Going to all-digital. Questions.

[skottey]

I totally agree with you. I haven't been able to stop it. Have you?

I am already looking for islands in the south Pacific, since everybody who cares is sitting with their hands tied. We have just given into handouts in this society. We'll see in November where the majority sits. Unfortunately, I fear the young, charismatic, HANDOUT guy is going to be picked by the majority. Then we can raise the taxes on the rich (of which I am not YET, do not resent those that are, and hope to be over time), and give more handouts to the lazy excuse makers. Sure, there are legitimate charity cases, but it boils down to people not wanting to put in a hard days work and seek something for nothing from those that work hard. Like I said, I am not yet rich, but I work many days 13-16 hours (When you see me on here screwing around by instigating trouble, chances are I am doing three or more things at once and checking this site in between checking email, phone calls, PC reloads, meetings, etc... this site is one of the few things that keep me sane while working). I am just not looking forward to my tax rate going up, up, up, as my hard work continues to pay off year to year. All these new programs need to be paid for somehow.

 

[stevenl]

The day the people learned they could write themselves checks from the treasury was the day this nation became bankrupt

 

[jcarrera]

Saw where Wilmington, NC went all-digital recently as a test. Seems lots of people who were getting fine picture before didn't any more. So the explanation is "you have an inadequate antenna." Huh? It was OK before.

The obvious conclusion is that the converter boxes need a higher signal input. Apparently the box needs a front end amplifier they didn't include--or didn't give it enough gain if there is one in there.

But it is interesting how they put the blame on the customer, who simply is using the same antenna that worked fine before.

 

[stevenl]

Digital signal and Analog signal travel differently through the Air, an antenna that worked for one may not work for the other. Also the range of digital is different, if you got signal before it does not mean you will get signal now.

(we are talking about OTA right?)

 

[jcarrera]

The point is that people have been led to believe that all they have to do is get one of the digital to analog converters and they are good to go. Apparently that is not so.

What you said, "Digital signal and Analog signal travel differently through the Air, an antenna that worked for one may not work for the other. Also the range of digital is different, if you got signal before it does not mean you will get signal now" has NOT been expressed. I had NEVER seen that in ANY discussion of what people needed to do to prepare for the change-- and such articles have been all over the news.

Try this: google "prepare for digital conversion 2009" with no quotes and see how many of the hits say what you said above. I hit 10 of them and not a single one mentioned anything close. Not saying there isn't one--just that it has not been forefront and forthright.

And they don't travel differently through the air. An RF signal of X KW out of the same antenna will "travel" exactly the same...same equations for RF attenuation over distance regardless of what is modulated into the carriers.

 

[harshness]

And they don't travel differently through the air. An RF signal of X KW out of the same antenna will "travel" exactly the same...same equations for RF attenuation over distance regardless of what is modulated into the carriers.

Here's where your theory about RF propagation goes bad. RF attenuation varies substantially with frequency. Many stations are staying with their current frequency while others are moving to lower frequencies (the number moving to higher frequencies is very small). For the stations that move down, they will usually experience increased coverage even if they use the same radiating power. At the same time, they may also open the door to multipath which plays hell with DTV.

Suffice it to say that as a Brighthouse customer, nothing is going to change for you come February 17th.

 

[harshness]

Digital signal and Analog signal travel differently through the Air, an antenna that worked for one may not work for the other. Also the range of digital is different, if you got signal before it does not mean you will get signal now.

This is HOGWASH. The signals do not "travel differently". The content does not change the RF propagation properties for a given channel. How well the tuner can deal with a digital channel versus an analog channel at the fringe is a different story.

 

[harshness]

But it is interesting how they put the blame on the customer, who simply is using the same antenna that worked fine before.

This depends on what kind of antenna the customer was using before. If the customer had a VHF only antenna, the new digital channels will likely be up in the UHF range and outside of the gain profile of the antenna.

In the case of Wilmington, NC, about six of the analog channels were VHF and eight were lower UHF. The digital channels are all in the UHF range. Those who use OTA without a fully UHF capable antenna will suffer.

 

[jcarrera]

... the new digital channels will likely be up in the UHF range ..

Now see, there you have yet another thing that has not been stated at all (well, perhaps somewhere), but not widely promulgated.

And of course your statement about frequency is true (frequency is a variable in the equations). The premise (i.e. assumption, because no one had ever said differently) was that Channel 6 would still be on Channel 6, thus same frequency--which you have now explained is likely not true.

 

[harshness]

These issues and others have been widely considered and debated. You've just showed up fashionably late.

 

[jcarrera]

Glad to be nicely welcomed. "Fashionably late?" I notice my join date is earlier than yours.

Back to the substance of this discussion...My point is that there are pertinent things only now coming to light, some of which you have kindly provided--things that have not been widely promulgated in the extensive public advertising, notices, articles, and discussions about the all-digital changeover.

The info provided to people has led those who use analog to believe they will be fine just by obtaining a converter box. Now we are beginning to discover that, for many, that will not be so--there will be additional expense.

 

[harshness]

Glad to be nicely welcomed. "Fashionably late?" I notice my join date is earlier than yours.

Somewhere in the interim, you've managed to miss most of the DTV conversion discussions.

The info provided to people has led those who use analog to believe they will be fine just by obtaining a converter box. Now we are beginning to discover that, for many, that will not be so--there will be additional expense.

You're forgetting that most people don't get their programming OTA. For the majority, this whole DTV transition is just a big ho-hum.

The only people who are truly going to be surprised are those who bought heavily into the whole HD antenna thing. The rest will likely do fine with their old faithful full range antennae.

 

[kb7oeb]

The coupon costs are covered by the money raised auctioning off channels 52-69.

I do think a major problem with the education effort is the lack of information on antennas. The snowy signal provided by VHF rabbit ears isn't going to cut it for UHF dtv. At the very least the antennweb website should be linked to on any DTV info website.

 

[jcarrera]

Somewhere in the interim, you've managed to miss most of the DTV conversion discussions.

Sorry, haven't missed a bit of it.

You're forgetting that most people don't get their programming OTA. For the majority, this whole DTV transition is just a big ho-hum.

None of this discussion applies to non-OTA people, duh. That doesn't make it irrelevant to the rest.

You have a "rationale" for the lack of info to people and the misleading of them into thinking converter solves all. Reasons (or excuses or 'well it doesn't affect these other people anyway') behind the lack of info doesn't change the outcome one iota. OTA people think they will be OK with only a converter box because that's what they have been told. And that's wrong; many will not be OK. Now THAT is a fact and outcome regardless of reasons/excuses for it--or regardless of the fact that non-OTA people will be OK. They aren't who we are talking about.

 

[skottey]

The only people who are truly going to be surprised are those who bought heavily into the whole HD antenna thing. The rest will likely do fine with their old faithful full range antennae.

What do you mean by this? I have a digital HD antenna connected to each of my HDTVs. This is my backup to my backup. I have DirecTV with BHN as my backup and the OTA as my backup. Are you saying it is going to stop working? I guess you could say I bought heavily into my HD antennas, at $50 a pop at Radioshack and I own two of them.

I don't get what you mean.

 

[skottey]

The coupon costs are covered by the money raised auctioning off channels 52-69.

Are you just saying this or do you know this to be FACT?

I have been pissed off since hearing about the converter box vouchers because I consider it Government waste. If they are covered by the money making auctioning off of that spectrum, I feel better about the vouchers. Please cite your source. I have seen so many debates about those coupons and have never heard anything about them being covered by the auctioning off of channels 52-69.

Thanks for the info if that is true.

 

[harshness]

I guess you could say I bought heavily into my HD antennas, at $50 a pop at Radioshack and I own two of them.

What I mean is that many of the so-called "HD antennas" are actually UHF-only antennas. When some of the digital stations transition back down to VHF range, these antennas may not perform very well for those lower frequency stations.

 

[harshness]

OTA people think they will be OK with only a converter box because that's what they have been told. And that's wrong; many will not be OK.

The majority of those who have been using full-range antennas all along will be just fine. It is those who bought into the special "HD antennas" that will have trouble because many of them lack the necessary gain for VHF channels.

It is not nearly as sinister as you make it out to be if you understand what is going on.

 

[jcarrera]

...It is not nearly as sinister as you make it out to be if you understand what is going on.

Understanding "what is going on" does not change the outcome one iota. I think you need to read the results of the Wilmington tests. And irrespective of what kind of antenna they are using, they were not told "you will be OK if you get a converter box, EXCEPT IF..." They were told, "you will be OK if you get a converter box."

My point is exactly correct--people were NOT fully informed-- and I don't understand why you insist on diminishing it. Are you part of the industry and have a personal interest in a perception of smooth sailing? Wilmington did not "sail smooth" and that is a fact. Maybe those people did have "HD antennas" (I don't know that to be true). That wasn't a sin until this change came, and they were told (again I say) you will be OK with a converter box.

You want to concentrate on the reasons for the failures--as if understanding the reasons makes it all OK. I was noting the misleading industry info (meaning incomplete explanation of potential costs to consumers). I never saw in any of the advertisements a statement that 'you may have to get a better antenna." Never.

 

[skottey]

What I mean is that many of the so-called "HD antennas" are actually UHF-only antennas. When some of the digital stations transition back down to VHF range, these antennas may not perform very well for those lower frequency stations.

Wow... I didn't know people were buying HD only antennas. My $50 Radio Shack units look all space age with their round design and a pair of old fashioned rabbit ears hanging out. They handle digital and analog stations. But I have 2 of the analog stations programmed into my TVs since they pick up the digital channels beautifully.

It is a great backup to my cable and sat services but I wouldn't want to be limited to those channels all the time.

Not that I have tried a converter box, but my experience plugging a standard def TV into my HD cable and sat boxes has given good results on the HD content on SD. It looks better than SD as an HD downconvert to SD. To get the 16x9 you get the black bars on the older sets, and the picture looks sharper. I have my patio TV, an old SD box hooked up to my HD cable box and previously had it hooked up to Dish Network as the second TV on the 622. I now have DirecTV and cable and have not hooked it up to DirecTV that way.

I really don't know anybody these days without cable or sat that relies just on OTA. I knew a guy a few years ago. He had money but just didn't watch a lot of TV. Only a little PBS OTA.