2006 end of NTSC broadcasts?

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

In article . net,
says...
"Glenn" wrote in message
The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast
range compared to analog.

In fact, for a given transmitter power + antenna gain, the range of
DTV is substantially greater than that of analog. For this reason,
the FCC is generally limiting DTV to about 15% of the ERP (effective
radiated power) of an analog station operating on the same frequency.

As a previous responder indicated, what you're seeing is due to the
fact that many broadcasters are only running tiny amounts of power on
the digital signals.

/Chris, AA6SQ

In article . net,
says...
"Glenn" wrote in message
The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast
range compared to analog.

In fact, for a given transmitter power + antenna gain, the range of
DTV is substantially greater than that of analog. For this reason,
the FCC is generally limiting DTV to about 15% of the ERP (effective
radiated power) of an analog station operating on the same frequency.

As a previous responder indicated, what you're seeing is due to the
fact that many broadcasters are only running tiny amounts of power on
the digital signals.

/Chris, AA6SQ

"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.