snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (---MIKE---) wrote in news:25094-496601D0-506 @storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net:
You don't get ch 3, WCAX (CBS) out of Burlington? They transmit digital from the top of Mt Mansfield. You're around Mt Washington. You on the wrong side of the mountain or do you have sequoias outside your door?
Next door neighbor huh? :-)
To bring this thread back to the original question, that being how to rate the performance of the DTV converters on the market today, it would help to keep in mind the following facts:
- Most of the stations broadcasting DTV signals today are using temporary UHF frequencies at less than full power - After the DTV transition, there will be a mix of VHF and UHF frequencies in use, so depending on your market, you may need a VHF/UHF antenna - If you haven't been watching UHF channels before and your DTV stations will be on UHF, you may find your house coax/splitters needing attention. UHF frequencies are much more sensitive to substandard wiring. - There is no difference from an antenna/coax perspective between analong and digital television. Anyone trying to sell you an HD unique antenna/coax/splitter doesn't know what they are talking about.
Given all the above, drawing conclusions about the performance of a given DTV converter (other than things like the GUI or remote) until after the switchover is difficult.
This looks like a useful thing, until you look at the choices. They are only the biggest cities. Where I live, the stations come from smaller cities, and they are not on the list. Once again, us rural folks are ignored. That's my major gripe about DTV. Anyone in medium or large city can buy a converter and brag how they got more stations and (supposedly) a better picture.
The rest of us in small cities or rural areas are either losing channels or not getting any. Or else we get constant dropouts and blank screens. I never much complained when I'd get periods of snow and sometimes almost full picture loss on analog. I could always at least still hear the sound and continue with the program I was watching. It was rare it would get so bad that I'd have to leave that channel. I very much hate the ALL or NOTHING signals of DTV. Either it works perfectly, or the station is blank. That is more than annoying. THen there are those screen breakups, where it looks like someone made a jigsaw puzzle out of the picture. Also very annoying. Much worse than screen "snow".
What really irks me the most is that they call this "progress". Progress is when something gets BETTER and/or EASIER to use. This is NOT progress. And for those who think the picture is better, I honestly dont see any difference (when I do get a signal). Sure, its a perfect picture, but half the time there is no picture at all. I've gotten a "perfect" picture on analog tv too, and when it's not perfect, its still watchable most of the time. If *I* was the person to make the choice of what IS progress, I'd choose ANALOG. The reason is simple. When I'm watching a football game, I want to watch that game. If the screen gets a little fuzzy, I can still see the game. But when a DTV signal goes blank, I'm finished watching the program.
Once again, the city folks will seldon have blackouts (signal loss), so they will be happy and brag how great DTV is, but us rural folks (who are the least likely to have access to cable tv), will be left out in the cold, with a tv that only works part of the time and at any moment can just lose signal in the middle of an important program.
I dont have access to cable, and doubt it will ever happen in the near future. Satellite tv is extremely expensive around here. So, as far as I'm concerned, I will be left with a worthless tv, converter or not.
Jim
Well, this brings up a question I have had for awhile. WILL FM RADIO BE ELIMINATED NEXT? The reason is that FM radio is in the VHF band, right below (or is it above) TV Channel 6. I know this for fact, because when I was a kid, I lived in a city that had channel 6 tv. The sound from channel 6 tv could be listened to on the very bottom most position on the fm radio dial. (which is about 88 mhz). I remember a few times I'd have to go somewhere and would listen to whatever tv program I was watching on a portable or car radio. So, since the govt. wants the VHF band to sell to the cellphone companies, will they next get rid of FM radio?
Jim
The list is by market areas - which areas include small cities, towns, and rural. What I did was look at the maps for the three different market areas where the transmission towers for the stations I receive are located.
I do more listening to TV than actually watching it and find the sound cutting out more annoying than the pixillation.
That "city folks" get better OTA reception is incorrect. In the two cities where I've lived, cable was a necessity (for analog).
one in medium
you sum up the problem very well, sadly those with cable or satellite wouldnt care much.
and after calling my congressmens office I found out the lady answering the phones doesnt care either.:(
I haD A VERY UNPLEASANT CONVERSATION WITH HER:(
I hate to see anyone get fired, but she aT LEAST DESERVES A STRONG WARNING.
Perhaps I feel invested in my rep siince I was a campaign volunteer?
They have been broadcasting digital radio for quite some time, on both the FM and AM band. Google HD Radio for details. Not many HD receivers are available yet. Before Christmas I tried to buy a Bose Wave system with HD radio, and they don't make one.
So who is your rep?
You might want to look a little closer. The FCC follows the standard MSA convention - that is Metropolitan Statistical Area. If you find the nearest MSA and look inside, you should find your "local" stations.
None of the VHF (hi or lo), or the FM bands are being reallocated at this time or anytime in the near future, so relax.
No, as the page says, those are the FCC's (214) designated market areas -
210 of which correspond to Nielsen's market areas plus 4 (offshore) added by the FCC. The U.S has 363 MSAs.
My mistake... Still, the stations located in smaller cities should be found inside one of the larger market area PDFs.
That's useful; thanks for the link. It still is a pretty sorry site for ease of use, though... :)
I note for our service area (W KS) out of the Wichita-Hutchinson MSA, there are quite a few of the maps with fairly significant areas or orange and red dots on them instead of empty or green... :(
For what the maps are worth (which I don't know about since there's nothing with them to indicate how they were generated) it seems to say that despite the fact that at least so far the converter box hasn't been able to even find enough signal to indicate there is that supposedly we will be inside the coverage range by at least a small margin for the particular area we're in.
I don't know and haven't been able to determine from any information from the stations what this mismatch in indications means -- are they just not yet broadcasting DTV from the translator locations and all the data on the maps is simply computed/estimated, are they broadcasting but at such low power compared to licensed maximum that the maps are a nice theoretical exercise but of no practical value, or were the maps compiled using some sensitive test gear or something else entirely? They main stations have announced short tests of the main transmitter signals and announce explicitly these are not testing the translators but they never say a word about what the plans for the translators actually are.
I do note on the maps that the licensed power for the DTV transmitters is from a tenth to a fourth of that for the analog which certainly means the quality of an antenna and receiver are going to have to be quite good it would seem to have a chance.
I have to vote with the others in rural areas that while it seems a good theoretical advance for weak signal areas the "all or nothing" nature of digital is likely to be not to please as compared to the gradual degradation of analog. I'd also far prefer the latter over the former given the choice.
I only know to wait and find out what happens on witching day...either it'll work or I'll have to decide what to try to do or do without...certainly just going on as is would be far preferable if it goes away; if a miracle happens and it does by chance work then I can join the crowd who thinks it's ok while the neighbors a little farther out can be the ignored minority--ain't that how it's supposed to be? : (
--
They are.
I agree - the FCC's consumer site is useless, and the main FCC site isn't the easiest to use.
Yes - it looks like some of the stations (like KLBY) are reducing their coverage area. I don't know why they chose to do that, but I assume it was a trade between the cost of transmitting to the larger area vs the advertising revenue they get from that extra coverage.
Keep in mind that those maps represent the post transition state. It may be that the stations are broadcasting right now at less than full power, or from a location that doesn't represent the way things will be.
The translators are not required to switch at this time and can stay analog, but you are wise to check with any station to see what their plans are. I've found the station engineers are very open about what their plans are.
Yes, but don't get too hung up on that. IIRC you can't equate the ERP for VHF and UHF signals directly.
That is a drawback to digital - snowy stations are not an option.
:)
Interesting that in many cases the analog and digital outlined areas are pretty much equal but that there are still a lot of areas that will lose coverage. I.e. in my area, KRON 4 is going to lose (almost completely) four large counties (Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sonoma) and pick up Solano county, even though their transmitter isn't moving, and even though the outline of coverages are about the same.
I had no problem finding the various transmitters that serve my area - some I didn't even know about. I've been "on the wire" for over 20 years but if I can find a suitable antenna this evening, that's going to change.
I had Comcast cable for years. They kept promising cable internet and the excuse they're giving today is the same one they were giving 14 years ago "We're working on installing digital lines, they're already in the next town. Check back later." They kept adding channels that nobody wanted and upping the rates so I switched to Dish Network. They have hundreds of channels that nobody wants but they rarely raise the rates.
I probably don't watch 5 hours of programming a week so it's absurd to pay for it. I'm paying for three dish boxes and I don't watch any of them. I can't name any current sitcoms or shows. When they talk about celebrities, I usually don't know who they're talking about or why I should be impressed. I need about an hour of news and weather and some Leno or Letterman, and that's about it.
My job is just about in the toilet and the company is teetering on bankruptcy, so this is the first step in cutting cost around here. Landline phone will probably be next.
-- Jack
Red Green asked:
Yes, I get ch 3. Their digital signal is on ch 53 right now but will switch to ch 22 on Feb 17th (maybe). I also get 5 (NBC), 11, 20, 22,
33, and 44 (FOX), They all have good digital signals. I have a roof antenna and use RG6 cable. I also have an amplifier. My friend only gets ch 11 (which is actually ch 49 out of Littleton).---MIKE---
Satellite does not have to be expensive. I have the local network package from Dish. The monthly charge is only $10. I can get the same stations with digital but the program grid with Dish is vastly superior to that with the digital remote.
---MIKE---
According to the map, I shouldn't have been receiving the three stations in the first place. But I live in a hilly area with an opening in that direction ... and nothing higher between here and the transmitters. That benefited me when they were broadcasting VHF, but they are switching to UHF, which doesn't deal well with hills.
I've read about some stations that have taken advantage of the switch to refine their coverage areas to reach more of their advertisers' target audience. While I would prefer not to be losing the stations, it made no economic sense to waste watts advertising to people 75 miles away.
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.