Sinclair warns of 112 channels being dropped by DISH next Monday (8/16)

[Radioguy41]

You’re proving the fact that you didn’t actually read what was written more and more. The customers would still be getting their locals. And still able to record their locals on Dish. And with streaming, the savings from not having to pay for the locals package, especially if it ends up getting built into the receivers, further takes more power away from the local channel owners. The fact is, you’re talking on an opinion only. The facts are that Sinclair currently needs Dish more than Dish needs Sinclair, and Sinclair is feeling the irrelevancy due to it.

Tampa, out of curiosity, how good is the internet up there?

Don't feed the troll.

 

[Tampa8]

I have just the opposite experience. My latest scan this week locked 78 OTA channels, infinitely more than I ever received prior to digital. Prior to digital the most I ever locked was 17 between UHF and VHF. Just to put it in perspective, I live 60 miles north of Philadelphia.

There were nowhere near as many OTA channels before Digital with no sub channels. Channel 66 here alone has 7 sub channels, channel 3 has 5 subs.Most have at least 4. I'd say we now have about 85 channels you could reasonably get here depending on where you are, etc. Before digital maybe tops 20?

 

[Radioguy41]

OK, I'm confused, you said "I say digital has reduced the ability to get stations." but now you're saying the opposite?

 

[Tampa8]

OK, I'm confused, you said "I say digital has reduced the ability to get stations." but now you're saying the opposite?

I said it reduced the ability to get stations, that means each individual station can be harder to get now than before. I did not say it reduced how many stations there are to get. Two different things.

Of the original analog remaining stations after the repack, (And now digital) there are some that are harder to get now than before. I could get them with an indoor antenna, no more. And now I have to be more picky on where even the outdoor antenna is aimed to get two of them even though their tower location has not changed.

Separate from that, there are far far more stations to get. But I know you realize all the subs and main channel are going to be the same for reception. (with few exceptions when sharing takes place) So if the PBS main channel is finicky in where the antenna is, so will be all the sub channels. And it is here for my location.
Before digital that PBS channel was easy(ier) to get. So while there are now 6 PBS channels they all are picky in getting the antenna in the right spot.

 

[Radioguy41]

I said it reduced the ability to get stations, that means each individual station can be harder to get now than before. I did not say it reduced how many stations there are to get. Two different things.

Of the original analog remaining stations after the repack, (And now digital) there are some that are harder to get now than before. I could get them with an indoor antenna, no more. And now I have to be more picky on where even the outdoor antenna is aimed to get two of them even though their tower location has not changed.

Separate from that, there are far far more stations to get. But I know you realize all the subs and main channel are going to be the same for reception. (with few exceptions when sharing takes place) So if the PBS main channel is finicky in where the antenna is, so will be all the sub channels. And it is here for my location.
Before digital that PBS channel was easy(ier) to get. So while there are now 6 PBS channels they all are picky in getting the antenna in the right spot.

Again, that has not been my experience. I get every channel I ever got before plus all the new diginets and add-ons. In fact, due to the nature of digital signals, I now receive channels on the backside of the antenna I was unable to receive before without rotating the antenna. I will grant you this, the antenna makes all the difference. I have a monster 160" boom (57 elements) plus a mast mounted pre-amp, but then I had the same rig prior to going digital.

 

[Tampa8]

Again, that has not been my experience. I get every channel I ever got before plus all the new diginets and add-ons. In fact, due to the nature of digital signals, I now receive channels on the backside of the antenna I was unable to receive before without rotating the antenna. I will grant you this, the antenna makes all the difference. I have a monster 160" boom (57 elements) plus a mast mounted pre-amp, but then I had the same rig prior to going digital.

Not disputing your results But I am far from alone noticing the difference I don't make this stuff up. (lol) Those living closer to the towers or better terrain may not notice it as much. And in some instances the Station upgraded their tower antenna at the same time.

A Downside to Digital TV (Published 2008)

For the 13 million households that use a rabbit-ear antenna on top of the TV set, not only do they have to buy a digital converter box; they may have to buy a new antenna.

www.nytimes.com

What you need to know about the digital TV switch

The transition to digital TV is fast approaching, with the February 17 deadline just a couple of months away. So what's it all really mean for consumers?

www.cnet.com

"But with the good, also comes some bad. Unfortunately, not everyone in every corner of the U.S. will experience all the great benefits of digital TV. Because analog signals transmit over longer distances than digital signals, some over-the-air viewers living in rural areas may find that they do not get all the same channels they were able to when they received analog TV."

 

[sam_gordon]

Because analog signals transmit over longer distances than digital signals

I don't know that that is true. HOWEVER, what you have to deal with is the "digital cliff". Basically, if you get enough of a signal in the digital world, you get a perfect picture. However, just a small loss of signal means you get no reception. In analog, the video (and audio naturally) will degrade as the signal strength decreases.

So it's not that the signals "go further", but you need a stronger signal to get an acceptable picture.

 

[Tampa8]

I don't know that that is true. HOWEVER, what you have to deal with is the "digital cliff". Basically, if you get enough of a signal in the digital world, you get a perfect picture. However, just a small loss of signal means you get no reception. In analog, the video (and audio naturally) will degrade as the signal strength decreases.

So it's not that the signals "go further", but you need a stronger signal to get an acceptable picture.

It's both. digital signals do not travel as far that is science.
"In analog communication system, the signal travels over a longer distance ...."

Why digital communication is suitable for long distance? - Polytechnic Hub

The digital communication is more reliable and secured as compared to analog communication system due to some following reason Long distance communication:

www.polytechnichub.com

And yes a second component is digital is "all or nothing."

It isn't cut and dry in that the signal received at the far end for Analog that Digital does not reach may or may not be watchable. (snow) But countering that digital is subject to interference including from planes overhead that I never had with analog. (Path of Tampa International Airport) And terrain seems to play a bigger influence with Digital over Analog.
Note this isn't a discussion on which is better. Digital by far is the better way to go.

 

[Radioguy41]

What I did find was that the FCC mandated repack had a significant negative impact on receiving. I lost ch16, 22, 28, and 44 out of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre with the repack. Got em before, can't get em now.

 

[sam_gordon]

It's both. digital signals do not travel as far that is science.
"In analog communication system, the signal travels over a longer distance ...."

Why digital communication is suitable for long distance? - Polytechnic Hub

The digital communication is more reliable and secured as compared to analog communication system due to some following reason Long distance communication:

www.polytechnichub.com

And yes a second component is digital is "all or nothing."

It isn't cut and dry in that the signal received at the far end for Analog that Digital does not reach may or may not be watchable. (snow) But countering that digital is subject to interference including from planes overhead that I never had with analog. (Path of Tampa International Airport) And terrain seems to play a bigger influence with Digital over Analog.
Note this isn't a discussion on which is better. Digital by far is the better way to go.

And this site says Digital goes further. What’s the Difference Between Digital and Analog Two-Way Radios?.

 

[sam_gordon]

What I did find was that the FCC mandated repack had a significant negative impact on receiving. I lost ch16, 22, 28, and 44 out of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre with the repack. Got em before, can't get em now.

Stupid questions...
1) Have you done a rescan?
2) Have you looked up frequency band changes? It looks like Channel 22 is RF12. and Channel 28 is on RF11.
3) Channel 44 & 16 are both on RF21 Channel 56 is on RF22. That might be causing issues.

 

[Yespage]

And this site says Digital goes further. What’s the Difference Between Digital and Analog Two-Way Radios?.

Thinking about how it works, a signal is a signal. You have the frequency, power, and its spread. The difference could be that there is much more bandwidth with an HD signal, which might make it more susceptible to disruption given distance, not due to the distance itself, but potential obstructions within the distance travelled.

So on a flat plain, the signal would be about the same for a given distance, but in the real world with obstructions, the digital signal is taking more losses.

Oddly enough, after I put in a newer Smart Card, my OTA signal appears to have improved, but that might also be fall. I went from scattered signals on some channels, to near perfect on a few and very reliable on others. Also, with the latest rescan, saw there are even more sub channels. No idea what is on any of them with no guide, but it is nice to have the illusion of more programming.

 

[Juan]

Thinking about how it works, a signal is a signal. You have the frequency, power, and its spread. The difference could be that there is much more bandwidth with an HD signal, which might make it more susceptible to disruption given distance, not due to the distance itself, but potential obstructions within the distance travelled.

So on a flat plain, the signal would be about the same for a given distance, but in the real world with obstructions, the digital signal is taking more losses.

Oddly enough, after I put in a newer Smart Card, my OTA signal appears to have improved, but that might also be fall. I went from scattered signals on some channels, to near perfect on a few and very reliable on others. Also, with the latest rescan, saw there are even more sub channels. No idea what is on any of them with no guide, but it is nice to have the illusion of more programming.

The difference is that many analog channels switched from VHF to UHF
Digital works better on UHF

VHF was easier to receive than UHF on analog tvs
VHF wasnt effected by trees and mountains as UHF is

So a signal is not a signal

 

[TheKrell]

So a signal is not a signal

Exactly. And IIRC supposedly DTV required less power. I don't know about that, but I do remember many stations requesting increases in power to serve the same regions they served before.

 

[Yespage]

The difference is that many analog channels switched from VHF to UHF
Digital works better on UHF

VHF was easier to receive than UHF on analog tvs
VHF wasnt effected by trees and mountains as UHF is

So a signal is not a signal

You did notice the word "frequency" in my post, right?

 

[sam_gordon]

The difference is that many analog channels switched from VHF to UHF
Digital works better on UHF

VHF was easier to receive than UHF on analog tvs
VHF wasnt effected by trees and mountains as UHF is

So a signal is not a signal

Again, the issue is the digital cliff. The SIGNAL should go just as far (everything being equal). But, an analog signal degrades as the received signal declines. A digital signal will be good, be good, be good, be good, some pixelization, gone.

Wiki has a good image:

Basically where the two lines cross, you're probably still seeing an image with an analog broadcast. With a digital one, you get "no signal". The same signal strength is at the receiver.

 

[Juan]

Again, the issue is the digital cliff. The SIGNAL should go just as far (everything being equal). But, an analog signal degrades as the received signal declines. A digital signal will be good, be good, be good, be good, some pixelization, gone.

Wiki has a good image:

Basically where the two lines cross, you're probably still seeing an image with an analog broadcast. With a digital one, you get "no signal". The same signal strength is at the receiver.

VHF went Further than UHF
Digital you either have it or you dont
You are 100% correct the signal degrades

UHF degrades worse than VHF
But VHF has digital x talk by bouncing of things but UHF is usually absorbed

 

[Juan]

You did notice the word "frequency" in my post, right?

Its like saying the frequency is different between am and fm
Its a bit more than that

 

[Yespage]

Its like saying the frequency is different between am and fm
Its a bit more than that

Good thing I said it was a bit more than that.

 

[Juan]

Good thing I said it was a bit more than that.

You said signal is signal