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

[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. :rofl: 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.

 

[JaredJames]

So what are the local stations broadcasting on then? If they aren't broadcasting on sat and not on standard digital transmissions where are they?

In the UK, we have satellite (Sky TV), Cable (Virgin Media) and Freeview (broadcast in replace of analog. When analog shuts down they use the same masts to broadcast a digital signal to replace it. The Freeview digital decoder box let's you watch this digital on your older tv.)

 

[jtbell]

No local stations on sat.

In many areas in the US (not all, yet) the satellite carriers (Dish and DirecTV) do provide local broadcast channels to customers in those areas. At least the major network channels (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, PBS), probably not the minor networks (CW, MyNetworkTV) or the independent stations.

 

[Borek]

In what way? That it happened?

I suppose what Turbo means is that after the switch he has to invest in much more than just a converter to get access to the same amount of channels that he had before.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

So, what you and turbo, collectively, seem to be saying is that just getting a converter box is not sufficient, so even if someone who couldn't afford a convertor box (they cost about $50 each in the US, which is a lot) and did manage to get a coupon for a discounted one before the coupons ran out, you also need to upgrade to a new antenna to receive the digital channels.

This article seems to confirm that a converter box isn't enough. Why didn't anyone tell people they needed a new antenna too?

Need some tips to help a relative or neighbor get their TV switched over to digital? On the converter box remote, click the menu or set-up button, click on scan and then click okay. That should get the converter box programmed for all available digital channels. One thing to keep in mind is that you may need to buy a new antenna to get a clear picture.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S976026.shtml?cat=565

And this one as well:

June 12, 2009 5:41 PM PDT
DTV converter boxes aplenty, but good luck finding an antenna
by Marguerite Reardon

NEW YORK--Louise Coleman of Brooklyn, N.Y., did everything she was supposed to do before full-power TV broadcasters in the U.S. turned off their analog TV signals and started broadcasting only in digital, but she still found herself in a Best Buy store on the DTV deadline day, Friday, buying the last amplified digital antenna on the store shelf.

Coleman said she had gotten her $40 coupon from the government and bought a digital converter box for her older analog TV before the first deadline for the switch to digital TV on February 17. And she even bought a new flat screen digital-ready TV for her living room to replace an old analog TV that was on its last legs. So she thought she was prepared.
...

So off she went to Best Buy, to pick up the very last digital TV antenna with a signal amplifier the store had in stock at a cost of $50.

"I was prepared back in February for the switch," she said. "But then when I hooked up the box last night, I realized that I wasn't getting all the channels and that I probably needed a different antenna, so here I am again."

Coleman was not alone. While much of the hoopla around the digital TV transition for the past several months has focused on whether people with older analog TVs had a digital converter box to receive digital signals, a big issue for New Yorkers on Friday when broadcasters flipped the switch to digital was finding an antenna to improve their reception.

But retailers caution consumers that no antenna is a one-size fits all solution, something Richard Savelli, of Manhattan learned the hard way.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10264157-94.html

So, not only do you need to get a new antenna with that converter box, you won't even know until you take it home and try it if you got the right antenna for your area! So, you could be buying anything from another $50 antenna to sit on top of your TV set, to another $100 upgrade for your rooftop antenna.

How were people even supposed to know this? In all the millions of ads run about the conversion and getting a converter box, NOBODY said anything about antennas too, and they also didn't offer any program to help people pay for those upgrades to antennas.

 

[turbo]

In what way? That it happened?

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.

 

[jtbell]

Exactly how much does a digital decoder box cost over in the US?

The "Coupon Eligible Converter Boxes" (CECBs) that provide only standard-definition analog output and are intended for upgrading old TVs, usually cost $50 to $60. Each household can get up to two coupons from the US governent, each worth $40 towards the purchase of one box.

The coupon program has gotten criticism for somewhat complicated rules that were supposed to prevent profiteers from hoarding coupons and reselling them. For example, they expire 90 days after issuance. The people who applied for coupons at the beginning of the program (January 1, 2008) first had to wait until mid February to get them. At that point there were only one or two models of converter boxes actually available in stores, and some stores had difficulty processing the coupons. And originally there was only a fixed amount of money appropriated for coupons. After that money ran out, people got put on a waiting list, to wait for unused coupons to expire so the money would be freed up again.

In February, when the transition date was pushed back to last Friday, more money was made available to get rid of the backlog in coupon applications.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Hurkyl]

The poor planning included...

Okay, so your local TV stations (seem to have) dropped the ball; that doesn't justify criticizing the transition as a whole.

 

[jtbell]

So, what you and turbo, collectively, seem to be saying is that just getting a converter box is not sufficient, so even if someone who couldn't afford a convertor box (they cost about $50 each in the US, which is a lot) and did manage to get a coupon for a discounted one before the coupons ran out, you also need to upgrade to a new antenna to receive the digital channels.

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.

However, when I first tried digital TV, I discovered that I could get several stations from the other two cities, and I got hooked on watching those, too. I visit those cities regularly, so it's nice to watch local news from them, for example. They're a bit further away than my "main" city, so the signals are weaker. I beefed up my antenna setup mainly to improve reception for those "extra" stations.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My local radio guys are playing this up to be much worse than it is I think. Exagerated for this area anyway since there are so many cities all bunched together I doubt many people in CA will have trouble with this.

They said that apparently so much as a tree in the yard could disrupt a digital broadcast signal? I had trouble believing that.

Some of the people up north and maybe out in the further reaches of our desert regions might have trouble though.

 

[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?