Digital TV Transition Not as Easy as Advertised

etc

TECH - Digital TV Transition Not as Easy as Advertised
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle


Digital TV Transition Not as Easy as Advertised
Preparing for Analog Shut-Off, Some Viewers Say New Signals Aren't as Reliable

Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The government-ordered switch to digital television broadcasting next year promises razor-sharp picture and orchestra-like sound -- that is, if the signal actually comes in.

Jennifer Jackson, a 26-year-old medical student who lives in Arlington, is discovering that despite her efforts, it might not. She has a digital converter box, the receiver of choice for those who rely on an antenna and do not have a digital television. But she is finding that the new digital signals are more capricious than old-fashioned analog.

The picture's clarity is impressive, she said, until an airplane flies by on its way to nearby Reagan National Airport -- a frequent event in her 20th-floor apartment. Airplane traffic used to cause seconds-long bouts of fuzziness in the analog picture. But digital signals are more sensitive to disruption, so the sound mutes and the screen freezes, sometimes dissolving into a cascade of pixels. Similar glitches happen when her roommate walks through certain parts of the living room.

"The picture's great when I get good reception," said Jackson, who had wrapped her "rabbit-ear" antenna in aluminum foil to boost analog reception, "but it can be annoying when you're trying to pay attention to a show and the picture keeps falling apart."

The nation's broadcasters will shut off traditional, over-the-air TV signals as they move to all-digital programming Feb. 17. But questions remain about whether the digital signals will consistently reach the 14 million households that depend on antennas to receive broadcasts.



A large number of viewers who hook up a converter box, or use a newer digital TV, will have clearer reception and more channels than they did with analog broadcasts. For some, the improved quality could serve as a replacement for more-expensive basic cable service. But some consumers may have to buy extra equipment to reliably pull in as many channels as they did before the switch, especially if they live in rural areas or near tall trees or buildings.

"The government's message for consumers is that all they need is a converter box or digital TV," said David Klein, executive vice president of Centris, a market research firm. "That's an oversimplification of what's going to happen."

In the Washington area, about 56 percent of the 370,000 households watching over-the-air broadcasts may need to upgrade their antennas, according to Centris. Nationwide, Centris estimates that about half such households will need a new antenna.

Most broadcasters are already airing digital broadcasts along with analog programming, but some digital antennas are not in their final positions on transmission towers. In February, when digital antennas replace analog equipment -- by being moved from the side of the tower to the top, for example -- reception should improve, according to the Federal Communications Commission.

Locally, many major network stations said they were already broadcasting at full digital power and have moved their digital antenna to the top of their towers, so viewers should not notice major reception changes in February. Most of the local towers are in Northwest Washington.

People using antennas to get signals on older analog TV sets will need a converter box, which costs $40 to $80, to keep watching TV, and they can apply for a $40 government-sponsored coupon to offset the cost. Digital TVs will receive the digital broadcasts but will still need an antenna's help. Cable and satellite subscribers who receive digital programming should not have to do anything for the transition.

What new digital audiences have to fear is the "digital cliff," or the all-or-nothing quality of digital reception. The picture is excellent until the signal weakens or is interrupted, causing the picture to disappear, and it is more sensitive to interference from hills, trees, buildings and bad weather than traditional analog reception. An analog picture degrades gradually, getting more static and snow as signals weaken.

The FCC questioned the validity of the Centris data, arguing that the data assumed all consumers used indoor antennas and did not consider the fact that many stations are not yet operating at full digital power. The agency will test the transition in September in Wilmington, N.C., to address potential problems -- including technical glitches such as reception shortfalls.

To complicate the situation, some broadcasters' digital coverage areas vary slightly from their current analog coverage areas, meaning some viewers on the edge of coverage areas will not consistently receive signals. FCC engineers estimate that about 15 percent of viewers live in these fringe areas, and about 5 percent of those, or 1 percent of current analog households, will need new antennas.

Some TV watchers have found they cannot always receive as many digital channels as they did with analog broadcasts. Mike Mellish of Silver Spring said that he was generally pleased with digital reception but that he could not pick up the local PBS broadcasts now that the leaves have grown back on the trees around his house, even with an older rooftop antenna. He sometimes gets spotty reception on other stations, which he attributes to bad weather and other unknown obstacles.

"One evening they might come in great," he said, "and the next, nothing."

Consumer advocates say the federal agencies in charge of the digital transition have not informed consumers of potential reception gaps, which will cause more frustration when the switch happens.

"A lot of consumers will have to upgrade their antennas, and the government hasn't been entirely clear about the amount of money people will have to shell out for this change that it has mandated," said Joel Kelsey, policy analyst for Consumers Union.



TV reception could also be affected when some local stations switch to sending their signals over slightly different radio frequencies after the transition. That change, however, will be invisible on consumers' channel display.

Digital signals typically do not travel as far as the old analog signals, according to research by Oded Bendov, who is president of TV Transmission Antenna Group and who will replace broadcast antennas on the Empire State Building. Every city will experience different reception challenges, he said, depending largely on the local landscape. Bendov said that about half of the viewers who now receive analog channels would not reliably receive all of their digital replacements and that viewers more than 40 miles from a broadcast tower would probably need new equipment.

Consumers may have to adjust their antennas to point them in the direction of the TV station's broadcasting towers. That's because digital signals need more precise positioning than analog signals, said David Donovan, president of the Association for Maximum Service Television, a broadcast industry group.

Donovan recommends that consumers try to get digital broadcasts with their current antennas. If they find spotty reception, consumers should then experiment with outdoor or rooftop antennas, which can more easily be positioned in a clear path of the digital signals, he said.

Francis Haynes, 77, had always gotten 24 analog stations, including several Baltimore broadcasts, but he lost five of them after switching to digital, meaning he lost some of his favorite programs.

His picture improved when he put a more powerful antenna in his attic, but he sometimes misses a few channels. Haynes, a retired engineer, wants to buy a larger antenna for his roof to pick up more signals, but his Fairfax condominium association won't allow it.

"I'm still having some trouble -- sometimes the stations flicker on and off," he said.

Rickfla

It'll be the biggest boondoggle the American public so far has been forced to endure, at least in the beginning. There are several millions of people who simply cannot afford to subscribe to a cable or satellite service especially with the current economy which probably won't improve by then for a lot of people. Just another example of Big Brother forcing something down people's throats that is in no way really needed in the first place. People can justify all they want for why this "has" to be done but it's all a bunch of technical gobbledy gook. They don't need these frequencies for "homeland security" or "emergency services". This is a bunch of government b.s. This American television system has served well for 60+ years and should be left alone. Tekkie-geeks love this change and they'll justify all they can, but it'll be a real boondoggle.

HiDefRev

The BIGGEST boondoggle ?? Apparently you don't remember the breaking up of the telephone monopoly in the 1980's. For several months you never knew if there would even be service on your phone line when you picked up the receiver. You would call a local number, and get some one in Montana ( which is OK if you actually LIVE in Montana ). Ah....memories... Yes, I'm sure it will be a boondoggle, but living through boondoggles is what makes us tough.

__________________
Living Room
Panasonic PT-50LCZ70 50" 1080p HDTV, Sony Playstation3 80 Gig, Onkyo HT-R667 7.1 AV Receiver, ESS HD-308 Main, Side and Surround Speakers on Bell'O Stands, Cadence C-17 Center Speaker, Acoustic Audio HD-SUB15 Subwoofer, DISH ViP 722 HD DVR, Panasonic DVD Recorder/VCR,
Den
Viewsonic NX2232W LCD HDTV, RCA RT-2500 5.1 AV Receiver, Yamaha Main, Center and Surround Speakers, Onkyo SKW-750X 10" Subwoofer, DISH ViP 211 HD Receiver, Magnavox Blu-Ray Player, Nintendo 64 & Wii

Rick0725

we are going to read alot more of this doomsday tv garbage between now and feb. 2009.

think we should be more concerned about gas, food and the economy. tv should be the least of our concerns right now. if you want to start a crusade, think you should get your priorities in line and get on your politician's cases over what is most important...it aint tv right now!

smdp1

my digital works fine and I'm in a rural area.....still loose some of the more distant (almost unwatchable analog) channels, but most channels that are snowy come in great on digital

__________________
my antenna is bigger than yours...lol couldn't resist

tigerbangs

The people who are going to continue to complain are those who cannot install a decent antenna or are unwilling to do so. These are the same people who put tinfoil on their rabbit ears and pray for reception: they never had good reception in the past, and they won't have it in the future, either!

__________________
Real men don't use indoor antennas; neither do real women!

alphanguy

I totally disagree with you here. Tv is VERY important, and for ones like me, who live 10 miles form the neareast town, it's even more so. TV is the primary vehicle for dissemination of emergency information to the public. Yes, you have radio... but in the case of our area... severe weather warnings are non existant on FM stations, and AM stations are undecipheriable during electrical storms... that leaves TV, and OTA at that, because Sattelite is also out to lunch during severe weather. That article even mentions digital signals being more sensitive to weather, and this is just what I was afraid of. People who live in or near town with Tornado sirens don't seem to understand that those of us on farms depend on OTA for their sole source of severe weather info. I hear people bellyache all the time about the severe weather updates interrupting their stupid sporting events... they say "Put a crawler on the screen"......well, that will do a blind person alot of good, won't it? These issues need to be addressed, unless they want to go back to the days of hundreds of people dying in tornadoes, instead of a handful. And don't even bring up weather radio, as the geographical coverage of those stations are much less than TV.

jim5506

I have to disagree with much of the propaganda in that article.

Digital signals are not necessarily more sensitive to weather, they are probably more robust. Only if you are in a fringe reception situation might weather effect a digital signal more than it would effect an analog signal, because they are still carried by the same RF frequencies, and many studies have shown digital to be up to 20% better at the same frequencies.

There may be a factor of a channel moving from VHF to UHF having more weather related problems, but that is a factor of frequency, not modulation method.

__________________
Programming: Dish HD Absolute with 0.01 Cinemax
Displays: Sony VPH-D50Q - 7 ft on the wall; Hitachi 57R59
Receivers: DishNetwork ViP722k; DishNetwork ViP211K; DishNetwork ViP211; DishNetwork 301; 2 - TiVo Series 2's; Accurian 6000; Samsung SIR-T351; Panasonic ShowStopper 2000; ATI HDTV Wonder
Dish 1000 on 110,119,129; Dish 500 on 61.5; DPP44
Sony 80GB PS3; Toshiba HD-DVD

Blackduck

I think some of you are missing the point. The public is being mislead by the current add campaign being run by our government. Many people are not going to be able to watch TV the way the used to with their new $60 converter box. Some, no matter how much money the spend on antennas, will have spotty reception. With analog, they were still able to view and hear with tolerable results, Television as they have known it their entire lives. Those converter boxes are going to be just about useless to millions of people. I think the technology needed for less critical antenna, station distance, weather, is right at our doorstep, it is not here yet. Leaving some analog in place may not be the worst idea, at least until a little fine tuning is done. This all reminds me of my first experiences with the internet, waiting 10 minutes for a single picture to download, ect. I went away and came back 2 years later, what a difference. I am not going away, I am in a fringe area and have made darn good progress at getting decent digital reception. Many people can't devote the time and money needed to trying to figure out this complex technology that I have. I think the whole transition could be handled in a much more consumer friendly manner, thats all. Walter

crabby_bob

[quote=Blackduck;617901]I think some of you are missing the point. The public is being mislead by the current add campaign being run by our government. Many people are not going to be able to watch TV the way the used to with their new $60 converter box. Some, no matter how much money the spend on antennas, will have spotty reception. With analog, they were still able to view and hear with tolerable results, Television as they have known it their entire lives. Those converter boxes are going to be just about useless to millions of people. /QUOTE]

That's the part that bothers me the most. I can handle going from a dozen watchable analog channels to 3 or 4 watchable digital ones, but hearing the crap that the Feds are forcing the broadcasters to say is infuriating. A lot of people will spend a lot of money and still end up being forced to subscribe to some form of paid viewing. I suspect the feds have done a statistical analysis that lets them know that the losers can safely be ignored.

E55 KEV

I live less than 10 miles from the broadcasters in DC. With indoor antennas I got:

4 NBC
5 Fox
7 ABC
9 CBS
14 Uni (barely)
20 MY (barely)
26 PBS (barely)
32 HU (barely)
50 CW (barely)

With indoor antenna now I get:

2.1 ABC Baltimore HD
2.2 ABC Baltimore
2.3 ABC Baltimore Weather
4.1 NBC HD
4.2 NBC Weather
5.1 Fox HD
7.1 ABC HD
7.2 ABC Weather
7.3 ABC localpointtv.com
9.1 CBS HD
9.2 CBS Weather
11.1 NBC Baltimore HD
11.2 NBC Baltimore Weather
13.1 CBS Baltimore HD
14.1 Univision HD
20.1 MyNetwork HD
22.1 PBS MD HD
22.2 PBS MD
22.3 PBS MD
26.1 PBS VA HD
26.2 PBS VA
26.3 PBS VA
26.4PBS VA
32.1 WHUR HD
45.1 FOX Baltimore HD
45.2 Good TV Baltimore
50.1 CW HD
54.1 CW Baltimore HD
66.1 PAX HD

__________________
My Website www.E55AMG.com

smdp1

sounds like a bit of an improvement

__________________
my antenna is bigger than yours...lol couldn't resist

jp's Bears

Get cable or satellite instead of being cheap...Problem solved!!

smdp1

well well well....cable or satellite huh? lets see....6 locals from Sat. and 11 from cable.......70+ from big antenna...hmm I think I did better....oh yeah, we have satellite too for the "other" channels

__________________
my antenna is bigger than yours...lol couldn't resist

alphanguy

Who's cheap?? If you live outside the city limits of most any town, there IS NO CABLE. You need to hear information on a tornado in your area when a severe thundertorm is bearing down on you.... Oh, that's right... the sattelite reciever says nothing but "Searching for signal". And of course, the weather radio won't be showing you the live doppler radar. And put all that aside... maybe people would like to have a QUALITY picture without digital compression. But I digress. Now, tonight we had a severe weather outbreak. I just bought my insignia "box" 2 days ago. Luckily, 2 of the KC stations came in steady with no dropout during the entire storm, 70 MPH winds, hail and all. The rest were either gone or VERY unstable (During normal weather they are ALL stable) . And I have the XG-91 with pre-amp and RG-11 for pete's sake!!! And I am only 35 miles from those transmitters. I'm really concerned about those who are 50-60 miles out (and aren't on a hill like smdp1) my prediction is that there is gonna be a MASSIVE outcry come next year, and the FCC is gonna be scrambling to pick up the pieces. I predict big increases in power, perhaps translators... SOMETHING. BTW, during thonight's storms, a large gasoline storage tank in KC was struck by lightning and is still burning... HUGE fire, 9.7 million dollars in gasoline up in smoke. People had to be evacuated due to the smoke and such. And luckily, OTA TV was there for many people who could tune in and see that is was a fire, as the plume of smoke was so huge and black that is resembled a tornado and fooled many people considering the extremely ominous appearance of the sky at the time.