End of Analog TV in the US: Were You Affected?

[Moonbear]

My old antenna would have been quite sufficient to receive the local digital stations from the city that I'm "supposed" to be able to get them from, the city whose analog stations I'd been watching for many years. If I had just wanted to continue receiving those stations, I wouldn't have upgraded my antenna.

It doesn't sound like that's the case everywhere. From the articles I was located after reading your post, it seems like there are a lot of people who lost stations. It may depend on how powerful a broadcasting area your local station has and what's between you and them. For example, my "local" stations are supposed to be further south in the state. I never got signal from them even before the switch, because the mountains in the middle limit my reception. Instead, I got signal only from the Pittsburgh stations.

Still, this seems like quite a SNAFU that they didn't bother advertising to people that it was going to take more than plugging in a converter box to continue getting the channels you're used to getting. I think people expected to keep getting what they've been getting if they went to the trouble of getting a converter box. This is the first time I'm hearing that needing to get a new antenna might be part of the upgrade expenses. People who thought they had done what they needed to do, and bought their converters are still finding themselves losing stations when they could have planned ahead instead of being part of the mad rush to clean antennas off store shelves this weekend.

 

[JaredJames]

In the UK, standard tv is only 4-5 channels. With digital all we need is a set top box and we get something like 48+ channels. Definitely worth it for us.

 

[Borek]

It comes with living in the boonies. Don't like it, don't live in the boonies.

That's harsh, and a rather ignorant statement.

You seem to be forgetting whom do you quote.

 

[Astronuc]

The poor planning included the failure to take terrain into account and the failure to actually test relative signal strength in the normal broadcasting area before making the switch-over. The bands that DTV is carried on are far more directional than the conventional broadcast frequencies and if you don't have a good line-of-sight to the transmitting antenna, you get no signal. Because of terrain variations, I can get signals from a couple of stations about 90 miles away, but not from the stations in Bangor, only about 40 miles distant.

Most of the people that I have spoken to in this area can get no digital TV signal at all, while a few with very tall masts and $$$$ antennas can get one or two stations. The fellow who owned this house previously had a brother who was in the TV antenna installation business so when we bought this place, it came with probably the highest-quality UHF/VHF antenna available. My niece and her husband have a UHF/VHF antenna, but have lost all signal. They considered buying a better antenna, but there is no guarantee that they can get a signal even once that is installed, and Radio Shack won't take back an antenna once it has been mounted, so that would be an expensive gamble.

Digital broadcast signals degrade with distance and a limited by the terrain. When I was visiting turbo, there were areas where my cell phone could not get a signal, so broadcast DTV is definitely going to be limited.

I would think that local TV stations should remain analog. I can understand the desire/motivation of some in government and business to take the bandwidth and sell it to wireless providers like Verizon.

For the past decade we have been the leading advocate for advanced over-the-air digital television in the United States.

http://www.mstv.org/aboutus.html - these guys think it's a great idea.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In the UK, standard tv is only 4-5 channels. With digital all we need is a set top box and we get something like 48+ channels. Definitely worth it for us.

And you still use direct current too. Silly people. ;-p

 

[Moonbear]

Digital broadcast signals degrade with distance and a limited by the terrain. When I was visiting turbo, there were areas where my cell phone could not get a signal, so broadcast DTV is definitely going to be limited.

I would think that local TV stations should remain analog. I can understand the desire/motivation of some in government and business to take the bandwidth and sell it to wireless providers like Verizon.

Indeed, I traveled through areas of this state last month, and for two of the three days I was on the road, I didn't have cell phone reception. Not spotty reception, not dropped calls type reception, NO reception, as in signal not found. Now, for some of those areas, I don't know what their TV arrangement is, since they don't have cell phones because there are no cell towers allowed in the radio free zone around the NRAO, so they also might not have TV stations broadcasting into the area either. But in a lot of areas, it simply has to do with terrain. One of the reasons the NRAO is located where it is is because of the mountains there that block radio interference from nearby communities...the more something requires line of sight transmission, the less likely it is to work in mountainous terrain...and that need not have anything to do with how rural an area is either.

 

[JaredJames]

And you still use direct current too. Silly people. ;-p

I hope there was sarcasm there.

Anyhow, it's all down to the size of the country at the end of the day. We only have one time zone you have three which immediately means you have to deal with that issue. You have local and national tv stations, we don't we just have national. Well unless you include the whole regional rubbish (bbc england, bbc wales, bbc scotland, itv wales etc.). These are not alternate channels but during certain times of the day they broadcast different programmes to different parts of the UK by region. Like the news is first national then by region. But it happens on the same channel and people in wales can't watch the news for scotland and so on. The digital switch will give access to all these as separate channels. So to me it's a good thing.

Besides, our 240V setup is safer and more efficient than your 110V.

 

[jtbell]

From the articles I was located after reading your post, it seems like there are a lot of people who lost stations. It may depend on how powerful a broadcasting area your local station has and what's between you and them. For example, my "local" stations are supposed to be further south in the state. I never got signal from them even before the switch, because the mountains in the middle limit my reception. Instead, I got signal only from the Pittsburgh stations.

Another factor is that many people were happy with what some people (like me) would call really crappy reception on their analog stations. Weak analog signals still give you something, even with a "snowy" picture and crackly sound, but weak digital signals below a certain point give you nothing at all. People call this the "cliff effect." This is one reason why many people need to upgrade their antennas.

My wife is like this. Before we got married, she was happy with a small portable TV with rabbit ears that could pick up three of the stations from our "main" city, with a picture that could charitably be described as "recognizable." Here, she's been using a small TV in the breakfast area to watch (actually mainly listen to) the morning news while getting ready for work. It could pick up exactly one channel with its built-in antenna. Last week I finally found a "sweet spot" for a small external antenna that allowed a converter box to pick up exactly one station. It's a different station from the original one, so now she watches ABC's "Good Morning America" instead of the CBS "Early Show", but that's all right with her.

Still, this seems like quite a SNAFU that they didn't bother advertising to people that it was going to take more than plugging in a converter box to continue getting the channels you're used to getting.

I agree with that. I also think that in general, the individual stations should have been much more active a long time ago in promoting the digital channels that they've been operating for years alongside the analog ones. Those channels were pretty much a secret to the general public before the DTV transition publicity campaign really started to ramp up around March of last year. The people who knew about them were mostly geeks like me. I think even during the past year, a lot of people didn't really "get it" that the digital channels were already there and ready to watch. People should have been trying out digital TV early, so they could find out problems, upgrade antennas etc., while they still had the analog channels to fall back on in the meantime.

The stations should have started promoting their digital channels at least three years ago. "Get rid of the snow, ghosts, speckles and herringbone stripes on your picture! Get free HDTV! Get a free 24/7 weather channel!" Etc. Starting last year, stations had a lot of general DTV transition information on their Web sites, but I'm amazed at how many of them didn't have technical information about their digital channels specifically, even something simple like which channel their digital signal is really on! (which is especially important if the analog channel is/was VHF and the digital one is UHF, or the other way around)

And the FCC should have phased in the requirements for TVs to include digital tuners earlier, so more people would become DTV-ready simply by buying new TVs in the normal course of events. My HDTV (a 32" LCD) has only an analog tuner built in because I bought it in fall 2005, and that size set didn't require a digital tuner until March 2006. (It wasn't a problem for me because I'd been experimenting with external digital tuners on my old analog set, so I already had a tuner I could use with the new set.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I hope there was sarcasm there.

Yes. That's what the smiley was for. :-)

 

[Cyrus]

That's harsh, and a rather ignorant statement. Who do you think provides the food you find in the stores of that big city? People who live in rural areas. There are a lot of rotten things I could say about living in cities, and dealing with people with arrogant attitudes that nobody else matters because they live a different lifestyle is high on that list. Try expanding your horizons and realizing that there is a huge world beyond your own back yard.

Ok, but that's really not a point because I can sit here and argue who makes sure you get your mail, that you get electrical power, that your food gets shipped out so you can live off
of your farm product? Major distritbution centers in city hubs. We can play this game all day long about who does what and where. They are both important.

What more important uses is that spectrum being used for? If they are so important, and digital is such a wonderful alternative, why couldn't those important uses use the digital spectrum rather than costing people who just want to get the local farm reports so much money to switch?

Can the farm reports not be sent out via the internet or radio? I'm curious as to why some here think having a TV is a necessity of life and not a modern luxury. Do newspapers not exist in that part of the country?

 

[jtbell]

You have local and national tv stations, we don't we just have national.

Actually, almost all broadcast TV stations in the US are "local." They produce their own local news programs etc. and carry advertising for local businesses, in addition to carrying national programs and advertising from one of the networks (NBC, ABC, etc.). A station may be owned by a national or regional chain or even by one of the networks, but it's managed at the local level. And stations owned by the same chain in different cities are often affiliated with different networks, except of course for ones that are actually owned by a network.

In many states, the public broadcasting (PBS) stations are owned and operated by a statewide agency, and the individual stations are basically "repeaters" controlled from a central office. South Carolina is like this. I can get five or six SCETV stations, but the programming is identical on all of them. For some reason they chose to build a lot of lower-powered stations rather than a few high-powered ones in order to cover the entire state.

But there's nothing like this on the national level.

 

[russ_watters]

Can the farm reports not be sent out via the internet or radio? I'm curious as to why some here think having a TV is a necessity of life and not a modern luxury. Do newspapers not exist in that part of the country?

Apparently, TV is as essential to some people as food:

So when people don't have bread, we should tell them to eat cake?

Who do you think provides the food you find in the stores of that big city? People who live in rural areas.

Moonbear, turbo-1, we're talking about *TV* here. TV!

People make choices about living in a city vs a rural area partly because of the availability of such things. Living in a rural area means you don't get good movie theaters nearby, have to drive further to find a Home Depot, and you can't go see a major league baseball game on a Wednesday night after work. Living in a city means you can't use your telescope in your backyard.

These are the types of pros and cons people weigh when choosing where to live. This isn't the rural electrification program and no one is in danger of starving to death over this. It's TV! It is a luxury item! Entertainment. It isn't an entitlement - it isn't a necessity of life.

What has people upset is that the switch to digital tv has made getting that luxury/entertainment item out to rural areas more difficult. They are used to having it, so they have started believing it is an entitlement. But it isn't. It's just a fact of life that sometimes the provider of something decides they can't/don't want to provide it anymore. This is no different than if someone closed a nearby movie theater in a rural area because it was unprofitable.

And might I add: broadcast tv is free! People who lost something only lost something that they were getting for free!

 

[JaredJames]

Actually, almost all broadcast TV stations in the US are "local." They produce their own local news programs etc. and carry advertising for local businesses, in addition to carrying national programs and advertising from one of the networks (NBC, ABC, etc.). A station may be owned by a national or regional chain or even by one of the networks, but it's managed at the local level. And stations owned by the same chain in different cities are often affiliated with different networks, except of course for ones that are actually owned by a network.

In many states, the public broadcasting (PBS) stations are owned and operated by a statewide agency, and the individual stations are basically "repeaters" controlled from a central office. South Carolina is like this. I can get five or six SCETV stations, but the programming is identical on all of them. For some reason they chose to build a lot of lower-powered stations rather than a few high-powered ones in order to cover the entire state.

But there's nothing like this on the national level.

I'd say that's basically what I meant with it, ish. Obviously I didn't think you had national transmitters, but I meant you have national channels/shows and more specific local ones.

 

[russ_watters]

The poor planning included the failure to take terrain into account and the failure to actually test relative signal strength in the normal broadcasting area before making the switch-over.

You're just assuming all that. Maybe they did do all of that testing and just decided that your area wasn't important enough to make it worth their effort to give you better reception. Or even more likely - maybe they were aware of the general issue and decided the issue (serving people in rural areas) wasn't even an important enough concern to make it worth doing the testing.

 

[JaredJames]

And might I add: broadcast tv is free! People who lost something only lost something that they were getting for free!

Wish it was like that in the UK. There are four/five channels on analogue. BBC 1 + 2, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

All are free (advertising based) except the BBC ones. We have to pay £140 each year for a tv licence. The only upside of which is that there are no ad breaks and no adverts between shows.

Worst bit is if you have a tv you have to have a license whether you watch the BBC channels or not. When digital comes in, yes we get more channels (especially a whole load more from the bbc) but we still need the licence.

 

[russ_watters]

By the way, what does "local" mean anyway? I don't watch local news, but if I did, I guess a recent murder in Philly would be relevant to me since I'm there a couple of times a week, but even living 20 miles away, a Philly weather report isn't specific enough for my taste. If I lived 40+ miles from my "local" tv station. I couldn't even imagine caring what was on it!

[edit] Possible exception: the Phillies baseball and Flyers hockey. But they have their own network that airs most of their games anyway...on cable.

For weather, the nearest doppler radars are in Philadelphia, but that doesn't mean I need to watch tv to access them. You can watch them in real-time on the internet, so the internet is a much better source for weather information than tv, even if the tv station owns the radar.

 

[JaredJames]

By the way, what does "local" mean anyway? I don't watch local news, but if I did, I guess a recent murder in Philly would be relevant to me since I'm there a couple of times a week, but even living 20 miles away, a Philly weather report isn't specific enough for my taste.

Within a certain region. So perhaps by state or even by large cities / towns.

 

[jtbell]

And of course there's politics. Local and state politics can get interesting at times. In a nearby county, a county councilman recently got into trouble for planting spyware on the county manager's computer, apparently to try to dig up dirt on him in order to get the council as a whole to fire him. The FBI got into the act on this one.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You're just assuming all that. Maybe they did do all of that testing and just decided that your area wasn't important enough to make it worth their effort to give you better reception. Or even more likely - maybe they were aware of the general issue and decided the issue (serving people in rural areas) wasn't even an important enough concern to make it worth doing the testing.

They did a test run on a city in South Carolina (if I remember correctly) and found that the range wasn't what they'd hoped back in November '08 or something. The FCC decided to make distributed transmission systems permissible to recover analog range, but it seems nobody's bothered to do that

 

[russ_watters]

And of course there's politics. Local and state politics can get interesting at times. In a nearby county, a county councilman recently got into trouble for planting spyware on the county manager's computer, apparently to try to dig up dirt on him in order to get the council as a whole to fire him. The FBI got into the act on this one.

Well yeah, the best soap opera around right now is the Philly tv reporter who hacked his co-anchor's email account because he was in lover with her and jealous of her. She's no angel either, getting arrested for assaulting a cop!

But what makes a drama more compelling simply because it happenes 20 miles away instead of 200 miles away? Right now, the most compelling political drama is happening 10,000 miles away from me! To me, the concept of "local" doesn't have a whole lot of meaning.

 

[Evo]

I haven't read the entire thread, did anyone mention that the reason that tv stations were forced to give up their analogue frequencies was a result of lobbying by companies that wanted those frequenicies released so that they could buy it up and the resell it for new "for profit" services? This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC.

 

[Astronuc]

I haven't read the entire thread, did anyone mention that the reason that tv stations were forced to give up their analogue frequencies was a result of lobbying by companies that wanted those frequenicies released so that they could buy it up and the resell it for new "for profit" services? This was not something tv stations wanted to do, they were forced to give up those frequencies by the FCC.

In post 64, I mentioned these guys - Maximum Service Television.

http://www.mstv.org/aboutus.html

The Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., is the recognized industry leader in broadcasting technology and spectrum policy issues. Formed in 1956, MSTV has endeavored to ensure that the American public receive the highest quality, interference free, over-the-air local television signals.

Yeah - right.

 

[edward]

One local station, the ABC affiliate, is on the reception fringe. The set top boxes keep losing their digital signal. This requires re- scanning the converter boxes for available stations.

The odd thing is that they are now running mini infomercials on how to rescan the boxes on the cable channels??

 

[Ouabache]

Like a few others mentioned here, I too am unaffected by the switch to digital TV and haven't owned a television that receives broadcast stations for the past 7 years. It isn't necessary. Although the internet has given us much useful content, even without it, AM/FM radio fills in local news coverage.

It may have been desirable from some viewpoints, but to people in rural locations, it seems that we have sacrificed a lot of access to information (weather reports, storm warnings, traffic disruptions) that might have been pretty valuable, but often taken for granted. If you are in the path of a cell of severe thunderstorms, and you can't get local weather reports, that's not good.

Since the advent of AM broadcast radio and due to their use of longer wavelengths, they operate effectively over variable terrain and reach rural areas in the absence of analog television.

Also for emergency weather, a basic VHF scanner can receive NOAA weather transmissions
In http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/stations.php?State=ME there are 11 frequencies to choose from. Across rural America there are comparable broadcast frequencies.

We have already lost local AM/FM radio to the national conglomerates, so that channel of communication is gone.

Rural areas have benefited from AM radio for local news coverage for quite some time. You may want to revisit the list of local AM stations and retest their reception. Stringing up a long wire for an antenna, stunningly increases the gain (reception) for these signals. Since these are rural areas, there is no shortage of space for a long wire antennas.

Here is one list of AM stations in Maine. extracted from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_Maine" . (there are comparable lists for stations across rural America).

 

[turbo]

Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.

As for the arguments that TV is a luxury and that broadcast TV is "free" I beg to differ. The broadcasters' costs are paid by advertising revenue, and the advertising is eating up about 25% or so of the available air-time, which the viewers "pay for" by watching the ads. The broadcasters were forced to give up their frequencies and buy, install, and maintain new digital equipment so that fat-cats could buy up the band-width and use it to sell services. The public was led by the nose and went along for the ride with the promise of better pictures and audio, when the result for many is NO pictures and NO audio.

 

[Cyrus]

Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.

As for the arguments that TV is a luxury and that broadcast TV is "free" I beg to differ. The broadcasters' costs are paid by advertising revenue, and the advertising is eating up about 25% or so of the available air-time, which the viewers "pay for" by watching the ads. The broadcasters were forced to give up their frequencies and buy, install, and maintain new digital equipment so that fat-cats could buy up the band-width and use it to sell services. The public was led by the nose and went along for the ride with the promise of better pictures and audio, when the result for many is NO pictures and NO audio.

Wow, you really just tried to rationalize getting free TV by basically saying "well, I watch the Ads, and those Ads bring in money".

Are you up for congressional election in 2010? The spin you just posted is making me dizzy.

Have you considered that you don't "deserve" *any* free tv - whatsoever? For crying out loud, you don't even pay for it!

Also, are the EMTs 'fat cats' wanting to use the bandwidth?

The switch to DTV will offer a host of important public benefits, to include:

Freeing up parts of the broadcast spectrum for public safety communications (police/fire/rescue).
Allowing some of the spectrum to be auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with more advanced wireless services (such as wireless broadband).
Allowing stations to offer improved picture and surround sound (enhanced audio).
Expanding programming choices for viewers. For example, a broadcaster will be able to offer multiple digital programs simultaneously (multicasting).
Providing interactive video and data services that are not possible with analog technology.

 

[JaredJames]

Do you realize that there are lots of elderly, infirm, shut-ins that rely on broadcast TV for information and entertainment? Often they are living on meager fixed incomes and can't afford satellite or cable TV, if they are even available where they live.

As for the arguments that TV is a luxury and that broadcast TV is "free" I beg to differ. The broadcasters' costs are paid by advertising revenue, and the advertising is eating up about 25% or so of the available air-time, which the viewers "pay for" by watching the ads. The broadcasters were forced to give up their frequencies and buy, install, and maintain new digital equipment so that fat-cats could buy up the band-width and use it to sell services. The public was led by the nose and went along for the ride with the promise of better pictures and audio, when the result for many is NO pictures and NO audio.

I'm curious who forces you to watch these ads? I for one channel hop or go get a drink or something. As I said before, here in Britain we HAVE to pay for a tv license each year whether we like it or not. You do not. You cannot make out that you losing something which is free to begin with is unfair. Again, no one forced these people to live in these areas, they are/were free to move whenever they liked. They made a choice to stay there knowing full well what the situation was.

 

[turbo]

Mainers live here primarily because we were born here and made livings for ourselves here. It was not a conscious decision "I have to move to Maine" for most of us. Maine was the lumber capitol of the US for many, many years, and we still supply lots of maple syrup, potatoes, blueberries, salmon, groundfish, lobsters, etc that people in urban areas come to rely on when they go to their stores. Urban populations cannot possibly live without rural populations to supply their food-stuffs. There is no way that DC, NYC, Philly, etc could sustain any but a tiny portion of their populations without people in rural US catching their fish, raising their cattle, growing their vegetables, etc.

Again, if you think broadcast TV is "free" then you don't understand the dynamics of ad revenue. Ads pay for eyeballs, and you don't have to do too much research to find studies that explain this in detail. The claim that broadcast TV is "free" and that we in rural areas have no reason to object if it is suddenly removed by FCC action is not only simplistic - it is dead-wrong. Whole industries were built on TV advertising, and you shouldn't have to think too long to come up with some examples. I won't bother, since you seem predisposed to ignoring reality.

 

[JaredJames]

Mainers live here primarily because we were born here and made livings for ourselves here. It was not a conscious decision "I have to move to Maine" for most of us. Maine was the lumber capitol of the US for many, many years, and we still supply lots of maple syrup, potatoes, blueberries, salmon, groundfish, lobsters, etc that people in urban areas come to rely on when they go to their stores. Urban populations cannot possibly live without rural populations to supply their food-stuffs. There is no way that DC, NYC, Philly, etc could sustain any but a tiny portion of their populations without people in rural US catching their fish, raising their cattle, growing their vegetables, etc.

Again, if you think broadcast TV is "free" then you don't understand the dynamics of ad revenue. Ads pay for eyeballs, and you don't have to do too much research to find studies that explain this in detail. The claim that broadcast TV is "free" and that we in rural areas have no reason to object if it is suddenly removed by FCC action is not only simplistic - it is dead-wrong. Whole industries were build on TV advertising, and you shouldn't have to think too long to come up with some examples. I won't bother, since you seem predisposed to ignoring reality.

Your lack of evidence and continual stating that you will not provide any makes your claims here worthless. Why is it dead wrong, if its supplied to you free, then it is costing them to broadcast it to you. Given they cannot guarantee anyone watches the adverts it is a hit and miss technique for the companies advertising. Can I assume you have evidence waying up the revenue of adverts with the costs of broadcasting, maintenance etc? So that you can trully way up the losses from these few broadcast areas.
You were born there, and? Nothing stopped you moving away.

 

[turbo]

Your lack of evidence and continual stating that you will not provide any makes your claims here worthless. Why is it dead wrong, if its supplied to you free, then it is costing them to broadcast it to you. Given they cannot guarantee anyone watches the adverts it is a hit and miss technique for the companies advertising. Can I assume you have evidence waying up the revenue of adverts with the costs of broadcasting, maintenance etc? So that you can trully way up the losses from these few broadcast areas.
You were born there, and? Nothing stopped you moving away.

Worthless claims? Man! what claptrap! Broadcast TV has been financed by ad-revenue all my life. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the "free" TV has been paid for by the perceived value that the advertisers paid for to get their ads in front of people. Do you think that Kraft Foods, P&G, Campbells, etc would spend billions to write, produce and air ads if they weren't convinced that the ads make them much more money than they spent? Learn something about advertising before you start throwing around claims that are soundly refuted by decades of the producers "putting their money where their mouth is". Some of the highest-powered people in these consumer-products companies are the folks who run the ad campaigns. That is not a coincidence.