Colorado Springs, CO - HDTV - Page 228 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #6811 of 6837 Old 11-16-2013, 10:38 PM
Newbie
 
nainaidebi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

He said all the other locals in the Springs are trying to figure out what to do as they were only allocated UHF bandwidth. However, he said that if you can currently receive Channel 11, you should have no problems receiving their digital station.
1bHk  

nainaidebi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #6812 of 6837 Old 11-17-2013, 10:48 AM
Member
 
gman76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

There are HD DTAs. I'm pretty sure that Comcast has them. I have seen them for TWC and Bright House, so I'm fairly sure that Comcast has them also.

Edit: I just remembered I know for sure that they have HD DTAs and I've seen them with my very own eyes.
gman76 is offline  
post #6813 of 6837 Old 11-17-2013, 10:55 AM
Member
 
gman76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Are they free of charge like their SD DTAs? I can't stand all the nickel and diming. I'm still thinking of going to another provider for tv. Comcast Internet is fine and a reasonable price.
gman76 is offline  
post #6814 of 6837 Old 11-17-2013, 01:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by gman76 View Post

Are they free of charge like their SD DTAs? I can't stand all the nickel and diming. I'm still thinking of going to another provider for tv. Comcast Internet is fine and a reasonable price.

I don't know. I don't have their service. Free OTA TV, especially here in Monument where I get both Denver and Colorado Springs stations (26 English language channels, and all the Broncos games) is just fine with me. I ended my paying relationship with them 4 years ago. I just know they have the HD DTAs. I'm sure that if the government lets them charge for them they certainly will. The "free" DTAs were a temporary concession when they went all digital.

It's 2014 and you're still paying for television?
 

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #6815 of 6837 Old 11-29-2013, 06:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pgwalsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

I don't know. I don't have their service. Free OTA TV, especially here in Monument where I get both Denver and Colorado Springs stations (26 English language channels, and all the Broncos games) is just fine with me. I ended my paying relationship with them 4 years ago. I just know they have the HD DTAs. I'm sure that if the government lets them charge for them they certainly will. The "free" DTAs were a temporary concession when they went all digital.

I too do HD OTA. Comcast does do the HD channels, but they require an upgraded box, which they'll charge you for. I think it's $7 extra a month. Also there were reports in the news today that all cable/sat prices were going up this year.

http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/pay-tv-prices-are-at-the-breaking-point-and-theyre-only-going-to-get-worse-1200886691/

We use streaming and OTA for everything. I wish we could use HBO GO, but maybe someday. HBO is the only station I feel has content with subscribing to.

Builds: Maelstrom 21 Ottoman Build, Dual Opposed MFW's x 2, Statements, SEOS-12/TD12M x 5. 
pgwalsh is offline  
post #6816 of 6837 Old 02-11-2014, 04:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Satcom15's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs CO
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just saw on my latest cable bill, Comcast is adding a $1.50 fee for increasing OTA reception costs. Really? I wish we had alternatives. The fastest internet connection is Comcast who now owns content production capabilities. And, the recent negative court ruling on net neutrality, gives them even more power. Don't want to watch Comcast produced programs? Too bad. Do it or we throttle your bandwidth. No streaming Netflix for you. Oh and BTW, if you set up a VPN, we're going to throttle that back too. And we really don't have any alternatives, other than ditch cable altogether and rely on Netflix disks and OTA.

What a mess.
Satcom15 is offline  
post #6817 of 6837 Old 02-11-2014, 07:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
scottlindner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I already receive OTA just fine with the antenna I put in my attic. Why do I need to pay Comcast to improve their OTA reception?
Mocking their obvious government granted monopoly behavior aside...

I recently switched to Comcast from CenturyLink. I run VPN and haven't noticed a change. I haven't tried measuring it though. Is there a specific protocol or ports they are targeting? The only thing I have noticed in my change from CenturyLink to Comcast is my upload speed is significantly faster, and the jitter with Comcast is awful. FAX over VOIP is utterly broken with Comcast and it worked just fine with CenturyLink.

On a personal note. I am disgusted our politicians have been bought off to continue protecting an industry that is long past due to die. The way I see it the ISPs are false advertising. They are selling Internet Access, right? Internet is a protocol, not content. They are restricting the content the way that suits them best (conflict of interest anyone?) so I submit to you that they are not ISPs but rather Restricted Web Providers. Now I wonder... isn't that what America Online was when it started? Why isn't it around anymore? Oh yah.. because people don't want Restricted Web Access!
scottlindner is offline  
post #6818 of 6837 Old 02-12-2014, 08:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pgwalsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 73
We need alternatives. I don't know about cos but other places I I lived would contract lease the cable lines and comcast would be the only option. Most lines are subsidized by tax payers, so comcast doesn't own the majority of them. I think the city needs to open up to more competition. Lower prices and no throttling would be great. The US is behind other developed nations in this area, but I'm not saying anything you don't already know.

I've seen wifi solutions in the area but they're too expensive and offer poor service from the reviews I've read.

Builds: Maelstrom 21 Ottoman Build, Dual Opposed MFW's x 2, Statements, SEOS-12/TD12M x 5. 
pgwalsh is offline  
post #6819 of 6837 Old 02-12-2014, 02:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Satcom15's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs CO
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've heard in some places there are strong efforts (no doubt the cable companies) to keep cities out of providing the communication infrastructure (like a utility). I guess in Utah, there was a consortium of cities that did that and apparently there's an aggressive effort at the state level (state legislation backed by the cable companies) to squash that approach. Alternatively, what if Google wanted to put a fiber optic cable network in Colorado Springs. Or, suppose a neighborhood wanted to put their own system in? I suspect the franchise agreement the city has with Comcast has a clause in there that would prohibit that type of activity. I'd really like to take a look at it and see when it comes up for renewal as well as other restrictions. My hunch is we probably can't because of "Confidentiality" clauses. Like Scott says a result of politicians bought off maintaining an archaic system. BTW, Tom Martino in Denver started a telecom company (I think he leased a lot of bandwidth from the telephone company and resold it) and there was also an attempt by someone called Antelope (?) something here in Colo Spgs, I wonder what happened to them.

If only we had FiOS or even a la carte channel selection (that won't happen). The fact is there is no real competition. Satellite? Please. BTW I think the restrictions I alluded to in my earlier rant will be coming. They haven't been implemented yet. Its only a matter of time and with the recent court decision, now they can press ahead. However, the court did say they issued the ruling reluctantly and gave the FCC the option of placing cable companies and internet service providers in the same category as the telephone company. So we'll see what happens.

I'd really like to unplug from the cable company, but there just really aren't any good alternatives for high speed internet. Now if the telephone company would lay fiber to the house ... In my dreams *sigh*
Satcom15 is offline  
post #6820 of 6837 Old 02-12-2014, 02:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
scottlindner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satcom15 View Post

Now if the telephone company would lay fiber to the house ... In my dreams *sigh*

I have fiber to the nearest CO to my house which is about 1000ft away. I can get the highest "fiber" DSL service from CenturyLink. Because I'm so close my QoS is so high I call them up and tell them to turn of "interleaving" and my ping times drop to like 7ms. There are two reasons I dumped CenturyLink in favor of Comcast. The first, you have ot pay extra for roughly 5Mbps upstream and with cable you can get well over that with just regular service. The second reason is the after Century Link took over my prices went up and overall service dropped. I was paying $64/mo for 12Mbps downstream and 5Mbps upstream. That's just ridiculous. I am certain that when Comcast raises my rates on my cable service I will swap back over to DSL again. I have modems for both so it's a trivial change for me.

I sure hope the Net Neutrality fight resumes. I want an ISP provider, I do not want a restricted access content provider that charges me a lot for very little.
scottlindner is offline  
post #6821 of 6837 Old 02-12-2014, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pgwalsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satcom15 View Post

I've heard in some places there are strong efforts (no doubt the cable companies) to keep cities out of providing the communication infrastructure (like a utility). I guess in Utah, there was a consortium of cities that did that and apparently there's an aggressive effort at the state level (state legislation backed by the cable companies) to squash that approach. Alternatively, what if Google wanted to put a fiber optic cable network in Colorado Springs. Or, suppose a neighborhood wanted to put their own system in? I suspect the franchise agreement the city has with Comcast has a clause in there that would prohibit that type of activity. I'd really like to take a look at it and see when it comes up for renewal as well as other restrictions. My hunch is we probably can't because of "Confidentiality" clauses. Like Scott says a result of politicians bought off maintaining an archaic system. BTW, Tom Martino in Denver started a telecom company (I think he leased a lot of bandwidth from the telephone company and resold it) and there was also an attempt by someone called Antelope (?) something here in Colo Spgs, I wonder what happened to them.

If only we had FiOS or even a la carte channel selection (that won't happen). The fact is there is no real competition. Satellite? Please. BTW I think the restrictions I alluded to in my earlier rant will be coming. They haven't been implemented yet. Its only a matter of time and with the recent court decision, now they can press ahead. However, the court did say they issued the ruling reluctantly and gave the FCC the option of placing cable companies and internet service providers in the same category as the telephone company. So we'll see what happens.

I'd really like to unplug from the cable company, but there just really aren't any good alternatives for high speed internet. Now if the telephone company would lay fiber to the house ... In my dreams *sigh*
There's 20 states where the service providers have won in the courts and blocked the public.

Builds: Maelstrom 21 Ottoman Build, Dual Opposed MFW's x 2, Statements, SEOS-12/TD12M x 5. 
pgwalsh is offline  
post #6822 of 6837 Old 02-13-2014, 10:15 AM
Senior Member
 
Satcom15's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs CO
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottlindner View Post

I have fiber to the nearest CO to my house which is about 1000ft away. I can get the highest "fiber" DSL service from CenturyLink. Because I'm so close my QoS is so high I call them up and tell them to turn of "interleaving" and my ping times drop to like 7ms. There are two reasons I dumped CenturyLink in favor of Comcast. The first, you have ot pay extra for roughly 5Mbps upstream and with cable you can get well over that with just regular service. The second reason is the after Century Link took over my prices went up and overall service dropped. I was paying $64/mo for 12Mbps downstream and 5Mbps upstream. That's just ridiculous. I am certain that when Comcast raises my rates on my cable service I will swap back over to DSL again. I have modems for both so it's a trivial change for me.

I sure hope the Net Neutrality fight resumes. I want an ISP provider, I do not want a restricted access content provider that charges me a lot for very little.

With the announcement of Comcast purchasing Time Warner (assuming it passes regulatory hurdles), I think its all over but the shooting and the shouting. Comcast will become the big elephant. On the other hand, there may come calls to reengage the net neutrality fight and/or force Comcast to divest some assets like their content production operations. Would not be surprised to see some lawsuits over the deal. Guess we'll see what happens.

Interesting information about CenturyLink and Comcast. Sometimes there is a place for Government in commerce. Regulated monopolies (like utility companies) worked fine for many years. I look back at my experiences growing up with Pacific Gas and Electric Co in CA. It worked well for many years, the system was well maintained and profitable. My parents received quarterly dividend checks for a long time. The only reason they deregulated as far as I can tell was for Wall Street, despite the claims of free market advantages. Hasn't happened.

I think the wire into the house should be treated like electric, gas, and water service - a utility and regulated. Whether a private or government entity owns that communication link utility is a decision the community makes. I could see a number of business models. I'm very pleased with our city owned Colorado Springs Utilities for example. Other communities may choose to have a privately owned company install, operate and maintain the network. Regardless, it would be regulated and answerable to a regulatory board made up of citizen elected members.

And there should be just one connection - a single fiber to the house (plus subscriber terminating equipment like a modem). Get rid of separate phone and cable connections. The owner of that wire/fiber will receive a monthly payment from the user (and it can be data rate based - I have no qualms about paying more for higher data rates). The comm network owner have no say over content passing through that link. Fees should be enough to guarantee a profit after installation, operation and maintenance costs, which should result in dividends of reasonable levels for share holders. However there would be no major growth initiatives or expansion into other markets to meet some bogus Wall Street expectation of increasing shareholder value. Also, once that connection is in, you could buy service from any content provider. As we've seen there is a merging taking place between traditional TV and internet content. I think in the long run this would foster true competition between content providers. Naturally, all that I've written will never happen. A utopian dream I suppose. Too few people have too much power at the Federal, state, and local levels.

BTW - Side benefit of a wholesale backbone/last mile network upgrade - It would put a lot of people to work. Kind of like WPA in the 30s. And it would create a stable income source from dividends for shareholders, not to mention a relatively stable stock price, particularly if unrelated mergers and acquisitions were off the table. Oh well, I can dream. LOL
Satcom15 is offline  
post #6823 of 6837 Old 02-13-2014, 10:15 AM
Senior Member
 
Satcom15's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs CO
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgwalsh View Post

There's 20 states where the service providers have won in the courts and blocked the public.

What a surprise.
Satcom15 is offline  
post #6824 of 6837 Old 02-13-2014, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pgwalsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satcom15 View Post

Interesting information about CenturyLink and Comcast. Sometimes there is a place for Government in commerce. Regulated monopolies (like utility companies) worked fine for many years. I look back at my experiences growing up with Pacific Gas and Electric Co in CA. It worked well for many years, the system was well maintained and profitable. My parents received quarterly dividend checks for a long time. The only reason they deregulated as far as I can tell was for Wall Street, despite the claims of free market advantages. Hasn't happened.
PG&E is a nightmare now. They now have huge fees and major taxes. They charge higher rates depending on area and income bracket. So while back in the days there might have been good, that's not the case anymore.

Builds: Maelstrom 21 Ottoman Build, Dual Opposed MFW's x 2, Statements, SEOS-12/TD12M x 5. 
pgwalsh is offline  
post #6825 of 6837 Old 02-13-2014, 04:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Satcom15's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs CO
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgwalsh View Post

PG&E is a nightmare now. They now have huge fees and major taxes. They charge higher rates depending on area and income bracket. So while back in the days there might have been good, that's not the case anymore.

And why is it such a mess? Because its no longer a regulated monopoly, but "competing" in the free markets. Which supports my argument, sometimes regulated monopolies are a good thing. Consider trash pickup in Colorado Springs. Its a "free market". Anyone with a trash truck can offer to pick up your garbage. So what to we have? Garbage trucks going through the neighborhood every day, wasting fuel and polluting the air to make a few stops. Makes you wonder with such piecemeal service, how can they make a profit. Wouldn't it be better to be like most cities and have a single service (regulated, contracted, or owned by the city)? I use that as an example to illustrate sometimes the private sector is not always so efficient.

And with cable companies, I don't know what we have except possibly the worst situation, a monopoly with little regulation or oversight. They are so powerful (or will be) they can buy politicians and skew regulation anyway they want. Look at the head of the FCC, he worked for a cable industry group before joining the FCC. Regulatory heads who come and go with ties to the very industries they are supposedly regulating for the public good? I smell conflict of interest. BTW the FCC is not unique in that respect.

Ahhhhh, I feel better having ranted. biggrin.gif
Satcom15 is offline  
post #6826 of 6837 Old 02-13-2014, 05:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pgwalsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satcom15 View Post

And why is it such a mess? Because its no longer a regulated monopoly, but "competing" in the free markets. Which supports my argument, sometimes regulated monopolies are a good thing. Consider trash pickup in Colorado Springs. Its a "free market". Anyone with a trash truck can offer to pick up your garbage. So what to we have? Garbage trucks going through the neighborhood every day, wasting fuel and polluting the air to make a few stops. Makes you wonder with such piecemeal service, how can they make a profit. Wouldn't it be better to be like most cities and have a single service (regulated, contracted, or owned by the city)? I use that as an example to illustrate sometimes the private sector is not always so efficient.

And with cable companies, I don't know what we have except possibly the worst situation, a monopoly with little regulation or oversight. They are so powerful (or will be) they can buy politicians and skew regulation anyway they want. Look at the head of the FCC, he worked for a cable industry group before joining the FCC. Regulatory heads who come and go with ties to the very industries they are supposedly regulating for the public good? I smell conflict of interest. BTW the FCC is not unique in that respect.

Ahhhhh, I feel better having ranted. biggrin.gif
Man you're off. wink.gif

In San Mateo county you have 1 selection for garbage pick-up and that's Recology. They charge way more that anyone has ever charge in that county. They have a 99 year contract with the county and you have to pay extra for recycle and debris, which we didn't have to pay for perviously. There's no competition, prices are through the roof and citizens are upset. The county made a deal to more than double the rates and the county gets half the money. Don't talk to me about regulated monopoly. I don't need to hear it.

PG&E has no competition in San Mateo. They have a contract just like Recology.

You and I will never see I eye to eye. It's getting more political than I care for within this forum.

Builds: Maelstrom 21 Ottoman Build, Dual Opposed MFW's x 2, Statements, SEOS-12/TD12M x 5. 
pgwalsh is offline  
post #6827 of 6837 Old 02-20-2014, 02:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 26
What we need is more competition in wire line service, not a government run monopoly. That's just simply a bad idea that people keep trying over and over again with the same bad results. CenturyLink is in the process of improvement, and if Google Fiber comes to Colorado Springs it will blow the doors off the market. In Kansas City they are currently not charging for 5 Mbps down, 1 up service, after the $300 construction fee, and 1 Gbps service is $70 a month.

https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/

It's 2014 and you're still paying for television?
 

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #6828 of 6837 Old 02-20-2014, 02:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
scottlindner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

What we need is more competition in wire line service, not a government run monopoly. That's just simply a bad idea that people keep trying over and over again with the same bad results. CenturyLink is in the process of improvement, and if Google Fiber comes to Colorado Springs it will blow the doors off the market. In Kansas City they are currently not charging for 5 Mbps down, 1 up service, after the $300 construction fee, and 1 Gbps service is $70 a month.

https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/

I would gladly pay $300 one time and $70/mo for 1Gbps service. Assuming the QoS doesn't suck and they don't nerf the service like Comcrap does.
scottlindner is offline  
post #6829 of 6837 Old 02-20-2014, 05:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottlindner View Post

I would gladly pay $300 one time and $70/mo for 1Gbps service. Assuming the QoS doesn't suck and they don't nerf the service like Comcrap does.

Google lives off of advertising dollars generated by web traffic. That is why they are willing to give the basic service away for the one time $300 charge. The $300 fee is waved if you sign up for full service. Since I'm paying almost $50 for 7 Mbps down and 0.75 Mbps up, the $70 for 1 Gbps service is unbelievable. I figure I could do everything I do now with the free service. I've also heard rumors that Google wants to offer free "ambient" WiFi service. When that happens other ISPs will have to drop rates and raise speeds just to stay in business.

It's 2014 and you're still paying for television?
 

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #6830 of 6837 Old 02-25-2014, 07:29 PM
Senior Member
 
iowegian3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: southern Colorado
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by noland77 View Post

We are new property owners of a 10 acre lot up in the Sangre De Cristo Ranches area in the SDCR Mountain range. We are at about 8500 elevation and we just put a small cabin on our property. We have a TV and we are experimenting with what type of antenna is needed to pick up OTA stations, which could be as far away as New Mexico, or Pueblo or even farther.

I see so many extreme fringe long range antennas and I have seen anternnas that claim to pick up stations from 150+ miles, while the standard antennas claim a range of about 60 to 65 miles. All I know is I need help from someone who has lived in the area a bit longer than we have. We are south to southwest of I-25, off of Hwy 160, off of Hwy 159 between Fort Garland and San Luis, CO.
I have heard of the DB8e, the Winegard HD-8800,  Channel Master 2020, and the HDB91x. Is there anyone that knows or has had success in that area pulling in more than channel 39? That is the only channel we get. I am thinking we have channels that are close to 100 miles away or furtherWe are in the middle of the mountain range, but we look north down out over the San Luis Valley, so I would think we would be able to pick up other channels. We will have our antenna mounted on a pole anywhere from 10 to 20 ft above the ground, but since we are at 8500, we should have some choices here.

What should we do, what should we buy, how should we mount the antenna and which direction should we point it. We would appreciate any help we can get.

Thanks

MBN

Maybe you've already gotten an answer on this, but most of the TV in the San Luis Valley comes from translators on San Antonio Mtn, just over the state line from Antonito CO. Short answer: you'll want a good outdoor antenna with good line of sight to the southwest. If terrain blocks your view to the southwest, get satellite. Learn more at TV Fool... http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1

www.therenegaderoadhouse.co Southern rock, pop and country favorites play here!
iowegian3 is offline  
post #6831 of 6837 Old 09-08-2014, 01:24 PM
Member
 
rockstar_not's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hoping someone in NE COS can help. Recently, we have had difficulty pulling in KOAA OTA HDTV. This seems to happen now and then and it's only this particular station. It seems everyone in the Springs broadcasts from Cheyenne Mtn, so this must be frequency related. Any clues on how to help reception? Currently using a cheap amplified loop/rabbit ears thing which has worked for about 5 years with little issue.
rockstar_not is offline  
post #6832 of 6837 Old 09-08-2014, 01:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pgwalsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockstar_not View Post
Hoping someone in NE COS can help. Recently, we have had difficulty pulling in KOAA OTA HDTV. This seems to happen now and then and it's only this particular station. It seems everyone in the Springs broadcasts from Cheyenne Mtn, so this must be frequency related. Any clues on how to help reception? Currently using a cheap amplified loop/rabbit ears thing which has worked for about 5 years with little issue.
http://www.antennaweb.org/Stations.a...n=-104.8804893

I have problems pulling in KXRM, but not KOAA. I have an antenna on my house. I do have problems with various stations now and then. You could try an external antenna. Some people make their own.

Builds: Maelstrom 21 Ottoman Build, Dual Opposed MFW's x 2, Statements, SEOS-12/TD12M x 5. 
pgwalsh is offline  
post #6833 of 6837 Old 09-08-2014, 02:02 PM
Member
 
rockstar_not's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgwalsh View Post
http://www.antennaweb.org/Stations.a...n=-104.8804893

I have problems pulling in KXRM, but not KOAA. I have an antenna on my house. I do have problems with various stations now and then. You could try an external antenna. Some people make their own.
According to that anntenaweb link, the only station in the area that is still VHF if PBS, KTSC, correct? I get that station with no issue. So if I make my own antenna, I should only have to make a UHF type antenna, if I understand this correctly if I add the home-made antenna to the existing rabbit ears with a splitter.
rockstar_not is offline  
post #6834 of 6837 Old 09-08-2014, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pgwalsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockstar_not View Post
According to that anntenaweb link, the only station in the area that is still VHF if PBS, KTSC, correct? I get that station with no issue. So if I make my own antenna, I should only have to make a UHF type antenna, if I understand this correctly if I add the home-made antenna to the existing rabbit ears with a splitter.
Usually you can't combine atenna very effectively without something called a diplexer that'll allow you to combine VHF and UHF antennas. You can experiment with different things, but not sure if it'll work - wouldn't hurt to try. I was thinking more inline of an outdoor antenna. I'm not sure how budget limited you are or maybe not at all, but you can make one. There's plenty of DIY instructions online or you can buy one. I added an extensions to my antenna, but didn't notice any difference.

https://www.antennasdirect.com/store/

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...utdoor+antenna

DIY: http://www.tvantennaplans.com

You can also buy an amplifier from Radio Shack or online, but YMMV.

Builds: Maelstrom 21 Ottoman Build, Dual Opposed MFW's x 2, Statements, SEOS-12/TD12M x 5. 

Last edited by pgwalsh; 09-08-2014 at 02:12 PM.
pgwalsh is offline  
post #6835 of 6837 Old 09-08-2014, 02:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
scottlindner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockstar_not View Post
Hoping someone in NE COS can help. Recently, we have had difficulty pulling in KOAA OTA HDTV. This seems to happen now and then and it's only this particular station. It seems everyone in the Springs broadcasts from Cheyenne Mtn, so this must be frequency related. Any clues on how to help reception? Currently using a cheap amplified loop/rabbit ears thing which has worked for about 5 years with little issue.
I put rabbit ears in my attic and they pull all the locals in beautifully. I haven't had any troubles lately but I will test 5.1 tonight to see how it's coming in. Is it a continuous problem or is it intermittent? What time of day do the problems typically happen?
scottlindner is offline  
post #6836 of 6837 Old 09-08-2014, 02:30 PM
Member
 
rockstar_not's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottlindner View Post
I put rabbit ears in my attic and they pull all the locals in beautifully. I haven't had any troubles lately but I will test 5.1 tonight to see how it's coming in. Is it a continuous problem or is it intermittent? What time of day do the problems typically happen?
It seems to have been an issue the past 5 days or so, at various times of the day. Most frustrating last night trying to watch the Broncos game!
rockstar_not is offline  
post #6837 of 6837 Old 09-08-2014, 02:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
scottlindner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockstar_not View Post
It seems to have been an issue the past 5 days or so, at various times of the day. Most frustrating last night trying to watch the Broncos game!
Is it random dropouts? During very large storms I notice drop outs and I have perfect, unobstructed line of sight to the mountain from my house.
scottlindner is offline  
Reply Local HDTV Info and Reception

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off