When I got my coupons, it was near impossible to even find a DTV
converter in the stores. I finally had to drive a long distance to
buy and Apex converter which was the only one available, and I only
had 2 days left before my coupons expired. I was not impressed by
this converter, at least as far as reception in my rural area. Of
course I live in a fringe area, and I can not get much for stations.
The nearest station is 50 miles, and it gets further for others. I
use a fairly decent rooftop antenna, which is about 24feet from the
ground, and I have a rotor.

What I was getting was one channel (from 50 miles) that worked on and
off, and would fade in and out, and some days did not come in at all.
The only channel that worked all the time was one of the PBS channels
(and their secondary channels). Note: On analog, I get 5 channels
well, and 3 more that are fair to poor.

A elderly relative lives in a large city, and I took my Apex converter
over there and hooked it up. She was satisfied with it, and she needs
something real simple, being elderly. So, I told her to keep that
one, and give me her coupon. Now I want to buy one that will work in
my fringe rural area, and there are piles of them in the stores. I'm
trying to determine which one to get. My biggest concern is getting
one that will get the best reception in a fringe area.

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

On 1/7/2009 1:16 PM Jimw spake thus:

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?

Zenith DTT901. Satisfied; I give it a 7 out of 10.

Functionally it's all I need; remote, menus, user interface in general
is pretty well designed.

Operationally, I'm not sure about picture quality. Could be my old
freebie Panasonic TV, as others have said it actually has superior
picture quality. It does seem a little better than the analog picture,
so it's probably good.

Sorry, not in a fringe area so can't help you there.


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

In article ,
Jimw wrote:

When I got my coupons, it was near impossible to even find a DTV
converter in the stores. I finally had to drive a long distance to
buy and Apex converter which was the only one available, and I only
had 2 days left before my coupons expired. I was not impressed by
this converter, at least as far as reception in my rural area. Of
course I live in a fringe area, and I can not get much for stations.
The nearest station is 50 miles, and it gets further for others. I
use a fairly decent rooftop antenna, which is about 24feet from the
ground, and I have a rotor.

What I was getting was one channel (from 50 miles) that worked on and
off, and would fade in and out, and some days did not come in at all.
The only channel that worked all the time was one of the PBS channels
(and their secondary channels). Note: On analog, I get 5 channels
well, and 3 more that are fair to poor.

A elderly relative lives in a large city, and I took my Apex converter
over there and hooked it up. She was satisfied with it, and she needs
something real simple, being elderly. So, I told her to keep that
one, and give me her coupon. Now I want to buy one that will work in
my fringe rural area, and there are piles of them in the stores. I'm
trying to determine which one to get. My biggest concern is getting
one that will get the best reception in a fringe area.

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

You might take a look he
http://tinyurl.com/96hqmw
There are also forums there for TVs and such.

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 =---

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 1/7/2009 1:16 PM Jimw spake thus:

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?

Zenith DTT901. Satisfied; I give it a 7 out of 10.


That is the one I picked up to play with. I am a ways off from the stations
and I hooked it up to a ham antenna that is made for 145 Mhz. that is only
up about 20 feet. Picked up 22 stations in the auto tune mode. A much
higher antenna at 60 feet gave me 29 stations. The antennas are not even
made for regular TV reception. I won't talk about the quality as I only had
it hooked up to an old 16 inch TV. Think it was about $ 60 at Circuit City
before the $ 40 discount card.

On Jan 7, 3:16*pm, Jimw wrote:
When I got my coupons, it was near impossible to even find a DTV
converter in the stores. *I finally had to drive a long distance to
buy and Apex converter which was the only one available, and I only
had 2 days left before my coupons expired. *I was not impressed by
this converter, at least as far as reception in my rural area. *Of
course I live in a fringe area, and I can not get much for stations.
The nearest station is 50 miles, and it gets further for others. *I
use a fairly decent rooftop antenna, which is about 24feet from the
ground, and I have a rotor.

What I was getting was one channel (from 50 miles) that worked on and
off, and would fade in and out, and some days did not come in at all.
The only channel that worked all the time was one of the PBS channels
(and their secondary channels). *Note: On analog, I get 5 channels
well, and 3 more that are fair to poor.

A elderly relative lives in a large city, and I took my Apex converter
over there and hooked it up. *She was satisfied with it, and she needs
something real simple, being elderly. *So, I told her to keep that
one, and give me her coupon. *Now I want to buy one that will work in
my fringe rural area, and there are piles of them in the stores. *I'm
trying to determine which one to get. *My biggest concern is getting
one that will get the best reception in a fringe area. *

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

Nobody here can rate them for you, nobody has all the units, Google
the ratings, Consumers Reports is posted through google somebody set
up a free link, they tested maybe 20. A few other companies that sell
many different units did their own ratings. What I know is the good
ones are mail order only, they are at no stores. I dont have the name
handy but one model stands out by several ratings, google for the
ratings. I am buying 2 online so I will google ratings again.

On Jan 7, 3:16*pm, Jimw wrote:
When I got my coupons, it was near impossible to even find a DTV
converter in the stores. *I finally had to drive a long distance to
buy and Apex converter which was the only one available, and I only
had 2 days left before my coupons expired. *I was not impressed by
this converter, at least as far as reception in my rural area. *Of
course I live in a fringe area, and I can not get much for stations.
The nearest station is 50 miles, and it gets further for others. *I
use a fairly decent rooftop antenna, which is about 24feet from the
ground, and I have a rotor.

What I was getting was one channel (from 50 miles) that worked on and
off, and would fade in and out, and some days did not come in at all.
The only channel that worked all the time was one of the PBS channels
(and their secondary channels). *Note: On analog, I get 5 channels
well, and 3 more that are fair to poor.

A elderly relative lives in a large city, and I took my Apex converter
over there and hooked it up. *She was satisfied with it, and she needs
something real simple, being elderly. *So, I told her to keep that
one, and give me her coupon. *Now I want to buy one that will work in
my fringe rural area, and there are piles of them in the stores. *I'm
trying to determine which one to get. *My biggest concern is getting
one that will get the best reception in a fringe area. *

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

If you find consumers reports rating you will see only maybe 30% have
a quality picture, some are poor, and none of the top ones are at
local stores, reception also varies.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:33:09 -0500, Ralph Mowery wrote:


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 1/7/2009 1:16 PM Jimw spake thus:

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?

Zenith DTT901. Satisfied; I give it a 7 out of 10.


That is the one I picked up to play with. I am a ways off from the
stations and I hooked it up to a ham antenna that is made for 145 Mhz.
that is only up about 20 feet. Picked up 22 stations in the auto tune
mode. A much higher antenna at 60 feet gave me 29 stations. The antennas
are not even made for regular TV reception. I won't talk about the
quality as I only had it hooked up to an old 16 inch TV. Think it was
about $ 60 at Circuit City before the $ 40 discount card.

Yet another 901. The consensus on various forums was that 900 (without
the analog pass trough) was the best of the boxes available at stores
within ~25 miles. Since I wanted the pass trough, I waited until the 901
was released to order coupons (mid-summer). Of course the 901s
immediately went out of stock. But did eventually get one, then another.

The 901 gets the one local station (25 miles) that's currently on-air with
digital fine. And, one that's about 75 miles away occasionally. No joy
with the other three stations 75 miles away. I do expect to get the other
local station when it goes digital 2/17 (or whenever they get their act
together).

Imo, fringe reception probably has more to do with location and antenna
than with the converter box. Incidentally, according to antennaweb.org,
there is no TV reception at my location.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:56:05 -0800, ransley wrote:

On Jan 7, 3:16Â*pm, Jimw wrote:
When I got my coupons, it was near impossible to even find a DTV
converter in the stores. Â*I finally had to drive a long distance to buy
and Apex converter which was the only one available, and I only had 2
days left before my coupons expired. Â*I was not impressed by this
converter, at least as far as reception in my rural area. Â*Of course I
live in a fringe area, and I can not get much for stations. The nearest
station is 50 miles, and it gets further for others. Â*I use a fairly
decent rooftop antenna, which is about 24feet from the ground, and I
have a rotor.

What I was getting was one channel (from 50 miles) that worked on and
off, and would fade in and out, and some days did not come in at all.
The only channel that worked all the time was one of the PBS channels
(and their secondary channels). Â*Note: On analog, I get 5 channels
well, and 3 more that are fair to poor.

A elderly relative lives in a large city, and I took my Apex converter
over there and hooked it up. Â*She was satisfied with it, and she needs
something real simple, being elderly. Â*So, I told her to keep that one,
and give me her coupon. Â*Now I want to buy one that will work in my
fringe rural area, and there are piles of them in the stores. Â*I'm
trying to determine which one to get. Â*My biggest concern is getting
one that will get the best reception in a fringe area. Â*

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

Thanks

Jim

If you find consumers reports rating you will see only maybe 30% have a
quality picture, some are poor, and none of the top ones are at local
stores, reception also varies.

CU's converter box ratings are "free". Click on "Recommendations & Notes"
for write-ups on the individual boxes. CU rates on picture and sound
quality and features.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/e...es-ratings.htm

A lot of people are having reception problems with digital. The digital
signal is much more "fragile" than the analog signal. All of the
promotions that claim digital provides a better picture are BS. IF you
can get a picture it might be better but getting it is the problem.
Complain about this to your congressman.


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

On Jan 7, 7:25*pm, (---MIKE---) wrote:
A lot of people are having reception problems with digital. *The digital
signal is much more "fragile" than the analog signal. *All of the
promotions that claim digital provides a better picture are BS. *IF you
can get a picture it might be better but getting it is the problem.
Complain about this to your congressman.

* * * * * * * * * ---MIKE---In the White Mountains of New Hampshire

* (44° 15' *N - Elevation 1580')

The reviews I read by a store address the issue that some work better
in reception, and give ratings.

On 01/07/09 08:25 pm ---MIKE--- wrote:

A lot of people are having reception problems with digital. The digital
signal is much more "fragile" than the analog signal. All of the
promotions that claim digital provides a better picture are BS. IF you
can get a picture it might be better but getting it is the problem.
Complain about this to your congressman.

I just looked through our local channels using an outdoor antenna
connected to the built-in tuner(s) in our Sam sung LCD HDTV. In some
cases the analog signal was horrible -- ghosting -- while the digital
version was crystal clear.

Keep in mind that some stations are not yet running their digital
transmissions at full power. Your digital signals may well improve
further after Feb 17.

Perce

On Jan 7, 3:16*pm, Jimw wrote:
When I got my coupons, it was near impossible to even find a DTV
converter in the stores. *I finally had to drive a long distance to
buy and Apex converter which was the only one available, and I only
had 2 days left before my coupons expired. *I was not impressed by
this converter, at least as far as reception in my rural area. *Of
course I live in a fringe area, and I can not get much for stations.
The nearest station is 50 miles, and it gets further for others. *I
use a fairly decent rooftop antenna, which is about 24feet from the
ground, and I have a rotor.

What I was getting was one channel (from 50 miles) that worked on and
off, and would fade in and out, and some days did not come in at all.
The only channel that worked all the time was one of the PBS channels
(and their secondary channels). *Note: On analog, I get 5 channels
well, and 3 more that are fair to poor.

A elderly relative lives in a large city, and I took my Apex converter
over there and hooked it up. *She was satisfied with it, and she needs
something real simple, being elderly. *So, I told her to keep that
one, and give me her coupon. *Now I want to buy one that will work in
my fringe rural area, and there are piles of them in the stores. *I'm
trying to determine which one to get. *My biggest concern is getting
one that will get the best reception in a fringe area. *

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

I remenber Tivax has better reception than others and a top picture,
you need to find independant review of many side by side, and look for
all the features you want, I am probably getting Tivax.

Us broadcast engineers bought a bunch of DTV converters that were
available around here and tested them in bad locations. The Zenith
DTT900 was the best of the lot as was the Insignia that Best Buy sells.
This is not surprising, because they have the same circuit board, in
fact, the FCC number on the bottom of the two units is the same.
The RCA and Magnavox units sold at Wal-Mart were inferior in every
respect. The only redeeming value of the Magnavox unit is that it has
analog pass through.

Another good unit is the Channel Master DT7000. It has the added
advantage of S-video output, it has a really great picture on a set with
S-video input. The fringe area performance seems comparable to the
Zenith DTT900.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:33:09 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
rs.com...
On 1/7/2009 1:16 PM Jimw spake thus:

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?

Zenith DTT901. Satisfied; I give it a 7 out of 10.


That is the one I picked up to play with. I am a ways off from the stations
and I hooked it up to a ham antenna that is made for 145 Mhz. that is only
up about 20 feet. Picked up 22 stations in the auto tune mode. A much
higher antenna at 60 feet gave me 29 stations. The antennas are not even
made for regular TV reception. I won't talk about the quality as I only had
it hooked up to an old 16 inch TV. Think it was about $ 60 at Circuit City
before the $ 40 discount card.


I'm surprised it worked at all on a ham antenna. I know the
wavelength affects the reception, and a half wave antenna is half the
length, etc. What is the actual frequency band for DTV, and how does
that compare to the 145Mhz ?

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? I know I
can not raise my antenna any more or the mast will bend in high winds,
and towers are way beyond my budget.

Thanks

Jim

(---MIKE---) wrote in
:

A lot of people are having reception problems with digital. The
digital signal is much more "fragile" than the analog signal. All of
the promotions that claim digital provides a better picture are BS.
IF you can get a picture it might be better but getting it is the
problem. Complain about this to your congressman.


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



All of the
promotions that claim digital provides a better picture are BS.

I have a cheapo $300 RCA DTV I got a year ago. I have it on amplified
ears. On analog it gets snowy crap...on a good day. Hit digital
flip-over button and I get like 28-30 stations crystal clear.

So, your general statement is BS. "It all depends" would be more
accurate. Accroding to antennaweb.org, I'm 43 miles from the majority of
transmitters for Raleigh, NC (north of here). I can also get a couple of
stations from the Myrtle Beach SC area which is about 60 miles
(Florence, SC transmitter) in the opposite direction south from here.

You're in White Mountains of New Hampshire. I lived in VT area a little
over a year ago. Yea, I did the cog railway up Mt Washington. They
aren't transmitting much from BTV let alone the Mt Washington area of NH.

IF you can get a picture it might be better but getting it is the
problem.

If you look on antennaweb.org for zip 03589 (Mt Washington I believe)
there's only like two stinkin' digital stations available now. What do
you expect? Ruralness has some drawbacks.

Complain about this to your congressman.

About what? Where you choose to live?



DTV 03589

Antenna
Type Call Sign Channel Network City, State Compass Heading Miles From
*uhf WLED-DT 48.1 PBS DURHAM, NH 299° 22.3
*uhf WVTB-DT 20.1 PBS BURLINGTON, VT 321° 35.6

ransley wrote:

The reviews I read by a store address the issue that some work better
in reception, and give ratings.

Most of the stations are currently broadcasting their digital signals on
temporary UHF frequencies. UHF has poorer performance than VHF. After the
switchover, many stations will use their VHF analog frequencies for their
digital channels, potentially improving their signal coverage.

Bottom line is that you can't judge your converter box performance by what you
see today.

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.

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.

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.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:19:58 -0700, Robert Neville wrote:
ransley wrote:

The reviews I read by a store address the issue that some work better
in reception, and give ratings.

Most of the stations are currently broadcasting their digital signals on
temporary UHF frequencies. UHF has poorer performance than VHF. After the
switchover, many stations will use their VHF analog frequencies for their
digital channels, potentially improving their signal coverage.

Bottom line is that you can't judge your converter box performance by what you
see today.

Isn't VHF getting reassigned? Actually, there's three bands, 2-6,
7-13, and the "cable" channels between 6 and 7. I don't know if it is
one or all are getting reassigned.

Here in phoenix, the tv stations with VHF assignments are also
broadcasting hidef and a one or two lowdef DTV channels alongside
their analog broadcast on the same VHF channels. For example, channel
12 (NBC) has one hidef and two lowdef ATSC channels on 12.

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 01/07/09 08:25 pm ---MIKE--- wrote:

A lot of people are having reception problems with digital. The
digital signal is much more "fragile" than the analog signal. All
of the promotions that claim digital provides a better picture are
BS. IF you can get a picture it might be better but getting it is
the problem. Complain about this to your congressman.

I just looked through our local channels using an outdoor antenna
connected to the built-in tuner(s) in our Sam sung LCD HDTV. In some
cases the analog signal was horrible -- ghosting -- while the
digital
version was crystal clear.

Keep in mind that some stations are not yet running their digital
transmissions at full power. Your digital signals may well improve
further after Feb 17.

Digital is either on or off--you have a perfect picture or none.
That's its strength and weakness. It doesn't degrade gracefully.

Stations are in general not going to be licensed to run their digital
signal at the same level as their analog signal. A lot of people are
just plain going to lose reception.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I have the Zenith.

I also live in the fringe area and I am in the process of erecting an
antenna tower.

I bought the big bertha of antennas and a good rotor.

With my old setup my reception was marginal but when I added the converter
box it was worse. When I studied the signal propagation I realized that it
was a problem with my antenna, hence the change.


Check out http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx

This web site will allow you to predict reception in your area.

Also if your neighbor has a tower and a rotor you might be able to bring
your box to their TV and give it a test.

Good luck.


--
Roger Shoaf

If knowledge is power, and power corrupts, what does this say about the
Congress?
"Jimw" wrote in message
...
When I got my coupons, it was near impossible to even find a DTV
converter in the stores. I finally had to drive a long distance to
buy and Apex converter which was the only one available, and I only
had 2 days left before my coupons expired. I was not impressed by
this converter, at least as far as reception in my rural area. Of
course I live in a fringe area, and I can not get much for stations.
The nearest station is 50 miles, and it gets further for others. I
use a fairly decent rooftop antenna, which is about 24feet from the
ground, and I have a rotor.

What I was getting was one channel (from 50 miles) that worked on and
off, and would fade in and out, and some days did not come in at all.
The only channel that worked all the time was one of the PBS channels
(and their secondary channels). Note: On analog, I get 5 channels
well, and 3 more that are fair to poor.

A elderly relative lives in a large city, and I took my Apex converter
over there and hooked it up. She was satisfied with it, and she needs
something real simple, being elderly. So, I told her to keep that
one, and give me her coupon. Now I want to buy one that will work in
my fringe rural area, and there are piles of them in the stores. I'm
trying to determine which one to get. My biggest concern is getting
one that will get the best reception in a fringe area.

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

In article ,
Jimw wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:33:09 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
rs.com...
On 1/7/2009 1:16 PM Jimw spake thus:

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?

Zenith DTT901. Satisfied; I give it a 7 out of 10.


That is the one I picked up to play with. I am a ways off from the stations
and I hooked it up to a ham antenna that is made for 145 Mhz. that is only
up about 20 feet. Picked up 22 stations in the auto tune mode. A much
higher antenna at 60 feet gave me 29 stations. The antennas are not even
made for regular TV reception. I won't talk about the quality as I only had
it hooked up to an old 16 inch TV. Think it was about $ 60 at Circuit City
before the $ 40 discount card.


I'm surprised it worked at all on a ham antenna. I know the
wavelength affects the reception, and a half wave antenna is half the
length, etc. What is the actual frequency band for DTV, and how does
that compare to the 145Mhz ?

According to the research I've done, other than "low power" stations
(and I still haven't found a satisfactory definition for what makes a
station "low power" - I imagine if I were interested enough to root
through the FCC legalese and tech stuff, I could find it, but I'm not
motivated enough to bother) after the switch, broadcast TV is going to
exist only on the frequencies that now correspond to UHF channels 14
through 51. Which means that for "proper" reception, the range the
antenna needs to be useful on is 470-698MHz. Expecting any kind of
decent performance at all out of a ham antenna tuned for 145MHz on TV
frequencies is... Well, putting it as kindly as possible, just short of
utterly insane. Quite literally, you'd get better performance by cutting
off a chunk of co-ax cable and stripping a bit more than 4 inches (VERY
approximate number - Exact length can be calculated from online
information) of the braid off one end to make a quarter-wave "wick"
antenna before plugging the other end into your TV/converter box.


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?

Since you'd be working on standard UHF frequencies, a standard UHF amp
should work just fine, but make sure you locate it as close as possible,
electrically, to the antenna's feedpoint to minimize the inevitable RF
"crunge" the rest of your feedline is going to add to the mix. You want
to amplify signal, not noise, doncha know

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

In article ,
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.

Sorry, Rob, but that's *TOTALLY* incorrect. One of the primary purposes
of the switch is to open up the VHF bands for other uses. *ALL* digital
transmissions are on UHF now (on channels 14 through 51, between 470 and
698MHz, to be exact) and will remain there after the switch. This
includes the digital signals from stations that are currently
transmitting analog on VHF channels. What will change is that the analog
signals (whether they're currently on VHF or UHF) of all stations will
be switched off, leaving only the digital signals that are on UHF
frequencies. The only other "change" will affect some stations that are
currently transmitting digital at less-than-full-power - They'll bump
their output up to their full licensed power once the switch is
completed.

The only exceptions will be what are termed "low power" stations (I
haven't bothered to find out exactly what it is that makes a station
"low power", although the information is certainly out there if someone
cares enough to look for it) which will remain where they are,
transmitting in analog mode as they always have.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

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.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

On 1/7/2009 10:20 PM Don Bruder spake thus:

In article ,
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.

Sorry, Rob, but that's *TOTALLY* incorrect. One of the primary purposes
of the switch is to open up the VHF bands for other uses.

That's what I gathered also. So what are they going to use those old VHF
channels for, do you know?

I find it interesting that nobody seems to be commenting on one
important aspect of this whole deal, which is that we, the people (you
remember that phrase, right?), who own these bands as (formerly) public
communications pathways, are being given a take-it-or-leave-it
proposition where they might (or probably will) end up in private hands.
This would have caused outrage maybe 20-30 years ago, and someone may
have even demanded an FCC investigation, but at this point, all we can
do is throw our hands in the air, roll over and play dead.


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:48:57 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote:


So what are they going to use those old VHF
channels for, do you know?

It's my understanding they will be used for wireless networking. One
problem with 802.11 at 2.4GHz (which I currently use over longish
distances [2-7 miles] here in rural Oregon) is that the signal won't go
thru trees. VHF doesn't have that problem. VHF will also go thru most
building walls.

I find it interesting that nobody seems to be commenting on one
important aspect of this whole deal, which is that we, the people (you
remember that phrase, right?), who own these bands as (formerly) public
communications pathways, are being given a take-it-or-leave-it
proposition where they might (or probably will) end up in private hands.
This would have caused outrage maybe 20-30 years ago, and someone may
have even demanded an FCC investigation, but at this point, all we can
do is throw our hands in the air, roll over and play dead.

The licenses for those VHF freqs should be transferred from TV to
Internet Service Providers, especially in rural areas. It's almost always
in private hands. Except for military, the US Govt doesn't do all that
much broadcasting compared to civilian uses. Private hands? You mean like
Amateur, or CB, or GPRS?

On 1/7/2009 10:58 PM Roland Latour spake thus:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:48:57 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote:

I find it interesting that nobody seems to be commenting on one
important aspect of this whole deal, which is that we, the people
(you remember that phrase, right?), who own these bands as
(formerly) public communications pathways, are being given a
take-it-or-leave-it proposition where they might (or probably will)
end up in private hands. This would have caused outrage maybe 20-30
years ago, and someone may have even demanded an FCC investigation,
but at this point, all we can do is throw our hands in the air,
roll over and play dead.

The licenses for those VHF freqs should be transferred from TV to
Internet Service Providers, especially in rural areas. It's almost
always in private hands. Except for military, the US Govt doesn't do
all that much broadcasting compared to civilian uses. Private hands?
You mean like Amateur, or CB, or GPRS?

You misunderstand; I mean the current "airways" (VHF band in this case)
are public in the sense that they're public property (i.e., not
privately-owned, administered by the FCC) and also subject to public
oversight (well, at least nominally). You know, like that little thing
called the First Amendment?


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:21:22 -0800, 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.

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).

Or to put it another way, I could buy a UHF (only) antenna, and would
have a much smaller antenna on the roof. Right?

I could see having a smaller antenna as a benefit, because I could
make my mast a few feet higher without having so much worry about high
winds ripping it down. Of course I am not sure if another 6 or 8 feet
of mast would make much difference.

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.

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.


Not true in all markets. In fact, in the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area,
two stations are moving out of the UHF band down to channels 11 and 13!
Previously, all stations were UHF here except for the low power catholic
station on channel 7. I made a simple dipole cut for channel 12 and it
works fine to pick up 11 and 13 digital signals.

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

This entire conversion is a basic rip off of the public!

If the digital channels worked as good or better than the analog for
nearly everyone then fine go ahead.

the trouble is the digital channels in far too many cases dont work as
well.

call your congressmen and COMPLAIN BEFORE THE SHUT OFF!

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.

I have a Magnavox converter and get excellent digital reception. In
fact I get NBC and FOX which I never got on analog. A friend who lives
about 15 miles away gets only one station with digital even though he
has good analog reception of 5 stations. He has a good outside antenna
and uses RG6 cable. He is not happy.


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

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.


There is a station that holds and uses a DT license on VHF in my home
market and I can think of at least 3 more markets that have DT operating
on VHF.

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.

The space between channels 6 and 7 are being used for FM broadcasting
(88 to 108 mc). These will not change and a VHF antenna would still be
needed for these stations.


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

On Jan 7, 10:19*pm, Robert Neville wrote:
ransley wrote:
The reviews I read by a store address the issue that some work better
in reception, and give ratings.

Most of the stations are currently broadcasting their digital signals on
temporary UHF frequencies. UHF has poorer performance than VHF. After the
switchover, many stations will use their VHF analog frequencies for their
digital channels, potentially improving their signal coverage.

Bottom line is that you can't judge your converter box performance by what you
see today.

From several reviews there seems to be 4 catagories from poor to very
good covering several areas, do you believe they are equal or the
present reviews wrong in what you will get. From my take on it online
is where the better box is, and price is a reason, it is a fact
WalMart demands low prices from supliers.

In article ,
Jimw wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:21:22 -0800, 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.

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).

In theory, yes. In practice, probably not. In most cases, those
combination antennas have been carefully tuned so that they perform well
across all the bands they pick up. Altering them in any way *WILL* alter
their capabilities. Every piece of metal within (depending on which
reference you want to believe) 1-4 wavelengths of any element has to be
accounted for in the tuning process. Depending on the exact design being
used (the "Yagi" is probably the most familiar), changing number of
pieces, size of any piece, or spatial relationship between any two
pieces even slightly can have anything from very little effect to an "I
can't freakin' believe it!" huge effect on the antenna's performance.
Lop a chunk off any of them, and it's pretty likely that they'll go
almost completely "out of tune" for whatever part you try to keep in
service. It wouldn't be impossible to retune an antenna once the VHF
section is chopped off, but chances are high that it would take so much
time/effort/tinkering to do it that it simply wouldn't be worth
bothering to make the attempt.

Or to put it another way, I could buy a UHF (only) antenna, and would
have a much smaller antenna on the roof. Right?

Yep.

I could see having a smaller antenna as a benefit, because I could
make my mast a few feet higher without having so much worry about high
winds ripping it down. Of course I am not sure if another 6 or 8 feet
of mast would make much difference.

In theory (once again...) raising an antenna any amount is helpful. But
in practice, there's a "minimum increase" number (Which I can't remember
for certain without looking it up - I'm wanting to say it's 10-12 feet)
below which the change doesn't give any significant payoff for the
effort.

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.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

Don Bruder wrote:

Sorry, Rob, but that's *TOTALLY* incorrect. One of the primary purposes
of the switch is to open up the VHF bands for other uses. *ALL* digital
transmissions are on UHF now (on channels 14 through 51, between 470 and
698MHz, to be exact) and will remain there after the switch.


Sorry Don. I'm afraid you are very confused. The frequencies associated UHF
Channels 52 to 69 are being auctioned off - not the VHF frequencies. Stations
have the option of moving their digital channels back to VHF after the
transition if they want, or they can stay on their temporariy UHF channel if it
is below 52. Since low VHF has better propagation than VHF and is cheaper to run
a transmitter on, those stations current on 2-7 for analog will likely stay
there for digital.

In article c,
Roland Latour wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:48:57 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote:


So what are they going to use those old VHF
channels for, do you know?

It's my understanding they will be used for wireless networking.

There's been talk about that, but the main "target" was supposed to be
"public safety" - AKA fire, cops, ambulance, etc.

The wireless networking concept is/was aimed at so-called "white spaces"
between current TV channels - sort of "slipping it into the gaps"

One
problem with 802.11 at 2.4GHz (which I currently use over longish
distances [2-7 miles] here in rural Oregon) is that the signal won't go
thru trees. VHF doesn't have that problem. VHF will also go thru most
building walls.

VHF has its own set of problems for use in wireless networking. Yes,
it'll give better "penetration", and all other things being equal,
longer distances. But when you drop in frequency, you also drop in
information-carrying capability - Current wireless, running in the 2.4
GHz range, has *LOTS* of "cargo space" available, so top speeds possible
with it are much higher than what can be had from a signal in the VHF
bands (which are *WAY* down the scale: 54-88MHz for "VHF-Lo" - channels
2-6, and 175-216MHz for "VHF-Hi" - channels 7-13) Lower frequency =
lower information carrying capability. The most clearly visible
illustration of this would be comparing the AM and FM broadcast radio
bands - look at how cheesy an AM station sounds compared to an FM
station. PART of the difference is the modulation scheme, (Amplitude
Modulation versus Frequency Modulation) but a much larger part of the
difference comes from the amount of information each band can carry - AM
broadcasting is done on frequencies between about 500 and 1600
*KILO*Hertz, while FM broadcasts are done on 80-ish to 108-ish
*MEGA*Hertz. Higher frequency permits more information per unit of time
to be moved. But it trades off distance the information can travel
intact - Some of the so-called "clear channel" AM stations can literally
cover the country from coast to coast with good strong intelligible
signal, using only 50 *KILO*watts. An FM station running a full
*MEGA*watt is hard-pressed to get a useful signal out past about 100-150
miles.

Shifting wireless down to the VHF bands will give slower, but
further-reaching, wireless connections. For some folks, "some but slow"
is one helluva lot better than "fast but nothing", but in general, most
of the general public is stuck in a "gotta be faster Faster
FASTER!!!!!!! to be any good" mindset, so I'm wondering if that idea is
*REALLY* going to get any traction...

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

Robert Neville wrote:

Sorry Don. I'm afraid you are very confused. The frequencies associated UHF
Channels 52 to 69 are being auctioned off - not the VHF frequencies.

And if you are interested, this is a reasonable explanation of what is
happening:

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/MusicalChairs.html