Does this mean I will have to get cable/satellite TV for this possible new house?

[Ant]

Hi!

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db0c9f and
http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg (AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad for
my most likely future home. :(

Google Street View's Photograph/Photo. of the front of the house with
big trees from November 2008: http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg ... It is
located in La Habra Heights, CA, deep on its giant hills with many trees.

Does this mean I am stuck to get many local OTA channels and have to get
a cable/satellite TV service to watch compressed HD TV feeds? KCBS,
KNBC, KTLA, KABC, KCAL (Lakers!), KTTV, KCET, KOCE, sometimes Chinese
stations (e.g., KSCI) for my parents, etc. If OTA is still possible,
then how high and crazy will the roof/attic antenna is going to be to
get all the channels I want?

Thank you in advance. :)
--
"Only two great groups of animals, men and ants, indulge in highly
organized mass warfare." --Charles H. Maskins
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[Gordon Burditt]

> http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db0c9f and
> http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg (AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad for
> my most likely future home. :(

You should always check out all the important details of the property
you are buying. This includes things like availability of DSL, OTA
reception, cable companies, the existence or non-existence of
(antenna-hating) homeowner's associations, nearby loud (and
multipath-creating) air traffic, etc. Last time I bought a house,
(long ago) I stipulated that it had to have a phone company, and
GTE didn't count.

Nowadays, I'd want to do a Wi-Fi survey to see if the spectrum is
too crowded for using my own Wi-Fi in my own house (this is likely
to be critical for apartment dwellers-to-be). And probably measure
power-line noise. Whether or not it is wired with CAT-5 is only
slightly less important than having at least one bathroom.

And I'd want the house to already have an OTA antenna (functional
or not) (the idea being that if the antenna is already there neighbors
won't have much standing to object to it).

[Bill Gill]

On 12/22/2011 12:25 AM, Ant wrote:
> Hi!
>
> http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db0c9f and
> http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg (AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad for
> my most likely future home. :(
>
> Google Street View's Photograph/Photo. of the front of the house with
> big trees from November 2008: http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg ... It is
> located in La Habra Heights, CA, deep on its giant hills with many trees.
>
> Does this mean I am stuck to get many local OTA channels and have to get
> a cable/satellite TV service to watch compressed HD TV feeds? KCBS,
> KNBC, KTLA, KABC, KCAL (Lakers!), KTTV, KCET, KOCE, sometimes Chinese
> stations (e.g., KSCI) for my parents, etc. If OTA is still possible,
> then how high and crazy will the roof/attic antenna is going to be to
> get all the channels I want?
>
> Thank you in advance. :)

Just a comment, no help or anything. One of the original
reasons that cable was developed was for people who couldn't
get OTA television. That's why they are called CATV (Community
Antenna TV) systems. At first all they did was to put up
an antenna (or several antennas) on a high point and deliver
the OTA signals to homes that couldn't get them.

Bill

[Kimba W Lion]

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

>Does this mean I am stuck to get many local OTA channels and have to get
>a cable/satellite TV service to watch compressed HD TV feeds? KCBS,
>KNBC, KTLA, KABC, KCAL (Lakers!), KTTV, KCET, KOCE, sometimes Chinese
>stations (e.g., KSCI) for my parents, etc. If OTA is still possible,
>then how high and crazy will the roof/attic antenna is going to be to
>get all the channels I want?

The outlook for OTA is indeed bleak. The people who could best answer your
questions are antenna and satellite installers in the area. With those trees
around, your satellite options may be limited. Be sure to contact both DirecTV
and Dish Network, since their satellites are in different locations and that
may make a big difference.

An attic antenna is almost surely out of the question. Some people have
separate antenna towers installed adjacent to the house, not on the roof, and
these can be quite tall, if local rules and regulations allow it. Again, a
local installer should know what can be done.

[Bert]

In news:6sCdnXDwCLXWUG_T...@earthlink.com Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Google Street View's Photograph/Photo. of the front of the house with
> big trees from November 2008: http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg ... It is
> located in La Habra Heights, CA, deep on its giant hills with many
> trees.

Depending on where those trees are, you might not be able to get
satellite service either.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Ant]

FYI: I wonder if it is because it is the side of the hills. You can't
see the mountains. Here's the terrain map from Google Maps between Mount
Wilson and the future location: http://i.imgur.com/KWz13.gif ...

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Ant <a...@zimage.comant> wrote:
> Hi!

> http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db0c9f and
> http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg (AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad for
> my most likely future home. :(

> Google Street View's Photograph/Photo. of the front of the house with
> big trees from November 2008: http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg ... It is
> located in La Habra Heights, CA, deep on its giant hills with many trees.

> Does this mean I am stuck to get many local OTA channels and have to get
> a cable/satellite TV service to watch compressed HD TV feeds? KCBS,
> KNBC, KTLA, KABC, KCAL (Lakers!), KTTV, KCET, KOCE, sometimes Chinese
> stations (e.g., KSCI) for my parents, etc. If OTA is still possible,
> then how high and crazy will the roof/attic antenna is going to be to
> get all the channels I want?

> Thank you in advance. :)
--

Quote of the Week: Merry Christmas/Season's Greetings/Happy Holidays! :)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)

/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |

\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

[Ant]

Great. :(

--
Quote of the Week: Merry Christmas/Season's Greetings/Happy Holidays! :)

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)

/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |

\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,

( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

[Bert]

In news:tcadndp6O_L06G7T...@earthlink.com ANT...@zimage.com

(Ant) wrote:

> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> In news:6sCdnXDwCLXWUG_T...@earthlink.com Ant
>> <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>> > Google Street View's Photograph/Photo. of the front of the house
>> > with big trees from November 2008: http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg ...
>> > It is located in La Habra Heights, CA, deep on its giant hills with
>> > many trees.
>
>> Depending on where those trees are, you might not be able to get
>> satellite service either.
>
> Great. :(

Generally, you need a view to the south, and for you probably southeast.

The two satellite service vendors should have something on their Web
sites which would give you the azimuth and elevation angles from your
location to their various satellites.

You'll have to figure out which of their satellites you actually need to
see in order to get the services you want.

[Mikepier]

What happens if you plug in say 30 feet for height of antenna into the
tvfool report, does it improve?

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 18:30:32h +0000, Bert suggested:

> The two satellite service vendors should have something on their Web
> sites which would give you the azimuth and elevation angles from your
> location to their various satellites.

Dish Pointer would be even better to try ...

<http://www.dishpointer.COM>

[Sal]

"Ant" <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote in message
news:tcadndt6O_LZ6G7T...@earthlink.com...

>
>> http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db0c9f
>> and
>> http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg (AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad for
>> my most likely future home. :(

< snip >

Hi, Ant,

You are in a bad way at that location. Close enough but in a severe shadow.

Sometimes a bounce off a mountain far off-angle from Mt. Wilson might give
you reception when aiming to Mt. Wilson doesn't. Easy to try if/when you
get in the place and put up an antenna.

Your tvfool report didn't indicate antenna height. I think it defaults to
25 feet if you don't specify. I understand why you might not want to
publicize the exact street address, but can you go back in and play with
that variable? Sometimes an extra 10 or 20 feet can be a big help.

Before cable was big here in San Diego, many people had 40-foot masts on
their roofs to get LA stations. That's about 55 feet above ground -- and it
worked. (As another poster mentioned, the HOA could squelch a roof
antenna.)

By the way, the TV Fool listings are conservative; you might do better than
they predict.

"Sal"

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 12/22/2011, Sal posted:

I wonder if the future neighbors might be able to give some useful
information...

Of course,

0. They might not be friendly :-)

1. They might all have cable

2. And only a few feet can make a significant difference...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, December 22nd, 2011, at 15:40:51h -0800, Gene E. Bloch suggested:

> They might not be friendly :-)

Who would buy a house next door to neighbors who are not friendly?

Perhaps it is time for there to be a Google (tm) neighborhood
friendliness / good neighbor mapping project?

It would of course have helpful hints such as

1) Avoid Mrs Y at #54 because she is a malicious gossip

2) Beware of the vicious dog at #47.

3) Mrs Z at #63 makes excellent Scotch eggs which she shares with
the neigborhood to help raise community cholesterol levels.

4) Mr A at #45 is friendly but suffers from bouts of
alcoholic depression which leads to vitriolic outbursts
at passers by.

5) Mr and Mrs D's children at #89 frequently vandalize
flowerbeds and are alleged pyromaniacs.

6) Mr Y at #94 is on the child abuse offenders registry.

Just the sort of information one needs before moving into
a normal, well adjusted, middle class neighborhood.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 12/22/2011, J G Miller posted:

You make me homesick!

Actually, a long time ago when I was in the service, I rented a place
in a small town near a Navy base.

It turned out the landlady was pretty crazy and very mean, and in some
degree of desperation, we moved out after only a few weeks.

When we went to the post office to register our change of address, the
mailman said "You lasted longer than many of her tenants. But you
should have asked us about her before you took the place. Being
mailmen, we get to learn a lot about the neighborhood and the people."

So on some level, your project may already exist :-)

[Drewdove]

J G Miller wrote:
> On Thursday, December 22nd, 2011, at 15:40:51h -0800, Gene E. Bloch
> suggested:
>
>> They might not be friendly :-)
>
> Who would buy a house next door to neighbors who are not friendly?
>
> Perhaps it is time for there to be a Google (tm) neighborhood
> friendliness / good neighbor mapping project?
>
> It would of course have helpful hints such as
>

<snip>

> 4) Mr A at #45 is friendly but suffers from bouts of
> alcoholic depression which leads to vitriolic outbursts
> at passers by.
>

I SO want this guy as my neighbor. Live entertainment. ;-)

[Sal]

"Mikepier" <mike...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:74e57ad4-3349-451b...@d8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> What happens if you plug in say 30 feet for height of antenna into the
> tvfool report, does it improve?
>

Related: In addition to up and down, lateral movement can affect reception.
Some years ago, when cable hadn't arrived on our street, I had a great new
Channel Master antenna and my neighbor had a mangled piece of junk. He
always did much better with a group of three out-of-town stations to the
east, over a ridge. His antenna was only about 70 feet south of mine.

"Sal"

[Ant]

On 12/22/2011 10:30 AM PT, Bert typed:

>>>> Google Street View's Photograph/Photo. of the front of the house
>>>> with big trees from November 2008: http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg ...
>>>> It is located in La Habra Heights, CA, deep on its giant hills with
>>>> many trees.
>>
>>> Depending on where those trees are, you might not be able to get
>>> satellite service either.
>>
>> Great. :(
>
> Generally, you need a view to the south, and for you probably southeast.
>
> The two satellite service vendors should have something on their Web
> sites which would give you the azimuth and elevation angles from your
> location to their various satellites.
>
> You'll have to figure out which of their satellites you actually need to
> see in order to get the services you want.

I found out that the current house owner does have satellite TV service
(did not ask which one) and not OTA antennea. I also found out that
TVfool says I need to be 188 feet (a highrise height??!?!) minimal to
get green status for the local Mt. Wilson stations! :(
--
"Look not to the windmill's turning while the ant still burrows." --unknown
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)

/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |

[Ant]

On 12/22/2011 3:08 PM PT, J G Miller typed:

>> The two satellite service vendors should have something on their Web
>> sites which would give you the azimuth and elevation angles from your
>> location to their various satellites.
>
> Dish Pointer would be even better to try ...
>
> <http://www.dishpointer.COM>

Nice web site, but I am confused on its results since I am not familiar
how this satellite TV works (always used OTA and cable):

Satellite Data:
Name: 91W GALAXY 17 (G-17) | NIMIQ 1 | NIMIQ 2
Distance: 37698km

Dish Setup Data:
Elevation: 41.1°
Azimuth (true): 137.7°
Azimuth (magn.): 125.1°
LNB Skew [?]: -33.9°


Nearby Shops & Installers
(beta)
country flag
Satman Canada
logoWinnipeg
Phone: (204) 633-7287 (SATS)
sa...@satmancanada.com

Description: On Line Store, Trimax Meter Distributor, Installs and Re-Points

satmancanada.com
country flag
Galaxy Marketing
logo1200 Cobb Parkway North Ste 100B, Marietta, GA 30062
Phone: 888-333-5560
sa...@galaxy-marketing.com

Description: Satellite dealer and wholesaler - Local pickup available
for all of our products. We stock everything we sell.

galaxy-marketing.com
country flag
HyperMegaSat.com
logoDavison, MI
Phone: 810-744-1488
sa...@hypermegasat.com

Description: Online Satellite Store. Hard to find FTA satellite
products. Fast, Free Shipping.

HyperMegaSat.com
country flag
Sadoun Satellite Sales
logo2747 Westbelt Dr, Columbus, Ohio 43228
Phone: 1-888-519-9595
in...@sadoun.com

Description: Dealer and distributor of satellite television systems and
consumer electronics.

show on map
sadoun.com
country flag
BeamOn FTA Experts


I saw no big names like DirecTV, EchoStar, etc.? Maybe I need to ask
this in satellite newsgroups and forums? :(
--
"Your parents were killed by ants?" --Idle Hands movie
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)

/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |

[Ant]

On 12/22/2011 3:36 PM PT, Sal typed:

>>> http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db0c9f
>>> and
>>> http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg (AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad for
>>> my most likely future home. :(
>

> Hi, Ant,
>
> You are in a bad way at that location. Close enough but in a severe shadow.
>
> Sometimes a bounce off a mountain far off-angle from Mt. Wilson might give
> you reception when aiming to Mt. Wilson doesn't. Easy to try if/when you
> get in the place and put up an antenna.
>
> Your tvfool report didn't indicate antenna height. I think it defaults to
> 25 feet if you don't specify. I understand why you might not want to
> publicize the exact street address, but can you go back in and play with
> that variable? Sometimes an extra 10 or 20 feet can be a big help.

Funny, AVS forum members told me to try various numbers earlier. The
minimal height is about 188 feet (a highrise height) to have green
status for all the stations I want! It looks OTA is out of the question
for this place. :(

> Before cable was big here in San Diego, many people had 40-foot masts on
> their roofs to get LA stations. That's about 55 feet above ground -- and it
> worked. (As another poster mentioned, the HOA could squelch a roof
> antenna.)
>
> By the way, the TV Fool listings are conservative; you might do better than
> they predict.

What do you mean?
--
"As a thinker and planner, the ant is the equal of any savage race of
men; as a self-educated specialist in several arts she is the superior
of any savage race of men; and in one or two high mental qualities she
is above the reach of any man..." --Mark Twain
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)

/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |

[Ant]

On 12/22/2011 10:27 AM PT, Mikepier typed:

> What happens if you plug in say 30 feet for height of antenna into the
> tvfool report, does it improve?

Minimal height to have all stations, in green color, I want is 188 feet
(a highrise). :(
--
"Do not kill ants. They are your best friends." --Joe Brainard

[Patty Winter]

In article <-JednVBlU9D4iGnT...@earthlink.com>,

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>On 12/22/2011 3:08 PM PT, J G Miller typed:
>

>> Dish Pointer would be even better to try ...
>>
>> <http://www.dishpointer.COM>
>
>Nice web site, but I am confused on its results since I am not familiar
>how this satellite TV works (always used OTA and cable):
>

>Elevation: 41.1°

This is the angle above the horizon. Straight up is 90 degs., so
an elevation of 41 degs. is a little less than halfway from the
horizon to the zenith.

>Azimuth (true): 137.7°
>Azimuth (magn.): 125.1°

Azimuth is the position along the horizon. North is 0 deg., south
is 180 deg., etc. So 137 deg. is almost directly southeast from
your location.

So from the house, look toward the southeast and up about halfway
from the horizon; if there aren't trees there, you should be fine.


>LNB Skew [?]: -33.9°

That has to do with tilting the dish so that multiple LNBs
(the little pieces of equipment on the end of the arm(s))
can get more than one satellite at a time.

>I saw no big names like DirecTV, EchoStar, etc.?

Evidently you were looking for independent dealers. They may
indeed install DirecTV and Dish systems, but you'll want to
order from the company and let them sort out who installs it.

>Maybe I need to ask
>this in satellite newsgroups and forums? :(

Yes, if you've decided to go with satellite, try those newsgroups.


Patty

[Patty Winter]

>In article <-JednVBlU9D4iGnT...@earthlink.com>,
>Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>>I saw no big names like DirecTV, EchoStar, etc.?

I just looked at your posting again. Probably the reason
you didn't see any DirecTV or Dish installers in your
results is because you were searching for information on
the Nimiq satellites used by Bell TV. Do you live in the
U.S. or Canada? Bell TV is only available in Canada, so
if you're in the U.S., it isn't one of your options.


Patty

[Ant]

On 12/22/2011 10:12 PM PT, Patty Winter typed:

>>> I saw no big names like DirecTV, EchoStar, etc.?
>
> I just looked at your posting again. Probably the reason
> you didn't see any DirecTV or Dish installers in your
> results is because you were searching for information on
> the Nimiq satellites used by Bell TV. Do you live in the
> U.S. or Canada? Bell TV is only available in Canada, so
> if you're in the U.S., it isn't one of your options.

East of Los Angeles/L.A. in CA, USA. :)
--
"Oh, good morning, my little worker ants! That's just a figure of
speech; I would NEVER compare you to insects. At least not after that
sensitivity training seminar those maggots at the network forced me to
attend!" --Kay, Murphy Brown

[TJ]

I live in a hilly area, too. TV Fool says only three of the stations I
receive are in the green area for my location, yet I can reliably
receive most of the yellow stations and even one pink one, depending on
which room I'm in, with a simple bowtie. Only two of those green
stations are line-of-sight; the other green and the yellow ones are all
1- or 2-edge.

Many factors are involved, not just height. Because of terrain,
buildings, and trees, signals can add together - or subtract - to make
signals better or worse than TV Fool indicates.

I have big shade trees around my two-story house. Reception is actually
MORE reliable on the first floor than the second, especially when the
wind blows. My theory is that the signal sneaks in under the leafy
parts, around the trunks.

I once saw a blogger's website that described how, using equipment you
and I don't have, a guy in Vermont found a usable signal from New York
City about five feet up from the back deck. My memory could be faulty on
this, but I believe a rooftop antenna didn't perform nearly as well.

I had to spend several days systematically moving my antenna around in
each room, searching for a "sweet spot" where reception was best.
Usually, it was with the bowtie suspended in the window that most
closely aims at the transmitters. In one room that meant that I had to
run a cable from the window down to the floor, along a wall to the
corner, around the corner, and halfway along that wall to the TV set.
And my old farmhouse has big rooms by today's standards.

What I'm trying to say is that you probably won't know what you need to
do until you can get in the house and do a little patient experimentation.

TJ

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 17:05:54h -0800, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

> "Being mailmen, we get to learn a lot about the neighborhood
> and the people."

Excellent point -- I had forgotten about the mailman (letter
carrier, de postbode, der Postmann, le facteur, il postino).

Also a check with the police department might get some information
on whether or not the area is a high crime (eg burglaries, assaults etc).

> So on some level, your project may already exist :-)

Yes it is true that people regularly working in an area probably
know a lot more about people in that area that one might think,
or wish that they might know (eg always goes on vacation in
the 2nd week of August so the house is empty then).

My attempt at humor was not original though, since I recall
a TV comedy sketch on a similar premise -- I thought it was
Monty Python but was unable to find anything that matched.

[robinlos]

> TJ-
-
I've found some interesting "ducts", also. One was 3 feet above ground
level. I have no explanation for them, but beyond question, they
exist. How a signal from around 100 miles away can be had at three
feet and is nowhere to be found above it is a mystery. UHF acts a
little like light, and light refraction can also be a mystery.

[Sal]

"Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote in message
news:-JednVBlU9D4iGnT...@earthlink.com...


< snip >

>> <http://www.dishpointer.COM>
>
> Nice web site, but I am confused on its results since I am not familiar
> how this satellite TV works (always used OTA and cable):
>
> Satellite Data:
> Name: 91W GALAXY 17 (G-17) | NIMIQ 1 | NIMIQ 2
> Distance: 37698km
>
> Dish Setup Data:
> Elevation: 41.1°
> Azimuth (true): 137.7°
> Azimuth (magn.): 125.1°
> LNB Skew [?]: -33.9°
>

The satellites are all in orbit above the Equator, separated by about two
degrees. From a North American looking toward the south, they appear to lie
on an arc that's approximately the apparent path of the sun. There are
about three dozen major satellites in view for us. They all have names.
"Galaxy" and "Nimic" are just names. To keep it simple, they reused many of
the names and just numbered the next and the next and the next.

The distance is irrelevant. You ain't changin' it! (It's used for some
calculations, but not by you.)

The elevation is the measure of how much you are tilting the dish up from
the horizon. 90 degrees would be pointing straight up. 41 degrees is good
for much of the southern US. (In Central America, the elvation would be
closer to 60; in Canada, maybe in the 20s and 30s.)

Azimuth is the direction to aim the dish, left and right from your
particular spot. 180 is Due South, so 137 is generally Southeast. In most
places, there's a difference between true North and Magnetic North. The
data you have allows for that difference. (Don't use magnetic data if you
have an accurate plat map that includes the alignment of your lot lines. In
1985, when I installed my 10-foot dish, I used the map and my results came
within half a degree. One tiny tweak and I was good for 20 years.)

LNB skew is a tough one to explain but I'll try. First, you may not have to
worry about it, depending on the type of mount that comes with the dish. If
your dish is pointing Due South, the LNB needs to be straight up and down
and it will be, assuming the mount is straight. Thats a skew of zero.
However, if the dish is aimed on either side of Due South, the LNB needs to
be tilted so the signals arrive with the correct alignment, called
"polarization" (not "polarity," a common mistake). The further you get from
Due South, the more skew adjustment (tilt) is required. If the mount is
such that it automatically tilts the dish as you move away from Due South,
no adjustment is needed. Some antennas use an arbitrary scale for skew.
Go with the instructions the manufacturer provides, not my generalities.

Not every installer takes time to tweak for best performance. If you're not
optimized, you may lose the signal in a heavy rain, as opposed to the same
system across the street. There are simple, cheap meters that you can put
in the coaxial cable(s) temporarily and note the relative signal strength.
(I saw one for less than $10.00; I wouldn't go quite that cheap, if I were
you.) Some websites give you a DIY primer for installing a system and they
explain the uses of the tools.

If you then move the dish a tiny amount -- up down, left, right ...
whatever -- and the signal meter goes higher, you did a good thing, eh?
If/when you get a system, I suggest you do a Google search for <inline
satellite meter> and go shopping.

"Sal"

[Sal]

"Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote in message

news:JvSdnSa1mdrFi2nT...@earthlink.com...

> On 12/22/2011 3:36 PM PT, Sal typed:
>>

>> By the way, the TV Fool listings are conservative; you might do better
>> than
>> they predict.
>
> What do you mean?

You may have a better situation than the depressing predictions of TV Fool.
They don't want to get your hopes up and then disappoint. I get many
stations in the pink zone reliably with a decent antenna.

For you, it's worth trying with a decent antenna on the roof before you give
up on getting your HiDef free.

"Sal"

[Bert]

In news:jd2mmi$fkb$1...@dont-email.me "Sal" <sob...@aol.com> wrote:

> LNB skew is a tough one to explain but I'll try. First, you may not
> have to worry about it, depending on the type of mount that comes with
> the dish. If your dish is pointing Due South, the LNB needs to be
> straight up and down and it will be, assuming the mount is straight.
> Thats a skew of zero. However, if the dish is aimed on either side of
> Due South, the LNB needs to be tilted so the signals arrive with the
> correct alignment, called "polarization" (not "polarity," a common
> mistake). The further you get from Due South, the more skew
> adjustment (tilt) is required. If the mount is such that it
> automatically tilts the dish as you move away from Due South, no
> adjustment is needed. Some antennas use an arbitrary scale for skew.
> Go with the instructions the manufacturer provides, not my
> generalities.

Another complication comes from the fact that both satellite services
provide antennas that receive signals from two or more satellites. The
aiming information (azimuth, elevation and skew) for those antennas does
not actually point directly at any of the satellites, but instead is
intended to aim the dish such that it properly receives signals from all of
its intended satellites.

If you try to use that aiming information to see if you have a clear view
of the sky through your tree cover, you run a good chance of being wrong.

You really need to find out exactly which satellites you need to see and
get the direct aiming information for each one.

[Ant]

On 12/23/2011 8:37 AM PT, J G Miller typed:

> Also a check with the police department might get some information
> on whether or not the area is a high crime (eg burglaries, assaults etc).

http://crimereports.com and http://crimemapping.com are useful for the
last six months reports. ;)
--
"Have I told you how much I like ants, huh? Especially fried in a subtle
blend of mech fluid and grated gears?" --Rampage to Inferno,
"Transmutate" in Transformers (Beast Wars)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)

/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |

[Ant]

On 12/23/2011 8:27 AM PT, TJ typed:

Ah OK. I see what you mean. Yeah, I have the same problem,s with my
rabbit and DB2 bowtie antennae in my current (soon to be former) home.
Sometimes, I need to move it, turn in, etc. Weather affects it too.
Sometimes NOTHING changed and yet I see major changes! It's crazy!
--
"Not all ants use violence to dominate their world, some use more subtle
methods..." --E.O. Wilson on NOVA

[Ant]

On 12/23/2011 12:13 PM PT, Sal typed:

Should I start out with my current indoor antennae (DB2 bowtie and
rabbit ears) first or don't even bother? I am more worried to get a roof
antenna because this might not even work at all especially when paying
someone/contractor to do it. :(
--
"What I fear most from the stars is not aliens for they have
intelligence, but I fear social creatures like ants, that can overrun
humans, that feel no emotion, and see us as an easy prey source." --unknown

[clover]

On 12/21/2011 10:25 PM, Ant wrote:
> Hi!

>
> http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db0c9f and
> http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg (AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad for
> my most likely future home. :(
>

> Google Street View's Photograph/Photo. of the front of the house with
> big trees from November 2008: http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg ... It is
> located in La Habra Heights, CA, deep on its giant hills with many trees.
>

> Does this mean I am stuck to get many local OTA channels and have to get
> a cable/satellite TV service to watch compressed HD TV feeds? KCBS,
> KNBC, KTLA, KABC, KCAL (Lakers!), KTTV, KCET, KOCE, sometimes Chinese
> stations (e.g., KSCI) for my parents, etc. If OTA is still possible,
> then how high and crazy will the roof/attic antenna is going to be to
> get all the channels I want?
>
> Thank you in advance. :)

How do you connect to the internet? Here, if one has internet service
via our cable company, TWC, unencrypted TV is free. While the signal
MIGHT be more compressed than it was when transmitted OTA, I rarely can
detect any. Regardless, if you have broadband service, I'm sure you'll
find that more and more "TV" is available on the internet. And then,
there's always NetFlix for those who don't need to see-it-now!

[Sal]

"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9FC4913A62F...@216.250.188.141...

> In news:jd2mmi$fkb$1...@dont-email.me "Sal" <sob...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> LNB skew is a tough one to explain but I'll try.

< snip >

>> Some antennas use an arbitrary scale for skew.
>> Go with the instructions the manufacturer provides, not my
>> generalities.
>
> Another complication comes from the fact that both satellite services
> provide antennas that receive signals from two or more satellites. The
> aiming information (azimuth, elevation and skew) for those antennas does
> not actually point directly at any of the satellites, but instead is
> intended to aim the dish such that it properly receives signals from all
> of
> its intended satellites.
>
> If you try to use that aiming information to see if you have a clear view
> of the sky through your tree cover, you run a good chance of being wrong.
>
> You really need to find out exactly which satellites you need to see and
> get the direct aiming information for each one.
>
> --
> be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

Quite true, but unless you're doing a bootleg installation, the national
provider will try to give you the most accurate aiming data.

In fact, if you go to
http://www.directv.com/learn/pdf/12429_00_AntennaManual_1D.pdf
you will find the user manual for DIRECTV's three-LNB antenna. It contains
layman's instructions for getting it right. Obviously, they're not the only
posible provider but their instructions will give you an idea of what you
face.

When you have a multi-LNB setup, once the dish is set right, the receiver
will switch among the LNBs, as appropriate.

[Sal]

"Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote in message

news:zKKdnQUx3Z-jYWnT...@earthlink.com...

> On 12/23/2011 12:13 PM PT, Sal typed:

< snip >

>> For you, it's worth trying with a decent antenna on the roof before you
>> give
>> up on getting your HiDef free.
>
> Should I start out with my current indoor antennae (DB2 bowtie and rabbit
> ears) first or don't even bother? I am more worried to get a roof antenna
> because this might not even work at all especially when paying
> someone/contractor to do it. :(

Yes, I'd say start with the DB-2. Go easy and obvious first. It can get
quite complicated. I've been at this for decades and I'm still learning.

Put a matching transformer on the DB-2 if it's not there already. Connect
it to the TV with about fifty feet of coax so you can wander around, aiming
the antenna while your friend watches the set -- maybe changing channels
occasionally. Don't limit yourself to only the locations where you can see
the screen or hear the audio. Get around!

As you wander, you must pause to let the TVs equalizer stabilize. Hold
really still for a few seconds for things to stabilize before you tell your
friend to check around. It only takes a few seconds to check each possible
location. Be patient.

Try passing the DB-2 out a window. Try locations around the yard. Put the
DB-2 on a stick and elevate it. If you start getting much of anything,
that's a great sign. The DB-2 ain't a bad little antenna but a bigger one
will work better.

If your TV set has never been used on an antenna, it may fail to pick
anything up because its channel memory is blank. You should either:

(a) do a scan with the set on an antenna in a known good location or
(b) manually enter an RF channel known to be on the air in LA.
Possibilities: KCBS = 43; KNBC = 36; KTLA = 31; KOCE = 48. Don't worry
that those are the "wrong" numbers for those stations. Trust me on this.
Depending on the TV, you MIGHT need to enter those channels as 43-1 (or
43.1), 36-1, etc.

One more thing: In LA, your channels 7, 9, 11 and 13 are on those actual
VHF channels. The DB-2 is a UHF antenna and it won't pick them up as well
as a VHF antenna will. Work with your UHF channels first -- previous
paragraph. You can buy a VHF antenna later if the UHF is a success.

"Sal"

[Bert]

In news:jd3cbm$8m1$1...@dont-email.me "Sal" <sob...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> "Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9FC4913A62F...@216.250.188.141...
>> In news:jd2mmi$fkb$1...@dont-email.me "Sal" <sob...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> LNB skew is a tough one to explain but I'll try.
>
>< snip >
>
>>> Some antennas use an arbitrary scale for skew.
>>> Go with the instructions the manufacturer provides, not my
>>> generalities.
>>
>> Another complication comes from the fact that both satellite services
>> provide antennas that receive signals from two or more satellites.
>> The aiming information (azimuth, elevation and skew) for those
>> antennas does not actually point directly at any of the satellites,
>> but instead is intended to aim the dish such that it properly
>> receives signals from all of
>> its intended satellites.
>>
>> If you try to use that aiming information to see if you have a clear
>> view of the sky through your tree cover, you run a good chance of
>> being wrong.
>>
>> You really need to find out exactly which satellites you need to see
>> and get the direct aiming information for each one.
>

> Quite true, but unless you're doing a bootleg installation, the
> national provider will try to give you the most accurate aiming data.
>

> ...

As I said, that information will tell you how to aim your dish; it will
not give you the figures you need to see if you have a clear line
of sight to each of the satellites.

[J G Miller]

On Saturday, December 24th, 2011, at 16:35:01h +0000, Bert wrote:

> As I said, that information will tell you how to aim your dish; it will
> not give you the figures you need to see if you have a clear line of
> sight to each of the satellites.

The DishPointer site that I already mentioned does provide a graphicl
interface showing the minimum height of something which will obstruct
the signal depending on distance from the dish and the dish's height
above ground..

[Bert]

But you still have to know the actual azimuth and elevation of each
satellite in order for that to be useful. The dish pointing info won't
give you that.

[Ant]

On 12/23/2011 2:34 PM PT, clover typed:

> How do you connect to the internet? Here, if one has internet service
> via our cable company, TWC, unencrypted TV is free. While the signal
> MIGHT be more compressed than it was when transmitted OTA, I rarely can
> detect any. Regardless, if you have broadband service, I'm sure you'll
> find that more and more "TV" is available on the internet. And then,
> there's always NetFlix for those who don't need to see-it-now!

It won't do good if it is capped, crappy, or something. I don't want to
pirate either! :)
--
"An ant can do more than an ox that is lying down." --unknown

[Sal]

"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9FC581AB3AC...@216.250.188.140...

Yes, it's not a simple problem, which is why full time careers exist for
people who can do it.

When I put my big dish in the yard in 1985, I brought home over a dozen
cardboard cartons for the receiver, the positioner, the cables, the feed,
the downconverter, the LNA and the dish. I had to find my own pole, set it
in concrete, then assemble, mount and align the dish. I ran an underground
conduit from the house to the dish.. Should I mention that I worked
full-time (with some travel) and attended college in the evenings?

I only started to cut open those cartons after a year of study calculations
and planning. I didn't want to screw up a $2000.00 purchase. I actually
went as far as to create a cardboard simulation of the installation area to
optimize the spot to plant the pole. The model included a corner of my own
garage and a portion of the neighbor's house, both of which had the
potential to cause blockage. I was also constrained by a fence I had to
clear and a walkway I couldn't block.

The preparation paid off. It worked the first time (after a hiccup with a
bad sensor in the positioner). I remember fondly the setting of the limit
switches on the dish. I was outside watching the positioner as my son in
the house operated the remote with quick little presses on the East/West
buttons.

As he followed my instructions and the dish moved, he called out at one
point, "Hey Dad, we're getting pictures on the TV!"

I calmly replied, "That's all right, Mike," but I was really jazzed! (We
already had a good CATV service. The dish was my newest toy and I was
lovin' it.)

"Sal"

[J G Miller]

On Saturday, December 2011, at 18:44:49h +0000, Bert wrote:

> But you still have to know the actual azimuth and elevation of each
> satellite in order for that to be useful. The dish pointing info won't
> give you that.

It does calculate those according to your position, as well as the
LNB skew.

Have you actually looked at the DishPointer site?

[Ant]

On 12/22/2011 9:49 PM PT, Ant typed:

> On 12/22/2011 3:36 PM PT, Sal typed:
>
>>>> http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db0c9f
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>> http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg (AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad
>>>> for
>>>> my most likely future home. :(
>>
>> Hi, Ant,
>>
>> You are in a bad way at that location. Close enough but in a severe
>> shadow.
>>
>> Sometimes a bounce off a mountain far off-angle from Mt. Wilson might
>> give
>> you reception when aiming to Mt. Wilson doesn't. Easy to try if/when you
>> get in the place and put up an antenna.
>>
>> Your tvfool report didn't indicate antenna height. I think it defaults to
>> 25 feet if you don't specify. I understand why you might not want to
>> publicize the exact street address, but can you go back in and play with
>> that variable? Sometimes an extra 10 or 20 feet can be a big help.
>
> Funny, AVS forum members told me to try various numbers earlier. The
> minimal height is about 188 feet (a highrise height) to have green
> status for all the stations I want! It looks OTA is out of the question
> for this place. :(

I visited the place (outside only) this morning again and I noticed this
tower in the short NE distance:
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/33774086.jpg ... I wonder if
one could place a TV antenna up there? Or maybe it's for mobile phones?
T-Mobile phones' signals were very high. Hmm!
--
"Bother," said Winnie the Pooh, as the ants devoured him.

[John Markham]

On Dec 25, 4:19 pm, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 9:49 PM PT, Ant typed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/22/2011 3:36 PM PT, Sal typed:
>

> >>>>http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db...
>
> >>>> and
> >>>>http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg(AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad

> >>>> for
> >>>> my most likely future home. :(
>
> >> Hi, Ant,
>
> >> You are in a bad way at that location. Close enough but in a severe
> >> shadow.
>
> >> Sometimes a bounce off a mountain far off-angle from Mt. Wilson might
> >> give
> >> you reception when aiming to Mt. Wilson doesn't. Easy to try if/when you
> >> get in the place and put up an antenna.
>
> >> Your tvfool report didn't indicate antenna height. I think it defaults to
> >> 25 feet if you don't specify. I understand why you might not want to
> >> publicize the exact street address, but can you go back in and play with
> >> that variable? Sometimes an extra 10 or 20 feet can be a big help.
>
> > Funny, AVS forum members told me to try various numbers earlier. The
> > minimal height is about 188 feet (a highrise height) to have green
> > status for all the stations I want! It looks OTA is out of the question
> > for this place. :(
>
> I visited the place (outside only) this morning again and I noticed this

> tower in the short NE distance:http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/33774086.jpg... I wonder if

> one could place a TV antenna up there?

No way. Three problems:
(1) It's private property. If they catch you, they call the cops; if
not they take your antenna and follow your cable to the house, then
call the cops. (See a pattern?)
(2) The cable run would be very long; several hundred feet of UHF
signal loss is bad.
(3) The high RF levels would quite probably wipe out the TV signals.
Their equipment has sophisticated (expen$ive) filtering. You have
squat.

Even though impractical, it was an interesting thought. No harm, no
foul.

[Sal M. Onella]

On Dec 25, 4:19 pm, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 12/22/2011 9:49 PM PT, Ant typed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/22/2011 3:36 PM PT, Sal typed:
>

> >>>>http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db...
>
> >>>> and
> >>>>http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg(AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad

> >>>> for
> >>>> my most likely future home. :(
>
> >> Hi, Ant,
>
> >> You are in a bad way at that location. Close enough but in a severe
> >> shadow.
>
> >> Sometimes a bounce off a mountain far off-angle from Mt. Wilson might
> >> give
> >> you reception when aiming to Mt. Wilson doesn't. Easy to try if/when you
> >> get in the place and put up an antenna.
>
> >> Your tvfool report didn't indicate antenna height. I think it defaults to
> >> 25 feet if you don't specify. I understand why you might not want to
> >> publicize the exact street address, but can you go back in and play with
> >> that variable? Sometimes an extra 10 or 20 feet can be a big help.
>
> > Funny, AVS forum members told me to try various numbers earlier. The
> > minimal height is about 188 feet (a highrise height) to have green
> > status for all the stations I want! It looks OTA is out of the question
> > for this place. :(
>
> I visited the place (outside only) this morning again and I noticed this

> tower in the short NE distance:http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/33774086.jpg... I wonder if

> one could place a TV antenna up there? Or maybe it's for mobile phones?
> T-Mobile phones' signals were very high. Hmm!
> --
> "Bother," said Winnie the Pooh, as the ants devoured him.

>     /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @http://antfarm.ma.cx(Personal Web Site)

>    / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links:http://aqfl.net
>   | |o   o| |
>      \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
>       ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
> Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

This is a wild guess, but if you are looking to the northeast with
your camera (with a view of that gate with the barbed wire and the
security camera looking down), then the far left leg would mount
antennas looking northwest, as in toward Mt Wilson. There's only
one. Methinks that location is not Number One For Seeing Mt. Wilson.
If you have any intention of buying or leasing that place, rig up a
portable receiver and your antenna on a pole. Best Buy shows some
under a hundred dollars. Do a little site survey. If you're serious,
now's the time to show it.

Your pal "Sal"

[Ant]

On 12/25/2011 9:52 PM PT, John Markham typed:

>> I visited the place (outside only) this morning again and I noticed this
>> tower in the short NE distance:http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/33774086.jpg... I wonder if
>> one could place a TV antenna up there?
>
> No way. Three problems:
> (1) It's private property. If they catch you, they call the cops; if
> not they take your antenna and follow your cable to the house, then
> call the cops. (See a pattern?)
> (2) The cable run would be very long; several hundred feet of UHF
> signal loss is bad.
> (3) The high RF levels would quite probably wipe out the TV signals.
> Their equipment has sophisticated (expen$ive) filtering. You have
> squat.
>
> Even though impractical, it was an interesting thought. No harm, no
> foul.

Bummer, thanks. Too bad one can't make his/her own tower easily. That
would be perfect up that higher side. I am sure it has a good view of
Mt. Wilson! :(
--
"News Headline: Ants Take A Long Time To Cook In Microwave" --unknown

[Ant]

On 12/25/2011 10:17 PM PT, Sal M. Onella typed:

>> I visited the place (outside only) this morning again and I noticed this
>> tower in the short NE distance:http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/33774086.jpg... I wonder if
>> one could place a TV antenna up there? Or maybe it's for mobile phones?
>> T-Mobile phones' signals were very high. Hmm!
>

> This is a wild guess, but if you are looking to the northeast with
> your camera (with a view of that gate with the barbed wire and the
> security camera looking down), then the far left leg would mount
> antennas looking northwest, as in toward Mt Wilson. There's only
> one. Methinks that location is not Number One For Seeing Mt. Wilson.

It wasn't from me. I found it on http://www.antennasearch.com/ and saw
this tower near the house.

> If you have any intention of buying or leasing that place, rig up a
> portable receiver and your antenna on a pole. Best Buy shows some
> under a hundred dollars. Do a little site survey. If you're serious,
> now's the time to show it.

The house is going to be bought by my folks. I am just trying to find
OTA options. John's earlier reply said the coax cable length would be a
problem since it is long (about a mile?) and illegal.
http://www.antennasearch.com/ said it is owned by a college district. :(
--
"I could crush him like an ant. But it would be too easy. No, revenge is
a dish best served cold. I'll bide my time until... Oh, what the hell,
I'll just crush him like an ant." --Mr. Burns, The Simpsons ("Blood
Feud" Episode 7F22)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)

[Ant]

On 12/26/2011 4:04 AM PT, Ant typed:

> The house is going to be bought by my folks. I am just trying to find
> OTA options. John's earlier reply said the coax cable length would be a
> problem since it is long (about a mile?) and illegal.
> http://www.antennasearch.com/ said it is owned by a college district. :(

Correction: It is about two miles (an estimated guess with my eyes and
Google Maps' direction converted to a straight line -- wished Google
Maps had a straight line measurement option).
--
"Caution is not cowardice; even the ants march armed." --Ugandan Proverb

[Ant]

On 12/26/2011 4:10 AM PT, Ant typed:

>> The house is going to be bought by my folks. I am just trying to find
>> OTA options. John's earlier reply said the coax cable length would be a
>> problem since it is long (about a mile?) and illegal.
>> http://www.antennasearch.com/ said it is owned by a college district. :(
>
> Correction: It is about two miles (an estimated guess with my eyes and
> Google Maps' direction converted to a straight line -- wished Google
> Maps had a straight line measurement option).

Correction again after finding
http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm
which was kind of cool and hopefully accurate. It is over a half of a
mile. My estimate was way off. Heh! :D
--
"Why eat ants when an uncle will do?" --Tymoutta Aardvarka of Sarcastica

[Bert]

In news:jd5toj$99n$1...@dont-email.me J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:

> Have you actually looked at the DishPointer site?

Yes; do you think that "91W GALAXY 17 (G-17) | NIMIQ 1 | NIMIQ 2" means
anything to someone who's not already steeped in DBS lore?

[Patty Winter]

In article <Xns9FC79BD709...@216.250.188.140>,

Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>In news:jd5toj$99n$1...@dont-email.me J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>
>> Have you actually looked at the DishPointer site?
>
>Yes; do you think that "91W GALAXY 17 (G-17) | NIMIQ 1 | NIMIQ 2" means
>anything to someone who's not already steeped in DBS lore?

Speaking of which, Ant still hasn't indicated why he was searching
for information on those particular satellites. One is C-band, which
hardly any home users are using any more (and it doesn't even carry
the big three networks), and the other two are owned by a Canadian
satellite TV service, yet Ant said that he lives in California. Maybe
he's an ex-pat, but I'm not sure that the Canadian satellites are even
visible in the U.S.


Patty

[Sal]

"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message
news:4ef8f872$0$1651$742e...@news.sonic.net...

Patty, I think those three are listed automatically when you bring up
dishpointer.com. (That's what happens when I load the page.) They appear
in a selection window above the map. The user can change it.

"Sal"

[Patty Winter]

In article <jdatl8$hhf$1...@dont-email.me>, Sal <sob...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message
>news:4ef8f872$0$1651$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>
>> In article <Xns9FC79BD709...@216.250.188.140>,
>> Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes; do you think that "91W GALAXY 17 (G-17) | NIMIQ 1 | NIMIQ 2" means
>>>anything to someone who's not already steeped in DBS lore?
>>
>> Speaking of which, Ant still hasn't indicated why he was searching
>> for information on those particular satellites.
>

>Patty, I think those three are listed automatically when you bring up
>dishpointer.com. (That's what happens when I load the page.) They appear
>in a selection window above the map. The user can change it.

So you think Ant didn't mean to ask for information about those sats?
He was just using them as an example of azimuth, elevation, etc.?


Patty

[Sal]

"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message

news:4ef8fc8b$0$1665$742e...@news.sonic.net...


< snip >

>>> Speaking of which, Ant still hasn't indicated why he was searching
>>> for information on those particular satellites.
>>
>>Patty, I think those three are listed automatically when you bring up
>>dishpointer.com. (That's what happens when I load the page.) They appear
>>in a selection window above the map. The user can change it.
>
> So you think Ant didn't mean to ask for information about those sats?
> He was just using them as an example of azimuth, elevation, etc.?
>
>
> Patty
>

Yes to both. On Dec 22, Ant appears to have entered some data he saw on
dishpointer. GALAXY 17 has some worthwhile program but most is encrypted
and much of that uses PowerVue, unavailable to the general public. NIMIQ 1
has Bell Programming intended for Canada; NIMIQ 2 appears to have no TV at
the moment. Ant is hardly targeting those three sats.

How does the page behave when you load it?

"Sal"

Aside: In 1984/85, when I was planning my own dish, I needed pointing data
for all the North American satellites for my site survey. Structure
blockage was an issue for the extreme east and west satellites.

One paperback book supplied the trig formulas for doing the calculations.
In those days I was a proficient programmer in BASIC, so I wrote my own
recursive program for calculating the angles for every satellite in a list,
with the user providing his latitude and longitude as inputs when the
program launched. User could get a screen print or a paper copy.

I used the program myself and even gave it away to a few people. Over the
years, I've seen such a program for sale and wondered if it was mine. I
never wanted to spend any money to find out.

[Patty Winter]

In article <jdb8qt$pqt$1...@dont-email.me>, Sal <sob...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message
>news:4ef8fc8b$0$1665$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>

>> So you think Ant didn't mean to ask for information about those sats?
>> He was just using them as an example of azimuth, elevation, etc.?
>

>Yes to both. On Dec 22, Ant appears to have entered some data he saw on
>dishpointer.
>

>How does the page behave when you load it?

It's giving me information about:

119W DIRECTV 7S | ECHOSTAR 14 | 7

which it says is #1 on "Most popular satellites in U.S." But it also
gives me a pop-up menu that lets me choose from among a bunch of other
satellites.


Patty

[Sal]

"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message

news:4ef92a61$0$1685$742e...@news.sonic.net...

>>
>>How does the page behave when you load it?
>
> It's giving me information about:
>
> 119W DIRECTV 7S | ECHOSTAR 14 | 7
>
> which it says is #1 on "Most popular satellites in U.S." But it also
> gives me a pop-up menu that lets me choose from among a bunch of other
> satellites.
>
>
> Patty
>

Well, imagine my surprise! I rather thought the Galaxy/Nimic/Nimic thing
would be there for everybody. ... and, yes, I acknowledge that menu.

I suppose there's a chance I went to dishpointer in the far distan past and
they have a cookie stored on my 'puter. I'll look.

"Sal"

[Sal]

"Sal" <sob...@aol.com> wrote in message news:jdbclv$aal$1...@dont-email.me...

Yes. I found a cookie. Every time I reloaded the page, the last
satellite(s) previously listed had reappeared as the default choice in that
pop-up menu. Yet, when I deleted the cookie and reloaded the page, it gave
me the Galaxy/Nimiq/Nimiq trio. That entry isn't at the mid-point of the
menu, so I'll just sit here with a stupid look on my face. Sorry.

"Sal"

[Patty Winter]

In article <jdbclv$aal$1...@dont-email.me>, Sal <sob...@aol.com> wrote:

[unneeded quotage deleted]

> I suppose there's a chance I went to dishpointer in the far distan past and
>they have a cookie stored on my 'puter. I'll look.

It's also possible that I have a cookie on my computer. I used to
have DirecTV.


Patty

[Ant]

On 12/26/2011 6:00 PM PT, Sal typed:
...

>>>> Speaking of which, Ant still hasn't indicated why he was searching
>>>> for information on those particular satellites.
>>>
>>> Patty, I think those three are listed automatically when you bring up
>>> dishpointer.com. (That's what happens when I load the page.) They appear
>>> in a selection window above the map. The user can change it.
>>
>> So you think Ant didn't mean to ask for information about those sats?
>> He was just using them as an example of azimuth, elevation, etc.?
>

> Yes to both. On Dec 22, Ant appears to have entered some data he saw on
> dishpointer. GALAXY 17 has some worthwhile program but most is encrypted
> and much of that uses PowerVue, unavailable to the general public. NIMIQ 1
> has Bell Programming intended for Canada; NIMIQ 2 appears to have no TV at
> the moment. Ant is hardly targeting those three sats.

All I did was enter the home address, and then copied and pasted the
text results.
--
"The sun's just a big glass, we're all ants, I LOVE YOU." --"Magnified"
song by the Failure band

[Ant]

On 12/27/2011 5:19 AM PT, Ant typed:

...
>>>>> Speaking of which, Ant still hasn't indicated why he was searching
>>>>> for information on those particular satellites.
>>>>
>>>> Patty, I think those three are listed automatically when you bring up
>>>> dishpointer.com. (That's what happens when I load the page.) They
>>>> appear
>>>> in a selection window above the map. The user can change it.
>>>
>>> So you think Ant didn't mean to ask for information about those sats?
>>> He was just using them as an example of azimuth, elevation, etc.?
>>
>> Yes to both. On Dec 22, Ant appears to have entered some data he saw on
>> dishpointer. GALAXY 17 has some worthwhile program but most is encrypted
>> and much of that uses PowerVue, unavailable to the general public.
>> NIMIQ 1
>> has Bell Programming intended for Canada; NIMIQ 2 appears to have no
>> TV at
>> the moment. Ant is hardly targeting those three sats.
>
> All I did was enter the home address, and then copied and pasted the
> text results.

FYI, on a censored (to keep the current and future owners' locations
private) screen capture of the results I got:
http://i.imgur.com/SyGUC.gif ...
--
"Cheerios: Hula-hoops for ants." --unknown

[Patty Winter]

In article <EcudnU-2rdhaWGTT...@earthlink.com>,

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>On 12/26/2011 6:00 PM PT, Sal typed:
>>

>> Yes to both. On Dec 22, Ant appears to have entered some data he saw on
>> dishpointer. GALAXY 17 has some worthwhile program but most is encrypted
>> and much of that uses PowerVue, unavailable to the general public. NIMIQ 1
>> has Bell Programming intended for Canada; NIMIQ 2 appears to have no TV at
>> the moment. Ant is hardly targeting those three sats.
>
>All I did was enter the home address, and then copied and pasted the
>text results.

But the results you posted here were for Bell TV. Is that the TV service
you plan to get? Or are you trying to find out whether you could receive
DirecTV or Dish at your house? If the latter, then you need to run the
azimuth and elevation for each of their birds. (Or at least each of the
ones you might reasonably need; I believe Dish has some duplicate birds
in the east and west, of which you only need to be able to see one.)


Patty

[Ant]

On 12/27/2011 9:13 AM PT, Patty Winter typed:

>>> Yes to both. On Dec 22, Ant appears to have entered some data he saw on
>>> dishpointer. GALAXY 17 has some worthwhile program but most is encrypted
>>> and much of that uses PowerVue, unavailable to the general public. NIMIQ 1
>>> has Bell Programming intended for Canada; NIMIQ 2 appears to have no TV at
>>> the moment. Ant is hardly targeting those three sats.
>>
>> All I did was enter the home address, and then copied and pasted the
>> text results.
>
> But the results you posted here were for Bell TV. Is that the TV service
> you plan to get? Or are you trying to find out whether you could receive
> DirecTV or Dish at your house? If the latter, then you need to run the
> azimuth and elevation for each of their birds. (Or at least each of the
> ones you might reasonably need; I believe Dish has some duplicate birds
> in the east and west, of which you only need to be able to see one.)

No, it was just whatever the web site showed after entering the address.
I was sharing what I saw. I was curious what it would show. I only
mentioned the popular Dish and DirecTV services since I didn't see them
in the results.
--
"What is it all but a trouble of ants... In the gleam of a million...
million of suns? --Alfred Lord Tennyson

[Sal]

"Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote in message
news:Noydnb0kwa-cVGTT...@earthlink.com...
> On 12/27/

< snippage>

>> All I did was enter the home address, and then copied and pasted the
>> text results.
>
> FYI, on a censored (to keep the current and future owners' locations
> private) screen capture of the results I got: http://i.imgur.com/SyGUC.gif
> ...

It's all good. Simple Explanation is about to begin:

Website dishpointer.com has some default behavior, namely their satellite
menu. It shows those three if it knows nothing about you. As soon as you
search on a different satellite (or group), it will remember you and your
interests. If you don't know what browser cookies are, this is not the
place to come to learn it.

Getting pointing data is a two-step process: (1) Where are you on the
ground? Enter it.
(2) What satellite (or group) do you crave more than life itself? Make your
selection from the menu.

You only did step (1). Without step (2), all you see is pointing data for
three satellites of no interest to you. Get it?

Simple Explanation is now finished.

Next, I boldly make recommendations: You need to first decide which
programming services you want . You need a specific goal. Next, contact
Dish and DIRECTV. Ask which of their satellite(s) you must receive, by name
or by orbital slot, as in "77W." Then you'll be able to go to dishpointer
and get some useful pointing data. -- not a minute sooner. (The service
may just rattle off the pointing data and show you a sample of the dish that
meets your needs. I don't know what channels they put on which satellites
but they all know.)

If you will need some help interpreting and applying the pointing data, come
back then. But be familiar with what I said in my Friday, December 23, 2011
12:01 PM post.

Your pal,
"Sal"

[Ant]

On 12/27/2011 3:37 PM PT, Sal typed:

> Website dishpointer.com has some default behavior, namely their satellite
> menu. It shows those three if it knows nothing about you. As soon as you
> search on a different satellite (or group), it will remember you and your
> interests. If you don't know what browser cookies are, this is not the
> place to come to learn it.

Ah. OK, I cleared my cookies for this web site and it forgot my location
I entered from a few days ago.

>
> Getting pointing data is a two-step process: (1) Where are you on the
> ground? Enter it.

Easy and done.

> (2) What satellite (or group) do you crave more than life itself? Make your
> selection from the menu.

I tried DirecTV, but there were three of them. Also, six Dishes.

> You only did step (1). Without step (2), all you see is pointing data for
> three satellites of no interest to you. Get it?
>
> Simple Explanation is now finished.
>
> Next, I boldly make recommendations: You need to first decide which
> programming services you want . You need a specific goal. Next, contact
> Dish and DIRECTV. Ask which of their satellite(s) you must receive, by name

Ah, so I have to ask the companies before using this web site. Well for
me, just local broadcast channels. MAYBE others but that depend on prices.

> or by orbital slot, as in "77W." Then you'll be able to go to dishpointer
> and get some useful pointing data. -- not a minute sooner. (The service
> may just rattle off the pointing data and show you a sample of the dish that
> meets your needs. I don't know what channels they put on which satellites
> but they all know.)
>
> If you will need some help interpreting and applying the pointing data, come
> back then. But be familiar with what I said in my Friday, December 23, 2011
> 12:01 PM post.

I noticed some people have satelliote services and get free TV feeds,
even from out of states and east coast. Are those the unencrypted ones?
Maybe I can do that instead? Is that legal?
--
"When the ant grows wings it is about to die." --Arabic

[Sal]

"Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote in message

news:jKSdnTolJa3pYmbT...@earthlink.com...

> On 12/27/2011 3:37 PM PT, Sal typed:

>

> I noticed some people have satellite services and get free TV feeds, even

> from out of states and east coast.

True. They come from around the world, too.

> Are those the unencrypted ones?

Yes. It has to be that way because most of today's encryption systems are
hard to crack. About the only way to watch them is to own an expensive
decoder and have somebody on the inside who gets your decoder authorized.
Very, very unlikely.

> Maybe I can do that instead? Is that legal?

For the unencrypted ones, yes and yes. It's also called "free to air." I
don't have one set up now but over the years I've seen hundreds of programs
and feeds on satellite that were sent that way -- "in the clear." The
equipment is quite reasonably priced and easy to set up -- if you know how.

Intellectually, the geometry is no more involved than the geometry we
learned in 8th grade -- it's all about angles. You do have to understand
the principles as they apply to dish pointing and you have to get it right.
Those little Magic Spots in the sky will seldom be hit by accident!

I have never ordered satellite equipment online myself because I have
several local electronics stores. However, check Sadoun and Skyvision, who
have both been in business for many years and they sell equipment.

http://www.sadoun.com/Satellite-Products.htm

http://skyvision.com/

Both of them have sections with technical tips to the newcomers. I'm sure
there are thousands of other Internet pages with more.

What do you see on "free-to-air" (FTA)? Many sports feeds, many religious
broadcasters, many shopping channels and some spectacular spot news feeds,
live from the scene. Network TV entertainment shows? Yes, sometimes, but
don't count on it. That era was pretty much over by the mid 1990s, when the
network consumers were watching too much off dish and not tuning in for the
local commercials. The network shows on satellite are mostly all scrambled
now. Some local affiliates are uplinked in the clear. It varies.

One more thing and then I have to go: FTA can have quite an impact. Read
about Jessica McClure here, if you need to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_McClure

When that event happened, three TV stations in Midland were sending
unencrypted signals to the world from the scene. I found their signals on
three different channels of a single satellite. With the flick of a finger
on my satellite dish remote, I was able to select my own view of the rescue
operation. I had control of the view. My wife, our kids and I were glued
to the TV for hours and we cried with joy when they pulled her out.

"Sal"

[Patty Winter]

In article <jdio30$naq$1...@dont-email.me>, Sal <sob...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>One more thing and then I have to go: FTA can have quite an impact. Read
>about Jessica McClure here, if you need to:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_McClure
>
>When that event happened, three TV stations in Midland were sending
>unencrypted signals to the world from the scene. I found their signals on
>three different channels of a single satellite. With the flick of a finger
>on my satellite dish remote, I was able to select my own view of the rescue
>operation. I had control of the view. My wife, our kids and I were glued
>to the TV for hours and we cried with joy when they pulled her out.

I never had a C-band dish, but I always thought it would be fascinating
to see "wild feeds" and remote news uplinks. From what I've heard, today's
FTA feeds are a mere shadow of what used to be available.

That must have been quite a day, all right. Thanks for the story, Sal.


Patty

[Sal]

"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message

news:4efcefd9$0$1730$742e...@news.sonic.net...

>
> I never had a C-band dish, but I always thought it would be fascinating
> to see "wild feeds" and remote news uplinks. From what I've heard, today's
> FTA feeds are a mere shadow of what used to be available.
>
> That must have been quite a day, all right. Thanks for the story, Sal.
>
>
> Patty
>

It was, indeed. I am not as in-tune with Ku band feeds as i was with
C-band. Digital was not as prevalent in the early days, which made
searching faster. Then, move the dish to a satellite, scan all 24 channels
in a few seconds. Easy.
Now, pause on every channel to see if you get a lock, then see if it's
clear. Hard.

Another story: I watched Dan Rather eat his supper. How, you ask?

Dan was in Dallas to speak at a major broadcast convention and a substitute
was anchoring the CBS Evening News for a day or two. President Reagan asked
for broadcast time to address the nation, which was granted. As we all
know, the public is too stupid to understand the President without help from
the network anchors, so CBS ordered up a satellite feed from Dallas to NYC.
Dan, mustering all the wisdom we could have wanted, was integrated into the
CBS broadcast stream, introducing the coverage before Reagan began and
summarizing his remarks at the end. That satellite feed served no purpose
at all while Reagan was speaking, but it remained up during the speech,
audio muted.

During the speech, Dan Rather ate his supper. It was a sandwich and drink
from Wendy's. The logo was clearly visible on the drink cup. His manners
were impeccable -- no drool, no slurp. And that's the way it was. (Yes, I
know -- Walter, not Dan.)

"Sal"

[Ant]

On 12/29/2011 5:26 PM PT, Sal typed:

> Another story: I watched Dan Rather eat his supper. How, you ask?
>
> Dan was in Dallas to speak at a major broadcast convention and a substitute
> was anchoring the CBS Evening News for a day or two. President Reagan asked
> for broadcast time to address the nation, which was granted. As we all
> know, the public is too stupid to understand the President without help from
> the network anchors, so CBS ordered up a satellite feed from Dallas to NYC.
> Dan, mustering all the wisdom we could have wanted, was integrated into the
> CBS broadcast stream, introducing the coverage before Reagan began and
> summarizing his remarks at the end. That satellite feed served no purpose
> at all while Reagan was speaking, but it remained up during the speech,
> audio muted.
>
> During the speech, Dan Rather ate his supper. It was a sandwich and drink
> from Wendy's. The logo was clearly visible on the drink cup. His manners
> were impeccable -- no drool, no slurp. And that's the way it was. (Yes, I
> know -- Walter, not Dan.)

Any online video of it? [grin]
--
"What is that?" "Some kind of insect?" "It's an ant." "Girl, you needed
an exterminator. She had ants on her face." "Well, these aren't your
garden-variety dumpster ants." "And they aren't ... to decomp." "Why are
they in her stomach?" "La hormiga culona--leaf cutter ants. It's a
Colombian dish." "Are you saying that people eat them?" "Fried." "Okay,
so we are looking for a club that serves fried ants." --CSI: Miami
(Wannabe episode; #218)

[Sal]

"Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote in message

news:KbKdnZT1wY27WmDT...@earthlink.com...

> On 12/29/2011 5:26 PM PT, Sal typed:

< snip >

>> During the speech, Dan Rather ate his supper. It was a sandwich and
>> drink
>> from Wendy's. The logo was clearly visible on the drink cup. His
>> manners
>> were impeccable -- no drool, no slurp. And that's the way it was. (Yes,
>> I
>> know -- Walter, not Dan.)
>
> Any online video of it? [grin]
> --

I looked on google videos and found nothing. Remember, this was in the
class of what are called "wild feeds." CBS had maybe 12 hours notice to
call a teleport in Dallas and have them arrange an uplink for Dan. None of
these arrangements gets publicized. I just happened upon it, along with an
unknown few others.

I certanly could have put it on tape -- but I didn't. Lost!

Next time, Dianne Sawyer stories.

"Sal"

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 12/23/2011, J G Miller posted:
> On Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 17:05:54h -0800, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

>> "Being mailmen, we get to learn a lot about the neighborhood
>> and the people."

> Excellent point -- I had forgotten about the mailman (letter
> carrier, de postbode, der Postmann, le facteur, il postino).

> Also a check with the police department might get some information
> on whether or not the area is a high crime (eg burglaries, assaults etc).

>> So on some level, your project may already exist :-)

> Yes it is true that people regularly working in an area probably
> know a lot more about people in that area that one might think,
> or wish that they might know (eg always goes on vacation in
> the 2nd week of August so the house is empty then).

> My attempt at humor was not original though, since I recall
> a TV comedy sketch on a similar premise -- I thought it was
> Monty Python but was unable to find anything that matched.

(Back from a trip)

Well, I probably never would have stumbled on the original, so thanks
for your (successful) attempt at humor :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, December 29th, 2011, at 22:55:21h +0000, Patty Winter wrote:

> From what I've heard, today's FTA feeds are a mere shadow of
> what used to be available.

Maybe but there are still plenty of FTA feeds available usually
during big events. You should take a look at some of the web
sites dedicated to "feed hunting".

<http://www.feedhunter.COM/>

Part of the issue is that feeds are usually in 4:2:2 format
and one has to have a receiver which is capable of receiving
that format -- bargain receivers usually cannot, but the better
quality ones (eg Linux based) can.

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, December 25th, 2011, at 21:52:00h -0800, John Markham wrote:

> (1) It's private property. If they catch you, they call the cops; if
> not they take your antenna and follow your cable to the house, then call
> the cops. (See a pattern?)

I do not know California law so this may be a stupid question.

Is this actually a criminal matter rather than a civil matter?

And being a civil matter they would sue for lots of money in damages
for unauthorized installation of equipment.

[Patty Winter]

In article <jdslsl$tsf$8...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 25th, 2011, at 21:52:00h -0800, John Markham wrote:
>
>> (1) It's private property. If they catch you, they call the cops; if
>> not they take your antenna and follow your cable to the house, then call
>> the cops. (See a pattern?)
>
>I do not know California law so this may be a stupid question.
>
>Is this actually a criminal matter rather than a civil matter?

Tampering with equipment belonging to a radio or television station
is a *federal* offense, so I'm pretty sure that the same would be true
of a cellphone tower, because that's also an FCC-licensed facilty. If
so, then any civil case based on state laws would be secondary to a
little visit from the U.S. Marshals.

Not that I think the OP was actually planning to put an antenna on
a cellphone tower without permission...I was just answering the most
recent question.


Patty

[Sal]

"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:jdslsl$tsf$8...@dont-email.me...

They'd have a civil complaint if his entry into their property (or
activities while there) caused damage. This is tort law.

The criminal trespass is a little cloudy. In California, a trespass is
committed when you either (a) enter another person's property and deprive
him the use of it or (b) enter and _occupy_ the property -- all without
permission. In some states, the mere unauthorized entry is sufficient to
commit the offense. Simple trespass is a misdemeanor, by the way ... 6
months/$1000 max.

California law also identifies a trespass as to "invade another's exclusive
right of possession". Is it therefore wrong, criminally, to weigh down that
tower with an extra antenna? Good grief, Charlie Brown ... that's the stuff
that gets lawyers aroused in their dreams!

I don't see any case law that describes installing an antenna and cable as
"occupying." I'll bet there isn't any.

No more off-topic. (Well, maybe a little.)

"Sal"

[Sal]

"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message

news:4f01dd90$0$1678$742e...@news.sonic.net...

O-o-o-oh ... I didn't take the Federal angle. Good catch!

"Sal"

[Sal]

"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:jdslak$tsf$7...@dont-email.me...

Feedhunter's operator is Dutch and he emphasizes satellites that can be
received in Europe. (Only a minority of the Clarke Belt is visible from any
one point on the ground.)

However, from one of his links, I did arrive here:
http://www.ftalist.com/english.php

These are full-time (or nearly so) channels of scheduled shows. Wild feeds
are entertaining but darn near impossible to predict. You get news, sports
and disaster coverage as it happens. On C-band, there were a few satellites
that were more commonly used for wild feeds, so they were my first choices.
YMMV.

Receivers that do 4:2:2 format used to be scary expensive, but, like all
technology, they have become more affordable. Also consider a receiver that
does what's called "blind search," scanning the available channels and
storing what it finds in memory. The value of this is your ability to step
through the channels and see what you have -- upon the conclusion of the
receiver completing its search. Searches take from seconds to minutes,
depending on the number of services to be found.

"Sal"

[Ant]

Sorry for the late reply/response. I missed this one as I was reviewing
today!

On 12/22/2011 6:50 AM PT, Kimba W Lion typed:

>> Does this mean I am stuck to get many local OTA channels and have to get
>> a cable/satellite TV service to watch compressed HD TV feeds? KCBS,
>> KNBC, KTLA, KABC, KCAL (Lakers!), KTTV, KCET, KOCE, sometimes Chinese
>> stations (e.g., KSCI) for my parents, etc. If OTA is still possible,
>> then how high and crazy will the roof/attic antenna is going to be to
>> get all the channels I want?
>
> The outlook for OTA is indeed bleak. The people who could best answer your
> questions are antenna and satellite installers in the area. With those trees
> around, your satellite options may be limited. Be sure to contact both DirecTV
> and Dish Network, since their satellites are in different locations and that
> may make a big difference.

The previous owner already has satellite service.
http://i.imgur.com/LTao8.jpg for the aerial shot of the rooftop (note
that it has a satellite dish already).


> An attic antenna is almost surely out of the question. Some people have
> separate antenna towers installed adjacent to the house, not on the roof, and
> these can be quite tall, if local rules and regulations allow it. Again, a
> local installer should know what can be done.

Geez. So a roof top antenna won't work? :(
--
"You feel the faint grit of ants beneath your shoes, but keep on walking
because in this world you have to decide what you're willing to kill."
--Tony Hoagland from "Candlelight"

[Ant]

On 12/22/2011 8:43 AM PT, Bert typed:

> In news:6sCdnXDwCLXWUG_T...@earthlink.com Ant
> <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>> Google Street View's Photograph/Photo. of the front of the house with
>> big trees from November 2008: http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg ... It is
>> located in La Habra Heights, CA, deep on its giant hills with many
>> trees.
>
> Depending on where those trees are, you might not be able to get
> satellite service either.

The previous owner already has satellite service.
http://i.imgur.com/LTao8.jpg for the aerial shot of the rooftop (note

that it has a tiny satellite dish already).
--
"Oh, look what Kyle got me, it's a red Mega... Ants in the pants? Ants
in the pants?! Ants in the Pants?!! ..." --Eric Cartman in South Park's
Damien Episode (Season 1; Episode 8)

[Ant]

On 12/22/2011 9:36 PM PT, Ant typed:

>>>>> Google Street View's Photograph/Photo. of the front of the house
>>>>> with big trees from November 2008: http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg ...
>>>>> It is located in La Habra Heights, CA, deep on its giant hills with
>>>>> many trees.

...
> I found out that the current house owner does have satellite TV service
> (did not ask which one) and not OTA antennea. I also found out that
> TVfool says I need to be 188 feet (a 20 floors highrise height??!?!)
> minimal to get green status for the local Mt. Wilson stations! :(

Just for kicks, what type of roof top/outdoor antenna do this house need
to get the local broadcast English channels on an one floor house?
Obviously, the antennae need to be returnable if these tests fail.

http://i.imgur.com/LTao8.jpg for the aerial shot of the rooftop (note

that it has a satellite dish already from previous owners).

[Ant]

On 12/22/2011 3:36 PM PT, Sal typed:

>>> http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d40330909db0c9f
>>> and
>>> http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg (AntennaWeb). Their finds look very bad for
>>> my most likely future home. :(
>
> You are in a bad way at that location. Close enough but in a severe shadow.
>
> Sometimes a bounce off a mountain far off-angle from Mt. Wilson might give
> you reception when aiming to Mt. Wilson doesn't. Easy to try if/when you
> get in the place and put up an antenna.
>
> Your tvfool report didn't indicate antenna height. I think it defaults to
> 25 feet if you don't specify. I understand why you might not want to
> publicize the exact street address, but can you go back in and play with
> that variable? Sometimes an extra 10 or 20 feet can be a big help.

The lowest I can go is 188 feet (20 floors building height) to be green
on TVFool's report.


> Before cable was big here in San Diego, many people had 40-foot masts on
> their roofs to get LA stations. That's about 55 feet above ground -- and it
> worked. (As another poster mentioned, the HOA could squelch a roof
> antenna.)

Heh, way lower than my minimum height I can green status. :(


> By the way, the TV Fool listings are conservative; you might do better than
> they predict.

Just for kicks, what type of roof top/outdoor or attic antenna do this

house need to get the local broadcast English channels on an one floor
house? Obviously, the antennae need to be returnable if these tests
fail. http://i.imgur.com/LTao8.jpg for the aerial shot of the rooftop
(note that it has a satellite dish already from previous owners).
--

"Did the ant fall off the toilet seat because she was pissed off?" --unknown

[Ant]

On 12/22/2011 3:40 PM PT, Gene E. Bloch typed:

> I wonder if the future neighbors might be able to give some useful
> information...

From what I can tell in person and from Google Maps' aerial maps,
satellite or none (probably Time Warner Cable (TWC) or don't watch TV).
I saw no rooftop antennae around it. Previous owner had satellite dish
as you can see in http://i.imgur.com/LTao8.jpg shot.
--
"The eyeless ant asked God, 'Give me eye-lashes.'" --Georgian Proverb

[J G Miller]

On Saturday, February 18th, 2012, at 09:28:49h -0800, Ant asked:

> Just for kicks, what type of roof top/outdoor antenna do this house need
> to get the local broadcast English channels on an one floor house?

If there is an obstruction in the path to the TV transmitter eg a hill,
no antenna will work. That is why from what has been discussed, it is
necessary to raise the height of the antenna such that it can "see"
over the top of the obstructing object (hill?).

Mounds of earth (eg hills) are not transparent to VHF and UHF signals.

This is why TV stations install repeaters for valleys because the
signal from the main transmitter is blocked by the hills.

[Ant]

On 2/18/2012 11:15 AM PT, J G Miller typed:

Ah OK. Someone said to just try it and see what I can get.
--
"Caution is not cowardice; even the ants march armed." --Ugandan Proverb

[J G Miller]

On Saturday, February 18th, 2012, at 11:27:03h -0800, Ant wrote:

> Ah OK. Someone said to just try it and see what I can get.

Depending on the distance between you and the obstruction there
is a small chance of receiving some signal due to refraction effects.

This is going to be very variable though and as I say depends a great
deal on the distance between your antenna and the blocking object
and the frequency (TV channel) you are trying to receive.

As you already have been given information that indicates a very
very tall mast is required, it really indicates that the signal
strength is going to be very low, and it is well known that ATSC
(8VSB modulation) reception is next to impossible, whereas DVB (COFDM)
might be just have a slight chance.

If you want to try, I would suggesting borrowing a UHF antenna,
preferable something small which you could move around in a room
on the top floor, but from all that has been described, I would
not be surprised if you could not get any usable signal at all.

After all if the previous owners did not succeed in getting anything,
you will not either. The laws of physics cannae be changed. ;)

Oh btw, I got my old WinTV card installed in my PC again and
with the last version of xawtv successfully got a decent picture
(although only 4:3) from the analog video output of a satellite
receiver box into the S-video socket on the card.

[Ant]

On 2/18/2012 12:24 PM PT, J G Miller typed:

> On Saturday, February 18th, 2012, at 11:27:03h -0800, Ant wrote:
>
>> Ah OK. Someone said to just try it and see what I can get.
>
> Depending on the distance between you and the obstruction there
> is a small chance of receiving some signal due to refraction effects.
>
> This is going to be very variable though and as I say depends a great
> deal on the distance between your antenna and the blocking object
> and the frequency (TV channel) you are trying to receive.
>
> As you already have been given information that indicates a very
> very tall mast is required, it really indicates that the signal
> strength is going to be very low, and it is well known that ATSC
> (8VSB modulation) reception is next to impossible, whereas DVB (COFDM)
> might be just have a slight chance.
>
> If you want to try, I would suggesting borrowing a UHF antenna,
> preferable something small which you could move around in a room
> on the top floor, but from all that has been described, I would
> not be surprised if you could not get any usable signal at all.

I only have rabbit ears and DB2 bowtie antennae. Since it is very few
channels and very low signals, I probably won't bother. I was hoping
roof top would get better chances.

> After all if the previous owners did not succeed in getting anything,
> you will not either. The laws of physics cannae be changed. ;)

True. And looking at other homes, I did not see any roof top antennae.

> Oh btw, I got my old WinTV card installed in my PC again and
> with the last version of xawtv successfully got a decent picture
> (although only 4:3) from the analog video output of a satellite
> receiver box into the S-video socket on the card.

Nice, I never got back to that old TV card on my new Debian stable
reinstall. Maybe I will try it after the move. Maybe... :P
--
"Even the ant has his (her) bite." --Turkish

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

A song is/was playing on this computer: The Asteroids Galaxy Tour - The
Golden Age #1

[J G Miller]

On Saturday, February 18th, 2012, at 14:44:56h -0800, Ant explained:

> I only have rabbit ears and DB2 bowtie antennae. Since it is very few
> channels and very low signals, I probably won't bother.

Are you saying that you can pick up some stations at the moment at
that location just using rabbit ears and bowtie?

> I was hoping roof top would get better chances.

If there is signal to pick up then yes: the point I am trying to
make is whether or not there is any signal at all which is usable.

[Sal]

"Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote in message

news:ys6dnWAJ-5F7tN3S...@earthlink.com...


< snip >

> I was hoping roof top would get better chances.

Absolute statements are risky -- but I'll try one, anyway: Rooftop is
always better.

>> After all if the previous owners did not succeed in getting anything,
>> you will not either.

Don't rule out the possibility that the previous owner never put anything on
the roof because of age, infirmity or lack of knowing an F-connector from a
cement mixer.

> And looking at other homes, I did not see any roof top antennae.

Proves nothing.

In December, I think you were advised to get an antenna, some cable, a long
stick and a small digital receiver to establish some "ground truth." What
happened to that? Nobody's going to do it for you.

The cost of the material is about what you'll pay for a couple of months of
cable or satellite service -- and you still own it after the experiment.

[Ant]

On 2/18/2012 3:05 PM PT, J G Miller typed:

> On Saturday, February 18th, 2012, at 14:44:56h -0800, Ant explained:
>
>> I only have rabbit ears and DB2 bowtie antennae. Since it is very few
>> channels and very low signals, I probably won't bother.
>
> Are you saying that you can pick up some stations at the moment at
> that location just using rabbit ears and bowtie?

I meant for the upcoming house, I won't bother since it won't pick up
many or at all with rabbit ear and DB2 bowtie antannae.

>> I was hoping roof top would get better chances.
>
> If there is signal to pick up then yes: the point I am trying to
> make is whether or not there is any signal at all which is usable.

Even if they pick something, they would be very weak. It's not like
analog when I can watch even if the picture is not clear.
--
"As I watch the busy ants on the trail and around the ant pile, I am
impressed by the fact that they are doers and not just believers." --CR 1967

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

[Wes Newell]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:31:21 -0800, Ant wrote:

> The lowest I can go is 188 feet (20 floors building height) to be green
> on TVFool's report.

You don't need green to receive a station.


Green
An indoor "set-top" antenna is probably sufficient to pick up these
channels

Yellow
An attic-mounted antenna is probably needed to pick up channels at this
level and above

Red
A roof-mounted antenna is probably needed to pick up channels at this
level and above

Grey
These channels are very weak and will most likely require extreme
measures to try and pick them up

[TJ]

On 02/18/2012 03:24 PM, J G Miller wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18th, 2012, at 11:27:03h -0800, Ant wrote:
>
>> Ah OK. Someone said to just try it and see what I can get.
>
> Depending on the distance between you and the obstruction there
> is a small chance of receiving some signal due to refraction effects.
>
> This is going to be very variable though and as I say depends a great
> deal on the distance between your antenna and the blocking object
> and the frequency (TV channel) you are trying to receive.
>

And it isn't necessarily as bad as a lot of people assume. I have a
hilltop between me and three of the local transmitters that's about 300
feet higher than I am and 2 miles away. Two of the transmitters are
about seven miles away, and the other is about 11. (That last one
transmits two "sister" stations.) None are line-of-sight, yet I pick
them up easily with bowtie antennas.

There is another , more distant and weaker station to the north, with a
hilltop about 100 feet higher than I am between the transmitter and me,
roughly 700 feet from the house. I can even pick that one up much of the
time, on the north side of the house where the signal has fewer walls to
go through.

And contrary to all advice given by the pundits, my indoor reception is
BETTER on the first floor than on the second.

TV Fool says it shouldn't be working that way. As a matter of fact, the
station that gives me the most headaches is the only one that TV Fool
says I *should* be able to receive with an indoor antenna. I can see the
tower from my back yard, three miles away to the north. Yet on a rainy
day, with a TV on the south side of the house next to the highway,
signals reflected back through one wall from passing vehicles are as
strong as the signal that passed through several house walls, and cause
problems.

Every situation is different. Places like TV Fool and this newsgroup
usually can only give general advice which, while a good place to start,
can be entirely wrong for a specific situation. Persistent
experimentation until either a solution is found or ALL possibilities,
even those that the generalities say shouldn't work, are explored is the
only way.

No offense meant, but it sounds like the OP wants to give up too easily.

(snip)

TJ

[Ant]

On 2/19/2012 6:20 AM PT, TJ typed:

> ...

> No offense meant, but it sounds like the OP wants to give up too easily.

OK OK. I will see if I can find a portable small TV (probably have to
get a DTV converter box too for it), from someone, and its basic antenna
(rabbit ears). I am just not going to expect much from it. I am not
going to disconnect my current DB2 bowtie antenna at this time since it
is a pain in the butt to set up, in the old place, especially when my
signals are picky in terms of exact location and positions.
--
"In a battle between elephants, the ants get squashed." --Thailand

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, February 19th, 2012, at 09:20:03h -0500, TJ wrote:

> And it isn't necessarily as bad as a lot of people assume.

And sometimes it is worse than people assume ;)

> I have a hilltop between me and three of the local transmitters
> that's about 300 feet higher than I am and 2 miles away.

But as you should appreciate, the distance away from the obstruction
is often the critical factor, and for those living between hills
which side of the "valley" you are on.

|| valley ||
Transmitter || ||
hill hill

reception often possible |------> onwards
even though points <------| this side are at higher elevation.

> None are line-of-sight, yet I pick them up easily with bowtie antennas.

Remember the beam tilt on the transmitting antenna is also a
significant factor.

> And contrary to all advice given by the pundits, my indoor reception is
> BETTER on the first floor than on the second.

Strangely enough for more distant transmitters it can be the case that
an antenna at a lower elevation works better than at a higher elevation.
This is related to beam tilt and possibly refraction of the signal.

But also remember that within a house you are going to get standing wave
so both the horizontal and vertical position will be critical to avoid
placing the antenna at an anti-node of such waves.

> Yet on a rainy day, with a TV on the south side of the house next to the highway,
> signals reflected back through one wall from passing vehicles are as
> strong as the signal that passed through several house walls, and cause
> problems.

And this could actually cause destructive interference or depending on
the timings of the two signals cause the receiver to have problems in
deciding which is the good bitstream data.

> No offense meant, but it sounds like the OP wants to give up too easily.

Well it certainly would not hurt or require too much effort to just have
a try with an already purchased indoor antenna to see if there is any sign
of a signal ...

[TJ]

On 02/19/2012 10:33 AM, Ant wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 6:20 AM PT, TJ typed:
>
>> ...
>> No offense meant, but it sounds like the OP wants to give up too easily.
>
> OK OK. I will see if I can find a portable small TV (probably have to
> get a DTV converter box too for it), from someone, and its basic antenna
> (rabbit ears). I am just not going to expect much from it. I am not
> going to disconnect my current DB2 bowtie antenna at this time since it
> is a pain in the butt to set up, in the old place, especially when my
> signals are picky in terms of exact location and positions.

For VHF signals, rabbit ears should work OK, but if the signals in your
area are broadcast on UHF frequencies, I've found that an old-fashioned
antenna like this

http://www.summitsource.com/product_info.php?ref=1&products_id=9077

works better than simple rabbit ears. But they can be difficult to find
locally, as the hyped-up, futuristic, weird-looking "HDTV" designs are
more profitable to sell.

Good luck.

TJ

[TJ]

All of which I tried to summarize with "Every situation is different."
By the time I explain all the ways it can be different, the reader's
eyes glaze over and I lose him. I'm usually much too wordy as it is.

>> No offense meant, but it sounds like the OP wants to give up too easily.
>
> Well it certainly would not hurt or require too much effort to just have
> a try with an already purchased indoor antenna to see if there is any sign
> of a signal ...

My sentiments exactly. Or even with a newly-purchased cheapo clip-on
bowtie antenna.

TJ

[Patty Winter]

In article <jhr7bk$av7$1...@dont-email.me>, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>On 02/19/2012 10:33 AM, Ant wrote:
>>
>> OK OK. I will see if I can find a portable small TV (probably have to
>> get a DTV converter box too for it), from someone, and its basic antenna
>> (rabbit ears). I am just not going to expect much from it. I am not
>> going to disconnect my current DB2 bowtie antenna at this time since it
>> is a pain in the butt to set up, in the old place, especially when my
>> signals are picky in terms of exact location and positions.
>
>For VHF signals, rabbit ears should work OK, but if the signals in your
>area are broadcast on UHF frequencies, I've found that an old-fashioned
>antenna like this
>
>http://www.summitsource.com/product_info.php?ref=1&products_id=9077
>
>works better than simple rabbit ears.

I was going to say, "The OP already has a bowtie antenna," but then
I looked up "DB2 bowtie" and discovered that it's a different beast
that doesn't even look like a bowtie. (Except for a couple of incomplete
bowtie designs overlaid on a grid.)

So I agree--any test would likely go better with a bowtie antenna--a
real one, the kind that costs about $2, as TJ noted. :-)


Patty

[Ant]

On 2/19/2012 8:26 AM PT, TJ typed:

>>> No offense meant, but it sounds like the OP wants to give up too easily.
>>
>> Well it certainly would not hurt or require too much effort to just have
>> a try with an already purchased indoor antenna to see if there is any
>> sign
>> of a signal ...
>
> My sentiments exactly. Or even with a newly-purchased cheapo clip-on
> bowtie antenna.

I only have a DB2 bowtie antenna and rabbit ears at the moment. I will
see if I can borrow other types instead of buying and returning. First,
I need to borrow a portable TV and/or its DTV converter box (most likely
if it is analog).
--
"Size isn't everything. The whale is endangered, while the ant continues
to do just fine." --Bill Vaughan

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

A song is/was playing on this computer: Sash! - I Believe

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, February 18th, 2012, at 17:10:57h +0000, Patty Winter declared:

> I was going to say, "The OP already has a bowtie antenna," but then
> I looked up "DB2 bowtie" and discovered that it's a different beast
> that doesn't even look like a bowtie. (Except for a couple of incomplete
> bowtie designs overlaid on a grid.)

It is in fact a 2 Bay bowtie antenna and it will provide more gain
and better directivity than a simple a bowtie without reflector grid.

> So I agree--any test would likely go better with a bowtie antenna--
> a real one,

Please do not insinuate that a multi-bay bowtie antenna is not a "real"
bowtie antenna, when the DB2 most certainly is one.

And because the more bays there are, the greater the gain, it is
more probable that the test will be successful with a DB2 than a
single bowtie without reflector grid.

Here is an example of an eight-bay bowtie antenna.

<http://www.solidsignal.COM/pview.asp?p=CM-4228&d=Channel-Master-CM4228-8-Bay-Bowtie-UHF-TV-Antenna-%28CM-4228%29>

[Patty Winter]

In article <jhrbhj$ma$1...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>On Sunday, February 18th, 2012, at 17:10:57h +0000, Patty Winter declared:
>

>> So I agree--any test would likely go better with a bowtie antenna--
>> a real one,
>
>Please do not insinuate that a multi-bay bowtie antenna is not a "real"
>bowtie antenna, when the DB2 most certainly is one.

Oh, don't get huffy! I was just having fun with the name.

As I mentioned, I don't consider the DB2 to be a "real" bowtie
because the ends of the bows are missing. I'm talking sartorial
shape, not antenna design. :-) Antenna designers may well consider
it to be a functioning bowtie even without the end pieces. That's
fine with me, but they still aren't "real" bowties!


Patty

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, February 19th, 2012, at 17:59:29h +0000, Patty Winter exclaimed:

> Oh, don't get huffy! I was just having fun with the name.

I am not getting huffy.

No problem with having fun with the name but remember that in Usenet
you need to be clear what you are doing because subtlety is often lost
and frequently misintepreted by many.

> As I mentioned, I don't consider the DB2 to be a "real" bowtie
> because the ends of the bows are missing.

That is true of all the bowtie bay arrays.

Do not blame me that they chose that name in the first place ;)

Some people refer to them just as "bay" antennas, or sometimes "grid" antennas,
and by those with a facetious intent, barbecue antennas.

[Patty Winter]

In article <jhrh92$57s$1...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>On Sunday, February 19th, 2012, at 17:59:29h +0000, Patty Winter exclaimed:
>

>> As I mentioned, I don't consider the DB2 to be a "real" bowtie
>> because the ends of the bows are missing.
>
>That is true of all the bowtie bay arrays.

But TJ and I were talking about "bowtie" antennas, not "bowtie bay
arrays." The one that TJ linked to is just like the one I have,
and it's got ends on it!


Patty

[TJ]

I only said that a simple single bowtie is likely to work better than
rabbit ears. At no time did I say he would do better with the simple
bowtie than the DB2. Of course, he wouldn't.

But, the OP said he didn't want to use his DB2 because of the difficulty
in putting it back at the conclusion of the test. I'm assuming that's
not because he can't find the spot again, but because of the difficulty
of accessing it.

TJ