I Want Analog
@swbell.net
| Rural Areas and Signal Strength
I live about 30 to 45 miles from broadcast towers and have already purchased a converter box. Nearly every day there is enough loss of signal that some pixelation of a show will occur. It will only get worse during winter months which always tend to have degraded signals.
Has the FCC really thought about what will occur in rural areas where only one station is often all folk can receive, and that station with poor signal?
I'm willing to bet that a very large number of rural folk will be left without television viewing, folk that can't afford to pay for satellite systems and subscriptions.
On the other hand there is such little programming of interest to older folk perhaps it simply doesn't matter.
Now where did I lay that library book? |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| When the switch occurs, channels whose analog channels on on the VHF-high frequencies (7-13) will for the most part go back to their previous VHF channels for digital- this should improve reception of the digital channels.
Note that the VHF-low frequencies are actually prone more to distortion of digital signals than even UHF, so those channels won't be used (with a few exceptions) |
|
jdre
join:2008-03-27
| All 5 of my local full power stations went off the air last week, during the night 1:45 AM. For about 1/2 hour. One station had a message they were going off for "maintenance". I think they may have had to work on the transmitter antennas which are all in one location, or it was DTV transition test. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
4 edits | reply to EPS
said by EPS  :When the switch occurs, channels whose analog channels on on the VHF-high frequencies (7-13) will for the most part go back to their previous VHF channels for digital- this should improve reception of the digital channels. Note that the VHF-low frequencies are actually prone more to distortion of digital signals than even UHF, so those channels won't be used (with a few exceptions) Any TV station that stays on low VHF is owned by IDIOTS! Those channels are the absolute WORST for HDTV! Ironically, there are only about THIRTY of them, and those 30 stations will be taking up 30 mHz of prime VHF spectrum in the entire USA that could be well used for other services (like many of us who want to extend the FM band from the current 88-108 to 76-108).
This is just another example of how poor a job the FCC does at regulating spectrum! The biggest peoblem is that the FCC has NO ENGINEERS as Commissioners; they are all lawyers. So, decisions that directly involve physics instead are made based upon politics. Unfortunately, even a lawyer can't override the laws of physics-they are what they are.
What's really going to be interesting is all the people who turn their DTV sets on the morning of February 17th to find that they can't receive half their favorite DTV stations. There are two BIG problems; first, every DTV set will have to be re-programmed because many DTV stations will be moving back to their current VHF or UHF analog channels in that overnight-and second, since most current DTV stations broadcast on UHF, many DTV owners have bought amplified indoor TV antennas that only work on UHF. These antennas won't pull in VHF DTV stations well, if at all.
The way around this would have been for the FCC to mandate that all indoor antennas work on both VHF and UHF, but lawyers are too STUPID and IGNORANT of the physics to figure that out. As a result, there is going to be chaos out in TV land come mid Feb. |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to I Want Analog
I guess you can say I live in a rural area. I get 5 stations:
Fox Analog
Fox Digital
Fox HDTV
PBS
PBS Digital.
Fox analog is in b/w most of the time, the digitals aren't too watchable, it depends where people are walking.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to qworster
said by qworster :The way around this would have been for the FCC to mandate that all indoor antennas work on both VHF and UHF, but lawyers are too STUPID and IGNORANT of the physics to figure that out. As a result, there is going to be chaos out in TV land come mid Feb. I disagree. I think we have enough stupid regulation to start regulating what sort of TV antennas can be sold, imported or manufatured.
It's all a big show to distract people from the *REAL* issues.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
Arctic nut
join:2006-11-26
Thief River Falls, MN
1 edit | reply to I Want Analog
Duplicate post deleted. |
|
Arctic nut
join:2006-11-26
Thief River Falls, MN
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
 ·Alltel Axess
| reply to I Want Analog
said by I Want Analog :
I live about 30 to 45 miles from broadcast towers and have already purchased a converter box. Nearly every day there is enough loss of signal that some pixelation of a show will occur. .....
Now where did I lay that library book?
I'm in the same boat here. I get one station from Grand Forks, ND in digital. Some days are OK and others it's not viewable. There's nothing on worth watching so I guess it will be the marketers’ loss.  As for Washington knowing this will likely leave a good bit of rural America without an OTA signal...they don't care. As usual, they saw the dollar signs. As we all know, inside the Beltway, cash trumps the public interest every time.
Some will have DTV and HDTV and those of us rural folk who refuse to be ripped off by DTV and DISH will have NOTV |
|
antwanp
Beyond FM, Beyond AM, XM Satellite Radio
Premium
join:2002-05-14
Cedar Hill, TX
clubs:  | For rural areas, don't Low Powered stations have exemptions from the switchover? I know at my University in Nacogdoches, TXd, some of the LP Repeater stations are going to stay live after the switch. |
|
jimk
Premium
join:2006-04-15
Raleigh, NC
·AT&T Southeast
·RoadRunner Cable
| Low power stations are exempt from the digital requirement for now, rural or not. They may go digital, but can stay analog as well.
Interestingly, Wilmington's CBS affiliate (WILM) is low power, but they are already broadcasting as low power digital in prep for the transition. I suspect that many LP stations that are own by larger companies or are affiliates of major networks will switch to digital, while smaller community or college stations won't make the switch for now. But that is just pure speculation on my part.
Translator stations, which are all low power, will be able to stay analog as well. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to qworster
said by qworster :Any TV station that stays on low VHF is owned by IDIOTS! Those channels are the absolute WORST for HDTV! Ironically, there are only about THIRTY of them, and those 30 stations will be taking up 30 mHz of prime VHF spectrum in the entire USA that could be well used for other services (like many of us who want to extend the FM band from the current 88-108 to 76-108). So where would you put WPVI? There's no channels available in the area on VHF-Hi or UHF.
As for FM... now there's a waste. FM contains nothing but duplicate stations now, why give it MORE spectrum? |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| None? Wow, you guys must have a ton of channels in PA...
But I agree that extending the FM radio spectrum probably wouldn't be too useful- I think we'd be better off breaking up the mega-radio conglomerates and allowing for more local stations (on the other hand, the two aren't mutually exclusive, and locally-owned stations aren't necessarily local or more interesting than mega-corp owned, so argh)
I suppose the same issues that make VHF-Lo bad for ATSC television would preclude the use of that spectrum for other digital purposes. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
4 edits | said by EPS :None? Wow, you guys must have a ton of channels in PA... But I agree that extending the FM radio spectrum probably wouldn't be too useful- I think we'd be better off breaking up the mega-radio conglomerates and allowing for more local stations (on the other hand, the two aren't mutually exclusive, and locally-owned stations aren't necessarily local or more interesting than mega-corp owned, so argh) I suppose the same issues that make VHF-Lo bad for ATSC television would preclude the use of that spectrum for other digital purposes. WPVI could easily go on one of the High VHF or UHF channels that are being given back after the changeover. Reemeber, right now each TV station has TWO channels-that will be reduced to one in Feb., freeing up a ton of channels. Also, remember that unlike NTSC stations (that required a vacant channel between two in the same city-which is why you had to have have channels 7,9,11 and 13 in the same city), with ATSC you can use adjacent channels, which means that in Philadelphia channels 7,9,11, and 13 will eventually be allotted (the spacing between DTV transmitters is about 3/4 that of NTSC, which means that these channels can be used in both NYC and Philadelphia).
Right now we're in a mixed mode, which means that NTSC channels are still being (over) protected.
I disagree about the FM band being extended. This spectrum is badly needed for several reasons. First, there's no distinct place to put digital radio (and remember, analog radio is almost 100 years old!). As a result we have the fatally flawed IBOC HD radio systen that's going nowhere. Second, the AM band is badly overcrowded-and by extending the FM band and moving many of the smaller AM stations over to it, the AM band will be able to once again be used for its primary advantage-powerful 50,000 watt AM stations covering a large swath of area. These stations are still badly needed-as an example look at the valuable service that WWL performed in New Orleans after Katrina (and may be performing again in a few days!).
Finally, the top of the present FM band is right against the aviation band. Powerful FM stations frequently interfere with aircraft communications. By extending the band downwards, it would be simple to eventually put a 1 mHz 'guard band' between the two services.
Don't you agree that having 30 stations occupying 30 Mhz of VHF spectrum in the entire USA is wasteful? I would much rather see channels 2,3 and 4 used for Hobbiest use and/or short to medium range (2-5 miles) wireless Internet. The equipment costs for this band would be dirt cheap and it would produce a whole new industry. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to I Want Analog
After the drop of analog, a lot (not all) of the stations will be turning up the power of the digital signal. Take a look at:
»www.tvfool.com/index.php?option=···temid=29
Make sure to look at the before and after cutoff data for your area. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Arctic nut
said by Arctic nut :said by I Want Analog :
I live about 30 to 45 miles from broadcast towers and have already purchased a converter box. Nearly every day there is enough loss of signal that some pixelation of a show will occur. .....
Now where did I lay that library book?
I'm in the same boat here. I get one station from Grand Forks, ND in digital. Some days are OK and others it's not viewable. There's nothing on worth watching so I guess it will be the marketers’ loss. As for Washington knowing this will likely leave a good bit of rural America without an OTA signal...they don't care. As usual, they saw the dollar signs. As we all know, inside the Beltway, cash trumps the public interest every time. Some will have DTV and HDTV and those of us rural folk who refuse to be ripped off by DTV and DISH will have NOTV first of all if you can get a station in with analog OTA then that station is required by law to be able to reach you with a digital signal.
before people go getting their panties in a wad wait until AFTER the actual transition before complaining. It's KNOWN FACT that once the transition takes place that station will be switching assignments so the digital signal gets the better one since the analog channel will no longer be necessary. Of course right now the analog will get the better assignment so that way the digital one doesn't come in as good. o course less whining and more research and you would have figured this out. This isn't complicated stuff if you bother looking stuff up. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to qworster
said by qworster :WPVI could easily go on one of the High VHF or UHF channels that are being given back after the changeover. No, it can't. 7,11, and 13 are full power in New York and would result in interference with a full power in Philly. Channel 8 is in New Jersey, same problem. Channel 9 Allentown. Channel 10, Harrisburg, channel 12 Philadelphia. That's VHF-Hi.
All the UHF stations are also taken or precluded by interference issues; there's no room for a full-power station.
Reemeber, right now each TV station has TWO channels-that will be reduced to one in Feb., freeing up a ton of channels.
Remember we're losing 52-69.
which means that in Philadelphia channels 7,9,11, and 13 will eventually be allotted (the spacing between DTV transmitters is about 3/4 that of NTSC, which means that these channels can be used in both NYC and Philadelphia).
No, they cannot. There's also Baltimore to consider with those. |
|
Stojko
Premium
join:2007-10-20
St John'S, NL
·NBTel now Aliant
| reply to Arctic nut
said by Arctic nut :said by I Want Analog :
I live about 30 to 45 miles from broadcast towers and have already purchased a converter box. Nearly every day there is enough loss of signal that some pixelation of a show will occur. .....
Now where did I lay that library book?
I'm in the same boat here. I get one station from Grand Forks, ND in digital. Some days are OK and others it's not viewable. There's nothing on worth watching so I guess it will be the marketers’ loss. As for Washington knowing this will likely leave a good bit of rural America without an OTA signal...they don't care. As usual, they saw the dollar signs. As we all know, inside the Beltway, cash trumps the public interest every time. Some will have DTV and HDTV and those of us rural folk who refuse to be ripped off by DTV and DISH will have NOTV And that's the sad truth.  |
|
Arctic nut
join:2006-11-26
Thief River Falls, MN
·HughesNet Satellit..
·Alltel Axess
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :said by Arctic nut :said by I Want Analog :
I live about 30 to 45 miles from broadcast towers and have already purchased a converter box. Nearly every day there is enough loss of signal that some pixelation of a show will occur. .....
Now where did I lay that library book?
I'm in the same boat here. I get one station from Grand Forks, ND in digital. Some days are OK and others it's not viewable. There's nothing on worth watching so I guess it will be the marketers’ loss. As for Washington knowing this will likely leave a good bit of rural America without an OTA signal...they don't care. As usual, they saw the dollar signs. As we all know, inside the Beltway, cash trumps the public interest every time. Some will have DTV and HDTV and those of us rural folk who refuse to be ripped off by DTV and DISH will have NOTV first of all if you can get a station in with analog OTA then that station is required by law to be able to reach you with a digital signal. before people go getting their panties in a wad wait until AFTER the actual transition before complaining. It's KNOWN FACT that once the transition takes place that station will be switching assignments so the digital signal gets the better one since the analog channel will no longer be necessary. Of course right now the analog will get the better assignment so that way the digital one doesn't come in as good. o course less whining and more research and you would have figured this out. This isn't complicated stuff if you bother looking stuff up. From the tone of your reply, the only panties in a wad appear to be yours. As for your KNOWN FACT statement, the site below clearly indicates that several of the network stations local to me are NOT changing their frequency assignment post transition nor are they increasing their power output. If you had bothered looking stuff up before posting, you might have found you know less than you think.
»www.tvfool.com/index.php?option=···temid=29 |
|
