DTV delayed

[salty]

Baloney, pure and simple

[salty]

Has ZERO to do with DTV

[salty]

My advice is that you should go to the nearest available tar pit and throw yourself in.

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ...

If you do, your local congres-critter is where to start, of course.

And, I think FCC still cares about interference reports if provided them; it's obviously silly to expect them to find it on their own, of course.

If there were a wildcat source or somesuch that's the problem, one would not expect you're the only person affected--if so, getting together all those who are will be important to getting anything accomplished. If, otoh, it's only you, that would be indicative of geography or outbuildings or so that might require relocating antenna or some other individual solution. In the end, of course, there are undoubtedly going to be individuals who are left high 'n dry just as there will be those who will get increased access. It will all depend on specifics of every individual situation as to the actual end result.

--

[HeyBub]

And the House rejected said bill today.

We're still on for Feb 17th!

[dpb]

[e-mail] 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????

[Kurt Ullman]

For now. They tried to push something through using a way that required a super majority. They have more than enough to bring it up again in a way that only requires a majority. They got that and then some. -+

[---MIKE---]

The house didn't really "reject" the bill. They simply failed to get the 2/3 majority which was required to pass it.

---MIKE---

[Robert Neville]

The consumer DTV sites are near useless, including the ones set up by the stations them selves. You need to go to the FCC web site and look at the file for the nearest major city:

Keep in mind that these are engineering guesses. Until the sites are up and running on their permanent frequencies and power levels, you can't confirm the coverage quality.

[hallerb]

take a close look at all the orange, these are people losing nets permanetely

heres the ABC one

[aemeijers]

Nah, he was just (badly) implying that you are a dinosaur. (as in La Brea tar pits, etc.)

-- aem sends...

[Jim Yanik]

aemeijers wrote in news:dw9gl.158274$ [e-mail]:

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).

[Robert Neville]

And then compare that to all the green which shows the areas of the country that are gaining ABC coverage. I'd say there are 20 times more areas getting coverage than losing it.

Aside from dozen or so stations in the midwest that appear to be reducing power (presumably because the advertising revenue for covering the larger area does support the cost of running a higher power transmitter), most of the east coast and pacific NW loss of coverage appears to be due to the poorer signal propagation in the mountains.

[salty]

I'm looking for information from that specific station, because a poster says they are advertising that they will be reducing power. If they are advertising it, why don't they mention it at all on the website?

[Robert Neville]

If you go to the site I listed and check the file for your nearest major city, you will see a coverage chart for every individual station.

[dpb]

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.

[dpb]

aemeijers wrote: ...

Oh, that I'll proudly flaunt as far as pop culture kinda' stuff for sure...seemed as though from the reaction it touched a sore spot somehow, though. I guess I'm not too surprised; it's a fairly typical reaction of the "city-selfstyled-sophisticate" we get all the time from KC or Topeka as well...

--

[salty]

I'm not looking for a coverage chart. I'm looking for a statement from that station that they plan to reduce the power of their digital signal when it officially goes online.

[HeyBub]

Right. Or our Congress-critters could easily slip the slip into the omnibus "Economic Recovery" package now muddling its way through the process.

Or California could impose a regulation binding upon stations in its state. Or Mayor Bloomberg of New York could add it to his proposed ban on salt.

[Cheri]

Reading in the paper today, it's back to Feb. 17, but they're going to do a new vote before then. The politicians can't even get it right, big surprise. :-)

Cheri