45-50 miles and in a hole, we had spent so much trying to get analog; Rotor, big fringe antenna, amplifier, best quality coax, and still results were dismal. The converter box was another story, we immediately got all the normal channels + a few from way east off the side of the antenna. if we turn it we can get many more, but they are redundant, I get the four main networks + CW & an assortment of UHF type stations, most of which are religious or Spanish, so we block them.
I have a 50" plasma theater room and use an attic antenna to pick up all three PBS channels. The attic antenna is also connected to my TV Hauppage tuner card (about $70) where I can record hi-def programs.
I bought the amplified indoor antenna after I was unable to get satisfactory reception using several different configuration traditional unamplified indoor antennas. The reception with the amplified antenna was much better than using the unamplified antenna, but still unsat.
I'm in the DC metro area. One of my biggest reception problems is with a major network outlet that is broadcasting in a lower VHF channel and dropped it's effective radiated power from about 220KW analog to 12.5 KW digital!! That's right, not a typo. When I called the station engineer to ask why they were using such low power, they told me that they had petitioned the FCC to transmit with greater power, but the FCC was concerned that greater power would cause interference in the Baltimore metro area (which is more than 40 miles north of DC). So, I can't receive a decent signal 10 miles away with an indoor antenna and the FCC is worried about interference 40+ miles away. No wonder OTA reception of this station is so difficult.
I bought 5 or 6 antennas, tested them out, and returned the rest. The most expensive antenna was worse than average. Antenna selection/positioning will take some trial and error work, but once it's done, that's it! Comcast must hate me because I got many neighbors into using power antennas.
Metspitzer wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
It's not the station itself,it's the antenna site,which may be far away from the studio site,and shared by some or all of the other local stations.
What irks me is that the stations LOWERED broadcast power after the initial switchover. that reduced their coverage area even more.(but saved them on their electric bill...)
Peter wrote in news:hilitk$6iq$ snipped-for-privacy@news.albasani.net:
maybe you should try that Make TV homemade antenna,it uses coathanger wire,a small board,some screws and washers,and a 75:300 ohm matching transformer.I get pretty good results with it,no amplifier needed.
By Harry A. Jessell TVNewsCheck, Dec 11 2009, 4:00 PM ET
The National Association of Broadcasters is asking TV stations to join the fight to preserve broadcast spectrum by airing an NAB-produced
30-second spot touting the benefits of free, over-the-air broadcasting.*
...The broadcast industry could see the greatest assault on the public airwaves since the 1980s, with the anticipated release of the FCC's National Broadband Plan set for February 17, 2010," says the e-mail.
The NAB fears that the plan will recommend that all or some of broadcast spectrum be reallocated for wireless broadband access, a service the FCC believes will soon be facing a spectrum shortage.
Depending on the direction of the flaky station in relation to the others, an antenna with sufficient gain and directionality to get that one might result in significantly poorer reception from the others.
Our TV stations are on channels as low as 7, are in directions ranging from 17 degrees to 125 degrees from here, and are as far as 50 miles away.
That would be crazy so soon after the broadcasters have spent large sums of money on new equipment and dumped still-working but no longer usable analog equipment.
However, my broadcast-engineer friend did say that he wonders how much longer traditional radio broadcasting is going to survive. (Perhaps we'll all have to have satellite for that too.)
Uh, other than the recently auctioned off, the broadcasters don't the bandwidth to sell it. By definition and case law, the airwaves are public property. Smells like urban legend to me.
I had very bad reception and only 3 or 4 channels, often unwatchable. With digital I now have 6 channels (without counting the -2 -3 simulcasts) and 3 or 4 more that are the same as other channels I get. I have the antenna about 20' taller than the roof and a rotator. I want to try going taller yet but I need a 2nd person and some guy line. BTW, to go 20 feet up, I'm using black pipe, not antenna mast. My biggest problem is a mountain blocking about 180 degrees of reception area. The distance to the stations I receive is about 30 to 90 miles, probably further yet are those channels that are all the same and I deleted them. The mountain plays tricks here. All 6 of those channels come in fairly good with the antenna pointed in what should be the WRONG direction for all of them. About 90 degrees off. To get a 7th channel, a very good PBS station, I have to rotate the antenna and it seems like it's hit or miss with the rotator just where it's going to work tonight.
it was all about the money the congress critters could get.
By definition and case law, the airwaves are public property.
That your congress critters have been selling off for you for the last 15 years, starting at channel 83. I can't find the cite right now, but the final hdtv goal was all transmitters would be in old ch 14 thru 51 allotment. Which could work well with a lightweight, compact and efficient UHF fan dipole antenna.
The original FCC hdtv reception studies (mid 90's) in several major markets didn't work out as well as expected with lower power transmitters. Either more power, or roof top antennas would be needed. The Baltimore tests were worst, too hilly of a terrain. A neighborhood could have both a too strong of a signal and a too weak signal in the same block. Some places the test equipment worked better with no antenna connected, others, a window screen worked better. Signal reflections were bad. The report is an interesting read and in the fcc.gov archive.
Last numbers were 74% of the DTV stations on UHF (14-51),
24% on high VHF (7-13) and less than 2% on Low VHF(2-6). With the virtual channel system, the actual frequency can be changed as needed to improve coverage and reduce station co-interference. channel 6-1 can always be channel 6-1 but transmit anywhere between about 500MHz to 700MHz.
aemeijers wrote in news:Zfqdnc9J_fQi7NPWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
I've heard of proposals to eliminate OTA TV. For me,that would be a major bummer;no cable and 48K dialup net service,and TracFone prepaid cell service. Also,what happens in power outages or natural disasters? At least now,I can use a battery powered TV,generator,or an inverter/battery. Cable and cellphones didn't work after Hurricane Charlie in 2004. The FEDS would auction off the freed bandwidth...more money for them to blow on socialist schemes.
Chip, Sorry that you must have missed my earlier postings in this thread. That's exactly what I ended up doing, but even so, still do not get reception free of occasional pixelation and short drop-outs when there are strong storms, high winds, or airplanes in the line of sight between the transmitter and my rooftop directional antenna. Peter
HomeOwnersHub website 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.