Talk:Digital television in the United States

Question by 64.178.232.141

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 64.178.232.141 (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)

Virtual Channels

This article needs information about Virtual channels, which map in a confusing way to arbitrary real VHF/UHF channel numbers, it seems. -69.87.203.112 (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

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=47:4.0.1.1.4.11.3.15&idno=47 to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=cb3287ea38e90d35336a20d80a2b3339&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:4.0.1.1.4.11.3.15&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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Digital terrestrial television in the United States → Digital television in the United States – I have two contentions with this article's recent rename by Bankster:

The lede suggests the scope of the article is not merely broadcast television, mentioning cable and satellite services, so the rename actually is not in sync with the article's contents.

While I understand that the term "digital terrestrial television" is used in other parts of the world, it wasn't ever used in the United States. I believe this would be a varieties of English issue, not an article naming consistency issue. Raymie (t • c) 00:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 20:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, move was unjustified in the first place. Bankster needs to stop making moves without consensus. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 06:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Against: the article does not mention any feature regarding non-terrestrial analogue television in a substantial matter. Thus, leaving the title as-it-is would clear the ambiguity on what «digital television» specifically refers in Anglophone America, as cable, satellite, IPTV and even OTT providers are also considered completely-digital TV services. This has also been an issue in the rest of Hispanic American countries, which has already been fixed in the Spanish Wikipedia by adding the word "terrestrial" to the titles about digitalised terrestrial TV in Latin America. --Bankster (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the substance concerns is that the term "digital terrestrial television" is not commonly used in the United States. A Newspapers.com search for "digital terrestrial" primarily brings up articles concerning other countries, including the Netherlands, Japan and China. (A couple of ads and some very early pieces also turned up.) Furthermore, there were no articles about the DTV transition from 2009 that used the term! Notice I am not contesting the validity of this sort of article title for countries we have pages for at similar titles (Digital terrestrial television in Cyprus or Indonesia, for instance—I note there's a split between article titles in this realm and other pages may merit similar country-by-country analyses), but when American media was using the term, it almost exclusively did so while talking about other countries. The title "Digital television in the United States" would be in keeping with WP:ENGVAR and common usage in the US. Raymie (t • c) 06:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• As someone living in the United States, I have no idea what "terrestrial television" means. As the article on terrestrial television mentions, Americans typically use the term "broadcast television". I would support the move back to "Digital television in the United States". Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The article shouldn't have been moved without consensus and the scope of the article clearly warrants it being moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Whilst I understand the case raised by Bankster (and do believe it was done in good faith), I think the counter-argument regarding common usage in the respective country and general understanding of the terminology plays a big factor here. Consistency only works when there is broad understanding of the term that is being adopted. I am not from the states, but it would seem the term used in the renamed article is not in keeping with the general local usage. The current article title can be a redirect to the original one, if the consenus is to revert back to the original. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.