Is switching to DTV wise after this aftermath?

[RFLA]

I'm here just on the outskirts of the area ravaged by Hurricane katrina in Louisiana. We have been watching the newscasts from New Orleans and Baton Rouge dealing with the hardships and pain of the people down here.

During and after Hurricane Katrina, Most people were using old and/or Portable TV sets to watch this event happen in Louisiana and along the gulf coast.... These same TV sets will become obsolete in a few years when analog TV NTSC signals are finally forced off the public air waves.... Also it has been said that Digital is harder to tune,espcially in some areas
(For example, I'm 40 miles or so from their transmitters and is main source of TV programming as I'm in the Niesen DMA for the New Orleans market but DTV is questionable in my area whereas I catch all the main analogs for the DMA plus 5 analogs in the next DMA over (Baton Rouge)..

My question is this, Is it wise to turn off the analog signal for a TV station even though it could hurt some people because they can't catch the digital signal (digital's basically all or nothing) espcially in a hurricane (where you will have no cable TV and no outside antenna other than maybe rabbit ears on the TV set) that can currently pick up those same channels in analog?

I know the DTV signal is supposed to cover the same area as the station's 1997 coverage but would it really happen?

Also we hope and pray for those hurt and ravaged by katrina...
RFLA

 

[Markxxx]

> I'm here just on the outskirts of the area ravaged by
> Hurricane katrina in Louisiana. We have been watching the
> newscasts from New Orleans and Baton Rouge dealing with the
> hardships and pain of the people down here.
>
> During and after Hurricane Katrina, Most people were using
> old and/or Portable TV sets to watch this event happen in
> Louisiana and along the gulf coast.... These same TV sets
> will become obsolete in a few years when analog TV NTSC
> signals are finally forced off the public air waves.... Also
> it has been said that Digital is harder to tune,espcially in
> some areas
> (For example, I'm 40 miles or so from their transmitters and
> is main source of TV programming as I'm in the Niesen DMA
> for the New Orleans market but DTV is questionable in my
> area whereas I catch all the main analogs for the DMA plus 5
> analogs in the next DMA over (Baton Rouge)..
>
> My question is this, Is it wise to turn off the analog
> signal for a TV station even though it could hurt some
> people because they can't catch the digital signal
> (digital's basically all or nothing) espcially in a
> hurricane (where you will have no cable TV and no outside
> antenna other than maybe rabbit ears on the TV set) that can
> currently pick up those same channels in analog?
>
> I know the DTV signal is supposed to cover the same area as
> the station's 1997 coverage but would it really happen?
>
> Also we hope and pray for those hurt and ravaged by
> katrina...
> RFLA
>
Whether or not it's better is kind of a mute point. If you don't switch now you'll have to switch later. Some stations are carrying other info on subchannels so you probably would have more information, not less. However DTV is an all or nothing thing. Since the signal is changed to numerical bytes and transmitted you either receive it or you don't (basically)

Remember during the transition, some stations are not operating their DTV on full power due to conflict with other stations. Supposedly when this clears up the coverage area will be similar. However in some areas people are use to getting snowy signals with a lot of interference. Again these will be gone with DTV, as it's basically, all or nothing.

You can get the same information via radio, which is dirt cheap. So turning off NTSC isn't an issue. I bought a simple Sony walkman cassette player with radio and VHF-TV for $7.99. I think most people should be able to afford that.<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[RFLA]

> Whether or not it's better is kind of a mute point. If you
> don't switch now you'll have to switch later. Some stations
> are carrying other info on subchannels so you probably would
> have more information, not less. However DTV is an all or
> nothing thing. Since the signal is changed to numerical
> bytes and transmitted you either receive it or you don't
> (basically)
>
> Remember during the transition, some stations are not
> operating their DTV on full power due to conflict with other
> stations. Supposedly when this clears up the coverage area
> will be similar. However in some areas people are use to
> getting snowy signals with a lot of interference. Again
> these will be gone with DTV, as it's basically, all or
> nothing.
>
> You can get the same information via radio, which is dirt
> cheap. So turning off NTSC isn't an issue. I bought a simple
> Sony walkman cassette player with radio and VHF-TV for
> $7.99. I think most people should be able to afford that.
>


Just my point that the people most affected by this storm or those who wouldn't be able to afford the new TVs and DTV convertors even in the city of New orleans itself. Also I haven't seen a DTV run off of batteries yet (I figure they may have some but nothing at what people can afford.

In my area, some are licensed at full power where as some DTV signals are still at DSA levels just to get them on the air to FCC mandate. My thing is,some of the full powers have problems hitting into area the analog can. My personal thought is they haven't investigated how far DTV can and cannot reach yet and it will be a few years after people really get pissed off or forced on cable to watch TV that the issue will come to a head (I'm talking areas that receive a picture 100% of the time currently in quality)

People have radios but can you see where that storm is headed on the radio? I've met a ton of people who are illiterate when it comes to coordinates and plotting on a map and only seeing a map on TV helps them (even though from tracking storms,we should be some of the best readers around)
Also, Katrina hit east of New Orleans first, but some of her most deadly winds were to the east of the storm..without seeing it on TV,some can't fathom how truly big it really was IMO

RFLA

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> You can get the same information via radio, which is dirt
> cheap. So turning off NTSC isn't an issue. I bought a simple
> Sony walkman cassette player with radio and VHF-TV for
> $7.99. I think most people should be able to afford that.

In a way, you've also just illustrated the original point in this thread: after the digital transition, the VHF-TV portion of that Sony will no longer work.

As for the digital transition, I'd note that digital TV does work well, but right now the equipment is rather expensive, and definitely not portable. In order for the trasition to be a success, we're definitely going to need some reasonably affordable portable TVs on the market that include DTV reception. The problem is that I'm not aware that any ATSC tuner chips are even being made that are suitable for portable use.

 

[Markxxx]

> Just my point that the people most affected by this storm or
> those who wouldn't be able to afford the new TVs and DTV
> convertors even in the city of New orleans itself. Also I
> haven't seen a DTV run off of batteries yet (I figure they
> may have some but nothing at what people can afford.
>

Regardless any news you get off TV you can get off the radio. So using TV for information isn't necessary as the radio stations will cover it. And radios are dirt cheap.


> In my area, some are licensed at full power where as some
> DTV signals are still at DSA levels just to get them on the
> air to FCC mandate. My thing is,some of the full powers have
> problems hitting into area the analog can. My personal
> thought is they haven't investigated how far DTV can and
> cannot reach yet and it will be a few years after people
> really get pissed off or forced on cable to watch TV that
> the issue will come to a head (I'm talking areas that
> receive a picture 100% of the time currently in quality)
>

Agreed, I've brought this point up on many boards. It's called the "granny syndrome." These are older folk who grew up, in rural areas with OTA broadcasts and seem quite satisfied with 3 channels of snowy pix. These people will be shut out regardless. But TV isn't necessary as AM radio will provide any news and emergency info and AM radio (especially at night) extends great distances.



> People have radios but can you see where that storm is
> headed on the radio? I've met a ton of people who are
> illiterate when it comes to coordinates and plotting on a
> map and only seeing a map on TV helps them (even though from
> tracking storms,we should be some of the best readers
> around)

I won't argue this point but I find it hard to believe that people are so stupid they can't tell where they are. At least in every city I've ever lived in, an I'ved lived in a LOT, unless you are new in town, you know where you are. Hurricanes cover hundred(s) of miles, so exact locations aren't needed. I have never seen anyone that stupid.


> Also, Katrina hit east of New Orleans first, but some of her
> most deadly winds were to the east of the storm..without
> seeing it on TV,some can't fathom how truly big it really
> was IMO

I agree that images help people like ME, in CHICAGO fathom how big a deal Katrina was to New Orleans, but the people IN New Orleans know.

At least in Chicago, DC, San Fran, NYC, Miami, Tampa, Naples,FL, The Keys in Florida, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Twin Cities, to name a few places I've lived Radio covers the storms just as good as TV, for emergency information.

Again, the pics do help you see what destruction is out there. But again this is misleading. I was in Hurricane Andrew, and Homestead was NOT as bad as I thought TV made it out to be. Sure it got wiped out, but it was, by large part, a slum.
My doctors office was in Homestead, and the WELL BUILT parts of Homestead, were missing a few shingles and such. The better off part stood. Most of Homestead was literally shacks of two-by-fours. TV lead me to believe something different.

So it works both ways. And this in no way minimized the impact of Andrew, I'm just saying TV lead me to believe it was 99% obliterated, which I found, going there 3 days after the storm it was not.



<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[RFLA]

> Agreed, I've brought this point up on many boards. It's
> called the "granny syndrome." These are older folk who grew
> up, in rural areas with OTA broadcasts and seem quite
> satisfied with 3 channels of snowy pix. These people will be
> shut out regardless. But TV isn't necessary as AM radio will
> provide any news and emergency info and AM radio (especially
> at night) extends great distances.

Yeah but where I live is a DMA called Houma/Thibodaux estimated at 200,000 people or roughly the 4th largest city area in Louisiana (if going by DMA). We rely on TV from New orleans and Baton Rouge which are both roughly 50 miles from us. Right now signals come in without snow... People with DTV cards have reported that some signals on DTV are OK, some can't be caught (I agree that it's too far early in the game sometimes with all the DSAs flying around) But full power applications listed on the FCC's website for 41db signal not covering some areas )

For example:
Here are links from the FCC website on coverage range of WDSU-TV
Analog: http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=TV702283.html
Digital: http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT552231.html

I have heard that the 41db signal is where the picture pixels and doesn't come in good for DT, whereas you can still watch that 47db signal with a little snow..

Does this mean, for network programming, I better have cable TV or hopefully a translator would be built so I can watch TV?




>
>
>
> > People have radios but can you see where that storm is
> > headed on the radio? I've met a ton of people who are
> > illiterate when it comes to coordinates and plotting on a
> > map and only seeing a map on TV helps them (even though
> from
> > tracking storms,we should be some of the best readers
> > around)
>
> I won't argue this point but I find it hard to believe that
> people are so stupid they can't tell where they are. At
> least in every city I've ever lived in, an I'ved lived in a
> LOT, unless you are new in town, you know where you are.
> Hurricanes cover hundred(s) of miles, so exact locations
> aren't needed. I have never seen anyone that stupid.
>

It's not that, Most Hurricane coordinates are given as say 29.6N 89.6W or directly east of New Orleans.... OK where is that , also who would have thought the intensity without seeing this storm would wreck 4 states? Hurricane maps given free here would have showed the center but what about the destruction it caused in Alabama? No one thought this would be the one for the record books



>
> > Also, Katrina hit east of New Orleans first, but some of
> her
> > most deadly winds were to the east of the storm..without
> > seeing it on TV,some can't fathom how truly big it really
> > was IMO
>
> I agree that images help people like ME, in CHICAGO fathom
> how big a deal Katrina was to New Orleans, but the people IN
> New Orleans know.
>
> At least in Chicago, DC, San Fran, NYC, Miami, Tampa,
> Naples,FL, The Keys in Florida, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Twin
> Cities, to name a few places I've lived Radio covers the
> storms just as good as TV, for emergency information.
>
> Again, the pics do help you see what destruction is out
> there. But again this is misleading. I was in Hurricane
> Andrew, and Homestead was NOT as bad as I thought TV made it
> out to be. Sure it got wiped out, but it was, by large part,
> a slum.
> My doctors office was in Homestead, and the WELL BUILT parts
> of Homestead, were missing a few shingles and such. The
> better off part stood. Most of Homestead was literally
> shacks of two-by-fours. TV lead me to believe something
> different.
>

Radio covers it real well with WWL radio being what I relyed on during the storm and was very informative... But I had no idea (cause of power outage) that the storm had grown so big as to cover into Alabama with winds it did and the damage it was doing. (It actually weakened slightly before hitting Louisiana but the outflow winds were hitting Louisiana Sunday Afternoon helping kill the storm a little even though the waters feeding it were near record temps).

Agreed, Most of what got damaged in the waters here are the old part of New Orleans that is near or below sea level and the counties east of the city directly in the path of her (as well as lowlying areas here in Louisiana anyway)... The quarter and some of the CBD is up to 5 feet or better above sea level. Other than normal wind damage, Most of the damamge is water with Jefferson Parish (county right to the west and south of New Orleans) allowing residents in Labor day to access damage and camp if they want.



RFLA

 

[KMRichards]

> I won't argue this point but I find it hard to believe that
> people are so stupid they can't tell where they are. At
> least in every city I've ever lived in, an I'ved lived in a
> LOT, unless you are new in town, you know where you are.
> Hurricanes cover hundred(s) of miles, so exact locations
> aren't needed. I have never seen anyone that stupid.

I'll echo this with a parallel.

I have lived in Southern California my entire life. When the 1994 Northridge earthquake hit I was living about two miles due east of the epicenter (although not on an axis that the destructive energy traveled, thank heavens). I was without power for three days afterwards, and relied on KFWB (news station on 980 AM) for information. Even though I had no television for maps, I knew from the location information given on KFWB where they were talking about.

I got to see some television coverage later, thanks to my mother (who was not affected but lives within range of the L.A. station) taping several hours, and from what I could tell, the radio coverage was much more useful. Sure, the television stations had lots of live pictures of destruction, but radio was better at conveying critical information such as what areas to avoid due to street damage, locations of disaster relief operations, etc.

The earthquake confirmed my long-held belief that a battery-powered radio is essential in an emergency; I can't say, after seeing the television coverage, that I would feel deprived of important information without access to a TV.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[KMRichards]

> As for the digital transition, I'd note that digital TV does
> work well, but right now the equipment is rather expensive,
> and definitely not portable. In order for the trasition to
> be a success, we're definitely going to need some reasonably
> affordable portable TVs on the market that include DTV
> reception. The problem is that I'm not aware that any ATSC
> tuner chips are even being made that are suitable for
> portable use.

I think part of the equation is that there is not going to be a real market for portable DTV receivers until after analog is history.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

To give an idea as to how long conversion could take, perhaps we can look to Britain and their conversion process from 405-line (all black-and-ahite) TV on VHF to 625-line (and eventually, PAL-system color TV) on UHF.

After experimenting with NTSC color adapted to the 405-line VHF system, Britain decided in the early 1960's that they would move all television from VHF to UHF, and that the UHF transmission standard would be 625 lines (same number of lines as other European countries). And instead of using NTSC for color, they would use the PAL system (which had been adopted by all Western European countries except France, which went with SECAM because it has been invented by French scientists).

The first 625-line UHF service was BBC-2, which went on the air in 1964 (and was all black-and-white until 1967, when it began transmitting the UK's first color TV programming). BBC-1 and ITV did not start-up 625-line UHF color service until late 1969. Many "dual standard" black-and-white sets were manufactured between 1964 and the end of the sixties, given that the UK's two most popular television services (ITV and BBC-1, in that order) were VHF only until 1969.

For a long number of years, BBC-1 and ITV continued to broadcast on both VHF (in 405-line monochrome) and UHF (in 625-line color).

It was not until January, 1985 that Britain turned-off the 405-line VHF transmitters---almost 21 years after the first 625-line BBC-2 transmitter went on the air (in London). It took that long because British authorities wanted to make sure that everyone could receive 625-line TV on UHF before shutting down the 405-line VHF transmitters.

Here in the 'States, it's been about seven years since the first "official" digital/HD television broadcast. If the UK is any example, it may be wise to continue analog broadcasting for another ten to fourteen years.

Over that period of time, more "dual standard" analog/digital sets can be produced, including portable and "Watchman" type sets. And with more analog/digital sets being made, the cost of each set will go down.

The shutdown of analog TV should only occur when practically everyone will have a TV set capable of receiving over-the-air digital TV signals (even though tens of millions subscribe to cable and satellite services). Then, and only than, should analog service be shut down.

We are at least a decade away from that point.

 

[KMRichards]

> Here in the 'States, it's been about seven years since the
> first "official" digital/HD television broadcast. If the UK
> is any example, it may be wise to continue analog
> broadcasting for another ten to fourteen years.

{tongue in cheek mode on}

Of course, we have a history, going back over 200 years, of expressly NOT doing what the U.K. does ...

{tongue in cheek mode off}<P ID="signature">______________


</P>