I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

Never ascribe to malice that which be explained by ignorance and
stupidity.

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

Never ascribe to malice that which be explained by ignorance and
stupidity.
So true

On Jan 13, 9:45*am, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

I hadn't heard that, but it is disturbing. I get great reception with
my converter box, in what had formerly been a fringe area. I have been
toying with buying a 52" Samsung LCD, but if it would be a step
backwards, I'll continue with my 36" CRT.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, Percival P. Cassidy
wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

Never ascribe to malice that which be explained by ignorance and
stupidity.

Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can
be satisfactorily explained by incompetence."

Best, R.E.F.

--
Never attribute to malice what can
satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:53:49 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:58:06 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

Never ascribe to malice that which be explained by ignorance and
stupidity.

progress is a big conspiracy

**** that. Bring back ntsc, tube TV's that bloom when you try to tune
them, low resolution color, and lots of overscan to make up for
lousy convergence.

I don't find it worth it paying the cable company $80/month for
digital tv to three tv sets, so in my situation, cable means analog
sometimes snowy, and OTA is high definition digital and just about
perfect.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations.

On Jan 13, 9:18*am, Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. *I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. *I live 45-60 miles from the stations.

I live 20 miles from the transmission towers. I live atop a 400'
hill. I had to put a large antenna on the roof to get good digital
reception. Some local stations have done some tinkering over the past
months to help on their end.

BTW, I've always heard that the integral digital tuners in TV's are
superior to converter boxes.

On 1/13/2010 12:18 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations.
I live only 10 miles from most of my transmitters and found that even a highly
amplified, directional indoor antenna did not give me satisfactory reception
even though the land is almost flat between here and there. I needed to spend
hundreds of $ to have a rooftop directional antenna installed (my roof is high,
peaked, and I'm no spring chicken). Reception is excellent except when there
are storms, high winds, or low altitude airplanes in the transmission path.
When those conditions pertain, I get a little pixelation and occasionally a
dropout for a second or two.

I do have a second element on the mast pointing in a different direction to
receive one UHF PBS station that is 22 miles away. Interesting enough, the
reception quality and problems is identical to the problems I have with the
transmitters that are only 10 miles away. No preamps or line amplifiers in use,
and the signal is being split 3 ways for 3 different rooms in the house.

I've always had OTA reception and figured that after only about 6 mos, if the
rooftop antenna doesn't cut it, I can always go to cable. The cable bill in 6
mos for just basic service would exceed the cost of the antenna installation.

45-60 miles? GOOD LUCK WITH OTA!!

Peter wrote:
On 1/13/2010 12:18 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an
allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting
was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite
because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area.


I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of
the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive
antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that
were distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations.
I live only 10 miles from most of my transmitters and found that even a
highly amplified, directional indoor antenna did not give me satisfactory
reception even though the land is almost flat between here and there. I
needed to spend hundreds of $ to have a rooftop directional antenna
installed (my roof is high, peaked, and I'm no spring chicken).
Reception is excellent except when there are storms, high winds, or low
altitude airplanes in the transmission path. When those conditions
pertain, I get a little pixelation and occasionally a dropout for a
second or two.

I do have a second element on the mast pointing in a different direction
to receive one UHF PBS station that is 22 miles away. Interesting
enough, the reception quality and problems is identical to the problems I
have with the transmitters that are only 10 miles away. No preamps or
line amplifiers in use, and the signal is being split 3 ways for 3
different rooms in the house.

I've always had OTA reception and figured that after only about 6 mos, if
the rooftop antenna doesn't cut it, I can always go to cable. The cable
bill in 6 mos for just basic service would exceed the cost of the antenna
installation.

45-60 miles? GOOD LUCK WITH OTA!!

If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using
an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting
too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better.

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

On Jan 13, 9:41*am, Eric in North TX wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:45*am, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

I hadn't heard that, but it is disturbing. I get great reception with
my converter box, in what had formerly been a fringe area. I have been
toying with buying a 52" Samsung LCD, but if it would be a step
backwards, I'll continue with my 36" CRT.

I'm also in a fringe area. I recently replaced my work shop TV, a 20+
year old 19" CRT with a converter, with a Sanyo LCD. The Sanyo works
just fine. FWIW the signal strength meter is in the same range (high
60s to low 80s, depending on the channel) as the meter of the
converter box.

Just make sure the store you buy the LCD from has a return policy.

When I first connected the converter to the old CRT I got a much
better picture than I'd ever seen with analog broadcasts. I believe
that the problems associated with the analog to digital conversion has
less to do with technology than geography. I'm not sure that the
"great' pictures people are lamenting losing with the conversion were
all that "great" at all. They were just used to looking at a
substandard picture caused by weak a signal and interference, none of
which digital is forgiving of. Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned.

In article ,
Metspitzer wrote:

[extraneous quotage deleted]

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

OTA isn't my primary reception method, but I'm about 40 miles from
most San Francisco TV transmitters and I get nearly 50 stations
(including subchannels) with an indoor bowtie. I'm in the flatlands,
so my view of Sutro Tower is not blocked by hills.

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations.

You'll need to go to TVFool.com or AntennaWeb.org and put in your
address to see what the likely results would be at your house.
Because of frequency, power, and antenna height changes (and sometimes
even antenna location changes), your experience could be better or
worse with the digital versions of specific local stations.

Also, alt.video.digital-tv is a better place to get information.
Watch out for the rabid pro- and anti-digital TV posters, but if
you've been on Usenet for long, you already know to avoid the
people with agendas.


Patty

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

So add aa amplifier, or jack your pc to your tv and stream shows on
the internet. Why pay for cable when so many shows and movies can be
viewed online for free?

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

People at dbstalk have complained about the OTA capabilities of DirecTV
DVR's for some time. Many claim the tuners are inferior to the ones on
their HDTV sets. That hasn't been my experience. I've got a 37-year-old
rooftop UHF/VHF antenna and am about 38 miles from Mount Wilson, where
most of the Southern California stations are located. I get excellent
pictures OTA on my main Sony Bravia HDTV set and my smaller Sceptre HDTV
set. I get acceptable pictures on my old Sylvania CRT using a converter
box. I can receive local channels via satellite or OTA on my DirecTV
DVR. The input from my rooftop antenna is split four ways with no
amplifiers.

What looked really bad was the analog signals OTA on the two HDTV sets
before the digital signals took over.

I live 50 miles northwest of New York City.
My rooftop antenna system consists of a rotor, separate UHF and VHF
high band antennas, connected to a CM 7777
mast mounted pre amplifier.
The engineers continue to play with the antennas and power output at the
Empire State Building, and reception is a very mixed bag. UHF channels
are more reliable than the VHF high band channels. VHF channels are
stronger in the morning on cold days with snow and ice on the ground.
After a rain storm I can receive WABC channel 7 if I point my antenna
towards a cell tower about one mile away. Once the tower dries out the
signal dies. The most reliable signals are from WCBS, WNBC, WNYW, WWOR,
and WPIX. The non English audio, infomercial, and holy roller stations
on UHF come in loud and clear at all times, but I don't care for their
programming. Too many of them don't know what to do with their sub
channels, wasting bandwidth on poor quality 24 hour a day traffic cams,
canned low cost junk programming, rebroadcasts of weather forecast
audio. I used to get many of the PBS stations, until their money sources
died up and they reduced their transmitter power.

Not all converter boxes have the same design receiver chip sets. Some
are much better than others.

Steve

Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations.

I had poor reception with analog: severe ghosts on strong stations and
severe snow on others. In preparation for going digital, I bought a
so-called HDTV amplified set-top antenna. It made strong and weak
stations much better.

That antenna was terrible when I got a digital TV. I got an old 4-bay
outdoor antenna out of the closet and made a stand by sticking a pipe
onto the pedestal of a broken office chair. I think I got 40 channels,
all better than my best analog reception.

I took the antenna and TV outside, hoisted the antenna to a limb above
rooftop level, and used a cord to aim it toward each station the FCC
said was within 80 miles. I got the same 40 I got with the antenna
beside the TV in my dining room. My most reliable reception comes from
transmitters 80 miles away, while I can't receive from some transmitters
20 miles away.

It seems HDTV can work beautifully with weak signals because all that is
necessary is to count pulses. Multipath distortion can break the train
of pulses, causing trouble for HDTV. That's why I had trouble with the
amplified set-top antenna. Multipath distortion can come from
reflections in your house, outdoor obstacles like mountains, and even
reflections off the sky in some conditions. An impedance mismatch
between your antenna, cable, and TV can cause a similar problem.

On 13 Jan 2010 17:37:58 GMT, wrote:

Peter wrote:

I live only 10 miles from most of my transmitters and found that even a
highly amplified, directional indoor antenna did not give me satisfactory

If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using
an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting
too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better.

Also with the indoor antenna, if you're having trouble with VHF
stations it could be because the rabbit ears are extended too *far*.
I'd always assumed they should be fully extended, but that's not
necessarily the case.

I'm using a cheapo $10 dipole+UFH loop antenna. Here in Sacramento,
20 miles from the transmitters, I was getting all of the UHF stations
fine after the transition, but the local ABC and PBS station moved
back to VHF-high (channels 9 and 10) and I couldn't get them
consistently. I finally stumbled upon:

http://www.kyes.com/antenna/rabbitear.html

And after pushing the dipoles in to be ~30" tip to tip, the signal
improved significantly. We don't have any stations in VHF-lo anymore
(some markets do); if we did I suspect a compromise length would be
needed. I also hung the antenna using the UHF loop from a hook ~6 ft
high on the wall to get it away from the TV itself. Fortunately all
of the worthwhile stations here transmit from the same location
located straight perpendicular to that wall.

Josh

On Jan 13, 11:18*am, Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. *I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. *I live 45-60 miles from the stations.

I live about 30-40 miles from my stations and am located on the
backside of a hill between me and the stations. Analog signals were
adequate but not good but the digital signals are very good. With
analog I got 4 channels. With digital I get 14 channels. Note
however that's channels and not stations since most stations are
broadcasting 3 channels each. I only picked up 1 additional station
when they went to digital, but at least I didn't lose any like many
people did.
KC

On Jan 13, 11:18*am, Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. *I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. *I live 45-60 miles from the stations.

45-50 miles and in a hole, we had spent so much trying to get analog;
Rotor, big fringe antenna, amplifier, best quality coax, and still
results were dismal. The converter box was another story, we
immediately got all the normal channels + a few from way east off the
side of the antenna. if we turn it we can get many more, but they are
redundant, I get the four main networks + CW & an assortment of UHF
type stations, most of which are religious or Spanish, so we block
them.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

I have a 50" plasma theater room and use an attic antenna to pick up
all three PBS channels. The attic antenna is also connected to my TV
Hauppage tuner card (about $70) where I can record hi-def programs.

On 1/13/2010 12:37 PM, wrote:


If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using
an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting
too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better.

Chip


I bought the amplified indoor antenna after I was unable to get satisfactory
reception using several different configuration traditional unamplified indoor
antennas. The reception with the amplified antenna was much better than using
the unamplified antenna, but still unsat.

I'm in the DC metro area. One of my biggest reception problems is with a major
network outlet that is broadcasting in a lower VHF channel and dropped it's
effective radiated power from about 220KW analog to 12.5 KW digital!! That's
right, not a typo. When I called the station engineer to ask why they were
using such low power, they told me that they had petitioned the FCC to transmit
with greater power, but the FCC was concerned that greater power would cause
interference in the Baltimore metro area (which is more than 40 miles north of
DC). So, I can't receive a decent signal 10 miles away with an indoor antenna
and the FCC is worried about interference 40+ miles away. No wonder OTA
reception of this station is so difficult.

Peter wrote:
On 1/13/2010 12:37 PM, wrote:


If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using
an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting
too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better.

Chip


I bought the amplified indoor antenna after I was unable to get
satisfactory reception using several different configuration traditional
unamplified indoor antennas. The reception with the amplified antenna
was much better than using the unamplified antenna, but still unsat.

I'm in the DC metro area. One of my biggest reception problems is with a
major network outlet that is broadcasting in a lower VHF channel and
dropped it's effective radiated power from about 220KW analog to 12.5 KW
digital!! That's right, not a typo. When I called the station engineer
to ask why they were using such low power, they told me that they had
petitioned the FCC to transmit with greater power, but the FCC was
concerned that greater power would cause interference in the Baltimore
metro area (which is more than 40 miles north of DC). So, I can't
receive a decent signal 10 miles away with an indoor antenna and the FCC
is worried about interference 40+ miles away. No wonder OTA reception of
this station is so difficult.

Have you tried an outside antenna? Your results would no doubt be excellent.

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:53:35 -0500, Peter wrote:

On 1/13/2010 12:37 PM, wrote:


If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using
an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting
too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better.

Chip


I bought the amplified indoor antenna after I was unable to get satisfactory
reception using several different configuration traditional unamplified indoor
antennas. The reception with the amplified antenna was much better than using
the unamplified antenna, but still unsat.

I'm in the DC metro area. One of my biggest reception problems is with a major
network outlet that is broadcasting in a lower VHF channel and dropped it's
effective radiated power from about 220KW analog to 12.5 KW digital!! That's
right, not a typo. When I called the station engineer to ask why they were
using such low power, they told me that they had petitioned the FCC to transmit
with greater power, but the FCC was concerned that greater power would cause
interference in the Baltimore metro area (which is more than 40 miles north of
DC). So, I can't receive a decent signal 10 miles away with an indoor antenna
and the FCC is worried about interference 40+ miles away. No wonder OTA
reception of this station is so difficult.



I bought 5 or 6 antennas, tested them out, and returned the rest. The
most expensive antenna was worse than average. Antenna
selection/positioning will take some trial and error work, but once
it's done, that's it! Comcast must hate me because I got many
neighbors into using power antennas.

Metspitzer wrote in
:

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

It's not the station itself,it's the antenna site,which may be far away
from the studio site,and shared by some or all of the other local stations.

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations.


What irks me is that the stations LOWERED broadcast power after the initial
switchover.
that reduced their coverage area even more.(but saved them on their
electric bill...)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Peter wrote in :

On 1/13/2010 12:37 PM, wrote:


If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using
an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting
too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better.

Chip


I bought the amplified indoor antenna after I was unable to get
satisfactory reception using several different configuration
traditional unamplified indoor antennas. The reception with the
amplified antenna was much better than using the unamplified antenna,
but still unsat.

I'm in the DC metro area. One of my biggest reception problems is
with a major network outlet that is broadcasting in a lower VHF
channel and dropped it's effective radiated power from about 220KW
analog to 12.5 KW digital!! That's right, not a typo. When I called
the station engineer to ask why they were using such low power, they
told me that they had petitioned the FCC to transmit with greater
power, but the FCC was concerned that greater power would cause
interference in the Baltimore metro area (which is more than 40 miles
north of DC). So, I can't receive a decent signal 10 miles away with
an indoor antenna and the FCC is worried about interference 40+ miles
away. No wonder OTA reception of this station is so difficult.


maybe you should try that Make TV homemade antenna,it uses coathanger
wire,a small board,some screws and washers,and a 75:300 ohm matching
transformer.I get pretty good results with it,no amplifier needed.

It's a "quad bowtie" type of antenna.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Jan 13, 10:45�am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

There are proposals to elminate OTA tv completely and let the
broadcasters sell the banwidth or most of it for cell phones etc.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:11:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

There are proposals to elminate OTA tv completely and let the
broadcasters sell the banwidth or most of it for cell phones etc.

By Harry A. Jessell
TVNewsCheck, Dec 11 2009, 4:00 PM ET

The National Association of Broadcasters is asking TV stations to join
the fight to preserve broadcast spectrum by airing an NAB-produced
30-second spot touting the benefits of free, over-the-air
broadcasting.*

....The broadcast industry could see the greatest assault on the public
airwaves since the 1980s, with the anticipated release of the FCC's
National Broadband Plan set for February 17, 2010," says the e-mail.

The NAB fears that the plan will recommend that all or some of
broadcast spectrum be reallocated for wireless broadband access, a
service the FCC believes will soon be facing a spectrum shortage.

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/...2/11/daily.10/

On 01/13/10 06:26 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On 1/13/2010 12:37 PM, wrote:


If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using
an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting
too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better.

Chip


I bought the amplified indoor antenna after I was unable to get
satisfactory reception using several different configuration traditional
unamplified indoor antennas. The reception with the amplified antenna
was much better than using the unamplified antenna, but still unsat.

I'm in the DC metro area. One of my biggest reception problems is with a
major network outlet that is broadcasting in a lower VHF channel and
dropped it's effective radiated power from about 220KW analog to 12.5 KW
digital!! That's right, not a typo. When I called the station engineer
to ask why they were using such low power, they told me that they had
petitioned the FCC to transmit with greater power, but the FCC was
concerned that greater power would cause interference in the Baltimore
metro area (which is more than 40 miles north of DC). So, I can't
receive a decent signal 10 miles away with an indoor antenna and the FCC
is worried about interference 40+ miles away. No wonder OTA reception of
this station is so difficult.

Have you tried an outside antenna? Your results would no doubt be excellent.

Depending on the direction of the flaky station in relation to the
others, an antenna with sufficient gain and directionality to get that
one might result in significantly poorer reception from the others.

Our TV stations are on channels as low as 7, are in directions ranging
from 17 degrees to 125 degrees from here, and are as far as 50 miles away.

Perce

On 01/13/10 07:11 pm, wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

There are proposals to elminate OTA tv completely and let the
broadcasters sell the banwidth or most of it for cell phones etc.

That would be crazy so soon after the broadcasters have spent large sums
of money on new equipment and dumped still-working but no longer usable
analog equipment.

However, my broadcast-engineer friend did say that he wonders how much
longer traditional radio broadcasting is going to survive. (Perhaps
we'll all have to have satellite for that too.)

Perce

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

Our TV stations are on channels as low as 7, are in directions ranging
from 17 degrees to 125 degrees from here, and are as far as 50 miles
away.

Perce

A rotor would probably be necessary.

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:04:22 -0500, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 01/13/10 07:11 pm, wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

There are proposals to elminate OTA tv completely and let the
broadcasters sell the banwidth or most of it for cell phones etc.

That would be crazy so soon after the broadcasters have spent large sums
of money on new equipment and dumped still-working but no longer usable
analog equipment.

99% of the cost is for the RF transmission and the equipment is the same.

[snip]

If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using
an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting
too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better.

Chip

And an amp won't fix poor reception anyway.

wrote:
On Jan 13, 10:45�am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

There are proposals to elminate OTA tv completely and let the
broadcasters sell the banwidth or most of it for cell phones etc.

Uh, other than the leases recently auctioned off, the broadcasters
don't own the bandwidth to sell it. By definition and case law, the
airwaves are public property. Smells like urban legend to me.

--
aem sends...

Gary H wrote:
[snip]

If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using
an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting
too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better.

Chip

And an amp won't fix poor reception anyway.

No, but it will help in marginal signal situations.

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations.

I had very bad reception and only 3 or 4 channels, often unwatchable.
With digital I now have 6 channels (without counting the -2 -3
simulcasts) and 3 or 4 more that are the same as other channels I get.
I have the antenna about 20' taller than the roof and a rotator. I want
to try going taller yet but I need a 2nd person and some guy line. BTW,
to go 20 feet up, I'm using black pipe, not antenna mast. My biggest
problem is a mountain blocking about 180 degrees of reception area. The
distance to the stations I receive is about 30 to 90 miles, probably
further yet are those channels that are all the same and I deleted them.
The mountain plays tricks here. All 6 of those channels come in
fairly good with the antenna pointed in what should be the WRONG
direction for all of them. About 90 degrees off. To get a 7th channel,
a very good PBS station, I have to rotate the antenna and it seems like
it's hit or miss with the rotator just where it's going to work tonight.

"Raymond Feist" wrote in message
...

Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can
be satisfactorily explained by incompetence."

That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there.

1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a
conspiracy theory to explain it?

2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about
reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week
that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of
other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast
wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in
1961.

aemeijers wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 13, 10:45�am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.


it was all about the money the congress critters could get.


I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

There are proposals to elminate OTA tv completely and let the
broadcasters sell the banwidth or most of it for cell phones etc.

Uh, other than the leases recently auctioned off, the broadcasters
don't own the bandwidth to sell it.

By definition and case law, the airwaves are public property.

That your congress critters have been selling off for you
for the last 15 years, starting at channel 83. I can't find
the cite right now, but the final hdtv goal was all
transmitters would be in old ch 14 thru 51 allotment. Which
could work well with a lightweight, compact and efficient
UHF fan dipole antenna.

The original FCC hdtv reception studies (mid 90's) in
several major markets didn't work out as well as expected
with lower power transmitters. Either more power, or roof
top antennas would be needed. The Baltimore tests were
worst, too hilly of a terrain. A neighborhood could have
both a too strong of a signal and a too weak signal in the
same block. Some places the test equipment worked better
with no antenna connected, others, a window screen worked
better. Signal reflections were bad. The report is an
interesting read and in the fcc.gov archive.

Last numbers were 74% of the DTV stations on UHF (14-51),
24% on high VHF (7-13) and less than 2% on Low VHF(2-6).
With the virtual channel system, the actual frequency can be
changed as needed to improve coverage and reduce station
co-interference. channel 6-1 can always be channel 6-1 but
transmit anywhere between about 500MHz to 700MHz.




Smells like urban legend to me.

--
aem sends...

aemeijers wrote in
:

wrote:
On Jan 13, 10:45�am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an
allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting
was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite
because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small
area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He
told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of
the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because
many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly
insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free
converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

There are proposals to elminate OTA tv completely and let the
broadcasters sell the banwidth or most of it for cell phones etc.

Uh, other than the leases recently auctioned off, the broadcasters
don't own the bandwidth to sell it. By definition and case law, the
airwaves are public property. Smells like urban legend to me.

--
aem sends...


I've heard of proposals to eliminate OTA TV.
For me,that would be a major bummer;no cable and 48K dialup net service,and
TracFone prepaid cell service.
Also,what happens in power outages or natural disasters? At least now,I can
use a battery powered TV,generator,or an inverter/battery.
Cable and cellphones didn't work after Hurricane Charlie in 2004.

The FEDS would auction off the freed bandwidth...more money for them to
blow on socialist schemes.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 1/13/2010 6:26 PM, wrote:
wrote:
On 1/13/2010 12:37 PM, wrote:


If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using
an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting
too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better.

Chip


I bought the amplified indoor antenna after I was unable to get
satisfactory reception using several different configuration traditional
unamplified indoor antennas. The reception with the amplified antenna
was much better than using the unamplified antenna, but still unsat.

I'm in the DC metro area. One of my biggest reception problems is with a
major network outlet that is broadcasting in a lower VHF channel and
dropped it's effective radiated power from about 220KW analog to 12.5 KW
digital!! That's right, not a typo. When I called the station engineer
to ask why they were using such low power, they told me that they had
petitioned the FCC to transmit with greater power, but the FCC was
concerned that greater power would cause interference in the Baltimore
metro area (which is more than 40 miles north of DC). So, I can't
receive a decent signal 10 miles away with an indoor antenna and the FCC
is worried about interference 40+ miles away. No wonder OTA reception of
this station is so difficult.

Have you tried an outside antenna? Your results would no doubt be excellent.

Chip

Chip,
Sorry that you must have missed my earlier postings in this thread. That's
exactly what I ended up doing, but even so, still do not get reception free of
occasional pixelation and short drop-outs when there are strong storms, high
winds, or airplanes in the line of sight between the transmitter and my rooftop
directional antenna. Peter

On 1/13/2010 20:17, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:04:22 -0500, Percival P. wrote:
On 01/13/10 07:11 pm, wrote:

I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

There are proposals to elminate OTA tv completely and let the
broadcasters sell the banwidth or most of it for cell phones etc.

That would be crazy so soon after the broadcasters have spent large sums
of money on new equipment and dumped still-working but no longer usable
analog equipment.

99% of the cost is for the RF transmission and the equipment is the same.

They had to buy all new equipment for the digital transition. You may
remember they ran their existing equipment on their old channels and
then added a complete set of equipment: transmitter, waveguides,
antennas, STL etc to transmit the "digital" signal while still keeping
the existing equipment in service.