On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:54:42 -0600, Jimw wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:07:28 -0500, Ann wrote:

These maps show the both the individual stations' analog coverage areas
and new DTV coverage areas. For example three fringe VHS stations I now
receive have cut their coverage areas (and changed the pattern) - which
explains why I don't/won't receive their UHF digital signal.

"Map Book of All Full-Power Digital Television Stations Authorized by the
FCC"
http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

This looks like a useful thing, until you look at the choices. They are
only the biggest cities. Where I live, the stations come from smaller
cities, and they are not on the list. Once again, us rural folks are
ignored. That's my major gripe about DTV. Anyone in medium or large city
can buy a converter and brag how they got more stations and (supposedly) a
better picture.

The list is by market areas - which areas include small cities, towns, and
rural. What I did was look at the maps for the three different market
areas where the transmission towers for the stations I receive are located.

The rest of us in small cities or rural areas are either losing channels
or not getting any. Or else we get constant dropouts and blank screens.
I never much complained when I'd get periods of snow and sometimes
almost full picture loss on analog. I could always at least still hear
the sound and continue with the program I was watching. It was rare it
would get so bad that I'd have to leave that channel. I very much hate
the ALL or NOTHING signals of DTV. Either it works perfectly, or the
station is blank. That is more than annoying. THen there are those
screen breakups, where it looks like someone made a jigsaw puzzle out of
the picture. Also very annoying. Much worse than screen "snow".

I do more listening to TV than actually watching it and find the sound
cutting out more annoying than the pixillation.

What really irks me the most is that they call this "progress". Progress
is when something gets BETTER and/or EASIER to use. This is NOT
progress.
And for those who think the picture is better, I honestly dont see any
difference (when I do get a signal). Sure, its a perfect picture, but
half the time there is no picture at all. I've gotten a "perfect"
picture on analog tv too, and when it's not perfect, its still watchable
most of the time. If *I* was the person to make the choice of what IS
progress, I'd choose ANALOG. The reason is simple. When I'm watching a
football game, I want to watch that game. If the screen gets a little
fuzzy, I can still see the game. But when a DTV signal goes blank, I'm
finished watching the program.

Once again, the city folks will seldon have blackouts (signal loss), so
they will be happy and brag how great DTV is, but us rural folks (who
are the least likely to have access to cable tv), will be left out in
the cold, with a tv that only works part of the time and at any moment
can just lose signal in the middle of an important program.

That "city folks" get better OTA reception is incorrect. In the two cities
where I've lived, cable was a necessity (for analog).

I dont have access to cable, and doubt it will ever happen in the near
future. Satellite tv is extremely expensive around here. So, as far as
I'm concerned, I will be left with a worthless tv, converter or not.

Jim