The number of people the transition effects that are still only using analog antenna’s is so small that it is not an issue…furthermore, it is even less likely for a CI’s customer to use an antenna over cable or satellite service.

over the past 10 years I have run into exactly 2 people who use an antenna and have no cable or satellite service out of probably 30-40,000 households.

Where the bulk of the transition issues will arise is when cable companies stop broadcasting a standard analog signal and go to just digital requiring their customers to upgrade their service…or buy a new TV and try to make it work with its atsc/QAM tuner.

It’s generally accepted that somewhere between 10% and 15% of US households rely on over-the-air antennas for TV and do not use a cable or satellite service.  I don’t consider that to be “so small that it is not an issue.”

The situation described in this article applies mainly to people who had not previously used OTA TV, but had UHF-only antennas installed specifically to receive HDTV.  There are probably more people who will have the opposite problem: they had VHF-only antennas installed many years ago, to watch the big three OTA networks, most of whose analog stations are in the VHF band.  Some of their digital stations are likely to be on UHF after the transition.

I think its a big issue out of nothing. The FCC recommended installers to install an antenna using “Smart Antenna Technology” to prevent this problem from happening. Most digital receivers and coverters were suppose to be compatable with the Smart Antenna.

The Smart Antennas were and still are not widely available, and the range of these antennas is roughly 30 miles.

Did this article mention why the tweak(s) is required or the nature of it?  Am I just missing it, or is it supposed to obvious to me that moving from UHF to VHF requires antenna tweaking?

Is it a directional thing?  Am I supposed to trim the antenna elements to fine tune it?  Add additional elements?  Jon implies I may need multiple or multi-band antennas…

No I’m not an antenna guy, just curious…

Steve,
There is a big difference in the size of a VHF and UHF antenna.

If you want to pick up channels 2-6 in a “fringe” area, you will need a very large and cumbersome antenna. That little set of rabbit ears camped out on top of the wall unit ain’t gonna cut it. Channels 7-13 require a slightly smaller antenna, and the UHF channels use the smallest, most compact antennas and have the best range.

So your local “Channel 4” may be a good bit tougher to pick up than your local “Channel 25”. And if Channel 4 and Channel 25 are broadcast from different towers, you need separate VHF and UHF antennas and they will need to be pointed in different directions. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Hopefully only a few of your clients want or need terrestrial reception, because doing it right isn’t easy.

To the guy that says the 10-15% of us are a none issue? Go F%#@ yourself.

using an antenna still? that’s terrible. i can’t believe this is even an issue, a real push for going back to OTA is as likely a real push for going back to steam… get with the times and use that next step

There about 113 million TV households in the US. Cable and satellite have around 96 million subscribers. There was study a few years back by the GAO that found that of households that were connected to sat./cable about 24% had at least one TV NOT connected to sat./cable.

Granted this may be a spare TV in the garage or basement being used for gaming or occasional use, or a guest bedroom or the like. Being able to keep those sets viable may be an opportunity for you.

However for people in rural areas or “vacation / second homes” antennas may be the only choice if you want true local reception. Cable may not be a viable option. What satellite may provide may not be truly “local” TV.

Have you ever compared OTA to the HD feed from some cable systems on a well set up large screen? You may well take back your steam comment “to you too.”

Besides knowing about technology even if it’s not the latest or most exciting should be the mark of a professional.

There is another safety issue regarding the abandoning of analog tv:

During hurricanes and other disasters, millions of people rely on battery operated televisions for important visual information such as storm maps, lists of shelters, status of their areas, etc.

Come 2009, we will be taking a step BACK in technology and safety to audio-only. As a personal example, During Hurricane Andrew, we watched the televised weather map on our battery tv to determine when the eye was approaching and when the hurricane had past. We also followed the graphically displayed lists of food and water locations that were too numerous to list via audio alone.

There should have been a provision for analog transmission during disasters based on the importance of the information and the millions of battery-operated analog televisions.

Currently, there are only a handful of expensive battery operated digital tuner equipped televisions available and they all have dismal battery life and require outdoor antennas unless you live in the backyard of a transmitter.

One step forward, two steps back!

Ed