to be tuned via a small potentiometer that did nothing but modulate the subcarrier; in more modern TVs this happened automatically, but the substance was always the same. Was it the beauty of the analog signal? If the signal was disturbed, the viewing was disturbed, but the program could still be seen. What happens with the advent of digital terrestrial...

Digital signals, namely sequences of 0s and 1s identified by wave amplitudes, are sent on the carrier wave. If the signal is received well, it looks very good, but in case of reception interference, the sequences are interrupted; therefore, you can't see a damn thing, unlike analog where, as we said before, if the signal was disturbed, the transmission continued to be visible even with some interference. But there's more: on top of that huge stupidity, if the signal is not perfectly clean, not only does the picture square up or freeze completely, but an entire series of channels belonging to the same "so-called panettone" (UHF-MUX in jargon) cease to be visible. Exactly so, because a MUX is a frequency within which there are several transmitting television channels; therefore, on a certain frequency (e.g., 78MHz), RAI1, RAI2, RAI3 (Lazio in our case), RAI4, RADIO1, RADIO2, and RADIO3 are transmitted. The viewing of all these channels is thus compromised.

Now I say... I can understand the desire to evolve even in the television field, and I don't say this for myself, as I have had to turn on a dusty and perhaps now broken TV in my room for 11 years, but out of a spirit of technological innovation; but damn! If you have to switch to digital, let's switch to satellite, right? There is no signal problem, you just need a bit of sky. A satellite dish does not fear bad weather, a satellite antenna costs 80 euros and is very simple to install. It is not even necessary to call an antenna technician if one arms oneself with a pinch of goodwill and a satellite finder that costs 12 euros.

Now let's summarize the situation between the two digital technologies:

Satellite: Reliability of the antenna in bad weather

Digital Terrestrial: At the first rain with gusts of wind that slightly move the antenna, you can no longer see anything

Satellite: Reception quality -> Just a glimpse of sky is enough to orient the dish and the signal is always high

Digital Terrestrial: The article states that "some millions of Italians have problems with digital terrestrial." Some millions is very vague, but the term "some" makes me estimate it is greater than 1 and less than 10. So let's estimate that 5 million Italians have been unable to watch TV since the switch to digital terrestrial was carried out. 5 million out of a population of 60 million people means that 8% of the Italian population has been unable to watch TV since digital terrestrial technology was introduced. And we haven't considered that this calculation does not take into account the fact that many Italians unofficially do not have a television at home, so it is very likely and conceivable that the percentage could rise close to 20%.

Satellite: Program quality -> The satellite signal has a bandwidth that allows it to transmit content in FULL HD

Digital Terrestrial: Program quality -> Terrible, most programs are in compressed MPEG2 format. HD channels actually have a resolution lower than the DVD format.

Satellite: Offers the possibility of enjoying a huge number of foreign channels

Digital Terrestrial: Offers the possibility of enjoying a limited number of foreign channels

Furthermore, no one knows that soon DVB-T technology will be replaced by DVB-T2, therefore all current decoder devices will have to be replaced by new ones.

In a congress populated by the greatest minds in the world in the technological landscape where Bill Gates was also present, a journalist asked their opinion on digital terrestrial... The answer was: "What?"

Digitals Terrestrials? "

Now I challenge anyone who reads this message to prove to me that the advent of digital terrestrial was not aimed at the sale of these smart cards for Mediaset Premium and La7 premium, more so than the first one obviously. Those that I have listed are facts; you can open any document on digital terrestrial, ask a technician—in fact, I invite you to do so—and you will find that what I have written is perfectly true. However, I am interested in knowing how it is possible to refute such a thesis, so transparent, and with what arguments...

Ok TheSimon, but you compared (rightly so) digital technology with satellite technology.

For those at home, it might be that you compare it with what you had before, which was 7 mediocre channels and a dozen pieces of junk...etc.

Now the number of channels is high; clearly the levels are still the same, but even if there isn't quality... at least there is quantity.

If you give me this answer, my point of view is not clear to you...

My point of view is: since they FORCED everyone to switch to digital, why not switch to satellite, which is a very high-quality technology and above all it WORKS, rather than towards digital terrestrial, which is a technology that doesn't work at all, of doubtful quality (these considerations should be clear from the long analysis post I left earlier) and usable as it should be without problems only by one part of the population?

Answer. Because otherwise Berlusconi wouldn't have been able to sell his shitty subscription cards...

I quote TheSimon's comments... it was a piece of crap!!!!

I am asking, but didn't satellite exist even before digital?

So one would get it if they wanted to ... just like now.

In view of what was supposed to be an evolutionary logic, did you have all the pre-digital networks on satellite?

Annuccia wrote:

I ask, but didn't satellite TV exist even before digital?

So one would get it if they wanted to ... just like now.

In terms of what was supposed to be an evolutionary logic, did you have all the pre-digital networks on satellite?

Satellite TV IS digital par excellence. It has existed for decades, tested all over the world, it has never caused any problems and does not suffer from coverage issues because it works as long as there is a bit of sky, and everyone has the sky on their roof.

There are many more channels on satellite than on digital terrestrial.

If they wanted to force Italians to buy decoders, they could have done so for satellite ones, not for DVB-T ones.

Obviously at the moment on satellite they sometimes scramble channels, especially when they show movies for the first time, but if there were plans to change the transmission technology, that would have been the least of the problems... One would decide to always watch in unencrypted format and end of problem.

Italy is a mostly hilly country and since these frequencies only propagate in a straight line (you need to "see" the repeater), digital terrestrial television has caused difficulties for many users.

This problem can be overcome by resorting to satellite transmission using a suitable receiver (TVSAT) to see everything clearly.

TheSimon wrote:

My point of view is: since they FORCED everyone to switch to digital, why not switch to satellite, which is a very high-quality technology and above all it WORKS, rather than towards digital terrestrial, which is a technology that doesn't work at all, of dubious quality (these considerations should be clear from the long analysis post I left earlier) and properly usable without problems only by one part of the population?

Answer. Because otherwise Berlusconi wouldn't have been able to sell his shitty subscription cards...

it's not just because of that... http://www.tradingfo...simo-conflitto)