Posted on 05/27/2008 9:44:33 PM PDT by primeval patriot
With preparations for the DTV (Digital Television) cutover in the U.S. gaining momentum, many people have already questioned the government's preparedness. Now it appears that at least one of the preparations that has been made is even in question. The FCC may be greatly overestimating the effective range of DTV broadcasts. If that's true there may be millions of Americans who are unable to receive the same selection of channels they're currently getting via analog broadcast.
The issue is signal degradation. One major advantage of DTV is that the quality is relatively even for everyone who recieves a particular broadcast. The reason for this is that, unlike analog broadcasts, when a digital signal degrades to the point where analog image or sound quality would suffer it simply drops out completely. Rather than getting a lower quality picture you get none at all.
While FCC officials believe most viewers will be able to receive the same channels digitally that they do now, a study from a market research firm in Los Angeles called Centris casts doubt on those claims. According to the Centris study, which claims to be based on a more detailed model than the federal government has been using, the government figures are overly optimistic. Centris claims that nearly 6 million households will need outdoor antennas to keep receiving the same selection of channels they're currently getting.
If that weren't bad enough, according to the consultant hired to replace the antennas on the Empire State Building real world signal measurements paint an even more pessimistic picture. A study of the first HDTV station by Oded Bendov found that digital signals did not travel as far as either model had predicted. “For the people with rabbit-ear antennas, I would say at least 50 percent won’t get the channels they were getting,” Dr. Bendov said. “I would say a lot of people are going to be very unhappy.”
With analog signals scheduled to be shut off a year from now, it appears that U.S. consumers may get to pay the price for the FCC's lack of real planning.
All the press coverage seems to be about how to get a converter or how folks are going to be left behind because they're too poor and stupid to plug coax into a box.
Where I'm at, about 100 miles East of Dallas, I can receive most of the Dallas analog stations. Sometimes I can pick up Shreveport and Waco at night.
When I use the digital converter - I get spotty reception from only one station about twenty miles away in Tyler. Its analog equivalent is clear as a bell.
Another issue is inclement weather. Whenever there's any precipitation the digital signal is FUBAR.
If the present signal strength is any indication, there's going to be a serious re-adjustment for folks used to analog broadcasting - and they're not going to be happy. Given what I've seen so far it looks like a disaster waiting to happen. Can't wait to watch the FCC explain themselves.
Disclaimer: I don't watch much television at all - but I do need it for local weather and news.
I’ve found that digital signals are VERY sensitive to antenna position. I have my antenna on a motor and if you aren’t within a couple degrees of the proper orientation, the signal drops out totally. In my area I can get only 3 digital stations reliably, even though there are 13 stations broadcasting both analog and digital. On days with good weather, I can maybe pick up another 3 with some futzing with the antenna.
This whole thing annoys me.
Where I live, (western MA/central Berkshires) I can get one channel, CBS, from Hartford, CT, 60 miles from here. I subscribe to DirecTV, and because of silly market crap, I have to ask local affiliate *permission* to get “local” networks via DTV.. (local being NYC).
And the thing is that the elevation, line-of-sight stuff, whatever.. I have a feeling the new digital signal will be a wash too. (And yeah, bad weather kills it.)
The Albany ABC doesn’t come in here, nor does Fox or NBC. ABC and Fox both gave me waivers, but NBC in Albany won’t. I’ve called, I’ve written, they won’t even return my calls.
DirecTV says I won’t have to do a thing after the change because my signal’s been digital all along, but I have had the feeling the digital broadcasts will be a wash here too.
Can’t get cable service in here. (I am on a satellite internet that sucks too, That’s a completely different rant!)
I ‘spose the trade-off is being able to live up here in the woods with no traffic, no neighbors 10 feet away, and no obnoxious subwoofers banging away outside at 2am. The occasional bear steals the garbage can.
But I guess my point is, if they’re gonna make this a mandatory sweep, then make it available to everyone, or give ‘em a waiver, or access so we can pay for it another way.
/rant. (whew)
Good post and true. Some fringe stations were staticy but watchable. With digital, they are gone.
Digital is also very sensitive to the connectors used. A corroded or loose connector is fatal for some digital at some frequencies.
Broadcast signal strength is only of concern to the minority of viewers who don’t have cable/satellite service. And getting a better antenna will usually solve the problem.
Stinkin GOV'T can't find it's @ss with both hands
It however is VERY good at finding and draining OUR wallets!
My experience is different. I get top-of-the-scale signal strength from digital transmitters 20 miles away. I get kind of lousy reception (could lock on or not) from a station 78 miles away, but it is not line-of-site and is below an obscuring hill. The only time I lose the 20 mile stations is sometimes when my antenna gets knocked off the stand, but usually most of the stations still work. Weather has never been a factor with the 20 mile stations.
The first time I plugged in my converter I couldn't believe it. One digital station versus about ten analog.
And I have a 30 foot outdoor antenna - but it's older with no motor and it could probably stand to have all the coax replaced.
The FCC and broadcasters have to my knowledge said nothing other than "buy a converter" and everything will be fine.
If a forty-dollar converter is a problem for some, can you all imagine the caterwauling when it's suggested they need to erect a mast with a motorized antenna, purchase a signal booster, oh and get some high quality coax too?
Yep! Me too. Television reception and internet access are part of the trade-off for peace and quiet.
No, many of us use broadcast for the HD quality, not because we don't have a subscription service (I do). In my area most of the broadcast stations have maintained high HD quality.
The silly thing here is this: Any EE who knows something about comm systems and isn’t in the pocket of the broadcast companies and the FCC knew this was going to be the case. The promises from the TV industry and FCC just didn’t add up in comm system terms.
But there are huge amounts of money circling this situation like buzzards over a herd of dead cattle: those UHF channels that will eventually be “re-allocated” are going to be sold off to the highest bidder(s) and as it stands now, most any available frequencies above 500Mc are going for big, big bucks in spectrum auctions. The FCC can almost smell that money from here, and so they’re not going to be particularly attentive to complaints from consumers as a result.
This is sort of like broadband over power lines (BPL). People who know a thing or two about power and comm systems could see that it wasn’t going to meet the wild promises being made. Didn’t stop the FCC from shoving it through.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200804/06-1343-1112979.pdf
My guess is it will be suggested that those with reception problems can just pay for satellite or cable access if they don't like it. There's money to be made on that end too.
I've got a good high speed internet service that suits me for $16.95 (total) a month.
I currently receive 5 analog broadcast channels on my rabbit ears and I'm not paying an additional $40 or more (plus the infernal fees and taxes) for basic cable.
I've got two of those stupid $40 gov't cards and they expire in July. I WILL NOT pay more than $40 for a 'converter box' so I may or may not 'upgrade'.
This whole thing is a crock of sh*t.
“Digital is also very sensitive to the connectors used.”
Yep. You’re correct. Also putting in a splitter degrades the signal for the fringe stations even though it has no noticable effect on the analog signal.
Exactly.
And in the end, the frequencies that the FCC was to “hold and manage in trust for the public” will be sold off to the highest bidder, and you will be able to access this previously public resources only by purchasing a product that has purchased the rights to those frequencies.
This is another case where the “free market” purists have completely fallen down in policy analysis. The BPL issue is yet another.
And.... digital, analog, antennas, coax, converters, etc are a foreign language to many people. All hell is going to break loose when grandma stops receiving the Price is Right next February.
I know I have already had fun trying to get my mother to know how to use the converter box’s remote for some functions and the TV remote for other functions.
But I do like to know when bad weather is coming or other local emergencies.
Wrong. I have the largest antenna I can put up and it does fantastic pulling in analog stations from over a hundred miles away, but it can barely pick up the digital signal from stations 20 miles away. The point is that there is no antenna upgrade that is going to give you signals as strong as analog is right now.
Har! You've nailed it.
From what I've seen that's exactly what's going to happen unless the broadcasters and FCC start to be more forthcoming with the limitations and technical requirements.
Get DIRECTV and be done with it. Best move you will ever make.
What I want to know is, if the box is for people without cable or sat TV, why do I always see commercials for the rebates for the boxes on cable channels?
I have found that there are small differneces between models as far as sensitivity goes too... no specs on any of these things.
Aren't all the new channel designations in the UHF band? I thought the VHF freqs were the ones sold off. Anyway, a good UHF antenna and amp will help out, if people want to go to the trouble.
Just out of curiosity, have you checked the FCC license site for the various stations you’re discussing? A large number of stations going digital are running lower power on the digital side at the moment to save power costs, but planning to ramp it up once they can shut off the analog transmitter. You’ll find the TV lookup info here:
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/tvq.html
How’s your reception on Channel 39? The Digital stations will all be broadcasting on the UHF band, so if you’re not using an all-band antenna, you won’t be getting much of a signal from them. 39 at the moment is broadcasting 5 million watts on the analog side, and one million on the digital side on channel 40. If you’re not getting 39 in analog, you’re probably not going to get 40, and you’re also probably not going to get much else in the way of UHF digital stations. The problem there isn’t an analog versus digital problem the problem is a VHF versus UHF problem.
If the Tyler station you’re talking about is KLTV, they’re running the legal maximum analog on channel 7 at the moment, and they’ll be one of the few digital stations still operating in the VHF band (on channel 10). They’re currently only using 15 thousand watts on the digital side, which could explain your spotty reception.
Yeah, that's the plan. There'll be an exception for the southern border areas for a while, though. A lot of the VHF frequencies are going to public safety use. A lot of what the posters above have described as 'digital problems' are actually related to the difference between UHF and VHF propagation. VHF bends a bit around terrain obstructions, UHF is more line-of-sight. Lots of folks have VHF-only antennas. Those who are currently getting decent signals off their local UHF stations should be able to make the switch fairly painlessly.
Wasn't it Colin Powells son who was in charge at the FCC when all this decision making to switch to digital tv and sell the frequencies was made?... and isn't he still in the position to receive millions as a result? Bureaucratic mandarins will be the death of this country...
The frequencies to be auctioned off are in the 700 MHz range, which are channels 51 and up. That’s the channel range that the broadcasters are having to vacate. Many who were up there already have left; the remainder must do so by the time of the analog turnoff next year.
The final landing places for the DTV broadcasters will be channels 2-50, IIRC. Some broadcasters will move their DTV transmissions onto their original analog channels, some won’t. Interestingly, because of the “brand identification” value of a TV station’s traditional channel number, their DTV transmitter can cause your set to display that number even though it’s really coming in on some other channel!
Industry lore says to avoid channels 2-6 for DTV because of the types of (non-TV) interference that exist at those frequencies.
Therein lies a major bone of contention. The FCC and all their consultants calculated that a DTV transmitter would need only about a tenth of the power of an analog transmitter (all other things, such as channel number, being equal) to get comparable coverage. So of course that was the FCC's default assignment to stations for their DTV transmitters. Station managers are looking forward to big savings on their power bills! Chief engineers may be a little skeptical. (*)
The key question: Is this lower power really enough? I have a friend who has planned and supervised over 25 DTV station constructions; he says (I hope I'm getting this right, GJS!) that in most cases the models are proving out roughly correct. However, there are confounding variables, of which I can think at the moment of two:
(1) Does the DTV transmitting antenna exactly duplicate the performance of the original analog antenna? (Unless the DTV uses the actual antenna used for the former analog transmitter, on the same channel, and it is left in exactly the same location, the answer is no.)
In fact, there are significant complications in duplicating the performance of the analog plant, some of them logistical and some of them due to aggrivating details in the FCC rules regarding the changeover.
(2) If the DTV is not going to move to the original analog channel, are there previously undiscovered anomalies in a given viewer's antenna system that are knocking out the DTV frequencies?
(*) The actual assignment of power is a little more complicated, in the common case where the DTV is in a different band than the ATV. There are three bands in US television, with different maximum powers: 2-6 (100KW), 7-13 (316 KW), and 14-(now)50 (5 MW.) Maximum allowable power can be further restricted for stations in certain areas with exceptionally high transmitting locations or substandard spacing to other stations on the same or adjacent channels.
I only watch TV for news and weather, especially severe weather warnings.
With analog, I get over 20 stations, 15 quite clear. With the digital junk, I get 6 on a good day.
My main problem is during wind and rain, all I get is “no signal” displayed on the tv.
This is totally unacceptable, and serves to endanger the public as it undermines weather warning systems.
The government has sold the public for a bill of goods once again. Actually this was mandated.. and we were told that the reception and video quality will be better.. its just better all around. Trust us.
It will be interesting to talk to my relatives in Rural areas who are over 50 miles from a nearest transmitter when the switch takes place...
We’re talking about two different auctions. The 700 mhz auction is related to the whole Nextel issue where their decision to co-locate antenna sites next to public safety sites resulted in interference to public safety systems. Thus, the frequency swap.
The intent of the DTV program is to get analog TV off its VHF frequencies so they can be sold off and used by others. The low end of VHF (down around 54 mhz) has some skip problems, the high end surrounds the current public safety VHF frequencies and should have similar issues to the current systems. Aircraft radio, FM radio, and much of public safety radio currently operates in the hole between channel 6 and channel 7.
With few exceptions, DTV will be in the UHF spectrum, between 14 and 50. Because you can put one HD signal and one or two SD signals on the same frequency, it should increase viewer options once it’s completely up and running. NBC’s Los Angeles DTV station, for example, runs an alternate channel that offers live breaking news coverage, frequently just raw footage from the helicopter. It’s also on the net at: http://www.knbc.com/newsraw/index.html
Ah, thanks for the technical information. I thought that might be the case. And I wasn't aware of the UHF only signal - I'll assume my antenna is a UHF/VHF combo.
If the Tyler station you’re talking about is KLTV...
Yes, that's the one.
I'm not saying this changeover is going to precipitate some sort of national calamity - but I do think it's going to be a huge problem. There's going to be a lot of money spent in addition to converter boxes.
I spoke with a neighbor this morning who has a professionally installed 40 foot triangular mast with a high-quality, motorized (I assume it's a UHF/VHF) antenna.
He's able to get most of the Dallas stations digital signals - but he does have the same problems with bad weather. He's in a better spot out in the open and I'm up near a treeline so that could be causing my problems too.
However, his rig is about $3K. Mine is about $400 max.
Once again Armsted, thanks for your technical explanation.
Here’s a site where you can plug in your address and get a plot of signal strengths and direction for the various DTV stations in your ‘hood’.
I agree, the change-over won’t be without a lot of controversy. Unfortunately, the fringe area viewers who were still watching free TV were very much in the numerical minority, so their interests were low on the FCC’s priority scale.
BUMP!
Ran across this link and thought I’d forward it.
http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php
It’s a list of all the TV markets and where their stations are going to end up once the digital transformation is complete. Essentially, most of the VHF’s in the channel 2 to 6 range are moving to UHF, while many in the 7 to 13 range are getting UHF frequencies at the moment so that they can begin running digital broadcasts, but will be moving back to their old VHF frequencies once the change-over comes in the Middle of February next year. Tyler is market 111, and KLTV is going to be one of those double swaps, beginning digital broadcasting on 10, but moving back to 7 once the change-over happens. 8 in Dallas and 11 in Fort Worth will be doing the same thing.
We’ve had a set-top box for a few months now....it sucks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.