Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Confusion over DTV transition

Expand Messages
  • jwpottberg
    ...25 percent mistakenly believe that one must subscribe to cable or satellite to receive television reception after February... Exactly what the
    Message 1 of 18 , Jan 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      "...25 percent mistakenly believe that one must subscribe to cable
      or satellite to receive television reception after February..."

      Exactly what the cable/satellite companies hoped after spending
      millions on ads that subtly suggest this.

      Jim


      --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <Lopakabob@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/confusion-air-over-dtv-
      transition-010\
      > 5/
      > <http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/confusion-air-over-dtv-
      transition-01\
      > 05/>
      >
      > If the link above doesn't work this one should:
      >
      > http://tinyurl.com/7t3nlt <http://tinyurl.com/7t3nlt>
      >
    • epicurusradium
      ... This is exactly the feeling I have been getting over this barrage of PSI s , especially those spots put out by Comcast. OTA TV is being harmed by the
      Message 2 of 18 , Jan 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "jwpottberg" <jwpottberg@...> wrote:
        >
        > "...25 percent mistakenly believe that one must subscribe to cable
        > or satellite to receive television reception after February..."
        >
        > Exactly what the cable/satellite companies hoped after spending
        > millions on ads that subtly suggest this.
        >
        > Jim
        >
        This is exactly the feeling I have been getting over this barrage of
        'PSI's', especially those spots put out by Comcast. OTA TV is being
        harmed by the whole thing.

        The resistance of some on this forum who are connected with the
        industry to accommodation to those in the public who are not in a
        position to install big outdoor antennas seems to me to be a further
        indication. Clearly many who have been getting acceptable analog
        reception are going to be shut out when that alternative is no longer
        available. Sure digital/HiDef is great but effective transmission
        range is also considerable less - including casual 'local' reception
        with typical indoor antennas.


        > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <Lopakabob@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/confusion-air-over-dtv-
        > transition-010\
        > > 5/
        > > <http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/confusion-air-over-dtv-
        > transition-01\
        > > 05/>
        > >
        > > If the link above doesn't work this one should:
        > >
        > > http://tinyurl.com/7t3nlt <http://tinyurl.com/7t3nlt>
        > >
        >
      • tuatara57macaw
        It was recently reported in the news (perhaps ABC Channel 7?) around New Years Day that some people buying new TVs because they think they have to do so in
        Message 3 of 18 , Jan 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          It was recently reported in the news (perhaps ABC Channel 7?) around
          New Years Day that some people buying new TVs because they think they
          have to do so in order to get DTV reception.

          What's just as bad, is when people go to a store to buy a new TV and
          the store salesperson ignores or acts stupid about the availability of
          free OTA DTV and who instead pushes, pushes, pushes subscription cable
          or satellite services. They know that there's one born every minute.

          That said, it seems that every single TV channel that I have seen in
          the past 6 months has been announcing over and over what is required
          for the DTV transition. Some stations have a "countdown". The TV
          stations, in their public announcements, have been pretty clear that a
          converter box can be used with an antenna.




          --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "epicurusradium" <gene9@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "jwpottberg" <jwpottberg@> wrote:
          > >
          > > "...25 percent mistakenly believe that one must subscribe to cable
          > > or satellite to receive television reception after February..."
          > >
          > > Exactly what the cable/satellite companies hoped after spending
          > > millions on ads that subtly suggest this.
          > >
          > > Jim
          > >
          > This is exactly the feeling I have been getting over this barrage of
          > 'PSI's', especially those spots put out by Comcast. OTA TV is being
          > harmed by the whole thing.
          >
          > The resistance of some on this forum who are connected with the
          > industry to accommodation to those in the public who are not in a
          > position to install big outdoor antennas seems to me to be a further
          > indication. Clearly many who have been getting acceptable analog
          > reception are going to be shut out when that alternative is no longer
          > available. Sure digital/HiDef is great but effective transmission
          > range is also considerable less - including casual 'local' reception
          > with typical indoor antennas.
          >
          >
          > > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <Lopakabob@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/confusion-air-over-dtv-
          > > transition-010\
          > > > 5/
          > > > <http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/confusion-air-over-dtv-
          > > transition-01\
          > > > 05/>
          > > >
          > > > If the link above doesn't work this one should:
          > > >
          > > > http://tinyurl.com/7t3nlt <http://tinyurl.com/7t3nlt>
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • Richard Swank
          It s amazing to me that there is so much bull on this site. Where have you been the cable/satellite penetration in the SF market on analog television is ~85%.
          Message 4 of 18 , Jan 6, 2009
          • 0 Attachment

            It’s amazing to me that there is so much bull on this site.  Where have you been the cable/satellite penetration in the SF market on analog television is ~85%.  Let me see that leaves 15% OTA viewership unless there is a new math since I finished school.  To me this means there are 85% of the public that really don’t care Feb 18th is coming.  It certainly won’t impact them unless they want HDTV and then they’ll need to upgrade not only their receiver but their delivery system.  Why would anyone assume that the OTA viewership would increase due to DTV?  Most cable and satellite viewers want the added quote cable channel viewing options in addition to OTA channels anyway. 

             

            It would be interesting to find out how many cable subscribers only get local channels off their cable system even if it’s possible.  Purchasing, installing, and maintaining a good outdoor OTA antenna system isn’t cheap and it takes some time and knowledge and in many cases permission from a landlord.  Not getting permission from a landlord may mean a new landlord is required.  A personal decision needs to be made and one of those decisions is do I watch enough television to make it worth it one way or another.

             

            I do agree that with DTV you can not live with a substandard reception issue as there is a cliff effect for signal level and only a finite amount of error correction to cover up multipath errors.  The current viewers watching analog television with snowy and shadowy analog reception off their rabbit ears are in for a surprise, it probably won’t work.  The only real way to tell is purchase one of the government sponsored converter boxes or make the big jump to HDTV and find out.  If it doesn’t work “YOU” need to obtain a better antenna or delivery system.  It’s as simple as that.  If you don’t want to do that then you will be limited to the number of stations you can receive using a converter box and the existing beloved rabbit ears.

             

            There is no conspiracy to make anyone buy cable or satellite.  The federal government was talked into High Definition digital television by consumer, manufacturing and broadcasting advocates, not the cable and satellite industry.  It is far superior in quality to analog television but has minimum needs to work.  It also offered congress an opportunity (excuse) to sell off a big portion of the current television spectrum for a large sum of money that they’ll blow giving away on some liberal (government, sorry) program.

             

            A very large promotion effort has been made to inform the public that they need to at minimum get a converter box to make their current television work in the new world.  Part of this promotion informs them that if they have cable or satellite then the cable or satellite company will continue to provide them with an analog service and they don’t need to do anything.  There are now 42 or so days left until broadcasters have to turn the analog transmitters off and the public is beginning to feel the pressure as we have for some time.  I believe as the current rules stand cable and satellite companies only have to continue to provide analog service for the next 3 years.  If that would happen then the only use for their analog television will be as a VCR viewer.  Of course they probably will continue to provide analog service as long as there is a subscriber demand.


            From: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com [mailto:HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jwpottberg
            Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:50 PM
            To: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: Confusion over DTV transition

             

            "...25 percent mistakenly believe that one must subscribe to cable
            or satellite to receive television reception after February..."

            Exactly what the cable/satellite companies hoped after spending
            millions on ads that subtly suggest this.

            Jim

            --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@ yahoogroups. com, "Bob" <Lopakabob@. ..> wrote:

            >
            >
            > http://broadcasteng ineering. com/RF/confusion -air-over- dtv-
            transition-010\
            > 5/
            > <http://broadcasteng ineering. com/RF/confusion -air-over- dtv-
            transition-01\
            > 05/>
            >
            > If the link above doesn't work this one should:
            >
            > http://tinyurl. com/7t3nlt
            <http://tinyurl. com/7t3nlt>
            >

          • Frank Nemec W6NJR
            ... I disagree. In my opinion, no one in this country has any excuse for being unprepared for the transition. If our market is any indication, the flood of
            Message 5 of 18 , Jan 6, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              > The resistance of some on this forum who are connected with the
              > industry to accommodation to those in the public who are not in a
              > position to install big outdoor antennas seems to me to be a further
              > indication. Clearly many who have been getting acceptable analog
              > reception are going to be shut out when that alternative is no longer
              > available. Sure digital/HiDef is great but effective transmission
              > range is also considerable less - including casual 'local' reception
              > with typical indoor antennas.

              I disagree. In my opinion, no one in this country has any excuse for
              being unprepared for the transition. If our market is any indication,
              the flood of public service announcements, ads, and even intrusive
              banners during normal programming are impossible to ignore, if you watch
              any OTA TV. If you don't speak English or have a brain, you know
              someone who does. I also don't think a long-term resident who refuses
              to learn English is entitled to hand-holding so they can keep watching
              free TV. The cable/satellite companies can deceive only those who
              subscribe to their services, and those services will continue
              unaffected. Transition information is available to anyone who cares,
              and it's not that complicated. At most, I think the converter box
              subsidy program should be continued to some time after the transition,
              so even the ignorant and apathetic can make their transition practically
              for free. Well, it's even worse than that. Right now, at the peak of
              the frenzy to overpublicize the transition, the coupon program has
              reached its funded ceiling. They now have a waiting list as funds
              become available from expiring coupons. That was the biggest outreach
              to the disadvantaged. And now that is hamstrung. That's something
              worth complaining about.

              Once the transition is complete and stations have had time to migrate
              their digital transmissions to their best antennas (often the newest
              state-of-the-art ones they had to buy to transmit both analog and
              digital at the same time) at their prime locations (like the top of
              Sutro), few locations should get a significantly worse signal. Moving
              out of low VHF gives indoor antennas more of a chance than they had
              before. And in a few more years, as the new protocols for mobile TV
              reception are deployed, a TV with a marginal RF signal could switch to
              that, similar to how FM receivers now switch to mono when they have
              insufficient signal to reliably decode stereo.

              I was also very pleased to see the OTARD preemption rules by the FCC in
              1996 (with amendments) which preempt most restrictions on an antenna 1
              meter or less in diameter:
              http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
              and at least one manufacturer now makes a Yagi within that limit. The
              CM4221HD is just barely over the limit, but it wouldn't surprise me if
              ChannelMaster is working on a screen-bowtie model that would fit within
              the restrictions and give some coverage down toward the low end of high VHF.
            • epicurusradium
              Your reply was totally of the mark in response to my post for the first 2/3 of what you wrote. Glad to see you finally began to address what I was actually
              Message 6 of 18 , Jan 6, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Your reply was totally of the mark in response to my post for the
                first 2/3 of what you wrote. Glad to see you finally began to address
                what I was actually saying in the 3rd paragraph.

                As I stated earlier on this forum; We won't know for sure what the
                result will be of the eventual transmitting antenna changes until way
                into the year. Fingers crossed..... Never the less I stand by what I
                said about the short shrift given to those not using the favorite big
                multi-bowtie antenna promoted here - for whatever reason.

                epicurusradium

                --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Frank Nemec W6NJR <hdtv@...> wrote:
                >
                > > The resistance of some on this forum who are connected with the
                > > industry to accommodation to those in the public who are not in a
                > > position to install big outdoor antennas seems to me to be a further
                > > indication. Clearly many who have been getting acceptable analog
                > > reception are going to be shut out when that alternative is no longer
                > > available. Sure digital/HiDef is great but effective transmission
                > > range is also considerable less - including casual 'local' reception
                > > with typical indoor antennas.
                >
                > I disagree. In my opinion, no one in this country has any excuse for
                > being unprepared for the transition. If our market is any indication,
                > the flood of public service announcements, ads, and even intrusive
                > banners during normal programming are impossible to ignore, if you
                watch
                > any OTA TV. If you don't speak English or have a brain, you know
                > someone who does. I also don't think a long-term resident who refuses
                > to learn English is entitled to hand-holding so they can keep watching
                > free TV. The cable/satellite companies can deceive only those who
                > subscribe to their services, and those services will continue
                > unaffected. Transition information is available to anyone who cares,
                > and it's not that complicated. At most, I think the converter box
                > subsidy program should be continued to some time after the transition,
                > so even the ignorant and apathetic can make their transition
                practically
                > for free. Well, it's even worse than that. Right now, at the peak of
                > the frenzy to overpublicize the transition, the coupon program has
                > reached its funded ceiling. They now have a waiting list as funds
                > become available from expiring coupons. That was the biggest outreach
                > to the disadvantaged. And now that is hamstrung. That's something
                > worth complaining about.
                >
                > Once the transition is complete and stations have had time to migrate
                > their digital transmissions to their best antennas (often the newest
                > state-of-the-art ones they had to buy to transmit both analog and
                > digital at the same time) at their prime locations (like the top of
                > Sutro), few locations should get a significantly worse signal. Moving
                > out of low VHF gives indoor antennas more of a chance than they had
                > before. And in a few more years, as the new protocols for mobile TV
                > reception are deployed, a TV with a marginal RF signal could switch to
                > that, similar to how FM receivers now switch to mono when they have
                > insufficient signal to reliably decode stereo.
                >
                > I was also very pleased to see the OTARD preemption rules by the FCC in
                > 1996 (with amendments) which preempt most restrictions on an antenna 1
                > meter or less in diameter:
                > http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
                > and at least one manufacturer now makes a Yagi within that limit. The
                > CM4221HD is just barely over the limit, but it wouldn't surprise me if
                > ChannelMaster is working on a screen-bowtie model that would fit within
                > the restrictions and give some coverage down toward the low end of
                high VHF.
                >
              • kb1we6r
                Very WELL put Frank, thanks! I have been PRO-Active with my family, friends and neighbors to keep them informed, and to set up their boxes and antenna. If WE
                Message 7 of 18 , Jan 6, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Very WELL put Frank, thanks! I have been PRO-Active with my family,
                  friends and neighbors to keep them informed, and to set up their
                  boxes and antenna. If WE ALL do that it will help. Unfortunatly the
                  EARLYIER Public Service Announcements (and Commercial ones) did not
                  state the "If you are using an antenna..." part!! And if you don't
                  have room to put a simple 4-bay bowtie SOMEWHERE (attic, inside
                  window etc), then you need to be reminded that RF is RF, it is what
                  it is and has been that way FOREVER! You can't change it! And ANY
                  option away from blanket transmissions cost MONEY, that is why there
                  is cable, satellie etc!
                  If you take the "poor me" attitude, you will ALWAYS be disappointed.
                  I personally CAN'T WAIT to see what kind of signal I MIGHT get from
                  Sutro in a year, yee haw!
                  Keith in Monterey

                  --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Frank Nemec W6NJR <hdtv@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > > The resistance of some on this forum who are connected with the
                  > > industry to accommodation to those in the public who are not in a
                  > > position to install big outdoor antennas seems to me to be a
                  further
                  > > indication. Clearly many who have been getting acceptable analog
                  > > reception are going to be shut out when that alternative is no
                  longer
                  > > available. Sure digital/HiDef is great but effective transmission
                  > > range is also considerable less - including casual 'local'
                  reception
                  > > with typical indoor antennas.
                  >
                  > I disagree. In my opinion, no one in this country has any excuse
                  for
                  > being unprepared for the transition. If our market is any
                  indication,
                  > the flood of public service announcements, ads, and even intrusive
                  > banners during normal programming are impossible to ignore, if you
                  watch
                  > any OTA TV. If you don't speak English or have a brain, you know
                  > someone who does. I also don't think a long-term resident who
                  refuses
                  > to learn English is entitled to hand-holding so they can keep
                  watching
                  > free TV. The cable/satellite companies can deceive only those who
                  > subscribe to their services, and those services will continue
                  > unaffected. Transition information is available to anyone who
                  cares,
                  > and it's not that complicated. At most, I think the converter box
                  > subsidy program should be continued to some time after the
                  transition,
                  > so even the ignorant and apathetic can make their transition
                  practically
                  > for free. Well, it's even worse than that. Right now, at the peak
                  of
                  > the frenzy to overpublicize the transition, the coupon program has
                  > reached its funded ceiling. They now have a waiting list as funds
                  > become available from expiring coupons. That was the biggest
                  outreach
                  > to the disadvantaged. And now that is hamstrung. That's something
                  > worth complaining about.
                  >
                  > Once the transition is complete and stations have had time to
                  migrate
                  > their digital transmissions to their best antennas (often the
                  newest
                  > state-of-the-art ones they had to buy to transmit both analog and
                  > digital at the same time) at their prime locations (like the top of
                  > Sutro), few locations should get a significantly worse signal.
                  Moving
                  > out of low VHF gives indoor antennas more of a chance than they had
                  > before. And in a few more years, as the new protocols for mobile
                  TV
                  > reception are deployed, a TV with a marginal RF signal could switch
                  to
                  > that, similar to how FM receivers now switch to mono when they have
                  > insufficient signal to reliably decode stereo.
                  >
                  > I was also very pleased to see the OTARD preemption rules by the
                  FCC in
                  > 1996 (with amendments) which preempt most restrictions on an
                  antenna 1
                  > meter or less in diameter:
                  > http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
                  > and at least one manufacturer now makes a Yagi within that limit.
                  The
                  > CM4221HD is just barely over the limit, but it wouldn't surprise me
                  if
                  > ChannelMaster is working on a screen-bowtie model that would fit
                  within
                  > the restrictions and give some coverage down toward the low end of
                  high VHF.
                  >
                • Richard Swank
                  It s amazing to me that there is so much bull on this site. Where have you been the cable/satellite penetration in the SF market on analog television is ~85%.
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jan 6, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment

                     

                    It’s amazing to me that there is so much bull on this site.  Where have you been the cable/satellite penetration in the SF market on analog television is ~85%.  Let me see that leaves 15% OTA viewership unless there is a new math since I finished school.  To me this means there are 85% of the public that really don’t care Feb 18th is coming.  It certainly won’t impact them unless they want HDTV and then they’ll need to upgrade not only their receiver but their delivery system.  Why would anyone assume that the OTA viewership would increase due to DTV?  Most cable and satellite viewers want the added quote cable channel viewing options in addition to OTA channels anyway. 

                     

                    It would be interesting to find out how many cable subscribers only get local channels off their cable system even if it’s possible.  Purchasing, installing, and maintaining a good outdoor OTA antenna system isn’t cheap and it takes some time and knowledge and in many cases permission from a landlord.  Not getting permission from a landlord may mean a new landlord is required.  A personal decision needs to be made and one of those decisions is do I watch enough television to make it worth it one way or another.

                     

                    I do agree that with DTV you can not live with a substandard reception issue as there is a cliff effect for signal level and only a finite amount of error correction to cover up multipath errors.  The current viewers watching analog television with snowy and shadowy analog reception off their rabbit ears are in for a surprise, it probably won’t work.  The only real way to tell is purchase one of the government sponsored converter boxes or make the big jump to HDTV and find out.  If it doesn’t work “YOU” need to obtain a better antenna or delivery system.  It’s as simple as that.  If you don’t want to do that then you will be limited to the number of stations you can receive using a converter box and the existing beloved rabbit ears.

                     

                    There is no conspiracy to make anyone buy cable or satellite.  The federal government was talked into High Definition digital television by consumer, manufacturing and broadcasting advocates, not the cable and satellite industry.  It is far superior in quality to analog television but has minimum needs to work.  It also offered congress an opportunity (excuse) to sell off a big portion of the current television spectrum for a large sum of money that they’ll blow giving away on some liberal (government, sorry) program.

                     

                    A very large promotion effort has been made to inform the public that they need to at minimum get a converter box to make their current television work in the new world.  Part of this promotion informs them that if they have cable or satellite then the cable or satellite company will continue to provide them with an analog service and they don’t need to do anything.  There are now 42 or so days left until broadcasters have to turn the analog transmitters off and the public is beginning to feel the pressure as we have for some time.  I believe as the current rules stand cable and satellite companies only have to continue to provide analog service for the next 3 years.  If that would happen then the only use for their analog television will be as a VCR viewer.  Of course they probably will continue to provide analog service as long as there is a subscriber demand.


                    From: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com [mailto: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of jwpottberg
                    Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:50 PM
                    To: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: Confusion over DTV transition

                     

                    "...25 percent mistakenly believe that one must subscribe to cable
                    or satellite to receive television reception after February..."

                    Exactly what the cable/satellite companies hoped after spending
                    millions on ads that subtly suggest this.

                    Jim

                    --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@ yahoogroups. com, "Bob" <Lopakabob@. ..> wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > http://broadcasteng ineering. com/RF/confusion -air-over- dtv-
                    transition-010\
                    > 5/
                    > <http://broadcasteng ineering. com/RF/confusion -air-over- dtv-
                    transition-01\
                    > 05/>
                    >
                    > If the link above doesn't work this one should:
                    >
                    > http://tinyurl. com/7t3nlt
                    <http://tinyurl. com/7t3nlt>
                    >

                  • Richard Swank
                    Where have you been the cable/satellite penetration in the SF market on analog television is ~85%. Let me see that leaves 15% OTA viewership unless there is a
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jan 6, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Where have you been the cable/satellite penetration in the SF market on analog television is ~85%.  Let me see that leaves 15% OTA viewership unless there is a new math since I finished school.  To me this means there are 85% of the public that really don’t care Feb 18th is coming.  It certainly won’t impact them unless they want HDTV and then they’ll need to upgrade not only their receiver but their delivery system.  Why would anyone assume that the OTA viewership would increase due to DTV?  Most cable and satellite viewers want the added quote cable channel viewing options in addition to OTA channels anyway. 

                       

                      It would be interesting to find out how many cable subscribers only get local channels off their cable system even if it’s possible.  Purchasing, installing, and maintaining a good outdoor OTA antenna system isn’t cheap and it takes some time and knowledge and in many cases permission from a landlord.  Not getting permission from a landlord may mean a new landlord is required.  A personal decision needs to be made and one of those decisions is do I watch enough television to make it worth it one way or another.

                       

                      I do agree that with DTV you can not live with a substandard reception issue as there is a cliff effect for signal level and only a finite amount of error correction to cover up multipath errors.  The current viewers watching analog television with snowy and shadowy analog reception off their rabbit ears are in for a surprise, it probably won’t work.  The only real way to tell is purchase one of the government sponsored converter boxes or make the big jump to HDTV and find out.  If it doesn’t work “YOU” need to obtain a better antenna or delivery system.  It’s as simple as that.  If you don’t want to do that then you will be limited to the number of stations you can receive using a converter box and the existing beloved rabbit ears.

                       

                      There is no conspiracy to make anyone buy cable or satellite.  The federal government was talked into High Definition digital television by consumer, manufacturing and broadcasting advocates, not the cable and satellite industry.  It is far superior in quality to analog television but has minimum needs to work.  It also offered congress an opportunity (excuse) to sell off a big portion of the current television spectrum for a large sum of money that they’ll blow giving away on some liberal (government, sorry) program.

                       

                      A very large promotion effort has been made to inform the public that they need to at minimum get a converter box to make their current television work in the new world.  Part of this promotion informs them that if they have cable or satellite then the cable or satellite company will continue to provide them with an analog service and they don’t need to do anything.  There are now 42 or so days left until broadcasters have to turn the analog transmitters off and the public is beginning to feel the pressure as we have for some time.  I believe as the current rules stand cable and satellite companies only have to continue to provide analog service for the next 3 years.  If that would happen then the only use for their analog television will be as a VCR viewer.  Of course they probably will continue to provide analog service as long as there is a subscriber demand.


                      From: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com [mailto: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of jwpottberg
                      Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:50 PM
                      To: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: Confusion over DTV transition

                       

                      "...25 percent mistakenly believe that one must subscribe to cable
                      or satellite to receive television reception after February..."

                      Exactly what the cable/satellite companies hoped after spending
                      millions on ads that subtly suggest this.

                      Jim

                      --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@ yahoogroups. com, "Bob" <Lopakabob@. ..> wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      > http://broadcasteng ineering. com/RF/confusion -air-over- dtv-
                      transition-010\
                      > 5/
                      > <http://broadcasteng ineering. com/RF/confusion -air-over- dtv-
                      transition-01\
                      > 05/>
                      >
                      > If the link above doesn't work this one should:
                      >
                      > http://tinyurl. com/7t3nlt
                      <http://tinyurl. com/7t3nlt>
                      >

                    • Louis R Briones
                      The idea of one being forced to go with Cable or the small garnic satellite companies doesn t excite me what so ever. Given the reason that these folks like
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jan 6, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The idea of one being forced to go with Cable or the small garnic satellite
                        companies doesn't excite me what so ever. Given the reason that these folks
                        like the idea of charging us OTA user an armed and a legg, with not much to
                        afford anymore
                        I'm still proud to be a Big C-band user, to where I know that there many
                        FREE TO AIR channels which provides a much cleaner Picture and sound and
                        it's worth well the cost, when I bought my system back in 93. My DSR-922
                        receiver is easier when I know that there are still 54 Satellite that I'm
                        able to choose from. This America, to where us OTA user do have rights,
                        without having to be restricted by these small dish providers and Cable TV
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "jwpottberg" <jwpottberg@...>
                        To: <HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:49 PM
                        Subject: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: Confusion over DTV transition


                        "...25 percent mistakenly believe that one must subscribe to cable
                        or satellite to receive television reception after February..."

                        Exactly what the cable/satellite companies hoped after spending
                        millions on ads that subtly suggest this.

                        Jim


                        --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <Lopakabob@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/confusion-air-over-dtv-
                        transition-010\
                        > 5/
                        > <http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/confusion-air-over-dtv-
                        transition-01\
                        > 05/>
                        >
                        > If the link above doesn't work this one should:
                        >
                        > http://tinyurl.com/7t3nlt <http://tinyurl.com/7t3nlt>
                        >
                      • Nick Sayer
                        ... Lucky for all of us it s not the case. :) ... Um, say what? Those FTA channels are better than 1080i MPEG2 like the OTA broadcasters are using? I dunno,
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jan 6, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Louis R Briones" <cbandman1949@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > The idea of one being forced to go with Cable or the small garnic satellite
                          > companies doesn't excite me what so ever.

                          Lucky for all of us it's not the case. :)

                          > Given the reason that these folks
                          > like the idea of charging us OTA user an armed and a legg, with not much to
                          > afford anymore
                          > I'm still proud to be a Big C-band user, to where I know that there many
                          > FREE TO AIR channels which provides a much cleaner Picture and sound and

                          Um, say what? Those FTA channels are better than 1080i MPEG2 like the OTA broadcasters
                          are using?

                          I dunno, maybe I'm not bohemian enough, but the last time I looked into it, the stuff
                          available in the clear on C band wasn't nearly as interesting as DirecTV's basic tier, but I
                          can understand folks claiming that can be a subjective thing. Wild feeds can sometimes be
                          almost as good as America's Funniest Videos, after all.

                          > it's worth well the cost, when I bought my system back in 93. My DSR-922
                          > receiver is easier when I know that there are still 54 Satellite that I'm
                          > able to choose from.

                          How did that old song go? 54 satellites and nothing's on. :)

                          > This America, to where us OTA user do have rights,

                          A right! And a left! And an uppercut to the jaw! And he's down for the count!
                        • Nick Sayer
                          ... The size restriction is only for satellite receiving antennas (and there is no size limit at all in Alaska). For terrestrial receive antennas, it does not
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jan 8, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Frank Nemec W6NJR <hdtv@...> wrote:

                            > I was also very pleased to see the OTARD preemption rules by the FCC in
                            > 1996 (with amendments) which preempt most restrictions on an antenna 1
                            > meter or less in diameter:

                            The size restriction is only for satellite receiving antennas (and there is no size limit at all in
                            Alaska). For terrestrial receive antennas, it does not apply. Rather, for terrestrial antennas a
                            minimum allowable height of 10 feet applies.
                          • Louis R Briones
                            I agree with Richard Swank poasted message on 1/23/09 about the comfusion given the idea that a pair of rabbit ears will not work with many of the government
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jan 23, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I agree with Richard Swank poasted message on 1/23/09 about the comfusion
                              given the idea that a pair of rabbit ears will not work with many of the
                              government receivers. Fine if your within the city, however when one is
                              outside the TV station say 30 miles or more, I happen to agree with Richard
                              on this one.
                              It would seem to me that the Democracts fail to realize this factor, and it
                              would be a wasteful event for the delay to happen.
                              This would mean more of tax dollars wasted and there are better ways to
                              spend the money, and also that most of the TV stations are already changing
                              out their analog transmitter antenas in the first place.
                              Knowing the comfusion already, I along with a frand of mine have aready
                              tested his terk antanna at hs place as well my location and there was no
                              station on the digital receivers. An outdoor OTA antenna is strongly
                              recommended with all digital receivers of anykind.
                            • Bob
                              ... the cable/satellite penetration in the SF market on analog television ... It s actually less than that, at least 5% of the market gets their signals from
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jan 23, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment

                                --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Swank" <rswank@...> wrote:

                                >
                                the cable/satellite penetration in the SF market on analog television
                                > is ~85%. Let me see that leaves 15% OTA viewership

                                It's actually less than that, at least 5% of the market gets their signals from DBS; OTA is estimated at just 9% to 10% in this market.

                              • Roy Moore
                                Good point, Bob, but still that is some 300,000 or so viewers where this is their primary source of TV and if you count all the secondary sets in kitchens,
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jan 23, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Good point, Bob, but still that is some 300,000 or so viewers where
                                  this is their primary source of TV and if you count all the secondary
                                  sets in kitchens, kid's rooms, and other living space this could be
                                  up to a million sets without service come whatever day the actual
                                  transition is.

                                  Thanks, Roy

                                  --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <Lopakabob@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Swank" <rswank@>
                                  > wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > the cable/satellite penetration in the SF market on analog
                                  television
                                  > > is ~85%. Let me see that leaves 15% OTA viewership
                                  >
                                  > It's actually less than that, at least 5% of the market gets their
                                  > signals from DBS; OTA is estimated at just 9% to 10% in this market.
                                  >
                                • Bob
                                  Roy, so true, this is a Large market, 10% of a really Big number is still a big number.
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jan 23, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    Roy, so true, this is a Large market, 10% of a really Big number is still a big number.


                                    --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Moore" <videoroy@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Good point, Bob, but still that is some 300,000 or so viewers where
                                    > this is their primary source of TV and if you count all the secondary
                                    > sets in kitchens, kid's rooms, and other living space this could be
                                    > up to a million sets without service come whatever day the actual
                                    > transition is.
                                    >
                                    > Thanks, Roy
                                    >
                                    > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" Lopakabob@ wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Swank" <rswank@>
                                    > > wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > the cable/satellite penetration in the SF market on analog
                                    > television
                                    > > > is ~85%. Let me see that leaves 15% OTA viewership
                                    > >
                                    > > It's actually less than that, at least 5% of the market gets their
                                    > > signals from DBS; OTA is estimated at just 9% to 10% in this market.
                                    > >
                                    >

                                  • Nick Sayer
                                    But this was always the case, even in the days of analog TV. Without a good outdoor antenna, in the south bay at least, you get crappy reception. The only
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Jan 23, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      But this was always the case, even in the days of analog TV. Without a good outdoor
                                      antenna, in the south bay at least, you get crappy reception. The only people
                                      inconvenienced by the transition are people who, for whatever reason, were putting up
                                      with such bad analog reception that they will be "over the cliff" with digital.

                                      In my case, the situation improved dramatically with DTV. I was always able to receive
                                      everything I should, but reception on KTVU, KRON and KPIX always had lots of noise. Now,
                                      of course, they're perfect (modulo the temporary reception issues I have on KRON and
                                      KTVU until they change frequencies on 2/17). Additionally, I'll gain KRCB, since they no
                                      longer collide with KAXT, and (probably) KCBA, since they're moving to VHF-hi.

                                      --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Louis R Briones" <cbandman1949@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > I agree with Richard Swank poasted message on 1/23/09 about the comfusion
                                      > given the idea that a pair of rabbit ears will not work with many of the
                                      > government receivers. Fine if your within the city, however when one is
                                      > outside the TV station say 30 miles or more, I happen to agree with Richard
                                      > on this one.
                                      > It would seem to me that the Democracts fail to realize this factor, and it
                                      > would be a wasteful event for the delay to happen.
                                      > This would mean more of tax dollars wasted and there are better ways to
                                      > spend the money, and also that most of the TV stations are already changing
                                      > out their analog transmitter antenas in the first place.
                                      > Knowing the comfusion already, I along with a frand of mine have aready
                                      > tested his terk antanna at hs place as well my location and there was no
                                      > station on the digital receivers. An outdoor OTA antenna is strongly
                                      > recommended with all digital receivers of anykind.
                                      >
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.