DTV Transition Mostly Smooth, Windows Media Center Problems

dritan writes "While most of the transition to digital seems to have gone smoothly, those who use Windows Media Center saw their screens go dark. Users are complaining that Media Center did not pick up changes to channel assignments that took place on Friday. Someone forgot to update the static channel lists distributed with the program guide. Users either have to wait for Microsoft to fix the problem, or manually edit the configuration files." Reports indicate that the FCC received upwards of 300,000 calls on Friday from consumers seeking late help with the transition, but they were prepared, with over 4,000 operators available to handle problems. The FCC's DTV website also had over 3 million hits on Friday. Both phone and Internet traffic have now tapered off, and supplies of converter boxes appear to have held out just fine.

Comments

Unprepaired?

[mcfatboy93]

Friday from consumers seeking late help with the transition, but they were prepared, with over 4,000 operators available to handle problems

ok can i say that it was the FCC who delayed the whole thing because the people would be unprepared.

Anecdote

[maxume]

One local station was completely dark for about 8 hours, another delayed the switch until after game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals and was off the air for about 2.5 minutes. The third had already switched in February after their analog transmitter blew up (or broke down in some more mundane fashion).

Still some teething problems here, for instance, guides not matching programming, the SAP being fed alongside the main audio programming, and occasional blank screens. Some stations are convinced that they have to broadcast SD in 4:3 (or they think it will help old people, or something, I wish they would use 16:9).

Re:Anecdote

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, most SDTVs are 4:3 so I think it's normal.

Re:Anecdote

[maxume]

Most digital tuners can crop the 16:9 down to 4:3, and the most common case of what I am talking about is SD programming being broadcast on a second subchannel, a channel that is often going to be received by a set that is 16:9. So the stations could give people with 16:9 sets the full video and everyone else could crop it down (I have a 4:3 set but tend to prefer the bars when the video was shot in 16:9...).

I guess there might be problems finding enough bits, but one station here is broadcasting two 16:9 channels, so I doubt it.

Re:Anecdote

[PitaBred]

I would bet that the type of people who still receive OTA signals are the many times type of people who would think their TV is broken or that they're getting ripped off seeing those black bars. There's a non-trivial portion of the population who thinks that someone is hiding video from them when they see those black bars...

Re:Anecdote

[Ken_g6]

All my local stations had some problems around that time. On Thursday night, CBS had an audio problem (using the wrong channels from the surround sound, I think, so music came through but voices did not.) On Friday morning, ABC was dropping frames, so movements looked jerky. An analog repeater station also somehow switched from PBS to religious programming for awhile. Then on Friday night, PBS digital, a Spanish station, and NBC all went black for awhile (during the hockey game!) But I think they're all settling down now.

Re:Anecdote

[Patch86]

I feel that the UK has done/is doing the whole digital switch-over thing better.

Here, each region (roughly equivalent to each local-news region) has it's own switch-off date, with the whole thing spread over about 4 years (and this in a country with a smaller population, more densely packed, meaning the switch-over would probably be easier anyway). This means that, for one, the broadcasters and government agencies only have to worry about nurse-maiding small numbers of people over at once. For two, it gives people a lot longer to get used to the idea and upgrade (I just happened to need a new TV a year or so ago, and it just incidentally happen to be DTV-ready, without me needing to worry about it). For three, it means that the odds of broadcasters in any given area being up to speed with full-power transmissions is very high, meaning less chance of down-time or missing channels.

Why a large, sparsely populated country of ~300 million people would decide to do the switch-over all at once I can't figure out. Maybe THAT'S the easier way and the UK is doing it awkwardly, but it just doesn't seem like that to me.

Re:Anecdote

[maxume]

Entertainingly, if those people went out and bought a new flat screen they would see bars on the sides of their new televisions when they tuned to the channels I am talking about.

If I got my way, a button that is on most remotes would be the thing in control of it.

(Looking at your link, it doesn't really support what you are saying, the guy is disappointed that it doesn't fill the screen, not paranoid, and the rest of the comments explain what is going on in a reasonable tone...)

Re:Anecdote

[symbolic]

I'm wondering now - I have cable, but suddenly started seeing closed-captions for all of the programming. I've checked the TV settings, and the CC is off. At first I thought it was the the age of the TV showing, but now I wonder if it might have something to do with this.

Re:Anecdote

[akpoff]

There's another group of people who prefer the OTA signal: those of us who like quality of broadcast HD more than the over-compressed signal coming from the cable companies. And let's not forget those of us who don't want to pay for premium service that has as many commercials as the advertising-sponsored OTA broadcast of the same show.

Sure, there are some folks out there who don't understand the issues and might complain. But there are groups who not only understand the issues but have made conscious decisions to eschew cable, dish and IPTV-subscription services (e.g., U-Verse) in favor of OTA, DVDs, internet-based VOD or some combination of the three.

Re:Anecdote

[JamesP]

Don't forget about the whole 'TV Licensing' thing in the UK

Re:Anecdote

[VanessaE]

What drives me nuts is when stations just can't figure out the concept of letting the viewer's receiver and display hardware handle the task of properly displaying the video.

In my area, two of the 8 or so digital stations are broadcasting 16:9 1080i as their main channel, even when the programming is SD 4:3. They scale the 480-line video up to 1080 lines, add black bars to the sides, and mark the stream as 16:9. My display devices are all normal 4:3 or 5:4 ratio, like the vast majority of others in my area (and across the country, I suspect), so that means my receiving hardware has to add a second set of black bars (to the top/bottom) to resize that "16:9" stream to fit a normal screen.

Sure I could just use the zoom feature my boxes all have, but that means I have to sit there cycling through several zoom settings every time the ratio changes or I change channels. In a real life setting, this becomes very annoying, so in this most common case, some 20% of my screen space goes unused and the video looks "just OK" because of the doubled scaling (once by the broadcaster, and once by my display hardware). The overall video quality also starts to suffer from compression artifacts (because of the wasted bandwidth from the pre-scaling).

To make matters worse, this area has frequent inclement weather, which necessitates adding a crawler and radar display over the pre-mutilated video. If I zoom, I'll lose enough of the crawler that it becomes useless.

To compound the problem even further, the broadcaster will occasionally show a 16:9 program that was already letterboxed before they got their hands on it, which means a third set of bars is being added. In the worst case, 60% of my screen is wasted, the video is blurry from having been scaled down once by the content provider, up once by the broadcaster, and then up again by my display hardware. The crawler becomes almost blindingly sharp at times and more distracting than it should be compared to the rest of the video.

To top it all off, most of the 4:3 stuff the content providers are sending to the local broadcasters (here anyway) clearly comes from older NTSC video tape, or some other low-quality analog sources, and thus doesn't look any better in digital than it did in analog. What's the point of all this SD-to-HD chazarai when the source looks like shit to start with?

All I ask is that the content providers and broadcasters start using high-quality media and broadcast the programming in whatever aspect ratio and resolution it was originally meant for, as is usually done with other MPEG2-based formats. If a DVD can switch between 4:3 and 16:9 content freely, why can't a broadcaster do the same?

I brought this up (using much more pleasant language, of course) with both of the affected stations. I was given an answer more or less equivalent to "Your comment has been noted. Sucks to be you."

Real impressive people - it really makes me want to watch your stations.

Re:Anecdote

[Korin43]

Doesn't seem that bad.. a few channels switching over slowly and some bad sound? I don't see the big deal.

Re:Anecdote

[maxume]

I don't know enough about the transmission setups to do much more than speculate, but for stuff like local news, local ads or SD subchannels (that are sourced from HD channels), it is pretty clear that they are doing some encoding. I wouldn't be surprised if a transmitter did not cope gracefully with the input bit stream jumping all over the place (or, if they are encoding everything, with the video resolution changing mid stream), so I'm not surprised that they are letter-boxing everything.

I want a different solution than you, I want them to always give me the choice of scaling the video or not (but the content looks fine on the TV I have). That my decoder box remembers the scaling on a per channel basis probably contributes to this.

Re:Anecdote

[davidphogan74]

I'd be more annoyed if they switched all the time, since my HDTV takes a second to switch modes. Also, my TV seems to record the mode each station broadcasts in, so that would probably confuse the hell out of it as well.

Sorry that they can't please all the people all the time, but on my old 4:3 TV I have no problem zooming in (and not missing any of the picture.) It sounds like your receiver may be more of the problem if it's cropping part of the picture.

Re:Anecdote

[Pinky3]

Why a large, sparsely populated country of ~300 million people would decide to do the switch-over all at once I can't figure out. Maybe THAT'S the easier way and the UK is doing it awkwardly, but it just doesn't seem like that to me.

The switch over to digital was months ago for most stations in most markets. The only thing that happened on Friday was that the analog transmitters were turned off. I don't know of any channel that turned on its digital transmitter for the first time Friday. The converter boxes worked last week, and they still work now. For those stations who kept broadcasting digital on the same channels as they did last week, nothing changed (digitally). However, I have lost several channels that moved on Friday from their previous UHF frequencies to VHF frequencies.

Re:Anecdote

[VanessaE]

Fortunately for me, none of the devices in my setup are crop the image - I am indeed receiving the complete frame. It's just that the TV stations are scaling and matting the video before broadcast, forcing me to scale/crop it back to the proper ratio for display.

Re:Anecdote

[Voltaire759]

Yes, I also had a channel switch from UHF to VHF. I'd build a nice UHF antenna that worked perfectly until they switched. Now I've got to build another VHF antenna for one station.

Re:Anecdote

[Bakkster]

My NBC decided to disappear before the hockey game. Apparently they dropped their transmit power to avoid a collision with another station, yet didn't feel the need to tell anybody in advance. So even though I was perfectly able to watch their digital station before, now I get nothing.

Re:Anecdote

[mcgrew]

They never had these problems when they introduced color TV. I guess the engineers in my dad's time were better engineers than the youngsters.

Re:Anecdote

[mcgrew]

My dad, who turns 79 next week, doesn't think anybody's hiding anything, but he still hates the letterbox. "God damn it, I paid for that screen and I want to use the whole thing!"

I told hime I'd rather see the whole picture as it appeared in the theater, but he still likes the cropped version, even though he knows it's cropped.

Re:Anecdote

[maxume]

Or the complexity of the current technology is much higher. The upshot is that it comes with actual benefits (I know, people are pissed that they have to deal with change, and some people probably do have weaker signals, but most people actually have access to more channels now...).

Re:Anecdote

[powerlord]

Yeah, in our switch over the local ABC station when back to the VHF freq the analog one had been on.

Had to reposition the antenna and finally raise one of the "rabbit ears", otherwise it couldn't get enough signal to display the channel. :)

Almost a pity they couldn't have just left the channels alone, but in a few weeks I expect they'll have everything ironed out just fine (and maybe up the signal strength, so I can move it back :) ).

Re:Anecdote

[kbradford]

No they just had a color TV system (CBS's field sequential color system - i.e. rotating color wheels) that was not compatible with BW as the standard for two years before the current NTSC was created.

Re:Anecdote

[PitaBred]

I pay for the breadth of channels via cable, but at least in my area Comcast is required to send OTA HD channels unchanged over the cable, so I also have the cable plugged directly into my MythTV machine and I can record/watch anything that's aired OTA in HD, and I can still watch all the rest of the channels Comcast offers that I can't get with an antenna (mostly the History, Discovery, Food and Cartoon network channels).

Re:Anecdote

[mcgrew]

The rotating color wheels was a bad technology that was never implimented.

Re:Anecdote

[kbradford]

Define implemented. Granted only 100 sets were sold, and there were only a few hours a week of broadcasting in the NY area, it was approved as the color TV standard in October 1950. A year later CBS stopped broadcasts. In 1953 the FCC approved the NTSC "compatible color" system developed by NBC/RCA. Ten years later, my mother won a 23" RCA TV in a raffle, and ours was the first house on the block to have a color TV. Most shows were still in B/W then.

Re:Anecdote

[mcgrew]

By "implimented" I would say "used by more than a hundred people." And in more than a single city.

Re:Anecdote

[Golddess]

I'm with you. To twist your quote around a bit, "God damn it, I paid for that movie and I want to see the whole thing!"

When (if?) he does upgrade to a widescreen TV, he'll just have the exact same problem except with bars on the sides (unless he's like my mom and either can't tell the difference between a 4:3 picture at a 4:3 aspect ratio and a 4:3 picture stretched to a 16:9 aspect ratio, or simply doesn't care).

Re:Anecdote

[skeeto]

I've noticed that a lot of DVDs are poorly mastered the same way, where the letterboxing is encoded right into the video. Take a 16:9 movie/show, add letterboxing to make it 4:3, then watch it on my widescreen monitor where two more black bars are added on the sides (I fix this by having VLC or mplayer crop the letterboxing during playback).

It's one of the several reasons I haven't bought any DVDs in several years.

It Worked

[Surbius]

I must say, a federal government agency actually worked; albeit to the tune of two billion dollars.

One can only wonder what one-thousand billion dollars can do.

[/sarcasm]

Re:It Worked

[Skreems]

Since the cost of the transition was financed with a small portion of the proceeds from the sale of the old Analog spectrum, the whole thing was pretty clearly a net gain.

Re:It Worked

[ionix5891]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq

Re:It Worked

[westlake]

I must say, a federal government agency actually worked; albeit to the tune of two billion dollars.

The spectrum sale was quite successful from the government's point of view.

The migration to digital frees a lot of space for other uses - and the geek - the techie - directly and indirectly is quite obviously one of the prime beneficiaries.

Since he rarely admits to ever watching broadcast TV - I am not quite sure what he is complaining about.

Re:It Worked

[iluvcapra]

I think they made something like $18 billion on the VHF auction so they're still ahead. They probably could have done better still if they had made prospective buyers bid a rental fee for the spectrum license, or a percentage of their revenue, and both would have increased the participation of small players, but I guess that's a bad thing to some people.

Re:It Worked

[Anonymous Coward]

We're looking for a comparison to something that actually worked.

Definitely not a feature

[adosch]

What broke in Windows Media Center isn't what I call a bug that needs to be fixed... Microsoft will make that "fix" an "enhanced feature" that only users who purchase or upgrade to Windows 7 Home Ultra-Premium-Enhanced-Elite-Super-Ultimate Edition.

Re:Definitely not a feature

[marklar1]

This isn't a troll post:

I am one of MANY users affected by Microsoft's choice to release the "WMC TVPack" that fixes many of WMC's problems...but the release was ONLY SENT to OEM vendors of hardware. The OEMs ONLY included the TVPACK in new sales, leaving all Vista Premium and Ultimate users who bought or DIY built a Media Center prior to the TVPack release up a creek.

Now, MS has release yet another update to the TVPack, but there is no sane way for the above affected users to take advantage of this.

Alternatives include: going to unsupported/unsecure sites or torrents to download the TVPack, or doing arcane editing of registry & system files to try and do workarounds.

Should one download the TVPack from the non-MS sites and risk the possibility that they're corrupted, your path is:
- do a complete OS reinstall
- add TVPACK
- do all software updates
- oh, BTW, kiss your existing library of non-copy-protected off-air recordings good bye in the process.

While not the first Windows machine I've ever used, it is the first I've ever owned and I just want to thank Mr Softy for giving me the high hard one!

Re:Definitely not a feature

[adosch]

Thanks marklar1. Whomever tagged 'Troll' is a flame wagon or Bill Gates, himself. Hence why I don't use WMC for my HTPC needs. Too dependent on M$ wanting to make more capital on things that should be considered into services packs or hotfixes. This is no different than any other bug/issue that M$ faced, but at least the OSS community (e.g. mythTV, what I use) doesn't attribute to their way of fixes and approaches.

Re:Definitely not a feature

[kingturkey]

I'm not entirely sure of what the problem is here but it seems to be that The Guide has inaccurate listings? If that's the case, can't you just enter a region that isn't supported in TV signal setup (e.g. Australia) and then it will do a manual scan to find the channels that are broadcast in your area?
This is what I have to do because here in Australia TV listings are copyrighted and thus The Guide doesn't have them since they'd need to license them. Media Center strips the programming data from the broadcasts and fills the guide with that, I'm not sure if that would be supported by stations everywhere though.

Wow manually edit configuration files.

[yourassOA]

This is more complicated than the kernel update I did last night.
Almost as bad as updating alsa to 1.0.20. (stupid jaunty jackassalope shipped with 1.0.18)
At least windows is starting to be a real OS with the typing and such.

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[value_added]

I had a chuckle at the "manually edit" part, as well.

The fact is, editing by its vary nature is manual, so the modifier is redundant. The shopping list or letter to grandma in Word, or the one-liner email in Gmail are all manually written and manually edited. The only way the process could be automated is if you designed a mechanical robot to press keys on the keyboard for you.

But if you can build, assemble and program a robot, why not just write a program that can find differences between files, and then write another program to apply those differences? Oh, wait ...

Which brings me to the instructions on the blog. Reading those, like reading most all Microsoft documentation, is an exercise in frustration, both for the novice user and the expert. The novice user has to faithfully execute a large number of steps and if successful, won't understand what was done. The expert has trouble understanding what needs to be done because of the verbiage describing all the steps.

So if "manually edit" is taken to mean "You can't do this with a mouse alone", then I guess the only conclusion is that editing is indeed Hard(TM). However, I'd suggest that for those jobs where a mouse is appropriate, the mouse may seem easy, but trying to interpret a few hundred words of detailed instructions (or, alternatively, multiple pages of screenshots) never is. And to the extent it is, you've learned nothing.

At least windows is starting to be a real OS with the typing and such.

To which the Windows user responds:

I use Windows because I need Microsoft Office. Never mind that I type and edit all day, editing a configuration file or typing

patch < patchfile

is impossible for me, and contradicts everything I've learned.

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[Blakey Rat]

Never mind that I type and edit all day, editing a configuration file or typing

What they type all day is English. What you're trying to get them to do is type in some weird computer-ese language that they don't understand.

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[encoderer]

What they type all day is English.

I don't know if I'd go that far...

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[RoFLKOPTr]

The only way the process could be automated is if you designed a mechanical robot to press keys on the keyboard for you.

Or if the guide software edited the configuration for you, like it's supposed to. That would be automatic editing, would it not? Last I checked "mechanical" was nowhere in the definition of "automatic", therefore it can, by definition, be carried out by software.

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[Bios_Hakr]

I run a Windows7 Media Center. The "editing" they are talking about was done from the MCE remote while sitting on my couch.

I had to do the same thing on my standard HDTV. Went into the setup menu and told it to re-detect all the available channels. It took 5 minutes to re-scan and then another 5 minutes of telling it not to add Fox News, Trinity Broadcasting, Home Shopping Network, and other drivel like that.

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, my elder sister types "lolz" a bit too much ;).

I hope my mom doesn't start sending me messages with "I can has CD? lolz"

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[Anonymous Coward]

The software doesn't edit the configuration, it replaces it.

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[value_added]

What they type all day is English. What you're trying to get them to do is type in some weird computer-ese language that they don't understand.

Sigh.

Yes, what they type all day is indeed English (or their native language), but what they use their mouse for (the point of my post) is to click on menus, toolbars and radio buttons in configuration screens that are written in exactly that "weird computer-ese language" you're referring to.

Now that we both know what we're talking about, how about addressing the actual points I made, namely that interpreting instructions for the mouse are typically more difficult than "text mode" instructions, an exclusive reliance on the mouse-only method yields few (if any) benefits in the long term, and that the objections for using "text mode" are rarely valid, but the product of conditioning.

For anyone with similar knee-jerk reactions to my comments, allow me to remind you that middle-aged secretaries in the DOS era (and elsewhere then and today) had zero problems with ... wait for it ... typing.

Imagine that. Those secretaries were no less intellectually disinterested, technologically averse or lazy than anyone today. The difference is that there existed a general expectation you had at least the basic skills to use a computer. If that's too much too ask of anyone today, then by all means, ignore everything I wrote and continuing championing computer illiteracy. Hell, I'll start for you.

You don't need to understand anything.
Computers are simple things.
Consider your computer as you would a toaster or any other appliance.
Just click the button that says "Yes".
Grandma can't type 'patch' unless she's writing a Word document about sewing.

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[Blakey Rat]

Now that we both know what we're talking about, how about addressing the actual points I made, namely that interpreting instructions for the mouse are typically more difficult than "text mode" instructions, an exclusive reliance on the mouse-only method yields few (if any) benefits in the long term,

Only if you utterly ignore discoverability, and the ability to make use of spatial memory. (Which for normal non-Slashdot people is much stronger than the rote memory used for remembering CLI commands.) Oh, and the fact that GUIs enable you to perform tasks virtually impossible on a CLI, for example, doing color-correction on a bunch of photos.

There's no debate over whether GUIs are superior to CLIs. None. Zip. Zero. It was settled long, long ago.

But the good news is if you like CLIs, you can run a CLI *inside* your GUI! Amazement in the mouth!

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, editing by its vary nature is manual, so the modifier is redundant

What? There are countless applications that use a wizard or point and click system to edit configuration files and the like for you. Which is exactly what Windows 7 does. It automatically scans your TV signals and adds them to the configuration files. Normally a human never touches this file. That's what "manually editing" means. A file that is normally edited in an entirely automated process needs to be modified directly.

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[Raineer]

I had a chuckle at the "manually edit" part, as well.

The fact is, editing by its vary nature is manual, so the modifier is redundant. The shopping list or letter to grandma in Word, or the one-liner email in Gmail are all manually written and manually edited.

If you've ever worked any sort of support you'd understand that a solid 95% of the American public are terrified to edit anything they didn't write themselves. I completely agree that it's very similar to editing that grocery list, and this would even come with directions!

However, there is a funny thing about directions given to the average person. If they get above 4 or 5 steps (this includes mouse clicks), people see too much and get overwhelmed immediately. I am so blessed as to spend my day job supporting a service force who have been given their own laptops for the last 12 years. I still get many calls every day from technicians (who spend their days disassembling and repairing printers) saying they can't follow a 5 step process for loading firmware into said device.

My favorite ever feedback was "You think in too many steps, please simplify this." The moral of the story is... if there's more than 3, even mouse clicks are hard.

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[maglor_83]

letter to grandma in Word ... are all manually written and manually edited.

Clippy writes my letters for me.

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no debate over whether GUIs are superior to CLIs. None. Zip. Zero. It was settled long, long ago.
Oh, and the fact that GUIs enable you to perform tasks virtually impossible on a CLI,...

Bollocks. Here are three examples of where the command line is clearly superior and/or allows to do things which are effectively impossible with a standard gui:

a/ It's much easier and more reliable to instruct someone on a help forum to cut and paste a command than it is to navigate them through a menu hierarchy and various tabs (and then find they are using a slightly different version of the gui and the option they want isn't in the place it is on your installation, and you have no easy way to determine where the option you want actually is on their installation).

b/ It's much easier and more reliable to script a sequence of command lines than it is to script a sequence of gui actions. In some cases it may be effectively impossible to script the gui reliably or at all.

c/ It's much easier to capture and print/edit etc. the output from a command line than from a gui application if (as is common) the gui doesn't support suitable print functions etc. - Consider trying to get a printed directory listing from a gui file manager - typically the best you can get is a series of screenshots - virtually unusable for large directories.

OTOH I wouldn't want to be doing waveform editing or (as you mention) photo editing without a gui. But to state that gui is always superior is just plain wrong, even when you are talking about non-nerds (e.g. see a/ above).

Re:Wow manually edit configuration files.

[Blakey Rat]

A - I'll give you. But if your GUI is any good, this should never be needed anyway-- GUIs are supposed to be discoverable, if you have to explain in great detail where something is, the GUI has failed at its job. Remember, when you compare GUI (as a concept) to the CLI (as a concept), you need to pick a GUI that isn't full of fail. Obviously a godawful GUI is worse than a really good CLI, but that doesn't tell us much.

B - You obviously never used AppleScript on a Mac Classic computer. (I'm not sure if Automator in OS X is comparable; but AppleScript definitely met all your requirements.) This is certainly possible on a GUI-- the question you need to ask yourself is why most GUI makers (other than Apple) don't do it. Hint: there's no demand for this feature.

C - Mac Classic let you print any window on the computer, including file listings. (Well, obviously third-party applications could neglect to add a Print command, but the OS had them.) I'd really argue that if you ever actually *need* to do this, your GUI has failed... I could imagine wanting to print, say, image previews from a list a files, but why would you ever need to print just a list of file names?

OTOH I wouldn't want to be doing waveform editing or (as you mention) photo editing without a gui. But to state that gui is always superior is just plain wrong, even when you are talking about non-nerds (e.g. see a/ above).

The problem with having this debate with Linux users is:

1) The general contempt for users, the "if you can't figure it out, you're dumb" attitude.

2) The geek-like disdain for spatial memory, something that the vast majority of people find easier than rote memory.

3) The fact that none of them, being Linux users, have experience with a really killer GUI. They assume all GUIs are as crummy as the ones used in Linux. This is really what's fueling your points, since they've all been addressed by at least one GUI in the past. (Mac Classic.)

There's also the hypocrisy that even the most hard-core "CLI RULES!!!" type user runs their CLI *in* a GUI.

Progress

[Sponge Bath]

Now everyone will experience beautiful, high resolution broadcast video of quality programming.

Ha, ha! Just kidding, I made that second part up.

Re:Progress

[Mashiki]

It's kind of funny you mention that. Oh that high quality is nice, if you don't mind the blocks, and audio dropping out. For all those years of the CRTC worrying about "Canadian Content" and FTA, the Americans solved the problem overnight.

My grandmother who lives in the middle of no-where Ontario, about 20mins from any major city, and 1.5hrs from Detroit/Buffalo/Port Huron lost all of the normal stations she used to get. NBC(Erie), ABC(Somewhere in PA) and CBS somewhere, along with PBS(Erie), and Fox(Toledo), a couple of other PBS stations, and a few others. Now the new stations Fox(Erie-ish), ABC(Detroit), ABC(Another in the Michigan area), and a CBS station somewhere in Michigan. No PBS or NBC stations at all.

Well I suppose that's fine, she's tech-savvy and understand this stuff. It's more of an irritation that what she did get, she no longer does. And what she does get, is in some cases poorer quality. And the first person to say satellite gets a beanbag to the head, for some reason the CRTC has something against US dishes.

Re:Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

you can get a grey market dish, an al7bar.tk ROM and a viewsat. works fine in ontario.

Re:Progress

[bertoelcon]

I live in middle of -no-where Texas and I used the DTV box for several months before the switch, and now my channels have dropped to near no signal since everyone else is using the signal. Last week my average signal was in the high 80%s, now its around 40% if at all. I guess its good I only watch one show and usually watch it later online anyway.

Re:Progress

[Jeremy Erwin]

She could do what millions of American have done and bought an atsc tuner. Some models have an ntsc passthrough, so that any non digital Canadian stations will still get through.

Re:Progress

[Mashiki]

Personally it would have been better if Canada had been in the same step as the US and done the transition at the same time. Nope gotta wait another 2 years or so. By that time she'll probably be living in a city instead of out in the middle of no-where. It's not a bad idea, I thought of it but she decided against it. She's as stubborn as I am.

Re:Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if comments like these are a symptom of humanity heading towards an Idiocracy-like future or if it's just a matter of more idiots finding the internet. The amount of tech-voodoo and superstitions surrounding modern technology is staggering.

Re:Progress

[Killer Orca]

If you're not using an outdoor antenna you need to be, all the sets I have connected to the outdoor one are fine, but the rabbit-ears have problems with some channels.

Re:Progress

[bertoelcon]

Its an outdoor grade antenna, but its in my attic, so that could easily be the problem.

Re:Progress

[ran-o-matic]

I don't care who you are, thats funny! I wish I had a mod point or two.

Re:Progress

[Jeremy Erwin]

The "transition" is more of a deadline. I've been using atsc for several years. In all probability, Canadian stations are simulcasting atsc right now.

Re:Progress

[Dragonslicer]

I wonder if comments like these are a symptom of humanity heading towards an Idiocracy-like future or if it's just a matter of more idiots finding the internet.

I wonder if comments like these are a symptom of humanity heading towards a humorless future of it's just a matter of more people with sticks up their asses finding the Internet.

Re:Progress

[Mashiki]

The "transition" is more of a deadline. I've been using atsc for several years. In all probability, Canadian stations are simulcasting atsc right now.

Not really. If you're up near Toronto you'll find more stations, usually US upwards of 40. Further south more inland you get fewer. People in Hamilton can see around 15-20 with a mix of ATSC and non, with a heavy percentage of US. People around London, Ont., will see around 3-4 ATSC(generally US), the rest being Canadian around 5-6 if they're lucky. No one is doing it because the deadline just went up for the 'transition phase' about 3 weeks ago.

This doesn't even touch on the problem with piles of stations, and repeater stations around here now going defunct. CTV, Canwest-Global, CBC, etc., are all dumping stations. Independent stations(A-Channel), and so on are all going under. No one wants to spend money when they don't know if the station will be profitable a year or two from now.

Re:Progress

[Mashiki]

Not a bad idea she might still have her old Direct-TV dish from when it was 'legal' up here.

Re:Progress

[vaporland]

Well, I live in Denver and we've been having tornadoes for about a week, off and on. The local NBC affiliate has three DTV channels: regular NBC, 24 hour weather and Universal Sports (which is pretty cool for free TV).

Well, the tornado warning sirens in our neighborhood started going off today, so I tuned into the weather DTV channel to look at weather warning updates, and all I saw was jiggly pixels.

Yeah, it seems that, unlike analog TV which in bad weather is snowy but viewable, the DTV signal was totally disrupted and useless until the sky cleared up.

Good thing I didn't have a tornado in my neighborhood, 'cause the DTV early warning weather channel was worse than worthless.

Re:Progress

[Bakkster]

Of course, that doesn't help those in apartments. I think the FCC screwed the pooch in letting so many stations drop their power so far.

Re:Progress

[zonker]

I hear you. You might consider buying a weather radio. They have an instant on alert mode that would listen for a severe weather alert signal being broadcast by NOAA and instantly come on so you can hear the alert. Perfect for people who liven in Tornado Alley. They aren't terribly expensive (though unfortunately they do cost some money you probably didn't plan to spend) at around $20-30. RadioShack. Amazon.

I agree it's a shame DTV doesn't have the ability to gracefully degrade rather than be an all-or-nothing deal...

Re:Progress

[vaporland]

What I was really looking for was a weather map to see if the storms were close. Ironically, I was able to access the National Weather Service website and bypass television completely. My wife and I don't really watch broadcast TV, except for The Big Bang Theory, Mad Men, Desperate Housewives (my wife not me!) and occasional episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

Ironically again, I receive better quality programming reception from my "jolly roger antenna" than on my TV, and with no commercials! I do enjoy laserdiscs on my 35" Sony Trinitron. I also have a DVD player that plays AVIs flawlessly from data DVDs and CDs. If I really need a TV news update I can tune into European news via the Livestation app installed on my Mac.

Basically, broadcast and CATV 2011 = newspapers 2010...

Not Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Half my channels are gone and about 7 new channels are religious garbage. Is that progress?

I use to have about 15 local channels and 7 or so a little fuzzy. Those 7 are gone. Damn digital - perfect or nothing.

Further, my emergency hand-crank TV doesn't work.

Re:Not Progress

[LVSlushdat]

Big Whoop... I gave up tv about ten years ago.. With the stupid mindless drivel I hear about from my coworkers who still are addicted to it, I say "Good Riddance".... Oh how I wish there was a giant jammer to block all tv.. cable, OTA, satellite.. Then the American sheeple might wake up from their hypnosis and realize what destruction has been worked on this country in the last 50 or so years, and then get REALLY FUCKING MAD!!! Its gonna take that to keep this wonderful country from becoming the USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika)

Why can't windows media player scan of channels?

[Joe The Dragon]

Why can't windows media player scan of channels?

TV went to snow

[nurb432]

And i just thought it was because i had comcast and it rained.. Go figure.

I was pleasantly surprised...

[Urban Garlic]

I got eight new channels on Friday -- the MHz and ION networks went digital in my area, so now I can watch Bollywood movies, English-language Russian TV, NHK Today, and some Chinese thing, among others.

These actually can be quite interesting to browse -- the Russian take on the Iranian election was kind of interesting.

Re:I was pleasantly surprised...

[Penguin]

I got eight new channels on Friday -- the MHz and ION networks went digital in my area, so now I can watch Bollywood movies, English-language Russian TV, NHK Today, and some Chinese thing, among others.

These actually can be quite interesting to browse -- the Russian take on the Iranian election was kind of interesting.

Caveat: These reports origin from foreign dubious sources and haven't been processed by the US News un-bias-o-matic.

Re:I was pleasantly surprised...

[bertoelcon]

US News un-bias-o-matic

Its more of a US News uber-bias-o-matic

Re:I was pleasantly surprised...

[Jeremy Erwin]

mhz went all digital a couple of years ago. Since they broadcast four SD subchannels, each with its own content, it made more sense than wasting money on a analog transmitter. The mHz stations in my area have ganged up, so I can choose from eight different foreign language programs.

Re:I was pleasantly surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean it's not Fair And Balanced????

There was a "Homicide Attack" the other day. Thanks to FoxSpeak, I don't actually know if that meant the attackers are still alive to do more of them or not.

Re:I was pleasantly surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

I got eight new channels on Friday...

Well, I only got one new channel on Friday - which brings me up to a total of five watchable channels (four of which are sub-channels of one public television station).

Granted, I live in an apartment complex so a roof mounted antenna is not an option - but I did go to the trouble of making myself a Gray-Hoverman antenna (for only slight improvement over rabbit-ears).

I live in a densely populated area (Inland Empire - essentially part of the greater Los Angeles area) so it's puzzling to me that the TV stations aren't providing a better signal.

Re:I was pleasantly surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!

Re:I was pleasantly surprised...

[jonadab]

> These actually can be quite interesting to browse --
> the Russian take on the Iranian election was kind of interesting.

Ugh. I don't even like watching election coverage from my own country.

Re:I was pleasantly surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its more of a US News uber-bias-o-matic

Your web browser must not render <sarcasm> tags correctly.

Re:I was pleasantly surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh. I don't even like watching election coverage from my own country.

Personally, I find election coverage from outside my country to be far better than the coverage done locally. For example, I think the Canadian Broadcast Company's coverage of US elections exceeds even NPR and PBS.

Re:I was pleasantly surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

"NHK Today"

Damn. US broadcasts standards must have dropped if they are playing that Japanese anime OTA.

"the Russian take on the Iranian election was kind of interesting."

iow, the US annoying Iranian president Russian's beaver won?

Really Cool things happened.

[Lumpy]

I no longer receive a couple of local channels that were cheap bastards and did not buy a new transmitter, but now I get Green Bay channel 2 and Channel 22 out of South bend.

The weird part is that there are a couple of stations still broadcasting analog and normal programming.

Re:Really Cool things happened.

[crazyprogrammer]

The weird part is that there are a couple of stations still broadcasting analog and normal programming

The countless number of PSAs that aired concerning the DTV transition stated that low power stations would not be affected. Are these couple of stations you speak of major network affiliates for a large metro area or a local community college station?

Re:Really Cool things happened.

[Megane]

One local station here is still running the converter box video in analog, and a translator for another local station is still in analog.

Another local station did a flash cut, for real. I had both channels showing on two different screens, and they both went out at the same time. It took me a minuter or so to convince my cable box to tune into the other channel without doing a rescan, but I'm sure it was quick. And a PBS station in an adjacent market that I've been wanting to receive also did a flash-cut. It's a bit intermittent, but I should be able to get it reliable if I work on it, possibly a pre-amp will help.

And Saturday morning I picked up a station from 350 miles away for an hour or so.

Re:Really Cool things happened.

[vitaflo]

Are these couple of stations you speak of major network affiliates for a large metro area or a local community college station?

For me these are major networks in a large metro area. That said, all they are showing now are PSA's on the DTV switch (most likely for those who haven't made the switch and don't know WTF is going on). But they certainly are still transmitting on analog.

Re:Really Cool things happened.

[Blakey Rat]

That's built-in to the legislation. They can broadcast an analog signal that's nothing more than "hey where's my TV program?" for 30 days, I believe... maybe 60.

Re:Really Cool things happened.

[Titoxd]

That's your analog nightlight at work...

Re:Really Cool things happened.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of creepy to think that they're transmitting television that nobody is ever going to watch. Kind of like everything on CBS.

Re:Really Cool things happened.

[Rick17JJ]

I am still getting 7 analog channels and only one digital channel. I live near Prescott, Arizona and my television signals come from a rural translator station on Mt. Francis, between here and Phoenix. My understanding, is that low-power stations and rural relay stations known as "translators" are not required to make the change.

One of my two very old TVs has a converter box. With the converter box on, the only channel that I get is the FOX network KSAZ DT 10.1 digital channel. When I connect the rabbit ears antenna directly to the TV, without the converter box, I get the other 5 to 7 analog channels instead. Two of the channels are very weak and are only usable on some days.

I had my converter box rescan for new digital channels again today, but it did not find any new ones.

Some nearby hills, block my reception of the other digital station on Mingus Mountain.

My other TV is an early 1990s model, which is also still working just fine, connected directly to the rabbit ears antenna, with no DVD player or VCR. Both of my TVs are way too old, to have a built in ATSC digital TV tuner.The digital transition has not yet happend here.

Re:Really Cool things happened.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? CBS is the highest rated broadcast network. http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/ratings/network.html

Re:Really Cool things happened.

[jonadab]

> One of my two very old TVs has a converter box...
> My other TV is an early 1990s model

Wait, so you have three TVs altogether?

Re:Why can't windows media player scan of channels

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not entirely sure, but it's probably similar to the issue I had setting up my Beyond TV based DVR. To record things it needs both a program guide as well as a list of channels. The program guide it uses is from Comcast, my cable provider, which is feeding the QAM tuners that feed into the DVR. As far as the guide goes, it sees the ABC digital channel as 703, which is what would show up on the cable box. The actual channel is something like 91-8, which is what the tuner finds on a channel scan. There's a portion of the DVR setup where you have to associate the channels from the guide with the actual channel numbers, or else you won't be able to record or watch anything.

Well Done

[Bob9113]

Reports indicate that the FCC received upwards of 300,000 calls on Friday from consumers seeking late help with the transition, but they were prepared, with over 4,000 operators available to handle problems. The FCC's DTV website also had over 3 million hits on Friday. Both phone and internet traffic have now tapered off, and supplies of converter boxes appear to have held out just fine.

Much of my comment history has been dedicated to chastising the government when they get things wrong. I should also recognize when they get it right.

Nice work, guys!

Re:Well Done

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice Work?

The picture quality is great when it does not drop frames which it does all the time.

Analog always has a picture, digital just disappears.

It was really helpful during the massive storms we had on Friday, loosing access to TV when it raining to hard. TV is better than Radio during these type of storms because of radar images help give you perspective. Even if was analog was blurry it is WAY BETTER than digital's total lack of picture or sound.

SEE THE PRETTY PICTURE...does not work when really needed.

Re:Well Done

[ScentCone]

Not to mention that the new system's radiation is so strong that it seems to have entered your brain and completely messed up your understanding of the words "loosing" and "to."

Other than that... just get a higher gain antenna, if you're not going to use cable, fiber, or satellite service.

Re:Well Done

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad all they can get right is the brain rot we call TV.

Wish they could get some useful things right. You know, little stuff like economic reform, healthcare, and massive over reactions to terrorism.

I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[BanjoBob]

We never have been able to get UHF channels here so the new-fangled whoop-dee-doo Digital TV means NO TV here.

However, for those with reception issues, visit www.tvfool.com and look at their tools/toys. They have some interesting tools that you may find useful. Where we are every station says, "These channels are very weak and will most likely require extreme measures to try and pick them up."

Since we rarely, if ever watch brainwashing ads, extremely biased news, inaccurate weather or bad programming, we decided we really don't need an idiot box anyway. We'll keep the big screen for movies but now, we'll spend more time outside enjoying our world.

Those extreme measures the say we need to take will be to feed the landfill with more toxic waste. I guess I could send the TVs to India or China instead.

get some ideas

[FudRucker]

YouTube

Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[freedom_india]

...discussion on something as mundane as Digital TV turn into Microsoft Bashing.
Its Incredible.
I mean we are discussing the transition from analog to digital TV and somehow the submitter thought to add his two cents in bashing up Microsoft.
MythTV has it.
Ubuntu has it.
BUT NO! He has to bash Microsoft.
What an asshole.

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[Jeremy Erwin]

MythTV has it.
Ubuntu has it. BUT NO! He has to bash Microsoft.

Has what? A DTV transition bug?

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[bertoelcon]

Maybe because people running MythTV and Ubuntu are slightly more tech savvy than the ones using Windows Media Center, and could fix their own problems and not make a giant scene over loss of channels for some amount of time?

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[freedom_india]

Tuning bug.
Try the Elisa or Ubuntu Media center.
They too have the same channel search issues.

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to /. where bad weather, AIDS, dog poop on the sidewalk and everything else are all somehow Microsoft's fault. Bashing them is expected in both the summary and comments, even in totally unrelated articles.

It's a shame, because it would be a nice site if it wasn't for those retards.

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[Anonymous Coward]

...discussion on something as mundane as Digital TV turn into Microsoft Bashing.

Duh! You're new here, aren't you? In Soviet Russia, Slashdot bashes you! Digital television is like a mid-sized sedan, while Slashdot is like a spare tire.

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree....if I still had a TiVo, I would have to rescan for new channels. It's a one time thing you need to do after the switch with any device that allows you to add/remove channels from your lineup.

Personally though, I don't know what the problem actually is. On Vista months ago I had all the digital channels in my line up and my Windows 7 Media Center has also.

Doesn't sound like it's a problem with Media Center...sounds like it's a problem with users that didn't know they had to rescan the lineup.

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, did you forget what site you're on?

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[Anonymous Coward]

***BUT***, MythTV, and the other DTV tuners available for Ubuntu, have a "rescan" function (in ADDITION to being able to manually edit the files). They don't have a ridiculous situation of the MCE, where you can't rescan but Microsoft doesn't update the info either. This is a legitimate reason to bash Microsoft.

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[arkhan_jg]

The channel/program assignments come along with the guide data that's downloaded from Microsoft, as opposed to the info pulled off the air, like everybody else does it. So Microsoft screwed up the guide data they were distributing to DTV-using Media Centre users. I'm a DTV Media Centre user in another country, and I'd be kinda pissed if Microsoft screwed that up, breaking all DTV functions of media centre and still hadn't fixed it.

But yeah, that's just completely unrelated Microsoft bashing. Christ, what an asshole.

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[freedom_india]

Not just Microsoft.
These guys make TV tuners for Macs. They too have the same problem which they have acknowledged.

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[freedom_india]

-:D
Sadly, i do.
When did Slashdot transition from a site for geeks into a site for exclusive Microsoft bashing???

Re:Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated...

[Anonymous Coward]

When did Slashdot transition from a site for geeks into a site for exclusive Microsoft bashing???

Exclusively? Hyperbole much? Give it a break.

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[zippthorne]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

Seriously, why should we care?

[Zero_DgZ]

I "get" the background and the technological reasons to switch to digital TV and all that. But honestly, how many millions of our tax dollars are being wasted on this "dear god we need to drop everything and help everyone switch because lord knows we can't trust them to handle their own affairs!" game? Seriously. Why should we care? It's only television.

Having to hear every four seconds about how it's going to be some kind of goddamned tragedy because some portion of lazy motherfuckers sitting on a couch somewhere can't be arsed to replace or upgrade their own equipment (or get someone to do it for them!) when we've been listening to the same goddamned twitter about this switch for three fucking years is really wearing thin. Now we're going to have to hear three more years of whining about how the new digital TV is no good, so-and-so can't get such-and-such channel anymore, and woe is me, my reception sucks now. I have a better idea: Why don't we just turn the whole thing the fuck off? I quit watching TV when I was a teenager and honestly, my life hasn't been any less enriched because of it. I have a TV, but it's an old analog one that I use as a monitor for my game consoles. I don't have cable, I don't have a converter box, and I don't even have a damn antenna for the thing. I don't care, and I don't see why anyone else should care enough to be treating this like some kind of disaster.

Way back when this digital switchover was announced in the first place I held the vain hope that some portion of people might wake up and decide to do something else with themselves instead of park in front of their (soon to be useless) TV. Like, I dunno. Read a book. Learn some stuff on the Internet. Go the fuck outside for some reason other than to go to work or to the liquor store. Interact with real people. Learn something about the world.

I don't characterize myself as a very smart person compared to most, and I'm fairly young and therefore am automatically assumed to lack experience. Yet somehow I am continually amazed at the sheer ignorance that many people I meet display about absolutely everything. Science, literature, fiction, history, geography, mechanics, anything. Yet they can recite to me chapter and verse what happened on Survivor or American Idol. The one that gets me is how they can complain to me about the war in Iraq, yet they don't actually know where Iraq is. These are people who are older than me -- people who should be "old enough to know better." Yet the only thing they know about the world is what they see through the damned box at the other end of the living room.

And it pisses me off. These people don't need pampering. Let them flounder. Maybe it'll force them to learn something about the world, even if it's just some tiny inconsequential thing that they need to hook up to get their fucking idiot box working again.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[DannyO152]

It was only nominally about the viewers. The converter box program was so stations and advertisers wouldn't suddenly see a huge drop in viewership numbers, impacting revenues since advertising is essentially charged on dollars per thousand viewers. As the whole DTV thing was an arbitrary government mandate to force an incompatible technology that the market was greeting with indifference, you best be sure that the lobbyists were there saying there had to be some return for the imposed cost. So, the givebacks were multiple channels which could be used for alternate programming (or paid services, ka-ching) and government cooperation in transitioning the audience. Throw in 9/11, as the analog spectrum will be partly sold and partly reserved for emergency services, and, mmmmm, can you smell what the FCC was cooking?

I did, I thought it stunk, so I gave up the tv.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[spaceyhackerlady]

DTV is the classic forced update of a technology that had worked just fine for decades.

They can talk all they like about picture quality (true, if you have a good signal), but the truth is they are forcing the sale of a lot of new hardware, and are making it easier for broadcasters to control what people do with the signals they receive. It's all about control and money. Isn't everything?

...laura

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But honestly, how many millions of our tax dollars are being wasted on this "dear god we need to drop everything and help everyone switch because lord knows we can't trust them to handle their own affairs!" game?" About 10 billion were spent on it... a fraction of what the government made by selling the (spectrum) space freed by switching to digital. Net gain in money by quite a bit.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[Anonymous Coward]

RAAAAAAGE. I'm sorry. I just had to do it.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[DerekLyons]

And it pisses me off. These people don't need pampering. Let them flounder. Maybe it'll force them to learn something about the world, even if it's just some tiny inconsequential thing that they need to hook up to get their fucking idiot box working again.

Translation: I'm better than them, even though I lack the skills or intelligence to express my point without profanity, rants, insults, and belittlement. Really, I'm better than them! I'll even explain why. Someday. Somehow.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[Ant P.]

Translation: I'm better than them, even though I lack the skills or intelligence to express my point without profanity, rants, insults, and belittlement. Really, I'm better than them! I'll even explain why. Someday. Somehow.

Translation: I'm better than them, even though I have nothing interesting to say, so I'll go insult and belittle someone for their choice of language.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[artor3]

Because poor people, and non-English speakers, are getting screwed over so that corporations can squeeze some money out of what once belonged to the public.

It's nice that you don't watch TV. If I were closer, I'd give you a gold star. Lots of other people do watch TV though, and they're pissed about having that taken away for no good reason.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should take a wider view of the picture ... analog tv was sitting on some very nice spectrum. The portion that sold for 18 billion was only a quarter of it. Switching to digital gets a 4 to 1 multiplier of programming, and/or provides high definition signals. For me, HD is a huge improvement.

Now let's look at that spectrum ... I have a poor business in providing wireless broadband in rural Michigan. The unlicensed frequencies don't go thru foliage for crap (well, 900MHz does to some extent, but it is filthy with other uses). If it pans out, TV whitespaces devices will give people in my area more than ten new channels. Each one can transfer 19Mbs. Each one will work thru trees, probably providing 100% coverage for six miles from an access point. The cable companies aren't running wires down our dirt roads, Verizon is hit-or-miss on provided dsl. And FIOS isn't in my state at all. At least we have a chance for a third provider with wireless.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[drinkypoo]

They are actually forcing people into a choice between spending money and/or effort to watch TV (they DID offer coupons; I didn't even know about the coupon program until after it was over twice (okay, I heard about the extension, but forgot to get one) because I don't actually watch TV. I just thought it would be cool to have one, in case I needed it for my second TV; my new TV has a digital tuner.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[maxume]

Mine got better. I had good analog signals for NBC and CBS and FOX but poor reception for ABC (basically, between the transmitters that serve my market). The NBC station now broadcasts ABC on a subchannel.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, you know the difference between Parent and GP?...GP was belligerent, unpleasant, and aggressive first, without provocation. A response to said aggressiveness and unpleasantness is warranted, and to point out unpleasantness will require some negativity to be expressed. I just love people like you...you get so indignant because of your "attitudinal relativism." If people feel rubbed the wrong way by your unsocial, obnoxious personality, you attack them for being intolerant of who you are, when who you are is aggressive and belittling. It is self-centered of you.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[paralaxcreations]

I personally hope the griping about "i don't get reception" or "i wasn't prepared for the switch" stops as well. Hopefully, the self-righteous "I don't even watch TV" crowd will STFU then too.

It's cool that you don't watch TV. But more than 238,000,000 people do...so, yeah. The DTV switch is kinda important.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[evilviper]

I'm fairly young and therefore am automatically assumed to lack experience. Yet somehow I am continually amazed at the sheer ignorance that many people I meet display about absolutely everything.

What's this, now? An angsty teenager who thinks he knows everything?!?!

I'm SHOCKED! Shocked I say!

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[MemoryDragon]

DTV is the classic forced update of a technology that had worked just fine for decades.

They can talk all they like about picture quality (true, if you have a good signal), but the truth is they
are forcing the sale of a lot of new hardware, and are
making it easier for broadcasters to control what people do with the signals
they receive. It's all about control and money. Isn't everything?

...laura

Truth is, that you can get away for free with the cupons, which are financed by the sales of the now empty frequencies for other services. Truth is also that you can shove more channels into the spectrum which might save you a cable contract in the long run. Truth also is that the picture quality especially coming from the lousy US NTSC is way better.
Btw. we over here in europe had the switch about 5 years ago, I have never heard that much of complaining, we also had the cupon project. And no whining was there, and mostly people are pretty happy here that they had switched. Better picture quality, altough it was no such a big step from PAL which anyway was superior to NTSC, and the biggest plus more channels and cheap receiver usb sticks for their PCs.

So there is another coin to the switch!

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[MemoryDragon]

Well over here in Europe we had also the digital switch, but about 3-5 years ago. The converter box program also was in place. But as I see it you cannot switch off old technology without providing the people an upgrade path. And face it in the long run over here everyone is pretty happy with the switch, because they picture quality has improved, and you get more channels for free, and add to that that USB sticks for DTV cost almost nothing so that they become PC standard equipment!

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[Anonymous Coward]

But honestly, how many millions of our tax dollars are being wasted on this "dear god we need to drop everything and help everyone switch because lord knows we can't trust them to handle their own affairs!" game? Seriously

Seriously? The US made a net-profit. The cost of the switch was less then the profit made from auctioning off the spectrum.

You can make an argument that this should have been more efficient so the US would have made *more* money, or that the US is bleeding money elsewhere needlessly, but this transition was actually beneficial for the majority of the tax-paying Americans.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[DerekLyons]

Only somebody truly ignorant and biased could make such a translation - because I made no claim of being better, unlike the OP.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[Zero_DgZ]

Point taken. But ten billion could be funneled into something like, oh I don't know... health care. Or if you can't find anything better to do with it they could just give it to me.

I don't have any problem with the sale of the spectrum or even the switch itself. I'm just sick of hearing "Oh noes, grandma won't be able to watch her stories!" for the 1,436,030,823,584th time.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[jonadab]

> Why should we care [whether people upgrade their ability to watch]?
> It's only television.

Because, if people stop watching television, they might inadvertently start thinking for themselves. For a lot of elected government officials, that's a nightmare scenario.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[jonadab]

> But more than 238,000,000 people do...so, yeah. The DTV switch is kinda important.

No, it's not important. It's popular, but that's not the same thing.

Even if 238,000,000,000,000,000 people watch it, it's still just television, a form of entertainment. If millions of people were to suddenly *stop* watching it, nothing terrible would happen as a result. Lots of people watch it, but it's not *important* that they watch it. It's just something they do because they're bored. If a whole bunch of them decided to do something else instead, there would be no dire consequences.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[paralaxcreations]

Yeah, if a whole bunch of them decided to do something else instead, there would be no dire consequences. If a whole bunch of them were forced to on the other hand...say, because their signal went blank during a switchover...well gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Aside from general anger at the situation, we have:
$116 BILLION (46.3 BIL in the US alone) in revenue generated from Television Advertising in 2007 alone (the most recent report I could get with a quick google search, though you can be sure that number only goes UP each year). I'm sure our economy could handle losing that money without ANY problem whatsoever.

Numerous jobs, all the way from grips to production assistant to program manager to the more illustrious positions of each show on television. Let's not forget maintenance positions, linemen, customer service...I can't find any numbers on this, but I'm sure you could imagine, it ain't a small number.

How about the cultural impact? Say what you will about the value of television as a cultural export, but the fact remains that part of our culture today is the result of shows from yesteryear. Additionally, a decent amount of money changes hands just exporting this cultural medium between countries.

That's only a few examples I could come up with after waking up from 2 hours of sleep- if I were more awake, I'm sure I could come up with more. Either way, it seems you have a very subjective opinion on what is and isn't important.

It's not important that people watch tv for the content, but the world has adapted to television, and relies on it at the very least from an economic standpoint- this is true whether you agree with it or not, whether you think it SHOULD be that way or not, and whether you WANT it to be that way or not.

Yes, in this case the popularity of the medium has has made it important.

Re:Seriously, why should we care?

[zonker]

Yeah because NOBODY gets their news from television. Nope it's all just Oprah and I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here.

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[sponga]

You are enjoying the outside world so much you came to post on Slashdot?

Where do you live that you have no UHF and can enjoy the outside world? Usually those two don't go hand in hand.

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[wiredlogic]

Not all DTV is on UHF. The High VHF range was preserved. If you had such a station in your market, they had the option to remain on their old antenna. I have two in my area and they are now the strongest DTV transmitters I get. Even with a UHF specific antenna.

Re:Why can't windows media player scan of channels

[jedidiah]

This is what your listings source is for. Whatever place you get your program guide
from should have that list of channels and how they translate into radio frequencies.

The only thing the consumer should have to do is to rescan the available channels.

Even that is something that should be automated in a "professionally developed"
product like MS Media Center.

I was looking for a reason to give up TV

[brian0918]

Thank you, federal government, for imposing on me enough force to guide me in the right direction.

Re:I was looking for a reason to give up TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you also drop mobile phone service when your analog Mot Bagphone stopped working?

Didn't think so.

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[evilviper]

We never have been able to get UHF channels here so the new-fangled whoop-dee-doo Digital TV means NO TV here.

Most broadcasters on VHF 7 - 13 are going to continue to broadcast on their old VHF channels, so you're just making a fool of yourself.

Also "can't receive (frequency)" is completely baseless nonsense. You COULD SAY that your antenna doesn't work well for them, but that's about it.

It is reasonable

[ratboy666]

A bit thin skinned?

First, Microsoft has in excess of 80 to 90% of the market, and Linux is "desktop irrelevant" at 1 to 5%. Given those figures, isn't Media Center the ONLY TV application that matters? If there is a problem, it really only affects Media Center, right?

So, it's not "Microsoft Bashing". It's simple reporting. And, on a tech oriented website, I would certainly expect some tech slanted coverage.

Re:It is reasonable

[freedom_india]

I care less about Microsoft than i care about Apple.
But that is not the fact.
90% Windows != 90% Media Center Windows.
Apple is way more popular as a media center than Windows.
Ask anyone who bought the Mac Mini.
Mini too has the same tuning issues until Apple updates the channels.

Re:It is reasonable

[Apple Acolyte]

The mini doesn't have a built-in tuner of any kind, nor does Apple provide TV software. The AppleTV doesn't even have a tuner. Thus, as an Apple fan, i don't really know what you're talking about.

Re:It is reasonable

[marklar1]

True, Apple doesn't include one, nor do they support it, but EyeTV is excellent, and MythTV is now available on Macs.

But, to suggest that there are more MacMinis being run as media centers is probably way way off.

To say "Mini too has the same tuning issues until Apple updates the channels." is just plain retarded.

Re:It is reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

First, Microsoft has in excess of 80 to 90% of the market, and Linux is "desktop irrelevant" at 1 to 5%. Given those figures, isn't Media Center the ONLY TV application that matters? If there is a problem, it really only affects Media Center, right?

By that logic, 80 to 90% of the stories on Slashdot should be about Microsoft.

Re:It is reasonable

[freedom_india]

Am referring to this
This is used to tune into over-air channels and makes a Mac into a TV / media Center.
And yes, it HAS issues with DTV transition.
Am NOT talking about Apple TV. That's a different product for a different market.
Connecting this to your Apple TV or even directly to a Mac is possible.
The point is they too have issues with DTV transition. Not just Microsoft.

Re:Why can't windows media player scan of channels

[Blakey Rat]

It is automated, Mr Snark, even the updates are automated. The only problem here is that the updates for some areas weren't pushed out in time for the switchover. Where I live, in the Seattle area, my DTV channel list has been updated for ages. I dunno where the non-updated areas are.

Digital went to shit when analogue died

[WiiVault]

Here at my house in St. Paul MN I went from having about 18 digital channels before the transition to 12 now. I thought when they dropped analogue most broadcasters were going to boost their power. Instead it seems the opposite has happened, here at least. I'm pretty unhappy that I can't seem to get a signal from towers that are less than 20 miles away. If this is how it will stay than must say I wish we had stayed analogue .

Re:Digital went to shit when analogue died

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the St. Paul area, well Roseville anyway, and I get exactly 16 channels. Maybe you need a better antenna.

Re:Digital went to shit when analogue died

[British]

I'm in St. Paul, and I'm only getting channel 25 & 4 & 23. Oddly enough, the channels I have no interest in watching(spanish language gospel) are the ones coming in the clearest. There seems to be no way to manually set channels myself on this Apex box.

Oh well, that's why I have cable.

Re:Digital went to shit when analogue died

[Flying Scotsman]

I've had about the opposite experience just south of you in Dakota county. On Saturday morning, I had my converter box do a channel re-scan. Most every channel was about 20% higher on the box's signal meter, with TPT coming in at near 100%. However, KMSP (channel 9) completely vanished. I entered tried entering the channel manually, but still nothing. Oh well.

Re:Digital went to shit when analogue died

[Titoxd]

Make sure you rescanned the box after yesterday. TV stations were switching from their temporary ATSC frequencies (typically UHF) to their permanent frequencies (which may or may not be the same) throughout the day on Saturday. If it doesn't fix it, check http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/ and see if the channels are still available in your area (weak signals will probably will not be received, unless you have a badass antenna)...

Re:Digital went to shit when analogue died

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes me wonder how much lobbying the cable companies did for the switch to DTV. I've used only OTA transmissions to watch TV for several years now. What I liked best about analog is that I could get all the local stations with rabbit ears since I live about 7 miles from the city center. With the transition to digital, I had to purchase an outdoor antenna and wire my house for cable, since it's an old house and did not have cable before. So to watch the supposedly better DTV, I spent about $200 for the antenna and supplies. Now, I get great reception on clear days, but on rainy/cloudy days, it's awful. Unlike analog where bad reception would result in a snowy picture, digital pixelates and drops picture and audio signals into an unwatchable mess. I am about ready to throw in the towel and subscribe to cable. The broadcast networks don't realize it, but backing digital was their biggest mistake. Soon the OTA holdouts OTA who could only watch them will have to get cable, and the networks' market share will continue to slide into oblivion. DTV is shit.

Re:Digital went to shit when analogue died

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Fox went dark here in North Austin after the transition. Sounds like you've got it worse though...

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[DerekLyons]

but now, we'll spend more time outside enjoying our world.

So you're sitting indoors bitching on Slashdot... why?

Re:Progress (for the suburbs)

[artor3]

Living out in the country, I now only get 5 channels. Three are in Spanish, one seems to be non-stop evangelical sermons, and the last one is my local TV station. Also, the image frequently stutters, goes to a black "no signal screen", and comes back a minute or two later. It's completely unwatchable.

Yes, I've tried getting a better antenna, but website I've checked out indicate I would need a huge, expensive, directional one to have even a chance of getting good signal.

They've essentially turned off public television, and sold the profits to the highest bidder. At least I still have Hulu.

"Idiot box" is Green's favorite derogatory term...

[Dogtanian]

they need to hook up to get their fucking idiot box working again

Oh, I'm sorry... you were doing really well, and you blew it right at the last minute. ;-)

Any mention of "idiot box" results in an automatic link to this article and Godwinning of the original post. (^_^)

I agree

[zogger]

The government weather service should run some guaranteed to push through any possible crap dedicated TV signal with the local weather map, updated constantly. They have the radio weather alert of course, but seeing that radar image makes a big difference, digital TV in storms is the suxxorz. And I wouldn't care if that meant having to get another gadget, or maybe they could pick some analog freq so people could still use their old TVs in storms. The converter box we got has that analog pass through feature, just turn it off, back to analog.

THANK GOD NO MORE COMMERCIALS

[Angeliqe]

So now they can shut up about it now that it's finally happened?

Re:THANK GOD NO MORE COMMERCIALS

[Angeliqe]

Someone obviously has no sense of humor.

RTFA pays off for once

[kefler]

Well, I'm glad I saw this.. I thought because one of my channels moved from UHF to VHF I couldn't pick it up. But I followed the guide in the link and found the physical channel was wrong. Checked antenna web, updated the channel and it's working again. Thanks to the submitter for posting this!

Re:Why can't windows media player scan of channels

[Anonymous Coward]

I know! AND then I accidentally the whole thing!!1!1oneone1

When you live in the sticks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since DTV has less range, many of us can no longer get any over the air TV. In an emergency, will TimeWarner be there with a reliable cable TV signal? Doubt it.

Analog TV at least had the range to deliver information to towns (pop 30,000) like mine which are 60 miles from the real world.

I call BS

[DrJimbo]

IIRC, this reason for this forced transition was to get small rural communities to switch over to DTV. I live in rural New Mexico. All our signals arrive here via repeaters.

Only one out of five stations (ABC) made the transition. NBC simply went off the air (because making the transition to digital would be too expensive). PBS is also off the air but this may be becausetheir repeater got hammered in a storm.

So right now our local station, FOX, and CBS are still broadcasting in analog while ABC is only digital. The Zenith converter box I got (because it had analog pass-through) does not pass through analog signals without loss so I have to actually replug wires to switch stations.

For my little piece of rural America, this transition was about as smooth as sandpaper toilet tissue.

Re:I call BS

[Rick17JJ]

I live near Prescott, Arizona and also get all of my signals from a rural repeater. I am still getting 7 analog channels and only 1 digital channel.

The FOX network has been available as both an analog channel and a digital channel, for many months now. That is still my only digital channel, despite having had my converter box rescan again to today for new channels.

Some nearby hills block the digital signal from the Prescott station's transmitter on Mingus Mountain.

My Magnavox converter box also has analog pass-through, but like yours, mine weakens the analog signals to the point where they are unusable. So, I only connect the converter box when I want to watch that one digital channel. The rest of the time I connect the amplified rabbit ears antenna, either directly to the TV or directly to the DVD player.

For me, the DTV transition did not happen (except for that one channel).

Re:I call BS

[certsoft]

For my little piece of rural America absolutely nothing changed. Still get three craptacular analog translators (Oregon PBS and TWO copies of the same begging for jesus channel).

Re:I call BS

[Anonymous Coward]

PBS is also off the air but this may be because their repeater got hammered in a storm.

FWIW, Wikipedia shows all three PBS stations in NM as having digital broadcasts. My guess is it actually is the repeater.

Re:I call BS

[jonadab]

> IIRC, this reason for this forced transition was to get
> small rural communities to switch over to DTV.

There's rural and then there's rural.

When they were talking about getting "rural" communities to switch over to digital television broadcasting, I think they were mostly talking about stations serving small cities (between five thousand and fifty thousand people; a large percentage of the population resides in communities in that size range.) If you live in rural New Mexico, you probably think a city of thirty thousand people sounds pretty urban, but to somebody living in one of the big cities on the coast, that's "rural".

Areas that are *actually* rural, like yours, don't have very many television stations in the first place (you probably mostly get signal from repeaters) and also don't account for very much of the population.

Re:"Idiot box" is Green's favorite derogatory term

[Anonymous Coward]

Curses! You posted the joke first.

MOD PARENT UP.

Zero_DgZ == Annoying Onion Guy

I lost several channels. :(

[antdude]

I had most of the channels working on both analog and digital before the change. But now, I lost them due to VHF and DB2 bowtie antenna. Both rabbit ears and bowtie separately can't get all stations like KTTV 11, etc. Funny how all transmitters are in one location but yet I have to rotate, tilt, etc. my Terk rabbit ears. I never had to do that with my DB2 antenna before the 12th. :(

People think it is my old Air2PC HDTV tuner cards (2005) due to third generation vs. the newer ones. I really don't want to have to spend money to buy new cards nor buy cable/sattelite (subscriptions suck and am not rich). I also can't put an antenna on the roof and in the attic since owners refuse and I am disabled to do it myself.

Bah.

Re:I lost several channels. :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Both rabbit ears and bowtie separately can't get all stations like KTTV 11,

Something is screwed up with KTTV_DT and KCOP-DT since Friday. Give it a few days and scan again.

Re:I lost several channels. :(

[Pinky3]

I had most of the channels working on both analog and digital before the change. But now, I lost them due to VHF and DB2 bowtie antenna. Both rabbit ears and bowtie separately can't get all stations like KTTV 11, etc. Funny how all transmitters are in one location but yet I have to rotate, tilt, etc. my Terk rabbit ears. I never had to do that with my DB2 antenna before the 12th.

Your digital KTTV was on UHF channel 65; it is now on VHF channel 11. I have lost mine as well. The DB2 is great for all the UHF channels, but not so good for the VHF.

Re:I lost several channels. :(

[antdude]

Interesting stuff. I was able to get KTTV on my and folks' converter boxes (Zeinth and dTV Pal). All showed KTTV's signals in 50-60%. My PC's HDTV tuner cards can't get any signal locks. Even if it is lock, nothing. That includes rabbit ears for VHF. KCOP13, KABC7, and KCAL9 were decent.

Re:I lost several channels. :(

[ghostis]

Build one of these. Made a huge difference for me when I switched in Spring of 2008. I used steel picture wire. Other's have used copper wire, aluminum wire, or copper piping. It's directional so make sure you build it to be movable.

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

Re:I lost several channels. :(

[antdude]

The only problem is I am disabled so I am not a handy man. Is that finished antenna inside a place? Or outdoor which I can't do?

Re:I lost several channels. :(

[ghostis]

I put mine in my bay window (my wife is tolerant ;). I made it out of foam board, tin foil (reflector), wire so I could move it easily. The best way to make one is to make a large flat box with a face large enough to contain the two zigzag wires of the antenna. The box should be 10 cm thick (see right side of diagram). Put tin foil in the bottom on the inside (reflector). Bend two wires into the zigzag shapes and tap to the top on the outside. Buy a balun (two antenna wires -> coax) and two screw/nut sets to screw the balun to the wire in the middle (as shown on the plans). Connect the balun to your converter with a coax cable. We are getting Boston signals from 50 miles or so. Our only issue has been rain degrading the signal.

Re:I lost several channels. :(

[el_gato_borracho]

Try building one of *these*: simpler, much smaller, works very well for me: http://tvantennaplans.com/ Tip: mine works fine without the reflectors: it is just the board and coat hanger wires. I ran a coax from the TV up into my attic, where I have the antenna hanging by a nail.

Re:I lost several channels. :(

[jfreaksho]

Check your local (state) landlord/tenant law. Many states have clauses that landlords are required to allow you external antennas or dishes, with some restrictions. You might have to find a fellow geek to install it, or hire someone, but usually your landlord cannot prevent you from having an external antenna.
J.

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[blindseer]

but now, we'll spend more time outside enjoying our world.

So you're sitting indoors bitching on Slashdot... why?

Because it's raining? Another possibility is that you've made an incorrect assumption and this person is outside enjoying our world while bitching on Slashdot. Laptops with Wi-fi are wonderful things.

Re:Progress (for the suburbs)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's completely unwatchable.

That could be said of TV before the digital switchover too. 20 minutes of mind numbing commercials per hour pretty much forced people to get a TiVo or the like anyway. And the other 40 minutes? Not usually much better.

A perfect case of "and nothing of value was lost".

Re:"Idiot box" is Green's favorite derogatory term

[paralaxcreations]

I know it's a joke (duh, The Onion), but being a resident of Chapel Hill, I do believe I met that guy. At least 5 times a day.

Really, the population here is about 60% (obligatory made up percentage) people who don't watch TV and are (a little too) proud of it. As much as I love the people here, this breed is really f-ing annoying.

Granted, some of these people are the same people who will light bonfires just to jump over them whenever UNC wins a basketball game - the others are mostly townies who spend "prime time" tv hours getting wasted at one of the myriad local bars, so everything with a grain of salt, I suppose.

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[equivocal]

No TV here either. For all the alarmist crying which brought about the Feb-June delay, translators and those who watch them were shafted.

tvfool is a joke. The three stations it said I might receive are 30+ miles away on the other side of numerous high ridges. The LP translators I've been watching for decades, on the other hand, it said I could not receive even with a 500 foot high antenna.

I did spend some time outside Saturday...tending a patch of poison oak.

Re:"Idiot box" is Green's favorite derogatory term

[paralaxcreations]

I know it's a joke (Duh, The Onion), but living in Chapel Hill (where the "Area Man" is from) I think I met this guy. At least 5 times per day.

Seriously, the population of "I don't watch TV and am proud of it!" crowd here is a little alarming. And really annoying.

Granted, these are usually the same people who will start fires on Franklin Street just to jump over them every time UNC wins a basketball game, or townies who get wasted at one of the myriad local bars, so everything with a grain of salt, I suppose.

Re:"Idiot box" is Green's favorite derogatory term

[paralaxcreations]

Bah. Thought I navigated away before pressing submit. TV made me stupid, I guess ;)

Goodnight Sweet Prince

[Delicious Loli]

WAGA shutdown as seen on analog

Re:Why can't windows media player scan of channels

[jedidiah]

Well, obviously it wasn't automated enough.

Who's responsible for the guide data? Microsoft?

Are Tivo or Sage users having similar problems?

A lineup change is hardly an unusual occurence. Such things
have been commonplace since the very first Series 1 Tivos.
They happen and they need to be managed effectively in order
to avoid negating the value of a PVR.

This goes triple for a product that you're paying for.

ClearQAM affected

[AbsoluteXyro]

Fox has disappeared entirely from Comcast's ClearQAM selection since the switch. At least in Minneapolis. I wonder if they are still carrying it, or are simply encrypting it now (which I'm fairly certain is illegal)? At least it was the only casualty.

Re:ClearQAM affected

[Brett Buck]

Re-scan and look for it. I have been dealing with similar issues with COMCAST and the channels seem to move around on a weekly basis.

        Brett

Re:ClearQAM affected

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox has disappeared entirely from Comcast's ClearQAM selection since the switch.

This is a problem... how?

Never heard of it

[Turmoyl]

There's a Windows Media Center? Who knew?!

Re:Progress (for the suburbs)

[ottothecow]

They've essentially turned off public television, and sold the profits to the highest bidder.

I dont buy your argument. They changed the standard, they didnt turn off public access to OTA TV. Yes, there is a period where everything has to get sorted out but in 5 years, the signal strength issues will be sorted out, everyone will have a digital tuner, and the young teenagers who are being roped into fixing grandma's TV won't even remember a time when it was analog.

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[sshir]

That's a major problem in Washington DC area.

ABC(7) and CBS(9) turned off analog AND moved digital from UHF to VHF. As result, huge number of people lost these channels because of UHF-only antennas they use. You can "rescan" as many times as you want - if there is not much signal to begin with...

The thing is - people were watching digital already, and were not aware of the frequency move - the stations didn't warn anybody...

On top of everything it seems that digital does not go that far riding on VHF comparing to UHF (at least at the power level they transmitting)

Re:Why can't windows media player scan of channels

[Blakey Rat]

Who's responsible for the guide data? Microsoft?

I dunno. Presumably.

Are Tivo or Sage users having similar problems?

I dunno, I use Media Center.

This goes triple for a product that you're paying for.

Except Media Center is a free add-on to Windows, so you're not really paying for it. No more than you are for, say, Windows Movie Maker or Paint.

Tinfoil Hat Time!

[macs4all]

I live in the US State of Indiana, and on Friday morning, in amongst the rah-rah DTV ads, was ONE lonely ad that noted that if you lived in a list of about a dozen Indiana counties, you could expect NO SIGNAL AT ALL when the switchover occurred. here's an article listing at least 7 Indiana counties affected. Curiously, some of the Counties are in Northern Indiana, which is FLAT AS A PANCAKE, so what's with the "terrain" excuse?

I find it highly suspicious that that ad was:

1. Not aired until the DAY OF the transition

2. Not aired until AFTER President Obama publicly stated "There will be no more delays."

3. Was only aired ONCE (that I saw at least, watching for about 5 hours on the same channel that aired it) (meeting the legal requirements for "notice", but obviously intended to provide "notice" to as FEW people as possible).

I'm sorry, but a large chunk of American Taxpayers were instantly relegated to TV purgatory on Saturday, WITH NO SOLUTION OR EVEN A BACKUP PLAN IN SIGHT.

MOD PARENT UP

[Mr.Bananas]

In my opinion, the fools are the ones who shell out $50+ per month for mostly crap TV, not to mention the additional premium you have to pay to get those channels in "HD"...

OTA HD + Boxee is your friend...

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[mgblst]

Agreed. Everytime I stop watching tv, i never miss it. I find I have loads more time, and do a lot more programming. I see people who watch tv as just wasting so much of their lives, doing nothing. But then, people would probably describe me as a work-a-holic.

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[maxume]

VHF generally carries better than UHF. It also requires a larger antenna for fringe reception (almost any antenna should work inside of 30 miles).

Windows Media Center Guide

[rsmith-mac]

Actually it wouldn't be MS that fixes anything. The guide data comes from Zap2It. If there's a guide data issue, then Zap2It is not listing the correct data.

Re:Hi. I'm a Mac

[kingturkey]

No, Mac users just use their free, built in TV tuner software that updates TV listings from a free online service... Oh wait.

Wish I knew how to talk to Comcast about QAM

[SuperKendall]

It may just come back.

Twice now over the last several years, I've had almost all my ClearQAM channels just drop. Once I tried to call about this, but they inisted I had to have a converter box to watch digital TV and had no idea what the hell QAM even was...

Sadly the vanishment lasted a few months in my case (each time) but at least it did come back.

Perhaps you can talk your way up the tech tree and get some answers. I thought they were required to carry these signals as well.

Good luck...

*Do a rescan*

[Anonymous Coward]

Do a rescan. The same thing happened to us, but apparently some of the frequencies changed during the transition, so you have to rescan to get those channels back.

It's possible, but I doubt you actually lost any channels unless they just closed shop instead of going digital.

Re:Why can't windows media player scan of channels

[3waygeek]

Who's responsible for the guide data? Microsoft?
 
IIRC, Media Center gets its program guide from Zap2It. AFAIK, Zap2It is not owned by MS.

try a better antenna (was Re:Anecdote)

[WillAdams]

Similar difficulties here in the past --- when the local PBS affiliate was broadcasting in digital while everyone else was analog, I could receive them just fine w/ the rabbit ear antenna in the basement as a digital signal despite that being a non-optimal antenna configuration / location.

Since the digital switch over they've dropped their signal strength and in order to even begin to receive a signal I had to make an antenna out of wire hangers and move it up to the living room:

http://current.org/ptv/ptv0821make.pdf

If you're using rabbit ears, try the weird looking antenna --- it's ugly, but it works.

William

Re:try a better antenna (was Re:Anecdote)

[Bakkster]

Yeah, I'm already using a UHF/VHF antenna intended for digital TV. I've also tried orienting the antenna higher (other apartments are in the way) and rotating for any directionality, but nothing. I can get the other stations transmitted from the same tower, but not NBC. In my circumstances, I'm pretty sure the only way I will get the station again is if they increase their transmit power.

Re:try a better antenna (was Re:Anecdote)

[WillAdams]

The wire hanger antenna is supposed to be better than most of the commercial versions --- it's basically free so I'd suggest making one and trying it before dismissing it.

William

Re:try a better antenna (was Re:Anecdote)

[Bakkster]

The wire hanger antenna is supposed to be better than most of the commercial versions --- it's basically free so I'd suggest making one and trying it before dismissing it.

William

I may be an electrical engineer, but I don't have a 75 to 300 ohm matching transformer just lying around, hence it's not free.

Really, it's a principle thing. I was getting the digital signal fine until they used the DTV transition date as a convenient time to drop their power. Why should I have to do work and spend money to increase their ratings? Until then, I can deal without it, but it doesn't make me any less angry that it happened, and that they didn't feel the need to tell anyone their power would drop.

Huh?

[mcgrew]

The MSM are reporting that nearly a million people called their hot lines. "Smooth?" WTF???

Friday was a good day for my antenna-using friend who bought a digital TV because of this. Before February there were 7 or 8 analog channels one could get in Springfield with an antenna. After the February switch my froend got only three channels. After Friday's switcht with stations raising their power, he's got five.

No PBS, and NO NBC; the NBC station is in Decatur, close enough for a good analog signal, but too far for digital. I wonder, if I build a hovermann-gray antenna, will he get the Decatur station?

better reception w/ home made antenna

[WillAdams]

After the local PBS affiliate reduced their signal strength I had to make an antenna to get a signal:

http://current.org/ptv/ptv0821make.pdf

Anyone who is having reception difficulties who hasn't tried an antenna specifically designed for digital reception might want to consider it.

William

Re:Why can't windows media player scan of channels

[powerlord]

No.

Listing sources are for program guide data.

The system should still have the ability to scan for available channels so it can:

1) Update program channel mappings that might be incorrect

2) Add channels for which you might not have any program data (or might not have expected receiving), but still manage to pick up.

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[fm6]

If "making a fool of yourself" means getting your facts wrong, then you're a major clown. The big issue with UHF reception is usually not the quality of your antenna. UHF doesn't go through objects as easily as VHF, so living in the "shadow" of a hill or big building can eliminate your reception.

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[evilviper]

UHF doesn't go through objects as easily as VHF,

Radio waves (with very few exceptions) don't go "through objects" like a "hill" or a "big building" AT ALL.

Would you like to tell me what magic happens at the 300MHz mark that makes VHF "work" and UHF "fail" even though the distinction is an arbitrary frequency boundary?

Or would you like to admit that you're arguing nonsense out of pure ignorance?

Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF

[BanjoBob]

I live in the Rocky Mountains.