or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Chicago, IL - OTA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chicago, IL - OTA - Page 385

post #11521 of 12034
Quote:
Originally Posted by giomania View Post

Last night, I re-scanned my three TV's (Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp) connected to the attic-mounted antenna to pick up Channel 7 on RF44, because none of them had the channel any longer, obviously. Interestingly, I have a small 20" TV in the kitchen (Vizio, I think) connected to rabbit ears, and that did not need to be re-scanned.

Mark

I forgot about my Silicon Dust HD Homerun network tuner, which did not need to be re-scanned.

Mark
post #11522 of 12034
If they were already using RF44 for WLS, then no, they wouldn't need to be rescanned.
post #11523 of 12034
On my little DTT that I use for occasional checking (I have Comcast for normal use, and the TV is normally connected direct to cable if I want to check ClearQAM), all I had to do was go into the manual tune mode in the menus and turn off RF7.
post #11524 of 12034
Well it looks like WLS wants to relight RF7 for only one month. They filed the STA. The notice states that the station was forced to use one of its auxiliary facilities, because of accumulating ice backup on the main 44 facility.
post #11525 of 12034
That shouldn't be a problem in the next couple of days.
post #11526 of 12034
Maybe for those in the city, WLS-TV on RF 7 was a problem, but it didn't seem to be the case for suburbanites that could easily use outdoor antennas. I still believe it would have been in their best interest to use the CP they got for a UHF translator. Over the weekend, their signal kept breaking up. It was making both my mom & I mad while trying to watch AFV & the local news. I see this whole RF 44 problem not being resolved anytime soon. I wouldn't be surprised if the filters that are supposed to be in place aren't working properly, as their first adjacent stations are WCPX on RF 43 & WSNS on RF 45. As much as people won't like my suggestion, but they need to go back to RF 7 permanently, & apply for a new UHF translator for those in the city & nearby suburbs. It would be a lot less troublesome in my opinion.
post #11527 of 12034
Thanks for the warning about the relighting of RF7; now I'll know not to rescan the two tuners that get confused by receiving two virtual 7.1's, 7.2's, and 7.3's until I can make sure on one of the other tuners that there's only one of each again.
post #11528 of 12034

Went to turn on the Flubs game, from 12:35 until 3:00, when the Sox come on, but discovered that Antenna TV has The Stooges on all day.

 

No contest between what I'll be watching for the next two and a half hours.


Edited by Rammitinski - 4/1/13 at 12:26pm
post #11529 of 12034
There is a new service ( https://www.aereo.com/ ) that is offered in NYC and soon coming to Chicago (and other cities) that picks up OTA transmissions and redistributes the signal via Ethernet to the consumer. The difference between this and cable, is the consumer has their own individual antenna at the receiver site. This service checks your computer IP address to make certain you are in Chicago to receive a Chicago TV station. This eliminates the redistribution charge normally charged to the cable/satellite companies.They also offer a DVR with the service.
I assume that TV's will soon be made to use this service just like they do with netflix.
post #11530 of 12034
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnielsen View Post

This service checks your computer IP address to make certain you are in Chicago to receive a Chicago TV station.

Not entirely true; I just tried it down here, & as I had already heard, it's based on where your credit card billing address is... wink.gif
post #11531 of 12034

Charging $80/yr. for free TV. rolleyes.gif

 

Next thing you know, people will be willing to pay for bottled tap water. wink.gif

post #11532 of 12034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

Charging $80/yr. for free TV. rolleyes.gif


Next thing you know, people will be willing to pay for bottled tap water. wink.gif

You're paying for the delivery of the programming which includes portability. In many metro areas, apartment dwellers are often SOL when it comes to indoor reception due to the effects that steel and concrete have on ATSC signals. Delivery of the content by internet makes sense for such folks.
post #11533 of 12034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

Charging $80/yr. for free TV. 
They're charging for reliable reception and for timeshifting services.  Free OTA does not guarantee the former and requires separately purchased add-ons for the latter.
post #11534 of 12034
Mind you, OTA time shifting doesn't usually require a service contract, unless you're using a slingbox or something. Usually, it's "take a media center computer, add media center software, add TV tuner." A larger upfront investment, yes, but without a monthly fee beyond the electricity to power the whole thing.
post #11535 of 12034
It is too easy just to receive a OTA signal and just watch it. No need for pay services to give you tv. We have been unplugged from cable and satellite for years. Just get our signal from Chicago for all the stations except Wbbm channel 2. Aim another antenna at Rockford to get CBS out there. Both antennas in the attic, will never need replacing because of wind damage and rust. We use Netflix streaming as a movie fix.
post #11536 of 12034
post #11537 of 12034
Quote:
[sarcasm]Sure they will.[/sarcasm]
post #11538 of 12034
Thread Starter 
Exactly. And if they do, I guess ABC, CBS or NBC gets the NFL, MLB, and NASCAR races. Which are the breadwinners for the network.
post #11539 of 12034
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by re_nelson View Post

I think we all were guilty of having "irrational exuberance" about how DTV would perform on VHF in general and high VHF in particular. Gilbert, don't hate me for this. smile.gif But go back to post #5193 in this thread (as proof that I really did read the whole thing, every one of 'em a few months back). Both you and WBBMTOM were anticipating great things concerning what WBBM-TV's performance would be on RF-12. At that time, pre-transition, 8 kw at ~1660' was thought to be one of the more potent facilities in Chicagoland.

And then...as it has a tendency to do, reality struck on that fateful day of June 12, 2009. The great thing (or maybe the bad thing) about AVS is that all of the posts live forever and we all end up eating crow when our prophecies don't come to pass. I just funnin' with you, Gilbert, in a good natured way on this subject. The poor soul whose sky-high expectations came crashing down on the big day was Hank Volpe of ABC's WPVI in Philadelphia:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0110/tv-and-the-mystique-of-channel-/201146

...all of which proves that there's the mystery of voodoo, which is trumped only by the black magic of RF! smile.gif

Holy cow, I missed this one..LOL! True, Bob! Well, how do I say this: VHF does have great potential, as long as it is given enough power. I still get channel 2 decently from my attic antenna out in DeKalb, but...a friend who put up a new antenna in his new home attic in Elburn is getting signal-pegging levels on everything but WBBM...but that is due to multipath from the attic (signal bounces from 0 to nearly pegged, a telltale sign).
But make no mistake about it, VHF-LO is dead unless it gets even a lot more power than it's analog power it used to have. VHF-HI does work better in mountainous/hilly terrain. But we need more power, Scotty! biggrin.gif
post #11540 of 12034
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebenste View Post

Holy cow, I missed this one..LOL! True, Bob! Well, how do I say this: VHF does have great potential, as long as it is given enough power. I still get channel 2 decently from my attic antenna out in DeKalb...

Thanks for the response Gilbert. As I recall, it's the classic CM-4228 that you're using out in DeKalb to pull in WBBM on RF-12? Not that you need it, but I'm curious how a dedicated high-VHF would do there at your distance and their power.
post #11541 of 12034
I don't know if this can be answered here. But, how much of a stations budget is the power to supply the transmitter? This is kind of a rhetorical question. I'm not looking for exact figures. Said another way, besides the FCC, is raising the transmitter power going to bust the budget of a ota station?
post #11542 of 12034
Holy cow whats going on with the U? The bulls game is Microblock hell! I have never seen it this bad. It looks like an SD Youtube feed.
post #11543 of 12034
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by re_nelson View Post

Thanks for the response Gilbert. As I recall, it's the classic CM-4228 that you're using out in DeKalb to pull in WBBM on RF-12? Not that you need it, but I'm curious how a dedicated high-VHF would do there at your distance and their power.

Actually, it's a large Winegard (long since out of production) VHF 2-13 antenna. I don't have the model, but it's 13' long.
post #11544 of 12034
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnielsen View Post

I don't know if this can be answered here. But, how much of a stations budget is the power to supply the transmitter? This is kind of a rhetorical question. I'm not looking for exact figures. Said another way, besides the FCC, is raising the transmitter power going to bust the budget of a ota station?


A full power station can run $10,000/month. Not cheap.
post #11545 of 12034
Thread Starter 
I see it. Engineering has been notified.
post #11546 of 12034
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebenste View Post

A full power station can run $10,000/month. Not cheap.

Thank you for that info. Compared to some "smallish" websites that I know, their datacenter costs (all cloud based) can be $30,000-40,000 per month. I would guess that every station's website costs more per month to run than their transmitter electricity bill.
post #11547 of 12034
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_TV View Post

Thank you for that info. Compared to some "smallish" websites that I know, their datacenter costs (all cloud based) can be $30,000-40,000 per month. I would guess that every station's website costs more per month to run than their transmitter electricity bill.

Actually, that varies widely. Smaller stations or small market stations may only upload a few news stories a day. That doesn't cost much. But, WLS in Chicago streams their newscasts, had two transmitters going, and the one remaining is 50 kilowatts actual electricity to make 1 million watts Effective Radiated Power (ERP)...THAT isn't cheap.
post #11548 of 12034
Movies! Ch 32.2?
post #11549 of 12034
Quote:
Originally Posted by chgo1967 View Post

Movies! Ch 32.2?

Trip posted elsewhere that they're supposed to launch at the end of May.
post #11550 of 12034
Is Channel 22 WRKJ broadcasting anything. When I rescanned my TVs and DVRs for Channel 7 going dark, the tuners found Channel 22. But whenever I tune there, I get no signal. If the station is licensed to Arlington Heights and is broadcasting from the Hancock, I should be able to receive it in Des Plaines. I have no problem getting a great signal on all the other low powers (except 25) in the Chicago area with my outdoor antenna pointing downtown. Any ideas?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Chicago, IL - OTA