"For many, digital switch brings in 'can’t-see TV’ "

[Chuck]

I wouldn't call that a PROBLEM! I'd call it an OPPORTUNITY!

Just about every problem IS an opportunity, but I don't see much that can be done to overcome the forces of Mother Nature. I suppose it is good news for satellite and cable operatiors. Do you have any ideas that might be worth exploring?

Anyway....

One thing I don't understand: why didn't the U.S. choose to phase out analog TV in regional stages? There doesn't seem to be much sense in treating each region of a large and diverse country the same in this respect by setting a single national shut-off date. Some areas, those which are largely cabled, have good OTA coverage, and have both high population and TV station density (such as the Northeast) could go all-digital first, followed by medium-density areas (the eastern Midwest, East Texas, etc.), and finally by low-density areas reliant on long-distance analog reception - by this I mean the Great Plains, northern Minnesota, mountainous areas. The NYC metro might be suffering from RF congestion, and freeing up those high UHF channels could certainly help. But for rural South Dakota or Minnesota, I really wonder how much good DTV transition will accomplish.

They did roll out LPFM on a regional basis. That was probably to decrease the workload, but it also gave the FCC the opportunity to slowly discover what they were getting into. It is a little hard to imagine that the airwaves in Wyoming are over-crowded with TV signals.

I do know that some stations would just as soon make the digital switch ASAP. It is a fairly expensive proposition paying for the operation of two transmitters. One station that I’m familiar with estimates that 80% of their audience views them by cable or satellite. The loss in viewers by switching to digital only would probably not make any significant difference in ad revenues. Meanwhile, their aging analog transmitter is expensive to maintain and power. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that many stations are no longer keeping their analog transmission systems in the best of repair. It isn’t a very attractive proposition to put new klystrons in a transmitter that will be scrapped in a little over 6 months.

Of course, that does little for the viewer who depends on OTA TV reception, but from a strictly business point of view, it is easy to understand the broadcaster’s point of view.

 

[tomservo]

Re: "For many, digital switch brings in 'can’t-see TV’ "

All digital should work well in Wilmington. Eastern North Carolina is "flat as a pancake". If the FCC REALLY wanted to see how poor digital coverage (on TV) can be they should have designated, perhaps, Asheville! Digital TV does a LOUSY job of reaching "the boonies" of Wilkes County NC with a stable signal...even with a 600 dollar antenna/rotor/preamp recently installed. By the way, HD on FM works great off the same antenna. I know people love to bash HD Radio. But my experience (easily demonstrated in my living room) is that it's HDTV that truly does a lousy job of approximating the analog service area, even with a good antenna.

It seems mountainous areas do better with VHF over UHF. I've seen some "impossible to clean up" pictures from UHF outlets in eastern Tennessee and Salt Lake City... So I imagine any digital on UHF in the hills is gonna be iffy. The downside is our digital scheme seems to not work well at all on the many VHF digital channels scattered about.

 

[jras20]

I use to have a choice either to watch Houston TV, San antonio TV or Victoria TV. Now I can only watch Victoria TV. If Victoria did not have a TV station I would not get any DTV signals. However at my place near Austin, I can pull in Austin & San antonio TV stations in Digital great with just a pair of Rabbit ears.

 

[clone]

Re: "For many, digital switch brings in 'can’t-see TV’ "

I use to have a choice either to watch Houston TV, San antonio TV or Victoria TV.  Now I can only watch Victoria TV.

Which brings us back to the reason TV congloms have no problem spending hundreds of millions on the digital rollout.  The ability of viewers to choose out-of-market programming has been eliminated (which to them, is priceless). 

The government got the windfall from selling the vacated spectrum to the cellular providers (not to mention the added benefit of keeping information from reaching distant viewers). 

Equipment manufacturers are riding high on the replacement boom.  (Both broadcasting and TV sets)

It's a win-win-win.

Guess who loses out?

 

[tomservo]

Re: "For many, digital switch brings in 'can’t-see TV’ "

Which brings us back to the reason TV congloms have no problem spending hundreds of millions on the digital rollout. The ability of viewers to choose out-of-market programming has been eliminated (which to them, is priceless).

Hmm. Sounds like AM HD at night.

 

[Tom Wells]

Major thunderstorms w/tornado rolled thru Chicago last evening with gusts to 90 mph.
I checked analog vs digital television OTA reception.
Channel 2, WBBM was running a tornado warning severe weather break-in.
It was totally watchable in analog, with no loss in intelligibility.
There were some analog lightning noise streaks.

On Channel 2.1, the signal decoded, but was less than 50% "there", and it was impossible to make any sense of the
broken bits and chops that did decode.

Most of the digital channels were too broken up to receive. Those that did were breaking up and pixellating.

When we need it most, it won't work? I brought my wife and daughters to view the comparison.
Everyone thought the analog was better, because it was at least working, while the digital did not.
Even my 4-year old thought the digital was pretty useless in such conditions.

Will TV stations retain analog capabillity for messages of urgent public safety or are we just on our own after feb next year?

I am impressed negatively.

 

[TheBigA]

Will TV stations retain analog capabillity for messages of urgent public safety or are we just on our own after feb next year?

The spectrum has already been sold. So you're on your own.

The government's policy on this has been to refer you to NOAA weather radio. The federal government spends a ton of money to support this service.

But I know what you mean. I used to have DirecTV, and whenever we had thunderstorms, there was no signal. Including the satellite-delivered local channels. I moved to a location that can't receive satellite (too many trees), so I had to get cable. Because cable channels are distributed via digital satellite, the local cable company runs into the same problem when we have bad weather. Not that they notice. The place is usually on auto-pilot anyway.

 

[Tom Wells]

Wow. Time to disband the current FCC, which has utterly dropped the ball.

The whole point of the (FRC) FCC was regulate and maintain viability of OTA communications, PERIOD.
This is in direct diametric opposition to their reason for existance.

Sort of like authorizing some stations to jam the signals we once took for granted as normal radio reception.

If they are idiotic enough to think the new digital TV is an acceptable replacement, they deserve the wrath
that will be coming next year.

Public safety info should not be dependent on any of the cable/satellite distribution systems.
Over-the-air can suffer broken transmitters, etc, but the medium is always there, and always works to some degree.

In the same way that telephones should NEVER be dependent on AC power distribution, radio/TV should never
be vulnerable to such infrastructure issues. They could have built wired audio distribution systems back in the 30's but
everyone had enough sense to realize OTA RF was the way to go. ( A few such systems were installed but abandoned.)

Now we're going to suffer from from weaknesses of methods our predecessors had the sense to avoid.
If cable was such a good idea, it would have come first.

The government wants everyone to go out and buy NOAA weather radios?
Please say it ain't so. Most people will just be uninformed if their TV doesn't tell them.

 

[TheBigA]

Wow. Time to disband the current FCC, which has utterly dropped the ball.

The whole point of the (FRC) FCC was regulate and maintain viability of OTA communications, PERIOD.
This is in direct diametric opposition to their reason for existance.

Their ORIGINAL existance. Did Herbert Hoover know about satellites in 1927? Probably not.

I agree that the FCC should be more vigilant in policing pirates, preventing interference, and limiting access to the airwaves. There are a few problems. The government is broke and isn't increasing the FCC's budget. The FCC is looking for sources of revenue, and the spectrum is one way to get it. The FCC has been auctioning off spectrum since the 80s. Through five administrations. At the same time, they've increased the number of radio stations beyond the point where those stations can operate profitably. And they don't care. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats on the Commission have much sympathy with the plight of broadcasters right now, as evidenced by several recent decisions. Will another change in administration make a difference? It didn't the last four times.

If cable was such a good idea, it would have come first.

In a way, it did. The grandparent of cable was the telephone.

The government wants everyone to go out and buy NOAA weather radios?
Please say it ain't so. Most people will just be uninformed if their TV doesn't tell them.

In a major disaster, power goes out. Thus, the TV will not work.

 

[Chuck]

In a major disaster, power goes out. Thus, the TV will not work.

But your government has announced that every broadcaster and cable company will have to get a new CAP compliant EAS decoder, making the old one just another piece of useless junk. The theory is that EAS doesn't work, and I'd have to agree, but the problem is not the hardware. The hardware works fine. The problem is the implementation of the system. It is a poor workman who blames his tools, but that is what is going on.

In many ways, this sounds just like the HD debate. If things aren't doing what you want them to do, let's buy some new expensive hardware. Surely that will fix all the problems. Yeah, right....

 

[TheBigA]

It is a poor workman who blames his tools, but that is what is going on.

Perhaps you don't understand my post. If people expect to find out disaster information from their TV, what will they do when the power goes out? The TV will not operate, unless you have a battery-operated TV. Not many of them around. You can get a weather radio for less than $20 at the Radio Shack. That's what we call a low cost solution to a low tech problem.

Weather radio operates on short wave, which is still analog, right? FBOM.

 

[tomservo]

Re: "For many, digital switch brings in 'can’t-see TV’ "

The government wants everyone to go out and buy NOAA weather radios?
Please say it ain't so. Most people will just be uninformed if their TV doesn't tell them.

Actually I think the NOAA weather radio system is useful, especially for those of us in more rural settings.

My town has three licensed local broadcasters. Who run satellite feeds outside of mornings.

There aren't any local TV stations as we're between markets #9,000 and 10,265. Neither market does the rabid frothing at the mouth weather coverage of larger cities because it seems there's no one at the helm in the weather departments outside the newscasts.

When bad weather sweeps through, those three local stations are off the air when the power goes out, not that they'd interrupt the sat feed anyway. If there's a ball game on TV, they won't interrupt even for tornado warnings in the area. Just a crawl. And I'm supposed to subscribe to cable for that? Or put up an OTA antenna to get one or two channels in snowy haze?

At least my SAME weather radio only goes off for warnings in my county. Of course, understanding Perfect Paul is a whole nother ball of kittens.

I've never been anywhere where I couldn't get weather radio, even out in the desert, with a small antenna.

To be honest, the best source of weather coverage in my area is simply listening to my local police department's two-way comms.

 

[Chuck]

Perhaps you don't understand my post. If people expect to find out disaster information from their TV, what will they do when the power goes out? The TV will not operate, unless you have a battery-operated TV. Not many of them around.

Oh, I understand your post. At this point there are NO battery operated DTV capable TV sets. At least, I haven't seen one. Have you? If you had one, it is debatable if it would be able to receive anything when the storm is in full force. You might be surprised how many battery operated analog TV's there are out there. In the past, they did work in emergency situations, but no longer. A battery operated weather radio will be your only friend when the lights go out.

In the past, "broadcasting," be it radio or TV has been the "go to" source for emergency information. Now it may not be. I think that is a tragic loss.

 

[TheBigA]

At this point there are NO battery operated DTV capable TV sets.

Good point. Although I imagine this is a temporary situation.

A battery operated weather radio will be your only friend when the lights go out.

What's wrong with that? That got a lot of people through for a long time.

 

[tomservo]

Re: "For many, digital switch brings in 'can’t-see TV’ "

Since the analog sunset only applies to full power stations, this could be an opportunity for -LP and -CA channels to provide some sort of weather coverage - or to at least pass on the bare minimum warnings in a screen crawl.

It's a long shot but it might work in smaller markets. I just realized that after the sunset, I'll still see two analog signals - both translators in my small town. One even carries local commercials, so I don't see why they couldn't insert weather info, too.

 

[kenglish]

Weather radio operates on short wave, which is still analog, right? FBOM.

They operate analog Narrow-Band FM (just like a 2-way radio) on 162 MHz, which is just below the VHF-High TV Band (Channels 7-13).

I've seen a few (VERY FEW) ATSC converters that use external power supplies, and might be operated on batteries. You might need a good sized one, though....especially to run a TV monitor and the box. Big camcorder battery or similar, or run off the car battery.

 

[tomservo]

Re: "For many, digital switch brings in 'can’t-see TV’ "

I suppose you could get an inexpensive UPS backup system for the converter and TV.

During an extended power outage I took the one off my computer and used it to power the TV and satellite receiver for a good hour, until the lights came back on.

 

[clone]

At this point there are NO battery operated DTV capable TV sets.

Good point. Although I imagine this is a temporary situation.

A battery operated weather radio will be your only friend when the lights go out.

What's wrong with that? That got a lot of people through for a long time.

Nothing is wrong with it. But why should we take a step backwards to an automated, audio-only computerized voice telling us there is a tornado? For years, when there is severe weather (or other emergencies), the local TV station is where the public has turned. There, they can usually find a real-live meteorologist tracking the situation.

Of course, if the power is out, it is irrelevant.

I know, however, that my subdivision uses buried power cables which rarely, if ever, fail during severe weather. I'm sure I can't be the only one who rarely loses electricity and would like to keep up on emergencies using a television rather than wait for a static-filled computer to get around to the situation in my location.

I, like Tom, was watching terrestrial TV when the second wave of storms came through around midnight Monday night. Almost all digital terrestrial broadcasting was unusable.

For note, I am about twenty-five miles from downtown Chicago, and I have an Archer VU-190 antenna on a rotator with a fifteen foot mast on my two-story home. This puny antenna setup provided me with pixelation on all but the strongest UHF channels, (I believe WCIU-DT and WPWR-DT were OK, but they don't have fully staffed news or weather units) with most channels being completely unwatchable.

WBBM-DT (on channel 3) was not usable in any way, and is just another reason that low-VHF should be given to analog FM, and removed from the TV bands altogether.

Note that it should be given to ANALOG FM. To try and stay on-topic for this board, HD wouldn't lock either. I'm sure this is no surprise to anyone here, though.

Needless to say, this was the most intense lightning I have ever seen in a storm, hands down. But the fact remains that the Analog was completely usable and watchable (albeit noisy) and was able to serve our community during an emergency. The digital was not able to perform this task. This puts a certain, albeit small and insignificant to some, segment of our communities at risk.

For what it's worth to me, this translates into failure to serve our communities. If the FCC is not enforcing license holders to serve their communities, especially during emergency situations, then I must agree that they are not doing their jobs and should be disbanded.

 

[Chuck]

A battery operated weather radio will be your only friend when the lights go out.



What's wrong with that? That got a lot of people through for a long time.

Simply that NOAA weather radio it is a single source and contains nothing that is extremely local. At best, you have to wait until the loop of “Perfect Paul” makes another pass at your immediate area. On the other hand, watching weather radar gives an extremely visual an instant depiction of what is likely to happen next. Most viewers know where they live in regard to the weather map. When giant blobs of red and purple are a mile or two from your house, you really do get the message. A weather radio just doesn't convey the same urgency.

 

[TheBigA]

If the FCC is not enforcing license holders to serve their communities, especially during emergency situations, then I must agree that they are not doing their jobs and should be disbanded.

Fine. Then I move we disband the FCC. All in favor say "Aye."

Look...this decision was made a few years ago. Congress debated it the way they usually do. They decided that money would be apportioned for the converter boxes. And they all went out to the bar for drinks.

The way things work in this country is that stuff like this happens all the time. Until a huge disaster happens. Then everyone scurries around like rats.

So in February, everything changes. We'll see video of lots of old ladies screaming about how their TVs done't work. Then in July, Hurricane Bertha will wipe out the Gulf coast, and everyone will blame it on TV.

Congress will meet again, and dedicate billions to studying the problem.

Meanwhile, all the TV stations have invested in digital equipment, equipment suppliers have made their commissions, and the FCC has sold off the VHF and UHF bands.

Whoops!