Posted on 05/27/2008 9:44:33 PM PDT by primeval patriot
With preparations for the DTV (Digital Television) cutover in the U.S. gaining momentum, many people have already questioned the government's preparedness. Now it appears that at least one of the preparations that has been made is even in question. The FCC may be greatly overestimating the effective range of DTV broadcasts. If that's true there may be millions of Americans who are unable to receive the same selection of channels they're currently getting via analog broadcast.
The issue is signal degradation. One major advantage of DTV is that the quality is relatively even for everyone who recieves a particular broadcast. The reason for this is that, unlike analog broadcasts, when a digital signal degrades to the point where analog image or sound quality would suffer it simply drops out completely. Rather than getting a lower quality picture you get none at all.
While FCC officials believe most viewers will be able to receive the same channels digitally that they do now, a study from a market research firm in Los Angeles called Centris casts doubt on those claims. According to the Centris study, which claims to be based on a more detailed model than the federal government has been using, the government figures are overly optimistic. Centris claims that nearly 6 million households will need outdoor antennas to keep receiving the same selection of channels they're currently getting.
If that weren't bad enough, according to the consultant hired to replace the antennas on the Empire State Building real world signal measurements paint an even more pessimistic picture. A study of the first HDTV station by Oded Bendov found that digital signals did not travel as far as either model had predicted. “For the people with rabbit-ear antennas, I would say at least 50 percent won’t get the channels they were getting,” Dr. Bendov said. “I would say a lot of people are going to be very unhappy.”
With analog signals scheduled to be shut off a year from now, it appears that U.S. consumers may get to pay the price for the FCC's lack of real planning.
All the press coverage seems to be about how to get a converter or how folks are going to be left behind because they're too poor and stupid to plug coax into a box.
Where I'm at, about 100 miles East of Dallas, I can receive most of the Dallas analog stations. Sometimes I can pick up Shreveport and Waco at night.
When I use the digital converter - I get spotty reception from only one station about twenty miles away in Tyler. Its analog equivalent is clear as a bell.
Another issue is inclement weather. Whenever there's any precipitation the digital signal is FUBAR.
If the present signal strength is any indication, there's going to be a serious re-adjustment for folks used to analog broadcasting - and they're not going to be happy. Given what I've seen so far it looks like a disaster waiting to happen. Can't wait to watch the FCC explain themselves.
Disclaimer: I don't watch much television at all - but I do need it for local weather and news.
I’ve found that digital signals are VERY sensitive to antenna position. I have my antenna on a motor and if you aren’t within a couple degrees of the proper orientation, the signal drops out totally. In my area I can get only 3 digital stations reliably, even though there are 13 stations broadcasting both analog and digital. On days with good weather, I can maybe pick up another 3 with some futzing with the antenna.
This whole thing annoys me.
Where I live, (western MA/central Berkshires) I can get one channel, CBS, from Hartford, CT, 60 miles from here. I subscribe to DirecTV, and because of silly market crap, I have to ask local affiliate *permission* to get “local” networks via DTV.. (local being NYC).
And the thing is that the elevation, line-of-sight stuff, whatever.. I have a feeling the new digital signal will be a wash too. (And yeah, bad weather kills it.)
The Albany ABC doesn’t come in here, nor does Fox or NBC. ABC and Fox both gave me waivers, but NBC in Albany won’t. I’ve called, I’ve written, they won’t even return my calls.
DirecTV says I won’t have to do a thing after the change because my signal’s been digital all along, but I have had the feeling the digital broadcasts will be a wash here too.
Can’t get cable service in here. (I am on a satellite internet that sucks too, That’s a completely different rant!)
I ‘spose the trade-off is being able to live up here in the woods with no traffic, no neighbors 10 feet away, and no obnoxious subwoofers banging away outside at 2am. The occasional bear steals the garbage can.
But I guess my point is, if they’re gonna make this a mandatory sweep, then make it available to everyone, or give ‘em a waiver, or access so we can pay for it another way.
/rant. (whew)
Good post and true. Some fringe stations were staticy but watchable. With digital, they are gone.
Digital is also very sensitive to the connectors used. A corroded or loose connector is fatal for some digital at some frequencies.
Broadcast signal strength is only of concern to the minority of viewers who don’t have cable/satellite service. And getting a better antenna will usually solve the problem.
Stinkin GOV'T can't find it's @ss with both hands
It however is VERY good at finding and draining OUR wallets!
My experience is different. I get top-of-the-scale signal strength from digital transmitters 20 miles away. I get kind of lousy reception (could lock on or not) from a station 78 miles away, but it is not line-of-site and is below an obscuring hill. The only time I lose the 20 mile stations is sometimes when my antenna gets knocked off the stand, but usually most of the stations still work. Weather has never been a factor with the 20 mile stations.
The first time I plugged in my converter I couldn't believe it. One digital station versus about ten analog.
And I have a 30 foot outdoor antenna - but it's older with no motor and it could probably stand to have all the coax replaced.
The FCC and broadcasters have to my knowledge said nothing other than "buy a converter" and everything will be fine.
If a forty-dollar converter is a problem for some, can you all imagine the caterwauling when it's suggested they need to erect a mast with a motorized antenna, purchase a signal booster, oh and get some high quality coax too?
Yep! Me too. Television reception and internet access are part of the trade-off for peace and quiet.
No, many of us use broadcast for the HD quality, not because we don't have a subscription service (I do). In my area most of the broadcast stations have maintained high HD quality.
The silly thing here is this: Any EE who knows something about comm systems and isn’t in the pocket of the broadcast companies and the FCC knew this was going to be the case. The promises from the TV industry and FCC just didn’t add up in comm system terms.
But there are huge amounts of money circling this situation like buzzards over a herd of dead cattle: those UHF channels that will eventually be “re-allocated” are going to be sold off to the highest bidder(s) and as it stands now, most any available frequencies above 500Mc are going for big, big bucks in spectrum auctions. The FCC can almost smell that money from here, and so they’re not going to be particularly attentive to complaints from consumers as a result.
This is sort of like broadband over power lines (BPL). People who know a thing or two about power and comm systems could see that it wasn’t going to meet the wild promises being made. Didn’t stop the FCC from shoving it through.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200804/06-1343-1112979.pdf
My guess is it will be suggested that those with reception problems can just pay for satellite or cable access if they don't like it. There's money to be made on that end too.
I've got a good high speed internet service that suits me for $16.95 (total) a month.
I currently receive 5 analog broadcast channels on my rabbit ears and I'm not paying an additional $40 or more (plus the infernal fees and taxes) for basic cable.
I've got two of those stupid $40 gov't cards and they expire in July. I WILL NOT pay more than $40 for a 'converter box' so I may or may not 'upgrade'.
This whole thing is a crock of sh*t.
“Digital is also very sensitive to the connectors used.”
Yep. You’re correct. Also putting in a splitter degrades the signal for the fringe stations even though it has no noticable effect on the analog signal.
Exactly.
And in the end, the frequencies that the FCC was to “hold and manage in trust for the public” will be sold off to the highest bidder, and you will be able to access this previously public resources only by purchasing a product that has purchased the rights to those frequencies.
This is another case where the “free market” purists have completely fallen down in policy analysis. The BPL issue is yet another.
And.... digital, analog, antennas, coax, converters, etc are a foreign language to many people. All hell is going to break loose when grandma stops receiving the Price is Right next February.
I know I have already had fun trying to get my mother to know how to use the converter box’s remote for some functions and the TV remote for other functions.
But I do like to know when bad weather is coming or other local emergencies.
Wrong. I have the largest antenna I can put up and it does fantastic pulling in analog stations from over a hundred miles away, but it can barely pick up the digital signal from stations 20 miles away. The point is that there is no antenna upgrade that is going to give you signals as strong as analog is right now.
Har! You've nailed it.
From what I've seen that's exactly what's going to happen unless the broadcasters and FCC start to be more forthcoming with the limitations and technical requirements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.