Ann wrote:

You might want to look a little closer. The FCC follows the standard MSA
convention - that is Metropolitan Statistical Area. If you find the
nearest MSA and look inside, you should find your "local" stations.

No, as the page says, those are the FCC's (214) designated market areas -
210 of which correspond to Nielsen's market areas plus 4 (offshore) added
by the FCC. The U.S has 363 MSAs.

My mistake... Still, the stations located in smaller cities should be found
inside one of the larger market area PDFs.

On Jan 8, 8:07 pm, Robert Neville wrote:
Don Bruder wrote:
I *WISH* I could find something in the disaster that claims to be the
FCC site! Finding anything useful on *ANY* topic there seems to be
designed to be as difficult as possible. Which, in a way, is suspicious
in and of itself.

A few too many black helicopters around lately? It's not that hard to find the
data:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

Find your city, open the PDF file. Each station has a coverage map that shows
the current analog channel and the final digital channel, along with the
corresponding coverage for each signal.

Note that the temporary channels being used today to broadcast a digital signal
are not the same as what will be used after the digital transition, except for
the few stations that plan to "flash cut" from analog to digital with no
overlapping.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:43:35 -0700, Robert Neville wrote:

Ann wrote:

You might want to look a little closer. The FCC follows the standard
MSA convention - that is Metropolitan Statistical Area. If you find the
nearest MSA and look inside, you should find your "local" stations.

No, as the page says, those are the FCC's (214) designated market areas -
210 of which correspond to Nielsen's market areas plus 4 (offshore) added
by the FCC. The U.S has 363 MSAs.

My mistake... Still, the stations located in smaller cities should be
found inside one of the larger market area PDFs.

They are.

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? :
(

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.

Interesting that in many cases the analog and digital outlined areas are
pretty much equal but that there are still a lot of areas that will lose
coverage. I.e. in my area, KRON 4 is going to lose (almost completely)
four large counties (Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sonoma) and pick
up Solano county, even though their transmitter isn't moving, and even
though the outline of coverages are about the same.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:19:04 -0500, Ann wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:43:35 -0700, Robert Neville wrote:

Ann wrote:

My mistake... Still, the stations located in smaller cities should be
found inside one of the larger market area PDFs.

They are.

I had no problem finding the various transmitters that serve my area - some I
didn't even know about. I've been "on the wire" for over 20 years but if I can
find a suitable antenna this evening, that's going to change.

I had Comcast cable for years. They kept promising cable internet and the
excuse they're giving today is the same one they were giving 14 years ago "We're
working on installing digital lines, they're already in the next town. Check
back later." They kept adding channels that nobody wanted and upping the rates
so I switched to Dish Network. They have hundreds of channels that nobody wants
but they rarely raise the rates.

I probably don't watch 5 hours of programming a week so it's absurd to pay for
it. I'm paying for three dish boxes and I don't watch any of them. I can't
name any current sitcoms or shows. When they talk about celebrities, I usually
don't know who they're talking about or why I should be impressed. I need about
an hour of news and weather and some Leno or Letterman, and that's about it.

My job is just about in the toilet and the company is teetering on bankruptcy,
so this is the first step in cutting cost around here. Landline phone will
probably be next.

--
Jack

Red Green asked:

You don't get ch 3, WCAX (CBS) out of
Burlington? They transmit digital from
the top of Mt Mansfield.

Yes, I get ch 3. Their digital signal is on ch 53 right now but will
switch to ch 22 on Feb 17th (maybe). I also get 5 (NBC), 11, 20, 22,
33, and 44 (FOX), They all have good digital signals. I have a roof
antenna and use RG6 cable. I also have an amplifier. My friend only
gets ch 11 (which is actually ch 49 out of Littleton).


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Jim wrote:

Satellite tv is extremely expensive
around here.

Satellite does not have to be expensive. I have the local network
package from Dish. The monthly charge is only $10. I can get the same
stations with digital but the program grid with Dish is vastly superior
to that with the digital remote.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:44:41 -0800, SMS wrote:

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.

Interesting that in many cases the analog and digital outlined areas are
pretty much equal but that there are still a lot of areas that will lose
coverage. I.e. in my area, KRON 4 is going to lose (almost completely)
four large counties (Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sonoma) and pick up
Solano county, even though their transmitter isn't moving, and even though
the outline of coverages are about the same.

According to the map, I shouldn't have been receiving the three stations
in the first place. But I live in a hilly area with an opening in that
direction ... and nothing higher between here and the transmitters. That
benefited me when they were broadcasting VHF, but they are switching to
UHF, which doesn't deal well with hills.

I've read about some stations that have taken advantage of the switch to
refine their coverage areas to reach more of their advertisers' target
audience. While I would prefer not to be losing the stations, it made no
economic sense to waste watts advertising to people 75 miles away.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:57:36 +0000, Jack Hunt wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:19:04 -0500, Ann wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:43:35 -0700, Robert Neville wrote:

Ann wrote:

My mistake... Still, the stations located in smaller cities should be
found inside one of the larger market area PDFs.

They are.

I had no problem finding the various transmitters that serve my area -
some I didn't even know about. I've been "on the wire" for over 20 years
but if I can find a suitable antenna this evening, that's going to change.

I had Comcast cable for years. They kept promising cable internet and the
excuse they're giving today is the same one they were giving 14 years ago
"We're working on installing digital lines, they're already in the next
town. Check back later." They kept adding channels that nobody wanted and
upping the rates so I switched to Dish Network. They have hundreds of
channels that nobody wants but they rarely raise the rates.

I probably don't watch 5 hours of programming a week so it's absurd to pay
for it. I'm paying for three dish boxes and I don't watch any of them. I
can't name any current sitcoms or shows. When they talk about
celebrities, I usually don't know who they're talking about or why I
should be impressed. I need about an hour of news and weather and some
Leno or Letterman, and that's about it.

My job is just about in the toilet and the company is teetering on
bankruptcy, so this is the first step in cutting cost around here.
Landline phone will probably be next.

Would you believe, I still have a pulse-tone phone line. g When I moved
here, the telco was charging 3X what my previous telco had, which I
thought was a rip. Even small expenses like that can really add up over
time.

"Ann" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:57:36 +0000, Jack Hunt wrote:

Would you believe, I still have a pulse-tone phone line. g When I moved
here, the telco was charging 3X what my previous telco had, which I
thought was a rip. Even small expenses like that can really add up over
time.


Have you tried switching your phone to tone to see if it will dial ? Years
ago my phone company was charging extra for a tone phone line. After a few
years I found out it did not make any differance what you used in your
house. Either kind would work.
Switched all of my phones to tone. Several years later the phone company
quit the surcharge for the tones (or they may just have raided the rates, I
forgot what).

On Jan 9, 10:27 am, Robert Neville wrote:
dpb wrote:
....
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.

I'm sure the revenue/cost has to have been figured in--how, of course,
is anybody's guess unless inside the main station's business/
engineering/marketing office. It appears to me from the maps that
some of it is terrain-related on some of them--while flat by standards
in many parts of the country, NW KS up there around Colby and west
isn't dead flat like SW KS down here is where the maps are essentially
perfect geometric circles. And, of course, that the entire population
of, say, Wallace County is probably less than 1500 means they simply
just "don't get no respect".

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.

Of course, but the maps also don't have any indication of what they
_DO_ purport to represent nor how they were generated.

I don't know and haven't been able to determine from any information
from the stations what this mismatch in indications means -- ...

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.

That's certainly not clear to me (that they don't also have to
convert) -- I thought it was based on analog transmission power levels
and by that measure these are, iirc, about the same if not stronger
than the base stations in Wichita area. The few words the stations
have broadcast certainly indicate they're making the switch, just no
information at all on how/when/what they expect, etc., ... As for
openness; the one time I did get the opportunity to talk to one of
their engineers (different subject; was getting interference from an
undetermined source) he was quite helpful (to limits of his knowledge
from 250 miles away, that is) but the stations appear to have clamped
down on access for the duration now; my contacts have been limited to
being told to look at the web site FAQ which, as noted above, ignores
the translators entirely w/ the exception of a signal note that
implies they will switch at a point to follow (unspecified, but
wording implies not long). All in all, it's just not well handled for
the rural areas (but what else is new?).

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.

Perhaps, but the DTV signal still has to be strong enough in amplitude
for an antenna to pick it up -- while S:N ratios are undoubtedly much
better than w/ analog, absolute signal levels are going to be lower,
too. Will it work??? AFAICT it's anybody's guess until the witching
day arrives for fringe areas.

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

That's what I said...

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? :
(



Unfortunately, it appears that's the only choice (as usual in rural
areas) -- be satisfied what scraps the city folks running the show see
fit to leave...

--

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:15:18 -0500, Ann wrote:

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


In your case, I have to assume that your tv stations are in other
cities, not the one you live in. If thats the case, I can see where
tall buildings and such would block the signal. But if the stations
are in your own city, there is no reason you cant get a signal, unless
you only got rabbit ears.

Jim

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:53:46 -0500, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Ann" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:57:36 +0000, Jack Hunt wrote:

Would you believe, I still have a pulse-tone phone line. g When I
moved here, the telco was charging 3X what my previous telco had, which
I thought was a rip. Even small expenses like that can really add up
over time.


Have you tried switching your phone to tone to see if it will dial ?
Years ago my phone company was charging extra for a tone phone line.
After a few years I found out it did not make any differance what you used
in your house. Either kind would work.
Switched all of my phones to tone. Several years later the phone company
quit the surcharge for the tones (or they may just have raided the rates,
I forgot what).

Unfortunately, they're as stubborn as I am. About a month ago, I was
hooking up a dialup modem and the software was set to dial tone by default
.... didn't work until I changed settings to ATDP. .

Maybe 10 years ago they attempted to get the last of us hold-outs by
offering a free telephone answering service - which they claimed required
a touch-tone line. I don't know if it was a case of them not knowing that
phones then came with a button to switch to touch tone for negotiating
automated answering systems ... or if they thought we customers didn't
know.

On Jan 9, 1:54*am, Jimw wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:00:41 -0800, Larry Caldwell

wrote:
In article ,
(Jimw) says...

So, in reality, I could saw off the LARGE end of my VHF-UHF antenna
and just use the end with the small beams..... Right?
(Not that I intend to do this, just asking).

Only about half of the VHF band is being repurposed. *Some stations will
continue to transmit a VHF digital signal.

Well, this brings up a question I have had for awhile. *WILL FM RADIO
BE ELIMINATED NEXT? *The reason is that FM radio is in the VHF band,
right below (or is it above) TV Channel 6. *I know this for fact,
because when I was a kid, I lived in a city that had channel 6 tv.
The sound from channel 6 tv could be listened to on the very bottom
most position on the fm radio dial. (which is about 88 mhz). *I
remember a few times I'd have to go somewhere and would listen to
whatever tv program I was watching on a portable or car radio. *
So, since the govt. wants the VHF band to sell to the cellphone
companies, will they next get rid of FM radio?

Jim

I'm going to guess "no" as radio has already gone digital (aka "HD
Radio") but on the existing frequencies. Of course, that doesn't mean
that it never will. It'd be sad though as I've got far more old
radios laying around than TVs (and it would suck if I couldn't listen
to my old Blaupunkt AM/FM/SW in the living room)

nate

On Jan 9, 9:25*am, Larry Caldwell
wrote:
In article ,
(Jimw) says...





On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:00:41 -0800, Larry Caldwell
wrote:

In article ,
(Jimw) says...

So, in reality, I could saw off the LARGE end of my VHF-UHF antenna
and just use the end with the small beams..... Right?
(Not that I intend to do this, just asking).

Only about half of the VHF band is being repurposed. *Some stations will
continue to transmit a VHF digital signal.

Well, this brings up a question I have had for awhile. *WILL FM RADIO
BE ELIMINATED NEXT? *The reason is that FM radio is in the VHF band,
right below (or is it above) TV Channel 6. *I know this for fact,
because when I was a kid, I lived in a city that had channel 6 tv.
The sound from channel 6 tv could be listened to on the very bottom
most position on the fm radio dial. (which is about 88 mhz). *I
remember a few times I'd have to go somewhere and would listen to
whatever tv program I was watching on a portable or car radio. *
So, since the govt. wants the VHF band to sell to the cellphone
companies, will they next get rid of FM radio?

They have been broadcasting digital radio for quite some time, on both
the FM and AM band. *Google HD Radio for details. *Not many HD receivers
are available yet. *Before Christmas I tried to buy a Bose Wave system
with HD radio, and they don't make one. *

They seem to be more popular for cars for some reason. I bought a new
head unit for my old pickup truck last year and decided to get one
with HD because it didn't cost much more than the regular ones and I
was curious. (the real reason I bought one was because I wanted
something other than "just a radio" so I got one with a CD player and
auxiliary jack. The HD was just a nice little bonus.) I still pretty
much only listen to NPR, but now I have three different channels to
listen to The sound quality is very nice, too. Since analog radio
isn't going away, the issues with digital reception are not as much of
a problem with radio - when the digital signal drops out, the radio
just drops back to analog and the only way you can tell is that the
sound quality gets worse. Unless you're listening to one of the sub-
channels, of course.

nate

nate

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/

After looking at the various maps one might conclude that the
new DTV signal will generally give greater coverage. That couldn't
be farther from the truth. The present analog tuner can create a watch
able signal from a distance that is greater than these maps
digital boundaries.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:17:19 -0600, Jimw wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:15:18 -0500, Ann wrote:

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


In your case, I have to assume that your tv stations are in other cities,
not the one you live in. If thats the case, I can see where tall
buildings and such would block the signal. But if the stations are in
your own city, there is no reason you cant get a signal, unless you only
got rabbit ears.

Jim

Problems were blocking and ghosting from taller buildings and electrical
interference.

Jimw wrote:

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.

That's what's good about the U.S., satellite TV is a bargain compared to
cable, and it doesn't cost more in different markets. What country are
you located in? In the U.S., it's cable that can be outrageously
expensive. In the U.S. you can get DISH network for as little as $19.95
per month (one TV, 40 basic channels).

On Jan 9, 4:52�pm, 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/

After looking at the various maps one might conclude that the
new DTV signal will generally give greater coverage. That couldn't
be farther from the truth. The present analog tuner can create a watch
able signal from a distance that is greater than these maps
digital boundaries.

When channels moved from Analog VHF to Digital UHF thats the problem

UHF stations were typically 3 or more times the power of VHF, because
UHF does not propgate as well.

doesnt penetrate buildings as well. there goes the bunny ear watchers,
plus the stations decided in many cases to decrease digital power.

apparently they dont care, perhaps OTA viewers are second class
citizens? not as many bucks for spending to attract advertisers?

whatever the cause, people are losing channels they watched their
entire life. Congress is scared of mad voters, and congresss uses the
stations to get re elected.

bob casey PA is my senator

In article ,
SMS wrote:

Jimw wrote:

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.

That's what's good about the U.S., satellite TV is a bargain compared to
cable, and it doesn't cost more in different markets. What country are
you located in? In the U.S., it's cable that can be outrageously
expensive. In the U.S. you can get DISH network for as little as $19.95
per month (one TV, 40 basic channels).

I think it's $5/month extra for the local channels. Direct TV
is about 30, local channels included.
TV or radio could be a life saver in the tornado areas.

Dean


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jimw wrote:

Please post which converter yoiu have and rate it. Are yoiu
satisfied, or dissatisfied? What are it's pros and cons? And in
particular, how well does it perform in a fringe area?

Thanks

Jim

We got two, a Zenith 901 and a Tivax T8. The Tivax got better reviews in
terms of picture quality and the program guide. No question the picture
improved a lot on digital, why anyone would say not to expect an improvement
is beyond me, it's instantly noticeable. However it seems like a lot of
material is still being broadcast in fairly crappy quality, I don't know if
that's poor sources like worn-out videotapes or some channels just have the
quality knob set to medium. Good luck with being in a fringe area, that
looks like it's going to be a problem for many folks.

Robert Neville wrote:


http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

Find your city, open the PDF file. Each station has a coverage map that shows
the current analog channel and the final digital channel, along with the
corresponding coverage for each signal.

What is very interesting to me is that the maps (at least for the Dallas-Fort
Worth area) shows the coverage areas increasing for the most part and the
station power decreasing by 5 to 10 x. -- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:

What is very interesting to me is that the maps (at least for the Dallas-Fort
Worth area) shows the coverage areas increasing for the most part and the
station power decreasing by 5 to 10 x

I'm not an RF engineer, but I do recall reading that there isn't a 1 to 1
correspondence between power levels between VHF and UHF. It's possible that your
stations are going from VHF to UHF (or vice versa), or that the new towers are
higher than the old ones. Also possible that the stations themselves decided
that their official coverage area didn't require as strong a signal.

Robert Neville wrote:

[....]

I'm not an RF engineer, but
[....]

if the broadcasters of free over the air digital TV signals
really wanted to make this work well and ensure an exacting
coverage of a specific area with standardized signal strength
they'd take a lesson from the cell phone signal providers with
their tower placements.

with a few more well placed towers and by making use of repeater
technology the people living 25 miles from the central station
could receive the same level of service as the people living 10
miles from said location.

but, that's not going to happen as a result of realistic cost
considerations.

On Jan 9, 5:12 pm, Dean Hoffman wrote:
....
I think it's $5/month extra for the local channels. Direct TV
is about 30, local channels included.
TV or radio could be a life saver in the tornado areas.
....

_IF_ the "local" channels on dish are really local. Here, only the
Wichita/Amarillo city feed is uplink feed; the translators that are
the local weather feeds aren't available except OTA.

So, since Wichita doesn't go to severe weather coverage except for
events in their local area, it's of no use whatsoever for that
purpose.

Which is my biggest complaint with the whole folderol of replacing
something that works just fine w/ what may (or then again, may not)...

--

In article dabd19b4-52f3-4778-b57c-2bfe4d2a3ca6
@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com, (dpb) says...

_IF_ the "local" channels on dish are really local. Here, only the
Wichita/Amarillo city feed is uplink feed; the translators that are
the local weather feeds aren't available except OTA.

Yeah, my satellite "local" channels come from 80 miles away, but if I
could get them OTA, they would still come from 80 miles away. However,
there is a NOAA station line of sight from my house. Get a weather
radio with a weather alert signal, and you will never miss a tornado
warning again. I picked mine up at Radio Shack about 30 years ago.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

George wrote:
Ann wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:28:18 -0500, George wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:23�pm, Robert Neville wrote:
Jimw wrote:
What is the actual frequency band for DTV, and how does that compare
to the 145Mhz ?
Today most DTV signals are UHF, between 470MHz and 800MHz. After the
switchover, many will move to the VHF band.
no no no, nearly ALL remain UHF, since the new users of TV band prefer
VHF. the lower frequencies go thru buildings etc better
You may want to check your references. The "new users" will be operating
in what is now part of the UHF TV band.

While you are doing that you will also find that Clinton was a big
proponent of DTV and signed the legislation into law.

But the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Clinton signed included this:
"Television stations will be permitted to continue the broadcasting of
analog beyond 2006 (and to retain the extra channel it received from the
FCC for the transition) if less than 85% of the households in its market
have at least one of the following: (1) digital TV delivered by cable or
satellite; (2) a digital TV; (3) or a box that converts digital TV
signals
for viewing on an analog set."
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlt...1dltr0014.html

It was Bush who signed The Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of
2005. "This act requires all U.S. television stations to discontinue
broadcasting in analog and switch to digital broadcasting beginning on
midnight, February 17, 2009."
http://www.broadbandinfo.com/cable/d...n/default.html
Imo digital tv was going to happen whoever was president. But if you
want
to politicize it, blame the correct president for over-riding the
original
legislation.

Just a little busting. I was just replying to someone who always blames
Bush for everything when the reality is as you further affirmed both the
red and blue teams work on behest of their owners not the "average guy".

That type blames The President, anyone who is
President for everything because they believe
The President has powers he doesn't have. The
law was passed by the *Legislature*, the body
that can override a veto by The President. I
wish more people understood how government
works and how laws are made. The President
doesn't make the laws. If The President refused
to sign the bill he would be lambasted for
ignoring the will of the people.

TDD

Don Bruder wrote:
In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:

Jimw wrote:

By the way, are there any decent antenna amplifiers for DTV, or does a
person just use the standard UHF VHF amps they always sold?
There is no difference between the analog and digital signal for antenna or
amplification. Anyone selling "digital" is selling snakeoil.

Correct so far.

The only difference would be for those who are using a VHF only antenna today
and have digital transmitters that are going to stay in the UHF band.

Partly correct, but for exactly the opposite reason you think. VHF
antennas will indeed become essentially useless. However, this is
because *ALL* digital transmitters are already on UHF (though some are
operating at lower-than-licensed power levels) and will stay there. When
the VHF signal is turned off in February, the VHF antennas will still
function as (lousy) antennas, but performance is likely to be so poor
that they won't be useful except in cases where there are very strong
signals.

And no, it doesn't matter that a station is now on a VHF channel, yet
transmitting digital - What's happening is that they're transmitting on
two separate frequencies - The standard analog signal on their "old" VHF
frequency, the digital signal on their "new" digital frequency. Which,
in *ALL* cases, is in the UHF band.


That's interesting because according to The FCC,
a VHF station here is going to be transmitting
DT on their present VHF channel.

TDD

wrote:
On Jan 9, 1:54�am, 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 rest of us in small cities or rural areas are either losing
channels or not getting any. �Or else we get constant dropouts and
blank screens. �I never much complained when I'd get periods of snow
and sometimes almost full picture loss on analog. �I could always at
least still hear the sound and continue with the program I was
watching. �It was rare it would get so bad that I'd have to leave that
channel. �I very much hate the ALL or NOTHING signals of DTV. �Either
it works perfectly, or the station is blank. �That is more than
annoying. �THen there are those screen breakups, where it looks like
someone made a jigsaw puzzle out of the picture. �Also very annoying.
Much worse than screen "snow".

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

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

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

Jim

you sum up the problem very well, sadly those with cable or satellite
wouldnt care much.

and after calling my congressmens office I found out the lady
answering the phones doesnt care either.

I haD A VERY UNPLEASANT CONVERSATION WITH HER

I hate to see anyone get fired, but she aT LEAST DESERVES A STRONG
WARNING.

Perhaps I feel invested in my rep siince I was a campaign volunteer?

Oh my God, you actually thought your elected
representative cares about *you*? Why, you're
not and endangered species like some rare snail
or rodent are you? Perhaps if you became a news
story,......hummm, call the press and pitch a
story about a poor rural family who can't get
TV reception and how *the children* are suffering
because of what President Bush did and you could
get all kinds of attention.

TDD

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:28:49 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:
In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:

Jimw wrote:

By the way, are there any decent antenna amplifiers for DTV, or does a
person just use the standard UHF VHF amps they always sold?
There is no difference between the analog and digital signal for antenna or
amplification. Anyone selling "digital" is selling snakeoil.

Correct so far.

The only difference would be for those who are using a VHF only antenna today
and have digital transmitters that are going to stay in the UHF band.

Partly correct, but for exactly the opposite reason you think. VHF
antennas will indeed become essentially useless. However, this is
because *ALL* digital transmitters are already on UHF (though some are
operating at lower-than-licensed power levels) and will stay there. When
the VHF signal is turned off in February, the VHF antennas will still
function as (lousy) antennas, but performance is likely to be so poor
that they won't be useful except in cases where there are very strong
signals.

And no, it doesn't matter that a station is now on a VHF channel, yet
transmitting digital - What's happening is that they're transmitting on
two separate frequencies - The standard analog signal on their "old" VHF
frequency, the digital signal on their "new" digital frequency. Which,
in *ALL* cases, is in the UHF band.


That's interesting because according to The FCC,
a VHF station here is going to be transmitting
DT on their present VHF channel.

TDD

The ABC station here is like that: old (analog) on 7, current digital
on 10. I think they plan to put digital back on 7 after the transition
(in 31 days unless put off again).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Jan 9, 1:54�am, 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/

Cutting the coverage area is clearly a result of FCC policy, and the only
way to gain back the coverage you had previously is to use a better antenna
than you had before, in many cases an outdoor antenna with a rotor.

I live in an urban area, but cannot receive the new DTV signals from most
channels without an outdoor antenna and rotor.

The FCC could have required higher transmitter power and better sites for
broadcasting antennas to prevent this problem but they chose not to.

Another thread I started recently on this newsgroup elaborated on the
reasons why.

That thread had unfortunately digressed into a discussion of the Gaza
war....

Smarty