I think the government is worrying over nothing as far as people losing TV reception after the DTV transition is concerned; sheeesh, they have more important things to worry about at this time anyhow. Who uses regular television antennas these days, anyway? Most people have either cable or satellite now, and let's face it, some folks live in areas where cable is not available. Case in point: I live in an area of northeastern Ohio, 33 miles east of Cleveland and 610 feet above sea level, where the TV reception with an antenna is terrible. One station (the NBC affiliate) doesn't reach here at all; seven others (three of which are UHF stations) are fair to poor at best. The only station that comes in here on an antenna with a picture good enough to watch is channel 19. From this, it is or should be clear that in this area, as well as in many other towns across the country, antennas do not work very well, so cable is really the only way people around here (and in other small towns) can get decent reception from local channels. For people who cannot afford expanded basic cable (as Time Warner refers to it) or digital, most cable operators, I'm sure, offer a basic level of service that offers only local channels, which costs much less than the other services; I think TW's basic cable is only something in the neighborhood of $12 a month or so, after the initial installation charge. I know someone with TW basic cable who pays only about $5 a month for the service (why this person's rate is so low, I don't know :dunno:), so cable service just to get an area's local TV channels shouldn't be a strain on anyone's budget.

Cable and satellite are a large part of the future of TV in the 21st century; antennas are rapidly becoming obsolete. Most homes in this small town in which I live do not have rooftop antennas anymore, with a few having Dish Network satellite service and most having TW cable. There are only two places in this village (that I am aware of, anyway) that still have outside TV antennas; that's the bowling alley down the street from my apartment, and a house currently for sale on the next street over from me. (The new owners of the latter may well eventually take down that antenna, as it is falling apart [elements loose or having been broken off in high winds] and is so loose on its mast that it swings around every time there's a good wind.)

I sometimes wonder if the government, the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) and others involved with the DTV transition are blowing this whole thing far out of proportion. As I said at the beginning of this post, the US government has far more important things to worry about than whether or not people are going to have TV reception after June 12. The argument that people will not get emergency information if they do not have TV doesn't hold water either. The Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcasts over the radio as well as over television, so anyone with a radio capable of receiving their area's local stations can get the information they need that way. Who will be watching television in the middle of a tornado, hurricane, terrorist attack, etc. anyway?

Another question. What did people do to get emergency information before television was invented and even after that, when sets were too expensive for most people to afford? They heard emergency warnings and the like....yup, you guessed it, over the radio. (I don't mean to "dumb down" this post with that statement; I'm just trying to make a point, and am fed up with the government's worrying that people won't hear emergency information if their TV reception is cut off after June 12.) There were at least two predecessors to today's EAS--Conelrad in the '50s-'60s, and the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) in the '70s through the mid-nineties. Today's Emergency Alert System does a much better job of disseminating emergency information than Conelrad did, as emergency bulletins and such are broadcast over all stations in the affected area; Conelrad required all stations, except the designated Conelrad alert station on 640 or 1240 kHz, in the warning area to shut down until further notice. With the EAS, as long as listeners are within range of a local radio station, they will hear the emergency info they need right on the spot. Conelrad's major fault, IMO, was that listeners had to be within broadcast range of the local alert station; these stations, as I understand it, operated at extremely low power levels and, therefore, had very limited range. If a warning, alert, etc. were broadcast over the Conelrad emergency alert station in your area and you could hear it, great. If not (because you were out of range of the station or if you could not find the Conelrad station on your radio, as some sets didn't have CD markings on their tuning dials even during the Conelrad era), you were out of luck. The latter is a situation no one can afford to be in during an emergency.

I still use antenna reception on some TVs. It's more convenient than hooking up the DirecTV box, especially if I'm just sticking a portable TV in a place where I want to watch the news while doing some sort of a project. And the antenna reception on digital ATSC here in California (Ventura County), it's better, and gets more channels than the NTSC ever did! In fact, it's so good that I'd switch entirely to air ATSC if my wife didn't have to get the DirecTV channels that aren't broadcast over the air. At the Dallas house, it's all rabbit ears since we aren't there enough to warrant any pay signal.

In an emergency, I always get the local CBS AM radio station (KNX-Los Angeles). I don't know if it's a personal habit, or common sense.

Charles

Everyone who does not currently have HD locals available through the satellite company or those who realize that the HD from the satellite is inferior in quality to the on available over the air.

I guess that would include me.:D

I see flaws in your arguments, Jeffs.

1. There are many people in or near large cities that cannot afford cable or satellite, so use indoor antennas. With analog TV most of these people were able to reliably get the local stations. With DTV, it remains to be seen what they will get.

2. When was the last time you saw a radar image on a radio? Radar images of severe storms are definitely worth 1000 words.

3. You talk about warnings in past days. Have you looked at the death toll from tornados, etc in the old days. You will find that they are much higher than now. This is due to both better tornado detection equipment and better warning systems. These better warning systems include both weather radios and reliable television reception.

Recently read that in Texas it's about 60% that receive TV OTA with an antenna. Many areas are not served with cable, or people simply not willing to pay exorbitant prices for cable or little dish. Read in a trade magazine antenna sales are up about 160% from people dumping cable or satellite going OTA, or upgrading to get DTV on the OTA broadcast channels. I have 3 outside TV antennas myself.

I subscribe to Dish Network and receive my local (40 miles away) stations that way. Dish has not offered these stations yet in HD and therefore a deep fringe antenna is my only hope of receiving "local" HD signals. My only regret is that the reception of digital signals is too vulnerable to rain/wind and the coverage area is not as great as the former analog signal.

I use an antenna on the bedroom TV. I can receive 10 channels (including RTN) and that's all I need. The only reason I got cable was so I could have high speed internet.

My brother-in-law does not have any pay TV service and uses an antenna and DTV converter on both of his TV's. Once I hooked up his DTV boxes; he was amazed at the number of clear channels that were available and said he'd never pay to watch TV again.

My cousin lives out in the country and uses an antenna. He's so tight he squeaks and would not dream of paying $60+ a month to watch TV. He recently told me that he thought about getting the basic dish package; but, that all went out the window once I set up his DTV boxes.

I have a friend that has satellite service; but, local channels do not come with the deal. He lives so far out in the woods that he can't receive any OTA reception with rabbit ears. He wouldn't hear of an outside antenna. So, yes, there are plenty of satellite users that rely on an antenna for local channels.

I know there are many TV junkies that would never dream of giving up their 500 channels of service; but, there are plenty of casual TV watchers who will probably dump cable once they find out what is available free of charge OTA.

As far as emergency weather warnings, the local ABC affiliate is the only good source of information. Most of the radio stations are automated; so, they are out of the question. So, my next project will be to obtain a DC operated DTV converter and pair it with one of my portable TV's for emergency use. Of course, the digital signal may not be usable in severe weather.

I for one refuse to pay some cable or satelite company for programing that I could not care less about, and be at their mercy for uncontrolled and frequent rate increases for the service. The average basic cable costs in this part of the country are in the $50 a month range. I'd much rather see that $600 a year in my pocket than in the pocket of some cable exective. When the cable or satelite companies start to offer an A LA Carte selection for the channels that they provide, I'll reconsider my position, but until that time I'll keep my antenna.

I live in the NY metropolitan area and receive all of the broadcast signals fine with my outdoor antenna. I'm perfectly content to receive 25 or 30 OTA stations which cost me no monthy fees.

Bob.

I for one refuse to pay some cable or satelite company for programing that I could not care less about, and be at their mercy for uncontrolled and frequent rate increases for the service. The average basic cable costs in this part of the country are in the $50 a month range. I'd much rather see that $600 a year in my pocket than in the pocket of some cable exective. When the cable or satelite companies start to offer an A LA Carte selection for the channels that they provide, I'll reconsider my position, but until that time I'll keep my antenna.

I live in the NY metropolitan area and receive all of the broadcast signals fine with my outdoor antenna. I'm perfectly content to receive 25 or 30 OTA stations which cost me no monthy fees.

Bob.

I can remember, back around '83, when the cable was around $17/month. Now, the same basic service is almost $60/month. They justify the rate increases with some line like "we've added "x" number of new channels". What do I care how many channels they've added if there's nothing on them that I care to see. If it wasn't for the internet, I would have never gotten cable!

17 was too much then , and 60 is too much now. Tho I am sure there was still some decent channels on the basic tier then, as to nothing now.

I wish they would broadcast all these subchannels I see discussed in my location. So far, only one decent one-an RTN type network is broadcast.

One other station broadcasts weather information all the time on their subchannel(pretty boring most of the time). PBS broadcasts craft shows on their subchannel(also pretty boring, at least to me). The others only broadcast their main channel, the same as analog TV.

As to usability in stormy weather, the only local station that converted to full DTV on Feb 17 here was pretty much un-usable on Saturday, just a very windy day(no storms). I would assume they are full power at this point. The bummer is that they are the ones carrying the RTN type channel.

17 was too much then , and 60 is too much now. Tho I am sure there was still some decent channels on the basic tier then, as to nothing now.

Back then, we may have had 20-25 channels. Now, we have 60+. The quality of programming was better back when we had fewer channels.

Can't get cable out here in the boondocks. If I could, I wouldn't get it. Seems like if I had to pay that much money to watch TV, I shouldn't have to see any commercials. Some neighbors have satellite TV. It's too expensive, and, as with cable, I'd have to pay for a lot of channels I don't want along with the ones I wanted.

Bought a digital converter early last summer. Was going to get a second one before the second coupon expired, but I couldn't really afford the expense that month.

Use a large indoor UHF antenna. Sometimes the signals are bad, but not usually. The trouble is, if the signal fluctuates much the picture stops or I get a blue screen, windy and stormy weather affect the digital signal more than it ever did the analog.

In this area, all or most of the analog signals were shut off on the original Feb 17 deadline. The stations simply couldn't afford to keep broadcasting two signals for months more. It would have put our public TV station over 50,000 dollars in debt. After all of the analog signals went off, the digital signals of all of the stations became MUCH clearer.

Fulton Co, Illinois

We have not had pay TV for about 7 years now; don't miss it.
I keep a small TV at work in case big news breaks. No pay TV there.
My Dad has Dish Network; neither dish service offers our local stations. A good deal of what he and my stepmom watch are OTA.
My in-laws got rid of their dish when they saw the selection available with digital for free.
Note, though, that all of us have made the digital switch. (well, I've yet to carry a converter box to work-there is one local station still on analog. Seems silly to have a convertor box for that 12" bw Philco-Ford but come June I'll need it. Maybe I'll upgrade to a GE 'AB'!)

We had cable and then satelite tv for years. Recently we switched to the dtv over the air and it works great. We miss a few channels, but we also get some channels that we didn't with satelite.:yes:

Who uses regular television antennas these days, anyway?. I use a regular television antenna to receive broadcast transmissions. Most of the stations I receive are about fifty miles north of here. No cable, No satellite, no monthly bills.

I also forgot to mention that I know a girl in her mid 20's that uses an antenna. In fact, I recently assisted her in connecting her DTV converter box. She could have cable if she wanted it; but, I think she'd rather save her money for a rainy day.

The next time I go to the parts house, I think I'll ask how antenna sales have been lately.

I have cable in my "shop"; but, the picture quality is so bad that I'm thinking of putting up an outside antenna and using a DTV converter for use in my shop.

I for one refuse to pay some cable or satelite company for programing that I could not care less about, and be at their mercy for uncontrolled and frequent rate increases for the service. The average basic cable costs in this part of the country are in the $50 a month range. I'd much rather see that $600 a year in my pocket than in the pocket of some cable exective. When the cable or satelite companies start to offer an A LA Carte selection for the channels that they provide, I'll reconsider my position, but until that time I'll keep my antenna.

I live in the NY metropolitan area and receive all of the broadcast signals fine with my outdoor antenna. I'm perfectly content to receive 25 or 30 OTA stations which cost me no monthy fees.

Bob.

I agree! :thmbsp: I have a outdoor antenna that I bought on Amazon.com to receive the digital stations with a DTV converter. Not only I can get the local stations that I get through the analog system, but more stations. One station in Chicago shows movies that I have not seen in decades. The picture is clear, no problems with reception and I never could be happier. :D

The ABC channel 7 and NBC channel 5 shows doppler radar coverage 24 hours a day.

Until cable lets me pick and choose shows I would like to watch at a reasonable price, I would never get cable. I have seen what's on cable, and for the price, I don't care for it.

My locals have channels available OTA that aren't available on satellite service. That's reason enough for me to have rabbit-ears on both TVs.

I have an HD antenna mounted in my attic and it's connected to both of my DTV HD DVR's. While I don't use it much I do watch a couple of the sub stations, mainly weather. It's nice to have in case of an emergency. I've been ready for the digital switch for about eight years now and I look forward to the day when I no longer have to watch crappy 4:3 broadcasts on my widescreen TV's! :yes:

Not much CATV access around me unless you're in a new development, they did wire my street recently and want $3,000 to bring it up to my house...not likely. My neighbor did pay ~$9,000 to get it to his house (mostly for modem, and he's writing that off as a business expense), but he also paid about $90,000 for the home AV system I helped install.

Previous owners here had Direct TV, but local channels are not available on it. Antenna's fine for me, even though I only get NBC and PBS since I'm on the South side of a large hill and all the local antennas are on a mountain directly North of me. We stream other shows via DSL, and Netflix covers the rest.

je

<snip> Case in point: I live in an area of northeastern Ohio, 33 miles east of Cleveland and 610 feet above sea level, where the TV reception with an antenna is terrible. One station (the NBC affiliate) doesn't reach here at all; <snip>.

Jeff,
I'm curious as to what kind of antenna you are using where you are.

WKYC is one of the few large-market, network affiliate stations operating a digital transmitter on a VHF lowban channel (Channel 2). Many users have been complaining about lowband VHF DTV performance.
If you are using an indoor antenna, lowband DTV does present a "fatal" problem. Modern home electronics (in particular, with switching power supplies and/or unshielded microprocessors) produce severe interference with lowband VHF television (digtal or analog).
Some outdoor antennas are not designed for lowband VHF reception. UHF-only antennas have been made for decades, and some people bought UHF-only antennas when it was announced that all DTV would be UHF (a decision that was later reversed). Some newer antennas are designed only for channels 7-69 (since many areas have no lowband DTV)
If you are using an all-channel outdoor antenna only 33 miles from WKYC and not getting excellent reception, you have a big problem.
This should end when WKYC-DT changes channels from 2 to 17 (likely in June 2009).

FWIW, When I had satellite TV with local channels, it provided less than half of the local channels available. For the local channels they did carry, the antenna provided a useful backup, not only when my own dish was covered with ice, but also when I had a fine satellite signal, but the satellite company's uplink facility dish had ice!

As for radio, a ton of people have abandoned radio. With consolidation, many listeners gave up when their favorite radio station was changed (e.g., if the owner shut down an oldies station on the assumption that their captive audience would listen to their rap station instead - the oldies listeners actually bought personal CD players and tossed their radios).
This situation became obvious with the Northeast blackout of 2003, and people suddenly realized that there were no portable radios around.

I wish we could break the ties with paying for TV reception, but we're stuck in a rut. Sat TV is not as compressed as cable. The HDTV is beautiful on sat. Cable is crummy......FIOS...Fiber is magic!!!
Unfortunatley there are a number of folks who are still using antennas in rural areas or, as stated here, someone needs a TV signal in a bedroom and doesn't want to get strapped for another cable/sat box rental.
Then there's a public safety issue, that most folks will get the message in case of a national emergency. Cell phones and the Internet will be useless in another 911 type of situation. We can't say that it's not going to happen again.
A lot of analoge stations have signed off and are digital only. The FECES sold large blocks of spectrum to other entities, and in the larger metro areas, THEY want to occupy what's rightfully theirs, so the FCC has authorized many analog stations to sign off.

Fred

I still use set-top antennas in the bedroom and on my Philco portable in the front parlor since I refuse to rent more cable boxes. I will be erecting an outdoor antenna soon as the DTV signals are borderline strong enough using the sets' antennas, and route the antenna signal through all the coax except for the back den.

I would LOVE to tell Cox to stick the cable bill in their ear. I didn't have cable from 1997-2003. In 2003, I bought a new computer and subscribed to cable since the "poverty package" was only $15 more than the internet service, and I was having reception problems in my apartment on WWL, basically the only channel I watch.

Alas, my wife loves two particular channels only available on digital cable, so I've been shelling out $60-70 a month to keep her happy. I have suggested we drop the high-end cable service, which resulted in much excitement.

Jeff,
I'm curious as to what kind of antenna you are using where you are.

WKYC is one of the few large-market, network affiliate stations operating a digital transmitter on a VHF lowban channel (Channel 2). Many users have been complaining about lowband VHF DTV performance.
If you are using an indoor antenna, lowband DTV does present a "fatal" problem. Modern home electronics (in particular, with switching power supplies and/or unshielded microprocessors) produce severe interference with lowband VHF television (digtal or analog).
Some outdoor antennas are not designed for lowband VHF reception. UHF-only antennas have been made for decades, and some people bought UHF-only antennas when it was announced that all DTV would be UHF (a decision that was later reversed). Some newer antennas are designed only for channels 7-69 (since many areas have no lowband DTV)
If you are using an all-channel outdoor antenna only 33 miles from WKYC and not getting excellent reception, you have a big problem.
This should end when WKYC-DT changes channels from 2 to 17 (likely in June 2009).

FWIW, When I had satellite TV with local channels, it provided less than half of the local channels available. For the local channels they did carry, the antenna provided a useful backup, not only when my own dish was covered with ice, but also when I had a fine satellite signal, but the satellite company's uplink facility dish had ice!

As for radio, a ton of people have abandoned radio. With consolidation, many listeners gave up when their favorite radio station was changed (e.g., if the owner shut down an oldies station on the assumption that their captive audience would listen to their rap station instead - the oldies listeners actually bought personal CD players and tossed their radios).
This situation became obvious with the Northeast blackout of 2003, and people suddenly realized that there were no portable radios around.

Please reread my post, as I'm sure you missed something. I stated there that I do not have a television antenna (cannot erect an outside one because I live in an apartment); rabbit ears don't work well here at all. (OTA digital would probably be even worse.) I have Time-Warner expanded basic cable, which gets channel 3 and all the rest of the stations in my area very well.

I am not making it up when I say I cannot receive Cleveland's channel 3 on an antenna--no one can in the village in which I live, which is why practically everyone here has either cable or satellite. That channel simply will not reach here, for whatever reason. You have to remember that I live in an area that is just 50 feet lower in elevation above sea level than is the city of Cleveland (610 vs. 660 feet ASL, respectively). I really don't know why the OTA television reception is so poor here, but again, channel 3 in Cleveland simply does not reach this area. It is probably due to the geography of this part of northeastern Ohio. I used to live in an eastern suburb of Cleveland that had much, much better OTA television reception than I have here, although I never bothered much with antennas the last 17 years I was there; by then I had cable.

Your remarks concerning radio got me to thinking. Radio programming in most major cities is nothing like what it once was, with most stations now operated by large conglomerates such as CBS Radio, Clear Channel and so on; Cleveland's major AM and FM stations are operated by one or the other--some by CC and others by CBS, which explains why the programming on these stations, and other CC/CBS O&Os (owned and operated stations) across this country is so blah these days. Many stations today are automated as well, which has taken the "personality" out of most radio programming (the classic-hits station in Cleveland, for example, is automated all night five nights a week, and carries nothing but syndicated, automated, satellite delivered programming after seven p.m. on weekends; the only local voices heard during these syndicated shows are of local announcers doing the hourly station identification).

I see far more mp3 players on kids' belts these days, even in this small town (which, ironically, gets excellent FM radio reception with indoor and car antennas), than FM radios; mobile audio is going the same way--witness new car stereo systems now equipped with inputs for mp3 players such as the iPod.

I don't listen to standard radio much myself these days. I downloaded AOL's radio toolbar to my computer a few days ago and have several other links (in Winamp) to other Internet radio stations, including WLS-FM in Chicago and a small oldies AM station in Tucson, Arizona. My personal music collection is stored on my computer. I ripped many of my CDs into it some time ago, and am doing the same with some of my cassettes; can't rip them all into the system since my hard disk isn't that big--it is only 20GB.

As far as radio being useful for emergency info, as I mentioned in my post, all stations are required to have Emergency Alert System receivers and are required to conduct weekly tests of the system. The EAS (and its predecessor, EBS--the Emergency Broadcast System) has been used to alert TV viewers to such things as tornados, high winds, snowstorms, etc., but the warnings are only visible on television. I don't know if such warnings are carried over EAS on radio these days or not--probably, even likely or certainly, not.

However, since many people today are turning away from radio as a source of entertainment, you have a point. If today's young people listen mainly to mp3 players rather than FM radios, they would miss any emergency information broadcast over the EAS. I cannot help wondering what these people will do in the event of a local or national emergency such as, Heaven forbid, another terrorist attack. Without radio, these people will be left in the lurch--which we cannot afford, especially in these troubled times. Something must be done, quickly, to get emergency info infallibly on radio as well as TV, or else this nation will be in real trouble in case of another national (now global) emergency.

73,

I think you should realize that not everyone lives the same lifestyle as you do, in an apartment, in an urbanized area, etc.

Plenty of people have vacation cabins, TV set in the garage, drag a TV along when re-habbing a home, etc. Not everyone wants to sit in the same place listening to the "radio" via the internet either.

On a personal level, I think the MP3 exclusive people will end up as morons with all the depth of a mud puddle. But that's their choice.

You are also ignoring a rather basic principle of a democracy, that is that the radio spectrum belongs to everyone. The government's job is supposed to be putting that spectrum to the maximum good of all by introducing some regulation, much like a traffic signal.

If the sole qualification for use of a natural resource is "highest bid", then we have simply reached a form of fascist-capitalism; which we have. But to argue in favor of this???

I've had a fullsize outdoor antenna in my attic now for close to 20 years. It pulls in all the local channels (30) nice and clear including the hd channels.

The only thing I'm wondering is if antenna technology has changed enough in 20 years to where it would be worth it to replace it with a current model.

I have always used antennas for TV. I do not like the idea of paying for television service. I intend to use over the air TV indefinitely.

Who uses regular television antennas these days, anyway?

I do. Cable TV is not available where I live. Satelite TV is available but is very expensive. Besides that, I have young kids in the house. I don't want them to have access to the trash that the satelite companies will force me to take just to get the local channels. I'm not even sure local channels are available through satelite.

In reality, though, broadcast TV is barely available here. We can get two channels clearly enough to watch - most days. Sometimes only one (PBS). I don't expect to get any after the analog broadcasts cease. We don't have an outdoor antenna because of frequent lightening strikes - we live on top of a hill. We have a 13-foot long antenna in the attic. That's the only reason we can get two channels. Only one channel with rabbit ears.

About the only thing I would watch is the news. I have better things to do that stare at a TV. :music:

I do. Cable TV is not available where I live. Satelite TV is available but is very expensive. Besides that, I have young kids in the house. I don't want them to have access to the trash that the satelite companies will force me to take just to get the local channels. I'm not even sure local channels are available through satelite.

In reality, though, broadcast TV is barely available here. We can get two channels clearly enough to watch - most days. Sometimes only one (PBS). I don't expect to get any after the analog broadcasts cease. We don't have an outdoor antenna because of frequent lightening strikes - we live on top of a hill. We have a 13-foot long antenna in the attic. That's the only reason we can get two channels. Only one channel with rabbit ears.

About the only thing I would watch is the news. I have better things to do that stare at a TV. :music:


According to TV Guide's web site, under "Washington (Arkansas) area broadcast (channels)," you should be able to get the local channels from Shreveport, Louisiana with an antenna. If your antenna is 13 feet long it must have quite a few elements, and should pick up quite a bit of signal from stations perhaps 60-70 miles or more away. I'm surprised your TV reception isn't better than you say it is with an antenna like that, unless you are in a poor signal area. The height of your attic above the rest of your house, however, could be a factor. If your house is small and not far off the ground (say it is built on a slab, with no basement), your attic won't be too high up, which would of course affect the performance of any antenna (even a deep-fringe monster such as what you seem to have) you put up there.

Some satellite providers do offer local channels in their service packages. I don't know what satellite TV providers are in your area, but here in northeastern Ohio, we have Dish Network which offers a package including 150-odd satellite channels, plus local channels.

However, you are correct as far as the programming on some of these channels goes; much of it is not suitable for children. I have Time-Warner Cable, which offers HBO, Cinemax, Showtime and I don't know how many other pay-cable services. I do not subscribe to any of these channels today, although I did have HBO for exactly one month about 20 years ago. Had it disconnected when I discovered they were showing basically the same trash over and over again for a week at a time. I don't have children, so keeping kids away from porn is not an issue in my case, but I personally don't care to see pornography on my TV 24 hours a day, seven days a week; I simply cannot afford pay channels, since I live on a fixed income. I have a DVD player and a subscription to Netflix (as well as several of my own DVDs), which suits me very well and is, IMO, for me anyway, a very suitable alternative to those high-priced movie channels. I'm currently watching disc 3 of a 3-disc set from the first season of the detective series Kojak, which was on CBS television in the seventies (the decade during which I grew up). Those classic shows, IMHO, have it all over a lot of the trash and nonsense passing for programming on the major networks these days. If I had to do it, I'd downgrade my cable to bare-bones basic (local channels only) and watch most of my TV programming on DVD, as many of the shows I grew up watching are now on DVD and Blu-ray (I have a Memorex full-size DVD player; can't afford a Blu-ray player--yet, anyway). As it is now, I watch very little regular cable TV except for news and a couple of comedy shows; the rest of my viewing is of DVDs (and VHS videos) of older shows from the '60s and '70s.

Do you have a DVD player? If so, there's your answer to finding programming suitable for your kids to watch, if you can't find anything on local TV that meets your standards. Netflix has an entry level package that starts at $4.95 per month. I don't want this to look like I'm advertising the service, so here's the Netflix website, which will give you all the information you need to start enjoying their offerings: http://www.netflix.com.

BTW, there is a way you could keep your children from watching inappropriate programming if you had satellite service. Most satellite providers have systems in place to enable viewers to lock out unwanted channels by the use of a password or pass code, which only you would know.

Just out of curiosity, how much does satellite service cost in your area? Sometimes satellite providers run specials in which they offer, for example, service to up to four rooms (with up to four receivers and an outlet in each room) for a very low rate. Keep in mind, however, that these are, as a rule, introductory rates; they expire after a certain length of time, say three months, after which you must pay the standard monthly rate if you wish to keep the service. And yes, they can be high. I'm looking at an ad from Dish Network that was in my mail this morning, in which a limited-time offer is being made (I'm not interested, since I already have cable and don't want the movie channels, as I mentioned earlier); the offer is three months of Dish Network service, plus DVR (digital video recorder), for $9.99. This package offers 100 channels, but no locals. :no: Dish Network may be reached at the following number: 1.800.455.3813. For satellite with local channels, DirecTV has a package starting at $29.99. For more information: 1.888.680.8771 or http://www.directv.com.

I have had cable once or twice in the last 30 years. What a ripoff. Basic cable here is around $40/month. That's a lot of beer :)

I just got setup with DTV (converter box/new antenna) get all the channels i did before but w/o snow and get a few more mostly spanish and network extra channels

this is all i need why should a pay for TV? I am pissed off enough about having to buy a box and antenna. Almost went with a new hdtv but my 27inch sharp works fine and should last another 8 years.

The FCC is a crock.

I would have gotten a converter box and an antenna long ago (before the government ran out of money and stopped the coupon program) if I were not living in an apartment building 45 miles from the nearest TV stations. I cannot put up any kind of outside TV antenna because of lease restrictions. I pay $50+ a month for expanded basic cable, but could probably get bare-bones basic service (only local channels) for a fraction of that. Since I do not have a flat-panel TV and do not intend to get one any time soon (I still have my 19" RCA XL-100, which still works extremely well for having nine years on it) I have no need or desire for high-definition cable service. Shucks, I won't even notice the difference when every North American TV station goes digital on June 12. One station about 60 miles south of here has already shut off its analog signal and is now 100 percent digital; makes no difference to me. I can still get the station on cable just as well as I always have. The only problem is there's nothing to watch on that station--it's 24 hour infomercials and home shopping.

The FCC is a crock.

They don't call it the "Funny Cookie Corporation" for nothin'...

My mom has never had cable, $50 a month is too much. We do have a rooftop antenna, and we have line-of-sight of NYC's Empire State Building, where most of the TV signals around here comes from. And digitally, WLIW ch 21 comes in much better than their analog signal does. We might get cable so I can have cable internet service, and TV would be a secondary feature.

Please reread my post, as I'm sure you missed something. I stated there that I do not have a television antenna (cannot erect an outside one because I live in an apartment); rabbit ears don't work well here at all. (OTA digital would probably be even worse.)

You might be surprised. Analog reception on all channels at my house was terrible. OTA digital is crystal-clear, and I'm as far, if not further, from my local antenna farm as you are.

I have had cable for 2 years . Its ok and all but its expensive . I never would have got it but i have a elderly grandparent who is home all day and wanted some more tv entertainment . For years i was fine with just my rooftop antenna . The cable bill seem to go up every couple of months . Wouldnt be surprised if they really jack up the prices come June .

... Shucks, I won't even notice the difference when every North American TV station goes digital on June 12. ...


Hi,

The last time I checked, Canada and Mexico were still part of North
America, and using the NTSC analog television system. No harm intended!

Someone mentioned that the lowest cable fee is $50. That's what the cable companies want you to believe. We have ultra-basic cable and it costs us around $10/month. Only get local channels mostly. The cable companies do not "advertise" this fee (meaning they don't print it in the list of options or metion it in any of their literature!) You have to ask for it. I believe they are required by law to offer it. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt my cable company would offer it (and hide the option) if it weren't required.

About the only thing they are pushing around here is the higher priced digital cable packages. When I subscribed to cable and told them I wanted the regular analog service, they tried to talk me out of it, saying it would be phased out in a few months. That was 12/07. This is 3/09 and I still have my analog channels. I think it would wind up costing the cable company if they dumped analog cable because many people would dump cable if they had to pay high rental fees on multiple digital cable boxes for their TV's.

Around where I am a lot of people have had to upgrade antennas for DTV. They might have lived with their analog signal being snowy in bad weather or when the leaves are on the trees between their house and the broadcast tower. But if the DTV signal is that weak, you get zip or maybe a few intermittent patches of pixels. If I point my antenna directly toward the towers (ENE) I don't get as good of a signal as if I point it due East. Who knows what sorts of reflections create that effect. What some website says you are going to get isn't as real as what you actually get. But I'm not complaining, as I mentioned earlier, all the digital signals are better since all the stations cut their analog broadcasts around here.

Someone mentioned that the lowest cable fee is $50. That's what the cable companies want you to believe. We have ultra-basic cable and it costs us around $10/month. Only get local channels mostly. The cable companies do not "advertise" this fee (meaning they don't print it in the list of options or metion it in any of their literature!) You have to ask for it. I believe they are required by law to offer it. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt my cable company would offer it (and hide the option) if it weren't required.

Same here. There's another ~$14/month package they'll avoid discussing absolutely as much as possible, even denying it exists until you tell them that another family member in the area has it...they try to hit you for big $$ in "hookup" fees, though, so have the house pre-wired before they get there.

je

Same here. There's another ~$14/month package they'll avoid discussing absolutely as much as possible, even denying it exists until you tell them that another family member in the area has it...they try to hit you for big $$ in "hookup" fees, though, so have the house pre-wired before they get there.

je

My house was already prewired. All they had to do was connect the cable at the street and my computer modem. He spent about 3 minutes setting up my computer. IIRC, they hit me up for $125. It would have been much more if they had to run cable outlets for all the TV's.

Hi,

The last time I checked, Canada and Mexico were still part of North
America, and using the NTSC analog television system. No harm intended!

Ooops! My bad. I should have said I won't notice the difference when all United States television stations switch to digital on 06.12. Don't know what I was thinking of. :dunno:

Canada is indeed still using the NTSC television broadcast standard, and will until at least 2012--three years after our DTV conversion here in the US. Don't know about Mexico. :dunno: I think, however, their stations may continue with NTSC analog for the time being. I'm not even sure Mexico has a digital transition plan in the works.

Mexican stations are likely to take it upon themselves, and let the Mexican government catch up with them. Stations near the U.S. border will probably make a decision based on whether analog or digital serves their audience better. At the same time, the larger Mexican broadcasting organizations are in general interested in going digital and may have "experimental" stations on the air simulcasting their analog content on a long-term basis.

I use an antenna for both tv's. We don't watch much tv in our house and I can't see paying the prices they want for cable or satellite.

At one time their was a push in the US congress to allow US stations within 90 miles of the Mexican border to continue broadcasting NTSC analog until 2012. It passed the US senate, but I am not sure if it went any where after that.

Who uses regular television antennas these days, anyway?
ME!

I dumped satellite TV in December 2005 after they replaced Music Choice with simulcast satellite radio (yuck!) among other reasons to cancel it. Lets see, I have saved over US$3,200.00 since then.

Cable TV? Not only "no", but "H*** no!".

I guess its just preference of who wants and needs cable . If you could live without it and get a few descent channels with a roof antenna and converter box then you will be saving a nice sum of money every year . Having cable tv is a luxury .

I guess its just preference of who wants and needs cable . If you could live without it and get a few descent channels with a roof antenna and converter box then you will be saving a nice sum of money every year . Having cable tv is a luxury .

I live in an apartment building in an area of Ohio where indoor TV antennas do not work well, and outdoor ones are not allowed. Cable is not a luxury where I am; in fact, not having cable in this area (if you want decent television reception) is not an option. Here, you either have cable or satellite or you do not get more than one channel good enough to watch (analog). Digital? Given the all-or-nothing nature of DTV, I have to say that it probably (even likely) won't work here either without cable. The cable works very well 99.9 percent of the time; I get wonderful reception from all seven Cleveland stations, but it sometimes goes haywire for no reason at all. I had no picture on one cable channel for the longest time, then when it came back on, it was a jumbled mess. Pictures sometimes freeze and break up for no reason as well. This sort of thing never happened when the cable in this area was all analog, twenty-odd years ago; the cable system here converted to 100-percent digital early this year, which is when all this intermittent trouble started.) If this is how our cable service looks now (all Cleveland TV stations will be transmitting analog and digital signals until June 12), I hate to think what a mess the broadcast channels may be when the analog ones leave the air.

Bare-bones basic cable (local channels only) is the lowest level of service my area's cable operator (Time Warner) offers. In this area it costs $11.97 a month, although in another city about 60 miles south of here it is only $6.61. I don't know why there should be such a difference in rates between two areas over 50 miles apart. Hmmm. :scratch2:

ME!

I dumped satellite TV in December 2005 after they replaced Music Choice with simulcast satellite radio (yuck!) among other reasons to cancel it. Lets see, I have saved over US$3,200.00 since then.

Cable TV? Not only "no", but "H*** no!".

I don't know where Hayward, California is, but if it's anything like the wide spot in the road in which I live, I am amazed you get any kind of analog TV reception at all without cable or satellite. After June 12, you're going to need one or the other if you don't want to wind up with just one channel good enough to watch, as is the case (using an antenna) in my area.

What is wrong with "simulcast satellite radio" on your satellite service? I'm sure Music Choice must get its programming as well via satellite, so there shouldn't be any difference at all between the two services.

I live in an apartment building in an area of Ohio where indoor TV antennas do not work well, and outdoor ones are not allowed. :

Might want to take a look at "Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule, Preemption of Restrictions on Placement of Direct Broadcast Satellite, Broadband Radio Service, and Television Broadcast Antennas (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html)" specifically pertaining to your apartment situation "Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio.."

Me, I use one of those coat-hanger DTV antenna contraptions, and it works! Some networks gained and some lost, but for the stations strong enough, the quality is quite good.

I've had a small TV/FM combo unit up on a 25' mast for ten years. I have never paid monthly television cable or satellite fees and never will. "Free" is about what TV is worth to me.
I much prefer paying for DSL... $20/month is perfect.

I don't know where Hayward, California is, but if it's anything like the wide spot in the road in which I live, I am amazed you get any kind of analog TV reception at all without cable or satellite. After June 12, you're going to need one or the other if you don't want to wind up with just one channel good enough to watch, as is the case (using an antenna) in my area.

What is wrong with "simulcast satellite radio" on your satellite service? I'm sure Music Choice must get its programming as well via satellite, so there shouldn't be any difference at all between the two services.
Jeff-

Hayward is in the middle of the San Francisco Bay Area, with S.F. and San Jose about 30 miles away each, in different directions. NTSC reception is quite good with a roof antenna on my house, but not from both cities at once. (I didn't care enough about the S.J. stations to install a rotator.) With an indoor antenna, reception is mediocre as it has been on most channels everywhere I have lived in the past 30+ years since I got my first TV.

Digital (ATSC) reception, that is another story. I found a position to point a small roof antenna Channel Master Stealthtenna (http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/30-1715) halfway between both cities and get all the digital stations nicely, in HD with Dolby sound and all. Later, when I got a couple of the new digital converter boxes (Zenith and Channel Master), I decided to try some 60's rabbit ears with the box, sitting on top of my RCA CTC-16 combo console. I get every Bay Area digital station with rabbit ears!, with only a bit of rotation of the antenna base to clear up a couple of stations that otherwise break up on screen somewhat. I sympathize with people who have little choice but to have to accept cable TV; I simply have big problems with the business practices and service quality of the cable-TV industry. Satellite TV is not much better.

Regarding music from a satellite-TV company, the big difference was that Music Choice was a multi-channel service that just played music in 30 or more formats, with nothing but music for audio. The song and performer names appeared on screen (or on the front panel of some DirecTV receivers). It was replaced with XM Radio in late 2005. XM, like Sirius, emulates actual radio stations (but without commercials, other than for the service itself). That means it has jingles and announcements, and some channels even have disk jockeys and so on. I hated that stuff. Music Choice is/was pure music, like an endless stack of records playing (or a portable MP3-type music player). I enjoyed MC so much, I was considering getting one of the vehicle satellite-TV dishes to receive it.

I got rid of the satellite in March 2008, never again will I go back to pay television.

I use a antenna for my HD local and Buffalo stations. The picture is so much better no compression. THe first one I made for $10 and now I have a 8 bowtie high gain uhf beast.

My house has a big areal on the roof, so I use it to watch TV in my room.

We also used some rabbit ears to watch TV at the ice fishing shack.

We still use a antenna-with the digital convertor-$20 with the coupon- I get 25+ channels-all the major networks-with a set of rabbit ears to boot-no static-snow, plus it's free. I persoanlly thing DTV is a great thing-way better conceived than HD radio. I don't watch enough to justify rising cable rates-or satellite rates for that matter. Suits me and the wife fine-netflicks for movies.
I dig free TV!!:thmbsp:
The FCC still needs to leave free communications for the public-it's more important than you may think.

Who uses TV antennas anymore?

Well.... up until about a week ago.... me. Even though we're close to a major metropolitan area (Baltimore/Washington) we only had one TV/internet choice up until recently. Comcast. And based on the input from the neighbors who claimed horrible service,-plus- the fact that Comcast wanted about $3k to run their cable down my long driveway to my house.... I said NO WAY.

Verizon FIOS service -finally- reached our area, and now we're hooked up for internet and basic TV. (No charge to run their wire to our house) The internet connectivity was the only thing I was really interested in... but with package prices basic TV service was only a few $$ more, and gave the kids access to Nickelodeon, etc.

However I'm not at all a big time watcher of TV. If there was no one else in the house to consider, I'd just hook my TV to my cheapy DTV box and amplified antenna, and leave it at that.....

The place I just moved to here in Michigan has a big vhf/uhf antenna with a rotor on the roof, and I'm looking forward to watching the last few months of analog TV with a good antenna hooked to my sets. But so far I haven't found any stations out here showing any older shows, are there any?

Not if you're still analog-only.

Assuming you get Channel 50 well (moderate or less snow, no severe ghosting, and NO selective fades, color dropouts, sound dropouts nor picture rolling), you should be able to get This TV (4.2/45.4) and Retro Television Network (7.2/41.4) from Southfield.

I have another question. Do I live in the only place in the world that doesn't have any UHF channels?
We have 4, which is Global; 8, which is CTV; 11, which is CBC, and 13, which is french CBC.
I don't think anyone around here except for me even still uses analogue TV, because of the extremely limited channels.
Also, Canada isn't raping us of true free TV until 2011, so I still got a few years left to use the knob to change channels.

Also, I do have digital cable, I just don't have it in my room.

Well.... up until about a week ago.... me. Even though we're close to a major metropolitan area (Baltimore/Washington) we only had one TV/internet choice up until recently. Comcast. And based on the input from the neighbors who claimed horrible service,-plus- the fact that Comcast wanted about $3k to run their cable down my long driveway to my house.... I said NO WAY.

Verizon FIOS service -finally- reached our area, and now we're hooked up for internet and basic TV. (No charge to run their wire to our house) The internet connectivity was the only thing I was really interested in... but with package prices basic TV service was only a few $$ more, and gave the kids access to Nickelodeon, etc.

However I'm not at all a big time watcher of TV. If there was no one else in the house to consider, I'd just hook my TV to my cheapy DTV box and amplified antenna, and leave it at that.....


Similar deal here- ComCast has an awful rep, and wants $3K to bring cable up my driveway. Verizon will bring FIOS to the house for free, but it's not near me yet.

je

That $3K a drop sounds almost suicidal for Comcast. Why don't they just give everyone the telephone numbers to D* and HughesNet?

I have only "kinda" been watching this thread - only because I initially took offense to the OP (sorry).

Heck yeah I still use my TV antennas. With all the crap on cable and dish, I can't see paying major bucks for something I rarely watch.

And with my digital converter boxes, I get super picture quality, and absolutely the BEST (uncompressed?) digital sound ever! Some TV shows sound as good as a DVD. I never got that when I had cable.

Rob

That $3K a drop sounds almost suicidal for Comcast..........

You got that right. We were so desperate for decent internet connectivity (we'd been suffering via dialup) that I probably would have signed up with them even with some of the horror stories the neighbors were telling. But when they hit us with that "$3k to come down your driveway" that effectively sealed it as NO DEAL. The gas company came down my long drive for free. Ditto Verizon. Why not Comcast? I figure it would have all averaged out for them ........ plus they would've gigged us for a monthly bill. Oh well, their loss.

Yeah it doesn't add up, Ohighway. Seems like they're being a bit stingy. I mean, think of the amount of bulk cables and accesories they must have, not to mention it doesn't take much manpower to do that job...

I only use antennae for analog TV, and have digital cable but after the transition I did get the converters since there will come a day when i want free OTA again....:yes:

I have another question. Do I live in the only place in the world that doesn't have any UHF channels?
We have 4, which is Global; 8, which is CTV; 11, which is CBC, and 13, which is french CBC.
I don't think anyone around here except for me even still uses analogue TV, because of the extremely limited channels.
Also, Canada isn't raping us of true free TV until 2011, so I still got a few years left to use the knob to change channels.

Also, I do have digital cable, I just don't have it in my room.

For your information-the FCC isn't "raping"(?) us of free tv, it's merly going digital-buy a convertor box-it's still free. Better picture sound-no snow-it's a great deal

It's amazing-even here some don't understand digital tv and the convertor box-truly amazing

For your information-the FCC isn't "raping"(?) us of free tv, it's merly going digital-buy a convertor box-it's still free. Better picture sound-no snow-it's a great deal

It's amazing-even here some don't understand digital tv and the convertor box-truly amazing

We understand digital perfectly. We also understand that buying a box and bigger antenna is not free. The reception also sucks. I'll take a little snow over a constantly glitching picture any day. Then I look outside and birds are on my antenna causing the disruption. Analog never did any of that bogus crap. Worked fine for over 60 years.

Fringe reception suffers most with digital, OTA television. Compared to analog, which could make a snowy b&w picture out of the weak signal, digital is pretty sucky. It's either there totally or gone totally.

Unless the transmitter power is turned up drastically, I can't see digital tv working for a lot of people, especially those using existing antenna systems or people living in the boonies...

We understand digital perfectly. We also understand that buying a box and bigger antenna is not free. The reception also sucks. I'll take a little snow over a constantly glitching picture any day. Then I look outside and birds are on my antenna causing the disruption. Analog never did any of that bogus crap. Worked fine for over 60 years.

Zenith-First-I was was not quoting you directly, another member-so "we" probably doesn't fit well-Second-Tv's-antenna nothings free-the signal is free for you to take with the required equipment.
Sorry to hear your reception sucks-in Hudson I don't have any problem-but bandwidth is marketable and worth huge money- it was only a matter of time-
Like it or not digital tv is here to stay, my suggestion would be instead of being angry- try to make the best of your available signal, or contact your local stations to see if they can help-like any new technology, there are some wrinkles to be worked out-perhaps it's as simple as turning the juice up

I'm not angry at all, I do use the signal the best I can. I'm just making an observation and stating my personal opinion that analog technically "works" better in some situations. I can't deny the fact that the picture and sound are great when digital works. But buying stuff to get a free signal is not free at all. I used the term "we" because you did not clarify as to who you were talking about, you said "even here some don't understand digital tv and the convertor box-truly amazing".

I'm not angry at all, I do use the signal the best I can. I'm just making an observation and stating my personal opinion that analog technically "works" better in some situations. I can't deny the fact that the picture and sound are great when digital works. But buying stuff to get a free signal is not free at all. I used the term "we" because you did not clarify as to who you were talking about, you said "even here some don't understand digital tv and the convertor box-truly amazing".

I was quoting wilkes85. Anyway- you had to buy the TV, antenna and supporting cast-those usally aren't free-the box-for me at least was $39 with the G coupon-I understand that some areas aren't the best for digital tv signals- hopefully by you, and others contacting stations and the FCC with your observed problems-they can be corrected. When analog commercial radio, and tv began-I'm sure they had a whole host of problems as well-new technologies usally do-unfortunatly-lets hopefor all of our sakes, they get them ironed out:thmbsp:

I hope they fix it too, then I can drop satellite. It's expensive for how much crap there is on there that I don't watch. I wish the boxes were made a little better too. There is always at least one thing I don't like. I keep buying different ones and they could all use some improvements. The best so far are the Zenith and Digital stream it seems. I have an "Access HD" box that works well but the menus and firmware are nothing to write home about. It keeps forgetting the channels I program in.

I believe OTA DTV reception will improve once the stations are all transmitting at full power. The reason a lot of folks are having trouble getting certain digital stations OTA (aside from distance or terrain issues) is that many of those stations are presently transmitting at somewhat less than their full authorized power level.

Zenithfan1: I did not realize that something as simple as birds sitting on an outdoor TV antenna could wreck DTV reception until I saw your post. As we know, this won't do much if anything to analog OTA reception, but I guess digital is a lot more fussy than analog ever was; witness the "all or nothing" nature of the former. I remember when the cable system here (Time Warner) converted to 100 percent digital last year. I was watching the evening news on my RCA CTC185 19" set shortly after the conversion was completed (or maybe it was still in progress) and saw the picture freezing and pixelating like crazy--I didn't see the end of that night's news because of the problem. I recently spoke with a technician for TW who told me that yes, they did have their share of problems at first, but that's part of the process of transitioning from one technology to another--there will always be bugs to be ironed out.

Yes, there are a few glitches. My two converter boxes shipped to my door cost me around $25, I think (with coupons).

I do feel a little like I've stepped back in time, though. I have had to uninstall all my signal boosters (they actually made the reception of digital signals worse), and install a A/B switch - to switch between the roof antenna (receives only some stations in digital) and my little set of rabbit ears and UHF loop set up indoors (to receive the remaining digital signals).

I hate the breakups of reception when using the indoor antennas. Low planes, helicopters, even my neighbor upstairs walking around can easily disrupt the signal. Very annoying IMHO, considering we are supposed to be progressing with technology.

The killer sound quality helps make up for that, though, so I'm good. Until they reassign some of the channels, and I have to do a scan on the boxes to see if there are any new stations - and see if I lose any.

Rob

I hope they fix it too, then I can drop satellite. It's expensive for how much crap there is on there that I don't watch. I wish the boxes were made a little better too. There is always at least one thing I don't like. I keep buying different ones and they could all use some improvements. The best so far are the Zenith and Digital stream it seems. I have an "Access HD" box that works well but the menus and firmware are nothing to write home about. It keeps forgetting the channels I program in.

I did some checking before I bought one-the Zenith rated high so I got one.
I agree-cables a rip off-satellite is better, but still expensive.
Me and the wife seem to be happy with that, and Netflix. I just cant see spending that much a month on TV-I would never get my money's worth-IMHO.
Hopefully they will get the bugs worked out-but they need enough people to complain about the problems I personally think. I would-but I have great reception, a occasional 'freeze up' like satellite-but I do a minor adjustment with the signal meter, and it clears up-but I'm close to most of the stations-Minneapolis-St Paul-etc, I lucked out in that respect apparently:thmbsp:

Jeffhs and Hifirob2: In the brief time I was using my DTV box for OTA reception I noticed some good/bad versus the analog signal. I could receive more stations on analog, however some were pretty snowy. Now with the DTV the reception was great, but I had less channels.... because as Zenith2134 mentioned, the signal is either there or it's not... One other thing. I'm unlucky enough to be in the Westward flight path from BWI airport. I'm probably a good 25 miles away from it, and the planes generally have some altitude already, however I noticed as they passed over my house they absolutely -wrecked- the signal on the DTV stations that had somewhat weak signals.
Made trying to watch RTN a challenge.:tears:

I believe OTA DTV reception will improve once the stations are all transmitting at full power. The reason a lot of folks are having trouble getting certain digital stations OTA (aside from distance or terrain issues) is that many of those stations are presently transmitting at somewhat less than their full authorized power level.

Zenithfan1: I did not realize that something as simple as birds sitting on an outdoor TV antenna could wreck DTV reception until I saw your post. As we know, this won't do much if anything to analog OTA reception, but I guess digital is a lot more fussy than analog ever was; witness the "all or nothing" nature of the former. I remember when the cable system here (Time Warner) converted to 100 percent digital last year. I was watching the evening news on my RCA CTC185 19" set shortly after the conversion was completed (or maybe it was still in progress) and saw the picture freezing and pixelating like crazy--I didn't see the end of that night's news because of the problem. I recently spoke with a technician for TW who told me that yes, they did have their share of problems at first, but that's part of the process of transitioning from one technology to another--there will always be bugs to be ironed out.

Interesting- I forgot about the full 'authorized' power- I'm hopeful they will get it worked out-as many people that watch tv-it's hard to believe the FCC could ignore them:scratch2:

I am one of those that uses an antennae to get local hd channels that Dish doesn't provide in my area. I hooked the antennae to my Dish receiver and scanned the local channels into it. I have to admit it works great.

I am one of those that uses an antennae to get local hd channels that Dish doesn't provide in my area. I hooked the antennae to my Dish receiver and scanned the local channels into it. I have to admit it works great.

I'm curious, Estring - since you have the ideal set up (that I wish I had) - do you receive channel 13 in digital? I have tried every which way possible, and I still can't get it. I think another los angeles member mentioned he couldn't get ch.13 either.

Not that I need that station, but I hope it isn't broadcasting in full power yet, and that I'll get it eventually.

Rob

Hey Rob,
I don't live in Los Angeles anymore. I moved to Chico a year ago. I was actually getting the LA feed from Dish until recently. That is why I resorted to using an antennae because I couldn't get local hd from Dish.
If I recall correctly, I did get channel 13 from the LA feed, but I couldn't get channel 9.