I know a guy who died while WEARING a seatbelt.

[kenglish]

And, a smoker who lived to be over 100 years old.

Do you ever read those "news" articles about how "totally unreliable Digital TV is", and wonder where they dig up those folks? I've been tracking some of the articles that seem to pop up (syndicated and wire-service reports) all across the country, and do a bit of Google-ing on them. It seems that they are usually one person who lives directly across the street from the airport, or lives 50-60 miles from the transmitters (with a huge mountain between them). These "unimportant facts" never seem to make it in to the story, or course. And, you never hear anything more than anecdotal "evidence" ("We plugged it in, and it didn't get nuthin'...").

Is the media biased against the Digital Transition?

 

[whit979]

Well, I think the main thing they're pointing out is that prior to the DTV transition, those people got television signals. It may have been full of static and ghosting, but at least they got something. For those who can get all the DTV signals in their markets, there's nothing to complain about. But clearly there is an issue with coverage areas shrinking; after decades of stations having the same coverage areas, it's an issue that will inevitably be raised.

Sooner or later, power output will have to be increased, or a network of digital translators will have to be created for those who can't pick these signals up.

 

[kenglish]

A big problem, though, is that they are often comparing a low-band VHF (2-6) channel's coverage (which goes almost everywhere in some fashion), to the UHF (14-51) channel's coverage, which is nearly line-of-sight.
Add in the problems of lack of a good UHF antenna, improper cabling, bad coax fittings, cheap splitters and noisy amplifiers, and it's no wonder they have problems.

It's too bad no one tried to tell people "HOW" to get DTV, rather than just "you NEED to get DTV".
There should have been testing done, to certify every available device for compliance with a "reception standard". And, I wish there had been a nationwide program to send "reception specialists" to test peoples' systems....say, for $29.95, someone would test your system at home and make recommendations. $59.99 for MDU's. What they would find at one house would often apply to a whole neighborhood, so people could share results and advice.

 

[LynnW]

Mr. English, it doesn't matter if they are comparing VHF analog to UHF digital. Those people have no control over that. They just know that if they lose a signal, they lose a signal.

If you check the overly optimistic coverage maps from the FCC, you will find that a lot of people are going to lose one, if not all, of the stations they have been receiving. And these people are mostly in areas without cable. It doesn't matter what antenna they have, what coax they have, etc. They will not be able to receive television. Increasing the signal strength isn't going to solve the problem for a lot of them. The solution is going to be digital translators, but that might leave some people without tv for a few years.

 

[whit979]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

We're about to get a much better idea of the level of hand-holding that should have been done with viewers over the last 2 years.

 

[kenglish]

In Utah, we started a program to upgrade translators to DTV many years ago. Through the efforts of Kent Parsons and other translator guys, we were able to get a comprehensive plan put together, and funding from the State Legislature, to put digital companion channels at nearly every site. Of the more than 1000 translator channels on well over 100 sites, more than half are already transmitting DTV. The remaining sites will continue to transmit analog-only, on a case-by-case basis, until they each are converted, too.

The biggest problem we face, here, is that population is shifting in to areas where no one lived before. Until just a few weeks ago, the FCC would not allow anyone to even file for a new translator, so those areas didn't even have a chance until now. The FCC probably should have looked at that problem long ago...it's going to take time to fund, purchase, manufacture and construct those new facilities. Hopefully, when the FCC finally sets a cut-off date for analog low-powered facilities, it will allow waivers for outlying areas that would otherwise lose their signals entirely.

But, many of the "problems" being touted by the media (not to mention the competitors), are really not due to rural living. The folks that say they live "three miles from the transmitters", or the ones who live next door to a busy airport, or the ones who live in large MDUs are facing different problems. And, many of those problems could be solved (and, should have already been solved) by some proper education and proper engineering on the receiving end of things.

Those who live three miles from high-powered transmitters are most likely suffering from massive overload of their receivers. Proper filtering, the correct antennas, and signal attenuation would help many of them. Folks who live next to airports probably never got good analog reception...they might just have to go with Cable to get any cost-effective solution. If they live in an MDU, though, a Master Antenna system could help all the tenants. I've discussed the possibility of space-diversity processing, where two, widely-spaced antennas would feed special processors that switch between them for the best signal....wireless microphones use that technology widely, and it works. So, it would be a "private cable" sort of system, combining all the TV, radio and satellite antennas and distribution in to one system, using common antennas. Better functioning and better looking.

Still, comparing the propagation of low-band VHF signals and UHF signals, and then saying "digital is inferior", is kind of "apples-vs-oranges". Each flavor of transmission, and each portion of the spectrum, have their own advantages and disadvantages.

 

[kenglish]

Hindsight is always 20/20.
We're about to get a much better idea of the level of hand-holding that should have been done with viewers over the last 2 years.

That's very true. Unfortunately, engineers often brought up these issues over the years, but were told we were "overreacting", or that discussion of these issues might "confuse" the viewers.
Do some Google-searching on what is happening in places like the UK and Australia, and you'll find much more comprehensive educational material than anything the U.S. industries have done. The DigitalUK, and Digital Broadcasting Australia websites offer a wealth of information for viewers, property managers, cable headends, etc.

 

[landtuna]

In all fairness, both the UK and Australia are far smaller in the number of markets serviced, population and number of TV stations.

 

[kenglish]

But, their Public Information campaigns are to be commended.

 

[markwooldridge]

In all fairness, both the UK and Australia are far smaller in the number of markets serviced, population and number of TV stations.

True on the above.

But the transition is being done differently:

1) Switch off is area by area, so they learn from any mistakes made.
2) Switching over from analog to digital - was a more compelling reason to do so (go from 4 channels to 25 just by buying a set top box).
3) Help in switching over is more targeted - those who really need the help get it, and if they can't afford it, sometimes it's free, sometimes it's subsidized.
4) HD isn't confusing the issue too much because terrestrial HD isn't being broadcast yet as a proper service. Wasn't even planned for, but it's being worked out now that there will be a limited HD terrestrial service soon.

 

[ixnay]

Kenglish, because you titled this thread the way you did... 8)

My father, at 71, *still* does not buckle up. The worst that has happened to him has been surgery on both his knees (each at a different time), a result of playing too much tennis.

My 50-something stepbrother-in-law eventually went back to smoking after getting stents put in his heart.

And I can't get my digital converter to work.

Gotta GO to work - see ya! ;D

ixnay