[Jeffhs]

I've said this before, but will say it again--the FCC should have left the old NTSC television system alone, as everyone knew where all the stations were in a given area with that system; there was none of this business with subdivided channels and so on as there is today, and not nearly as much confusion. Moreover, with analog NTSC, you could get a snowy picture if the signal was weak; with digital, it is all or nothing--either you see a picture or you don't. This is very likely frustrating for OTA viewers trying to watch a particular channel, and having to move the antenna around the room trying to find the spot with the strongest signal. Even cable channels run into problems like this every now and then. I have TW basic cable (no box), and every once in a while the pictures will pixelate or freeze on the screen; the sound goes when the picture acts up, of course. This was all but unheard of with analog NTSC TV, but with DTV we have to be ready for a bunch of new problems. When DTV works it works very well (I can notice the difference in picture quality even on my 10-year-old RCA CTC-185 analog set), but when it goes awry ... look out.

My goodness! Who would have thought that the digital transition would cause so many problems with OTA reception, finding the stations on your TV, etc.? Because of DTV, every local TV station in the US has had to replace transmitters, antennas, and so forth, which causes confusion for viewers because the stations often wind up on digital channels that often are quite different from the stations' RF channels.

The DTV OTA reception problems are something else TV viewers don't need, but are experiencing in some areas, especially those that have DTV stations on VHF channels. Many of these VHF stations have applied to the FCC for permission to increase transmitter power, as one station did in Philadelphia last summer, not long after the transition. Other VHF DTV stations are seeking permission to move to UHF channels. I'm not sure by any means, but since the transition I think every one of Cleveland's television stations, including our three original network ones, are now operating on UHF frequencies. However, to viewers with DTV converter boxes or using TVs connected directly to cable, the channels will appear as whole numbers on the channel displays, as I mentioned in another post.

I was surprised to read in the informational post on upper Michigan's "The CW7" station that indoor antennas absolutely cannot be used for reception of DTV stations on channel 2. The article stated that a standard, full-length antenna is required for optimum (or in some cases and in some reception areas, any) reception of stations telecasting on that channel. I can remember the old Rembrandt VHF/UHF rabbit ears TV antennas that had 102" (well, in any case, very long) dipoles, the full length of which was needed in those days for optimum reception of VHF analog channel 2.

That was then. This is now, however; we have come almost full circle in the last 60 years. I have a feeling that an updated version of those old Rembrandt set-top antennas with long dipoles and amplifiers may appear in stores before too long, for use by folks who cannot use outdoor TV antennas and/or refuse to pay for cable or satellite.

If most TV stations eventually move to UHF, however, the antennas will be much smaller, but the amplifier (if any) would be retained as many DTV stations, even those transmitting on UHF channels, are still too weak to be received well with indoor antennas in all signal areas. The best bet, if it is at all possible, however, is to use an outdoor antenna for DTV, unless you are within a stone's throw (literally) of the stations' towers. DTV signals are still too weak in most areas, or there are other problems such as reflections and/or dead spots, to be received reliably (or at all) with indoor antennas, even amplified ones.