DTV delayed

Page 2 of 5  


thats the issue nationwide many are PERMANETELY LOSING THE STATIONS THEY HAVE WATCHED FOR A LIFETIME.
NO ONE APPEARS TO CARE ABOUT THAT.
THOSE STATIONS ARE IMPORTANT FOR DISASTERS, BOTH NATURAL AND MAN MADE.
THE TURN OFF OF ANALOG SHOULDNT OCCUR IN OUR LIFETIME IF THE SERVICE IS REDUCED.
some sort of local interference makes my watching most local digital channels impossible. 90% signal strength drops to the 30%s and blacks out the channels on a regular basis.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

If "NO ONE" cares, then there's not a problem. Duh!

Not important. Both AM and FM radio stations are not affected. The proposal does not affect the internet, newspapers, word-of-mouth, local sirens, and other disaster advisory systems. If we relied entirely on TV to avoid disasters, America would never have elected a Republican.

Why? I know I felt the same way when CBS "turned off" the original Startrek series back in the '60's, but I got over it.

Then get the interference problem fixed. Anything that interferes with commercial radio or TV signals is illegal and the FCC will skin the interferee.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

I rarely (if ever :) ) agree w/ Haller, but he's right on this aspect.
You, Bub, obviously don't live in tornado alley where local live radar and storm tracking is a significant function of _LOCAL_ (as not 200+ miles away) translators. It is indeed, a primary function of these stations and a quite important one.
Granted radio has its place but it doesn't have Doppler radar...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A couple of the local radio stations DO have doppler and can verbally give pretty much the same information. Much more impressive on TV, I'll admit. Probably marginally easier to understand. However, the OP's point was that this was a reason that analog should continue practically forever. Between cable and OTA, 90% of those who need access to doppler during Tornado Season will have it already. The others can use radio, get a weather radio, etc. Especially since the Feb switchover is a month or so before the start of Tornado season. Doubt most of the slackers would give up their Jerry Springer that long anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

a bit elitist or snobby to assume that people wanting to retain their analog TVs all watch Springer.
also elitist to assume that everyone can just go out and buy more gear when the gov't forces change that would not happen otherwise.
Hey,your present car is not fuel-efficient enough;you can't use it on the roads anymore,go out and buy a new one.Or,hey,your car needs $1000 worth of modifications to meet new emissions standards,else you can't operate it. How'd you like THEM beans?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am assuming that those who wait around, ignore the advertisements and then complain about how the government should step in *DO* something to protect them from their own ignorance are the type who wouldn't mess it with it until they lost Springer. That isn't elitist, that is demographics. Actually the very bottom of even the Springer demographic.

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

Hey its as valid as the current changeover.
how would you feel if the feds passed a law in 2010 all sales of gasoline will be permanetely illegal. the new digital fuel is all thats available, so buy a new vehicle mowers etc or do without. oh trhe new fuel isnt nearly as good but your stuck with it
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote: ...

Must be much larger market than here... The primary advantage of TV for storm tracking over radar _is_ the visual track of direction/speed of individual cells plus the ability to observe the progression of a front and how cells are being spawned along those fronts. This allows a very rapid evaluation of the situation in one's area that simply can't be achieved by listening. Sure, an immediate single funnel can be related, but that often isn't the real danger--it's the new cell just forming to the southwest that may be the particular "gotcha" for me, for example.

It's "the others" that are the issue here, for whatever reason. So far, the digital transmission at the translators that are the local source here haven't been strong enough for the converter box to lock in to. _Supposedly_ after the conversion they will be, but only time will tell if we're w/o or not, apparently.
The satellite and cable aren't viable options for this purpose because as noted upthread and by others, those feeds are the base stations 200+ miles distant, _NOT_ the "local" transmitters that break for storm coverage in severe weather based on local conditions. W/O OTA, I don't know that that service will exist at all.
In essence, we'll be back to the 50s for severe weather alerts and I predict there will be higher fatality rates associated with it in the rural areas. Note this isn't _just_ the individual farmstead like ours that will be affected, towns will be also as their cable and satellite feeds also are relegated to Wichita/Amarillo/Pueblo/etc., _NOT_ the translators that do the local coverage. So, if these locations are outside the revised coverage areas, their coverage will suffer markedly.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote: ...

By the above I mean, of course, in the event the range of the translators after the conversion and final power adjustments (whatever those may be, if any) is less than the current analog. If it's a usable signal covers as large or larger area, then all will be well.
I've looked at the FCC expected range maps and for our area they seem to indicate they expect a slightly larger radius--if such is to come to pass, they certainly will have to do _something_ more than are presently doing. OTOH, there are other areas in which the new maps do leave out significant-sized areas that were/are in the analog coverage zones. This is, imo, an unsatisfactory "solution".
It is the latter state of affairs with which I am in agreement w/ Haller that I think should not be. Whether the solution is to maintain analog as well or require additional resources be put into the digital I really don't care but I don't think it should be a free pass to the airwaves licensee to retain their license and reduce coverage purely at their discretion as it apparently is.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

DTV deniers continually and deliberately ignore the fact that until the official switch-over occurs, many stations are broadcasting a digital signal at far less power than they will be using when they shut down the analog and go completely digital.
Having poor DTV reception NOW is meaningless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote in wrote:

Untrue;local station WKMG-TV6 has advertised that they will be REDUCING their DTV power after Feb.17.I've seen local coverage maps that show that areas now served will lose coverage after that date.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can't seem to find any evidence of that on their website, which has a whole section devoted to the DTV conversion. They don't seem to mention that at all.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

...
As in most things, "the devil is in the details"
I'm not a fan of the conversion altho that's only because to date it's not possible to know what the effect on us is going to be -- if it works and we can continue to get OTA reception as good or better it will be fine. If it goes away, not so much.
At present the problem here is there has been essentially no information available on just what the broadcasters are intending for the translators -- all their tests have included only the central transmitters, not the translators "for technical reasons" is the entire extent of the announcement as to the fact the test won't include these areas.
So far, at least, if they are broadcasting in digital as well as analog from these locations, it's not strong enough to be able to pick up w/ the converter box so if they don't increase power we're sol apparently.
The only information that I have seen that has been specifically addressed to our situation has been a (very infrequent and only within the last week or so) rollover along screen bottom that the station will turn off analog on Feb 17 and begin digital on Feb 18. None of the PSA announcements has ever even mentioned they have these translator stations so they have been of almost zero use for those viewers.
I've not seen one of the rollovers since the recent Bill passage in the Senate--don't know if that's because they're deciding what to do or just haven't been run while I've had the set on for what limited time it is...
Anyway, I expect if one is in a moderately well-populated area and not in a very hilly or mountainous terrain, etc., there will be little to worry over. The rest of us don't really count in DC anyway, of course...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm in favor of the conversion. The NTSC standard which we have been saddled with for umpteen years was a compromise standard reached at the point of the lowest common denominator. It had mostly to do with backwards compatibilty. The greatest nation on earth has always had second rate TV quality as a result. The new standard finally puts us on par with the rest of the world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote: ...

I really don't give a rat's patootie one way or the other on the conversion itself. I am concerned that being in a fringe area w/ issues re: programming (and those aren't prime time kinds of programming that I care about) if the result is we lose OTA reception.
If indeed the conversion does provide a usable signal I can see where the sidebands could turn out useful assuming the stations choose to do something of actual value with them (value is, of course, often in the eye of the beholder). "HD" or any of the other folderol associated w/ the digital transmission as opposed to analog is of absolutely no interest whatsoever to me. If it's good enough to read most of the text on the screen, that's good enough; anything better is "whatever". :)
I think the reviews I've read on the converter boxes worrying about a pixel or two dropout is simply absurd and can't fathom why anybody thinks such stuff is important. But, that's me who would normally prefer to read a book to watching the tube (altho I frequently sorta' do both and may have the highschool ball game on the radio instead of tv sound as well :) ).
If, otoh, the new coverage area is less and we're then in the "no fly zone", that will be an unsatisfactory result for reasons documented upthread.
--


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

My advice is that you should go to the nearest available tar pit and throw yourself in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote: ...

???? What the hay brought that on???? :(
Simply saying I really don't care much one way or the other about DTV transition as long as the end result is that don't _LOSE_ OTA reception in areas that presently have it is somehow offensive????
--


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

Brea tar pits, etc.)
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

once the stations switch over solely to DTV at their final planned operating power level,only then can they determine actual coverage and install repeaters to regain what once was covered by analog. (at least the major local stations,not the low budget or LPTV stations.)
TV stations do not want to lose viewers;it affects their ratings and what they can charge for advertising.It hits them right in their pocketbook.
I suspect after Feb.17,TV stations will be checking their DTV coverage or soliciting reports on coverage,so they can compensate(eventually).
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

The first point is, of course, what I've been saying all along -- we'll only know what we got after we see what we have...other than the FCC maps of expected coverage (anybody have any clue how those were generated--I was unable to find anything that gave any hint whatsoever as to how they made the estimates) there's no indication at all unless the local stations have made some more informative data available than any of those here have. The coverage in some of those FCC maps, however, does show large gaps in much more highly directionally sensitive coverage than for the corresponding transmitters' analog transmittal for some areas I have noticed.
I seriously doubt there will be much, if any, worrying over loss of the rural areas even by the translators in these areas as the absolute numbers aren't large enough to matter -- it may be a sizable geographic area, but the population density is simply too low for the economics to make it pay unless there are incentives for their compliance.
As I said upthread, I think one of the requirements of maintaining the license _should_ be to not reduce coverage but that doesn't seem to be a criterion afaict.
--


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.