Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DTV Transition Mostly Smooth, Windows Media Center Problems

Posted by Soulskill on from the muh-tv-dun-broke dept.

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.

52 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Anecdote by maxume · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    1. Re:Anecdote by maxume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Anecdote by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    3. Re:Anecdote by Ken_g6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    4. Re:Anecdote by Patch86 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Anecdote by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

      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...)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Anecdote by akpoff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Anecdote by VanessaE · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Anecdote by kbradford · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  2. It Worked by Surbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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]

    1. Re:It Worked by Skreems · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    2. Re:It Worked by ionix5891 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    3. Re:It Worked by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  3. Wow manually edit configuration files. by yourassOA · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Wow manually edit configuration files. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Comment of the year
    2. Re:Wow manually edit configuration files. by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Wow manually edit configuration files. by value_added · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  4. Progress by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    1. Re:Progress by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    2. Re:Progress by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  5. I was pleasantly surprised... by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    1. Re:I was pleasantly surprised... by Penguin · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      - Peter Brodersen; professional nerd
    2. Re:I was pleasantly surprised... by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Funny

      US News un-bias-o-matic

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

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  6. Re:Really Cool things happened. by crazyprogrammer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

    --
    "the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached to it." - Grandpa Simpson
  7. Well Done by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  8. Only in Slashdot will a totally unrelated... by freedom_india · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  9. Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  10. Seriously, why should we care? by Zero_DgZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Seriously, why should we care? by DannyO152 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Seriously, why should we care? by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Seriously, why should we care? by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Seriously, why should we care? by paralaxcreations · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Seriously, why should we care? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Funny

      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!

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Seriously, why should we care? by jonadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > 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.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    7. Re:Seriously, why should we care? by paralaxcreations · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  11. Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF by sponga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  13. Re:I made the switch. I switched to OFF by evilviper · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  14. It is reasonable by ratboy666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    1. Re:It is reasonable by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  15. Re:Really Cool things happened. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Comment of the year
  16. Digital went to shit when analogue died by WiiVault · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 .

    1. Re:Digital went to shit when analogue died by Titoxd · · Score: 3, Informative

      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)...

  17. Re:Really Cool things happened. by Titoxd · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's your analog nightlight at work...

  18. I call BS by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  19. I lost several channels. :( by antdude · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  20. Re:Definitely not a feature by marklar1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!

  21. Never heard of it by Turmoyl · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  22. Re:Why can't windows media player scan of channels by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    Comment of the year
  23. Tinfoil Hat Time! by macs4all · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  24. MOD PARENT UP by Mr.Bananas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

  25. better reception w/ home made antenna by WillAdams · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.