TV Converter Box and Channel 2

[b344077]

I recently bought a Digital Converter box for the bedroom TV. I bought it from Best Buy and works "OK". I live in Downers Grove and recieve every station except WBBM-TV. I have tried eveyrthing but to no avail. Is this typical? Has WBBM-TV had problems?

I have a set of rabbit ears, the TV set is on the second floor and has an eastern exposure with few trees. Still no Channel 2.

I'll bet as more and more folks install these things on various "secondary TV's", they will be in for a huge surprise.

 

[tripinva]

Yes, almost nobody can get channel 2. This is a known problem and has been going on for years.

This problem should hopefully resolve itself on 02/17/09, when WBBM-DT moves from channel 3 to channel 12.

- Trip

 

[vforest76]

I live downtown in the South Loop and no channel 2 DT! Everything else is perfect.

 

[thenewageriseth]

I recently bought a Digital Converter box for the bedroom TV. I bought it from Best Buy and works "OK". I live in Downers Grove and recieve every station except WBBM-TV. I have tried eveyrthing but to no avail. Is this typical? Has WBBM-TV had problems?

I have a set of rabbit ears, the TV set is on the second floor and has an eastern exposure with few trees. Still no Channel 2.

I'll bet as more and more folks install these things on various "secondary TV's", they will be in for a huge surprise.

We have this problem, too. I tried one of the new converters upstairs AND downstairs and still couldn't get the channel.

 

[avtosalon]

For some reason, low number VHF digital channels do not reach out as far. Can someone explain why the government allowed this to happen?

Also, the coverage map for WBBM-DT (Channel 3), from the FCC's website, is wrong:

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DS594102.html

Obviously the circle needs to be alot smaller.


I was able to receive WBBM-DT from 40 miles away with a new Terk indoor VHF/UHF HD antenna for about 2 weeks. But some reason, I no longer have a signal, so I do not recommend this model:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7322587&type=product&id=1118844608800


Even the analog signal (for WBBM-TV, Channel 2) is poor compared to the other channels from downtown Chicago. I remember about 5 or 6 years ago, WBBM-TV promoted that they upgraded their transmitter on the John Hancock Center. The east tower (the one used by WBBM-TV/DT) was made taller than the west tower:

http://www.fybush.com/site-031218.html

But this has not helped anything! Many years ago, Channel 2 had clear reception in the suburbs equal to the other channels. Could the interference be caused by cellphones which became popular in the 90's?

Next year when WBBM-DT moves from Channel 3 to 12, they will also be moving their transmitter to the Sears Tower.

IMO they should have leased a sub-channel from one of the Spanish stations (44, 60, or 66) until February next year, so CBS could be watched.

 

[b344077]

Maybe, (tongue in cheek) this is the real reason Joe Ahern got fired.

 

[dave73]

I wonder how many people are using the wrong type of antenna to get Low VHF. I have a big antenna outside that is optimized for Low VHF, and I get 2's digital with no problems at all. With another antenna that's made for big rigs, that one only works with UHF for digital, but works good for High VHF as well on analog.

 

[stormy01]

For some reason, low number VHF digital channels do not reach out as far. Can someone explain why the government allowed this to happen? (1)

But this has not helped anything! Many years ago, Channel 2 had clear reception in the suburbs equal to the other channels. Could the interference be caused by cellphones which became popular in the 90's? (2)

Next year when WBBM-DT moves from Channel 3 to 12, they will also be moving their transmitter to the Sears Tower. (3)

IMO they should have leased a sub-channel from one of the Spanish stations (44, 60, or 66) until February next year, so CBS could be watched.(4)

(1) The physics of larger wavelengths should actually be an advantage. The problem is that the power limits for low band DTV are lower than for high band VHF, but the calculated distances of expected signal strength out from the transmitting tower should be similar to that high band VHF and taking into account the average receive sensitivity of most TV tuners. Most of the commercially available receive antennas are compromise designs would be impractically huge in order to be effective for low band VHF.
(2) Cellphones are on 800-900 MHz and 1800-1900 MHz...Low Band VHF TV is 54-88 MHz. It wouldn't be harmonic interference from cellphones. It could be Intermediate Frequency mixing products or "white noise" created by the cellphones in the near field of the TV.
(3) This would be news to us...my understanding is that WBBM will be moving to Channel 12 on June 12 and using Channel 11's retuned analog antenna when WTTW signs off channel 11 on June 11.
(4) I have read that in smaller markets in an emergency, like a tower or antennas that have been destroyed by an ice storm, a competitor might allow their competition to temporarily use a subchannel, but in a large market like Chicago, I have no idea....

 

[tripinva]

WTTW's antenna is on Sears. Thus, yes, WBBM-DT 12 will be on Sears.

- Trip

 

[w9wi]

(1) The physics of larger wavelengths should actually be an advantage. The problem is that the power limits for low band DTV are lower than for high band VHF, but the calculated distances of expected signal strength out from the transmitting tower should be similar to that high band VHF and taking into account the average receive sensitivity of most TV tuners. Most of the commercially available receive antennas are compromise designs would be impractically huge in order to be effective for low band VHF.

I think the problems with low-band DTV are three:

- Noise. When low-band was considered "the place to be", there was no such thing as a home computer. Few if any electrical devices, except for lights, would be operated while people were watching TV.

Today, homes are full of computers and computerized devices. Many of these devices operate continuously, even while people are watching TV. I'm of the impression electric utilities aren't nearly as vigilant about fixing bad insulators either, both due to budget cuts and because most viewers are watching via cable/satellite & they are no longer inundated with complaints.

- Poor antennas. In the 1960s we *expected* people to have outside TV antennas. Effective low-band antennas were by no means unreasonably large, and if you wanted to watch TV you had to have one.

Today, again most homes are watching via cable/satellite. Since going without a large rooftop antenna no longer means going without TV, the spouse/neighbors feel they can reasonably expect you to go without that "eyesore".

So if you want to watch over-the-air, domestic peace requires using something smaller. Unfortunately, snake-oil salesmen are all too willing to comply, by providing "VHF/UHF" antennas that are horribly ineffective on VHF, especially low-band.

- Improved UHF equipment. UHF receivers have improved ENORMOUSLY since the 1970s. So has the power output of the average UHF station. (as recently as 1966 there were NO operating UHF stations of more than 1000kw. Today, stations operating at the 5000kw maximum limit are commonplace.) In the 1960s you had to be on VHF because that was the only place where receivers worked well and you could practically deliver enough power to compete.

(3) This would be news to us...my understanding is that WBBM will be moving to Channel 12 on June 12 and using Channel 11's retuned analog antenna when WTTW signs off channel 11 on June 11.

The listed antenna height & coordinates on WBBM's ch. 12 DTV permit are identical to those of WTTW's licensed analog facility on ch. 11.