DTV station identification; are local TV stations still analog on digital cable?

[andy]

000

[MelodyMaster]

Originally Posted by andy

DTV has a lot of problems, but I have to admit that it was ludicrous to dedicate hundreds of MHz of prime spectrum to Survivor, American Idol, and what passes for the news. A more robust DTV system, or a mix of analog and digital would have been better. Other countries are phasing out analog TV, and getting people to switch by hyping up the extra channels, then adding HDTV later.

Oh don't get me started on "Reality" TV. However a lot of the trash is on Cable channels only, so it's not ALL wasting broadcasting spectrum.

It's noteworthy that although Canada is two years off from the Great Switch, all the channels in the Toronto area are broadcasting digitally as well as on analog. In fact one multicultural channel is ATSC only.

[peverett]

I have no apology for the programming, but to hint that we are "bandwidth starved" when I see drivers blabbing on cellphones everyday is idiotic. Much of the non-TV uses for the bandwidth is just as stupid as the reality shows. It is a fact that most people get their severe weather info via TV. To me, the unreliability in severe weather is the big issue with DTV. I suspect that people will at some point be harmed due to the fact that they cannot now get reliable over-the-air weather information via TV. Having reliable weather information via TV is a much more valuable use of bandwidth than selling it to Verizon in my opinion.

Do not give me "Use the radio for weather info" excuse. Commercial radio is very poor at broadcasting severe weather info and the weather radios have issues(I have one). In any case the information carried via a picture is truly worth 1000 words in severe weather.

Now, if they truly get mobile DTV working reliably(even in severe weather), I could possibly change my mind.

[Jeffhs]

Originally Posted by peverett

Do not give me "Use the radio for weather info" excuse. Commercial radio is very poor at broadcasting severe weather info and the weather radios have issues(I have one). In any case the information carried via a picture is truly worth 1000 words in severe weather.

Now, if they truly get mobile DTV working reliably(even in severe weather), I could possibly change my mind.

It's not an excuse. Radio was around decades before television, and weather radios that carry the weather bureau's forecasts do a decent job of alerting the public to severe weather or approaching storms (I'll say; many times weather radios sound off in the middle of the night or at all hours of the day--even when the disturbance is miles away from where the listener is located, which is why I don't use my 10-year-old Midland all-hazard FM/weather radio any longer). How did people got severe weather information before there was such a thing as television? Over the radio, of course.

Also, I cannot believe that local radio stations do not, ever, give severe weather information any longer. Radio stations must operate in the public interest, whether their programming is live, automated or whatever. "Operating in the public interest" means, among other things, that radio stations must provide severe weather information when needed, even if it means interrupting automated programming to do so, or by having the station engineer break in with bulletins. If they do not, they could (and will) be cited by the FCC and could lose their licenses. Commercial radio stations are businesses that depend on advertising revenue to stay on the air; therefore, they cannot afford to be off the air for any length of time. Therefore, you can be certain they will adhere to the letter of the law and will correct any problems as soon as they occur, or when pointed out by the FCC during an inspection of station logs. The big network O&O (owned and operated) stations would not dare be unprepared for severe weather events; the networks would not allow such a thing. However, smaller local-service stations have a responsibility as well to the community(ies) they serve (operating in the public interest, again), which means they must have, at very least, EAS (Emergency Alert System) equipment.

To be sure, the EAS has its flaws, but by and large it is better than Conelrad or the Emergency Broadcast System. The former silenced all but one key alert station in the affected area in the event of an emergency; if you were within listening range of the alert station during an emergency (and tuned your radio to 640 or 1240 when the announcer on the local station you were listening to declared an emergency condition, also informing listeners that this particular station would leave the air immediately and for listeners to tune to the designated Conelrad station in their local area), great, but if you were out of range of that signal and could not hear it, you were out of luck. The latter system (EBS) was an improvement over Conelrad as it, like the present-day EAS, broadcast emergency warnings over all stations in the affected area, not just one selected low-power station with very limited range.

In tornado-prone areas, for example, don't forget tornado warning sirens. These are supposed to sound as soon as the weather service spots a tornado anywhere in the area. I'm sure there are other, similar warning systems, supposedly (hopefully) fail-safe, for early warnings of earthquakes and other natural disasters in other parts of this country as well. Note that I said "hopefully" fail-safe. I said this because these systems do fail on occasion, and sirens often are not heard in the very areas where they need to be heard, such as rural areas where homes are often separated by miles, not feet. The early-warning system for natural disasters in this country absolutely must be upgraded, and soon (the sooner the better), so that no one is ever out of range of emergency sirens or warnings in the event of such an emergency, even if the person (people) involved is or are, literally, out in the middle of nowhere.

[peverett]

The issue with weather radios is not their accuracy, this is fine. From my experience it is the way the system is set up. On my weather radio(Midland, the only one sold in my area, as far as I can tell) you cannot disable the alarm when only a watch is present, i. e. it will go off every 30 minutes or so, even when no storms(no warnings) are present. Guess what, most people get tired of hearing this and disable the alarm, so the radio becomes useless.

I wrote the manufacturer and they indicated that the system is set up so that the watch/warning signals cannot be distinqushed by the radio-what a stupid system design flaw if true.

As far as sirens go, my mother lives in rural OK. She has no siren within 20 miles. There are two small towns of about 1000 people nearby, these also have no sirens. There are millions of people in the US living outside the range of sirens. In fact, I live in a suburb in Texas and have never heard a siren tested-I may not have one.

I, for one, have not heard commercial radio(I have the radio on all the time when driving) broadcast a weather warning in years. We have severe weather here every spring and fall. If they are violating laws, no one cares. This lack of weather information via commercial radio is what prompted my mobile TV comment-at least weather warnings would be available when on the road(Hopefully a passenger, not the driver is watching). There have been many times that I have been driving and wondered how bad the storm I saw ahead of me is-but no info came from the radio.

The fact remains ( ask anyone in tornado alley) that TV remains the main conduit of severe weather information to the average person. In my opinion, making this conduit less reliable mainly to sell public bandwidth to Verizon, etc. is criminal.