79 days left before the end of TV.

Page 5 of 7  
I don't mind the commercials on AM radio. I've never really enjoyed the beg-a-thon on public TV and public radio.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 08:54:25 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

Me neither. I try to listen to the station in the other city then. Although they are shorter lately if they raise enough money early.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"mm" wrote:

Is it April first already?
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks, I got a good laugh from your reply. And, I agree with you.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mm wrote:

Because politics interferes with technology. What the electorate "feels" over-rides what can be proven and these "feelings" (as in "I feel your pain") often trump science, logic, or common sense.
In the book "The True Believer," Eric Hoffer made the observation that people join mass movements to give meaning to their otherwise drab and insignificant lives. The goals of the movement are immaterial - it's the movement itself that matters. And since the members also vote, well, there you are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:40:43 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

You can believe the world is 6,000 years old if you want.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phisherman wrote:

One can believe in scientific models of the evolution of the universe including the development of sentient life and also disagree strongly w/ NPR's political pov and reporting slant... :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 1, 10:50pm, snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote:

One local station is continually replaying the message about the changeover. In that message they state that they expect to reach 90% of current viewers after the changeover. Or conversely, 10% will be SOL, just like you. KC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If people don't know about this by now, well, I don't know what to say about them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

That's not true universally, certainly; and many are broadcasting the digital signals at far less power than their main antenna signal strength. Only one of the three network stations in this area is yet actually broadcasting their digital signal full time; the other two have (I understand) done some intermittent broadcasts but afaik from what their web sites sat they're not going full digital until much closer to the actual transition date. What the reason is, they've not disclosedd--I'm presuming simply going to wait and do the switchover once for real and be done w/ it.
What I've yet to be able to learn is what their intentions are wrt to final power on the translators we get their relayed/"local" broadcasts from (the main stations are all ~225 mi removed, they have translators at from 60-75 mi or so that are our sources).
The latter for the low-powered and local and some translators is true as far as "drop-dead" date.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:43:13 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

We're talking about college stations, right, and stuff like that.
Do the new digital tv's receive analog? I would think not.
Am I right that digital reception will work with lower power signals, because the digital nature of the signal means even a 50% weak signal will come out perfectly, with no static?
But does this mean that people who used to be on the fringe of the signal, maybe 50% strengh, will get less than 50% with the new weaker signal. amd many of these people won't be able to get any reception on these stations at all.
I hope not. Because I like getting DC stations in Baltimore. Right now with my regular amplified antenna broken, and just using a six-foot wire, I can't get DC digital stations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mm wrote: ...

Well, yes and no...what will happen is that rather than there being a very gradual degradation in picture quality as is currently the situation w/ analog where as the signal gets weaker the picture just becomes snowy, may lose synch occasionally, even fade all the way to essentially b&w reception of color transmission, at some point the digital signal will simply not pick up at all.
So, the picture quality won't have the gradual degradation; it'll be essentially all or nuttin' (ignoring the occasional dropped pixel, etc.).
The problem is, what that level will be for any given receiver is dependent on so many variables it's pretty much impossible to give any general rule on some percentage.
As I noted above, so far the one translator here is so weak w/ their digital signal that even w/ the "extreme fringe" antenna the converter box hasn't been successful. But, they're only broadcasting at about 80kw at the moment whereas the analog signal is several (I forget which station is how much and don't feel like looking it up again at the moment) times the strength.
Again, what I've been unable to determine from the stations' public information on the conversion is what their ultimate power of the digital signals will be and whether they have an concern about covering the same fringe areas they're presently covering w/ the analog signals.
Upthread I posted a link to the FCC web site that does have the current licensed power levels and at least some of the current actual power levels (how I found the 80kW number above). It does also have the analog power level for the same stations so you can see how it compares but you'll probably be in the same quandary as far as information as to their intent after the transition time as I.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

stations nationwide generally moved from VHF to UHF which doesnt propagate nearly as well. analog UHF stations were typically million watts, while VHF 100s of thousands.to overcome worse UHF reception.
plus UHF is degraded more by snow, trees with leaves rain etc.
new tvs around here had both analog and digital tuners bfor a few years.
many people espically older folks will lose channels they like or service altogether
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...

That's simply not true -- VHF channels far more generally remained VHF.
You're in a metro area where the band congestion is very high and new channels were, naturally, added in the UHF band since VHF was generally already locally allocated and there were undoubtedly a "veritable plethora" of stations quite early on. That's not the way it is outside metro areas, however, that covers a very large fraction of the geography of the country but a small fraction of the population (and decreasing all the time).
There's only one UHF channel at all here and it's the local upstart of only a couple years existence.
All of the four (count-em, four!) broadcast stations (the three networks plus PBS) are VHF and have been since they went on-air. I'd have to look up those dates, but these translators are relatively recent--we never had a TV set until the mid-60s (I was already out of HS) and living out of town I don't recall just how many of the kids in town had, but it was a pretty rare phenomenon there until about 1960 I'd say from recollections. I recall there was an early cable but times were tough in the 50s and not many of my acquaintances were able (or, more accurately, probably, chose to) afford it. I remember wanting permission to borrow the car to go to town to watch the Patterson heavyweight fight at a classmate's home although can't recall just what year that would have been exactly--Mom wouldn't let me owing to prize fighting being an unapproved activity. :)
--

--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:26:00 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

How does this work? Do older folks watch the disappearning channels more? Or do they dissappear more because they are watched by older folks. (Do they have the Evil Eye?)
OT, if I lose the DC stations, even getting cable won't get them back. The DC cable has the Baltimore stations, but up here, they are not so ecumenical. So I'll really be stuck. .
There are times even the network stations, even in prime time, don't have the same programs. Especially when the game is on in Baltimore.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

many older folks just have regular analog tv, and watch snowey channels, which will be replacewd by blank digital screens.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 06:11:40 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

I see. It would be a good opportunity for a scientific study, to see how long they look at the blank screens before complaining.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.