said by jay_rm :

In the little testing I've done, the analog quality would have extra-high suckage. I've seen perfect DTV picture quality with no drop-outs when the equivalent analog channel was so snowy it was no more then a ghosted black & white eye-hurting remnant of itself. Looks to me that the DTV signals need very low S/N to work just great.

said by MeanPeepsSuk :

Come on now, this is getting silly. If you looked at the chart none of those, with the exception of 29, broadcast now strong enough to reach to the area in question either because they are already getting and are served by (analog #) 2-13.

The area still loses their digital equivalent of 2-13 which is what you questioned and disbelieved.

said by russotto :

Try again. Philadelphia FOX is WTXF-29, Philadelphia CW is WPSG-57, Philadelphia MNT is WPHL-17. WLVT-39 is PBS out of Allentown, 25 miles away.

said by russotto :

Try again. Philadelphia FOX is WTXF-29, Philadelphia CW is WPSG-57, Philadelphia MNT is WPHL-17. WLVT-39 is PBS out of Allentown, 25 miles away. WBPH-60 and WFMZ-69 are also out of Allentown (and in English). The people Teletruth are using as examples aren't getting these stations now. Know why? Because they are using an antenna that has been inadequate for decades, that's why! UHF broadcasting started in 1952!

Of course they need a mounted antenna, they're 40 miles away from the nearest stations! I'm about 20 miles away and I need an antenna to get decent picture on the analog stations.

said by MeanPeepsSuk :


I didn't say there were not other channels. What I did say was that they couldn't get the current analog 2-13. The focus on those is the fact that those contain the network channels (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX), local Philly/NYC and 1 PBS station. Anything above that, that you listed, is currently either 50 miles away or more and/or PBS stations (4); and/or foreign language. One I couldn't even find.

I don't think you realize, but you are actually proving the point. That this area would need some kind of mounted antenna at the very least.

said by russotto :

The currently available signals in Hunterdon County are not only 2-13. They are 2-13,17,29,31,39,41,45,52,60,69,etc.

said by russotto :

If someone there is only getting 2-13, it's a red flag that they have only a VHF antenna, which is only capable of getting 2-13. The only digital signal currently on VHF is WNJB 58.1, on RF 8. And lo and behold, that's what "teletruth's" report shows -- no digitals except 58.1.

said by MeanPeepsSuk :

I am sorry that I was confusing with my statement of "currently served broadcast channels (2-13)". "Currently served" referred to the analog channels currently available. "2-13" is their analog channels now, not their digital ones.

After converting to digital, the digital equivalents of 2-13 were no longer available. That is CBS-NY, CBS-PA, FOX-NY, ABC-PA, ABC-NY, WOR-NY. CW-NY, PBS-NY.

said by russotto :

Yeah. Because there are no digital stations currently transmitting on 2-13. Talk about a rigged test...

said by openbox9 :

That's where we diverge in expectation. I don't believe the converter coupons should have been handed out in the first place. I believe that if consumers desire to watch television, they should bear the full cost of doing so, to include purchasing a TV, antenna, tuner, coax, couch to sit on, etc. I don't believe the government should be in the business of subsidizing our TV viewing habits.

said by openbox9 :

My pleasure. I enjoy meaningful discussion instead of the typical typical finger pointing and name calling that tends to be the norm around here.

said by TKJunkMail :

The issue is that the digital signal has a sharp cutoff where you either get the signal or not. The analog signal would degrade over distance but still provide a viewable channel, even if the quality sucked.

said by TKJunkMail :

The coupons, as long as the money is available, were available to all - even those with satellite & cable. I got two for myself and two for my parents house.

said by MeanPeepsSuk :

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).

said by tschmidt :

The only people eligible for coupons are those who relay on over the air. If you have Cable or Satellite no coupon for you. Plus households are limited to max of two coupons.

said by wcnghj :

I wonder if we could get a big enough antenna to get signal 70 miles away.

said by StudioTech :

Actually, in Philly, it's WPVI-DT (the ABC station) that's moving their digital signal back to VHF-Lo, not KYW-DT.

said by openbox9 :

Do you know that you need to amp your antenna, or are you assuming that you need to? Long cable run?

said by openbox9 :

My 4228 serves me well.

said by openbox9 :

I don't believe the converter coupons should have been handed out in the first place. I don't believe the government should be in the business of subsidizing our TV viewing habits.

said by openbox9 :

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.

said by TKJunkMail :

And I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC also allowed adjustments in transmitted power so that the digital stations get a further reach

said by Oleg :

This days everyone has digital cable or satellite anyway.

said by MeanPeepsSuk :

Expecting anyone to invest one dollar beyond the reasonable converter is ridiculous in this economy, especially to the people most effected.

said by MeanPeepsSuk :

Thanks for the dialog.

said by Oleg :

This days everyone has digital cable or satellite anyway.

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.

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

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

said by openbox9 :

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.

said by MeanPeepsSuk :

Broadcast TV is supposed to be free to masses.

said by grydlok :

Reston isn't even close to being Rural.
Try that in Culpepper Va.

said by djrobx :

I cringe when people say OTA is superior because it's "uncompressed".

Hasn't stopped Apple. ;)

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.

said by TKJunkMail :

That is not always true as these 2 Philadelphia, PA channels indicate.

said by tschmidt :

OTA typically has better picture quality then Cable or sat because it is not recompressed to reduce bandwidth usage.

said by DrModem :

That's the same percentage of people who ... have dialup, but no one caters to that class.

said by Oleg :

everyone has digital cable or satellite anyway.

said by Morac :

Many of those stations are currently broadcasting in the UHF frequency range, but will switch to VHF after Feb 17, 2009.

For example Philadelphia's KWY-DT (CBS) is currently broadcasting on a UHF frequency (don't have it in front of me at the moment), but will switch to channel 3 after the switchover. That means people who can receive the channel now, might not be able to get it after the transition.

See »www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthre···t=823166

said by DrModem :

That's the same percentage of people... ...but no one caters to that class.

said by DrModem :

That's the same percentage of people who (supposedly) still have dialup, but no one caters to that class.

Why should this be any different just because it's TV?

said by TKJunkMail :

And I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC also allowed adjustments in transmitted power so that the digital stations get a further reach(similar to the analog coverage) in order to cover areas like those on the map in orange.

said by TKJunkMail :

And I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC also allowed adjustments in transmitted power so that the digital stations get a further reach(similar to the analog coverage) in order to cover areas like those on the map in orange.

said by jmn1207 :

And here I thought the FCC had conducted tests to ensure that the coverage would not be diminished when the switch to digital was made.

said by Oleg :

This days everyone has digital cable or satellite anyway.

said by jmn1207 :

Why can't you use rabbit ears? I can pick up digital stations using a wire coat hanger with no degradation in quality. 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.

said by SilverSurfer :

I don't know which is worse in rural areas...the fact that the phone lines are and have always been for shit, or, the fact that you can't even use good ol' rabbit ears to pick up any TV signals anymore.