I just got a ProBrand ATSC tuner yesterday. I think I spent more time toying with the reception than I did actually watching programming. I live on the edge of Madison, WI and fairly close to the TV stations here. Despite that and buying a 45db amplified antennae, it's still hit or miss.

As the day wore on, reception did get better so that by midnight all of my channels were coming in. But I didn't buy this thing so I could turn it on at midnight!

People can live with some snow or ghosting with VHF/UHF because you can atleast still WATCH IT! This garbled mess of pixels and frozen screens culminating in audio and video drop outs is just totally unacceptible. What's the point if you can't even follow what's going on?

I'm not giving up yet but since I live in an apartment building I don't see how I'm getting an antennae on the roof.

It was a little stormy outside, maybe that was affecting reception?

All in all, when digital does come in, it looks pretty good except for the artifacting. I'm just hoping that when analog is shut off in 2 years, these channels will boost their signals or there's going to be a lot of ticked off people.

I just got a ProBrand ATSC tuner yesterday. I think I spent more time toying with the reception than I did actually watching programming. I live on the edge of Madison, WI and fairly close to the TV stations here. Despite that and buying a 45db amplified antennae, it's still hit or miss.

As the day wore on, reception did get better so that by midnight all of my channels were coming in. But I didn't buy this thing so I could turn it on at midnight!

People can live with some snow or ghosting with VHF/UHF because you can atleast still WATCH IT! This garbled mess of pixels and frozen screens culminating in audio and video drop outs is just totally unacceptible. What's the point if you can't even follow what's going on?

I'm not giving up yet but since I live in an apartment building I don't see how I'm getting an antennae on the roof.

It was a little stormy outside, maybe that was affecting reception?

All in all, when digital does come in, it looks pretty good except for the artifacting. I'm just hoping that when analog is shut off in 2 years, these channels will boost their signals or there's going to be a lot of ticked off people.

Stations will have no choice other than to boost their signals once analog is shut off. Even those of us with very good reception have experienced what you describe at one point in time or another...the digital signals are simply not a priority for most broadcasters at this point in the transition. During last week's ongoing rainstorms in the South Florida region I lost all but 3 of the 14 digital channles I can normally tune into. Now, with the weather back to normal, they've all returned. In my opinion, ATSC is the best thing that has happened to television broadcasting in the past 50 years.

I just got a ProBrand ATSC tuner yesterday. I think I spent more time toying with the reception than I did actually watching programming. I live on the edge of Madison, WI and fairly close to the TV stations here. Despite that and buying a 45db amplified antennae, it's still hit or miss.
If you live fairly close to the broadcast towers, why did you get a 45db amplified antenna?? Get a real and less expensive antenna. Odds are that it work much better than one with a built-in amplifier.

Most every ATSC station is on full power now - what you see is what you get - in fact, as some move back to VHF-HI in 2009, it will probably be better now.

I just got a ProBrand ATSC tuner yesterday. I think I spent more time toying with the reception than I did actually watching programming. I live on the edge of Madison, WI and fairly close to the TV stations here. Despite that and buying a 45db amplified antennae, it's still hit or miss.


Your problem is caused at least partially by the amplified antenna. You can't use an amplifer when you are close to the TV stations. To much amplification causes distortion of the signals. Have you ever turned your stereo up all the way? Notice how it sounds bad? The same concept can be applied to over-amplification of DTV signals.

Now, if you had a guitar amplifier the effect would be cool, but not for DTV.

Most every ATSC station is on full power now - what you see is what you get
(Heheheh full power my a**) Tell that to people in Springfield, MO, Fort Smith, AR, Joplin, MO, Springfield, MO, Little Rock AR, Monroe LA, Shreveport, LA and dozens of other markets that still have low power digitals.

And what you see is not what you get, at the end of analog. When analog is shut down, OTA reception should improve even more, due to less co- and adjacent-channel interference.

ATSC works great where stations are full power and don't have interference from other stations.

Not true, but keep smoking whatever you got.

He actually isn't as far off as you might think. There are studies that prove that. The problem comes from the fact that both NTSC and ATSC use only half of the AM signal. NTSC uses the upper side and ATSC uses the lower side. You get a NTSC on a lower channel to a ATSC and you get interference to the upper ATSC channel. That is why the FCC has been hesitant, without some technical specs to back up a request to put a ATSC station on the next channel above a NTSC station (N+1 and in some cases they didn't have a choice but to do it) but you can take that argument further out that if you have a local NTSC and a distant ATSC as a N+1, you will have a hard time picking up the N+1 ATSC where an ATSC on the lower channel from the NTSC you would be able to pick it up because of less interference.

In the OP's case, as has been pointed out, his problem isn't he has low signal, his problem is he has too much signal and the receiver is being overloaded and not being able to decode anything. YMMV, but my experiments have shown that normally (90% of the time) a pre-amp in the 10-15 db range is all that is needed if you are using an outside antenna to overcome line loss and for an indoor antenna to not use any pre-amplification and that seems to work the best overall unless you have a special case like mountains or some such in the way.

Never use an amplified antenna or a preamp, unless you have a spectrum analyzer :) .

A degree in Rocket Science, lots of time to waste, and the patience (and disposition) of Mother Theresa are also recommended.

foxeng,
Thanks for the detailed explanation about some of the interference problems ATSC currently faces.

Most every ATSC station is on full power now - what you see is what you get - in fact, as some move back to VHF-HI in 2009, it will probably be better now.

If that was the case, then why are both Fox and ABC increasing their power in Miami?

Ericglo

I can turn the amplification off and yes, that does indeed help reception for SOME channels. But others need it turned on and the gain adjusted to about half. But that's only sometimes too. I got most of the channels in fine yesterday until about 6:00, then half of them went screwy and I had to decide which channel I wanted to watch because that would depend on whether or not I had the amplification on. Yeah, I don't get it either. Pretty damn annoying.

But when it works, it's great. Fox HD is absolutely incredible.

I would return the antenna and try a different one.

Also:
Do you have the antenna near a window that faces the direction of the towers?
What is your building made of? If it's stucco-on-screen, or if it has foil-backed insulation or a metal roof, any of these can severely limit indoor antenna reception.

I would return the antenna and try a different one.

Also:
Do you have the antenna near a window that faces the direction of the towers?
What is your building made of? If it's stucco-on-screen, or if it has foil-backed insulation or a metal roof, any of these can severely limit indoor antenna reception.

The fact that you even have to ask these questions or make these suggestions proves how unreliable ATSC is. Do you think j6p is going to go through their building blueprints just to see how screwed they are? Do you think they're going to go through 5 different antennas? This is actually my second antenna with identical results.

My point is, ATSC is far less reliable than simple VHF/UHF and j6p will not stand for it. If increasing the signal at the source will not overcome these problems than ATSC is screwed from the get-go and that's really too bad because I want reliable digital OTA reception.

My ATSC OTA tuner is very reliable. Perhaps you need a better tuner. Just like cheap analog tuners, cheap digital tuners don't always work well in poor reception areas. Or maybe your antenna is in a dead spot for OTA. It happens. Move your antenna or get an outdoor antenna. Or sell your tuner and watch DVDs.

I get ATSC channels perfectly from 70 miles away, but the old analog chs are completely unwatchable due to snow and severe ghosts.

Wireless indoor reception is always a crap shoot, regardless of the technology. Cell phones don't work in a lot of indoor (and outdoor) locations. Do you think they should scrap those, too, along with ATSC, just because of dead spots?

The fact that you even have to ask these questions or make these suggestions proves how unreliable ATSC is. Do you think j6p is going to go through their building blueprints just to see how screwed they are? Do you think they're going to go through 5 different antennas? This is actually my second antenna with identical results.

My point is, ATSC is far less reliable than simple VHF/UHF and j6p will not stand for it. If increasing the signal at the source will not overcome these problems than ATSC is screwed from the get-go and that's really too bad because I want reliable digital OTA reception.

You must be kidding. ATSC is not unreliable. The stations just need more power and time to work with and update the digital equipment. I find it interesting that you have trouble getting the UHF and not the VHF. I bet a simple four element UHF Yagi would pick up all of the channels easily. I built one for around $5. You should do some more reading on antennas. As for j6p, most of them will probably get their locals from satellite or cable despite the reduction in quality from OTA.

Ericglo

The fact that you even have to ask these questions or make these suggestions proves how unreliable ATSC is. Do you think j6p is going to go through their building blueprints just to see how screwed they are? Do you think they're going to go through 5 different antennas? This is actually my second antenna with identical results.
But the questions on your building construction and layout apply 100% to NTSC broadcasting as well. If anything, ATSC is more reliable with steady picture quality than I ever got for the weaker NTSC signals. One of the issues with ATSC is that most ATSC stations are currently located in UHF and in areas with dense woods or steep hilly terrain, UHF does not carry as well as VHF. Once the analog shutdown occurs, most of the upper VHF stations will switch their digital channels back to the upper VHF channels which will address those problems in many areas. But we are stuck with dual broadcasting during this transition period.

What antennas have you tried? If you are getting those built to look vaguely like a stealth airplane or something out of a home/interior design magazine that the Best Buys and Circuit Cities sell, you are very probably getting a crappy and overpriced antenna. How far are you from your broadcast towers? If you are within 10 or so miles, a Zenith/Philips Silver Sensor usually works very well and can be found for $20 to $25. Heck, start with a simple bowtie or loop antenna for UHF and rabbit ears for VHF if you are fairly close in.

Yep. Just like ANALog, digital tv antenna selection is trial and error. Like afiggatt said, start with the simplest antenna and work your way up. And avoid fancy overhyped "designer" or "HDTV" antennas that don't look like antennas. They are usually just a crappy antenna in a fancy overpriced plastic housing.

Digital TV uses the same frequencies and antennas that analog used.

Seeing that the antenna you've got has a 45 db amp, I'm guessing that it's one of those RCA or Philips Walmart models.

Take it back! Those thing are crap! The noise figures on those things are very high. Even Radio Shack's usually work better. The "official" Silver Sensor is much better than that encased, amped Philips clone that W.M. sells. The differences between the two are like night and day. Try that or the $15.00 double bowtie from R.S., if all your stations are UHF.

As far as having to try 5 different antennas - we all did!! Some many more!! Just try to get them from places where you can easily return them. You may really have to experiment to find a "sweet spot" for the placement. And higher is usually better.

There is no way to compare "reliability" of ATSC and NTSC because they fail in different ways. You always can "get" NTSC, if you can develop even about -25dBmV coming off the antenna, but it will look like someone wiped your picture tube with sandpaper, whereas ATSC is either perfect or stammering. Trying to peak the performance of a single, multipurpose ATSC antenna is exasperating, because you can't "see" the tradeoffs you are making as you degrade one signal while improving another.

When the temporary allocations were being given out, it looked to me like the FCC initially favored N+1 assignments (at least, they did in the big markets that I evaluated) because they were more concerned with preserving the picture quality of the NTSC station rather than enhancing the reliability of the ATSC one, but those priorities have now reversed.

In Washington, DC, the low power analog NTSC stations are migrating into the city to be right next to adjacent full power ATSC transmitters, making them unwatchable for now, but when they do the "cold switch" in February of 2009, they will become adjacent ATSC channels that will be about ten to twelve dB below the co-located, adjacent full-powered transmitters, and since ATSC works reliably with adjacent ATSC channels nearly 20dB stronger (I have no trouble tuning Batlimore ATSC 52, which is adjacent to Washington 51, and Baltimore 40, adjacent to Washington 39, with over 15dB of power differential), the owners of these little LPTV stations will be able to get rich by running six infomercials at a time. They will lose the fringe, but have excellent coverage of a metroplitan area of over 1,000,000 people

Truth is, in most bigger cities the stations should probably all turn their power down.

The problems are, mostly, that there are far too many signals, and they run at too different levels. A simple indoor or outdoor antenna would then be sufficient for most locations. Most tuners and preamps can't handle the "assault" of multiple high powered signals. (We have about 36 TV channels running in SLC right now, probably will add another 8 or so when the LPTVs get their Digital Companion channels on the air. Added to the dozens of full-power and low-power "booster" FMs, it's an electronic nightmare.

... We have about 36 TV channels running in SLC right now, probably will add another 8 or so when the LPTVs get their Digital Companion channels on the air...Don't most LPTV stations plan to flash cut to digital?

I've read some reviews on antennas and I'm going to try the Terk. It seems that the Zenith is really flimsy and is only UHF anyway which would make it obsolete once channels start switching over to VHF.

" just got a ProBrand ATSC tuner yesterday. I think I spent more time toying with the reception than I did actually watching programming. I live on the edge of Madison, WI and fairly close to the TV stations here. Despite that and buying a 45db amplified antennae, it's still hit or miss."

Why did you buy the particular models (especially the antenna) that you did?

I'm curious if you were given some bad advice. Did someone at a store, maybe, recommend something without knowing what your location/circumstances were? Maybe one of those web-based antenna sites?

This stuff should not be "rocket science" in most cases.

I've read some reviews on antennas and I'm going to try the Terk. It seems that the Zenith is really flimsy and is only UHF anyway which would make it obsolete once channels start switching over to VHF.That's IF any channels in your area are going to end up on VHF. You need to check that first.

Actually, the flimsiness of the Silver Sensor is very deceiving. It looks goofy and feels cheap, I know, but it really does work like a champ. If you find one good spot where it works well, you can always tack it down. The Terk HDTVi doesn't get very good reviews (their HDTVa gets better ones, but you don't need that amp), although at your distance, it might work. But it's also obscenely overpriced, at twice the cost of the SS.

fettastic,

Cut and paste your antennaweb results... maybe you are too close and overdriving the signal(s).... overloading the tuner.

I have a cheap UHF only antenna from RS for $14.99 and it picks up all digital stations from 22-26 miles away with no problems or cutting out. Analog simply looks horrible!!! At least in the Phila market, digital seems very reliable.

I have a cheap UHF only antenna from RS for $14.99 and it picks up all digital stations from 22-26 miles away with no problems or cutting out. Analog simply looks horrible!!! At least in the Phila market, digital seems very reliable.Which model are you using?

At least in the Phila market, digital seems very reliable.

Of course digital is reliable! The problem is that not everyone is in the same location, terrain, home structure, trees, yada,yada...

I'm only approx. 18 miles away from the Philly towers and tried 4 different indoor antennas and two attic mounted outdoor antennas.

A CM4228 was is the final solution. (only because of WTXF).

Many times what works for "you" may not work for the guy across the street.

CM 4228 is fantastic if you're away from the towers a bit.

.... But it's [TERK] also obscenely overpriced, at twice the cost of the SS.
All TERKs are obscenely overpriced. Sales people try to sell them because their markup is unreal. I once overheard a salesman tell a customer that they would have to get a TERK "HDTV" antenna or they couldn't get OTA.

I just got a ProBrand ATSC tuner yesterday. I think I spent more time toying with the reception than I did actually watching programming. I live on the edge of Madison, WI and fairly close to the TV stations here. Despite that and buying a 45db amplified antennae, it's still hit or miss.
.

When I lived in a high rise apartment a few years ago and tried to go the OTA analog route (to save money)...after a few weeks of ghosting and dancing with the rabbit ears, I gave in and got the cheapest cable package available at that time. Saying that NTSC is more reliable than ATSC is inaccurate.

I'm one that will argue that UHF is far better suited to ATSC/digital tv than VHF. During a storm last sunday night, I was getting audio dropouts from a local high power VHF digital. A high power digital (from the same location and tower) on UHF had no issues with audio dropouts due to storms between the transmitter and my location.

Here's my advice. Get a quality antenna (something tried and true like a CM 4221--small enough for indoor use) : many are very affordable under $50; and place it near a window. And avoid lossy spitters, etc. Little things can make a big difference.

...Here's my advice. Get a quality antenna (something tried and true like a CM 4221--small enough for indoor use)
It's an excellent antenna if your digital channels are all UHF and you are less than 40 mi from the towers. And the 4221 (http://warrenelectronics.com/antennas/4221.htm) is only around 24 bucks plus shipping.

The Silver-Sensor is probably the most highly recommended UHF antenna in the world, for indoor reception. It's often said, "Try a SS. If it won't work, nothing will....you'll have to go outdoors".

It is a great example of how engineering and marketing people can work together, rather than against each other ("Dilbert"-style), and come up with a product that looks cool, works well, and is affordable to build and to buy.

I've only broken one of them....had the antenna hanging from the ceiling and knocked the STB off the cabinet, ripping out the connector. They are not all that "flimsy".

Which model are you using?

I do not know. It's just the RS UHF only antenna and it's mounted in my attic above the garage which is the lower of my two attics. gets all stations rock solid. Also, on an overcast day, I'll pick up stations from Atlantic City...even though the antenna is facing WNW and AC is SE.....

Ratman...long time since I've seen your "name". Hope all is well. Is your 38" RCA still up and running?

Thanks... all is well with me and my TV. As a side note: I had Gregg Loewen (LionAV) stop by and perform greyscale adjustments. Excellent results!

Thanks... all is well with me and my TV. As a side note: I had Gregg Loewen (LionAV) stop by and perform greyscale adjustments. Excellent results!


I may want to get someone to calibrate my set. My previous RCA 52" died so I went out and got a 51" Hitachi and LOVING IT ! Does this guy calibrate and adjust RP CRT HDTV's? Would you reccommend him? If so, please PM me his info.

Take care and good hearing from you. BTW, thanks for your help in the other forums...which, I have not returned to since finding the AVS forum. People are much more understanding here and more willing to help....no equipment egos on this forum. ;)

http://rsk.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pRS1C-2326366_rshalt1_dt.jpg

I picked this up at Radio Shack yesterday and the remote controlled presets are a godsend. I made a thread just about it so I don't really want to talk about it here, but all the problems we've been experiencing are over now.

....no equipment egos on this forum. ;)

LOL!!! Yeah.... :rolleyes:

Anyway, LionAv info at www.lionav.com

But I don't think we should all assume analog will be turned of in 2009. To me that date seems likely to be challenged, with more delays.

But I guess nobody mentioned 2009 here, so maybe we just mean whenever.

- Tom

MONEY is involved because the frequencies will be auctioned off before analog shuts down. Once the frequencies are auctioned off it's a done deal. Public Safety organizations, WiMax from AT&T et al, and other new wireless services will likely already have a lot of new equipment in place to use those frequencies once they are available. Also, I would imagine the broadcasters are ready to get this over with, due to the enormous expense of running dual full power stations.

I don't think Low Power (LPTV) is affected by the Feb '09 shutoff - only full power stations. But from the long list of "NEW" FCC applications for LD (Low Power Digital) stations, it looks like many many of them will flash cut to digital on or before the '09 date.

Full Power analog tv is dead meat if Walmart is already warning their customers about its impending demise (see my sig link for .pdf file they also have linked on their site).

IMHO, the number of OTA only people (like me) are so few at this point that they could shutdown analog OTA tomorrow, without warning anybody and the result would be a tempest in a teapot.

That being said, I think they really didn't do a very good job on design of 8VSB. I think COFDM, in Europe, is going to end up showing how marginal 8VSB is.

IMHO, if they had put a lot more effort into making sure that the audio is rock solid even when the video is stuttering then there would be a LOT fewer complaints about 8VSB. Perhaps using QPSK or some other frequency shift scheme for the audio while still using 8VSB for the video would have made the audio much more robust.

IMHO, the number of OTA only people (like me) are so few at this point that they could shutdown analog OTA tomorrow, without warning anybody and the result would be a tempest in a teapot.


It is funny you should say that. Until I moved to Miami, I had not met anyone who was using an OTA antenna. I met two old ladies who still use analog OTA. One has cable as well. The other one will just complain to no end if the switch is pulled. I even offered her a 36" Monivision TV for $100 and I would get her a STB to receive digital stations, but she refused. I think they should cut it off now and let those that still use analog either upgrade or do without. TV isn't a right!!!

Ericglo

But I don't think we should all assume analog will be turned of in 2009.

Tom,

You seem to be the only one who doesn't think it will happen. No one in the industry that I can see are trying to get that date moved. Everywhere I look, people are preparing for Feb 17, 2009. Even the FCC is now back on track and I see in the FCC Daily Digest more and more stations are applying for a license to cover their full power digital operations meaning they have built them (of all market sizes). The number of LPTV's being granted flash cuts and companion channels take up several pages a day now. The big item being purchased now by a lot of stations are digital control switchers. That is another sign that stations are moving toward that date.

Will you have a few stations push the legal envelope? Sure, you always have that. I can think of two, but the rest are either done are will be by 2009. But IMO, 98% of all stations are preparing for analog shutdown on Feb 17, 2009 and many are beginning to embrace it now (with the explostion of multicasting that is going on).

I don't think Low Power (LPTV) is affected by the Feb '09 shutoff - only full power stations. But from the long list of "NEW" FCC applications for LD (Low Power Digital) stations, it looks like many many of them will flash cut to digital on or before the '09 date.

LPTV's are effected by that date as well. All analog broadcasting licenses being issued or renewed now have an expiration date of Feb 17, 2009 on them.

Tom,

You seem to be the only one who doesn't think it will happen. No one in the industry that I can see are trying to get that date moved. Everywhere I look, people are preparing for Feb 17, 2009. Even the FCC is now back on track and I see in the FCC Daily Digest more and more stations are applying for a license to cover their full power digital operations meaning they have built them (of all market sizes). The number of LPTV's being granted flash cuts and companion channels take up several pages a day now. The big item being purchased now by a lot of stations are digital control switchers. That is another sign that stations are moving toward that date.

Will you have a few stations push the legal envelope? Sure, you always have that. I can think of two, but the rest are either done are will be by 2009. But IMO, 98% of all stations are preparing for analog shutdown on Feb 17, 2009 and many are beginning to embrace it now (with the explostion of multicasting that is going on).

foxeng -

Maybe you are right and I should just get with the program.

But I'll probably remain skeptical until I see those $50 converter boxes on the market that work at least most of the time with indoor antennas.

- Tom

LPTV's are effected by that date as well. All analog broadcasting licenses being issued or renewed now have an expiration date of Feb 17, 2009 on them.
Thanks for the info, foxeng. It's good to know that all analog broadcasting in the US will die an overdue death in feb 09. :-)

...Until I moved to Miami, I had not met anyone who was using an OTA antenna.
Here in rural NW Arkansas, OTA is still very popular because you can get so many channels from other markets not available on D* or E*. So most people around here that live outside of cabled areas have an outdoor roof antenna. With digital TVs flying off the shelves at walmart ($276 for a 32" SDTV!), people are quickly finding out how many more channels are available on OTA digital, and how sharp the picture is.

Newer SDTVs with integrated ATSC tuners that Joe six-pack is buying are as easy or easier to setup as an older analog set with electronic tuner. On-screen prompts walk you through the initial channel scan when you first take the TV out of the box and power it up.

Here in rural NW Arkansas, OTA is still very popular because you can get so many channels from other markets not available on D* or E*. So most people around here that live outside of cabled areas have an outdoor roof antenna. With digital TVs flying off the shelves at walmart ($276 for a 32" SDTV!), people are quickly finding out how many more channels are available on OTA digital, and how sharp the picture is.


I hope you know that I meant analog.:) I should also say that I meant in the last 20-25 years. I know we got cable around '80-'82.

That is great that someone is getting some use out of OTA analog. I guess it would be disheartening to the stations to find out that only 10 people were even watching their OTA signal.:) For me, I will stick with OTA digital because it is free and of better quality than Direc.

Ericglo

I may be the only one in my circle of friends & family who doesn't have cable (Cincinnati area). It started because I'm a cheapskate, but once digital/HD came along it turned into a hobby, and I blame all the ideas/encouragement I got from folks on this and other forums for my newfound mania. When I fall off the ladder and break something I expect a few G/W cards, you know...

I read somewhere that Dallas, TX has the smallest penetration of cable TV in the USA and that there 50% of households use OTA only. So many people use OTA only. Both of my brothers use OTA only as does my Wife's best friend and my current Boss. Most of these OTA only people are not prolific TV watchers.

Also I have heard several people with cable state that 80% of their TV watching is OTA, so why do they keep paying so much for cable TV. Note that I said cable. Most satellite TV subscribers have really thought about their TV habits and purposefully switched to satellite.

Just my $.02.

Rick R

while my experience isn't anywhere near a statistically significant sample, i live in dallas, and would guess that around 40-50% of people i know use OTA.

my wife and i have used analog OTA for years with an inexpensive radio shack boom antenna that i hung in the attic. after getting an HD projector (Optoma HD72), we made the jump for digital. WOW. it was fantastic to plug in the ATSC tuner (pro brand 3150plus, for the hdmi output) and use the same antenna for stunning quality.

TV isn't a right!!!

Ericglo

In a way it is because the American people own those airwaves and they are regulated by the FCC to be used for the common good of the people. Charging people for public access to news, weather and educational programming is not for the common good. The fact that some choose to pay for extra channels is a seperate issue.

I think a LOT of people only use OTA. I've never paid for cable in my life. what's the point? 100 channels of crap I'm not interested in? The reason it's so expensive is because of the sports channels and I hate sports. Almost all of what people watch is the big networks anyway. Yeah sure, people form niches for channels, but more specifically it is individual shows. I have a very easy solution to that, if a show looks interesting, rent/buy the DVD/HD DVD box set when it comes out. Then you can watch them all in a row. I do that with OTA shows as well.

Besides, what kind of life are people living when they need 100 channels of TV? I mean seriously. I'm far too busy playing XBOX and watching HD DVDs. :cool:

...while my experience isn't anywhere near a statistically significant sample, i live in dallas, and would guess that around 40-50% of people i know use OTA.
How many of them eat Swanson TV Dinners while watching? :eek:

I think a LOT of people only use OTA.
Yes... but not the majority.

I've never paid for cable in my life. what's the point? 100 channels of crap I'm not interested in?
You can get 'lifeline' service for ~%15 a month. Same OTA local and a few more.

The reason it's so expensive is because of the sports channels and I hate sports.
Huh? How many? ESPN and ESPN2?

Almost all of what people watch is the big networks anyway. Yeah sure, people form niches for channels, but more specifically it is individual shows.
Huh? My wife like Lifetime, TNT, USA.... I like History, Discovery, A&E, TMC. I like the programming, not individual "shows".

I have a very easy solution to that, if a show looks interesting, rent/buy the DVD/HD DVD box set when it comes out. Then you can watch them all in a row. I do that with OTA shows as well.
By the time you rent/buy the DVD's for all of the programs/series, you could have payed your cable bill.

Besides, what kind of life are people living when they need 100 channels of TV? I mean seriously. I'm far too busy playing XBOX and watching HD DVDs. :cool:

What kind of life are some individuals living when they sit in front of a TV playing games? And... do you have an HD-DVD player?

Yes... but not the majority.


You can get 'lifeline' service for ~%15 a month. Same OTA local and a few more.


Huh? How many? ESPN and ESPN2?

I thought this was common knowledge. You can do a search on it and look into it more, this is just the first link I saw:
"sports programming costs are rising as much as 15 percent."
http://www.ucan.org/consumer_info/coxratehike.htm


Huh? My wife like Lifetime, TNT, USA.... I like History, Discovery, A&E, TMC. I like the programming, not individual "shows".

That why I said channels AND shows. If you're really into watching nature/history shows, PBS HD looks pretty spiffy....and it's free. :cool:


By the time you rent/buy the DVD's for all of the programs/series, you could have payed your cable bill.

Most shows are crap. There's only a couple I'm even interested in. For example, I just bought Battlestar Galactica season 2.5 for $32.99 the other day. That's on Sci Fi channel, which I would have to pay $50 or so a month to be able to watch, and it still wouldn't look or sound as good as the DVDs. And of course I'd have to wait a week in between every episode which is just annoying.

And I just rented season 4 and 5 of The Sopranos for $1 a disc. That's $8 for both seasons. How much did you pay to see them on HBO for 2 years?

What kind of life are some individuals living when they sit in front of a TV playing games? And... do you have an HD-DVD player?

Yeah, ummmm....that was a joke. :confused: And do I have an HD DVD player? Yeah that's pretty much how I watch HD DVDs. I haven't figured out any other way to do it. (looks around confusedly) Is this guy for real?

IMO, you have a chip on you shoulder about ATSC and cable and probably a lot of other things.

PBS is one channel... I prefer a selection when PBS is running a beg-a-thon.

I agree! Most shows on network TV are crap. BG is one of them. :)
Sopranos... after the 3rd season.... crap (IMO).

How much did I pay? Nothing! I don't sub to any premium cable channels nor do I have "digital" cable.

And as for your last comment... I'm thinking the same thing after reading all of your whining about ATSC.

And BTW.... your link is four years old. ;)

IMO, you have a chip on you shoulder about ATSC and cable and probably a lot of other things.

I LOVE ATSC! I'm only concerned that people will be nagry when it doesn't come in as good as VHF/UHF.

PBS is one channel... I prefer a selection when PBS is running a beg-a-thon.

I get 3 PBS digital channels, all free.

I agree! Most shows on network TV are crap. BG is one of them. :)
Sopranos... after the 3rd season.... crap (IMO).

How much did I pay? Nothing! I don't sub to any premium cable channels nor do I have "digital" cable.

.......So how do you know how Soprano's is after season 3? Oh, DO YOU RENT? :cool:

And as for your last comment... I'm thinking the same thing after reading all of your whining about ATSC.

I'm not whining, I'm concerned. Pity you can't tell the difference.

And BTW.... your link is four years old. ;)

Am I crazy or did I explain that I just grabbed the first one I saw? Did I or did I not say you could research it further? See people? Why even post links? People just ignore them anyway! Sports channels premium liscence fees is a hell of a lot older problem than the last 4 years. They've been escalating for decades. But because that one link aside from the thousands he could gather himself, just happens to be 4 years old, all of a sudden the entire point he is disputing, that sports liscence fees are driving cable costs through the roof, is now invalid? Yeah, but I'M the crazy one right? :rolleyes:

Be concerned about you then. ATSC does come in via VHF/UHF. So... in 2 1/2 years, the existing base of OTA only will need to adapt/adjust accoringly. And there's not a darned thing they can do otherwise.

I get 6 PBS channels (all FREE!). Two in HD, 4 in SD. So, whoop-de-doo. Still... the HD is great. But sometimes there is more interesting/educational programming on the alternatives I've mentioned above.

Sopranos? No, I didn't rent. I watched the first 3 seasons on taped VHS copies. There rest of the seasons I didn't bother watching/borrowing based on "water cooler" talk.

IMO... you are whining. One thread about not getting good ATSC reception because you jumped the shark with an overkill antenna (and wouldn't listen to anyone). And, started a second thread concerned for the general (as small as it may be) OTA public. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I could be wrong...

You did explain that was the first you saw. I don't need to research. Do I believe that YOU do? I think that's a fair assumption. Yes cable prices have increased, but not soley because of ESPN and ESPN2. Subscription prices escalate as does everything else.

Cable subscriptions do not escalate because of sports licensing costs. You pay to get that programming (above and beyond ESPN).

You can be well assured that you are not crazy (AFAIK). Just uninformed perhaps.

You did explain that was the first you saw. I don't need to research. Do I believe that YOU do? I think that's a fair assumption. Yes cable prices have increased, but not soley because of ESPN and ESPN2. Subscription prices escalate as does everything else.

Cable subscriptions do not escalate because of sports licensing costs. You pay to get that programming (above and beyond ESPN).

You can be well assured that you are not crazy (AFAIK). Just uninformed perhaps.

"Cable operators, led by Atlanta-based Cox Communications Inc., charge that they are being gouged by sports programmers like ESPN, which are jacking up prices each year for the right to carry their channels."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_46/b3858099_mz016.htm

"ESPN is raising rates to operators by 20% annually, and many regional sports networks are passing along similarly stiff increases that will subsidize their ballooning rights payments to teams."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DIZ/is_4_13/ai_80222355

"Dramatic increases in sports-network licensing fees are a particular sore spot for cable's critics, who point to the GAO's finding that licenses for ESPN and other sports channels climbed 59% during the three years ended 2002. "
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA331706.html?display=Top+of+the+Week

There are 11 million other google hits for "sports cable fees". Trust me, everyone else on the planet has known about this for many years. Welcome to the fold. :cool:

IMO... you are whining. One thread about not getting good ATSC reception because you jumped the shark with an overkill antenna (and wouldn't listen to anyone). And, started a second thread concerned for the general (as small as it may be) OTA public. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I could be wrong....

You are wrong, quite wrong in fact. The antenna I assume you are referring to is the 45db amplifier one. As I pointed out in that thread but which you seem to have forgotten, it had a gain dial on it. So the fact that it had OPTIONAL amplification is kind of moot, don't you think? And as I've ALSO pointed out, the antenna I have now, which solved the problem, ALSO has amplification. by the way, this one cost twice as much as the last one. I mention that because maybe that's what you meant by "overkill".

And I guess any time anyone brings up questions about something you like, that's considered "whining" or "sour grapes" in your world. Well, welcome to the real one. Not everyone is going to see everything like you do. And THAT was the whole point of this thread. I'm sorry that continues to elude you.

Sorry fella... the second or third post in the other thread, it was suggested a better antenna and/or the pre-amp.

I'm NOT calling you out about "questions". It's when one doesn't "listen" and accept recommendations. And... makes me open an umbrella because my back is getting wet when it's not raining.

Sorry fella... the second or third post in the other thread, it was suggested a better antenna and/or the pre-amp.

And did I buy a better antenna? Well, DID I? :rolleyes:

I'm NOT calling you out about "questions". It's when one doesn't "listen" and accept recommendations. And... makes me open an umbrella because my back is getting wet when it's not raining.

So when I BOUGHT A NEW ANTENNA, was that "listening to recommendations" or not?

UN-FRICKEN-BELIEVABLE! :eek:

Yes you did! I took quite a few people to get you through the denial phase and steering you away from Terk, but you did well. Enjoy!

foxeng -

Maybe you are right and I should just get with the program.

But I'll probably remain skeptical until I see those $50 converter boxes on the market that work at least most of the time with indoor antennas.

- Tom

Now if you want to talk skepticism, then those $50 converters are DEFINATELY on my list of things that will NOT come to pass. The same companies that went before Congress last year saying that $50 boxes could be made if the government mandated a hard cut off date and subsidize the boxes are now saying that $50 boxes may not be as feasable as once thought, particularly now since the NTIA is talking about limiting the number of who can get those $50 boxes.

In a way it is because the American people own those airwaves and they are regulated by the FCC to be used for the common good of the people. Charging people for public access to news, weather and educational programming is not for the common good. The fact that some choose to pay for extra channels is a seperate issue.

No, TV is not a right. Never has been. It is a privilege. You have the privilege to buy the receive equipment to view it, if available to you, and you have the privilege to apply for a TV broadcast license but not the right to broadcast until the government allows you to by granting you a license.

No where is it written in law that the government HAS to provide TV to you like they do protection or civil services.

Sorry.

Why? A $50 ATSC (non-HD) converter shouldn't be a problem today, let alone 2009. And by the end of 2008, they could probably be manufactured and sold for a nice profit.

Heck... they're included in the least expensive TV's today.

The only limitation that I am aware is that only two $40 vouchers will be made available to those households that rely soley on OTA.

The problem IMO is that the NTIA is possibly factoring in the number of scammers that will obtain vouchers/converters by deceit and abuse the program and in turn, screw the "legitimate" users (and everyone in the long run).

Essentially... the ATSC converters are not much different than when we (or some of us :) ) had to purchase external UHF tuners back in the 60's.

I LOVE ATSC! I'm only concerned that people will be nagry when it doesn't come in as good as VHF/UHF.ATSC is VHF/UHF.

A lot of people will be a lot happier with ATSC. I am, because I can now watch PBS and not get a headache!

NTSC Ozarks Public Television:
http://i10.tinypic.com/46z7l1c.jpg

ATSC Ozarks Public Television:
http://i10.tinypic.com/2cxbw4n.jpg

For now i'm filing the "$50 Converter Boxes" under vaporware. Next summer, all new video recording devices with tuners will be required to have ATSC capability and all but the smallest TVs (regardless of resolution).

Expect new DVD recorders and consumer DVR's to have ATSC OTA (and probally QAM) tuners starting next summer: that will take care of the STB issues for many people. Because of that prospect, there will very likely be few stand-alone $50 converters outside the governement transition plan.

Just my 2 cents

I don't think converters are or will be vaporware. They will be necessary for those that still have legacy tuners in 2009.

We are all aware that DVD recorders, most all TV's, and VCR's (heaven forbid!) will have ATSC tuners and this will help alleviate the transition for many through attrition. It's just electronic evolution and will happen. Albeit... it will be a surprise for those that don't listen to TV, radio, read newpapers, etc.

Some individual's concerns make this out to be synonymous Y2K panic... that was (and still is) laughable.

Yes you did! I took quite a few people to get you through the denial phase and steering you away from Terk, but you did well. Enjoy!

Dude, NOBODY STEERED ME AWAY FROM THE TERK! If you actually read my OP, you'll see that I was there LOOKING for the Terk. And when exactly did I say I had no intention of buying another antenna before I got the Radio Shack? I never said anything like that. I love how you take teensy bits of information, discard the majority of it, then just invent your own story to go along with it.

With digital TVs flying off the shelves at walmart ($276 for a 32" SDTV!), people are quickly finding out how many more channels are available on OTA digital, and how sharp the picture is.
I checked this out yesterday. This is a fantastic buy. Besides ATSC reception it takes QAM and it has composite, s-video, and component in and digital audio out.

I am going to get one for my son tomorrow.

Rick R

No, TV is not a right. Never has been. It is a privilege. You have the privilege to buy the receive equipment to view it, if available to you, and you have the privilege to apply for a TV broadcast license but not the right to broadcast until the government allows you to by granting you a license.

No where is it written in law that the government HAS to provide TV to you like they do protection or civil services.

Sorry.

I said, IN A WAY it is. The rights to broadcast and the right to have broadcasts regulated and provide a public service are two completely different things so I don't know why you're trying to lump them together. And who said anything about the government providing people with TVs? :confused: As for what I SAID, read this:


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:reNkG2W1JuoJ:www.newamerica.net/Download_Docs/pdfs/Pub_File_610_1.pdf

ATSC is VHF/UHF.

Thanks for that universally known update.

I don't know why this is difficult for you guys to grasp.....ATSC is less reliable than NTSC. Is anyone here really disputing this? Really? Look at all the threads where people are trying to just get a signal, or one that isn't constantly dropping out, or one which isn't constantly jumping from poor to good for no apparent reason. Is analog like that? Not really.

In fact I was just at a friend's house last night playing with her ATSC set up for HOURS trying to get it to come in reliably. She was so frustrated she just wanted to take her new HDTV back to the store and get an NTSC one instead.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

Can any of you honestly say, with all we've been through trying to get this thing to work reliably with the pre-amps and the rotors and the attic antennas, that everyone is going to jump for joy, join hands and sing cumbaya when NTSC is shut off?

Why is this difficult for YOU to grasp. ATSC is just as reliable at NTSC. What you (and others) don't comprehend is that the symptoms of varying or poor signal quality differs.

ATSC... dropouts. You either get a solid signal and good picture quality or not.
NTSC... snow, ghosts, herringbone, etc.. yeah it's watchable, but not not optimal.

Your friend should come to the forums for help. Based on your inexperience and closed mind on this issue, she probably would benefit for our help.

"WE" made a choice to use OTA for HD and suffered. We each found a solution that worked and try to pass that along to others. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people provide help on the forum were satellite or cable subscribers already. We just jumped on the "OTA Train" because it was the only HD souce at that time!!!

I don't regret the efforts I took to get my HD locals. And... if it weren't for my reading and accepting the invaluable input from the participants here (and elsewhere), I'd probably still be in the same situation as you were and your "friend" is now.

Keep your chin up Bubba! :)

Why is this difficult for YOU to grasp. ATSC is just as reliable at NTSC. What you (and others) don't comprehend is that the symptoms of varying or poor signal quality differs.

ATSC... dropouts. You either get a solid signal and good picture quality or not.
NTSC... snow, ghosts, herringbone, etc.. yeah it's watchable, but not not optimal.

Just wondering what you're using as evidence that I don't understand this.

Your friend should come to the forums for help. Based on your inexperience and closed mind on this issue, she probably would benefit for our help.[/It was irritating her just watching me fiddle around and hook up various things. She's a preschool teacher, she's not coming to AVS. She didn't want ATSC in the first place and now that she has it, she's pissed off at it and just switches back to NTSC because the dropouts, freezes, pixelation and audio sync problems are too frustrating for her. You seem completely unable to believe this is a reaction people can have to ATSC. I don't understand why that is. You just say "Well just have the whole world come to AVS and we'll tell them to buy 20 different antennas until one works. Why would that annoy anyone?" :rolleyes:

[quote]"WE" made a choice to use OTA for HD and suffered. We each found a solution that worked and try to pass that along to others. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people provide help on the forum were satellite or cable subscribers already. We just jumped on the "OTA Train" because it was the only HD souce at that time!!!

I don't regret the efforts I took to get my HD locals. And... if it weren't for my reading and accepting the invaluable input from the participants here (and elsewhere), I'd probably still be in the same situation as you were and your "friend" is now.

Keep your chin up Bubba! :)

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'm just saying that j6p is going to be ticked off when they turn on their brand new ATSC tuner after the shut off and they get freezes, pixelization, audio and video drop outs and adio sync problems. Why can you not see that as even a remote possibility. "No, everyone will love ATSC! I know this because.....I do." :D

Just wondering what you're using as evidence that I don't understand this.

Two threads of arguements and numerous rebuttles that are, IMO, "shooting from the hip".

It was irritating her just watching me fiddle around and hook up various things. She's a preschool teacher, she's not coming to AVS.
Funny coincidence! My mother was a teacher, my oldest son teaches pre-school, my youugest son teaches High School math and my wife if a 6th grade teacher. When they needed ATSC reception, I hooked it up and it worked! No complaints. Where's the anomaly?

She didn't want ATSC in the first place and now that she has it, she's pissed off at it and just switches back to NTSC because the dropouts, freezes, pixelation and audio sync problems are too frustrating for her.
If she didn't want ATSC in the first place, why try. I hope that you are informing her that the problem isn't ATSC, it's your frustrated attempts.

You seem completely unable to believe this is a reaction people can have to ATSC. I don't understand why that is. You just say "Well just have the whole world come to AVS and we'll tell them to buy 20 different antennas until one works. You can't seem to understand that the majority of people (that haven't already established stable ATSC reception) are cable or satellite subscribers and DON'T CARE! Those that 'fallout' in 2009 will deal with it accoringly.

<rude remarks ommitted>Can we please keep this civil?

Valid points are being raised here. Millions of people will all of a sudden have difficulty receiving television come 2009. Jane and Joe-Sixpack will have to seek assistance from technically minded friends because, put simply, not everyone is capable of selecting, installing, and configuring a digital reception system.

There are certainly solutions and workarounds. And I bet everyone here is a proponent of DTV. So why the rude remarks when someone dares to mention bumps in the road to digital TV? AVS forums is better than that!

Please... Fr. dfiler, valid points are being made. Some have no validity. You've submitted your response and I thank you. Move on.

Move on? Isn't this thread supposed to be for discussion about how people might react angrily come 2009? If you don't want to discuss this, visit another thread.

I encourage people to continue this discussion. The topic will only become more pertinent as the Feb 2009 approaches.

I for one have never personally met anyone who had a trouble free experience in getting their digital OTA setup working properly. This may not be the norm, but problems are anything but unusual. There will, without a doubt, be "ticked" people in 2009.

I for one have never personally met anyone who had a trouble free experience in getting their digital OTA setup working properly. This may not be the norm, but problems are anything but unusual. There will, without a doubt, be "ticked" people in 2009.

Well, unless most of the kinks are worked out between now and then. If they're able to get it as reliable as folks are accustomed to (and I don't know whether there are any fundamental technical limitations preventing this), then there shouldn't be too many.

However, any change always results in some angry people. That's just the nature of change.

Move on? Isn't this thread supposed to be for discussion about how people might react angrily come 2009? If you don't want to discuss this, visit another thread.

Sorry... do your best to help those left in the rubble in 2009. What's there to discuss? Those left behind and are uniformed will be no more frustrated and exhausted as we all have for the past 5 years.

I encourage people to continue this discussion. The topic will only become more pertinent as the Feb 2009 approaches. I also encourage people to continue the discussion. But let's be realistic. The transition will happen. If you have any suggestions or solutions to make that easier for "those left behind", you need to contact your local, state, federal government and the FCC. Whining here does not help them.

I for one have never personally met anyone who had a trouble free experience in getting their digital OTA setup working properly. This may not be the norm, but problems are anything but unusual. There will, without a doubt, be "ticked" people in 2009.

As I and others have stated numerous times, everyone will have trouble. No situation is the same. There were "ticked" people in 2000, there are "ticked" people now and there will be "ticked" people in 2015! :rolleyes:

I think the point Ratman is trying to make (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that people shouldn't 1.) panic, and 2.) give up so easily. And probably throw in there, 3.) be so negative.

A great percentage of us here (myself included), weren't able to receive squat OTA (digitally) when we first tried. It took time, a lot of OPEN-MINDEDNESS (as far as lurking around here), and trial-and-error. We also learned from others around here how to minimize expenses. Now, I know that not nearly 100% of people are going to ultimately be successful, but there's a lot to be learned, and your chances will be greater if you just hang in there. And what you DO learn will help many others. This will go a great way towards EVERYONE being more prepared for the shutoff.

Coming from someone who is surrounded by so many teachers, I can understand where Ratman is coming from, and I believe his intentions are for the common good.

I personally don't think ATSC really works good enough yet to turn off analog TV. Maybe it never will. I hope they do it anyway just to get this show on the road. But if they do then people are going to be looking for those cheap subsidized converters and likely not find any that work for the supposed $50 price.

If I was a CE manufacturer being pressured to sell $50 ATSC converters and faced with possible ensuing "whining" and high return rate I would probably find a good excuse not to be in that business.

Whoever does agree to make & sell them will probably be blamed for all the hassle in 2009, if that turn off actually happens.

- Tom

The only reason that some of us have "put up with" the difficulties w/ OTA has been the expected benefit over cable/sat. Since the majority of people who rely on analog OTA today will not want to "put up with" the OTA issues come 2009, can it be said that the only people who will be happy are the shareholders of the sat/cable co. as those "legacy" analog OTA people just go to sat/cable?

Ramm... yes, that is mostly my thoughts. Thanks.

trbarry,
ATSC works... it has worked for many years. The problem is that today, the broadcasters are having just as many "growing pains" as those try to get reception. By 2009, they should be up to snuff.

As for the "$50" converters. Why should that be an issue? Instead of VSB, it's looking for 8VSB and converting to an NTSC or analog signal. As I used as an analogy earlier, this is no deifefrent than those that had to buy and external UHF converter back in the 60's. People had to buy the converter and and a UHF antenna. What's so different? (other than back then 90% of the population relied on OTA and not cable/satellite). I know they had their gripes and difficulties.

The turn off WILL happen.

We/they will all have to adjust when the transition takes place.

I just ran across this article. (http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/062105CEA/index.html)

Ericglo

Ramm... yes, that is mostly my thoughts. Thanks.

trbarry,
ATSC works... it has worked for many years. The problem is that today, the broadcasters are having just as many "growing pains" as those try to get reception. By 2009, they should be up to snuff.

As for the "$50" converters. Why should that be an issue? Instead of VSB, it's looking for 8VSB and converting to an NTSC or analog signal. As I used as an analogy earlier, this is no deifefrent than those that had to buy and external UHF converter back in the 60's. People had to buy the converter and and a UHF antenna. What's so different? (other than back then 90% of the population relied on OTA and not cable/satellite). I know they had their gripes and difficulties.

The turn off WILL happen.

We/they will all have to adjust when the transition takes place.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether "ATSC works" good enough to actually do the job after the turn off. Let's defer that part of the discussion for another 2 1/2 years when it may or not become a subject for debate again.

Obviously at this point in time we are not going to change modulation standards without something fairly interesting happening first.

As for the $50 converter, it's an issue to me because people keep telling me about the LG and other representatives telling Congress it will be a no-brainer as long as we order a lot of them. Either we will be able to buy them for that in 2009 or we won't. I don't know the answer now but again, in 2 1/2 years the answer should be fairly obvious. I'll bet you a nickel they will NOT be on the market at all.

But, again, I hope we do proceed with the turn off anyway. We can deal with the other issues then.

I have been able to make ATSC work satisfactorily in three different residences so far, in two different states. But Grandma 6P would probably not have been able to to that.

- Tom

ATSC is less reliable than NTSC. Is anyone here really disputing this? Really? Look at all the threads where people are trying to just get a signal, or one that isn't constantly dropping out, or one which isn't constantly jumping from poor to good for no apparent reason. Is analog like that? Not really.

Yes I am disputing that. As I said in an earlier post, ATSC is vastly easier to get than analog at my house. Many people got cable originally just because they could not get an acceptable analog signal without being an antenna engineer. It is my belief that many people that got cable to get decent analog reception will go back to OTA ATSC because it is easier to get with a perfect quality.

Since this is my second $.02 I have given $.04 I guess.

Rick R

I just ran across this article. (http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/062105CEA/index.html)

Ericglo

The article was posted June 19, 2005 over a year ago when Congress was debating the cut off date. That CEA letter had little to do with the cut off date. CEA was talking out of both sides of their mouth then. On one hand they supported the poor Americans who would lose analog service if it was shutdown too soon while on the other hand, wanting analog shutdown as soon as possible so they could start pushing higher cost digital sets.

The entire process of trying to assist the novice who comes online for hd reception assistance may be a bigger issue which may make them more discouraged and ticked.

There are too many
-options
-variables
-situations and conditions
-opinions
-misinformation

-there is more than one solution
-advice based from hdtv primer and personal home antenna systems rather than professional expertise
-dont use that use this

On and on and on.

Antenna and reception science is not an exact science. Have we fiqured that out yet?

Antennas and reception science is pretty close to an exact science, but the solutions are not universal.What works in one place is not going to work in every place. (Engineers and technicians joke about the "Universal Exact Replacement" parts that some stores sell for repairs.)

Knowing what the variables are, and knowing what is needed to meet those variables, is what makes it all work. But, the average consumer (and the "kid-in-the-ill-fitting-shirt", who advises most HDTV customers) does not know, or have the information for, all of that.

It's too bad that there are so few qualified antenna/MATV/SMATV people out there. OTA could be "plug-and-play". But, there seems to be very little call for "free TV" anymore.

u Just wondering what you're using as evidence that I don't understand this.

[quote]Your friend should come to the forums for help. Based on your inexperience and closed mind on this issue, she probably would benefit for our help.[/It was irritating her just watching me fiddle around and hook up various things. She's a preschool teacher, she's not coming to AVS. She didn't want ATSC in the first place and now that she has it, she's pissed off at it and just switches back to NTSC because the dropouts, freezes, pixelation and audio sync problems are too frustrating for her. You seem completely unable to believe this is a reaction people can have to ATSC. I don't understand why that is. You just say "Well just have the whole world come to AVS and we'll tell them to buy 20 different antennas until one works. Why would that annoy anyone?" :rolleyes:



I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'm just saying that j6p is going to be ticked off when they turn on their brand new ATSC tuner after the shut off and they get freezes, pixelization, audio and video drop outs and adio sync problems. Why can you not see that as even a remote possibility. "No, everyone will love ATSC! I know this because.....I do." :D
just want to add my two cents. i have been with hdtv since the beginning could be called an early adapter and probably a couple of other things. went through ho w many antennas and a revelant amps. found out that when i moved the antenna a couple of feet and got rid of the amp everything works fine now. with out the advice of the people at avs it woudn't have happened.what im trying to sayis with any new tecnology there is a certain amount of trial and error until you get it right.i could go on for days about my wife and new ideas is there any more comment needed on that line of thought.

Yes I am disputing that. As I said in an earlier post, ATSC is vastly easier to get than analog at my house. Many people got cable originally just because they could not get an acceptable analog signal without being an antenna engineer. It is my belief that many people that got cable to get decent analog reception will go back to OTA ATSC because it is easier to get with a perfect quality.

Since this is my second $.02 I have given $.04 I guess.

Rick R

I guess I'll have to partly agree and partly disagree with what you said. For instance, I've never been able to totally null out the ghost on NTSC channel 10 or all the snow on channel 5, so from the standpoint of never having to deal with ghosting and snow, ATSC is definately much easier.

But, the rub is that 8VSB is not very robust at all when it comes to certain issues. Here in Phoenix, we have about the most ideal conditions for OTA ATSC reception you'll ever find. All the Tx's are on one mountain, a couple of thousand feet above the surrounding terrain, they're all at high power and there's nothing behind us, so there's no need for antennas with high front to back ratios. There is some static multipath due to a few other hills around the valley, but compared to most cities it's not bad at all.

So basic setup for ATSC is a cakewalk. But if a plane flies parallel to my house the dynamic multipath takes me down every time. And the house behind me has a big bushy tree so whenever the wind blows hard the dynamic fading takes me down. I've also had lots of problems with rain fade (probably from that big bushy tree getting wet) and we only get 7 inches of rain a year! I can't imagine what it's like trying to ATSC to work reliably in someplace where they actually get some real rain.

NTSC, at least the audio portion of it, is much more robust under these same conditions. And IMHO, it's the audio dropouts that are the most annoying thing about ATSC because it's not just irritating, it can also damage speaker systems. I think people would sit and watch a stuttering, blocking ATSC signal if the audio was stable, just like they'll sit and watch a snowy, ghost-filled NTSC signal if the audio is OK.

Anyway, we're stuck with 8VSB now and just like you said about NTSC, those people who can't get ATSC to work will call their local cable or satellite provider so the tempest will blow over in couple of months after the NTSC shutdown.

The changeover will be a boon to cable and satellite and hopefully to local tv techs for antenna setups. Otherwise, time and $ to experiment for your best reception. UHF is not stable enough for nationwide reception.

Anyway, we're stuck with 8VSB now and just like you said about NTSC, those people who can't get ATSC to work will call their local cable or satellite provider so the tempest will blow over in couple of months after the NTSC shutdown.

Assuming they can afford cable or satellite. There are a lot of folks today who don't have cable or satellite because they can not affort the extra bill. I believe it will more than a couple of months before the tempest "blows over".

Here's where it's gonna get fun...

For some background, I've lived in many places in the country that either don't have cable or the area is served by one company and they don't have to charge competitive rates. We grew up on snowy analog reception (if we wanted quality, that's what the BetaMax was for ;)). But Miami Vice (or whatever) was still pretty much watchable with rabbit ears on each TV.

A few weeks ago my mom asked me about the transition. This part of my family is multi-generation (4) under one roof. They have 6 TVs in the household and live kind of in the sticks. They get an iffy analog OTA signal, but as long as there is sound and a picture it's good enough for them. I suggested digital cable, but freaked when I found out what it would cost them. Then I suggested satellite- but they have tried that and no good line of sight without chopping down a bunch of their pine trees, and those mirror and box rental fees would add up pretty quick. I mentioned the proposed $50.00 STB, but that adds up too. I think I'll be making some kind of trip to try to set them up with something before the cutoff, but I know it'll be me who gets the call when my mom comes home off the graveyard shift to find "CSI:Fresno" didn't tape because of PSIP errors or anything else that can happen, 'cause I'm the one who does the "TV Stuff". :p

Now trying to explain something like rescanning the channels when the data stream gets corrupted or why the signal that used to be snowy but working drops out every few seconds or is just *gone* is gonna be a wasted effort. Anyone who says "just have them come to the forum" can feel free to talk to my Grampa when the football game isn't coming in right.:D He has never used the internet before, and can get kind of grumpy at times, just so you all know. :)

I know a lot of people in town that use analog OTA only. I'm sure many of you guys and gals know people like that too.

Many of us have been using OTA ATSC for a while. We are willing to put in the extra time/money and try different antennas because this is our hobby and our choice. But it's actually not a lot of people's hobby. They just want to turn on the TV and have it work. I am pretty much mixed on the cutoff, because I know I'll get the call when things are not working right (and probably a lot of you, if others know that you do "TV stuff"). :D

Maybe it's time for some seminars on the DTV transition, to be given to local civic clubs, schools, and retirement homes.

Or, maybe, the FCC could ask Congress for some $$help$$ in setting up some antenna installation companies, through the SBA.

Or, maybe, the FCC could ask Congress for some $$help$$ in setting up some antenna installation companies, through the SBA.

Oh No !!!! Have the Govt. involved in Antenna Installs !!!!! :eek: :eek: :D

Maybe it's time for some seminars on the DTV transition, to be given to local civic clubs, schools, and retirement homes.

Or, maybe, the FCC could ask Congress for some $$help$$ in setting up some antenna installation companies, through the SBA.

We are planning to subsidize cheap (non-existant) $50 converters for people. I don't think they will also subsidize professional roof top antenna installations.

That wasn't part of the plan.

More likely they will just set up an ATSC hot line at the FCC with a recorded message that simply shouts "ATSC WORKS!" and then hangs up. ;)

- Tom

In two and half years, the local broadcasters should be more familiarized with the "new" hardware.

In two and a half years, the local boradcaters will probably have updated hardware to provide better signals.

On the transition, many of the local broadcasters will revert to VHF and this may change reception issues for some.

After the transition, the local broadcasters will have a sigh of relief since that don't have to support and pay to broadcast NTSC and ATSC.

ATSC does work.

The tuners don't exist since today, since there's no need for a standard definition ATSC receiver.

Why would there be an need for "professional" antenna installers? The people being subsidized already have VHF/UHF antennas.

For the most part... you can't base your negative expectations since many of you have never used an antenna in your life.

Why would there be an need for "professional" antenna installers? The people being subsidized already have VHF/UHF antennas.

For the most part... you can't base your negative expectations since many of you have never used an antenna in your life.

I don't think those last two statements are mutually consistant.


- Tom

To qualify the second quote...
I believe that many of the doomsayers are those that:
Always had cable or satellite.
Installed an antenna for the "first time" because they bought an HDTV recently (within 5 years).
Try to take the "easiest route" to get reception. Primarily, indoor antennas, because no one wants an "ugly antenna" on their roof or believe that can't install one because of the HOA.

I'm am in no way saying that there won't be gripes. But it's not Armegeddon.

I believe that many of the doomsayers are those that:
Always had cable or satellite.
Installed an antenna for the "first time" because they bought an HDTV recently (within 5 years).
Try to take the "easiest route" to get reception.
no one wants an "ugly antenna" on their roof

tend to agree and add the points made above.

There are too many
-options
-variables
-situations and conditions
-opinions
-misinformation from the net and from manufacturers


The costs of install can add up quickly and can become a shock if the user was only expecting to spend 50 bucks after spending over 5 grand on the home theater system.

And to save face...lets pin the blame on the home owners association and our loving wife to make the process even more dramatic.

gets rather cumbersome after awhile.

wait til the $40 voucher system is introduced. Its going to be like a $1 off coupon on a 4pk of $8 razor blades (on a unit thats going to cost who knows how much).

RCA and LG are testing units now.

Limit with be 2 coupons per household and the program is going to be based on net income. If your income is higher than poverty you aint getting a voucher.

If you are really interested in off air hd make the commitment...Instead of complaining about it and putting it off till another option comes around.

I'm am in no way saying that there won't be gripes. But it's not Armegeddon.

I agree completely. I think the consensus of those in the know right now is that the transition will be "interesting". I'm all in favor of getting on with it and getting it over.

- Tom

No, it wont be Armegeddon but it wont be painless either. I don't believe the issue will be antenna related (for most) either. The issue will be from people screaming about having to toss out all of those extra television sets and vcrs.......either that or buying several 'converter' boxes to use with that equipment. The 'current' transition date is a little more than two years away and we are still allowing people to buy NTSC equipment. We should have halted those sales a year or more ago. When someone needed a new set they would have purchased an ATSC set.......or better yet, one with both tuners.

One other thing you have to remember is these $50 converters will NOT have ANY HD outputs on them. They will output 480i only. That is part of the law that was signed when the converter program was approved. So if you think you will get a $50 box for your new 100" HDTV plasma, that will not happen, not unless all you want is 480i to feed it.

I was at Best Buy last night, and saw their "HD Made Simple" Video. It stated that you have to buy an HDTV and then subscribe to "HD Cable" or "DirecTV HD Service" in order to watch HD. So, I guess there isn't going to be any OTA or DISH Network HD.....right?

BTW, I saw a Sharp LCD TV with the Government-mandated warning label on it. I still think they could have found a high-school English teacher willing to proofread those things....I can't wait to see the Government-produced TV spots that are going to "explain" all of this in 2008-2009 :eek: .

I just thank God we've had a system that doesn't fall apart when the heat turns on or someone opens the refridgerator.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2AD136DD


That type of terrible broadcasting system was one of our FCC's choices in 1997.

You may interpret the government voucher proposal however you like but

Limit with be 2 $40 off coupons/vouchers per household and the program is going to be based on net income. If your income is higher than poverty level you are not entitled to receive a voucher.

RCA and LG are testing units now...price and features still not finalized...folks from those companies said the units are not going to be $50..."they are going for $200 today" is the conversation...

please read if interested

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/news/2006.08.23-n_NTIA.shtml

I wouldn't say anything is 100% decided yet. Anywany, the way I interpret this:
While Congress eschewed a means test (privacy concerns were raised during hearings), the NTIA sought comments on whether it should administer one.

"For example," the notice reads, "should we distribute coupons only to those households with an annual income of $19,806 or below," the poverty level for a family of four.

The NTIA has posed the question "... should we put an income cap to qualify?"

The new HD Tivo has a great ATSC tuner (much better than my Samsung TS160 and my D* HR10-250 (which I now use only for OTA), probably due to the chipset.

As of next March, all new TV's will require an ATSC tuner. Some of these TV's will use older (ie cheaper) chipsets). Some will use newer, better chip sets.

By mid 2008, I expect that all name brands will be using the newer, better chip sets to minimize returns. The widespread use of these chipsets may result in lower costs OTA boxes, so $50 may be very feasible.

This argument does not address:
a) the FCC's bungling of ATSC and of digital cable (cablecard, etc)
b) the existence of HDTV ready TV's which are now called HDTV monitors instead of HDTV's to get arounf FCC mandates
c) the irritation of OTA box buyers who buy an OK OTA box, only to find out that a much cheaper, much better box is available. Some of these are people who are buying before they really need to and won't be happy.

Well as I mentioned in a previous post I bought my Son a TV Saturday. Was planning to buy the 32" 4x3 SDTV from Wal Mart for $276. Instead got talked up to the 30" 16x9 720p HDTV by Sanyo for $478. Both of course had ATSC reception.

When we got it to his apartment all he had was a FM 300 ohm dipole antenna lying on the floor. Hooked it up and got all digital channels except one (KABC). Ooowed and awed over PBS's HD channel. Then we taped the antenna to the wall and got every digital channel perfectly. Watched KABC for 30 minutes with not a single drop out.

Basically with an antenna that was not intended for its use we got every channel perfectly. My Son was one happy camper. By the way if you are familiar with L.A. he lives in the Studio City area near the 170 and 101 freeways.

This lousy antenna worked great. In my opinion ATSC works great.

Rick R

We will have to agree to disagree on whether "ATSC works" good enough to actually do the job after the turn off. Let's defer that part of the discussion for another 2 1/2 years when it may or not become a subject for debate again.

Obviously at this point in time we are not going to change modulation standards without something fairly interesting happening first.

As for the $50 converter, it's an issue to me because people keep telling me about the LG and other representatives telling Congress it will be a no-brainer as long as we order a lot of them. Either we will be able to buy them for that in 2009 or we won't. I don't know the answer now but again, in 2 1/2 years the answer should be fairly obvious. I'll bet you a nickel they will NOT be on the market at all.

But, again, I hope we do proceed with the turn off anyway. We can deal with the other issues then.

I have been able to make ATSC work satisfactorily in three different residences so far, in two different states. But Grandma 6P would probably not have been able to to that.

- Tom

Sheila, the friend I mentioned earlier, is completely frustrated with ATSC. I suggested that she look into digital cable, but she's gotten used to getting OTA NSTC for free. There is a cable installer in the building and he came and looked at her set up and wasn't able to get it to work well either. He says the whole thing is a scam to get everyone on cable.

He might be onto something. :mad:

To qualify the second quote...
I believe that many of the doomsayers are those that:
Always had cable or satellite.
Installed an antenna for the "first time" because they bought an HDTV recently (within 5 years).
Try to take the "easiest route" to get reception. Primarily, indoor antennas, because no one wants an "ugly antenna" on their roof or believe that can't install one because of the HOA.

I'm am in no way saying that there won't be gripes. But it's not Armegeddon.

I've never paid for cable in my life. I'm pretty sure I've said that here before. And no, I'm not going to ask my apartment complex for permission to climb around on my roof with a $200 outdoor antenna and attempt to attatch it myself, then tell them to hook the whole thing up to my living room. Yeah, somehow I don't see that happening. And let me just reiterate once again that I get ATSC working fairly well with an indoor antenna. So when you come to my thread and declare a blanket statement about "doom sayers", clearly referring to me, try to get your information correct.

My preposition that ATSC is less easy to work with than NTSC for j6p is based more on my friend than me, although I had to toil with it for awhile too.

I think it is starkly obvious that anyone who is WILLING to spend lots of time and money without the wife yelling in their ear with her arms crossed about how it's all just a piece of crap, sure they CAN get at least something out of ATSC, but most people aren't like that.

I was at Best Buy last night, and saw their "HD Made Simple" Video. It stated that you have to buy an HDTV and then subscribe to "HD Cable" or "DirecTV HD Service" in order to watch HD. So, I guess there isn't going to be any OTA or DISH Network HD.....right?

BTW, I saw a Sharp LCD TV with the Government-mandated warning label on it. I still think they could have found a high-school English teacher willing to proofread those things....I can't wait to see the Government-produced TV spots that are going to "explain" all of this in 2008-2009 :eek: . Since someone's suing D* for what basically amounts to false advertising, maybe someone should sue Best Buy too! ;) :D

He says the whole thing is a scam to get everyone on cable.

He might be onto something. :mad:

yeah... if I worked for the cableco, I'd say the same thing.
I will agree that cable is the easiet route to take if you want HD.

I've never paid for cable in my life. I'm pretty sure I've said that here before.
Super! So you've watch fuzzy, ghosty, NTSC forever. Times are changing. Get on the bus.

And no, I'm not going to ask my apartment complex for permission to climb around on my roof with a $200 outdoor antenna and attempt to attatch it myself, then tell them to hook the whole thing up to my living room. Yeah, somehow I don't see that happening.
You probably don't need a $200 antenna.

And let me just reiterate once again that I get ATSC working fairly well with an indoor antenna. So when you come to my thread and declare a blanket statement about "doom sayers", clearly referring to me, try to get your information correct.
Fairly well is not stable. Indoor antenna's are the "easy way out" for many. Unfortunately, you are limited in your alternatives.

My 'blanket staement" holds. Just because "you" have a problem(s), the the rest of U.S. will also have a problem? I don't think so, bubba.


My preposition that ATSC is less easy to work with than NTSC for j6p is based more on my friend than me, although I had to toil with it for awhile too.
As I stated earlier, ATSC is new and in a transitional phase. EVERYONE is on a learning curve from the station engineers to the end user. Is it less easy? You bet. That's only because no one fully comprehends the newer broadcast technology.

Let's imagine if somehow this was all "reversed". If everyone was enjoying ATSC for 60 years and then the FCC says... "We're moving to analog!" Do you not think EVERYONE would be up in arms about the poor signal/reception with NTSC?

I think it is starkly obvious that anyone who is WILLING to spend lots of time and money without the wife yelling in their ear with her arms crossed about how it's all just a piece of crap, sure they CAN get at least something out of ATSC, but most people aren't like that.

Again... I disagree. I spent $60 for my antenna and ~$25 for coax. My wife never yelled.

IMO... you're frustrated and making all of this sound worse that it really is. Your personal experience(s) is not going to be the same for everyone.

I am a professional antenna installer from Fairfax, VA. It is near Washington, DC. I have been installing antennas for over 30 years and we have every type of reception problem in this area. We have spots that have multipath problems, low signal problems and areas that are in the middle of dense forests.

The one factor that will make this conversion smoother is the improvement of the ota converters due to better chips. We have installations where we are connecting multiple converters in a house. There can be a night and day difference in the reception quality when new and old converters are connected to the same antenna. The old converters were and are junk. These new converters and ones in the future are solving the problems with multipath and low signals.

The one problem that is the hardest in this area is the effect of wind and trees. When the wind blows the trees the signal levels will bounce up and down. The converter will go from 95-100 in signal strength to 0. This problem maybe reduced when some of the current UHF ota signals move back to 7-13.

Dave T

I am a professional antenna installer from Fairfax, VA. It is near Washington, DC. I have been installing antennas for over 30 years and we have every type of reception problem in this area. We have spots that have multipath problems, low signal problems and areas that are in the middle of dense forests.

The one factor that will make this conversion smoother is the improvement of the ota converters due to better chips. We have installations where we are connecting multiple converters in a house. There can be a night and day difference in the reception quality when new and old converters are connected to the same antenna. The old converters were and are junk. These new converters and ones in the future are solving the problems with multipath and low signals.

The one problem that is the hardest in this area is the effect of wind and trees. When the wind blows the trees the signal levels will bounce up and down. The converter will go from 95-100 in signal strength to 0. This problem maybe reduced when some of the current UHF ota signals move back to 7-13.

Dave T

Very interesting, thanks. :)

Yeah, I can vouch for the varrying signal levels in FFX Cnty due to trees. Living in a low lying area doesn't help either - even if I'm less than 10 mi from the transmitters.

I am a professional antenna installer from Fairfax, VA. It is near Washington, DC. I have been installing antennas for over 30 years and we have every type of reception problem in this area. We have spots that have multipath problems, low signal problems and areas that are in the middle of dense forests.

The one factor that will make this conversion smoother is the improvement of the ota converters due to better chips. We have installations where we are connecting multiple converters in a house. There can be a night and day difference in the reception quality when new and old converters are connected to the same antenna. The old converters were and are junk. These new converters and ones in the future are solving the problems with multipath and low signals.

The one problem that is the hardest in this area is the effect of wind and trees. When the wind blows the trees the signal levels will bounce up and down. The converter will go from 95-100 in signal strength to 0. This problem maybe reduced when some of the current UHF ota signals move back to 7-13.

Dave T

I really don't doubt the chips are getting better.

OTOH, for over 5 years now various people have been telling me if everybody just used the newest generation of chips then most everything would be fine. The generation numbers sometimes change but there are still some problems and I think the progress is still fairly slow.

- Tom

I am a professional antenna installer from Fairfax, VA. It is near Washington, DC. I have been installing antennas for over 30 years and we have every type of reception problem in this area. We have spots that have multipath problems, low signal problems and areas that are in the middle of dense forests.

The one factor that will make this conversion smoother is the improvement of the ota converters due to better chips. We have installations where we are connecting multiple converters in a house. There can be a night and day difference in the reception quality when new and old converters are connected to the same antenna. The old converters were and are junk. These new converters and ones in the future are solving the problems with multipath and low signals.

The one problem that is the hardest in this area is the effect of wind and trees. When the wind blows the trees the signal levels will bounce up and down. The converter will go from 95-100 in signal strength to 0. This problem maybe reduced when some of the current UHF ota signals move back to 7-13.

Dave T
you have hit on the exact problem that i have been talking about. with wind and trees and weather related items the receiver will lose its lock on the signal and there wont be a thing you can do except cut down the offending trees or move.

You can tackle alot of the reception issues with the right stuff.

The best place to have trees is behind the antenna when pointed to the towers. There is a workaround to address this situation. Trees in front of course attenuates signal.

To tame multipath from swaying of trees from behind you need to select an antenna with high forward gain, high directivity, and high front to back ratio which will receive little signal from the rear. thus taming the multipath.

For trees in front, you need to go to an antenna at least 2 sizes bigger than suggested on paper also with the properties above.

Thus bowties or multidierectional antennas are not a good choice where you suspect strong multipath.

The other factor is inappropriate amplification (too much or the wrong kind) for your conditions.

digital signal is based on bits of information...if the data is disrupted, many tuners will have difficulty processing.

Analog is totally different but it has its own issues...snow as you get farther away from towers, ghosts, interferences.

I can not wait till analog goes away!

A new tuner with a 5th gen LG chip solved all my OTA problems (including tree multipath) except one - Co-channel interference from analog channels on the same frequency as some digitals I could be getting. So, I too, anxiously await the analog death in '09.

How would 7-13 help? The trees still move.

where are the trees in relation to the towers...front back and/or sides

How would 7-13 help? The trees still move.
IIRC, UHF chs 14-69 are more prone to tree multipath problems than highband VHF chs 7 thru 13.

To tame multipath from swaying of trees from behind you need to select an antenna with high forward gain, high directivity, and high front to back ratio which will receive little signal from the rear. thus taming the multipath caused by the swaying of trees from behind.

For trees in front, you need to go to an antenna at least 2 sizes bigger than suggested on paper for the higher gain and also with the properties above.

the higher gain would raise the threshold of signal at the tuner giving you less of a chance to experience a drop out since the signal level would be higher. So instead of the signal going down to 35, it may only go down to 65 and you would still have a locked digital signal.

Thus in most cases bowties or multidierectional antennas are not a good choice where you suspect strong multipath.

The other factor is inappropriate amplification (too much or the wrong kind) for your conditions.

digital signal is based on bits of information...if the data is disrupted, many tuners will have difficulty processing.

with all of the "portable" NTSC TV's that get thrown out!
I will miss using my handheld Sony analog TV and my Sony "Video Watchman". :(

They'll take up a lot less room in the trash than all the computers disposed of annually.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one". Spock

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one". Spock

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/icons/icon14.gif

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one". Spock

Yes......and this time it is the needs of the MANY businesses that want the old frequencies and the firms developing and selling new equipment that weigh the most. You don't believe the transition is being mandated to help the consumer?

...You don't believe the transition is being mandated to help the consumer?
It will benefit me and millions of others in at least two ways:

1. The analog shutdown will allow me for the first time to receive excellent OTA television from the rest of the area digital HD channels I currently can't get, due to co-channel interference from analog channels in nearby towns on the same frequency. I can't watch the analog channels because they're full of ghosts, but they're 5,000 kW signal snuffs out digital HD channels on the same frequency in another nearby town. I and others will enjoy watching these razor sharp HD channels (for free and without having to subscribe to pay TV), once analog is dead and buried.

2. The analog shutdown will allow millions of people in rural areas (like me) to get high speed internet for the first time, via Wi-Max wireless internet that will be rapidly deployed on these useless analog TV channels in the upper UHF band. If you've ever had to deal with 26.4k dialup internet or settle for the laggy, unpredictable service of expensive satellite internet, you would understand what this will mean for millions of people who currently cannot get reliable high speed internet service at their home or business.

I'm sorry it the analog shutoff has no benefit for you.

A new tuner with a 5th gen LG chip solved all my OTA problems (including tree multipath) except one - Co-channel interference from analog channels on the same frequency as some digitals I could be getting. So, I too, anxiously await the analog death in '09.

Please name the tuner, Built in an LG TV or Divco PC card? Cause my topography may need the 6th or 7th gen tuner.

It will benefit me and millions of others in at least two ways:

1. The analog shutdown will allow me for the first time to receive excellent OTA television from the rest of the area digital HD channels I currently can't get, due to co-channel interference from analog channels in nearby towns on the same frequency. I can't watch the analog channels because they're full of ghosts, but they're 5,000 kW signal snuffs out digital HD channels on the same frequency in another nearby town. I and others will enjoy watching these razor sharp HD channels (for free and without having to subscribe to pay TV), once analog is dead and buried.

2. The analog shutdown will allow millions of people in rural areas (like me) to get high speed internet for the first time, via Wi-Max wireless internet that will be rapidly deployed on these useless analog TV channels in the upper UHF band. If you've ever had to deal with 26.4k dialup internet or settle for the laggy, unpredictable service of expensive satellite internet, you would understand what this will mean for millions of people who currently cannot get reliable high speed internet service at their home or business.

I'm sorry it the analog shutoff has no benefit for you.

1. A directional high gain antenna may clear up the ghosting on the analog reception. A highly directional antenna may also allow you to receive the digital stations from the near by town. If you are experiencing multipath issues (ghosting on the analog channels) then you may be completely out of luck with digital signals from the same area. Remember, it is all or nothing with a digital signal. If the multipath problem is severe, the tuner will not produce any image or sound whatsoever.

2. If you are experiencing multipath problems, you can kiss off the Wi-Max wireless internet as it would experience the same problems. Once again, a high gain directional antenna may solve this . . . may.

I have lived in rural areas, relied upon roof top antenna systems and 26.6 dial-up modem connections. So I understand what you are talking about. And I also understand that for millions of other people all this transition will accomplish is added bills (converter boxes, cable/sat subscriptions, antennas etc). So a benefit to you comes at a cost for many others.

1.... If you are experiencing multipath issues (ghosting on the analog channels) then you may be completely out of luck with digital signals from the same area...I live in a *very* *very* hilly area. I have ghosting on virtually every analog channel I can receive. Only exceptions are distant ones, which are so snowy I can't tell if there is multipath or not. But I have no problems receiving the digital channels of the same snowy/ghosty analog stations. See my previous post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8484524&&#post8484524) for screen shots of my typical anlog vs digital reception. I realize every location is different, so I can only compare my analog vs digital reception. YMMV.


2. If you are experiencing multipath problems, you can kiss off the Wi-Max wireless internet as it would experience the same problems...This simply isn't true. Just like some 5th generation ATSC tuners, wimax uses multipath to its advantage, combining mulitpath signals to increase signal strength. It uses OFDM, which is ideal for using existing multiple towers owned by many of the companies that will deploy wimax.


... I also understand that for millions of other people all this transition will accomplish is added bills (converter boxes, cable/sat subscriptions, antennas etc). True for some. But for many other people, it will eliminate the only reason they subscribe to pay TV services: unwatchable OTA NTSC picture quality.

.

Please name the tuner, Built in an LG TV or Divco PC card? Cause my topography may need the 6th or 7th gen tuner.DirecTV H20-600 sat/ota HD receiver with 5th-gen LG chipset.

I live in a *very* *very* hilly area. . . . Just like some 5th generation ATSC tuners, wimax uses multipath to its advantage, combining mulitpath signals to increase signal strength. It uses OFDM, which is ideal for using existing multiple towers owned by many of the companies that will deploy wimax.

I hope it works for you.

"Many factors affect range for any broadband wireless product. Some such factors include the terrain and density/height of tree cover. Hills and valleys can block or partially reflect signals. Bodies of water such as rivers and lakes are highly reflective of RF transmissions. Happily OFDM can often turn this to advantage---but not always." http://www.wimax.com/education/faq/faq33

". . . the average cell ranges for most WiMAX networks will likely boast 4-5 mile range (in NLOS capable frequencies) even through tree cover and building walls. Service ranges up to 10 miles (16 Kilometers) are very likely in line of sight (LOS) applications (once again depending upon frequency)." http://www.wimax.com/education/faq/faq31

:p

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/icons/icon10.gif http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/icons/icon10.gif http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/icons/icon10.gif http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/icons/icon10.gif

Thanks for that universally known update.

I don't know why this is difficult for you guys to grasp.....ATSC is less reliable than NTSC. Is anyone here really disputing this? Really? Look at all the threads where people are trying to just get a signal, or one that isn't constantly dropping out, or one which isn't constantly jumping from poor to good for no apparent reason. Is analog like that? Not really.

In fact I was just at a friend's house last night playing with her ATSC set up for HOURS trying to get it to come in reliably. She was so frustrated she just wanted to take her new HDTV back to the store and get an NTSC one instead.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

Can any of you honestly say, with all we've been through trying to get this thing to work reliably with the pre-amps and the rotors and the attic antennas, that everyone is going to jump for joy, join hands and sing cumbaya when NTSC is shut off?

Like anything, what's good for one is bad for another.

My uncle gets very snowy analog on WEWS, WTOV, WTRF, WKYC, WUAB, WOIO, WKBN, and WBNX at his home in Carroll County, Ohio. His ATSC reception of all but WKYC and WTRF is perfect.

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.

...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 agree about the confusion. It also makes antenna selection more difficult. Example: people wishing to receive digital channel 50 that is remapped to something like "4-1" might easily be confused into thinking they need a big giant antenna suitable for lowband VHF channels 2 thru 6, when they actually need a UHF antenna. Unfortunately, many stations don't want to give up channel number "branding" that many of them have had since the 50s. Evidently the NAB lobbyists got the FCC to allow stations to keep using their old channel numbers for mapping, even after analog is shut down. AFAIK, this has not changed. I think it's a mistake to not make the stations remap to their actual channel numbers, post-analog.


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... I'll be the one hooking up an HD tuner for 480i, I'm sure, in 2009.If the TV is so old that it doesn't have A/V inputs, you may also need an RF modulator if the tuner you buy doesn't have an RF (ch 3/4) output.

Have you called the Cable company to have them check your signals? It's funny that you would blame your local station because your cable signal isn't working, or because your indoor antenna isn't good enough.

"I agree about the confusion. It also makes antenna selection more difficult. Example: people wishing to receive digital channel 50 that is remapped to something like "4-1" might easily be confused into thinking they need a big giant antenna suitable for lowband VHF channels 2 thru 6, when they actually need a UHF antenna. Unfortunately, many stations don't want to give up channel number "branding" that many of them have had since the 50s. Evidently the NAB lobbyists got the FCC to allow stations to keep using their old channel numbers for mapping, even after analog is shut down. AFAIK, this has not changed. I think it's a mistake to not make the stations remap to their actual channel numbers, post-analog."

It's no different than the satellite companies not calling your HBO, "Satellite 133, 12235 MHz, RH Circular Polarization, 22000 Symbol Rate, 3/4 FEC, Video PID 43, Audio PID 44", and instead calling it "Channel 210".

I agree about the confusion. It also makes antenna selection more difficult. Example: people wishing to receive digital channel 50 that is remapped to something like "4-1" might easily be confused into thinking they need a big giant antenna suitable for lowband VHF channels 2 thru 6, when they actually need a UHF antenna. Unfortunately, many stations don't want to give up channel number "branding" that many of them have had since the 50s. Evidently the NAB lobbyists got the FCC to allow stations to keep using their old channel numbers for mapping, even after analog is shut down. AFAIK, this has not changed. I think it's a mistake to not make the stations remap to their actual channel numbers, post-analog.


If the TV is so old that it doesn't have A/V inputs, you may also need an RF modulator if the tuner you buy doesn't have an RF (ch 3/4) output.

It's not just old TV's-I've seen 27" el-cheapo models at Wal Mart as recently as last year with nothing but an RF input. IMHO that's like a 2006 model car with an AM radio and no A/C but I digress...

It is different than satellite. The RF channel being used determines what type of OTA antenna you need. With remapping, one can easily be confused into buying a (VHF) antenna that may not work for them. But with satellite, you only need the equipment the satellite company installs.

Remapping to the wrong channel is too confusing for the average OTA viewer. Example: There is a channel here in Arkansas on Channel 7 that is using channel 22 for digital. They will not be going back to channel 7 post analog, but they will continue using "7" as their channel number. The confusing part is that there is another channel in the DMA that will be moving to 7 post-analog. Why should the station moving there be forced to use any other channel number besides 7? It's their channel number.

Its not like broadcasters didn't know they would be getting new channel assignments. They (through the NAB) are the ones who asked for new free spectrum for digital broadcasting in the first place. When they give up their analog channel spectrum in '09, they should no longer be able to map to a channel number they aren't actually on. Stations shouldn't have the right to own a channel number forever.

Banks change names, corporations change names, ZIP codes and area codes change all the time. People are used to such things. What people don't like is confusion. Change and move on, but don't confuse people with fake channel numbers.

When I set up my Son's TV (see post 114) I just did a channel scan and then entered the analog channel number to view it. The digital channel numbers were invisable to the user. I do not know what the issue is here.

I agree that the FCC shouldn't have caved in to the NAB lobbiests however. Still, there is no confusion here. You either understand the digital channel numbers or you do not. Either way works.

Rick R

To add my $0.02, I think that digital will be fine once stations are able to go to full power and not have interference from distant analog stations on the same RF frequency.

To support this, here are some screenshots taken comparing analog to digital with the same antenna. The antenna is some old 3 bay bow tie that I found in my Grandpa's garage. Currently, it is just setting in my attic leaning against an AC distribution box. I am 22 miles from the towers.

Analog WPTA channel 21. Transmitter: 226. meters HAAT, 562. kW ERP
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2816/videoprob001li7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Digital WPTA channel 24. Transmitter: 224.4 meters HAAT, 335. kW ERP
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1702/videoprob002bg5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Analog WANE channel 15. Transmitter: 252. meters HAAT, 2450. kW ERP
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9017/videoprob003vg6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Digital WANE channel 31. Transmitter: 242. meters HAAT, 68. kW ERP
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7329/videoprob004dm8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Analog WISE channel 33. Transmitter: 235. meters HAAT, 589. kW ERP
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2945/videoprob005lq6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Digital WISE channel 19. Transmitter: 224.3 meters HAAT, 350. kW ERP
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4633/videoprob006pi0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

As you can see, ATSC is much better. I almost never have dropouts on WPTA (ABC) or WISE (NBC). WANE(CBS) is much more sensitive as they are only broadcasting at a very small fraction of the power of their analog station. This is due to the proximity to Canada and a Canadian station on channel 31. I think that as more stations go full power and distant analog stations shut down, reliable digital reception will far easier to obtain.

Ryan

I think I have to agree with Rick (much as my computer side would prefer exact numbers). On the wifes set, entering zero seven with nothing after the preset dash tunes to analog channel seven. Entering zero seven and then a one after the dash tunes to the digital transmission.

To simulate NO analog transmission, I re-ran the channel scan and then deleted the VHF channels it found. After that, entering zero seven with nothing after the dash tuned to the digital channel - as did zero seven with a one following the dash. Same with channel two. Apparently the set defaults to whatever is mapped to the input selection. It wouldn't surprise me if most of the tuners will work that way with no analog signal present.

I think most people couldn't care less whether it's VHF or UHF or what the actual transmission frequency is. They just want to watch CSI; and know that if they punch seven on the TV, it will be there. How? Don't care! Doesn't cable have this "numbering" problem, at least in some locations? Folks seem to have adapted to that.


Carl

In addition to the issues already mentioned --- one of the biggest problems I see with using PSIP VCT(virtual channel table) channel remapping is :

In order for the stations to show up(to any extent, even for a signal quality reading) on OTA only receivers via their remapped virtual channels ---- the receiver *MUST* first achieve a signal lock from each individual station involved --- This is because the PSIP info which directs receiver to "remap" the channel for any given station is sent solely by each individual station.

So, imagine a scenerio where you have to adjust your "rabbit ears" differently for different stations you want to receive ... You can't select the remapped channel number to look at the meter and adjust your antenna for best results until AFTER you've acheived a signal lock on that particular station --- In which case you need to know the physical channel #, and you also need a receiver which will allow you to "tune" manually to the physical channel (in each case), and also which will allow you to add indivdual channels to your "channel surf list" without having to do a full channel scan which may erase other channels you were receiving with another antenna orientation/etc ...

Of course, with analog, you'll see the station(no matter how ugly it might look), and what is required concering adjusting the antenna to improve the picture is an intuitive process as the results appear immediately on the screen .....

Users who are used to SAT HD+OTA ATSC receivers may not be as aware of this as, If I recall correctly I believe many times it is the case the channel remapping info used by many Sat HD+ATSC receivers utilize the EPG info for the locals via the sat rather than the PSIP VCT info sent by the stations OTA ..

One of the confusing issues with HD for your average carbon blob: channel #s that don't match the analog channel #s.

Some stations make it even worse. In Charlotte, WCNC (the NBC affiliate) broadcasts on channels 36 (analog) and 22 (digital), but I've never seen them show either of those numbers on the air! They brand themselves as "News 6" because they're on channel 6 on most or all of the cable systems in the area.

... If I recall correctly I believe many times it is the case the channel remapping info used by many Sat HD+ATSC receivers utilize the EPG info for the locals via the sat rather than the PSIP VCT info sent by the stations OTA ..It varies from model to model.

Take DirecTV [please]: Some of their HD Sat/OTA receivers use Sat. EPG data only, and will show "No Information" or "Regular Programming" on stations that aren't in the DirecTV EPG database. Others won't pick up the OTA channel at all if it's not in the D* database for the two Zip codes entered in the setup menu. Still other receivers will build a "hybrid" guide, using D* EPG station data, if present, and if a channel isn't in the D* database, due to error or not in the two ZIP Codes, it will build the guide and channel labeling based on PSIP.

This even varies in the same models of D* branded receivers made by different manufacturers. The H20-600 (made by LG) will use sat data only for guide info. An identical looking H20-100 (made by RCA) uses both Sat EPG data and PSIP to populate the guide and channel banner.

Read post #922 in the Springfield, MO thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8570850&&#post8570850) for an example of typical confusion a rural or deep-fringe OTA viewer faces, due to virtual channels that don't match the RF channels.

Other than station vanity, there is no reason remapping to incorrect RF channel numbers should continue after the death of analog. It's confusing.

Boy! If people can't handle something as simple as "Virtual Channel" (i.e.: you enter the same number to get Channel 5 as you always did), this whole DTV mess is a wash :rolleyes: .

Boy! If people can't handle something as simple as "Virtual Channel" (i.e.: you enter the same number to get Channel 5 as you always did), this whole DTV mess is a wash :rolleyes: .

It's a shame stations can't handle something as simple as using their actual RF channel number for their station ID.

It's a shame viewers can't handle something as simple as a channel scan to get their local stations in memory, the same thing they do now with analog.

A lot of people can. But for people living in weak signal areas and with antenna farms in several directions, it's not that simple. Example: If you base your antenna purchase on the logical assumption that channel 5 is actually on channel FIVE, instead of UHF channel 38, you may never see that channel.

Also, some receivers allow manual channel adding, which is important in weak signal areas. But you have to know the RF channel to manually add a channel.

Using two different channel designations is ridiculous and does no service to anyone but the stations.

The exact scenario you describe is my market. Multiple directions of transmitter locations and differing power levels. No one has called the station and threaten to burn it down because after a scan they couldn't find us. Many sheepish thank you's after they are reminded to do a scan and there we are!

It may not be the best way to do it, but in my personal experience, it works with little fuss from the viewer.

Ymmv.

A lot of people can. But for people living in weak signal areas and with antenna farms in several directions, it's not that simple. Example: If you base your antenna purchase on the logical assumption that channel 5 is actually on channel FIVE, instead of UHF channel 38, you may never see that channel.

Also, some receivers allow manual channel adding, which is important in weak signal areas. But you have to know the RF channel to manually add a channel.

Using two different channel designations is ridiculous and does no service to anyone but the stations.

There 'ya go.....makin' assumptions, a'gin :) .

That's why the stations ought ("ought" is the keyword) to have some info on their website, giving a few specifics on their digital signal. But, why should a company have to change their name and all their marketing and goodwill just because they add a product? McDonalds is still McDonalds....they didn't change their name to Cap'n Mac's when they added fish.

(And, why don't I get my locals when I aim my DISH Network satellite dish at the station? I KNOW they aren't way up in the sky!)

There 'ya go.....makin' assumptions, a'gin :) .

That's why the stations ought ("ought" is the keyword) to have some info on their website, giving a few specifics on their digital signal. But, why should a company have to change their name and all their marketing and goodwill just because they add a product? McDonalds is still McDonalds....they didn't change their name to Cap'n Mac's when they added fish.

(And, why don't I get my locals when I aim my DISH Network satellite dish at the station? I KNOW they aren't way up in the sky!)

Simple, stations just should use their callsign :)

Prime example of this silliness. Less than three years from the Analog Shutoff, KFTA (due to a change of "ownership") nabs the FOX affliation for Northwest Arkansas, but calls itself "Fox 24" due to the analog channel being on 24. Its not like they've been the Fox station for a decade.

The Shreveport CW station, KPXJ uses "CW 21", but they flash-cut their analog signal to digital in 2005. The other stations in the market (including sister station KTBS) use their analog channel numbers for nicks/unofficial ID.

Its not ATSC/digital/HDTV, its the silly local stations holding on to tradition.

Simple, stations just should use their callsign :)

Prime example of this silliness. Less than three years from the Analog Shutoff, KFTA (due to a change of "ownership") nabs the FOX affliation for Northwest Arkansas, but calls itself "Fox 24" due to the analog channel being on 24. Its not like they've been the Fox station for a decade.

The Shreveport CW station, KPXJ uses "CW 21", but they flash-cut their analog signal to digital in 2005. The other stations in the market (including sister station KTBS) use their analog channel numbers for nicks/unofficial ID.

Its not ATSC/digital/HDTV, its the silly local stations holding on to tradition.

Wrong, the virtual channel plan is mandated by the ATSC.

ANNEX B
(Normative)
ASSIGNMENT OF MAJOR CHANNEL NUMBER VALUES FOR TERRESTRIAL BROADCAST IN THE U.S.
The assignment of major_channel_number values in the U.S. is based on the rules below.
• For broadcasters with existing NTSC licenses, the major_channel_number for the existing NTSC channels, as well as the Digital TV channels, controlled by the broadcaster, shall be set to the current NTSC RF channel number. E.g. Assume a broadcaster who has an NTSC broadcast license for RF channel 13 is assigned RF channel 39 for Digital ATSC broadcast. That broadcaster will use major_channel_number 13 for identification of the analog NTSC channel on RF channel 13, as well as the digital channels it is controlling on RF channel 39.
• 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.
• The two provisions above assign major_channel_number values 2 through 69 uniquely to broadcasters with license to broadcast NTSC and/or Digital ATSC signals.
• Values for major_channel_number from 70 to 99 may be used to identify groups of digital services carried in an ATSC multiplex that the broadcaster wishes to be identified by a different major channel number. Values 70 through 99 must be unique in each potential receiving location or the receiver will not be able to correctly select such services. For example a local broadcaster transmitting community college lectures in its bit stream may want to use a major_channel_number different than its own major_channel_number for the virtual channel carrying the lectures. The assessment of the feasibility of using this capability, as well as the coordination process for assignment of these major_channel_number values is beyond the scope of this document.

Was not aware of Remapping being mandated by the ATSC itself...my bad.

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........ :) .

1) VHF has a few double-digit numbers.:)
2) Most people today don't know the difference between VHF and UHF. They are just channel numbers to them.

In reality, Low band VHF is "bad" since one needs a larger antenna.

Well in post 114 of this thread I discussed how easily my son picked up every digital channel with an FM antenna taped to the wall. My daughter also just moved into a new apartment but only had an analog TV and no cable as yet. (Yes both of my kids moved back in with me this summer then moved back out to new apartments and roommates. But that is a whole other story.)

She went to Radio Shack and got a set top antenna. She says she wanted to watch Lost on the local KABC 7. She said that the picture is barely watchable as there is a double picture. I suggested a directional set top antenna as has been recommended on this forum such as the Silver Sensor. However this antenna is really a UHF antenna so I do not know how well it would work. My daughter lives in Sherman Oaks near the 101 between the 405 and 170 freeways. She is about 3 miles from my son.

The net result? Digital was easy to get a perfect picture. Analog required a trip to the antenna store and still got a lousy picture.

Rick R

Its not ATSC/digital/HDTV, its the silly local stations holding on to tradition.

It is actually the FCC that mandated this 2 years ago when they made PSIP mandatory.

1) VHF has a few double-digit numbers.:)
2) Most people today don't know the difference between VHF and UHF. They are just channel numbers to them.

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.

No need to be condescending.

I don't care WHAT channel a network is broadcasted. People will watch the programs or news they prefer. If you have crappy local news (and news personnel) in your area on a particular channel... that's the local affiliate's problem, not the channel.

Case in point, in MY area, NBC and CBS local affiliates swapped channel numbers (3 and 10). It made no difference in viewership. The only problem was people getting used to CBS programming being on channel 3 instead of channel 10.

Sorry... but I don't buy into the VHF vs. UHF theory. People will watch the programs they LIKE no matter the channel. I agree... change can be confusing, but you there's not anything you can do about and you will get used to it.

FOX probably increased viewership due to better programming. Not because they moved to VHF.

No need to be condescending.

I don't care WHAT channel a network is broadcasted. People will watch the programs or news they prefer. If you have crappy local news (and news personnel) in your area on a particular channel... that's the local affiliate's problem, not the channel.

Case in point, in MY area, NBC and CBS local affiliates swapped channel numbers (3 and 10). It made no difference in viewership. The only problem was people getting used to CBS programming being on channel 3 instead of channel 10.

Sorry... but I don't buy into the VHF vs. UHF theory. People will watch the programs they LIKE no matter the channel. I agree... change can be confusing, but you there's not anything you can do about and you will get used to it.

FOX probably increased viewership due to better programming. Not because they moved to VHF.

Based on conversations with my 89 year old grandmother, I think in many cases, older people "forget" the UHF stations exist...so if networks swap, they just assume the station changed networks and never go looking for their old shows.

Ask Gram is she knows the difference between VHF and UHF? :)

The point is that whether "Dancing with the Stars" is on Channel 6 or Channel 57 (or wherever it gets mapped to in 2009 with PSIP), you will seek out the "new" channel and watch the program.

I know my mother would either keep hitting the "channel up" button until she finds the program or call me to "fix" her TV. ;)

Unless someone's faculties are really lacking, I would think that after cycling through the channels about 30 times, they'd learn. There aren't THAT many OTA channels that one can usually receive, and even less that they probably even watch - so you could probably even block out a few of them.

Writing out a "channel list" for them to refer to that they can keep at hand always helps. My mom's in her 70's - she b****es and moans for awhile about the changes, like when she switched over to satellite from cable (after I changed it for her to cut her bill down) - but she eventually "gets" it. And E* supplies a list.

If someone's truly THAT out of it, I would think they'd have a hard enough time even remembering the ORIGINAL channel numbers and labels!

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.

KTVI-2 switched from ABC to Fox here in STL. KDNL-30 switched from Fox to ABC. The results were horrible for ABC, and great for Fox. KDNL is now owned by Sinclair, with all the albatrosses implied. No local news. ABC is *pissed*.

Here in wacky St. Louis, the TV stations are not commonly known by thier calls, but by (traditional) RF channel number. KSDK is known as Channel Five, not "NBC 5" or KSDK. NBC *is* Channel Five, God-Emperor of DMA 21, just as CBS is Channel Four, not KMOV (KMOX-TV of old CBS O&O days). When KTVI swapped, a lot of people still looked for ABC on 2, to Fox's advantage. It took a while for us to deal with emotionally.

People simply deal better with small numbers. (And I already know what happened to CH 1, thank you).

I recently got my 70+ mom (no dummy) an LCD HDTV with both analog and ATSC tuners. The hardest part of the setup was training her how to switch between tuners. The re-mapped channel numbers didn't faze her at all, as she simply looked for Channel Five, Channel Nine, etc. If I had tried to tell her that Channel Five was now Channel Thirty-Five, Channel Nine was Channel Thirty-Nine, etc, there might have been trouble. Telling her that Channel Four was now Channel Fifty-Six, or Channel Eleven was now Channel Twenty-Six would have been a disaster. (My mommy is a Marine, and can still beat you up) Now that she has HD, she hardly ever watches analog. It only took her a day to get used to sub-channels. She loooves the PBS sub-channels.

We geeks obsess over things like this. Perhaps someday after analog shutoff, the locals might re-brand themselves. But I doubt KY3 will re-brand itself KY44...

I just don't understand all of the whining and griping. In 2009, whatever will be, will be. Done deal. Everyone, young and old will have to get used to the "new" channel assignments. Done deal.

The good news is that this only affects those that still rely soley on an antenna (cable, satellite and FIoS doesn't count).

If Mommy, Grammy or Uncle Leo can't figure it out, someone will help them I'm sure.

It varies from model to model.

Take DirecTV [please]: Some of their HD Sat/OTA receivers use Sat. EPG data only, and will show "No Information" or "Regular Programming" on stations that aren't in the DirecTV EPG database. Others won't pick up the OTA channel at all if it's not in the D* database for the two Zip codes entered in the setup menu. Still other receivers will build a "hybrid" guide, using D* EPG station data, if present, and if a channel isn't in the D* database, due to error or not in the two ZIP Codes, it will build the guide and channel labeling based on PSIP.

This even varies in the same models of D* branded receivers made by different manufacturers. The H20-600 (made by LG) will use sat data only for guide info. An identical looking H20-100 (made by RCA) uses both Sat EPG data and PSIP to populate the guide and channel banner.

I recently learned this as well. I own TWO DirecTV HD receivers. A Hughes HTL-HD receiver and a HR10-250 (HD-TiVo). I've had the HD-TiVo for over a year now, and have had the HTL-HD deactivated for a little less than that.

A few days ago, I hooked up my HTL-HD to test out something, and noticed that I was receiving guide data for a MyNetworkTV affiliate on a sub-channel of a quasi-local CBS affiliate. However, when I tried to view it, the receiver took me to a analog channel 43 instead of digital channel 43. The guide data also remaps the channel to 45-2, instead of 44-2 which is what they actually remap the channel to (they broadcast on analog channel 44).

A few days later, the channel information appeared on my HD-TiVo, and actually goes to digital channel 43, but still remaps the channel to 45-2. No guide information for their primary digital channel at all.

Not to mention that there is a channel in my DMA that doesn't have any guide information via DirecTV, so you have to manually scan that channel, and when you do, you have to punch in what the station remaps their digital channel to... which is 55-51 (their analog channel is 55, digital 51). That will wear your fingers out...

~Alan

I don't care WHAT channel a network is broadcasted. People will watch the programs or news they prefer. If you have crappy local news (and news personnel) in your area on a particular channel... that's the local affiliate's problem, not the channel.

Surveys say different. Lead ins are very important, particularly into 10/11pm newscasts. Case in point is during Olympics. It is historical fact that the network that has the Olympics has a bump in ratings. It is also fact, that the last two seasons, NBC stations had a harder time keeping 11pm news numbers because NBC had no programming that brought people to the NBC station prior to the 11pm news.

Case in point, in MY area, NBC and CBS local affiliates swapped channel numbers (3 and 10). It made no difference in viewership. The only problem was people getting used to CBS programming being on channel 3 instead of channel 10.

That isn't like a VHF/UHF swap. Historically, before the network swaps of the mid 90's, in markets that had 3 VHF stations with network affiliations, the UHF's had a hard time. To clue you in on some history, the reason you had the big network swaps in the 90's was because FOX had obtained the NFL and the UHF's that FOX was predominant on, didn't have the coverage or clout and the first year, 1994, the ratings were not very good. In 1995, FOX began buying VHF stations and moving affiliations to those VHF stations and the ratings improved to what you have today. In those days, CBS lost most of the affiliates and in many markets, CBS still has trouble on those CBS stations.

Sorry... but I don't buy into the VHF vs. UHF theory. People will watch the programs they LIKE no matter the channel. I agree... change can be confusing, but you there's not anything you can do about and you will get used to it.

You don't provided any evidence to your point. You can believe what you want, but the facts clearly prove your belief incorrect.

FOX probably increased viewership due to better programming. Not because they moved to VHF.

It was the same programming FOX had been running for years, Married with Children, Martin, In Living Color, Simpsons, etc. Again, you provide no evidence to back up your statement, You are just guessing.

I can't believe that you are "in the business".

"lead in's" ...only apply to the channel you are watching. Poeple will watch the news or the Olympics no matter if it's VHF or UHF. If I don't like Joe Blow as a newscaster, I'll change the channel after the Olympics are over. Simple as that...


Now... the 90's are over. It's the new century. FOX doesn't run those programs anymore but thet have increased viewership with programs like House, OC, Prison Break, etc.

I don't know if you really are a fox engineer and I don't know if you have a gun pointed at me for some reason. But, the bottom line is.... no matter WHAT channel YOUR favorite program is broadcasted on on 2009.... you'll find it, tune it and watch it.

What's the arguement?

Turn your 1990's marketing hat around and look at this realistically from a 2006-9 perspective.

I still think the thread topic is relavent. Remember setting the VCR clock fiasco. It's our older generation I'm thinking about. I have already set up digital receivers for some people and it's usually not the channel designation but the"other" options that confuse. Menus showing up, filling the screen-as all is not HD, etc. Foxeng, help us with tech issues. In my area the Fox affiliate didn't even get a digital assignment so they don't provide an HD feed OTA, but cable gets a national HD feed. I feel this change over will drive people to cable and less to sat cause we're back to site specific antenna and fighting off multipath.

I agree, the topic is relevent. But, everyone is making this out to be more than it is. PLEASE... put HD, cable, satellite aside. It has no bearing on the transition/cutoff in 2009.

The OTA only users will get a 'digital converter' ... no HD, no menus, no extras. They use the same antenna. Just an extra box will be needed.

If your FOX afffiliate doesn't have a digital assignment today, it will by 2/09.

I'm not aware of any cable provider that gets only a "national" feed of any network (abc.nbc,cbs,fox,etc).

This discussion has nothing to do with driving anyone to cable. It's the over exaggerated sympathy for the OTA only poor and elderly and how this will devestate them come 2/09.

IMO... everyone is blowing this WAY out of proportion.

It's the over exaggerated sympathy for the OTA only poor and elderly and how this will devestate them come 2/09.

IMO... everyone is blowing this WAY out of proportion.
I'm sorry, but yes, when analog is turned off, who will be ticked off, Sat and cable will help them handle it,OTA poor and elderly- who helps? You think a change over of this magnitude will happen without a hitch? Cable here shows the local affiliate then at prime time includes the HD feeds while OTA watches SD.

I don't know if you really are a fox engineer and I don't know if you have a gun pointed at me for some reason.

Yes, I am a FOX engineer at an O & O and no I don't "have a gun pointed" at you. You made the argument that being a VHF or UHF station doesn't matter, and I proved with stats by Nielsen Marketing and actual cases that prove your assumption is incorrect.

But, the bottom line is.... no matter WHAT channel YOUR favorite program is broadcasted on on 2009.... you'll find it, tune it and watch it.

That is the absolute truth and that was the point I was making before you stated that being a UHF station was the same thing as a VHF and that is clearly not true whether the station is an independent or an O & O. That is why ALL networks would prefer to be on a VHF station over a UHF if they can. That is why FOX went on a buying spree in the 90's for VHF's and dumping many of their UHFs they owned at the time. Why? Because of the coverage and the clout. That is indisputable fact.

Turn your 1990's marketing hat around and look at this realistically from a 2006-9 perspective.

I am quoting TODAY numbers that have remained pretty much the same over the past 20 years.

Foxeng, help us with tech issues. In my area the Fox affiliate didn't even get a digital assignment so they don't provide an HD feed OTA, but cable gets a national HD feed. I feel this change over will drive people to cable and less to sat cause we're back to site specific antenna and fighting off multipath.

The interim Digital Table of Assignments were created in 1997. It was only created for full power analog stations on the air or with a construction permit at the time the table was created because of the lack of available channels. One of the critieria was that the digital assignment had to cover at least what the analog covered. It got interesting for full power 2000 ft channel 2s to get channel 51's that match (but it does happen) and the FCC did a pretty good job of getting the coverages to match closely. Not all stations got exact matches, but the FCC tried and did allow stations to increse to either max power (1 million watts digital) or as high as they could without causing interference beyond their analog coverage areas. Many lower powered UHF's took advantage of that and their digitals cover more area than their analogs.

Low power stations and new stations after 1997 were not issued a second channel so those stations had an option to come on as a digital only or analog only with the caveat that they had to convert or what is now called "flash cut" to digital at some date in the future. Some did come on as digital only (Palm Springs, Fla and Knoxville, TN come to mind). Now that the FCC has pretty much determined which channel the full power stations will have post transition (read Feb 17, 2009) they are now accepting applications for second digital channels where they can be put in. Most feel that many of these second channel full power stations will not be able to go on the air in digital until some other station has vacated it in 2009 or they may just wait to flash cut in 2009 others will try and come on in digital before 2009. Many of the LPTV's will just do a flash cut on the channel they are on either now, if they can or wait until 2009.

That is why not all full power stations and LPTV's have second channels yet.

Now that's what I'm talking about but not thread specific. But I'm guilty of that. I'm just irritated to wait till 09 while others are broadcacting HD- and again, back to the thread, how do you explain these situations to regular watchers/subscribers. Who are confused with the transition? WPFO is the affiliate and they're scheduled to transition analog 23 to dig 23. An email indicated, too bad, 09.

luckily over 90% of the homes use satellite and cable.

The marketshare here is about 95%.

The off air family is very small.

Yes, I am a FOX engineer at an O & O and no I don't "have a gun pointed" at you. You made the argument that being a VHF or UHF station doesn't matter, and I proved with stats by Nielsen Marketing and actual cases that prove your assumption is incorrect.



That is the absolute truth and that was the point I was making before you stated that being a UHF station was the same thing as a VHF and that is clearly not true whether the station is an independent or an O & O. That is why ALL networks would prefer to be on a VHF station over a UHF if they can. That is why FOX went on a buying spree in the 90's for VHF's and dumping many of their UHFs they owned at the time. Why? Because of the coverage and the clout. That is indisputable fact.



I am quoting TODAY numbers that have remained pretty much the same over the past 20 years.

I'll agree that this makes sense.

The question is WHY? Is it because of an inherent belief that UHF is inferior to VHF? That VHF is "big-name" and UHF is "independent, weak, low class?" That was true in 1969 but not today. Is it because of the difficulty in getting UHF signals in hilly or urban areas?

What about markets with all-UHF?

NO, NO, NO, I'm talking about those who have no idea about the 09 change over. It's not about uhf/vhf (but uhf has it's problems). It's about people who expect their tv to work as usual when they turn it on. We all can't be totally informed about all this. So, how do we help? I think the stations should be in frount with this help as they would be seen as the problem or the solution.

You're right, Rick0725,The off air family is small and will reflect in legislation. Tell me why that is lucky.

When pepole get the converter boxes many will not work becase a lot of tvs don't have powerfull enough antennas to pick up the digtal stations. Some just get analong now.

I think that will really confuse pepole. The ethier you get it or you don't. Unlike analog were you can have a very weak signal but still see and hear somthing.
Haveing to turn on two boxs prehapps using two remotes as well (I for the tv pwr, voulume, 1 for the ota tunner)

Too bad cable can't provide the HD OTA channels free and just down convert for those with normal tvs. It might be a good ploy on their end as they could get some to upgrade to more paid channels

I have directv now as well as a HDTV with OTA. But found setting up the OTA ant some what difficult. I had to end up buying a HD attic ant as my our older UHF/VHF ant had to many issues.
I can't see how some one who has a tough time with this thing will do

The question is WHY? Is it because of an inherent belief that UHF is inferior to VHF? That VHF is "big-name" and UHF is "independent, weak, low class?" That was true in 1969 but not today. Is it because of the difficulty in getting UHF signals in hilly or urban areas?

What about markets with all-UHF?

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.

luckily over 90% of the homes use satellite and cable.

The marketshare here is about 95%.

The off air family is very small.
A very misguided statement. Even if 95% in your area get cable, the number of households that have at least one OTA set is still significant. Recent numbers I've seen are around 25%-33% of households with at least one OTA set.

Next generation HD tuners should have fewer problems with weak digital signals and interference. That, along with the shutdown of analog towers and digital broadcasts optimized for main duty, many signal problems in fringe areas should eventually become a non issue.

Will a small percentage of the population experience DTV transition pains in 2009? Probably so. Improvements are being made in DTV reception everyday, but the real improvements probably won't happen until after 2009 when the market demand for improved/cheaper hardware becomes very strong.

I agree with Sciberpunkt. Many digital stations have not optimized their signals. Here in Los Angeles the local (formerly UPN) station on 13 analog and 66 digital came in great in digital for years. Then suddenly two years ago they switched their transmitter and now can not be received at my home (a difficult OTA area). I get every other digital channel fine but not 13/66. They just did not care about their digital signal. I suspect foxeng explanation is the cause in that they are on 66 digital they have an expensive transmitter so they lowered their power. When they go back to 13 for their digital signal in 2009 I hopefully will receive them fine.

By the way I never received analog 13 very well at my home.

Rick R

....but the real improvements probably won't happen until after 2009 when the market demand for improved/cheaper hardware becomes very strong.

And perhaps the local broadcasters don't have to "foot the bill" to provide BOTH analog and digital? On Feb/2009, they essentially cut expenditures (virtually) in half. :eek:

They could 'cut' it now. I don't believe there is any mandate that they transmit a digital signal today.

There is a mandate that they must transmit a digital signal today. They do not have to transmit analog today... now THAT would tick off a lot of people. :)

There is a mandate that they must transmit a digital signal today. They do not have to transmit analog today... now THAT would tick off a lot of people. :)

Some stations HAVE asked to have their analog shutdown now. The FCC has allowed some and denied others.

I think a very few stations have already stopped broadcasting in analog, or at least applied to do so. One is in the Los Angeles area, if I remember correctly. They decided most of their viewers use cable anyway, so they might as well simply cut over from analog to digital for OTA after ensuring that the cable operators could pick up the digital feed.

(oops, foxeng beat me to it while I was getting a cup of coffee.)

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).

Me. I enjoy fm as it is. Sat radio has its place, but not forced on me with my Sat service. I see the least impact is if these set top boxes that may be provided are truly plug and play. And they should be provided before Feb 09 to fix the problem reception areas. Why did you change that post?

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).

A large majority yes but a significant number of your neighbors would be impacted - greater than 21 million households. That is not insignificant.

NAB figures 25% of all TV use OTA

"According to the National Association of Broadcasters, there are currently 280.5 million analog televisions in United States. Of these, 73 million rely on over-the-air broadcasting"

GAO reports 19% of all US households rely on OTA

"According to a Government Accountability Office survey, 19% of U.S. households (21 million) do not subscribe to a cable or satellite service and rely exclusively on over-the-air broadcasting."

CRS Report for Congress - August 12, 2005

There is a mandate that they must transmit a digital signal today. They do not have to transmit analog today... now THAT would tick off a lot of people. :)

Are you talking about the 1998 FCC ruling? I thought that was tossed out when 85% of the market was not digital by the required target date.

Most (as in the overwhelming vast majority) of full service commercial stations were required to be on the air with DTV by Mid-2002. The deadline for non-commercial stations was a year later. That's not the same thing as analog shut off ......

Some stations (top 4 affiliates in Markets 1-10 and 11~30) had an even earlier DTV on air deadline.

Top 10 Markets had to be on the air by Nov 1, 1998 and Top 30 by Nov 1, 1999 and the remainder by May 1 2002, NCE by May 1, 2003. Top 100 big 4 had to be at full power by July 1, 2005 and the remainder of stations July 1, 2006.

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).


Two reasons, one big, one little. Public Service (weather warnings, etc.), and, there's money to be made.

Take a guess which is the big reason and which is the little reason. :)

For instance, if there wasn't OTA, a local advertiser would have to choose who to advertise with, between multiple cable companies and DBS providers. Look down your street, how many people are on cable or satellite?

If an advertiser goes with the local OTA station, they more than likely will get about 100% penetration of viewers (assuming all cable companies and DBS providers carry their signal). If they pick a single cable company, they may only hit 60%.

Money to be made.

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).

But somehow broadcasters must still make money with OTA, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

I wonder, though... if a station were to abandon its OTA market and serve only as a feed to local cable systems (and as local channels for satellite systems), how much advertising revenue would it lose, and would it be recouped by not having to operate an OTA transmitter? Of course, it would still need studios and personnel for its local content (news etc.).

They would lose "must carry" status though that would not be a problem for the big 4.

But somehow broadcasters must still make money with OTA, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

I wonder, though... if a station were to abandon its OTA market and serve only as a feed to local cable systems (and as local channels for satellite systems), how much advertising revenue would it lose, and would it be recouped by not having to operate an OTA transmitter? Of course, it would still need studios and personnel for its local content (news etc.).

Maybe it's a bit more complicated. Local affiliates have to negotiate with the networks to carry the feed. But I believe this (currently) gives the local station a local monopoly on the network feed they can use to resell to the cable and satellite companies. It would be very hard for the local stations to negotiate with the networks if those local stations were not really providing any value added by OTA broadcasting.

- Tom

I thought others would get a kick out of this as this seems to be a common issue...

High Definition Ready TV -----> $300
HDTV tuner ---------------------> $100
HD Antenna --------------------> $ 30
The wife and kids yelling at you while you are hooking it all together and moving the antenna around -------> Priceless

I thought others would get a kick out of this as this seems to be a common issue...

High Definition Ready TV -----> $300
HDTV tuner ---------------------> $100
HD Antenna --------------------> $ 30
The wife and kids yelling at you while you are hooking it all together and moving the antenna around -------> Priceless


You forgot one !!

Your not putting that Ugly thing on my Roof !!

"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)

"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)


"But daddy, don't you work in TV? What is going to happen to your job?" ;)

- Tom

"But daddy, don't you work in TV? What is going to happen to your job?" ;)

- Tom

"I will go find a real job and make real money for a change!"

"And, be home on weekends, holidays, weddings, funerals, school events, ........."

"And, we'll finally be able to afford CABLE!"

"And, we'll finally be able to afford CABLE!"

Heck, after the turn-off all TV engineers may have to have cable just to monitor their stations. The station may even buy it for you. ;)

- Tom

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 ) ....

That isn't like a VHF/UHF swap. Historically, before the network swaps of the mid 90's, in markets that had 3 VHF stations with network affiliations, the UHF's had a hard time. To clue you in on some history, the reason you had the big network swaps in the 90's was because FOX had obtained the NFL and the UHF's that FOX was predominant on, didn't have the coverage or clout and the first year, 1994, the ratings were not very good. In 1995, FOX began buying VHF stations and moving affiliations to those VHF stations and the ratings improved to what you have today. In those days, CBS lost most of the affiliates and in many markets, CBS still has trouble on those CBS stations.

How do we reconcile that history with claims that 90+ percent of viewing is via cable service? So the number matters even though reception isn't really an issue? I don't believe that market penetration of cable was much less (and may have even been more) in 1995 than 2005. BTW, the fox station here has always been 28 OTA and 8 on cable.

On the digital versus analog debate:
I tried once bringing a small TV into my office on the first floor of a steel and concrete building, reception was unwatchable except for 1 channel which was barely watchable. Last year I brought in an LG 3510a, hooked it up to a monitor's DVI port, and it got a signal lock on 4 of the 6 local stations.

That isn't like a VHF/UHF swap. Historically, before the network swaps of the mid 90's, in markets that had 3 VHF stations with network affiliations, the UHF's had a hard time. To clue you in on some history, the reason you had the big network swaps in the 90's was because FOX had obtained the NFL and the UHF's that FOX was predominant on, didn't have the coverage or clout and the first year, 1994, the ratings were not very good. In 1995, FOX began buying VHF stations and moving affiliations to those VHF stations and the ratings improved to what you have today. In those days, CBS lost most of the affiliates and in many markets, CBS still has trouble on those CBS stations.



I read that CBS *really* suffered in the Detroit market... they are channel 62 analog now, and that CBS now just brands that station as "CBS Detroit" as opposed to "CBS62"...most CBS O & O's brand themselves as "CBS2" (NY) or "CBS11" (DFW). I have to agree that if a station is on UHF, they will have problems. Sure, an ABC affiliate that is on UHF 40, may be on cable channel 8 or 9, but that doesn't mean they are a VHF channel. The FCC requires all broadcasters to have an OTA signal, correct? It's not that people won't watch ABC programming if they are on a UHF channel, it's probably that the station has so much cost in keeping the transmitter up and running! I'm guessing the higher the channel, the more power is required.... I have noticed lots of big 4's being on UHF, but when they are on CHS 14 - 19 or what not, they do a little better, financial wise. I would hate to have a station on ch 60!

How do we reconcile that history with claims that 90+ percent of viewing is via cable service? So the number matters even though reception isn't really an issue? I don't believe that market penetration of cable was much less (and may have even been more) in 1995 than 2005. BTW, the fox station here has always been 28 OTA and 8 on cable.

Where did you find the percentage (90%+ using cable)? As of Aug 2005 the GAO reported 81% of households used EITHER cable or satellite.

"According to a Government Accountability Office survey, 19% of U.S. households (21 million) do not subscribe to a cable or satellite service and rely exclusively on over-the-air broadcasting."

CRS Report for Congress - August 12, 2005

I read that CBS *really* suffered in the Detroit market... they are channel 62 analog now, and that CBS now just brands that station as "CBS Detroit" as opposed to "CBS62"...most CBS O & O's brand themselves as "CBS2" (NY) or "CBS11" (DFW).

Yeah, Fox moved from 50 to 2 in Detroit. But CBS didn't get 50, that went to UPN (CW). CBS had to buy 62, a relatively low power independent and religious broadcaster, poorly located on the east side. It was unwatchable. They moved to a more central location, same antenna farm as most of the Detroit market, with 5 MW ERP, but it is still the most ghost-ridden station with severe multipath, at least where I am. By far, the worst of the local analog channels. (Had they gotten 50, they might have been OK.)

They do emphasize the CBS-Detroit, and I'm not sure whether they include the "62" or not. They are the only station in the market that regularly shows their digital channel on promo screens, "DT44." They do NOT have a local news operation, or really ANY local programming at all. It is purely CBS and syndicated programs.

"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)
when you do it make sure its either the kids or the wifes favorite show. and one other thing make sure you have the bed made up in the spare bedroom cause thats where you are going to be sleeping for a while.

Yeah, Fox moved from 50 to 2 in Detroit. But CBS didn't get 50, that went to UPN (CW). (Had they gotten 50, they might have been OK.)




Was there a reason why they didn't get channel 50? I bet it's odd having a "Big 3" network that high on the UHF dial.

Where did you find the percentage (90%+ using cable)? As of Aug 2005 the GAO reported 81% of households used EITHER cable or satellite.

"According to a Government Accountability Office survey, 19% of U.S. households (21 million) do not subscribe to a cable or satellite service and rely exclusively on over-the-air broadcasting."

CRS Report for Congress - August 12, 2005

I said claims of >90% using cable by others in this news group arguing that OTA was irrelevant.

The point still remains, though, a VHF->UHF change that affects 20% of your coverage will somehow totally devastate your ratings.

The point still remains, though, a VHF->UHF change that affects 20% of your coverage will somehow totally devastate your ratings.

It does. Real life case. Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem, NC market. CBS, NBC and FOX are VHF. ABC is UHF. The market has 85% combined cable and sat LIL penetration (55% being cable). The UHF ABC has been ABC for 11 years. Before the network switch FOX was on UHF and ABC on VHF. ABC ranked one or two consistently with full day ratings and FOX was a far fourth in full day ratings. Now, FOX is ranked one or two in day long ratings and ABC now ranks number 4 in total day long ratings.

OTA CBS is channel 2, FOX is channel 8, NBC is channel 12 and ABC is channel 45. On satellite each station retains its OTA channel number of 2, 8, 12 and 45. On cable ABC is channel 7, CBS is channel 9. FOX is channel 10 and NBC is channel 11.

This is real life. No theory. No guesses. No spin.

Was there a reason why they didn't get channel 50? I bet it's odd having a "Big 3" network that high on the UHF dial.

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.

... and programming that appeals to the local audience.

Network programming (particularly Prime Time) is what attracts viewers (no matter the channel). If they change the channel when "local programming" is broadcasted (local news, syndicated shows, cow tipping olympics, etc...), then blame the local affiliate. Not because it's on UHF.

Well in any case, I like the fact that stations remap to their analog channel #. It would just be odd if they didn't. "CBS2" sounds and looks a lot more appealing than "CBS56"....... "ABC7" is more appealing than "ABC45".... "News 4 New York" fits better than "News 28 New York", etc......

And I know having an affiliate system of networks is not perfect, but it has been around since the birth of TV. Lots of people would love to do away with affiliates... I'm not nearly old enough to know about early television, but I just don't think this needs to change.. I mean the world is changing all around us, let's keep one thing constant :)

Well in any case, I like the fact that stations remap to their analog channel #. It would just be odd if they didn't. "CBS2" sounds and looks a lot more appealing than "CBS56"....... "ABC7" is more appealing than "ABC45".... "News 4 New York" fits better than "News 28 New York", etc......



I don't mind them remapping, but the PSIP data gets screwed up often enough that I wished they would also show their "real" frequency assignment on splash screens, as CBS Detroit does.

After analog is turned off, remapping to analog channel number strikes me as silly. I think they need to build "dual brand" now. The number isn't really important as we only have one choice for each network in our market. More important to know where to tune the TV.

I agree they need to start with their new branding now....it is a fact there are going to be a significant # of people who won't have a clue what to do. As you said "CBS Detroit" does.....they could identify themselves with the city name and network.

u [QUOTE=Fettastic]Just wondering what you're using as evidence that I don't understand this.


just want to add my two cents. i have been with hdtv since the beginning could be called an early adapter and probably a couple of other things. went through ho w many antennas and a revelant amps. found out that when i moved the antenna a couple of feet and got rid of the amp everything works fine now. with out the advice of the people at avs it woudn't have happened.what im trying to sayis with any new tecnology there is a certain amount of trial and error until you get it right.i could go on for days about my wife and new ideas is there any more comment needed on that line of thought.

Oh, I think everyone here is WELL aware of the pain in the butt that ATSC can be. It's raining right now, and when that happen in my area, I can't get anything but CBS reliably. That really isn't anyone's fault but my own for choosing to live where I do. It just isn't friendly all the time for HD like my old house.

Having said that, the reality is thus: There is no choice. Sure, there is a good chance that towers may have a little better signal strength, or that broadcasters will finally pay 100% attention to the digital signal, etc, but after 10+ years I have a hard time feeling sympathy. Nor do I have patience for my local inept cable company that can't maintain a decent signal all the time with a direct feed into the house.

I agree they need to start with their new branding now....it is a fact there are going to be a significant # of people who won't have a clue what to do. As you said "CBS Detroit" does.....they could identify themselves with the city name and network.

New branding of what? Their DTV channel? By law, stations can only identify themselves with their analog channel number if they use a channel number at all. If a station is on chanel 2 analog and goes to channel 51 digital, by law they will always be known as channel 2 even though they operate digitally on channel 51. The remapping function of ATSC makes rebranding unnecessary and that is why the FCC made the analog channel the "channel of record."

How many stations currently call themselves "UHF58", "HighVee12" or "LowBand5" :) ?

Most people have enough trouble knowing what a VHF or UHF is. Maybe some better education is needed, both of the consumer, and of the local sales and installation folks.

I think that when you tell the American public for over 5 years that this is going to happen, its all you hear on TV and in the papaers, and you also see all major electronics and department stores lining up only HDTV units and getting rid of all analog stuff.....anyone who doesn't know and/or have "time" to address this individually is either out of touch with reality or else happy using their B&W TV with rabbit ears. To them, I say "Tough luck Charlie". :D

I also have no sympathy for stations who have crawled to come on board with DTV/HDTV - 5 years is plenty of time to joint this century. :eek:

New branding of what? Their DTV channel? By law, stations can only identify themselves with their analog channel number if they use a channel number at all.

Then how do stations like WCNC in Charlotte get away with branding themselves as their cable channel number? I don't think I've ever seen WCNC show its OTA analog or digital channel numbers (36 or 22) on the air. It's always "News 6 Charlotte".

Maybe they do it once a day at 4am. :rolleyes:

Then how do stations like WCNC in Charlotte get away with branding themselves as their cable channel number? I don't think I've ever seen WCNC show its OTA analog or digital channel numbers (36 or 22) on the air. It's always "News 6 Charlotte".

Maybe they do it once a day at 4am. :rolleyes:

The law states that a digital station must remap as their analog channel. WCNC may say channel 6, but by law their PSIP data must say 36. That is the law.

As I talk to people in the general-population (not "techies") about this, they seem to be very surprised to hear that their current sets won't be working in a couple of years.

I have to explain to them that this will affect their over-the-air reception only, and that they won't see any change....good or bad.....on their Cable TV and DBS local channels.

What frustrates me most, though, is how little progress is being made on the receiving end.

The FCC has only recently created rules for the DTV translator services, and has just begun processing applications. Construction permits have yet to be issued, and the very few crews who can do this kind of work will only have a few months of summer weather (2007 and 2008) to install and commission the mountaintop sites (hundreds, maybe a few thousand). So, will the smaller rural communities even have OTA TV (much less HDTV) by 2009?

Also, as I upgrade the MATV system here at work, I wonder why there are not, literally, thousands of crews doing the same thing in office buildings, hospitals, condos, apartment complexes, and retirement communities all over America. Many people who live in retirement homes especially, are on fixed incomes and watch TV with small sets and "rabbit ears" in their rooms, or connected to an older MATV system (that may not even pass UHF). Are they going to be out-of-luck when their sets don't work in 2009? Analog Cable TV might be an answer, if provided free at their residences....assuming Cable continues to provide an analog local tier. But, that excludes most from HD and the advantages of DTV.

Satellite or pay Cable isn't going to cut it with people on Social Security or minimal pensions. Most retail stores seem to concentrate their efforts on selling subscription services, which pay them commissions. I have been told, by retailers themselves, that they don't try to promote antenna sales or OTA-capable set top boxes, since so many customers give up and return the equipment after their first try. Broadcasters can't provide technicians to install the antennas and troubleshoot the hardware, so who is helping the average consumer.....besides forums like this one?

Do an internet search, or check your local Yellow Pages, for "TV Antenna", and you will find hundreds of hits on DirecTV and DISH Network sales, but very few antenna installers. And, I wonder how many of them are comfortable with Digital TV, anyway. We have often gotten calls from people who say they received a stock answer of, "HDTV doesn't work in your area" from installers....even though they are well within our coverage area. Are they just uncomfortable with trying, do they not have the proper skills and test gear, or are they afraid the customer will balk at the price when compared to a "free" satellite dish?

DTV isn't that hard to do, but it requires some different skills and knowledge to do it right. Unfortunately, the average person has not been warned about this stuff early enough to do any pre-planning. How many antennas can be made and installed in two-and-one-third years? Or, in the twelve months that the FCC is expecting us to run Public Service Announcements about the demise of our 60-years-old-but-comfortable-companion Analog TV system?

Quite simply it's a windfall for cable TV companies (who I despise)

TIM

Also, as I upgrade the MATV system here at work, I wonder why there are not, literally, thousands of crews doing the same thing in office buildings, hospitals, condos, apartment complexes, and retirement communities all over America. Many people who live in retirement homes especially, are on fixed incomes and watch TV with small sets and "rabbit ears" in their rooms, or connected to an older MATV system (that may not even pass UHF). Are they going to be out-of-luck when their sets don't work in 2009? Analog Cable TV might be an answer, if provided free at their residences....assuming Cable continues to provide an analog local tier. But, that excludes most from HD and the advantages of DTV.


I was on the road recently and thought the same thing about all of the systems in hotels - I have yet to see a hotel room that didn't have an analog CRT tube TV.

It's the almighty dollar - no wants to spend any money until forced to do so. Those thousands of crews won't get to work until March 2009. :(

Also, as I upgrade the MATV system here at work, I wonder why there are not, literally, thousands of crews doing the same thing in office buildings, hospitals, condos, apartment complexes, and retirement communities all over America.

Ken,
Our apartment building is in the process of doing this right now. We will have one wire for OTA distribution and a separate wire for a new DirecTv distribution system. We should be getting the cost estimate any day now. So, I don't know if there are "thousands" of crews doing this stuff, but we hope to have one crew wiring our building up ASAP.

:)

New branding of what? Their DTV channel? By law, stations can only identify themselves with their analog channel number if they use a channel number at all. If a station is on chanel 2 analog and goes to channel 51 digital, by law they will always be known as channel 2 even though they operate digitally on channel 51. The remapping function of ATSC makes rebranding unnecessary and that is why the FCC made the analog channel the "channel of record."

I didn't mean brand themselves as their digital channel. I made that point when I said that "CBS2" sounds and looks better than "CBS56". I was just agreeing with John's idea that stations could do what WWJ in Detroit does. "CBS Detroit". As I said, I personally like the remapping... I for one will always identify a station by it's channel #. I'm just trying to give alternate ideas for the future, that's all.

I didn't mean brand themselves as their digital channel. I made that point when I said that "CBS2" sounds and looks better than "CBS56". I was just agreeing with John's idea that stations could do what WWJ in Detroit does. "CBS Detroit". As I said, I personally like the remapping... I for one will always identify a station by it's channel #. I'm just trying to give alternate ideas for the future, that's all.

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.

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.

Same here. The UPN affiliate here (pre-CW) used to be known at UPN69. They went ahead and configured their PISP to not remap them to 69 and became known at "UPN Atlanta" on 43-1.

The law states that a digital station must remap as their analog channel. WCNC may say channel 6, but by law their PSIP data must say 36. That is the law.

Ch 69 in Atlanta is not remapping. I spoke to one of their engineers who said that UHF 69 will not be in the TV OTA spectrum after the digital conversion, so they opted not to remap and became UPN Atlanta.

Ch 69 in Atlanta is not remapping. I spoke to one of their engineers who said that UHF 69 will not be in the TV OTA spectrum after the digital conversion, so they opted not to remap and became UPN Atlanta.

Then they are not complying with the law. The law is very clear. Even if your channel will not be a core channel, you will still be known by that analog channel and you are required to remap to that legacy channel.

They can brand themselves UPN Atlanta, but the law states they have to remap their analog channel in the PSIP and if it is channel 69 they will always be known as channel 69 and have to remap that in the PSIP.

Has digital channel 43 in Atlanta been determined to be the final assignment of analog channel 69, or is it still under review? Perhaps the interim remapping rule does not apply to digital channel assignments that have not been finalized.

Has digital channel 43 in Atlanta been determined to be the final assignment of analog channel 69, or is it still under review? Perhaps the interim remapping rule does not apply to digital channel assignments that have not been finalized.

The analog channel IS finalized and that is what the station is known by. It doesn't matter what interim channel a station winds up on. The law states that the PSIP stream will ALWAYS have the analog channel listed as the major channel number from now until Hell freezes over.

Let me get this straight...
Let's say a station today has analog channel 17 and digital 34. They "map" the digital to 17.1

Now are you saying that after the cutoff, they retain the 17.1 channel map/logo (assuming the don't "move back")? If so, then what happens if a new station lights up and is assigned the digital channel/frequency of 17?

If there is already a nearby station that maps to channel 17, then I guess a new station that broadcasts on ch 17 could simply be assigned a virtual channel number that is different from any of the others that are already in use in that area.

I would think that for new stations, an effort would be made to find a channel that would allow the virtual number to be the same as the physical number. This may of course not be possible in some areas.