1inxs

Boo-Ray

NP, I had to check it myself too, 2% just didn't seem right.

All of that work back then to pick up 1 or 2 channels.



Impressive?? I've never heard of anyone picking up anything over 150+ miles away. Conditions have to be beyond perfect.

allah.ollah

\

To Bickert with respect: Reception of DTV on the fringe will not just be difficult, it will be non-exsistent for many, again, all things being equal. What is your definition of "everyone"? The folks on the fringe who will lose tv service without an upgrade ARE part of "everyone" also, at least according to the definition. They had some form of tv reception in the past and now will not.. It is correct those who receive a reliable signal will have better pictures from their new tv or old tv with the CECB but once again, I am talking about reliable reception, not picture quality. I don"t seem to be able to make my point with some of you on this and perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges. I will say this in closing: If you are speaking of enhanced tv pictures with superior sound and all the other bells and whistles that go with DTV, HDTV, etc., then the ones who can receive a reliable signal will benefit but, that is not "everyone", according to the definition. Generally, they took a type of tv transmission that did work in some form for EVERYONE, and turned it into something that works for almost EVERYONE. There is a difference. Incidently, when color tv was introduced as the next tv revolution in the 50s, I don't recall anybody being forced to buy a new tv or converter box in order to continue watching tv. Think about that.

bicker

Little different from how it is today. The only real difference is the cliff effect, where folks who used to have very crappy reception will instead have no reception. There are definite disadvantages to living far away from the city center. That's a choice you make when you decide where to live.

However, again 89% of stations actually gain viewers, while only 11% of stations lose viewers. That's a BIG net advantage, overall. If you're affected by that 11%, yes, you won't like that. However, 11% is a lot less than 89%.

allah.ollah

To Bicker: The people who had "crappy" reception before at least had some sort of reception. Now they have nothing. Try being objective and see how you would feel if the situation was reversed. Would you or anyone who had some or any form of tv reception be happy that you lost yours when others didn't? You can't give something to people, take it away and expect those people to accept it without comment. They are not going to understand why they have to lose reception when they had it before, albeit, perhaps marginally, so other people can enjoy better pictures on their tv sets at the fringe people's expense. I personally don't have to worry about any of this since I am not in your 11% anymore than I was in the 2% in your first reply. I'm just trying to be objective on some other people's behalf. Even the FCC acknowledges reception problems on the fringe hence, the translator proposals. Once again, we are comparing apples and oranges. You seem to feel that it is ok for some people to lose tv reception so the majority can enjoy better picture quality (not better reception, since if you receive 35% of the signal or 95%, the quality is the same). I said in my last post that the gov't took something that worked in some form for everyone and gave us something that works for almost everyone Incidently, this is my last comment on this matter. I believe we both have made our points and I hope we have at least agreed to disagree. I will say it has been a pleasure matching opinions with you and I wish you all the best.

Aaron62

One thing's for sure. I've helped 5 people (family members) install converter boxes around all parts of California. Out of those 5, 4 had to throw out their rabbit ears and go with a heavier duty indoor/outdoor antenna. They're not on the fringe of reception either. I realize that 5 different examples aren't representative of every one else's results but it does lead me to believe that the survey I originally posted might be off a bit.

A coat hanger would pick up signals in the 40's-50's? Was there a TVFool to help guide where to point the hanger?

allah.ollah

To 1inxs: When you speak of locating, verifying, peaking confirming, etc. I assume you are talking about DXing. My setup was not originally set up as a DX rig, although it works for DX in an amazing way. Even during marginal tropo conditions, I have pulled in tv from the Florida west coast to the east and Brownsville, Tx from the wsw. It was designed to pull in stations from Lafayette, La. (about 150 miles) to beat sports blackouts from New Orleans. Swinging the rig to the northeast, I discovered the Gulf Coast stations came in quite well (180 miles approximately). These stations do not always come in with Grade A reception, but they are quite viewable about 90% of the time. They are viewable,albeit marginally, for the remaining 10% with intermittent fading however, I get something all the time either viewable or partially viewable. I have only one tv and I rotate the rig to correspond to the stations I wish to view. It is not hard to verify location, since I can only receive from the north, east or west. Going south, would be trying to bring in stations in Yucatan, Mex. and my rig is just not that good, lol. It takes a little longer to put the system back up after a hurricane threat than it did to take it down, since I always inspect, grease and fine tune everything. The tower remains in place since it can stand very heavy wind loads. It is bracketed 30 ft. on the side of my home, guyed at 45 ft. and also at about 55 ft. Katrina did not take it down or even bend it. I bought the tower and rotor from a ham. He and I installed the tower in a block of concrete 2 ft. underground and 1 ft above. It is quite sturdy. I don't think my rig would work nearly as well in your area due to the mountains and hilly terrain and lack of a salt water corridor such as the Gulf of Mexico. Flat land and salt water bodies play a great part in propagation of radio waves. I have been in the West during your monsoon season and know what your thunderstorms are like. Lightning would be a dangerous factor here without proper grounding, but I think I could handle the wind. However, I would love to put my setup on a mountain top, fire it up and see the results. By the way, we visited Utah about 12 years ago and really loved it!! We hope to return again. Good luck and best of wishes.

allah.ollah

To Boo Ray: I assure you it is possible to get viewable tv reception at or beyond 150 miles. If you check other forums, you will eventually see other folks who have done the same. My brother-in-law from Santa Barbara, Ca. has a setup better than mine and regularly receives some tv from San Diego (186 miles). So, it is possible, if you go through the time, work, and especially expense to do it. This is not for everyone, but for those into it, it is very satisfying and rewarding.

staticMHZ

moving pictures and sound! It's AMAZING.......but no color

__________________
DTV USA Forum is not affiliated with the converter box coupon program in any way, visit http://DTV2009.gov for more info.

Orrymain

I have a new perspective from the just the last three days. All of a sudden our NBC affiliate is broadcasting commercials talking about how some of the DTV viewers may no longer receive their signal at all, but that they can watch the channel through another station in another city. No clue how that works, but these commercials are running quite a bit so there must be some significant 'it ain't workin'' going on around here.