OTA HD signal boosted after 2/17/09?

[tron3]

I recall reading somewhere the current OTA transmission signal will be boosted after 2/17/09 when analog goes away. Can anyone confirm, or was that just wishful thinking on the part of someone here?

I re-ran the tuner on my one HDTV last night too see what it captures in both analog and digital. There are a number of analog stations with no current digital equivilent. At least none I am receiving and I'm only miles away from the Empire State Building transmitter in NJ. But those stations might be other transmitters.

Could this mean more digital channels for me on 2/17 when those (UHF) stations can no longer transmit? My9 used to be a solid station, but lately I've completely lost the channel, other times I have it with some digital breakup.

Anyone? Anyone?
Beuller? Beuller?

[slaizer2000]

not every station has switched or started broadcasting in digital yet.
In addition digital signals are not as strong as current analog signals so they do not travel as far.

Some people who used to get analog signals may not get some of those signals when they switch to digital depending on how far they are from the stations.

[tron3]

Originally Posted by slaizer2000

...In addition digital signals are not as strong as current analog signals so they do not travel as far. ....

That is because most of the OTA broadcast is in the UHF frequency. UHF inheritly has problems penetrating solid structures because they tend to bounce off. VHF simply passed through.

With that being said, shouldn't the signal strength be boosted for those people who might lose a TV signal forever? Either that or start building new transmitter towers.

I predict a small degree of chaos. The government will either "work through the issue", or Obama will step in and save the day for analog enthusiasts by extending the deadline... which was already extended from 2006. I would not be a bit surprised if the FCC turned analog back on.

[wallendo]

There are some station which have to keep their digital output low to avoid interference with current analog channels. These stations will be able to increase output.

Delaying the switchover won't help, although Obama will probably push through a delay.

The people who have not yet made arrangements to switch to digital signals by now will not make the switch until after their analog signal is gone. Delaying the switchover will not have the intended effect of allowing these people to transition to digital. The government needs to go ahead and get it over with (besides, these people can use the $1000 Obama wants to give everybody as an economic stimulus to buy a converter.)

Unfortunately, some people will not be able to receive a digital signal (primarily rural areas). I live 80 miles from the nearest commercial stations and cannot receive OTA broadcasts - I use cable.The government may need to subsidize some sort of "basic satellite" service for the poor.

[tron3]

Originally Posted by wallendo

....The government may need to subsidize some sort of "basic satellite" service for the poor.

They did. It's called OTA. (Over the Air)

We all know it will start out noble and just grow into another behemoth to suck dollars out of the tax paying public pocket books. At this rate, my prediction will come true. The end of free broadcast TV.

[Bobby Henderson]

Most local television stations are running their DTV broadcasts at low wattage levels to conserve power and save money. If you live a short distance from the tower or have a really great OTA antenna setup you may be able to pick up those low power channels already.

I've been in contact with general managers and engineers at a couple of TV stations in my viewing market. They say the general plan is to start broadcasting the DTV signal at full power around the end of January or early in February.

Many stations have had to install new transmission equipment and other gear to get ready. Right now there is a whole lot of testing taking place. If any TV station is going to wait until Feb. 17 to flip the switch to full power they need to already know if their hardware works flawlessly. Going full power at the end of this month or beginning of February would provide at least a couple of weeks of grace period to work out any bugs before the analog transmission is turned off permanently.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by wallendo

The government may need to subsidize some sort of "basic satellite" service for the poor.

What? The last time I looked, television is a privilege, not a right.

[Sonny]

The stations better not flake out on making the switch...

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Sonny

The stations better not flake out on making the switch...

They'll have no choice once the "command" is given to hold-off for another 6-9 months. So let it be written, so let it be done....

[jsteinhauer]

It depends on the station. Some have been at full power. But realize, that many are now sending 3 or more digital channels instead of one analog channel. I don't know what effect that has. Here, some have not yet gone to full digital power. I live 25 miles from the towers, though, and get them all with a rooftop antenna.

In some areas, even if you are now receiving digital broadcasting, on 2/17, they may switch frequency, and some will go into the VHF band. If you forked it out for a big UHF only antenna, you might be SOL.

[Anthony P]

I recall reading somewhere the current OTA transmission signal will be boosted after 2/17/09 when analog goes away. Can anyone confirm, or was that just wishful thinking on the part of someone here?

yes and no. Transmission strength is measured in wattage just like electricity. If a station is transmitting digital and analog then it needs lots of electricity for each of them. So there are stations that could be favouring analogue now and then use the savings to boost the power after the change. That being said, signal strength is regulated so a station can't decide (too give a simple example) I was paying X in electricity 1/2 in digital and 1/2 in analogue and I will now use it all for digital if the government has decided a max that is lower. Some stations are already using full (allowed for them) broadcast power and if they would want to up it (after all $ comes from advertising and advertisers want eyes so a wider range is good) they would need to send a formal request to the government and wait for approval.

[tron3]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yes and no. ...That being said, signal strength is regulated so a station can't decide (too give a simple example) I was paying X in electricity 1/2 in digital and 1/2 in analogue and I will now use it all for digital if the government has decided a max that is lower. Some stations are already using full (allowed for them) broadcast power and if they would want to up it (after all $ comes from advertising and advertisers want eyes so a wider range is good) they would need to send a formal request to the government and wait for approval.

I already know that the digital bandwidth is LESS than the analog. We have more channels because of compression. For the FCC to regulate power output to the point of costing millions a TV signal borders on criminal. That will force people to use Dish and Cable services.

[jsteinhauer]

Originally Posted by tron3

I already know that the digital bandwidth is LESS than the analog. We have more channels because of compression. For the FCC to regulate power output to the point of costing millions a TV signal borders on criminal. That will force people to use Dish and Cable services.

I don't think this is the reason for loss of signal. Since digital broadcasts are either there or not, instead of increasing degrees of fuzziness/interference, those who have lived with poor or unreliable analog signal will no longer receive the digital signal, even at the same power. What's going to happen is more stations will be installing repeaters in outlying areas. If anything should be subsidized (and that's a big if), this is what it should be.

Personally, I'd rather see more cellular towers installed in remote areas, rather than television towers.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by tron3

For the FCC to regulate power output to the point of costing millions a TV signal borders on criminal.

No it isn't. The wattage levels are limited so one broadcaster's TV signal doesn't stomp all over another in a neighboring market. American FM radio stations can't use more than 100,000 watts of broadcast power, but down in Mexico there's stations using 500,000 watts or even more. People in South Texas have a lovely time dealing with Mexican tejano stations jamming American stations.

A local TV station can choose to use its entire 6MHz slice of broadcast spectrum for one HD-quality channel or divide it into 2 or more channels. It's a judgment call that will vary from one broadcaster to the next.

I don't really care about watching a Telemundo simulcast on a ".2" channel (I'm not fluent in Spanish and don't care about the programming) or the having the local weather radar on a ".3" channel 24 hours per day (the Internet and my NOAA weather radio do that job just fine). So I would certainly favor a local broadcast affiliate to use its entire DTV signal bandwidth for one HD channel so it could be broadcast at the highest bit rate possible.

[DrinkMore]

I have been thinking, putting aside the switchover and reading this thread - with all those watts pumping through the air, wonder what that does to us ya know? Wonder how it effects us, physically. You gotta wonder

[Anthony P]

Since digital broadcasts are either there or not

you can have spotty and problematic digital, though it is not the same as analogue and maybe more will find it more objectionable. But it is not true that it is there or not.