![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469751-100x100.png\")
Don't forget about CW. That gets piggybacked on our local NBC affiliate. At least Magnum P.I. is watchable.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-105855-100x100.png\")
@HurtsSoGood: CW and MNTV here are absolute s**t. The transmission, especially OTA, is terribly unreliable - and that's only when you can actually get a signal, and they don't even provide an HD feed to DirecTV and DishNetwork.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Yet another government/corporate screw-up. I'm so glad all that taxpayer money went to those converter boxes.
@halcyondays: Except no tax payer money went to the boxes. The move to digital broadcast tv was much more than getting \"better\" TV. It was to condense broadcast TV to a smaller portion of the spectrum so the rest of it could be sold off and used for other services.
The gov't sold off the portions of the spectrum formerly used for analog broadcast TV for a huge amount of money. A portion of that money was spent on the digital converter box rebates program.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1034061-100x100.png\")
@bonzombiekitty: The government sold public property and the money it received subsequently belonged to the people of America. Most of this money was sent to China for POS-converter boxes. The rest disappeared.
@morlo:
No, it didn't \"disappear.\" You make not like what it was spent on (everything from agricultural subsidies to health care to tanks), but it didn't disappear.
You understand that in addition to allocating a much smaller band to TV stations than they had previously, the government auctioned off the section of the spectrum that they freed up?
@Cant_stop_the_rock: and that the now freed up spectrum may be used for things like free broadband wireless access?
@halcyondays:
Um wasnt the converter box program funded
not by tax dollars but the sale of the
UHF spectrum?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436259-100x100.png\")
@hi: I dont. And ergo I am not disappointed. Its the people who expect rainbows and unicorns who get all rabid when things are not exactly the way they want them to be.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-530576-100x100.png\")
I was hoping this would be about digital reception and how all of the channels-within-a-channel (like 35.1, 35.2, etc) all bleed together annoyingly during thunderstorms & even just overcast weather. (You'd think this would boost the signal, but no.)
Ugh. I still miss analog.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-478453-100x100.png\")
I'm also very disappointed with reception after the 'DTV switchover'. We used to get all of our stations with strong signal strengths using a Terk antenna hidden behind our HDTV. We could get the analog stations, but we just deleted them from our listing because the digital channels came in perfectly. All of our digital stations (both HD and SD) came in with full signal strength.
After they finally 'killed' analog, our signal strength plummeted. Now we have to have the antenna fully unfolded and extended, pointed within a 1-2 degree angle, and have it running a cable across our living room so that we can get the antenna as close to the window as possible. With this ridiculous set-up, we're able to get almost all of our previous stations, but a third of them still are periodic slideshows thanks to minimal signal strength.
To top it off, we still have 3 channels that show up in fuzzy analog whenever we rescan. I wish there was an option on our TV to disable analog reception, but we still have to manually delete these 'non-existant' analog stations.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-2502-100x100.png\")
@DrKai: Odds are you have the wrong type of antenna. Some do a bad job on either VHF or UHF. An outdoor combo is always the best route.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-316976-100x100.png\")
@TVGenius: Not necessarily so. I've spent money on bigger, taller, combo rooftop antennas, and spent lots of time and effort adjusting them, but it still hasn't resulted in reliable reception of stations that are right here in town. Too often, digital signal means no signal.
@summerbee: This is my biggest complaint about the digital changeover. With analog signals, even if the picture was fuzzy sometimes you could still get the audio sometimes, or at least enough audio and visual together to do what you needed to do. (Generally speaking, I don't WATCH the news - I just listen to the reporters while I'm doing something else.) If the digital signal gets interference, well, it sucks to be you - no audio or visual. And then there are those poor schmucks in the boonies who don't get any signal at all anymore. Yeah, the digital revolution was a GREAT idea.
@Hil-fish: I have the same complaints about digital reception that you have just voiced. I can't even get our local PBS station anymore. This means I'm not going to donate to them since I can't view what I'm paying for. From what I've heard, their fund raising is suffering because people all over town can no longer pick up the station. The digital conversion has not been what it was sold to the public to be. Surprise.
On the plus side, I didn't think I'd ever see Simon & Simon or Emergency again, but there they are, along with some very trippy 60s and 70s movies.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-352646-100x100.png\")
@razremytuxbuddy: O/T, but hey, you mentioned it. PBS fund raising might be suffering for another reason: Putting 10-minute breaks into shows. I was trying to watch Nixon/Frost and they sliced up the broadcast so bad with the pledge begging I gave up. And I sent 'em an email to tell them too. I have the Nixon/Frost on my Netflix queue so I can watch 'em without interruption.
And their new big and bold onscreen logos aren't helping the situation either. So no donation from me.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98237-100x100.png\")
I have a portable digital TV for hurricanes. Only problem is, I can't get decent reception in my apartment unless I lean out the window. (No, I don't have cable. I don't even watch TV, unless there's an emergency.)
@speedwell, avatar of snark: So it seems the common complaint here is \"crap signal\". That about correct?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
I like my magnum pi and night rider.
Of course those old grainy shows look great on digital and high def, eh?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
Who watches TV anymore? Why is this even being posted? Why don't all of you live like I do and subscribe to Netflix and stream Hulu and make friends with the neighbor so you can invite yourself over to watch Top Chef? Save yourself from being a mindless slave to entertainment and Hollywood, people, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! Put on a black turtleneck, light some candles and read some Proust, or Tolstoy, or Dostoevsky. Be that tortured soul. Do it for the kids.
/sarcasm
I'm feeling snarky today. And a little cranky. Maybe some Magnum P.I. will turn my frown upside down.
But on the topic at hand...I have never understood the hype over digital TV. Yeah, you get a bunch of channels, but it always seemed to me that cable companies just used it to charge you extra without offering you better quality. I just don't get the appeal of digital channels.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: I grow my own digital TV stations at home. I had planted ESPN seeds, but I forgot to fertilize them so I ended up with PBS.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-131723-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: You still subscribe to netflix? Amateur, I grow my own Netflix discs in my window box garden!
/Sarcasm
@theblackdog_LovesCarRepairBills: I've been trying that recently but for some reason they all sprout up as BetaMax.
@gStein: Also, be careful with how much plant food you use. I put too much in and now I'm only getting multi-disc box sets.
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I had the same thing happen after the transition, but I live nowhere near trees. And I can see the transmitters on a mountain about 2 miles from my downtown apartment. It's a straight line, but reception went from intermittent to nonexistent for ALL my stations in the living room. Haven't tried an antenna yet. I have cable, so it would be nice to have a backup when that is out, but it isn't terribly necessary.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
I'm over-the-air digital ... our NBC affiliate has a substation showing local weather all the time, which I like a lot. Our ABC affiliate has a substation with the CW (win!). Our CBS & FOX affiliates have no substations. (PBS has three substations, all various PBS programming.)
What I would really like, and I can't believe this would be at all expensive, would be for one of the networks to start a substation broadcasting the state-provided feed from the statehouse in Springfield, which I can watch online but is always, always swamped whenever anything interesting happens. They could run ads across the bottom the way the Weather Channel did way back in the day.
All of our city and county government entities (city council, county board, school board, etc.) also provide live feeds, which a surprising number of people watch on public access cable and which would probably be similarly cheap to run on a substation with scrolling ads on the bottom.
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):
I'd only watch a feed from Spingpatch if they showed them taking bribes!
The same with the Chicago city council & the C[r]ook County Board!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-129735-100x100.png\")
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Often times as a condition of a cable TV franchise, the cable companies need to provide channel access to the local minicipality that they can use however they wish (in my area, they broadcast classes from the local community college or distance learning course and county council meetings, but yeah, a rebroadcast of the statehouse feeds would be useful as well, and minimal cost to rebroadcast (although there might be restrictions about advertising furing a state funded broadcast...the advertising might imply endorsement.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-347523-100x100.png\")
Local stations here are not watchable in digital. I have to watch everything in HD for it to look decent. The problem is that Pima County AZ is the last area for comcast so we have the least number of channels in decent quality. They will not upgrade us for another year and where I live satellite is not an option. I have begged Verizon to set up shop and even did an EECB but they will not touch the mafia style agreement comcast and cox have to share Pima County and Tucson.
Phil I know you write for the local newspaper. It is an interesting story if you dig into it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-743193-100x100.png\")
Another \"wrinkle\" I guess is that the expense of the digital conversion has forced a lot of local affiliates out of business or to scale back so far that they're not really serving their local communities.
I live in a media market that falls around #100ish, and our local PBS affiliate has closed up, the local CBS and Fox are owned by the same company (same 4 people do both sets of newscasts) and the local ABC and NBC are owned by the same company. PLUS the two companies that own all the news are cutting staff - most reporters are also functioning as photographers and editors - which means that there are local stories that just aren't being covered.
When you consider that the local news guys are our last line of defense against city hall corruption this is disheartening (to say the least).
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-543045-100x100.png\")
The REAL disappointment is that so many people can't even get the signal from digital. I'm in a large city and can only get one channel where I'm located. People I know in rural areas of my state can't get anything.
NPR has addressed this, too:
@magstheaxe: Same in Seattle. Went from getting like 6 fuzzyish channels before the switch to nada after. I live in the city, less then a mile from all of the local transmitters. Whatsup with that?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-529488-100x100.png\")
@magstheaxe: Same! I have 44 \"channels\" coming in, but most of them are sub channels that just come in as black. So really I don't have any more than about 30, of which 20 are christian banter, so really only 10.
@magstheaxe: Side note, WOW the comments on that article are harsh on people in rural areas (\"If there's tornado danger, leave, you jackasses! Quit bitching you get no TV reception and the \"local\" radio stations are all broadcast from Texas so you don't know when tornadoes are coming! I don't have to protect you!\"). None of them seems to have noticed that MOST OF THEIR FOOD comes from rural tornado-prone areas. They can all leave, but you're gonna starve.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1175017-100x100.png\")
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Very good point Eyebrows McGee and glad to see you're cognizant of it. My great grandparents were farmers in Kansas and would laugh at each and every tornado warning as they grew up surrounded by tornadoes.
They also brought up that point constantly, that outsiders make fun of them for staying but those same outsiders would be begging for food if a huge tornado came and wiped out their whole crop.
@magstheaxe: In the winter, we got all the local channels (6 of them) plus some channels from far away. But this summer, we don't even get all the local channels! I currently get two really well, two intermittently, and two not at all.
Someone told me that summer OTA digital reception is worse because of the leaves on the trees. They might have been pulling my leg, but we DID have a HUGE difference between summer and winter reception.
@magstheaxe: Tell me about it. I live in Minneapolis, pretty much in the middle of the city. I can't get the local ABC affiliate at all. All of the other channels blink on and off in strobe light fashion when there is any inclement weather. Or, for that matter, when a helicopter goes by.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-926607-100x100.png\")
@magstheaxe: Yep, we're supposed to get up to 14 channels out here. We get 4 PBS-es (on the same channel), an ABC and a Fox (owned by the same dude, thus on the same channel). So we get 2 channels.
None of our \"moderate\" signals reach us at all.
The picture quality is great, and I loves me some PBS, but there's only so much History Detectives a lady can watch, you know?
That, and either you have full signal or none at all. I'll take a little fuzz over nothing.
Oh digital, how you taunt my emotions so.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-782863-100x100.png\")
Most of the TV stations around here do offer additional weather and news channels, and our cable system carries them.
As for Magnum P.I. reruns, those may not be too great, but they're FAR better than all the \"reality shows\" that are popping up on the main networks. (If one can call them \"reality shows\" ... all of the \"contestants\" are union actors, they often have scripts fed to them, and some of what you see on screen is staged for the camera.)
Answer is easy. If networks don't deliver what they promised in return for free airwaves, start charging them. Not the time for this country to be giving megacorps free stuff anyway.
So they were given something that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything to acquire or manage. Big deal. In the same way I don't think government has any business telling people whom they can and cannot marry, I don't think government should have any business telling a television station what part of the airwaves they can or cannot use, except by way of ensuring competitive access to a limited resource.
The market will eventually decide a use for the side channels, and if the market doesn't find a use for them, they'll go away. Not a big frickin' deal.
Not like we need to have another 300 channels of crap to choose from.
@shibblegritz: \"...except by way of ensuring competitive access to a limited resource...\"
Doesn't that mean telling every buisiness exactly what part of the airwaves they can and cannot use via licensing?
@shibblegritz: Once upon a time, the airwaves were considered a \"public good.\"
Not everything should be subjected to \"the market.\" You can see how well \"market control\" of television content has worked out, what with our \"300 channels of crap.\"
Oh, and P.S., \"the market\" as you refer to it does not exist... that is, unless by \"market\" you mean \"the small handful of conglomerates who currently control virtually all of the content on the airwaves.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-137340-100x100.png\")
My sister lives in Brooklyn, and gave me a quick tour of the converter box tv in her back bedroom. ONE station comes in without problems---- rai italia.
The other stations are all broken up, pixelated, and stop and start with a nice little moving box that says \"no signal\" except for a PBS station NJN which has \"audio only\" and absolutely no video feed.
They have one cable tv, so that's what they watch, but I can't imagine the frustration that other people are having if they cannot afford cable.
@meg9: it probably depends where you live in brooklyn. i got almost every channel one would want to watch (ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, CW, ION and their subchannels along with other channels I never watched). I moved out before PBS was digital, so I'd have to turn the power off and use the pass through capabilities.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-381850-100x100.png\")
I used to get 7 channels over the air, but after the digital switch I get zero, even with an antenna mounted outside.
Ah, well, I can get all the shows I want to watch for free from the internet anyway.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-65544-100x100.png\")
@Micromegas: Did you have the roof top antenna prior to the switch?
I can't believe you would lose ALL of your channels unless something isn't hooked up correctly. Typically you should get any digital station that the analog station was in reliably. It is true that people who could get several fuzzy/snowy analog stations won't get usable digital reception, but if you were getting 7 stations, I have to expect you were relatively close to an urban area, and that at least a couple of the stations were giving you a strong signal. Maybe you got a bad converter?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-426969-100x100.png\")
My biggest gripe with digital TV is the need for converter boxes for each TV -- even the new ones. For example, we recently purchased an LCD TV for our kitchen. Although it has a built-in tuner, I still can't receive all the channels provided by Comcast. So, I had to hook up a DTA. While the box restores analog and digital channels, it also blocks the TV's inherent ability to recieve HDTV. So, now, I have an HDTV television that doesn't provide HDTV programming unless I want to upgrade the box with Comcast for a recurring monthly fee.
@Scoobatz: Sounds like you bought your new TV before they were required to include Digital Tuners (March 2007 I believe). If you bought your TV after this time, it was required to have a tuner that could receive over the air digital TV signals. If you get your TV signal through Comcast, or another cable provider, you will be subject to whatever rules they set for you as a customer.
@Scoobatz: *facepalm* The digital TV transition being referenced in this article is for broadcast stations. Your built-in tuner will pick up broadcast digital TV with no problems whatsoever. You may need an anteanna to boost the signal, but it will decode the signal you get without a problem.
Comcast requires a box for each TV because the signal they're sending (via cable, not broadcast waves) is encrypted so you need their magic box to decrypt the signal.
I'm amazed that you obviously read articles on the internet about DTV but you have no idea at all what the transition was about. Every single PSA about the transition for the last couple of years has pointed out that it has nothing to do with cable...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-109901-100x100.png\")
I hate to say it because it's so obvious, but the internet replaced the need for real, true, local digital content per station. IT is not marketable for a television station to run news when they can produce the same thing for pennies on the web.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-738213-100x100.png\")
A corporation promises the moon to the govt in exchange for a give-away, then backs off the promise.
Nope. No one saw that one coming.
@JGKojak:
There was no giveaway here, don't know why you think there was.
Television broadcast frequency has ALWAYS been free. Now, you could say that we should start charging for it, but we haven't in the past.
In the Twin Cities, one network added a 24 hour weather channel, which is useful. The only networks that have added channels with new content are the local PBS affiliate and a religious channel that I always program off my channel list. The extra PBS channels are awesome - my favorite is the channel that's essentially the non-sucky public television version of HGTV/TLC.
@NatalieErin: I am intriegued by the religion channel...so on chanel X.1 they offer a Christian broadcast and on channel X.2 they offer an Jewish broadcast, and on channel X.3 they offer an Athiest broadcast and so on?
Where cable IS failing is in its channel placement of HD channels--
I know lots of people who continue to watch CBS on channel 3 with their HD set, not realizing to get the real HD you have to watch 237.
I don't understand why they don't institute a set-up where channel 3 analog is 103 digital- be much easier to remember/work with.
@JGKojak: Holy crap, you know my mother? She keeps switching to the SD channels, despite my best efforts to retrain her (changing the favorites to the HD ones, etc.) but the problem is the HD channels are buried in the 700-range, while she could just hit one key to get the SD ones... which isn't all THAT bad when you consider most of what she watches isn't in HD (daytime talk shows, one certain soap opera, local news) but it's exceedingly annoying.
@runchadrun: My brother has FiOS and they might just replace the SD channels with the HD ones. I think. Generally, when we're there, we're not there to watch TV.
@JGKojak:
Cablevision has that - if you have an HD box, and you tune to channel 5 (Fox), you get the HD feed - you don't need to tune to channel 705.
@JGKojak: With my Verizon FiOS service the HD channels are the SD channel number + 500, so ABC SD is 7 and ABC HD is 507, CNN SD is 100 and CNN HD is 600, etc.
Seems to me like it's not just Digital TV that has failed (or is failing). But TV in general. Let's start with Digital TV. I live in the city of Pittsburgh (Oakland, near Pitt/CMU). I can get two channels pretty strongly -- ABC, which is broadcast out of the eastern suburbs, and PBS, broadcast right here in Oakland (Yes, Oakland is the original, \"Mr. Roger's Neighorhood, after all). The rest of the channels, are pretty sporadic, and require severe fiddling of the antennae to really be able to watch anything -- looking at you CBS & Fox. NBC requires even more serious fiddling with the antennae, and 90% of the time, you just get \"no signal\". But for some reason, NBC Shopping comes in crystal clear. Go figure. Anyway, the good news is that 90% of the content on these four networks is available via Hulu, so I just wait a day and watch Heroes and Chuck on my own schedule, so no major complains (unless they decide to cancel Chuck). The only thing that's not really online that's worth watching is sports, though even some of that is available online with espn360.com; and ustream.tv works alright for some of the bigger games, like the Stanley Cup Finals. Otherwise, I usually just go to a sports bar where the drinks are cheap during Steelers games anyways,... ;-)
Local news has become one of the most worthless things ever. Mostly just filled with sappy, \"feel good\" human interest stories and \"invented\" local controversies designed not so much to get people interested in local politics, but in fact, to sell advertising and make them more money (but under the guise of getting people interested in local politics).
Cable TV is pretty worthless. This being Pennsylvania, we're stuck with Comcrap (Hi, Frank Eliason! I know you're watching!). Anyway, what you've got here is an antiquated system that delivers somewhere in the neighborhood of 200-500 channels (depending on how much money you want to flush down the toilet) to you filled with mostly advertising and commercials, with some syndicated content that was popular sometime during the 70s, 80s, or 90s, that they're recycling so that they can sell more ads. True, there's ***some*** original content here -- not a whole lot. And the handful of channels that have good and original content -- Discovery, History, Sci-Fi (sorry, I'm not calling it SyFy) -- you can pretty much count on the fingers of one hand! Sadly, there few channels support the 95% of the rest that are complete garbage!
Cable, 24-hour news is even more worthless. Not only to they overhype and overcover the death of even a minor celebrity, but they're incredibly biased. Democrats watch CNN. Republicans watch Fox News. And when they're not covering political stuff, they fill it in with useless filler crap just like the local stations, designed primarily to sell more ads.
So, bottom line, if TV can't figure this out, they're going to go the way of the newspapers. Dying.
@cashman73: Wait, I thought Democrats watched MSNBC? Or is that leftist commie pinkos? We already established that right-wing moonbat lunatics watch Fox News, so no disagreement there...
WTF? Digital TV broadcasts have NOT let me down, not in the slightest. I don't care about crappy sub channels, I care about picture quality on the TV shows I watch, and digital/HD broadcasts gives me razor sharp, crystal clear picture with DD5.1 sound, for free, over-the-air. You people complain about lack of new channels. DON'T. Extra sub channels take away precious bandwidth from the main digital channels and affect picture quality. If there is a problem now it's too many of these useless extra channels. ABC is especially guilty of this, having reduced the bitrate of their main channel by adding a secondary \"HD\" channel, creating a soft, blurry mess of their main HD broadcast. But all the other local channels in my area (Houston) provide a fantastic signal. I do probably 75% of my viewing from local channels (TV shows like Lost, Supernatural, Medium, Smallville, Dollhouse and many others), the rest is online through Netflix/Hulu/other streaming services.
I live in kansas city. I get one station. Fox. If you live in an apartment that is all concrete and your windows don't face east, this is all you can get.
To make it worse Time Warner Cable doesn't provide unencrypted feeds for the OTA channels. The federal government dropped the ball big time. They should have required cable companies to provide the OTA channels on their original channel and subchannel numbers over the cable line. Time Warner does seem to have them on random upper level subchannels like nbc was 100.5 or something like that. But the channels move around. If you don't rent a cable box, you can't really watch them.
Everyone will stop complaining about the Digital conversion when they can get a Cell phone in the 700MHz range that will give you excellent reception indoors and out. I'll go ahead and start the rumor now... in 2010, Apple will announce a new iPhone operating on Verizon's new 700MHz Network...it will be called the iPhone 3IEIO
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-211411-100x100.png\")
Like many others, I prefer a fuzzy picture with audio than the blue screen of nothingness.
My other gripe about the converter box is that every time we turn on the TV, we have to wait for the box to \"download program guide\". And our local (MSP) ABC station never has their programs listed in the guide. I now regret shelling out the extra cash for what was supposed to be a \"deluxe\" converter box from Dish Network. By the time I redeemed my gov't vouchers the only \"free\" ones left were crap. The only thing that was accomplished here was a lot of people got rich selling crappy Chinese converter boxes.
Wait, why the heck did you use the DTV converter coupons when you have satellite? You only need those if you're watching TV over-the-air.
He doesn't have satellite - Dish sold OTA converter boxes (made by their sister company Echostar, which also makes the set tops for Dish).
@pinecone99: Can't you leave your converter box on (and the TV off)so that you do not need to wait for the program guide to download?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1509-100x100.png\")
In DC, NBC does an all sports channel which is nice and MHz has like 4 or 5 different international channels that were all really nice. Ion has 6 diverse channels too (Kids, Religious, movies, etc). The only downside is that I don't feel like adjusting the antenna everytime I change channel, so I settled for decent reception on NBC,Fox,ABC, and CBS and everything else besides UPN is basically not there unless I go through a major hassle.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-437936-100x100.png\")
I'm really disappointed with HBO. I get 15 HBO channels and right now 3 of them are showing Dude Where's my Car and 2 showing The Simpsons Movie. They should being showing 15 different movies at any one time - not the same movie simultaneously on different channels.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1059799-100x100.png\")
My PBS station gives me four different feeds, and I get gorgeous reception from the commercial stations. I'm pleased as punch with the switchover. I haven't had cable in 15 years, and now I miss it even less.
Free TV FTW!
I'm not sure why you think there are not those extra channels. I'm in Chicago - I get 5 PBS channels, 3 NBC's (normal, sports, weather), 3 ABC's, multiple extra local channels, etc.
And as far as getting the digital OTA channels, I figured out that if I plug my comcast cable line directly into my TV, rather than into the box and then the TV, and then run the autoprogramming on the TV, it gives me the digital OTA channels as well as the normal cable channels. So, it seems to me that cable is giving us the digital OTA channels but not telling anyone about it. My TV is a Sony 40V4100 LCD if that matters.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-129346-100x100.png\")
...and now I can't get TV-audio on my kitchen TV-radio.
PBS is the only entity doing it right. Even though I'm in NYC, I can get NJN crystal-clear and in high-definition. I watch PBS more than 40% of the time I'm watching TV (NatGeo and BBC America come in second and third) so I'm thrilled.
On Time Warner cable, NJN is always fuzzy, with badly balanced colors and a digital feed that breaks up constantly.
It all boils down to credit. This Big Deal was set up during the early 2000's by King George II to \"propel America into the 21st century\". Meaning, gluing everyone to their TV's watching mindless shows while Gov't fleeces them for what they are worth.
But I must digress.
When the banking bubble exploded, plowing more than a few banks under and forcing lenders to zero out their credit lines, it put the broadcast stations in a serious lurch. It takes money to buy programming to broadcast and considering how much a decent show costs per season, they sure didn't have the squeezin' green to make it happen. So they are stuck with TheCW, transmitting weather services, or cheap reruns.
I know of two stations here in South Texas that are merging to survive. Sharing broadcast rights and syndicate licenses, transmitting off one tower they pay together, they may manage it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-258324-100x100.png\")
@madanthony: You must be new here. According to most of the residents here, everything that ails US society is GWB's fault.
P.S. The original DTV transition plan was passed by Congress in 1996. Don't think GWB was president then but I guess I could be mistaken.
@jeffbone: Really? I thought it was more of a balance on this site, tilting more towards the OBAMA TOOK OUR JERBS side.
The only thing this has done here is created a lot of waste in old TV's that no one wants (and that have become useless). People would still be using these TV's if they didn't change the signal, so instead of buying a converter box people either chucked their TV or just bought a new one. There aren't any recycling drives here for this kind of stuff (and believe me I looked) so what you have is a lot of people tossing a TV on the curb or donating it but the donation centers and thrift stores are filled to the point where they can't hold anymore old TV's.
We have a large elderly population here that cannot afford cable who were perfectly happy watching stuff on their old CRT TV, now they can't even do that anymore.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159929-100x100.png\")
The main purpose of digital tv was to free up the spectrum that analog tv was using for other uses, like cell phones. Any additional content was a feature, but not the main reason for it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-466847-100x100.png\")
Mom ended up with 2 two channels after the switchover. She can't have an outside aerial where she lives and she has big-ole digital rabbit ears inside. The MGM movie channel comes in best. Too bad most of the movies horrify her. She also gets FOX, most of the time. She watches the \"local\" news from 75 miles away. She would probably kill to get PBS back.
She can't afford broadband so she buys some old movies at the Dollar Store. She also gets to listen to a lot of \"smooth jazz\" on the radio because all the other stations she can get are in Spanish.
Thank goodness Mom has a lot of hobbies.
I don't get CBS anymore unless I switch my input to the cable box.
For all you folks who state they can't receive certain stations any more -- have you submitted a report or checked with the Chief Engineer of the station in question? All stations were required to file coverage maps with the FCC, that information was then used to produce a list of stations which expected to lose more than 2% of their analog audience: [hraunfoss.fcc.gov]
If you're within the expected coverage area but still can't get a signal, please check with the station. They may be unaware of an antenna pattern problem that's causing them not to cover the expected area. In other cases, the station might be able to submit a license modification to allow a change in pattern or higher power output.
\"Networks want cable to make room for the additional channels, but cable companies are balking because they have no reason to do so for channels that don't yet exist.\"
Yet there's no reason to make a channel if the networks don't have room for it. Catch 22?
I happen to get 4 local news channels and about 3 different weather channels. I'm personally sick of news and weather; can't they add some more REAL channels?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1228022-100x100.png\")
The Great Lie all through the lengthy conversion process was that all consumers had to do was to buy new TVs or hook up converter boxes. As many commenters here have noted, the digital signals are more delicate than the old analog ones, and when the signal is weak you just get NOTHING whereas on analog TV you often at least got a fuzzy, static-y something. Electronics dealers are also selling false hope in the form of \"digital antenna amplifiers.\" These things do not work! The best (only?) way to improve digital reception is to install an outdoor antenna- and who has those anymore?
The subchannels would be a nice idea if they were useful... not just in content, but reception. With our digital cable (Cox), since the cable just goes straight into the box, we have to wait for them to split off subchannels to watch them. So while the 800-range where they reside is sparsely populated (only about six), at least they seem to be keeping up with my whims. Not long after I discovered ThisTV's existence, boom, there it is. Do I watch it? No. But the fact that Cox had to go through the effort of splitting them off just so we could watch them is kind of a pain.
...and no, this isn't because I was complaining to a friend about neither of us getting RTV, only to discover that we can on a subchannel that isn't split yet.
Back when all those promises were made few had heard of HD TV. But now, HD is a big deal. The problem is that digital TV can deliver only ONE high quality HD signal. Additional program streams (the .2, .3, etc channels) REDUCE the quality of the Main HD channel. Stations have found that they can usually get away with one additional sub-channel, but more sub-channels cause noticeable deterioration of picture quality on decent HD dislays.
In short, picture quality or quantities of pictures!
Digital TV is crap for the rural areas. Some of the channels were fuzzy but we could still watch them. Now you either get the channel perfect or you don't get the channel at all. Being 30+ miles from the station we do not get much and any weather issues at all including a light sprinkle completely cuts the signal out.
All this is about money, not service. The industry promises us the world if we only would buy the HD scam, and so we did. What we have gotten is a system that almost garentees the demise of the once powerful and free broadcast tv. Digital tv does not adapt well to over the air broadcasting, and so people are trapped with tvs that, even with the converter boxes, don't work. I'm afraid that the notion of the public air ways are a thing ot the past. We have, after many congressional hearings etc., fixed what was not broken with a system that is broken. We will all end up poorer, both in money and content.
I think rural viewers take it the hardest.
My parents live in the middle of the woods outside of a small town, hundreds of miles alway from any population over 100,000. Used to be, in the analog days, they could get four stations out of Springfield which is about 150 miles away.
Today, with the digital switch, it's gotten so much worse for them. Even with a huge roof antenna, they get two stations... maybe. Even those don't come in too well. For two people that don't watch much TV, this would be fine until your alma mater is playing a big Saturday game. Or you want to catch some playoff sports action. Or there's a big breaking news story you'd like see and not hear about on the radio. Or, God forbid, there's a tornado coming through and you'd like to see a damn weather map.
Why are rural people being shut out? They sit through commercials. They'll tolerate hours of procedural dramas and Gary Unmarried. Why won't the stations include them, too?
I live in an area where, pre-digital, you might be able to grab 2 or 3 channels with a tall-enough tower. Post-switch, that's down to about 1.5 channels. So, I've relied on cable.
Oddly, before the digital switch, channels regularly displayed on my SD set letterboxed. The PBS channel was especially reliable for this. Post-switch, though, it's all gone to hell. The PBS channel now displays full-screen and chapped-off on the edges, to where titles, graphics, etc. are cut-off and unreadable. All of the network channels suffer from this save for one. The NBC affiliate uniformly displays nicely letterboxed on my SD set. I contacted the station and was told by one of their techs that they purposely supply Comcast with a separate, properly formatted feed for SD just so their shows look right.
The PBS station, on the other hand, didn't really give a crap.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-219008-100x100.png\")
Corporation will say anything to get laws passed in their favor. Congress will pass anything for the right price or in the case of Health Care \"Not pass\". It must be nice to own the Congress.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-61356-100x100.png\")
Here in Orlando RTN (Retro Television Network), is piggy backed on one of the local independent channels. I watch this channel (it was Hawaii-five-0 before it switched to Hulk a few months back), more then any channel on my Directv service.
The other thing I hate about the digital transition is where the news is in super crisp digital when they are in the studio, and then they cut to some standard def video they took outside and it looks like absolute crap. Hey news, update your cameras so that I don't have to watch your crap videos.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-313178-100x100.png\")
I think the cost of the local content/local news is actually pretty fixable, but I doubt that the consultants of any corporate owned or network-affiliated station would dare try it.
Go 'organic' in your productions: Take all of the fancy frills out of your typical newscast and go back to the basics that way. Leave out the HD graphics and tickers, the fancy high priced sets, the MegaSuperUltradoppler 3000, etc. If Walter Cronkite and company got by without these superficialities, then so can today's news programming.
Good grooming, clean clothes, adequate lighting in a room with nice furniture? There, your set and your wardrobe are ready to go. Two cameras 'edit' better--but you can get by on one. We're used single camera footage again, thanks to contemporary sitcoms and YouTube videos. Heck, thanks to YouTube and other online video sites, seeing conversations in 'unpolished' settings (by typical broadcast standards) isn't foreign at all.
As someone who works in the local TV industry, let me say, we are plenty frustrated as well.
First of all, Broadcast TV stations didn't go to Congress asking for this new digital spectrum. It was pushed on us by congress to make space for other services.
The additional channels weren't promised by broadcasters, it was merely a bi product of the technology. The FCC gave each station a ceratin amount of bandwidth, then the transmitter manufacturers came back with the techology that allows stations to use that amount of bandwith in different ways.
Yes, right now most stations aren't making the best use of their ancillary channels. You have to remember that for the past 5 years, local stations have been pumping millions of dollars into mandatory upgrades to meet the ever changing FCC requirements.
Stations cannot go out and ask advertisers to pay more for the digital signal...so all of this new capitol invesement had to be offset by the normal income of the station.
Now that the switch has happened, it turns out that the signals are not all that they were made to be. Many stations across the country went with the VHF Digital. Now, it seems Digital VHF doens't perform well and stations acorss the country are having to devise a solution.
My station is having to invest almost another million dollars to change channels, again and put in yet another new transmitter and antenna in order to cover our community.
since half of network viewers watch via cable, which only provides space for one channel per station. Networks want cable to make room for the additional channels, but cable companies are balking because sincerely
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-169958-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116599-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-255368-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-890779-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-917643-100x100.png\")
Admittedly I do like the dedicated local weather channels I have seen from my NBC, ABC, and CBS affiliates in DC, although the one from ABC is a feed of the radio news station (WTOP).
@theblackdog_LovesCarRepairBills: I'm also in Metro DC, and WETA's handling of the conversion seriously set the standard. Not only do they provide four channels of digital content, while analog was still available they often had five separate channels of content.
NBC 4 I give a B for adding the Universal Sports channel in addition to weather.
ABC 7 and CW 50 I give a C for adding RTN and ThisTV respectively - at least it's additional content, even if it is recycled.
CBS 9 I give a C for only adding weather RADAR.
But Fox 5 and whatever 20 is now I give a D for not even trying to use the additional channels in any way what-so-ever. (If nothing else, why not run the same programming but with the Spanish language track?)
--
When the spectrum swap was arranged, the idea was that consumers get either 4 digital channels of content, or TRUE HD. As football season is starting, I'm guessing a lot of Skins fans would like Fox 5 to be broadcasting the Skins games in HD if they aren't going to use the 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 channels anyway.
@theblackdog_LovesCarRepairBills: It is nice to have the dedicated weather channels, heck, it would be nice if they re-ran the morning, afternoon and evening news broadcasts...no production costs, and all you have to do is re-broadcast.
Another thing that would be nice, is on the sub channels, if they broadcast nothing but school/work closures during inclement weather. One of the local radio stations used to broadcast on FM, and simulcast on AM during the morning show, but on snow days, they worl shut down the simulcast and run constant school closures which allowed the morning show to continue doing their show, and periodically say \"For the latest school and work closings, tune to AM640\"
@theblackdog_LovesCarRepairBills:
We have that here in the NY market too, at least from the local ABC affiliate (maybe that's the only one Comcast carries).