Death of OTA Broadcasting

"Joe Moore" wrote in message
...
Wes Newell wrote:

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 12:21:45 -0500, me wrote:

"Jim L" wrote:

We have put up 30+ foot high gain hdtv
antennas and gone to extreme lengths to get the new OTA digital
broadcasts
only to find that a little wind in the trees and it is gone. We wait
for
winter for the trees to shed so we can get better reception. We switch
to
the NTSC channels

Are OTA digital channels THAT picky abt signal?

No. I don't know what his problem is.

I believe that the UHF digital channels are more picky than the VHF
analog chanels they are temporarily replacing in most cases. And that
is the comparison most folks are making.

The fact that an analog picture at the same power and same UHF
frequency would look crappy doesn't change the fact that the current
actual analog VHF version of a particular channel looks pretty good
while the digital version is breaking up. Things should improve when
they go back to VHF.

They aren't going back to VHF below 187 Mhz. The lower ones are being given
up permanently from what I've read.

Jim


But the current situation is not helping public
confidence in digital OTA.

You believe that analog OTA signals are much more
robust in that they are more reliable as far as
reception?

Analog TV does have the advantage (if you can call it that) that even if
the signal is weak, you will get something. If it's that bad, it's
probably not watchable anyway because of snow, herring bone, whatever.

I guess it depends on what is meant by "watchable".

Continuity is more important to information transfer than clarity of
the individual elements as long as the necessary elements are
distinguishable.

It's like the difference between reading a book with faded print but
legible words and reading a book with missing words, sentences, or
paragraphs at random intervals. In the first case, you can follow the
story. In the second case, you can't.

A fuzzy picture is only distracting at the beginning before you get
into the actual content you are watching. But random periods of
silence and frozen picture are downright disruptive and extremely
frustrating each time they occur.





joemooreaterolsdotcom

"Bob Miller" wrote

Tell your Congressperson.


I'd bet anything they're all well-aware of bob's pathetic OCD-driven jihad
and refuse to listen to him.

Jim L wrote:
"Joe Moore" wrote in message
...

Wes Newell wrote:

I believe that the UHF digital channels are more picky than the VHF
analog chanels they are temporarily replacing in most cases. And that
is the comparison most folks are making.

The fact that an analog picture at the same power and same UHF
frequency would look crappy doesn't change the fact that the current
actual analog VHF version of a particular channel looks pretty good
while the digital version is breaking up. Things should improve when
they go back to VHF.


They aren't going back to VHF below 187 Mhz. The lower ones are being given
up permanently from what I've read.

Jim

Incorrect. The UHF channels 52 to 69 are being taken away from TV
broadcasting. VHF 2 to 13 and UHF 14 to 51 will remain. However, not
many TV stations are selecting the low VHF channels 2 to 6 (55 to 83
MHz) for digital broadcast after the analog shutdown. The stations that
have are mostly rural stations that believe that the range of low VHF
outweigh potential interference problems. There is no announced plan or
even serious study by the FCC that I have heard of to take away low VHF
channel slots. However if few stations are using low VHF channels after
all the low power stations and repeaters have also been converted to
digital, one can foresee several of the low VHF channels being shut off
and turned over to other purposes.

You have complained that your reception is badly affected by trees
which is understandable if all your digital stations are UHF, especially
in the upper UHF channels. Are all your stations at "full" power on the
digital channels? What is your antenna and setup? There are huge
differences in performance between UHF antennas. If I were at long
range, all the stations were in the same direction & in UHF or upper
VHF, and I had the space to mount it, I would get the Channel Master
4228 8 Bay bowtie. This is the UHF antenna of choice of many for
challenging conditions. If you have already tried it, then you are in a
difficult spot for OTA reception.

Alan F

In article ,
Bob Miller wrote:

Neither is true. What is true is that because of the lack of problems
with OTA COFDM reception more people are buying OTA receivers than in
the US. Retailers are selling receivers, promoting them, broadcasters
are promoting OTA and OTA is competing with cable and satellite.

Right. It can't be because OTA receivers are more expensive in the US
because they have to receive High Definition content, and therefore need
more memory and processing power. No siree it can't be. And it can't
be because retailers prefer to stock satellite receivers, from which
they receive a cut of the sign-up fees. Has to be the modulation.
Definitely. Hey Rain Man, when's Judge Wapner on?

Wes Newell wrote in
news:[email protected]:

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:08:00 +0000, Jim L wrote:

Being an OTA fan for 50+ years, I am sad to say that I will be forced
into cable in 2009. I'm sure that there are thousands like me in the
Pacific Northwest that are in the same boat. We have put up 30+ foot
high gain hdtv antennas and gone to extreme lengths to get the new
OTA digital broadcasts only to find that a little wind in the trees
and it is gone. We wait for winter for the trees to shed so we can
get better reception. We switch to the NTSC channels for relief,
knowing that those will be going away in a couple of years. We are
resolved to the fact that a high percentage of folks will be forced
onto cable or satelite in 2009 and we are a part of those. Who won?
The cable companies. Maybe we will put our $60 a month into DVD's or
Blue Ray..........(:}

I agree with you. I looked at cable ND dIRECT TV . i CAN NOT IMAGINE HVING
TO LEASE A RECEIVER.

AlanF wrote:
Jim L wrote:
"Joe Moore" wrote in message
...

Wes Newell wrote:

I believe that the UHF digital channels are more picky than the VHF
analog chanels they are temporarily replacing in most cases. And that
is the comparison most folks are making.

The fact that an analog picture at the same power and same UHF
frequency would look crappy doesn't change the fact that the current
actual analog VHF version of a particular channel looks pretty good
while the digital version is breaking up. Things should improve when
they go back to VHF.


They aren't going back to VHF below 187 Mhz. The lower ones are being
given up permanently from what I've read.

Jim

Incorrect. The UHF channels 52 to 69 are being taken away from TV
broadcasting. VHF 2 to 13 and UHF 14 to 51 will remain. However, not
many TV stations are selecting the low VHF channels 2 to 6 (55 to 83
MHz) for digital broadcast after the analog shutdown. The stations that
have are mostly rural stations that believe that the range of low VHF
outweigh potential interference problems. There is no announced plan or
even serious study by the FCC that I have heard of to take away low VHF
channel slots. However if few stations are using low VHF channels after
all the low power stations and repeaters have also been converted to
digital, one can foresee several of the low VHF channels being shut off
and turned over to other purposes.

You have complained that your reception is badly affected by trees
which is understandable if all your digital stations are UHF, especially
in the upper UHF channels. Are all your stations at "full" power on the
digital channels? What is your antenna and setup? There are huge
differences in performance between UHF antennas. If I were at long
range, all the stations were in the same direction & in UHF or upper
VHF, and I had the space to mount it, I would get the Channel Master
4228 8 Bay bowtie. This is the UHF antenna of choice of many for
challenging conditions. If you have already tried it, then you are in a
difficult spot for OTA reception.

Alan F

Don't blame OTA for this.

Just difficult for OTA reception using an inadequate modulation. Would
work fine with any of the COFDM based modulations, DVB-T/H, DMB-T/H or
ISDB-T.

Reception problems in the US are political in nature.

Bob Miller

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 05:01:08 +0000, Jim L wrote:

OK......I used the industries term for the antenna.....lets not split hairs.
For your sake, I will call it just a UHF Antenna. 4 Bay being the latest
tried.

A UHF antenna won't pick up all digital stations. Only those that
broadcast over the UHF band. So you may need a vhf antenna too. Also
an 8 bay UHF antenna might work better. That's what I use.

Now....Here is what is happening here in Seattle. I don't know about
your area.

I've heard from many people in the Seattle area that doesn't have a
problem.

As for your tree..........I have a virtual forest between me and Seattle
and I am not even in the country. I sit on a hill and if you know the
hills in the suburbs of Seattle, the trees are like weeds. They form
walls of foltage 100'+ high. I am not unusual in this area.....Everyone
I know of is dealing with tree issues. I don't even have clearance for
satelite....and the trees are not even on my property.

Sounds like you need to move.:-)

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:08:06 -0400, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

In article [email protected],
Wes Newell wrote:

Screw analog. It sucks. I wish they'd dump it today.

Why?

To force everyone, including the broadcasters and manufacturers to the new
standard. Yeah, I want a cheap small TV (about 20") with an ATSC tuner in
it.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

Bruce Tomlin wrote:
In article ,
Bob Miller wrote:

Neither is true. What is true is that because of the lack of problems
with OTA COFDM reception more people are buying OTA receivers than in
the US. Retailers are selling receivers, promoting them, broadcasters
are promoting OTA and OTA is competing with cable and satellite.

Right. It can't be because OTA receivers are more expensive in the US
because they have to receive High Definition content, and therefore need
more memory and processing power. No siree it can't be. And it can't
be because retailers prefer to stock satellite receivers, from which
they receive a cut of the sign-up fees. Has to be the modulation.
Definitely. Hey Rain Man, when's Judge Wapner on?

Well in Japan which only started broadcasting HDTV OTA a couple of years
ago and where OTA DTV ISDB-T (COFDM based) modulation is used and where
Mark will tell you only selected areas can receive limited content they
are selling EXPENSIVE HDTV sets with integrated OTA COFDM receivers at
an incredible rate.

Also in Japan since they have a limited market, ISDB-T has only been
adopted by Japan and more recently Brazil, they have more expensive
receivers.

And in Japan the customer has a choice. They can chose to buy an
integrated HDTV or one without an OTA receiver. A high percentage of
them chose an integrated set WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT MANDATE and with
little coverage and with little content.

While in the US with a lot of content, total coverage and therefore lots
of incentive our Government has decided because of the lack of interest
by the broadcasters, the public, manufacturers and retailers that they
had to have a MANDATE.

Even with the mandate there is still little knowledge of or interest in
OTA DTV in the US.

The first market that is big enough where COFDM based HD receivers will
be sold using the world standard OTA modulation, DVB-T/H, will be
France. This will be the first time a significant sized market will see
the sale of HD COFDM receivers using the world standard DVB-T. Both
Japan and Australia are limited. Australia by population size, channel
size and a few other peculiarities. Japan just because it is a one
country market for the modulation, Brazil is a not factor so far. France
on the other hand is one of many DVB-T/H countries though the first
using it for HD. I expect to see low priced HD receivers there.

US 8-VSB receivers are high priced because this modulation requires a
lot of silicone to operate, a lot of continuing work to fix and a market
that is small. The manufacturers have not had much faith in 8-VSB and
retailers have been burned many times with bad receivers that are
returned and sold as open box specials.

Broadcasters in the meantime concentrate their money on Congress and
must carry of multicast content.

Expect to see a lot of multicasting once this is resolved.

Bob Miller

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:07:37 -0400, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

In article [email protected],
Wes Newell wrote:

Analog TV does have the advantage (if you can call it that) that even if
the signal is weak, you will get something. If it's that bad, it's
probably not watchable anyway because of snow, herring bone, whatever.
With didgital, you don't have that problem.

You danced around saying the REAL issue. "With digital, you don't have
that problem." WHAT problem? You mean, you don't have the choice of
watching that "something" with snow, herringbone, whatever--because with
digital, it just AIN'T THERE. Period.

At my house, all digital stations come in crystal clear. None of the
analog stations do and a few are so bad that they are unwatchable because
of all the interference.

You seem to be saying that it's a "problem" to have a picture with
analog artifacts, and that digital avoids the problem by simply not
giving you the picture at all!

What I'm saying is that the digital signal is not subject to the same
common interferences you get with analog.

Giving me some picture isn't the problem. The real problem is not
giving me any picture at all, just dropping it out to a blank screen.

With the analog pictures I get on some channels here they might as well be
blamk. You can't make anything out watching them. 45 miles from the towers
and huge power lines not far away that really screws up the lower vhf
channels but doesn't affect the digital channels. It may be different for
others, but I don't watch others TV's.:-)

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm