| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
2006 end of NTSC broadcasts?
I remember reading something years ago about 2006 being the last year for
NTSC broadcasts in the US, and that if you wanted to continue to be able to use your old NTSC past 2006 sets you would have to buy a converter. Is this still true? Has that year been pushed back? |
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
I remember reading something years ago about 2006 being the last year for NTSC broadcasts in the US, and that if you wanted to continue to be able to use your old NTSC past 2006 sets you would have to buy a converter. Is this still true? Has that year been pushed back? Scheduled: Yes - 12/31/2006. Congress has NOT changed the deadline date. Will it happen: Don't know. There is also another condition: 85% market saturation of DTV capable households. Whether or not this will count CABLE TV (as the cable headends will have converted) I don't know (but think that it should). Not meeting the 85% threshold will automatically push back the date on a per-market basis. |
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
I remember reading something years ago about 2006 being the last year for NTSC broadcasts in the US, and that if you wanted to continue to be able to use your old NTSC past 2006 sets you would have to buy a converter. Is this still true? Has that year been pushed back? Scheduled: Yes - 12/31/2006. Congress has NOT changed the deadline date. Will it happen: Don't know. There is also another condition: 85% market saturation of DTV capable households. Whether or not this will count CABLE TV (as the cable headends will have converted) I don't know (but think that it should). Not meeting the 85% threshold will automatically push back the date on a per-market basis. |
Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier. -- MikeD-C05 |
Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier. -- MikeD-C05 |
MikeD-C05 wrote: Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. ... Try to buy a fifth of whiskey. ;-) (Or a quart, for that matter.) :-( |
MikeD-C05 wrote: Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. ... Try to buy a fifth of whiskey. ;-) (Or a quart, for that matter.) :-( |
My point is that we are not using the metric system officially for measurements or miles on the road etc. The government said they were going to make the U. S. use the metric system by the 1980's and we haven't ever switched to it for our official system. The same will hold true for the analog channels going to all digital by 2006. The government doesn't want to hear people bitchin all over the country when they switch off the analog channels. This is why I say they won't be switching off the analog channels till the next decade . By then the majority of tvs in use will be digital and the older tvs will be going out one by one. Then it will be easy to switch with only a few converter boxes needed for a few old timers who still have analog tvs. -- MikeD-C05 |
My point is that we are not using the metric system officially for measurements or miles on the road etc. The government said they were going to make the U. S. use the metric system by the 1980's and we haven't ever switched to it for our official system. The same will hold true for the analog channels going to all digital by 2006. The government doesn't want to hear people bitchin all over the country when they switch off the analog channels. This is why I say they won't be switching off the analog channels till the next decade . By then the majority of tvs in use will be digital and the older tvs will be going out one by one. Then it will be easy to switch with only a few converter boxes needed for a few old timers who still have analog tvs. -- MikeD-C05 |
"MikeD-C05" wrote in message ... Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier. Why is no one mentioning part 2 of the congressional mandate? That 85% of the TV's in use be capable of receiving the new digital broadcasts before the analog licenses would be cancelled. THIS is the limiting factor, not the date. The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006 is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while. |
"MikeD-C05" wrote in message ... Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier. Why is no one mentioning part 2 of the congressional mandate? That 85% of the TV's in use be capable of receiving the new digital broadcasts before the analog licenses would be cancelled. THIS is the limiting factor, not the date. The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006 is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while. |
"MikeD-C05" wrote in message ... Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier. HDTV's are still too expensive to totally replace analog TV's. Wait until they can sell a 30" HDTV for less than $300. I was looking at one recently. $800 is a bit more than I can afford right now. If my 27" analog set died today and I couldn't buy a new analog set, I'd probably have to go without a TV for a couple years. I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of new monitors. |
"MikeD-C05" wrote in message ... Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier. HDTV's are still too expensive to totally replace analog TV's. Wait until they can sell a 30" HDTV for less than $300. I was looking at one recently. $800 is a bit more than I can afford right now. If my 27" analog set died today and I couldn't buy a new analog set, I'd probably have to go without a TV for a couple years. I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of new monitors. |
hunkahunkaburninluv Wrote: I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of new monitors. There are plenty of ATSC tuner boxes with VGA outputs. But, they are still expensive, thus why I don't have one. -- Pepper |
hunkahunkaburninluv Wrote: I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of new monitors. There are plenty of ATSC tuner boxes with VGA outputs. But, they are still expensive, thus why I don't have one. -- Pepper |
"hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote:
"MikeD-C05" wrote in message ... Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier. HDTV's are still too expensive to totally replace analog TV's. Wait until they can sell a 30" HDTV for less than $300. I was looking at one recently. $800 is a bit more than I can afford right now. If my 27" analog set died today and I couldn't buy a new analog set, I'd probably have to go without a TV for a couple years. I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of new monitors. The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD. Chip -- -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ -------------------- Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB |
"hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote:
"MikeD-C05" wrote in message ... Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier. HDTV's are still too expensive to totally replace analog TV's. Wait until they can sell a 30" HDTV for less than $300. I was looking at one recently. $800 is a bit more than I can afford right now. If my 27" analog set died today and I couldn't buy a new analog set, I'd probably have to go without a TV for a couple years. I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of new monitors. The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD. Chip -- -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ -------------------- Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB |
wrote in message ... "hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote: "MikeD-C05" wrote in message ... Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier. HDTV's are still too expensive to totally replace analog TV's. Wait until they can sell a 30" HDTV for less than $300. I was looking at one recently. $800 is a bit more than I can afford right now. If my 27" analog set died today and I couldn't buy a new analog set, I'd probably have to go without a TV for a couple years. I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of new monitors. The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD. Chip How much would this add to the cost of a TV? I'd say do it if you can for less than $50. If not, wait. |
wrote in message ... "hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote: "MikeD-C05" wrote in message ... Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier. HDTV's are still too expensive to totally replace analog TV's. Wait until they can sell a 30" HDTV for less than $300. I was looking at one recently. $800 is a bit more than I can afford right now. If my 27" analog set died today and I couldn't buy a new analog set, I'd probably have to go without a TV for a couple years. I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of new monitors. The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD. Chip How much would this add to the cost of a TV? I'd say do it if you can for less than $50. If not, wait. |
Randy Sweeney wrote: The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006 is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while. Randy, Precisely! And as you apparently know, this change is under consideration. What I have seen suggested is that with this change in counting sets able to view a digital signal by either cable or sat it still likely would move the date of compliance out about two years. Jerry |
Randy Sweeney wrote: The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006 is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while. Randy, Precisely! And as you apparently know, this change is under consideration. What I have seen suggested is that with this change in counting sets able to view a digital signal by either cable or sat it still likely would move the date of compliance out about two years. Jerry |
"hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote (in part):
I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of new monitors. Better yet, more HD tuners should have VGA connectors. Mine does, and it works fine with my rather ancient Compaq V500 monitor. Not that I use it that way much, but it's nice to know I could. Del Mibbler |
"hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote (in part):
I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of new monitors. Better yet, more HD tuners should have VGA connectors. Mine does, and it works fine with my rather ancient Compaq V500 monitor. Not that I use it that way much, but it's nice to know I could. Del Mibbler |
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:44:35 -0400, Jsheldon wrote:
Randy Sweeney wrote: The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006 is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while. Randy, Precisely! And as you apparently know, this change is under consideration. What I have seen suggested is that with this change in counting sets able to view a digital signal by either cable or sat it still likely would move the date of compliance out about two years. Jerry Could you imagine any President allowing the FCC to shut down analog broadcasting in 2006? The president's party would go the way of the Whigs and the Federalists at the next election. The likely scenario is that they ban the sale of analog TVs in 2006 and then wait another 10 or 15 years before they shut off analog broadcasts. You can buy a decent computer for $300 now so it's certainly possible to build a digital TV for the same price which makes the banning of analog receivers doable. In 15 years most of the current stock of TVs will have been replaced with digital TVs so it will be possible for President Jenna Bush to allow the FCC to finally shut down analog broadcasting. By then we'll all be installing holosuites anyway. |
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:44:35 -0400, Jsheldon wrote:
Randy Sweeney wrote: The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006 is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while. Randy, Precisely! And as you apparently know, this change is under consideration. What I have seen suggested is that with this change in counting sets able to view a digital signal by either cable or sat it still likely would move the date of compliance out about two years. Jerry Could you imagine any President allowing the FCC to shut down analog broadcasting in 2006? The president's party would go the way of the Whigs and the Federalists at the next election. The likely scenario is that they ban the sale of analog TVs in 2006 and then wait another 10 or 15 years before they shut off analog broadcasts. You can buy a decent computer for $300 now so it's certainly possible to build a digital TV for the same price which makes the banning of analog receivers doable. In 15 years most of the current stock of TVs will have been replaced with digital TVs so it will be possible for President Jenna Bush to allow the FCC to finally shut down analog broadcasting. By then we'll all be installing holosuites anyway. |
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:47:54 -0400, MikeD-C05
wrote: Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. That's what I'm screamin. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. I'm thinking the advertisers will have a profound effect on this switchover from analog to digital. My prediction is the providers will be fighting for new customers by offering boxes for free to those willing to sign term contracts, much like they do now with their HD boxes. The providers have little choice... it is they who will bear the cost of the converter boxes in the beginning, then we who will pay for it in our monthly fees in the end. Those of us with analog TV's will just have to switch to new providers to get the converter boxes for "free - for x-amount of months term committment" and those of us with fully-integrated tv's with the card slot will call the remaining shots..... all just my own personal opinion. |
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:47:54 -0400, MikeD-C05
wrote: Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the 1980's. You see that went no where. That's what I'm screamin. I don't see the analog being turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people who still have analog tvs. I'm thinking the advertisers will have a profound effect on this switchover from analog to digital. My prediction is the providers will be fighting for new customers by offering boxes for free to those willing to sign term contracts, much like they do now with their HD boxes. The providers have little choice... it is they who will bear the cost of the converter boxes in the beginning, then we who will pay for it in our monthly fees in the end. Those of us with analog TV's will just have to switch to new providers to get the converter boxes for "free - for x-amount of months term committment" and those of us with fully-integrated tv's with the card slot will call the remaining shots..... all just my own personal opinion. |
wrote in message
... "hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote: The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD. The tuners do have to be able to receive HD signals (since nearly all OTA digital signals ARE HD), though the set doesn't necessarily need to display the resulting picture in HD. |
wrote in message
... "hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote: The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD. The tuners do have to be able to receive HD signals (since nearly all OTA digital signals ARE HD), though the set doesn't necessarily need to display the resulting picture in HD. |
wrote in message
... "hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote: The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD. The tuners do have to be able to receive HD signals (since nearly all OTA digital signals ARE HD), though the set doesn't necessarily need to display the resulting picture in HD. |
wrote in message
... "hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote: The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD. The tuners do have to be able to receive HD signals (since nearly all OTA digital signals ARE HD), though the set doesn't necessarily need to display the resulting picture in HD. |
If I understand this correctly, when a local broadcast station sends its
signal out over the air in digital (ATSC) format, then by definition 85% of the viewing area can receive the digital signal. Therefore, the analog (ATSC) signal can (and will) be discontinued. The FCC is not waiting until 85% of the viewers convert to digital boxes or HD TVs, they are waiting till the stations convert to digital broadcasting. You do not have to have an HD TV, rather any TV with a digital converter box will work. Even with no HD TV, you will enjoy a much clearer picture with the digital signal rather than analog. Do I have this wrong? "Matthew Vaughan" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote: The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD. The tuners do have to be able to receive HD signals (since nearly all OTA digital signals ARE HD), though the set doesn't necessarily need to display the resulting picture in HD. |
If I understand this correctly, when a local broadcast station sends its
signal out over the air in digital (ATSC) format, then by definition 85% of the viewing area can receive the digital signal. Therefore, the analog (ATSC) signal can (and will) be discontinued. The FCC is not waiting until 85% of the viewers convert to digital boxes or HD TVs, they are waiting till the stations convert to digital broadcasting. You do not have to have an HD TV, rather any TV with a digital converter box will work. Even with no HD TV, you will enjoy a much clearer picture with the digital signal rather than analog. Do I have this wrong? "Matthew Vaughan" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote: The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD. The tuners do have to be able to receive HD signals (since nearly all OTA digital signals ARE HD), though the set doesn't necessarily need to display the resulting picture in HD. |
"Glenn" wrote in message
news:[email protected] If I understand this correctly, when a local broadcast station sends its signal out over the air in digital (ATSC) format, then by definition 85% of the viewing area can receive the digital signal. Therefore, the analog (ATSC) signal can (and will) be discontinued. The FCC is not waiting until 85% of the viewers convert to digital boxes or HD TVs, they are waiting till the stations convert to digital broadcasting. You do not have to have an HD TV, rather any TV with a digital converter box will work. Even with no HD TV, you will enjoy a much clearer picture with the digital signal rather than analog. Do I have this wrong? The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast range compared to analog. I live in the Kansas City area and some of the stations are not able to reach all of the way to the edge of the metro area. That excludes people in outlying areas that currently have no problem receiving the analog signal with an outside antenna. What is the FCC's position on the fact that the broadcast range of so many stations will be drastically reduced? HD won't be clearer if you can't receive it but you can receive the analog signal. |
"Glenn" wrote in message
news:[email protected] If I understand this correctly, when a local broadcast station sends its signal out over the air in digital (ATSC) format, then by definition 85% of the viewing area can receive the digital signal. Therefore, the analog (ATSC) signal can (and will) be discontinued. The FCC is not waiting until 85% of the viewers convert to digital boxes or HD TVs, they are waiting till the stations convert to digital broadcasting. You do not have to have an HD TV, rather any TV with a digital converter box will work. Even with no HD TV, you will enjoy a much clearer picture with the digital signal rather than analog. Do I have this wrong? The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast range compared to analog. I live in the Kansas City area and some of the stations are not able to reach all of the way to the edge of the metro area. That excludes people in outlying areas that currently have no problem receiving the analog signal with an outside antenna. What is the FCC's position on the fact that the broadcast range of so many stations will be drastically reduced? HD won't be clearer if you can't receive it but you can receive the analog signal. |
In article . net,
"Mark Jones" wrote: The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast range compared to analog. I live in the Kansas City area and some of the stations are not able to reach all of the way to the edge of the metro area. That excludes people in outlying areas that currently have no problem receiving the analog signal with an outside antenna. That would probably have something to do with most stations (everywhere in the US) not yet broadcasting at full power. Many are apparently broadcasting on temporary licenses allowing them to operate at 5%-25% of their maximum licensed power. This is as an exemption to a full power license that they already have. The Fox station here in Austin is broadcasting at 800 watts. That's 800 watts as in eight light bulbs, compared to full ATSC UHF transmitter power of up to one MILLION watts. (Analog NTSC apparently goes to 5 million watts.) I'm less than 15 miles away, and I can barely get the tiniest blip out of it with an outside antenna aimed in exactly the right direction. I don't have any problem with CBS and ABC here broadcasting at 35.4KW and 62.5KW instead of 1000KW, though the antenna does have to be pointed in the right direction. By the end of 2006, this should not be a problem. But that's still over two years away. Here's what the KC MO area looks like: actual / maximum 4 WDAF FOX - 34 1.1KW / 1000KW 5 KCTV CBS - 24 225KW / 820KW 6 KMOS PBS - 15 322KW 9 KMBC ABC - 7 85KW 19 KCPT PBS - 18 48KW / 55KW 29 KCWE UPN - 31 525KW / 1000KW 41 KSHB NBC - 42 450KW 50 KPXE PAX - 51 1000KW 62 KSMO WB - 47 9KW / 1000KW I'm sure you'll find a correlation between actual transmitter strength and reception suckage. It doesn't look too bad, except for WB and FOX. Note that KMBC shouldn't suck, because VHF digital stations only need roughtly a tenth the power of UHF stations. 40KW will provide a very nice signal on channel 13. Here's the URL which brings up the license info. Replace Kxxx with the station ID. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=Kxxx |
In article . net,
"Mark Jones" wrote: The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast range compared to analog. I live in the Kansas City area and some of the stations are not able to reach all of the way to the edge of the metro area. That excludes people in outlying areas that currently have no problem receiving the analog signal with an outside antenna. That would probably have something to do with most stations (everywhere in the US) not yet broadcasting at full power. Many are apparently broadcasting on temporary licenses allowing them to operate at 5%-25% of their maximum licensed power. This is as an exemption to a full power license that they already have. The Fox station here in Austin is broadcasting at 800 watts. That's 800 watts as in eight light bulbs, compared to full ATSC UHF transmitter power of up to one MILLION watts. (Analog NTSC apparently goes to 5 million watts.) I'm less than 15 miles away, and I can barely get the tiniest blip out of it with an outside antenna aimed in exactly the right direction. I don't have any problem with CBS and ABC here broadcasting at 35.4KW and 62.5KW instead of 1000KW, though the antenna does have to be pointed in the right direction. By the end of 2006, this should not be a problem. But that's still over two years away. Here's what the KC MO area looks like: actual / maximum 4 WDAF FOX - 34 1.1KW / 1000KW 5 KCTV CBS - 24 225KW / 820KW 6 KMOS PBS - 15 322KW 9 KMBC ABC - 7 85KW 19 KCPT PBS - 18 48KW / 55KW 29 KCWE UPN - 31 525KW / 1000KW 41 KSHB NBC - 42 450KW 50 KPXE PAX - 51 1000KW 62 KSMO WB - 47 9KW / 1000KW I'm sure you'll find a correlation between actual transmitter strength and reception suckage. It doesn't look too bad, except for WB and FOX. Note that KMBC shouldn't suck, because VHF digital stations only need roughtly a tenth the power of UHF stations. 40KW will provide a very nice signal on channel 13. Here's the URL which brings up the license info. Replace Kxxx with the station ID. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=Kxxx |
|
|
"Bruce Tomlin" wrote in message
... Here's what the KC MO area looks like: actual / maximum 4 WDAF FOX - 34 1.1KW / 1000KW 5 KCTV CBS - 24 225KW / 820KW 6 KMOS PBS - 15 322KW 9 KMBC ABC - 7 85KW 19 KCPT PBS - 18 48KW / 55KW 29 KCWE UPN - 31 525KW / 1000KW 41 KSHB NBC - 42 450KW 50 KPXE PAX - 51 1000KW 62 KSMO WB - 47 9KW / 1000KW I'm sure you'll find a correlation between actual transmitter strength and reception suckage. It doesn't look too bad, except for WB and FOX. Note that KMBC shouldn't suck, because VHF digital stations only need roughtly a tenth the power of UHF stations. 40KW will provide a very nice signal on channel 13. That explains why some of the stations aren't being received. I was receiving WB and then it went away. They must have been running a test at higher power when I was able to receive enough signal. WB and FOX are the ones that I can't receive. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:23 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com