Discussion:
OT: Digital TV Converter Box Report
(too old to reply)
Scott M. Kozel
2009-06-13 04:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.

I got this Sony TV in 1986, without a remote, something that I regretted
later, and now I have a remote! Very helpful, indeed. Especially the
"mute" button!

All stations broadcast an image that is more rectangular, so the
vertical span is less than the screen height. I suppose this format is
to fit the big screen TVs.

These stations have two channels. They formerly were program-only.
CBS Channel 6-1 is for programs
CBS Channel 6-2 is for weather
NBC Channel 12-1 is for programs
NBC Channel 12-2 is for weather

Due to distance, ABC Channel 8 had substandard reception formerly, and
now it has good reception. Before and after, channels 6 and 12 have
good reception.

All local UHF stations have better reception than before -- Channels 23,
35, 57, 65. Actually only 35 had good reception before, the others were
poor, and now they all have good reception.

I suppose if I had cable, the reception might be even better yet, but it
is good enough for me, given that I don't watch much TV anyhow.

All in all, I have considerably more features, and the only negative is
a slightly smaller image.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Floyd Rogers
2009-06-13 05:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
All stations broadcast an image that is more rectangular, so the
vertical span is less than the screen height. I suppose this format is
to fit the big screen TVs.
No, it's actually because the digital signal you're receiving (480i or 480p)
has 480 lines rather than NTSC's 486 lines. Your TV must not have had
any overscan at all for you to notice.

FloydR
Gordon
2009-06-14 01:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Scott M. Kozel
All stations broadcast an image that is more rectangular, so the
vertical span is less than the screen height. I suppose this format
is to fit the big screen TVs.
No, it's actually because the digital signal you're receiving (480i or
480p) has 480 lines rather than NTSC's 486 lines. Your TV must not
have had any overscan at all for you to notice.
FloydR
In fact DTV is broadcast in wide screen format. 16:9 aspect
ratio (IIRC). Your Converter should have a zoom feature
that lets you select from several fitting algoithims to
get the best fit to your SD screen.
Mark Roberts
2009-06-14 18:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Gordon <***@alltomyself.com> had written:
|
| In fact DTV is broadcast in wide screen format.

It can be, but doesn't have to be. That's entirely within the
determination of the transmitting station, which requires either
switching equipment to handle the 16:9 ratio, or which has to
implement pass-through. This has been a point of some contention
for smaller-market Midwestern stations that use pass-through until
they want to run weather warnings; then, they have to downconvert
the HD signal from the network to standard definition because their
switching equipment can only handle SD.
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
Gordon
2009-06-15 20:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Roberts
|
| In fact DTV is broadcast in wide screen format.
It can be, but doesn't have to be. That's entirely within the
determination of the transmitting station, which requires either
switching equipment to handle the 16:9 ratio, or which has to
implement pass-through. This has been a point of some contention
for smaller-market Midwestern stations that use pass-through until
they want to run weather warnings; then, they have to downconvert
the HD signal from the network to standard definition because their
switching equipment can only handle SD.
Right. I stand corrected. I had assumed that he was watching
a HD broadcast, thus the bars. For completeness it should be
noted that DTV allows 1 HDTV, or 1 HDTV and 1 SD, or up to 5 SD
sub channels. Most of the network stations around here are
using the 1H or 1H+1S configuration. Public TV is using the 5S
option and leasing out the sub channels. Ion is doing the same.
Garrett Wollman
2009-06-15 21:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
a HD broadcast, thus the bars. For completeness it should be
noted that DTV allows 1 HDTV, or 1 HDTV and 1 SD, or up to 5 SD
sub channels.
Actually, it should be noted that the only practical limit on
subchannels is bandwidth. With a modern compressor/multiplexer, a
station can fit two 720p HD programs into a single 19-Mbit/s DTV
multiplex.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
***@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Mark Roberts
2009-06-16 04:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Garrett Wollman <***@bimajority.org> had written:
| In article <***@199.45.49.11>,
| Gordon <***@alltomyself.com> wrote:
|
| >a HD broadcast, thus the bars. For completeness it should be
| >noted that DTV allows 1 HDTV, or 1 HDTV and 1 SD, or up to 5 SD
| >sub channels.
|
| Actually, it should be noted that the only practical limit on
| subchannels is bandwidth. With a modern compressor/multiplexer, a
| station can fit two 720p HD programs into a single 19-Mbit/s DTV
| multiplex.

That's what the ABC O&O's have begun to do, with the second 720p
program being the "Living Well" channel. At least on KGO-TV, it
makes *both* 720p channels look like crap.
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
Mark F
2009-06-16 05:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Gordon
a HD broadcast, thus the bars. For completeness it should be
noted that DTV allows 1 HDTV, or 1 HDTV and 1 SD, or up to 5 SD
sub channels.
Actually, it should be noted that the only practical limit on
subchannels is bandwidth. With a modern compressor/multiplexer, a
station can fit two 720p HD programs into a single 19-Mbit/s DTV
multiplex.
There are some stations in the Los Angeles area (18, 44, and 57) putting
out 8 SD sub channels.

Some ABC stations are trying two 720p programs, but it doesn't work very
well.
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-16 05:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark F
There are some stations in the Los Angeles area (18, 44, and 57) putting
out 8 SD sub channels.
Some ABC stations are trying two 720p programs, but it doesn't work very
well.
The "extra" program streams are usually pretty worthless anyway.
However, things like a weather barker aren't too bad, as the
mostly-static display uses little bandwidth and doesn't affect the
main program very much.

Cox cable doesn't carry most of the sub-channels; I might have to dig
out my antenna and hook it back up just to see what 8 SD sub-channels
looks like. :)
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
John Mayson
2009-06-19 23:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in SoCal
The "extra" program streams are usually pretty worthless anyway.
However, things like a weather barker aren't too bad, as the
mostly-static display uses little bandwidth and doesn't affect the
main program very much.
I've gotten addicted to RTN, Create TV, and Pentagon TV, all on area
digital subchannels.

John
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-16 05:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Gordon
a HD broadcast, thus the bars. For completeness it should be
noted that DTV allows 1 HDTV, or 1 HDTV and 1 SD, or up to 5 SD
sub channels.
Actually, it should be noted that the only practical limit on
subchannels is bandwidth. With a modern compressor/multiplexer, a
station can fit two 720p HD programs into a single 19-Mbit/s DTV
multiplex.
Or, if you're a cable company, you can cram 10+ lousy-looking program
streams onto one 30Mbps QAM256 transport stream. :)
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
Cameron Kaiser
2009-06-16 12:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in SoCal
Or, if you're a cable company, you can cram 10+ lousy-looking program
streams onto one 30Mbps QAM256 transport stream. :)
Cox comes to mind -_-

I'm happy enough with OTA HDTV that I think I'll probably stick with it.
I don't watch much TV anyway.

--
Cameron Kaiser * ***@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
Gordon
2009-06-16 06:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Gordon
a HD broadcast, thus the bars. For completeness it should be
noted that DTV allows 1 HDTV, or 1 HDTV and 1 SD, or up to 5 SD
sub channels.
Actually, it should be noted that the only practical limit on
subchannels is bandwidth. With a modern compressor/multiplexer, a
station can fit two 720p HD programs into a single 19-Mbit/s DTV
multiplex.
-GAWollman
But as the next few posts indicate, it looks like crap.So
far no one here has tried that. So I don't have any direct
experience. But I seem to recall that early in the DTV design
effort there was some discussion of limits of practicality.
Actually, DTV was supposed to be all HDTV, but the broadcasters
pushed for multicast, against the engineers wishes. I remember
that debate well.
Well, anyway the limit of practicality was calculated at 4 SDTV
multicast channels. But there have been some advancements since
then.
George Conklin
2009-06-16 12:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Gordon
a HD broadcast, thus the bars. For completeness it should be
noted that DTV allows 1 HDTV, or 1 HDTV and 1 SD, or up to 5 SD
sub channels.
Actually, it should be noted that the only practical limit on
subchannels is bandwidth. With a modern compressor/multiplexer, a
station can fit two 720p HD programs into a single 19-Mbit/s DTV
multiplex.
-GAWollman
But as the next few posts indicate, it looks like crap.So
far no one here has tried that. So I don't have any direct
experience. But I seem to recall that early in the DTV design
effort there was some discussion of limits of practicality.
Actually, DTV was supposed to be all HDTV, but the broadcasters
pushed for multicast, against the engineers wishes. I remember
that debate well.
Well, anyway the limit of practicality was calculated at 4 SDTV
multicast channels. But there have been some advancements since
then.
It is astounding how bad some of the DTV can look. Our local educational
channel so severely compressed "As Time Goes By" that the faces of the
actors showed up like jittery cutouts, with pixels coming and going so
frequently you could hardly watch the program. They had 4 other channels
running at the same time.
Garrett Wollman
2009-06-16 12:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
[I wrote:]
Actually, it should be noted that the only practical limit on
subchannels is bandwidth. With a modern compressor/multiplexer, a
station can fit two 720p HD programs into a single 19-Mbit/s DTV
multiplex.
But as the next few posts indicate, it looks like crap.So
Only if you have a lousy compressor (or, I suppose, a lousy input
signal). Even full-motion sports can be done well in 11 Mbit/s, so if
you have a more easily-compressible second program it all works out.
Post by Gordon
Actually, DTV was supposed to be all HDTV, but the broadcasters
pushed for multicast, against the engineers wishes. I remember
that debate well.
Funny, I don't. I remember DTV being sold -- quite dishonestly -- to
the public by politicians as "HDTV". I don't remember anyone in the
broadcasting community or at the regulatory level seriously claiming
that.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
***@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Gordon
2009-06-16 23:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Gordon
[I wrote:]
Actually, it should be noted that the only practical limit on
subchannels is bandwidth. With a modern compressor/multiplexer, a
station can fit two 720p HD programs into a single 19-Mbit/s DTV
multiplex.
But as the next few posts indicate, it looks like crap.So
Only if you have a lousy compressor (or, I suppose, a lousy input
signal). Even full-motion sports can be done well in 11 Mbit/s, so if
you have a more easily-compressible second program it all works out.
Post by Gordon
Actually, DTV was supposed to be all HDTV, but the broadcasters
pushed for multicast, against the engineers wishes. I remember
that debate well.
Funny, I don't. I remember DTV being sold -- quite dishonestly -- to
the public by politicians as "HDTV". I don't remember anyone in the
broadcasting community or at the regulatory level seriously claiming
that.
-GAWollman
The idea of HDTV goes back to the 70's. At
first it was thought that it would be an analoge system using two
adjcent channels. Then it was supposed to be a hybrid system
of analog with digital enhancment. Then they decided to make it
all digital. It was pretty messy in those early years. I was working
for North American Philips (Sylvania and Magnovox TVs) at the time
and we saw a lot of discussion of the matter in the trade press.
The politicos were pretty much out of the picture (since when has
a politician understood high tech?). Although I seem to recall that
the FCC had sponsored a HDTV system design contest to see who
could come up with the best system. Since most of this pre-dates
the internet, I would be supprised to find any of this archived.
John Mayson
2009-06-19 23:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Only if you have a lousy compressor (or, I suppose, a lousy input
signal). Even full-motion sports can be done well in 11 Mbit/s, so if
you have a more easily-compressible second program it all works out.
We borrowed a video projector (the kind you usually connect to a
computer). I saw it had three three RCA-jacks (I'm sure it has a name).
I grinned, grabbed the DTV box, and amazed my family to no end that we
could watch TV on the wall, all, oh, 8' diagonal of it. And it looks
pretty good.

John
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Cameron Kaiser
2009-06-13 06:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
Wish I could say the same thing in So Cal. I lost about a third of the
channels I used to get, and unfortunately the local telenovelas are
about the only thing coming in clearer.

--
Cameron Kaiser * ***@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
Scott M. Kozel
2009-06-13 12:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
Wish I could say the same thing in So Cal. I lost about a third of the
channels I used to get, and unfortunately the local telenovelas are
about the only thing coming in clearer.
Unfortunately it was predicted that some folks would get more channels,
and some would get less.

I'll be interested to hear my parents' report, as they live on the
Maryland Eastern Shore about 50 miles as the crow flies from the various
D.C. and Baltimore TV stations. My sisters (Arlington VA and Frederick
MD) are on TV cable, so this won't affect them.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Mark Roberts
2009-06-13 19:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Cameron Kaiser <***@floodgap.com> had written:
| "Scott M. Kozel" <***@comcast.net> writes:
|
| >Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
| >ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
|
| Wish I could say the same thing in So Cal. I lost about a third of the
| channels I used to get, and unfortunately the local telenovelas are
| about the only thing coming in clearer.

I assume the Mexican stations (6, 12, and a few UHFs) were not
affected, though. You might be too far north to get them, and it
always seemed to me that 12 was a propaganda channel for the BCN
state government (6 was Fox; is it still? dtv.gov now shows Fox
on what must have been a WB station).

Also note that some stations are running on reduced power until
they can re-engineer their facilities to get rid of the analog
equipment. This is a problem in San Francisco where
a common antenna is used by most stations. They're running on-air
announcements saying they'll be on reduced power while antenna work
continues during the next few months. There are a lot of moving
parts to this project.

And, actually, 8 and 10 made the switch in February, says dtv.gov
(which has maintained a pretty accurate list in my experience).
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
Michael G. Koerner
2009-06-14 00:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Roberts
|
| >Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
| >ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
|
| Wish I could say the same thing in So Cal. I lost about a third of the
| channels I used to get, and unfortunately the local telenovelas are
| about the only thing coming in clearer.
I assume the Mexican stations (6, 12, and a few UHFs) were not
affected, though. You might be too far north to get them, and it
always seemed to me that 12 was a propaganda channel for the BCN
state government (6 was Fox; is it still? dtv.gov now shows Fox
on what must have been a WB station).
A lot of Canadian stations are still analog, too.

It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old ones
that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.

Also, if you use the converter boxes, with the old analog channels now being
vacant, many of the local stations are moving their digital signals to their
former analog spectra, so you'll have to re-scan the boxes.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-14 00:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old ones
that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Why on earth would that be surprising?

The frequencies used for each channel are still the same; it's only
the modulation scheme that has changed.
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
Nate Nagel
2009-06-14 01:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael G. Koerner
| | >Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use
rabbit
| >ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
| | Wish I could say the same thing in So Cal. I lost about a third
of the
| channels I used to get, and unfortunately the local telenovelas are
| about the only thing coming in clearer.
I assume the Mexican stations (6, 12, and a few UHFs) were not
affected, though. You might be too far north to get them, and it
always seemed to me that 12 was a propaganda channel for the BCN
state government (6 was Fox; is it still? dtv.gov now shows Fox
on what must have been a WB station).
A lot of Canadian stations are still analog, too.
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old
ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Also, if you use the converter boxes, with the old analog channels now
being vacant, many of the local stations are moving their digital
signals to their former analog spectra, so you'll have to re-scan the
boxes.
I did find that I get two channels (and associated sub-channels)
reliably now that I used to get only sporadically, so at least some
channels have increased power. At least two channels are still
broadcasting in analog, but no programming - only a message telling
viewers that if they're seeing the message, they need a converter box...
(I think everyone's pretty much figured it out by now.)

nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Mark Roberts
2009-06-14 18:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Nate Nagel <***@roosters.net> had written:
|
| I did find that I get two channels (and associated sub-channels)
| reliably now that I used to get only sporadically, so at least some
| channels have increased power. At least two channels are still
| broadcasting in analog, but no programming - only a message telling
| viewers that if they're seeing the message, they need a converter box...

Those are the "night light" stations, one or two per market. They'll
be on until July 12.
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
John Mayson
2009-06-15 22:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old ones
that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away with
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.

John
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Floyd Rogers
2009-06-16 00:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old
ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away with
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a UHF
antenna. All DTV signals are UHF and you should be using one of them
(or one of the fancy ones like I have) rather than rabbit ears, as your
reception will be better - wavelength matching and all that.

Old UHF antennas work just as well as new "digital" UHF antennas, yes.
But you should not be using a VHF antenna.

FloydR BSEE, IEEE member
John A. Weeks III
2009-06-16 00:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old
ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away with
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a UHF
antenna. All DTV signals are UHF and you should be using one of them
Not true. DTV runs on both VHF and UHF. We have RF channels 9 and 11
here in Minneapolis running digital. It is true that some VHF
stations did move to UHF channel slots. The example here in the
Twin Cities is WCCO channel 4, which moved to RF channel 35. You
can check out my DTV cheat sheet if you want to learn more about
the topic:

http://www.johnweeks.com/random/dtvmsp/index.html

-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III           612-720-2854            ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications                         http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Rich Piehl
2009-06-16 00:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John A. Weeks III
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old
ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away with
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a UHF
antenna. All DTV signals are UHF and you should be using one of them
Not true. DTV runs on both VHF and UHF. We have RF channels 9 and 11
here in Minneapolis running digital. It is true that some VHF
stations did move to UHF channel slots. The example here in the
Twin Cities is WCCO channel 4, which moved to RF channel 35. You
can check out my DTV cheat sheet if you want to learn more about
http://www.johnweeks.com/random/dtvmsp/index.html
-john-
For further proof not that when you do an "autoscan" it starts with
channel 2.

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA
Floyd Rogers
2009-06-16 01:57:40 UTC
Permalink
"John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote

I see that I am still in the transition stage, where _all_ digital signals
were in the UHF band. You (two) are indeed correct that some broadcasters
are re-using the VHF band for their _new_ digital signal, which they moved
down from UHF.

However, since _most_ DTV stations are in the UHF band, in most cases
you will need a UHF antenna, rather than the rabbit ears.

FloydR
John A. Weeks III
2009-06-16 02:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
I see that I am still in the transition stage, where _all_ digital signals
were in the UHF band. You (two) are indeed correct that some broadcasters
are re-using the VHF band for their _new_ digital signal, which they moved
down from UHF.
However, since _most_ DTV stations are in the UHF band, in most cases
you will need a UHF antenna, rather than the rabbit ears.
In your defense, it was planned at one time that all DTV would be
UHF. There was a revolt about a year before the planned cutover,
and the FCC entertained requests for channel changes. About half
of the TV stations asked for channel changes, and about half of
those were granted. There is still going to be some sorting out
to do. For example, here in the Twin Cities, one of the public
station transmitters was assigned to a channel that is also
used nearby in Canada, and they are prevented from going full
power until Canada signs off on the change. In addition, some
of the lower power and community TV stations, which were not
required to make the switch, are now filing applications to
go digital, with one lower power station having already made
the jump.

-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III           612-720-2854            ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications                         http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Floyd Rogers
2009-06-16 02:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John A. Weeks III
In your defense, it was planned at one time that all DTV would be
UHF. There was a revolt about a year before the planned cutover,
and the FCC entertained requests for channel changes.
...

I admit I haven't been watching this subject much for the last 2-3 years,
since I've been an HDTV watcher for around 5 years or more, first off-air
with a UHF antenna, and more recently with DirecTV. So this change-
over didn't really affect me, other than having to do a re-scan.

FYI, it's better to watch from an off-air source rather than DirecTV,
and also presumably DishNetwork and cable networks with legacy stuff
on them. Off-air is *generally* less-compressed and has fewer
artifacts than the DirecTV satellite feed of the same station, since
more bandwidth is available than on a satellite or cable feed.

FloydR
John Mayson
2009-06-19 23:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John A. Weeks III
In your defense, it was planned at one time that all DTV would be
UHF. There was a revolt about a year before the planned cutover,
and the FCC entertained requests for channel changes. About half
of the TV stations asked for channel changes, and about half of
those were granted. There is still going to be some sorting out
to do. For example, here in the Twin Cities, one of the public
station transmitters was assigned to a channel that is also
used nearby in Canada, and they are prevented from going full
power until Canada signs off on the change. In addition, some
of the lower power and community TV stations, which were not
required to make the switch, are now filing applications to
go digital, with one lower power station having already made
the jump.
I really wish the FCC had stuck to their guns. They could've put all of
that VHF bandwidth to better use, for instance an expanded FM band.

Many TV stations have long standing brand identity with their channel
number (e.g. 11 Alive in Atlanta). They want to eventually go back to
their original channel assignment.

John
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Josh
2009-06-16 04:12:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:57:40 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"
Post by Floyd Rogers
I see that I am still in the transition stage, where _all_ digital signals
were in the UHF band. You (two) are indeed correct that some broadcasters
are re-using the VHF band for their _new_ digital signal, which they moved
down from UHF.
However, since _most_ DTV stations are in the UHF band, in most cases
you will need a UHF antenna, rather than the rabbit ears.
FloydR
Every market is different -- some stations moved to UHF permanently,
some moved temporarily and just now switched back to their VHF
frequency, and some switched to *another* VHF frequency. Generally,
stations on "low VHF" channels 2-6 moved to either UHF or "high VHF"
7-13, which can be easier to receive. But even that has exceptions,
with a dozen or so around the country staying in 2-6. This
complicated by the fact that some antenna makers claim their UHF
antennas will capture VHF-high (7-13), but my experience here in
Sacramento is that the old rabbit ears work better for those.

It's probably better to tell people that they will almost certainly
will need a UHF antenna, but in many many cases will need a VHF one
too.

Josh
Floyd Rogers
2009-06-16 05:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
It's probably better to tell people that they will almost certainly
will need a UHF antenna, but in many many cases will need a VHF one
too.
As a couple of people have alluded to, the new "digital" antennas are
mostly a rip-off. A wire clothes hanger bent into a circle is about
all many people will need for a UHF antenna. It's the others (like
me, actually) that may need a high-end UHF antenna.

FloydR
Mark F
2009-06-16 05:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Josh
It's probably better to tell people that they will almost certainly
will need a UHF antenna, but in many many cases will need a VHF one
too.
As a couple of people have alluded to, the new "digital" antennas are
mostly a rip-off. A wire clothes hanger bent into a circle is about
all many people will need for a UHF antenna. It's the others (like
me, actually) that may need a high-end UHF antenna.
I'm using a Channel Master 4228 UHF antenna, which happens to work
decent with the high VHF band, along with a Channel Master 7777 pre-amp.
With this antenna in my attic, I can pick up all the full power channels
out of Los Angeles, around 50 miles away (total of 67 channels). Los
Angeles has some channels that were moved back to the high VHF band (7,
9, 11, 13).

I tried building one of these and had ok reception on some of the higher
power UHF channels:
http://uhfhdtvantenna.blogspot.com/
John Mayson
2009-06-19 23:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John A. Weeks III
Not true. DTV runs on both VHF and UHF. We have RF channels 9 and 11
here in Minneapolis running digital. It is true that some VHF
stations did move to UHF channel slots. The example here in the
Twin Cities is WCCO channel 4, which moved to RF channel 35. You
can check out my DTV cheat sheet if you want to learn more about
There are only 12 VHF channels available and a few times that available
for UHF. I would imagine Minneapolis is far enough way from other metro
areas that they had the luxury of finding an available VHF slot for DTV.
This wasn't the case in most of the country. There are far fewer cities
today with VHF stations than there were just a month ago.

John
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-16 05:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
All DTV signals are UHF
WRONG!
Post by Floyd Rogers
FloydR BSEE, IEEE member
The IEEE should immediately revoke your membership and shred your
membership card for that bogus answer. :)
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
George Conklin
2009-06-16 12:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old
ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away with
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a UHF
antenna. All DTV signals are UHF
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our local Channel 11 went back to Channel 11 for
digital on conversion day. I believe Vegas has all its channels on VHF
after conversion. Just look at the FCC maps and you will see VHF is still
alive and well.
JG
2009-06-16 23:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old
ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away
with
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a UHF
antenna. All DTV signals are UHF
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our local Channel 11 went back to Channel 11 for
digital on conversion day. I believe Vegas has all its channels on VHF
after conversion. Just look at the FCC maps and you will see VHF is still
alive and well.
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's. And the "benefits" are the sold off bandwidth
for "internet" service. Has any other country in the world pulled
this ??
Nate Nagel
2009-06-17 00:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by JG
Post by George Conklin
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old
ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away
with
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a UHF
antenna. All DTV signals are UHF
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our local Channel 11 went back to Channel 11 for
digital on conversion day. I believe Vegas has all its channels on VHF
after conversion. Just look at the FCC maps and you will see VHF is still
alive and well.
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's. And the "benefits" are the sold off bandwidth
for "internet" service. Has any other country in the world pulled
this ??
meh, there is that, but some of the bandwidth is also being used for
free programming that I wouldn't otherwise get. RTN is kind of cool
sometimes, and Universal Sports often has coverage of bike races. I
wouldn't have those without digital TV. Also the reception is way
better, and when you do get a new TV you can receive over the air HD.

You don't need a TV, you just need a converter box. I have a Zenith and
a Channel Master and both have their ups and downs (now, if I could just
combine the better channel guide and S-video output of the CM with the
ability of the Zenith's remote to turn my TV on/off...)

nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
George Conklin
2009-06-17 12:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by JG
Post by George Conklin
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old
ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away
with
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a UHF
antenna. All DTV signals are UHF
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our local Channel 11 went back to Channel 11 for
digital on conversion day. I believe Vegas has all its channels on VHF
after conversion. Just look at the FCC maps and you will see VHF is still
alive and well.
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's. And the "benefits" are the sold off bandwidth
for "internet" service. Has any other country in the world pulled
this ??
meh, there is that, but some of the bandwidth is also being used for
free programming that I wouldn't otherwise get. RTN is kind of cool
sometimes, and Universal Sports often has coverage of bike races. I
wouldn't have those without digital TV. Also the reception is way
better, and when you do get a new TV you can receive over the air HD.
You don't need a TV, you just need a converter box. I have a Zenith and
a Channel Master and both have their ups and downs (now, if I could just
combine the better channel guide and S-video output of the CM with the
ability of the Zenith's remote to turn my TV on/off...)
nate
Nate, most people need an industrial-sized outdoor antenna. The Feds
assumed one on a 30 foot pole.....
Nate Nagel
2009-06-18 00:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mayson
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by JG
Post by George Conklin
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same
old
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by JG
Post by George Conklin
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital
signal,
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by JG
Post by George Conklin
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away
with
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason
an
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by JG
Post by George Conklin
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
"analog" antenna won't work.
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a UHF
antenna. All DTV signals are UHF
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our local Channel 11 went back to Channel 11
for
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by JG
Post by George Conklin
digital on conversion day. I believe Vegas has all its channels on VHF
after conversion. Just look at the FCC maps and you will see VHF is
still
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by JG
Post by George Conklin
alive and well.
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's. And the "benefits" are the sold off bandwidth
for "internet" service. Has any other country in the world pulled
this ??
meh, there is that, but some of the bandwidth is also being used for
free programming that I wouldn't otherwise get. RTN is kind of cool
sometimes, and Universal Sports often has coverage of bike races. I
wouldn't have those without digital TV. Also the reception is way
better, and when you do get a new TV you can receive over the air HD.
You don't need a TV, you just need a converter box. I have a Zenith and
a Channel Master and both have their ups and downs (now, if I could just
combine the better channel guide and S-video output of the CM with the
ability of the Zenith's remote to turn my TV on/off...)
nate
Nate, most people need an industrial-sized outdoor antenna. The Feds
assumed one on a 30 foot pole.....
I still get more channels now than I did pre-DTV. Rabbit ears - I have
a metal roof, so no attic antenna. Someday maybe I will put one on a
pole, but I have other priorities.

nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
John Mayson
2009-06-19 23:21:57 UTC
Permalink
meh, there is that, but some of the bandwidth is also being used for free
programming that I wouldn't otherwise get. RTN is kind of cool sometimes,
and Universal Sports often has coverage of bike races. I wouldn't have those
without digital TV. Also the reception is way better, and when you do get a
new TV you can receive over the air HD.
I love RTN. Back when TV was good. But I do find some things amusing.

I was watching "Dragnet" and the two detectives went to the front desk of
a hotel to ask of a guest was there. In my mind I expected the desk clerk
to go to a computer. Instead of went through a box of index cards. Oh
yeah... 1968...

On the "Rockford Files" Jim was pouring over several books with mug shots
instead of being at a screen. Also I don't know if it was the acting or
perhaps cops were this lax. They hold their revolvers like they're
holding a garden hose. Any cops show today would have them holding
semi-automatics in a combat stance.

John
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
John A. Weeks III
2009-06-17 01:07:59 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by JG
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's.
I guess some people would look at a free lunch as a scam. What
other things are you paranoid about?

As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine. You just have to get
a converter or, better yet, a DTV tuner.

You cannot expect the advancement of the human race to stop just
because you are afraid of change.
Post by JG
And the "benefits" are the sold off bandwidth
for "internet" service.
The government profited by nearly $20-billion. I would call
that a benefit.
Post by JG
Has any other country in the world pulled this ??
Perhaps you should learn more about how TV works in other parts
of the world. Would you like to pay for a TV license and then
only get government channels, like the do in the UK? Or get
only state approved content like they do in the Arab nations?
Or not have roving blackouts where there is no TV for hours
and even days at a time? Most everyone else in the world
is envious of the US for having such wide availability of
HDTV, except for Japan, who has had HDTV for years, and nations
like Morocco, South Africa, and Finland, who have already made
the conversion.

-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III           612-720-2854            ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications                         http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Garrett Wollman
2009-06-17 03:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by John A. Weeks III
Perhaps you should learn more about how TV works in other parts
of the world. Would you like to pay for a TV license and then
only get government channels, like the do in the UK?
Perhaps you should learn more about how TV works in the UK. (For one
thing, there are no "government channels" and never have been.)

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
***@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
John A. Weeks III
2009-06-17 04:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by John A. Weeks III
Perhaps you should learn more about how TV works in other parts
of the world. Would you like to pay for a TV license and then
only get government channels, like the do in the UK?
Perhaps you should learn more about how TV works in the UK. (For one
thing, there are no "government channels" and never have been.)
Ummm, you apparently have forgotten about the BBC, which is
established by royal charter, funded by a government tax, and
the copyright on their materials are owned by the British Crown.

-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III           612-720-2854            ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications                         http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Garrett Wollman
2009-06-17 06:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John A. Weeks III
Ummm, you apparently have forgotten about the BBC, which is
established by royal charter, funded by a government tax, and
the copyright on their materials are owned by the British Crown.
Probably because very little of that is true, and that which is true
doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

The BBC is an independent corporation,[1] funded by a license fee
which it is authorized to collect,[2] and owns its own copyrights as
any other corporation would do. It is governed by the BBC Trust,
which is indeed established under a royal charter (as are many
public-benefit corporations in the UK, from the British Film Institute
to Oxford University to the Royal College of Surgeons). It is not an
organ of the state.

-GAWollman

[1] Originally founded as a wholly-private, profit-making limited
company, I might add.

[2] Some consider this to be a tax, since the government must approve
the amount and has authority over how it is apportioned to the various
broadcasters that receive it. Currently it goes entirely to the BBC,
but there is active discussion of giving some part of it to the
commercial broadcaster ITV to fund regional news.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
***@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
George Conklin
2009-06-17 12:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John A. Weeks III
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by John A. Weeks III
Perhaps you should learn more about how TV works in other parts
of the world. Would you like to pay for a TV license and then
only get government channels, like the do in the UK?
Perhaps you should learn more about how TV works in the UK. (For one
thing, there are no "government channels" and never have been.)
Ummm, you apparently have forgotten about the BBC, which is
established by royal charter, funded by a government tax, and
the copyright on their materials are owned by the British Crown.
-john-
And at least BBC recognized that a digital signal will travel shorter
distances than the analog one. They put up a free satellite to cover the
lost areas. In our area, TV stations are saying, "Just call Time-Warner."
It is right there on the analog windows, still operating.
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-17 04:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
In article
Post by JG
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's.
I guess some people would look at a free lunch as a scam. What
other things are you paranoid about?
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine.
OTOH, you have to be a REAL luddite not to enjoy the improvements that
HDTV offers.
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
George Conklin
2009-06-17 12:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Garrett Wollman
In article
Post by JG
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's.
I guess some people would look at a free lunch as a scam. What
other things are you paranoid about?
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine.
OTOH, you have to be a REAL luddite not to enjoy the improvements that
Actually women don't seem very impressed. I can see an improvement on
several HDTVs, but my wife proclaims she could care less. The New York
Times had a long column on the same subject. But it is the lack of service
which is most distressing, even in urban areas. As for the rural ones, no
service at all, despite dishonest projections by the FCC and their paid-for
"experts."
Darkangel de la Louisiane
2009-06-19 06:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Garrett Wollman
In article
Post by JG
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's.
I guess some people would look at a free lunch as a scam. What
other things are you paranoid about?
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine.
OTOH, you have to be a REAL luddite not to enjoy the improvements that
Actually women don't seem very impressed. I can see an improvement on
several HDTVs, but my wife proclaims she could care less. The New York
Times had a long column on the same subject. But it is the lack of service
which is most distressing, even in urban areas. As for the rural ones, no
service at all, despite dishonest projections by the FCC and their paid-for
"experts."
You know, I wondered why I strongly didn't give a shit about HDTV...
nice to know there's some basis besides general apathy.
John A. Weeks III
2009-06-19 12:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darkangel de la Louisiane
Post by George Conklin
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Garrett Wollman
In article
Post by JG
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's.
I guess some people would look at a free lunch as a scam. What
other things are you paranoid about?
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine.
OTOH, you have to be a REAL luddite not to enjoy the improvements that
Actually women don't seem very impressed. I can see an improvement on
several HDTVs, but my wife proclaims she could care less. The New York
Times had a long column on the same subject. But it is the lack of service
which is most distressing, even in urban areas. As for the rural ones, no
service at all, despite dishonest projections by the FCC and their paid-for
"experts."
You know, I wondered why I strongly didn't give a shit about HDTV...
nice to know there's some basis besides general apathy.
For every one person afraid of change like yourself, there are 1000
that think it is really cool. Watching football is a totally different
experience in HD. You can see the plays much better, and you can read
the names on the backs of the players which helps viewers follow the
game. Which baseball, you can actually see the pitch coming in
towards home plate, and be able to call balls & strikes on your
own. For golf, you can actually see the blades of grass, and watch
putts zig and zag as they follow the small contours in the ground
and hit clumps of grass. With auto racing, the larger more detailed
screen can hold all kinds of telemetry information, such as meters
that show the speed of cars and displays that show what gear the
drivers are using. HDTV is simply amazing. No wonder so many people
were so upset when the cut-over was delayed.

-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III           612-720-2854            ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications                         http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Darkangel de la Louisiane
2009-06-19 21:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John A. Weeks III
Post by Darkangel de la Louisiane
Post by George Conklin
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Garrett Wollman
In article
Post by JG
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's.
I guess some people would look at a free lunch as a scam. What
other things are you paranoid about?
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine.
OTOH, you have to be a REAL luddite not to enjoy the improvements that
Actually women don't seem very impressed. I can see an improvement on
several HDTVs, but my wife proclaims she could care less. The New York
Times had a long column on the same subject. But it is the lack of service
which is most distressing, even in urban areas. As for the rural ones, no
service at all, despite dishonest projections by the FCC and their paid-for
"experts."
You know, I wondered why I strongly didn't give a shit about HDTV...
nice to know there's some basis besides general apathy.
For every one person afraid of change like yourself, there are 1000
that think it is really cool. Watching football is a totally different
experience in HD. You can see the plays much better, and you can read
the names on the backs of the players which helps viewers follow the
game. Which baseball, you can actually see the pitch coming in
towards home plate, and be able to call balls & strikes on your
own. For golf, you can actually see the blades of grass, and watch
putts zig and zag as they follow the small contours in the ground
and hit clumps of grass. With auto racing, the larger more detailed
screen can hold all kinds of telemetry information, such as meters
that show the speed of cars and displays that show what gear the
drivers are using. HDTV is simply amazing. No wonder so many people
were so upset when the cut-over was delayed.
-john-
I've seen 1080p HD, and I've seen standard-def digital on my late
80's/early 90's Trinitron. I'm honestly not impressed - just as the
parent to my previous reply noted in other women. Truthfully, even SD
digital isn't that impressive. It becomes even less so when the signal
becomes corrupted and unwatchable.

Don't get me wrong, though - I'm a woman who likes some sports.
Honestly, with football, I can already read the names in SD, and I
already saw the plays well enough. With baseball, I could already see
balls/strikes. I don't watch golf, so I couldn't possibly care less
about the improvements there. I don't need telemetry to tell me what
gears the cars are in or how fast they're going.

Let's try something besides sports - animation. Older animation actually
looks like shit in HD unless it's been re-optimized for it. With the
majority of the older stuff, that may never happen. Newer stuff's just
as impressive in SD as HD.

It's anything but amazing in my eyes... frankly, it's a waste. 16:9 SD
would be perfect, but while my old Sony still works, I see no reason to
knock myself into paralyzing debt on a new set. I have cable, so I've no
need for a converter box. If anything, I'm currently investing in a
larger SD set, specifically another old Trinitron. It was free to
obtain, and repairs will not cost that much. They'll certainly cost less
than even the smallest HD set and may even cost less than a HD tuner.

The only conceivable time I could see the need for an HD tuner is when a
hurricane knocks out the cable, and even then, I use an AM/FM radio to
get info in that situation. I wonder how well digital will work in a
Category 3 anyway...
Cameron Kaiser
2009-06-17 13:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by John A. Weeks III
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine.
OTOH, you have to be a REAL luddite not to enjoy the improvements that
HDTV offers.
Nah, I'm just cheap. I have a 20" TV/VCR I bought 10 years ago and it works
fine, and I turn on my TV during natural disasters and presidential
campaigns (which is redundant). So I got the converter box and now I can
carry on in the same fashion.

It's much more fun to hack and roadgeek than suckle on the boob tube. :)

--
Cameron Kaiser * ***@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-17 14:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by John A. Weeks III
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine.
OTOH, you have to be a REAL luddite not to enjoy the improvements that
HDTV offers.
Nah, I'm just cheap. I have a 20" TV/VCR I bought 10 years ago and it works
fine, and I turn on my TV during natural disasters and presidential
campaigns (which is redundant). So I got the converter box and now I can
carry on in the same fashion.
It's much more fun to hack and roadgeek than suckle on the boob tube. :)
I don't watch much TV, but I do watch the news every morning, and I
have a LOT of DVDs. I'd really hate to have to go back to a 20" 4:3
analog TV.

I do have one old analog TV (a 53" rear projection XBR that I bought
in 1997) toward which I have a RTF (Run 'Till Failure) policy. We have
analog cable, so it still works without a converter box. Oddly enough,
the KTLA Morning News, which is now broadcast OTA only in HD, still
looks exactly the same on my 4:3 TV as it did on Friday; KTLA is still
composing its picture to retain backward compatibility with 4:3 sets,
even though they no longer broadcast a 4:3 signal. I wonder how long
that's gonna last?
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
Scott M. Kozel
2009-06-17 16:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by John A. Weeks III
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine.
OTOH, you have to be a REAL luddite not to enjoy the improvements that
HDTV offers.
Nah, I'm just cheap. I have a 20" TV/VCR I bought 10 years ago and it works
fine, and I turn on my TV during natural disasters and presidential
campaigns (which is redundant). So I got the converter box and now I can
carry on in the same fashion.
It's much more fun to hack and roadgeek than suckle on the boob tube. :)
Like I said my TV is a 1986 19" Sony Trinitron, and the fact that it has
lasted so long is a reflection of how little I use it, maybe average 1
hour a week, the occasional football, golf and baseball championships,
disasters, weather emergency, etc. The computer and Internet is my
prime multimedia tool.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
John Mayson
2009-06-19 23:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Nah, I'm just cheap. I have a 20" TV/VCR I bought 10 years ago and it works
fine, and I turn on my TV during natural disasters and presidential
campaigns (which is redundant). So I got the converter box and now I can
carry on in the same fashion.
It's much more fun to hack and roadgeek than suckle on the boob tube. :)
I gave my 13" Sylvania TV with the rotary knobs to my sister in 1987 when
I left for college. She gave it back to me my senior year because it
didn't have a remote. It sat in the corner, unplugged, until the Braves
went to the World's Series that year. Ever since I very rarely watch
television. I can think of many other things I'd rather do with my money
that buy a big TV. I'm with Cameron, but these days I roadgeek via
bicycle more than by car.

John
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Roscoe Yamamoto
2009-06-20 02:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mayson
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Nah, I'm just cheap. I have a 20" TV/VCR I bought 10 years ago and it
works fine, and I turn on my TV during natural disasters and
presidential campaigns (which is redundant). So I got the converter box
and now I can carry on in the same fashion.
It's much more fun to hack and roadgeek than suckle on the boob tube. :)
I gave my 13" Sylvania TV with the rotary knobs to my sister in 1987
when I left for college. She gave it back to me my senior year because
it didn't have a remote. It sat in the corner, unplugged, until the
Braves went to the World's Series that year. Ever since I very rarely
watch television. I can think of many other things I'd rather do with
my money that buy a big TV. I'm with Cameron, but these days I roadgeek
via bicycle more than by car.
John
I have a Hauppage! Video Card that I use with my Acer Mini; which is
plugged into a 19" Viewsonic monitor. It's good enough to look at the
Mets games; prolly do alright for NFL games when they come around; and
for football games when I can find them. I occasionally like to look at
sport; or TBN and the Comedy Channel(it's hard to say which is funnier,
honestly). I might have it on more if I could get Discovery or Animal
Planet. But then, I'm a cheap bastard.
--
Otto Yamamoto
'Suffering in the real world is serious business
because it can actually kill you,
whereas the internet is basically
a vacuum of words, numbers and pictures.'
JG
2009-06-17 23:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Garrett Wollman
In article
Post by JG
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's.
I guess some people would look at a free lunch as a scam. What
other things are you paranoid about?
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine.
OTOH, you have to be a REAL luddite not to enjoy the improvements that
HDTV offers.
The biggest for me is the weather subchannels with current radar
shots. Other then that maybe the Euro channel on the city college PBS
station. (Ch 20 in Chicago). Oh and tons of reruns on 26.x. Overall
the change was a PITA for me, and ironically CBS-2 cranked up their
analog channel, 2 weeks before the switch, so that it was the clearest
in years. The internet and "public service" bandwidth could have been
gotten here by just moving the analog UHF channels above 50 further
down. Whats the next scam ? Dumping AM radio and selling those
frequencies ?
George Conklin
2009-06-18 18:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JG
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Garrett Wollman
In article
Post by JG
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's.
I guess some people would look at a free lunch as a scam. What
other things are you paranoid about?
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine.
OTOH, you have to be a REAL luddite not to enjoy the improvements that
HDTV offers.
The biggest for me is the weather subchannels with current radar
shots. Other then that maybe the Euro channel on the city college PBS
station. (Ch 20 in Chicago). Oh and tons of reruns on 26.x. Overall
the change was a PITA for me, and ironically CBS-2 cranked up their
analog channel, 2 weeks before the switch, so that it was the clearest
in years. The internet and "public service" bandwidth could have been
gotten here by just moving the analog UHF channels above 50 further
down. Whats the next scam ? Dumping AM radio and selling those
frequencies ?
I don't think anyone wants frequencies that low, or they most certainly
would dump
AM.
George Conklin
2009-06-17 12:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
In article
Post by JG
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's.
I guess some people would look at a free lunch as a scam. What
other things are you paranoid about?
As it turns out, there is no need to get pay TV or buy a new
television set. Older sets work just fine. You just have to get
a converter or, better yet, a DTV tuner.
Nah, you need an industrial-sized antenna. No amount of propaganda from you
covers up bad technology, and ATSC is very bad technology.
George Conklin
2009-06-17 12:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by JG
Post by George Conklin
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old
ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away
with
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a UHF
antenna. All DTV signals are UHF
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our local Channel 11 went back to Channel 11 for
digital on conversion day. I believe Vegas has all its channels on VHF
after conversion. Just look at the FCC maps and you will see VHF is still
alive and well.
This is looking like a bigger scam every day. Force some people to get
pay-tv or buy new tv's. And the "benefits" are the sold off bandwidth
for "internet" service. Has any other country in the world pulled
this ??
For many people, yes, you will need to get cable. Telemundo (sp?) went off
the air in the Raleigh-Durham area but in analog is running a screen that
states to continue to get their services you must contact Time-Warner. They
are upfront about it anyway.

Channel 5 used run a crawl which states they will be at reduced power for
months, but that you can always get cable TV. They also said something
about the internet, but I've not checked that out. They offered free
antennas too, and sent to Durham the 3x3 foot 8-bow-tie array normally
reserved for "deep fringe." My friend put it on a 50 foot pole. And this
is in the primary market!!!

As for Avery County, where I have a vacation spot, no over-the-air TV
remains. The local Radio Shack said people were complaining that on
satellite TV they had to get Charlotte stations, although the mountains had
totally blocked those stations and the area was served from TN stations. TN
stations are not allowed in saellite TV since Avery county is in NC,
although I'm about 2 miles from TN. Such is the LAW.

In the RDU area, there are now complaints about Channel 11...dozens of them
on the News and Observer blogs. And Channel 4 (UNC-TV) has pretty well
disappeared too, at least until they get the antenna fixed up. My wife
could not watch "As Times Goes By" nor "Antiques Roadshow." We have 1 TV
now which might get Channel 4, but she watches from one which does not
work...it won't even scan. Back to the roof!! More antennas!!!
Gordon
2009-06-17 00:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same
old ones that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit
ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital
signal, it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're
getting away
with
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by John Mayson
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical
reason an "analog" antenna won't work.
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a
UHF antenna. All DTV signals are UHF
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our local Channel 11 went back to Channel 11 for
digital on conversion day. I believe Vegas has all its channels on
VHF after conversion. Just look at the FCC maps and you will see VHF
is still alive and well.
This happened in many markets. Here in Portland, Channels 6,8, 12
moved their digital transmissions from their temporary UHF assignments
back to their primary assignmets in the VHF. Channels 2 and 6 stayed
in the UHF, and 22 was temporarily broadcasting digital on VHF 4 and
went back to 22 post transition.

How intresting. It was my understanding that the FCC wanted to vacate
the VHF frequencies.
Garrett Wollman
2009-06-17 03:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
How intresting. It was my understanding that the FCC wanted to vacate
the VHF frequencies.
Why would they? There's practically no market for them -- the
antennas required are much too big for today's mobile devices.
(That's why Qualcomm bought channel 55, not channel 2!) When the FCC
was initially discussing taking the VHF-low band out of service, they
were stymied by a complete lack of interest from any other users
(except amateurs, who would love to get channel 4, but they don't
provide much revenue to the Treasury). They ought to be happy that
some broadcasters still wanted them (to save on power bills). Other
stations are thinking that it's a good thing they got off VHF; they'll
never be able to broadcast to handhelds on VHF.

There is some serious talk about moving channels 5 and 6 into FM
broadcast service. Another 12 MHz would give 60 more FM channels
(about 15 stations per market, except in Dallas or SLC where it's
closer to 30), but there are very few receivers out there that could
tune those frequencies. (It's the Japanese FM band, so most radio
chipsets can do it by changing a strapping option, but most consumer
radios are not easily modifiable.)

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
***@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
JG
2009-06-18 00:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Gordon
How intresting. It was my understanding that the FCC wanted to vacate
the VHF frequencies.
Why would they? There's practically no market for them -- the
antennas required are much too big for today's mobile devices.
(That's why Qualcomm bought channel 55, not channel 2!) When the FCC
was initially discussing taking the VHF-low band out of service, they
were stymied by a complete lack of interest from any other users
(except amateurs, who would love to get channel 4, but they don't
provide much revenue to the Treasury). They ought to be happy that
some broadcasters still wanted them (to save on power bills). Other
stations are thinking that it's a good thing they got off VHF; they'll
never be able to broadcast to handhelds on VHF.
There is some serious talk about moving channels 5 and 6 into FM
broadcast service. Another 12 MHz would give 60 more FM channels
(about 15 stations per market, except in Dallas or SLC where it's
closer to 30), but there are very few receivers out there that could
tune those frequencies.
Thats what I suspect, clear out AM and move them to FM, viola more
bandwidth to sell.
Garrett Wollman
2009-06-18 01:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JG
Thats what I suspect, clear out AM and move them to FM, viola more
bandwidth to sell.
To whom?! It's unsaleable. No new service of any kind would use
200-meter wavelengths with propagation characteristics that vary
dramatically depending on the time of day and whether it's rained
recently.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
***@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
John Mayson
2009-06-19 23:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our local Channel 11 went back to Channel 11 for
digital on conversion day. I believe Vegas has all its channels on VHF
after conversion. Just look at the FCC maps and you will see VHF is still
alive and well.
If I understood it correctly, Austin's Fox affiliate, and only VHF
station, KTBC was on 7. They're operating their DTV at reduced power so
they can work on the tower and start transmitting on 7 again with DTV.
They're banded "Fox 7" and want to keep that.

John
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
JG
2009-06-20 00:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mayson
Post by George Conklin
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our local Channel 11 went back to Channel 11 for
digital on conversion day. I believe Vegas has all its channels on VHF
after conversion. Just look at the FCC maps and you will see VHF is still
alive and well.
If I understood it correctly, Austin's Fox affiliate, and only VHF
station, KTBC was on 7. They're operating their DTV at reduced power so
they can work on the tower and start transmitting on 7 again with DTV.
They're banded "Fox 7" and want to keep that.
John
--
Austin, Texas, USA
In Chicago CBS-2 is now DTV 11, while NBC-5 is now DTV 29, So taping
Letterman while watching Conan is a PITA, with precise rotation of the
combo VHF-UHF rabbit ears.
Garrett Wollman
2009-06-20 02:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mayson
they can work on the tower and start transmitting on 7 again with DTV.
They're banded "Fox 7" and want to keep that.
The RF channel has no connection whatsoever with the station's
branding. The "display channel" of every DTV service is just a field
in the MPEG-2 transport stream. There is no reason (except for this
pesky VHF issue) for consumers ever to be aware of the RF channel the
station they watch is operating on.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
***@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
John Mayson
2009-06-19 23:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
Being the pedant, here, but your terminology is not correct.
The difference is between a UHF antenna and VHF antenna. The "rabbit
ears" are VHF. The little loop - around 1 foot in diameter - is a UHF
antenna. All DTV signals are UHF and you should be using one of them
(or one of the fancy ones like I have) rather than rabbit ears, as your
reception will be better - wavelength matching and all that.
Yes, you're right. With a handful of exceptions right now all the DTV
signals are UHF. However most of Austin's TV stations were UHF to begin
with so the same antenna will work just fine.
Post by Floyd Rogers
Old UHF antennas work just as well as new "digital" UHF antennas, yes.
But you should not be using a VHF antenna.
Agreed.

John BSEE, former IEEE member, ham radio operator, RF design graduate from
Georgia Tech, etc.
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-16 05:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old ones
that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away with
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.
They're preying on consumers' ignorance, as always.
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
George Conklin
2009-06-16 12:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mayson
Post by Michael G. Koerner
It is also amazing that the best antennae for digital are the same old ones
that worked best for analog, including the plain 'rabbit ears'.
Your antenna doesn't care if it's receiving an analog or digital signal,
it only cares about frequency. I cannot believe they're getting away with
selling "DTV antennas" for a premium when there's no technical reason an
"analog" antenna won't work.
Other posts have pointed out that the yagis sold for UHF are optimized
for Channel 62 (or something close to that), which is quite sub-optimal for
the DTV channels. A redesign is called for.
Garrett Wollman
2009-06-14 03:37:54 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Mark Roberts <markrobt+***@gmail.com> wrote:

[San Diego, obviously:]
Post by Mark Roberts
I assume the Mexican stations (6, 12, and a few UHFs) were not
affected, though. You might be too far north to get them, and it
always seemed to me that 12 was a propaganda channel for the BCN
state government (6 was Fox; is it still? dtv.gov now shows Fox
on what must have been a WB station).
Fox pulled their affiliation from XETV last year; KSWB is either
Tribune or Local TV (it hardly matters and I forget which) and Randy
was able to convince Rupert to give the affiliation to a U.S. station.
I think XETV picked up the CW affil -- originally there was some talk
that KSWB would keep both, putting CW on a subchannel. Both XETV and
XEWT (12) are owned by Televisa (the Azcarraga family), as is XETV's
U.S. programmer, Bay City Television. That makes it the second time
XETV has lost its affiliation -- the first time was back when it was
an ABC affil.

At this point, I believe they are quite happy to be the only
full-power English-language station in the market still broadcasting
in analog. The Mexican authorities are not planning to dump analog
for some years to come.

Scott covered the Televisa stations and Mt. San Antonio in some detail
in "Tower Site of the Week" last February; see
<http://www.fybush.com/sites/2009/site-090213.html> and
<http://www.fybush.com/sites/2009/site-090220.html>.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
***@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Cameron Kaiser
2009-06-14 16:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Roberts
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Wish I could say the same thing in So Cal. I lost about a third of the
channels I used to get, and unfortunately the local telenovelas are
about the only thing coming in clearer.
I assume the Mexican stations (6, 12, and a few UHFs) were not
affected, though. You might be too far north to get them, and it
I don't know about XETV but I'm sure they broadcast digital also. They are no
longer Fox; that moved to KSWB (the old KTTY), which as you mention is the
former WB affiliate, and XETV is now the CW affiliate.

In my case, I'm talking about the local Univision/Telemundo affiliates,
y aunque hablo espan~ol, no tengo mucho interes en las vidas sexuales de
las mujeres de hogar.

--
Cameron Kaiser * ***@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
KML271
2009-06-13 12:17:03 UTC
Permalink
I live in New Britain, CT, just southwest of Hartford. Our PBS
stations (Hartford and Norwich) went off at 9 AM eastern, while ABC,
CW, NBC, MY and FOX all went at noon eastern time (ION and UNI
switched off back in February.) I use an Insignia converter box sold
at Best Buy (made by Zenith) and an RCA "bat wing" antenna. It's
resting atop a south-facing second floor window. My results?

Anything coming off of Rattlesnake Mountain in Farmington (CW, PBS
Hartford, NBC and FOX) are all between 85 and 90% on my signal meter.
In fairness, I'm within 5 miles of it, so that might be why. You can
get an excellent view of this site pretty much anywhere between Exits
33 in Plainville (eastbound) to Exit 39A (westbound), from Plainville
to the Farmington/West Hartford town line on I-84, with the absolute
best view being from Exit 37 in Farmington (Fienamann Road / to US 6
WEST).

Avon Mountain is home to the digital signals of CBS and UNI. I don't
know about the visibility there, but I do know you can get close to
the site with US Route 44 in either Avon or West Hartford.

Lastly, digital ABC and MY come off of Madmere Mountain in Hamden. How
close that is to CT Route 15 (Wilbur Cross Parkway), I wouldn't know.
PBS New Haven is at East Rock Park in New Haven, so no clue with the
roads there.
GK
2009-06-14 15:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by KML271
I live in New Britain, CT, just southwest of Hartford. Our PBS
stations (Hartford and Norwich) went off at 9 AM eastern, while ABC,
CW, NBC, MY and FOX all went at noon eastern time (ION and UNI
switched off back in February.) I use an Insignia converter box sold
at Best Buy (made by Zenith) and an RCA "bat wing" antenna. It's
resting atop a south-facing second floor window. My results?
PBS New Haven is at East Rock Park in New Haven, so no clue with the
roads there.
East Rock Park in New Haven should be viewable from parts of I-95 as you
drive past New Haven.

Back in the 90's I built some LPTV stations that started in my garage in
NJ, then wound up at West Rock Park which is where that tunnel on the
CT15 Wilbur Cross Pkwy, N of the Merritt, goes through the mountain.
In fact the road going through the park passes over the mouth of that
tunnel on CT-15.
West Rock St Park was closed by CT for budget reasons, so I still have a
specially cut key on a restricted key blank that opens the gates to the
park. Kind of eerie at times driving through a large park that is closed
off.

GK
Garrett Wollman
2009-06-14 17:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by KML271
PBS New Haven is at East Rock Park in New Haven, so no clue with the
roads there.
I'd be surprised if you could get that (very low-power channel 6)
signal in any town not directly adjacent to New Haven, although their
engineering exhibit claims that you should get a 35 dBu signal.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
***@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Rich Piehl
2009-06-13 14:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
I got this Sony TV in 1986, without a remote, something that I regretted
later, and now I have a remote! Very helpful, indeed. Especially the
"mute" button!
All stations broadcast an image that is more rectangular, so the
vertical span is less than the screen height. I suppose this format is
to fit the big screen TVs.
These stations have two channels. They formerly were program-only.
CBS Channel 6-1 is for programs
CBS Channel 6-2 is for weather
NBC Channel 12-1 is for programs
NBC Channel 12-2 is for weather
Due to distance, ABC Channel 8 had substandard reception formerly, and
now it has good reception. Before and after, channels 6 and 12 have
good reception.
All local UHF stations have better reception than before -- Channels 23,
35, 57, 65. Actually only 35 had good reception before, the others were
poor, and now they all have good reception.
I suppose if I had cable, the reception might be even better yet, but it
is good enough for me, given that I don't watch much TV anyhow.
All in all, I have considerably more features, and the only negative is
a slightly smaller image.
One of the drawbacks to digital over analog is that digital requires a
complete signal of a certain strength to give viewers a watchable image
and sound. With analog, if the signal was marginal you might get some
snow, shadows or fading but the signal was still watchable. This is
especially problematic when there is heavy rain or snow for someone who
has a barely passable digital signal when the weather is clear and dry.
I'm 30+ miles from the digital transmitter for the St. Louis stations
and even wit ha BIG rooftop antenna I've had some signal issues in the
even a moderate rain with the Fox station. I'm hoping it is because
they didn't have everything turned up to full power yet because 30 miles
isn't that far. And I've noticed the problem on a converter box and a
digital TV so is just one device with marginal quality.

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA
Mark Roberts
2009-06-14 01:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Rich Piehl <***@NOSPAMcharter.net> had written:
| I'm 30+ miles from the digital transmitter for the St. Louis stations
| and even wit ha BIG rooftop antenna I've had some signal issues in the
| even a moderate rain with the Fox station. I'm hoping it is because
| they didn't have everything turned up to full power yet because 30 miles
| isn't that far. And I've noticed the problem on a converter box and a
| digital TV so is just one device with marginal quality.

It may well be that KTVI was running on low power. dtv.gov seems to
be down right now, so I can't see whether KTVI's transitional
allocation was the same as its final allocation. (My reading of
the FCC query results indicates that it was the same.) From what I
recall, all the St. Louis VHF stations ended up with UHF
allocations. 2, 4, and 5 were essentially unsuitable for digital
transmission, and I don't know what factors were in play for 9 and 11.

The FCC list shows KTVI-DT operating under an STA at around half power
under the actual licensed power, all on UHF 43.

Probably the most direct way of finding out is to call the station.
This is one weekend when you've got a good chance of getting
someone on the phone who knows what's going on with the station,
because Uncle Charlie is checking up on them.
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
Roscoe Yamamoto
2009-06-13 15:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
I got this Sony TV in 1986, without a remote, something that I regretted
later, and now I have a remote! Very helpful, indeed. Especially the
"mute" button!
All stations broadcast an image that is more rectangular, so the
vertical span is less than the screen height. I suppose this format is
to fit the big screen TVs.
These stations have two channels. They formerly were program-only. CBS
Channel 6-1 is for programs
CBS Channel 6-2 is for weather
NBC Channel 12-1 is for programs
NBC Channel 12-2 is for weather
Due to distance, ABC Channel 8 had substandard reception formerly, and
now it has good reception. Before and after, channels 6 and 12 have
good reception.
All local UHF stations have better reception than before -- Channels 23,
35, 57, 65. Actually only 35 had good reception before, the others were
poor, and now they all have good reception.
I suppose if I had cable, the reception might be even better yet, but it
is good enough for me, given that I don't watch much TV anyhow.
All in all, I have considerably more features, and the only negative is
a slightly smaller image.
I get a couple of local UHF stations-but I'm likely too far away to get
any of the City or Albany stations without a decent rooftop antenna-which
I can't set up in my present digs. I'm not using a digital box-I have a
Hauppage Win-TV 850 that's hooked into my Windows computer; and I have
cable, so I'm not getting the fractional channels(That likely requires a
box); really I don't need it, since I get Comedy Central, which is what I
mostly watch anyway. The only other channels I'd be interested in would
be Discovery and Animal Planet.
--
Otto Yamamoto
'Suffering in the real world is serious business
because it can actually kill you,
whereas the internet is basically
a vacuum of words, numbers and pictures.'
Mark Roberts
2009-06-13 19:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Roscoe Yamamoto <***@yamamoto.cc> had written:
|
| I get a couple of local UHF stations-but I'm likely too far away to get
| any of the City or Albany stations without a decent rooftop antenna-which
| I can't set up in my present digs. I'm not using a digital box-I have a
| Hauppage Win-TV 850 that's hooked into my Windows computer; and I have
| cable, so I'm not getting the fractional channels(That likely requires a
| box); really I don't need it, since I get Comedy Central, which is what I
| mostly watch anyway. The only other channels I'd be interested in would
| be Discovery and Animal Planet.

From what I remember from my brief time in the Hudson Valley, you
pretty much needed to have cable to get TV. It was just too far
from New York and Albany to get either city's stations clearly.
In Beacon, Mount Beacon also blocked reception of NYC signals.
So Beacon and vicinity was probably one of the first places in
the country to get cable, back when people called it CATV
(community antenna television).
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
cambronj
2009-06-13 17:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
I got this Sony TV in 1986, without a remote, something that I regretted
later, and now I have a remote! Very helpful, indeed. Especially the
"mute" button!
All stations broadcast an image that is more rectangular, so the
vertical span is less than the screen height. I suppose this format is
to fit the big screen TVs.
These stations have two channels. They formerly were program-only.
CBS Channel 6-1 is for programs
CBS Channel 6-2 is for weather
NBC Channel 12-1 is for programs
NBC Channel 12-2 is for weather
Due to distance, ABC Channel 8 had substandard reception formerly, and
now it has good reception. Before and after, channels 6 and 12 have
good reception.
All local UHF stations have better reception than before -- Channels 23,
35, 57, 65. Actually only 35 had good reception before, the others were
poor, and now they all have good reception.
I suppose if I had cable, the reception might be even better yet, but it
is good enough for me, given that I don't watch much TV anyhow.
All in all, I have considerably more features, and the only negative is
a slightly smaller image.
Scott,

The smaller image is the result of the wide screen aspect ratio (16:9)
being displayed on your old 4:3 aspect ratio TV.

Your converter box can be set to clip the sides off the 16:9 aspect
ratio
to fill the full screen of your 4:3 aspect ratio TV.

I leave my box in the clip mode as most of the programing I watch is
broadcast in the 4:3 aspect ratio. The only time I change the box to
display 16:9 is when I watch the NASCAR on ABC.

John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore.
Floyd Rogers
2009-06-13 18:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by cambronj
Post by Scott M. Kozel
All in all, I have considerably more features, and the only negative is
a slightly smaller image.
Scott,
The smaller image is the result of the wide screen aspect ratio (16:9)
being displayed on your old 4:3 aspect ratio TV.
Your converter box can be set to clip the sides off the 16:9 aspect
ratio
to fill the full screen of your 4:3 aspect ratio TV.
I leave my box in the clip mode as most of the programing I watch is
broadcast in the 4:3 aspect ratio. The only time I change the box to
display 16:9 is when I watch the NASCAR on ABC.
John may be right - there may be a setting you can select on how to
display the image more fully. Look for "stretch" in the menu. But the
source still has only 480 lines rather than 486 you had before!

Floyd
Scott M. Kozel
2009-06-14 03:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by cambronj
Post by Scott M. Kozel
All in all, I have considerably more features, and the only negative is
a slightly smaller image.
Scott,
The smaller image is the result of the wide screen aspect ratio (16:9)
being displayed on your old 4:3 aspect ratio TV.
Your converter box can be set to clip the sides off the 16:9 aspect
ratio to fill the full screen of your 4:3 aspect ratio TV.
I leave my box in the clip mode as most of the programing I watch is
broadcast in the 4:3 aspect ratio. The only time I change the box to
display 16:9 is when I watch the NASCAR on ABC.
Thanks, John ... I see that there are 4 different possible settings for
the aspect ratio.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Mark Roberts
2009-06-13 19:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Scott M. Kozel <***@comcast.net> had written:
| Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
| ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
|
| I got this Sony TV in 1986, without a remote, something that I regretted
| later, and now I have a remote! Very helpful, indeed. Especially the
| "mute" button!
|
| All stations broadcast an image that is more rectangular, so the
| vertical span is less than the screen height. I suppose this format is
| to fit the big screen TVs.

It's called "letterboxing" -- your converter may have a setting to
allow full use of the screen by cutting off the sides of the
picture. If you're really lucky, you might have something called
"pan and scan" which is an attempt to intelligently figure out
which parts of the image are critical and cutting off those that
aren't. DVD players often have this function though, in my
experience, it doesn't work all that well. But it doesn't hurt to
try!

| These stations have two channels. They formerly were program-only.
| CBS Channel 6-1 is for programs
| CBS Channel 6-2 is for weather
| NBC Channel 12-1 is for programs
| NBC Channel 12-2 is for weather
|
| Due to distance, ABC Channel 8 had substandard reception formerly, and
| now it has good reception. Before and after, channels 6 and 12 have
| good reception.

With digital, either you get perfect reception or you don't get
anything. There's no in-between.

It's also possible that your channel 8 either moved location or
moved to UHF (actually it did move to UHF, see below). The
channels you see on the converter box are virtual
channels. The actual physical channel may be different. This was
done in order to allow TV stations to keep their current branding
(for example, KTVU in Oakland still shows as channel 2, even though
it's on physical channel 38). It's especially true for TV stations
that, before, were low-band VHF (2 through 6) as those channels
have proven unsuitable for digital use. They're prone to more
electrical interference than the other channels. There are a few stations
stuck with low-band allocations but I wouldn't be surprised if they
moved in coming months.

The best list is at: http://www.dtv.gov/stationlist.htm - it's
organized by market. Search for "Richmond", and you'll see:

6 is on physical 25
8 is on 22
12 is on 12
23 is on 42
57 is on 44
65 is on 47

| I suppose if I had cable, the reception might be even better yet, but it
| is good enough for me, given that I don't watch much TV anyhow.

Cable isn't affected by this switch. Most stations feed the cable
system via direct links and the cable company either sends it out
as analog or converts it to a different digital modulation scheme
(QAM).

You're probably getting a *better* picture than you would with
cable! ATSC signals tend to be less compressed, while cable
companies like to wring every bit possible out of QAM.
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-14 00:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Roberts
With digital, either you get perfect reception or you don't get
anything. There's no in-between.
Um, not quite.

The "in-between" might mean that you get a picture that has lots of
freezes or macroblocking, or the audio might have annoying
high-pitched chirps.
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
Mark Roberts
2009-06-14 00:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Scott in SoCal <***@yahoo.com> had written:
| In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Mark Roberts
| <markrobt+***@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| >With digital, either you get perfect reception or you don't get
| >anything. There's no in-between.
|
| Um, not quite.
|
| The "in-between" might mean that you get a picture that has lots of
| freezes or macroblocking, or the audio might have annoying
| high-pitched chirps.

But, to me at least, that's far more unwatchable than a snowy
picture might be. The degradation with analog is gradual; the
degradation with digital is sharp and sudden. So I'll stand by my
original statement.
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
Cameron Kaiser
2009-06-14 16:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Mark Roberts
With digital, either you get perfect reception or you don't get
anything. There's no in-between.
Um, not quite.
The "in-between" might mean that you get a picture that has lots of
freezes or macroblocking, or the audio might have annoying
high-pitched chirps.
... which is pretty much unwatchable ;-)

I'd rather have snow than stutters.

--
Cameron Kaiser * ***@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-14 19:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Mark Roberts
With digital, either you get perfect reception or you don't get
anything. There's no in-between.
Um, not quite.
The "in-between" might mean that you get a picture that has lots of
freezes or macroblocking, or the audio might have annoying
high-pitched chirps.
... which is pretty much unwatchable ;-)
I was not attempting to address the "viewability" of the in-between
state. I merely sought to point out that digital TV is far from binary
either-you-get-it-or-you-don't.
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
Cameron Kaiser
2009-06-15 02:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Mark Roberts
With digital, either you get perfect reception or you don't get
anything. There's no in-between.
Um, not quite.
The "in-between" might mean that you get a picture that has lots of
freezes or macroblocking, or the audio might have annoying
high-pitched chirps.
... which is pretty much unwatchable ;-)
I was not attempting to address the "viewability" of the in-between
state. I merely sought to point out that digital TV is far from binary
either-you-get-it-or-you-don't.
So how do those pedant pants fit? :-D

--
Cameron Kaiser * ***@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
John Mayson
2009-06-15 22:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Mark Roberts
With digital, either you get perfect reception or you don't get
anything. There's no in-between.
Um, not quite.
The "in-between" might mean that you get a picture that has lots of
freezes or macroblocking, or the audio might have annoying
high-pitched chirps.
... which is pretty much unwatchable ;-)
I was not attempting to address the "viewability" of the in-between
state. I merely sought to point out that digital TV is far from binary
either-you-get-it-or-you-don't.
And apparently everybody but you thinks a fringe DTV signal is not getting
it. :-)
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-16 05:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mayson
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Cameron Kaiser
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Mark Roberts
With digital, either you get perfect reception or you don't get
anything. There's no in-between.
Um, not quite.
The "in-between" might mean that you get a picture that has lots of
freezes or macroblocking, or the audio might have annoying
high-pitched chirps.
... which is pretty much unwatchable ;-)
I was not attempting to address the "viewability" of the in-between
state. I merely sought to point out that digital TV is far from binary
either-you-get-it-or-you-don't.
And apparently everybody but you thinks a fringe DTV signal is not getting
it. :-)
<shrug> I can't help it if people have silly ideas. :)
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
Scott M. Kozel
2009-06-14 03:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Roberts
With digital, either you get perfect reception or you don't get
anything. There's no in-between.
It's also possible that your channel 8 either moved location or
moved to UHF (actually it did move to UHF, see below). The
channels you see on the converter box are virtual
channels. The actual physical channel may be different. This was
done in order to allow TV stations to keep their current branding
(for example, KTVU in Oakland still shows as channel 2, even though
it's on physical channel 38). It's especially true for TV stations
that, before, were low-band VHF (2 through 6) as those channels
have proven unsuitable for digital use. They're prone to more
electrical interference than the other channels. There are a few stations
stuck with low-band allocations but I wouldn't be surprised if they
moved in coming months.
The best list is at: http://www.dtv.gov/stationlist.htm - it's
6 is on physical 25
8 is on 22
12 is on 12
23 is on 42
57 is on 44
65 is on 47
Interesting info ... thanks!
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Michael Hale
2009-06-15 22:52:04 UTC
Permalink
You're probably getting a *better* picture than you would with cable!
ATSC signals tend to be less compressed, while cable companies like to
wring every bit possible out of QAM.
Exactly my experience here. So much so that I canceled my cable since I
wasn't watching that much other than the broadcast channels anyway. I'm
sure that the compression that cable companies do to th QAM stations is
to get more bandwidth for pay digital channels as well as data services
like cable modems.

Mike
Gordon
2009-06-14 01:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
Only now? Jeesh! I've had mine running since last year.
I had a different experience. It took quite a bit of
experimentation to come up with a suitable antenna.
If you want to see it, go to :
www.gordonreeder.com/Content/DTV_antenna
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-14 04:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
Only now? Jeesh! I've had mine running since last year.
I had a different experience. It took quite a bit of
experimentation to come up with a suitable antenna.
www.gordonreeder.com/Content/DTV_antenna
Not Found
The requested URL /g_reeder/Content/DTV_antenna was not found on this
server.
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
Gordon
2009-06-15 19:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Gordon
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Set up the digital TV converter box, and it works fine! I use rabbit
ears antenna, and live in the City of Richmond VA.
Only now? Jeesh! I've had mine running since last year.
I had a different experience. It took quite a bit of
experimentation to come up with a suitable antenna.
www.gordonreeder.com/Content/DTV_antenna
Not Found
The requested URL /g_reeder/Content/DTV_antenna was not found on this
server.
Try this one instead.

http://mysite.verizon.net/g_reeder/Content/DTV_antenna.html

Sometimes the redirection doesn't work.
Scott in SoCal
2009-06-16 05:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Scott in SoCal
Post by Gordon
www.gordonreeder.com/Content/DTV_antenna
Not Found
The requested URL /g_reeder/Content/DTV_antenna was not found on this
server.
Try this one instead.
http://mysite.verizon.net/g_reeder/Content/DTV_antenna.html
Sometimes the redirection doesn't work.
Success!
--
Speed is like alcohol at the scene of a pregnancy:
It might be a factor but it's not the father.
John Mayson
2009-06-15 22:19:51 UTC
Permalink
I've been fairly pleased with DTV. I wish our Fox and NBC affiliates
would carry subchannels like the other stations do.

I pick up two PBS stations. The one out of the Fort Hood area carries
Pentagon TV which is interesting.

I'm barely outside the Austin city limits and pick up everything find with
rabbit ears.

John
--
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Scott M. Kozel
2009-06-17 20:35:26 UTC
Permalink
There is another digital TV issue that I have not yet found the answer
to. Part of my portable radio listening is to a couple TV shows (Dr.
Phil is one), when I am in a place where viewing a picture would be
inappropriate.

I have a small portable AM/FM radio that has VHF TV channels and weather
channels. The TV reception is analog, so as of June 12th users of these
radios lost access to the TV channels, for the same reason as with
picture analog TVs.

Does anyone know if radios with digital TV reception have yet been
marketed? My inquiry at Radio Shack (where I bought this radio) came up
blank. Using a digital converter box would defeat the purpose of having
a small portable radio, and this radio only cost $40 anyhow.

A local TV station told me that these AM/FM/TV radios are more popular
than one might think, as there are plenty of people who want to get TV
audio alone in some places.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Loading...