Latest Software Release Creates Havoc with my 811!

AcuraCL

AcuraCL

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 7, 2004
345
0
snathanb said:
My understanding is... that once the analogs are cut off, the Digitals will be moved from their current temporary locations in UHF, back to their original analog frequencies... maybe I have it wrong?

According to the FCC:

"When Will the DTV Transition Be Complete?

As of May 2003, more than 1,000 stations were on the air with DTV signals, and every major TV market was served by at least one DTV station. The target date set by Congress for the completion of the transition to DTV is December 31, 2006. However, that date may be extended until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming. At that point, broadcasting on the analog channels will end and that spectrum will be put to other uses. Until the transition to DTV is completed, television stations are required to broadcast on both their digital and analog channels."

http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html
 
JoeSp

JoeSp

Thread Starter
Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Oct 11, 2003
2,284
0
According to the FCC faq I posted above the channels 2 thru 49 are set aside for digital programming in the future. If there is not enough room the FCC is giving out locations 50 thru 69 for use for now. When the lower channels open up after analog is switched off these stations will be routed back to the lower channels as digital.
 
AcuraCL

AcuraCL

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 7, 2004
345
0
As I read the FCC info, the actual frequencies get reallocated to other public uses:

Why Are We Switching to DTV?

...
Converting to DTV will also free up parts of the scarce and valuable broadcast airwaves, allowing those portions of the airwaves to be used for other important services, such as advanced wireless and public safety services (police, fire departments, rescue squads, etc.).
 
gpflepsen

gpflepsen

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
3,292
296
SE NE
I would like to see stations using a temporary UHF digital signal switch the analog with the digital signal. That is, start broadcasting analog on the temporary UHF antenna and go full power on the lower VHF frequency. This would alleviate one of the problems for broadcasters, namely the enormous increase in cost due to the higher power needed to radiate in the UHF spectrum.

This would also give those holding on to analog reception an incentive to go digital. They would most generally see a degraded signal in the UHF band, and would already have the antenna systems in place for VHF reception.
 
GaryPen

GaryPen

Rich or poor, it's good to have money.
Supporting Founder
gpflepsen said:
This would also give those holding on to analog reception an incentive to go digital. They would most generally see a degraded signal in the UHF band, and would already have the antenna systems in place for VHF reception.

That wouldn't exactly be fair to the VAST majority of TV viewers would it?
 
rad

rad

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 7, 2003
10,619
4,247
Dripping Springs, TX
gpflepsen said:
I would like to see stations using a temporary UHF digital signal switch the analog with the digital signal. That is, start broadcasting analog on the temporary UHF antenna and go full power on the lower VHF frequency. This would alleviate one of the problems for broadcasters, namely the enormous increase in cost due to the higher power needed to radiate in the UHF spectrum.

This would also give those holding on to analog reception an incentive to go digital. They would most generally see a degraded signal in the UHF band, and would already have the antenna systems in place for VHF reception.

Gerry, take a look at the WBBM-DT thread(s) over on the local HD section on AVSForum. In Chicago that's our CBS affiliate and it was assigned channel 3. The station first came up in 1999 and was turned back off until fall of 2003. It took a major change of the two cable systems serving the downtown area and a new antenna to be installed to get us where we are now. Even now, many folks that can get all the UHF DTV channels can't get WBBM-DT. Even those folks that can get them can loose them at a drop of a hat, or really changes in the atmosphere. I think I can say that all the Chicago area views want nothing but UHF assignments, let the broadcasters pay a bit more in electric bills, they get the spectrum for free anyway.

Also, I'm curious, do DTV UHF stations need to use the same amount of power to cover the same area? I ask since looking at http://www.tvradioworld.com/region1/il/tv_information.asp?m=chi
the DTV UHF stations are using much less power then their NTSC UHF assignment. Example, WCIU-TV (CH 26) is 5000KW, WCIU-DT (CH27) is 160KW. WFLD-TV (CH32) is 5000KW, WFLD-DT (CH31) is 200KW. WPWR-TV (CH50) is 2510KW, WPWR-DT (CH51) is 1000KW.
 
gpflepsen

gpflepsen

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
3,292
296
SE NE
GaryPen said:
That wouldn't exactly be fair to the VAST majority of TV viewers would it?


Would it be more fair to just cut them off? And what do you mean by VAST majority? How many rely on OTA analog for their TV programming? 15%-20% of viewers is quite a bit short of a vast majority. Only 16 million households rely on OTA analog signals. A vast majority of that 15% will not convert to digital OTA on their own accord. They will need incentives and shown that in reality analog is going bye-bye.
 
GaryPen

GaryPen

Rich or poor, it's good to have money.
Supporting Founder
A. Where do you get the 16% figure?
B. Even if that 16% figure is accurate, it does not include the HUGE number of cable subscribers wirth ANALOG cable plugged directly into their TV's or VCR's.

You cannot simply change the frequency and channel number assignments overnight. It is quite simply unfair to those people unable to receive DTV signals.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this basic and obvious fact makes me wonder if that ain't your picture in the avatar? ;)
 
gpflepsen

gpflepsen

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
3,292
296
SE NE
http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=1883 has the figures I was using. I believe the FCC is considering considering the numbers on cable or DBS towards the 15% cutoff requirement. They are trying to define what is 15% of what.

It's not a matter of cutting folks off cold turkey. That Dec 2006 cutoff "deadline" could go from being a soft cold turkey date to a hard analog/digital switch date. The folks unable to receive DTV can surely still receive analog in the UHF spectrum. The inconvenience of getting the UHF signals may push those unwilling to voluntarily convert to DTV.

And that avatar, it was mostly aimed at E*. Charlie and Baghdad Bob may be cousins. It was a work in progress and stalled out :)
 
GaryPen

GaryPen

Rich or poor, it's good to have money.
Supporting Founder
gpflepsen said:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=1883 has the figures I was using. I believe the FCC is considering considering the numbers on cable or DBS towards the 15% cutoff requirement. They are trying to define what is 15% of what.

It's not a matter of cutting folks off cold turkey. That Dec 2006 cutoff "deadline" could go from being a soft cold turkey date to a hard analog/digital switch date.

I did some statistical investigating, after reading your previous post. Those who really solely on OTA analog are indeed in the minority, as you say. However, 67% of cable subscribers have basic analog cable. That would put the total TV viewers using analog tuners into the majority.

There should definitely be this buffer period to enable the crossover to DTV. "It's a good thing", as Martha would say. No need to start switching frequencies now. Many people are unable to afford the new equipment necessary to receive all the stations they will suddenly stop receiving.
 
Kevinw

Kevinw

Just a regular guy
Pub Member / Supporter
Dec 2, 2003
2,992
13
Jacksonville, FL
I would guess that almost a 100 percent of cable customers have a minimum of the basic analog package.

Switch out all cable boxes with ones capable of outputting a 480i signal as well as a 480p and up. No need to worry what TV everyone is using and let them switch to digital at there convenience.
 
gpflepsen

gpflepsen

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
3,292
296
SE NE
I think a tax deductible purchase of an OTA Digital tuner should offered by the federal government. A one time deduction of $200 should cover the most basic OTA tuner available in 1-2 years. This will cost us only ~$30-40 per deduction. Also, it will be the cable provider's problem if they can't convert the digital signals to analog for their customers. The requirement for TV's to have integrated OTA DTV tuners is being phased in beginning in July. After a few years all new TV's will have DTV tuners built in. The combination of all these measures should lessen the impact for the analog hold-outs.

What this has to do the latest 811 SW release is still unclear at this point. :)
 
W

WeeJavaDude

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 25, 2003
766
0
SoCal
Boy this went offtopic fast. So anyone else having the troubles of the original poster with the 265 update?
 
AcuraCL

AcuraCL

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 7, 2004
345
0
WeeJavaDude said:
Boy this went offtopic fast. So anyone else having the troubles of the original poster with the 265 update?

I haven't noticed much difference. I took my Silver Sensor upstairs finally, and it made my head spin how fast some of the stations locked. I thought there must have been some new code related to the 49% bounce ... but alas it continued on other stations.
 
C

chmont1

New Member
Jan 11, 2004
3
0
I live in Plano Tx North of Dallas and get ABC wfaa which is in Vhf digital with a signal stength in the 80's now on my OTA. At first it would not pick up the signal that well then, I went and got a signal booster from Radio Shack and it has been fine since. I have not had any problems with signal strenth and my antenna is in the Attic and I am 45 miles from the tower.
 
C

cracka

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Oct 20, 2003
88
0
Dallas
I connect via component and do not receive anything from 148, but 265 has apparently helped my 811's OTA reception drastically. The 49% bug, which was pervasive with 264, has been completely eliminated in my testing tonight... The digital channel number problem also seems corrected. I can't discern any difference in the PQ with this update. My remote ID (set to 2) was also not affected by the update.
 
Kevinw

Kevinw

Just a regular guy
Pub Member / Supporter
Dec 2, 2003
2,992
13
Jacksonville, FL
cracka said:
I connect via component and do not receive anything from 148, but 265 has apparently helped my 811's OTA reception drastically. The 49% bug, which was pervasive with 264, has been completely eliminated in my testing tonight... The digital channel number problem also seems corrected. I can't discern any difference in the PQ with this update. My remote ID (set to 2) was also not affected by the update.

It will be back..the 49% has not been fixed.
My contention is that the 811 is most peoples first HD tuner. They have no experience with multipath. Multipath can be a seasonal problem. It coiuld be fixed with a slight turn of the antenna. or chopping down a tree. Or even by just waiting a day. Some receivers are better- ie the 6000 at rejecting multipath
I have gone months with out an issue then all of sudden I would start having signal lock problem with my Pioneer Sh-D505. Pine needles falling, leaves sprouting etc.
The problem is the 811's hardware is not the best at rejecting multiple signals. It is better at pulling in weaker stations. It is just not good with multiple ones.
 
scott5626

scott5626

SatelliteGuys Family
Feb 5, 2004
85
0
The last post by kevin is absoloutly true I can go up into my attic and re-posistion the antenna and pull a 80% signal and it stays but I have to move it to get my other OTA channel. I've noticed if you dont get a steady at least 74% signal it wont stay in.
 
C

cracka

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Oct 20, 2003
88
0
Dallas
there's no question the 811 OTA tuning is flakey, but whether it's a result of the 265 update or a miraculous and subtle movement of the foliage around my place, my OTA tuning has been *much* better since 265. i've got 2 other HD tuners all connected to the same rooftop antenna, so i have a decent basis for comparison, and the 811 has gone from by FAR the worst of the 3 to just barely the worst. I haven't seen the 49% problem since the day 265 came through.
 
Kevinw

Kevinw

Just a regular guy
Pub Member / Supporter
Dec 2, 2003
2,992
13
Jacksonville, FL
cracka said:
there's no question the 811 OTA tuning is flakey, but whether it's a result of the 265 update or a miraculous and subtle movement of the foliage around my place, my OTA tuning has been *much* better since 265. i've got 2 other HD tuners all connected to the same rooftop antenna, so i have a decent basis for comparison, and the 811 has gone from by FAR the worst of the 3 to just barely the worst. I haven't seen the 49% problem since the day 265 came through.

This post was started about the 264 release being a problem. I am banking on foliage as the reason for improvement.
I like your comparison- from absolutely the worst to just the worst :)
 

Similar threads

WJMorales
Replies
64
Views
7K
dlsnyder
dlsnyder
R
Replies
8
Views
1K
Smith P.
S
GaryPen
Replies
12
Views
3K
WeeJavaDude
W
cabledave
Replies
1
Views
979
NightRyder
NightRyder
JoeSp
Replies
30
Views
5K
Kevinw
Kevinw

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top