As previously discussed, we've now tried both Cable (on one tv, with a
Comcast box) and a home-made antenna. We thought the antenna would
stop working on 6/12 but, much to our surprise, we still get the same
number of channels over the air that we got on 6/11 and before. Yes,
of course we
More on channel 9. My home an office are about the same distance from
the broadcast tower (3.8 mi vs 4.0 mi straight line). The angle
between receiver and transmitter changes by about 45 degrees between
these 2 locations. The office has some tall buildings in between. The
house is line of
I was, happily, out of the country for the 12th debacle ...in Belgium, they
are progressively doing the DTV thing but analog is still there and, for
that matter, most get TV via cable ...oh, yeah, you can get it via regular
cable or telephone lines with high speed internet via both with or without
Just a bit more for the mix: my mother lives in a retirement community. An
informal small sample survey: everyone I talked to was enduring terrible
trouble receiving more than 4-5 channels (of sometimes irrelevant content for
them), whether or not they have a dtv. Their facility attributes
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 4:13 PM, t.piwowart...@tjpa.com wrote:
I bet they won't admit a problem because then they would not be able to
charge for the ads they run.
Television stations never publicly admit to any problems, and the
reason that you have stated factors into this. It is common
The FCC is currently accepting requests for TV repeater licenses, yes.
The application procedure is not easy, as the station must prove the
new repeater will only restore their old coverage area, and will not
expand it. This takes voluminous engineering reports, and would have
been very difficult
There are no citizens fighting to use white space; only other
companies. The broadcasters want adjacent frequencies kept clear to
minimize interference.
If you feel both the FCC and the NAB are out to screw you, then
there's really not much we can discuss. We'll just have to agree to
disagree.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Tony Bton...@gmail.com wrote:
There are no citizens fighting to use white space; only other
companies. The broadcasters want adjacent frequencies kept clear to
minimize interference.
Of course there are companies desiring to use this white space.
However,
It *was* broke, now it's fixed. For a while, anyway. You wouldn't
really consider driving a 1940 model car today, would you? Your 'fire'
analogy is a really bad one because DTV is a set of standards, not a
universal chemical process.
No question the rival format - COFDM - had it's supporters. But
Don't fail to look after the Bush plan for converting to digital fire
scheduled for next January. Some have said that doing so in the
middle of Winter was a dumb idea, but Bush said mission
accomplished. I don't think it is on BHO's radar yet, with so many
other crises to attend to. Try to
It's probably better it isn't on his radar yet..we'd only have one channel
if left up to BHO.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:05 AM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:
Don't fail to look after the Bush plan for converting to digital fire
scheduled for next January. Some have said that doing so in the
There shouldn't have been a coupon, another huge ripoff. Why do I have to
pay for some yahoo down the street to watch another episode of jerry
springer?
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Steve at Verizon stevet...@verizon.netwrote:
I know there are some who believe Bush is the cause of all
I can't get 7 or 9 in the DC area, even after I've rescanned the set.
I even tried rotating the antenna to better receive the signals but
nothing came through. Next step is to replace the primary UHF/VHF
antenna with the old VHF/UHF one I took down 2 years ago. Oh what
fun...
Richard P.
On Sat,
Come now. The 8 years of incompetence was entirely on his watch. To
go back 12 years to pin it on Clinton is just silly and the
transition date was prior to BHO's inauguration. This debacle, like
Katrina, was entirely run by bad-for-business, good-for-crooks
Republicans. You have to live
It is called taking responsibility for ones actions. I know, a
strange concept for some.
On Jun 13, 2009, at 3:13 PM, mike wrote:
There shouldn't have been a coupon, another huge ripoff. Why do I
have to
pay for some yahoo down the street to watch another episode of jerry
springer?
Of course I rescanned. I also entered channels 7-1 and 9-1 manually to
the TV. There is not enough signal even to register on the signal
strength meter on those channels.
With the old rabbit ears, I can get a jerky picture on channel 7-1 and
none on channel 9-1.
Since I am only 10 miles
I am getting 7 okay now. Something is wrong at channel 9, though I
don't see anybody admitting it on WUSA's home page. I left my set
tuned to 9 while working on other things. The screen is black mostly.
Every 5 minutes or so I get a frame or two of video and a short burst
of audio. Maybe
It *was* broke, now it's fixed. For a while, anyway. You wouldn't
really consider driving a 1940 model car today, would you? Your 'fire'
analogy is a really bad one because DTV is a set of standards, not a
universal chemical process.
Nobody around here can get all the channels they had with
Just a reminder that you may have to run the scan for all channels
several times. Did so yesterday, but then lost some and had to run again
today. Seems the broadcasters a shifting frequencies at different times.
(And relocating from where they were originally.)
betty wrote:
It *was* broke,
It's just TV...you aren't missing much.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 7:10 PM, betty b1sun...@yahoo.es wrote:
It *was* broke, now it's fixed. For a while, anyway. You wouldn't
really consider driving a 1940 model car today, would you? Your 'fire'
analogy is a really bad one because DTV is a set
Each time I turn on any of our TVs there are no channels and I have to scan.
We've had DirecTV for years, and they've been digital for years. They get it right, and
have a lot of good channels, but we can only get Baltimore TV stations for our local
stations, not Philly and not both, like we
You forget the circumstances. The USA was embroiled in an unjust war
that was costing far more money than bad-at-math Republicans had
calculated. Revenue from the oil fields that they had expected to
seize never materialized. They wanted to cut taxes for the rich even
more than they
There you go with your magical thinking again.
It has been well established that Bush inherited a well run and highly
professional FEMA from the previous administration. He and his cronies
then proceeded to fill the organization with politically-connected
nincompoops and forced out the
b_s-wilk
We went from getting around 20 stations to 2. We have a new
Well, you now almost have the same status I always have had.
I used to get (with rabbit ears) a bunch of snowy stations
from DC with one slightly better station (channel 4). I
live in southern MD (LaPlata/Waldorf).
--
Take
b_s-wilk wrote:
We went from getting around 20 stations to 2. We have a new amplified
antenna that doesn't help. This sucks. The switch to digital was a
gift to cable, fiber and satellite companies, as well as electronics
companies, and gives the customers no advantage with plenty to
On Jun 12, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Robert Carroll wrote:
I bought a digital LCD TV. Even tho I dwell on the DC Beltway and
most of the local TV transmitting towers are about 10 miles away
line-of-sight, I could get NO local digital TV at all with an
amplified rabbit-ear antenna. Just bought an
I think many people are victims of two things going on.
TV Antennas are tuned for a certain spread pattern to reach the
customers that they want.
I think that one of the things they did was change the spread on
their antennas when they went to Digital.
So no telling until someone comes
Why did we do this anyway?
I have cable at home, but have no cable access at my lake property
(or I would have it there also). We were able to pick up at least
SOME snowy reception from the nearest city (Syracuse, NY) with analog
and a roof antenna, for 3 major networks. Now with a DTV
Assuming this isn't a rhetorical question, I'll answer it.
The old system - designed in the 1930's, ratified in 1940, is
inefficient. It requires a whole lot of precious limited bandwidth to
broadcast a single format signal. DTV not only saves bandwidth, it can
carry many different formats. It's
What network are neither of the dish companies not providing? I've
got Direct TV and get all the networks. In fact, one of my peeves when
I travel is dealing with the limited cable selection. It's also
interesting seeing what areas of the country decide on what cable news
channels to
It is the local NBC outfit.
As you know they have to have permission to give you the local
channels on Satellite.
The local NBC provider wont play and allow then rebroadcast rights in
our area, but only the NBC stations home area. (If I lived 30 miles
north I would get it, or 30 miles south
I live at the northern tip of the Chesapeake Bay, about half way between
Philly and Baltimore. With analog TV, I could get all Baltimore and all
Philly stations, plus Harrisburg, and sometimes 4, 7, and 9 in DC,
depending on the weather. Last week I got channel 6 in Philly, and 10
with audio
The Washington Post today, Thursday, June 11, has a good article
about how the transition to digital television has missed virtually
every single promised advantage over analog TV. The claims made by
broadcasters and their lobbying organizations that were designed to
ensure and garner public
You forgot a link. But I'm not even sure what you're complaining
about. 8vsb? ATSC?
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:05 PM, phartz...@gmail.comphartz...@gmail.com wrote:
The Washington Post today, Thursday, June 11, has a good article
about how the transition to digital television has missed
Try this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060903144.html?wprss=rss_technology
At 8:12 PM -0400 6/11/09, Tony B wrote:
You forgot a link. But I'm not even sure what you're complaining
about. 8vsb? ATSC?
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:05 PM,
The Washington Post today, Thursday, June 11, has a good article
about how the transition to digital television has missed virtually
every single promised advantage over analog TV. The claims made by
broadcasters and their lobbying organizations that were designed to
ensure and garner
The Washington Post today, Thursday, June 11, has a good article
about how the transition to digital television has missed virtually
every single promised advantage over analog TV. The claims made by
broadcasters and their lobbying organizations that were designed to
ensure and garner
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Tony Bton...@gmail.com wrote:
You forgot a link. But I'm not even sure what you're complaining
about. 8vsb? ATSC?
Who's complaining? I was merely paraphrasing and pointing out a
Washington Post article about how digital television is not delivering
what had
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Art Clemonsartclem...@aol.com wrote:
It's a good bet that most broadcasters didn't want ATSC, it's an
additional expense and new transmitters had to be bought or
alternatively expensive alterations to existing ones had to be made.
To the best of my
39 matches
Mail list logo
