<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Digital Television in Buffalo</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/</link>
	<description>Science, tech, computers, gadgets and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:36:45 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Geoffrey</title>
		<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-451</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoffrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:41:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/?p=108#comment-451</guid>
		<description>The loss of THIS TV on WKBW is a shame, that was part of the WNGS programming package after the RTN dispute - WNGS is now owned by Daystar, a religious broadcaster. They may not get D7. Another religious broadcaster wants D28 in Buffalo, so soon there will be four religious programmers in Buffalo, and the one in the Toronto area.

I am north of Lake Ontario near Oshawa. I get all of the Toronto stations CBLT D20, CBLFT D24 back to D25, CFTO D40 to D9, CIII D65 to D41, CJMT D44, CFMT D64 to D47, CKXT D66 to D40, CITY 53 to D51 (except TVO CICA Ch 19). I also get the two Hamilton stations which are running on reduced power until they return to their preferred channels CHCH11 [D18] and CITS 36 [D35].

Buffalo is harder to get WGRZ D33 comes and goes; WIVB D39 comes and goes; WKBW D38 always there; WNED D43 solid; WNLO D32 solid; WUTV D14 and WNYO D34 have really weird transmission patterns. WPXJ will be going to D23, not D51 with CITY. There was a same channel allocation to Peterborough D34 - which has been changed to D35 and will not be used as CHEX A12 will flash cut to D12; CHEX Oshawa A22 will be D22. If the two Sinclair stations could go omnidirectional; perfect.

Now if those sub-channels could start to be used...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The loss of THIS TV on WKBW is a shame, that was part of the WNGS programming package after the RTN dispute &#8211; WNGS is now owned by Daystar, a religious broadcaster. They may not get D7. Another religious broadcaster wants D28 in Buffalo, so soon there will be four religious programmers in Buffalo, and the one in the Toronto area.</p>
<p>I am north of Lake Ontario near Oshawa. I get all of the Toronto stations CBLT D20, CBLFT D24 back to D25, CFTO D40 to D9, CIII D65 to D41, CJMT D44, CFMT D64 to D47, CKXT D66 to D40, CITY 53 to D51 (except TVO CICA Ch 19). I also get the two Hamilton stations which are running on reduced power until they return to their preferred channels CHCH11 [D18] and CITS 36 [D35].</p>
<p>Buffalo is harder to get WGRZ D33 comes and goes; WIVB D39 comes and goes; WKBW D38 always there; WNED D43 solid; WNLO D32 solid; WUTV D14 and WNYO D34 have really weird transmission patterns. WPXJ will be going to D23, not D51 with CITY. There was a same channel allocation to Peterborough D34 &#8211; which has been changed to D35 and will not be used as CHEX A12 will flash cut to D12; CHEX Oshawa A22 will be D22. If the two Sinclair stations could go omnidirectional; perfect.</p>
<p>Now if those sub-channels could start to be used&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoffrey</title>
		<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-450</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoffrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:39:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/?p=108#comment-450</guid>
		<description>The loss of THIS TV on WKBW is a shame, that was part of the WNGS programming package after the RTN dispute - WNGS is now owned by Daystar, a religious broadcaster. They may not get D7. Another religious broadcaster wants D28 in Buffalo, so soon there will be four religious programmers in Buffalo, and the one in the Toronto area.

I am north of Lake Ontario near Oshawa. I get all of the Toronto stations CBLT D20, CBLFT D24 back to D25, CFTO D40 to D9, CIII D65 to D41, CJMT D44, CFMT D64 to D47, CKXT D66 to D40, CITY 53 to D51 (except TVO CICA Ch 19). I also get the two Hamilton stations which are running on reduced power until they return to their preferred channels CHCH11 [D18] and CITS 36 [D35].

Buffalo is harder to get WGRZ D33 comes and goes; WIVB D39 comes and goes; WKBW D38 always there; WNED D43 solid; WNLO D32 solid; WUTV D14 and WNYO D34 have really weird transmission patterns. WPXJ will be going to D2, not D51 with CITY. There was a same channel allocation to Peterborough D34 - which has been changed to D35 and will not be used as CHEX A12 will flash cut to D12; CHEX Oshawa A22 will be D22. If the two Sinclair stations could go omnidirectional; perfect.

Now if those sub-channels could start to used...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The loss of THIS TV on WKBW is a shame, that was part of the WNGS programming package after the RTN dispute &#8211; WNGS is now owned by Daystar, a religious broadcaster. They may not get D7. Another religious broadcaster wants D28 in Buffalo, so soon there will be four religious programmers in Buffalo, and the one in the Toronto area.</p>
<p>I am north of Lake Ontario near Oshawa. I get all of the Toronto stations CBLT D20, CBLFT D24 back to D25, CFTO D40 to D9, CIII D65 to D41, CJMT D44, CFMT D64 to D47, CKXT D66 to D40, CITY 53 to D51 (except TVO CICA Ch 19). I also get the two Hamilton stations which are running on reduced power until they return to their preferred channels CHCH11 [D18] and CITS 36 [D35].</p>
<p>Buffalo is harder to get WGRZ D33 comes and goes; WIVB D39 comes and goes; WKBW D38 always there; WNED D43 solid; WNLO D32 solid; WUTV D14 and WNYO D34 have really weird transmission patterns. WPXJ will be going to D2, not D51 with CITY. There was a same channel allocation to Peterborough D34 &#8211; which has been changed to D35 and will not be used as CHEX A12 will flash cut to D12; CHEX Oshawa A22 will be D22. If the two Sinclair stations could go omnidirectional; perfect.</p>
<p>Now if those sub-channels could start to used&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-449</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/?p=108#comment-449</guid>
		<description>What happened to Channel 7&#039;s sister station &quot;THIS&quot;? It has not been on the air for a week or so. Also - it seems that the signal strength on channel 4 and 7 are getting lower. I cannot pick up FOX, CW23, channel 2 or the weather station channel 2. I do live in Jamestown, NY. I bought enhanced antennas that I need to plug in my wall, but I really wish alalogue would stay.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What happened to Channel 7&#8217;s sister station &#8220;THIS&#8221;? It has not been on the air for a week or so. Also &#8211; it seems that the signal strength on channel 4 and 7 are getting lower. I cannot pick up FOX, CW23, channel 2 or the weather station channel 2. I do live in Jamestown, NY. I bought enhanced antennas that I need to plug in my wall, but I really wish alalogue would stay.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony</title>
		<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-438</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:34:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/?p=108#comment-438</guid>
		<description>Rob - I think you might have hit spot on about the converter box... a different one might do a better job, and if the color problems are bad enough the one you have might even be defective.

I&#039;ve personally got a low end RCA box at home, and it has several zoom/stretch/crop options. There isn&#039;t a channel I can&#039;t get to fill up my whole TV screen in one way or another (and it remembers settings per channel, so I only had to set preferences per station once.)

In my experience the difference is nothing short of stunning, WNED included, no contest...  (And I like the fact that I get three different WNEDs now compared to one on analog!) So something must be wrong...

There&#039;s some other things you might wish to try - connect the box with a different set of cables (a poor composite cable, might cause fuzziness and color problems), and maybe even try a different input on your TV. If S-Video is an option on the box and your TV, use it, as it will provide the best picture possible (on a non HD TV set.)

If none of that helps, you might simply want to adjust the color balance on your TV set. Maybe it&#039;s a little out of whack and was actually compensating for the analog signal you&#039;ve been watching all these years? The red for example might have been pumped up at some point to give the bland analog signal a little life, and now its too much...?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob &#8211; I think you might have hit spot on about the converter box&#8230; a different one might do a better job, and if the color problems are bad enough the one you have might even be defective.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve personally got a low end RCA box at home, and it has several zoom/stretch/crop options. There isn&#8217;t a channel I can&#8217;t get to fill up my whole TV screen in one way or another (and it remembers settings per channel, so I only had to set preferences per station once.)</p>
<p>In my experience the difference is nothing short of stunning, WNED included, no contest&#8230;  (And I like the fact that I get three different WNEDs now compared to one on analog!) So something must be wrong&#8230;</p>
<p>There&#8217;s some other things you might wish to try &#8211; connect the box with a different set of cables (a poor composite cable, might cause fuzziness and color problems), and maybe even try a different input on your TV. If S-Video is an option on the box and your TV, use it, as it will provide the best picture possible (on a non HD TV set.)</p>
<p>If none of that helps, you might simply want to adjust the color balance on your TV set. Maybe it&#8217;s a little out of whack and was actually compensating for the analog signal you&#8217;ve been watching all these years? The red for example might have been pumped up at some point to give the bland analog signal a little life, and now its too much&#8230;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Leach</title>
		<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-437</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Leach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:23:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/?p=108#comment-437</guid>
		<description>Hi,

I bought a converter box last night and tested it out.  I have minor gripes relating to some stations being shown with black areas around the whole picture.  I tried selecting different aspect ratios, but none would expand the obviously 4:3 image to fill the screen.  That is due to the converter box just not being very good (it&#039;s an apex, BTW).

The bigger problem is that I thought that all stations would looker BETTER in DTV.  For the most part, that proves true, but for 1 station (WNED channel 17), the image is obviously, without a doubt, unquestionably, lesser quality.  The image looks slightly grainy and the color is, for lack of a better term, &quot;unsteady&quot;.  It&#039;s as if someone wiped a sponge with red-colored water over the screen.  It&#039;s hard to describe, but I compared the analog versus digital signal back and forth a few times and it was frustratingly obvious that the analog image was better.

All the other DTV stations had the same (wet red sponge) quality as the WNED station, which leads me to believe that their claim that it&#039;s better is not 100% true.  It&#039;s better in most cases, but not better than the best analog case.  I don&#039;t watch much TV, so I can live with it, but don&#039;t expect your best looking station to look better or even as good on DTV.  I&#039;m going to try out another converter box, but dtv2009.gov is backed up on coupon requests, so it may be awhile.  And perhaps the technology will improve with time, but I&#039;m skeptical.

Rob</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I bought a converter box last night and tested it out.  I have minor gripes relating to some stations being shown with black areas around the whole picture.  I tried selecting different aspect ratios, but none would expand the obviously 4:3 image to fill the screen.  That is due to the converter box just not being very good (it&#8217;s an apex, BTW).</p>
<p>The bigger problem is that I thought that all stations would looker BETTER in DTV.  For the most part, that proves true, but for 1 station (WNED channel 17), the image is obviously, without a doubt, unquestionably, lesser quality.  The image looks slightly grainy and the color is, for lack of a better term, &#8220;unsteady&#8221;.  It&#8217;s as if someone wiped a sponge with red-colored water over the screen.  It&#8217;s hard to describe, but I compared the analog versus digital signal back and forth a few times and it was frustratingly obvious that the analog image was better.</p>
<p>All the other DTV stations had the same (wet red sponge) quality as the WNED station, which leads me to believe that their claim that it&#8217;s better is not 100% true.  It&#8217;s better in most cases, but not better than the best analog case.  I don&#8217;t watch much TV, so I can live with it, but don&#8217;t expect your best looking station to look better or even as good on DTV.  I&#8217;m going to try out another converter box, but dtv2009.gov is backed up on coupon requests, so it may be awhile.  And perhaps the technology will improve with time, but I&#8217;m skeptical.</p>
<p>Rob</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron</title>
		<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-423</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:01:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/?p=108#comment-423</guid>
		<description>I live 14 miles west of Niagara Falls in Ontario. Have only roof antennae. Have analogue tuner on TV.

I have now installed the digital tuner converter on my analogue tv; and with my roof antennae get 90% of previous signals. Buffalo 5, Toronto- Hamilton.
In all channels 2- (2.1&amp; (2.2 weather new)), -4, (cbs), -7NBC, 29-Fox- 17.1 and (17.2 new) PBS,- 49,- 44 TO, 64 To,- 66 To,- 9 To.-11 Hamilton

I lost 52,- 57, and 19, pbs out of Toronto.
and Hamburg N.Y.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I live 14 miles west of Niagara Falls in Ontario. Have only roof antennae. Have analogue tuner on TV.</p>
<p>I have now installed the digital tuner converter on my analogue tv; and with my roof antennae get 90% of previous signals. Buffalo 5, Toronto- Hamilton.<br />
In all channels 2- (2.1&amp; (2.2 weather new)), -4, (cbs), -7NBC, 29-Fox- 17.1 and (17.2 new) PBS,- 49,- 44 TO, 64 To,- 66 To,- 9 To.-11 Hamilton</p>
<p>I lost 52,- 57, and 19, pbs out of Toronto.<br />
and Hamburg N.Y.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-193</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:39:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/?p=108#comment-193</guid>
		<description>What do you think the best converter box is? This site has the best converter boxes from Consumer Reports, but looking for other advice. Thanks
http://www.digitalhdreceiver.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you think the best converter box is? This site has the best converter boxes from Consumer Reports, but looking for other advice. Thanks<br />
<a href="http://www.digitalhdreceiver.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.digitalhdreceiver.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marvin Miles</title>
		<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-152</link>
		<dc:creator>Marvin Miles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/?p=108#comment-152</guid>
		<description>I am still trying different things at different locations here and still no useable signal. We just put up a new antenna for my sister and she gets very good analog VHF channels but only digital WIVB some of the time. My mother is in the Cuba NY area and can only get WKBW at times.
I agree, this a sad situation...sure wish there were somewhere to complain or petition about this. I think there are few people who realize what is happening and they will be shocked when it all goes away.
I did find Tv Fool dot com which lists transmitter power etc., which shows some specs for the various stations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am still trying different things at different locations here and still no useable signal. We just put up a new antenna for my sister and she gets very good analog VHF channels but only digital WIVB some of the time. My mother is in the Cuba NY area and can only get WKBW at times.<br />
I agree, this a sad situation&#8230;sure wish there were somewhere to complain or petition about this. I think there are few people who realize what is happening and they will be shocked when it all goes away.<br />
I did find Tv Fool dot com which lists transmitter power etc., which shows some specs for the various stations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marcello</title>
		<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-151</link>
		<dc:creator>Marcello</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/?p=108#comment-151</guid>
		<description>I live in southeast Michigan. With the old analog transmissions, I can pick up about twelve watchable channels. With the new digital converter box, it&#039;s down to one -- and that channel mostly broadcasts infomercials. 

I even spent an additional fifty dollars on a new antenna. The antenna improved the analog signal, but did nothing for the digital signal.

The FCC will effectively render all broadcast television unwatchable. It&#039;s the end of an era, folks. How sad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I live in southeast Michigan. With the old analog transmissions, I can pick up about twelve watchable channels. With the new digital converter box, it&#8217;s down to one &#8212; and that channel mostly broadcasts infomercials. </p>
<p>I even spent an additional fifty dollars on a new antenna. The antenna improved the analog signal, but did nothing for the digital signal.</p>
<p>The FCC will effectively render all broadcast television unwatchable. It&#8217;s the end of an era, folks. How sad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Shafer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2008/09/09/digital-television-in-buffalo/comment-page-1/#comment-125</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Shafer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/?p=108#comment-125</guid>
		<description>In reply,
  I live, at best, 40 miles from the nearest broadcasting tower.  I receive two stations on digital that do not break-up and are constant.  On analog, I can receive nine or ten stations, all watchable, over the analog signal.  I have been informed by most (in fact 6) that there are no plans to increase the power of the digital signal;  they are currently operating at peak power performance and the FCC will not grant additional strength to these stations because they might interfere with other regional broadcasts.  I live between Louisville, Cincinatti, and Indianapolis.  I will lose all access to weather bulletins from Indianapolis to the North, and will no longer be able to watch any channels from Cinci.  I have fiddled with my antenna until I was sick of it, and have found that the higher I go, the more signal I lose (for Digital).  I found the about 25 foot is the best height for reception on digital, (I was able to pick up two more stations, but they did block up and freeze, and it ruined the signal of another station.)
I have, in fact, filed a formal complaint with the FCC regarding this, and they sent me information on the DTV transition, all of which I had previously downloaded over the internet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply,<br />
  I live, at best, 40 miles from the nearest broadcasting tower.  I receive two stations on digital that do not break-up and are constant.  On analog, I can receive nine or ten stations, all watchable, over the analog signal.  I have been informed by most (in fact 6) that there are no plans to increase the power of the digital signal;  they are currently operating at peak power performance and the FCC will not grant additional strength to these stations because they might interfere with other regional broadcasts.  I live between Louisville, Cincinatti, and Indianapolis.  I will lose all access to weather bulletins from Indianapolis to the North, and will no longer be able to watch any channels from Cinci.  I have fiddled with my antenna until I was sick of it, and have found that the higher I go, the more signal I lose (for Digital).  I found the about 25 foot is the best height for reception on digital, (I was able to pick up two more stations, but they did block up and freeze, and it ruined the signal of another station.)<br />
I have, in fact, filed a formal complaint with the FCC regarding this, and they sent me information on the DTV transition, all of which I had previously downloaded over the internet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
