On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:39:30 -0500, joe wrote:

Jimw wrote:
Leave it to the government to do things that are entirely stupid.
Having the DTV changeover on Feb. 17 is one of them. The majority of
Americans are coping with snow and ice and cold weather in February.
At the same time, these same people are stuck indoors and watching
more tv than they do in warmer weather.

On Feb 17th the analog signals will be gone, and everyone will have to
get their converter boxes working or they will see a blank screen.
While some people have already gotten their converters working, many
of us (including myself), have tried them, and found then inferior
because the stations are still sending out a low powererd dtv signal.
They claim they will increase their power on Feb 17, which may or may
not be true, because I'm sure this will not be an overnight change,
and there will be technical problems.

So, beginning on February 17, how many people are going to fall off
snow covered roofs, slip on icy ladders, fall off antenna towers, etc.
while trying to do things to their antennas to get better reception.
This is precisely where the government makes no sense at all. Why
didn't they make the change in June, July, or August, when anyone can
safely go on the roof, and when people can take their time getting
things working because they are spending most of their time outdoors
away from the tv.

I wonder how many people are going to end up in hospitals or dead from
working on their antennas in freezing cold weather?
I'm sure we'll see much of this on the news. (That's if we can see
the news on our tv sets).

President elect Obama said he wants to extend the date of the
changeover because the govt. ran out of money for the coupons. I hope
that the date change occurs in warm weather. Maybe wait another 6
months, which would then occur in August. With any hope, Obama will
have more sense than previous politicians.

Jim
I made sure mine was working last summer.

I tried that. My box works, but aside from PBS, there are no other
channels. They said that until Feb 17, they are low power. That
makes it hard to do any testing. I'm in a fringe area.

Jim

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:15:27 -0500, KLS wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:57:40 -0500, joe wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"joe" wrote in message
I made sure mine was working last summer.


Yes, you and six other sensible people. Millions will wake up February 17
and wonder why the picture is gone.


that is kind of stupid. do you think they voted for Obamma, too?

No, I'm sure they voted for Bush. Like you.

There's great news. Now that Bush has won the war in Iraq, Baghdad
will become the new headquarters for the ultra right wing
fundamentalists. There will even be a special church setup for them,
which will feature speakers every Sunday, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann
Coltier, and other neo-conservative spiritual leaders. All ultra
rightwingers are being advised to make preparations to move to Baghdad
Iraq by the end of 2009. Every former Bush voter is guaranteed a
place to live, a free copy of the Neo-Con Bible, and a complimentary
gallon of genuine Iraq oil. Sign up today. You'll be much happier
there than you ever were in America. There's a rumor that GW Bush
himself will be moving there to act as the leader and dictator. YOU
could be the first to leave America and become become a citizen of the
new ultra rightwing headquarters.

Sorry, homosexuals, abortionists, and democrats are not welcome.

In article ,
Jimw wrote:


Coltier, and other neo-conservative spiritual leaders. All ultra
rightwingers are being advised to make preparations to move to Baghdad
Iraq by the end of 2009.

That's because Carville, most of MSNBC and all the UltraLefties are
moving to DC where they can do at least as much damage to America as the
other wingnuts.


Every former Bush voter is guaranteed a
place to live, a free copy of the Neo-Con Bible,

"NeoCon" This is liberal for I don't want to risk cognitive
dissonance, so I'll use this meaningless term instead of actually
thinking things out.
Of course, the conservatives who are opposed to to actually thinking
things out have their own term of "endearment".


a

KLS wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:57:40 -0500, joe wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"joe" wrote in message
I made sure mine was working last summer.

Yes, you and six other sensible people. Millions will wake up February 17
and wonder why the picture is gone.


that is kind of stupid. do you think they voted for Obamma, too?

No, I'm sure they voted for Bush. Like you.

bingo. proof of antother Obammy voter. this one is so dumb he thinks
Bush was running against Obammy.

bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jimw wrote:

There's great news. Now that Bush has won the war in Iraq, Baghdad
will become the new headquarters for the ultra right wing
fundamentalists. There will even be a special church setup for them,
which will feature speakers every Sunday, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann
Coltier, and other neo-conservative spiritual leaders. All ultra
rightwingers are being advised to make preparations to move to Baghdad
Iraq by the end of 2009. Every former Bush voter is guaranteed a
place to live, a free copy of the Neo-Con Bible, and a complimentary
gallon of genuine Iraq oil. Sign up today. You'll be much happier
there than you ever were in America. There's a rumor that GW Bush
himself will be moving there to act as the leader and dictator. YOU
could be the first to leave America and become become a citizen of the
new ultra rightwing headquarters.

Sorry, homosexuals, abortionists, and democrats are not welcome.



shame you feel you have to make up lies to put down half of your fellow
citizens. another Obammy voter, fer sure.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Jimw wrote:


Coltier, and other neo-conservative spiritual leaders. All ultra
rightwingers are being advised to make preparations to move to Baghdad
Iraq by the end of 2009.

That's because Carville, most of MSNBC and all the UltraLefties are
moving to DC where they can do at least as much damage to America as the
other wingnuts.


Every former Bush voter is guaranteed a
place to live, a free copy of the Neo-Con Bible,

"NeoCon" This is liberal for I don't want to risk cognitive
dissonance, so I'll use this meaningless term instead of actually
thinking things out.
Of course, the conservatives who are opposed to to actually thinking
things out have their own term of "endearment".


a
Obamoron?

wrote:
if your antenna works before the switch it will work after the switch.
no changes necessary. �so what are you whining about?-

obviously you have no knowledge, many people are losing channels they
could watch for their lifetime.

the new digital channels are not serving as large a area, MAY PLACES
WILL BE UNSERVED/

its in the government documents


where I live I am picking up *more* channels with *better* picture.

Jack Hunt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:24:12 -0500, joe wrote:

if your antenna works before the switch it will work after the switch.
no changes necessary. so what are you whining about?

Don't confuse 'em with the facts. I'm waiting to see how many fall off the roof
trying to install the converter box on their antenna.

--
Jack

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

govt is turning off tv only for Obammy voters.
whatta bunch Obamorons.

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Jerry - OHIO) wrote:

Nobody is going on a ****ing roof with snow on it . Unless they are as
stupid as you are.
The box goes on your tv you ass hole !!!!
Jr




Yeah, and the *antenna* which is what he was talking about, goes on the
roof, (you illiterate asshole.)

Nevertheless, my compassion for the allegedly disenfranchised is
somewhat limited.

if they have no antenna then in that case they have no tv reception
right now or last summer so the digital switch means nothing to them.
Unless they voted for Obammy. In that case they think it might mean
something to them, they just don't know what.

bwahahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

joe wrote:

Jimw wrote:

There's great news. Now that Bush has won the war in Iraq, Baghdad
will become the new headquarters for the ultra right wing
fundamentalists. There will even be a special church setup for them,
which will feature speakers every Sunday, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann
Coltier, and other neo-conservative spiritual leaders. All ultra
rightwingers are being advised to make preparations to move to Baghdad
Iraq by the end of 2009. Every former Bush voter is guaranteed a
place to live, a free copy of the Neo-Con Bible, and a complimentary
gallon of genuine Iraq oil. Sign up today. You'll be much happier
there than you ever were in America. There's a rumor that GW Bush
himself will be moving there to act as the leader and dictator. YOU
could be the first to leave America and become become a citizen of the
new ultra rightwing headquarters.

Sorry, homosexuals, abortionists, and democrats are not welcome.



shame you feel you have to make up lies to put down half of your fellow
citizens. another Obammy voter, fer sure.

by looking past the fabrication there is some humor.

think for a moment of how life would be in the lie-bi-rail america
if all others were to leave. as a first thought who would pay for
lie-bi-rail social programs? where exactly would that money come
from? or maybe there'd be no need for social programs with the
designed intent of elevating one group to the status of life they
see and covet...

DGDevin wrote:
George wrote:

Hint, Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law. That removed
the last regulations that were enacted after the great depression to
prevent another one (taking the cop off the beat) . In general both
the red and blue teams have worked really well on behalf of the few.

Oh I agree that when the Dems are in power they do their share of damage,
that includes Clinton signing bills he should have vetoed, but let's not
forget who controlled Congress when those bills were created.

Presidents have veto power.

Bush
inherited many issues, but somehow he found a way to make the consequences
worse than they had to be. Above all he chose to launch an ill-advised and
needless war that has killed well over 4,000 American soldiers and is
costing the taxpayer three billion dollars a week. Last week Dick Cheney
admitted to Bob Schieffer that Saddam never had the WMDs we heard so much
about prior to the invasion, but legalized torture is still okay by him.
Obama has a tough field position to play from, still, if he just avoids
mistakes on the scale of invading Iraq he's going to look like a more
competent President than Bush.


If you want to play tit for tat it was the Democrat congress that just
picked our pockets to provide the bailout money mostly for the benefit
of the fatcats whose greed got us where we are. As I said the red and
the blue teams work for a select few. Neither are defensible.

On Jan 12, 7:58�am, joe wrote:
wrote:
if your antenna works before the switch it will work after the switch.
no changes necessary. so what are you whining about?-

obviously you have no knowledge, many people are losing channels they
could watch for their lifetime.

the new digital channels are not serving as large a area, MAY PLACES
WILL BE UNSERVED/

its in the government documents

where I live I am picking up *more* channels with *better* picture.

thats nice for YOU

heres the official FCC service map for pittsburgh stations. see all
the orange? thats no longer served.

plus many are well within the green area and cant get service either.

their grade maps always showed more people than reality

On Jan 11, 1:30*pm, " wrote:
well I for one waited to get a converter after reports of the early
ones werent good, I hoped later versions would be more sensitive and
work better.

sadly the improvement hasnt came.

plus I wanted the new DTV PAL DVR, but heck just a few are out, its on
back order. I have a order hanging with a personal friend who sells
them but hasnt even gotten his yet.


Any of the Tivo units which have been sold for years will record both
regular and HDTV, so there is no issue with the digital TV transition
and DVR's.




the loss of channels well theres no excuse, and hearings should be
held in congress asking why the broadcasters havent done better and
just what occured.

Plenty of people on this newsgroup have reported BETTER picture
quality and MORE channels to watch and are delighted by DTV. It
makes no sense for a broadcaster to drop any channels which are
popular for them as they make the transition. So, what specific
channels and stations are you talking about?

Sure there will be a small minority of people who will come out worse
off in all this for some reason. But when you start with the fact
that something like 90% of viewers today receive via cable or sat, and
most of the rest are getting great DTV reception, it's going to be a
very small number. Should all progress be foregone because a very
small minority is impacted? What happenes when a govt puts a new
road near someone's property or changes the zoning that has a
negative, and much larger impact than this DTV transition? Should
we stop building roads, dams, etc because a few people will be
negatively impacted?




newxt thing you know they will want to convert AM and FM to digital.

government mucking at its typical best

Sounds like more whining at it's best. You still upset because you
can't buy new LP's, 8 tracks, or send a telegram?

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:01:21 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:46?pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:
Why don't you either get cable or satellite and get on with your life?
It's not the end of the world.

G.S.


I currently have dish satellite service, but with the economy getting
so bad that might have to go, along with other luxuries.

previously could get all networks but no longer with digital
conversion

plus I wanted a DTVPAL for some secondary OTA channels like RTN,

Have you checked a site like www.antennaweb.org, or contacted the
stations you can't get? Many stations are broadcasting from temporary
antennas, on temporary channels at lower power, and will switch the
digital signal back (or increase power) on Feb 17th when they shut off
the analog broadcast. So you may not really lose all the stations you
can't get now...

Josh

On Jan 12, 12:42�pm, Josh wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:01:21 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:46?pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:
Why don't you either get cable or satellite and get on with your life?
It's not the end of the world.

G.S.

I currently have dish satellite service, but with the economy getting
so bad that might have to go, along with other luxuries.

previously �could get all networks but no longer with digital
conversion

plus I wanted a DTVPAL for some secondary OTA channels like RTN,

Have you checked a site likewww.antennaweb.org, or contacted the
stations you can't get? �Many stations are broadcasting from temporary
antennas, on temporary channels at lower power, and will switch the
digital signal back (or increase power) on Feb 17th when they shut off
the analog broadcast. �So you may not really lose all the stations you
can't get now...

Josh

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_...tsburgh_PA.pdf

check the pittsburgh stations orange triangles, those are showing the
new unserved areas......

plus even in served areas is no guarantee of service

wrote:
On Jan 12, 7:58�am, joe wrote:
wrote:
if your antenna works before the switch it will work after the switch.
no changes necessary. so what are you whining about?-
obviously you have no knowledge, many people are losing channels they
could watch for their lifetime.
the new digital channels are not serving as large a area, MAY PLACES
WILL BE UNSERVED/
its in the government documents
where I live I am picking up *more* channels with *better* picture.

thats nice for YOU

heres the official FCC service map for pittsburgh stations. see all
the orange? thats no longer served.

plus many are well within the green area and cant get service either.

their grade maps always showed more people than reality


so does that mean you will be up on the roof trying to get better
reception at the end of Feb?

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:11:44 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

heres the official FCC service map for pittsburgh stations. see all
the orange? thats no longer served.

Uh, where is the map? And do you believe everything the government says? Did
you know they took "gullible" out of the new dictionary? And they've come up
with a way to make it fade out of the dictionaries already in print.

plus many are well within the green area and cant get service either.

You know this for a fact? The conversion hasn't happened yet, ya know.

their grade maps always showed more people than reality

Their map says I cannot get channel 54, yet it's one of the best ones I have. I
can't believe that's the only error.

How many analog channels do you get right now? How many of those do you
actually watch?

--
Jack

Jack Hunt wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:11:44 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

heres the official FCC service map for pittsburgh stations. see all
the orange? thats no longer served.

Uh, where is the map? And do you believe everything the government says?


they believe everything Obammy says.




Did
you know they took "gullible" out of the new dictionary? And they've come up
with a way to make it fade out of the dictionaries already in print.

plus many are well within the green area and cant get service either.

You know this for a fact? The conversion hasn't happened yet, ya know.

their grade maps always showed more people than reality

Their map says I cannot get channel 54, yet it's one of the best ones I have. I
can't believe that's the only error.

How many analog channels do you get right now? How many of those do you
actually watch?

--
Jack

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_...tsburgh_PA.pdf

THE MAP

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:01:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_...tsburgh_PA.pdf

THE MAP

So have you checked to see if this map is accurate or are you just playing the
lemming and accepting it at face value? I tested my map and found that it's
wrong. I have much better reception than they say I do. It's not hard to find
my place on the Knoxville. Look between the dashed and the solid line, or just
outside any of the lines. I'm not supposed to get much of anything.

I actually witnessed the testing that went into these maps. Last summer a van
carrying a couple of Japanese guys stopped at my campground. They threw out a
tripod with a small UHF antenna on it and took readings for a total of about 5
minutes. Never tried swinging the antenna around, just filled in the blanks on
their survey sheet and started packing up. I asked what they were doing and
they said "TV signal test" and that was about all the English they knew.

You're going to have to compare actual reception on analog and on digital and
document loss of signal. Nobody is going to give you any sympathy based on
theoretical maps.

I'm betting you'll gain some overall channels. Go ahead, hook it up and prove
me wrong.

--
Jack

On Jan 12, 6:26�pm, Jack Hunt wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:01:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_...tsburgh_PA.pdf

THE MAP

So have you checked to see if this map is accurate or are you just playing the
lemming and accepting it at face value? �I tested my map and found that it's
wrong. �I have much better reception than they say I do. �It's not hard to find
my place on the Knoxville. �Look between the dashed and the solid line, or just
outside any of the lines. �I'm not supposed to get much of anything.

I actually witnessed the testing that went into these maps. �Last summer a van
carrying a couple of Japanese guys stopped at my campground. �They threw out a
tripod with a small UHF antenna on it and took readings for a total of about 5
minutes. �Never tried swinging the antenna around, just filled in the blanks on
their survey sheet and started packing up. �I asked what they were doing and
they said "TV signal test" and that was about all the English they knew.

You're going to have to compare actual reception on analog and on digital and
document loss of signal. �Nobody is going to give you any sympathy based on
theoretical maps.

I'm betting you'll gain some overall channels. �Go ahead, hook it up and prove
me wrong.

--
Jack

WTAE, channel 4 ABC affiliate has decent analog and no usable digital
reception here.

This situation is reported nationwide

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:33:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

WTAE, channel 4 ABC affiliate has decent analog and no usable digital
reception here.

And the switchover has not happened yet. Many stations that are broadcasting in
digital are doing so at low power.

This situation is reported nationwide

But do you have ABC on any other channels? Have you checked?

What town are you in? Or, what is the nearest town?

How many analog channels do you have now, and how many do you have on digital?

--
Jack

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:33:22 -0800, wrote:

On Jan 12, 6:26�pm, Jack Hunt wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:01:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_...tsburgh_PA.pdf

THE MAP

So have you checked to see if this map is accurate or are you just
playing the lemming and accepting it at face value? �I tested my map
and found that it's wrong. �I have much better reception than they say
I do. �It's not hard to find my place on the Knoxville. �Look
between the dashed and the solid line, or just outside any of the lines.
�I'm not supposed to get much of anything.

I actually witnessed the testing that went into these maps. �Last
summer a van carrying a couple of Japanese guys stopped at my
campground. �They threw out a tripod with a small UHF antenna on it
and took readings for a total of about 5 minutes. �Never tried
swinging the antenna around, just filled in the blanks on their survey
sheet and started packing up. �I asked what they were doing and they
said "TV signal test" and that was about all the English they knew.

You're going to have to compare actual reception on analog and on
digital and document loss of signal. �Nobody is going to give you any
sympathy based on theoretical maps.

I'm betting you'll gain some overall channels. �Go ahead, hook it up
and prove me wrong.

--
Jack

WTAE, channel 4 ABC affiliate has decent analog and no usable digital
reception here.

What a mess - particularly SE of Pittsburgh. If there are hills between
the transmitters and that area, the probable cause of loss of signal is
WTAE going from VHF to UHF.

This situation is reported nationwide

Same here with three stations that went from VHF to UHF. I just found out
last weekend that one of the two remaining stations is moving their
transmitter 11 miles. The FCC map shows it where it is now, on the same
tower as the transmitter for the other station. I have emailed the FCC
politely pointing out the error. But I doubt it will ever reach anyone
who knows what I'm writing about, let alone cares.

You have two decent newspapers in Pittsburgh. Have you tried a litter to
the editor?

On Jan 13, 9:09*am, Ann wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:33:22 -0800, wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:26 pm, Jack Hunt wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:01:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_...tsburgh_PA.pdf

THE MAP

So have you checked to see if this map is accurate or are you just
playing the lemming and accepting it at face value? I tested my map
and found that it's wrong. I have much better reception than they say
I do. It's not hard to find my place on the Knoxville. Look
between the dashed and the solid line, or just outside any of the lines.
I'm not supposed to get much of anything.

I actually witnessed the testing that went into these maps. Last
summer a van carrying a couple of Japanese guys stopped at my
campground. They threw out a tripod with a small UHF antenna on it
and took readings for a total of about 5 minutes. Never tried
swinging the antenna around, just filled in the blanks on their survey
sheet and started packing up. I asked what they were doing and they
said "TV signal test" and that was about all the English they knew.

You're going to have to compare actual reception on analog and on
digital and document loss of signal. Nobody is going to give you any
sympathy based on theoretical maps.

I'm betting you'll gain some overall channels. Go ahead, hook it up
and prove me wrong.

--
Jack

WTAE, channel 4 ABC affiliate has decent analog and no usable digital
reception here.

What a mess - particularly SE of Pittsburgh. If there are hills between
the transmitters and that area, the probable cause of loss of signal is
WTAE going from VHF to UHF. *

This situation is reported nationwide

Same here with three stations that went from VHF to UHF. *I just found out
last weekend that one of the two remaining stations is moving their
transmitter 11 miles. *The FCC map shows it where it is now, on the same
tower as the transmitter for the other station. I have emailed the FCC
politely pointing out the error. *But I doubt it will ever reach anyone
who knows what I'm writing about, let alone cares. *

You have two decent newspapers in Pittsburgh. *Have you tried a litter to
the editor? *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



A letter to the editor about exactly what? Geez... I can't believe
anyone would point out this FCC coverage map of Pittsburgh to make
their case. I expected to see a map full of no coverage, or at least
a substantial portion. Instead, it's a map showing a huge amount
of white, which is where coveage remains the same. That area extends
out about 70 miles. The there is a very large amount of green in
that area, which is COVERAGE THAT NOW EXISTS WHERE IT DID NOT
PREVIUOSLY. Then you have a very tiny amount of orange, which is
where coverage is lost, but the CBS network can still be received on
another channel. Finally, there are a few specs of red at about 50
miles+ where coverage is lost with no alternate channel available for
the CBS network. Bottom line, the map shows that for 99.99% of the
area, coveage either remains the same or improves.

If your standard is that this is unacceptable, then I think you're
going to go through life very unhappy.

On Jan 13, 9:30�am, wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:09�am, Ann wrote:





On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:33:22 -0800, wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:26 pm, Jack Hunt wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:01:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_...tsburgh_PA.pdf

THE MAP

So have you checked to see if this map is accurate or are you just
playing the lemming and accepting it at face value? I tested my map
and found that it's wrong. I have much better reception than they say
I do. It's not hard to find my place on the Knoxville. Look
between the dashed and the solid line, or just outside any of the lines.
I'm not supposed to get much of anything.

I actually witnessed the testing that went into these maps. Last
summer a van carrying a couple of Japanese guys stopped at my
campground. They threw out a tripod with a small UHF antenna on it
and took readings for a total of about 5 minutes. Never tried
swinging the antenna around, just filled in the blanks on their survey
sheet and started packing up. I asked what they were doing and they
said "TV signal test" and that was about all the English they knew.

You're going to have to compare actual reception on analog and on
digital and document loss of signal. Nobody is going to give you any
sympathy based on theoretical maps.

I'm betting you'll gain some overall channels. Go ahead, hook it up
and prove me wrong.

--
Jack

WTAE, channel 4 ABC affiliate has decent analog and no usable digital
reception here.

What a mess - particularly SE of Pittsburgh. If there are hills between
the transmitters and that area, the probable cause of loss of signal is
WTAE going from VHF to UHF. �

This situation is reported nationwide

Same here with three stations that went from VHF to UHF. �I just found out
last weekend that one of the two remaining stations is moving their
transmitter 11 miles. �The FCC map shows it where it is now, on the same
tower as the transmitter for the other station. I have emailed the FCC
politely pointing out the error. �But I doubt it will ever reach anyone
who knows what I'm writing about, let alone cares. �

You have two decent newspapers in Pittsburgh. �Have you tried a litter to
the editor? �- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A letter to the editor about exactly what? � �Geez... �I can't believe
anyone would point out this FCC coverage map of Pittsburgh to make
their case. � I expected to see a map full of no coverage, or at least
a substantial portion. � � Instead, it's a map showing a huge amount
of white, which is where coveage remains the same. �That area extends
out about 70 miles. � The there is a very large amount of green in
that area, �which is COVERAGE THAT NOW EXISTS WHERE IT DID NOT
PREVIUOSLY. � �Then you have a very tiny amount of orange, which is
where coverage is lost, but the CBS network can still be received on
another channel. �Finally, there are a few specs of red at about 50
miles+ where coverage is lost with no alternate channel available for
the CBS network. �Bottom line, the map shows that for 99.99% of the
area, coveage either remains the same or improves.

If your standard is that this is unacceptable, then I think you're
going to go through life very unhappy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

did you look at just KDKA or all digitaL CHANNELS IN PITTSBURGH?

some are about the same like KDKA, some are much worse like WTAE

and no other ABC affiliate is available here, the next nearest is in
youngstown ohio a long way.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:09:24 -0500, Ann wrote:

What a mess - particularly SE of Pittsburgh. If there are hills between
the transmitters and that area, the probable cause of loss of signal is
WTAE going from VHF to UHF.

So the loss, if there actually is one, is due to the station changing from VHF
to UHF and has nothing to do with digital? There are at least 100 hills between
me and the nearest tower. I'm still getting a decent signal.

This situation is reported nationwide

So are UFOs and Bigfoot sightings. I find it hard to believe that people are
complaining about losing coverage in a conversion that hasn't happened yet.
Methinks it's more a matter of not wanting to change anything than actual loss.

I didn't want to change and I probably wouldn't have changed anything if I
hadn't seen a demonstration of what was out there vs what the map said was out
there. I was working on a scheme to move one of my dish boxes to my campground
to provide TV for my customers. Forget that. I'll put up an antenna and they
can watch the same thing I'm watching.

Same here with three stations that went from VHF to UHF.

Again, this has nothing to do with digital vs analog but has everything to do
with the different wave propagation of two very different frequencies.

I just found out
last weekend that one of the two remaining stations is moving their
transmitter 11 miles.

11 miles is nothing unless you're already on the very extreme edge of coverage
and they move 11 miles in the opposite direction. As a very last resort,
amplifiers are available to boost the signal and vastly increase the quality of
reception in fringe areas. I had a leftover amp from the days when I subscribed
to Comcast cable. Hooking it up adds two more channels that previously were
undetectable.

The FCC map shows it where it is now, on the same
tower as the transmitter for the other station.

Unless they've started transmitting from the new tower, then the map is correct,
no?

Have you tried a litter to the editor?

Puppies or kittens?

--
Jack

On Jan 13, 6:55*am, Jack Hunt wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:09:24 -0500, Ann wrote:
What a mess - particularly SE of Pittsburgh. If there are hills between
the transmitters and that area, the probable cause of loss of signal is
WTAE going from VHF to UHF.

So the loss, if there actually is one, is due to the station changing from VHF
to UHF and has nothing to do with digital? *There are at least 100 hills between
me and the nearest tower. *I'm still getting a decent signal.

This situation is reported nationwide

So are UFOs and Bigfoot sightings. *I find it hard to believe that people are
complaining about losing coverage in a conversion that hasn't happened yet.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:30:42 -0800, trader4 wrote:

On Jan 13, 9:09Â*am, Ann wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:33:22 -0800, wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:26 pm, Jack Hunt wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:01:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_...tsburgh_PA.pdf

THE MAP

So have you checked to see if this map is accurate or are you just
playing the lemming and accepting it at face value? I tested my map
and found that it's wrong. I have much better reception than they say
I do. It's not hard to find my place on the Knoxville. Look between
the dashed and the solid line, or just outside any of the lines. I'm
not supposed to get much of anything.

I actually witnessed the testing that went into these maps. Last
summer a van carrying a couple of Japanese guys stopped at my
campground. They threw out a tripod with a small UHF antenna on it
and took readings for a total of about 5 minutes. Never tried
swinging the antenna around, just filled in the blanks on their
survey sheet and started packing up. I asked what they were doing and
they said "TV signal test" and that was about all the English they
knew.

You're going to have to compare actual reception on analog and on
digital and document loss of signal. Nobody is going to give you any
sympathy based on theoretical maps.

I'm betting you'll gain some overall channels. Go ahead, hook it up
and prove me wrong.

--
Jack

WTAE, channel 4 ABC affiliate has decent analog and no usable digital
reception here.

What a mess - particularly SE of Pittsburgh. If there are hills between
the transmitters and that area, the probable cause of loss of signal is
WTAE going from VHF to UHF. Â*

This situation is reported nationwide

Same here with three stations that went from VHF to UHF. Â*I just found
out last weekend that one of the two remaining stations is moving their
transmitter 11 miles. Â*The FCC map shows it where it is now, on the
same tower as the transmitter for the other station. I have emailed the
FCC politely pointing out the error. Â*But I doubt it will ever reach
anyone who knows what I'm writing about, let alone cares. Â*

You have two decent newspapers in Pittsburgh. Â*Have you tried a litter
to the editor? Â*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



A letter to the editor about exactly what? Geez... I can't believe
anyone would point out this FCC coverage map of Pittsburgh to make their
case. I expected to see a map full of no coverage, or at least a
substantial portion. Instead, it's a map showing a huge amount of
white, which is where coveage remains the same. That area extends out
about 70 miles. The there is a very large amount of green in that area,
which is COVERAGE THAT NOW EXISTS WHERE IT DID NOT PREVIUOSLY. Then you
have a very tiny amount of orange, which is where coverage is lost, but
the CBS network can still be received on another channel. Finally, there
are a few specs of red at about 50 miles+ where coverage is lost with no
alternate channel available for the CBS network. Bottom line, the map
shows that for 99.99% of the area, coveage either remains the same or
improves.

If your standard is that this is unacceptable, then I think you're going
to go through life very unhappy.

What I wrote was that it was "a mess" - which isn't going to get sorted
out until the trees have leafed out. Whether it's "acceptable" or not
is up to the people who live in the Pittsburgh area.

On Jan 13, 10:19�am, Ann wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:30:42 -0800, trader4 wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:09�am, Ann wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:33:22 -0800, wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:26 pm, Jack Hunt wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:01:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_...tsburgh_PA.pdf

THE MAP

So have you checked to see if this map is accurate or are you just
playing the lemming and accepting it at face value? I tested my map
and found that it's wrong. I have much better reception than they say
I do. It's not hard to find my place on the Knoxville. Look between
the dashed and the solid line, or just outside any of the lines. I'm
not supposed to get much of anything.

I actually witnessed the testing that went into these maps. Last
summer a van carrying a couple of Japanese guys stopped at my
campground. They threw out a tripod with a small UHF antenna on it
and took readings for a total of about 5 minutes. Never tried
swinging the antenna around, just filled in the blanks on their
survey sheet and started packing up. I asked what they were doing and
they said "TV signal test" and that was about all the English they
knew.

You're going to have to compare actual reception on analog and on
digital and document loss of signal. Nobody is going to give you any
sympathy based on theoretical maps.

I'm betting you'll gain some overall channels. Go ahead, hook it up
and prove me wrong.

--
Jack

WTAE, channel 4 ABC affiliate has decent analog and no usable digital
reception here.

What a mess - particularly SE of Pittsburgh. If there are hills between
the transmitters and that area, the probable cause of loss of signal is
WTAE going from VHF to UHF. �

This situation is reported nationwide

Same here with three stations that went from VHF to UHF. �I just found
out last weekend that one of the two remaining stations is moving their
transmitter 11 miles. �The FCC map shows it where it is now, on the
same tower as the transmitter for the other station. I have emailed the
FCC politely pointing out the error. �But I doubt it will ever reach
anyone who knows what I'm writing about, let alone cares. �

You have two decent newspapers in Pittsburgh. �Have you tried a litter
to the editor? �- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A letter to the editor about exactly what? � �Geez... �I can't believe
anyone would point out this FCC coverage map of Pittsburgh to make their
case. � I expected to see a map full of no coverage, or at least a
substantial portion. � � Instead, it's a map showing a huge amount of
white, which is where coveage remains the same. �That area extends out
about 70 miles. � The there is a very large amount of green in that area,
which is COVERAGE THAT NOW EXISTS WHERE IT DID NOT PREVIUOSLY. � �Then you
have a very tiny amount of orange, which is where coverage is lost, but
the CBS network can still be received on another channel. �Finally, there
are a few specs of red at about 50 miles+ where coverage is lost with no
alternate channel available for the CBS network. �Bottom line, the map
shows that for 99.99% of the area, coveage either remains the same or
improves.

If your standard is that this is unacceptable, then I think you're going
to go through life very unhappy.

What I wrote was that it was "a mess" - which isn't going to get sorted
out until the trees have leafed out. �Whether it's "acceptable" or not
is up to the people who live in the Pittsburgh area. �- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yeah once trees leaf out signal stregth will drop for sure.

leaves being water based attenuate signal basically absorb it