Benefits of Digital TV?

[KeithE4]

I disagree, Digital signals are much weaker than their analog counterparts. My cousin watches over the air and it was much easier to grab a distance signal on analog. Those signals are nonexistent now.

Digital signals are weaker than their analog counterparts, especially on VHF, because somebody convinced too many stations to run too little power to allow an equal coverage area between analog and digital. From what I've read on the subject, to have equal coverage, the ERP should be 1/3 to 1/2 of the old analog power. This has a lot to do with higher average power of the digital signal than analog. On Channels 2-6, that would mean 33-50 kW ERP (analog was 100 kW max), on 7-13 it would be roughly 100-155 kW ERP (analog was 316 kW max), and about 1.6-2.5 MW on UHF (I think the max is 1 MW for digital; it was 5 MW for analog).

Here in Phoenix, the three VHF-HI stations (KAET/8, KSAZ/10, and KPNX/12) run in the 40 kW range. That just is not enough for a reliable signal more than 20 miles away. I need an outdoor antenna with a preamp to get any of them well. The preamp should never be necessary when only 25 miles away from the transmitters. Indoor antennas work on UHF, but forget it on VHF. All three are flaky -- they work sometimes, but not others. The full powered UHFs are solid even with simple antennas, barring multipath issues (especially aircraft -- I'm in a flight path).

 

[Mr Tony]

They're supposed to have WWPI-LD (NBC) channel 16 later this year. It's a low-power station being moved down from Fort Kent. Once that comes on, the missing network will be ABC. That's imported from Bangor on cable with WVII-TV channel 7.

WWPI launched a week or so ago. Its the same thing in Preque Isle that Gray did in Mankato. Take an old translator, move it to the city of license, and add a missing network.

 

[Mr Tony]

Are you saying you did not have access to all 3 major networks prior to digital or only through OTA? I suspect your area was fully served through either/both cable/satellite prior. No?

I thought we were discussing OTA? But to answer your question cable has (and still does) have the Minneapolis stations on cable (the Big 4 + PBS + My Network) alongside Mankato (until 2007 Mankato was just CBS. They added FOX in 07 when they had a digital signal).

Satellite it depended on the provider. Dish by law could not offer ANY network not in the DMA due to losing a lawsuit back in 06 until 2010 when they agreed to carry all 210 DMA's in SD (at minimum, a fair amount were in HD). So they import ABC & until recently NBC from Minneapolis. Previously (pre 2006) it was ABC, NBC and FOX from NY. Directv could import stations the whole time due to their compliance with the law of qualifying people who couldn't get all the networks. Dish was still giving people distant stations back then when they shouldn't have legally qualified. I still have the full page ad Directv took out in the local paper about Dish having to drop the distants and to sign up with Directv.

But getting back to OTA prior to 07 most folks could only get CBS from KEYC. Sure there were folks who had monster outdoor antennas to get a fuzzy Minneapolis picture from 80 miles away but for most folks with an antenna it was just CBS. Now we have 4 stations (CBS, NBC, FOX, CW+)

 

[landtuna]

Digital signals are weaker than their analog counterparts, especially on VHF, because somebody convinced too many stations to run too little power to allow an equal coverage area between analog and digital.

I know the digital conversion was a disaster for channel 10 as their digital signal was literally unwatchable after the switch. IIRC they upped the power on their digital signal (VHF) and simulcast on a UHF subnet. They still run the simulcast on 10.2. That seems to have worked for the most part.

My question is, why couldn't the other VHF stations also upped their ERP after finding out their digital signal was more marginal than expected (an effect of not testing I suspect)?

 

[vchimpanzee]

It was never supposed to benefit the over-the-air television viewer. The telecomms needed the bandwidth for broadband internet and mobile streaming and phone services. No one was sold a bill of goods. This was the government's way of pleasing the telecomms while also pushing OTA freeloaders to pay up for cable or satellite TV. OTA viewers -- largely elderly and/or poor -- are right at the bottom of the list of concerns of either the FCC or the television industry., a true communications underclass that both parties no doubt wish would just go away.

And what happens when this happens?

https://www.journalnow.com/news/loc...cle_6adbab03-509f-5aff-92c6-4c6374596e97.html

And if you're not where you can get cable or anything else other than a dish, this is even worse.

Also, I understand dishes don't do well in bad weather.

 

[landtuna]

I thought we were discussing OTA?

Yes, we were. I was just adding another question as an afterthought. I should have been more clear.

My folks went through something like this in northern CA and they griped about it endlessly. My response was, if you choose to live in Jasper Junction you have to live with some shortcomings (or in this case the added expense of subscribing to cable/sat to get the services you want). They disagreed with me and thought every American living everywhere inside the national boundaries should have all OTA signals without cost.

 

[landtuna]

Also, I understand dishes don't do well in bad weather.

Like all other things physics-wise there are degrees of performance.

In a nice, normally clear desert in Arizona a 7' dish, or even a pie-pan sized dish, will work fine. There are times when a very heavy dust storm or thunderstorm might take out the signal but it doesn't usually last very long.

But if you live in snow country you might need a much larger dish unless you like brushing it off before watching your favorite show each time. Rain also attenuates radio signals so if you are in a rainy climate you might opt for a larger dish.

The larger the dish the more signal gain you get and the more interference it can tolerate before losing the signal. It also depends upon the signal you are trying to capture. Pie-pan sats send the strongest signals to Earth. Next comes C-band and then Ku-band. Those generally require a larger dish all other things being equal.

 

[ShawnHill1]

Digital signals are weaker than their analog counterparts, especially on VHF, because somebody convinced too many stations to run too little power to allow an equal coverage area between analog and digital. From what I've read on the subject, to have equal coverage, the ERP should be 1/3 to 1/2 of the old analog power. This has a lot to do with higher average power of the digital signal than analog. On Channels 2-6, that would mean 33-50 kW ERP (analog was 100 kW max), on 7-13 it would be roughly 100-155 kW ERP (analog was 316 kW max), and about 1.6-2.5 MW on UHF (I think the max is 1 MW for digital; it was 5 MW for analog).

Here in Phoenix, the three VHF-HI stations (KAET/8, KSAZ/10, and KPNX/12) run in the 40 kW range. That just is not enough for a reliable signal more than 20 miles away. I need an outdoor antenna with a preamp to get any of them well. The preamp should never be necessary when only 25 miles away from the transmitters. Indoor antennas work on UHF, but forget it on VHF. All three are flaky -- they work sometimes, but not others. The full powered UHFs are solid even with simple antennas, barring multipath issues (especially aircraft -- I'm in a flight path).

I have family in the Phoenix area (mostly in the West Valley), and I can attest to those signal issues with 8, 10, and 12. The spare "guest" room at my father's house only has a TV with an indoor antenna (the rest of the rooms have DirecTV), but the bedroom window faces westward, meaning sometimes having to adjust the antenna if I wanted to watch any of those three stations. The South Mountain transmitters are at least a good 35-40 miles away from where he lives. It looks like from the last time I visited the family (this past Thanksgiving), I noticed that Channel 10-2 was recently upgraded to HD--I know that signal comes off the KUTP transmitter. The only UHF channel I had a real issue with until it was corrected was KASW Channel 61, but not a problem with the other stations--KNXV was the only station I received reliably at all times. KTVK, KPHO, and KAZT were pretty reliable, but one slight move of the antenna sometimes, and the signal drops-out.

In Los Angeles, I live about 25 miles away from Mount Wilson (and in the flight path of LAX)...when some of our locals changed their RF channels last April, I didn't lose any channels I considered of "great consequence". Case in point, one of our Spanish indies, KWHY Channel 22 moved from RF 42 to RF 4, and at least from where I live, the signal is choppy at best, plus its sharing bandwidth with sister station KBEH 63. KVCR, PBS in San Bernardino (PSIP Channel 24) moved from RF 26 to RF 5, and I can't pick it up at all. However, their transmitter is at Box Springs Mountain near the cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley, about a good 60 miles southeast of where I live. Under the old frequency, I could pick them up (with the occasional signal issues), and in the analog days it used to put a decent signal into southern Los Angeles and northern Orange Counties, and maybe KVCR can still be receivable in a good chunk of OC (since it's about thirty miles closer to the transmitter site), but not on this side of the Orange Curtain.

 

[louis_p]

Those of you who follow my posts know I am not a fan of digital TV. Here is a summary of my reasoning:

1. It required the wholesale destruction of analog sets which, I am guessing, were far from worn out.

2. The effort required to destroy a digital TV signal is many times less than that to affect an analog signal. And, when an analog signal is interfered with it isn't destroyed completely as with digital. Things like the sun overhead, dust, wind and passing aircraft tend to blow digital signals out of the water.

3. It's Back to the 50's! The house is filled with bow ties and rabbit ears once again.

4. Lower power levels make some primaries and almost all subnets unwatchable.

5. Speaking of subnets.....what a waste. Rerun City or junk TV.

6. Greatly reduced coverage range.

And from all this only one substantial improvement - slightly improved picture quality. (Talking about OTA TV here.)

This was clearly a bill of goods.

Discuss?

There are trade-offs with any technological advancement, but hopefully the pros outweigh the cons for society as a whole.

1. I read a report a few years back about how the rapid consumer adoption of digital TV sets was one of the fastest technology adoptions in history once the prices came down. This is despite the fact that the government subsidized converter boxes for those that kept their analog sets. An argument can be made that the biggest selling point of digital TVs is the form factor and not better picture quality.

2. With analog TV, I would constantly experience multipath, ghosting, and audio distortion. This would require me to constantly fine-tune the channel I'm watching by rotating the rabbit-ears or UHF loop only to find that I would lose reception of other channels. Now, I consistently receive 22 channels from a small 5" diameter UHF loop that I haven't had to touch in the past 5 years (once I found the sweet spot).

3. My antenna is a 5" diameter loop that can receive signals 50 miles away. Maybe I'm lucky to live in a market where all of the channels are in the UHF band. I've read that VHF reception is much more challenging (especially in the VHF low band).

4. My understanding is that power requirements for digital transmission is roughly 30% of what's required to transmit an analog signal of the same strength. This may be a positive outcome from an energy conservation perspective. I'm not sure if this signal reduction is mandated by the FCC or if some stations choose to reduce power. At least in my market, the stations operating at full power provide reliable coverage in the region.

5. My hometown only had two "local" stations (NBC & CBS). The other network affiliates were transmitted from towers 60 miles away. Thanks to sub-channels, viewers in my hometown can now receive all major networks and some additional programming. The PBS station in my area utilizes their sub-channels to broadcast some amazing international content (NHK, BBC, France24, MHz Worldview). For sure, some sub-channels are junk but that's the fault of the broadcaster and not the technology.

6. My experience has been improved UHF reception. I recall that analog UHF reception was very finicky, especially with an indoor antenna. I can't speak for VHF reception since all channels in my area are in the UHF band.

While digital may not be perfect, I definitely wouldn't give all of this up to go back to the days of constantly adjusting rabbit ears and snowy reception.

 

[Gregg.]

My experience with digital television was at first bad. But now I'm happy the switch was made.

At a lakeside cottage on the New Hampshire-Maine border, we had no access to cable TV and didn't want to subscribe to satellite for a house which was unoccupied through the winter and for many weeks at other times. Even with a good rooftop antenna with a rotor to adjust the direction, our reception was only so-so.

NBC 6 from Portland was the best station, with its tower about 25 miles away. ABC 8 from the top of Mount Washington was good, but subject to many ghosts, since mountains in the way blocked a direct signal. ABC 9 from Manchester and CBS 13 were further away, subject to snow. They'd come in okay sometimes and too bad to watch other times. Same for Boston stations. If conditions were right, usually between sunset and a few hours after sunrise, they'd be very good or good or OK. But most times non-existent.

When the transition to digital was made, I got the $29 box from Walmart to convert the signals to analog. At first, I was very disappointed. It seemed only NBC 6 and ABC 8 would come in. But then I realized that the antenna must be in a VERY PRECISE position to receive each signal. If you moved the antenna ever so slightly, stations would come in beautifully. All five stations had great signals, just like cable. No ghosts, no snow. And despite the 100 miles to Boston, the same was true for Boston stations. Many nights they weren't there at all. But a few nights a week, you got the Boston stations perfectly. Sometimes even Providence.

And the original poster complains that diginets are all a waste. Not true! I watch plenty of shows that would never make it to conventional television or cable because they're deemed too old. I enjoy shows from Buzzr, ME-TV, Antenna and H&I. Having most PBS stations now offering Create and World triples the offerings on public television... and they're not subject to fundraisers or weekend shows you know public television is showing primarily to get donations.

The conversion wasn't 100% good. If you don't have a rooftop antenna with an electric rotor, or have no patience for precise adjustments, you're not going to get a decent signal. But even cable and satellite subscribers benefit because they have to carry all those diginets, including PBS World and Create, that they likely would not if they were simply cable networks.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Telecoms have NEVER said the airwaves are owned by all Americans.
No, that lie was spread by the FCC.

Actually that is stated in the Communications Act of 1934, the law that established the FCC.
So it IS the law. This would almost certainly never happen, but if it chose to the FCC could
cancel all existing broadcast licenses in the name of the American people and reissue them to
parties who might operate more in the public interest.

These major broadcast companies are all tenant farmers on the spectrum.

 

[TheBigA]

Telecoms have NEVER said the airwaves are owned by all Americans.
No, that lie was spread by the FCC.

It's not exactly a lie. All resources of the United States, including water, minerals, oil, and gas, belong to "the people." However the people elect a representative government, who then sell or license the rights to those resources to others. The broadcast spectrum is no different from anything else, and the language in the law mirrors language in those other resources. BTW the licenses are renewable, and it's at renewal time that the FCC could choose to not renew a license to one company and instead issue it to another. This is very rare, and is usually based on some legal reason, not subjective opinion.

 

[landtuna]

It's not exactly a lie. All resources of the United States, including water, minerals, oil, and gas, belong to "the people." However the people elect a representative government, who then sell or license the rights to those resources to others. The broadcast spectrum is no different from anything else, and the language in the law mirrors language in those other resources. BTW the licenses are renewable, and it's at renewal time that the FCC could choose to not renew a license to one company and instead issue it to another. This is very rare, and is usually based on some legal reason, not subjective opinion.

We could argue long and hard whether we've had a truly representative government. With things like big money lobbyists, no term limits in Congress and gerrymandering the "government" has isolated itself pretty much from the average American.

 

[TheBigA]

We could argue long and hard whether we've had a truly representative government. With things like big money lobbyists, no term limits in Congress and gerrymandering the "government" has isolated itself pretty much from the average American.

Regardless, that's the deal. And it applies to all resources and benefits.

By "representative government," it means that you yourself don't make these decisions, they do. Whether their decisions are truly representative is something else.

 

[landtuna]

By "representative government," it means that you yourself don't make these decisions, they do. Whether their decisions are truly representative is something else.

I would argue that government is representative only if their congresscritters follow the wishes of the majority of their constituents. Time after time we've seen a representative vote against the published wishes of the people who elected them. And, increasingly, those same reps are maintained in office by the use of corporate money and/or lobbyists. It doesn't seem to be getting better. The swamp is larger than ever.

 

[TheBigA]

I would argue that government is representative only if their congresscritters follow the wishes of the majority of their constituents.

That's your opinion. Nothing in the Constitution that requires them to follow anyone. If you don't like them, vote them out. You have that opportunity.

 

[landtuna]

That's your opinion. Nothing in the Constitution that requires them to follow anyone. If you don't like them, vote them out. You have that opportunity.

It is the very definition of 'representative'.

Look at the number of long-serving congresscritters then tell me it is a valid option to "vote them out". The odds are all with the incumbent.

 

[TheBigA]

The odds are all with the incumbent.

Only because the voters are lazy. To say the least. They don't take voting seriously.

 

[centerfreqradio]

Hi all....Reception here is the only issue ..Used too get all locals with a wire on the ANT connection on back of TV or VCR when it was analog.Now I only get a half a channel which is only 20 miles fro here.

Plus Digital cable here is rubbish altogether.Its bullcrap now that you need a box on every TV in the house...That should of never happen.....

Other then that.Its nice to see the many sub channels that are similar like cable channels..

Not to get into the hot p topic as it seems where this is heading but If I was a VIP at the time . I would vote against DTV years ago since the reasoning for it was big telecom want the bandwidth for their phones and other wireless rubbish.I guess they were not happy when they started to rob the upper UHF band for the first round of cell phones"Those Big Brick Phones" back in the 1980's .Meantime they could save alot of bucks with those $40 buck hand outs and use it somewhere else..Its to late in the game now to revert it if there is a big stink over it..

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

It is the very definition of 'representative'.

Look at the number of long-serving congresscritters then tell me it is a valid option to "vote them out". The odds are all with the incumbent.

So they take a poll on every issue in every district, and statewide for senators for every vote? And you catalog how their votes align with or don’t align with said polls?

Nonsense. (Not to mention more ridiculous for states with senators from opposing parties sent to office by the same electorate).

The reality is most reps on the whole do vote with their party. And since they won the election, it is a reasonable assumption they are representing their voters’ wishes. That sets aside that even within the group that voted for a given candidate there can be deep disagreements on certain issues.

The arguments are utter rubbish.