f13.net

So I made the digital transition yesterday since our coupon for a DTV box was about to expire.  I purchased this and a quantum antenna that I was told was the best that could be bought at Target.  I put it all together (which went very smoothly might I add) and then proceed to scan in the channels.  About 3-5 minutes later the scanner "found" 14 channels.  I use the remote to see what it found.. and I have 11 channels of pixilated garbage that on a clear day reminds me of the pixilization problems Direct TV had on a satellite in the middle of a thunderstorm.  So much for this, "improved picture and sound quality" bull shit you see at dtv.gov.  Of the St. Louis news stations, I can get FOX only.  Both ABC, CBS, and NBC are virtually nonexistant.  While the box "found" the signal its completely unwatchable. 

This direct TV bullshit is a scam.  Someone in the FCC needs to be fired and permanently. This "is more flexible and efficient than the current analog system,"  is complete garbage.  To me it looks like an effort to get you to:

1.  Pay for cable  ie:  Bleed more money from the consumer.
2.  Take that which was not broken and break it irrepairably.


They promised more channels and the bottom line is they are delivering a lot less and the quality is absymal.  Apart from Fox all I can get clearly is some damn prayer channel and something that looks like a kid threw it together.  Absolute fucking crap from the people who brought us bullshit buy the truckload.  Obviously another Repub success story. 

I haven't been paying much attention to this subject in general, but isn't it possible that you are having problems simply because the actual transition to digital has been delayed (by Obama, ironically) and nobody is yet really sending/not sending at an acceptable signal strength?  I really have no idea, but this is what occurred to me upon reading your post.

I think people need to start complaining to their legislatures and fast.  If this is the "digital transition,"  then it needs to be stopped not delayed.  Stopped sooner rather than waiting for TV stations to get their act together and give you a higher quality picture later.  Paying more and getting less is simply not acceptible to me.  According to this web site:

http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/Stations.aspx

I should be getting alot more stations instead of the three (including faith freak channel) that I currently get.  Of the list only 4 are listed as coming online in June.  The rest simply aren't broadcasting with sufficient signal strength would be my guess.


EDIT:  ONE MORE THING

This just occurred to me.  Even if we get all these channels at best in our home.  Is the line up really any better then what you got with analog?  I am looking at this and I see no additions to the line up at all over what I had.   I thought one selling point to this was that we were going to get more channels in the digital transition.  This simply doesn't appear to be the case at all.  Even if it was coming in with brilliant clarity nothing new was added.

Try a different antenna.  Do not listen to the tools at Target.  Would you let that same pimple-faced 17 year old work on your home computer? No? Think on why that is, and apply it to your antenna.

One of my coworkers does not have cable either, and she's gone through this transition already.  She told me that they went through 4 set-top antennas via trial and error to get the one they currently have and it's working great.  

From what she researched: Line of sight is going to be even more important with a digital antenna than it was with analog, since digital does not allow for 'snowy' pictures. If it can't get a good signal, it simply won't show that channel.  Yes, this means a return to the days of 40' arial towers, so I hope you don't live in a subdivision.  If you do, start trying to figure out a way to hang that $200 antenna in your attic, and hope your truss webbing allows you to do it at all.


Several broadcasters made the switch anyway.  Their analog equipment was about to die, and since they'd seen the mandate coming they haddn't repaired/ upgraded it in the preceeding years.  There was no turning back, so they shrugged and flipped the switch anyway. (There's been a few NPR stories on this.)  The result has been a sort of phased transition in some markets, where people have lost some channels but not others.  The FCC has said "y'know.. we're getting 3k calls a day now, imagine if it had been EVERYONE at once.  We should have thought of this phasing thing when the transition was first planned."   :oh_i_see:

Ed: Oh, also DTV was a joint legislation, IIRC.  I first heard about it back in '96/ 97 and it was supposed to have happend back in '01 or '02.  We're years behind other countries, llike Japan, on this and it needs to happen to free-up broadcast space.   

Indoor antennas work like crap, especially for HDTV, unless you happen to have a window you can stick it by and all your TV signals just happen to be coming in from that direction and even then it's going to be hit or miss.

You'll need an antenna you can stick outside, preferably on the roof with a clear line of sight to your local broadcast towers. If you already have an old "analog" rooftop antenna you can try that. Many of those will work just fine and you won't need to upgrade to a fancier antenna (like this one (http://www.dennysantennaservice.com/1073325.html)).

Edit: then

Actually the FCC set aside HOA restrictions on antennas and satellite dishes a few years ago. As said above, digital doesn't come in snowy, it either comes in or it doesn't. Some people will have "ok" signals that are now perfect and pristine digital ones, other people will have ones that don't come in as well and will now be unwatchable. You might need to try a couple of different antennas. You might also look at something between a set top and a roof mount. I remember having a long stick antenna that sat on the floor behind the couch and was significantly better than rabbit ears.

From what I know, some, but not all, channels will be moving to different frequencies once they stop broadcasting in analog, so it might improve over time.

I do not think it's a mistake, I think it was and is a good idea, but it is change and there are going to be winner and losers.

Translation:  Good Idea for the stockholders of Charter and Direct TV, bad idea for the consumers.

Depends on where you live. In the SF Bay Area all the major local stations and almost all of the minor ones have been broadcasting both analog and digital for quite some time now but even then where you live in the area will affect how good an "over-the-air" signal you can get. E.g. where I used to live ABC (KGO) is the weakest of the major stations (FOX, CBS, NBC, PBS) and I couldn't get some of the minor stations at all.

It's going to depend on your local stations but here in the Bay Area there are substantially more "over-the-air" digital channels than analog ones. Most of the major stations have multiple digital "sub channels" instead of just the single analog channel. E.g. instead of just, say, channel "4", you'll have "4.1", "4.2", "4.3" and "4.4". Of course most of the stuff on the other channels is just crap but it's there.

Our PBS channel now has regular programming in HD, then has PBS kids, world, creative, and family channels in regular definition. They also have some NPR audio on a subchannel somewhere.

Also in digital, you get a full schedule like satellite or cable offers as well.

No you can get "snowy" pictures with digital TV though you'll see giant random colored "macroblocks" instead of the static you get with analog signals. The "window" where that will happen though is pretty small. Most of the time you either get a clean pictures or nothing at all as you said.

I spent days tweaking multiple amplifiers at my previous location so I could get a strong enough signal from the digital channels I wanted to record without adding so much noise that the noise created it's own macroblock distortion. Despite all my tweaking some stations like the local ABC station mentioned above, were always just wandering in and out of that window area where some days it was okay, other days it was "snowy", and other days I couldn't get anything at all.

I've been immensely pleased with the digital transition so far.  Everything comes in better than it did with analog (even with an indoor antenna), and we've got a bunch of extra channels, some of which are actually worthwhile (like the extra PBS channel that shows lots of BBC stuff).  The digital broadcasts also come with listing information, so we've got TV Guide built into our TV now, like you'd get with digital cable (but free).

Sucks for those of you in the boonies though.

There is also "lifeline cable" which is usually not listed on their website and you would have to inquire about, but it has locals, cspan, and fundie and shopping channels (because they pay the system to be carried). Here it's I think $9/month.

Really?  News to me, I'll have to ask around the land office to see if they know anything about it.

That PBS station (KQED) also has a cooking channel as one of their digital channels. The quality is horrific (shows are encoded at incredibly low bitrates) but it's great if your into cooking.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

I've loved the digital transition in the UK, better picture quality generally and way more channels to boot. Plus it involves buying a little set top box and bang, it's all free.

Sucks if you're miles and miles from any antennae though, also sounds like it sucks your transition is being handled shitastically.

Interesting, thanks!

There is also the issue that a lot of stations are still not running their digital signals at "full power" because the analog signals are still being broadcast. Once the deadline hits, many channels will come in clearer because they will be allowed to broadcast at higher power levels.

One thing you need to remember is that some full power analog towers would be able to broadcast to people for hundreds of miles around. Everything I have read leads me to believe that the digital stations, even the highest power ones, will not be able to reach as far simply because of the nature of where the signal decoder makes the cutoff with regards to what is a usable signal.

My experience is otherwise.  Some of the new channels I'm getting are channels that I couldn't pick up well before because they were too far away (in particular KTEH, the San Jose PBS station).

Sadly I don't know enough about the tech to say with certainty why exactly this would be so, but I would guess that the reason to go to a "digital" format in the first place would be that it offers some sort of compression and/or redundancy, like we've been using in software for decades now to get data from point A to point B in the most efficient manner possible in the face of slow or unreliable connections.  I.e. going from the equivalent of transferring uncompressed data over UDP to the equivalent of transferring compressed data over TCP.  If my understanding is at all accurate and that is more or less how it works, I would also expect the range to be better, not worse.

Fuck this shit. I have cable.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090302/ap_on_hi_te/tec_digital_tv_reception

Free but fickle, digital TV reception eludes some

Harry Vanderpool, a beekeeper, lives on a hill nearly 1,000 feet above the Willamette River, outside Salem, Ore. It should be a good spot for TV reception, and it used to be.

But now that analog signals are disappearing, leaving only digital ones, he may be losing all his channels.

"When you listen to the advertisements, it's 'Oh, all you have to do is get this little digital converter box and hook it up,'" Vanderpool said. "Well, we get nothing. Zero signal strength."

While generally better than analog, digital reception with antennas can be tricky. Although millions of people will receive more channels when switching to digital, many others are finding that stations they used to get in analog form won't come in on their converter boxes or digital TV sets.

In Ionia, Mich., retiree Bruce Jones is down to watching the two or three channels, rather than the dozen he used to get.

"They tell me I need an outdoor antenna, which I just can't afford," he said. To spare the $10 for the converter box, he had "cut out a day of groceries."

It's not just rural and small-town viewers like Vanderpool and Jones who are having problems with the phase-out of analog TV, which has been on the air for nearly 70 years. It's being done to give more room on the airwaves to wireless broadband, TV for cell phones and emergency communications.

In Hollywood, broadcast engineer Dana Puopolo gets the local stations fine with an indoor antenna in his bedroom, where he gets a view of the broadcast towers on Mt. Wilson, a dozen miles away. But even an amplified indoor antenna isn't enough to supply a watchable image to his widescreen TV, which is in the living room on the other side of the apartment.

"You can get it so the picture's perfect, and then when you sit down, 30 seconds later it pixelates into oblivion," Puopolo said, describing how the picture breaks up into big chunks of color. "The dirty little secret about digital is that it doesn't have nearly the coverage of analog."

A third of the country's TV stations have already turned off their analog signals. Many of them stuck to the original Feb. 17 deadline set by the government, even though it was hastily extended to June 12 to provide additional funding for converter box coupons. However, most of the stations that have turned off early are in smaller cities and sparsely populated areas. The big-city stations are mostly waiting until June 12.

On Feb. 18, the day after more than 400 stations went all-digital, nearly half of the 25,320 people who called the Federal Communications Commission's DTV call center did so because of a reception or antenna issue. Of the rest, most called because they had problems relating to the converter boxes or coupons.

There are several issues that conspire to make digital reception tricky. They can be especially vexing because digital broadcasting is an all-or-nothing proposition: You either get a perfect image or you get nothing at all. The only in-between state is the intermittent freezing that Puopolo experienced, which is more irritating than snow or static wandering across the screen of an analog TV.

A study published last year by market research firm Centris estimated that more than half of all households will have problems with digital reception. The study was criticized by several groups as exaggerating the problem. The FCC itself said 5 percent of households were likely to have problems.

Vanderpool's reception problem is likely due to the fact that nearly all digital signals are in the UHF band, which doesn't travel well over hills compared with the VHF band — channels 2 through 13, where most major stations broadcast in analog. While Vanderpool is on a hill himself, his home is in a small dell. Even the UHF addition to his antenna doesn't seem to overcome that.

The FCC official in charge of engineering and technology, Julius Knapp, said that when a station moves from VHF to UHF, there are spots where the signal will not reach as well as it did before, even though overall coverage will be the same.

The good news for people like Vanderpool is that some stations will use their VHF frequencies for digital transmissions after June 12.

But overall, there will be fewer VHF TV signals because channels 2 to 6 in that band are difficult to use for digital transmission, particularly the lowest ones. As Puopolo put it, the electrical noise from a thunderstorm or a passing bus can disrupt a digital TV picture on those frequencies.

And moving digital signals from UHF to VHF carries its own set of problems. Some indoor antennas that have been marketed as being for "HDTV reception" are designed for UHF only and will do a poor job with VHF. In general, it's difficult to make good indoor antennas for VHF.

Bruce Franca, vice president of policy and technology at the Association for Maximum Service Television, a broadcast industry group, said new "smart" antennas can help a lot of people. These can direct themselves electronically to pick up the best signals, which is particularly useful in households that lie between major cities. In his home outside Washington, D.C., he uses a smart antenna pick up both Washington and Baltimore stations.

"I can watch both the Orioles and Nationals, and you don't have get up and adjust the antenna," he said.

Many stations now have an analog antenna at the top of their transmission tower and a digital one mounted lower down on the side of the tower. Many plan to eventually move the digital antenna to the top, which can improve coverage. The FCC also has given stations clearance to put up a new type of small repeater station for digital signals to help with coverage in hard-to-reach pockets.

There are other developments that are likely to improve reception in the future, but it's not clear if people who have reception problems will have the patience to wait for them, or if they'll conclude on June 13 that they need to pay for satellite or cable.

Puopolo has already given up on over-the-air TV, expanded his satellite package for $10 a month to get high-definition programming for his widescreen. But, he said, digital TV can catch up, just like color TV did after some initial problems.

"Remember the old color TVs that had color controls? You'd adjust the knob to get a good flesh tone, and then you'd sit down and 10 minutes later the guy would have a purple face, and you'd have to adjust again," he said. "It's like any technology — there's growing pains."

This really isn't poltical so I've renamed and moved to General.

I just skimmed the thread, so excuse me if somebody already said this:

I love the digital TV switch.  We didn't have cable and only went of local channels for a long time.  We made the switch, and now I litterally get 3 times as many channels as I did before, and almost all of them come in amazing quality.  I mean seriously, its like having a new TV after having to deal with analog for so long.  Not sure what your problem is, but everything for us works great.  We get the digital pixalated issues sometimes, but then we just move the antenna around a bit and it's suddenly fixed.  Did I mention the shear amount of new channels we get is amazing (and holy god, the quality!)?

TL;DR:  This digital switch over is probably the best thing the government ever actually did for me  :awesome_for_real:.  I'm just pissed the incompetent assholes didn't do it sooner now.

I think I have 2x as many channels as I did with SDTV, and the content is 2x better as well. Of the new channels I care about (yeah there were 12 Jesus freak channels, but I just deleted them) are 4 different PBS stations, and a movie channel that actually plays good movies that you don't see often, along with some good old shows like Mr. Ed (fuck yeah). I'm using an indoor antenna as well.

The issues with antenna reception are based on the choice by the FCC to choose 8VSB over (C)OFDM for signal transmission.

Long story short, if you are in a city, live near trees, have a hill nearby or live near a road you will have issues with radio signals bouncing.  This is called multipath.  8VSB has severe issues with multipath, which is why the image may pause, stutter, pixilate or just go black.  Since most people in cities use cable, and would therefore not use antennas, the FCC saw no issue with this problem. 

So, rather than allowing you to get a reliable free HDTV signal like in Europe and Japan, you must subscribe to cable or satellite if you live in a city and want reliable HDTV coverage.

More than half of the population in the US will have an issue receiving the same channels they could get for free using a set top antenna before the switch.

How stupid is that? (C)OFDM was designed specifically FOR Over the Air Digital Transmission. Not only to reduce multi-path fading but also because it allows for the deployment of single frequency networks so does use the frequency band more efficiently.

Let me introduce you to my little friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying)

The problem is also that set top, indoor antennas suck ass for the most part.  Get your ass up on the roof and you'll be in business.

I'm about to drop all of my cable aside from the internet connection.  My issue is that basic cable is pretty much worthless, and by the time you start putting a decent package together you're getting to around $150 a month.  That's a little bit more than half my monthly car payment.  Fuck that noise.  At this point I'm quite happy with my media computer, since I can stream Netflix, Hulu, etc.  Hopefully I'll get my hot little hands on the Boxee Windows alpha, and with an OTA antenna that'll get me even further away from needing cable TV.

The cable companies should be scared shitless of people like me, since all we really want them to be is a data carrier.  Say goodbye to your revenues.

At least here that gets you the lifeline package as well with all the local channels + cspan + paid-to-carry.

My mother won a couple, lost a couple. She gets about twice as many channels now, but they all come in like shit, sound cuts out and pixellizationing. Before some channels were snowy, but watchable. Now they're mostly unwatchable. Signal strength is in the shitter, lost several channels entirely.

I also laugh at the improved picture and sound claims, roofles.

Not here.  I just moved and had to get a new cable drop anyway, so I figured I'd give their TV another chance (I've been using Dish Network).  Last time I dropped everything but internet they sent out a tech to put some sort of inhibitor on my line so I couldn't get TV off of the same cable.  Maybe that's SOP for Charter?

ETA:  Okay, just dropped my promotional package of Basic HDTV and phone service, but kept my internet, in fact, I changed my internet from 5 MB down/50K up to 20 MB down/2MB up for $8 more.  So basically I've got no TV (unless they don't put a filter block on my line) and no phone (but I do have a Skype-in account anyway), but I've got a killer internet connection.   :rock_hard:

I read that the old school UHF antenna (the circle) works best as an indoor antenna. I have one of those amplifier deals, it works OK but at times I have to adjust it and once in a while, a station will not be available. As stated, you either get a signal or you do not. If you don't, it's ugly blocks of pixels and intermittent picture…

…if you live a ways from the transmitter stick, you might have to mount an external antenna on the roof…

…in the Phoenix area, each local station has 3 or 4 channels (i.e., 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4) and while some of them just run weather/radar maps on the extra channels, others actually have a variety of programming (PBS for example, and a local station that runs old movies/old sitcoms on the various "bands")…

And if you have signal, there's no comparison on quality — it makes cable (even the HDTV cable which is badly compressed) look like standard TV v. HDTV and is better than satellite feeds (especially local channels satellite offers that are not up to the same quality their dedicated HD channels are)…

For us, they put a limiter on that cut off "expanded basic cable' but not the "lifeline" stuff.

We don't use it either way, we have DirecTV and a DVR.

Who is your cable provider? Comcast's local station HD programming here in the SF Bay Area is comparable in quality to the OTA HD broadcasts. The local FOX station is essential at identical bitrates on both. CBS, NBC, and ABC are at about 15% - 20% lower bitrates on Comcast than OTA but its nothing that you can see (e.g. CBS in HD is ~13 Mbps on Comcast vs ~16 Mbps OTA).

Cox

I'm forced to keep cable for local sports coverage with Comcast, since they use a loophole in order to refuse to broadcast Comcast SportsNet OTA, or through sat uplink - landline-only.

Standard HD bandwidth level is 19.2 Mbps (for 1080i, which has become the standard, I think it is 18Mbps for 720P), rather than 1080p, which is what the core satellite signal (from the station's dish farm to the world) goes out at.  Most OTA stations leave that alone, or compress it slightly if they're at a lower frequency and trying to piggy-back all the extra subchannels into it.  But the standard cable HD MUX has a bandwidth limit of 42Mbps, which was intended to carry one 1080p station or two 1080i or 720p stations with no extra compression and leave a little to spare.  However, there's a limit to how many of those you can fit into a single physical coax trunk, and the cable companies have not even gotten close to replacing all of those with fiber.  Satellite can carry a lot more, several hundred at 1080i, without degrading them.  That lets them carry just about every available HD network, *and* local stations from every market over 1M population (so no need for a second antenna for OTA reception of your local channels).

To try and close that variety gap a little, cable companies routinely squeeze that 19.2 Mbps signal down to 13.5Mbps (so they can fit 3 per MUX).  And that crosses the threshold from where you need to freeze-frame to to see compression artifacting in fast-changing scenes, to the point where just about every car chase, music video, or fight scene is obviously losing detail and occasionally outright skipping 1/10th of a second or so of the video, or stuttering the sound.  Plus it pushes the MUX so close to its limits that if anything at all degrades in the physical cable or the equipment, you're going to have a block of 3 channels that completely suck.  If that's your local network channels or your favorite premium HD movie network, you're just screwed.

--Dave

I don't agree that it's obvious and I'm constantly editing recorded HDTV video so I'm constantly looking at individual frames. Maybe where you are at it's an issue but not with the Comcast Digital cable local broadcast channels in HD here where I live in the SF Bay Area.

You may be in one of the areas they've upgraded all of the trunks to fiber.  The Bay Area would certainly be a prime candidate for that.  Or your original system may use a double-trunk (before you went digital/HD, did you have two cables coming into the cable box?), relieving the bandwidth problem.  I just recently switched from cable to satellite, and the difference in fast HD scenes is obvious and dramatic.

--Dave

That may be.

Dunno, I would have to climb a power line pole to check that.

I am trying to hate satellite, but you are crumbling my resolve.  Stop with all the indisputable facts and positive commentary!

If you live anywhere that gets regular weather you can hate Satellite all you want.  In south Florida DirecTV was next to worthless.  At certain times of the year it seems to rain pretty much every evening and so every evening you can't watch TV for an hour or two.

Big storm?  Can't go outside?  Well, can't watch TV either.

I did it for 6 months, the problem is a FATAL Flaw

Sounds to me like your dish wasn't aimed properly. Other than complete utter downpours when we're wondering if we should hide in a door jam we never lose signal.

Yeah, I've only had one episode where I was losing signal, and it was the heaviest rain Austin had seen since I moved here, and even then I only lost signal when the thunderheads were passing over.  There are things you can do to compensate for that as well, starting with getting a slightly larger dish (for a while the default was a 15-inch dish that did lose the signal if there was any rain at all). Put up a 24-inch dish and you'll be fine, I'm told treating the bowl of the dish with Rain-X helps as well.  It also matters how far north you are (although that wouldn't apply to Florida any more than it does to Texas), the lower the angle the dish is aimed, the more atmosphere you're peering through.

It matters which service you sign up with, as well.  I think Dish Network may still be installing 15-inch dishes unless you pay for an upgrade (I went with DirecTV, they had a better HD-DVR).

--Dave

I'm currently pretty far east of Phoenix, using an ancient, crappy indoor antenna in a chickenwire&stucco building. I get 6 analog channels, and about 30 digital nice and clear. Granted, 12 or so are religious, Mexican, or religious Mexican channels. And a couple Tucson stations if I aim the antenna just right.

So, get a decent tuner and a decent antenna, your problems will be less.

Oh and to add to my previous post about how I'm getting good reception with a shitty tv and a shitty indoor antenna, I live on a hill surrounded by trees. The TV god smiles on me I guess.

Still, I agree with all the bitching here, the whole thing seems like just another lobbying fiasco.

Ok, I've been the one not subscribing to conspiracy theories about digital transition and who benfits.

However, I got a flyer in the mail from comcast talking about the transition and offering "basic" cable (ie, lifeline) for $10 a month. I'm pretty sure that's the normal price btw. If not, it's 10.50 or something. Free for a year if you get comcast phone.

And yes, someone picking up basic cable from broadcast would be a big win as all of the channels in basic are either free or actually pay money to be there (fundie/shopping). It's 100% profit.

Comcast are assweasels of the highest order, and I would live without internet, TV, or phone before giving them a goddamn dime of my money.

As one who grew up in a place where you got 3 channels over the air and 2 were fuzzy\static even with a quality antenna, I can't imagine anyone trying to get signal over the air.

You've obviously never had Qwest phone service....They make Comcast look like gods.

Antennas are finicky bitches.  Never trust amplifiers, they don't work worth a damn and can't even begin to compensate for having a crap antenna.  It's been too many years since I was taking my amateur radio exams, but I do still remember enough to say for sure that you'll get more mileage out of a well-tuned antenna than trying to shove electricity into the signal with a $50 box of crap electronics from Best Buy.  There is an ideal length and orientation for an antenna meant to pick up a given wavelength.  The super-nerds of radio fiddle that length into various shapes to make an antenna better at picking up signals in various directions and other things that I'm lacking the degrees to fully understand, but the basic 'signal wavelength x is best received by antenna size y' still holds true as your basic rule.

tl;dr:

Find an antenna specialist.  Find out where your broadcast towers are in relation to your home.  If feasible, get a narrow directional antenna pointed to those towers, and bonus points if you can get it on a tall pole.  If you have to go omni-directional, get the antenna in a place with as few walls in the way as possible.  Outdoors is ++, attic is +, in the living room buried in the center of your labyrinthine cinderblock-walled home is --.

I would agree on the company, but I have found that I prefer them to living without the internet. And they have a monopoly. DSL doesn't reach our home and Verizon's chairman has outright stated we will never get FIOS on Cape Cod.

a link from Trippy's favorite antenna's website:  http://antennaweb.org/aw/Address.aspx (http://antennaweb.org/aw/Address.aspx) plug in your zip (no need to fill out the rest) hit submit, center the map on your neighborhood click next and it gives you estimated signal strength along with the directions the broadcasts are coming from. another win for teh internetz!

This is the heart of the matter.  No amplifier in the world can help you when you have an absolutely terrible signal coming in.  Weak signals can be compensated, but flat out missing data or white noise is never going to be helped.  An antenna specialist (or even just researching on your own) will more than make up for having to deal with the morons down at your local alliteration electronics.  A good antenna that can pick up the signal is key.  Years ago my grandfather had one that you could move via stepper motor from inside the house to obtain the best signal from a certain direction.

Was at my mom's last night for dinner, tried watching extreme home makeover. Picture and sound constantly cutting out, she says that's how all but two of her stations are. Her tv is basically unwatchable and she's thinking about getting rid of it entirely.

And one of those 'superior picture and sound' ads came on during the break and we kinda got a laugh out of the picture breaking up and sound cutting out. Would've just been a little snow and white noise, but it used to be watchable.