Talk:Digital television transition in the United States/Archive 1

we should address "why"

Unless I missed it, nowhere in the article does it say why the transition is happening? I think this should be addressed.--Rockfang (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just added it. Feel free to ignore my above statement.--Rockfang (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

DTVPal Probably wont cost $0

Unless u Forgot to Read The CNET Review u are lieing!!!Address this NOW!!!!! -- 4.159.62.83 (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It has been proposed that the article on digital switchover and the article on DTV transition be merged. Please offer your comments and/or vote under one of the following subheadings.

Merge digital switchover → DTV transition

• I support merging because the two articles cover the same subject. Although I prefer the global view of the digital switchover article, the title should reflect the fact that it has something to do with television. The title "digital switchover" could just as easily refer to the switchover from reed relay to TDM-based telephone switching, or from TDM to VoIP, for example. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. The content of the two is fairly different but both deal with the same subject, so a straight merge would work well.--Father Goose (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Good idea Totsugeki (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Move DTV transition → DTV transition in the United States and digital switchover → DTV transition (no merge)

This article, with the exception of one paragraph or so about the UK, is badly US-centric. The information on the UK could be moved to digital switchover, which is about the worldwide transition, and the two articles renamed so that:

• The main body of ATSC-related info, currently on DTV transition, is moved to DTV transition in North America or DTV transition in the United States, along with some of the additional info on the history and politics of US DTV transition which is currently sidelined at Talk:CECB.
• Digital switchover → DTV transition is then moved-over-redirect, creating by default a Digital switchover → DTV transition redirect (a disambiguation could be done later if the title were desired for digital switchover of telephony or other unrelated technologies).
• The DTV transition page then would contain the international DTV info currently at digital switchover.

See also Talk:CECB for further discussion of naming and categorisation. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, with the exception that I renamed digital switchover to digital television transition instead of DTV transition, as acronyms in article titles are generally deprecated. That said, I didn't spell out DTV in this article's title because "Digital television transition in the United States" gets to be of cumbersome length. It can still be moved later if need be.--Father Goose (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, Father Goose, I agree with your approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagster (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes needed

{{editsemiprotected}} The small sections on digital television adapter and Digital_switchover#United_Kingdom no longer need to be in this article as they've been moved elsewhere; the Digital_switchover#United_States section needs to move here from digital switchover (except for the {{seemain}} tag) so that the main digital switchover page remains international, not US-specific, in scope. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the UK material and merged in the US-specific material from digital switchover. I retained the DTV adapter stuff for now, if nothing else as an intro to the CECB-specific section. Our coverage of CECBs is sprawled across several pages (this one, CECB, DTV adapter, analog passthrough), so we'll have to sort that out at a later time.

The article was badly in need of restructuring (especially with the new material being merged in), so I extensively restructured and rewrote it in the process. The "Impact of the transition" section could probably use further restructuring, and possibly a rename -- right now it covers a rather broad swath of information.

And finally, having done the rewrite, I'll just go ahead and move it to DTV transition in the United States -- I don't think this move will be controversial. I guess you posted it to requested moves because as an unregistered user, you can't move it yourself. C'mon, register -- do yourself a favor and leave all the red tape behind. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What about opposition/controversy?

Can someone help with appropriate placement for mention of opposition to the timing and manner of the switchover? I have found: The law mandating the February 17, 2009 switch was signed February 8, 2006 by President Bush, according to multiple sources including http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/020806-digital-tv.html

That is about 3 years' notice. According to http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/news/november-2006/why-you-dont-need-an-extended-warranty-11-06/overview/extended-warranty-11-06.htm The repair rates for 3- to 4-year-old TVs is: 30- to 36-inch picture tube 8% 25- to 27-inch picture tube 6%

Therefore, according to http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/resource-center/dtv-transition-1-08/dtv-transition/dtv-transition-hub.htm "the bottom line is that many of us will have to pay money to keep perfectly good TV's working."

I've found various other sources mentioning the effects on the digital divide and the money that will be made by a few companies, etc., but I'm pretty new to Wikipedia & want to put such things in the right place. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharice (talk • contribs)

There is some info on Talk:Coupon-eligible converter box about this - including material sourced from the Consumers Union/Consumer Reports coverage of this issue. It's sidelined there at the moment because much of it belongs in this article (about the conversion as a whole, although some of the criticisms do pertain to the hastily-put-together coupon program, some touch on broader issues such as millions needing new antennas or not being able to get anything even with the box). The sources used there, plus the sources you already have, should be enough to assemble some sort of "controversy" section. Info on the convertmy.tv scam is here, but that's just one small piece of a larger picture. You may want to check WP:UNDUE as it seems "criticism" or "controversy" sections are valid if you don't disproportionately favour one side over the other and back all of this with sources - which are plentiful if you search online. Bonne chance! --66.46.167.154 (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, none of the PSA's mention the digital cliff effect and most don't mention antennas. There is some information in the 8VSB article which looks relevant: Tests run on 8VSB (US) and COFDM (European) systems in 2000-2001 indicated "that although some viewers would be able to enjoy indoor reception with either system, neither system exhibited the level of reliability that would be required of a practical broadcast service based solely on service to indoor antennas"[1] yet, as recently as February 2008, a Centris consumer survey found "Certain households - for example: those that are not elevated; are surrounded by trees; or have set-top antennas instead of roof-top antennas; among other factors - are at higher risk of having limited or no signal coverage. Centris surveys reveal that 75% or more of over-the-air households have only set-top antennas."[2]. While the FCC advises "try your existing antenna first"[3] it does look like many of those it calls "rabbit-ears pioneers" might be in for a big disappointment. While TVfool has published calculations indicating 1.8 million stand to lose any chance of free OTA TV reception (even with a 30-foot outdoor antenna tower)[4] it concluded that "statistically speaking, 72% of the population will end up within 3 channels of where they were before" with a small minority either gaining many channels or losing everything. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to make one of those DIY multi-bowtie antennas in order to get PBS back, and I'm within a goddamn mile of the transmitter. (Lots of buildings in the way, though.)--Father Goose (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd invite a "criticism" section in the article. Take a swing at it, you seem to have a good idea where to start.--Father Goose (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Switch-off or no switch-off

In the "Congressional mandate" section is the statement:

The FCC voted 5-0 on 12 September 2007 to require operators to make local broadcasts available to their users, even those with analog television. This requirement lasts until 2012, when the FCC will review the case again.

What does this mean? Are they reversing the decision to switch-off analog television in 2009? Rsduhamel (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That just applies to cable companies. Somehow that detail got lost during an earlier rewrite. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I've re-added it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FCC DTV Coupon Card.png

The image Image:FCC DTV Coupon Card.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lower power?

There is a sentence in the article that reads:

The maximum power for DTV broadcast classes is also substantially lower; one-fifth of the legal limits for the former full-power analog services.

This compares apples to oranges. Power for NTSC broadcasting is measured by peak power. Power for ATSC signals is average power. For ATSC signals, average power and peak power are much closer together than with NTSC, so the 5 dB or so difference between analog and digital signal power is not nearly as significant as it sounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsayer (talk • contribs) 19:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The power actually being licensed to these stations is insanely low, much less than the 20kW limit for the low-VHF digital broadcast class. Case in point, WETM-DT (NBC18 Elmira, DTV2) is licensed at a LPTV-like power level of 270 watts and its operators somehow wonder why the signal is being thoroughly clobbered by impulse noise at that frequency and power.

There's also the not-so-minor detail that a weak analogue signal is snowy but still marginally watchable, with the FM sound playing normally almost until the sync bars fade beneath the noise. ATSC, on the other hand, has a sharp digital cliff at which both audio and video pretty much stop dead in their tracks. It does not degrade gracefully. Apples and oranges, indeed...

Buffalo, New York is one of several markets in which the primary stations are VHF stations that operate on 2, 4, and 7. All three stations were assigned DTV channels in the UHF spectrum, and only channel 7 will be allowed to keep its frequency, and even they will have to reduce power. Because these stations were designed to cover large rural areas south and east of the city of Buffalo, channel 4 was initially grandfathered with a 100,000 watt broadcast power (above the 80,000 watt limit of the VHF low band). All three major stations will lose significant broadcast coverage in the transition, and viewers in the western Twin Tiers region will lose all of their broadcast stations.

Um, no. The power limit for low-VHF analogue is 100kW, not 80kW. Channel 7 is high-VHF, not low-VHF, so more than three times higher power limits, less vulnerability to impulse noise and less likely to be bounced great distances under some rare, sporadic atmospheric conditions. Nonetheless, 7 Buffalo will not be the same station that is on 7 analogue now; 7 will be WNGS-DT (RTN) after this is over. Different station, different nominal owner, but same people operating it as operate the current 7 Buffalo on digital UHF.

Quite possible that stations will have less broadcast coverage, though, especially in fringe areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why analogue is even being shut down on low-VHF (channels 2 to 6) if these frequencies are ill-suited for getting a digital signal out over impulse noise and the FCC is going to license at such insanely-low power levels as to make the signals all but unusable. Perhaps Vermont (served primarily from Plattsburgh-Burlington stations WPTZ NBC 5 and WCAX CBS 3) should be added (as an example) to the list of problem markets. It's mountainous, it's rural, it's attempting to reach viewers across the international boundary into Montréal and southern Québec at fringe-signal distances and it's depending largely on the ability of low-frequency signals to bend just that wee bit more around obstacles to get the signal out at all - and this from transmitters atop the tallest mountaintops. Ben & Jerry might not be watching TV next year if ATSC's limitations are what they currently appear to be - or they'll be practicing le français if CBFT is still analogue until 2011.

Denver needs to be updated - the Lookout Mountain situation is largely one of NIMBY, where local suburbanites simply didn't want the towers built higher to overcome ATSC's multipath interference problems. Congress has apparently now intervened to allow the taller structures to be built in time for DTV transition. Nonetheless, the inferior multipath rejection of the US system compared to the COFDM-based DVB standard used internationally has been an issue since at least 2000-01 when Sinclair Broadcasting tried (in vain) to get the standards changed.

In general, those with reasonably-good OTA reception (typically fifty miles or less with a good antenna and relatively clear straight-line path to the stations) stand to gain while those in fringe or rural areas stand to lose everything. Any attempt to use indoor antennas is also going to be very hit-and-miss.

As for whether Buffalo will have any VHF left after this is over? Dunno... WNGS was supposed to move to VHF 7 and flash-cut to digital, but given that its owner Equity Media Holdings is in chapter 11 bankruptcy, the station has admitted to the FCC that it may be unable to meet the Feb 17, 2009 deadline and will have to go dark. The station has already lost the RTN affiliation due to disputes between RTN owner Luken Communications and EBC (TitanTV shows nothing listed in all dayparts). The station is operated by WKBW-TV but not owned by them.

The list of stations losing substantial portions of existing coverage area is now on http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets and http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/report2.html with former low-VHF stations being hit the hardest. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)