DTV Over The Air Reception - Lousy!

[AJ1G]

Tried out DTV reception at our Charlestown, RI cottage last weekend using a borrowed DTV converter feeding a fairly new analog only set we keep up there.  Wanted to see if it was worth  investing in a new set or even just a DTV converter box for the location. The cottage sits on relatively high ground on the east side of a large pond, and we always have had good to great analog reception of the Providence, Hartford, and New Haven area stations using a medium size VHF/UHF LP antenna with a rotator about 20 feet above ground. Could also get some Boston stations at reduced picture quality.  Although cable service is available, we never have subscribed because of the seasonal/weekend use of the place.

DTV reception was a huge disappointment.  After scanning with the antenna headings that worked for Providence and Hartford analog stations the past, we were only able to get local stations transmitting from Waterford CT (26 and 69) and the Norwich CT area (CPTV 24).  No Rhode Island stations at all.  Initially, we did get good reception of some Hartford area channels, but that may have been a freak of tropo scatter or ducting, as the signals suddenly dropped out after an hour or so of the initial channel scan, and have yet to return.

Checked out predicted reception at the location using the antennaweb.org site.  It returned only one station, 69, which it lists as being in RI somewhere to the north, although I thought it shared the Waterford, CT tower with Channel 26, along with its lousy programming.  I found it odd that 26 from Waterford didn't show up on the prediction as it is very strong in the area, and usually gave studio quality on analog without any antenna at all.  The 26 DTV signal pegs the "S" meter on the DTV converter display screen as do the Channel 69 signals off the LP. 

As far as I know, the antenna and feed line are still functioning OK. Signals do change strength as expected for a LP antenna as I slew the rotor around.  Reception of the one analog signal still around (CPTV) seems normal relative to past reception.

Feeling very underwhelmed by DTV over  the air at this point. Wonder what others'  experiences have been?  If this was my only reception option at my primary residence, I would feel scammed.

[AJ1G]

Did some more research on the stations we are receiving -

Channel 69 WPXQ is listed as on Block Island, although the FCC website gives the TX location in Hopkinton, RI, to our north.  Makes sense of the antennaweg.org info, which gave distances and heading  of about 12 miles to the north from Charlestown, although antennaweb.org lists the location as Providence....along with why the signal is so strong.

WEDH 24 DT TX location is in the Hartford area.  Their 500KW ERP and high antenna must be why we are able to receive them down in RI.

Still not sure why we cant get the RI market DT signals.

[KA1ZGC]

Your current situation may not be permanent.

Since you've already found the stations-in-question in CDBS, you can see the differences between their analog and digital transmitter licenses.

Very different frequencies, very different ERP, very different antenna with a very different radiation pattern.

The digital assignments are arranged such that each station will have approximately the same coverage after the transition is over. The transition is stuck at the halfway point because someone with more opinions than facts thought extending the deadline was somehow a good idea.

The problem is that many signals won't reach their post-transition strength and coverage until after the deadline passes and the NTSC facilities are shut down. Some will move their ATSC signal to their original NTSC assignments, some will stay put on UHF.

Those stations currently running both transmitters to the same antenna via a combiner will likely change antennas when they tear out the combiner if they're not moving back to their original assignment.

There's also no reason to assume that the current digital signals are running at their full licensed power. They're supposed to (which is why they'd never admit publicly if they weren't), but once the proof of engineering is out of the way, it's awfully tempting to cut it back until you can save yourself the power bill of the analog transmitter. With all the layoffs in the biz right now, don't rule out cost-cutting measures.

You've got me curious enough and given me enough channel/city info to check the one relevant database table that doesn't have a web interface, the dtv_transition table of CDBS. It's on the Linux side of this machine, so I can't do it on the fly. It may turn out that one or more stations you want are going back to VHF, which would solve the problem for that particular station.

To make it all even more interesting, there's no telling when any of these changes will actually happen, only that they'll happen as soon after the analog shutdown as the stations can manage.

Either way, the current dialscape only vaguely resembles what it's going to look like after the dust settles. After the analog cutoff date, the other half of the real work can begin. If they'd left the deadline alone, most of it would be done by now.

[Tom WA3KLR]

The FCC now has a signal survey function like antennaweb.org.  You can get additional info besides the -dBM level by left-clicking on station call letters, including getting the station coverage maps by then clicking on loss/gain map:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/

The FCC page will yield a little different results.  The last I compared the two sites, it appeared to me to be more accurate for my area (Philadelphia market) than antennaweb.

I have very good reception here.  The last I tallied I was getting a total of 40 sub-channels from the Philadephia, Atlantic City and Allentown areas.

Entering Charlestown, RI I saw both signals, the stronger one at -22 dBm!

[Blaine N1GTU]

first thing i would do is replace the old combo VHF/UHF tv antenna
I think the new frequencies are up the the UHF region so maybe a homebrew yagi UHF phased array.
also replace the coax with a low loss cable maybe even use a high quality preamp at the antenna too.
or forget about over the air reception and get yoursef an internet connection.
Hulu.com has tons of new programming and with hulu desktop you can install a cool app on your pc and hook it up to your tv and watch tons of shows.
I havent had cable in about 2 years, watch all my content online.

[W2VW]

Data which is actively managed by someone who cares:

http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php

Post transition will change a lot of things. Remember, it isn't only about what you can pick up. It's also about what you can get rid of. I live on the fringe of NYC broadcast and usually pick up every last DTV signal. There are rare times when something desenses my pre-amp.

Some otherwise perfectly good teevee over the air receive installations will have preamp overload. After the analog signals go dark things will get better. Some analog broadcasters have been asked to remain on the air for an additional 2 weeks or a month after June 12th in order to broadcast info about the DTV transition to those who might have missed it.

Check to see it high VHF and even low VHF will be used in your area post June 12. That dictates which antenna will be needed. If you can dump the long elements all the better for the preamp. Longer boom higher gain is always good to get rid of unwanted garbage even if the gain isn't needed for the desired signals. It's all about SNR. N is overlooked too often.

[K5UJ]

Count me as one of the ones who is rather unhappy with the switch.  But I'm not a big TV watcher, only looking at it around 30 minutes a week on average.  Analog was fine for me since I don't have to have a perfect picture for what I want to see. 

I considered signing off of TV permanently but decided I should have some reception for when there is really big news I want to follow.   I'm 40 miles away from the broadcast antennas in Chicago and down in a river valley.  A single DTV signal is like getting 12 Mb data rate, but on UHF or VHF high, and for me, over a pretty long distance for digital.  In my opinion this is not a situation for an average consumer and I understand there are a lot of unhappy people on fringe reception areas.  It looks as if FCC was led to believe that folks could just get a coupon for a converter box and that would solve all their problems.  I have gone out and purchased a 60 something element Winegard LP antenna on a 14 foot boom (minimum 10 dBd gain around 30 degree beam width), a Glen Martin 4.5 foot quad-pod, a preamp and 50 feet of 75 ohm LDF4-75 with the 75 ohm N males and N to F adapters.  This has all set me back around $600 and I hope it gets the job done.   According to that online reception evaluator I am in a purple zone and my antenna at the height I can get it (30 feet), is definitely not overkill, amazingly.

I think it was a good idea to get tv off the VHF low band (ch.2-6) but it would have been okay with me if it had stayed analog with my "boatanchor" TV set hi hi.

73

Rob K5UJ

[Tom WA3KLR]

Chris,

WNAC DTV-64 Providence now on r.f. channel 54 will be on r.f. channel 12 after the transition.

DTV will not be off of low VHF, we all wish it was.  There will be stations using all channels below ch. 52, even on ch. 2.  Here in Philadelphia, ch. 6 returns to ch. 6 after the transition.  That will be the lowest channel for Philly.

[WBear2GCR]

VW thinks he is in the "fringe" NYC area! 

Where am I? I'm 125mi north of NYC, and every night I watch 2,4,5 out of NYC and 3 out of Hartford, no problem.

Without yet having a big arse high gain yagi (a dish anyone??) for UHF I get exactly one local station, not the usual 3... Of course my present ant is carp for UHF... gotta upgrade.

I'll miss the NYC stations... who knows maybe they will come in if I put up an array headed south. Which is why I was thinking of using my old Sat dish with a UHF dipole at the focus and aiming it horizontally and south... any opinions ant gurus?

                   _-_-bear

[K1ZJH]

Bear..

Do you mind doing a little homebrewin' 

Google Gray-Hoverman antennas. Here is a link to one design for
UHF HDTV reception. I'm seriously thinking of building a pair!!

http://www.digitalhome.ca/ota/superantenna/design.htm

Pete

[W2VW]

VW thinks he is in the "fringe" NYC area! 

Where am I? I'm 125mi north of NYC, and every night I watch 2,4,5 out of NYC and 3 out of Hartford, no problem.


                   _-_-bear

Randall,

      You should really set all the broadcasters AND the FCC straight on how to properly predict television reception. They cannot possibly know anything based on this contour map which I'm 2 miles outside of. Please call them right away. We are wasting lots of electricity.

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT1238319.html

[W1VD]

Here's a setup that worked pretty good back during my UHF TV DXing days.... 

System was a 5' Channel Master 4251 dual bow tie feed parabolic to a 2.5 dB noise figure balanced 300 ohm preamplifier, directly at the feed point, feeding 7/8" CATV hardline. Inside were multiple cavity notch filters for the local UHF stations to protect the TV front end from overload. At the time, the parabolic outperformed various yagi setups tried. Considered stacking 4 parabolics in a 2 X 2 but sanity prevailed.

The antenna is at 115' and the location is a hilltop...so performance was pretty good. Reception extremes (sync but noisy) under flat band conditions was out to Allentown PA (170 mi to the west) and Salisbury MD (270 miles to the south) and somewhere in between up into Maine.

During tropo openings stations from Nova Scotia to Florida were logged. Never did receive any real long haul to the west which was a disappointment. Propagation up and down the coast was always superior to the overland path even though I have a good shot to the west. Total number of UHF station logged was well over 100 - this was all analog reception in the late 80's / early 90's. Since the antenna is still up (preamp needs repair) it might be interesting to see what results can be had with digital. 

Antenna pix below... 

 

[Ed/KB1HYS]

Count me as one of the ones who is rather unhappy with the switch.  But I'm not a big TV watcher, only looking at it around 30 minutes a week on average.  Analog was fine for me since I don't have to have a perfect picture for what I want to see. 

Digital was never about the picture quality but about spectrum. Someone could get rich selling spectrum (what a silly idea, but hey they thats got the gold etc..)  so we all get to buy new TVs and converters and such, just to watch the same CRAP only in "Digital High Definition" if they are transmitting that. 

The fact that my picture is about 4 inches smaller around than it used to be on most of the channels is annoying to.  I'd hate to see what it looks like on a smaller set!  Oh well.  What kills me is the number of folks running out to buy new TV's now, the HUGE pile of unwanted TV's at the landfill isn't even good for parts anymore    

[John K5PRO]

WJAR in Providence is up on ch 51 with a big transmitter. They retired their ch 10 analog. Surprised you cannot get them, they aren't changing it after 12th.

I have the long Winegard corner reflector for UHF and an old Winegard VHF only, running with RG6 cable and bandsplit combiner to single feedline. Both antennas have substantial Winegard preamps. Setup works pretty well. The corner reflector is up on my tower at about 25 feet, pointed towards all of the transmitters on Sandia Crest at Albuquerque,  60 miles away with a mountainous ridge blocking line of sight between us. They all come in fine in DTV. Only one day did i loose all of the stations (2-1, 4-1, 5-1, 7-1, 13-1, 50-1) when we had a heavy wet snowfall few months ago. A couple of stations are remaining on high band VHF, while 2, 4, and 5 are moved to UHF channels now.

I am impressed with DTV, but the programming choices aren't much different, go figure. The picture and sound  is decent, when the networks decide to send hi def. But yes, the picture shrinks and I can really see the degradation when they send lower res, which is over 50% of the time. It still is a lot more impressive than HD Radio (iboc) is. 

[steve_qix]

Hi Chris,

Your experience seems a big odd.  If you can (or could) see an analog piecture on UHF, you should be able to receive DTV.  I get moocho DTV channels here - many more than I did under analog.

Which converter are you using?  I have experimented with several converters.  The Insgina/Zenith box was the best as far as sensitivity.  Is there some antenna anomaly?

I have found that a weak but watchable analog signal will translate to a stable DTV signal.  Multipath (ghosting) is another story - that will render DTV unusable.

Used a Channel Master mast mounted amplifier, mounted right at the antenna, with good coax coming down.  That made a huge, huge difference.

Something to try.... you should get some stuff there.

Regards,

Steve

[W1VD]

The 26 DTV signal pegs the "S" meter on the DTV converter display screen as do the Channel 69 signals off the LP.

Chris

Perhaps the converter is being pushed into gain compression from the strong local signals? Might try dropping them into a pattern null and see if the situation improves. 

[K5UJ]

Count me as one of the ones who is rather unhappy with the switch.  But I'm not a big TV watcher, only looking at it around 30 minutes a week on average.  Analog was fine for me since I don't have to have a perfect picture for what I want to see. 

Digital was never about the picture quality but about spectrum. Someone could get rich selling spectrum (what a silly idea, but hey they thats got the gold etc..)  so we all get to buy new TVs and converters and such, just to watch the same CRAP only in "Digital High Definition" if they are transmitting that. 

The fact that my picture is about 4 inches smaller around than it used to be on most of the channels is annoying to.  I'd hate to see what it looks like on a smaller set!  Oh well.  What kills me is the number of folks running out to buy new TV's now, the HUGE pile of unwanted TV's at the landfill isn't even good for parts anymore    

You're probably right.  FCC generated I think something like $20 Billion in revenue in the VHF low band auction.  And the garbage content.   I used to search the tv channels whenever I was in a hotel/motel each time confirming nothing had changed:  still 50 or 100 channels of junk.  Now when I'm on the road I don't even bother turning on the TV.  Another thing that bothers me is the number of elderly and poor people who lack the expertise needed to set up and operate a converter box.  It isn't entirely plug and play as was envisioned I think.

73

Rob K5UJ

[WB2YGF]

I get a few OTA DTV stations in case of emergency, otherwise, 99% of the time I watch cable-only stations.  When I can watch CNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc. OTA, is when I can chuck my cable bill, otherwise OTA is nearly useless.  (Since all the "local" stations are in Philly or NYC, rarely is the news about NJ anyway.) The last network series I got hooked on (Jericho), I watched it all on Joost (online) at a time of MY choosing, and without commercial interruption.

Comcrap just offered me 2 cable boxes for free for TV's where I don't currently have a box.  I suspect this is to mitigate the outrage when they start moving channels to digital.

[WA1GFZ]

Chris,
My rabbit ears don't decode anything at Giants Neck The antenna is in a west window a good 40 feet above the Rocky Neck salt marsh. I couldn't even lock on Ch 8 during their test last weekend. I'm thinking of an antenna in the attic another 10 feet higher. I can usually get 2 or 3 and 8 easily. We don't watch much tube down there but like to catch the news and WX.

[k4kyv]

FCC generated I think something like $20 Billion in revenue in the VHF low band auction. 

And that spectrum didn't even belong to the FCC or the feds to begin with, so it wasn't theirs to auction off.  Their only legal function is to administer the spectrum as provided under the Communications Act, by setting up a licensing system, creating rules to govern its use by the public, and maintaining an agency to enforce the rules.  The only money they are entitled to receive is reimbursement for the actual costs of carrying out the above services.

That $20 billion wasn't created out of thin air.  The corporations that paid it didn't do so out of the goodness of their heart, but will count it as overhead, and recoup their money in the form of price increases for their products and services.  It will eventually trickle down to you and me in the form of higher prices for everything we purchase.  So what this amounts to is a new, hidden federal tax that everyone will be forced to pay.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

The FCC did not get that money. It goes to the general fund and is then "spent" by Congress - our representatives. So, the FCC did nothing wrong and the people got their money.

[KA1ZGC]

Don't confuse conspiracy theories with facts. It's much easier for everyone to hate the FCC when everyone thinks they keep the money from auctions and forfietures, that they wrote the obscenity laws, and every bathroom in Gettysburg has gold faucets and a platinum crapper.

As far as the old people not being up to snuff with the current technology, name one time in the history of industrialized society that wasn't the case. As long as there have been times, there have been people falling behind them.

[W3RSW]

Boy, you guys are tough.
Where do I send my teeth for a re-shine? 

.. as the years go by,
We're all old people.
-but a hell of a lot wiser.

[k4kyv]

The FCC did not get that money. It goes to the general fund and is then "spent" by Congress - our representatives. So, the FCC did nothing wrong and the people got their money.

It doesn't matter which federal agency actually gets the money; the exorbitant fee is still charged, the corporations still pay, and we still eventually get stuck with the hidden tax.  That spectrum was never the FCC's nor the General Fund's to auction off.  And it certainly didn't cost the "people", the FCC nor any other government agency $20 billion to allocate that spectrum, issue licences and to enforce the rules they made. 

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Who's spectrum was it?

Why does the cost to auction off spectrum have to equal what is charged for it?

Name a time when the consumer didn't ultimately pay corporate taxes?

The FCC did not get that money. It goes to the general fund and is then "spent" by Congress - our representatives. So, the FCC did nothing wrong and the people got their money.

It doesn't matter which federal agency actually gets the money; the exorbitant fee is still charged, the corporations still pay, and we still eventually get stuck with the hidden tax.  That spectrum was never the FCC's nor the General Fund's to auction off.  And it certainly didn't cost the "people", the FCC nor any other government agency $20 billion to allocate that spectrum, issue licences and to enforce the rules they made.