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
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.
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
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...
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
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?
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
Actually the very bottom of even the Springer demographic.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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
???? 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????
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).
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
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.