Hello everyones,

I have been thinking for a sometime, and what would happen if the digital TV broadcasters that's own their full power and low power stations decided this VHF low band is useless? :eek:

Now what do you want to reuse the band 54 to 88 MHz for other use? " Channel 2 to 6 ranges"

If I were the FCC commissioner I would allocated the band the new way.

Plan 1.

54 to 55 MHz, would be a expaned ham radio 6 meter band, 55 to 72 MHz will be allocated to digital radio broadcasting by using IBOC or DRM broadcast formats www.drm.org and max, transmitting power would be at 100 KW ERP. Now we go on to 72 to 76 MHz it will be a new ham radio band at 4 meter, which BTW it's starting up in parts of Europe. :) "U.K. been doing that for years now on 4 meter band" Now we go up to 76 to 80 MHz for hobbies broadcasting max, transment power "TPO" is at 10 watts, you can use WBFM or IBOC or DRM modes and as for Narrow band TV broadcast not wider than 200 KHz bandwith by using video compression MPEG-4, or H.264, modulitation formats QPSK or Narrow COFDEM.

Now up to 80 to 87.9 MHz will be low power licences stations with up to 1000 Watts ERP transment power. Strictly for local use only!!

Plan 2.

54 to 72 MHz, make it Digital Narrow Band high power TV broadcasts at bandwith of 2 MHz wide at 100 KW ERP for news and weather and sports at 480p.

With the bandwith narrowed you cut down the noise floor level and greater long ranges covereges and more digital TV channels beings spread out by reducing the skip interferences on each others and nice news for TV DXers. :D So I think 2 MHz spacing per channel is way to go. :)

Now on to 72 to 76, just leave it the way it is for ulity low power user so there no changes to this band.

Now on to 76 to 88 MHz will be expanded FM analog or digital radio broadcast band max, transment power 100 KW ERP.

Plan 3.

54 to 87.9 MHz just go Wi-Fi max, transment power at 5 watts TPO. :D

Now I ask you what would you do with with, and send me your best plans ideas for VHF low band!!

4-22-07

I like Plan 2 .Would use for new FMs and to move small/daytime AMs to FM. Just leave 50kw flame throwers on AM.Think that FCC thinks it might be a lost cause too. Originally in-core was supposed to be Ch.7-59.;not 2-51.

Wood-burning cell phones with rabbit-ear antennas:

:D

I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that low VHF TV was going away after the transition but I see a number of stations have selected a low VHF channel as their final channel in the round 3 FCC list. If the FCC allows these selections to stand then it's going to make reallocating that spectrum very difficult on a nation wide basis. Fortunately I see only one such selection in northern California and it's far outside my reception range. I have no plans for a low VHF TV antenna.

73 de AA6G

Plan 2.

54 to 72 MHz, make it Digital Narrow Band high power TV broadcasts at bandwith of 2 MHz wide at 100 KW ERP for news and weather and sports at 480p.

With the bandwith narrowed you cut down the noise floor level and greater long ranges covereges and more digital TV channels beings spread out by reducing the skip interferences on each others and nice news for TV DXers. :D So I think 2 MHz spacing per channel is way to go. :)

A rural SDTV OTA relay service (I assume simlucasting a Big 4 network OTA) on Low-VHF is interesting but there would still be issues with impulse noise and during times of severe weather, massive dropouts. Real world coverage would not improve much since VHF is line of sight (outside of ducting and E-skip). Best to give it to the hams (and allow them to operate analog or digital FSTV).

I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that low VHF TV was going away after the transition but I see a number of stations have selected a low VHF channel as their final channel in the round 3 FCC list. ...

. I have no plans for a low VHF TV antenna.

73 de AA6G

I think those stations that retain their old low vhf assignment are going to end up cutting their own throats.

For reasons similar to yours, I think we're going to see a lot of people after the analog cutoff, who are willing to use indoor uhf antennas (like the Silver Sensor) to get OTA HD, but who are unwilling to put up with the huge antenna sizes that are needed for low-vhf.

I suspect those low vhf stations will be whining and crying for a uhf assignment within a couple of years after the analog cutoff.

I think those stations that retain their old low vhf assignment are going to end up cutting their own throats.

For reasons similar to yours, I think we're going to see a lot of people after the analog cutoff, who are willing to use indoor uhf antennas (like the Silver Sensor) to get OTA HD, but who are unwilling to put up with the huge antenna sizes that are needed for low-vhf.

I suspect those low vhf stations will be whining and crying for a uhf assignment within a couple of years after the analog cutoff.

Take another look. Most of the 2-6VHF digitals licensed are ether religious or educational stations. Their intention is primarily to get onto satellite and cable distribution via must carry. They are not looking for compensation, just carriage. So if the official contour includes certain areas, then they get to ask for must carry. All they have to do is put a primary signal over their city of license and then demand carriage on satellite or cable and not concern themselves with the quality of the over the air signal. Since most satellite and cable "must carry" stations provide their programming via a direct feed to both services. An example of that is GLC (Gods Learning Channel), they use c-band distribution to feed most of their translators, then ask for must carry by Dish and DirecTV along with those cable systems that they have a signal into and get automatic carriage. Beyond those translators ranges and superior quality signal distribution by having both cable and satellite companies just take their C-Band uplink. It's a great gig, and they got it all worked out. Congress really should have made it more difficult for must carry rules; they let this one slip and now the cats out of the bag. Bandwidth is being sucked down by these guys at an alarming rate.. It's rather unfortunate, they all seem to be showing the same thing over and over, and always asking for money.

The most church channels are already on Directv and Dish Network and FTA KU band satellite services.

It would be a waste of bandwiths showing the same thing on VHF low band so I think it will not work.

If no one want's the band then, I think it's should be given to the hobbyist by being licences or licences free for the 54 to 87.9 MHz.

Anyway I know you guys can create the new band plan as I outlined at the very top of this thread.

I like to see your ideas.... :)

4-23-07

There are going to be many major stations that go to VHF-Lo for DT operation in 2009, like WPVI (ABC) in Philly and WMC (NBC) in Memphis. KVBC (NBC) in Vegas, last I checked, will remain on VHF-Lo after analog shutoff.

As for what to do with the VHF-Lo band if DTV ever fails there, the FCC will implement whatever plan that gets them the most money.

Hello everyones,

I have been thinking for a sometime, and what would happen if the digital TV broadcasters that's own their full power and low power stations decided this VHF low band is useless? :eek:

Now I ask you what would you do with with, and send me your best plans ideas for VHF low band!!

4-22-07

As a ham you know that you can talk further on 6 meters (below channel 2) than 144 MHZ (below channel 7) and that 432 mhz (below channel 14) is harder for DX than 6 & 2. The same logic works for TV.

Low Band is very good for digital TV. It bends over hills much better than High band VHF and far better than UHF. The path loss is lower on Low Band than High Band or UHF. There is less feedline loss on Low Band.

What's wrong with Low Band is:

1. UHF only antennas don't work on Low Band VHF.
2. Those who attempt to install UHF only antennas for DTV need someone to blame besides themselves.
3. Power line leakage; (but that's a problem that should be fixed anyway).
4. Due to better propogation on Low Band, There should be more separation between co-channel stations on Low Band VHF than was allocated by the FCC.
5. Home antennas need to be installed higher than High Band VHF/UHF or the main beam is steered upwards by the interaction with the ground. (Do you have the YT ray tracing program from the ARRL Antenna Book?)
7. Nearby lightning interference freezes the picture for a couple seconds. (Why are you sitting next to a TV connected to an outdoor antenna during a thunderstorm?)
8. The FCC allocated too little power to DTV stations in Low Band to avoid interference to analog stations.
9. Sporadic E can cause inteference from time to time.

A slight readjustment of the power levels on Low Band would deal with all but #1, #2 & #7, but those three are not technical problems. #4 will take care of itself on February 17, 2009.

1. UHF only antennas don't work on Low Band VHF.
At least not very well, but my local PAX station is on channel 4 (no, not mapped to virtual channel 4) and I've been receiving it with a UHF Yagi with no problems at all. I'm very surprised.

There are going to be many major stations that go to VHF-Lo for DT operation in 2009, like WPVI (ABC) in Philly and WMC (NBC) in Memphis. KVBC (NBC) in Vegas, last I checked, will remain on VHF-Lo after analog shutoff.

As for what to do with the VHF-Lo band if DTV ever fails there, the FCC will implement whatever plan that gets them the most money.

In all due respect, 4 stations is not many.

ABC made a Corporate decision to keep all VHF channels - and most of theirs are on Channel 7 (VHF-HI) so WPVI got the shaft - but then again, there is no place for it to go otherwise.

The rest of the list is primarily smaller broadcasters/smaller markets where there is no issue with finding an available UHF frequency.

Most of these smaller broadcasters/smaller markets do not have the access to best engineering data and thus still believe that VHF-LO is prime real estate with low power bills.

The others know the truth, but are in such small markets that they cannot afford to build out another transmission plant in the UHF range.

While some will come to the party for the final ruling, there will still be others broadcasting in VHF-LO when all is said and done.

As a ham you know that you can talk further on 6 meters (below channel 2) than 144 MHZ (below channel 7) and that 432 mhz (below channel 14) is harder for DX than 6 & 2. The same logic works for TV.

Low Band is very good for digital TV. It bends over hills much better than High band VHF and far better than UHF. The path loss is lower on Low Band than High Band or UHF. There is less feedline loss on Low Band.

What's wrong with Low Band is:

1. UHF only antennas don't work on Low Band VHF.
2. Those who attempt to install UHF only antennas for DTV need someone to blame besides themselves.
3. Power line leakage; (but that's a problem that should be fixed anyway).
4. Due to better propogation on Low Band, There should be more separation between co-channel stations on Low Band VHF than was allocated by the FCC.
5. Home antennas need to be installed higher than High Band VHF/UHF or the main beam is steered upwards by the interaction with the ground. (Do you have the YT ray tracing program from the ARRL Antenna Book?)
7. Nearby lightning interference freezes the picture for a couple seconds. (Why are you sitting next to a TV connected to an outdoor antenna during a thunderstorm?)
8. The FCC allocated too little power to DTV stations in Low Band to avoid interference to analog stations.
9. Sporadic E can cause inteference from time to time.

A slight readjustment of the power levels on Low Band would deal with all but #1, #2 & #7, but those three are not technical problems. #4 will take care of itself on February 17, 2009.

These are good points. However it's the unwillingness or inability of most people to install the large antennas required, on towers 40 feet high, which make widespread TV broadcasts on low VHF a technical impracticality. Combined with a 10 dB higher median man-made noise level that increases everyday (compared with high-band VHF) and you can see it will never be very popular again except with a few enthusiasts.

These are good points. However it's the unwillingness or inability of most people to install the large antennas required, on towers 40 feet high, which make widespread TV broadcasts on low VHF a technical impracticality. Combined with a 10 dB higher median man-made noise level that increases everyday (compared with high-band VHF) and you can see it will never be very popular again except with a few enthusiasts.

10 db more noise is about right for channel 2. On channel 6 it's about 5 db. 40' high antennas are not needed for channels 4-6. I agree that DTV channels 2 and 3 may not be "popular", but close inspection of the data (which is sparse) does not yet support the same conclusion for channels 4-6.

I also wonder how much better our receivers would perform if they only had to deal with VHF-hi and UHF instead of having to deal with all the VHF-lo channels and with a big gap that includes FM radio.

I also wonder how much better our receivers would perform if they only had to deal with VHF-hi and UHF instead of having to deal with all the VHF-lo channels and with a big gap that includes FM radio.

Doubt it would make a difference. The first thing the receiver does is heterodyne down to IF, and it's not that stage where the big gains in receiver performance are made.

There are going to be many major stations that go to VHF-Lo for DT operation in 2009, like WPVI (ABC) in Philly and WMC (NBC) in Memphis. KVBC (NBC) in Vegas, last I checked, will remain on VHF-Lo after analog shutoff.

As for what to do with the VHF-Lo band if DTV ever fails there, the FCC will implement whatever plan that gets them the most money.
As I eluded to in an earlier thread....2 stations close to my home in central NH will be reverting to VHF (albeit HI) in '09....WMUR-DT (ABC) is currently running DT on 59 (!);
WENH-DT (PBS) is running DT on 57....Both will revert to their analog channels (9 and 11, respectively), with the (inital) plan to use DT exciters in conjunction with their existing PAs.....
I also believe WHDH-DT (ABC) in Boston will revert back to channel 7 in '09; thier DT is currently on 42....

I think the biggest problem will be interference from band openings. We are at the bottom of the sunspot cycle now so that problem is currently minimal. But in just about the time of the transition, there will be more band openings. Back in the early 60's, the 6 Meter ham band routinely allowed long distance contacts.

I think I would like to be on Channel 11, 12 or 13 if I owned a DTV station. You don't need a megawatt to cover your area, system losses are reasonably small and seasonal coverage variations due to vegetation are not a major problem. There are occasional band openings but the frequency is high enough that they are not common. All in all, these channels come out well in my trade-off analysis.

I wonder which channels might be most susceptible to breakups from airplane reflections.

--- CHAS (WA2DYA)

I wonder which channels might be most susceptible to breakups from airplane reflections.

--- CHAS (WA2DYA)

Maybe Boeing should make the 797 a stealth airliner.

I think the biggest problem will be interference from band openings. We are at the bottom of the sunspot cycle now so that problem is currently minimal.


Sporadic E and tropospheric scattering or ducting are probably the most common modes of long-distance signal propagation on VHF/UHF.

With the exception of its effects regarding rare F1/2 layer propagation when MUF can reach into Low VHF during solar maximum periods(when it does happen, I would think really probably for the most part shouldn't be too much of an issue in terms of interference to "high power" TV signals received locally with consumer gear for TV reception) ------ I believe evidence from the past 60 years or so seems to suggest sunspot cycle has no effect on Lo-VHF band openings via Sporadic-E ("E-skip" or "Es" for short). There are lots of interesting theories, but it is still not known what causes Sporadic E ....

For instance, Es openings have been just as "intense" in periods of low solar activity, including over the past several years .... And, such openings(the same is true for tropo on all VHF/UHF) can indeed cause disruption to local reception, sometimes quite severe disruption depending upon circumstances .. A strong local signal(if you can get it!)+directional antenna properly aimed at local station certianly helps ..... Not much you can do of course, if the interfering signal is strong+coming from the same direction+your local signal isn't all that strong :-)

You might be interested in the info, and some of the info on various studies at links on this page, here :

http://www.amfmdx.net/fmdx/sporadic-e.html

Sunspot cycle also has nothing to do with VHF/UHF propagation via troposperhic scattering or ducting.

Es has a MUF involved, which, when it occurs fairly commonly lies somewhere in Low-VHF TV band(MUF via Es into FM isn't "uncommon" either, but Es MUF into HI-VHF TV band certianly is very rare).

"Tropo"(for short) is caused(generally) by temperature inversions+involves factors such as humidity/dewpoint(the "refractive" capabilites of the air at certian lower levels of atmosphere). Its probably much less common in Drier climates(the gulf coast is a good place for tropo for instance), and generally effects all VHF/UHF frequencies used for TV -- the big exception, perhaps being via a "true" tropo duct where there is a LUF(lowest usable frequency) involved -- This is because of wavelength involved/physical size of duct itself, which acts a lot like a open-ended waveguide ... That's not to say VHF tropo ducting is rare, as receiving a signal on VHF from several 100's (or 1'000's - especially say on 2 meters between CA and HI) of miles isn't exactly "uncommon" via tropo ducting, either ....

You can also find much better/much more detailed info on "Es"+"tropo" and other modes of VHF/UHF propagation(meteor scatter/etc) here :

http://www.dxfm.com/Content/propagation.htm

Actually, with the small number of stations remaining on VHF low, tropo may not effect the stations like it does now. Will there by some effect? Yes, and on channels 2 and 3 it will be the worst because those channels open up more than 4, 5 or 6. Of course all those remaining on VHF low will have to deal with the rest of the North American analog stations in the surrounding countries that will now be seen more easily here in the US on tropo openings because 95% of the US stations will be not there to block them out as now. It will be interesting to see what that new white space between the US stations will do to the foreign stations and vice versa.

As someone who enjoys the Dx'ing hobby occasionally -- I'm actually looking forward to the "less" stations Foxeng refers to ... Concerning the situation right now, tropo wise moreso to open up channels for DX (including VHF-HI+UHF) which are currently occupied by strong locals(some of which have never been "open for DX" here other than the rare times locals are off air), and to see what DTV Dx'ing is going to be like without the analogs noising things up a bit ...

Particuarly so on Lo-VHF concerning E-skip openings, when at times(thise seems to especially happen here on ch 3+4(can't tell much on 2, local on 2 here is too strong) occasionally when MUF is up to channel 6 or FM), the jumble of analog signals(just about every station 800~1100 miles distant in a general direction) can be just a, well, real big mess .....

Maybe Boeing should make the 797 a stealth airliner.


Damn 797? I thought Air Bus 380 was the biggest. Saw the Airbus 380 in HD when it landed in Chicago a month ago. The wing outboard engine was right over the runway lights on both side and the wing tip was beyond the paved runway with. They had to check the runway lights after they took off from O'Hare airport because of the heat from the engine to make sure it didn't burn up the lights.

As someone who enjoys the Dx'ing hobby occasionally -- I'm actually looking forward to the "less" stations Foxeng refers to ... Concerning the situation right now, tropo wise moreso to open up channels for DX (including VHF-HI+UHF) which are currently occupied by strong locals(some of which have never been "open for DX" here other than the rare times locals are off air), and to see what DTV Dx'ing is going to be like without the analogs noising things up a bit ...

Particuarly so on Lo-VHF concerning E-skip openings, when at times(thise seems to especially happen here on ch 3+4(can't tell much on 2, local on 2 here is too strong) occasionally when MUF is up to channel 6 or FM), the jumble of analog signals(just about every station 800~1100 miles distant in a general direction) can be just a, well, real big mess .....

There are a few low channels staying put, plus one station in Memphis (WMC) will use their current analog channel (5) for digital post-transition.

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba will be a common sight on channels 2-6 during the 2009 Summer E's season.

haley-sea,

Yep, a few of them should be good Es targets for me as well -- Several Dx'er friends in my region have all managed DTV Es reception of KOTA-DT, but It hasn't worked out for me yet with a nearby very strong analog local on 2 (so strong I filter it off on the "DX" antenna setup) ...

The nearest one to me is WDKY-DT 4 Danville(Lexington) KY, haven't checked recently, but last I heard Looks like they're staying put as well --- See them quite often here from 118 miles, it's the DTV station I see most often beyond the locals (in fact, if it was just a little closer WDKY-DT would probably be a local signal) ....

anyhow .... Great, More Fidel footage on CMJ 4 -- The only one from Cuba I've been able to ID so far ;-)

Just kidding, I like the Canadian/Mexican+Cuba Es too ...

At least you guys can SEE SOMETHING on the VHF low. I have either locals or stations within 100 miles from me on 2-6 (well 2-13 actually) so I NEVER see any DX on VHF unless it is a special opening or they are off the air, which is never anymore with backup transmitters and antennas. I did see a channel a 10 DTV over the analog channel 10 two years ago on a really intense tropo opening, but I haven't see it since even though the DTV 10 is 170 miles from me at 2000 feet and 35kw ERP and 90 degrees off the side of the analog channel 10.

Nitewatchman, you have any piks of your TV DX?

I wonder which channels might be most susceptible to breakups from airplane reflections.

Good question. Another argument against lower frequencies.

The TV transmitter-aircraft-TV receiver link could be modeled as a bi-static radar, where the transmitter and receiver are not co-located. The aircraft could be viewed as dynamic radar clutter or multipath. The classic problem exacerbating clutter and multipath is wide beamwidths and large sidelobes (poor directivity). Hence the lower the frequency for any given antenna size the more likely the interference from aircraft. Especially when you consider the problem of local terrain on Yagi performance alluded to by Tower Guy earlier. This is all in lieu of a more complex analysis of aircraft impact on interference patterns between direct and sky waves at higher UHF frequencies.

At least you guys can SEE SOMETHING on the VHF low. I have either locals or stations within 100 miles from me on 2-6 (well 2-13 actually) so I NEVER see any DX on VHF unless it is a special opening or they are off the air, which is never anymore with backup transmitters and antennas.

Channel 3 is my only "open channel" although I get analog neighbors from Memphis (WREG), Shreveport (KTBS), Jackson, MS (WLBT), and even Springfield, MO (KYTV). I did log PSIP of WBRA-DT Roanoke, VA on July 16, 2006 (3:48pm Central).

Ch 2: KETS strong local (logged KTVI last year during intense tropo)
Ch 4: KARK fringe local (moderate/strong E-skip makes it in)
Ch 5: KETS-DT low power local (strong E-skip will occasionally overide it)
Ch 6: pests KEMV, WABG, or KTAL (logged WPSD Paducah, KY via tropo last year)

Back to the topic, its my view that the FCC should have never permitted low VHF to be used for DTV. Yes, it will be fun to DX DTV, but to most viewers in these areas it will be an inconveince unless high power transmitters are used. 2kw or 10kw ERP simply won't cut it.

Back to the topic, its my view that the FCC should have never permitted low VHF to be used for DTV. Yes, it will be fun to DX DTV, but to most viewers in these areas it will be an inconveince unless high power transmitters are used. 2kw or 10kw ERP simply won't cut it.

After the transition, any station will be able to increase power or change radiation patterns as long as they a) don't cause addition interference to remaining stations b) up the max allowed by law. That means that many of the VHF lows will be able to drastically increase power up to the legal max for VHF low (which I don't remember at the moment what that is. 30 kw? 60kw?) so many of the VHF lows could be able to double or triple their power output once the analogs go away.

Nitewatchman, you have any piks of your TV DX?

Certianly ... Attached below are a few of them (sorry about the quality of some of them, these were taken with digital camera)

Filename "Es1.jpg"/ - description (all via Sporadic E) :

Top Left - WFOR 4, Miami, FL - 971 Miles

Top Right - CMJ 4 - Camaguey, Cuba - Tele Rebelde network via Es - 1310 miles(more or less - distance measured to Camaguey Airport, as I have no idea where the tower is)

Bottom Left - XHMEN 4 - Meridia, Yucatan(mexico) - 1313 Miles - I have a much better screenshot of this one, but unfortunetly not with their ID up ...

Bottom Right - KENW 3 - (PBS) Portales, NM - 1142 Miles

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

Filename "EsandTropo.jpg"

Top Left - KRMA 6 - (PBS) Denver, Colorado - Via Es - 1105 Miles

Top Right - WOAI 4 San Antonio, TX - Via Es - 1060 Miles

Bottom Left - WFXP 66 Erie, PA - Via Tropo - 284 Miles

Bottom Right - WJHL 11 Johnson City, TN - via tropo - 250 Miles

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

Filename "Dtvdx.jpg" - All via tropo

Top Left - WJBK-DT 58 Detroit, MI - 208 Miles

Middle Left - WTVF-DT 56 - Nashville, TN - 263 Miles

Bottom Left - KDKA-DT 25 - Pittsburg, PA - 241 Miles

Top right - WCYB-DT 28 - Bristol, VA - 250 Miles

Middle right - WKPT-DT 27 - Kingsport, TN - 250 Miles

Bottom right - WHIZ-DT 40 - Zanesville, OH - 131 Miles - Not that far, but It's a cool callsign :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The screen captures above were taken during various openings between Spring 2002 and Fall 2005. I was so busy last year I had very little time for Dx'ing ...

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


I recently added a PC tuner (does both ATSC+NTSC, works nicely for a OTA HD DVR as well) card which works nicely with software such as TS reader+it's going to be fun to get some DX TS captures + use TS reader with those as well ....

Anyone do the spectrum management (RF band plans) for the 2nd and 3rd harmonics? Remember that the ham bands used to be harmonically related for a reason. Aircraft is 108 - 136 MHz, public service above that. You may also need to explain this to the FAA (108 = 2 x 54).

Commercial broadcast stations are heavily regulated for spectral emissions (harmonic filtering). Wi-Fi may be be more prone to interfere from that perspective.

The farthest I have ever picked up a DTV station was WEAR out of Pensacola - a distance of roughly 314 miles (505km). To be fair, I have a clear shot, virtually all of it over water and I've only had this happen once for about 50 minutes during a heavy storm front over the Southeast.

The interesting thing about this was that WEAR is on virtual 3.1 - bus so is the local PBS station WEDU - so the second I realized that I was waiting for the scan to end to see how the MyHD tuner handled this VERY unlikely situation of a channel conflict.

True to form, the tuner showed both TV stations complete with their multicasts channels, one after another - all noted on virtual 3.x.

iirc (it was about 2 years ago) the lowest physical channel (WEAR) was shown first followed by WEDU and their 3 digital channels.

Now, if I had chosen 3.1 on a remote instead of channel up, I have no idea what would have happened and did not try it at the time.

WEAR-DT is on RF 17 (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=&call=WEAR&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=2&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9) according to the FCC TV query. UHF during tropo propagates *quite* well. My best UHF DTV catches were WOAI-DT, KSDK-DT, and WFBD-DT. The later one was in Destin, FL.

It also helps to have a proper antenna and rotor :p

Commercial broadcast stations are heavily regulated for spectral emissions (harmonic filtering). Wi-Fi may be be more prone to interfere from that perspective.

This is one of the main reasons why broadcasters do not want WI-FI on the TV white channels but the FCC seems to be hell bent on doing it even if it screws up the TV station reception.

IMHO, Channels 2,3,4 and 6 should be cleared of TV stations after the analog shutdown. One VHF-Lo channel is needed for digital TV (especially in places like the Northeast) and Channel 5 seems to be the most popular. Most of Channel 6 could become FM or digital radio, but there should also be a small guardband. Public hearings could be held to help determine the future of 54 to 72 MHz.

This is one of the main reasons why broadcasters do not want WI-FI on the TV white channels but the FCC seems to be hell bent on doing it even if it screws up the TV station reception.

The FCC has little faith in OTA DTV. Remember what the last Chairman of the FCC, Powell, said publically, "What are we protecting?" That was in reference to the low number of viewers that OTA has and the fact that the number is and has been declining and will decline precipitously at the transition to digital. Powell's thinking though not expressed publically is a fact of life in DC.

The FCC is a political animal. It follows the lead of Congress and the Executive branch and they have shown little interest in OTA TV of any kind. The public is paying virtually NO attention to OTA. Broadcasters are paying very little attention to OTA except maybe for the new mobile possibilities offered at NAB by A-VSB and MPG.

Manufacturers are paying little attention to OTA TV of any kind. Retailers are paying little to no attention to OTA TV/DTV. It seems to be in everyones interest to kill OTA except the public and they have been very purposly kept in the dark. Minimal education and dollars will be used to help in the transition and only at the very last moment.

Why should the FCC care? Every action they have taken in the last ten years including the choice of modulation, 8-VSB, has been to denigrate OTA TV/DTV.

Every action the FCC has taken for the last ten years has been to get to the next auction of TV spectrum as soon as possible.

If they can denigrate OTA with some new use such as Wi-Fi all the better. Brings on the next auction all that sooner.

Notice they are not proposing that this be done with recently auctioned spectrum all of which will be used for DTV broadcasting, channels 54, 55 and 59 for example. And they allow the use of real, well designed modulaltions in that spectrum also. You will see DVB-T/H, Mediaflo, CDMB-TH and possibly others being used on all auctioned channels above channel #51. All OFDM based, COFDM, TDS-OFDM and a couple in the works.

All this spectrum will also use advanced codecs with upgradeability.

If they wanted OTA to work they have to use the best tools. They haven't, they won't and the rest will play out. The question is are they even trying anymore to "protect" OTA. NO they are not.

If they can denigrate OTA with some new use such as Wi-Fi all the better. Brings on the next auction all that sooner.


If it's a problem for OTA DTV, it would be a problem for other uses of the spectrum as well. If the UWD's happen in the "white spaces", you're not going to be able to get rid of them, thus they'll still be there+potentially will make the spectrum(or portions of it) useless or "problematical" for any other uses as well.

If it's a problem for OTA DTV, it would be a problem for other uses of the spectrum as well. If the UWD's happen in the "white spaces", you're not going to be able to get rid of them, thus they'll still be there+potentially will make the spectrum(or portions of it) useless or "problematical" for any other uses as well.

Well when they decide to auction off more of the TV spectrum, below channel 51, they will have to make WiFi go away then. Otherwise bidders will not pony up and we can't have that.

With unlicensed devices that any consumer can buy+use, and that doesn't require a license from FCC to operate, You can't revoke licensees and make wi-fi "go away" .. You can require manufactuers to stop making them at some point(although if they turn out to be popular, expect to still be able to get them long after any rule or law that prohibits them) , but it still is going to be a very, very long time(if ever) before they're all gone .....

Think of garage-door openers .... I have two that still operate quite well installed in the early 80's .....

T Remember what the last Chairman of the FCC, Powell, said publically, "What are we protecting?" That was in reference to the low number of viewers that OTA has and the fact that the number is and has been declining and will decline precipitously at the transition to digital. Powell's thinking though not expressed publically is a fact of life in DC.


Powell was wrong, now he's out.

Over the air TV still serves about 30 million TV sets even though more than 85 % of households have cable or satellite. It's the TV set counting vs household percentage that confused Mr. Powell.

Over the air reception of DTV works even better than analog and offers better picture quality than satellite or cable. HD aficionados are adding antennas like wildfire.

Public policy makers sometimes say silly things just to try to steer the desired outcome.

Powell was wrong, now he's out.

Over the air TV still serves about 30 million TV sets even though more than 85 % of households have cable or satellite. It's the TV set counting vs household percentage that confused Mr. Powell.

Over the air reception of DTV works even better than analog and offers better picture quality than satellite or cable. HD aficionados are adding antennas like wildfire.

Public policy makers sometimes say silly things just to try to steer the desired outcome.


Like wildfire? Any numbers or is that still a secret?

BTW Powell said it, they all think it.

Powell was wrong, now he's out.

Over the air TV still serves about 30 million TV sets even though more than 85 % of households have cable or satellite. It's the TV set counting vs household percentage that confused Mr. Powell.

Over the air reception of DTV works even better than analog and offers better picture quality than satellite or cable. HD aficionados are adding antennas like wildfire.

Public policy makers sometimes say silly things just to try to steer the desired outcome.

Last I heard there's still about 70 million OTA sets still in use including those in approximately 14 Million or more homes without any TV subscription service.

Like wildfire? Any numbers or is that still a secret?

BTW Powell said it, they all think it.

I don't know about the actual numbers but here's a story from a guy who sells TV antennas and he claims to be selling more of them:

http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/348938.html

Way back when FCC Chairman Newton Minow proclaimed TV to be a 'Vast Wasteland'. He said it and many still think it but, regardless what he said, TV still is alive and well 45+ years later.

--- CHAS

Last I heard there's still about 70 million OTA sets still in use including those in approximately 14 Million or more homes without any TV subscription service.

As of late last year 60% of the 25 million HDTV buyers up to that time did not have any HD source, cable, satellite or OTA.

Since they only have to hook up an antenna to view glorious HD content it would suggest that for some reason there is no big uptake in OTA DTV. After all who other than HDTV buyers would be more interested in OTA DTV???

So are you suggesting that even though the most interested parties are not going for OTA DTV even for HDTV that these 14 million homes, these 70 million analog TV sets will all go crazy at the last moment and hook up to OTA?

I have three TV set of those 70 million and not a one has been watched for years. Have to remember to donate them to Goodwill if they are crazy enough to take them.

More likely of that perported 14 million homes, 3 to 6 million are actually stealling cable or satellite, 2 to 3 million don't watch TV at all and could care less, 5 million watch very little TV and could care very little and the rest will buy into some low cost cable offering that we will be bombarded with via advertising near the end of analog broadcasting.

How many will actually go to OTA DTV, not many. Of those who do not many will stick with it IMO.

To Joe Sixpack, widescreen TV=HD regardless of the source. I've seen way too many "HDTV"'s in bars/resturants hooked up to analog cable and displayed in "stretch-o-vision". Granted some of these are "monitors", but still....

OTA has a larger market share in rural areas. There is high E* and D* penetration locally, yet the OTA-only households are sizeable here.

I don't know about the actual numbers but here's a story from a guy who sells TV antennas and he claims to be selling more of them:

http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/348938.html

Way back when FCC Chairman Newton Minow proclaimed TV to be a 'Vast Wasteland'. He said it and many still think it but, regardless what he said, TV still is alive and well 45+ years later.

--- CHAS

lol.....this is really funny.

did you bother to really READ what he said?

he said HDTV antenna sales were up 100% over a year ago - not TV antennas, HDTV antennas.

Now, we are smart enough to know that there is no such thing as a HDTV antenna (even though a pre-amp design can be debated) - and we have all seen the new flood of "HDTV" antennas.

Considering that there are probably 1000% more HDTV antennas on the market than up to a year ago, does it really surprise you that "HDTV antenna sales are up 100%"?

And one has to wonder "Schneider credits his company’s appearances in Newsweek and on the Today Show, among others, for a portion of the increase in sales."......you think that maybe promotion had anything to do with a rise in sales

http://www.terrestrial-digital.com/prmanager2/press-releases.asp

Or the fact that target made his product available? That in itself should boost the number of units he sold from a startup company by MORE than 100%.

Remember a start up that sold 5,000 HDTV Antennas last year only needs to sell 10,000 HDTV antennas this year for a 100% increase.

That's not what I would call catching on like wildfire.

;)

Still, antenna makers are enjoying a warm reception. Companies like Terrestrial Digital of St. Louis, Winegard of Burlington, Iowa, and Audiovox (Terk) of Hauppauge, N.Y., are watching sales soar. Terrestrial Digital's sales have doubled annually since its launch in 2003, to $1.4 million last year, says founder Richard Schneider. The company is "a hobby spiraled out of control," he says, noting that he got his start essentially selling homemade antennas out of the back of his truck.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17080800/site/newsweek

Feb. 19, 2007 issue - When cable TV arrived in the '70s, rabbit ears seemed destined to go the way of the polyester pantsuit. So, too, the clunky outdoor antenna, a rooftop fixture that once upon a time signaled the rise of television in American life. But a funny thing happened on the way to the analog dust heap: it turns out that a new generation of rabbit ears and antennas can receive high-definition television broadcasts. And it's free.

The irony is marvelous. Pushed into obsolescence by the technological advances of cable and satellite, antennas are re-emerging thanks to one of the most promising high-tech services of the digital age. High-def channels can be plucked out of thin air by antennas just like regular broadcast signals—no cable, no satellite dish, no monthly bill, no waiting for the cable man. It's like the old days, except this time antennas (which cost between $18 and $150) may offer the clearest picture. The downside—and it's a big one—is that antennas can only pick up the broadcast networks, not cable channels like ESPN or HBO

Maybe self promotion with a little drama thrown in for more sales? In the grand scheme of things, $1.4 million in sales is really peanuts in today's marketplace, but sales none the less.

Advertising is not free and terrestrial digital advertises/self promotes all over the internet. I am sure selling product at target or the other internet sites were not FREE. The company most likely had to pay to get in.

The company does not give the antennas away either. Their antennas are almost double in price compared to the originals the company "copied".

So good for them. There is nothing wrong with self promotion. You do not get a bill for that! Just a few more sales.

It worked... I bought 2 of them (43xg and 91xg).

There is still a LONG way to go.

Well when they decide to auction off more of the TV spectrum, below channel 51, they will have to make WiFi go away then. Otherwise bidders will not pony up and we can't have that.

Now who is drinking the cool aid? Once an unlicensed service gets going it NEVER leaves and can't be made to leave since no one knows how many transmitters there are in the field because they are not licensed, no record. 20 years of date of last sale is the minimum that is considered it would take that all of the transmitters would be out of service. Who wants to wait 20 years for something to open up in the day and age when in less than 5 years something is considered obsolete? No service could be guaranteed they too wouldn't have interference from Ma Fricket down the road in less time. The amount of power it would take to over the local interence these "white space" generators produce would be more than TV stations put out now. It would be less than desirable spectrum because of that.

One of the major reasons the TV spectrum is so coveted is because it is a large chunk of spectrum that doesn't have the issues of interference that other parts of the spectrum do. Just ask Nextel about having to move an entire LICENSED nationwide service at 1.9 GHz and making sure ALL of the transmitters are accounted for and destroyed. It ain't as easy as it looks.

What makes this an even worse idea is if for some reason ALL terriestrial TV stopped, in all of this spectrum, you would not have ONE continuously open piece of spectrum on the same frequency in the country for a service to want. It would be a patchwork of frequencies depending on where in the country you were, something the wireless providers are TRYING to get away from because that is what they have now. That is one of the reasons Nextel is spending $6 BILLION (with a B) relocating the BAS service to get a nationwide channel plan, something they don't currently have at 800 MHz.

This "white space" issue is so bad in so many ways that go beyond TV but the Qualcomm's and Cisco's of the world are pushing for it to help their bottom line in sales, the public bedamned.

Now who is drinking the cool aid? Once an unlicensed service gets going it NEVER leaves and can't be made to leave since no one knows how many transmitters there are in the field because they are not licensed, no record. 20 years of date of last sale is the minimum that is considered it would take that all of the transmitters would be out of service. Who wants to wait 20 years for something to open up in the day and age when in less than 5 years something is considered obsolete? No service could be guaranteed they too wouldn't have interference from Ma Fricket down the road in less time. The amount of power it would take to over the local interence these "white space" generators produce would be more than TV stations put out now. It would be less than desirable spectrum because of that.

One of the major reasons the TV spectrum is so coveted is because it is a large chunk of spectrum that doesn't have the issues of interference that other parts of the spectrum do. Just ask Nextel about having to move an entire LICENSED nationwide service at 1.9 GHz and making sure ALL of the transmitters are accounted for and destroyed. It ain't as easy as it looks.

What makes this an even worse idea is if for some reason ALL terriestrial TV stopped, in all of this spectrum, you would not have ONE continuously open piece of spectrum on the same frequency in the country for a service to want. It would be a patchwork of frequencies depending on where in the country you were, something the wireless providers are TRYING to get away from because that is what they have now. That is one of the reasons Nextel is spending $6 BILLION (with a B) relocating the BAS service to get a nationwide channel plan, something they don't currently have at 800 MHz.

This "white space" issue is so bad in so many ways that go beyond TV but the Qualcomm's and Cisco's of the world are pushing for it to help their bottom line in sales, the public bedamned.

Public be damned is what the current DTV transition is all about IMO. The very short term bottom line considerations of broadcasters and CE vendors, manufacturers and retailers, is what created this dysfuntional, retrograde transition in the first place.

Notice that the "white space" issue is not a problem with any of the vast government spectrum hoarded by the NTIA. Ask anyone in DC why we should not let smart radios use this incredibly underused spectrum and after the laughter dies down if you are still waiting for an answer it would be an incredulous, "Are you serious?"

That response should give you some indication of the attitude DC has toward the broadcast TV spectrum. No one is using it, it can be plundered and later sold. As to government spectrum, no one is using it but just in case we ever want to we don't want any interference issue.

There was a rant on another forum about 'dinocasters' and the need for 'over-the-air' TV .. we all know about that 15% number. Well, I haven't seen any great movement of stations turning in their broadcasting licenses. Even those stuck on the 'doomed' VHF Low band are moving ahead.

I guess I could build a TV studio, hire some glamor girls and pretty boys to read the news and buy an 'eye in the sky helicopter' for traffic and breaking news events. Then I might be able to convince or pay the local cableco to send my programming to the 85% of the non OTA viewers. If those viewers can be convinced to watch, I could save a ton of money.

Would this kind of operation be as prestigious as one that's also putting a signal on the air? It's a TV channel not a TV station. Could it compete for sponsors?

--- CHAS

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17080800/site/newsweek



Maybe self promotion with a little drama thrown in for more sales? In the grand scheme of things, $1.4 million in sales is really peanuts in today's marketplace, but sales none the less.

Advertising is not free and terrestrial digital advertises/self promotes all over the internet. I am sure selling product at target or the other internet sites were not FREE. The company most likely had to pay to get in.

The company does not give the antennas away either. Their antennas are almost double in price compared to the originals the company "copied".

So good for them. There is nothing wrong with self promotion. You do not get a bill for that! Just a few more sales.

It worked... I bought 2 of them (43xg and 91xg).

There is still a LONG way to go.

First, you don't buy your way into major retailers. What you do is cut your margins on what you sell them to the retailer for in hopes of making that back and more on the quantity.

Second, unlike the posters on AVS that are truly fanatics and not representative of the general public, regardless of how many actually are willing to admit as such, so this is certainly no place to gauge market sentiment for trends.

In the general public, the few that have made the move to receive their HDTV OTA have moved to the smaller "concealed" television antenna - of which Terrestial-Digital's Lacrosse fits into the market, as does Terk and the Winegard Square Shooter among some others - and not the older type TV antenna that AVS Posters know generally works the best given the physics of a signal.

If you need confirmation of that, just walk the aisles of Best Buy or Circuit City and find anything besides the low profile antennas. If the market was "on fire", they would be selling them.

On that note, as the Terrestial-Digital Lacrosse retails for $150 on target.com, it can be found on other sites for as low as $95, thus placing the wholesale cost very close to the $75 you noted.

Simple math tells us that $1,400,000 in sales / $75 = roughly 18,500 units - again, that is not setting the "market on fire".

Considering Terk went from virtually nothing in HDTV Antenna Sales and the reference is to the Winegard Square Shooter, when Winegard and Channel Master says that their entire line is soaring, then you can state the whole antenna market is on fire - not just the new Wife Accepted "HDTV Antennas".

Until that time, its nothing more than a blip on the radar screen.

There was a rant on another forum about 'dinocasters' and the need for 'over-the-air' TV .. we all know about that 15% number. Well, I haven't seen any great movement of stations turning in their broadcasting licenses. Even those stuck on the 'doomed' VHF Low band are moving ahead.

I guess I could build a TV studio, hire some glamor girls and pretty boys to read the news and buy an 'eye in the sky helicopter' for traffic and breaking news events. Then I might be able to convince or pay the local cableco to send my programming to the 85% of the non OTA viewers. If those viewers can be convinced to watch, I could save a ton of money.

Would this kind of operation be as prestigious as one that's also putting a signal on the air? It's a TV channel not a TV station. Could it compete for sponsors?

--- CHAS

First, MSOs would only get you roughly 60% of the market coverage. E* and D* would fill in the rest of the non 15%, so you would have to make deals with them.

The only way to accomplish that is to pay them to carry you - and even that might not be as easy as it sounds.

Then you will need programming that actually gets people to sample the channel (and they have to know about that programming). No network (except maybe a religous one) would give you programming. Thus you will have to buy syndication and compete against the other stations in your market for that - many of whom have group deals. Then, even if you could get any programming to fill the day that might have any draw, most likely the syndicators would not be willing to sign with you due to a business plan that will most likely assure chapter 11 shortly down the road.

As has been detailed on many threads, advertising is sold on rating points and advertisers know what the the cost per point is in a market.

Essentially, because of your lack of ratings as you had no programming/promotion to garner an audience, you buys would be the corner pizza shop that you convinced to be "on TV" instead of sticking a flying on someone's front door.

So overall, lots of luck with that.

There was a rant on another forum about 'dinocasters' and the need for 'over-the-air' TV .. we all know about that 15% number. Well, I haven't seen any great movement of stations turning in their broadcasting licenses. Even those stuck on the 'doomed' VHF Low band are moving ahead.

I guess I could build a TV studio, hire some glamor girls and pretty boys to read the news and buy an 'eye in the sky helicopter' for traffic and breaking news events. Then I might be able to convince or pay the local cableco to send my programming to the 85% of the non OTA viewers. If those viewers can be convinced to watch, I could save a ton of money.

Would this kind of operation be as prestigious as one that's also putting a signal on the air? It's a TV channel not a TV station. Could it compete for sponsors?

--- CHAS

Why do all that? There are already hundreds of low power stations around the country with lousy signals, no must-carry rights, less than compelling content, etc.

foxeng - Just ask Nextel about having to move an entire LICENSED nationwide service at 1.9 GHz and making sure ALL of the transmitters are accounted for and destroyed. It ain't as easy as it looks.
I think you're talking about the 800 MHz rebanding efforts. Agreed. I've seen some of the skirmishing going on with that one. Nasty.

And don't get me started about the FCC's attitude towards BPL (Broadband over Power Lines).

Remember that "unlicensed" spectrum devices are NOT the same as Type Acceptance. Unlicensed stuff, e.g. wireless networking, still must meet emissions requirements. It's just that they're not anything serious.

I don't know about the actual numbers but here's a story from a guy who sells TV antennas and he claims to be selling more of them:

.....

--- CHAS

Total numbers can be very deceiving. For example, I went through 5 antennas just to get one that worked well enough to satisfy me.

Public be damned is what the current DTV transition is all about IMO. The very short term bottom line considerations of broadcasters and CE vendors, manufacturers and retailers, is what created this dysfuntional, retrograde transition in the first place.

Would you like to try that one again? The reason DTV has become dysfunctional is because Congress in 1996 decided to tie the digital transition to the national deficient. A little law called the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Cable or sat or programming or consumer electronics were never considered in the overall plan, just to get OTA stations to digital to open up spectrum to be sold off to the highest bidder. Beyond that, no one in government gives a tinkers whit about TV in general until it is linked to their reelection in some way.

Notice that the "white space" issue is not a problem with any of the vast government spectrum hoarded by the NTIA. Ask anyone in DC why we should not let smart radios use this incredibly underused spectrum and after the laughter dies down if you are still waiting for an answer it would be an incredulous, "Are you serious?"

That response should give you some indication of the attitude DC has toward the broadcast TV spectrum. No one is using it, it can be plundered and later sold. As to government spectrum, no one is using it but just in case we ever want to we don't want any interference issue.

Sorry, we are not talking about NTIA controlled frequencies, but frequencies that are controlled by another government agency tasked to govern the publicly used frequencies, not the government frequencies. NTIA and FCC are two unrelated agencies that quite often butt heads on communications issues. In another life I dealt closely with the NTIA. I know them well.

But to answer your question, the reason the "white space" issue isn't a problem on NTIA control frequencies is because most of the NTIA frequencies are occasional usage or are held in reserve, unlike the TV or Radio frequencies where they are 100% time usage frequencies. The reason we are talking about this issue is because the people we now have determining broadcast law are lawyers and not communications people as in the past, ie the afore mentioned BPL (broadband over power lines) which is NOT TV related but in all circles that know what BPL is all about (unlicensed transmitters on unshielded power lines) are against it EXCEPT those wanting to make money from it and do a very good job (it has been documented by multiple people and organizations) at keeping it alive at the FCC.

What is good for the government doesn't always translate to good for the public. BPL and "white space" is good for business, but will ultimately be bad for the public by increasing interference to not only TV but to radio and other services by the increase in interference caused by unlicensed transmitters being operated in ways not intended by the manufacturer. Of course if the government is going to let all of these unlicensed transmitters on any frequency, then we don't need the FCC because that is one of the reasons they were created, to keep orderly usage of the spectrum. If anyone can put a transmitter on any frequency, anytime they want, then we don't need the FCC.

The BPL enabling legistlation sailed though the Arkansas House and Senate. It was a typical moving-at-midnight deal by Entergy's lobbyists and other fellow travelers . When the ARRL notified its members about this concern, the bill had already quietly passed the House.

The fix was certainly in.

Okay so most of Arkansas won't be effected by VHF low after 2/2009. There is one market that is: Memphis, which consists of several East Arkansas counties. Many of these counties supported the very same legistlators that pushed though this legistlation. Given the toxic cocktail of BPL and WMC-DT on RF channel 5 say in 2012, there will be protests from local cableco's, OTA viewers. D* and E* Memphis local packages will likely benefit from a likely crippled WMC coverage area.

To be honest, only a few people really give a damm about the whole VHF issue.

The rest already have an antenna to receive vhf in the area (because the analog version is currently on vhf), have cable, have satellite, or have nothing and do not watch tv in the first place.

The folks concerned are the "newbe's"

-the ones new to off air antennas.
-already have or had other options
-just want to "get by" for now with UHF and try to receive vhf with a uhf antenna
-want to compromise/not spend the money

Don't let the "newbe's" fool you. These "newbe's" are in the most part already educated and did some research to know what is going on.

To them VHF is just an added burden. They should have considered purchasing the right antenna in the first place. The smart/serious users did.

Would you like to try that one again? The reason DTV has become dysfunctional is because Congress in 1996 decided to tie the digital transition to the national deficient. A little law called the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Cable or sat or programming or consumer electronics were never considered in the overall plan, just to get OTA stations to digital to open up spectrum to be sold off to the highest bidder. Beyond that, no one in government gives a tinkers whit about TV in general until it is linked to their reelection in some way.



Sorry, we are not talking about NTIA controlled frequencies, but frequencies that are controlled by another government agency tasked to govern the publicly used frequencies, not the government frequencies. NTIA and FCC are two unrelated agencies that quite often butt heads on communications issues. In another life I dealt closely with the NTIA. I know them well.

But to answer your question, the reason the "white space" issue isn't a problem on NTIA control frequencies is because most of the NTIA frequencies are occasional usage or are held in reserve, unlike the TV or Radio frequencies where they are 100% time usage frequencies. The reason we are talking about this issue is because the people we now have determining broadcast law are lawyers and not communications people as in the past, ie the afore mentioned BPL (broadband over power lines) which is NOT TV related but in all circles that know what BPL is all about (unlicensed transmitters on unshielded power lines) are against it EXCEPT those wanting to make money from it and do a very good job (it has been documented by multiple people and organizations) at keeping it alive at the FCC.

What is good for the government doesn't always translate to good for the public. BPL and "white space" is good for business, but will ultimately be bad for the public by increasing interference to not only TV but to radio and other services by the increase in interference caused by unlicensed transmitters being operated in ways not intended by the manufacturer. Of course if the government is going to let all of these unlicensed transmitters on any frequency, then we don't need the FCC because that is one of the reasons they were created, to keep orderly usage of the spectrum. If anyone can put a transmitter on any frequency, anytime they want, then we don't need the FCC.

I think I agree with most of what you are saying. Just trying to make the point that until the public shows interest in OTA DTV that the FCC and Congress are not going to care a bit about it either.

From what I can see no one including broadcasters cares much for OTA DTV. It shows in their lack of interest in or their being completely intimidated by Congress and the CEA over modulation back in 2001. It shows in almost everything they do.

No one is telling the public what OTA could do, what the options were/are. It is in no ones interest to do so IMO.

What if the public was told and had it demonstrated to them that they could get OTA what people in France, the UK, Japan or Spain can or soon will be able to get OTA? How many would opt for such offerings instead of cable?

In the UK you can get 30 plus SD (PAL) program channels free OTA plus 12 or so HD radio channels free. You can also get a number of extra program channels via subscription. And you will be able to get a free satellite service. And they are going to add HD to that mix.

SKY, their pay satellite service knows about it. They have seen their new subscriber numbers dwindle and stall even though they have made a number of offers to counter the OTA draw.

Who would benefit and who would be hurt if such and offering was made in the US? Cable and satellite would be hurt. Broadcasters would see their retrans fees falter. The only winner would be the public.

Can't let that happen in the US. At least not as long as our elected representatives know that the public is ignorant on the subject. That is going to change as news about offerings in other countries begin to filter in. The Chinese Olympics is going to be interesting.

Total numbers can be very deceiving. For example, I went through 5 antennas just to get one that worked well enough to satisfy me.

That's actually a great point that I had never considered with a the so called 100% increase in sales - as I went through the same thing.

In the UK you can get 30 plus SD (PAL) program channels free OTA plus 12 or so HD radio channels free. You can also get a number of extra program channels via subscription. And you will be able to get a free satellite service. And they are going to add HD to that mix.



Quantity wise, that doesn't sound any better than what I receive via OTA DTV (and via IBOC or whatever you want to call it) here in the U.S, and 14 of the 40 digital TV "channels" I receive ARE HD(when available) ... And, no I'm not talking about "DX" ..... And yes, although some of those are duplicate programming(at times), on average it adds up to about 30 different programming choices .... Sometimes more, sometimes a bit less ...

Personally, I'd prefer quality(of the programming and PQ) over quantity, however ...

addition 12:20am Sun :


The only winner would be the public.


For the broadcasters, an increased OTA-only audience means *NO* competition for those viewers from services that are only available via subscription to sat/cable .....

More OTA viewers would also be a good thing for LP stations, I'd think. We have a couple of them here which are independants and not on cable, and they aren't religious or home shopping ... They have actual programming, including sports, local programming and shows such as "cosby show", not just old B&W westerns .... Someone besides me must be watching them, otherwise I don't see how they could afford to do what they do, or even stay on the air ...

From what I can see no one including broadcasters cares much for OTA DTV. It shows in their lack of interest in or their being completely intimidated by Congress and the CEA over modulation back in 2001. It shows in almost everything they do.

That is a mistaken thought then since broadcasters have been pushing VERY hard for many issues that do deal with OTA such as the white space issue, the ability to do multicast, maximized coverage areas just to name a few. While these do also benefit cable, ie TWC, Comcast, DirecTV and their ilk they are NOT the end all, be all of television. if the OTA broadcasters didn't fight for these in the OTA area, not only would the afore mentioned companies be effected by it since not all stations can run fiber optics to every cable system in their area. And you have to count every apartment, condo and retirement complex with their own MATV systems as a cable system and there are hundreds or thousands of those within every market who will NEVER get a fiber feed from any station, much less all of the them. The only way they will receive TV is OTA. Unfortunately, those subs are counted as cable and not OTA, but they survive on OTA for the local stations.

No one is telling the public what OTA could do, what the options were/are. It is in no ones interest to do so IMO.

I think I have just discounted that statement.

What if the public was told and had it demonstrated to them that they could get OTA what people in France, the UK, Japan or Spain can or soon will be able to get OTA? How many would opt for such offerings instead of cable?

There is evidence now that OTA has seen a resurgence since the intro of HDTV. While true many people have had to put up antennas because their cablecos or sat didn't carry the HD stations, they have found out there is a "whole nuther world" of TV viewing available to them and some (many?) have elected to drop cable/sat for it. Many have stated so in these threads. Just read AVSForum as one place of reference, another is the increase in sale of OTA antennas and the need for installers nationwide, also remember that the 15% number stated that is OTA is a national number, locally the number fluctuates widely such as in Texas where cable is only 40% penetration. That means 60% get their TV OTA and the latest NCTA numbers released a month or so ago state nationally cable subs are DOWN at the same time sat numbers have stagnated

In the UK ....

It doesn't matter what they do in the UK. Non sequitur when it comes to the USA market just like what we do here is non sequitur there or anywhere else in the world. Just ask the world.

Would you like to try that one again? The reason DTV has become dysfunctional is because Congress in 1996 decided to tie the digital transition to the national deficient. A little law called the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Cable or sat or programming or consumer electronics were never considered in the overall plan, just to get OTA stations to digital to open up spectrum to be sold off to the highest bidder. Beyond that, no one in government gives a tinkers whit about TV in general until it is linked to their reelection in some way.



Sorry, we are not talking about NTIA controlled frequencies, but frequencies that are controlled by another government agency tasked to govern the publicly used frequencies, not the government frequencies. NTIA and FCC are two unrelated agencies that quite often butt heads on communications issues. In another life I dealt closely with the NTIA. I know them well.

But to answer your question, the reason the "white space" issue isn't a problem on NTIA control frequencies is because most of the NTIA frequencies are occasional usage or are held in reserve, unlike the TV or Radio frequencies where they are 100% time usage frequencies. The reason we are talking about this issue is because the people we now have determining broadcast law are lawyers and not communications people as in the past, ie the afore mentioned BPL (broadband over power lines) which is NOT TV related but in all circles that know what BPL is all about (unlicensed transmitters on unshielded power lines) are against it EXCEPT those wanting to make money from it and do a very good job (it has been documented by multiple people and organizations) at keeping it alive at the FCC.

What is good for the government doesn't always translate to good for the public. BPL and "white space" is good for business, but will ultimately be bad for the public by increasing interference to not only TV but to radio and other services by the increase in interference caused by unlicensed transmitters being operated in ways not intended by the manufacturer. Of course if the government is going to let all of these unlicensed transmitters on any frequency, then we don't need the FCC because that is one of the reasons they were created, to keep orderly usage of the spectrum. If anyone can put a transmitter on any frequency, anytime they want, then we don't need the FCC.

I don't think I made myself clear at all. I meant to say that I thought that under NO condition would the government let their reserved spectrum be used by smart radios in they way the FCC proposes to allow the use of UNUSED broadcast spectrum in the 2-51 area.

Since they are using this spectrum so little it would make eminent sense to allow its use by smart radios using the same logic they are using for allowing broadcast spectrum to be so used.

I was trying to say that the possibility of such use was anathema to them. Completely outside the realm of possibility. Why because of the possibility of interference.

And therefor showed what value they placed on the broadcast spectrum, 2-51, very little.

That is spectrum that they hardly used at all, NTIA stuff, is sacrosanct while spectrum that is heavily used if only minimally watched, channels 2-51, is open to plunder instead of being husbanded, upgraded and promoted.

Quantity wise, that doesn't sound any better than what I receive via OTA DTV (and via IBOC or whatever you want to call it) here in the U.S, and 14 of the 40 digital TV "channels" I receive ARE HD(when available) ... And, no I'm not talking about "DX" ..... And yes, although some of those are duplicate programming(at times), on average it adds up to about 30 different programming choices .... Sometimes more, sometimes a bit less ...

Personally, I'd prefer quality(of the programming and PQ) over quantity, however ...

addition 12:20am Sun :



For the broadcasters, an increased OTA-only audience means *NO* competition for those viewers from services that are only available via subscription to sat/cable .....

More OTA viewers would also be a good thing for LP stations, I'd think. We have a couple of them here which are independants and not on cable, and they aren't religious or home shopping ... They have actual programming, including sports, local programming and shows such as "cosby show", not just old B&W westerns .... Someone besides me must be watching them, otherwise I don't see how they could afford to do what they do, or even stay on the air ...

Decent OTA DTV would be fantastic for LP stations and they are whooping it up right now because of news that A-VSB and MPG are possible. They are on cloud nine because of the news that cable may include OTA tuners in their STBs to counter the threat by broadcasters demanding sub fees for their content for re-trans consent.

LP stations DEPEND on OTA. That is all they got.

It is the broadcasters, full power, that suck at the teat of must carry and can demand re-trans consent and therefor sub fees that is the problem with OTA.

Do you really think that broadcasters would have been looking the other way when the CEA used their muscle to bury any real conversation or open testing of our 8-VSB modulation in 2000? Would they have been so easily intimidated with the threat of the loss of their spectrum and licenses by the likes of the ignorant Congressman Dingel and the Tauzin if they depended on OTA?

Tauzin did so well for the drug companies and CEA that he had to flip a coin to see which payoff he would take on retirement from Congress. I think he took the $3 million a year drug one.

I don't think I made myself clear at all. I meant to say that I thought that under NO condition would the government let their reserved spectrum be used by smart radios in they way the FCC proposes to allow the use of UNUSED broadcast spectrum in the 2-51 area.

That much IS true. It literally took an act of Congress forcing NTIA to release spectrum to the FCC for public use in the 90's.

Since they are using this spectrum so little it would make eminent sense to allow its use by smart radios using the same logic they are using for allowing broadcast spectrum to be so used.

True again but in this post 9/11 world, HLS has as much if not more power in certain cases than Congress. That idea is a non starter because of HLS. They would never agree to it hence their support for the reallocation of channels 52-69 for a predominately public service usage, not the current split of PS/commercial allocation.

That is spectrum that they hardly used at all, NTIA stuff, is sacrosanct while spectrum that is heavily used if only minimally watched, channels 2-51, is open to plunder instead of being husbanded, upgraded and promoted.

Again. true.

Decent OTA DTV would be fantastic for LP stations and they are whooping it up right now because of news that A-VSB and MPG are possible. They are on cloud nine because of the news that cable may include OTA tuners in their STBs to counter the threat by broadcasters demanding sub fees for their content for re-trans consent.

LP stations DEPEND on OTA. That is all they got.

It is the broadcasters, full power, that suck at the teat of must carry and can demand re-trans consent and therefor sub fees that is the problem with OTA.



Your last sentence is so true, get rid of must-carry and retransmission consent and OTA would improve dramatically. As for Mobile Pedestrian Handheld and Advanced-VSB I think I'd prefer the latter. The problem with MPH is that the resolution is so low that it's only suitable for handheld devices. A-VSB would be a little more expensive, use a little more bandwidth and require the use of diversity (dual) antennas. However the diversity stream could improve reception of the main 8-VSB stream for many viewers and if things like NBC WeatherPlus were relegated to the A-VSB stream it could actually improve what many stations are putting out today.

Your last sentence is so true, get rid of must-carry and retransmission consent and OTA would improve dramatically. As for Mobile Pedestrian Handheld and Advanced-VSB I think I'd prefer the latter. The problem with MPH is that the resolution is so low that it's only suitable for handheld devices. A-VSB would be a little more expensive, use a little more bandwidth and require the use of diversity (dual) antennas. However the diversity stream could improve reception of the main 8-VSB stream for many viewers and if things like NBC WeatherPlus were relegated to the A-VSB stream it could actually improve what many stations are putting out today.

Take away must carry and broadcasters would immediately demand a re-consideration of everything OTA. After all it was the threat against their must carry that had broadcasters acquiescing to the pressure from Dingel and Tauzin to not back Sinclair in their quest for a decent modulation. Virtually no one brought up the issue of codec and its upgrade path.

OTA was the only thing that the CEA could put pressure on via Congress to actually broadcast anything HD so that they could make a short term bundle on high profit margin HDTV sets. They could not pressure cable and satellite the same way. Broadcasters were setting on a one vote Supreme Court decision that gave them must carry and without it they felt naked. The FCC has a far more direct hand in the control of OTA broadcasters because they us public spectrum. They were literally terrified of what Congress would do and what Dingel and Tauzin threatened to do if they "delayed the transition".

The reality is that the short term fixation on profits cost both the CEA and the transmitter industry a lot of sales and profits, IMO, both short and long term. With 8-VSB OTA contributed very little to sales of HDTV sets.

Most were sold for game and DVD playing and even today it is reported the up to 60% of sales of HDTVs go to people that do not hook them up to any form of HDTV, cable satellite or OTA. ESPECIALLY OTA. Of those who do hook up to an HDTV service, cable or satellite or OTA, a far higher figure than the 87% reported to use conventional cable or satellite, sign up for cable or satellite service with HDTV content. OTA is minimal. in the ONE to Three percent of HDTV purchasers.

Broadcasters after 8-VSB was re-affirmed in 2000 immediately petitioned for low power use because they wanted to save money on electricity. Transmitter manufacturers like Harris who like the CEA companies were bargaining for immediate high profits and sales of transmitters instead have had to wait for years for these sales that would have occurred overnight with a better modulation.

The CEA's ability to misinform early adopters on this issue was also a big factor in Congress getting away with this and broadcasters cowering in fear.

Your idea of what constitutes improvement is a very low bar IMO.

Get rid of must carry and retrans consent and broadcasters would have a litany of demands that would represent REAL improvement in the OTA environment.

New modulation, new codec, upgrade path, everything the satellite, cable and new age OTA broadcasters have now and which broadcasters will face competitively on channels above 51. ALL channels sold above 51 will be used for broadcasting DTV as are those already sold, 54, 55 and 59.

Think about it. Take away must carry, retrans consent and the dream of multicast must carry. In that environment can you imagine broadcasters competing with someone using a real modulation that is efficient and works mobile at 17+ Mbps while using MPEG4?

Think about this. With must carry, retrans and the promise of multicast must carry will broadcasters really make the best use of channels 2-51?

If your answer is NO then lets just get it over with and sell off the rest of the spectrum, channels 2-51 next January with the channels above 51. Pass some POS legislation that gives broadcasters some grandfather must carry rights, heck give them multicast must carry rights, take away their spectrum as the price, anything to stop wasting this spectrum ASAP.

Speaking of misinformation .... eh, never mind ....

Update 5:33pm EDT : then again on 2nd thought ... As just ONE example :


OTA is minimal. in the ONE to Three percent of HDTV purchasers.


As I have already described in more detail here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9923595&&#post9923595

Article from late 2006 at link below(the same article Bob is getting his 60% of HD set owners don't have a HD source, I believe) says, and I quote :

..... " of current about 19 percent of the U.S. television households that own an HDTV set and receive high-definition programming do so via over-the-air broadcast.

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

19% using OTA HD of the 40% of HD set owners that have a HD source Does NOT equal 1~3 % of all HDTV set purchasers, not even with any "fuzzy math" that I'm aware of ..... Based only on the info in the article, the number using OTA HD would be approximetely 7~8% of all Households with HD sets, not 1~3%. And of course, that does apparently not include OTA DTV viewers using SD sets, I don't know if it includes Cable/sat subscribers whom have HD via cable or Sat and also use OTA HD ....

Gosh.. it all started because some of the TV channels are no good. Someone still thinks the modulation is no good. And there's a totally non-interested FCC that's up to no good. You need to buy 5 antennas because 4 of them are no good. Now someone wants a new broadcast standard that my new TV set can't understand. Top that off with a spectrum auction crazed congress that wants to ruin over-the-air TV so Microsoft can sell white space devices.

This DTV thing is doomed!

--- CHAS

Take away must carry and broadcasters would immediately demand a re-consideration of everything OTA. After all it was the threat against their must carry that had broadcasters acquiescing to the pressure from Dingel and Tauzin to not back Sinclair in their quest for a decent modulation. Virtually no one brought up the issue of codec and its upgrade path.

Actually I don't accept the argument that DVB-T (CODFM) and MPEG-4 are perfect and ATSC (8-VSB) and MPEG-2 are crap.

Speaking of misinformation .... eh, never mind ....

Update 5:33pm EDT : then again on 2nd thought ... As just ONE example :



As I have already described in more detail here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9923595&&#post9923595

Article from late 2006 at link below(the same article Bob is getting his 60% of HD set owners don't have a HD source, I believe) says, and I quote :

..... " of current about 19 percent of the U.S. television households that own an HDTV set and receive high-definition programming do so via over-the-air broadcast.

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

19% using OTA HD of the 40% of HD set owners that have a HD source Does NOT equal 1~3 % of all HDTV set purchasers, not even with any "fuzzy math" that I'm aware of ..... Based only on the info in the article, the number using OTA HD would be approximetely 7~8% of all Households with HD sets, not 1~3%. And of course, that does apparently not include OTA DTV viewers using SD sets, I don't know if it includes Cable/sat subscribers whom have HD via cable or Sat and also use OTA HD ....

The whole article says this.

"With about 790 days to go before broadcasters cease transmitting an NTSC signal and complete the conversion to DTV, an analyst from a highly respected research organization estimates that fewer than 2 million TV households in the United States actually receive a terrestrial broadcast HDTV signal.

Speaking after a presentation in November at a high-definition technology summit in Los Angeles, Mike Paxton, In-Stat senior analyst for the Converging Markets & Technologies Group, said his research indicates about 19 percent of the U.S. television households that own an HDTV set and receive high-definition programming do so via over-the-air broadcast. That percentage is a bit higher than the 13 percent of the 111.4 million TV households in the United States that rely on terrestrial broadcast, he said.

However, Paxton’s research indicates that only about 9.8 million television households in the United States are “HD programming” households and actually receive high-definition programming via broadcast, cable, satellite or IPTV. That number is only about 40 percent of the roughly 25 million U.S. households that own HDTV sets, he said.

Initially, interest in reception of HD terrestrial broadcasts was high among early adopters because broadcasting was the only real source viewers had for high-definition content, he explained. As a result, the percentage of those viewing HD via terrestrial broadcast is higher than all over-the-air homes.

However, over the past year Paxton has seen the growth of HD terrestrial households flatten out as high-definition programming has become widely available on cable and satellite. “There is not much growth opportunity on the terrestrial side,” he said."


I posted the entire article now let me quote from it.

He "estimates that fewer than 2 million TV households in the United States actually receive a terrestrial broadcast HDTV signal."

2 million TOTAL households out of 110 million households in the US comes in at 1.8%. He says then that OTA DTV is less than 1.8%.

You quote him as saying 19% of HDTV owners use OTA and that was also out of his estimate of 10 million receiving HD content out of 25 million HDTV owners owners at the time.

You are right though. I am way off with my 1 to 3% of HD owners who use OTA. It probably is much higher. I should have said of US households. I get carried away.

But it is far less than 19% if you add RELY on OTA as only source of HD or DTV which you may find irrelevant. But if OTA is going to survive broadcasters have to pay a lot more attention and get the best tools IMO. It is just not going to work with 8-VSB, A-VSB and MPG. Not with the coming competition and even in our insular, parochial US of A the truth will seep in sooner or later that we have been had.

Most OTA HD users today use it because they can't get HD from satellite, because they hate cable, because they can't afford cable or because they want OTA DTV as a backup. Not very good demographics for a successful long term OTA IMO.

After all it was the threat against their must carry that had broadcasters acquiescing to the pressure from Dingel and Tauzin to not back Sinclair in their quest for a decent modulation.

Please back that statement up with some facts.

Actually I don't accept the argument that DVB-T (CODFM) and MPEG-4 are perfect and ATSC (8-VSB) and MPEG-2 are crap.

I don't either. I think that at the moment CDMB-TH using TDS-OFDM is the best but far from perfect modulation and that MPEG4 has a long way to go and that there are superior codecs.

But I do believe that in the context of what is available 8-VSB and MPEG2 are definitely crap. And I will add that A-VSB and MPG make the crap smell a bit better. But that is all.

Now if you can accept A-VSB or MPG taking a lot of bandwidth away from a broadcast channel, which they surely will, and further degrade an HDTV bandwidth challenged 19.34 Mbps broadcast then you are truly a martyr but what for?

Why wouldn't you prefer a codec/modulation combo that could deliver a decent HD program stream and more far more reliably with less artifacts and macroblocking.

What do we get for the sacrifice? Why use the spectrum so poorly? And for how long must we make this sacrifice? With MPEG4 and a decent modulation you could fit 1080P into a 6 MHz channel. HD purist should be for that at least. 1080i forced into 19.34 Mbps is a real abortion.

And is any Network actually doing it? If so are any of that Networks affiliates actually passing it on unchanged? How many? When other countries start doing 1080P will we change modulations and codecs then? Will we, in this world of constant and ever faster change, rely on 8-VSB for 50 years like NTSC? We have already gone down this road 9 years. How archaic will our system look in 2009 when the Chinese Olympics show off their modulation?

By 2011 or so we will know how well our OTA transition has done. If only 5% of households are using it will we think about changing it? What if the average in most other countries is over 90% while we are stuck at 5%? If so it seems that there must be a better use of the spectrum.

I would like to see cable and satellite get some competition from OTA like in other countries. It can be done but not with 8-VSB and MPEG2.

I would like to see cable and satellite get some competition from OTA like in other countries. It can be done but not with 8-VSB and MPEG2.

There comes a time when a design must be frozen so the project can move forward.

--- CHAS

I would like to see cable and satellite get some competition from OTA like in other countries. It can be done but not with 8-VSB and MPEG2.

I don't know of any place in the world that has more HD content available than the U.S. and no one is currently broadcasting 1080P. As for satellite DirecTV is putting locals (MPEG-4) up in HDlite.

Gosh.. it all started because some of the TV channels are no good. Someone still thinks the modulation is no good. And there's a totally non-interested FCC that's up to no good. You need to buy 5 antennas because 4 of them are no good. Now someone wants a new broadcast standard that my new TV set can't understand. Top that off with a spectrum auction crazed congress that wants to ruin over-the-air TV so Microsoft can sell white space devices.

This DTV thing is doomed!

--- CHAS

Maybe not. DTV above channel 51 on auctioned spectrum is about to get a chance after a long wait. Everyone thought this spectrum would be used for new two way wireless broadband. I suggested, no I emphatically predicted, in a meeting of its new auction winning owners that ALL of it would be used for broadcast DTV using advanced codecs and COFDM based modulations.

So far ALL of it, what has been auctioned, WILL be used with advanced codecs and COFDM based modulations. Channels 54, 55 and 59.

OTA DTV has a bright future above channel 51. It will be as successful or more so than DTV in other countries. Some of it will in the end revert to free OTA services, partially or wholly, because its owners will find that is the most profitable way to use it. While much of it is directed at cell phone DTV today that will change and higher resolutions even HD will become common and even predominate.

DTV only has a problem in 8-VSB countries and only on spectrum that is force to use it.

DTV in other countries is making an incredible record breaking by any standards rebirth. They are using the right tools. In the long run garbage rots away and even the smell goes away.

I get carried away.


No kidding. It reminds me of a friend who used to comment after hearing various "tall tales" from certian folks .... He would say "Divide that by 3" and you might get closer to the truth ... Interpeting your posts seem much like that(dividing) involving issues such as DVB/COFDM, and multiply by about 3 when you're talking about DTV in the U.S. ....


You quote him as saying 19% of HDTV owners use OTA and that was also out of his estimate of 10 million receiving HD content out of 25 million HDTV owners owners at the time.


19% of the total 9.8 million total HD households(with actual HD source) he estimates IS 1.86 Million OTA HD households .... As I mentioned in the other thread, if one estimates 2.75 viewers per household, that would be roughly 5 Million OTA HD VIEWERS out there ....

Or another way to say it is that, according to the study, at least, and approximetely 1 IN 5 HD viewers are OTA HD viewers. If you owned a ballpark with 19% of the capacity being "cheap seats", would you not want to sell tickets for that 19% ?


But it is far less than 19% if you add RELY on OTA as only source of HD or DTV which you may find irrelevant.


Nowhere in the article did I see it say he was counting sat+cable HD viewers who also use OTA HD in that 19% or 1.86 million OTA HD households.

I don't know, and if it's the truth you're really interested in, I wouldn't assume anything about these things --- That being said, I would venture a wild guess he is probably talking about the OTA Only HD folks given that he seperates OTA HD use from Cable+satellite. In which case, I don't know if even *I* would be counted in those numbers, since I currently subscribe to SD DBS(but No LiL) as well. Unfortunetly, it seems those who have satellite and cable AND use OTA usually aren't counted as OTA households.

As for your "irrelevant" comment, If I thought that, then I would be considering irrelevant the 37.5 years(out of 40) of my life when I've been OTA Only, 3 of those years with OTA HD (And for the almost 6 years I've been watching HD/DTV it's been exclusively OTA, including currently) ..... Not to mention that when I do subscribe to satellite services, OTA IS STILL MY PRIMARY, and most important source of TV programming ..... I *do NOT* subscribe to LiL via sat as I have no reason to do so .... Cable does not serve my location, I don't not use it because I *hate it*, it's because I don't have access to it, and I'm really not interested in it, anyway ....


Most OTA HD users today use it because they can't get HD from satellite, because they hate cable, because they can't afford cable or because they want OTA DTV as a backup.

Not me, and According to Bob, you mean. Not according to any actual facts that have been laid out which I have seen ....

Look, as an OTA viewer who has *allways* relied and depended on OTA and will continue to do so to the point I probably would not be watching *any*(or very little of it) TV if OTA goes away ... I'm as concerned about the outcome of OTA DTV as you seem to claim to be, especially as I watched throughout the 80's and 90's as many folks moved to cable and sat almost exclusively, while at the same time watching (IMO as this is very subjective) the amount of quality programming I want to watch become much more "diluted" ... And guess, what, it's just as diluted(or moreso) on cable+sat as is the case OTA .... Really gives me a pretty much "ho-hum" attitude when I think about whether or not the current $ I'm spending on satellite is worth it or not ....

When I first heard about the DTV transistion in the mid 90's and that, at that time, they weren't going to require the DTV receivers go in sets, my thought was "well, this is how they are going to get rid of OTA TV+auction off the spectrum ...." At present, I'm happy to say my general thoughts on it are a bit more optimistic than that ...

There comes a time when a design must be frozen so the project can move forward.

--- CHAS

Or if you pick wrong or too soon, aim too low, do little thinking, have fraudulent test and rely on back room political deals it could just stagnate and whither until it becomes politically correct to make a change.

Not exactly moving forward and just what we have been doing for nine years.

When things get real bad you can give medals to those who committed the fraud for you, sort of like a Freedom Medal. The NAB did that last week I think. Of course after awhile the meaning of the medal changes to a joke. See Tenet squirm lately? It must just burn the skin.

So far ALL of it, what has been auctioned, WILL be used with advanced codecs and COFDM based modulations. Channels 54, 55 and 59.


It's my understanding that Qualcomm will be sending mobile TV on the former Channel 55 spectrum. Can I expect to see a 1080i/p HDTV picture if I subscribe to their service?

--- CHAS

It's my understanding that Qualcomm will be sending mobile TV on the former Channel 55 spectrum. Can I expect to see a 1080i/p HDTV picture if I subscribe to their service?

--- CHAS

No way! There's no HDTV in the current plans for mobile TV.

I personally haven't seen the FCC saying anything about 2-6 "going away" for DTV since it was decided to add 2-6 into the core channels in 98 or so if I recall correctly --- But, in case that were to change, What about Selling 2-6 to companies such as "viacel" for cheap, or even better, give it to them and confine UWD's and BPL to 54~88 MHZ as well ... (and put stringent requirements regarding spurious transmissions from the UWD's involving harmonics/etc) ;-) ....

I dunno how well it would work (I never spent any time on 6 meters for instance, and would have probably been using HPOL Yagi's if I had) --- but a 1/4 wave whip (or "rubber ducky") for 54MHZ wouldn't be all that big, and the former seems to work pretty well for FM on our car fenders .... I assume the UWD folks probably weren't thinking of antennas several feet long, however, and I suppose some folks would still consider that "big" ...

We can still joke around here can't we ....... ;)

I personally haven't seen the FCC saying anything about 2-6 "going away" for DTV since it was decided to add 2-6 into the core channels in 98 or so if I recall correctly

No one is actually saying 2-6 are going away (yet). This is a what if thread because unless the digital stations on 2-6 broadcast at 60Kw or more Vhf-Lo is not well suited to digital television because of the noise level. Most of the stations that have chosen to be on VHF-Lo after the analog shut down are cheap, want to save on their power bills and really only care about cable and satellie carriage. The exception may be WPVI the Philly ABC station that is between a rock and a hard place with their digital currently on 64.

No one is actually saying 2-6 are going away (yet).


Didn't say anyone was. Just thought I'd comment on it as oftentimes I see posts which seem to assume it is somehow likely to go away for DTV at some point --- if it were, I'd expect FCC to at least make some mention that they are going to address the issue to some extent soon(actually already), otherwise, for one thing it would be extremely unfair to the (relatively few) DTV stations which have elected to use lo-VHF post analog shut off ....


This is a what if thread ...


I realize that, I can read.


because unless the digital stations on 2-6 broadcast at 60Kw or more Vhf-Lo is not well suited to digital television because of the noise level. Most of the stations that have chosen to be on VHF-Lo after the analog shut down are cheap, want to save on their power bills and really only care about cable and satellie carriage. The exception may be WPVI the Philly ABC station that is between a rock and a hard place with their digital currently on 64.


I'm not getting into a discussion of that again as previous experience would seem to suggest the minute anyone says anything remotely favorable about DTV on Lo-VHF here, well, never mind ..... Let's just say I have better things to do with my time .....

And *no* that does not mean I'm not aware of the problem issues regarding the various sorts of interference that plague low-VHF ... while at least for Rural viewers there is usually something that can be done about much of it, you can't stop lightning, or E-skip for that matter .... As for 60kw ERP, keep in mind that's only about 3db more than 30KW ERP (a 2x power increase in that case) .... Or, 6db more than 15KW ERP, +9db vs 7.5KW ERP, +12db vs 3.75KW ERP ....

You quote him as saying 19% of HDTV owners use OTA


Oops, missed this earlier, sorry ... NO, that isn't what I quoted ... the quote was 19% of HDTV Owners(or households THAT HAVE HD programming source .... 19% (1.86 million) the 9.8 million total HD households that can actually view HD, according to the study ... go back and read it (in the article or my post) if you don't believe me ....

No kidding. It reminds me of a friend who used to comment after hearing various "tall tales" from certian folks .... He would say "Divide that by 3" and you might get closer to the truth ... Interpeting your posts seem much like that(dividing) involving issues such as DVB/COFDM, and multiply by about 3 when you're talking about DTV in the U.S. ....

Not really. I like to think that I keep it pretty straight and admit when I think I am wrong ASAP. Most of the exageration has been about the merits of 8-VSB over the years and slowly the truth comes out.

19% of the total 9.8 million total HD households(with actual HD source) he estimates IS 1.86 Million OTA HD households .... As I mentioned in the other thread, if one estimates 2.75 viewers per household, that would be roughly 5 Million OTA HD VIEWERS out there ....

Or another way to say it is that, according to the study, at least, and approximetely 1 IN 5 HD viewers are OTA HD viewers. If you owned a ballpark with 19% of the capacity being "cheap seats", would you not want to sell tickets for that 19% ?

I will accept 1.86 Million households why do you insist on lowering the perception by quoting 5 million individuals? US population 301718335 divided by 5 million equals 1.657 Percent. Much lower than the 19% of HD households at least in how it sounds. Gotta quit while your ahead.

1.657% just isn't as impressive as say the "Latest estimates published by Digital Broadcasting Australia show that 25% of Australian households can access free-to-view digital television as of the end of 2006."

And yes not all of that 25% is HDTV since Australia is still a free country where the consumer can exercise a choice at retail and buy either an SD or HD DTV receiver.
http://dvb.org/about_dvb/dvb_worldwide/australia/

But if you look at the graph for sales here you will see that HD is starting to really take off.
http://www.dba.org.au/index.asp?sectionID=39&newsID=929&display=news

HD receivers represent "As a result, High Definition receivers are now estimated to account for 36% of all digital television receivers present in Australian homes."

36% 0f 25% equals 9% or 9% of Australian homes have HD receivers. That is, using your number of 1.86 million US households with HD or 1.69% of US households with HD compare to 9% of Australian households or Australia is 5.33 times ahead of the US in HDTV reception. Of course they only have been at it for 3.5 years and we have been at it in the US for 9 years so maybe we should multiply that 5.33 9 divided by 3.5 or a factor of 2.57 for a product of 13.7. Weighted this way Australia is converting to HD at 13.7 times the rate the US is via OTA that is.

But look at that hockey puck graph again. Lets be fair. Australia is going vertical with DTV and the HD component is taking over. Probably if we had a PHD statitian doing this they would come up with a much higher number like 276 times faster.

In the mean time we can say we have more HD programming and almost total coverage. Australia can't say that. But they can say they have a gazillion times better OTA DTV transition either or both ways you look at it, HD or SD.

If I had a ballpark the size of the US I would want the modulation the Australians are using because I want the 25% of total households going on 110% not 19% of the 9.8 million HD households that have any HD like in the US because that represents only 1.69% of US households while the Australian system has captured 25%.

You offered me a false choice.



Nowhere in the article(I had also already read the "full version" previously BTW) did I see it say he was counting sat+cable HD viewers who also use OTA HD in that 19% or 1.86 million OTA HD households.

The article says "However, Paxton’s research indicates that only about 9.8 million television households in the United States are “HD programming” households and actually receive high-definition programming via broadcast, cable, satellite or IPTV."

That seems to cover everything and covers your statement below also.

I don't know, and if it's the truth you're really interested in, I wouldn't assume anything about these things --- That being said, I would venture a wild guess he is probably talking about the OTA Only HD folks given that he seperates OTA HD use from Cable+satellite. In which case, I don't know if even *I* would be counted in those numbers, since I currently subscribe to SD DBS(but No LiL) as well. Unfortunetly, it seems those who have satellite and cable AND use OTA usually aren't counted as OTA households.

As for your "irrelevant" comment, If I thought that, then I would be considering irrelevant the 37.5 years(out of 40) of my life when I've been OTA Only, 3 of those years with OTA HD (And for the almost 6 years I've been watching HD/DTV it's been exclusively OTA, including currently) ..... Not to mention that when I do subscribe to satellite services, OTA IS STILL MY PRIMARY, and most important source of TV programming ..... I *do NOT* subscribe to LiL via sat as I have no reason to do so .... Cable does not serve my location, I don't not use it because I *hate it*, it's because I don't have access to it, and I'm really not interested in it, anyway ....



Not me, and According to Bob, you mean. Not according to any actual facts that have been laid out which I have seen ....

Look, as an OTA viewer who has *allways* relied and depended on OTA and will continue to do so to the point I probably would not be watching *any*(or very little of it) TV if OTA goes away ... I'm as concerned about the outcome of OTA DTV as you seem to claim to be, especially as I watched throughout the 80's and 90's as many folks moved to cable and sat almost exclusively, while at the same time watching (IMO as this is very subjective) the amount of quality programming I want to watch become much more "diluted" ... And guess, what, it's just as diluted(or moreso) on cable+sat as is the case OTA .... Really gives me a pretty much "ho-hum" attitude when I think about whether or not the current $ I'm spending on satellite is worth it or not ....

When I first heard about the DTV transistion in the mid 90's and that, at that time, they weren't going to require the DTV receivers go in sets, my thought was "well, this is how they are going to get rid of OTA TV+auction off the spectrum ...." At present, I'm happy to say my general thoughts on it are a bit more optimistic than that ...

I am optimistic too. Just a bit different. I think we will reclaim these poorly used OTA channels, 2-51 in the not too distant future and at least get paid for them in an auction. And then get some real use out of them when they are owned by people who have to use them to deliver programming or something of value to their customers whether ad supported or subscriber supported.

These new buyers will have sunken cost in the spectrum and NO diversionary must carry rights and the conflict of interest inherent in being able to get carriage by law of their content with their natural competitors.

It is an insane conflict of interest it get paid a fee for your content on cable while operating and delivering that same content for free OTA. It is totally insane that we allow this to go on. The two must be separated.

You understand that if you are getting paid for something one way and not the other you probably will not promote the other. Are they promoting it bigtime? Your example of the cheap seats in the stadium. Do I want to fill them? Not if I don't get paid for filling them but do get paid for those folks staying home and watching it on TV over cable.

Either broadcasters give up their spectrum or their must carry rights IMO.

No way! There's no HDTV in the current plans for mobile TV.

Not so fast. Aloha which owns lots of 54 and 59 or 12 MHz of spectrum has announced that they are going to offer higher resolution mobile content on their spectrum to be watched on all size DTV sets. That could include heads up HDTV displays, HD on laptop, a lot of people swear by it. You can get pocket projectors now. Mobile HD or HD anywhere anytime could be a killer app.

Qualcomm is going for segments or small format short subject programming. I give that about a year to 18 months. People are coming around to thinking of regular TV mobile. That is just good TV that is easily receivable anywhere you are doing whatever even moving. They are even discounting the need for such things as DVB-H which was specifically designed for mobile cell type reception. Many are now saying that DVB-H is not needed. That DVB-T is enough for mobile.

DVB-H was all about battery life. DVB-T is all about easy reception anywhere of regular DTV which includes HDTV. Let the battery people solve their own problems. You don't design a long term broadcast venture based on such problems. Battery problems get solved because you offer a decent mobile DTV product not the other way around.

Most of the exageration has been about the merits of 8-VSB over the years and slowly the truth comes out.


I can't recall ever buying into any purported claims of how "great" this or that modulation is for DTV. I do know I waited until after the de-facto decision was made on it before sinking bucks into a HD set.

I also think, at least in the past you are misinterpeting much of the comments that come from those who are using 8-VSB (not by any choice most of us were even involved with in any way) with good results are somehow "exaggerating" the merits of it by saying it works well for them.

Constantly repeating how much better it would be if we were "doing something else" on core DTV channels in U.S. isn't going to accomplish anything useful for anyone, IMO.


I will accept 1.86 Million households why do you insist on lowering the perception by quoting 5 million individuals? US population 301718335 divided by 5 million equals 1.657 Percent. Much lower than the 19% of HD households at least in how it sounds. Gotta quit while your ahead.


Why? Because posting inaccurate, misleading information based on trying to make "larger numbers" sound good does not put me "ahead" of anything. Besides, The entire idea that you would even think I'm trying to "get ahead" in some way, or "lower or raise perception" from what are the actual FACTS of the matter in any shape or form is so entirely wrong and bogus in the first place ....

Anyway, I doubt you are fooling many here with your spins ......


It is an insane conflict of interest it get paid a fee for your content on cable while operating and delivering that same content for free OTA. It is totally insane that we allow this to go on. The two must be separated.


If I wrote a book+offered it for free via the internet(other than say selling ads in the sidebars)+ a publisher became interested in it, I certianly wouldn't give it away to him for free, so that only HE could make money off it.

update/addition 9:54pm (sorry, missed something again)


That seems to cover everything and covers your statement below also.


No, it doesn't.

Saying there are 9.8 Million Total HD households(that can actually view HD) in U.S. via cable, satellite, OTA/etc, and saying 19% of those are OTA HD households doesn't suggest anything about how exactly they "divided up" those who receive HD programming from multiple sources or if those folks are also counted in the 19%(1.86 million households) OTA HD households.

I'd think it probably does, but It also doesn't tell us with certianity if SD subscribers to satellite or cable who use OTA exclusively for HD were included in the OTA HD Households figure for the study,

Or, in other words, it doesn't tell use exactly who of the total 9.8 million fits in that 1.86 Million OTA HD households .... I think We can only say with any amont of reasonable certianity that the 19% number includes OTA Only households ...

And yet, look at your previous remark on the subject, where you say, seemingly with confidence :


But it is far less than 19% if you add RELY on OTA as only source of HD or DTV


You're assuming *way* too much, there, IMO.

And also, keep in mind this is just a study ... It's probably the best info/best/most current info I've personally seen on the subject however ...

Not so fast. Aloha which owns lots of 54 and 59 or 12 MHz of spectrum has announced that they are going to offer higher resolution mobile content on their spectrum to be watched on all size DTV sets. That could include heads up HDTV displays, HD on laptop, a lot of people swear by it. You can get pocket projectors now. Mobile HD or HD anywhere anytime could be a killer app.


There's not a big market for 40 inch+ mobile displays and there may never be. I won't believe that anyone will invest in anything greater than 720P (even that seems doubtful) for mobile until I actually see it.

It would of course not have to be watched on displays that were actually "mobile" ... A living room set could be used as well, for instance .... Other than in interest of providing more content to (actually) mobile devices, who knows, maybe there will be some market for them for non-mobile devices as well, but using the same services ...

In any case, Just as I'm interested in seeing what some of the local LP's do when they get their DTV plants up and running, it's going to be interesting to see how it goes with the auction winners of the "commercial" out-of core spectrum as well .....

It would of course not have to be watched on displays that were actually "mobile" ... A living room set could be used as well, for instance .... Other than in interest of providing more content to (actually) mobile devices, who knows, maybe there will be some market for them for non-mobile devices as well, but using the same services ...

In any case, Just as I'm interested in seeing what some of the local LP's do when they get their DTV plants up and running, it's going to be interesting to see how it goes with the auction winners of the "commercial" out-of core spectrum as well .....

Yes it will be interesting. Since you receive 40 channels what is your impression of broadcasters who try to do both HD and multicasting? Do any of them actually do it well.

Yes it will be interesting. Since you receive 40 channels what is your impression of broadcasters who try to do both HD and multicasting? Do any of them actually do it well.

IMO, from what I've seen so far, It seems to work out pretty well from The stations in my area with 720p HD service which are(or have) multicasting 1 SD service.

I'm also generally quite impressed with KET digital in this area, which is transcoding PBS HD to 720p in primetime(8pm~12am nightly)+ 2 SD services - It's timeshifted, They run HD off a server+it's with an emphasis on HD, there's very little SD widescreen on there. The rest of the time, from them it's 4~6 SD services(6 only for live coverage of state governemnt (KY) house/senate. They also have a datacasting service.

The stations doing 1080i+multicasting OTOH .... Most of them(all the commercial ones) are doing 1080iHD+ 1 SD, but 2 of the PBS's have 1080iHD+2 SD - One PBS HD channel 6pm~6am nightly with 4SD 6am~6pm, the other HD(timeshifted off server) only 8-10pm nightly, 4 SD the rest of the time ... One more PBS HD, which for the most part airs PBS HD channel 24/7 has 1080i HD+1SD .....

As far as the HD quality goes from these stations doing 1080i HD during bandwidth demanding portions of programming .... "OTOH" is about all I'll say as I figure I'm nasty enough about it at times in local threads, and I've seen almost of them w/o multicasting(or datacasting beyond using available oppurtunistic bandwidth - we had one CBS HD for a time giving 4Mb/s to a "webhopper" internet acceleration service for instance) at one time or another since I started watching OTA HD in 2001 .... To give them the beneifit of the doubt, however, If I recall correctly however, most of them are currently using older, not so efficent encoders ....

I will say a NBC with weatherPlus, one of the newest harmonic encoders and statmuxing gear with peaks as high as 17.1Mb/s or so for the HD when needed is probably doing the best job of it of all the stations in the area doing 1080i+multicasting. It's a little hard to say, though, as I really haven't seen NBC HD during say, bandwidth demanding portions of NBC HD sports coverage look as good(multicasting or no) as it did for 2002 HD Olympics coverage +2002~2004 Triple crown ... Seems to me since about mid-2004+for some odd reason it seems to be more of a problem from some venues vs. others --- I think/suspect there may be something going on on NBC's end rather than involving what affiliates are doing HD+multicasting ... Also, It's a bit hard to find NBC affiliates around here even via DX which aren't multicasting currently .. There is one if I recall correctly that isn't too far away, but it's co-channel to a nearby, strong, hi-power local DTV ....

I only have one local station doing 1080i which isn't multicasting currently, a CW HD affiliate.

I can't recall ever buying into any purported claims of how "great" this or that modulation is for DTV. I do know I waited until after the de-facto decision was made on it before sinking bucks into a HD set.

I also think, at least in the past you are misinterpeting much of the comments that come from those who are using 8-VSB (not by any choice most of us were even involved with in any way) with good results are somehow "exaggerating" the merits of it by saying it works well for them.

Constantly repeating how much better it would be if we were "doing something else" on core DTV channels in U.S. isn't going to accomplish anything useful for anyone, IMO.



Why? Because posting inaccurate, misleading information based on trying to make "larger numbers" sound good does not put me "ahead" of anything. Besides, The entire idea that you would even think I'm trying to "get ahead" in some way, or "lower or raise perception" from what are the actual FACTS of the matter in any shape or form is so entirely wrong and bogus in the first place ....

Anyway, I doubt you are fooling many here with your spins ......



If I wrote a book+offered it for free via the internet(other than say selling ads in the sidebars)+ a publisher became interested in it, I certianly wouldn't give it away to him for free, so that only HE could make money off it.

update/addition 9:54pm (sorry, missed something again)



No, it doesn't.

Saying there are 9.8 Million Total HD households(that can actually view HD) in U.S. via cable, satellite, OTA/etc, and saying 19% of those are OTA HD households doesn't suggest anything about how exactly they "divided up" those who receive HD programming from multiple sources or if those folks are also counted in the 19%(1.86 million households) OTA HD households.

I'd think it probably does, but It also doesn't tell us with certianity if SD subscribers to satellite or cable who use OTA exclusively for HD were included in the OTA HD Households figure for the study,

Or, in other words, it doesn't tell use exactly who of the total 9.8 million fits in that 1.86 Million OTA HD households .... I think We can only say with any amont of reasonable certianity that the 19% number includes OTA Only households ...

And yet, look at your previous remark on the subject, where you say, seemingly with confidence :



You're assuming *way* too much, there, IMO.

And also, keep in mind this is just a study ... It's probably the best info/best/most current info I've personally seen on the subject however ...

Right they are a reputable research house. They did a study that would most likely pass muster with other professionals and you and me probably if we looked into it.

They may have called a certain number of people at random or whatever their method. If you accept it OK, if not OK. I think it is probably pretty accurate with the usual plus or minus 2% error rate.

But what they were looking for was a pretty inclusive number. The number of US households that receive HDTV OTA for one. And they come up with a total number of 9.8 million. Plus or minus 3% puts you at a range of from around 9.5 to 10.1 million HDTV homes and 19% of those OTA HDTV. That works out to around 1.69% of US homes are OTA HD. Not very impressive.

I think that after only 2 years of doing OTA DTV they had 7% of homes OTA DTV in Australia and they considered it an unmitigated total disaster. They are up to 25% and sales are skyrocketing so the heat is off in OZ but compared to 1.69% OTA homes in the US after 9 years, what do you call the US DTV transition, a super duper incredible unmitigated disaster I suppose.

There are other studies that have come up with similar numbers. I think if anything this research group is biased on the upside or higher numbers. That is what their customers, for the most part, want to hear.

But I will accept them as they are.

..... 19% of those OTA HDTV. That works out to around 1.69% of US homes are OTA HD. Not very impressive.


I think it is. In addition to my comments on it in the other thread -- to put it more simply --- mostly because many people in U.S. have become very *-"conditioned" into believing Satellite or Cable is WHERE you get TV -- and it seems *many* folks aren't even really fully aware a viable service for receiving TV programming which we so call often call "free" OTA TV even still exists in U.S. let alone OTA HD/DTV, or are under the impression that OTA would mean reduced quality(snow/ghosts/etc) .....

And I don't think how many there are has much, if anything to do with how easy the signals are to receive, as it wouldn't matter, no matter what is done in that regard many people would *still* think cable/sat is better .... this is the U.S., not the U.K, where usuage of antennas on the roofs never really went away in big numbers as they have here ....

Sure, it would have been nice if ease of DTV reception in US were even "better" in that regard that what it is ..... But, we have what we have, and I usually find it's best to make the best of things rather than moan, complain and while about how much "better" it could have been "if only" ...

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

* - addition/update - as a bit of example of that on smaller scale -- for many years, even *before* DTV existed, I can't tell you how many visitors at my house who have watched a bit of TV here and have made a comment along the lines of :

"WOW -- Who is your cable company(I guess they didn't notice while channel surfing of the 23 analogs I receive none of them were "CNN")? The Picture quality is excellent, I wish my TV would look like that!" Or, What station is that? That's my favorite show, but I can't get it on my cable" ....

And they were talking about NTSC OTA ANALOG ....

At that point, I would either tell them it was coming in OTA, or take them outside+point out the antenna+explain that's where the pretty pics and "The Outer Limits" were coming from. In some cases, I still don't think they believed me ... I even had that occur(deja vu) from the SAME person MORE than once who had forgotten about the first time ...

How many of those folks do you think put up an antenna, or even tried something as simple as hooking "rabbit ears" up to their set to see what they could get sometime afterwards .... I can't say with any accuracy concerning all of them, but I think If you said something close to ZERO you would be right ...

More recently, There perhaps have been a few folks who have seemed a bit more likely to try it because of HD/DTV however they haven't yet gotten a TV(or STB) with a ATSC receiver in it, yet .. a couple have had so-called "HD-ready" sets(and are watching SD only on them), but of course those aren't very useful for receiving OTA DTV/HD ....

I think it is. In addition to my comments on it in the other thread -- to put it more simply --- mostly because many people in U.S. have become very *-"conditioned" into believing Satellite or Cable is WHERE you get TV -- and it seems *many* folks aren't even really fully aware a viable service for receiving TV programming which we so call often call "free" OTA TV even still exists in U.S. let alone OTA HD/DTV, or are under the impression that OTA would mean reduced quality(snow/ghosts/etc) .....

And I don't think how many there are has much, if anything to do with how easy the signals are to receive, as it wouldn't matter, no matter what is done in that regard many people would *still* think cable/sat is better .... this is the U.S., not the U.K, where usuage of antennas on the roofs never really went away in big numbers as they have here ....

You think that 1.69% is impressive after 9 years of a DTV transition?

Australia after 3.5 years at 9% HD and 25% HD +SD. That is 5.33 times our HD rate and in less than half, almost a third of the time.

Japan after 3 years at 20 million HD OTA receivers sold in a nation of 40 million households. Japan is as cabled and satellited as the US. Why have they sold enough OTA HDTV receivers, mostly integrated HDTV sets BTW, for half their households?

France is going to blow the doors off when they get their MPEG4 HD OTA going. France will pass the US at 1.69% HD households in the first 90 days. Maybe even 60 days. Could they do it in 30 days? I think they could.

And these countries ALL have far less HD content, far lower coverage of land and people, far lower power levels being used on their transmitters and far less time doing HD.

I don't think you can explain this away. The simple truth is that no even tries to. It just sits there getting more and more apparent that the US OTA DTV transition was designed to fail.

Sure, it would have been nice if ease of DTV reception in US were even "better" in that regard that what it is ..... But, we have what we have, and I usually find it's best to make the best of things rather than moan, complain and while about how much "better" it could have been "if only" ...

It is not "could have been" it is COULD BE and their is nothing wrong about trying to change things for the better especially when it becomes apparent that they easily could be far better.

The ongoing waste of the spectrum, channels 2-51, is monumental. Like throwing a billion dollars into a fire every day. You suggest that while it might be "better" to not throw the money in the fire you will go on doing so because to do otherwise would be to moan and complain.

If only a few percent of the US public is using these channels it would be far better to let others buy them and use them more efficiently. That way the treasury gets some money and the new owners have to live or die with their expensive spectrum.

The current owners were given the spectrum for free and see little value in it. 99% of the sale price of a full power TV station sold today would represent the value NOT of the spectrum but of the must carry priveledge that goes with it.

If you have any doubt of that number all you have to do is look at the going price of an OTA TV station that has NO must carry rights. An LPTV station has no must carry rights and its footprint is smaller but take the smaller footprint as a percentage of a full power stations footprint and compare percentage wise its market value to that of the full power station.

It will be a lucky LPTV station owner that gets that ONE% value of the full power station. The value of the spectrum by itself is very low today since it is encumbered by 8-VSB and MPEG2. Spectrum not so encumbered above channel 51 will sell for a thousand times more.

Again you will be able to compare. Once the auction is over compare auction sale prices for channels 52, 53, 56, 57, 58 to the sale price of LPTV stations with the same coverage. The only difference between the two will be the modulation and codecs that are allowed.

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

* - addition/update - as a bit of example of that on smaller scale -- for many years, even *before* DTV existed, I can't tell you how many visitors at my house who have watched a bit of TV here and have made a comment along the lines of :

"WOW -- Who is your cable company(I guess they didn't notice while channel surfing of the 23 analogs I receive none of them were "CNN")? The Picture quality is excellent, I wish my TV would look like that!" Or, What station is that? That's my favorite show, but I can't get it on my cable" ....

And they were talking about NTSC OTA ANALOG ....

At that point, I would either tell them it was coming in OTA, or take them outside+point out the antenna+explain that's where the pretty pics and "The Outer Limits" were coming from. In some cases, I still don't think they believed me ... I even had that occur(deja vu) from the SAME person MORE than once who had forgotten about the first time ...

How many of those folks do you think put up an antenna, or even tried something as simple as hooking "rabbit ears" up to their set to see what they could get sometime afterwards .... I can't say with any accuracy concerning all of them, but I think If you said something close to ZERO you would be right ...

More recently, There perhaps have been a few folks who have seemed a bit more likely to try it because of HD/DTV however they haven't yet gotten a TV(or STB) with a ATSC receiver in it, yet .. a couple have had so-called "HD-ready" sets(and are watching SD only on them), but of course those aren't very useful for receiving OTA DTV/HD ....

...

As for what to do with the VHF-Lo band if DTV ever fails there, the FCC will implement whatever plan that gets them the most money.


ding ding ding we have a winner- LOL.

Unless - they can make the most money even if DTV doesn't fail...

I actually wonder if it's just a handfull of stations wont the FCC force them to UHF anyway?

Also- the philly station is channel 6. Are there any volunteering for 2 or 3? I'd assume very few if any would camp that low? So it would be real easy to boot who ever is left and then auction that space for whatever- even if you have to pay those people for their conversations to a different channel.


BTW can someone aim me to the official list? I'd like to check it out myself- thanks.

BTW can someone aim me to the official list? I'd like to check it out myself- thanks.

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/. Look for the file posted March 23, 2006 for the combined 1st and 2nd round digital channel selections. I also downloaded the Excel version of much smaller 3rd round list and combined it with the first 2 rounds for a somewhat more complete list. If you also look at the list posted last week of 32 stations that have been granted approval - as far as I can tell - for early digital flash cut conversions if they want to do so, you will see stations that have opted for VHF 2, 3, 5, and 6. So low VHF is not going away - for now.

There's not a big market for 40 inch+ mobile displays and there may never be. I won't believe that anyone will invest in anything greater than 720P (even that seems doubtful) for mobile until I actually see it.



actually for a mobile display you wouldn't need 40 inch sets to see HD.

If you are looking at seat back tv's for the kids in your minivan (like xm and sirius seem to thing is a big market?)- then the viewer is like 12-18 inches away- for a sony "watchman" handheld type thing it could probably be similar. At that close of range then you could easily see HD's detail without needing a 40 inch set.

for example the little 2-3 inch display on my current treo with 320x320 pixels looks vastly different than the previous model with 160x160. (and people still complain about the lack of pixels on the treo forums) Just double the size means I'd get to 640x640 and so 720P+ resolutions dont seem so stupid for a handheld device.

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/. Look for the file posted March 23, 2006 for the combined 1st and 2nd round digital channel selections. I also downloaded the Excel version of much smaller 3rd round list and combined it with the first 2 rounds for a somewhat more complete list. If you also look at the list posted last week of 32 stations that have been granted approval - as far as I can tell - for early digital flash cut conversions if they want to do so, you will see stations that have opted for VHF 2, 3, 5, and 6. So low VHF is not going away - for now.

Thanks for the link


Did you mean MAY 23, 2006 doc?



I see like 51 out of 1789 stations on 2 through 6.

On the flash cut list I see 5 in that range.

So there's more than I'd guess but it's still small enough that I wonder if someone doesn't think maybe they can squeeze everyone out of the bottom and then sell that too. I don't really know as what most of you guys seem to know- but assuming there's not a bunch of them in the same general area couldn't you easily move all those stations into like 4,5, and 6 and sell of 2 and 3 for some more billions? (doing the simple math on the stations that are left it looks like there's an average of like 38 stations to each channel assignment so without knowing the geography of the 50-60 stations it would seem logical that you could find a home for them on 4,5, 6 or someplace in high vhf or UHf.

What's interesting to my layperson view is on that in the May document there are more channel 5's than other channels in 2-6 but actually the next highest amount is channel 2. I thought 2 was for the dogs? I would have though hardly no one would be on 2 or 3.

Did you mean MAY 23, 2006 doc?
[snip]
So there's more than I'd guess but it's still small enough that I wonder if someone doesn't think maybe they can squeeze everyone out of the bottom and then sell that too. I don't really know as what most of you guys seem to know- but assuming there's not a bunch of them in the same general area couldn't you easily move all those stations into like 4,5, and 6 and sell of 2 and 3 for some more billions?
Oops, I should have written May 23.

As for low VHF, it is not nearly as valuable as the UHF frequencies that the government will be auctioning off. The main market is mobile communications, sending TV/data to portable or hand held cell phones / computers, and so on. The short wavelengths of the 700 to 800 MHz band allow for compact antennas. Not going to be nearly as much interest in the antennas needed for the 5 meter wavelength of VHF 2 (setting aside power and range considerations). "Yes, we have your super smart cell / data earpiece wrist watch combination TV phone right here! And right here, we have the 2 meter long pop-up antenna that you clip to your head and connect to the earpiece phone..." :D

You think that 1.69% is impressive after 9 years of a DTV transition?


I think what is impressive, given the circumstances is that out of all the HD households that are actually viewing HD, the study found approximately 1 in 5 or 19% of them, or 1.86 Million of them are watching it via OTA HD.

9.8 MILLION total HD households actually viewing HD out of 111.4 TV households Total is only 8% of ALL TV households. That number, includes all the Sat+cable HD households(~6% HD) in addition to OTA, and taken as part of the whole doesn't look very impressive, either if you're looking at total TV households ...


You suggest that while it might be "better" to not throw the money in the fire you will go on doing so because to do otherwise would be to moan and complain.


I suggested no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth.

Oops, I should have written May 23.

As for low VHF, it is not nearly as valuable as the UHF frequencies that the government will be auctioning off. The main market is mobile communications, sending TV/data to portable or hand held cell phones / computers, and so on. The short wavelengths of the 700 to 800 MHz band allow for compact antennas. Not going to be nearly as much interest in the antennas needed for the 5 meter wavelength of VHF 2 (setting aside power and range considerations). "Yes, we have your super smart cell / data earpiece wrist watch combination TV phone right here! And right here, we have the 2 meter long pop-up antenna that you clip to your head and connect to the earpiece phone..." :D

ahhhh- see I told you that you guys know more than I- LOL

could you perhaps realistically use the low vhf for stationary wimax? Or would that be basically pointless?

Maybe some kind of datacasting- like pagers or something? (not that there's huge market for that at this point....)

I think what is impressive, given the circumstances is that out of all the HD households that are actually viewing HD, the study found approximately 1 in 5 or 19% of them, or 1.86 Million of them are watching it via OTA HD.

Thats with almost no mention by the stations themselves that they are transmitting digital. A local station just added HD news and in all the promos for what channel to tune for HD on cable and Directv they never once mentioned they could be picked up OTA.

I work with a lady who just bought a big screen HD tv and only has an antenna. She was amazed to discover that she was able to get HD without cable. She had no idea ota HD was available, she bought the tv wanting a big wide screen tv for dvds. Compare this to the digital transition on radio, they are running tons of ads touting HD radio. This same lady a few months ago was talking about getting an HD radio for the extra channels. She knew of HD Radio but had no idea about digital OTA. If stations have anyone to blame about people not watching via digital its themselves.

Again you will be able to compare. Once the auction is over compare auction sale prices for channels 52, 53, 56, 57, 58 to the sale price of LPTV stations with the same coverage. The only difference between the two will be the modulation and codecs that are allowed.

They are also required to transmit at least one channel free to air

Thats with almost no mention by the stations themselves that they are transmitting digital. A local station just added HD news and in all the promos for what channel to tune for HD on cable and Directv they never once mentioned they could be picked up OTA.

I work with a lady who just bought a big screen HD tv and only has an antenna. She was amazed to discover that she was able to get HD without cable. She had no idea ota HD was available, she bought the tv wanting a big wide screen tv for dvds. Compare this to the digital transition on radio, they are running tons of ads touting HD radio. This same lady a few months ago was talking about getting an HD radio for the extra channels. She knew of HD Radio but had no idea about digital OTA. If stations have anyone to blame about people not watching via digital its themselves.



They are also required to transmit at least one channel free to air

True they are required to do that but I think that a lot of auctioned spectrum will end up offering free OTA DTV because I think that will be the killer business plan. Some or even mostly free OTA with PPV and some subscriber offerings will be the right mix so an LPTV station will be or could be similar to these new broadcasters above 51.

And LPTV can transmit at higher power levels giving them a cost advantage. Still the difference in what an LPTV station and a license above channel 51 purchased at auction per person covered will be night and day. 1000 to 1. And the main differences will be modulation and codec. Codec freedom alone makes the new broadcasters spectrum worth 3 to 5 times more valuable. Modulation is at least a 200x factor on top of that.

The reality will be easy to figure out after the auction.

Qualcomm is the only one with a television type service at this time. I am also still waiting on your evidence from the following statement you made 36 hours ago:

After all it was the threat against their must carry that had broadcasters acquiescing to the pressure from Dingel and Tauzin to not back Sinclair in their quest for a decent modulation.

Of course you can't substantiate it since that is not based in true. Congress had nothing to do with the choice of modulation schemes (that is the FCC's job) and the multicast issue that was in Congress in 1998 dealt with the networks providing HD vs multicasting. The whole DVB/8VSB debate had nothing to do with mulitcasting, never has.

At the time, DVB-T could not be done in a 6 MHz channel and the RF power required to replicate the NTSC or ATSC coverage is CONSIDERABLELY more in the range of 4 to 5 times the RF power and makes it cost prohibitative in the US because of the cost of the transmitters at those power levels. In Europe where coverage areas are considerably smaller than they are here in the US and where they use 8 MHz channels, DVB-T was a viable scheme. Now there is a varient of DVB-T that works in a 6 MHz channel, but the RF power required is still considerably more than ATSC but it came too late for the US. Sinclair's biggest problem with ATSC hasn't been with the transmission system, but the multipath issues and mobile usage issues with receivers (Can the public receive what we are broadcasting? A viable question.). The receiver multipath issues have been resolved with the 5th gen chips and ATSC is working on the mobile issues with VSB-E looking very promising. Sinclair has now signed on to the ATSC bandwagan because of the 5th gen chips and nothing else.

But back to your Congress statement, Congress assumed that HD would be the big driver so they could hurry up the process and get the money rolling in quicker from the auctions and they were afraid that stations would NOT do HD but do SD multicasting only (no HD at all) which was not what many in the industry had in mind. Of course that SD train of thought came from the fact that in 1998, the state of the art was an either or situation and WRAL was experimenting with doing both HD and SD multicasting something that gave stations the option to do both, if they so chose to. But Congress didn't know that so by dragging in the Presidents of the networks and by making threats at them, they hope to keep the money wagan on track, HD (but even they knew they had no legal right to force stations or the networks to provide HD since the law stated either HD or SD). Well that didn't happen. History proved Dingel and Tauzin wrong. It hasn't been HD that has driven it, even though HD was the catalyst that started it off. It has actually been CEA pushing plasmas, DLP and LCD and flat panels in the last two years that has driven it with more than HD itself. EVERYBODY has to have a flat panel or plasma or DLP or LCD these days HD or not, (and many are not HD) and the cost coming down because they are plasmas, LCD's, DLP's and flat panels. Vizio this past Christmas forcing the big guys to drop their prices below what it cost to build and overall less analog only sets available to the public because of the FCC receiver timeline.

As much as the acceptance of HD has been slow in many minds, in reality, it has been amazingly fast compared to the transition to color which took 20 years. We are not even to 10 years since digital television was officially started in 1998 and there are more digital sets in the marketplace at this point in the transition that was for color and it hasn't been because Congress forced anything on anybody, but the CEA to get product that was affordable to the masses. It has always been a "chicken or the egg" syndrome that was going to have to work itself out and it is working itself out, at a much faster rate than many thought or even hoped. You can have every station doing HD but if the public can't see it for whatever reason, the transition will stall or fail. It has always been in CEA's lap to help get there, they just never wanted to admit it because on the front end, it would have cost them big dollars. Now it is managable and even profitable for them.

The receiver multipath issues have been resolved with the 5th gen chips and ATSC is working on the mobile issues with VSB-E looking very promising. Sinclair has now signed on to the ATSC bandwagan because of the 5th gen chips and nothing else.


The multipath issues aren't as bad with the 5th gen chips but not entirely resolved. That awaits either MPH (E-VSB) or A-VSB. Either of those will let the MPEG-4 cat out of the bag and neither is a good dance partner with MPEG-2 1080i HD. Eventually all ATSC tuners will do MPEG-4 so kcabmi has a point that someday there will be a second transition. The only question is how backward compatible will that second transition be.

Qualcomm is the only one with a television type service at this time. I am also still waiting on your evidence from the following statement you made 36 hours ago:


I am working on it. From memory at the moment.

Should have made it a more broad assertion, Dingel threatened everything broadcast, their spectrum, licenses and must carry. Specifically in a meeting of broadcasters, NAB, after the results of the fraudulent 2000 test were announced around January 11th, and in quick succession, the broadcasters met for a vote in California on backing the results with a vote on COFDM/8-VSB. Dingel was there to threaten them all that a vote for COFDM was a vote for delay and that their asses, assets that is were on the line.

Since broadcasters value must carry, the promise of multicast must carry and their other assets including their licenses and spectrum they voted 27 to 3 or something like that to back 8-VSB and a couple of days later the outgoing Chairman of the FCC. Kennard, re-affirmed 8-VSB in the last hour of his term on 1/19/01.

It was well planned from right before the fraudulent test even began IMO. Even during the test when only ONE FAKE COFDM receiver was used while many were offered, MSTV allowed 8-VSB receiver manufacturers to introduce new tweaked 8-VSB receivers right up until near the end of the test.

When it was asked why they did everything in secret and why they decided to cancel the second phase of the test, the part more favorable to COFDM, there was no answer. The announcements, vote, broadcaster intimidation and final re-affirmation followed in quick succession. And If memory serves at least one individual high up at CBS was able to take information from the secret test, not available to anyone else, back to ATSC and NAB to help set up the ambush before the results were announced.

It was what we now call a "slam dunk" and just like Tenet of the CIA got a Freedom Medal for going along with the fraud of the justifying the war in Iraq, people got medals for going along with the fraud of the 2000 8-VSB/COFDM testing. NAB medals. They must burn the skin when they wear them is all I can say.

I am working on documenting all of this. It will take some time.

Of course you can't substantiate it since that is not based in true. Congress had nothing to do with the choice of modulation schemes (that is the FCC's job) and the multicast issue that was in Congress in 1998 dealt with the networks providing HD vs multicasting. The whole DVB/8VSB debate had nothing to do with mulitcasting, never has.

Well I disagree. From my viewpoint the Holy Grail for broadcasters today and in 2000 was and is multicast must carry. If Congress which controls the FCC is mad as hell at you for not supporting their corrupt agenda then anything you want is at risk. Even though broadcasters have been goody two shoes for the last seven years has not got them multicast must carry. They were quacking in their boots back in 2000 and would have voted for anything Dingel instructed them to vote for.

At the time, DVB-T could not be done in a 6 MHz channel and the RF power required to replicate the NTSC or ATSC coverage is CONSIDERABLELY more in the range of 4 to 5 times the RF power and makes it cost prohibitative in the US because of the cost of the transmitters at those power levels. In Europe where coverage areas are considerably smaller than they are here in the US and where they use 8 MHz channels, DVB-T was a viable scheme. Now there is a varient of DVB-T that works in a 6 MHz channel, but the RF power required is still considerably more than ATSC but it came too late for the US. Sinclair's biggest problem with ATSC hasn't been with the transmission system, but the multipath issues and mobile usage issues with receivers (Can the public receive what we are broadcasting? A viable question.). The receiver multipath issues have been resolved with the 5th gen chips and ATSC is working on the mobile issues with VSB-E looking very promising. Sinclair has now signed on to the ATSC bandwagan because of the 5th gen chips and nothing else.

If at the time we are talking about the fall of 1999 when the controversy really began in earnest or we are talking as late as the hearings of June 2000, I can guarantee you that HDTV could be done with DVB-T since I was doing it. I had multiple receivers that worked very well in a 6 MHz channel THEN, late 1999. By the summer of 2000 when the hearings were held we had 300 Nokia 6 MHz COFDM receivers fully capable of HDTV. That was BEFORE the test began.

As to the power difference as found in the testing lab of the CRC in Canada. That is another organization that gets NAB medals. The power difference was never 4-5 times that required by 8-VSB. It was a laboratory discovered 2-3-4 db more power required. And in the real world where countries tested 8-VSB and COFDM in the bright light of day instead of in secret it was found to virtually NOT exist. Australia said that it was to minor to be considered, couldn't be found in the data etc.

Australia BTW switched to COFDM from 8-VSB after the test and under as much pressure not to as the US Congress, NAB and CEA could muster. Taiwan whose Congress HAD officially chosen 8-VSB under pressure from the US Congress, FCC, NAB and CEA, caved to pressure from their broadcasters in the form of a RIOT in their Congressional chambers. When you depend on your modulation instead of your lobbyist for your bread and butter you can get real upset when someone tries to force junk on you in the form of 8-VSB.

And in the fraudulent test of late 2000 the results showed that COFDM DVB-T was not receivable at SEVEN "far field" sites and 8-VSB was not receivable at one of those sites. When Sinclair used a copy of the same DVB-T COFDM receiver, actually transmitter monitor" but with proper front end filters it required to be anything like a receiver, they found that COFDM DVB-T was receivable at ALL seven 'far field" sites.

So COFDM was better than 8-VSB in the very location, far field, that you suggest it could not match 8-VSB. And at a higher bit rate, 19.76 Mbps compared to 8-VSB at 19.34 Mbps.

But back to your Congress statement, Congress assumed that HD would be the big driver so they could hurry up the process and get the money rolling in quicker from the auctions and they were afraid that stations would NOT do HD but do SD multicasting only (no HD at all) which was not what many in the industry had in mind. Of course that SD train of thought came from the fact that in 1998, the state of the art was an either or situation and WRAL was experimenting with doing both HD and SD multicasting something that gave stations the option to do both, if they so chose to. But Congress didn't know that so by dragging in the Presidents of the networks and by making threats at them, they hope to keep the money wagan on track, HD (but even they knew they had no legal right to force stations or the networks to provide HD since the law stated either HD or SD). Well that didn't happen. History proved Dingel and Tauzin wrong. It hasn't been HD that has driven it, even though HD was the catalyst that started it off. It has actually been CEA pushing plasmas, DLP and LCD and flat panels in the last two years that has driven it with more than HD itself. EVERYBODY has to have a flat panel or plasma or DLP or LCD these days HD or not, (and many are not HD) and the cost coming down because they are plasmas, LCD's, DLP's and flat panels. Vizio this past Christmas forcing the big guys to drop their prices below what it cost to build and overall less analog only sets available to the public because of the FCC receiver timeline.

As much as the acceptance of HD has been slow in many minds, in reality, it has been amazingly fast compared to the transition to color which took 20 years. We are not even to 10 years since digital television was officially started in 1998 and there are more digital sets in the marketplace at this point in the transition that was for color and it hasn't been because Congress forced anything on anybody, but the CEA to get product that was affordable to the masses. It has always been a "chicken or the egg" syndrome that was going to have to work itself out and it is working itself out, at a much faster rate than many thought or even hoped. You can have every station doing HD but if the public can't see it for whatever reason, the transition will stall or fail. It has always been in CEA's lap to help get there, they just never wanted to admit it because on the front end, it would have cost them big dollars. Now it is managable and even profitable for them.

Right Congresscritters made a lot of noise about broadcasters promising HD and ignored their own law that only requires only SD. Congress also made a big deal about delays of the digital transition and said any talk of examining the modulation was really about delay.

But they were wrong. 8-VSB was all about delay. COFDM was all about getting the job done. The US would have 104 million COFDM receivers in use that were purchased freely if we had the same sales rate as the UK has had even if only for the four or so years they have been doing it and NOT the NINE we have had to get it done with 8-VSB.

We would have seen 80 million ISDB-T COFDM receivers sold if we had gone with the Japanese standard and had sales like they have had for the last three years.

We would have had 11 million HDTV OTA receiver COFDM sales if we had the same sales rate as Australia has had with HD receivers. Not just sales but sales to folks that actually used them since they were freely purchased in OZ unlike the US where they are sneaked into HDTV sets via a mandate with NO education. How else to explain how 60% of HDTV sets sold are not hooked up to even an antenna?????? NO EDUCATION SNEAKY MANDATE it should have been labeled.

Retailers don't want to emphasize the mandated integrated tuner because they fear returns when the customer has a problem with reception.

Not so in places like Australia and Japan where they PROMOTE the OTA receiver and EDUCATE the consumer about OTA. We HIDE the mandated receiver and tell the consumer NOTHING it would seem. How else to understand a 60% NO HD when all the consumer has to do is attach a hanger on a piece of coax to try out OTA???

You can't explain this away and it won't go away by ignoring it. You can't confuse the issue by trying to talk about how fast HD has taken off. We are talking about the OTA DTV transition and how it HAS NOT TAKEN OFF. The OTA DTV transition had little or NO affect on the sale of HD or HDTV sets.

It could have. If the US had a decent modulation and codec OTA could have had a massive positive affect on the acceptance of HD and the sale of HDTV sets not only in the US but in the world.

8-VSB hobbled all of that. This delaying tactic by some broadcasters just delayed the whole works. Just a big monstrous stupid waste based on ignorance and misinformation.

It would not have cost the CEA big dollars if COFDM had been allowed. It would have made them a lot of money.

The tortured idea that you can somehow disable mobile and multicasting and help the adoption of HD by foisting a crippled modulation and out of date codec on the country is just stupid. You could have forced HD content, Australia did, and you could have forbidden mobile of data, Australia did BY LEGISTLATION.

Trying to do so by choosing a lousy modulation is just total folly and it is proving out to be so as predicted. The future only will emphasize the stupidity of what was done.

Staying the course when all things say it was the wrong road from the beginning just gets you to a strange place.

Eventually all ATSC tuners will do MPEG-4 so

Says who? How many of the current ATSC tuners going into sets do, or can do MPEG4 or use other advanced codecs ?

I am working on it. From memory at the moment.

Should have made it a more broad assertion, Dingel threatened everything broadcast, their spectrum, licenses and must carry. Specifically in a meeting of broadcasters, NAB, after the results of the fraudulent 2000 test were announced around January 11th, and in quick succession, the broadcasters met for a vote in California on backing the results with a vote on COFDM/8-VSB. Dingel was there to threaten them all that a vote for COFDM was a vote for delay and that their asses, assets that is were on the line.

Since broadcasters value must carry, the promise of multicast must carry and their other assets including their licenses and spectrum they voted 27 to 3 or something like that to back 8-VSB and a couple of days later the outgoing Chairman of the FCC. Kennard, re-affirmed 8-VSB in the last hour of his term on 1/19/01.

It was well planned from right before the fraudulent test even began IMO. Even during the test when only ONE FAKE COFDM receiver was used while many were offered, MSTV allowed 8-VSB receiver manufacturers to introduce new tweaked 8-VSB receivers right up until near the end of the test.

When it was asked why they did everything in secret and why they decided to cancel the second phase of the test, the part more favorable to COFDM, there was no answer. The announcements, vote, broadcaster intimidation and final re-affirmation followed in quick succession. And If memory serves at least one individual high up at CBS was able to take information from the secret test, not available to anyone else, back to ATSC and NAB to help set up the ambush before the results were announced.

It was what we now call a "slam dunk" and just like Tenet of the CIA got a Freedom Medal for going along with the fraud of the justifying the war in Iraq, people got medals for going along with the fraud of the 2000 8-VSB/COFDM testing. NAB medals. They must burn the skin when they wear them is all I can say.

I am working on documenting all of this. It will take some time.



Well I disagree. From my viewpoint the Holy Grail for broadcasters today and in 2000 was and is multicast must carry. If Congress which controls the FCC is mad as hell at you for not supporting their corrupt agenda then anything you want is at risk. Even though broadcasters have been goody two shoes for the last seven years has not got them multicast must carry. They were quacking in their boots back in 2000 and would have voted for anything Dingel instructed them to vote for.



If at the time we are talking about the fall of 1999 when the controversy really began in earnest or we are talking as late as the hearings of June 2000, I can guarantee you that HDTV could be done with DVB-T since I was doing it. I had multiple receivers that worked very well in a 6 MHz channel THEN, late 1999. By the summer of 2000 when the hearings were held we had 300 Nokia 6 MHz COFDM receivers fully capable of HDTV. That was BEFORE the test began.

As to the power difference as found in the testing lab of the CRC in Canada. That is another organization that gets NAB medals. The power difference was never 4-5 times that required by 8-VSB. It was a laboratory discovered 2-3-4 db more power required. And in the real world where countries tested 8-VSB and COFDM in the bright light of day instead of in secret it was found to virtually NOT exist. Australia said that it was to minor to be considered, couldn't be found in the data etc.

Australia BTW switched to COFDM from 8-VSB after the test and under as much pressure not to as the US Congress, NAB and CEA could muster. Taiwan whose Congress HAD officially chosen 8-VSB under pressure from the US Congress, FCC, NAB and CEA, caved to pressure from their broadcasters in the form of a RIOT in their Congressional chambers. When you depend on your modulation instead of your lobbyist for your bread and butter you can get real upset when someone tries to force junk on you in the form of 8-VSB.

And in the fraudulent test of late 2000 the results showed that COFDM DVB-T was not receivable at SEVEN "far field" sites and 8-VSB was not receivable at one of those sites. When Sinclair used a copy of the same DVB-T COFDM receiver, actually transmitter monitor" but with proper front end filters it required to be anything like a receiver, they found that COFDM DVB-T was receivable at ALL seven 'far field" sites.

So COFDM was better than 8-VSB in the very location, far field, that you suggest it could not match 8-VSB. And at a higher bit rate, 19.76 Mbps compared to 8-VSB at 19.34 Mbps.



Right Congresscritters made a lot of noise about broadcasters promising HD and ignored their own law that only requires only SD. Congress also made a big deal about delays of the digital transition and said any talk of examining the modulation was really about delay.

But they were wrong. 8-VSB was all about delay. COFDM was all about getting the job done. The US would have 104 million COFDM receivers in use that were purchased freely if we had the same sales rate as the UK has had even if only for the four or so years they have been doing it and NOT the NINE we have had to get it done with 8-VSB.

We would have seen 80 million ISDB-T COFDM receivers sold if we had gone with the Japanese standard and had sales like they have had for the last three years.

We would have had 11 million HDTV OTA receiver COFDM sales if we had the same sales rate as Australia has had with HD receivers. Not just sales but sales to folks that actually used them since they were freely purchased in OZ unlike the US where they are sneaked into HDTV sets via a mandate with NO education. How else to explain how 60% of HDTV sets sold are not hooked up to even an antenna?????? NO EDUCATION SNEAKY MANDATE it should have been labeled.

Retailers don't want to emphasize the mandated integrated tuner because they fear returns when the customer has a problem with reception.

Not so in places like Australia and Japan where they PROMOTE the OTA receiver and EDUCATE the consumer about OTA. We HIDE the mandated receiver and tell the consumer NOTHING it would seem. How else to understand a 60% NO HD when all the consumer has to do is attach a hanger on a piece of coax to try out OTA???

You can't explain this away and it won't go away by ignoring it. You can't confuse the issue by trying to talk about how fast HD has taken off. We are talking about the OTA DTV transition and how it HAS NOT TAKEN OFF. The OTA DTV transition had little or NO affect on the sale of HD or HDTV sets.

It could have. If the US had a decent modulation and codec OTA could have had a massive positive affect on the acceptance of HD and the sale of HDTV sets not only in the US but in the world.

8-VSB hobbled all of that. This delaying tactic by some broadcasters just delayed the whole works. Just a big monstrous stupid waste based on ignorance and misinformation.

It would not have cost the CEA big dollars if COFDM had been allowed. It would have made them a lot of money.

The tortured idea that you can somehow disable mobile and multicasting and help the adoption of HD by foisting a crippled modulation and out of date codec on the country is just stupid. You could have forced HD content, Australia did, and you could have forbidden mobile of data, Australia did BY LEGISTLATION.

Trying to do so by choosing a lousy modulation is just total folly and it is proving out to be so as predicted. The future only will emphasize the stupidity of what was done.

Staying the course when all things say it was the wrong road from the beginning just gets you to a strange place.


Well Bob, you just outed yourself.

Says who? How many of the current ATSC tuners going into sets do, or can do MPEG4 or use other advanced codecs ?

AFAIK none of the current ATSC tuners do and none of them do E-VSB yet even though the ATSC accepted that two years ago. However the competing MPH and A-VSB mobile proposals can both improve reception of the primary ATSC signal and both depend on MPEG-4 or some other equally efficient codec.

The multipath issues aren't as bad with the 5th gen chips but not entirely resolved. That awaits either MPH (E-VSB) or A-VSB. Either of those will let the MPEG-4 cat out of the bag and neither is a good dance partner with MPEG-2 1080i HD. Eventually all ATSC tuners will do MPEG-4 so kcabmi has a point that someday there will be a second transition. The only question is how backward compatible will that second transition be.

A-VSB = 1/4 code gets you .5 Mbps robust channel that WILL be used with MPEG4 that will NOT work with any current receivers. Cost 5.62 Mbps. Good deal?? NOT!!! Backward compatible NOT!!!

A-VSB = 1/2 code gets you 1 Mbps robust mobile channel that WILL be used with MPEG4 that will NOT be compatible with all current receivers. Cost 5.62 Mbps. Good deal? NOT!! backward compatible NOT!!!

Or do you think broadcasters will use MPEG2 with their precious .5 or 1 Mbps robust channel just to be compatible? NOT!! No to say A-VSB is compaptible with all current receivers they will talk in terms of using MPEG2. That is theoretically it could be compatible but when they use it it will be with MPEG4 because it makes sense.

Can you see REAL HD + Audioworking with the remaining 13.72 Mbps? I don't. Of course I don't think real HD works with 19.34 Mbps. I don't think that any of what is being broadcast today is real HD by either the 1080i or 720P standards. It is already watered down and will be more so.

How about multicasting with that 13.72 Mbps. How about multicasting with A-VSB? Say one MPEG2 SD program to keep the FCC happy and then take the rest of the spectrum, about 15.34 Mbps and with A-VSB 1/4 code you get maybe THREE .5 Mbps robust channels. You throw away the rest.

Another way. With A-VSB you could reduce a 6 MHz channel to ONE SD program with MPEG2 SD using 4 Mbps and 1.5 Mbps of robust mobile capabiltiy at a cost of the difference or 14 Mbps wasted and HD.

With a modulation like CDMB-TH with MPEG4 you could do 1080P and have room for an SD program and BOTH would be receivable MOBILE at 80 mph. The waste factor or the Mbps that would not be useful or less than the 19.34 Mbps that 8-VSB is fixed on would be maybe 1 Mbps.

Will broadcasters do multicasting, Yes. Will they use A-VSB or MPG, YES. What will become of HD OTA? What do you think?

AFAIK none of the current ATSC tuners do and none of them do E-VSB yet even though the ATSC accepted that two years ago. However the competing MPH and A-VSB mobile proposals can both improve reception of the primary ATSC signal and both depend on MPEG-4 or some other equally efficient codec.

Yes, but you said All ATSC receivers will have MPEG4. Just because some nice things have been added that work with ATSC, doesn't mean any of those things will be used extensively, either by broadcasters or by Hardware manufacturers. ATSC A/90 Data broadcast standard has been around for quite a while, too, but AFAIK, I don't think many receivers support it.

Having read many of the posts on opendtv on those subjects, + also given that a couple of my local sinclair stations sending 720p are currently doing so w/o multicasting+with the HD service at 14~15Mb/s, and 4Mb/s or so Null packets (not the Fox sinclair owned affilate here, however, it's multicasting MYTV SD, currently) ... I'm wondering if it is somewhat likely one of those might be coming to those stations ... Seems like it might be a good idea to me ...

BTW, the only one I'm aware of so far is Hisense/USDTV (STB's) had some receivers that did MPEG4(some they had required an "upgrade" of some sort), which I think at least in some markets is what was used(or what they were going to move to) for the subscription part of USDTV service ...

Yes, but you said All ATSC receivers will have MPEG4.

I didn't say tomorrow or even in the next couple of years. However the world has already started to move to MPEG-4 as evidenced by D*, E*, AT&T U-verse and others.

I didn't say tomorrow or even in the next couple of years. However the world has already started to move to MPEG-4 as evidenced by D*, E*, AT&T U-verse and others.

This is for OTA service, not any of those. For OTA, that backward compatability thing is important, including for the current HD/DTV OTA viewers, and the millions more MPEG2 only receivers(and DTV viewers) likely to come .... AFAIK, that's including the subsidized DTV converter boxes as well ....

The transistion to DTV we are having after 60+ years of a successful analog OTA service is difficult enough.

IMO, if you want a sure-fire way to guarentee the failure of DTV, just start changing things that will result in HD+DTV services from local broadcasters "disappearing" from the screens of those who have just made the transistion to DTV from analog and do use OTA for DTV/HD ...

*If* MPEG4 is ever to happen in a big way for broadcasters main DTV/HD services, it will have to be carefully phased in over many years, and I'd think it will also probably have to be the case that FCC will have to OK the change regarding the current requirement for a single SD service via MPEG2. By that time, I'd venture to guess they probably would want to use something else, instead. Probably meaning, MPEG4 capability has to go in all TV's and receivers for many years before the broadcasters start using it for their "main" services/product, probably meaning they need to start doing it yesterday if it's going to happen at all. Until then(again *if* that ever happens), sure there are applications for it and you've already menitoned a couple of possibilties for mobile, although so far the only one I'm aware of that has used it with OTA, has failed (USDTV) .....

For some applications, I use WMV-HD or MPEG4 on my PC - Including for HD I display on a HDTV, it doesn't mean I'm going to purchase a new DTV receiver for all my TV's, or new HDTV's every 5 years so I can have the "latest and greatest" for OTA DTV/HD ...... Others may feel differently, of course ....

Well Bob, you just outed yourself.
I thought it has been rather apparent for days that kcabmi was Bob Miller. Who else obsesses on Sinclair, 8-VSB versus COFDM, how the FCC and Congress really has secret plans to get rid of OTA broadcasting, and so on? Who else has this peculiar obsession about highly technical decisions that were made and a done deal a decade ago? Out of the 6 billion or so people on this planet, Bob Miller is probably the only one who has this particular obsession. I'm guessing "bmi" may refer to B MIller. Is it time to kick him out again?

I'm guessing "bmi" may refer to B MIller.
kcabmi is "I'm Back" spelled backwards.

Ron

my hometown has ch 4,7, and 8 vhf digital and can be received with the right antenna. Geography is a challenge because the area is in the foothills of the adirondacks.

over 90% and closer to 95% of the market is serviced by cable and satellite. It was one of the first areas in the country to be wired for cable many years ago. I remember when I was growing up that I could not wait till cable got to our street because off air reception had it's challenges in the area. I highly doubt that market is concerned about low band vhf.

about 40 channels out of well over 1000 in the country are transmitting in the low vhf band. doubt the stations or their management are loosing sleep over it.

the low band vhf stations are mostly in rural areas of the country where the "mature" antenna users are already used to having vhf antennas to receive the analog low band vhf version of the station in the first place.

the new user, the user moving from the other options of satellite and cable are most concerned. They are content using a smaller uhf antenna and are concerned with the fact that they need an antenna of the vhf variety to receive the low band vhf signal.

And do not want to purchase/ be bothered by one.

I didn't say tomorrow or even in the next couple of years. However the world has already started to move to MPEG-4 as evidenced by D*, E*, AT&T U-verse and others.

If you want MPEG4 for the required SD program that is now required to use MPEG2 you make all current receivers obsolete.

That is a no-no at least for 50 years right?

You really have to kill this spectrum and drive it half way to China before any reasonable discussion can be had on the subject because of "lagacy receivers".

And the mandate is already pumping millions more of these legacy receivers into the market making all the harder to turn this ship.

I figure we have to wait till everyone has a legacy receiver so we can make everybody equal when we make them all obsolete in around 2012. 14 or 15 years of waste should be enough don't you think?

the new user, the user moving from the other options of satellite and cable are most concerned. They are content using a smaller uhf antenna and are concerned with the fact that they need an antenna of the vhf variety to receive the low band vhf signal.


Yes, and for the most part I agree with the entirety of your post ... Unfortunetly, it does seem that some of those folks are just going to have to find out sooner or later the "hard way" that UHF antenna won't allways cut it for VHF(including in some(or many) cases for Hi-VHF) ....

Although, There are some markets that have been *allways* been analog UHF only, and are now VHF+UHF for DTV .... One particular example I can think of is Lexington, KY --- they are all UHF analog, but have DTV on UHF and VHF-HI(CBS HD/WKYT-DT on 13) and VHF-LO(Fox HD/WDKY-DT 4 - COL is Danville, but they are very much "lexington") now, and for after analog shut off unless something changes ...

I figure we have to wait till everyone has a legacy receiver so we can make everybody equal when we make them all obsolete in around 2012. 14 or 15 years of waste should be enough don't you think?

Although this thread really isn't the place for it(or much of our discussion - and I apologize for my part in that) .....

It seems to me, you are missing a big oppurtunity here to detail some potentially interesting ideas on how a "2nd, carefully phased in, perhaps "under the radar" transistion" to both more efficent codecs, *and* a better signal modulation could possibly be accomplished ON the core channels ..... Getting EAS warnings out of the video signal and into something like the EIA-708 captions might be nice, too, as well as probably a plethora of other things that I'm not thinking of "off the top of my head" at the monent ....

Something that would, or at least potentially could fly with the broadcasters, FCC, manufactuers and work for consumers ....

If it *could* be done without breaking the bank, and without turning anyone "off" from DTV -- I certianly think such a thing could be a *very* good thing for us, as long as we utilize the lessons well which have and are being learned during this first transistion ....

You're a smart fellow, certianly you can come up with something better, and more interesting than constantly rehashing and spinning the details of why+how **you** think the DTV transistion is going so badly in U.S. ? If you really must continue to do that, why not just put that stuff up on a website+put the link in your sig at bottom of your posts/etc, I'd guess you'd have more "success" with the points you're trying to get across via that method than trying to do it on forums such as this, anyway .... Not to mention all the time you spend going over this stuff over+over again over the years .... Really, no personal offense meant, but to me what you're doing in this regard looks *no* better(it looks worse, really) than some of what you're saying is so bad(and I certianly agree some of it *has* went quite badly and know that *some* of what you say *is* true) about what the "TPTB" have done with the transistion ....

I hope I'm wrong, but, I must say, somehow I have a feeling something like that may not really suit your *interests* or perhaps a better word might be your *agenda* of posting the stuff you have been for many years on forums such as these .....

I thought it has been rather apparent for days that kcabmi was Bob Miller. Who else obsesses on Sinclair, 8-VSB versus COFDM, how the FCC and Congress really has secret plans to get rid of OTA broadcasting, and so on? Who else has this peculiar obsession about highly technical decisions that were made and a done deal a decade ago? Out of the 6 billion or so people on this planet, Bob Miller is probably the only one who has this particular obsession. I'm guessing "bmi" may refer to B MIller. Is it time to kick him out again?

I have suspected it for a while and how it has been easy to shoot his "theories" down with facts. His last DVB rant sealed it for a lot of people. I think we can move on now.

Since we're totally wondering off topic and talking about some future transition or addtions-
anyone know anything about hierarchical modulation?

From what I gather you can actually use 2 different modulations at the same time if you have enough horsepower on both ends of the transmission.

Sounds to me sort of like adding color to black and white on analog. You get some genius who figures out a way to add additional information to the signal without screwing up the "legacy" signal. If I recall one of the Dolby systems does something like that with analog and now it appears Sirius will do that on their digital to add video to their sat radio service.

what's the possibility of something like that being used at some point down the road for broadcast TV? You could keep some of the signal to send an mpeg2 8vsb stream while at the same time overlaying a fancier modulation with mpeg4 (or mpeg6 or mpeg8...) data.

Sounds to me sort of like adding color to black and white on analog. You get some genius who figures out a way to add additional information to the signal without screwing up the "legacy" signal.

TANSTAFFL. The 'sharpness' control on TV's orignated because NTSC loses the high frequency portion of the luminance component due to the overlap with the chroma.

I don't think we've reached the end of the road yet for MPEG-2 picture quality (especially for real-time cameras). As processors get faster the encoders will make fewer compromises.

My biggest complaint about ATSC at this point doesn't have anything to do with video codecs. My complaint is that they didn't make the audio transmission robust enough. Dealing with video blocking and video drop outs is much easier than dealing with audio dropouts where the big pop following the dropout actually makes you flinch and possibly destroys a tweeter. At least the video drop outs don't potentially destroy equipment.

If the FCC is going to look into any sort of modulation/encoder changes, I would hope that they would concentrate on upping the Error Detection and Correction bits on the audio encoding rather than on trying to pick a more efficient video codec so that the broadcasters can just do more multicasting.

If the FCC is going to look into any sort of modulation/encoder changes...

The FCC has no such plans nor have they even hinted they would consider it anytime in the future.

[QUOTE=Although, There are some markets that have been *allways* been analog UHF only, and are now VHF+UHF for DTV .... One particular example I can think of is Lexington, KY --- they are all UHF analog, but have DTV on UHF and VHF-HI(CBS HD/WKYT-DT on 13) and VHF-LO(Fox HD/WDKY-DT 4 - COL is Danville, but they are very much "lexington") now, and for after analog shut off unless something changes ...[/QUOTE]

Speaking of WDKY-DT, I live 31 miles from the tower. WKLE-DT UHF-42 is on smaller tower and I can pick up at 100% and just about a 100-200 feet away is WDKY-DT VHF-4 and a much taller tower, and I get notta. I can get all of the Louisville stations from my house, which is a good 75 miles away. I've tried to contact someone from there to see if they could help me or ask them are they going to relocate to a UHF channel in 2009, but no answers.

But does anyone know what will happen to low power stations when 2009 comes around?

^jbky1,

What sort of VHF antenna are you using ? See signs of any interference to WAVE 3, Louisville? Sparkles/static/etc? Just some thoughts to get you started on what might improve your WDKY-DT reception ...

In case you're interested, I'm in pretty much same direction as you from WDKY-DT and I often see them here from 118 Miles distant, 180 degrees azimuth bearing(true). Had them in here solid this morning, in fact, no dropouts even though the signal was barely above threshold. One viewer in cincinnati thread in Dry Ridge, KY( A good bit north of jbky1) I believe has reported good, reliable local reception of them.

As was the case this morning, WDKY-DT is often the only DTV station I see beyond my local stations(all within 39 miles). As I said earlier, it's the DTV station I see most often beyond the locals, although along with the Lexington analog UHF's there are also few columbus stations (78 Miles - on UHF or VHF) w/o co-channel issues with local stations that are seen here almost as often.

It requires a little help from enhanced propagation conditions to achieve a signal lock from WDKY-DT here, but not much, and much of the time I see some sort of indication of signal from them, it's just usually below the threshold required to be able to decode the datastreams. I also receive analog WCMH 4, Columbus, OH (78 Miles) at all times(usually not all that well), but given the receive antenna pattern/directivity, I don't think it has ever hurt reception, or potential reception of WDKY-DT much with antenna aimed their way.

BTW, For VHF I'm currently using a winegard PR5030 VHF antenna at 30FT which is certianly nothing special.

The Antenna is about 45 feet away from utility lines+aimed right towards them when aimed at WDKY, aimed right at a transformer when aimed at WAVE 3(which I do see all the time from 95 miles at 217 degrees), and I do get power line noise problem on WAVE 3 occasionally. Several years ago, some pretty bad arc'ing up the street which was causing serious problems on HF (ham) had me calling the utility co ... they quickly came+fixed the problem ...

Believe it or not, I've actually had WDKY-DT in solid+dropout free with a weak signal+with storms in the area with lightning which were tearing up WAVE 3 analog. Never quite figured that one out, as I've also seen the nearby lightning tear up WDKY-DT reception, even with a stronger signal ...

Update: Oh, BTW - In case you didn't know, WDKY-DT 4 is at full power one of the highest power Lo-VHF DTV stations in US, Currently at 26.5 KW ERP. They originally had a CP for 1 db or so more, 36.5 KW ERP If I remember correctly but the CP changed when they changed tower site/HAAT/etc.

Thanks for the info!! Very helpful indeed. I can't seem to get analog WAVE 3, but I can pull in their digital channel. But their digital tower is actually across the river in Indiana. So I don't think it would be channel 3 is interfering with channel 4.

I have a Terk Indoor Amplified antenna ( got from Best Buy )
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7322587&type=product&productCategoryId=cat08084&id=1118844608800

Which in most cases it works really well. I can pull in Hi-VHF WKYT-DT 13 very well. Also, I can at night pull in Louisville stations about 60-85%

I would just like to have a solid FOX station all day. I've also been trying to get WXIX-DT 29, but I am not sure if WBKI-DT 19 is has anything to do with me getting WXIX. I've only been able to get WKRC-DT once.

But I really think my problem is not having a outdoor antenna.

How big is the winegard PR5030? Thanks again for the info!

I can't seem to get analog WAVE 3, but I can pull in their digital channel. But their digital tower is actually across the river in Indiana.


Yes, the analog on 3 is on a 1800+ Foot tower that's closer to you(and me)+East Of Lousiville. The analog has a HUGE coverage area.


So I don't think it would be channel 3 is interfering with channel 4.


well, that wasn't what I was thinking about -- Instead, I was thinking mostly about the interference issues that cause "sparkles" and "static" and such on analog TV signal, such as impulse noise interference that often are a problem on Lo-VHF (and lower frequencies) much moreso than on higher frequencies -- Those issues are not only caused naturally by lightning strikes, but also by numerious man-made sources, incuding electric motors, many Household appliances, ,/etc/etc/etc ... which is one reason why an indoor antenna sometimes doesnt work too well on the lo-VHF channels .... I've even seen an ethernet switch add RFI to channel 4 .....

Looking at analog WAVE 3 would allow you to see if that sort of interference is a problem, as it's something you can't "see" for DTV in this case to get an idea if it's causing a problem for you on WDKY-DT. WLWT 5 Cincinnati is another potential one to look at. I'd think You really should be getting something from WAVE or WLWT, although it would probably be quite weak with indoor "rabbit ear" VHF antenna(and if you're TV "mutes" the screen with blue or black on analog when a weak or interference signal is present, you'd also probably never know it was there even if it is to some extent) such as the VHF portion of the Terk HDTVa, especially if it isn't located near say a North(for WLWT) or West(WAVE) facing window ... ....

Anyhow, best I could perhaps suggest trying with your current antenna for WDKY-DT if you haven't already done so is perhaps to move it around a bit (such as to a spot near a South facing window+not "near" your TV), extend the VHF "rabbit ear" portion all the way, or perhaps even better, adjust the "ears" to be a 1/2 wavelength dipole on channel 4 -- 83" from tip to tip --- adjusting the "ears" so they are "horizontal" makes it horizontally polarized 1/2 wavelength dipole, but other "arrangements" (such as in a "v" or "L" ) may actually turn out to work better ... see here for more info on how to get the best out of rabbit ears :

http://www.kyes.com/antenna/rabbitear.html ....

Still, really wish we had a way to look at a analog lo-VHF signal to get some sort of idea if you're getting any electrical/impulse noise/ or RFI interference from "stuff" inside your house ... IF you could look at something like WAVE 3(well as long as its still on air until Feb 17 2009), you might be able to move the antenna around a bit to minimize that interference, if in fact there is any there ... You really wont be able to see it by just looking at "snow" or a muted screen, or a "signal meter" on your DTV receiver ...

BTW, there's some good info on this sort of thing at the "rabbitear" link above(where it talks about why putting antenna on top of TV, or near computer/etc is usually not good place for it), as well as the "interference" section indexed from this main page :

http://www.kyes.com/antenna/antennadex.html

edit/update : Another thought comes to mind ... There is a 50KW FM station on 89.9 MHZ in Georgetown ... Especially if your relatively close to it(especially within say 4 miles or so), it could(very basically speaking) potentially be a problem "overload wise" on VHF for your tuner or the amp in your current antenna, even though it might not(or might not seem) to be effecting KYT-DT on 13 ... So, if it has one, you might want to make sure FM trap is engaged on it ("interference" from FM signals causes diagonal or "squiggly looking" lines on analog TV signals) .... Even though that's probably more likely to be a problem for channel 6 or some Hi-VHF channels, I suppose it's possible it could be an issue for you for 4 as well .... If it was causing problems with the amp, though(unless vhf+UHF amps are seperate) I might think it might cause some UHF problems as well ...

In any case, a FM trap would probably be a good thing for use to use with outdoor antenna as well. Many preamps have them "built in" and allow you to switch them on or off, they're also available fairly inexpensively seperately ... RS used to have one for a few bucks, I'm not sure if they still stock them or not ....

Most of the remainder of this update is very, very likely to not even be necessary to consider or think about --but, sometimes we do have to think about these things, especially when we are using preamps or "amplified" antennas and are close to nearby strong signals(and not just TV signals, as these preamps are usually very broadband) .... FCC doesn't take preamps or amps into account regarding interference issues ----

in my experience, most of the FM traps in preamps+ones you can purchase "on their own" do tend to "roll off" somewhere in the low end of FM band, because that's getting close to the top end of channel 6 -- NTSC audio carrier for channel 6 is at 87.7 MHZ, for example ... I suppose for that reason it's good for instance that the FM in georgetown is on 89.9 and not 88.1 regarding preamp "overload" issues if you're really close to them ....

Here, for this reason+several strong FM's fairly near me on 88~89MHZ and to clean up reception of more distant channel 6 stations In addition to a "broadband" FM trap, I use a Winegard TRT-LO notch filter(does 12.5db notch, effects 2MHZ bandwidth at 1/2 (-3db) power points and is tunable from 54~88MHZ) tuned for maximum effect at 88.7MHZ ... this cleans up channel 6 in the "problem" directions, but does effect the NTSC audio carrier on 6 slightly, although I can use a FM receiver w/o the traps(or any amps) in line tuned to 87.75MHZ to listen to the NTSC audio ... I don't think winegard still makes those, but hopefully there are other such options available to folks that might need something like that ...

One possible option might be a "homemade" coax stub filter -- you can find info on how to make one of those on that KYES antenna site as well .... But, those also effect certian harmonic frequencies - I didn't try the math to check to see if one made for low FM would cause any problems on Hi-VHF TV channels, or any UHF channels(the latter could be fixed by seperateing VHF+UHF and only putting the stub filter on the VHF side however) - but, I do remember a 1/4 wave coax stub filter I tried once for Low FM did deliteriously effect both channel 6, and perhaps channel 5 slightly ... Seems like maybe a harmonic effected a hi-VHF channel and several UHF channels as well, but again, I don't really recall and would have to figure out the math on it to say for sure ....

For these reasons however, FCC does not generally allow low FM band+ channel 6 TV stations in the same market/area/etc -- .... I'm doing this mostly to receive stations on 6 from outside of their coverage area, although it's nice to lower the signal input to the preamp as well by knocking down the strong local Low-FM's a bit more before the preamp ...

sorry, about all the "words", I'm sometimes good at posting more info than folks probably want to hear about ;)


But I really think my problem is not having a outdoor antenna.


That's probably a very good idea(with rotor if you want Lou+Cincy as well), I think it sounds like you would enjoy the improvement in reception that's likely to provide, although at your distance there's no guarentee you will get reliable reception 100% of the time from The Cincy or Louisville stations ... What you're getting now from Louisville sounds like a good sign, however .... I know a fellow who used to live in G-Town, but moved to Indy a couple years back -- He had an outdoor rig(with rotor/etc) when in KY, and don't quote me on this as I may not be recalling correctly, but I *think* he had said he also had good results with Louisville, as well as WKRC-DT, WSTR-DT and WLWT-DT ... I don't think he was able to get the others in Cincinnati consistantly (including WXIX-DT) .... You might have better luck, however ....


How big is the winegard PR5030? Thanks again for the info!

As VHF broadband ch 2-13 antennas go, it's pretty small ... I don't have the exact specs handy, but it's about 8FT long(about same length as my XG91 I use for UHF), and given 1/2 wave dipole on channel 2, about 8~9FT wide at most ....

Just some thoughts --- If you want to start "inexpensively" with a relatively small outdoor VHF/UHF antenna however - Given what you're already getting indoors, I'd probably start with a small to medium sized VHF/UHF combo antenna of conventional design with rotor, if you don't want anything too big(this would give you both VHF and UHF and be smaller than a PR5030 as it would only be about 4~5 feet long or so)- perhaps something like a RS-VU90, and I'd probably add a good preamp as well(such as CM7777/CM7778 - Winegard has some nice preamps as well) ... You might want something better (and bigger) for best results from Cincy or Louisville, however .....

Hope some of that helps ... take it easy,

to JB- select the antenna appropriate for your reception conditions, challenges, and how far you want to receive (what ever that is). need zipcode at least to get a feel for what you are up against and advise us of the range of stations you are after. there is a huge jump from a terk hdtva to an outdoor antenna.

overload from vhf/fm.

the best fix I have found is simply amplifying uhf and passing vhf unamplified and if you want to get fancy filter fm off the full band or vhf with a winegard ca8800 type tv/fm splitter/combiner.

you would need a couple cm0549's or run 2 separate coax off the cm 0549 and only amplfy the uhf leg. see wiring diagram as an example.

If I have problems with 1 fm station I just insert a 50 db notch filter tuned to the frequency, a 50 db fm notch filter for the entire fm band, or use the winegard ca8800 tv/fm splitter which sometimes works better than filtering with only .4 db insertion loss.

The other issue is amplification. be careful that you choose the right preamp with appropriate gain for the application. or no amp at all if you really do not need one. many choose the cm7777 because of it's low noise on uhf and the recommendations made on the net.

the cm7777 should not be used with stations in yellow and less than 30 miles. The best alternative in that case is the winegard hdp269. if you experience some overload with an amp, try to get by without, install the preamp away from the antenna at the grounding block or inside used as a distribution amp.

separates vs combos

if you experience noise on vhf bigger is better. sometimes vhf/uhf combos are not the best alternative and you need to go with the heavy hitters for fringe reception....separate vhf and uhf antennas. the best vhf antennas are the wade delhi vip 306sr or vip 307sr (the winegard hd4053/pr5030 are not nearly as good and are considered medium range vhf antennas).

if you want to stick with vhf/uhf combos, go with the best (depending on location)...winegard hd 7082p, hd7084p, or hd8200p. the cm advantage, radio shack, or others are big but underperformers for vhf and uhf.

fyi. the wade 306 vip looks and sounds huge but is actually 19" shorter than an hd8200p, about the size of a radio shack 160vu, cm 3678, and cm 3020 and stacks nicely with a 91xg.

how do you purchase one? call a wade distributor or warehose and have them ship one from the warehouse factory direct to your house. the vip306sr is not cheap...about $150 plus frt. but they "kick ass" on vhf.

http://www.wade-antenna.com/Wade/ProductList.htm
http://www.wade-antenna.com/Wade/Warehouses.htm
http://www.wade-antenna.com/Wade/ProductList.htm

The vip 306/307 is intended for deep fringe and the pr5030/hd4053P are considered medium range antennas. other alternatives depending on need for vhf only (5 or 10 element)
ch 2-6 antenna
ch 7-13 antenna
cut to specific channel antenna

How big is the winegard PR5030? Thanks again for the info!
It is ten feet long, about three inches longer than a Blonder Tongue BTY-5-LB/3, but the Blonder Tongue has about 2dB more gain, and will withstand hurricane force winds.

It is ten feet long, about three inches longer than a Blonder Tongue BTY-5-LB/3, but the Blonder Tongue has about 2dB more gain, and will withstand hurricane force winds.

Yep, after posting that(8ft comment) while mowing the yard I looked at antennas and noticed PR5030 was slightly longer than XG91, the latter which I recall is a bit under 10ft ..... dunno why I had remembered it as 8ft earlier ... Thanks for the correction ....


the cm advantage, radio shack, or others are big but underperformers for vhf and uhf.


And are easily obtainable, inexpensive and in the case of the smaller models(such as VU90 I mentioned) often more than enough for "suburban" type reception as well as for many others, including on Lo-VHF .....

As for cincinnati+Lousiville reception for him -- Certianly, the "best" of seperate VHF/UHF antennas would be a good idea, but there is still no guarentee even with the best of outdoor antennas that he will be able to achieve reliable reception from all the stations he wants from those cities ....

Best thing I could suggest is for him to look at the transmitters in cincinnati.kmz (and for Lousiville if that one is up yet) file+his location and andy.s.lee's L-R coverage maps(see the google earth 3d thread in this forum area), as well as andy's "radar plot"(which uses more detiailed terrain info) ....


the cm7777 should not be used with stations in yellow and less than 30 miles.


Depends upon a lot of factors other than what antennaweb says+mileage .... The georgetown FM I mentioned earlier is still a concern, but I don't think he's going to have an "overload" issue with any TV/DTV station ......

Again, Andy S. Lee's L-R coverage maps would be a good thing to look at, "whitish" or "whitish-red" could definitely be a problem for preamp/tuner overload issues ....

To JbKY1, If I wasn't clear enough I apologize -=- I was using those(Cm7777/7778) as examples of "quality" preamps and they were part numbers that came to mind at the time, not really any exact "recommendations" ...


the best vhf antennas are the wade delhi vip 306sr or vip 307sr


Yep, I agree those are the best broadband(ch 2-13) VHF antennas out there currently, at least that I'm aware of ..... I had up a Winegard CH-5100(or 5200, don't recall) (about the same size as vip 307SR, but not quite the performance) here for a while, but decided the PR5030 was enough ......

if you want to get fancy filter fm off the full band or vhf with a winegard ca8000 type tv/fm splitter/combiner.


Almost forgot .... I did some searching, and couldn't find any info on a CA8000(older model perhaps?)

But, I can say I use a Winegard CA8800 TV/FM seperator/coupler(which you also mentioned in your post) on the feed from my VHF antenna. FM port goes to FM receiver(s), TV port goes to FM Trap+ the Winegard TRT-LO tuned to knock down low-FM a bit more and a couple of other tunable notch filters(from B-T and Winegard) to knock down a couple of strong VHF local analog signals before preamp I use for VHF, which is just before VHF/UHF combining with CM0549.

(CA 8800 is shown at bottom of page here).

http://www.winegard.com/offair/couplers.htm

I know I've checked it, and the CA8800 does not seem to filter FM sufficiently off its "TV" port for my needs. I'm using the CA8800 because it has less insertion loss than a 2 way splitter, and to send unamplified signals to FM receiver(actually first to a 2 way splitter then to FM receivers in 2 different rooms).

This setup does work out better for me than going "unamplified" on the VHF side, particularly because, I distrubute feed from antenna to various TV's, DTV receivers/VCR's and FM receivers in 4 different rooms.

Also, note that CA8800 does pass both VHF+UHF on it's TV out port. I did not spend much time on it to report in detail, but when I tried it, I also noticed some fairly strong TV signals(VHF, I didn't try it with VHF/UHF antenna hooked up as input) being passed through it's FM port.

So, as you also note, A VHF/UHF coupler/seperator such as CM0549 would be required to sepearate or combine VHF/UHF ... Some years ago, I can report I was using a VHF/UHF combo antenna(RS-VU210), and I used multiple VHF/UHF seperator/Joiners to first seperate VHF/UHF (to insert 1/4 wave Coax stub filter on VHF), then recombine with good results ....

Oh, BTW, I realize you were addressing Jb_ky 1 "only" with your post ... However, since it seemed you perhaps had some issues with several of my comments as well, I thought it was "fair" that I could reply to some of your comments ....

Thanks for all the help!! I would never realize that a FM radio station would interfere with getting WDKY-DT.

My zip code here is 40324.

I did try Google earth 3D tool (which is really cool), and it tells me I need a roof top antenna for Louisville and Cincinnati stations. But I can get Louisville with an indoor, so I know that can't be 100% accurate.

Would any stores happen to sell some of the antenna listed above??

Thanks for all the help!

Suggest a winegard hd7084p antenna with hdp269 preamp

* red - vhf WKYT-DT 27.1 CBS LEXINGTON KY 150° 15.2 13
* red - uhf WLEX-DT 18.1 NBC LEXINGTON KY 150° 15.8 39
* blue - uhf WTVQ-DT 36.1 ABC LEXINGTON KY 150° 15.8 40
* blue - vhf WDKY-DT 56.1 FOX DANVILLE KY 156° 26.8 4

http://www.summitsource.com/winegard-hdp269-12-db-gain-vhf-uhf-outdoor-offair-digital-signal-local-hdtv-channel-tv-antenna-aerial-12-vdc-75-ohm-preamplifier-designed-for-squareshooter-part-hdp269-p-5577.html

http://www.summitsource.com/winegard-hd7084p-hdtv-television-antenna-platinum-hd-68-element-vhf-uhf-offair-local-high-definition-digital-signal-channel-outdoor-tv-aerial-blue-zone-part-hd7084-with-coax-cable-p-4564.html

hd7084p 102.95
hdp269 48.95
frt. 14.40
$166.30

would never realize that a FM radio station would interfere with getting WDKY-DT.


It might not even be an issue involved, at all. Personally, my wild guess is that you have problems on lo-VHF from man made "impulse noise" type, or "filtered switchmode" intefererence, or other RFI being produced inside your home by various appliances or electronic devices. Using an amplfied antenna indoors can also exacerbate this. Without getting some sort of clue however(such as from what WAVE 3 "looks like") there's no way to do anything but make a really wild guess about it.

If it is a problem, it's not that the FM station is actually interfering on channel 4, instead it would be (basically) something along the lines of being because you are so close to the FM station+that it's so strong that your tuner(or preamp) is getting overloaded which causes the tuner to not be "selective" enough to "pick out" what is WDKY-DT and what is the strong signal that is getting "splattered" and spread onto what the tuner "sees" as channel 4 ....It's not something the station is doing wrong, basically, it's mostly that it's not a good idea to use extra amplification(such as your current amplified antenna) if your that close to a strong signal, and if you do, it's sometimes necessary to "trap out" that stronger signal, or in this case, the entire FM broadcast band, so that the tuner(and possibly the amplifier in your "amplified" antenna) doesn't get "overloaded" by that very strong signal ....


Would any stores happen to sell some of the antenna listed above??


RS-VU90 is radio shack .....

Don't know who is winegard or CM distributor in central KY if you want brick and mortar(you might check ask in Lexington thread), there are online sources you can order all of antenna or preamp mentioned below, however. www.solidsignal.com is but one of those online sources for antennas+preamps+other supplies ....

Winegard PR7010+PR7015 would be a couple of other potentially good choices IMO for the Lexington stations, and would likely offer a bit better performance than VU90, or CM3016, a similar antenna from CM's "advantage" line ....


it tells me I need a roof top antenna for Louisville and Cincinnati stations.


If it's purple, or no color (or less than -90~-100dbm with the "radar plot" graph) for some of the stations you're interested in (such as WXIX-DT cincy) ... And generally --- IMO, I think If you're looking for best possible results for Cincinnati+Louisville as well I'd probably go with something like XG91 or CM4228 for UHF and VIP307SR for VHF.

In additon to WDKY-DT on VHF-Lo and WKYT-DT on VHF-HI, there are also a couple of Cincy/Louisville Hi-VHF stations currently, and will be more after analog shut off - You wouldn't need lo-VHF for those, however, and in that case a hi-VHF antenna such as YA-1713 would be a good idea ... You're probably still going to want WDKY-DT though.

Although what you're getting from louisville currently from indoors would seem to suggest VU90 or antennas such as PR7010/PR7014 may also be good choices for Lexington AND possibly Louisville as well, at least for the stations you're currently receiving from Louisville+all the Lexington stations.

Then again -- It's really up to you -- Putting up seperate VHF/UHF antennas, and antennas as large as something like a VIP-307SR, and to some extent relatively large VHF/UHF combo such as HD7084 may involve more consideration on your part of issues such as wind loading and having a strudy enough mount vs. erecting a small~medium size VHF/UHF combo such as VU90, PR7010/PR7015, which is generally a easier endeavor for a DIY job, especially if you're not familar with or never have put up an outdoor antenna before.

The preamp Rick0725 suggested would probably be a fine choice overall as well, but I can't say I know whether or not 89.9 would be a problem for you with FM trap engaged with CM7777 or CM7778, but nothing else I'm aware of(besides potentially the nearby FM) should be ... Although, then again, if things are hot enough so that you get such good reception indoors(at least on Hi-VHF and UHF), including from Louisville, probably good to keep the "overload thing" in mind when choosing preamp .... Before getting preamp, I might also try whatever antenna you decide on without a preamp at all at first(and probably with an inexpensive) FM trap) and see what happens ...

As for antennaweb, as one example, for one cincinnati area DTV station, they are using location info for a CP that was modified many years ago for a completely different location than what is shown at antennaweb .... I've sent them info on this several times over the past 5 years, they've never fixed it. Seems like they should at least update their info from FCC database a little more often.

WDKY current transmitting location wouldn't be 6 degrees WEST of the other lexington stations from georgetown(or west of the other lexington stations from anywhere), it would be the same azimuth bearing as WKLE, as you noted earlier, they are right next to each other a Bit South Of Lexington and Just East of I-75 ..... Both are SSE of all the Other lexington stations. The accurate info can be found in current FCC CDBS or TV query info.

I suspect the WDKY info shown on antennaweb is for their old transmitting location(for which the DT was only operating via STA, they had a higher power CP for that location for a time but never used it), perhaps their STA (which was 7.5KW ERP+ with a directional antenna pattern which covered their COL(Danville), but didn't send much power to the North .......

I also suspect there may be other inaccuracies on that list as well for the Lexington stations, probably particularly WTVQ-DT ..... I suspect the listing there might have been for an STA they were using ....


But I can get Louisville with an indoor


Which goes to show in some cases how amazingly well reception can work sometimes .....

And I believe you said earlier you receive all the other Lexington area DT's just fine except WDKY-DT on the list from antennaweb Rick provided in addition to WKLE-DT as well .... I'd bet you should be able to receive a few others in Central KY just fine as well ... Such as the ION affiliate in Morehead (WUPX-DT 21 remaps to 67-x) ....

anyway, I hope you're soon having success with WDKY-DT ....

Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air TV (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6439202)

kcabmi is "I'm Back" spelled backwards.

Ron

Bob might be back posting his propaganda here, but Europe still to this day has no OTA HDTV and his poorly-conceived standard-definition COFDM Pay-tv services taking over NYC remain stillborn. :)

I really like the benefits of VHF-lo in my rural locale, and would hate to see it go — but I can understand why those in more urban situations want it gone.

Bob might be back posting his propaganda here, but Europe still to this day has no OTA HDTV and his poorly-conceived standard-definition COFDM Pay-tv services taking over NYC remain stillborn. :)

SVT HD is on-air in Sweden OTA. Initially it launched as a trial service for the World Cup period, then ceased on DTT and continued only on satellite. However AIUI it is now back broadcasting as a formal service on DVB-T in Sweden (started on May 26th I believe), in 720/50p MPEG4 H264, initially from 4 transmitters.

In the UK we've had BBC HD OTA in London for about a year now as part of the BBC HD trial, launching in time for the World Cup but continuing on satellite, OTA in London and on cable. 19Mbs of H264 AVC 1080/50i using DVB-T for OTA. I'm receiving it fine on a DVB-T USB2 adaptor - both in West London and on the official border of the Crystal Palace transmitter region (through a reasonable rooftop aerial - which is common in the UK). Recordings play back nicely on a PS3 as well. This trial is likely to cease soon on DVB-T - and as we already have 6 nationwide digital muxes deployed we'll have to await the outcome of the digital dividend review to see if the analogue space occupied by the 4+1 analogue networks will be partially redeployed for broadcasting post analogue switch off (starts this year, should end in 2012)

However to say Europe has no OTA HDTV is now incorrect. Sweden is in Europe and has it. Britain is in Europe and has it - albeit in trial form. Europe has OTA HDTV - just not very much of it ;)

SVT HD is on-air in Sweden OTA. Initially it launched as a trial service for the World Cup period, then ceased on DTT and continued only on satellite. However AIUI it is now back broadcasting as a formal service on DVB-T in Sweden (started on May 26th I believe), in 720/50p MPEG4 H264, initially from 4 transmitters.

In the UK we've had BBC HD OTA in London for about a year now as part of the BBC HD trial, launching in time for the World Cup but continuing on satellite, OTA in London and on cable. 19Mbs of H264 AVC 1080/50i using DVB-T for OTA. I'm receiving it fine on a DVB-T USB2 adaptor - both in West London and on the official border of the Crystal Palace transmitter region (through a reasonable rooftop aerial - which is common in the UK). Recordings play back nicely on a PS3 as well. This trial is likely to cease soon on DVB-T - and as we already have 6 nationwide digital muxes deployed we'll have to await the outcome of the digital dividend review to see if the analogue space occupied by the 4+1 analogue networks will be partially redeployed for broadcasting post analogue switch off (starts this year, should end in 2012)

However to say Europe has no OTA HDTV is now incorrect. Sweden is in Europe and has it. Britain is in Europe and has it - albeit in trial form. Europe has OTA HDTV - just not very much of it ;)

Glad to hear it, I hope they catch up soon. ;)

Glad to hear it, I hope they catch up soon. ;)

You'd be surprised how quickly HD is arriving in some European countries (the BBC are producing quite a lot of material in HD these days - probably quite a lot more than some US Networks when they launched HD - but you'd expect that as it is now no longer bleeding edge tech).

On the plus side - because we're starting nearly a decade later we're able to use H264 rather than MPEG2 encoding - which seems to deliver better results (fewer visible artefacts etc.)