dpb wrote:

That's useful; thanks for the link. It still is a pretty sorry site
for ease of use, though...


I agree - the FCC's consumer site is useless, and the main FCC site isn't the
easiest to use.

I note for our service area (W KS) out of the Wichita-Hutchinson MSA,
there are quite a few of the maps with fairly significant areas or
orange and red dots on them instead of empty or green...


Yes - it looks like some of the stations (like KLBY) are reducing their coverage
area. I don't know why they chose to do that, but I assume it was a trade
between the cost of transmitting to the larger area vs the advertising revenue
they get from that extra coverage.

For what the maps are worth (which I don't know about since there's
nothing with them to indicate how they were generated) it seems to say
that despite the fact that at least so far the converter box hasn't
been able to even find enough signal to indicate there is that
supposedly we will be inside the coverage range by at least a small
margin for the particular area we're in.

Keep in mind that those maps represent the post transition state. It may be that
the stations are broadcasting right now at less than full power, or from a
location that doesn't represent the way things will be.

I don't know and haven't been able to determine from any information
from the stations what this mismatch in indications means -- are they
just not yet broadcasting DTV from the translator locations and all
the data on the maps is simply computed/estimated, are they
broadcasting but at such low power compared to licensed maximum that
the maps are a nice theoretical exercise but of no practical value, or
were the maps compiled using some sensitive test gear or something
else entirely? They main stations have announced short tests of the
main transmitter signals and announce explicitly these are not testing
the translators but they never say a word about what the plans for the
translators actually are.

The translators are not required to switch at this time and can stay analog, but
you are wise to check with any station to see what their plans are. I've found
the station engineers are very open about what their plans are.

I do note on the maps that the licensed power for the DTV transmitters
is from a tenth to a fourth of that for the analog which certainly
means the quality of an antenna and receiver are going to have to be
quite good it would seem to have a chance.

Yes, but don't get too hung up on that. IIRC you can't equate the ERP for VHF
and UHF signals directly.

I have to vote with the others in rural areas that while it seems a
good theoretical advance for weak signal areas the "all or nothing"
nature of digital is likely to be not to please as compared to the
gradual degradation of analog. I'd also far prefer the latter over
the former given the choice.

That is a drawback to digital - snowy stations are not an option.

I only know to wait and find out what happens on witching day...either
it'll work or I'll have to decide what to try to do or do
without...certainly just going on as is would be far preferable if it
goes away; if a miracle happens and it does by chance work then I can
join the crowd who thinks it's ok while the neighbors a little farther
out can be the ignored minority--ain't that how it's supposed to be? :
(