One in three TV viewers in the US now use an antenna: report

Discussion in 'Over the Air TV By RabbitEars.Info' started by comfortably_numb, Apr 30, 2019.

  1. harshness

    harshness SatelliteGuys Master

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Posts:
    15,296
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Location:
    Salem, OR
    What are you gonna do for a state that has a smaller population than many large US cities (somewhere around 700,000)?

    My local ABC station, KATU, offers "local" news packages for some of the other cities that are only available through cable. AFAIK, they don't offer them on their translators.
     
    comfortably_numb likes this.
  2. andy_horton

    andy_horton SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Posts:
    883
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Northwest Georgia
    Very true I know locally for TN, GA stations. Knoxville does overlap Chattanooga now, and Atlanta is overlapping in N GA & NE GA. Nashville would overlap Chattanooga as well except for Monteagle Mountain that simply blocks any possible overlap maybe with exception of Missionary Ridge in Chattanooga. Chattanooga has (I believe) had "The big 3" on VHF, both Hi & Low during analog days. Now the big 4 (Fox) are Hi VHF, but WDEF is moving to RF 8, and 2 PBS Nets are nice since Knowledge only is aired on WNGH (GPB) but it's moving from UHF to Low VHF. I'm sure with others moving, WDSI already moved, I'm wondering with power increases/decreases, how this will affect many rural OTA users? VHF still and will exist in dense markets. Chattanooga is a medium market close to Nashville, Knoxville, Atlanta which are much larger. I also know as of now, WSB Atlanta uses many translators to reach the GA, FL state line for the most rural areas.
     
  3. N5XZS

    N5XZS SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    2,395
    Likes Received:
    598
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Albuquerque have 4 stations on VHF Hi band. Would be interesting to see if one of my local station file a CP to be on VHF low band with a ATSC 3.0!:biggrin

    Anyway, I think the reports on use of outdoors antennas is on the rise are pretty spot on.:hatsoff
     
    comfortably_numb likes this.
  4. Tower Guy

    Tower Guy SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Posts:
    630
    Likes Received:
    15
    ATSC 1.0 was a hybrid system that took the best technology from each of the proponents of a Hi-def standard. At first, no one proposed OFDM. Zenith’s 8VSB was the key to every company having a part of the final system. Only afterwards was OFDM considered. At that time, the adoption of OFDM would have scuttled the entire digital transition. The characteristics of the first incarnation of OFDM provided for worse coverage than 8VSB, even though OFDM had a multipath advantage.

    Much before ATSC 3.0 there was a significant improvement to OFDM by the addition of “turbo codes”. The newer system, called DVB-T2, used these more efficient codes to further improve reception and surpass 8VSB.

    In ATSC 3.0 the turbo codes are called Low Density Parody Checks or LDPC. This is the key to better reception of 3.0.
     
    N5XZS and comfortably_numb like this.
  5. Voyager6

    Voyager6 Just lost in space Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Posts:
    12,164
    Likes Received:
    3,993
    Location:
    Sol 3
    Their modelling software was wrong in regards to range. Look at how many stations had to up their power output to reach most of their former viewing range. Even larger power increases would have been needed to cover the entire previous viewing range and that was something that the FCC was unwilling to allow. We can only hope that with ATSC 3.0 their modelling software has been corrected based on the real world results of the ATSC 1.0 transition.
     
    N5XZS, FTA4PA and comfortably_numb like this.
  6. comfortably_numb

    comfortably_numb Topic Starter Dogs have owners, cats have staff Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Posts:
    7,262
    Likes Received:
    7,419
    Location:
    Missouri/Kansas
    They were criminally wrong, IMO. They must have "backed into" the figures those models produced.

    I think the whole transition was a fiasco that left many people in the dark (literally).
     
  7. Juan

    Juan Supporting Founder Supporting Founder

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Posts:
    22,649
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    Location:
    Moscow Russia
    Thats gonna be alot more places...like Michigan and upstate ny

    Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
     
  8. harshness

    harshness SatelliteGuys Master

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Posts:
    15,296
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Location:
    Salem, OR
    Buffalo, Rochester and Albany combined are more populous than North Dakota. Fargo (125k), Bismarck (73k) and Grand Forks (57k) combined are a somewhat larger population than Buffalo but spread over thousands of square miles of not much of global interest.
     
  9. Juan

    Juan Supporting Founder Supporting Founder

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Posts:
    22,649
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    Location:
    Moscow Russia
    Its about saving money and making maximum profits...they already tried it once with the abc stations

    Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
     
  10. Trip

    Trip RabbitEars Webmaster Staff Member HERE TO HELP YOU!

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Posts:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    552
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA, US
    The models work perfectly fine, if you consider that:

    1) The model assumes the use of an outdoor antenna, aimed at the station, with the proper elements (not a UHF-only antenna being used for VHF), at 30 feet above ground.

    2) The model does not take into account multipath, the most common cause of poor reception on indoor antennas. I'm not aware of a model that does.

    3) Moving from analog to digital was a fundamental shift. There were plenty of signals that people watched in analog that were not considered to be "serving viewers" according to the model used for analog TV. Digital, with its cliff effect, is less forgiving, but if you compare against what was considered a signal strong enough to be "serving viewers" in analog, digital outperforms analog by a lot.

    4) VHF noise was not factored in, as it probably should have been, but even since the DTV service assumptions were made in the mid 1990's, those noise levels have skyrocketed. 1990's assumptions would no longer be correct in any case, and the numbers used in the model have not been changed since then.

    - Trip
     
    pamajestic, Tower Guy and primestar31 like this.

Separate names with a comma.

More...