On Jan 27, 11:39�pm, Red wrote:
On Jan 27, 8:01�pm, David Nebenzahl



They can't do that legally, unless they want to forfeit their license.
I'm sure the FCC would have a word or two to say about that if they did..

Not so. �We had one local CBS station that quit broadcasting analog
Dec.1st and are now entirely digital.

They said prior to shutting down the analog signal that they expected
to reach 90% of the OTA homes. �Now they are saying they are going to
reduce power in Feb. and expect to reach 85% of the homes. (Just the
opposite of what people are saying about stations increasing power
after the changeover.)

Red

thats the issue nationwide many are PERMANETELY LOSING THE STATIONS
THEY HAVE WATCHED FOR A LIFETIME.

NO ONE APPEARS TO CARE ABOUT THAT.

THOSE STATIONS ARE IMPORTANT FOR DISASTERS, BOTH NATURAL AND MAN MADE.

THE TURN OFF OF ANALOG SHOULDNT OCCUR IN OUR LIFETIME IF THE SERVICE
IS REDUCED.

some sort of local interference makes my watching most local digital
channels impossible. 90% signal strength drops to the 30%s and blacks
out the channels on a regular basis.

Cheri wrote:
"George" wrote in message
...
Cheri wrote:

=========

So? Why do you care?

Cheri


Likely because it is indicative of the sad state of people's interests
and why we are in the economic mess we are in. The red and blue teams
do what their owners ask and no one even cares. Few seem to pay
attention to anything beyond American idol or what "brittanny" is
doing today.

So, does what Brittany is doing matter to you? Does it have an impact on
your life? It has no bearing on my life, and neither does stalling DTV.
I'm ready for the switch, have been for a long time, but it doesn't
matter in my life if it happens in February or June, or not at all for
that matter. As my mother used to say...if you just take care of your
own business, you'll have plenty to do.

Cheri


Huh?

"George" wrote in message
...
Cheri wrote:
"George" wrote in message
...
Cheri wrote:

=========

So? Why do you care?

Cheri


snip


.. As my mother used to say...if you just take care of your
own business, you'll have plenty to do.

Cheri


Huh?

Between the government and private industry they have spent a fortune in the
past year advertising this changeover. Personally, I resent spending
taxpayer money for this advertising.
Saying this, the majority of Americans involved in this changeover
responded and purchased their converter boxes. But because a small group of
people chose to ignore the ads or were too lazy to do anything about it, why
should the taxpayers and TV stations be burdened with extra cost to
advertise it again for another 6 months? Do you think this same group of
'ignorers' will get the boxes in the next 6 months? Hell no. They'll wait
till someone comes to their house, installs it for them at no cost to them
but at significant cost to taxpayers.

wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:39?pm, Red wrote:
On Jan 27, 8:01?pm, David Nebenzahl



They can't do that legally, unless they want to forfeit their
license. I'm sure the FCC would have a word or two to say about
that if they did.

Not so. ?We had one local CBS station that quit broadcasting analog
Dec.1st and are now entirely digital.

They said prior to shutting down the analog signal that they expected
to reach 90% of the OTA homes. ?Now they are saying they are going to
reduce power in Feb. and expect to reach 85% of the homes. (Just the
opposite of what people are saying about stations increasing power
after the changeover.)

Red

thats the issue nationwide many are PERMANETELY LOSING THE STATIONS
THEY HAVE WATCHED FOR A LIFETIME.

NO ONE APPEARS TO CARE ABOUT THAT.

If "NO ONE" cares, then there's not a problem. Duh!


THOSE STATIONS ARE IMPORTANT FOR DISASTERS, BOTH NATURAL AND MAN MADE.

Not important. Both AM and FM radio stations are not affected. The proposal
does not affect the internet, newspapers, word-of-mouth, local sirens, and
other disaster advisory systems. If we relied entirely on TV to avoid
disasters, America would never have elected a Republican.


THE TURN OFF OF ANALOG SHOULDNT OCCUR IN OUR LIFETIME IF THE SERVICE
IS REDUCED.

Why? I know I felt the same way when CBS "turned off" the original Startrek
series back in the '60's, but I got over it.


some sort of local interference makes my watching most local digital
channels impossible. 90% signal strength drops to the 30%s and blacks
out the channels on a regular basis.

Then get the interference problem fixed. Anything that interferes with
commercial radio or TV signals is illegal and the FCC will skin the
interferee.

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
....
THOSE STATIONS ARE IMPORTANT FOR DISASTERS, BOTH NATURAL AND MAN MADE.

Not important. ...

I rarely (if ever ) agree w/ Haller, but he's right on this aspect.

You, Bub, obviously don't live in tornado alley where local live radar
and storm tracking is a significant function of _LOCAL_ (as not 200+
miles away) translators. It is indeed, a primary function of these
stations and a quite important one.

Granted radio has its place but it doesn't have Doppler radar...

--

In article ,
"Sanity" wrote:


Between the government and private industry they have spent a fortune in the
past year advertising this changeover. Personally, I resent spending
taxpayer money for this advertising.

Much of the government spending has been PSAs or other stuff that is
pretty close to free. I also don't really view that as being taxpayer
money since it is a very small part of the money the Feds made off of
selling the returned frequencies. The converter box subsidy is a little
much, though.

In article , dpb wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
...
THOSE STATIONS ARE IMPORTANT FOR DISASTERS, BOTH NATURAL AND MAN MADE.

Not important. ...

I rarely (if ever ) agree w/ Haller, but he's right on this aspect.

You, Bub, obviously don't live in tornado alley where local live radar
and storm tracking is a significant function of _LOCAL_ (as not 200+
miles away) translators. It is indeed, a primary function of these
stations and a quite important one.

Granted radio has its place but it doesn't have Doppler radar...

--

A couple of the local radio stations DO have doppler and can
verbally give pretty much the same information. Much more impressive on
TV, I'll admit. Probably marginally easier to understand.
However, the OP's point was that this was a reason that analog
should continue practically forever. Between cable and OTA, 90% of those
who need access to doppler during Tornado Season will have it already.
The others can use radio, get a weather radio, etc. Especially since the
Feb switchover is a month or so before the start of Tornado season.
Doubt most of the slackers would give up their Jerry Springer that long
anyway.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

The converter box subsidy is a
little much, though.


No,it's not.
By Government's forced conversion to DTV,they took away my analog TV;if I
didn't get a converter it would be useless,so the coupons are part
compensation for that taking.
IF the broadcasters had not been forced into the DTV conversion,my TVs
would still be usable.
Broadcasters would have never converted on their own.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in :

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:16:40 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:



some sort of local interference makes my watching most local digital
channels impossible. 90% signal strength drops to the 30%s and blacks
out the channels on a regular basis.

Then get the interference problem fixed. Anything that interferes with
commercial radio or TV signals is illegal and the FCC will skin the
interferee.


DTV deniers continually and deliberately ignore the fact that until
the official switch-over occurs, many stations are broadcasting a
digital signal at far less power than they will be using when they
shut down the analog and go completely digital.

Untrue;local station WKMG-TV6 has advertised that they will be REDUCING
their DTV power after Feb.17.I've seen local coverage maps that show that
areas now served will lose coverage after that date.


Having poor DTV reception NOW is meaningless.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article , dpb wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
...
THOSE STATIONS ARE IMPORTANT FOR DISASTERS, BOTH NATURAL AND MAN
MADE.

Not important. ...

I rarely (if ever ) agree w/ Haller, but he's right on this
aspect.

You, Bub, obviously don't live in tornado alley where local live
radar and storm tracking is a significant function of _LOCAL_ (as not
200+ miles away) translators. It is indeed, a primary function of
these stations and a quite important one.

Granted radio has its place but it doesn't have Doppler radar...

--

A couple of the local radio stations DO have doppler and can
verbally give pretty much the same information. Much more impressive
on TV, I'll admit. Probably marginally easier to understand.
However, the OP's point was that this was a reason that analog
should continue practically forever. Between cable and OTA, 90% of
those who need access to doppler during Tornado Season will have it
already. The others can use radio, get a weather radio, etc.
Especially since the Feb switchover is a month or so before the start
of Tornado season. Doubt most of the slackers would give up their
Jerry Springer that long anyway.


a bit elitist or snobby to assume that people wanting to retain their
analog TVs all watch Springer.

also elitist to assume that everyone can just go out and buy more gear when
the gov't forces change that would not happen otherwise.

Hey,your present car is not fuel-efficient enough;you can't use it on the
roads anymore,go out and buy a new one.Or,hey,your car needs $1000 worth of
modifications to meet new emissions standards,else you can't operate it.
How'd you like THEM beans?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
wrote:


Having poor DTV reception NOW is meaningless.

Until you have checked with the station. Some of the TVs in Indy are
having their chief engineer blog about the changeover. A couple have
said they are already at full-power (usually those with their weather or
news channel running on one of the sidebands).

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

The converter box subsidy is a
little much, though.


No,it's not.
By Government's forced conversion to DTV,they took away my analog TV;if I
didn't get a converter it would be useless,so the coupons are part
compensation for that taking.

Maybe.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
....
A couple of the local radio stations DO have doppler and can
verbally give pretty much the same information. Much more impressive on
TV, I'll admit. Probably marginally easier to understand.

Must be much larger market than here... The primary advantage of TV for
storm tracking over radar _is_ the visual track of direction/speed of
individual cells plus the ability to observe the progression of a front
and how cells are being spawned along those fronts. This allows a very
rapid evaluation of the situation in one's area that simply can't be
achieved by listening. Sure, an immediate single funnel can be related,
but that often isn't the real danger--it's the new cell just forming to
the southwest that may be the particular "gotcha" for me, for example.

However, the OP's point was that this was a reason that analog
should continue practically forever. Between cable and OTA, 90% of those
who need access to doppler during Tornado Season will have it already.
The others can use radio, get a weather radio, etc. Especially since the
Feb switchover is a month or so before the start of Tornado season.
Doubt most of the slackers would give up their Jerry Springer that long
anyway.

It's "the others" that are the issue here, for whatever reason. So far,
the digital transmission at the translators that are the local source
here haven't been strong enough for the converter box to lock in to.
_Supposedly_ after the conversion they will be, but only time will tell
if we're w/o or not, apparently.

The satellite and cable aren't viable options for this purpose because
as noted upthread and by others, those feeds are the base stations 200+
miles distant, _NOT_ the "local" transmitters that break for storm
coverage in severe weather based on local conditions. W/O OTA, I don't
know that that service will exist at all.

In essence, we'll be back to the 50s for severe weather alerts and I
predict there will be higher fatality rates associated with it in the
rural areas. Note this isn't _just_ the individual farmstead like ours
that will be affected, towns will be also as their cable and satellite
feeds also are relegated to Wichita/Amarillo/Pueblo/etc., _NOT_ the
translators that do the local coverage. So, if these locations are
outside the revised coverage areas, their coverage will suffer markedly.

--

wrote:
On 28 Jan 2009 17:12:08 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

wrote in :

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:16:40 -0600, "HeyBub"
....
DTV deniers continually and deliberately ignore the fact that until
the official switch-over occurs, many stations are broadcasting a
digital signal at far less power than they will be using when they
shut down the analog and go completely digital.
Untrue;local station WKMG-TV6 has advertised that they will be REDUCING
their DTV power after Feb.17.I've seen local coverage maps that show that
areas now served will lose coverage after that date.


I can't seem to find any evidence of that on their website, which has
a whole section devoted to the DTV conversion. They don't seem to
mention that at all.

Having poor DTV reception NOW is meaningless.

As in most things, "the devil is in the details"

I'm not a fan of the conversion altho that's only because to date it's
not possible to know what the effect on us is going to be -- if it works
and we can continue to get OTA reception as good or better it will be
fine. If it goes away, not so much.

At present the problem here is there has been essentially no information
available on just what the broadcasters are intending for the
translators -- all their tests have included only the central
transmitters, not the translators "for technical reasons" is the entire
extent of the announcement as to the fact the test won't include these
areas.

So far, at least, if they are broadcasting in digital as well as analog
from these locations, it's not strong enough to be able to pick up w/
the converter box so if they don't increase power we're sol apparently.

The only information that I have seen that has been specifically
addressed to our situation has been a (very infrequent and only within
the last week or so) rollover along screen bottom that the station will
turn off analog on Feb 17 and begin digital on Feb 18. None of the PSA
announcements has ever even mentioned they have these translator
stations so they have been of almost zero use for those viewers.

I've not seen one of the rollovers since the recent Bill passage in the
Senate--don't know if that's because they're deciding what to do or just
haven't been run while I've had the set on for what limited time it is...

Anyway, I expect if one is in a moderately well-populated area and not
in a very hilly or mountainous terrain, etc., there will be little to
worry over. The rest of us don't really count in DC anyway, of course...

--

dpb wrote:
....
In essence, we'll be back to the 50s for severe weather alerts and I
predict there will be higher fatality rates associated with it in the
rural areas. Note this isn't _just_ the individual farmstead like ours
that will be affected, towns will be also as their cable and satellite
feeds also are relegated to Wichita/Amarillo/Pueblo/etc., _NOT_ the
translators that do the local coverage. So, if these locations are
outside the revised coverage areas, their coverage will suffer markedly.

By the above I mean, of course, in the event the range of the
translators after the conversion and final power adjustments (whatever
those may be, if any) is less than the current analog. If it's a usable
signal covers as large or larger area, then all will be well.

I've looked at the FCC expected range maps and for our area they seem to
indicate they expect a slightly larger radius--if such is to come to
pass, they certainly will have to do _something_ more than are presently
doing. OTOH, there are other areas in which the new maps do leave out
significant-sized areas that were/are in the analog coverage zones.
This is, imo, an unsatisfactory "solution".

It is the latter state of affairs with which I am in agreement w/ Haller
that I think should not be. Whether the solution is to maintain analog
as well or require additional resources be put into the digital I really
don't care but I don't think it should be a free pass to the airwaves
licensee to retain their license and reduce coverage purely at their
discretion as it apparently is.

--

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


a bit elitist or snobby to assume that people wanting to retain their
analog TVs all watch Springer.

I am assuming that those who wait around, ignore the advertisements and
then complain about how the government should step in *DO* something to
protect them from their own ignorance are the type who wouldn't mess it
with it until they lost Springer. That isn't elitist, that is
demographics.
Actually the very bottom of even the Springer demographic.



also elitist to assume that everyone can just go out and buy more gear when
the gov't forces change that would not happen otherwise.
Can't save $40 over two or three years?


Hey,your present car is not fuel-efficient enough;you can't use it on the
roads anymore,go out and buy a new one.Or,hey,your car needs $1000 worth of
modifications to meet new emissions standards,else you can't operate it.
How'd you like THEM beans?
If it was even remotely relevant to the argument, I might be
concerned.

On Jan 28, 10:16�am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:39?pm, Red wrote:
On Jan 27, 8:01?pm, David Nebenzahl

They can't do that legally, unless they want to forfeit their
license. I'm sure the FCC would have a word or two to say about
that if they did.

Not so. ?We had one local CBS station that quit broadcasting analog
Dec.1st and are now entirely digital.

They said prior to shutting down the analog signal that they expected
to reach 90% of the OTA homes. ?Now they are saying they are going to
reduce power in Feb. and expect to reach 85% of the homes. (Just the
opposite of what people are saying about stations increasing power
after the changeover.)

Red

thats the issue nationwide many are PERMANETELY LOSING THE STATIONS
THEY HAVE WATCHED FOR A LIFETIME.

NO ONE APPEARS TO CARE ABOUT THAT.

If "NO ONE" cares, then there's not a problem. Duh!



THOSE STATIONS ARE IMPORTANT FOR DISASTERS, BOTH NATURAL AND MAN MADE.

Not important. Both AM and FM radio stations are not affected. The proposal
does not affect the internet, newspapers, word-of-mouth, local sirens, and
other disaster advisory systems. If we relied entirely on TV to avoid
disasters, �America would never have elected a Republican.



THE TURN OFF OF ANALOG SHOULDNT OCCUR IN OUR LIFETIME IF THE SERVICE
IS REDUCED.

Why? I know I felt the same way when CBS "turned off" the original Startrek
series back in the '60's, but I got over it.



some sort of local interference makes my watching most local digital
channels impossible. 90% signal strength drops to the 30%s and blacks
out the channels on a regular basis.

Then get the interference problem fixed. Anything that interferes with
commercial radio or TV signals is illegal and the FCC will skin the
interferee.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

good luck the FCC has very few employees, doesnt care about
interferance.

with the exception of interfering with essential services like the
police or redirecting commercial airliners.

On Jan 28, 11:12�am, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:16:40 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

some sort of local interference makes my watching most local digital
channels impossible. 90% signal strength drops to the 30%s and blacks
out the channels on a regular basis.

Then get the interference problem fixed. Anything that interferes with
commercial radio or TV signals is illegal and the FCC will skin the
interferee.

DTV deniers continually and deliberately ignore the fact that until
the official switch-over occurs, many stations are broadcasting a
digital signal at far less power than they will be using when they
shut down the analog and go completely digital.

Having poor DTV reception NOW is meaningless.

most stations are NOT increasing power, as a matter of fact some are
decreasing digital power once the analog is turned off

On Jan 28, 12:19�pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:



Having poor DTV reception NOW is meaningless.

� Until you have checked with the station. Some of the TVs in Indy are
having their chief engineer blog about the changeover. A couple have
said they are already at full-power (usually those with their weather or
news channel running on one of the sidebands).

I personally called WTAE TV pittsburgh and was told the power now is
permanent and will not be increasing. Plus they moved their digital
transmitter site away from pittsburgh, on the other side of town.

They futher stated if you dont like it call congress

On Jan 28, 12:20�pm, wrote:
On 28 Jan 2009 17:12:08 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:





wrote :

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:16:40 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

some sort of local interference makes my watching most local digital
channels impossible. 90% signal strength drops to the 30%s and blacks
out the channels on a regular basis.

Then get the interference problem fixed. Anything that interferes with
commercial radio or TV signals is illegal and the FCC will skin the
interferee.

DTV deniers continually and deliberately ignore the fact that until
the official switch-over occurs, many stations are broadcasting a
digital signal at far less power than they will be using when they
shut down the analog and go completely digital.

Untrue;local station WKMG-TV6 has advertised that they will be REDUCING
their DTV power after Feb.17.I've seen local coverage maps that show that
areas now served will lose coverage after that date.

I can't seem to find any evidence of that on their website, which has
a whole section devoted to the DTV conversion. They don't seem to
mention that at all.





Having poor DTV reception NOW is meaningless.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the FCC would admit it they just dont have the manpower to research
interference anymore.

At one time they had ovber 50,000 employees today its less than 5000
primarily DC regulators

wrote:
....
I'm in favor of the conversion. The NTSC standard which we have been
saddled with for umpteen years was a compromise standard reached at
the point of the lowest common denominator. It had mostly to do with
backwards compatibilty. The greatest nation on earth has always had
second rate TV quality as a result. The new standard finally puts us
on par with the rest of the world.

I really don't give a rat's patootie one way or the other on the
conversion itself. I am concerned that being in a fringe area w/ issues
programming (and those aren't prime time kinds of programming that I
care about) if the result is we lose OTA reception.

If indeed the conversion does provide a usable signal I can see where
the sidebands could turn out useful assuming the stations choose to do
something of actual value with them (value is, of course, often in the
eye of the beholder). "HD" or any of the other folderol associated w/
the digital transmission as opposed to analog is of absolutely no
interest whatsoever to me. If it's good enough to read most of the text
on the screen, that's good enough; anything better is "whatever".

I think the reviews I've read on the converter boxes worrying about a
pixel or two dropout is simply absurd and can't fathom why anybody
thinks such stuff is important. But, that's me who would normally
prefer to read a book to watching the tube (altho I frequently sorta' do
both and may have the highschool ball game on the radio instead of tv
sound as well ).

If, otoh, the new coverage area is less and we're then in the "no fly
zone", that will be an unsatisfactory result for reasons documented
upthread.

--

On Jan 28, 2:17�pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
�Jim Yanik wrote:



a bit elitist or snobby to assume that people wanting to retain their
analog TVs all watch Springer.

�I am assuming that those who wait around, ignore the advertisements and
then complain about how the government should step in *DO* something to
protect them from their own ignorance are the type who wouldn't mess it
with it until they lost Springer. That isn't elitist, that is
demographics.
� � � Actually the very bottom of even the Springer demographic.



also elitist to assume that everyone can just go out and buy more gear when
the gov't forces change that would not happen otherwise.

� � Can't save $40 over two or three years?



Hey,your present car is not fuel-efficient enough;you can't use it on the
roads anymore,go out and buy a new one.Or,hey,your car needs $1000 worth of
modifications to meet new emissions standards,else you can't operate it..
How'd you like THEM beans?

� �If it was even remotely relevant to the argument, I might be
concerned.

Hey its as valid as the current changeover.

how would you feel if the feds passed a law in 2010 all sales of
gasoline will be permanetely illegal. the new digital fuel is all
thats available, so buy a new vehicle mowers etc or do without. oh
trhe new fuel isnt nearly as good but your stuck with it

wrote:
....

They futher stated if you dont like it call congress

If you do, your local congres-critter is where to start, of course.

And, I think FCC still cares about interference reports if provided
them; it's obviously silly to expect them to find it on their own, of
course.

If there were a wildcat source or somesuch that's the problem, one would
not expect you're the only person affected--if so, getting together all
those who are will be important to getting anything accomplished. If,
otoh, it's only you, that would be indicative of geography or
outbuildings or so that might require relocating antenna or some other
individual solution. In the end, of course, there are undoubtedly going
to be individuals who are left high 'n dry just as there will be those
who will get increased access. It will all depend on specifics of every
individual situation as to the actual end result.

--

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Looks like June now. In June people will still be floundering around.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090127/...s_dtv_congress

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate passed a bill on Monday to delay the
nationwide switch to digital TV signals, giving consumers nearly four
more months to prepare.

And the House rejected said bill today.

We're still on for Feb 17th!

wrote:
....

My advice is that you should go to the nearest available tar pit and
throw yourself in.

???? What the hay brought that on????

Simply saying I really don't care much one way or the other about DTV
transition as long as the end result is that don't _LOSE_ OTA reception
in areas that presently have it is somehow offensive????

--

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Looks like June now. In June people will still be floundering around.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090127/...s_dtv_congress

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate passed a bill on Monday to delay the
nationwide switch to digital TV signals, giving consumers nearly four
more months to prepare.

And the House rejected said bill today.

We're still on for Feb 17th!

For now. They tried to push something through using a way that required
a super majority. They have more than enough to bring it up again in a
way that only requires a majority. They got that and then some. -+

The house didn't really "reject" the bill. They simply failed to get
the 2/3 majority which was required to pass it.


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

wrote:


I can't seem to find any evidence of that on their website, which has
a whole section devoted to the DTV conversion. They don't seem to
mention that at all.

The consumer DTV sites are near useless, including the ones set up by the
stations them selves. You need to go to the FCC web site and look at the file
for the nearest major city:

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

Keep in mind that these are engineering guesses. Until the sites are up and
running on their permanent frequencies and power levels, you can't confirm the
coverage quality.

On Jan 28, 7:21�pm, Robert Neville wrote:
wrote:

I can't seem to find any evidence of that on their website, which has
a whole section devoted to the DTV conversion. They don't seem to
mention that at all.

The consumer DTV sites are near useless, including the ones set up by the
stations them selves. You need to go to the FCC web site and look at the file
for the nearest major city:

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

Keep in mind that these are engineering guesses. Until the sites are up and
running on their permanent frequencies and power levels, you can't confirm the
coverage quality.


take a close look at all the orange, these are people losing nets
permanetely

heres the ABC one

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_report1/ABC.pdf

In article , dpb wrote:

wrote:
...

My advice is that you should go to the nearest available tar pit and
throw yourself in.

???? What the hay brought that on????

Simply saying I really don't care much one way or the other about DTV
transition as long as the end result is that don't _LOSE_ OTA reception
in areas that presently have it is somehow offensive????

--

Some of us are tired of all the snivelling, that's all. Like I said a
while back, every time something changes, some people benefit, some
lose, some stay about the same.

I'd say for those few in rural areas who may lose a station or two,
first, don't cry about it, and second, if TV is *that* important, then
move. Some hallerb, I mean, uh, people, - and I'm not including you in
that group, dpb, although I thought salty's suggestion was riotously
funny - are acting like they've been sentenced to being boiled in oil.

dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

My advice is that you should go to the nearest available tar pit and
throw yourself in.

???? What the hay brought that on????

Simply saying I really don't care much one way or the other about DTV
transition as long as the end result is that don't _LOSE_ OTA reception
in areas that presently have it is somehow offensive????

--


Nah, he was just (badly) implying that you are a dinosaur. (as in La
Brea tar pits, etc.)

--
aem sends...

aemeijers wrote in
:

dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

My advice is that you should go to the nearest available tar pit and
throw yourself in.

???? What the hay brought that on????

Simply saying I really don't care much one way or the other about DTV
transition as long as the end result is that don't _LOSE_ OTA reception
in areas that presently have it is somehow offensive????

--


Nah, he was just (badly) implying that you are a dinosaur. (as in La
Brea tar pits, etc.)

--
aem sends...


once the stations switch over solely to DTV at their final planned
operating power level,only then can they determine actual coverage and
install repeaters to regain what once was covered by analog.
(at least the major local stations,not the low budget or LPTV stations.)

TV stations do not want to lose viewers;it affects their ratings and what
they can charge for advertising.It hits them right in their pocketbook.


I suspect after Feb.17,TV stations will be checking their DTV coverage or
soliciting reports on coverage,so they can compensate(eventually).

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

" wrote:

take a close look at all the orange, these are people losing nets
permanetely

heres the ABC one

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_report1/ABC.pdf

And then compare that to all the green which shows the areas of the country that
are gaining ABC coverage. I'd say there are 20 times more areas getting coverage
than losing it.

Aside from dozen or so stations in the midwest that appear to be reducing power
(presumably because the advertising revenue for covering the larger area does
support the cost of running a higher power transmitter), most of the east coast
and pacific NW loss of coverage appears to be due to the poorer signal
propagation in the mountains.

On Jan 28, 6:45*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

My advice is that you should go to the nearest available tar pit and
throw yourself in.

???? *What the hay brought that on????

Simply saying I really don't care much one way or the other about DTV
transition as long as the end result is that don't _LOSE_ OTA reception
in areas that presently have it is somehow offensive????

--

Some of us are tired of all the snivelling, that's all. Like I said a
while back, every time something changes, some people benefit, some
lose, some stay about the same.

I'd say for those few in rural areas who may lose a station or two,
first, don't cry about it, and second, if TV is *that* important, then
move. Some hallerb, I mean, uh, people, - and I'm not including you in
that group, dpb, although I thought salty's suggestion was riotously
funny - are acting like they've been sentenced to being boiled in oil.

Right on! All the sniveling, etc. comes down to some belief that the
government owes them the right to hang on to old, outdated equipment
forever.

FWIW the sniveling can cease as the House told Obama, etc. to "suck it
up" the conversion will happen in February. At least this part of the
government has a bit of common sense and recognizes that no matter how
long it would be delayed the crybabies would still be with us.

For the few who will lose they have the option of satellite which is
not that expensive if you stick with the basic package.

Harry K

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:21:41 -0700, Robert Neville
wrote:

wrote:


I can't seem to find any evidence of that on their website, which has
a whole section devoted to the DTV conversion. They don't seem to
mention that at all.

The consumer DTV sites are near useless, including the ones set up by the
stations them selves. You need to go to the FCC web site and look at the file
for the nearest major city:


I'm looking for information from that specific station, because a
poster says they are advertising that they will be reducing power. If
they are advertising it, why don't they mention it at all on the
website?

wrote:

I'm looking for information from that specific station, because a
poster says they are advertising that they will be reducing power. If
they are advertising it, why don't they mention it at all on the
website?

If you go to the site I listed and check the file for your nearest major city,
you will see a coverage chart for every individual station.

Smitty Two wrote:
....

I'd say for those few in rural areas who may lose a station or two,
first, don't cry about it, and second, if TV is *that* important, then
move. ...

For those rural areas that "station or two" may be _ALL_ the station(s)
there were...

TV isn't the end all of course, but there is value that satellite can't
replace (because the translators aren't uplinked) in local broadcasts.

I'll repeat -- I _DON'T_YET_KNOW_ what will happen in our area and won't
until the bewitching day when they do whatever it is they're going to
do. I've not sniveled; I've only commented on reality. What happens
then is what will be; I'm resigned to that as it's true in virtually all
areas from transportation to highspeed internet to health care
access--the rural areas are continually being further underserved as the
population becomes more and more urban and fewer congress-critters,
state and federal, have any connection whatsoever to the land.
Meanwhile, of course, the food and all is still expected to flow in from
the hinterlands in its unceasing plenty...

--

Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
:

dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

My advice is that you should go to the nearest available tar pit and
throw yourself in.
???? What the hay brought that on????

Simply saying I really don't care much one way or the other about DTV
transition as long as the end result is that don't _LOSE_ OTA reception
in areas that presently have it is somehow offensive????

--


Nah, he was just (badly) implying that you are a dinosaur. (as in La
Brea tar pits, etc.)

--
aem sends...


once the stations switch over solely to DTV at their final planned
operating power level,only then can they determine actual coverage and
install repeaters to regain what once was covered by analog.
(at least the major local stations,not the low budget or LPTV stations.)

TV stations do not want to lose viewers;it affects their ratings and what
they can charge for advertising.It hits them right in their pocketbook.


I suspect after Feb.17,TV stations will be checking their DTV coverage or
soliciting reports on coverage,so they can compensate(eventually).

The first point is, of course, what I've been saying all along -- we'll
only know what we got after we see what we have...other than the FCC
maps of expected coverage (anybody have any clue how those were
generated--I was unable to find anything that gave any hint whatsoever
as to how they made the estimates) there's no indication at all unless
the local stations have made some more informative data available than
any of those here have. The coverage in some of those FCC maps,
however, does show large gaps in much more highly directionally
sensitive coverage than for the corresponding transmitters' analog
transmittal for some areas I have noticed.

I seriously doubt there will be much, if any, worrying over loss of the
rural areas even by the translators in these areas as the absolute
numbers aren't large enough to matter -- it may be a sizable geographic
area, but the population density is simply too low for the economics to
make it pay unless there are incentives for their compliance.

As I said upthread, I think one of the requirements of maintaining the
license _should_ be to not reduce coverage but that doesn't seem to be a
criterion afaict.

--

aemeijers wrote:
....

Nah, he was just (badly) implying that you are a dinosaur. (as in La
Brea tar pits, etc.)

Oh, that I'll proudly flaunt as far as pop culture kinda' stuff for
sure...seemed as though from the reaction it touched a sore spot
somehow, though. I guess I'm not too surprised; it's a fairly typical
reaction of the "city-selfstyled-sophisticate" we get all the time from
KC or Topeka as well...

--

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Looks like June now. In June people will still be floundering
around.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090127/...s_dtv_congress

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate passed a bill on Monday to delay
the nationwide switch to digital TV signals, giving consumers
nearly four more months to prepare.

And the House rejected said bill today.

We're still on for Feb 17th!

For now. They tried to push something through using a way that
required a super majority. They have more than enough to bring it up
again in a way that only requires a majority. They got that and then
some. -+

Right. Or our Congress-critters could easily slip the slip into the omnibus
"Economic Recovery" package now muddling its way through the process.

Or California could impose a regulation binding upon stations in its state.
Or Mayor Bloomberg of New York could add it to his proposed ban on salt.