DTV Transition - Can YOU Help? (Part 1)

[Rodolfo]

The purpose of this series of articles is to help the public and the industry with the Digital Television (DTV) transition, and to motivate you to help others.

Due to the imminent DTV transition deadline of February 17, 2009, and because the subject is complicated to many in the public, it deserves to be explained in detail, so I will cover the topic in several articles within the series of "DTV Transition - Can YOU Help?"

If you are interested in a more in-depth analysis of the evolution of the DTV implementation...

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2008/10/dtv_transition_-_can_you_help_part_1.php]Read Article[/url]

[algopher]

Thanks for the article and I'll continue to read supplemental articles. I do have a question though and I haven't run across it covered anywhere. That has to do with interference.

Because a lot of interference will cause a DTV signal to be totally wiped out and unusable, but the same channel on analog to still be usable with some degradation. The reason I say that is that a particular channel in my area is on analog 10 and transmitting digitally on actual channel 9 and from the information I've garnered will do so after the transition date. I can see that when the digital signal is wiped out on 9, I can revert to channel 10 and the analog and still use that channel with the interference showing up because the analog video is a amplitude modulated signal and so is a lot of interference. Is the FCC going to actively be involved in rooting out the interference causes as the "old wives tales" led us to believe they did years ago? If not, there are going to be some very angry people after the transition when the interference wiped them out. And, no, my interference is not anything in my household, so it could be affecting others and it only relates to one particular channel/frequency. It doesn't seem that the FCC has been as aggressive as we are led to believe they once were.
And, where do you find these so called "hot lines" numbers?

[eliwhitney]

Hi algopher-

With the entire attitude of the " Transition " group from our FCC observing this switch - near total apathy- plus their obvious omission in NOT also telling everyone during those "Informercials" that a new, appropriate UHF antenna set up would be necessary w/ the "free" federal Converters .... don't expect very much in the way of "police work" / elimination of these offending interference phenomena !

" IF " anyone had legitimately had any interest in those millions strictly depending upon OTA for their free TV signals, there wouldn't have been the silly ( 90 ) days limitation, there Would have been a far-better means of mailing those coupons than in a clearly-marked envelope, etc.!

eli

[algopher]

I totally agree with you Eli. It's like many of these federally mandated programs that are started and nothing adequately funded, such as "no student left behind". This wasn't intended to be political, just an example.

John

[akirby]

I hope you realize that analog channel 10 and digital channel 9 are most likely broadcasting at different power levels and possibly even different tower locations. So what you're interpreting as interference may just be poor reception. Here in Atlanta we have an analog channel 11 broadcasting digitally on channel 10 with no interference.

[algopher]

Oh, I know interference when I see it and I won't go into qualifications.

[akirby]

Assuming it is interference between channel 9 and 10 - wouldn't that go away when they ditch the analog channel in February?

[algopher]

I wasn't trying to imply that. Since, the type of interference it is and as sporadic as it is along with other characteristics it could be someone transmitting on something. It isn't even everyday, or the same time of day though.

John

[thehef]

I have been going through the DTV conversion for a number of months now. I live in central Florida where summer storms are a daily occurance. When these storms roll trhough the digital picture on almost evert digital channel is at least deteriated or completely gone. There have been many times when a storm is not over my house but between me and one of the broadcast towers.

I have a two antennae in my attic. Each pointed toward the specific digital broadcast towers.

I had to buy and test four different converter boxes before I found two that had a decent user interface and decent signal capture capability. I learned that once the coupon is used, it cannot be returned to buy a different box event at the same store. The tactic I had to revert to was to buy the box to test without using the coupon. If I liked that box, I would then return it to the store and buy the same one with the coupon. Each of the stores I did this at understood the problem.

I also learned that an older 1 to 4 splitter/amplifier and another older 1 to 2 splitter caused a signal degredation of one specific digital channel that none of the converters would pick it up.

I also replaced my older (8 years old) coax with newer coax.

Overall the digital picture is clearer than that analogue picture but I get really frustrated with the dropouts on video and audio.

[eliwhitney]

Hi thehef -

You must have read by now here or elsewhere that any roofing materials DO absorb up to 50 % of the available signals ? In fact, metallic = Zero pass-thru.

It may not have been those various federal coupon Converters .... rather, all indoor (even attic-mounted) antenna systems WILL exhibit periods of inadequate, unreliable reception ! Exactly as you posted !

That's also included in Mr. Rodolfo LaMaestra's#1 Article ... the FCC's multitude of "informercials" NEVER equally-emphasize the high probability of a new UHF antenna system, mounted outside, as high as practical & possibly with a Rotor needed as well whenever the Towers are far apart on the Compass headings ... as from different cities, etc..

eli