MeanPeepsSuk
Premium
join:2004-11-21
Muddy Field
clubs:
| reply to jmn1207
Re: Rural General Suckitude
said by jmn1207  :It's digital, so you either get it or you don't. It's not like the analog signals that would vary in quality depending on the strength. Rabbit ears will work just fine. In the case of the testers in Hunterdon County, NJ (~40 miles to NYC and Philly), it was "You don't". The signal strength is just not enough with digital where there once was with analog. For these testers, there was 100% loss of all currently served broadcast channels (2-13).
We're not talking rabbit ears either... Roof antennas only brought in new non-English channels instead. One tester went as far as to head over to radio shack for help, and found out he had to purchase an amplifier to supplement his roof antenna too.
Not directed at you, but to rant on... The sad reality is, as it is now, is that people would have to shell out $300 for roof antenna if they don't have one... and an amp for $?, not to mention the cost of the converter (even with 1 coupon).. While some may say, switch to something else... That is not the point here. Broadcast TV is supposed to be free to masses. Should people buy roof antennas and amps for the portable TVs? I know I'd miss mine in the garage that I also take camping.
If the FCC can't handle DTV in a metro-NYC area by calling it "rural fringe", what's going to happen in all areas that isn't within 35 miles of a tower? A coupon for 1 converter isn't going to do it. |
|
utahluge
join:2004-10-14
Draper, UT | reply to BabyBear
Hasn't stopped Apple.  |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to MeanPeepsSuk
Good info. I was not aware that this was going to be such a problem. If nothing else, a huge tax break should be warranted to anyone that requires any extra equipment; perhaps to the tune of everything purchased should be deducted, and anything extra should be added to a refund or put forth as future deductions until it is recovered. That is, unless the FCC comes up with a viable solution. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to older dog
They should have made USA DTV be encoded in CDMA. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
1 edit | reply to djrobx
said by djrobx : I cringe when people say OTA is superior because it's "uncompressed". Agree, most people don't realize an uncompressed 1080i or 720p raw bit stream is over a Gigabit per second. Lossy compression is used to reduce it to around 20 mbps.
Compression can be used to reduced data rate to anything desired. However, greater the level of compression the poorer the image/motion quality.
/tom |
|
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
 ·Midcontinent Commu..
| reply to jmn1207
unfortunately, the only fix for many in the "rural fringe" that are NOT simply 40 miles from a metro area is more antenna transmitters or more power at the transmitter
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE!
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ |
|
grydlok
join:2004-01-06
Richmond, VA | reply to jmn1207
Reston isn't even close to being Rural.
Try that in Culpepper Va. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by grydlok :Reston isn't even close to being Rural. Try that in Culpepper Va. Oh I know, this is a suburb of DC. I don't have any issues, in fact, I use Comcast AND have Verizon FiOS available here, too. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to MeanPeepsSuk
said by MeanPeepsSuk :Broadcast TV is supposed to be free to masses. To rant in the other direction, OTA broadcasts are still as "free" as the were before. You had to purchase a TV and some form of antenna (even if it was a coat hanger) before, so watching OTA broadcasts has never really been free. Granted some people may have sunk the cost of their TV and coat hanger decades ago and may have forgotten that initial outlay.
You can get a very good quality antenna for a lot less than $300. Also, with a good antenna, depending on the length of your coax run, you may not really need an amp. LoS, environment, transmitter elevation and power, quality of receiver and antenna, etc. all play into OTA reception. I don't have a problem receiving channels that are broadcast from 50 miles away...without an amp. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by openbox9 :said by MeanPeepsSuk :Broadcast TV is supposed to be free to masses. To rant in the other direction, OTA broadcasts are still as "free" as the were before. You had to purchase a TV and some form of antenna (even if it was a coat hanger) before, so watching OTA broadcasts has never really been free. Granted some people may have sunk the cost of their TV and coat hanger decades ago and may have forgotten that initial outlay. You can get a very good quality antenna for a lot less than $300. Also, with a good antenna, depending on the length of your coax run, you may not really need an amp. LoS, environment, transmitter elevation and power, quality of receiver and antenna, etc. all play into OTA reception. I don't have a problem receiving channels that are broadcast from 50 miles away...without an amp. Says the person that lives in the flattest state in the union. Your mileage may vary in other regions. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | I realize that, hence my caveat about "LoS, environment, transmitter elevation and power, quality of receiver and antenna, etc." all playing into reception. |
|
grydlok
join:2004-01-06
Richmond, VA
1 edit | reply to jmn1207
Yeah but telling somebody you have no problems what so ever picking up OTA channels with a set a coat hanger is a joke. You are like 20 miles from the towers. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Yes, a joke. |
|
MeanPeepsSuk
Premium
join:2004-11-21
Muddy Field
clubs:
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :To rant in the other direction, OTA broadcasts are still as "free" as the were before. .... You can get a very good quality antenna for a lot less than $300. .... .. I don't have a problem receiving channels that are broadcast from 50 miles away...without an amp. Dude, no offense, but do you really think that's the answer here? Requiring people to invest in a lot of equipment to get a local television broadcast?
Do you not think there might be a better way to do this? Surely the technology is there, don't you think?
Should people with portables that take them on boats or camping, or kept for emergencies, just chuck them for lack of a roof mount and amp?
As for you getting great reception in flatland Florida at 50 miles... Should we flatten the hills and mountains too elsewhere?
It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, I just don't agree that it has to be this way ... because it doesn't. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by MeanPeepsSuk :Dude, no offense, but do you really think that's the answer here? Requiring people to invest in a lot of equipment to get a local television broadcast? No offense taken. Personally, I don't see people having to invest in a "lot" of equipment. Unless you have channels broadcast in VHF-low, you can get a very high quality antenna to catch VHF-high and UHF signals for ~$75. Throw in the FCC's coupon subsidized tuner and a lot of people will be set.said by MeanPeepsSuk :Do you not think there might be a better way to do this? Surely the technology is there, don't you think? I'm open to suggestions.said by MeanPeepsSuk :Should people with portables that take them on boats or camping, or kept for emergencies, just chuck them for lack of a roof mount and amp? These scenarios may present a challenge. But depending on where you're camping or boating you may be able to receive quality OTA signals.said by MeanPeepsSuk :It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, I just don't agree that it has to be this way ... because it doesn't. So you prefer to maintain the analog broadcast system wasting precious spectrum? As I said, present alternatives that don't involve continued use of 60 year old technology and I'm all ears. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to tschmidt
said by tschmidt :Conversion to DTV is actually increasing number of people using over the air antennas. OTA typically has better picture quality then Cable or sat because it is not recompressed to reduce bandwidth usage. In addition in these poor economic times I'd be willing to bet some folk are going back to OTA to save money. /tom My neighbor put up an outside antenna just for that reason, much better signal than Dish or Comcast, but he kept Dish for the extra programming he gets.
We and a few of our neighbors who have gotten the boxes have seen a bit better signal on the digital modes than with the analog. But the digital modes do have some odd display formats (vertical letter box vice horizontal?), but that may just be the wife not wanting to adjust for the different modes with the control. (caveat: I do not watch TV very much, very little worth watching any more)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| reply to MeanPeepsSuk
Antenna cost is odd.
You need to get the antenna that works for the frequencies you want from the place you want. Rabbit ears suck for HD because they work best for VHF...of which ATSC doesn't broadscast a lot of stations in.
Get a nice Channelmaster 4228 directional antenna and pick up stations from 40 miles away with ease like me.
»www.hdtvantennalabs.com/reviews/···ews.html
Only costs about 75$. |
|
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone
| reply to older dog
that would help increase bandwidth efficiency so you could get a better picture or sound, but not raw signal strength.
cell phones work because there are towers all over the place. If you paid $50/mo for tv service you could have similar land based radio coverage. |
|
MeanPeepsSuk
Premium
join:2004-11-21
Muddy Field
clubs:
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :So you prefer to maintain the analog broadcast system wasting precious spectrum? As I said, present alternatives that don't involve continued use of 60 year old technology and I'm all ears. No, not at all. I don't prefer analog nor keeping the system, and I am not advocating that.
What at issue here is the system as they have proposed is not going to work as the FCC has proposed. And we are not talking about just a little bit of fringe areas here that they want to call "rural" as they would like you to believe.
Expecting anyone to invest one dollar beyond the reasonable converter is ridiculous in this economy, especially to the people most effected.
Why? Because either the FCC had no idea it wasn't going to work as stated (??) or they did and wanted everyone to shoulder the cost. That might be okay with you, but it isn't with me.
The investment to make this work needs to be at the FCCs end, not the people whom they are "supposed" to serve.
Here's an idea: Let them erect new digital towers to bring service to the areas that were already served... and pay for it with the billions they got for the spectrum.
Thanks for the dialog. |
|
Some Rural guy
@ilstu.edu | reply to SilverSurfer
don't forget about the biggest rip off all time Satellite internet. When you live out in the middle of no ware it the only broadband you can get, if you can call it that. To make things worst it about a 200 meg daily download cap :-( |
|
