Today... that works and sounds great. After 2009, that could cause more confusion.

After the analog cutoff, remapping is no longer necessary. Why not just go the extra distance and when they turn off analog, everyone goes to the permanent channel/frequency assignment?

If the PSIP generator fails... how does one know what channel to tune?

What am I missing with this?

I want to make sure I understand this. If I am in Altanta, and if I directly enter UHF channel 43 into my ATSC tuner, then it tunes the digital programming transmitted by the analog channel 69 licenseholder but which is broadcast on UHF channel 43, but it shows up on my channel chart as 43.1 instead of as 69.1, as the FCC edict appears to require?

And is spwace's concern that if some other licensee has a right to a channel 43 - either a nearby analog channel 43 licenseholder, or even a nearby channel 43 DTV assignment - then the fact that my tuner has now assigned the notation to 43.1 in its memory to the ATSC frequency band of UHF channel 43 might inhibit my ability to tune in some other programming, like perhaps the digital programming of my nearest analog 43 licenseholder, which is actually transmitted on some channel other than 43?

If the Atlanta channel 69 license holder's assignment to channel 43 is not permanent, then perhaps it doesn't want receivers firmly mapping actual UHF channel 43 to guide channel 69.1, since they will have to somehow delete that from those receiver's memories when their permanent DTV assignment is finalized. I accidentally manually mapped some non-channels into an HR10 guide, and as far as I can tell, the only way to remove them is to do a master reset of the entire programming guide, which I am unwilling to do. I'm not inclined to conclude that this license-holder is in violation of an FCC regulation under these circumstances. I suspect that there is either an exception for their situation or that they have received an exemption.

Does the analog cut-off specifically require converting all translators to ATSC?

This summer the FCC started to take applications for licenses for ATSC translators and other low-power stations. So I suspect the analog cutoff date applies to them as well. But with the relatively short lead time to get those translators up and running, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an extension of the deadline for those transmitters only.

I'd like to add my two cents to this discussion about PSIP/channel remapping.

It is my understanding from what I have read that the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) lobbied for ATSC channel remapping to NTSC channel numbers to allow stations to avoid the costs and confusion associated with re-branding of their stations. As an example, locally, here in Denver, that means that the local Fox station, which brands itself as "Fox 31", doesn't have to change its logo's, billboards, news studio set, web site, and confuse the public by referring to itself as "Fox 32", its ATSC channel allocation, after analog cutoff.

While there have been references in this thread to channel remapping being "the law", I am unaware of any law that requires channel remapping. At best, I believe this remapping scenario is part of the Regulations issued by the FCC pertaining to PSIP data which, in this case, were written with the NAB in mind. Regulations are not laws. They are written to explain/clarify, incorporate legislative intent (Committee Reports) that are not specifically written into the law, provide transition guidelines, etc. Regulations can be changed without an act of Congress. Laws cannot. If anyone knows of an actual law that governs PSIP, I'd appreciate a cite.

The ATSC issued A Broadcasters Guide To PSIP, dated October 2, 2002, which I believe covers some of the questions raised in this thread. In Section 2 of this document, the following is written:
Major Channel. In most cases, the previously assigned, paired NTSC channel is the
major channel number.

Note that it says most. It doesn't say all. That's because of the following.

The document goes on to say in Section 4 regarding information to be entered in the Virtual Channel Table portion of the PSIP that:
(Use the) major channel number, entered once. (Use the same channel number as the NTSC channel number assignment. If no paired NTSC channel, use the assigned DTV
channel number.)

So it appears from what I can discern from this that the Atlanta station mentioned above should be remapping to channel 69 and that any new stations that do not have a corresponding NTSC channel number should map to their DTV channel number. I do not see any provision to "make up" a phantom NTSC channel number in the latter case.

I purchased 3 Accurian tuners from RS during their closeout of this product last year. One of them must have been a returned unit because when I turned it on, it was programmed with the Dallas stations. I did a scan, without erasing anything (I later figured out how to get the Dallas info out of the receiver), and all of the Denver channels it could find were scanned in. One of these, channel 4, duplicated channel 4 in Dallas. The Accurian handled this situation as two separate channels. When I tuned the Dallas channel 4, I of course got nothing. When I tuned the Denver channel 4, it worked fine. So this case shows that at least some tuners can differentiate between two different channels remapped to the same virtual channel. I presume they key in on the actual RF channel.

In my area, two stations remap to virtual channel 5, one in Cheyenne, WY and the other in Pueble, CO. They have different digital RF channels. I believe there are folks east of Denver, in towns such as Bennett, that can probably receive both stations. I receive the Cheyenne station. It would be interesting to hear from any who can to see how their receivers handle the situation. Also, when I lived in western NY state, prior to digital broadcasting, I could receive channel 12 from Erie, PA pointing my antenna southwest and channel 12 from Peterborough, ONT pointing my antenna north. I believe Canada has adopted the same remapping scenario that we have. I have to wonder how the digital counterparts of these two stations will show up on tuners since they probably won't be on the same digital RF.

Sorry for the length of the post!

If I missed something here, I'm sure someone will clarify!!

Here is a link to the section of the PSIP guide I posted earlier. You are right that it is a regulation, but violation of FCC regulations will result in some pretty healthy fines.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8614435&&#post8614435

The entire PSIP regulation came out in the 2nd DTV Transition Review in 2004. It is available here, news release - http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250542A1.pdf , and the actual document
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A1.pdf . It is quite lengthy but if I remember correctly, the PSIP issues are around paragraphs 150 or 170.

It states that whatever channel a station winds up on post transition (post Feb 17,2009) they shall continue to remap to their analog channel number. If an old analog channel is reused by a new station and that channel number is in use in that market, the new station WILL NOT USE that channel number but will pick an used channel number in that area.

Edit - It is paragraph 153. Here it is:

153. Major/Minor Channel Numbers. In the NPRM, we noted that the ATSC PSIP standard
attaches the assignment of "major channel number" values to a broadcaster's current NTSC RF channel
number regardless of the actual RF channel used for DTV transmission, and sought comment on whether
there was any need to modify this standard. For example, a broadcaster who operates an NTSC service
on channel 4 and a DTV service on channel 27 would use the major channel 4. The PSIP "minor channel
number" is used to identify programs and other services, which are a part of the DTV service. For
example, channel 4.1 may be an HDTV program service and it may be multiplexed with an SDTV
service, which is channel 4.2. According to ATSC, this allows a viewer to easily "surf" from, for
example, 4.0 (NTSC) to 4.1 (HDTV) to 4.2 (SDTV). ATSC, MSTV/NAB, and others state that the
major/minor channel number scheme established in ATSC A/65B will be useful. ATSC states that the
PSIP Standard defines specific requirements for use of "major channel numbers" to provide viewers with
a uniform methodology to access DTV services and to avoid conflict with duplicative numbers in a
market. The major channel number also allows broadcasters to maintain their local brand identification.
We see no reason to modify this standard. During the development of PSIP, ATSC recognized that in
some situations broadcasters would need to deviate from the rule that the major channel number is the
same as the broadcaster's NTSC channel number and created certain exceptions. We agree with ATSC
and MSTV/NAB that these exceptions should provide broadcasters with the necessary flexibility to
address most circumstances. To the extent broadcasters have a unique situation that is not provided for in
PSIP, the Commission may grant exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The correct TSIDs (local edit - Transport Stream Identification - a unique number assigned to each analog and digital stations so ATSC receivers can differenciate between the analog and digital signals of a station - this number is NOT THE SAME as the remapped major channel number. It is a unique 4 digit number assigned to each and every analog and digital station - even numbers denoting analog and odd numbers denoting digital stations.) must be used to
ensure that receivers link the analog and digital channels properly. Accordingly, broadcasters are required
to transmit the TSIDs assigned for their stations in their digital transmission. During the transition period
while both analog and digital signals are broadcast, stations are required to transmit the NTSC TSID in
line 21, field 2 in order for the receiver to locate the programs referenced in PSIP.

I appreciate the info, foxeng. I thought I had the "final" document, but I couldn't find it on my hard drive, so I tried to use the best info I had at hand.

Is it fair to say that when a new channel (without an NTSC counterpart) goes on the air, it isn't prohibited from choosing its actual RF channel number to remap to as long as no other channel in the DMA is remapping to it? In other words, new channels aren't required to pick a second channel number to remap if they don't want to?

Also, it looks like the 4 digit TSID number eliminates any problems receivers may have with remapping different stations to the same channel. I wonder if Canada is using the same standard?

I appreciate the info, foxeng. I thought I had the "final" document, but I couldn't find it on my hard drive, so I tried to use the best info I had at hand.

Is it fair to say that when a new channel (without an NTSC counterpart) goes on the air, it isn't prohibited from choosing its actual RF channel number to remap to as long as no other channel in the DMA is remapping to it? In other words, new channels aren't required to pick a second channel number to remap if they don't want to?

Also, it looks like the 4 digit TSID number eliminates any problems receivers may have with remapping different stations to the same channel. I wonder if Canada is using the same standard?

Yes:

• For a new broadcaster without an existing NTSC license, the major_channel_number for the Digital TV channels controlled by the broadcaster shall be set to the FCC assigned RF channel number for ATSC Digital TV broadcast. E.g. Assume a broadcaster who currently has no NTSC broadcast license applies and receives a license for Digital ATSC broadcast on RF channel 49. That broadcaster will use major_channel_number 49 for identification of the digital channels that it is controlling on RF channel 49.

One more passage about station branding and remapping:

172. If a station chooses to include its channel number in its station identification, we will
require that the station use the major (analog) channel number. As discussed above, we have decided to
adopt the ATSC A/65B standard into our rules. One of the most important benefits of PSIP is that it
defines specific requirements for use of "major" channel numbers to provide viewers with a uniform
methodology to access DTV services and avoid conflict with duplicative numbers in a market. PSIP will
allow viewers to see a broadcaster's major channel number regardless of the broadcaster's allocated
digital broadcast channel. Thus, PSIP allows broadcasters to keep their existing channel number in the
digital world, thereby assisting viewers who have come to identify these numbers with particular
broadcasters and preserving the investment broadcasters have made in marketing these numbers. We
believe that it is consistent with our adoption of the PSIP standard into our rules to require stations
electing to identify themselves by channel number to use their major channel number, which is defined in
the PSIP standard as the broadcaster's current NTSC RF (analog) channel number. Thus, a broadcaster
who operates an NTSC service on channel "26" and a DTV service on channel "27" would use the major
channel "26" in station identification announcements. We will permit stations that choose to multicast to
include additional information in their station announcements identifying each program stream. Thus, a
station with major channel number 26 might have channel 26.0 (NTSC program stream), channel 26.1
(HDTV) and 26.2 (SDTV). Stations may also provide information in the station announcement
identifying the network affiliation of the program service (e.g., "WXXX-DT, channel 26.1, YYY
(community of license), your WB network channel").

Here is the MSTV list of station TSIDs.

http://www.mstv.org/docs/TSIDASGN-r6b-1.pdf

Pretend this is February of 2009. All analog is now dead.

How are the channels going to be mapped?

There are a lot of references to NTSC/analog above and that is no longer applicable after the cutoff.

Pretend this is February of 2009. All analog is now dead.

How are the channels going to be mapped?

Same as they are now.

If a station's analog was channel 8 pre-transition and their digital was channel 35, post transition, if they did not elect to go back to channel 8 for digital, the channel 8 goes away and the 35 continues to remap to 8. Of course if the station elected to go back to 8, then 35 is shutdown, 8 is converted from analog to digital and the remapping continues to show 8. In this example, the station continues to show 8 as the remap no matter what channel the station is on.

Further example. Real life case, a station close by here operates on channel 5 analog and channel 53 digital. They currently remap to 5. Post transition, since 53 will not be a TV channel they can't stay on 53. They have decided to not go back to 5 because of the technical issues of low band VHF and digital so they will have to move to a completely new channel, in this case it will be 48. Post transition, they will turn off channel 5 and move 53 to 48 and still remap as 5 even though RF 48 is a new channel for the area. That is the law and how it works.

I follow all of that... but again, what happens if a new station lights up and is assigned channel 5? I know that this is unlikely (but not impossible), but what PSIP channel do THEY use?

I'm not arguing with anyone on this, but it just doesn't sound practical to me that we still have to putz around with two channels (real and virtual) after the analog cutoff. It was great as a transitional tool, but I just don't understand the need to continue this practice. It will be confusing enough for those that aren't as 'informed'.

I follow all of that... but again, what happens if a new station lights up and is assigned channel 5? I know that this is unlikely (but not impossible), but what PSIP channel do THEY use?

I'm not arguing with anyone on this, but it just doesn't sound practical to me that we still have to putz around with two channels (real and virtual) after the analog cutoff. It was great as a transitional tool, but I just don't understand the need to continue this practice. It will be confusing enough for those that aren't as 'informed'.

It's really no different than what you are used to. The old channel numbering system didn't have any real relationship between the channel numbers and the frequencies they represent. Channel 6 and 7 don't represent consecutive frequency slots, the FM radio band is in between them.

When you tuned to channel 40, you didn't need to know that you were instructing your set to select the frequency 627.25 Mhz and when you tune a virtual channel you don't need to know what frequency it is selecting. The software in your receiver and the PSIP data will handle that for you.

I follow all of that... but again, what happens if a new station lights up and is assigned channel 5? I know that this is unlikely (but not impossible), but what PSIP channel do THEY use?

I'm not arguing with anyone on this, but it just doesn't sound practical to me that we still have to putz around with two channels (real and virtual) after the analog cutoff. It was great as a transitional tool, but I just don't understand the need to continue this practice. It will be confusing enough for those that aren't as 'informed'.

If the new station is on an RF channel that is not used virtually, they will use the actual RF channel. If the RF channel is already used virtually, the new station will have to pick a channel number not in use in the area. The FCC hasn't defined yet exactly how that will work but I suspect there will have to be some kind of registration with the FCC and even some kind of approval process. But again, we don't know yet.

I'm not arguing with anyone on this, but it just doesn't sound practical to me that we still have to putz around with two channels (real and virtual) after the analog cutoff. It was great as a transitional tool, but I just don't understand the need to continue this practice. It will be confusing enough for those that aren't as 'informed'.
There is no need here, but the NAB wanted it and that I believe is why it will work this way.

There should be no confusion. I bought my son a new HDTV so I saw how it works. His TV does a scan when set up. There is no ability to add individual channels so there is no need to ever know an actual channel number. There was a channel scan option and a scan to look for additional channels option. Thats it.

Rick R

There should be no confusion. I bought my son a new HDTV so I saw how it works. His TV does a scan when set up. There is no ability to add individual channels so there is no need to ever know an actual channel number. There was a channel scan option and a scan to look for additional channels option. Thats it.

Rick R

Yeah, and I suppose for people "close enough" to use an omnidirectional antenna, that works OK, as long as they don't have too many religious and infomercial programmers..

For those who are further away, have severe multipath, or otherwise need a highly directional antenna, that system completely sucks. You need to be able to add channels manually, corresponding to physical frequency, then tweak antenna rotor. That means there is a need to find the physical frequency (at least the "real" channel number, the tuner can convert that to MHz).

If you read some of the "reception woes" threads, the 2nd paragraph describes the real world. In fact, it is wise to refuse to buy a tv that can ONLY find channels by scanning (no manual add/delete).

It's really no different than what you are used to.

The receiver can't do anything if it can't reliably decode the PSIP data, and that is quite a bit different from what happens with NTSC if a poor signal is present. Although, the analog TV's that "mute" the screen with blue/black when a extremely poor signal is present doesn't help in some cases either.

I don't think doing a "rescan" everytime you need to adjust the antenna to receive any given station as Foxeng suggested earlier is going to cut it. For one thing, in many cases(such as if you are adjusting an indoor antenna, or if you're experiencing multipath issues, which can sometimes be quite frequency specific) you are just shooting in the dark concerning where the antenna needs to be aimed/how it needs to be orientated until you *may* happen to get it in a good posistion and the receiver can decode the PSIP data so the station "shows up" at all on the virtual channel.

Yes, there should be ways to "add channels" and "scan in" channels from different directions(and there is on all receiver's I've used), and there should be a way to manually tune to the RF channel # and check the STB's meter reading/adjust the antenna, but I'm not so sure all receivers allow this currently - and Rick R's comment seems to confirm this.

-------------------------


There is no ability to add individual channels so there is no need to ever know an actual channel number. Rick R

Then I guess he just won't be watching any stations he has to readjust his antenna for, as he'll either never know they are there, or he'll have to rescan everytime he reaims the antenna.... OR if it also has an option to allow you to "add" channels by a scan(w/o deleting channels received in other directions), as one of my receivers does here after changing antenna direction/orientation, he might get luckier as long as his antenna is "properly" aimed and/or orientated ....

I guess that's what the NAB wants as well. If a station can't be received when someone does a channel scan, I guess that person just won't be watching that station .....

------------------------------

Personally, I don't really have a problem with stations using PSIP as is currently required --- note that channel remapping is not the only PSIP "function" that is required - full EPG info out 12 hours is also required, although many stations are not doing that properly yet -- are they getting fined heavily Yet? what about EIA--708 digital captions? How many stations are doing 708 captions properly at this time? ..

Nor do I really mind the channel remapping, and I don't think anything really needs to change on the station/transmitting end as far as it is concerned ... I'm just saying there are instances when there can be problems, and I think it would be best if :

#1). The user had the option to "turn off" VCT remapping entirely on their receiver if necessary or if they so desire.

#2). All receivers should have the capabiltiy to fall back to MPEG2 info and still be able to "work" when there is a problem with PSIP tables - I.e. Decode the audio/video streams -- Evidently, from what I understand this is not allways the case, and apparently there are some receivers out there which won't decode anything without proper PSIP being sent ...

#3). All receivers need to be able to manually add indivdual channels into the "channel surf list" -- By RF channel ..

#4). The info RF channel # used should be widely available/accessable for viewers, so they *can* tune to that channel when/if necessary so they can get some sort of reading off their receiver's meter in order to adjust the antenna for best results ... (contrary perhaps to current rules, I personally think it should be included in TOH ID - including perhaps currently for the analog station as well -- after all, Viewer's won't see that TOH ID from the digital until they can decode the signal ) ....

#5). Addition : I think All receivers should handle PSIP/these tuning issues in a standardized way .... I've owned four different ATSC receivers since 2001, and they *all* do this differently ...

----------------------------------

Anyway, perhaps Ratman may be thinking about the following ---- I can report that on several occcasions I've been able to receive multiple stations(via DX) which were on different RF channels, but which remapped to the SAME VC(major/minor channel #) -- And, what happened was(with the reciever I was using at least), I just got multiple versions of the same channel numbers, everything decoded fine .... For example One station showed up as VC # 2.1, 2.2, and another station showed up as 2.1 ... So, using the channel "up" button, I had one station on 2.1, 2.2, then channel up again, and a different station appeared on the "next" channel 2.1 ... I don't recall which one "popped up" if I punched in "2.1" on the remote ...

One problem I have run into at times occurs when you are trying to manually tune to an ATSC RF channel(Thankfully I have 2 receiver''s that let you do this "directly" ) which is the *same* channel number as a PSIP VC # that's in your "channel memory" list .... Granted, right *now*, that's the same channel # as a local analog station, but that will not be the case post analog shut off, and neverthess as it is I've been able to receive distant DTV stations co-channel to local analog stations on occasion, even when they are on the air .... One frequent example for me would be WCMH-DT 14(remap to 4.x) - 78 Miles(70 degrees), and WPTO-DT 28(14.x remap ), 18 Miles(252 degrees - Note I have some fairly significant terrain sheilding in that direction, which makes this station on the verge of generally being a bit "snowy", even without the DTV CCI) ..

On one receiver here, it isn't really a problem as I can go into its "channel edit" list and manually deselect the RF channel that corresponds to the VC that's "in the way" .... On another receiver, It is a problem, and I would have to do a channel scan with the antenna disconnected to clear it out, and then reconnect the antenna and tune manually to the desired ATSC RF channel(which it does allow, thankfully) ....

It's really no different than what you are used to. The old channel numbering system didn't have any real relationship between the channel numbers and the frequencies they represent. Channel 6 and 7 don't represent consecutive frequency slots, the FM radio band is in between them.

When you tuned to channel 40, you didn't need to know that you were instructing your set to select the frequency 627.25 Mhz and when you tune a virtual channel you don't need to know what frequency it is selecting. The software in your receiver and the PSIP data will handle that for you.

The difference though is that channel 40 was set to frequency 627.25MHz at the manufacturer, so that every time you selected 40, you got that frequency. Now, if the tuner doesn't get a PSIP stream from a scan, the user cannot enter channel 27.1 and get the channel if it is broadcast on 627.25 MHz because the tuner has no way of knowing where to find that channel. If the user doesn't know the acutal RF channel assignment and the autoscan doesn't pick it up, then they are screwed.

Nitewatchman addressed the issues accurately IMO.

Here's the wrench... how many of us have experienced PSIP issues? Tune a channel today and tomorrow it's gone. Select the "real' channel number and all is well again. This is when the 'gripes' will arise. J6P may figure it out in time, but for the non-internet savvy, let's turn on the tube to channel 6 and watch "wheel of fortune" crowd.

Any issues with the local encoders and the virtual mapping in any tuner can get hosed.

I really suggest that they all need to "re-think" the strategy as to how they cutover and move forward with this matter. It will already be confusing enough to many. No need to make it worse. Again... what is the need for virtual channel mapping after the analog cutoff? No analog. New tuner, new channels, same stations, same programs.

It's easy for "us" to resolve these issues from our experience over the past few years, but IMO it's seems that someone hasn't put a lot thought into the potential complaints.

(P.S. I know this sounds like a 180 from me based on the beginning of this thread, but this (IMO) is a different obstacle above and beyond the cutoff, almost free digital tuners and reception, in general.)

Can each stream in an ATSC signal be assigned a different virtual channel? I'm thinking of a situation where several low-power stations would form a cooperative to share 1 higher power transmitter for after the digital transition (or more likely sub-let a channel on a full-power licensee but keep thier current channel number).

It is amazing the pie in the sky stuff I am seeing here. First off, the new sets I am seeing has an option to add stations through additional scanning WITHOUT losing what you already have. Once it is scanned, it is there. Anyone who has had an antenna has some idea where the towers are. That has been the way since analog and receive antennas came on the scene. With stations now at full power, scanning isn't as difficult as it was. And if a station happens to be lost, the mapping in the receiver WILL NOT BE LOST until a complete scan is asked for contrary to what some of you are trying to suggest.

This gloom and doom is quite funny because it highlights the level of misunderstanding of what is really happening here.

Can each stream in an ATSC signal be assigned a different virtual channel? I'm thinking of a situation where several low-power stations would form a cooperative to share 1 higher power transmitter for after the digital transition (or more likely sub-let a channel on a full-power licensee but keep thier current channel number).

Technically yes. Legally no. An LPTV station can't up power beyond what it is licensed for and if a consortium of LPTVs get a full power station, the FCC will not allow it operate as a satellite station of the LPTVs. It would have to operate as a full power station on its own. What can and does happen is when a company owns a full power station and has a LPTV in the area with different programming, they can put the LPTV stream on the full power station as a second stream but the LPTV has to still be operating as well. Many full power stations do this now when they have one station's transmitter is on one side of the market and the other full power station is on the other side of the market and viewers on the opposite sides of the market can't receive the signal, they will put both stations streams on the both transmitters to cover the market.

And if a station happens to be lost, the mapping in the receiver WILL NOT BE LOST until a complete scan is asked for contrary to what some of you are trying to suggest..

Uh... you're quite innacuarate with your assumptions. Yes, some receivers may handle channel memory differently, but I can (and probably others) attest for a fact that when my local CBS and FOX affilitates had PSIP problems, the only way tune the channel as to select the "real" channel number. This has also occurred with my local ABC affiliate.

As for "pie in the sky"... I don't understand how you can take such a stance to advocate have the potential for multiple channel identifiers (forthe lack of a better term). I.E. Real, virtual and "used to be".

There's no misunderstanding... it's a request to make a conversion/transition easier for everyone.

If it wasn't for the fact the average Joe's VCR still blinks "12:00" the ultimate solution would be to have a European style frequency only designation - there are no "channels" in the typical European Pal system - and I assume this will continue in the DVB-T world.

You just do a scan and channels map 1 - whatever in frequency order. My multi system Philips I use today is that way - I watch channel 1-11 (4-50 on the NTSC scale). The tuner scan is like a spectrum analyzer - it doesn't care about channel #s - it just looks for a signal high enough out of the noise floor (around TV frequencies). Having NBC on 1, FOX on 2, ABC on 3, CBS on 4, PBS on 5 is too complicated for folks who've watched them on 4, 5, 7, 9 and 26 for the past 30 years. :rolleyes:

Uh... you're quite innacuarate with your assumptions. Yes, some receivers may handle channel memory differently, but I can (and probably others) attest for a fact that when my local CBS and FOX affilitates had PSIP problems, the only way tune the channel as to select the "real" channel number. This has also occurred with my local ABC affiliate.

As for "pie in the sky"... I don't understand how you can take such a stance to advocate have the potential for multiple channel identifiers (forthe lack of a better term). I.E. Real, virtual and "used to be".

There's no misunderstanding... it's a request to make a conversion/transition easier for everyone.

I'm not sure why you think this is so complicated. You scan in the channels and then you tune to the channel number you have always known and loved. The all or nothing nature of DTV is going to be a problem whether or not the channels are remapped. If you do need to tune to the actual RF channel due to a PSIP failure, the actual channels are not exactly a state secret.

My Sony KD-34XBR960 will allow a full channel scan, where the memory is erased and the channels are re-scanned, or it will allow you to add digital channels, in which case it will leave the existing channels in memory and add anything new it finds. If your receiver won't allow you to do that, blame the manufacturer not the station or the ATSC.

. . . . . If your receiver won't allow you to do that, blame the manufacturer not the station or the ATSC.

This applies to a lot of the PSIP problems we've seen as well. Better error trapping and escape routines in the receiver embedded software would have compensated for broadcaster encoding errors. Since programming should improve over time, and encoding errors decrease, this is likely not to be a major problem in the future.

Carl

Uh... you're quite innacuarate with your assumptions. Yes, some receivers may handle channel memory differently, but I can (and probably others) attest for a fact that when my local CBS and FOX affilitates had PSIP problems, the only way tune the channel as to select the "real" channel number. This has also occurred with my local ABC affiliate.

If a station changes its PSIP, receivers may have to rescan. That is a change to the metadata whether it is an intended change or not. That has nothing to do with a station just not being received after having been received. Two completely different subjects. As time goes on and stations get more familiar with PSIP, that will become less and less of an issue.

As for "pie in the sky"... I don't understand how you can take such a stance to advocate have the potential for multiple channel identifiers (forthe lack of a better term). I.E. Real, virtual and "used to be".

PSIP metadata wasn't created in a vacuum as you seem to think. To put it simply and plainly, I can call it "pie in the sky" because I understand how PSIP works (I work with it everyday) and you appear not to. Time for PSIP 101. Ready?

Every station is issued something called a TSID or a Transport Stream IDentification. ( http://www.mstv.org/docs/TSIDASGN-r6b-1.pdf if you would like to see what TSIDs have been issued to the stations in your area) It is a UNIQUE (meaning no two stations have the same TSID) 4 digit number. When a receiver locks in on this TSID, everything else is referenced to it. Video PIDs (program ID's) Audio PIDs, metadata PIDs, major channel numbers, minor channel numbers, everything related to that station. As long as the station doesn't mess with the PSIP metadata, your receiver will retain all of the info for that station whether your receiver has a signal lock or not. So when a receiver asks for an additional scan, (not a complete rescan) it will keep all the TSIDs and all related metadata while it adds new PSIP information for additional stations. You can also have MULTIPLE stations with the SAME major channel number in your receiver. For receivers who have a manual channel add, it works the same way.

Real case example, I have multiple channel 9s in my receiver now, one for a market south of me on RF channel 34 and one for a station that is east of me on RF channel 10. Depending on which channel 9 I go to in my guide the receiver looks to see which TSID is referenced to that channel 9 and the receiver will tune to the correct RF channel and I see that station. I know which one is which because the stations short information data (call letter field) is in the guide. Neither channel 9 is local and sometimes I can't receive either channel 9, but that metadata stays there because I haven't asked for a complete rescan since that data was received even though I have asked for additional scans on many occasions since both channel 9s were originally received.

Now the FCC DOES NOT want two stations in the same market to have the same channel number, not for technical reasons since as I have shown the ATSC protocol standard for PSIP takes that into account. The reason has to do with confusion of the viewing public. There is no reason any longer for actual channel numbers when virtual channel numbers work just as well since some of the channels of stations in a market will no longer be TV channels.
.
There's no misunderstanding... it's a request to make a conversion/transition easier for everyone.

History has shown that when stations change actual channels or networks, the viewing public suffers and some never really get it. With EVERY TV station in the country making some kind of a change and this being forced on the public by a mandate of the federal government, their intent is to make this as painless as possible for the viewing public. They feel this is the best way to do it and they have no plans or intentions to change it. This is the way it will be from now on.

There is no reason any longer for actual channel numbers when virtual channel numbers work just as well since some of the channels of stations in a market will no longer be TV channels.

I would have strongly preferred they got rid of channel numbers completely and tuned by a stations call letters or some other unique mnemonic name. If you are going to use virtual channel mapping it's silly to stick to only numbers.

- Tom

make your own- I would use call signs

I would have strongly preferred they got rid of channel numbers completely and tuned by a stations call letters or some other unique mnemonic name. If you are going to use virtual channel mapping it's silly to stick to only numbers.

- Tom

The problem with that is stations change call letters all of the time and most people have no idea what the call letters are of their stations anyway but they know the channel number.

Well, what about the basics: abc, cbs...

Well, what about the basics: abc, cbs...

Stations change networks as well and what do you do with the stations that have no relationships with any network?

Bottom line, it is channel based and that is not changing no matter what you or I think. The FCC has spoken.

So the circle comes around- we rely on the remaping ability of the tuner? Retained in the EPG-or where ever. Stations must retain this info? TSID? Well, that's a horse of a different color.

Many places have already started doing that. The FOX station in Charlotte markets themselves as FOX Charlotte and By coincidence the FOX station in Greenville, SC markets themselves as FOX Carolina so it is happening, not just in Detroit. I suspect you will have both since you have had both in the past.

foxeng,

How long have the FOX stations in Charlotte and Greenville been doing that? A local NBC station here just had a complete makeover done...new branding, set, graphics, etc. The new branding is "NBC10"...I thought it was kind of odd they decided with using the channel # for the new branding... although every station in my area that I know of, has their channel # in their branding. I can see why stations will remap, in my opinion it will cause less confusion than if they didn't.

I'm not sure why you think this is so complicated. You scan in the channels and then you tune to the channel number you have always known and loved. The all or nothing nature of DTV is going to be a problem whether or not the channels are remapped. If you do need to tune to the actual RF channel due to a PSIP failure, the actual channels are not exactly a state secret..

"I" do not think it is complicated. I can see that in 2009, those that are not as informed as us "will" find it very complicated. Plain and simple!

I also understand how DTV receivers work. Been using one for ~5 years.

As for Grammom trying to tune into her favorite show when there are PSIP problems, that's when it becomes a concern. How does "she" know what the "real" channel is? I don't think she'll be logging into AVS or Antennaweb to find out. I think to her it will be... "crap my TV's broken. I can't watch channel 10!". :confused: How long will it take her to figure out she may have to manually input to the channel (real) or perform a rescan? I know... she just calls her son who knows everything about "TV stuff".

Maybe the TV guides included with the Sunday paper will list every possible channel number for each local channel. Keep punching those buttons on the remote Granny!. ;)

foxeng,

How long have the FOX stations in Charlotte and Greenville been doing that? A local NBC station here just had a complete makeover done...new branding, set, graphics, etc. The new branding is "NBC10"...I thought it was kind of odd they decided with using the channel # for the new branding... although every station in my area that I know of, has their channel # in their branding. I can see why stations will remap, in my opinion it will cause less confusion than if they didn't.

If I remember correctly, WHNS, the FOX station in the Asheville/Greenville/Spartanburg market started calling themselves FOX Carolina about 2 or 3 years ago. I am not sure when WCCB in Charlotte started calling themselves FOX Charlotte, but I think it was pre-2002.

Every station in my market brands by their OTA channel number.

WOLO, the ABC affiliate in Columbia SC, started branding itself as "ABC Columbia" sometime during the last year or so. When I started watching the station a year and a half ago, after switching from analog to digital (can't get a watchable analog signal), they were using a logo with "25" in a circle, which has disappeared.

They're owned by Bahakel, which also owns WCCB (FOX Charlotte). I wonder if Bahakel's other stations have also dropped the channel number from their branding?

I doubt that many people even know what channel or what call letters they are watching. I know this from experience, i.e.: answering the phone.

They just tune around until they see Katie Couric, then they know they are watching the "Today" show :D .

"I" do not think it is complicated. I can see that in 2009, those that are not as informed as us "will" find it very complicated. Plain and simple!

I also understand how DTV receivers work. Been using one for ~5 years.

As for Grammom trying to tune into her favorite show when there are PSIP problems, that's when it becomes a concern. How does "she" know what the "real" channel is? I don't think she'll be logging into AVS or Antennaweb to find out. I think to her it will be... "crap my TV's broken. I can't watch channel 10!". :confused: How long will it take her to figure out she may have to manually input to the channel (real) or perform a rescan? I know... she just calls her son who knows everything about "TV stuff".

Maybe the TV guides included with the Sunday paper will list every possible channel number for each local channel. Keep punching those buttons on the remote Granny!. ;)

What does Grammom do now when her favorite station is off the air for any reason? Does she understand that sometimes there are technical problems and assume they will be corrected, sooner or later? Do you believe that, post 2009, stations will ignore PSIP issues that could make it difficult for people to tune their signal, or that they won't have backups to any equipment in the air chain? There will always be people who can't figure it out. I get those calls at the station I work for, but they really represent a very small percentage of the total audience.

What does Grammom do now when her favorite station is off the air for any reason?
Let's be realistic... that rarely happens with analog. If it does... it's during 'extremely' bad weather. That's expected. When the problem is resolved, she doesn't have to rescan. Or... perhaps select the "real" channel it's only a PSIP genertor problem. Unbeknownst to her... she can/could that, right?

Does she understand that sometimes there are technical problems and assume they will be corrected, sooner or later?
yes...grammy has been watching TV for over 50 years. She's doesn't drool...

Do you believe that, post 2009, stations will ignore PSIP issues that could make it difficult for people to tune their signal, or that they won't have backups to any equipment in the air chain?
In a perfect world... yes. But based on the past 5+ years experience ( and I live a major area, Philadelphia), I don't have a 'warm fuzzy' that they will be fully redundant. Hell... they still can't 'flip the switch' to HD many times!

There will always be people who can't figure it out. I get those calls at the station I work for, but they really represent a very small percentage of the total audience.
Of course there will... expect after the cutoff, there will be more. Keep your phone line open and have someone to help out those that "can't figure it out".

I know that sounds simplistic to "us", but the concept just isn't as easily grasped by those (a few million?) that just expect to tune to a particular channel and get the desired program, as they have for 50+ years.

Let's be realistic... that rarely happens with analog. If it does... it's during 'extremely' bad weather. That's expected. When the problem is resolved, she doesn't have to rescan. Or... perhaps select the "real" channel it's only a PSIP genertor problem. Unbeknownst to her... she can/could that, right?


yes...grammy has been watching TV for over 50 years. She's doesn't drool...


In a perfect world... yes. But based on the past 5+ years experience ( and I live a major area, Philadelphia), I don't have a 'warm fuzzy' that they will be fully redundant. Hell... they still can't 'flip the switch' to HD many times!


Of course there will... expect after the cutoff, there will be more. Keep your phone line open and have someone to help out those that "can't figure it out".

I know that sounds simplistic to "us", but the concept just isn't as easily grasped by those (a few million?) that just expect to tune to a particular channel and get the desired program, as they have for 50+ years.

I think you are underestimating people.

For what it's worth, I have been watching TV for 54 years and I don't drool either. Neither do most of my contemporaries. We come from a generation that had to figure it out at a time when stations didn't share common antenna locations and you had to adjust the fine tuning, horizontal hold and vertical hold and antenna orientation every time you changed the channel.

Anyone who has had an antenna has some idea where the towers are. That has been the way since analog and receive antennas came on the scene.


#1). Many people using OTA won't be using highly directional antennas with rotors, and instead will be adjusting simple indoor antennas, which will often require "different" adjustment/placement for different stations.

#2). Judging by what I see now on rooftops in my area(sometimes *new* antennas), many folks are receiving analog signals(probably ghosty ones in some circumstances), currently with misaimed antennas, which may not have much luck with a "auto channel scan" for digital channels ....

#3). Even with the most directional of antennas, and generally co-located transmission faciltites there can be frequency specific issues involved, such as multipath or interference, or differing antenna heights or terrain or other signal attenuation issues which can be frequency specific.



And if a station happens to be lost, the mapping in the receiver WILL NOT BE LOST until a complete scan is asked for contrary to what some of you are trying to suggest.


Perhaps I misread something, but I don't see anyone suggesting that --- except to say, If you've done much browsing on this forum, I think there's enough cause to question whether ALL receivers support such features as an "add channels" function, w/o deleting everything else -- or manual tuning/adding channels by RF channel. I'm not just interested in the "NEW TV's" you have seen, but *ALL of them*, Including all ATSC receivers in STB's and future recording devices/etc . I don't think it's asking too much to ask for/require some sort of certianity on this matter ...


If a station changes its PSIP, receivers may have to rescan.


Over the years, In local threads it has been the case that there have been folks who have reported going months(or years) wondering why they lost "reception" of a station, only to find, months(or years) later, when they did a "rescan" the channel popped back up ... If that sort of thing occurs for some people who are reading+posting here because a station changes its PSIP tables, imagine what it's going to be like for the "General Public" ....

Also, keep in mind when you do such a rescan when a station changes their PSIP tables, it has to be a "full rescan" so you'll have to readjust your antenna and redo the "add digital channel" scans as well ...


I can call it "pie in the sky" because I understand how PSIP works (I work with it everyday) and you appear not to.


That's nice, then you should realize that the main point of concern I have and the MAIN problem here is that PSIP will DO *NOTHING* for the user until a signal which is *almost* the same as what you need for perfect DTV reception is achieved - for each and every station in your "area" it's possible to receive, or you desire to receive. AND THAT is the problem when it comes to any sort of "scan" or "autoscan", and is why receivers MUST be able to allow the user to tune manually to the RF channel to adjust the antenna/etc. when necessary.

With analog, you see what's going on with your reception of any given station *directly* on the screen. With DTV, It seems, unfortunetly other than acquiring a good knowledge of where the sticks are, the best most users have is some sort of "signal quality" meter to look at in order to attempt to improve reception, which they'll often need to look at by tuning to the RF channel in order to achieve a good enough signal in order to be able to even decode the PSIP data ...

This issue with PSIP VC remapping and *scanning* in channels is something that it seems will make the DTV transistion a little more "complicated" for folks in *some* circumstances, and in some cases, unnecessarily so IMO. As often seems to be the case with such consumer related "service", The more this stuff is engineered with the "stupid viewer" in mind, the more functionality is lost, and the more often the opposite effect from what was intended occurs ...

But, this has something else involved as well, and that is the part of it about stations wanting to keep their exisitng channel branding and not having to spend a bunch more $ on new graphics packages and logos for the news set. Rather than making OTA digital a "better" system, Unfortunetly, IMO, from what I have read involving comments submitted to the commission on this matter during 2nd DTV review, I think most of the impetus behind PSIP virtual channels involves the channel branding rather than truly doing the leg work required involving making the DTV transistion less confusing for viewers ...


This gloom and doom is quite funny because it highlights the level of misunderstanding of what is really happening here.

Just because we are bringing these sorts of issues up and *trying* to discuss them reasonably, and trying to point out ways things could perhaps be *better* doesn't mean we are saying the sky is falling because of it .....


There is no reason any longer for actual channel numbers when virtual channel numbers work just as well since some of the channels of stations in a market will no longer be TV channels.


No, they don't work *just as well* as the RF channel #'s(which is the Channel # corresponding directly to frequency the receiver is actually tuning to) , unless perhaps the receiver can get the PSIP tables for the desired stations somehow without having to decode it from the OTA transmission, first .....


The all or nothing nature of DTV is going to be a problem whether or not the channels are remapped. If you do need to tune to the actual RF channel due to a PSIP failure, the actual channels are not exactly a state secret.


Again, the difference is, a user can tune to the RF channel and often get some sort of reading from their meter (on the XBR960 it has a nicer "meter" than most with AGC/SNR readings on the "diagnostics" screen) when a signal below threshold is acheived -- Something you can't do with a "virtual" channel until a PSIP "lock" is acheived", or via a "channel scan"/add digital channel scan ...


My Sony KD-34XBR960 will allow a full channel scan, where the memory is erased and the channels are re-scanned, or it will allow you to add digital channels, in which case it will leave the existing channels in memory and add anything new it finds.

Again, those scanning features are not allways going to be all that is needed. Fortunetly, the receiver in that particular TV *usually*(at this point probably in any circumstance it will be required) does has everything you need Including : You may need to tune to the RF channel manually and look at the meter in order to adjust your antenna(or as a tool/indicator to "help you" make other improvements) -- and in this case, with this specific TV, in order to get that PSIP to "stick" and that station to remap to a VC that will show up you will then need to use the "add digital channel" function with the antenna at the proper "adjustment" ...

Try this ... Try tuning manually to a RF channel that corresponds to a VC that's already in "memory" via a scan(as I mentioned in an earlier post) -- You can't do it without a full channel scan first that doesn't "find" the VC ... Again, this probably isn't going to be a problem currently, since you'll probably have a local NTSC station transmitting on that RF channel currently ---- but is FCC going to simply not allow those frequencies to be used in any given region after analog shut off to solve this problem? Gee, that seems like a good way to waste spectrum, and wouldn't seem to be something the broadcasters should actually like ... Again, the ability to tune to a RF channel in order to "set your antenna setup" in order to achieve a PSIP "lock" in the first place *is* a necessity in some cases ...

Also, if you notice with this TV, occasionally, say with a "misaimmed" or "improperly" adjusted antenna, the RF channel/program stream #'s for a ATSC station will occasionally "pop up" from an autoscan(in other words it will also be automatically "unhidden" in the Hide/show channels list), as it will sometimes recognize the signal "enough" but still not quite decode the PSIP properly ...

Also, in case you are interested and haven't "noticed" this, note that on this TV you can punch in any major/minor Channel #(it'll work for either RF channel or VC) and then you can pull up/use the "diagnostics" screen for a ATSC signal ... Tuning to a "single" channel number (without the ".") will "activate" the NTSC tuner ...

Also in case you are interested, note there is also more detailed info available on PSIP tables, signal "diagnostics" and the MPEG2 transport stream in the undocumented "QM:info(info #0~7)" section of the XBR 960's Service Menu ..

In any case, (not including the Service mode stuff) where exactly are all these channel tuning procedures "fully documented" in the XBR960's manual? I certianly didn't see them -- I also didn't have any problem figuring it out, or finding the "diagnostics" screen -- but that may not be the case for others ...


If your receiver won't allow you to do that, blame the manufacturer not the station or the ATSC.


For the most part --- I agree, again, where the tuning issues are concerned all I'm saying really, is that I think it would be a good idea if it were required that *all receivers* have both an "add digital channel" scan w/o deleting channels scanned in from the full autoscan - or the equivilent, AND that will also allow the viewer to Manually tune to *any* RF channel(2-51, don't suppose we really need channel 37 in there, but ...) in order to adjust antenna so PSIP can be decoded in the first place, regardless whether there is a VC channel already in memory on that RF channel # ....

And again, also think the option should be there to turn off the channel remapping on the user end if so desired .. RCA DTC-100 is one receiver that lets you do this - when I was using one of those, *I* turned it off -- Why? Because that was prior to Early 2005 when the PSIP requirements went into effect and at that time, about 1/2 the stations in my area were not sending *any* PSIP, 1/2 the stations were .... which is much more confusing than either all of them doing it, or all of them NOT doing it ...

However, OTOH, PERSONALLY speaking ... I think all these potential possible tuning problems which have been brought up(depending upon what receiver model you have and how it's implemented) do go away if the commission/stations were to do away with the VC remapping alltoghether ... Although I suppose that would be a problem for any receiver (and I've heard of a couple of them) that won't even decode the audio/video streams without PSIP .....

From the perspective of whether stations show up on their RF channel or a virtual channel, personally, It doesn't really matter to me. I can "remember" them either way. I also really don't care if it shows up on say, "channel 41", but the station logos/etc. Say "Newscenter 7" ..... Cable viewers have been living with that sort of thing for many years, and it isn't a problem for me ...

No, I am not.

Again... it sounds simplistic to those of us that have some 'electronic savvy'. The other few million that don't, are going to be at a loss and confused with the channel numbers. These are the same people that when you DID have to adjust fine tuning, H/V hold, etc... (the same ones that put tinfoil on the rabbit ears).

When they to tune 10.1 (57) or 6.2 (17), etc... all of the antenna adjusting in the world will not resolve the issue if PSIP is lost or the receiver gets hosed due to a PSIP problem (since most TV's today don't have fine tuning or H/V hold adjustments anymore).

Sorry for the double posts/etc -- but forgot to add earlier :

So when a receiver asks for an additional scan, (not a complete rescan) it will keep all the TSIDs and all related metadata while it adds new PSIP information for additional stations. You can also have MULTIPLE stations with the SAME major channel number in your receiver. For receivers who have a manual channel add, it works the same way.


Believe I've already mentioned you can have multiple stations with the same major (or major minor) Virtual channel #'s ... (just bringing that up to point out I'm not disagreeing with you on that) ...

As for the remainder of the above paragraph and your other related comments from the corresonding post I didn't quote, I have one receiver here that works a little differently that what you describe. In it's case(Zenith HDV420) It actually "updates" the PSIP related info(including VCT) *Every time* you tune to a station, individually, per station for every RF channel you have "selected" to be on your channel list .. ....

So, for example, If I "add" RF channel 10 to the channel "edit" list, and the station I receive there happens to map to 9.x today, and change their PSIP tomorrow and remap to say, 37.x instead(I know that won't happen - just an "easy" example), it will *automatically* update when I tune to 9.x tomorrow and from then on start showing up on 37.x instead ... So, actually, with this particular receiver you do NOT need to "rescan" when a station changes something about its PSIP, as it's updated "automatically" everytime you tune to the station .....

That particular receiver also happens to be the best receiver(IMO) I have come across as far as how it *works* with these channel tuning issues ... It will autoscan(full autoscan Only), but you can also do everything manually, including tuning directly to a RF channel, AND manually selectling/deselecting any RF channel for the stations you want to show up (but they'll show up only by VC#) in your "channel list" ---- It does still have the problem concerning the inablility to tune "directly" to a RF channel that's the same # as a major channel # for a VC that "corresponds" to anRF channel you have "added" -- in its case however, all you have to do is deselect the RF channel involved(no need to rescan) on the "channel edit list" that corresponds to the "offending" VC, then you can tune to the desired RF channel ....

Depending on the "quality" of the digital coverters provided to the "general" uninformed public... that qualifies my point(s). Grammy don't play that!

sorry -- two more comments I have concerning recent discussion ....

#1) With analog and manual fine tuning or h/V hold adjustments, you still have some sort of indication of signal on the screen to work with, no matter how ugly it is. With DTV and "virtual channels", you have nothing but a blank screen and a big fat ZERO on the "signal" meter Until a PSIP "lock" is acheived on the RF "channel" via a autoscan of via manually tuning to the RF channel .... And, Yes, I still have analog TV's here that work with mechanical tuner and manual fine tuning adjustments ...

As for the RF channel's not being a secret -- true, however, how many of the folks currently using analog OTA (some with "rabbit ears"/etc), when necessary are going to know to go to antennaweb.org or FCC's TV query to find it ... Is this info going to be in the "required" PSA's stations broadcast or in the Newspaper TV guide/etc?

No, I am not.

Again... it sounds simplistic to those of us that have some 'electronic savvy'. The other few million that don't, are going to be at a loss and confused with the channel numbers. These are the same people that when you DID have to adjust fine tuning, H/V hold, etc... (the same ones that put tinfoil on the rabbit ears).

When they to tune 10.1 (57) or 6.2 (17), etc... all of the antenna adjusting in the world will not resolve the issue if PSIP is lost or the receiver gets hosed due to a PSIP problem (since most TV's today don't have fine tuning or H/V hold adjustments anymore).

Figuring out how to do a channel scan doesn't require any "electronic savvy". Every TV set sold for more than a decade, analog and digital alike, has required a channel scan before the owner could watch their favorite shows.

The arguments being put forth here deal mostly with the differences between analog reception and digital reception and aren't really specific to channel mapping. Other complaints are about poorly designed receivers and again are not specifically related to channel mapping.

Reliability issues in the broadcast facility will be resolved when the digital channel becomes the only revenue source instead of the revenue drain it has been since the first DTV station went on the air.

sorry -- two more comments I have concerning recent discussion ....

#1) With analog and manual fine tuning or h/V hold adjustments, you still have some sort of indication of signal on the screen to work with, no matter how ugly it is. With DTV and "virtual channels", you have nothing but a blank screen and a big fat ZERO on the "signal" meter Until a PSIP "lock" is acheived on the RF "channel" via a autoscan of via manually tuning to the RF channel .... And, Yes, I still have analog TV's here that work with mechanical tuner and manual fine tuning adjustments ...

Again, this is a problem with digital broadcasting and not channel remapping.

My point with fine tuning and H/V hold adjustments was that those were three separate adjustments to correct three different picture problems in addition to whatever fiddling with antenna orientation was required and people seemed to be able to figure it out.

As for the RF channel's not being a secret -- true, however, how many of the folks currently using analog OTA (some with "rabbit ears"/etc), when necessary are going to know to go to antennaweb.org or FCC's TV query to find it ... Is this info going to be in the "required" PSA's stations broadcast or in the Newspaper TV guide/etc?

Call the station, we'll be glad to help.

Some stations are going to have a hard time with station image after conversion if they don't return to the channel they image the station around currently. Most stations in the U.S are still imaging around their soon to be abandon channel #. I guess this is fine for stations to which the channel will no longer exist, but for those in the VHF-Low band some else could potently be granted a license to operate on that channel and want to image with the #.

If anyone lived in a market where Westinghouse owned stations in 1995 you'll recall the confusion when some stations had to simply switch network affiliations.

With just a little over 2 years to go stations may need to start the slow change over imaging to keep from confusing viewers, cable or OTA.

I love DTV but if the poorly managed conversion continues it maybe the best thing to happen for internet advertising. 2009 is going to be a tuff year for local Tv sales folks.

Every TV set sold for more than a decade, analog and digital alike, has required a channel scan before the owner could watch their favorite shows.


I believe Manually tuning to the analog channel on most of those TV's also suffices, even if an antenna wasn't hooked up during any sort of initial "autoscan". For UHF, you do usually need to set a menu option to "off air" instead of cable.

Especially annoying(for me) are my VCR's and TV's which default to "cable" selection when the power is lost and when you are utilizing the date/time info sent by most NTSC PBS stations(which are UHF here) to set the clock ...

Furthermore, for example the "full" autoscan on my Sony KD34XBR960 finds virtually ALL analog signals in all directions from my location, no matter how "ugly" the signal actually is, or where the antenna is aimed. That is not the case for the digital stations. True, you could call that poor performance from the receiver, but I don't think there are any out there that would do any/much better at it ....


The arguments being put forth here deal mostly with the differences between analog reception and digital reception and aren't really specific to channel mapping.


I disagree. I believe those comments you are referring to can be thought of as *specific* to channel mapping. I'm sure I was already specific enough in my earlier posts to point out that in order to *receive* and utilize the channel remapping information, you have to be at nearly the theshold required for perfect DTV reception. That *makes* it specific to channel remapping as well as concerning digital reception in a more general sense -- So does the below:

You can't tune to a virtual channel to adjust your antenna if you don't have a good enough signal to decode the PSIP information.

It is not necessary to be near threshold for DTV reception in order to tune to a RF channel and utilize some sort of signal reading off the meter so you can have a tool which will assist in adjusting your antenna so you can decode the channel remapping info.

Addition/update: Unlike what occurs with a digital "channel scan" with the antenna incorrectly aimed or 'orientated", I *can* aim the antenna just about anywhere and in most cases get some sort of a reading(some indication of some sort of signal is better than none) on the receivers signal quality meter of a signal being present no matter the direction of the towers, including on the RF channel if PSIP hasn't been decoded yet since the last "full" auto channel scan ..... Although, it would be even better if we had real signal strength meters in addition to the "signal quality" meters as I'll call them most of us have which can also show "0" in some cases if strong signal but multipath uncorrectable by receiver or too much interference/etc is present ...

However, I also think you are correct in that receivers which will not allow you to tune to *any* RF channel #(and give you some sort of "meter reading") which may be necessary in any given case when an autoscan doesn't find the stations you want to watch is the main issue I'm commenting on, not the way "channel remapping" is implemented ...

Update/addition: Also, for the record - As should be obvious(and I hope I was clear enough about it in any specific case), the comments I've made in this thread in recent posts were not meant to soley address "channel remapping", as I believe this thread is about digital reception and the DTV transistion in general + how it will be "received"(pun intended) by analog OTA viewers ....


Again, this is a problem with digital broadcasting and not channel remapping.


See Above.



Reliability issues in the broadcast facility will be resolved when the digital channel becomes the only revenue source instead of the revenue drain it has been since the first DTV station went on the air.

I personally expect(hope anyway) things will improve greatly in that regard. In fact, they already have in my area where PSIP issues(at least concerning VCT/channel remapping -- are concerned since 2005), but I also expect 10 years(or more) from now(If OTA is even still around then), they'll still need to "reboot" the PSIP generator every now and then .... But, it probably won't take 3 weeks or more to get such issues straightend out, as has sometimes been the case with *some* stations here in the past ...


My point with fine tuning and H/V hold adjustments was that those were three separate adjustments to correct three different picture problems in addition to whatever fiddling with antenna orientation was required and people seemed to be able to figure it out.


I realized that was the point you were making. I don't see any need to reclarify/restate my comments.

Call the station, we'll be glad to help.

That doesn't answer my question.

I don't know of any broadcast engineer in his right mind who would even consider suggesting to management that they change the station's "name". That would be like starting a business from scratch (and, to the engineer, it would be an automatic career change).

I can't even get anyone to talk about changing from "-TV" to "-DT", even though I personally think it would add a bit of high-tech "glitz" to our image.

Our best bet is to make sure the new numbers are included in our website info, in newspaper articles, and maybe in the next couple of phone books (those extra-cost, yellow-highlited entries). CTTOI (is "come to think of it" a standard web abbreviation?), would a channel number like "38" even mean "UHF" to most people? I would hope Radio Shack is aware, when they sell antennas.

I can't even get anyone to talk about changing from "-TV" to "-DT", even though I personally think it would add a bit of high-tech "glitz" to our image.
.

Speaking of which ... Can't recall If I'd read anything about this in the FCC rules or R&0's/NPRM's/etc .. there is after all so much stuff to keep track of when you are "following" the DTV transistion as an interested observer ...

Is there any talk/etc. of dropping the DT callsign designations (or LD for low power digital - can't recall if those are different for the 5 alphanumeric translator callsigns, CD for Class A digital I beleive) -- after analog shut off and going back to -TV or -LP -CA ? Seems like they could do that ... I like DT personally, but I dunno about "LD" or "CD" .....

In any case, seems like we can just go back to generally and informally using the 4 letter callsigns for full service stations after the analogs shut off ...

For Ratman and Nitewatchman,

I have personally handled hundreds of people who have put up OTA antennas in the last 4 years, indoor and outdoor. Many of them not knowing which end of the antenna to point and so far no one has been a wash out as you guys keep preaching. The newer receivers are better in many respects than the receivers we currently use. I have 4 receivers of my own that range from 2nd gen through 5th gen and every 4 and 5th gen receiver I have seen, built in as well as STB has EITHER a rescan or a manual entry including the $89 Radio Shack Accurian that does both. By the time most people start purchasing large numbers of STBs and as more sets have digital tuners in them, the gloom and doom that I personally haven't seen in my four years of dealing DIRECTLY with the public will be even more reduced. Also as broadcasters put more and more emphasis on the digital plants in the next 2 years, the PSIP stability issue will also get better. After analog shuts down, the PSIP issues should be behind 99% of the stations. Will there be special cases? Yes. There always are but we will deal with them on a case by case basis. The world for grandma WILL NOT come to an end. When grandma can't see her stories, WE HEAR ABOUT, even now. I don't expect that will change just because the analog signal goes away.

Like I said, this whole PSIP and virtual channel issue hasn't been done in a vacuum. It has been created between broadcasters, receiver manufactures and the FCC. If you can't or won't see it, then I can't and won't help you.

I can't even get anyone to talk about changing from "-TV" to "-DT", even though I personally think it would add a bit of high-tech "glitz" to our image..
All Phila. stations use *-DT as designations for digital channels. All analogs retain *-TV. NOt high tech glitz at all. It clarifies what one is watching.

I have personally handled hundreds of people who have put up OTA antennas in the last 4 years, indoor and outdoor. Many of them not knowing which end of the antenna to point and so far no one has been a wash out

I have also... that's not the issue.


...this whole PSIP and virtual channel issue hasn't been done in a vacuum. It has been created between broadcasters, receiver manufactures and the FCC. If you can't or won't see it, then I can't and won't help you.

That's the problem... it's a vacuum as as far as the those stranded in 2009 are concerned.

Broadcasters, manufacturers and the FCC are the ones looking at this in a vacuum by not taking into consideration the inconvenience and confusion this will cause for the uninformed (low income, rural, elderly) that have had nothing but an analog TV and an antenna for xx years.

Thanks... but "I" don't need your help. It's the others I feel concerned about. Can I give my aunts, mother and father in law your phone number? I'm already exhausted from explaining to them how to program a VCR.

(or... make sure the TV is on Channel 2 so they can get reception from the cable box.)

All Phila. stations use *-DT as designations for digital channels. All analogs retain *-TV. NOt high tech glitz at all. It clarifies what one is watching.

Not every TV station uses -TV at the end of the legal ID. Many FOX O & Os don't but WTXF is an exception. But every digital station does use -DT to differentiate the analog and digital station. In the eyes of the FCC, the analog and digital stations are separate stations and are treated as such.

Thanks... but "I" don't need your help. It's the others I feel concerned about. Can I give my aunts, mother and father in law your phone number? I'm already exhausted from explaining to them how to program a VCR.

It is a good thing this isn't a VCR we are talking about. There is no flashing 12:00 to deal with on a digital tuner.

so far no one has been a wash out as you guys keep preaching.


I'm doing nothing of the sort.


If you can't or won't see it, then I can't and won't help you.


Huh? Are my posts being translated into chinese or something by the time they reach your screen? LOL .... Maybe this will help :

first off -- I don't think you'll find a bigger supporter of OTA Broadcasting or of OTA DTV/HD than myself. That being said, I do find it difficult to *support* broadcasters who think of their OTA service (meaning specifically thought of *as* an OTA service to viewers, not as a source of a means to an end, the end being revenue) involving their transmitters only being useful to "suck up the power bills", and their towers as useful for nothing more than a "lightning rod" .....

I *am* concerned about the future, and permanent viability of OTA TV/DTV broadcasting(mostly having nothing to do with the "DTV" part of it) in *general* for all sorts of reasons .....

To clarify further, In most cases, I believe(hope anyway) if folks really want to use OTA, they'll *usually* be able to find a way for it to work .... Since some of you have said that numorous times, I saw no reason to repeat it.

However, I don't think that excludes me somehow from being *allowed* to make *reasonable* and informed(believe it or not) comments as I already have done on PSIP, channel remapping and how receivers implement it, and how perhaps things could be better ...

I think the paradox here is that in an attempt to make things *easier* for viewers(autoscans, virtual channel remapping), in *some cases* it is also making things more confusing for folks .... I'm sorry if you can't see that and I don't know what I can say which might help you to understand what several folks(not just Ratman+myself) are getting at, here ...

I will also say I'm a little surprised(puzzled would be a better word) by many of the comments seemingly meant to refute the concerns, sometimes from folks who have apparently experienced problems with it, and seemingly along the lines of "just do a autoscan, that'll take care of/fix everything" from the broadcast engineers on this thread concerning PSIP, channel remapping and how any given receiver/etc handles it - As, it has been the case most broadcast engineers(usually CE's) I've talked to are as, or *more* concerned about it than the folks who have mentioned some of the problems(or possible problems) with it here .... And it's not like most of those guys are any less techincally "in the know" about it .... Sorry, not trying to get anyone "riled up" about it, I just don't understand it ...


I have 4 receivers of my own that range from 2nd gen through 5th gen and every 4 and 5th gen receiver I have seen, built in as well as STB has EITHER a rescan or a manual entry including the $89 Radio Shack Accurian that does both.


As I've already said, My experience has been much the same, also my experience and opinion is(update - oops originally didn't say the following accurately), they *all* need to be able to either do both, or at least allow manual entry/scan of an individual RF channel(in which case the "rescan" w/o deleting the info from the full channel scan isn't really necessary) .... And thankfully, every ATSC receiver I have owned(again 4 as well, 2nd to 4th generation two of them internal) *has* been able to do everything I needed(and more, actually) where channel tuning/PSIP is concerned, although with their own little "quirks" here and there ... I can't say however that is the case for *every* DTV receiver out there, which seems to me would be an issue of importantace, especially newer models, and models yet to come ...

I also hope/expect you are right about newer receivers to come being even better, I just haven't had any reason to seek those out, as all of my receivers so far have worked great for me ... I suppose if I have any *personal* complaint or "gripe" about PSIP implementation currently, it would be that I'd like to see *some* stations soon begin to pay more attention to the EIT's (EPG info via PSIP)(addition: And *some receivers* better implemnt the guide data - Ask spwace how the Sony XBR960 does if you want to check guide info beyond the currently running program), and to sending 708 captions properly ... and no, I'm not hearing imparied, so the latter is not of great importance but sometimes I use the captions while I'm monitoring other audio sources/etc, and one of my ATSC receiver's here supports *only* 708 captions, not 608 analog/line21 captions ...

It is a good thing this isn't a VCR we are talking about. There is no flashing 12:00 to deal with on a digital tuner.

Funny you mentioned that -- Believe it or not, there are ATSC receivers out there which do not utilize date/time info from PSIP STT ... I certianly hope that doesn't turn out to be the case for any future recording devices with ATSC tuners in them, which hopefully will also fully implement EPG guide info via PSIP ... Which BTW, I'm hoping there will be many models of DVR's(including HD models) and VCR's(including DVHS models) and CD recorders with ATSC receivers in them post March 2007 ... the way it's going so far however, I'm not so sure that will be the case, and I assume it may be the case manufacturers of such devices may in many cases just omit the OTA tuner alltoghether to get around the FCC's "tuner mandate" as it's often reffered ....

My Zenith HDV420 is one of those. You have to set time/date manually .... This was the first 4th generation LG/Zenith receiver, and was soon replaced by the LG3100a. While it does support/display VCT info and 708 captions --- it also doesn't display EPG info from the EIT's or the "callsign data" field or whatever it's called - It's usually used for callsign or program service ID, such as "XXXX-DT or XXXX-HD, but have also seen it used just to "name" the service, such as "Tube", or in one case "The Tub(supposed to be "the tube", but .... ... I want to say that field in the ETT, but I might be wrong/would have to look that up ...

The Sony KD34XBR960 HDTV(with internal ATSC/QAM/Cablecard) is another. Spwace will tell you in order to set the time display on it, you have to enter it manually ....

OTOH, the EPG and all PSIP "functions" seem to be well supported by my Hisense DB-2010 ... The same was true for RCA DTC-100(possibly the only D* HD which(thankfully for me) handled the OTA guides via PSIP and the D* EPG completely speperately), although navigating the guides were very "sloooow" on it ...

Ok, I'm blabbering on now, sorry, I'm good at that ;)

They're owned by Bahakel, which also owns WCCB (FOX Charlotte). I wonder if Bahakel's other stations have also dropped the channel number from their branding?


They haven't yet, because WABG-TV (ABC, Greenville MS) is owned by Bakakel, and they still brand as "ABC6".

"Like I said, this whole PSIP and virtual channel issue hasn't been done in a vacuum. It has been created between broadcasters, receiver manufactures and the FCC. If you can't or won't see it, then I can't and won't help you."

Not to mention, this "PSIP" as the ATSC calls it, has been used for about a decade or so with DVB-S (Digital Video Broadcasting-Satellite) in Europe, Asia, and in the US syatems like D*, E*, P*, and VOOM. All that re-mapping and stuff is part of the standard.

Funny you mentioned that -- Believe it or not, there are ATSC receivers out there which do not utilize date/time info from PSIP STT ...

I did a check, and the 5 stations I could get still can't agree on the time within 85 seconds. This is a huge improvement over a couple years ago, though, and one was no more than a couple seconds off of my NTP-based clocks.

Not to mention, this "PSIP" as the ATSC calls it, has been used for about a decade or so with DVB-S (Digital Video Broadcasting-Satellite) in Europe, Asia, and in the US syatems like D*, E*, P*, and VOOM. All that re-mapping and stuff is part of the standard.

Then hopefully they all speak(train?) with all of the local broadcasters to get it right.

PSIP is not the problem, the concept/technology is is proven. It's how it's being deployed by terrrestrial/local broadcasters.

We're not talking satellite or Europe... we're trying to focus on those that have had analog/antenna for many years (and will continue to use). If it can be a pain for "us" at times (with digital), can't you imagine what confusion all of this virtual vs. real channel stuff will generate? Let alone the analog to digital transition and a new external box/converter.

IMO... this does not benefit or make it easier for general acceptance for those "caught" after the transition.

... including the $89 Radio Shack Accurian that does both...

Foxeng or anyone,
Have a link to this unit? I searched the Radio Shack site and couldn't find it...

Robert

The Accurian is discontinued.

I did a check, and the 5 stations I could get still can't agree on the time within 85 seconds. This is a huge improvement over a couple years ago, though, and one was no more than a couple seconds off of my NTP-based clocks.85 seconds? You're lucky. My local stations are off by minutes.

I've also been in other locations where some of the stations are broadcasting with their PSIP clocks set to the wrong time zone, so that if you have your STB use them as a time source your clock will be an hour off.

Some stations are going to have a hard time with station image after conversion if they don't return to the channel they image the station around currently. Most stations in the U.S are still imaging around their soon to be abandon channel #. I guess this is fine for stations to which the channel will no longer exist, but for those in the VHF-Low band some else could potently be granted a license to operate on that channel and want to image with the #.

If anyone lived in a market where Westinghouse owned stations in 1995 you'll recall the confusion when some stations had to simply switch network affiliations.

With just a little over 2 years to go stations may need to start the slow change over imaging to keep from confusing viewers, cable or OTA.

I love DTV but if the poorly managed conversion continues it maybe the best thing to happen for internet advertising. 2009 is going to be a tuff year for local Tv sales folks.

This is why I wish the FCC's PSIP mandate would have ordered stations to ID themselves under their permanent post-transition elected channel instead of their current analog one.

In my area, the ABC affiliate (WVNY) is on 22 analog and 13 digital. The CBS affiliate (WCAX) is on 3 analog and 53 digital, but will move to channel 22 post-transition. I would hate it if post-transition my local ABC would still be mapped as "channel 22" when in fact channel 22 would be used by the local CBS. For those with receivers able to tune to both the physical channel and the virtual channel, I can just imagine how stupid it would sound if someone would say "tune to channel 22" the other would have to ask "the real one or the fake one?"

As for the branding, I think it is way overdue for stations in the U.S. to stop marketing themselves under primitive channel numbers (which are erroneous anyway for the majority of viewers watching on cable) and to start marketing themselves primarily by their network affiliation and the area they serve. Canadian broadcasters have accomplished this over a decade ago!

As for the branding, I think it is way overdue for stations in the U.S. to stop marketing themselves under primitive channel numbers (which are erroneous anyway for the majority of viewers watching on cable) and to start marketing themselves primarily by their network affiliation and the area they serve. Canadian broadcasters have accomplished this over a decade ago!
That's just too advanced for the majority of folks whose VCR still blinks 12:00. :cool:

My wife was watching The Batchelor on the local channel 7 ABC (KABC). She asked me if Dancing with the Stars was also channel 7. I answered yes but to check I asked her if she knew what network that was. She said no (there was actually an ABC logo on the lower corner of the screen).

The bottom line is that viewers enter a channel number to watch TV. That is how they remember stations. It is by the number they enter to view a channel.

Rick R

Yes, but when network shows get promoted, whether it's on-air, in magazines, on the internet, they are always advertised with the network name (Monday 8/7c on FOX), not with a list of cities and channel numbers (Monday at 8 on channel 5 in New York, channel 2 in Detroit, etc).

People will get used to it.

Heck, I remember when I was a kid, shows in Canada were being advertised as airing on CFCF-12 or CFTM-10. Now they just say "CTV" or "TVA". No one is complaining.

Yes, but when network shows get promoted, whether it's on-air, in magazines, on the internet, they are always advertised with the network name (Monday 8/7c on FOX), not with a list of cities and channel numbers (Monday at 8 on channel 5 in New York, channel 2 in Detroit, etc).
Most show promotion is during the network's other shows. When they promote a network show, a lot of people remember the channel number and forget what network they're watching. I wonder how many people have been expecting to see Dancing with the Stars on ESPN.

Yes, but when network shows get promoted, whether it's on-air, in magazines, on the internet, they are always advertised with the network name (Monday 8/7c on FOX), not with a list of cities and channel numbers (Monday at 8 on channel 5 in New York, channel 2 in Detroit, etc).

People will get used to it.

Heck, I remember when I was a kid, shows in Canada were being advertised as airing on CFCF-12 or CFTM-10. Now they just say "CTV" or "TVA". No one is complaining.

And what about the independent channels? Most markets have one or more independents not affiliated with any network, how would you suggest they identify themselves?

And what about the independent channels? Most markets have one or more independents not affiliated with any network, how would you suggest they identify themselves?

However they like! :D

(so long as they don't steal some other stations moniker in that area, that is...)

Now that I think of it, shouldn't it be possible for stations to be identified mainly via text labels at the consumer level? Meaningful ones, that is, not the usually-cryptic three- or four-letter callsigns. Instead of punching in a number, you'd call up a menu of available stations: "FOX Charlotte", "News 6", "NBC Weather Plus", "Fred's Fun Channel", etc. They could be listed alphabetically, with the channel numbers along the side so people can use them as shortcuts via the keypad, like keyboard shortcuts for menu items on a computer. In fact, this could just be a cut-down version of the channel guide that digital receivers already have, listing just the stations but not the current programs. Pressing an "Expand" button or something would give you the full program guide.

How would I enter "F-O-X-D-A-Y-T-O-N" on my remote? Or pull up a menu with it that isn't programmed into the set's firmware? Besides, I already know the channel numbers for my area - why should I have to change?

Carl

Now that Clear Channel (KTVX) in Salt Lake owns and operates KUCW (ex-KUWB), I see many news promos for KTVX on the CW programs. Even logos that I would interpret as a "station ID" for channel 4.

I'm gettin' real confused..... :confused: .

Now that Clear Channel (KTVX) in Salt Lake owns and operates KUCW (ex-KUWB), I see many news promos for KTVX on the CW programs. Even logos that I would interpret as a "station ID" for channel 4.

I'm gettin' real confused..... :confused: .
We are going through the exact same thing here in Denver, Gannett - KUSA 9 bought KTVD - 20 Now we have commercials 'Watch 9news at 9 on channel 20' and half the links on their web site go back to 9's site.

Also this channel is a prime example of the power of branding, it was formerly UPN20 and now is MY20 and the marketing was so strong I had to look up their callsign (KTVD) and I am a person who knows callsigns and usually uses them to refer to channels. :confused:

I could be mistaken but I believe television stations, like other radio stations are required to identify their call letters once an hour........ie. those 'cryptic three or four letter call signs".

I could be mistaken but I believe television stations, like other radio stations are required to identify their call letters once an hour........ie. those 'cryptic three or four letter call signs".

That is correct, the minimum is the call sign and city of license.

Follows is another observation/example - You can do your own tests/draw your own conclusions :

I can hook up a simple indoor antenna to DTV receiver, do an autoscan, and have it find NOTHING. No sign of a station, no sign of signal anywhere on the "dial" - according to the "autoscan", or any "virtual channels" I might try to tune to manually. Nothing but a blank screen.

Yet, on this particular ATSC receiver(Zenith HDV420 - 4th Generation LG chipset), leaving the antenna where it is, I can manually tune to the RF channels involved, and get an indication of signal from many stations. I then have something to look at (the "meter") to assist me in placing/orientating the antenna for best results, in which case I can receive many stations adequetely with such a simple indoor antenna ...

On *this* particular receiver, it's roughly about a 10~12db difference in S/N reqired between what is needed to detect a signal via tuning to the RF channel vs. what is needed for the station to be found via autoscan --- or in other words, for the latter PSIP decoded so it shows up to the user with the remapped "virtual" major channel # we're used to ...

If all this receiver did was *autoscan*(of the "full" or "auto rescan/add channels type) and show the stations it acheived a signal lock on(which then would be able to decode PSIP from those stations as well and therefore "remap" the channel), -- seems to me I might never find the spot for this simple indoor antenna that would allow me to decode a signal from any station ...

And yes, you'll probably even find posts on AVSforum from folks who have had this very issue. One particular one I can recall in a local thread which was a likely candidate involved a fellow who actually *thought* he was watching HD stations on his HDTV equipped with internal ATSC receiver, but ended up posting on AVSforum and asking about it as he was disappointed with the HD quality given that the reception was "snowy" and "ghosty" ..... As it turns out the analog stations Were *all* the autoscan found(he said he couldn't find a way to do anything other than autoscan, I can't verify that is true for his particular model of TV) .... Getting some extra feedline and moving the antenna a bit proved too much for him(and may have worked given that he had a window in the next room which faced the towers), so he switched to using cable instead ..... Unfortunetly however, his cableco does NOT carry the HD signals of the local affiliates for the very shows he was most intrested in on NBC and CW Network ...

In my area, the ABC affiliate (WVNY) is on 22 analog and 13 digital. The CBS affiliate (WCAX) is on 3 analog and 53 digital, but will move to channel 22 post-transition. I would hate it if post-transition my local ABC would still be mapped as "channel 22" when in fact channel 22 would be used by the local CBS. For those with receivers able to tune to both the physical channel and the virtual channel, I can just imagine how stupid it would sound if someone would say "tune to channel 22" the other would have to ask "the real one or the fake one?"


It may end up being confusing, and frustrating for folks using some of those receivers as well .....

On receivers that allow you tune to the RF channel(models which allow you to scan a RF(or "physical") channel # indivdually via a menu option should be able to get around this problem) ... At least the ones I've owned ... It's actually not possible to "tune" to a RF channel # that corresponds to the major channel # for a "virtual channel" that's already "in" the receivers "channel memory", lets call it ... In other words, in that case, You try tuning to "22(or 22.x/etc), and you'll allways get "fake" one ....

So, If the station that ends up on digital RF channel 22 isn't found via an "autoscan", but the station that remaps to 22-x *IS* -- On some current receivers it will probably be very confusing to "tune" to RF channel 22 in order to look at signal meter as a tool to improve reception from that station via improving the antenna system/antenna orientation/etc -- Example ---- on some receivers, as I believe I noted earlier concerning a similar example -- You'd have to auto "rescan" with antenna disconnected(hopefully that would do the trick - so the station remapping to 22 wouldn't be found), And *then* adjust antenna/etc. for good reception from the RF 22 -- Then Run a autochannel scan with antenna in that posistion so it then"finds it" and remaps it(to whereever it's going), and then if necessary change antenna orientation/etc. so the "other" channel 22(the virtual "one" actually on VHF channel 13 (210~216MHZ) ....

If all your receiver did was autoscan, and it doesn't find all the stations you're "looking for" --- then it's even worse from the perspective of having a lack of any useful tools(such as the signal "meter") to help you adjust your antenna for best results concerning those stations in your area that didn't "pop up" on your autoscans .....

Again, Your receiver can't show you that "virtual" channel until it can decode that information(PSIP) being sent by the station -- In order to decode the PSIP, it takes very close to what is required for perfect DTV reception ...

That is correct, the minimum is the call sign and city of license.
I could be mistaken but I believe television stations, like other radio stations are required to identify their call letters once an hour........ie. those 'cryptic three or four letter call signs".

Sometimes you have to look carefully. Some stations around here put that information in a single line in small print at the bottom of an advertisement for something else entirely.

(e.g. "WLOS-DT/TV ASHEVILLE" at the bottom of an advertisement for the Biltmore Mansion or the Flat Rock Playhouse or whatever.)

Or they superimpose it at the bottom of the screen during the opening scene of a program.

Getting an ID on a U.S. broadcast station is a breeze vs. the situation with Canadian Stations ... If you're lucky, you'll see a "localized enough" advertisement or local news report, or be able to make a good guess by putting 2+2 together concerning the azimuth heading for your directional antenna/distance+general propagation conditions at the time/language used/Network(CBCF/CBCE/etc) stations licensed in Canada on the particular "RF" channel you're receiving them on .....

I have been told by a Canadian engineer that the CRTC only requires stations to identify themselves once per day.

I have been told by a Canadian engineer that the CRTC only requires stations to identify themselves once per day.

Which is a big reason why it can be difficult for those of us who pursue the DX hobby to ID those at times(analog at least, I haven't had much luck with Canadian DTV DX yet here) - Suppose I should have mentioned that in my last post, as I suppose it would be easier to figure out if you were receiving those stations locally ...

Also, on another note actually, PSIP turns out to be a plus for DTV Dx'ers(or anyone else I suppose in this regard) when/if stations send any sort of unique data in their PSIP tables by which we can ID them ... Often the case you don't even have to *wait around* for an ID when you can decode a signal from a DTV station via "DX" with callsigns or labels with callsigns on services such as "XXXX-HD"/etc often being sent ...

Which reminds me ... There have been several occasions lasting hours on end in the past couple of years when several UHF stations above 700MHZ(above ch 51) blasted in here via tropo from ~300 Miles from Southern Ontario ... Wonder if those whom will be running the new services on what is now ch 52-69 are fully familiar with such potential occasional interference issues ... Also wonder if/what they've looked at with that when it comes to the DTV transisitions in North America involving international coordination issues and potential occasional interference via long distance signal propagation ...

Oh -- almost forgot -- Attached is a screenshot that should better "illustrate" some of my earlier comments :

This is CFMT-TV-1[Omni 1], Channel 69 London, ON as received here from 282 miles at 19:30 EDT 6/30/05 ..

I see in my log notes at the time Unid'd canadian analog stations on channel 59(TVO - probably CICO-TV-59 Chatham, ON) and 53 (probably CBLFT-9 London, ON(CBCE) were also being received at the time ...

How many stations would really WANT to go from a "good" name (VHF single-digit number) to a "bad" name (like a UHF two-digit number)? Too many people still associate UHF with inferior, schlock-operation TV.

Seems like it would be better to just educate the public, as well as those kids at Radio Shack, BB, CC, Sears, WallyMart........ :) .

What about educating the public that "high" channels on the UHF band actually work BETTER for HDTV than low VHF?

How uninformed you are. Just ask any UHF station that picked up a VHF network in the middle 90's when the big network shift happened. Many of those UHF's are still hurting. Case in point, in my market the FOX and ABC stations swapped. FOX went from UHF to VHF and ABC went from VHF to UHF. FOX went up, ABC went down. The ABC station has tried twice to sustain a local news department and failed. The FOX local news ranks one or two consistantly. The UHF ABC just runs the ABC World News now and their primetime numbers are usually behind the other three networks, that happen to be on VHF.

That is not unusual in many areas.

And it's all due to an antiquated idea.

If there are no VHF stations and ALL the stations are double digit UHF numbers, then viewers have no choice!

UHF only markets are in very rural areas of the country, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA and Evansville, IN (but I think they do have a VHF PBS and the rest are UHFs) come to mind immediately. You don't have a choice in those markets. VHF channels are not available in those areas. Those are not the norm though.

It costs considerably more money to operate a UHF transmitter than it does a VHF transmitter. A full power VHF transmitter costs less and less to operate than a low power UHF transmitter. That limits your profits so it makes it harder for a UHF to do the things a VHF does unless the owner, like a major network owner, has deep pockets. Many analog UHF stations do not transmit at the max allowed (5 million watts analog) even though they could. It is because of the cost of the equipment and the cost to operate.

Let me give you some examples, this is analog not digital but the cost ratios hold the same. A full power VHF transmitter costs about $500,000. This is in the 50 kW power range. It costs about $2500 a month to operate. A full power UHF transmitter (240 kW power range) is around $2 million and costs around $20 to $25k a month to operate. Modern VHF transmitters do not use tubes now (and even when they did the tubes cost about $5000). Modern UHF transmitters still use tubes and those tubes start at $35,000 and for a full power analog UHF you are talking 4 to 5 tubes. Now that is much cheaper than the old Klystrons or Klystrodes. They started at $50,000 each and that was in 1960 and 1970 dollars. Because VHF will carry farther than UHF, you can spend less for more coverage and that allows more cash flow into the business when it is a VHF and less operating expenses for the same coverage area. That is one major reason the UHF broadcasters wanted digital to be UHF only to put them on equal footing with the VHF guys because they would be forced to live by the same rules the UHF guys have been for 50 years. And in the beginning the FCC tried to do that, but then channels 52-69 were taken away, 14-51 wasn't enough bandwidth to put everyone back in at their current coverage areas so they moved it back down to channel 7 first and then to channel 2 to get everyone to fit. And that started the fight for stations to get back on VHF high for cost savings and gain coverage. And remember, no station got a choice in their original digital channel assignments. The FCC ran the program and said here is what you get. Some did try and change their assignment, some were allowed and some were not. The only time stations had a choice was during the post transition channel request that just ended, but even there, the FCC made no guarantee that what a station asked for they would get. In many cases, stations had to make a second or third choice before they got a channel assignment post transition. And two stations still don't have post transition channel assignments, one of them being WABC, New York. They are on channel 45 but want to go back to 7 and 7 isn't available in NYC and 45 has been claimed by someone else in another closeby market.

Now with the post transition Table of Assignments, many VHF stations will have to stay on UHF and quite a few UHFs will have VHF assignments at least giving the appearance of some parity but those with the big pockets will continue to have the big pockets and those with the little pockets will continue to have the little pockets so in the end, I don't know how much real parity there will be. With stations continuing to use their analog channel numbers, the public will still have the impression that a VHF channel station has more money and the UHF channel station doesn't. It is all in marketing.

So the numbers tell me that a SUCCESSFUL UHF station has DEEPER pockets than a successful VHF although it appears that the opposite is true. Is it mainly the cost of the power for the higher output on UHF? Oddly, I get BETTER analog reception of UHF than VHF in my area.

Why even bother with off air.

Costs a fortune to run and a very large majority of the population does not even tune in to it (with antennas).

Because it's still easier to have multiple cable and satellite providers get THEIR signal from the station OTA than have seperate "feeds" to 20 cable companies plus D* and E*.

"You forgot one !!

Your not putting that Ugly thing on my Roof !! "

That's when you calmly explain to the wife (in front of the kids) that TV will be going away in two years and four months, and that you will begin weaning them off of it, starting today. "Every week, we will cut back on our TV viewing, by 10 minutes. We're starting tonight, with the last 10 minutes of this show!" (Click)

I LIKE it! Great idea.

I wonder how many OTA viewers there will be say, 1 year or so after analog shut off ...

Also wonder how low those numbers might have to be before TPTB might decide it's time to do away with OTA DTV and auction the spectrum (that is if unlicensed wireless devices aren't causing too much trouble by then ) ....

About the same, as people discover HD. While no more than 20% of the population will ever TRULY appreciate HDTV I think the existance of OTA HD being superior to other methods will keep the number of OTA viewers the same as now or perhaps a bit higher.

It all happened several years ago, I don't remember why.

I don't think the viewer cares about one channel number vs another. Obviously the power and reception issues affect both viewers and the station; they are very real.

More than reception ability, I think it has to do with quality of newscast and local programming. Since there are more expenses to operate on UHF there is less money to put into production, therefore creating a lower quality product from the consumer's viewpoint.

Why are people still believing this nonsense that VHF goes farther than UHF?

In my area, all except one of the digital stations on Mt. Mansfield in Vermont have gone on the air. UHF channels WETK-32, WFFF-43, and WCAX-53 are all coming in with signal strength readings in the 80s and 90s from over 80 miles away, while the single VHF channel WVNY-13, who is broadcasting at "full power" barely locks in the 40s, causing frequent dropouts and breakups, and that's with an outdoor VHF antenna specifially designed for channel 13. No one with an indoor antenna is able to receive it, bad for urban areas with so many apartments and condos that don't allow outdoor antennas.

What is the "full power" of channel 13? And what is the transmit power of the UHF stations?

Full power can mean the full "authorized' power for that particular station on that particular frequency, in that particular area. This "full power" may be less than the power authorized transmitters broadcasting on other frequency bands. There are many more VHF stations than UHF. Broadcast power can be restricted to prevent co-channel interference or to prevent interferring with a station, miles away, that also broadcasts on channel 13. Basically, channel 13's 'full power' setting may be much lower than stations transmintting on UHF. There are other variables that can come into play - they may be using an old antenna, could have some bad transmission lines, etc.

Why are people still believing this nonsense that VHF goes farther than UHF?

In my area, all except one of the digital stations on Mt. Mansfield in Vermont have gone on the air. UHF channels WETK-32, WFFF-43, and WCAX-53 are all coming in with signal strength readings in the 80s and 90s from over 80 miles away, while the single VHF channel WVNY-13, who is broadcasting at "full power" barely locks in the 40s, causing frequent dropouts and breakups, and that's with an outdoor VHF antenna specifially designed for channel 13. No one with an indoor antenna is able to receive it, bad for urban areas with so many apartments and condos that don't allow outdoor antennas.

It's not nonsense, VHF does go further than UHF, it just isn't working in your case. WVNY is using a directional antenna and is not running full power toward Canada.

Why are people still believing this nonsense that VHF goes farther than UHF?

Maybe because it is scientific fact?

It's not just the directional antenna pattern of WVNY. They are broadcasting at 10kw. WFFF-43 is currently at low power at 18kw and still gives me a reading in the 80s.

WPTZ-14 has the same pattern as WVNY-13 and its test signal was still coming in strongly at my location when it was on the air.

In analog, channel 3 was never watchable while channels 22 and 33 were coming in crystal clear, even over 80 miles away. Also, when I travel with my portable TV, the UHF channels from a city I'm approaching always come in before the VHF ones. That's a FACT.

It's not just the directional antenna pattern of WVNY. They are broadcasting at 10kw. WFFF-43 is currently at low power at 18kw and still gives me a reading in the 80s.

WPTZ-14 has the same pattern as WVNY-13 and its test signal was still coming in strongly at my location when it was on the air.

In analog, channel 3 was never watchable while channels 22 and 33 were coming in crystal clear, even over 80 miles away. Also, when I travel with my portable TV, the UHF channels from a city I'm approaching always come in before the VHF ones. That's a FACT.

You can state all the anecdotal evidence you want, but the fact remains that, all others things being equal, VHF signals travel farther than UHF.

It's not just the directional antenna pattern of WVNY. They are broadcasting at 10kw.


It may have more effect than you realize. A directional antenna pattern *IS* directly related to the amount of power being sent in any given direction.

According to the info on their antenna pattern on FCC site(note: CP MOD is only listing I can find), WVNY-DT 13 ONLY broadcasts 10KW ERP on a true bearing of 130 degrees(SE) from their tower.

However -- For example --- if you are say, directly North of WVNY-DT -- You are only getting 210 WATTS ERP sent in your direction. Which to put it another way -- Is approx ~16db or so LESS than 10KW ERP - given we need only about 16db SNR for perfect DTV reception, that's obviously a signficant null.

That is assuming the antenna pattern info listed on FCC site for WVNY-DT matches the current real world results - which may be assuming a lot. Here's the formula to figure the amount of power being squirted in your direction given the relative field values given for directional antenna pattern on FCC site (note : Be sure to check the "pattern rotation" as well, in this case there isn't any) :

(Relative field value in your direction SQUARED) x Watts ERP listed on their operating permit(which = relative field value of 1.000) = Power being squirted in your direction ....

So, in this case for a 0 degree bearing we have (.145x.145) x 10,000 watts = 210.25 Watts ERP being sent directly North ....

You can find info on their antenna pattern info here :

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=&call=WVNY&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note, concerning portable TV's - The "rod" antenna on mine certianly doesn't do as well on lo-VHF as it does on Hi-VHF or UHF, probably because its length isn't even 1/4 wavelength on lo-VHF ...... Of course the thing is going to be quite useless to me post analog shut off so I make sure to use it whenever I'm home when the power goes out these days(which isn't very often), LOL ....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, FWIW --- as far as VHF DTV, from "my neck of the woods" -- it certianly seems to work very well here ---- as does UHF DTV for that matter, although it takes a little more antenna for UHF for best results in my circumstance ....

For instance -- I see WDKY-DT 4, Lexington, KY(118 Miles) more often than any other digital station beyond Cincinnati/Dayton locals(all of which are within 39 miles). In fact, it's coming in perfectly right now, the only DTV station beyond 39 miles for which that is the case. There's not much sign of any unusual VHF/UHF signal propagation currently occuring .... WSYX-DT 13 Columbus, OH(78 Miles) also seems to get out awfully well, and WCPO-DT 10 Cincinnati comes in on any old coathanger(even indoors) from 33 miles ...

Analog wise, In addition to pretty much "perfect" signals from the Cincy/Dayton VHF's(there are 5 of them), I also pull in WAVE 3 Louisville, KY(95 Miles), WCMH 4 Columbus(78 Miles), WSYX 6 Columbus(78 Miles) at all times, usually all with at least a somewhat watchable signal most of the time, and WRTV 6 Indianapolis(100 Miles) comes in fairly nicely most of the time as well .... Prior to WCPO-DT 10 Hitting the airwaves in 98, I'd also usually see WBNS 10 Columbus - I often still see it, but usually with quite a bit of DTV "snow" off the side of antenna from WCPO-DT. UHF wise, only station I see all the time beyond Cincinnati/Dayton is WKON 52, Owenton, KY(78 Miles), usually just popping in and out from the snow ...

UHF ant is XG91, VHF antenna is Winegard PR-5030 .... I am in a small, steep and very forested valley -- in the directions where nearby terrain issues are especially significant, it's very easy to see the effect on reception concerning stations in those directions ..... The higher the frequency/shorter the wavelength, it's very obvious the more attenuation from terrain(and to a much lesser extent trees/leaves) there is ....

About the same, as people discover HD. While no more than 20% of the population will ever TRULY appreciate HDTV I think the existance of OTA HD being superior to other methods will keep the number of OTA viewers the same as now or perhaps a bit higher.

I hope so, and I once thought much the same way -- but, without going into too many details, for me, anyway --- it's been easy to become pessimistic ......

For instance ... How many folks are actually using OTA DTV (HD and or SD) currently - Some 8 years after the DTV stations began hitting the airwaves ? Less than 2 months before they originally "thought" they'd be shutting off analog, and a little over 2 years from currently scheduled analog shut off .....

How many stations actively promote their OTA DTV and/or HD service, or, for that matter, their OTA service at all ? How many retailers are promoting or demonstrating OTA DTV/HD? Can folks go to the yellow pages and find a professional OTA antenna installer in their area ? .........

I suppose we can only guess, however it certianly would be nice to have some hard numbers --- Not just of how many ATSC receivers/digital TV's/HDTV's have been sold so far, but how many ATSC receivers are *actually* in use ... Anyone have any info on that?

For instance ... How many folks are actually using OTA DTV (HD and or SD) currently - Some 8 years after the DTV stations began hitting the airwaves ? Less than 2 months before they originally "thought" they'd be shutting off analog, and a little over 2 years from currently scheduled analog shut off .....

Most everyone has politely agreed to overlook it but legally I think analog is still required to be shut off two months from now. The two bills ratified by the House and Senate were not the same so technically there is no new legislation changing that date. Whichever version was signed by the president was not ratified by the other branch of Congress and so is not law. But I expect it to be challenged only when the new date finally approaches, say sometime in 2008.

- Tom

Why are people still believing this nonsense that VHF goes farther than UHF?

Because antennas resonant at VHF frequencies are physically larger and hence they have a greater capture area. This is the root of the much misunderstood space loss formula which many people interpret as indicating UHF is somehow absorbed more than VHF, which of course is ridiculous.

Additionally I have seen claims of VHF propagation beyond line-of-sight or radio horizon. This may be true under certain atmospheric conditions but I have never seen it demonstrated nor is it considered as a planned part of any propagation models.

Because antennas resonant at VHF frequencies are physically larger and hence they have a greater capture area. This is the root of the much misunderstood space loss formula which many people interpret as indicating UHF is somehow absorbed more than VHF, which of course is ridiculous.

You want to talk about ridiculous? You statement is ridiculous. Here is why. The reason VHF antennas are larger than UHF has NOTHING to do with capture area, but because of WAVELENGTH to resonance. Wavelengths at channel 4 are 12.7 feet for a fullwave length. For channel 9 the wavelength is 5.04 feet for a full wavelength. At channel 14 it is 2.09 feet for a full wavelength. At channel 51 it is 1.4 feet for a full wavelength. Antennas have to be sized accordingly. If not they don't receive well or at all. The formula is length in feet = 246 / freq in MHZ for one quarter wave length.

Longer wavelengths will bend over the horizon and will not be absorbed as easily as shorter wavelengths. That is why a station on channel 2 with 100,000 watts ERP will have much farther coverage than a station on channel 51 with 100,000 watts ERP with equal antenna type and height above ground. That is why channels 2-6 have a maximum analog power of 100,000 watts ERP, channels 7-13 has 316,000 watts ERP and UHF has 5 million watts ERP.

And as far as absorbtion goes, that is one of the main reasons wireless providers are crawling over each other for TV channels 52 through 69. Those frequencies are not absorbed at the same rate through buildings as the 800 and 900 MHz frequencies are. It is scientific fact that shorter wavelengths are absorbed by certain materials and reflected by other materials and gets through still others. It depends on the make up of the material a wave is trying to get through.

Additionally I have seen claims of VHF propagation beyond line-of-sight or radio horizon. This may be true under certain atmospheric conditions but I have never seen it demonstrated nor is it considered as a planned part of any propagation models.

HHHMMM, the FCC takes it into account with acceptable interference to stations on co and first adjacent channels.

Most everyone has politely agreed to overlook it but legally I think analog is still required to be shut off two months from now. The two bills ratified by the House and Senate were not the same so technically there is no new legislation changing that date. Whichever version was signed by the president was not ratified by the other branch of Congress and so is not law. But I expect it to be challenged only when the new date finally approaches, say sometime in 2008.

- Tom

Uh, that isn't quite right Tom. The House wanted Dec 31, 2008 to get it done quicker, the Senate wanted April 17, 2009 to avoid a public backlash for the Super Bowl and March Madness. The two bills were reconciled to Feb 17, 2009 as it is between the Super Bowl and March Madness. The reconciled bill was attached to the defense bill that was then voted on by both houses and became the renewed Patriot Act that the president signed into law. So yeah, the Dec 31, 2006 date is officially dead. Besides, no market would have made the Dec 31 date of 85% penetration anyway since the definition of what 85% meant was never codified into law.

You want to talk about ridiculous? You statement is ridiculous. Here is why. The reason VHF antennas are larger than UHF has NOTHING to do with capture area, but because of WAVELENGTH to resonance.

What's wrong with your reading skills? That's exactly what I said. It's because of this that VHF appears to have less propagation loss with respect to UHF.

Longer wavelengths will bend over the horizon and will not be absorbed as easily as shorter wavelengths.

Absorbed by what? The atmosphere? The Friis transmission loss equation is just as valid in outer space, on the moon or Mars.

That is why a station on channel 2 with 100,000 watts ERP will have much farther coverage than a station on channel 51 with 100,000 watts ERP with equal antenna type and height above ground. That is why channels 2-6 have a maximum analog power of 100,000 watts ERP, channels 7-13 has 316,000 watts ERP and UHF has 5 million watts ERP.

That's all due to the increased size of the receiving antenna at VHF.

Uh, that isn't quite right Tom. The House wanted Dec 31, 2008 to get it done quicker, the Senate wanted April 17, 2009 to avoid a public backlash for the Super Bowl and March Madness. The two bills were reconciled to Feb 17, 2009 as it is between the Super Bowl and March Madness. The reconciled bill was attached to the defense bill that was then voted on by both houses and became the renewed Patriot Act that the president signed into law. So yeah, the Dec 31, 2006 date is officially dead. Besides, no market would have made the Dec 31 date of 85% penetration anyway since the definition of what 85% meant was never codified into law.

Naw, the two bills were never quite reconciled. They reconciled the dates but still had some discrepancy on medical subsidies to seniors or something like that. But there was still no single identical copy voted on by both houses and then sent to the president so technically that legislation never really passed. If everyone agrees to pretend it is law then I suppose it may stand until challenged. But it is a very vulnerable law since any party could challenge its validity in court at any moment.

- Tom

What's wrong with your reading skills? That's exactly what I said. It's because of this that VHF appears to have less propagation loss with respect to UHF.

That might be what you meant, but that isn't what you said.

Absorbed by what? The atmosphere?

The ground. Over long distances, the earth's curvature produces a similar effect to a big mountain.

That's all due to the increased size of the receiving antenna at VHF.

Then those big VHF antennas should do a great job of receiving UHF signals from those high-powered transmitters. :rolleyes:

The ground. Over long distances, the earth's curvature produces a similar effect to a big mountain.

Are you refering to ground wave absorbtion or simply lack of line-of-sight? Ground wave absorbtion while valid for frequencies below HF has little impact on either VHF or UHF frequencies, propagated chiefly by space waves. This is especially true for horizontially polarized signals such as TV whose ground wave is essentially nonexistent.

Then those big VHF antennas should do a great job of receiving UHF signals from those high-powered transmitters. :rolleyes:

They do not. They are electrically long and therefore every bit as inefficient as an electrically short antenna.

I agree with the OP to a certain extent.

One of the confusing issues with HD for your average carbon blob: channel #s that don't match the analog channel #s. I have trouble keeping them straight myself. Hopefully the cutover will put them back on their proper channels.

I recently tried to put on Grey's Anatomy on in HD (over cable, using the LG LST-3510A HD/DVD combo receiver. It almost works for OTA, if I prop the antenna in the window and very carefully point it). The sound kept cutting out periodically (and the picture once in a while). My wife got mad and made me turn the VCR back on - I didn't blame her. Analog cable at 100" on my X1 is tolerable. The HD picture was worlds better, but it didn't do much good when it kept breaking up every few minutes. I blame this on my local station - there's certainly some growing pains there (all the other stations were fine).

My grandma is one of those over-the-air only people. She's got one of those console TVs that sits on the ground - made in the late 80s, early 90s. It broke and she had it fixed because she doesn't like how the new TVs don't sit on the floor. She refuses to pay for cable/satellite despite how many hours of TV she watches. And she doesn't want a new TV. I'll be the one hooking up an HD tuner for 480i, I'm sure, in 2009.

Get her one now for Christmas.

Naw, the two bills were never quite reconciled. They reconciled the dates but still had some discrepancy on medical subsidies to seniors or something like that. But there was still no single identical copy voted on by both houses and then sent to the president so technically that legislation never really passed. If everyone agrees to pretend it is law then I suppose it may stand until challenged. But it is a very vulnerable law since any party could challenge its validity in court at any moment.According to THOMAS, the change to February 17, 2009 was signed into law as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H Con Res 95, amended in S 1932). The same bill changed the low end of the digital spectrum from 746 MHz (channel 60) to 698 MHz (channel 52).

Strange - neither online version of the U.S. Code that I know of (the one at THOMAS, and the one at Cornell) seems to have the updated law. However, THOMAS makes it quite clear that it was signed into law (Public Law 109-171) on February 8, 2006.

Also, the law reads:
"The Federal Communications Commission shall take such actions as are necessary--
(1) to terminate all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service, and to require the cessation of broadcasting by full-power stations in the analog television service, by February 18, 2009; and
(2) to require by February 18, 2009, that all broadcasting by Class A stations, whether in the analog television service or digital television service, and all broadcasting by full-power stations in the digital television service, occur only on channels between channels 2 and 36, inclusive, or 38 and 51, inclusive (between frequencies 54 and 698 megahertz, inclusive)."

-- Don

According to THOMAS, the change to February 17, 2009 was signed into law as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H Con Res 95, amended in S 1932). The same bill changed the low end of the digital spectrum from 746 MHz (channel 60) to 698 MHz (channel 52).

Strange - neither online version of the U.S. Code that I know of (the one at THOMAS, and the one at Cornell) seems to have the updated law. However, THOMAS makes it quite clear that it was signed into law (Public Law 109-171) on February 8, 2006.

Also, the law reads:
"The Federal Communications Commission shall take such actions as are necessary--
(1) to terminate all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service, and to require the cessation of broadcasting by full-power stations in the analog television service, by February 18, 2009; and
(2) to require by February 18, 2009, that all broadcasting by Class A stations, whether in the analog television service or digital television service, and all broadcasting by full-power stations in the digital television service, occur only on channels between channels 2 and 36, inclusive, or 38 and 51, inclusive (between frequencies 54 and 698 megahertz, inclusive)."

-- Don

This law didn't change the channels in the digital core, it only changed the date that out of core stations had to go off the air. The change from 60 to 52 happened back in the late '90s.

According to THOMAS, the change to February 17, 2009 was signed into law as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H Con Res 95, amended in S 1932). The same bill changed the low end of the digital spectrum from 746 MHz (channel 60) to 698 MHz (channel 52).

Strange - neither online version of the U.S. Code that I know of (the one at THOMAS, and the one at Cornell) seems to have the updated law. However, THOMAS makes it quite clear that it was signed into law (Public Law 109-171) on February 8, 2006.

Also, the law reads:
"The Federal Communications Commission shall take such actions as are necessary--
(1) to terminate all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service, and to require the cessation of broadcasting by full-power stations in the analog television service, by February 18, 2009; and
(2) to require by February 18, 2009, that all broadcasting by Class A stations, whether in the analog television service or digital television service, and all broadcasting by full-power stations in the digital television service, occur only on channels between channels 2 and 36, inclusive, or 38 and 51, inclusive (between frequencies 54 and 698 megahertz, inclusive)."

-- Don

Actually it turns out Congressman John Conyers and others are already suing about this, since the House members never got to vote on the version eventually signed by the President. It's plainly unconstitutional, regardless what some high ranking government members say. Laws have to be approved by both houses of Congress.


As the Washington Post reported last month, as the Republican budget bill struggled to make its way through Congress at the end of last year and beginning of this year (the bill cuts critical programs such as student loans and Medicaid funding), the House and Senate passed different versions of it. House Republicans did not want to make Republicans in marginal districts vote on the bill again, so they simply certified that the Senate bill was the same as the House bill and sent it to the President. The President, despite warnings that the bill did not represent the consensus of the House and Senate, simply shrugged and signed the bill anyway. Now, the Administration is implementing it as though it was the law of the land.
.
.
.


See Taking the President to Court (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/27/154625/574) (from April 27, 2006)

- Tom

Actually it turns out Congressman John Conyers and others are already suing about this, since the House members never got to vote on the version eventually signed by the President. It's plainly unconstitutional.

I don't think George, the 2 Johns, and Ben had many thoughts about satellite TV and cable at the time (1776).... :D

Good grief....unconstitutional? More like unconstipationable. :rolleyes:

Welcome to reality....the House and Senate pull this kinda stuff all the time (add things to bills unrelated to the main bill itself....how do you think most of the pork barrel projects get approved.... :eek:

Actually it turns out Congressman John Conyers and others are already suing about this, since the House members never got to vote on the version eventually signed by the President. It's plainly unconstitutional, regardless what some high ranking government members say. Laws have to be approved by both houses of Congress.

See Taking the President to Court (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/27/154625/574) (from April 27, 2006)I'm a little confused about Conyers's claim that no vote was taken. House Resolution 635 says:

Resolved, That the House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).

A vote was taken on this resolution, and passed 216-214. How could the House bill be different if they voted to accept the Senate version?

-- Don

I heard democrats are talking about pushing the date back because they are worried they won't have enough vouchers and people will be rioting in the streets.

It's the reception I'm worried about. Sure I fixed my problems for the most part but others, particularly non-tech-savvy people are going to be really angry.

I'm not even sure boosting the signal will help because like I say, I live right in the middle of all the stations and I still had lots of problems at first.

Now that digital tuners are required in DVD Recorders, and that those are becoming so cheap (almost like VCRs), there is no reason why anyone wouldn't be able to get one themselves...

I heard the communists have their workers feverishly trying to accomodate to the poor OTA only capitalists! ;)

They expect to have the product(s) ready by 2009.

Now that digital tuners are required in DVD Recorders, and that those are becoming so cheap (almost like VCRs), there is no reason why anyone wouldn't be able to get one themselves...

I think Congress is worried about teh wrong thing. It's not the availability of vouchers for digital tuners that's going to tick people off, it's ATSC reception.

I tried to buy a HD tuner recently. Not a single store in all of Pittsburgh PA had a stand alone tuner. Not best buy, not radio shack, not circuit city, not even the audiophile boutiques.

Interesting about the DVD recorders though. Not that I need one, but if it is the only way to get a tuner... Either that or buy a tivo or DSS receiver with a tuner built in.

I tried to buy a HD tuner recently. Not a single store in all of Pittsburgh PA had a stand alone tuner. Not best buy, not radio shack, not circuit city, not even the audiophile boutiques.

Interesting about the DVD recorders though. Not that I need one, but if it is the only way to get a tuner... Either that or buy a tivo or DSS receiver with a tuner built in.

I don't know why they dissapeared. I guess they weren't selling well enough.

My local digital PBS just expanded from 2 channels to 5!

I'm assuming that if this hasn't happened in your area yet, it soon will. So scann the frequencies again and you might discover more channels!

I heard democrats are talking about pushing the date back because they are worried they won't have enough vouchers and people will be rioting in the streets.


That's the only way they can enact anything in the next 2 years - claim the roof is falling. :rolleyes:

Whatever screaming about analog being shutdown will come after the fact - once the shutdown switch is flipped, analog ain't coming back.

Wow. The price of digital TVs are coming down. I just saw at Wal Mart a 27" 4x3 SDTV with ATSC and QAM tuning for $179. At these prices maybe a lot of people will shrug their sholders and just get a digital TV and not mess with the $50 digital STB.

Rick R

^ They'll complain that they can't use the $40 towards such a TV.

Anyone aware of any company planning to make cheap A/D converter boxes that would actually qualify for that voucher?

- Tom

Samsung and others have been mentioned in other threads - use today's FCC mandate as a guide - nothing will be available before the deadline.

Samsung and others have been mentioned in other threads - use today's FCC mandate as a guide - nothing will be available before the deadline.

What a plan!! Have an 8 year transition that starts in 1998 and is supposed to end in 2006. Do nothing for years and then have a new delay till 2009.

Do almost nothing but plan on having converter boxes available at the last minute. Put up a pittance for education. Have a mandate.

Then when the time seems right bring up the fact that nothing is happening and propose another delay.

That is what is happening now. The usual suspects are at it again. Congressman Dingell of Michigan and CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/01/eveningnews/techtalk/entry2527393.shtml

Seems that TV can cover TV when they have something to say about something that impacts them.

Dingell didn't put a number on it but now CBS does, 2012. It has been pretty obvious that broadcasters want to put off the transition for as long as possible and keep competitors at bay but should our representatives be in the business of helping them?

It will be interesting to see who else shows up in the press pushing for a further delay to help the poor.

What a plan!! Have an 8 year transition that starts in 1998 and is supposed to end in 2006. Do nothing for years and then have a new delay till 2009.

Do almost nothing but plan on having converter boxes available at the last minute. Put up a pittance for education. Have a mandate.

Then when the time seems right bring up the fact that nothing is happening and propose another delay.

That is what is happening now. The usual suspects are at it again. Congressman Dingell of Michigan and CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/01/eveningnews/techtalk/entry2527393.shtml

Seems that TV can cover TV when they have something to say about something that impacts them.

Dingell didn't put a number on it but now CBS does, 2012. It has been pretty obvious that broadcasters want to put off the transition for as long as possible and keep competitors at bay but should our representatives be in the business of helping them?

It will be interesting to see who else shows up in the press pushing for a further delay to help the poor.

Keep peddling. You ain't there yet.

The blog you highlight has some MAJOR errors of information. Like the analog shutdown date WAS NOT July 2005 as he states. That date was for Big 4 nets in the top 100 markets to be at full power, July 2006 for the rest of statons to be at full power. The first date (and former FCC Chair Powell admitted it was only a placeholder that was to have been changed before the bill was signed into law in 1996) was Dec 31, 2006. After I read that piece of fiction, I stopped reading. He obviously wasn't as up as he thought he was (and even YOU missed that), even if he does work for CBS in Washington. You really need to get better material.

If nothing else the broadcasters will scream if another delay happen because they're already counting the savings from the electric bill. Hey, come to think of it, there's an argument for the tree huggers to not delay - it will cut down on greenhouse emissions from the electricity savings. :rolleyes:

Keep peddling. You ain't there yet.

The blog you highlight has some MAJOR errors of information. Like the analog shutdown date WAS NOT July 2005 as he states. That date was for Big 4 nets in the top 100 markets to be at full power, July 2006 for the rest of statons to be at full power. The first date (and former FCC Chair Powell admitted it was only a placeholder that was to have been changed before the bill was signed into law in 1996) was Dec 31, 2006. After I read that piece of fiction, I stopped reading. He obviously wasn't as up as he thought he was (and even YOU missed that), even if he does work for CBS in Washington. You really need to get better material.

He needs better handlers at CBS I am afraid. If your going to create a spin you have to get your facts straight.

If, and I expect they will, CBS starts getting better material out there to push for another transition delay I will get it.

But it looks like they want to start this off slow and make it look like it is coming from regular folks to me.

Delay is the only thing this transition was ever about. Has worked so far very well. Have to watch what they do not what they say.

They are doing little and saying that the poor need help. What they are doing is delaying the competition that will arrive with the end of analog.

Pundits still talk of the broadband ventures that will use the TV spectrum that was and will be auctioned (channels 52-69) but so far the buyers are all doing TV broadcasting call it what you will.

And I expect that all the rest of the spectrum sold in the next auction, channels 52, 53, 56, 57, 58 and whatever can be used above 59, will be used for broadcasting of TV also unless broadcasters can undermine that in the meantime.

Even Aloha was initially planning on using their spectrum for broadband but changed their minds to broadcast TV.

Why not broadcast with this spectrum. There is a big need and current broadcaster don't seem to want to provide any competition. Current broadcasters will see their OTA customers drop to 2% while new broadcasters will see their customer base rise to close to 100% OTA.

Of course somewhere in there current broadcasters may wake up.

According to "Prick up Your Rabbit Ears" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17080800/site/newsweek/), a newsweek article recently posted on MSNBC site : It seems antennas are flying off the shelves these days for U.S. OTA HD reception.

Also, In December, The article at following link contains estimate that 19% of current HD households that own a HD set and actually receive HD programming on their sets watch HDTV via OTA - of course, the article also points out that roughly only 40% of the 25 Million households that own HD sets(or 9.8 million of those households) are actually viewing any HD content on their sets :

http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/hd-ota-viewers-1221/

That's about 1.86 Million households watching OTA HD, currently. Doesn't seem to take into account any SD only OTA digital viewers or sets, and, I don't know if they took into account ATSC(including HD) reception products for PC's ...

So, that's about 1.7% of the total 111.4 TV households in U.S. currently watching OTA HD right now ... Of course, that's only an estimate, I wouldn't be surprised if the number was actually higher than that, currently. I would be surprised if it were lower ....

Would be interesting to know the SD digital OTA viewership numbers, currently, and how fast they are rising as well, given that we've had fairly inexpensive 25~27" digital sets(with ATSC receiver's in them) on the market for quite a while now ... I might assume at least 15~20% or so of all those sets sold in the past year or so are be being used for OTA/OTA digital reception, and that OTA only viewers are buying those sets as well ....

To me, OTA HD households being 19% of current HD viewership seems to me like a pretty impressive number, even if it is "flattening out" at 19% -- given the situation with sat+cable in this country, *AND* what the situation so far has been with the DTV transistion mess in general .....

But, what do I know, I'm just a dumb hillbilly who lives too far out in the sticks for cable to run their lines to, and who notices the sun revolves a bit around the earth during the time I encode a movie to HD-WMV ... ;)

Granted, 1.86 Million OTA HD viewers doesn't sound very impressive, unless you realize we've pretty much done it on our own(and yes, some or many of us do not get "dropouts" either), and in some cases with help from forums such as these, but little to no help from anyone else ....

He needs better handlers at CBS I am afraid. If your going to create a spin you have to get your facts straight.

No, you need to read more carefully. He admits he is NOT a high muckity-muck but just a worker bee. He was voicing his opinion and was not speaking for CBS.

You can't spin what one employee THINKS as to be gospel. When Les Moonves says he wants a delay, THEN you can have your day in the sun.

foxeng -

What's your personal prediction on this. Are the broadcasters going to lobby for another delay or will they be happy enough to just do it and get it over with?

- Tom

What a plan!! Have an 8 year transition that starts in 1998 and is supposed to end in 2006. Do nothing for years and then have a new delay till 2009.

Wasn't there a certain nutcase named bob miller who was peddling his cofdm datacasting agenda on this forum? :rolleyes:

foxeng -

What's your personal prediction on this. Are the broadcasters going to lobby for another delay or will they be happy enough to just do it and get it over with?

- Tom

I of course can't speak for Mr Moonves personal thoughts, but I can tell you that no one I know of in the industry is talking delay nor is there any talk in the trades about a delay. Quite the opposite is true. Everyone has Feb 17, 2009 circled on their calendars since plans are made, money has been spent and new revenue streams are now being put into place. A change now would cause too much instability in the industry and no one wants that. These retrans agreements for cash are a cause in part to the realization that Feb 17, 2009 is less than 2 years away.

As a matter of fact I am starting to see more movement of smaller stations to go ahead and give up their analog channels to save money (but the FCC doesn't always go along) and LP's and translators are changing over to digital as well. Those two things signals the industries acceptance for the Feb 17, 2009 date because those are the people who would need an extension more than the Disney's, GE's, CBS's and News Corp's which are the ones who are always named as wanting a delay by the ill informed or those with an axe to grind.

According to "Prick up Your Rabbit Ears" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17080800/site/newsweek/), a newsweek article recently posted on MSNBC site : It seems antennas are flying off the shelves these days for U.S. OTA HD reception.

Also, In December, The article at following link contains estimate that 19% of current HD households that own a HD set and actually receive HD programming on their sets watch HDTV via OTA - of course, the article also points out that roughly only 40% of the 25 Million households that own HD sets(or 9.8 million of those households) are actually viewing any HD content on their sets :

http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/hd-ota-viewers-1221/

That's about 1.86 Million households watching OTA HD, currently. Doesn't seem to take into account any SD only OTA digital viewers or sets, and, I don't know if they took into account ATSC(including HD) reception products for PC's ...

So, that's about 1.7% of the total 111.4 TV households in U.S. currently watching OTA HD right now ... Of course, that's only an estimate, I wouldn't be surprised if the number was actually higher than that, currently. I would be surprised if it were lower ....

Would be interesting to know the SD digital OTA viewership numbers, currently, and how fast they are rising as well, given that we've had fairly inexpensive 25~27" digital sets(with ATSC receiver's in them) on the market for quite a while now ... I might assume at least 15~20% or so of all those sets sold in the past year or so are be being used for OTA/OTA digital reception, and that OTA only viewers are buying those sets as well ....

To me, OTA HD households being 19% of current HD viewership seems to me like a pretty impressive number, even if it is "flattening out" at 19% -- given the situation with sat+cable in this country, *AND* what the situation so far has been with the DTV transistion mess in general .....

But, what do I know, I'm just a dumb hillbilly who lives too far out in the sticks for cable to run their lines to, and who notices the sun revolves a bit around the earth during the time I encode a movie to HD-WMV ... ;)

Granted, 1.86 Million OTA HD viewers doesn't sound very impressive, unless you realize we've pretty much done it on our own(and yes, some or many of us do not get "dropouts" either), and in some cases with help from forums such as these, but little to no help from anyone else ....

Who is the we that did it on their own? Are not we all in this digital transition?

Didn't the UK do the 55% plus of household on their own to?
Japan close to 45% and HD.
Australia 35% and customers have a choice of HD or SD
Germany 60% SD

Those countries in half or less of the time we have been doing it or less.

And France after two years is at 37.9% in the 63% of the country covered. HD to come in September 2007. All receivers to work with MPEG4.

http://www.tdf.fr/medias/view/?id=837

Or do you mean early adoptors who did it on their own without the help of Congress, the FCC, broadcasters, the CEA, retailers and manufacturers?

Hurrah for free OTA HD and 1.7% in only 9 years.

We are supposed to be first with the most, why are we last with the least?

The US is the biggest and richest market in the world. Why do most of the manufacturers avoid us like the plague when it comes to OTA DTV?

Who has the most to lose if most get an antenna? From where are the majority getting locals through today? That's why these people won't see a difference when analog is turned off-cable and sat providers are rushing to add HD, It will only mean changing out a cable box or receiver, free or subsidized. No need for the cost of an antenna or install fee, plus you only get OTA, which usually is 5-10 channels. Those left out will have no cable or will not want sat services and don't understand what is needed for the transition-these people will be ticked. Especially if they're sold needless "HD" antennas and expensive Plasmas/lcds and not satisfied with what HD/SD offers

Who is the we that did it on their own?


OTA HD viewers in the U.S. I'm sure I made that clear in my post.

Of course, we had *some* help, as for instance, we wouldn't have any OTA HD to watch at all if it weren't for the broadcasters who provide it .....

See below for additional clarification .....


Or do you mean early adoptors who did it on their own without the help of Congress, the FCC, broadcasters, the CEA, retailers and manufacturers?


Obviously, we wouldn't have any DTV signals on air, or any DTV receivers to use without the legislation for DTV transistion, the "Rules" for transisition, or without the signals on air or without the receivers ....

Just saying, at least up until the ATSC receivers started going into sets on a widespread basis per the so called "ATSC tuner mandate" --- at which point it generally has become as easy as hooking up antenna(including your old one if you were using analog OTA) to your new set :

I think it has pretty much been up to we OTA HD viewers to seek out info on DTV+DTV transistion and what we need for OTA HD, and so far as I can tell, SO FAR, they(Broadcasters, retailers, manufacturers) have done very little to tell us about DTV, or promote DTV or their HD/DTV services ...


Hurrah for free OTA HD


Or, To put it another way, per their estimate, about 5 Million OTA HD viewers if you estimate about 2.75 persons per household ....

Given 25" and larger digital SD (with ATSC tuners in them) sets have been on the market(including at stores such as walmart), and in the weekly "bix box" retailer Sunday paper ads for quite some time now(inexpensive DV-CRT models for $180~300 in the 27" screen size range) :

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number of SD digital OTA households matches the HD OTA viewership by now .... Hopefully, Foxeng will post some of the more accurate and/or current figures he has for OTA digital+HD viewership in the other thread ...