I Will Miss My Free TV
#31
Posted 11 January 2009 - 05:03 PM
Thank You so much for giving this thread a different perspective, as in.. whats its like in other countries. Curious what is the fee for having a TV in the UK and is that fee for each TV owned/used or just a flat rate that covers all your TVs.
Bubski
no trees were harmed while posting any of my messages,
however a significant number of electrons were inconvenienced.
Buy Lawn Mower and Chain Saw Parts at...
Amazon.com
#32
Posted 12 January 2009 - 10:21 AM
#33
Posted 12 January 2009 - 10:22 AM
Edited by drbill, 12 January 2009 - 10:23 AM.
#34
Posted 13 January 2009 - 09:18 PM
AND, if you've never seen an HD signal on a properly set up and calibrated HDTV (and most need an ISF calibration--look it up--otherwise set your TV to PRO or CINEMA or MOVIE mode to get the truest picture), you haven't lived.
AND, most HD channels transmit in 5.1 surround sound, so with the right receiver and speaker setup, you can hear that jerk in the seats behind you and to the right heckle the quarterback.
My metabolic rate is pleasantly stuck.
Let those winds of time blow over my head,
I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead.
#35
Posted 01 February 2009 - 01:58 AM
With the converter box my reception is as good as it was with cable (with fewer channels of course). Each of the local network stations (ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox) now broadcast two channels with different programming on each channel.
So far I'm just using a cheap ($25) set top antenna that I just bought at RiteAid and it works fine. I have to adjust it for just one channel. Otherwise I just leave it alone. There are other slightly more expensive (active) antenna's that need to be plugged into the wall that electronically amplify the signal. I don't know how much better they are but the passive one I have seems to do the job for the moment.
I don't get the PBS station anymore however.
Just wondering how everyone else is doing concerning the conversion (I realize that it doesn't effect many/most people that have cable).
#36
Posted 03 February 2009 - 08:18 PM
Just wondering how everyone else is doing concerning the conversion (I realize that it doesn't effect many/most people that have cable).
gcbryan,
I think it will only affect a small amount of US citizens..something like 250 million people that live in the rural areas... So thats just a small amount of people compared to the total US population, that number well probably go up because of people thinking that they are watching tv in HD but when they turn off the switch its possible that a few more million people might be affected. $29.95 x 12 is $359.40 and thats a price of a decent BCD or Suit or Regs..etc... I know someday DSL will reach my area and maybe they are planning to build more HD substations so people that live in the boone-docks can get free tv someday ?
Mike
no trees were harmed while posting any of my messages,
however a significant number of electrons were inconvenienced.
Buy Lawn Mower and Chain Saw Parts at...
Amazon.com
#37
Posted 05 February 2009 - 12:42 AM
gcbryan
Just wondering how everyone else is doing concerning the conversion (I realize that it doesn't effect many/most people that have cable).
gcbryan,
I think it will only affect a small amount of US citizens..something like 250 million people that live in the rural areas... So thats just a small amount of people compared to the total US population, that number well probably go up because of people thinking that they are watching tv in HD but when they turn off the switch its possible that a few more million people might be affected. $29.95 x 12 is $359.40 and thats a price of a decent BCD or Suit or Regs..etc... I know someday DSL will reach my area and maybe they are planning to build more HD substations so people that live in the boone-docks can get free tv someday ?
Mike
I think you mean 25 million (not 250 million). I think it's too bad that free TV hasn't really had to get better since so many people are on cable and therefore not using free TV. However, now digital free TV (if you can get it) is more or less at the same quality level as cable and more people might be tempted to go back to free TV. Especially if you realize how much cable costs (it was $60/month for me) and if you realize that you aren't using it that much. However, if no one can get it unless they live near a tower then I guess it's not that great.
I hope something is done for your area!
#38
Posted 05 February 2009 - 02:00 PM
gcbryan
Just wondering how everyone else is doing concerning the conversion (I realize that it doesn't effect many/most people that have cable).
gcbryan,
I think it will only affect a small amount of US citizens..something like 250 million people that live in the rural areas... So thats just a small amount of people compared to the total US population, that number well probably go up because of people thinking that they are watching tv in HD but when they turn off the switch its possible that a few more million people might be affected. $29.95 x 12 is $359.40 and thats a price of a decent BCD or Suit or Regs..etc... I know someday DSL will reach my area and maybe they are planning to build more HD substations so people that live in the boone-docks can get free tv someday ?
Mike
I think you mean 25 million (not 250 million). I think it's too bad that free TV hasn't really had to get better since so many people are on cable and therefore not using free TV. However, now digital free TV (if you can get it) is more or less at the same quality level as cable and more people might be tempted to go back to free TV. Especially if you realize how much cable costs (it was $60/month for me) and if you realize that you aren't using it that much. However, if no one can get it unless they live near a tower then I guess it's not that great.
I hope something is done for your area!
The number being reported by CNN is 6.5 Million
http://www.cnn.com/2...ople/index.html
#39
Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:10 PM
Our local CBS station antenna is 10 miles to the north. Our NBC station from Paducah, Ky. is 35 miles southeast. Its transmitter is at Monkey's Eyebrow, Ky. Really. And the ABC station is from Carterville, Ill. about 40 miles to the northeast.
I put up an 8-bow UHF antenna that was necessary to receive the ABC channel, since we are in a valley in the city. But it gives me a picture like analog could never deliver over the hills. Truly amazing.
So I have three antennas on the roof of my house aimed differently for these signals. There is no way that a simple indoor or rabbit ears antenna could work for me.
I did all of this months ago and it was worth ditching the analog channels. Too bad our local stations will have to broadcast both analog and digital together for a while longer. Our local CBS station will revert back to VHF 12 from digital 55 which is so high a frequency that picture quality suffers. The VHF signal will be more robust.
The other stations were required to permanently change from VHF to UHF. Therefore I have both types of antennas. We also have a local independent station here on UHF.
Bottom line is I don't pay for cable to get local channels. Over-the-air quality is outstanding with digital.
#40
Posted 06 February 2009 - 03:11 AM
I did the same - made the switch to over-the-air digital TV about two years ago, and have not regretted it. In my case, it was precipitated by the decision to replace our aging tube TV with a flat panel model that would hang on the wall. Fortunately, I live in a market that has an abundance of over-the-air digital programming, with most of the signals emanating from a single cluster of antennas that are just a few miles to the south. Indoor antennas actually work quite well for a lot of folks in our area, but I went with a small directional rooftop antenna, with the idea of eventually splitting the signal to multiple rooms via structured wiring.I did all of this months ago and it was worth ditching the analog channels.
Agree on that, provided you can get it where you live. I know several folks who have cable, but still use an antenna to get free digital over-the-air in lieu of paying the extra fee that cable company charges for local HD programming. No sense paying extra for something you can get elsewhere for free.Bottom line is I don't pay for cable to get local channels. Over-the-air quality is outstanding with digital.
-JimG
Edited by JimG, 06 February 2009 - 03:12 AM.
#41
Posted 06 February 2009 - 07:10 AM
supposedly being given over to local public service entities who need these frequencies.
And the hundreds of millions of dollars already paid by companies in the auctions for these frequencies... these companies have already begun shipping products that they were told they could start selling on February 18th.
In my situation, I see that the more 'rural' people got their tv quite a long time ago.bunch of one tooth hillbillies in front of the White House
will have to broadcast both analog and digital together for a while longer.
No they don't. A few have shut off already. I know the chief engineer of one of our local stations and they are shutting off at 23:59 February 17th. Too much has already been committed... they have contracts with tower companies, antenna companies, extra workers etc all committed to schedules that they paid dearly for to meet. And they are not going to throw away more money to keep transmitting analogue.
Additionally, this station must vacate its present analogue assignment so another local station can move to it. It's sort of like falling dominoes..... they cannot delay because it would screw up many stations.
Delaying this again is stupid stupid stupid. Why delay it four months? Why not delay it 10 years ? I got digital tv SEVEN years ago.
There are people that will not fix a leak in their boat until it starts sinking... there are people that will not begin bailing out their boat until after it is sunk. No matter how many times they delay this, there are people that 'will not be ready'.
And this 'shortage of convertor boxes' is a bit of a surprise to me. My supplier sends me an email every week trying to reduce his overstock.
#42
Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:38 AM
This whole process started in the UK years ago, but the government stipulated that there must be free terrestrial digital TV and radio all over the country. So there's still no need to pay a fortune (easily $100/month) for cable or satellite. I've never bought either and I never will.
Trust me, I want to receive high quaulity tv signals and allow the analog to be used by emergency services etc.. Ok I will 1 of the 6.5 million people that will be cut off because of our gov not thinking this thru, and I am apparently the only Sder that lives out of the range of the new HD signal, everyone else posting on here so far lives in a big city or near one.
thats my 2 psi
Mike
no trees were harmed while posting any of my messages,
however a significant number of electrons were inconvenienced.
Buy Lawn Mower and Chain Saw Parts at...
Amazon.com
#43
Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:13 PM
#44
Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:55 PM
our gov not thinking this thru
The end of analogue was announced 16 years ago. The first 'final cut-off date' was announced 10 years ago. Then, mostly because of the world trade centers falling down and the loss of every digital tv station for new york city area, the cutoff date was delayed again until next Tuesday cut-off was announced (7 years ago).
How much notice do people need ?
Pmarie.. I do not know exactly where you live, but my tv antenna is waist high and I get 22 channels. I guess I am 75 to 150 miles south of you.. you should be able to easily get the Orlando, West Palm Beach, Jupiter and probably some of the Daytona channels.
In 1996 (twelve years ago), the U.S. Congress ordered the FCC to write rules that would over-ride any home-owners association trying to stop anyone from putting up an antenna to receive broadcasts.... AM, FM, TV, short wave, Satellite TV, Internet, etc. (unless your building is a designated 'historical district').
Edited by Racer184, 10 February 2009 - 08:56 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users