I was talking to a friend the other day, he told me when analog TV broadcasting ceases to exist (2-17-09) that's when television in his home ends. He's not impressed with TV programming in past years and only watches OPB. That will end when analog broadcasting ceases. He says he enjoys RADIO more.

My question is, are TV stations thinking internally about the percentage of decline in viewership after the switch?

I'm not sure that there'll be a signficant decline in any of the demographics that TV cares most about.

I suspect the number of 14-54 year olds who have chosen to live with "over the air" TV and a set old enough to be analog only is of minor concern to most "broadcast" operations.

PBS attracts more than its fair share of "pop media" avoiders -- which I suspect explains why OPB is running such a long and heavy campaign urging its viewers to get the government coupons for the 'almost free' converter boxes.

Even though I have a coupon to get a converter my wife and I are also considering going TV-less come 2-17-09.

Some weeks ago, while radio dial surfing, I heard a portion of "Le Show" that was talking about the potential loss of viewers. The amount of viewers who are "not prepared" varies a lot from market to market. Portland was cited as an extreme case. In other places, like Atlanta, the number of unprepared viewers is on the order of 2-3%.

All of the traditional medias of TV, Radio, and Newspaper are eroding to the new medias of the modern day PC/internet, IPOD's, Satellite radio, MP3 players, cell phones or any new fangled toy that seems to come out every month...all ways to get you to listen-view. Us in radio have to fight for every listener to stay afloat and in ways join with the new media to stay viable along with NTR.

Our reasoning is simple. Most of what's on tv is junk. Pretty easy decision to make actually.

I know it's a personal difference, but the list of shows I enjoy is long. And reality shows are not a part of my list.

Anyone not interested in a converter box can sign up for limited basic cable for about $12 per month- cable is not affected by the Feb 09 digital deadline.

If you have cable tv their is so much to choose from- History Channel, Cooking channel, MSNBC ect ect. The National Geographic Channel- (My personal favorite)Its also really educational.
While there is a lot of junk on Cable Chris, There is also a LOT of interesting/educational things that the whole family can watch. The Discovery Cahnnel is awesome too. You just have to sort through the junk to get the goods! And there is PLENTY of goods!

If indeed a dropoff in television viewership happens Cable and Satellite television providers will finally start to offer ala carte programming packages. That would I think bring households that feel that television for the most part is garbage back in that if they had control over what was avaliable to them as a consumer.

We used to have cable TV but I just can't justify it anymore for the simple fact we just don't watch enough TV.

I don't miss TV. I'm such a snob.

I'm not a big TV watcher either. Local news is about all I look at on a regular bases. I listen to the radio a lot more because I can work instead of sitting like a couch potato. I always feel guilty I should be doing something but maybe that's just me.

I'm a little like that too Craig. I have so many different interests that after a short while I lose my TV watching stamina.

I'm surprised newspapers aren't going out of business in record numbers!

Broadway mentioned new alternative delivery technologies a few posts ago. My question is: are video and audio broadcasts to mobile phones a new form of media, or not? Some days ago, I saw a Wikipedia article that suggested that broadcast multimedia content to mobile phones was the fourth major electronic medium (the other three are radio, television, and the Internet). However I am skeptical, as this sounds like it could be an exaggeration possibly put forth by somebody with ego and/or money invested in broadcasts to mobile phones.

A few weeks ago, I was talking with an engineer friend who believes that within 5-10 years, mobile phone networks will be entirely TCP/IP networks that will be connected to the Internet. Telephony will be VOIP. This will displace proprietary methods of broadcasting to mobile phones (such as Qualcomm's Media Flo technology). I could see this being plausible, although I would think that some intelligent bandwidth management would be needed to make this work; for instance if 15 people in a cell site's service area want to listen to the live stream of BBC World Service, the system would need to be smart enough not to transmit 15 identical copies of the same stream. My friend also thinks that multimedia streaming to mobile phones will completely replace the current radio and television broadcast bands within the next 10 years. That I am skeptical about.

I'm surprised newspapers aren't going out of business in record numbers!


Why is that? I hate reading the news on the internet. Id much rather sit down and read the Wall Street Journal or the Oregonian than sit and stare at the news on the internet. Plus I Love the New York Times, I would subscribe to it if it wasn't so damn expensive.

"if it wasn't so damn expensive."

Exactly! Reading a newspaper is much easier than reading it off the net but in this economy of cutting down where you can, some readers will move to the net to save 50 cents a day.

Newspapers are hurting too. The Seattle Times recently axed 130 people. Their revenue is dropping mainly because of a huge hit to the classified ads sales. Some days the only have 4 or 5 pages of ads. The content in the rest of the paper has dropped too.

If radio is all about relating to your listeners on a personal and immediate level -- how can anyone on the air just ignore such a huge part of his/her listeners daily lives.

Whether you personally find the shows junk or not, your listeners are tied up in "Lost" and "American Idol" and "Desperate Housewives".

A very wise broadcaster I used to work with used to urge all of his programming staffs to watch or tape-and-watch all of the top 10 TV shows in the target demo at least a couple times a month. He also bought subscriptions to "People" and "The Star" for his PDs and morning shows -- because they were such excellent barometers of the public's taste.

You can live in Lake Oswego and still relate to Gresham and Tualatin listeners, but not with an attitude that belittles the tastes of the vast majority of your audience.

It seems that successful stations, and individual shows, do relate well to what their listeners are occupying their time with. As it relates to TV, the top show's shares are representing smaller and smaller audiences. While no individual cable TV network comes close to audience levels in over-the-air TV, cable TV as a total entity dwarfs regular TV. We like to see how traditional media (radio) deals with that. As someone else pointed out, traditional TV networks dealt with cable by buying it!

"hi, my name is mike and I am a TV junkie". Well, selectively anyway. The tube comes on at 5PM and goes off around 10:30. But a lot of the time it's just background for doing other stuff. My list of favorite shows would bore you and embarrass me, so we'll just leave it at that.

>>broadcasts to mobile phones

to me it's just another one of the many options that the younger demo wants these days for their media diet...but us boomers still like our larger screens and ambient sound systems in our cars and homes for entertainment/data input.
Ear pods and 1 inch screens...good grief...give me my glasses...I'll never buy that phone thats now down to the size of a Bic lighter.

"My question is: are video and audio broadcasts to mobile phones a new form of media, or not?"

I don't think so. Here's why: Portable receivers for audio and video have been around for years. In the pure sense, there are four forms of mass communication: Print, wired, wireless and word of mouth.
Every new gadget or new option on an already existing gadget does not constitute a new "form" of mass communications. Unfortunately, mass media marketers love to redefine boring technologist uberspeak into something that sells. Marketing revisionism is why most folks refer to throughput as bandwidth, misapply the term "digital" to almost every piece of consumer electronics that was made in the last 15 years and can't come to grips with the fact that DTV and HDTV are not the same thing.

Thank you, Andy!

I hate reading the news on the internet. Id much rather sit down and read the Wall Street Journal or the Oregonian than sit and stare at the news on the internet. Plus I Love the New York Times, I would subscribe to it if it wasn't so damn expensive.

I couldn't disagree more with the above statement. Think about it this way. In this day and age you have the ability to read more than a couple of publications a day via the net versus the past where you were primarily limited via geographic location by what publications were avaliable to you.

For example I live in Keizer and really enjoy reading Willamete Week and Portland Mercury but in the past wouldn't have been able to because they are papers only avaliable in the Portland metro area.

Cable and satellite providers need to do a much better job of developing On Demand services for television to survive into the future.

I sometimes find it hard to fathom how someone in this day and age can not subscribe to cable or satellite services. What are you people doing living under a rock? LOL.. And frankly for you non tv people I find much of what you guys enjoy on television boring ie OPB. But anyways to each his own right?

As for the newspaper business I don't know if there is an answer to how that industry can thrive into the future. I have however seen some non traditional journalists carve themselves a nitch into traditional media that otherwise wouldn't have happened 10 years ago.

In the bigger scheme of things in the future of traditional media and new media isn't it pretty accurate to assume that "being in the right place at the right time" going to play a big part in the future of media in the world?

TDanner:

"Whether you personally find the shows junk or not, your listeners are tied up in "Lost" and "American Idol" and "Desperate Housewives".

A very wise broadcaster I used to work with used to urge all of his programming staffs to watch or tape-and-watch all of the top 10 TV shows in the target demo at least a couple times a month. He also bought subscriptions to "People" and "The Star" for his PDs and morning shows -- because they were such excellent barometers of the public's taste. "

Terry when I worked at Z100 it was about show prep. And man did we have loads to choose from way before the Internet.

However today I don't buy into that kind of thinking, and thankfully we voice track at a station that doesn't require us to waste our time on shows liked you mentioned.

If listeners want that kind of info there are other stations in the market and probably they aren't listening to station we're on anyway.

Being a husband and wife morning team we do play upon that aspect of the show. When we have met listeners they do say they feel we're right at the breakfast table with them.

My tastes have changed over the years and I'm assuming so have the listeners too as they have gotten older. We've been in the market now over 7 years and have established ourselves enough where we don't need to go to the garbage heap for entertainment.

It really gets back to the basics of inform and entertain your audience. And knowing who they are helps. When we did an on line survey of our listeners (offered a free CD if the filled it out) we learned quite a bit of who was listening and where they were listening.

We're not a shocking in your face type of morning show but occasionally unpredictable. It's been working so far.

"[Craig's friend is] not impressed with TV programming in past years and only watches OPB."

He's not the only one, then...........

Although I can't quote it off the cuff, I think one of the best quotes I've ever heard of about the media creating impressions was said by Richard Dawson's character in the movie "The Running Man." I'm referring to the one right at the end of the movie where he's telling Schwarzenegger's character that the media as a whole tells the public what to believe because they think it's what the public "wants," and it doesn't have to be true.

I think I've posted this before, but that's the problem with "lifestyle" radio... in theory, someone somewhere is being super-served. Others who like the other programming on the station (whether it be music, news, or talk) get nothing. What if a CHR station created the lifestyle, not regurgitated the one being spewed by everyone else?

It's almost too bad that the only ones out there that seem to be trailblazing the idea that you don't have to care about who wore what to some award show, or some artist that nobody likes is coming to town, etc. are the Christian stations, as I'm not a fan of teaching & ministry stations, nor CCM music.

Maybe most of the audience likes the latest from Robyn or Natasha Bedingfield; but don't give a rip about what they were wearing last night, how "hot or not" they are, don't watch the same TV programming (or in the case of Portland, don't watch TV), don't like the same sports teams (or sports at all), or have a taste for alcoholic beverages. And all this is within the so-called "target demographic" the station is trying to serve!

Whether it is in HD or not in HD, if you don't watch tv now, there is no reason to watch it after the switch other than to look at the sometimes better quality of picture. The programming will be the same as it is now. If you can't find anything to watch now, you probably won't after next February, also. Most of the programming will still be SD. Only new programs shot it HD will be in HD. All the old repeats on all those cable channels will still be SD.

I don't watch tv now because nothing current interests me plus I have a life that does not include sitting in front of the tube. I don't even use it for news. I get my news elsewhere.

I occasionally will watch something that interests me or an occasional movie. I don't see that changing when they go to digital. I don't have cable nor do I see any need to get it.

Check out Discovery Channel in HD. And I ain't taking about Cash Cab (the best game show on TV).

Amazing.

After the low-VHF channels get vacated next year, I intend on trying to DX Canadian and Mexican stations there. I think this will be a lot more interesting and fun than watching what is on American network TV today.

Too bad that we will be near the minimum of the 11 year sunspot cycle.
But there should be some e-skip DX anyway, I hope.

Classic TV shows could look really great in HD if the syndicators would make HD transfers from the original film. Not sure if it's economically feasible or not, but judging from some of the obscure TV shows that have been restored and transferred for DVD release, maybe it is. Perry Mason in HD anyone?

Paging Ted Turner. Paging Ted Turner. Please pick up the white courtesy phone please.

Hey he colorized the old classics why wouldn't he not then transfer classics to HD?

And probably even show them in a "fake" 16*9 frame at that!!

--Remember the hot water MGM got itself into several years ago when they did that to many of their DVD-Video releases? Not pretty...especially how they wrecked Koyaanisqatsi that way...not pretty...............

I am unclear(small pun)why translators at the main antenna sites are upgrading to digital. For instance, KRCW-LP seems unnecessary in a digital world, operating from the same site as the main signal. I could certainly see the point when the main transmitter was in the southern foothills but the whole thing seems superfluous now! This translator has a footprint that extends beyond Salem! There are several other LPTVs that will enjoy much better reach than their analog equivalents, to the point of having competitive signals, if people actually used receiving antennas anymore!

Is that the KRCW translator on channel 5?

It's KRCW's digital translator on channel 5.

KRCW-LP channel 5 is technically a Low Power station, acting as a translator. It operates with 2.7kw. Most VHF translators have far less power, averaging 50 to 75 watts.

I'm confusing KRCW-LP's signal with one of the UHFs. They currently go as far as Woodburn. When they go to digital with 300 watts, that will extend beyond Keizer.

This whole end of analog thing is going to be a great test for TV's reach - claimed vs. actual. The ads have been on for months. Stories on the end of analog have appeared in every mass media. Yet we all know that, come the day, tens of thousands of people from coast to coast will be calling their local stations to ask what's wrong.

Back in '94 when the Unistar Radio Network went away (thanks again, Mel), we announced it on the newsfeeds every hour for a month. Affiliate relations did at least three major mailings to the entire list of stations. But we still got more than a dozen frantic calls on that Monday morning from stations wondering where their network went.

Tomorrow night at 6:15pm KATU will turn off its analog signal briefly as a demonstration to viewers of what's to come. Viewers watching on HD won't be effected.

This from the the KGW.com website:

On Friday, July 18th during the 6 pm newcast, KGW will briefly turn off its analog signal. Viewers with a TV ready for DTV will continue to see KGW's digital signal. Viewers with TV sets not yet converted for DTV will see only "snow" during this 10-second test.

During the 6 pm newscast, KGW Business Reporter Joe Smith will turn off our Analog Transmitter on Channel 8. A few moments later, he will turn it back on. There will be two monitors next to Joe that will show the picture on KGW digital and KGW analog. The digital will remain on, but the analog will go off.

The thing I'm wondering is if the FCC and the broadcasting industry is predicting widespread panic over the loss of NTSC, complete with the National Guard (what's left of it in the U.S.) being called to stop 'TV riots' from continuing.
But, instead, people just get rid of their old, now useless NTSC TVs, get together as neighbors, a community, etc., and solve problems without hearing sensationalism every night about meth or Republicans vs. Democrats.

I think that what the FCC is doing is completely "window dressing." They can't wait for more and more dollars to come in from the spectrum auctions of the VHF-low and upper UHF channels. The broadcasters are a bit harder for me to figure out. I would think that there might be three schools of thought amongst them: 1) maybe some are glad that DTV was mandated by the FCC because it represented a significant financial burden to competitors that were not as financially well off as they were; 2) some might be happy that they get to turn off the NTSC because they will no longer have to deal with the expense of paying the electric bill for and maintaining two transmitters; 3) maybe some are upset that the FCC made them go through this rigamaroll, but since they can't do anything about it, they put on a "happy face" for the viewing public and repeat the talking points about why switching to DTV is so great and important. Regarding attitude #3, in my last job, I learned that when dealing with the public, sometimes you have to bullshit to give the public/customers the warm & fuzzies about what you are doing.

Having said that, I have two weird observations. First, I was looking up stuff today about Ike Blonder, one of the co-founders of Blonder-Tongue. He has a personal page at http://www.blonder.com/. That page has several opinion pieces about how he believes that it is a mistake for the FCC to force abandonment of NTSC. Instead, he once proposed a flexible licensing scheme on UHF, where stations would be granted two adjacent channels, whereby they could broadcast NTSC on one and anything else that they wanted to on the other, such as a second NTSC signal, DTV, or data services using some other modulation technique. However, like everybody else, his company is cashing in on the bonanza of selling equipment designed to help deal with the DTV transition.

The second observation is that "Homeland Security" is one of the supposed reasons for needing to reclaim some of the frequencies formerly used for television broadcasting. Agilent Technologies even markets a lot of their standard lab equipment to the defense sector under the buzzword of "Homeland Security" (see http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/industry.jspx?nid=-35078.0.00&lc=eng&cc=US ) So, special radios are needed to catch terrorists????

This thread has got me thinking alot! What a marketing scheme/scam the whole coupon thing has been. Especially when you go to buy the converter and all that left are the "souped" up expensive models.

When I bought my HDTV LCD 720p Slyvania television set I failed to recognize that none of the televisions at Sears where actually showing an HD signal. I didn't actually see my first until I visited my Aunts house in Springfield the last weekend. Needless to say I was very impressed with CNN's HD signal alone.

KPHO TV5 in Phoenix did this same demonstration on their 5 and 10pm newscasts a few weeks ago. I'm on cable, so I didn't see any difference. But they got quite a bit of positive viewer feedback on the story/stunt.

It does drive the point home rather well.

And it was funny to see one of the reporters pull a patch cord in an equipment rack to "disconnect" the analog signal...and put it back in at the end of the test. Hopefully, he put it back in the same slot! I'm sure a real engineer took care of the actual transmitter...

>>3) maybe some are upset that the FCC made them go through this rigamaroll

One problem broadcasters face is the added costs of providing a higher quality signal does not in itself translate into greater advertising revenue to pay for the additional overhead. Also there is not a clear business model for the additional sub-channels, which may, or may not attract enough additional advertising to pay for the added programming streams.

>>stations would be granted two adjacent channels, whereby they could broadcast NTSC on one and anything else that they wanted to on the other

Can you say, "AM Stereo"?

Here's what K2 is saying on their website. This wasn't posted at the time I made my original post at 7:37pm. Note the last paragraph on K2's translator stations:

PORTLAND, Ore. - On Feb. 17, 2009, the government is requiring that all broadcast stations, including KATU, stop sending out an analog signal and only transmit a digital one.

On Thursday, July 17, at around 6:15 p.m., we will be turning off our analog transmitter for 10 seconds to demonstrate what will happen on Feb. 17, 2009.

People who are viewing KATU's analog channel over the air will see snow, while people with digital tuners or who are on systems that are digital-ready will not see a change.

If you lose your picture and it goes to snow, you or your cable company (some smaller cable companies retransmit KATU's analog signal) will need to make a change by Feb. 17, 2009.

If you are watching KATU in a rural community via one of our 26 translators, you will be unaffected by the Feb. 17, 2009 analog shutoff. The conversion of our analog remote translators to digital will occur at a later time, yet to be announced.

It is interesting that KATU and KGW are doing this analog experiment, however I wonder when will KATU go HD on their newscast? We know that KGW was in the ball game when their went HD on their newscast in January.

To play Devil's advocate, I would ask, why should KATU (or KOIN) be in any kind of hurry to replace all of their news studio equipment and ENG cameras, just for the sake of the production of one program?

Do none of the KATU translators receive the channel 2 signal over the air? Or, has KATU made alternate arrangements to get their signal to at least one of them?

> Can you say, "AM Stereo"? [in reference to the Blonder proposal]

Sure. The text of Blonder's comments to the FCC is here: http://www.blonder.com/HDTV/comments_to_fcc.html
He intentionally left the description of the additional services vague so that they would be at the broadcaster's discretion. Potentially, this could have set up a situation like the multi-standard AM Stereo debacle. Or, this could have meant that proprietary equipment might have been required to receive some of these services--as is the case today with some of the newer broadcast technologies, such as MediaFlo and direct broadcast satellite.

So the stations turn their analog transmitters off for 10 seconds to show what it will look like. Quite a stunt. It happens for longer than that when the power goes out.
I guess there are some pretty stupid people out there who still don't know that when there is nothing on, there will be only snow on those stations. Anyone who doesn't know by now that it is going away deserve to be surprised.

Before a station can do their news in HD, they need to buy some HD cameras. Then rig some switcher up to handle them. I suppose they can buy a bunch of cheap HD Handycams and put them on the robot pedestals but I doubt they can hang a suitable prompter on one. Plus you would need to remotely focus and zoom and shade the buggers. That leaves out pretty much all the cheap ones. I guess they will have to air more infomercials and sell more spots to get some money to buy real cameras.

All in time.........

> So the stations turn their analog transmitters off for 10 seconds to show what it will look like. Quite
> a stunt.

This is comical. Does nobody remember the days when stations used to sign off?? It wasn't that long ago.

My digital tv's picture(LLG) seems worse than analog!!!toofuzzy/not real clear.!!? using rabbit ear anttnna.How do I fix???

if its fuzzy its not HD...

It could be SD which has been upconverted and if thats the case no ammount of antenna tweeking will fix it.

With digital either you have the signal or you don't.

are you sure you have a digital TV? or are you just assuming since the TV says it is broadcasting in digital that you must be seeing it?

Is it possible that a station might be upconverting a NTSC picture and scaling it so that the width fits a 16:9 screen? If that were done, the top and bottom of the picture would be cropped, and lower vertical resolution would be the result.

I am surprised that you, of all people on this board, would have bought a new TV.

Well they shut it off for 10 sec or so... Heard a DX station audio from about S-3 to S-7 on my VHF communications receiver. Good timing for E-skip!

Well I passed the KATU test!

Seriously though, I was really curious if they would really power off their analog transmitter and they did indeed.

I brought out a older portable television I have and hooked it up next to my TV with the digital converter box, sure enough it completely lost the analog signal.

The only strange part about the KATU test is that they ran a countdown at the bottom of the screen to the test and the analog countdown was exactly a minute lower than the clock on the DTV signal... Oh well!

I'm curious about something: When the analog signal goes away next February, the cable company will send the digital signal into a separate standard definition channel so people without digital sets will be able to receive it. I'm assuming that at that point, the wider aspect ratio will create black bars at the top and bottom of the picture. What I'm wondering is if a standard 4x3 will cut off the ends as well and appear as a smaller image in the middle of the screen. The only other "easy" solution I can see would be for the cable company to automatically cut off the ends of an incoming 16x9 image, thus maintaining a full screen for 4x3. Unfortunately, without employing a real "pan & scan" technique, important information could be lost, resulting in some unhappy consumers.

62's tv may have some digital processing but that doesn't mean it has a DTV tuner. I am not surprised he has a fuzzy picture with rabbit ears. He is the only one that gets fuzzy pictures on a digital tv. If he unhooks the rabbit ears and licks his finger and puts it across the antenna terminals, he will still get a fuzzy picture, most likely even fuzzier. If he put it on an outside antenna, it may clear up but it still won't be DTV.
Pretty soon, I expect 62kgw to start a campaign against DTV and tell us how dumb and noisy it is and that we should all go back to SD television.

Semoochie,
For the most part, nothing will change in February when they turn off the analog transmitters. The only thing that will happen is that OTA reception will disappear except for most translators. The cable companies will continue carrying the the same normal 4:3 aspect ratio programming on their regular channels as they are now. Comcast gets two feeds directly from the stations now, an SD and an HD feed. The stations will not change their signal flow instantly on the cutoff date. They will still be playing the same programs the same way through the same equipment. They will still feed their SD signal to the translators spread around the state. They will still upconvert their non HD programming to feed to the digital transmitter.
Some will be installing new equipment eventually but it will be a long process. Some independent stations don't have any HD programming, or very little, but must also convert to digital transmission. They will be upconverting their programs but they will still be in 4:3. Converting to HD is an expensive undertaking and most stations are going to be dragged into it, kicking and screaming all the way. All those syndicated programs that are the mainstay for independents and local non-network stuff are in SD format. They will continue showing them.

More HD programming will become available over time but most stations don't have the HD recorders or servers yet to take advantage of them. For example, Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy are now shot in HD but many/most of their stations don't have the equipment to delay/play them. The same is true for delayed network HD programs.
Don't expect anything to be much different in late February. Except, you will have to rescan your digital tv's/converters because 8, 10, and 12 will be moving their DTV from the current UHF frequencies to the old VHF frequency.

And, remember, DTV is not HD. It is just the medium used to transmit HD.

Those who have been waiting and looking for a converter box that allows analog passthrough can now get one more easily. Best Buy is selling one now that claims to have both analog and digital passthrough. It also has S-Video out in addition to composite. I have not verified it's performance and specs but it appears to be good. The price is $60 before you use your coupon. I believe the brand name is Apex.

Thank you for your response! "I know you think you know what you thought I said but what you fail to realize is what you thought I said is not what I meant." I think that's the quote. I was under the impression that the station would only send out the HD signal and if it happens to be in 16x9 aspect ratio then the cable company would have to do something for non-HD set receivers. (See previous post.) Are you saying that the stations will actually transmit a second, simulcast SD version of the main channel or that the cable companies don't receive the stations over the air but rather through direct video and audio lines?

Maybe I'm way off base but I was thinking since all VHF analog TV stations will be off the air except for "Low Power" or "Translators", TV-DX should be a lot of fun! Infact if VHF works like the AM band of the past with all the high power stations gone, Translators should broadcast with much more distance. Am I right? Ok you Engineers shot me down!

I can't speak for all cable systems across the country but Comcast, and Verizon FIOS, gets two feeds now. They do not take the off air signal. They get a direct feed from the stations. Currently, they are fed by fiber optics. They get both an SD feed and an HD feed. Dish Network is going to have to do something because they currently get their feeds from Off air. They have a receiver "farm" somewhere downtown that receives the stations and then they do what is needed to get it on their system. When we shut our transmitter off for some work on the tower, the phone rings in about 7 minutes from Dish Network wondering what happened to the signal. I am not sure but I think Direct TV gets the SD signal via fiber but the HD from off air.
When I say they get the signal via fiber, it is just one of the outputs from the final DA that also feeds the transmitters. All Portland stations have translators spread across the state. Those are fed by microwave. Those will still be running after the main transmitters shut down and will still be taking the same SD feed out of the switchers as they are now....same for the cable company.

Translators will have the same distance with no changes. The low band VHF frequencies may be "fun" for DXing but the high band VHF frequencies probably won't be as many of the stations there now will move their DT's there. They can run with less power than they did on VHF and certainly less than they are running on UHF, thereby lowering their electric bill. Univision on CH47 should improve without the adjacent channel digital interference they now experience.

Notalent RE:"With digital either you have the signal or you don't".Actually, you can have an error-free ddigital signal, or a signal with high bit error rate!!scoul'n't the fuzzyness visibal noise be caused by digital bit errors?or issues with the transmission medium??I assume the TV transmitters are NOT transmitting IBBOCnoise like KEX AM doeswith its "HD"!!??!!
Alfredo;My 1952 Philco B&W tube set has a few Issues that I have not been able to fix!!??Same with my NEC Color set!!!My spouse decided to buy 2 new sets last year to avoide the hassle with converter boxes and the old tv sets!!!!!!

62kgw:
I don't think that is the case... What I have observed with DTV is pretty much either:
1. Perfect picture...no "snow", no ghost.
2. No picture... nothing, zero.
Between the two conditions, there is a VERY small range of signal level/quality where "freezing", intermittent "dropouts" can be observed, but no "noise" or "fuzzyness".

What model Philco do you have?... I have seen the early 50's Philcos with 16" Round, 17" and 21" Rectangular CRTs.

I sometimes observe a "fuzzy" picture on my sets as well.......both are regular NTSC sets, one with a satellite receiver and the other with an ATSC/QAM receiver hooked through the YCrCb inputs.

Whenever that "fuzzy" picture is observed, I usually dig out my bottle of Windex and a big wad of paper towels. Problem solved!

DTV transmits using vestigial sideband AM with eight possible amplitude levels (8VSB). By comparison IBOC uses multiple carriers that have different power levels and possibly different types of modulation, depending on which part of the signal they make up (primary, secondary, or tertiary sidebands). This allows IBOC to be received at a lower bitrate when part of the signal is not usable due to interference or other reasons. DTV doesn't have this feature. Years ago, there were people saying that DTV should use a COFDM (multiple carrier) modulation scheme like that used in IBOC radio and DSL modems for that very reason.

The Philco has rectangular picture tube with rounded corners. Th cabinet is wood - cube shape for table-top.Built in antennawith adjuster knob to tune the antenna for best picture!.Lots of tubes inside!also has builtin speaker!I can get you its model number if you are that interested!?

The 17" table model is an almost perfect 20 to 20.5" cube (not counting the CRT "bump" on the back). The CRT measures a little over 15.5" corner to corner (not an actual 17"). My blonde example is a model 53U-1827. It was purchased by my in-laws in late 1952. It has the antenna adjust switch in back, speaker on the right side as you face the set, and UHF tuner in the center.

Let's be clear about DTV.
Digital TV can be tricky to tune in as it is a "all or nothing" process. Either the signal is perfect or there is nothing at all. With analog you could see a weak or ghosty picture and adjust your antenna accordingly. With digital you can't tell if you are getting close or not as there is not really a way of seeing the weak signal get better as you tweak the antenna.
There is no in-between. It is the same as receiving a signal from a digital satellite provider, such as Dish or Direct.
There are other problems that can cause reception problems.... reflections, blockage, multipath effects, rain and water in trees/shrubs...... the list goes on. One viewer had a perfect signal one day, and had it totally disappear the next. The difference was rain and wet leaves. He had a marginal signal to begin with, but was still getting a perfect picture. The signal degraded slightly because of wet leaves between his antenna and the station and it disappeared entirely.

You may receive all stations but one. All of the TV stations are receiving this kind of call. A viewer calls stating that they get station A,B,C, but not D or A,C, and D, but not B. This is an antenna issue where the viewer needs to re-adjust or rotate their antenna a few degrees one way or another to find the spot that all stations come in clearly.

As I said a few months back in a different thread, DTV is going to be an interesting and sometimes frustrating thing when we are forced to switch.

Just thought I would pass this one along to you all regarding the Digital Conversion. The Card you get from the Gov is just for the use of getting a Digital Converter Box. But I bet you did not know you can use that card for like buying your groceries at any store with a pin pad. Or maybe gas for your car. This is all true. I work for one of the Major Grocery store chains here in the area. And if you go thru the self check out or U-SCAN. You can use your Digital Converter Card to make the purchase. This I know because I had a customer use his Card by mistake, he thought he had the store gift card to make his purchase, he realized what he did and wanted us to put the amount back on the card, we could not. So if you feel like you want to have a good dinner on Uncle Sam go for it. Oh I email channel 8 on this never heard back and channel 6 did not seem interested in it also.

I'd be nervous using my coupon for something other than a converter box just because I assume the cards are traceable back to the people to whom they were issued. You might get away with it if you made the purchase at a store that sells converter boxes. I guess it would depend on whether or not there's an itemization of the purchase that goes back to the card issuer, and I don't know the answer to that. The risk might be small but still the $40 wouldn't be worth it to me. Even though the government is pretty useless at knowing "where the money went" I still wouldn't do it.

Jimbo said:

"With analog you could see a weak or ghosty picture and adjust your antenna accordingly. With digital you can't tell if you are getting close or not as there is not really a way of seeing the weak signal get better as you tweak the antenna."

Another factor here is the small time lag for digital processing in your TV set... that "sweet spot" that you just found may be where the antenna was pointed a few seconds before! This and the "all or nothing" aspect make antenna location a real pain in difficult locations. The converter boxes/sets need to have a better signal strength/signal quality meter that will indicate the level even when the antenna is getting a signal far below that required to produce a picture.

On the "bright side", newer converter boxes/sets seem to be much more sensitive, and more resistant to multipath effects than the first generation units.

My guess is that cable and satellite providers will see an increase in sales as the deadline approaches.

The (LG-made) Zenith DTT900 has an on-screen signal strength indicator, which also beeps like a Geiger counter to aid adjusting the antenna if the screen is out of sight.

Thank you, Jimbo! That clears it up pretty well. I didn't realize cable companies had a direct feed. I had always thought that would be a good idea but know that they used to have multiple receiving antennas at the cable companies.

Actually, Semoochie, I was speaking locally for Comcast. There are other cable companies in outside areas that do not get direct feeds. Some of them do get off air signals. The current word is that some Cable providers have plans in place, if not already doing so, of downconverting the digital signal and re-broadcasting it on their cable system in analog. I do not know how they are going to process it. Your original questions are legitimate questions for them. They may not all do it the same way. It depends on the cable company involved.

The Channel Master CM7000 also has a signal strength meter.

I went over to my mother's house and hooked up her new converter box. I keep hearing about how you have to get the antenna positioned just right. You might get some channels perfectly but others, not at all. I disconected the antenna from the TV, connected it to the box and connected the supplied cable between the box and TV. I pushed the autoprogram button and got 23 perfect channels, all of them! No tinkering at all! I might mention that there were 3 display settings on the box: Letterbox, 4x3 or whatever it's called and full, which no one in their right mind would want to use. We settled on the second choice, despite it cutting off the edges of a widescreen picture. There was a warning that leaving it in the letterbox position for too long could cause burn in.

23? Oh-oh, which one did I miss? I get*:

2.1
6.1, 6.2
8.1, 8.2
10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 & 10.5 (which is audio only)
12.1
22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4
24.1, 24.2, 24.3, 24.4, 24.5
32.1
49.1

*indicated channel numbers

32.2 which is blank

49.1 still has problems in Salem

Paging Ken Lewetag...when is 17.1 coming?

Ah! I deleted 32.2 when "The Tube" went dark, so a re-scan may not "find" it.

32.2 is just broadcasting a "carrier" like 10.5

"There was a warning that leaving it in the letterbox position for too long could cause burn in."

I don't know how that could be any worse than, say, watching a *really long* anamorphic-frame DVD-Video movie...

My Digitalstream box finds a carrier on 32.2 also, right where "The Tube" used to be. (The Pansat & Panasonic both seem to ignore it altogether.)

Ironically, the EPG entry for 32.2 currently lists as "Regularly Scheduled Programming".

I think they meant something on the order of leaving it there for 3 or 4 years, probably not that long but you get the idea.

We use consumer grade LCD panels for our monitoring programs in the data center here at work, and I have to say that the rumors of LCDs being less susceptable to burn-in have been greatly exaggerated. They burn like a mofo!

I had thought that LCD displays would make computer screen savers obsolete. Unfortunately, I have been proven wrong, and the LCD display "image persistence" phenomenon is well known and documented:
http://compreviews.about.com/od/monitors/a/LCDBurnIn.htm

According to that source, the difference between LCD image persistence and CRT burn-in is that the LCD phenomenon is reversible, whereas CRT burn-in is not.

deleted

Carry on............