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

[Borek]

So, where you hit by the end of analog TV?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is estimated that about 3 million people in the US do not have television today.

We've had digital service for nearly 15 years. When we first moved here we could only get about six analog channels.

 

[Astronuc]

I've been using cable TV ever since university, because where I lived, that was essentially the only way to receive television. We received the most basic service.

Where I live now, the local cable company installed fiber-optic system several years ago, and we use TV, internet and phone service through the fiber-optic system. The system went digital in conjunction with the fiber-optic system.

During my first few years of university, I did not have TV. I didn't have time to watch it anyway.

 

[JaredJames]

Well it's about to happen in the UK too. End of 2011 all will be digital.

 

[turbo]

We used to get 8-10 analog channels over our huge VHF/UHF antenna/mast setup. Now we get only 2. One is the CBS affiliate and the other is a PBS station. The drive to all-digital broadcasting is quite detrimental to those of us in rural locations, and seems destined to line the pockets of satellite-TV companies. There aren't enough people in my area to justify the cost of cable, so we'll never have that option.

 

[Moonbear]

The NBC affiliate here is so goofy. On every news show this morning, they managed to include their footage of someone pushing the rather unimpressive looking button that turns off their analog transmitter. Then they interview some engineer who tells the viewers that we should be impressed with the picture quality and that some game last night was so much better because it was already being broadcast in HD. Perhaps if I watched games, and had an HD TV that might be the case. I don't think my 20+ year old TVs are going to get any better picture no matter what they do to the signal.

I think a few of the smaller local stations had some issues with the switch today. Even over cable, a couple of them weren't broadcasting this morning. All were back on but one the last time I had the TV on a few hours ago, though.

 

[edward]

I know a lot of people, myself included, who have cable on a big TV yet also have a small analog set with rabbit ears in the bedroom.

My wife said that she can do without the bedroom set. I give it about three days until she has me going out to get a converter box and a better antennae.

If she wants to learn to speak Spanish the small set is still getting three Hispanic stations loud and clear. They must be broadcasting from Mexico.

 

[JasonRox]

Um... I think the switch to the digital is the smartest thing. I think it's dumb Canada is waiting until 2011. Living near the border, I get half analog and half digital.

I still get like 9 channels analog and about 10 digital in my area.

Note: Digital channels are clear 99% for pretty much all channels. Out of the 9 that I have 3 are clear, 3 are ok, and the other 3 are garbage.

 

[Topher925]

I really like the new digital TV. Not only is the picture clearer but I can see what's on without even changing the channel using the DTV guide. The clock on the TV is really nice to along with the signal meter. I should have bought the DTV converter box a long time ago.

 

[Cyrus]

We used to get 8-10 analog channels over our huge VHF/UHF antenna/mast setup. Now we get only 2. One is the CBS affiliate and the other is a PBS station. The drive to all-digital broadcasting is quite detrimental to those of us in rural locations, and seems destined to line the pockets of satellite-TV companies. There aren't enough people in my area to justify the cost of cable, so we'll never have that option.

My understanding is that that spectrum of channels would be used for something other than satellite tv.

 

[Office_Shredder]

We used to get 8-10 analog channels over our huge VHF/UHF antenna/mast setup. Now we get only 2. One is the CBS affiliate and the other is a PBS station. The drive to all-digital broadcasting is quite detrimental to those of us in rural locations, and seems destined to line the pockets of satellite-TV companies. There aren't enough people in my area to justify the cost of cable, so we'll never have that option.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/fccbroadband/

In my opinion this needed to be done eventually. The FCC originally planned for everything to be switched over in 2006, but obviously that didn't happen. Ensuring a modern communications infrastructure is actually one thing the government has succeeded at fairly well from what I can tell

 

[turbo]

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/fccbroadband/

In my opinion this needed to be done eventually. The FCC originally planned for everything to be switched over in 2006, but obviously that didn't happen. Ensuring a modern communications infrastructure is actually one thing the government has succeeded at fairly well from what I can tell

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.

 

[Office_Shredder]

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.

I'm a little confused... why can't you get this information precisely? Did your local analog station just decide to quit transmitting instead of switching to digital, or did you decide not to get a digital to analog converter?

 

[turbo]

I'm a little confused... why can't you get this information precisely? Did your local analog station just decide to quit transmitting instead of switching to digital, or did you decide not to get a digital to analog converter?

We have a converter, but guess what? The strength of the digital signal of a lot of the stations is insufficient, and unlike analog, you don't get a slightly degraded picture/sound with a weak signal - you get NO picture/sound. And no, the analog signals are totally gone.

 

[loseyourname]

I better buy the converter today or early tomorrow if I want to be able to watch Game 5 of the NBA finals.

Our NBC affiliate is broadcasting the same message as Moonbear's, only in Spanish.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We have a converter, but guess what? The strength of the digital signal of a lot of the stations is insufficient, and unlike analog, you don't get a slightly degraded picture/sound with a weak signal - you get NO picture/sound. And no, the analog signals are totally gone.

Sounds like it is time for some antenna work.

 

[Office_Shredder]

We have a converter, but guess what? The strength of the digital signal of a lot of the stations is insufficient, and unlike analog, you don't get a slightly degraded picture/sound with a weak signal - you get NO picture/sound. And no, the analog signals are totally gone.

I know about the edge of cliff effect, but was under the impression thanks to the increased efficiency of digital TV the range could be increased to the original practical range of analog. So I googled around and discovered that most digital channels are broadcasting on UHF (ultra high frequency) whereas analog channels were broadcasting on VHF (very high frequency... original names guys); UHF having the problem of being much more dependent on line of sight for transmission range. Now I'm confused; wouldn't it have made more sense to switch all of the digital frequencies to the VHF range when it got cleared up thanks to all the analog channels switching off?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One "expert" was saying that he expects a bit of a shift away from cable and satellite services, with more people going back to antenna. Many people will see the number of available channels increase significantly - quadruple the number in some cases - with the addition of HD, all for free.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now I'm confused; wouldn't it have made more sense to switch all of the digital frequencies to the VHF range when it got cleared up thanks to all the analog channels switching off?

The old analog frequencies will go to other services.

 

[Cyrus]

There is no reason for TV to use up spectrum. There are tons of other things that could use those same channels. Use groundwires for TV signals - this isn't the 1950s.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no reason for TV to use up spectrum. There are tons of other things that could use those same channels. Use groundwires for TV signals - this isn't the 1950s.

I'm sure that would provide a great picture!

 

[Office_Shredder]

One "expert" was saying that he expects a bit of a shift away from cable and satellite services, with more people going back to antenna. Many people will see the number of available channels increase significantly - quadruple the number in some cases - with the addition of HD, all for free.

From my new pseudo-understanding of digital TV reception this could apply in the urban areas where there's less blocking terrain

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How did you manage to quote me and attribute it to Cyrus?

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sure that would provide a great picture!

What are you talking about, my cable TV comes via a ground wire. The same wire can provide the free channels that use spectrum space.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What are you talking about, my cable TV comes via a ground wire. The same wire can provide the free channels that use spectrum space.

Do you mean it is broadcast that way, or you can just get a signal that way?

Are you saying that your cable is on all grounds in your house?

 

[Cyrus]

Do you mean it is broadcast that way, or you can just get a signal that way?

Are you saying that your cable is on all grounds in your house?

My TV get's its FIOS signal via a cable under the ground. Not a Radio Signal, just an electric Signal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My TV get's its FIOS signal via a cable under the ground. Not a Radio Signal, just an electric Signal.

So they are not just transmitting on a ground wire.

 

[Cyrus]

So they are not just transmitting on a ground wire.

What? I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Phrak]

There hasn't been a popular uprising demanding digital broadcaste television.

Connect the dots. The broadcasters pushed this legislation through to reacquire market share. They even obtained legislation to have the tax payers foot the bill for give-away digital-to-analog converter boxes.

 

[Cyrus]

There are lots of people that want to use the spectrum space being used by tv. It's a constant battle to get some bandwith.


The demand isn't from televison viewers.

 

[Phrak]

There are lots of people that want to use the spectrum space being used by tv. It's a constant battle to get some bandwith.


The demand isn't from televison viewers.

Are you saying that the digital TV spectrum is narrower than the, now gone, analog spectrum?

 

[qntty]

Are you saying that the digital TV spectrum is narrower than the, now gone, analog spectrum?

A lot narrower I believe. Now they can squeeze in more channels for organizations who've been short on bandwidth in the past.

 

[Phrak]

A lot narrower I believe. Now they can squeeze in more channels for organizations who've been short on bandwidth in the past.

I haven't yet been able to come up with any solid numbers. Analog broadcast TV (NTSC) required, until today, 6 megherz per channel.

To keep up with cable and satellite services offering HDTV formats in MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 encoding 1280 x 720, at 60 FPS, they need to do the same. I'm still looking for a website willing to flip for the required broadcast transmission bandwidth.

 

[dlgoff]

Looks like there are both UHF and VHF digital stations; at least in my area. Check out what's in your area with this search: http://antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx"

 

[junglebeast]

I think a bigger motivation is to be able to cope with the growing trend of internet traffic, what with P2P, VOIP and streaming online TV services. Once they get rid of the analog TV sets, the cable companies can easily adjust the bandwidth between digital TV and internet as they need to...but they knew getting rid of analog sets was going to be a pain, so they wanted to get that out of the way with before they reach an internet bottleneck.

 

[Phrak]

The best I can gather, the channels will still have a 6 MHz bandwidth, but capable of accomodating HDTV on a single channel. The big difference is that the digital channels won't require that every other channel be unoccupied. This will free up about 36 HMz of bandwidth in the UHF span, alone.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

There are lots of people that want to use the spectrum space being used by tv. It's a constant battle to get some bandwith.


The demand isn't from televison viewers.

I know with the transfer we will be getting a PBS TV feed. The FCC would not license a freq for them because there was no free space in this market, now there is. Also the local and rural Fire/Police/EMS services will be getting several new bands to work with.

 

[turbo]

Lots of folks are missing the point, here. There is NO cable service out in the boonies, and there never will be because it costs more to run the cable than the subscription-revenue will ever bring in. No cable, and severely restricted broadcast signal means that a lot of folks living out in the country are not going to have access to news, weather, emergency broadcasts, etc. I don't care if I ever ever see another re-run of "Friends" or Seinfeld" (not that I ever would watch either of them anyway), but there are public-service functions served by broadcast TV that are gone forever, or at least severely diminished. We have already lost local AM/FM radio to the national conglomerates, so that channel of communication is gone. The single bright spot in this region is the AM (sports) FM (music) combo owned and operated by Steven King and his wife Tabitha. He hires local DJs, engineers, etc, and runs his radio stations like they used to be run 40 years ago. They use modern equipment and technology, but the stations are programmed by actual human beings, tailored to the tastes of the human beings that form the listening audience. It's pretty nice.

 

[Cyrus]

Lots of folks are missing the point, here. There is NO cable service out in the boonies, and there never will be because it costs more to run the cable than the subscription-revenue will ever bring in. No cable, and severely restricted broadcast signal means that a lot of folks living out in the country are not going to have access to news, weather, emergency broadcasts, etc. I don't care if I ever ever see another re-run of "Friends" or Seinfeld" (not that I ever would watch either of them anyway), but there are public-service functions served by broadcast TV that are gone forever, or at least severely diminished. We have already lost local AM/FM radio to the national conglomerates, so that channel of communication is gone. The single bright spot in this region is the AM (sports) FM (music) combo owned and operated by Steven King and his wife Tabitha. He hires local DJs, engineers, etc, and runs his radio stations like they used to be run 40 years ago. They use modern equipment and technology, but the stations are programmed by actual human beings, tailored to the tastes of the human beings that form the listening audience. It's pretty nice.

Are you typing this from a computer or a type writter? Seem's like your internet works just fine for news, weather, and updates. In fact, you can check your internet for those things anytime you want, not just at the 6pm. You can also watch the local/national news on your computer.

I don't see why we should bend over backwards for people living out in the boonies. It's not a major city. It comes with living in the boonies. Don't like it, don't live in the boonies. There are legit reasons for having that spectrum for other more improtant uses.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Lots of folks are missing the point, here. There is NO cable service out in the boonies, and there never will be because it costs more to run the cable than the subscription-revenue will ever bring in.

As I posted earlier, the government has and continues to subsidize cable laying to otherwise unprofitable markets.

Also, I believe your local stations have the option of setting up a distributed transmission system which can cover the area once covered by their analogue station

EDIT: Did I really type analogue for analog? I need to get out of this country

 

[JaredJames]

We have Sky TV, it comes from marvellous things called satellites. They are in space. You point a dish in the right direction and boom there's your tv.

Seriously though, do you not have a system like this? Is it not viable?

 

[Borek]

We have Sky TV, it comes from marvellous things called satellites. They are in space. You point a dish in the right direction and boom there's your tv.

Seriously though, do you not have a system like this? Is it not viable?

No local stations on sat. So while to some extent it can help, it is not a full solution.

CNN won't send a warning that egg sized hailstones are expected in Maine and Turbo needs kevlar umbrella if he wants to continue working in his garden. Local stations will.

 

[Ouabache]

Digital TV transmissions have no effect on me. The only reason I may use a TV these days is to watch VHS tapes or DVDs. The internet covers all my media needs (news, audio, video). For local weather, the VHF weather radio works fine. AM/FM broadcast radio coverage is also fine.

 

[Office_Shredder]

No local stations on sat. So while to some extent it can help, it is not a full solution.

CNN won't send a warning that egg sized hailstones are expected in Maine and Turbo needs kevlar umbrella if he wants to continue working in his garden. Local stations will.

http://weather.cnn.com/weather/forecast.jsp?zipCode=07450&locCode=NJ08&iref=wxtodayicon"

 

[russ_watters]

The NBC affiliate here is so goofy. On every news show this morning, they managed to include their footage of someone pushing the rather unimpressive looking button that turns off their analog transmitter. Then they interview some engineer who tells the viewers that we should be impressed with the picture quality and that some game last night was so much better because it was already being broadcast in HD. Perhaps if I watched games, and had an HD TV that might be the case. I don't think my 20+ year old TVs are going to get any better picture no matter what they do to the signal.

The Philly NBC affiliate did the same thing, minus the interview with the engineer. Yeah, big circuit breakers can't be flipped by hand, so they have a small switch or a push-button connected to a solenoid.

I should have my little tv with the rabbit ears on at the same time to see if the signal just disappeared.

 

[turbo]

I don't see why we should bend over backwards for people living out in the boonies. It's not a major city. It comes with living in the boonies. Don't like it, don't live in the boonies. There are legit reasons for having that spectrum for other more improtant uses.

So when people don't have bread, we should tell them to eat cake? I hope you realize that there are probably millions of people in the same boat, and that public safety is endangered by the loss of broadcast TV. I don't care much for TV so it doesn't affect me as much as some people. Still, there are many people who have always relied on broadcast TV for local news, weather alerts, etc, and who DON'T have Internet service to supplement that. The switch to digital TV was poorly planned and poorly executed.

 

[JaredJames]

Exactly how much does a digital decoder box cost over in the US? In Britain a box (freeview it's called here) costs £20 ($25) are they really so expensive people can't afford them?

 

[Hurkyl]

The switch to digital TV was poorly planned and poorly executed.

In what way? That it happened?

 

[Borek]

Exactly how much does a digital decoder box cost over in the US? In Britain a box (freeview it's called here) costs £20 ($25) are they really so expensive people can't afford them?

It still doesn't give you access to local TV, have you read the thread?

http://weather.cnn.com/weather/forecast.jsp?zipCode=07450&locCode=NJ08&iref=wxtodayicon"

That's assuming you have internet access (for which you have to pay separately). Turbo has, it doesn't mean everyone else in his area does.

 

[jtbell]

I live in a rural area in between three cities whose TV stations are 50-70 miles away in different directions. Even with analog TV I had to use a good rooftop antenna with a rotator. I've been using digital TV exclusively for four years, and upgraded my http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/TV/images/91XG+YA1713b.jpg last year. The antenna on top is for UHF, the other one is for VHF channels 7-13. I don't need channels 2-6 any more.

Several of my stations moved their digital signals to different channels on Friday, at different times of day, so I had to re-scan with my digital tuners a few times. I lost no stations in the process. In fact, I expect to pick up another one in a couple of weeks. This station's digital signal is on the same channel as an analog station in another city, which is still running for a few weeks in "nightlight" mode with continuously looping DTV transition information.

Here's a http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/TV/images/wltx-shutdown.mp4 of the end of one station's analog signal. Notice the horizontal bars on the picture before the shutdown. Afterwards, you can see a faint signal from a low-power station on the same channel that was causing the interference. The station that shut down is 69 miles away and was radiating an equivalent power of 5000 kW. The interfering station is 58 miles way, with a power of 1.23 kW.