02-09-2009, 03:39 AM
Gutenberg wrote:LOL!!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=100357828
Excerpt:
"When we did our testing — and we did an awful lot of testing before this system was adopted — it performed better than analog," insists Donovan.
Nevertheless, he says, when it comes to the brave new world of digital TV, you may need to employ a very old-school fix to improve your reception.
"Move your antenna just a bit." Donovan advises. "When anyone is trying to receive a signal over the air, you have issues. You have it with your cell phones. Once you get the spot, you're fine."
Donovan thinks a fairly small number of viewers are going to lose reception. But Michael Copps, the new acting chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is worried the number will be more substantial. Copps recently addressed the FCC's Consumer Advisory Committee.
"Some consumers, through no fault of their own, are going to lose one or more channels as a result of the transition," Copps told the committee. "That we did not understand this better long ago through better analysis, tests and trial runs is, to me, mind-boggling."
The FCC did some in-house testing, and its engineers came away with fairly encouraging results. The problem, says Goodstadt, is that their tests assumed that most people have outside antennas.
"The FCC's analysis was flawed," Goodstadt says. "The standard is based upon an assumption that all consumers who want to receive analog TV have a rooftop directional antenna at 10 meters or 33 feet above the ground. And that's not the case for most people."
Please give a link for this alleged "FCC Assumption" of a 10 meter antenna mast?
Man, that analyst is just pulling stats out of his azz!
Most towns/cities won't even let you put up an antenna mast that high.
BGnR